The proposed compliance schedule would have required affected
persons to begin complying with Regulation SBSR before security-based
swap dealers register with the Commission. A number of comments urged
the Commission to delay Regulation SBSR compliance until after
security-based swap dealers register.\981\ One commenter provided
extensive estimates of the costs that market participants could have
incurred to develop reporting procedures for the Interim Period that
likely would not have been applicable to the period after security-
based swap dealer registration.\982\ This commenter also pointed out
that the Interim Period could create a competitive disadvantage for
non-U.S. dealing entities because these entities could assume the
responsibility but not the liability for reporting and thus might be
less attractive to buy-side U.S. clients than U.S. dealing entities
that could assume both the responsibility and liability for
reporting.\983\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \981\ See IIB Letter at 17; ISDA I at 4, 11-13; ISDA II at 1-14;
ISDA III at 1-12; SIFMA-AMG II at 6-7; WMBAA Letter at 5-6; UBS
Letter at 2.
    \982\ See ISDA III at 8-9.
    \983\ See id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission agrees with commenters that it would be more
efficient for affected persons to focus on developing compliance
procedures only for the period after security-based swap dealer
registration, rather than require affected persons to expend resources
to develop procedures for both the period after registration as well as
for the Interim Period, because Interim Period procedures might be
inapplicable to the period after registration. The Commission believes
that, by eliminating the Interim Period and thus the need to expend
resources for developing interim procedures, the adopted compliance
schedule will promote efficiency. The adopted compliance schedule
should also promote capital formation to the extent that persons that
would have incurred reporting obligations during the Interim Period
could invest the resources that would otherwise be expended in
developing Interim Period procedures into productive assets.
    Furthermore, the Commission acknowledges the commenters' concern
that the Interim Period could create competitive disparities between
U.S. and foreign dealing entities if buy-side U.S. persons were less
willing to transact with foreign dealing entities if certain foreign
dealing entities could not assume the liability for reporting. The
adopted compliance schedule avoids the need for the Interim Period and
thus eliminates any potential competitive disadvantage for foreign
dealing entities described by the commenters. Thus, relative to the
proposed compliance schedule, the adopted compliance schedule should
promote competition among U.S. and foreign dealing entities that supply
liquidity to the security-based swap market.
    In summary, the Commission now believes, in light of the comments
received on its proposal, that it would better promote efficiency,
competition, and capital formation to delay compliance with the
reporting obligations of Regulation SBSR until after the SBS entities
registration compliance date.
    The compliance schedule adopted herein also is based on the first
SDR in an asset class to register with the Commission, which could
confer a ``first-mover advantage.'' \984\ The first registered SDR
could potentially capture a significant share of the SDR market because
reporting parties, uncertain as to whether or when registration of
other SDRs' applications might be granted, could feel compelled to
onboard with the first registered SDR to secure sufficient time to
prepare for Compliance Date 1.\985\ Furthermore, the first registered
SDR could hold on to its share of the SDR market for long periods if
reporting persons that are connected to it face high costs of switching
to a different registered SDR. Thus, the first mover advantage could
potentially limit competition by making it more difficult for new SDR
entrants to sign on reporting clients.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \984\ See WMBAA Letter at 6; DTCC Letter at 12; SIFMA Letter at
17; DTCC/ICE/CME Letter at 4-5; ISDA/SIFMA Letter at 18.
    \985\ See DTCC Letter at 12; DTCC/ICE/CME Letter at 4-5; ISDA/
SIFMA Letter at 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission acknowledges that a first mover could emerge.
Nevertheless, the Commission believes that, if one SDR application
satisfies the criteria of Rule 13n-1(c)(3) under the Exchange Act
before any others, it would not be appropriate for the Commission to
delay

granting its registration because of the status of other SDR
applications.\986\ The Commission continues to believe that most
persons that have the desire and ability to operate as SEC-registered
SDRs are already operational in the swaps market as swap data
repositories provisionally registered with the CFTC, and each should
have a strong incentive to submit applications to register with the
Commission quickly.\987\ Thus, there is less likelihood of multiple
applications arriving over an extended period of time, and
consequently, a lower likelihood of a first mover emerging.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \986\ See supra Section X(C)(4).
    \987\ See Regulation SBSR Proposed Amendments Release, 80 FR at
14786.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Even if a first mover emerges, other Commission rules are designed
to minimize any potential of a monopoly advantage that the first SDR
might otherwise enjoy. All SDRs, even the first or only registered SDR
in a particular asset class, must offer fair, open, and not
unreasonably discriminatory access to users of its services.\988\
Moreover, any fees charged by an SDR must be fair and reasonable and
not unreasonably discriminatory.\989\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \988\ See Rule 13n-4(c)(1)(iii) under the Exchange Act, 17 CFR
240.13n-4(c)(1)(iii).
    \989\ See Rule 13n-4(c)(1)(i) under the Exchange Act, 17 CFR
240.13n-4(c)(1)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The newly adopted compliance schedule could give added incentive to
avoid delaying the submission of an application for registration as an
SDR and to commence operation as an SEC-registered SDR as quickly as
possible. This result would help the Commission and other relevant
authorities obtain information about the security-based swap market for
oversight purposes as quickly as possible, and also allow the public to
obtain price, volume, and transaction information about all security-
based swaps as quickly as possible.
    As proposed in the Regulation SBSR Proposed Amendments Release, all
historical security-based swaps in a particular asset class would have
had to be reported to a registered SDR by proposed Compliance Date 1.
As discussed in Section X(E), supra, the Commission has revised the
compliance schedule to dissociate the requirement to report historical
security-based swaps from Compliance Date 1. With respect to historical
security-based swaps in a particular asset class, new Compliance Date 3
for the reporting of historical transactions is two months after
Compliance Date 2, the date on which public dissemination commences.
The Commission believes that the additional compliance delay for
reporting historical security-based swaps represents an appropriate
balancing of the benefits of mandatory reporting against the likely
costs. Mandatory reporting of historical security-based swaps is
generally less urgent than the reporting of newly executed
transactions, particularly in light of the fact that most security-
based swaps in the credit derivative asset class are already being
reported on a voluntary basis to TIW. Because only available
information about historical transactions must be reported, the
Commission does not anticipate that reports of historical transactions
made to registered SDRs will be significantly more informative than the
reports already available through TIW.
    Several commenters were concerned that requiring reporting pursuant
to Regulation SBSR to begin before the Commission has made substituted
compliance determinations ``would impose significant and unnecessary
burdens'' on non-U.S. registered persons. Changes made by non-U.S.
persons to their reporting infrastructure to comply with Regulation
SBSR may not be necessary, in the commenters' views, if the Commission
subsequently grants substituted compliance to these non-U.S.
persons.\990\ The Commission acknowledges the commenters' concern
regarding burdens that may arise if compliance with Regulation SBSR
precedes substituted compliance determinations. However, as discussed
in Section X(C)(5), supra, the Commission does not believe that it is
appropriate to defer compliance with Regulation SBSR until after the
Commission makes one or more substituted compliance determinations. The
Commission understands that changes made by non-U.S. persons to their
reporting infrastructure to comply with Regulation SBSR might become
unnecessary if substituted compliance is granted. However, these
changes could be limited to the extent that the Commission and other
jurisdictions require the collection and reporting of similar
transaction information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \990\ See ISDA I at 15; ISDA/SIFMA Letter at 19; SIFMA/FSR
Letter at 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Amendments Related to Cross-Border Transactions

    The amendments to Rules 901 and 908 adopted today will, among other
things, apply Regulation SBSR's regulatory reporting and public
dissemination requirements to all security-based swap transactions of a
foreign dealing entity that are arranged, negotiated, or executed by
U.S. personnel. Such ANE transactions are already subject to regulatory
reporting and public dissemination if the other side includes a U.S.
person. The amendments adopted today extend the regulatory reporting
and public dissemination requirement to all ANE transactions, even if
the other side is non-U.S. and not engaging in ANE activity. These
amendments also for the first time assign the duty to report
transactions between unregistered U.S. persons and unregistered non-
U.S. persons. These amendments will have several effects on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation in the U.S. financial market.
1. Competition
    These amendments to Rules 901 and 908 will have implications for
competition among market participants that intermediate transactions in
security-based swaps as well as counterparties to security-based swaps.
These amendments are designed to promote competition among liquidity
providers in the security-based swap market by imposing consistent
reporting and public dissemination requirements on both U.S. and
foreign dealing entities, when the latter are engaging in ANE activity.
If only U.S. dealing entities were subject to regulatory reporting and
public dissemination requirements, the costs of these requirements
would primarily affect U.S. dealing entities, their agents, and their
counterparties. In contrast, foreign dealing entities and their agents,
who might not be subject to comparable requirements in their home
jurisdictions, could have a competitive advantage over U.S. dealing
entities in serving unregistered non-U.S. counterparties using
personnel located in a U.S. branch or office, were their activities not
subject to the same requirements.\991\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \991\ See, e.g., Arnoud W.A. Boot, Silva Dezelan, and Todd T.
Milbourn, ``Regulatory Distortions in a Competitive Financial
Services Industry,'' Journal of Financial Services Research, Vol.
17, No. 1 (2000) (showing that, in a simple industrial organization
model of bank lending, a change in the cost of capital resulting
from regulation results in a greater loss of profits when regulated
banks face competition from unregulated banks than when regulations
apply equally to all competitors).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These amendments to Rules 901 and 908 also are designed to promote
competition between U.S. persons and non-U.S. persons that trade with
foreign dealing entities, when a foreign dealing entity is utilizing
U.S. personnel. A transaction between an unregistered foreign dealing
entity engaging in ANE activity and a U.S. counterparty already is
subject to regulatory reporting and public dissemination under existing
Rule 908(a)(1)(i). In the absence of

newly adopted Rules 901(a)(2)(ii)(E)(2) and (3), however, no one would
be assigned to report such a transaction. Furthermore, in the absence
of new Rule 908(b)(5), an unregistered foreign dealing entity engaged
in an ANE transaction would not be subject to Regulation SBSR. This
could create a competitive advantage for non-U.S. persons over
similarly situated U.S. persons when they trade with foreign dealing
entities. An unregistered foreign dealing entity might be able offer
liquidity to a non-U.S. person at a lower price than to the U.S. person
because the foreign dealing entity would not have to embed the
potential costs of regulatory reporting and public dissemination into
the price offered to the non-U.S. person. By contrast, the price
offered by the unregistered foreign dealing entity to the U.S. person
would likely reflect these additional costs, to the extent that public
dissemination of a particular transaction imposes costs on the
counterparties.\992\ While the benefit of lower prices obtained by non-
U.S. persons would depend on the magnitude of the perceived costs of
public dissemination, the Commission believes that it is appropriate to
place the transactions of U.S. persons and non-U.S. persons on a more
equal footing, so that non-U.S. persons do not have a competitive
advantage over U.S. persons when engaging in security-based swap
transactions that, due to the involvement of U.S. personnel of the
foreign dealing entity, exist at least in part within the United
States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \992\ This effect would be diminished to the extent that a
transaction of a foreign dealing entity is subject to public
dissemination requirements under the rules of a foreign
jurisdiction, and the costs of public dissemination are already
factored into the prices offered to its counterparties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The amendments to Rules 901 and 908 adopted herein also apply
consistent regulatory reporting and public dissemination requirements
to transactions between unregistered non-U.S. persons that are
platform-executed or effected by or through registered broker-dealers.
Because there will be very few such transactions, the Commission
believes that the application of regulatory requirements is unlikely to
generate competitive frictions between these different types of
providers of intermediation services.\993\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \993\ See U.S. Activity Proposal, 80 FR at 27501.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in Section XII(B)(1)(2), supra, unregistered U.S.
persons likely will seek to avoid the costs of assessing whether a
foreign counterparty is engaging in ANE activity by choosing to
transact only with registered entities for which assessment is not
required. To the extent that unregistered U.S. persons avoid
transacting with unregistered foreign dealing entities engaging in ANE
activity in favor of transacting with registered entities, these
foreign dealing entities could be at a competitive disadvantage when
competing with registered entities to provide liquidity to unregistered
U.S. persons. However, this competitive disadvantage could be limited
if unregistered foreign dealing entities readily provide information on
their use of U.S. personnel to unregistered U.S. persons who are
potential counterparties, thereby obviating the need for the U.S.
persons to conduct an assessment. Further, the competitive disadvantage
could be eliminated entirely if a foreign dealing entity registers with
the Commission as a security-based swap dealer. An unregistered foreign
dealing entity that remains below the de minimis threshold may seek to
register as a security-based swap dealer if the benefits from providing
liquidity to unregistered U.S. persons are sufficient to justify the
costs associated with dealer registration.
2. Efficiency
    The Regulation SBSR Adopting Release did not address when an
uncleared security-based swap involving only unregistered non-U.S.
persons would be subject to regulatory reporting and/or public
dissemination. The amendments to Rules 901 and 908 adopted herein, by
requiring the public dissemination of ANE transactions, including those
that are uncleared security-based swaps involving only unregistered
non-U.S. persons, will increase price competition and price efficiency
in the security-based swap market generally,\994\ and enable all market
participants to have more comprehensive information with which to make
trading and valuation determinations for security-based swaps and
related and underlying assets. The reporting of all ANE transactions to
a registered SDR should enhance the Commission's ability to oversee
security-based swap activity occurring within the United States and to
monitor for compliance with specific Title VII requirements (including
the requirement that a person register with the Commission as a
security-based swap dealer if it exceeds the de minimis threshold). The
reporting of these transactions likely will enhance the Commission's
ability to monitor for manipulative and abusive practices involving
security-based swap transactions or transactions in related underlying
assets, such as corporate bonds or other securities transactions that
result from dealing activity, or other relevant activity, in the U.S.
market. The knowledge that the Commission and other relevant
authorities are able to conduct surveillance on the basis of regulatory
reporting could encourage greater participation in the security-based
swap market since surveillance and the resulting increased probability
of detection may deter potential market abuse. This could result in
improved efficiency, due to the availability of more risk-sharing
opportunities between market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \994\ See Regulation SBSR Adopting Release, 80 FR at 14720-21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission acknowledges the risk that, in response to the
adopted amendments, foreign dealing entities, trading platforms, and/or
registered broker-dealers could restructure their operations to avoid
triggering requirements under Regulation SBSR. For example, a foreign
dealing entity could restrict its U.S. personnel from intermediating
transactions with non-U.S. persons, a trading platform might choose to
move its principal place of business offshore, or a registered broker-
dealer might cease to effect transactions in security-based swaps
between unregistered non-U.S. persons. Such restructurings, if they
occurred, could have an adverse effect on the efficiency of the
security-based swap market by fragmenting liquidity between a U.S.
security-based swap market--occupied by U.S. persons and non-U.S.
persons willing to participate within the Title VII regulatory
framework, with intermediation services provided by registered broker-
dealers and U.S.-based trading platforms--and an offshore market in
which participants seek to avoid any activity that could trigger
application of Title VII to their security-based swap activity.\995\
Such market fragmentation could reduce the amount of liquidity
available to market participants whose activity is regulated by Title
VII, increase their search costs, or erode any gains in price
efficiency and allocative efficiency that might otherwise result from
regulatory reporting and public dissemination of all security-based
swap transactions that exist at least in part within the United States.
If foreign dealing entities use only agents who are located outside the
United States, there could be reduced competition in the market for
security-based swap intermediation services and this smaller pool of
competitors could in turn charge higher prices for intermediation. The
result would be higher costs of searching for suitable

counterparties. Higher search costs could in turn reduce the number of
risk-sharing trades that foreign dealing entities execute and thus
adversely affect risk-sharing efficiency in the security-based swap
market broadly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \995\ See Cross-Border Adopting Release, 79 FR at 47364.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has already considered the likelihood that foreign
dealing entities will cease using U.S. personnel to avoid Title VII
requirements (such as security-based swap dealer registration).\996\
The Commission continues to believe that market fragmentation that
results from relocation of personnel is less likely because foreign
dealing entities that elect to use such a strategy to avoid regulatory
reporting requirements under Title VII also would bear the costs of
restructuring their operations and potentially forgoing the benefits of
access to local expertise in security-based swaps that are traded in
the U.S. market.\997\ Furthermore, the Commission believes that the
amendments adopted herein, by extending Regulation SBSR to a small set
of ANE transactions involving only non-U.S. persons and assigning the
duty for reporting them, will impose only marginal burdens on platforms
and registered broker-dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \996\ See U.S. Activity Adopting Release, 81 FR at 8629-30.
    \997\ See id. at 8633.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Capital Formation
    The amendments adopted herein could affect capital formation by
affecting the transparency, liquidity, and stability of the market in
which issuers seek capital. In the Regulation SBSR Adopting Release,
the Commission identified benefits associated with the regulatory
reporting and public dissemination of security-based swaps, such as
increased transparency, improved liquidity, and greater market
stability.\998\ The Regulation SBSR Adopting Release did not impose any
requirements on transactions between unregistered non-U.S. persons,
even if one side was engaging in ANE activity. The amendments adopted
in this release, by extending Regulation SBSR to all ANE transactions,
should extend the benefits of regulatory reporting and public
dissemination to all ANE transactions, which in turn could lead to more
efficient allocation of capital by market participants and market
observers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \998\ See 80 FR at 14719-22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission recognizes that the amendments to Rules 901 and 908
adopted herein could impede capital formation by fragmenting the
security-based swap market. As discussed in Section XIII(H)(2), supra,
fragmentation of the security-based swap market could occur if market
participants restructure their business activities by moving their
personnel and operations offshore or restrict the counterparties to
whom such persons may provide services. Such actions could impede
capital formation because resources that market participants expend to
restructure would not be available for investing in productive assets.
Furthermore, fragmentation could create two separate security-based
swap markets: A U.S. security-based swap market and an off-shore
security-based swap market.\999\ If fragmentation reduces the pool of
market participants in the U.S. market, the market could experience
lower trading activity and liquidity which in turn could reduce the
ability of U.S. market participants to hedge financial and commercial
risks and force them to put more resources into precautionary savings
instead of investing those resources into productive assets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \999\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, as the Commission noted in Section XIII(H)(2), supra, the
amendments adopted herein, by extending Regulation SBSR to all ANE
transactions, will impose only marginal burdens on foreign dealing
entities. The Commission does not believe that these limited burdens
will cause foreign dealing entities to restructure their operations and
fragment the security-based swap market such that capital formation
would be adversely affected.

XIV. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA'') requires federal agencies,
in promulgating rules, to consider the impact of those rules on small
entities. Section 603(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act,\1000\ as
amended by the RFA, generally requires the Commission to undertake a
regulatory flexibility analysis of all proposed rules, or proposed rule
amendments, to determine the impact of such rulemaking on ``small
entities.'' \1001\ Section 605(b) of the RFA \1002\ states that this
requirement shall not apply to any proposed rule or proposed rule
amendment which, if adopted, would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1000\ 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
    \1001\ Although Section 601(b) of the RFA defines the term
``small entity,'' the statute permits agencies to formulate their
own definitions. The Commission has adopted definitions of the term
``small entity'' for the purposes of Commission rulemaking in
accordance with the RFA. Those definitions, as relevant to this
proposed rulemaking, are set forth in Rule 0-10 under the Exchange
Act, 17 CFR 240.0-10. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 18451
(January 28, 1982), 47 FR 5215 (February 4, 1982) (File No. AS-305).
    \1002\ 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In developing the final rules contained in Regulation SBSR, the
Commission has considered their potential impact on small entities. For
purposes of Commission rulemaking in connection with the RFA, a small
entity includes: (1) When used with reference to an ``issuer'' or a
``person,'' other than an investment company, an ``issuer'' or
``person'' that, on the last day of its most recent fiscal year, had
total assets of $5 million or less; \1003\ or (2) a broker-dealer with
total capital (net worth plus subordinated liabilities) of less than
$500,000 on the date in the prior fiscal year as of which its audited
financial statements were prepared pursuant to Rule 17a-5(d) under the
Exchange Act,\1004\ or, if not required to file such statements, a
broker-dealer with total capital (net worth plus subordinated
liabilities) of less than $500,000 on the last day of the preceding
fiscal year (or in the time that it has been in business, if shorter);
and is not affiliated with any person (other than a natural person)
that is not a small business or small organization.\1005\ Under the
standards adopted by the Small Business Administration, small entities
in the finance and insurance industry include the following: (1) For
entities engaged in credit intermediation and related activities,\1006\
entities with $550 million or less in assets; (2) for non-depository
credit intermediation and certain other activities,\1007\ entities
engaged in non-depository credit intermediation and related activities,
$38.5 million or less in annual receipts; (3) for entities engaged in
financial investments and related activities,\1008\ entities with $38.5
million or less in annual receipts; (4) for

insurance carriers and entities engaged in related activities,\1009\
entities with $38.5 million or less in annual receipts, or 1,500
employees for direct property and casualty insurance carriers; and (5)
for funds, trusts, and other financial vehicles,\1010\ entities with
$32.5 million or less in annual receipts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1003\ See 17 CFR 240.0-10(a).
    \1004\ 17 CFR 240.17a-5(d).
    \1005\ See 17 CFR 240.0-10(c).
    \1006\ Including commercial banks, savings institutions, credit
unions, firms involved in other depository credit intermediation,
credit card issuing, sales financing, consumer lending, real estate
credit, and international trade financing. See 13 CFR 121.201 at
Subsector 522.
    \1007\ Including firms involved in secondary market financing,
all other non-depository credit intermediation, mortgage and
nonmortgage loan brokers, financial transactions processing,
reserve, and clearing house activities, and other activities related
to credit intermediation. See 13 CFR 121.201 at Subsector 522.
    \1008\ Including firms involved in investment banking and
securities dealing, securities brokerage, commodity contracts
dealing, commodity contracts brokerage, securities and commodity
exchanges, miscellaneous intermediation, portfolio management,
providing investment advice, trust, fiduciary and custody
activities, and miscellaneous financial investment activities. See
13 CFR 121.201 at Subsector 523.
    \1009\ Including direct life insurance carriers, direct health
and medical insurance carriers, direct property and casualty
insurance carriers, direct title insurance carriers, other direct
insurance (except life, health and medical) carriers, reinsurance
carriers, insurance agencies and brokerages, claims adjusting, third
party administration of insurance and pension funds, and all other
insurance related activities. See 13 CFR 121.201 at Subsector 524.
    \1010\ Including pension funds, health and welfare funds, other
insurance funds, open-end investment funds, trusts, estates, and
agency accounts, real estate investment trusts and other financial
vehicles. See 13 CFR 121.201 at Subsector 525.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the U.S. Activity Proposal, the Commission stated its belief
that the majority of the amendments to Regulation SBSR proposed in that
release would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities for the purposes of the RFA.\1011\ However,
the Commission acknowledged that the proposed amendments would require
a registered broker-dealer (including a registered SB SEF) to report a
security-based swap transaction that is effected by or through
it.\1012\ The Commission further estimated that 30 registered broker-
dealers (including SB SEFs) could be required to report such
transactions, although the Commission was not able to estimate the
number of those registered broker-dealers that would be ``small
entities.'' \1013\ As a result, the Commission stated its preliminary
belief that it is unlikely that these registered broker-dealers would
be small entities and requested comment on the number of registered
broker-dealers that are small entities that would be impacted by the
proposed amendments, including any available empirical data.\1014\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1011\ See 80 FR at 27509.
    \1012\ See id.
    \1013\ See id.
    \1014\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Regulation SBSR Proposed Amendments Release, the Commission
certified that the amendments proposed in that release would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
for purposes of the RFA.\1015\ The Commission believes, based on input
from security-based swap market participants and its own information,
that the majority of security-based swap transactions have at least one
counterparty that is either a security-based swap dealer or major
security-based swap participant, and that these entities--whether
registered broker-dealers or not--would exceed the thresholds defining
``small entities'' set out above. The Commission continues to believe
that the vast majority of, if not all, security-based swap transactions
are between large entities for purposes of the RFA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1015\ See 80 FR at 14801.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Commission believes that persons that are likely
to register as SDRs would not be small entities. Based on input from
security-based swap market participants and its own information, the
Commission continues to believe that most if not all registered SDRs
will be part of large business entities, and that all registered SDRs
will have assets in excess of the thresholds discussed above.
Therefore, the Commission continues to believe that no registered SDRs
will be small entities.
    The Commission received no comments on the certification in the
Regulation SBSR Proposed Amendments Release or, as indicated above, the
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis in the U.S. Activity Proposal.
Accordingly, the Commission hereby certifies that the final rules
adopted in this release will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the purposes of the RFA.

XV. Statutory Basis

    Pursuant to the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq., and
particularly Sections 3C(e), 11A(b), 13(m)(1), 13A(a), 23(a)(1), 30(c),
and 36(a) thereof, 15 U.S.C. 78c-3(e), 78k-1(b), 78m(m)(1), 78m-1(a),
78w(a)(1), 78dd(c), and 78mm(a), the Commission is amending Rules 900,
901, 902, 905, 906, 907, and 908 of Regulation SBSR under the Exchange
Act, 17 CFR 242.900, 242.901, 242.902, 242.905, 242.906, 242.907, and
242.908.

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 242

    Brokers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.

Text of Amendments

    In accordance with the foregoing, the Commission amends 17 CFR part
242 as follows:

PART 242--REGULATIONS M, SHO, ATS, AC, NMS, AND SBSR AND CUSTOMER
MARGIN REQUIREMENTS FOR SECURITY FUTURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 242 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77g, 77q(a), 77s(a), 78b, 78c, 78g(c)(2),
78i(a), 78j, 78k-l(c), 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o(b), 78o(c), 78o(g),
78q(a), 78q(b), 78q(h), 78w(a), 78dd-1, 78mm, 80a-23, 80a-29, and
80a-37.

0
2. In Sec.  242.900, revise paragraph (u) and add paragraph (tt) to
read as follows:

Sec.  242.900  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (u) Participant, with respect to a registered security-based swap
data repository, means:
    (1) A counterparty, that meets the criteria of Sec.  242.908(b), of
a security-based swap that is reported to that registered security-
based swap data repository to satisfy an obligation under Sec.
242.901(a);
    (2) A platform that reports a security-based swap to that
registered security-based swap data repository to satisfy an obligation
under Sec.  242.901(a);
    (3) A registered clearing agency that is required to report to that
registered security-based swap data repository whether or not it has
accepted a security-based swap for clearing pursuant to Sec.
242.901(e)(1)(ii); or
    (4) A registered broker-dealer (including a registered security-
based swap execution facility) that is required to report a security-
based swap to that registered security-based swap data repository by
Sec.  242.901(a).
* * * * *
    (tt) Widely accessible, as used in paragraph (cc) of this section,
means widely available to users of the information on a non-fee basis.

0
3. In Sec.  242.901 add paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2)(i), (a)(2)(ii)(E)(2)
through (4), (a)(3), and (e)(1)(ii) and revise paragraphs (d)(4),
(d)(8), (d)(9), (e)(2), and (h) to read as follows:

Sec.  242.901  Reporting obligations.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Platform-executed security-based swaps that will be submitted
to clearing. If a security-based swap is executed on a platform and
will be submitted to clearing, the platform on which the transaction
was executed shall report to a registered security-based swap data
repository the counterparty ID or the execution agent ID of each direct
counterparty, as applicable, and the information set forth in paragraph
(c) of this section (except that, with respect to paragraph (c)(5) of
this section, the platform need indicate only if both direct
counterparties are registered security-based swap dealers) and
paragraphs (d)(9) and (10) of this section.
    (2) * * *
    (i) Clearing transactions. For a clearing transaction, the
reporting side is the registered clearing agency that is a counterparty
to the transaction.
    (ii) * * *
    (E) * * *

    (2) If one side includes a non-U.S. person that falls within Sec.
242.908(b)(5) or a U.S. person and the other side includes a non-U.S.
person that falls within Sec.  242.908(b)(5), the sides shall select
the reporting side.
    (3) If one side includes only non-U.S. persons that do not fall
within Sec.  242.908(b)(5) and the other side includes a non-U.S.
person that falls within Sec.  242.908(b)(5) or a U.S. person, the side
including a non-U.S. person that falls within Sec.  242.908(b)(5) or a
U.S. person shall be the reporting side.
    (4) If neither side includes a U.S. person and neither side
includes a non-U.S. person that falls within Sec.  242.908(b)(5) but
the security-based swap is effected by or through a registered broker-
dealer (including a registered security-based swap execution facility),
the registered broker-dealer (including a registered security-based
swap execution facility) shall report the counterparty ID or the
execution agent ID of each direct counterparty, as applicable, and the
information set forth in paragraph (c) of this section (except that,
with respect to paragraph (c)(5) of this section, the registered
broker-dealer (including a registered security-based swap execution
facility) need indicate only if both direct counterparties are
registered security-based swap dealers) and paragraphs (d)(9) and (10)
of this section.
    (3) Notification to registered clearing agency. A person who, under
paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2)(ii) of this section, has a duty to report a
security-based swap that has been submitted to clearing at a registered
clearing agency shall promptly provide that registered clearing agency
with the transaction ID of the submitted security-based swap and the
identity of the registered security-based swap data repository to which
the transaction will be reported or has been reported.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (4) For a security-based swap that is not a clearing transaction
and that will not be allocated after execution, the title and date of
any master agreement, collateral agreement, margin agreement, or any
other agreement incorporated by reference into the security-based swap
contract;
* * * * *
    (8) To the extent not provided pursuant to the other provisions of
this paragraph (d), if the direct counterparties do not submit the
security-based swap to clearing, a description of the settlement terms,
including whether the security-based swap is cash-settled or physically
settled, and the method for determining the settlement value;
    (9) The platform ID, if applicable, or if a registered broker-
dealer (including a registered security-based swap execution facility)
is required to report the security-based swap by Sec.
242.901(a)(2)(ii)(E)(4), the broker ID of that registered broker-dealer
(including a registered security-based swap execution facility); and
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) Acceptance for clearing. A registered clearing agency shall
report whether or not it has accepted a security-based swap for
clearing.
    (2) All reports of life cycle events and adjustments due to life
cycle events shall, within the timeframe specified in paragraph (j) of
this section, be reported to the entity to which the original security-
based swap transaction will be reported or has been reported and shall
include the transaction ID of the original transaction.
* * * * *
    (h) Format of reported information. A person having a duty to
report shall electronically transmit the information required under
this section in a format required by the registered security-based swap
data repository to which it reports.
* * * * *

0
4. In Sec.  242.902, revise paragraphs (c)(6) and (7) and add paragraph
(c)(8) to read as follows:

Sec.  242.902  Public dissemination of transaction reports.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (6) Any information regarding a clearing transaction that arises
from the acceptance of a security-based swap for clearing by a
registered clearing agency or that results from netting other clearing
transactions;
    (7) Any information regarding the allocation of a security-based
swap; or
    (8) Any information regarding a security-based swap that has been
rejected from clearing or rejected by a prime broker if the original
transaction report has not yet been publicly disseminated.
* * * * *

0
5. In Sec.  242.905, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec.  242.905  Correction of errors in security-based swap information.

    (a) Duty to correct. Any counterparty or other person having a duty
to report a security-based swap that discovers an error in information
previously reported pursuant to Sec. Sec.  242.900 through 242.909
shall correct such error in accordance with the following procedures:
    (1) If a person that was not the reporting side for a security-
based swap transaction discovers an error in the information reported
with respect to such security-based swap, that person shall promptly
notify the person having the duty to report the security-based swap of
the error; and
    (2) If the person having the duty to report a security-based swap
transaction discovers an error in the information reported with respect
to a security-based swap, or receives notification from a counterparty
of an error, such person shall promptly submit to the entity to which
the security-based swap was originally reported an amended report
pertaining to the original transaction report. If the person having the
duty to report reported the initial transaction to a registered
security-based swap data repository, such person shall submit an
amended report to the registered security-based swap data repository in
a manner consistent with the policies and procedures contemplated by
Sec.  242.907(a)(3).
* * * * *

0
6. Revise Sec.  242.906 to read as follows:

Sec.  242.906  Other duties of participants.

    (a) Identifying missing UIC information. A registered security-
based swap data repository shall identify any security-based swap
reported to it for which the registered security-based swap data
repository does not have the counterparty ID and (if applicable) the
broker ID, branch ID, execution agent ID, trading desk ID, and trader
ID of each direct counterparty. Once a day, the registered security-
based swap data repository shall send a report to each participant of
the registered security-based swap data repository or, if applicable,
an execution agent, identifying, for each security-based swap to which
that participant is a counterparty, the security-based swap(s) for
which the registered security-based swap data repository lacks
counterparty ID and (if applicable) broker ID, branch ID, execution
agent ID, trading desk ID, and trader ID. A participant of a registered
security-based swap data repository that receives such a report shall
provide the missing information with respect to its side of each
security-based swap referenced in the report to the registered
security-based swap data repository within 24 hours.
    (b) Duty to provide ultimate parent and affiliate information. Each
participant of a registered security-based swap data repository that is
not a

platform, a registered clearing agency, an externally managed
investment vehicle, or a registered broker-dealer (including a
registered security-based swap execution facility) that becomes a
participant solely as a result of making a report to satisfy an
obligation under Sec.  242.901(a)(2)(ii)(E)(4) shall provide to the
registered security-based swap data repository information sufficient
to identify its ultimate parent(s) and any affiliate(s) of the
participant that also are participants of the registered security-based
swap data repository, using ultimate parent IDs and counterparty IDs.
Any such participant shall promptly notify the registered security-
based swap data repository of any changes to that information.
    (c) Policies and procedures to support reporting compliance. Each
participant of a registered security-based swap data repository that is
a registered security-based swap dealer, registered major security-
based swap participant, registered clearing agency, platform, or
registered broker-dealer (including a registered security-based swap
execution facility) that becomes a participant solely as a result of
making a report to satisfy an obligation under Sec.
242.901(a)(2)(ii)(E)(4) shall establish, maintain, and enforce written
policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to ensure that it
complies with any obligations to report information to a registered
security-based swap data repository in a manner consistent with
Sec. Sec.  242.900 through 242.909. Each such participant shall review
and update its policies and procedures at least annually.

0
7. In Sec.  242.907, revise paragraph (a)(6) to read as follows:

Sec.  242.907  Policies and procedures of registered security-based
swap data repositories.

    (a) * * *
    (6) For periodically obtaining from each participant other than a
platform, registered clearing agency, externally managed investment
vehicle, or registered broker-dealer (including a registered security-
based swap execution facility) that becomes a participant solely as a
result of making a report to satisfy an obligation under Sec.
242.901(a)(2)(ii)(E)(4) information that identifies the participant's
ultimate parent(s) and any participant(s) with which the participant is
affiliated, using ultimate parent IDs and counterparty IDs.
* * * * *
0
8. In Sec.  242.908:
0
a. Amend paragraph (a)(1)(i) by removing the ``or'' at the end of the
paragraph;
0
b. Amend paragraph (a)(1)(ii) by removing the period at the end of the
paragraph and adding in its place a semicolon;
0
c. Add paragraphs (a)(1)(iii) through (v);
0
d. Revise paragraphs (b)(1) and (2); and
0
e. Add paragraphs (b)(3) through (5).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  242.908  Cross-border matters.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) The security-based swap is executed on a platform having its
principal place of business in the United States;
    (iv) The security-based swap is effected by or through a registered
broker-dealer (including a registered security-based swap execution
facility); or
    (v) The transaction is connected with a non-U.S. person's security-
based swap dealing activity and is arranged, negotiated, or executed by
personnel of such non-U.S. person located in a U.S. branch or office,
or by personnel of an agent of such non-U.S. person located in a U.S.
branch or office.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) A U.S. person;
    (2) A registered security-based swap dealer or registered major
security-based swap participant;
    (3) A platform;
    (4) A registered clearing agency; or
    (5) A non-U.S. person that, in connection with such person's
security-based swap dealing activity, arranged, negotiated, or executed
the security-based swap using its personnel located in a U.S. branch or
office, or using personnel of an agent located in a U.S. branch or
office.
* * * * *

    By the Commission.

    Dated: July 14, 2016.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-17032 Filed 8-11-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: February 19, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 33)]
[Notices]
[Page 7522-7524]
[DOCID:fr19fe10-116]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2009-0042]

Peer Review, Conflict of Interest and Disclosure Form; Request
for the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information
Collection (Paperwork) Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits comments concerning its proposal to extend the
Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the Conflict of
Interest (COI) and Disclosure Form which is used to determine whether
or not a conflict of interest exists for a potential peer review panel
member.

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
April 20, 2010.

ADDRESSES:

    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit three copies of your comments
and attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2009-0042,
U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC
20210. Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and courier service)
are accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket office's
normal business hours, 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and OSHA
docket number (OSHA-2009-0042). All comments, including any personal
information you provide, are placed in the public docket without
change, and may be made available online at http://www/regulations.gov.
For further information on submitting comments see the ``Public
Participation'' heading in the section of this notice titled
``SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.''
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or to the OSHA Docket Office
at the address above. All documents in the docket (including this
Federal Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov
index; however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not
publicly available to read or download through the Web site. All
submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for
inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You may contact Jamaa
Hill at the address below to obtain a copy of the Information
Collection Request (ICR).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jamaa Hill or Todd Owen, Directorate
of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609,
200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202)
693-2222.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information
collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that
information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and cost)
is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's
estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The
Occupational Safety and Health Act of the 1970 (the Act) (29 U.S.C. 651
et seq.) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or
appropriate for enforcement of the Act or for developing information
regarding the causes and prevention of occupational injuries,
illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657).
    OSHA conducts peer reviews to review a draft product for quality by
specialists in the field who were not involved in producing the draft.
The selection of participants in a peer review is based on expertise,
with due consideration of independence. The Office of Management and
Budget published the Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
on December 15, 2004. The Bulletin states ``* * * the agency must
address reviewers' potential conflicts of interest (including those
stemming from ties to regulated businesses and other stakeholders) and
independence from the agency.'' The Bulletin requires agencies to adopt
or adapt the committee selection policies employed by the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) when selecting peer reviewers who are not
Government employees. To fulfill this requirement, OSHA has developed a
Conflict of Interest (COI) and Disclosure Form, based on NAS' Conflict
of Interest Disclosure form. This form will be used to determine
whether or not a conflict exists for a potential peer review panel
member.

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirement, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA proposes to extend OMB's approval of the COI form; thus,
retaining OSHA's current burden hour estimate of 27 hours. The Agency
will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice, and
will include this summary in its request to OMB.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: OSHA's Conflict of Interest (COI) and Disclosure Form.
    OMB Number: 1218-0255.
    Affected Public: Individuals or households.
    Number of Respondents: 36.
    Frequency of Responses: On occasion.
    Average Time per Response: One half hour (.5 hour) for respondents
to complete Tier 1 for ``influential scientific assessments;'' and 1
hour for respondents to complete both Tier 1 and Tier 2 for ``highly
influential scientific assessments.''
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 27.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $0.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on This Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (FAX); or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other material must identify the Agency name
and the OSHA docket number for the ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2009-0042). You
may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files
electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference
to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the
OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES).
The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments
by your name, date, and the docket number so the Agency can attach them
to your comments.
    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about
security procedures concerning the

delivery of materials by hand, express delivery, messenger, or courier
service, please contact the OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY
(877) 889-5627). Comments and submissions are posted without change at
http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
date of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to read or download through this
Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are
available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office.
Information on using the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit
comments and access the docket is available at the Web site's ``User
Tips'' link. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about
materials not available through the Web site, and for assistance in
using the Internet to locate docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, PhD, MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this
notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2007
(72 FR 31159).

    Signed at Washington, DC, this February 4, 2010.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2010-3253 Filed 2-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


MEMORANDUM

To:		David Putney, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), OAQPS

From:		Mike Laney and Beatrix Jackson, RTI International
		David Putney, US. EPA

Date:		July 23, 2019

Subject:	Draft Technology Review for the Taconite Iron Ore Processing Source Category
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
Requirements of Section 112(d)(6) of the CAA
      Section 112 of the CAA requires the EPA to establish technology-based standards for sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAP). These technology-based standards are often referred to as maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards. Section 112 also contains provisions requiring the EPA to periodically revisit these standards. Specifically, paragraph 112(d)(6) states:

      (6) REVIEW AND REVISION.  -  The Administrator shall review and revise as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies), emissions standards promulgated under this section no less often than every 8 years.
Description of the Taconite Iron Ore Processing Source Category and Requirements of the Current NESHAP
      The current National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Taconite Iron Ore Processing source category was promulgated on October 30, 2003 (68 FR 61868) as 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRRR. This subpart applies to affected new and existing sources of HAP emissions at taconite iron ore processing plants that are (or are part of) a major source of HAP. A taconite iron ore processing plant is a major source of HAP if it emits or has the potential to emit any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons or more per year or any combination of HAP at a rate of 25 tons or more per year. Taconite iron ore processing is defined (40 CFR §63.9652) as the separation and concentration of iron ore from taconite, a low-grade iron ore, to produce taconite pellets.

      There are currently eight taconite iron ore processing plants that are subject to this subpart, one of which is currently idle. An affected source is defined in this subpart as each new or existing ore crushing and handling operation (OCH), ore dryer, pellet indurating furnace (PI), or finished pellet handling operation (PH). The rule also applies to certain fugitive dust emission sources. Each of these affected sources was described in the preamble for the initial taconite iron ore processing NESHAP proposal (refer to 67 FR 77564 through 77565 and 77567 through 77570). Those descriptions are summarized in Section 1.3, below, for convenience.

      This subpart includes numeric emission limits for particulate matter (PM) as a surrogate for metal HAP emissions from affected OCH, ore dryers, PI, and PH sources, and as a surrogate for acid gas emissions from affected PI sources. This subpart also includes work practice standards for PM as a surrogate for metal HAP emissions from affected fugitive dust emission sources and operation and maintenance requirements for emissions of formaldehyde and other HAP products of incomplete combustion from affected PI sources.

Current Practices for Affected Sources

Ore Crushing and Handling Operations

      Ore crushing and handling operations (OCH) begin "... where crude taconite iron ore is dumped into the primary crusher and ends where the unfired (green) pellets enter the indurating furnace." (67 FR 77569) OCH operations exclude the ore drying operations that occur at one plant (described below) and any operations wherein crushed ore is saturated with water for further processing (e.g., wet milling and magnetic separation), which suppresses HAP emissions. The OCH emission sources consist of operations to transport the raw ore and crush it down to about the size of coarse sand (i.e., a size suitable to separate the taconite, iron-bearing, material from the gangue, or waste material). Examples of OCH include ore crushers, ore screens, ore storage silos and bins, concentrate handling, and ore conveyors and transfer points. The control devices most commonly found in use to reduce PM emissions from affected OCH operations are wet scrubbers. However, rotoclones, multicyclones, electrostatic precipitators (ESP) and fabric filters are also utilized.

Ore Drying

      Ore drying using rotary-type, natural gas-fired ore dryers is conducted at one plant, the Tilden Mine plant in Michigan. The ore dryers, which are made necessary due to the more fine-grained ore processed in this plant, further dry the raw, crushed ore prior to the agglomerating operations (i.e., prior to formation of the "green" pellets). PM emissions from each ore dryer are reduced by a cyclone pre-cleaner in series with a wet scrubber.

Pellet Induration

      Pellet induration (PI) "... begins at the point where the grate feed conveyor discharges green pellets onto the furnace traveling grate and ends where the hardened pellets exit the finished pellet cooler." (67 FR 77569) PI refers to the pellet indurating furnaces, including the green pellet grate feeds and finished pellet discharges, which are used to indurate, or harden, the green pellets via oxidation from magnetite to hematite, at about 2,400 ℉. The indurating furnaces are one of two types: straight grate type or grate kiln type. These are typically natural gas-fired devices with another fuel (e.g., fuel oil, coal, coke and/or biomass) used as a backup fuel.

      In straight grate indurating furnaces, a continuous bed of unfired pellets is carried on a metal grate through different furnace temperature zones. In the drying zone, heated air is blown through the pellets. After they are dried, the pellets enter a preheat zone of the furnace where the temperature is gradually increased for the indurating stage. The pellets then enter the firing zone for induration where they are exposed to the highest temperature. The fired pellets then enter the post-firing zone, where the oxidation process is completed. Finally, the pellets are cooled using ambient air. Waste gases from the straight grate furnace are discharged primarily through two ducts: the hood exhaust, which handles the cooling and drying gases; and the windbox exhaust, which handles the preheat, firing, and after- firing gases. For a typical straight grate furnace, the two discharge ducts are combined into one common header before the flow is divided into several ducts to be exhausted to the atmosphere after control.

      The grate kiln indurating furnace system consists of a traveling grate, a rotary kiln, and an annular cooler. The grate kiln system is a newer generation of indurating furnaces and is widely used in the taconite industry. In a grate kiln system, a bed of unfired pellets is laid on a continuously moving, traveling grate, which conveys the pellets into a dryer/preheater. In the first half of the traveling grate, pellets are gradually dried by hot air. The second half of the traveling grate, the preheater, heats the pellets to a temperature of 2,000 ⁰F. The pellets are then discharged into the rotary kiln where, at a temperature of 2,300 to 2,400 ⁰F, the pellets are oxidized from magnetite (Fe3O4) into hematite (Fe2O3). The hardened pellets are then discharged to a large annular-shaped cooler where ambient air is used to partially cool the pellets. The heated air from this part of the cooler is used as preheated combustion air in the kiln. The partially cooled pellets enter a final cooling zone where additional ambient air further cools the pellets. Air exiting the final cooling zone is directed to the dryer section of the traveling grate. Combustion air from the rotary kiln is used to maintain the temperature in the preheat section of the traveling grate. Pellet cooler vent stacks are atmospheric vents in the cooler section of a grate kiln indurating furnace. Pellet cooler vent stacks exhaust cooling air that is not returned for heat recuperation. Straight grate furnaces do not have pellet cooler vent stacks.

      The rule establishes subcategories within the indurating furnace affected source to distinguish between the two types of furnace designs - grate kiln furnaces and straight grate furnaces. Physical and operational differences that affect emissions and the controllability of emissions distinguish the two types of furnaces.

      Grate kiln furnaces have production rates approximately 30 percent greater than those of straight grate furnaces. Grate kiln furnaces have two furnace sections, a continuous grate followed by a rotary kiln. Straight grate furnaces have only a continuous grate. In the grate kiln, the tumbling action in the kiln increases pellet breakage and the entrainment of particles in the air stream results in higher metal HAP emissions. Also, air flow through a grate kiln furnace is more than twice the air flow through a straight grate furnace.

      The rule also makes a distinction based on the ore type processed by grate kilns. Based on PM test data, grate kiln furnaces exhibit higher PM emissions when hematite ore is processed rather than magnetite ore. The finer grain of the hematite ore results in a higher breakage rate and higher emissions. Therefore, the emission standards make a distinction based on ore type processed within grate kilns.

      PM emissions from the PI affected sources are most commonly reduced by either wet scrubbers or wet walled electrostatic precipitators (WWESP). However, multicyclones are also used. The high moisture content of furnace exhaust precludes control via baghouses.

Pellet Handling Operations

      Pellet handling operations (PH) "... begins at the indurating furnace discharge and ends where the finished pellets are stockpiled." (67 FR 77569) The PH emission sources consist of operations to transport the finished pellets to stockpiles or storage bins. Examples of PH include pellet screens, conveyors, transfer points, storage silos and bins. The control devices most commonly found in use to reduce PM emissions from affected PH operations are wet scrubbers. However, rotoclones, multicyclones, electrostatic precipitators (ESP) and fabric filters are also utilized.

Fugitive Dust Emission Sources

      Fugitive dust emissions sources refers to the emission sources that are subject to the fugitive dust control requirements of the NESHAP (see 40 CFR 63.9591). All plants subject to the rule are required to prepare and implement a written fugitive dust emissions control plan. The plan must describe in detail the measures that will be put in place to control fugitive dust emissions from the following sources at a plant, as applicable: stockpiles, material transfer points, plant roadways, tailings basin, pellet loading areas and yard areas. Based on a review of current permits, dust control measures include the use of water, chemical dust suppressants and ground cover.
Developments in Practices, Processes, and Control Technologies

      For the purposes of this technology review, a "development" was considered to be:

 Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was not identified and considered during development of the original MACT standards;
 Any improvements in add-on control technology or other equipment (that were identified and considered during development of the original MACT standards) that could result in significant additional emissions reduction;
 Any work practice or operational procedure that was not identified or considered during development of the original MACT standards;
 Any process changes or pollution prevention alternatives that could be broadly applied to the industry and that were not identified or considered during development of the original MACT standards; and
 Any significant changes in the cost (including cost effectiveness) of applying add-on control technology or other equipment to affected sources (including controls the EPA considered during the development of the original MACT standards).

      We researched practices, processes and control technologies through a literature review with a view toward identifying "developments" as defined above. Developments in the industry were discussed with representatives from three taconite iron ore processing companies (i.e., U.S. Steel, ArcelorMittal, and Cliffs Natural Resources) during site visits to taconite processing plants in Minnesota. In addition, State permits were reviewed to assess control technologies at taconite iron ore processing plants. The review also included the following two Federal Register notices: Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans, States of Minnesota and Michigan, Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (78 FR 59825, 2013) and Federal Implementation Plan for Regional Haze (78 FR 8705, 2013). The results of the review are presented in the following sections.
Ore Crushing and Handling (OCH)
      No developments in OCH control technologies were identified through the literature review or discussions with industry representatives. The taconite iron ore processing industry has implemented some OCH process modifications to improve production rates and improve efficiency but none to reduce emissions, as explained below.

      High-pressure grinding rolls (HPGR) were evaluated in a 2013 analysis as a possible improvement in ore crushing and handling operations. During OCH operations, magnetite or hematite ore is liberated from its silicate matrix. A 2013 cost analysis, prepared by the Australian Queensland Centre for Advanced Technology and presented at the PERUMIN 31[st] Mining Convention in Peru, (Jankovic et al., 2013) examined the operating cost associated with high capacity processing of a hard, fine grained silica rich magnetite ore with more efficient grinding technologies such as HPGR for fine crushing and stirred milling for fine grinding. HPGR has been in use since before 2001 at Empire Mine and resulted in a mill throughput increase of 20 percent. Vertimill(R) fine grinding technology at Hibbing Taconite Company facilitated processing of lower grade ores and increased the concentrate production. The study concluded that, for the ore type evaluated, the application of HPGR and stirred mill technology appear to reduce energy consumption by up to 25 percent compared with conventional processes with wet tumbling mills (Jankovic et al., 2013). Although described as more efficient, the analysis did not indicate that the technology reduced emissions over other OCH technologies nor is it considered a new technology as it was in use prior to the development of the original MACT standard.

Pellet Induration (PI)
Air Pollution Control Technology

      No developments in pellet induration furnace control technologies or processes were identified through the literature review or discussions with industry representatives. A technology to reduce SO2 emissions that potentially also could control PM emissions is described below.

      As part of a best available retrofit technology (BART) analysis by the state of Michigan, spray drying absorption (SDA) retrofitting was considered for its ability to reduce SO2 emissions and potentially eliminate the need for the existing venturi rod scrubbers used to control PM emissions from taconite indurating furnaces. It was suggested that, as a result, the technology could reduce water consumption, gas stream moisture content, and PM emissions due to the higher efficiency of the baghouse. However, EPA agreed with the state of Michigan that the technology was not cost effective and, therefore not BART (78 FR 8705, February 6, 2013). In addition, the 2006 MPCA BART analysis (MPCA, 2006a; MPCA, 2006b) found SDA to be not technically feasible under indurating furnace waste gas conditions due to the high moisture content of the lime slurry spray. This study did not include information on HAP reductions or cost-effectiveness.

In 2012, Environment Canada entered a voluntary Performance Agreement Concerning Air Pollutants from the Iron Ore Pellet Sector with Iron Ore Company of Canada and ArcelorMittal Mining Canada G.P. (EC, 2012) to reduce atmospheric emissions of SO2, PM2.5, and NOx from new and existing induration furnaces at iron ore pelletizing operations in Canada. ArcelorMittal's two induration furnaces are controlled by a multicyclone and then exhaust to a dry ESP. Exhaust gases from Iron Ore Canada's six induration furnaces are treated by multicyclones before being released to the stacks. No new technologies were identified as part of this 2012 performance agreement.
Process Technology

      The following process technologies illustrate efforts in the industry to reduce induration process footprints, improve furnace life, reduce fuel and power requirements, and reduce fugitive emissions, although none are intended to directly reduce HAP emissions. No developments in practices, processes, or control technologies that would reduce HAP emissions were identified during the review of literature and state permits or as a result of discussions with industry representatives.

      Circular Pelletizing Technology (CPT) - CPT is a circular version of a travelling-grate or straight grate kiln, intended mainly to reduce the plant footprint. The circular design allows the furnace hood to cover more than twice as many pallet cars compared to a straight-type induration furnace. Capacity is 0.6-3.0 million tons per year (Aichinger, et al., 2015). In addition to the reduced plant footprint, this technology offers flexibility on location (mine site, at steel works or direct reduction plants), fuel flexibility, fully automated operation, and lowest capital expenditure solution for blast furnace and Direct Reduction pellets (Siemens, 2013). Exhaust gases are controlled by ESPs or bag filter systems (Aichinger, et al., 2015). The first plant was contracted in 2011 and a second plant in 2013, both in India, however status updates were not available (Siemens, 2013). There are no plants in the U.S. that use this technology. No information on emissions from furnaces using this technology was identified.

      Grate-kiln system improvements  -  The Finnish Metso Corporation lists on-going developments in grate-kiln systems in a 2012 brochure, however, cost and HAP emissions reduction information are not provided (Metso, 2012). The company's list includes:
 The use of higher-grade alloys in the traveling grate for longer life.
 Floating seals in the traveling grate to reduce air leakage.
 Annular coolers made with water seals and fabricated steel pallets.
 Patented kiln seals to reduce air leakage.
 Finite element analysis on grate components to improve life, reduce fuel and power requirements.
 Heat and mass balance model studies to optimize a system for a particular iron ore
            concentrate or fuel.
       Mathematical models  -  Our research indicates that the most recent approaches (post-2010) of improving straight grate and grate kiln furnaces focus on mathematical models (Cameron, et al., 2015), rather than technology updates.

2.3	Pellet Handling (PH)
      Although not a development in practices, processes, or control technology that reduces HAP emissions, the following is an improvement in the pellet handling part of the taconite iron ore process.

      Natural Resources Research Institute (NRRI) Pellet Fines Removal System (FRS) was designed to remove taconite pellet fines and pellet chips using an endless conveyor belt in place of vibrating screens to lower overall costs associated with upkeep and capital input. The technology is available for a $30,000 conversion fee plus royalty fees (University of Minnesota, 2018). In a 2010 full scale study, improved wear parts allow the conveyor belt to be operated at feed rates of 300-350 tons per hour, 24 hours per day, without needing to replace chevron lifter bars on the belt surface for at least 3-month intervals. During test runs at one of the operating Minnesota taconite plants, older rubber chevron lifters were replaced with new abrasion resistant steel AR400 lifter plates bolted to the conveyor belt surface resulting in approximately 650,000 tons of potential pellet processing versus 25,000 tons with older rubber chevron lifters. Results showed greater than 90 percent removal of minus 1/4-inch fines from pellet feeds (NRRI, 2010). However, tests conducted at a Minnesota taconite operation in 2012 did not produce results sufficient to classify this technology as a replacement for vibrating screen technology used to produce pellet screening of at least 99.5 percent purity level at feed rates of 350 tph (NRRI, 2013 and NRRI, 2018). NRRI reports that the process results in a 98 percent purity level (NRRI, 2018). Information on whether the system reduces PM emissions, or the cost of the system was not provided.
2.4	Ore Drying
      The Tilden Mine plant is the only taconite plant that uses ore drying equipment due to the finer-grained ore processed at that plant. PM emissions from each ore dryer are controlled by a cyclone pre-cleaner in series with an impingement wet scrubber. Improvements to dryer technology and control technology were not identified. No development in practices, processes, or control technology were identified that would reduce HAP emissions from ore drying.

2.5	Fugitive Dust Emission Sources

      Fugitive dust emissions control plans are required at taconite plants to manage fugitive dust emissions from stockpiles, material transfer points, plant roadways, tailings basins, pellet loading areas, and yard areas. Based on a review of current permits, dust control measures include the use of water, chemical dust suppressants and ground cover and may include practices to address seasonal variations that impact dust generation. A 2009 study of suppression of airborne particulates in iron ore processing asserted that surfactants which provide the fastest wetting of iron ore, are not considered highly effective taconite dust suppressants. Instead, the use of a hygroscopic reagent which retained moisture reduced PM10 by as much as 85 percent (Copeland, et al, 2009). However, the use of surfactants is not a new technology or practice. No development in practices, processes, or control technology that would for reduce HAP emissions from fugitive dust sources were identified in the review of literature or state permits or from discussions with industry representatives.

 3.0	Summary

   This technology review investigated practices, processes and controls with a view toward identifying "developments" as defined in section 2.0 of this document. To summarize, to be considered a "development" it must be any of the following:

 Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was not identified and considered during development of the original MACT standards;
 Any improvements in add-on control technology or other equipment (that were identified and considered during development of the original MACT standards) that could result in significant additional emissions reduction;
 Any work practice or operational procedure that was not identified or considered during development of the original MACT standards;
 Any process changes or pollution prevention alternatives that could be broadly applied to the industry and that were not identified or considered during development of the original MACT standards; and
 Any significant changes in the cost (including cost effectiveness) of applying add-on control technology or other equipment to affected sources (including controls the EPA considered during the development of the original MACT standards).
   The current NESHAP regulates PM emissions as a surrogate for metal HAP emissions from fugitive dust emission sources, ore crushing and handling (OCH), pellet indurating (PI), pellet handling (PH), and ore drying. PM emissions are also regulated as a surrogate for acid gases from PI sources.

   The use of high pressure grinding rolls (HPGR) were reported to reduce energy consumption during OCH and have been in use in the industry prior to the development of the MACT standards for the taconite industry. No information was found on the ability of HPGR to reduce HAP emissions.

   For the control of metal HAP emissions from induration furnaces, cyclone separators (i.e., multiclones), wet scrubbers, and WWESPs were identified. These are not new technologies and were in use in the industry during development of the MACT standard. SDA has also been identified as a technology that can reduce SO2 emissions as well as PM emissions. However, it was not considered cost effective by the EPA (78 FR 8705, 2013).

   CPT and FRS were identified as pellet handling technologies that improve the efficiency of the process, but no information was found that these technologies would reduce HAP emissions.

   Process improvements in straight grate and grate kiln induration furnaces have been introduced over time that have increased plant capacity. These improvements have been introduced to increase plant capacity and are not recognized for any ability to reduce HAP emissions.

   In summary, no developments in practices, processes, or control technologies were identified that would reduce HAP emissions from crushing and handling (OCH), pellet indurating (PI), pellet handling (PH), ore drying, and/or fugitive dust emission sources have been identified.

4.0	REFERENCES

78 FR 8705. 2013. Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; States of Minnesota and Michigan; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan; Federal Implementation Plan for Regional Haze. Available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2013/02/06/2013-01473/approval-and-promulgation-of-air-quality-implementation-plans-states-of-minnesota-and-michigan

Aichinger et al. 2015. Circular Pelletizing Technology  -  The World's Most Compact Pelletizing Plant. Technical contribution to the 45º Seminário de Redução de Minério de Ferro e Matérias-primas, to 16º Simpósio Brasileiro de Minério de Ferro and to 3º Simpósio Brasileiro de Aglomeração de Minério de Ferro, part of the ABM Week, August 17th-21st, 2015, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Available at https://abmproceedings.com.br/en/article/download-pdf/circular-pelletizing-technology-the-world-s-most-compact-pelletizing-plant

Cameron et al. 2015. Guidelines for Selecting Pellet Plant Technology. Available at https://businessdocbox.com/Metals/75815396-Guidelines-for-selecting-pellet-plant-technology-i-cameron-m-huerta-j-bolen-m-okrutny-k-o-leary.html

Copeland, C.R., T. Eisele, and S. Kawatra. 2009. Suppression of airborne particulates in iron ore processing facilities. International Journal of Mineral Processing 93(3):232-238. Available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229272795_Suppression_of_airborne_particulates_in_iron_ore_processing_facilities/citations

EC (Environment Canada). 2012. Performance Agreement Concerning Air Pollutants from the Iron Ore Pellet Sector. Available at https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/environmental-performance-agreements/iron-ore-pellet-sector-overview/agreement.html

Jankovic et al. 2013. Eco-Efficient and Cost-Effective Process Design for Magnetite Iron Ore. Conference Paper. PERUMIN - 31st Mining Convention. Arequipa, Peru. Available at https://www.metso.com/showroom/mining/eco-efficient-and-cost-effective-process-design-for-magnetite-iron-ore/

Metso (Metso Corporation). 2012. Iron ore pelletizing. Grate-Kiln[TM] system. Available at https://www.metso.com/globalassets/saleshub/documents---episerver/great-kiln-system-brochure.pdf

MPCA (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency). 2006a. Northshore Mining Company Analysis of Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART). Available at https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/bart-facility-northshore.pdf

MPCA . 2006b. Hibbing Taconite Analysis of Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART). Available at https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/bart-facility-northshore.pdf

NRRI (Natural Resources Research Institute). 2010. 2010 Semi-Annual Report. July  -  December. https://www.nrri.umn.edu/sites/nrri.umn.edu/files/2010julyreport.pdf

NRRI (Natural Resources Research Institute). 2013. 2013 Semi-Annual Report. January  -  June. http://www.nrri.umn.edu/sites/nrri.umn.edu/files/2013janreport.pdf

NRRI (Natural Resources Research Institute). 2018. Mining Technology for Pellet Fine Removal. http://license.umn.edu/technologies/z03035_mining-technology-for-pellet-fine-removal

Siemens. 2013. Circular Pelletizing Technology. 18th Middle East Iron & Steel Conference 2014  -  Dubai, U.A.E. Available at http://www.metalbulletin.com/events/download.ashx/document/speaker/7205/a0ID000000X0jz6MAB/Presentation

University of Minnesota. 2018. Mining Technology for Pellet Fine Removal. Available at http://license.umn.edu/technologies/z03035_mining-technology-for-pellet-fine-removal