[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 249 (Wednesday, December 28, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81549-81551]
[FR Doc No: 2011-33217]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66018; File No. SR-FINRA-2011-072]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of
Proposed Rule Change To Extend a TRACE Pilot Program

December 21, 2011.
    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 15, 2011, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by FINRA. FINRA has designated
the proposed rule change as constituting a ``non-controversial'' rule
change under paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 under the Act,\3\ which
renders the proposal effective upon receipt of this filing by the
Commission. 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.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA is proposing to extend the pilot program in FINRA Rule
6730(e)(4) to October 26, 2012. The pilot program exempts from
reporting to the Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine (``TRACE'')
transactions in TRACE-Eligible Securities that are executed on a
facility of the NYSE in accordance with NYSE Rules 1400, 1401 and 86
and reported to NYSE in accordance with NYSE's applicable trade
reporting rules and disseminated publicly by NYSE.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web
site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA 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, FINRA 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. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    FINRA proposes to amend FINRA Rule 6730(e)(4) to extend the pilot
program, which is scheduled to expire on January 27, 2012, to October
26, 2012.\4\ The pilot program exempts from

reporting to TRACE transactions in TRACE-Eligible Securities that are
executed on a facility of NYSE in accordance with NYSE Rules 1400, 1401
and 86 and reported to NYSE in accordance with NYSE's applicable trade
reporting rules and disseminated publicly by NYSE, provided that a data
sharing agreement between FINRA and NYSE related to transactions
covered by the Rule remains in effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54768 (November 16,
2006), 71 FR 67673 (November 22, 2006) (Order Approving Proposed
Rule Change; File No. SR-NASD-2006-110) (pilot program in FINRA Rule
6730(e)(4), subject to the execution of a data sharing agreement
addressing relevant transactions, became effective on January 9,
2007); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59216 (January 8, 2009),
74 FR 2147 (January 14, 2009) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change; File No. SR-FINRA-2008-065)
(pilot program extended to January 7, 2011); Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 63673 (January 7, 2011), 76 FR 2739 (January 14, 2011)
(Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change; File No. SR-FINRA-2011-002) (pilot program extended to July
8, 2011); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64665 (June 14, 2011),
76 FR 35933 (June 20, 2011) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change; File No. SR-FINRA-2011-025)
(pilot program extended to January 27, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA is proposing to extend the pilot program until October 26,
2012 to continue to exempt transactions in TRACE-Eligible Securities on
an NYSE facility (and as to which all the other conditions of the
exemption are met) from the TRACE reporting requirements.\5\ The
extension will provide additional time to analyze the impact of the
exemption. Without the extension, members would be subject to both
FINRA's and NYSE's trade reporting requirements with respect to these
securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The exemption in FINRA Rule 6730(e)(4) is conditioned, among
other things, upon a data sharing agreement between FINRA and NYSE
remaining in effect. A data sharing agreement between FINRA and NYSE
related to transactions covered by Rule 6730(e)(4) remains in
effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would not expand or otherwise change the
pilot. FINRA notes that the success of the pilot program remains
dependent on FINRA's ability to effectively continue to conduct
surveillance on corporate debt trading in the over-the-counter market.
In this regard, FINRA Rule 6730(e)(4) would continue to require that
the exemption be predicated on the data agreement between FINRA and
NYSE to share data related to the transactions covered by the Rule
remaining in effect. However, FINRA supports a regulatory construct
that, in the future, consolidates all last sale transaction information
to provide better price transparency and a more efficient means to
engage in market surveillance of TRACE-Eligible Securities
transactions. The extension proposed herein will allow the pilot
program to continue to operate without interruption while FINRA and the
NYSE continue to assess the effect of the exemption and issues
regarding the consolidation of market data, market surveillance and
price transparency.
    FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate
effectiveness. The implementation date will be January 27, 2012.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\6\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must 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. FINRA believes that the extension of the exemptive
provision protects investors and the public because transactions will
be reported, transparency will be maintained for these transactions,
and NYSE's agreement to share data with FINRA allows FINRA, at this
time, to conduct surveillance in the corporate debt securities market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \7\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to submit to the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has complied with this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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-FINRA-2011-072 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-2011-072. 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 the filing also will be available for inspection and
copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received
will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from submissions. You should submit only

information that you wish to make available publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2011-072 and
should be submitted on or before January 18, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-33217 Filed 12-27-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 148 (Thursday, August 5, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 42911]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16675]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-92532; File Nos. SR-NYSE-2021-05, SR-NYSENAT-2021-01,
SR-NYSEAMER-2021-04, SR-NYSECHX-2021-01]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; NYSE
National, Inc.; NYSE American LLC; NYSE Chicago, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proceedings To
Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Each of the Exchange's Co-Location Services and Fee Schedule To
Add Two Partial Cabinet Solution Bundles

July 30, 2021.
    On January 19, 2021, New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE National,
Inc., NYSE American LLC, and NYSE Chicago, Inc. each filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend the each
of the Exchanges' co-location rules to add two partial cabinet solution
bundles.\3\ The proposed rule changes were published for comment in the
Federal Register on February 5, 2021.\4\ On March 18, 2021, the
Commission extended the time period within which to approve each of the
proposed rule changes, disapprove the proposed rule changes, or
institute proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the
proposed rule changes, to May 6, 2021.\5\ On May 6, 2021, the
Commission instituted proceedings to determine whether to approve or
disapprove the proposed rule change.\6\ The Commission received a
comment letter on the proposal from the Exchanges.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ The New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE National, Inc., NYSE
Arca, Inc., NYSE American LLC, and NYSE Chicago, Inc. are
collectively referred to herein as ``NYSE'' or the ``Exchanges.''
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 91034 (February 1,
2021), 86 FR 8443 (SR-NYSE-2021-05); 91037 (February 1, 2021), 86 FR
8424 (SR-NYSENAT-2021-01); 91035 (February 1, 2021), 86 FR 8449 (SR-
NYSEAMER-2021-04); 91036 (February 1, 2021), 86 FR 8440 (SR-NYSECHX-
2021-01).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 91357, 86 FR 15732
(March 24, 2021) (SR-NYSE-2021-05); 91363, 86 FR 15763 (March 24,
2021) (SR-NYSENAT-2021-01); 91358, 86 FR 15732 (March 24, 2021) (SR-
NYSEAMER-2021-04); 91362, 86 FR 15765 (March 24, 2021) (SR-NYSECHX-
2021-01).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 91785 (May 6, 2021),
86 FR 26082 (May 12, 2021) (SR-NYSE-2021-05, SR-NYSENAT-2021-01, SR-
NYSEArca-2021-07, SR-NYSEAMER-2021-04, NYSECHX-2021-01).
    \7\ See, respectively, letter dated July 6, 2021 from Elizabeth
K. King, Chief Regulatory Officer, ICE, General Counsel and
Corporate Secretary, NYSE to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary,
Commission. All comments received by the Commission on the proposed
rule change are available on the Commission's website at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nyse-2021-05/srnyse202105.htm. NYSE filed
comment letters on behalf of all of the Exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \8\ provides that, after initiating
proceedings, the Commission shall issue an order approving or
disapproving the proposed rule change not later than 180 days after the
date of publication of notice of the filing of the proposed rule
change. The Commission may extend the period for issuing an order
approving or disapproving the proposed rule change, however, by not
more than 60 days if the Commission determines that a longer period is
appropriate and publishes the reasons for such determination. The
proposed rule changes were published for comment in the Federal
Register on February 5, 2021.\9\ The 180th day after publication of the
Notices is August 4, 2021. The Commission is extending the time period
for approving or disapproving the proposal for an additional 60 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \9\ See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer
period within which to issue an order approving or disapproving the
proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the
proposed rule changes along with the comment received. Accordingly, the
Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\10\ designates
October 3, 2021 as the date by which the Commission should either
approve or disapprove the proposed rule change (File Nos. SR-NYSE-2021-
05, SR-NYSENAT-2021-01, SR-NYSEAMER-2021-04, NYSECHX-2021-01).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier.
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-16675 Filed 8-4-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 105 (Friday, May 31, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 25252]
[FR Doc No: 2019-11366]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL19-8-002]

Notice of Filing: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Take notice that on May 10, 2019, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
(PJM), pursuant to the April 15, 2019 Order of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (Commission) 167 FERC 61,030, submitted a
compliance filing containing modifications to the Amended and Restated
Operating Agreement of PJM (Operating Agreement).
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible online at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 31, 2019.

    Dated: May 24, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-11366 Filed 5-30-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


P-18-0192 Sanitized Support Documents Index:
 P-18-0192 Sanitized Determination Document (linked)
 P-18-0192 Sanitized CHEM Report (attached)
 P-18-0192 Sanitized ECO Report (attached)
 P-18-0192 Sanitized ENG Report (attached)
 P-18-0192 Sanitized EXP Report (attached)
 P-18-0192 Sanitized Fate Report (attached)
 P-18-0192 Sanitized HLTH Report_POST-FOCUS FINAL (attached)


[Federal Register: October 30, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 209)]
[Notices]
[Page 61362-61363]
[DOCID:fr30oc07-46]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. CGD08-07-029]

Lower Mississippi River Waterways Safety Advisory Committee;
Vacancies

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Request for applications.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard seeks applications for membership on the Lower
Mississippi River Waterway Safety Advisory Committee. The Lower
Mississippi River Waterway Safety Advisory Committee advises and makes
recommendations to the Coast Guard on matters relating to navigation
safety on the Lower Mississippi River.

DATES: Application forms should reach us on or before December 14,
2007.

ADDRESSES: You may request an application form by writing U.S. Coast
Guard, Sector New Orleans, Attn: Waterways Management, 1615 Poydras
Street, New Orleans, LA 70112-2711 or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. Send
your application in written form to the above street address. A copy of
this notice and the application form are available in our online
docket, CGD08-07-029, at http://regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LTJG Tonya Harrington, Assistant to
Executive Director of Lower Mississippi River Waterway Safety Advisory
Committee at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Lower Mississippi River Waterway Safety
Advisory Committee (``Committee'') is a Federal advisory committee
under 5 U.S.C. App. (Pub. L. 92-463). This committee provides local
expertise on communication, surveillance, traffic control, anchorages,
aids to navigation and other topics relating to navigational safety on
the Lower Mississippi River to the Coast Guard.
    The Committee meets at least four times a year in the New Orleans
area. It may also meet for extraordinary purposes. Its subcommittees
and working groups may meet to consider specific problems as required.
    We will consider applications for twenty four positions that expire
or become vacant on May 30, 2008. To be eligible you should have
expertise in navigation safety, waterways management, vessel traffic
service and management, shipboard operations or facility operations.
Each member serves for a term of 2 years. A few members may serve
consecutive terms. All members serve at their own expense and receive
no salary, reimbursement of travel expenses, or other compensation from
the Federal Government.
    Vacancies to be filled are for:
    (1) Five members representing River Port Authorities between Baton
Rouge, Louisiana, and the Head of Passes of the Lower Mississippi
River, of which one member shall be from the Port of St. Bernard and
one member from the Port of Plaquemines.
    (2) Two members representing vessel owners or ship owners domiciled
in the State of Louisiana.
    (3) Two members representing organizations that operate harbor tugs
or barge fleets in the geographical area covered by the Committee.
    (4) Two members representing companies which transport cargo or
passengers on the navigable waterways in the geographical area covered
by the Committee.

    (5) Three members representing State Commissioned Pilot
organizations, with one member each representing the New Orleans/Baton
Rouge Steamship Pilots Association, and the Associated Branch Pilots
Association.
    (6) Two at-large members who utilize water transportation
facilities located in the geographical area coved by the Committee.
    (7) Three members representing consumers, shippers, or importers/
exporters that utilize vessels that utilize the navigable waterways
covered by the Committee.
    (8) Two members representing those licensed merchant mariners,
other than pilots, who perform shipboard duties on vessels which
utilize the navigable waterways covered by the Committee.
    (9) One member representing an organization that serves in a
consulting or advisory capacity to the maritime industry.
    (10) One member representing an environmental organization.
    (11) One member representing the general public.
    In support of the policy of the Coast Guard on gender and ethnic
diversity, we encourage qualified women and members of minority groups
to apply.
    If you are selected as a member who represents the general public,
we will require you to complete a Confidential Financial Disclosure
Report (OGE Form 450). We may not release the report or the information
in it to the public, except under an order issued by a Federal court or
as otherwise provided under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a).

    Dated: October 18, 2007.
J.H. Horn,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 8th Coast Guard District, Acting.
[FR Doc. E7-21304 Filed 10-29-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 77 (Friday, April 21, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 24614]
[FR Doc No: 2023-08480]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-10911-01-OA]

Small Community Advisory Subcommittee Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notification of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), EPA
herby provides notice of a meeting for the Local Government Advisory
Committee's (LGAC) Small Community Advisory Subcommittee (SCAS) on the
date and time described below. This meeting will be open to the public.
For information on public attendance and participation, please see the
registration information under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

DATES: The SCAS will meet virtually May 5th, 2023, from 12 p.m. through
1:15 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edlynzia Barnes, Designated Federal
Officer (DFO), at [email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Information on Accessibility: For information on access or services
for individuals requiring accessibility accommodations, please contact
Edlynzia Barnes by email at [email protected]. To request
accommodation, please do so five (5) business days prior to the
meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The SCAS will discuss the PFAS National
Drinking Water Proposal Standard and PFAS Risk Communication. An agenda
will be posted online (link below) prior to the meeting.
    Registration: The meeting will be held virtually through an online
audio and video platform. Members of the public who wish to participate
should register by contacting the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) at
[email protected] by April 28, 2023. The agenda and other
supportive meeting materials will be available online at https://www.epa.gov/ocir/small-community-advisory-subcommittee-scas and will be
emailed to all registered. In the event of cancellation for unforeseen
circumstances, please contact the DFO or check the website above for
reschedule information.

Edlynzia Barnes,
Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
[FR Doc. 2023-08480 Filed 4-20-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Prohibition Against Conflicts of Interest          75                25
 in Certain Securitizations...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  PRA Table 4--Requested Paperwork Burden for the New Collection of Information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Requested paperwork burden
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
           Collection of information              Securitization
                                                   participants        Burden hours          Cost burden ($)
                                                              (A)   (A) x 33 x (0.75)   (A) x 33 x (0.25) x $600
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prohibition Against Conflicts of Interest in                1,380              34,155                $6,831,000
 Certain Securitizations......................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Request for Comment

    We are using the above estimates for the purposes of calculating
reporting burdens associated with the re-proposed rule. Pursuant to 44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(B), we request comments in order to:
     Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information
would be necessary for the performance of the functions of the
Commission, including whether the information would have practical
utility;
     Evaluate the accuracy of our estimates of the burdens of
the proposed collection of information;
     Determine whether there are ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
     Evaluate whether there are ways to minimize the burden of
the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology; and
     Evaluate whether the proposed amendments would have any
effects on any other collection of information not previously
identified in this section.
    Any member of the public may direct to us any comments concerning
the accuracy of these burden estimates and any suggestions for reducing
these burdens. Persons submitting comments on the collection of
information requirements should direct them to the Office of Management
and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington,
DC 20503; and send a copy to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090,
with reference to File No. S7-01-23. Requests for materials submitted
to OMB by the Commission with regard to the collection of information
requirements should be in writing, refer to File No. S7-01-23 and be
submitted to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of
FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549. OMB is required
to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30
and 60 days after publication of this release. Consequently, a comment
to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it
within 30 days of publication.

V. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    For purposes of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996 (``SBREFA''),\255\ the Commission must advise OMB as to
whether the proposed amendments constitute a ``major'' rule. Under
SBREFA, a rule is considered ``major'' where, if adopted, it results in
or is likely to result in:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \255\ 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     An annual effect of the U.S. economy of $100 million or
more (either in the form of an increase or a decrease);
     A major increase in costs or prices for consumers or
individual industries; or
     Significant adverse effects on competition, investment, or
innovation.\256\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \256\ 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We request comment on whether the re-proposed rule would be a
``major'' rule for purposes of SBREFA. In particular, we request
comment and empirical data on:
     The potential effect on the U.S. economy on an annual
basis;
     Any potential increase in costs or prices for consumers or
individual industries; and
     Any potential effect on competition, investment, or
innovation.

VI. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA'') \257\ requires an agency,
when issuing a rulemaking proposal, to prepare and make available for
public comment an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (``IRFA'')
that describes the impact of the re-proposed rule on small
entities.\258\ We have prepared the following IRFA in accordance with
Section 3(a) of the RFA.\259\ It relates to proposed Rule 192 under the
Securities Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \257\ 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
    \258\ 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
    \259\ 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Reason for and Objections of the Proposed Action

    We are proposing Rule 192 to implement Section 27B of the
Securities Act. The re-proposed rule seeks to prevent the sale of ABS
that are tainted by material conflicts of interest by prohibiting
securitization participants from engaging in certain transactions that
could incentivize a securitization participant to structure an ABS in a
way that would put the securitization participant's interests ahead of
those of ABS investors. The re-proposed rule also provides a standard
for determining which types of transactions would be prohibited so that
activities that are routinely undertaken in connection with the
securitization process or with respect to the types of financial assets
underlying securitizations covered by the re-proposed rule that do not
give rise to the risks that Section 27B was intended to address would
not be unnecessarily restricted. The requirements of the re-proposed
rule are discussed in more detail in Section II above. We discuss the
economic impact and potential alternatives to the re-proposed rule in
Section III above, and the estimated compliance costs and burdens of
the re-proposed rule under the PRA in Section IV above.

B. Legal Basis

    The re-proposed rule is being proposed under authority set forth in
in Sections 10, 17(a), 19(a), 27B, and 28 of the Securities Act.

C. Small Entities Subject to Proposed Rule 192

    The re-proposed rule would affect some small entities--such as
municipal entities, small broker-dealers, and RIAs that advise hedge
funds--that would be ``sponsors'' for purposes of the re-proposed
rule.\260\ The RFA defines ``small entity'' to mean ``small business,''
``small organization,'' or ``small governmental jurisdiction.'' \261\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \260\ We preliminarily believe that the re-proposed rule would
not affect small entities other than those that would be a
``sponsor'' for purposes of the re-proposed rule.
    \261\ 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For purposes of the RFA, under 17 CFR 230.157 and 17 CFR 240.0-
10(a), an issuer, other than an investment company, is a ``small
business'' or ``small organization'' if it had total assets of $5
million or less on the last day of its most recent fiscal year and is
engaged or proposing to engage in an offering of securities not
exceeding $5 million. We estimate that no sponsors of private-label ABS
would meet the definition of ``small entity'' applicable to issuers.
    A municipal entity is a small entity for purposes of the RFA (i.e.,
a ``small government jurisdiction'') if it is a city, county, town,
township, village, school district, or special district, with a
population of less than fifty thousand.\262\ We estimate that, of the
478 municipal entities who act as sponsors of ABS, between 75 and 104
would meet the definition of small entity applicable to municipal
entities.\263\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \262\ 5 U.S.C. 601(5).
    \263\ We analyzed calendar year 2021 data from the Mergent
Municipal Bond Securities Database to determine the scope and
characteristics of the issuers of municipal ABS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A broker-dealer is a small entity if it has 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 17 CFR 240.17a-5(d), or, if not required to
file such statements, had total capital of less than $500,000 on the
last business day of the preceding fiscal year (or in the time that it
has been a business, if shorter); and it is not affiliated with any
person (other than a natural person) that is not a small business or
small organization.\264\ We estimate that one sponsor that is a broker-
dealer would meet the applicable definition of small entity.\265\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \264\ See 17 CFR 240.0-10.
    \265\ We evaluated all ABS sponsors for the period of Jan. 2021
through Dec. 2021 to determine whether their characteristics and
affiliations (as described in FOCUS data and other disclosures)
would result in their being ``small entities'' for purposes of
Section 605 of the RFA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    RIAs other than broker-dealers that advise hedge funds and
municipal advisors that advise with respect to municipal
securitizations, could also qualify as a ``sponsor'' under the re-
proposed rule. A RIA is a small entity if it: (i) has assets under
management having a total value of less than $25 million; (ii) did not
have total assets of $5 million or more on the last day of its most
recent fiscal year; and (iii) does not control, is not controlled by,
and is not under common control with another investment adviser that
has assets under management of $25 million or more, or any person
(other than a natural person) that had total assets of $5 million or
more on the last day of its most recent fiscal year.\266\ We estimate
that, of the RIAs that advise hedge funds, up to 17 would be a small
entity as defined for investment advisers.\267\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \266\ See 17 CFR 275.0-7(a).
    \267\ Based on Form ADV data, we estimate that only 17 RIAs that
advise hedge funds, representing 0.7% of all RIAs advising hedge
funds, would be a small entity as defined by Rule 0-7(a) of the
Investment Advisers Act of 1940. See Definitions of ``Small
Business'' or ``Small Organization'' Under the Investment Company
Act of 1940, the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and the Securities Act of 1933, Release Nos.
33-7548, 34-40122, IC-23272, and IA-1727 (June 24, 1998) [63 FR
35508 (June 30, 1998)]. Furthermore, we believe that not all 17 of
those RIAs act as sponsors of ABS transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate that there are 112 municipal advisors who would be
sponsors of ABS for purposes of the re-proposed rule.\268\ There is no
Commission definition regarding when a municipal advisor is a small
entity. In adopting rules relating to municipal advisors, the
Commission has used the

Small Business Administration's definition of small business for
municipal advisors.\269\ The Small Business Administration defines
small business for purposes of entities that provide financial
investment and related activities as a business that had annual
receipts of less than $7 million during the preceding fiscal year and
is not affiliated with any person that is not a small business or small
organization.\270\ Based on this definition, a majority of municipal
advisors would be small businesses. In the MA Adopting Release, the
Commission estimated that approximately 62% of municipal advisors would
be small entities; therefore, we estimate that 69 would be small
entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \268\ Mergent Municipal Bond Securities Database. We note that
some municipal advisors are broker-dealers and/or RIAs.
    \269\ See Registration of Municipal Advisors, Release No. 34-
70462 (Sep. 20, 2013) [78 FR 67468 (Nov. 12, 2013)] (``MA Adopting
Release'').
    \270\ See 13 CFR 121.201.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This results in a Commission estimate of 162 to 191 small entities
that could be impacted by the re-proposed rule.

D. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements

    If adopted, the re-proposed rule would apply to small entities to
the same extent as other entities, irrespective of size. Therefore, we
expect that most of the benefits and costs associated with the re-
proposed rule would be similar for large and small entities.
Accordingly, we refer to the discussion of the re-proposed rule's
economic effects on all affected parties, including small entities, in
Section III above. Consistent with that discussion, we anticipate that
the economic benefits and costs could vary widely among small entities
based on a number of factors, such as the nature and conduct of their
businesses, which makes it difficult to project the economic impact on
small entities with precision. We note, however, that the similarity of
certain proposed exceptions to the re-proposed rule to the Volcker Rule
might be more beneficial to larger entity securitization participants
(e.g., banking entities and affiliated broker-dealer entities) due to
their familiarity with the Volcker Rule. Conversely, as discussed above
in Sections II.B.3. and III.D.2., compliance with the re-proposed rule
might be more costly for large and diversified securitization
participants that have an extensive network of affiliates and
subsidiaries. As a general matter, we also recognize that costs of the
re-proposed rule potentially could have a proportionally greater effect
on small entities, as such costs may be a relatively greater percentage
of the total cost of operations for smaller entities than larger
entities, and thus small entities might be less able to bear such costs
relative to larger entities.
    Compliance with the re-proposed rule might require the use of
professional skill, including legal skills. We request comment on how
the re-proposed rule would affect small entities.

E. Duplicative, Overlapping, or Conflicting Federal Rules

    We have not identified any Federal rules that currently duplicate,
overlap, or conflict with the re-proposed rule. We request comment on
whether commenters perceive any such duplication, overlap, or conflict
if the re-proposed rule is adopted and, if so, how we should address
any such duplication, overlap, or conflict.

F. Significant Alternatives

    The RFA directs us to consider alternatives that would accomplish
our stated objectives, while minimizing any significant adverse impact
on small entities. In connection with the proposed amendments, we
considered the following alternatives:
     Establishing different compliance requirements that take
into account the resources available to small entities;
     Delaying the implementation of compliance requirements for
small entities to take into account the resources available to them;
     Exempting small entities from all or part of the
requirements;
     Using performance rather than design standards; and
     Clarifying, consolidating, or simplifying compliance and
reporting requirements under the rules for small entities.
    The re-proposed rule seeks to prevent the sale of ABS that are
tainted by material conflicts of interest by prohibiting securitization
participants from engaging in certain transactions that could
incentivize a securitization participant to structure an ABS in a way
that would put the securitization participant's interests ahead of
those of ABS investors. We believe that all ABS investors should be
protected from securitization participants entering into conflicted
transactions, and exempting small entities from the re-proposed rule's
prohibition, establishing different compliance requirements for small
entities, or delaying the implementation of the compliance requirements
for small entities could frustrate that goal by protecting only ABS
investors in transactions with respect to which the relevant
securitization participants are larger entities. We do not believe that
imposing different standards or requirements based on the size of the
securitization participant would be appropriate, and doing so might
result in additional costs associated with ascertaining whether a
particular securitization participant may avail itself of such
different standards. For these reasons, we are not proposing differing
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables, or an exception,
for small entities. For the same reasons we do not believe it would be
appropriate to impose different standards or requirements based on the
size of the securitization participant, we do not believe that the
implementation of compliance requirements for small entities should be
delayed. We request comment below whether the implementation of
compliance requirements for small entities should be delayed. Section
II.B. above includes specific requests for comment on whether certain
categories of securitization participants should be exempted from the
re-proposed rule.
    We do not believe that clarifying, consolidating, or simplifying
the compliance requirements under the re-proposed rule would permit us
to achieve our stated objective. We have sought to create a clear,
consolidated, and simple regulatory framework as we believe appropriate
under the circumstances. With respect to using performance rather than
design standards, the prohibition of the re-proposed rule is a
performance standard that would prohibit a securitization participant
from entering into a conflicted transaction during the covered time-
period. Although the proposed bona fide market-making activities and
risk-mitigating hedging activities exceptions do include design
standards, we believe that those design standards would promote the
objective of the re-proposed rule while still providing flexibility to
securitization participants to design compliance programs that are
tailored to their specific business models. Sections II.E. and II.G.
above include specific requests for comment on whether smaller
securitization participants should be exempted from the proposed
compliance program requirements applicable to the bona fide market-
making activities and risk-mitigating hedging activities exceptions,
and if so, how ``smaller securitization participant'' should be defined
for purposes of any such exemption.

G. Request for Comment

    We encourage the submission of comments with respect to any aspect
of the IRFA. In particular, we request comment regarding:

     The number of small entities that may be affected by the
re-proposed rule;
     The existence or nature of the potential impact of the re-
proposed rule on small entities discussed in the analysis;
     How the re-proposed rule could further lower the burden on
small entities by, for example, exempting small entities from
compliance requirements applicable to such entities or delaying the
implementation of compliance requirements for such entities; and
     How to quantify the impact of the re-proposed rule.
    Commenters are asked to describe the nature of any impact and
provide empirical data supporting the extent of the impact. Comments
will be considered in the preparation of the Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, if the re-proposed rule is adopted, and will be
placed in the same public file as comments on the re-proposed rule
itself.

Statutory Authority

    The Commission is proposing new 17 CFR 230.192 under the authority
set forth in Sections 10, 17(a), 19(a), 27B, and 28 of the Securities
Act.

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 230

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.

Text of Proposed Amendments

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Commission is
proposing to amend title 17, chapter II of the Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:

PART 230--GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS, SECURITIES ACT OF 1933

0
1. The general authority citation for part 230 continues to read in
part as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77b, 77b note, 77c, 77d, 77f, 77g, 77h,
77j, 77r, 77s, 77z-3, 77sss, 78c, 78d, 78j, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o, 78o-
7 note, 78t, 78w, 78ll(d), 78mm, 80a-8, 80a-24, 80a-28, 80a-29, 80a-
30, and 80a-37, and Pub. L. 112-106, sec. 201(a), sec. 401, 126
Stat. 313(2012), unless otherwise noted.

0
2. Add Sec.  230.192 to read as follows:

Sec.  230.192  Conflicts of interest relating to certain
securitizations.

    (a) Unlawful activity. (1) Prohibition. A securitization
participant shall not, for a period commencing on the date on which a
person has reached, or has taken substantial steps to reach, an
agreement that such person will become a securitization participant
with respect to an asset-backed security and ending on the date that is
one year after the date of the first closing of the sale of such asset-
backed security, directly or indirectly engage in any transaction that
would involve or result in any material conflict of interest between
the securitization participant and an investor in such asset-backed
security.
    (2) Material conflict of interest. For purposes of this section,
engaging in any transaction would involve or result in a material
conflict of interest between a securitization participant for an asset-
backed security and an investor in such asset-backed security if such a
transaction is a conflicted transaction.
    (3) Conflicted transaction. For purposes of this section, a
conflicted transaction means any of the following transactions with
respect to which there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable
investor would consider the transaction important to the investor's
investment decision, including a decision whether to retain the asset-
backed security:
    (i) A short sale of the relevant asset-backed security;
    (ii) The purchase of a credit default swap or other credit
derivative pursuant to which the securitization participant would be
entitled to receive payments upon the occurrence of specified credit
events in respect of the relevant asset-backed security; or
    (iii) The purchase or sale of any financial instrument (other than
the relevant asset-backed security) or entry into a transaction through
which the securitization participant would benefit from the actual,
anticipated or potential:
    (A) Adverse performance of the asset pool supporting or referenced
by the relevant asset-backed security;
    (B) Loss of principal, monetary default, or early amortization
event on the relevant asset-backed security; or
    (C) Decline in the market value of the relevant asset-backed
security.
    (b) Excepted activity. The following activities are not prohibited
by paragraph (a) of this section:
    (1) Risk-mitigating hedging activities. (i) Permitted risk-
mitigating hedging activities. Risk-mitigating hedging activities of a
securitization participant conducted in accordance with this paragraph
(b)(1) in connection with and related to individual or aggregated
positions, contracts, or other holdings of the securitization
participant arising out of its securitization activities, including the
origination or acquisition of assets that it securitizes, except that
the initial distribution of an asset-backed security is not risk-
mitigating hedging activity for purposes of paragraph (b)(1) of this
section.
    (ii) Conditions. Risk-mitigating hedging activities are permitted
under paragraph (b)(1) of this section only if:
    (A) At the inception of the hedging activity and at the time of any
adjustments to the hedging activity, the risk-mitigating hedging
activity is designed to reduce or otherwise significantly mitigate one
or more specific, identifiable risks arising in connection with and
related to identified positions, contracts, or other holdings of the
securitization participant, based upon the facts and circumstances of
the identified underlying and hedging positions, contracts or other
holdings and the risks and liquidity thereof;
    (B) The risk-mitigating hedging activity is subject, as
appropriate, to ongoing recalibration by the securitization participant
to ensure that the hedging activity satisfies the requirements set out
in paragraph (b)(1) of this section and does not facilitate or create
an opportunity to benefit from a conflicted transaction other than
through risk-reduction; and
    (C) The securitization participant has established, and implements,
maintains, and enforces, an internal compliance program that is
reasonably designed to ensure the securitization participant's
compliance with the requirements set out in paragraph (b)(1) of this
section, including reasonably designed written policies and procedures
regarding the risk-mitigating hedging activities that provide for the
specific risk and risk-mitigating hedging activity to be identified,
documented, and monitored.
    (2) Liquidity commitments. Purchases or sales of the asset-backed
security made pursuant to, and consistent with, commitments of the
securitization participant to provide liquidity for the asset-backed
security.
    (3) Bona fide market-making activities. (i) Permitted bona fide
market-making activities. Bona fide market-making activities, including
market-making related hedging, of the securitization participant
conducted in accordance with this paragraph (b)(3) in connection with
and related to asset-backed securities with respect to which the
prohibition in paragraph (a)(1) of this section applies, the assets
underlying such asset-backed securities, or financial instruments that
reference such asset-backed securities or underlying assets, except
that the initial distribution of an asset-backed security is not bona
fide market-making activity for purposes of paragraph (b)(3) of this
section.
    (ii) Conditions. Bona fide market-making activities are permitted
under paragraph (b)(3) of this section only if:
    (A) The securitization participant routinely stands ready to
purchase and sell one or more types of the financial

instruments described in paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section as a part
of its market-making related activities in such financial instruments,
and is willing and available to quote, purchase and sell, or otherwise
enter into long and short positions in those types of financial
instruments, in commercially reasonable amounts and throughout market
cycles on a basis appropriate for the liquidity, maturity, and depth of
the market for the relevant types of financial instruments;
    (B) The securitization participant's market-making related
activities are designed not to exceed, on an ongoing basis, the
reasonably expected near term demands of clients, customers, or
counterparties, taking into account the liquidity, maturity, and depth
of the market for the relevant types of financial instruments described
in paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section;
    (C) The compensation arrangements of persons performing the
foregoing activity are designed not to reward or incentivize conflicted
transactions;
    (D) The securitization participant is licensed or registered to
engage in the activity described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section in
accordance with applicable law and self-regulatory organization rules;
and
    (E) The securitization participant has established, and implements,
maintains, and enforces, an internal compliance program that is
reasonably designed to ensure the securitization participant's
compliance with the requirements of paragraph (b)(3) of this section,
including reasonably designed written policies and procedures that
demonstrate a process for prompt mitigation of the risks of its market-
making positions and holdings.
    (c) Definitions. For purposes of this section:
    Asset-backed security has the same meaning as in section 3(a)(79)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(79)), and also
includes synthetic asset-backed securities and hybrid cash and
synthetic asset-backed securities.
    Distribution means:
    (i) An offering of securities, whether or not subject to
registration under the Securities Act of 1933, that is distinguished
from ordinary trading transactions by the presence of special selling
efforts and selling methods; or
    (ii) An offering of securities made pursuant to an effective
registration statement under the Securities Act of 1933.
    Initial purchaser means a person who has agreed with an issuer to
purchase a security from the issuer for resale to other purchasers in
transactions that are not required to be registered under the
Securities Act in reliance upon 17 CFR 230.144A or that are otherwise
not required to be registered because they do not involve any public
offering.
    Placement agent and underwriter each mean a person who has agreed
with an issuer or selling security holder to:
    (i) Purchase securities from the issuer or selling security holder
for distribution;
    (ii) Engage in a distribution for or on behalf of such issuer or
selling security holder; or
    (iii) Manage or supervise a distribution for or on behalf of such
issuer or selling security holder.
    Securitization participant means:
    (i) An underwriter, placement agent, initial purchaser, or sponsor
of an asset-backed security; or
    (ii) Any affiliate (as defined in 17 CFR 230.405) or subsidiary (as
defined in 17 CFR 230.405) of a person described in paragraph (i) of
this definition.
    Sponsor means:
    (i) Any person who organizes and initiates an asset-backed
securities transaction by selling or transferring assets, either
directly or indirectly, including through an affiliate, to the entity
that issues the asset-backed security; or
    (ii) Any person:
    (A) with a contractual right to direct or cause the direction of
the structure, design, or assembly of an asset-backed security or the
composition of the pool of assets underlying the asset-backed security;
or
    (B) that directs or causes the direction of the structure, design,
or assembly of an asset-backed security or the composition of the pool
of assets underlying the asset-backed security.
    (C) Notwithstanding paragraphs (ii)(A) and (ii)(B) of this
definition, a person that performs only administrative, legal, due
diligence, custodial, or ministerial acts related to the structure,
design, or assembly of an asset-backed security or the composition of
the pool of assets underlying the asset-backed security will not be a
sponsor for purposes of this rule.
    (iii) Notwithstanding paragraphs (i) and (ii) of this definition:
    (A) The United States or an agency of the United States will not be
a sponsor for purposes of this rule with respect to an asset-backed
security that is fully insured or fully guaranteed as to the timely
payment of principal and interest by the United States.
    (B) The Federal National Mortgage Association or the Federal Home
Loan Mortgage Corporation operating under the conservatorship or
receivership of the Federal Housing Finance Agency pursuant to section
1367 of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness
Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 4617) with capital support from the United
States; or any limited-life regulated entity succeeding to the charter
of either the Federal National Mortgage Association or the Federal Home
Loan Mortgage Corporation pursuant to section 1367(i) of the Federal
Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 (12
U.S.C. 4617(i)), provided that the entity is operating with capital
support from the United States; will not be a sponsor for purposes of
this rule with respect to an asset-backed security that is fully
insured or fully guaranteed as to the timely payment of principal and
interest by such entity.
    (d) Anti-circumvention. If a securitization participant engages in
a transaction that circumvents the prohibition in paragraph (a)(1) of
this section, the transaction will be deemed to violate paragraph
(a)(1) of this section.

    By the Commission.

    Dated: January 25, 2023.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-02003 Filed 2-13-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


1 PART A OF THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT 1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 1( a) Title and Number of the Information Collection " NSPS Subparts AA and AAa: Steel Plants: Electric Arc furnaces and Decarburization Vessels" This is an amendment to the existing information collection request ( ICR No. 1060.10).

The Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) has assigned this revision to the ICR the tracking number 1060.11.

1( b) Short Characterization The EPA is amending the national standards of performance for new stationary sources ( NSPS) for electric arc furnaces ( EAF)

constructed after October 21, 1974, and on or before August 17,

1983 ( 40 CFR 60 subpart AA), and the NSPS for EAF constructed after August 17, 1983 ( 40 CFR 60 subpart AAa). Changes to both rules are being made to add alternative requirements for the monitoring of EAF emissions control systems in response to a petition to reopen the NSPS received from the American Iron and Steel Institute (" AISI"), the Specialty Steel Industry of North America(" SSINA"), and the Steel Manufacturers Association (" SMA"), who will be jointly referred to as " the Industry." The changes will not remove any of the rules' requirements, but will add alternative monitoring options that will provide owners and operators more flexibility in complying with the rules while not reducing environmental benefit.

These amendments will add bag leak detection coupled with daily shop opacity observations as an alternative to continuous opacity monitoring.

2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION 2 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection The EPA is charged under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act,

as amended, to establish standards of performance for new stationary sources that reflect:

. . . application of the best technological system of continuous emissions reduction which ( taking into consideration the cost of achieving such emissions reduction, or any nonair quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated [ Section 111( a)( l)].

The Agency refers to this charge as selecting the best demonstrated technology ( BDT). Section 111 also requires that the Administrator review and, if appropriate, revise such standards every four years. In addition, Section 114( a) states that:

. . . . the Administrator may require any owner or operator subject to any requirement of this Act to ( A) establish and maintain such records, ( B) make such reports, ( C) install,

use, and maintain such monitoring equipment or methods ( in accordance with such methods at such locations, at such intervals, and in such manner as the Administrator shall prescribe), and ( D) sample such emissions, ( E) Keep records on control equipment parameters, production variables or other indirect data when direct monitoring of emissions is impractical, ( F) submit compliance certifications, and ( G)

provide such other information as he may reasonably require.

In the Administrator's judgment, particulate matter emissions from steel plants subject to NSPS Subparts AA and AAa cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Therefore,

NSPS were promulgated for this source category. 3 The control of emissions of particulate matter from steel plants subject to NSPS Subparts AA and AAa requires not only the installation of properly designed equipment, but also the operation and maintenance of that equipment. Emissions of particulate matter from steel plants are the result of operation of the electric arc furnaces, argon oxygen decarburization vessels, and dust handling systems. These standards rely on the capture and reduction of particulate matter emissions by hoods and fabric filters.

In order to ensure compliance with these standards, adequate recordkeeping is necessary. In the absence of such information enforcement personnel would be unable to determine whether the standards are being met on a continuous basis, as required by the Clean Air Act.

2( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data The additional information will be used by Agency enforcement personnel to: 1) ensure that the standards are being properly applied; and 2) ensure that emission control devices are being properly operated and maintained to reduce emissions from furnaces.

The records and reports are necessary to enable the EPA to identify facilities that may not be in compliance with the standard. Based on reported information, the EPA can decide which facilities should be subject to inspection or enforcement action. The records that facilities maintain indicate to the EPA whether plant personnel are employing adequate standard operational procedures and whether they are operating and maintaining control equipment properly.

3. NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA 4 3( a) Nonduplication Certain reports required by State or local agencies may duplicate information required by the standards ( e. g., records of annual lead performance tests). In such cases, a copy of the report submitted to the State or local agency may be sent in luie of, or as a part of, the report required by the standards.

3( b) Public Notice required prior to ICR Submission to OMB A public review and comment period will occur after publication of the amendment to the NSPS for EAF.

3( c) Consultations The EPA is amending the NSPS for EAF based on a petition to reopen the NSPS received from the Industry. The Industry argues that COMS are not capable of accurately monitoring opacity emissions from an EAF shop at the three percent excess emissions threshold level and that the EAF NSPS should be amended to address the " technological shortcomings" associated with COMS,

and suggested a number of alternative monitoring options,

including the one being proposed today.

3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection The reports are being required on a semi annual basis. If the relevant information were collected less frequently, the EPA would not be reasonably assured that a plant is in compliance with the standards. In addition, the EPA's authority to take administrative action would be significantly reduced.

3( e) General Guidelines 5 None of the general information collection guidelines in 5 CFR 1230.5( d)( 2) of the OMB regulations implementing the Paperwork Reduction Act is being exceeded.

3( f) Confidentiality All information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in Title 40, Chapter 1, Part 2, Subpart B Confidentiality of Business Information ( see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 39999, September 8,

1978; 43 FR 42251, September 28, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23,

1979).

3( g) Sensitive Questions This section is not applicable because this ICR does not involve matters of a sensitive nature. 6 4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED 4( a) Respondents/ SIC codes The respondents are owners or operators of steel electric arc furnaces built after October 21, 1974. Steel electric arc furnaces are included under two digit SIC Code 33  Primary Metal Industries. Other industries listed in this SIC code are not respondents to the ICR.

4( b) Information requested ( i) Data items, including recordkeeping requirements Attachment 1, Source Data Information Requirements,

summarizes the additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements resulting from the amendment.

( ii) Respondent activities Additional respondent activities for sources affected by the NSPS are shown for each of the first three years following promulgation of the amendment in the first column of Table 1. It was estimated that one additional source per year will become subject to the standard in the next three years.

5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 5( a) Agency Activities The only activities that the Federal government will be required to perform are associated with the review of reported 7 information and observation of performance tests. However, these activities are already included in the existing ICR, and no increase will occur due to the new alternative monitoring requirements.

5( b) Collection Methodology and Management Information contained in the periodic reports submitted to the EPA will be reviewed for accuracy and completeness. Data obtained during periodic visits by EPA personnel form records maintained by the respondents will be tabulated and published for internal use in compliance and enforcement programs.

5( c) Small Entity Flexibility Steel plants with electric arc furnaces are not small businesses.

5( d) Collection Schedule The specific frequency for each new information collection activity within this request is shown in Attachment 1.

6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION 6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden The annual burden estimates for the additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements are presented in Table 1. For consistency, the number of affected sources ( 90) and the number of new sources ( 1/ year) used in estimating burden for the current ICR ( ICR No. 1060.10) were used in estimating the burden for the additional requirements.

The amended NSPS adds new alternative monitoring requirements to the existing monitoring requirements. If an 8 owner or operator chooses to use the alternative monitoring requirements, they will incur additional recordkeeping and reporting burden. This request identifies the net increase in recordkeeping and reporting burden to the industry assuming 30 percent of affected sources will choose to implement the alternative monitoring requirements.

The option being added would allow owners and operators to perform bag leak detection coupled with daily visible emission observations of shop opacity in lieu of installing and operating a COMS. If an owner or operator selects this option, they will incur additional recordkeeping and reporting burden. This increase would be partially offset by a decrease in recordkeeping and reporting burden since owners and operators would no longer be required to install and operate a COMS. The net average annual burden to industry over the next three years from these new recordkeeping and reporting requirements is estimated at 1,750 person hours. The respondent costs have been calculated on the basis of $ 16.67 per hour plus 110 percent overhead. The increased average annual burden to industry over the next three years due to the new requirements is estimated to be $ 61,267.50.

6( b) Estimating Respondent Costs If owners or operators elect to use the alternative monitoring option they will need to purchase and install and maintain bag leak detection systems. However, the annualized costs of these systems will be more than offset by annualized savings resulting from no longer having to maintain and replace the existing COMS. As such, there is no increase to the estimated total capital costs and total annual operating and maintenance costs for emission monitoring.

6( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost 9 Because the information collection requirements were estimated as an incidental part of the standard development, no Agency costs can be attributed to the development of the information collection requirements. Publication and distribution of the information are part of the Aerometric Information Retrieval System, with the result that no Federal costs can be directly attributed to the ICR. Examination of records to be maintained by the respondents will occur incidentally as a part of the periodic inspection of sources that is part of the EPA's overall compliance and enforcement program and is not attributable to this ICR. The only costs that the Federal government will incur are costs associated with the review of reported information and observation of performance tests. However, these costs are already included in the existing ICR, and no increase will occur due to the new alternative monitoring requirements.

6( d) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs/ Master Tables ( i) Respondent Tally The bottom line respondent burden hours and costs, presented in Table 1, are calculated by adding person hours per year down each column, and by summing down the labor cost column. For the industry as a whole, assuming that 30 percent of facilities choose the alternative monitoring requirements, the increase in hours are 1,750 and cost is $ 61,267.50. The total burden,

including existing requirements, is estimated at 50,163 hours at a cost of $ 1,755,705.

Total estimated annualized costs for the reporting and recordkeeping burden and total annualized capital/ startup costs are reported on the OMB 83 I form. There is no increase to the total estimated annualized costs for the reporting and recordkeeping burden as a result of the new alternative 10 monitoring requirements. Total annualized capital/ startup costs ( including existing requirements) are estimated at $ 28,000.

Annual operation and maintenance costs were estimated at $ 67,000 nationwide, or $ 744 per facility.

( ii) The Agency Tally No change in agency burden will occur due to the alternative monitoring requirements being added.

( iv) Variations in the Annual Bottom Line This section does not apply since no significant variation is anticipated.

6( e) Reason for Change in Burden The change in estimated burden results from new alternative monitoring requirements being added in response to a petition to reopen the NSPS received from the Industry. The changes will not remove any of the rules' requirements, but will add alternative monitoring options that will provide owners and operators more flexibility in complying with the rules while not reducing environmental benefit. If an owner or operator chooses to use the alternative monitoring requirements, they will incur additional recordkeeping and reporting burden.

6( g) Burden Statement The annual increase to monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting burden for this collection is estimated at 1,750 labor hours at a total cost of $ 61,267.50 nationwide ( assuming 10 sources select the alternative monitoring requirements), and the annual average increase in burden is 175 labor hours and 11 $ 6,126.75 per source. This estimate includes the costs of operating the bag leak detection system, performing daily shop opacity observations. This estimate also includes offsetting burden associated with no longer being required to operate the COMS. The total annual monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting burden ( including the existing requirements) is estimated at is estimated at 50,163 hours at a total cost of $ 1,755,705 nationwide. The annual average burden is 557 labor hours and $ 19,507 per source.

There will be no increase in annualized capital/ startup costs as a result of the new alternative monitoring requirements.

Total annualized capital/ startup costs ( including existing requirements) are estimated at $ 28,000. Annual operation and maintenance costs were estimated at $ 67,000 nationwide, or $ 744 per facility.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,

install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;

search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

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. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15. 12 Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, OIC Collection Strategies Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( 2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,

Washington, DC 20460; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Include the EPA ICR number 1060.11 and OMB control number 2060 0038 in any correspondence. 13 TABLE 1. ANNUAL BURDEN OF ADDITIONAL REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS NSPS SUBPARTS AA AND AAa Item ( A) Hours/ Occurence ( B) Occurrences/ Respondent/

Year ( C= AxB) Hours/ Respondent/

Year ( D) Respondents/

Yeara ( E= CxD) Hours/

Year ( F) Cost/

Yearb 1. APPLICATIONS Not applicable 2. SURVEYS AND STUDIES Not applicable 3. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS A. Read Instructions B. Required Activities Daily emissions monitoring C. Create Information D. Gather Existing Information E. Write Report Report of excess emissions or unacceptable conditions No change in burden due to additional requirementsc Included in 4E Included in 3B Included in 3D No change in burden due to additional requirementsc, d 4. RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS A. Read Instructions B. Plan Activities C. Implement Activities D. Develop Record System No change in burden due to additional requirementsc Included in 3B Included in 3D Not applicable 14 E. Time to Enter Information + Records of daily shop opacity readings e  Decrease in burden due to no longer operating COMg + Increase in burden due to operating BLDSh 0.5  0.5 + 0.5 350f 350 350 175 175 175 10 10 10 1,750  1,750 1,750 61,267.5  61,267.5 61,267.5 F. Train Personnel G. Audits Not applicable Not applicable 15 TABLE 1. ANNUAL BURDEN OF ADDITIONAL REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS NSPS SUBPARTS AA AND AAa ( Continued)

Item ( A) Hours/ Occurence ( B) Occurrences/ Respondent/

Year ( C= AxB) Hours/ Respondent/

Year ( D) Respondents/

Yeara ( E= CxD) Hours/

Year ( F) Cost/

Yearb TOTAL ANNUAL BURDEN 1,750 61,267.50 a Assume an average of 1 new plant per year or 3 new plants over the next 3 years; yielding an average total of 65 potential respondents per year. Assume 1/ 2 are currently using COM, and 30% of those respondents will choose to use alternative monitoring options; yielding 10 respondents per year.

b Assume an hourly wage of $ 16.67 plus 110% overhead costs which equals $ 35.01.

This amount was multiplied by the hours per year in Column E.

c The additional monitoring requirements will not increase the burden for this activity.

d The existing ICR assumed that all respondents will have at least one incident of excess emissions per reporting period. Therefore, no new reports will be needed.

e Daily opacity readings include readings by a certified visible emissions observer. Visible emissions observations should be taken for at least three 6 minute periods during a day of operation, and the opacity should be recorded for any point( s) where visible emissions are observed.

f Assume facilities operate 350 days per year.

g Continuous opacity Monitoring ( COM) will no longer be required for owners and operators who elect the alternative monitoring option.

h Includes operation and maintainence of the bag leak detection system ( BLDS) including the time required to respond to alarms. The time required to repaid any leaks found is included in the existing ICR. 16 ATTACHMENT 1 ADDITIONAL SOURCE DATA AND INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS Requirements Regulation Perform daily opacity observations by a certified observer 60.273( c) and 60.273a( c)

Install, maintain, and operate bag leak detection system 60.273( e) and 60.273a( e)

Maintain records of bagleak detection system alarms 60.276( e) and 60.276a( e)