MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for the Supplemental Notice for the Proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; and, in the Alternative, Proposed Standards of Performance for New and Existing Stationary Sources Electric Utility Steam Generating Units FROM: Frederick J. Thompson, Group Leader Source Measurement Analysis Group ( D243 02)

TO: Robert Wayland, ( Acting) Group Leader Combustion Group ( C439 01)

At your request, the Emission Measurement Center ( EMC) conducted searches and reviews to address the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act ( NTTAA) requirements on the use of voluntary consensus standards ( VCS). The NTTAA directs EPA to use VCS in regulatory and procurement activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impracticable. This memorandum documents the results of the EMC searches and reviews to determine if VCS are available and practical for use in lieu of stationary source methods cited in the Supplemental Notice for the Proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants ( SNP NESHAP; and, in the Alternative, Proposed Standards of Performance for New and Existing Stationary Sources ( NSPS) Electric Utility Steam Generating Units.

In 1998, the EMC began implementing the requirements of the NTTAA by conducting searches to identify VCS. Searches continue to be performed to meet the requirements of the NTTAA. While we have made a reasonable effort to identify and evaluate potentially practical VCS, our findings do not necessarily represent all potential alternative standards which may exist.

The EMC participates in the American Society for Testing and Materials ( ASTM), which is one of the most active VCS organizations on emissions testing, and has been invited to participate in the USA Technical Advisory Group for International Organization for Standardization ( ISO) relating to emissions monitoring. We expect these additional efforts will help us to support a periodic review of all EPA reference methods and performance standards for possible incorporation by reference ( IBR) of VCS in lieu of or as alternatives to EPA procedures. 2 We anticipate that these activities will provide an opportunity for further review, consideration and possible IBR of VCS overlooked in the National Standards Service Network ( NSSN) searches or finalized after work group closure in the EPA rulemaking process.

We conducted searches for the SNP NESHAP and, in the Alternative, Proposed NSPS for Electric Utility Steam Generating Units through the Enhanced NSSN Database managed by the American National Standards Institute ( ANSI). We also contacted VCS organizations, and accessed and searched their databases. Searches were conducted for EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 6, 6A, 6C, 7, 7A, 7C, 7D, 7E, 19, 20, 324; ASTM D6784 02, " Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle Bound and Total Mercury Gas Generated from Coal Fired Stationary Sources ( Ontario Hydro Method);" and EPA Performance Specifications 2 and 12A. No VCS were identified for EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F, 2G, 7D, 19, 324, and ASTM D6784 02. Please see the attached tables for a detailed summary of our findings.

The attached tables describe the VCS found, which EPA standard reference method( s) the VCS potentially affects, if the VCS is equivalent to the EPA standard reference method, and EPA's comments after review of the standard. During the search, if the title or abstract ( if provided) of the VCS described technical sampling and analytical procedures that are similar to EPA's reference method, the EMC ordered a copy of the standard and reviewed it as a potential equivalent method. All potential standards were reviewed to determine the practicality of the VCS for this rule. This review requires significant method validation data which meets the requirements of EPA Method 301 for accepting alternative methods or scientific, engineering and policy equivalence to procedures in EPA reference methods. The EMC may reconsider determinations of impracticality when additional information is available for particular VCS.

One voluntary consensus standard was identified as an acceptable alternative for EPA methods cited in this proposed rule. The voluntary consensus standard ASME PTC 19 10 1981 Part 10, " Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses," is cited in this rule for its manual method for measuring the oxygen, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxide content of exhaust gas. These parts of ASME PTC 19 10 1981 Part 10 are acceptable alternatives to EPA Methods 3B, 6, 6A, 7, 7C, and 20 ( sulfur dioxide only).

In addition, ASTM D6784 02, " Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle Bound and Total Mercury Gas Generated from Coal Fired Stationary Sources ( Ontario Hydro Method), is cited in this rule as an alternative analytical technique for mercury for samples taken using EPA Method 324.

The search identified 15 other VCS that were potentially applicable to this proposed rule in lieu of EPA reference methods. After reviewing the available standards, EPA determined that 13 of the 15 candidate VCS ( ASME PTC 19 10 1981 Part 10, ASTM D3154 00, ASTM D3464 96 ( 2001), ASTM D5835 95 ( 2001), ASTM D6522 00, CAN/ CSA Z223.2 M86 ( 1999), CAN/ CSA Z223.26 M1987, EN 13211 ( 2001), ISO 10396: 1993, ISO 10780: 1994, ISO 3 10849: 1996, ISO 12039: 2001, prEN 14884 ( draft January 2004)) identified for measuring emissions of the HAP or surrogates subject to emission standards in the rule would not be practical due to lack of equivalency, documentation, validation data and other important technical and policy considerations. These 13 methods are listed in Attachment 1, along with the EPA review comments. Two of the 15 candidate VCS ( ASME/ BSR MFC 12M, ASME/ BSR MFC 13M ) are new standards under development. These two methods are listed in Attachment 2, along with the EPA review comments.

I hope our research into this matter has been useful and timely to your Group's efforts in this rulemaking. Please contact me at ( 919) 541 2707 with any further questions in this matter.

Attachments cc: Bill Maxwell, ESD ( C439 01), w/ attachments John Bosch, EMC ( D243 02) Mike Ciolek, EMC ( D243 02), w/ attachments William Grimley, EMC ( D243 02), Conniesue Oldham, EMC ( D205 02), w/ attachments Peter Tsirigotis, EMAD ( C304 02)

OAQPS/ EMAD/ SMAG/ MCIOLEK/ lalston/ D243 02/ 541 4921/ 03 05/ 04 FILE # _______________ DOC NAME: __________________________ 1 Attachment 1. List of Voluntary Consensus Standards Not Applicable to the Supplemental Notice for the Proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; and, in the Alternative,

Proposed Standards of Performance for New and Existing Stationary Sources Electric Utility Steam Generating Units SIMILAR EPA STANDARD REFERENCE METHOD VOLUNTARY CONSENSUS STANDARD EPA'S COMMENTS ON VOLUNTARY CONSENSUS STANDARD EPA Methods 1, 2, 2C, 3, 3B, 4 ASTM D3154 00  Standard Method for Average Velocity in a Duct ( Pitot Tube Method) This standard appears to cover EPA's Part 60 Methods 1, 2, 2C, 3, 3B, 4, but lacks in quality control and quality assurance requirements. Specifically,

ASTM D3154 00 does not include the following: 1)

proof that openings of standard pitot tube have not plugged during the test; 2) if differential pressure gauges other than inclined manometers ( e. g.,

magnehelic gauges) are used, their calibration must be checked after each test series; and 3) the frequency and validity range for calibration of the temperature sensors.

EPA Method 2 ASTM D3464 96 ( 2001)  Standard Test Method Average Velocity in a Duct Using a Thermal Anemometer The applicability specifications in this ASTM standard are not clearly defined, e. g., range of gas composition,

temperature limits. Also, the lack of supporting quality assurance data for the calibration procedures and specifications, and certain variability issues that are not adequately addressed by the standard limit EPA's ability to make a definitive comparison of the method in these areas.

EPA Method 2 ISO 10780: 1994  Stationary Source Emissions Measurement of Velocity and Volume Flowrate of Gas Streams in Ducts ISO 10780: 1994 recommends the use of an L shaped pitot, which historically has not been recommended by EPA. The EPA specifies the S type design which has large openings that are less likely to plug up with dust. SIMILAR EPA STANDARD REFERENCE METHOD VOLUNTARY CONSENSUS STANDARD EPA'S COMMENTS ON VOLUNTARY CONSENSUS STANDARD 2 EPA Methods 3A, 6C, 7A, 7B, 7E,

20 ( nitrogen oxides and oxygen) ASME PTC 19 10 1981 Part 10 Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses This standard includes manual and instrumental methods of analyses for carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide, nitrogen oxides,

oxygen, and sulfur dioxide. The VCS method analytes that include one or more of the same instrumental techniques as the EPA methods required in this rule are as follows: carbon dioxide [ 3A]; nitrogen oxides [ 7A, 7B, 7E, 20], oxygen [ 3A, 20]; sulfur dioxide [ 6C]. For the standard's instrumental procedures, only general descriptions of the procedures are included which are not true methods. Therefore, while some of the manual methods are acceptable alternatives to the corresponding EPA methods, the instrumental procedures are not. SIMILAR EPA STANDARD REFERENCE METHOD VOLUNTARY CONSENSUS STANDARD EPA'S COMMENTS ON VOLUNTARY CONSENSUS STANDARD 3 EPA Methods 3A, 6C, 7E, 20 ( nitrogen oxides and oxygen parts only) ISO 10396: 1993  Stationary Source Emissions: Sampling for the Automated Determination of Gas Concentrations This standard is similar to EPA Methods 3A, 6C,

7E, 10, 20 ( nitrogen oxides and oxygen parts only),

ALT 004, CTM 022, but lacks in detail and quality assurance/ quality control requirements.

Specifically, ISO 10396 does not include the following: 1) sensitivity of the method;

2) acceptable levels of analyzer calibration error;

3) acceptable levels of sampling system bias; 4)

zero drift and calibration drift limits, time span, and required testing frequency; 5) a method to test the interference response of the analyzer; 6) procedures to determine the minimum sampling time per run and minimum measurement time; 7) specifications for data recorders, in terms of resolution ( all types)

and recording intervals ( digital and analog recorders, only). This standard is also very similar to ASTM D5835. SIMILAR EPA STANDARD REFERENCE METHOD VOLUNTARY CONSENSUS STANDARD EPA'S COMMENTS ON VOLUNTARY CONSENSUS STANDARD 4 EPA Methods 3A and 20 ( oxygen portion only) ISO 12039: 2001  Stationary Source Emissions Determination of Carbon Monoxide, Carbon Dioxide, and Oxygen Automated Methods This method is similar to EPA Methods 3A, 10,

and 20 ( oxygen portion only). However,

ISO 12039 is missing some key features. In terms of sampling, the hardware required by ISO 12039 does not include a 3 way calibration valve assembly or equivalent to block the sample gas flow while calibration gases are introduced. In its calibration procedures, ISO 12039 only specifies a two point calibration while the EPA methods specify a 3 point calibration. Also, ISO 12039 does not specify performance criteria for calibration error, calibration drift, or sampling system bias tests, although checks of these quality control features are required by the ISO standard. In addition, ISO 12039 does not include procedures for removal of CO 2 when CO is being tested, as in EPA Method 10. SIMILAR EPA STANDARD REFERENCE METHOD VOLUNTARY CONSENSUS STANDARD EPA'S COMMENTS ON VOLUNTARY CONSENSUS STANDARD 5 EPA Methods 3A, 6C, 7E, 20 ( nitrogen oxides and oxygen parts only), ASTM D5835 95 ( 2001)  Standard Practice for Sampling Stationary Source Emissions for Automated Determination of Gas Concentration This standard is similar to EPA Methods 3A, 6C,

7E, 10, 20 ( nitrogen oxides and oxygen parts only),

ALT 004, CTM 022, but lacks in detail and quality assurance/ quality control requirements.

Specifically, ASTM D5835 95 does not include the following: 1) sensitivity of the method;

2) acceptable levels of analyzer calibration error; 3)

acceptable levels of sampling system bias; 4) zero drift and calibration drift limits, time span, and required testing frequency; 5) a method to test the interference response of the analyzer; 6) procedures to determine the minimum sampling time per run and minimum measurement time; 7) specifications for data recorders, in terms of resolution ( all types)

and recording intervals ( digital and analog recorders, only). This standard is also very similar to ISO 10396.

EPA Methods 3A; 7E; 20 ( nitrogen oxides and oxygen parts only) ASTM D6522 00  Standard Test Method for the Determination of Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon Monoxide, and Oxygen Concentrations in Emissions from Natural Gas Fired Reciprocating Engines, Combustion Turbines, Boilers and Process Heaters Using Portable Analyzers ASTM D6522 has been determined to be technically appropriate for identifying nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and oxygen concentrations when the fuel is natural gas. SIMILAR EPA STANDARD REFERENCE METHOD VOLUNTARY CONSENSUS STANDARD EPA'S COMMENTS ON VOLUNTARY CONSENSUS STANDARD 6 EPA Methods 3A, 6C, 7E, 20 ( nitrogen oxides and oxygen parts only) CAN/ CSA Z223.2 M86 ( 1999)  Method for the Continuous Measurement of Oxygen, Carbon Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, Sulphur Dioxide, and Oxides of Nitrogen in Enclosed Combustion Flue Gas Streams This standard is unacceptable as a substitute for EPA Methods 3A, 6C, 7E, 10, 10A, and 20 ( nitrogen oxides and oxygen parts only), since it does not include quantitative specifications for measurement system performance, most notably the calibration procedures and instrument performance characteristics. The instrument performance characteristics that are provided are nonmandatory and also do not provide the same level of quality assurance as the EPA methods. For example, the zero and span/ calibration drift is only checked weekly, whereas the EPA methods requires drift checks after each run. SIMILAR EPA STANDARD REFERENCE METHOD VOLUNTARY CONSENSUS STANDARD EPA'S COMMENTS ON VOLUNTARY CONSENSUS STANDARD 7 EPA Method 324 EN 13211 ( 2001)  Air Quality

Stationary Source Emissions

Determination of the Concentration of Total Mercury EN 13211 is not acceptable as an alternative to the mercury portion of EPA Method 29 and 101A primarily because it is not validated for use with impingers, as in the EPA method, although the method describes procedures for the use of impingers. This European standard is validated for the use of fritted bubblers only and requires the use of a side ( split) stream arrangement for isokinetic sampling because of the low sampling rate of the bubblers ( up to 3 liters per minute, maximum).

Also, only two bubblers ( or impingers) are required by EN 13211, whereas EPA Method 29 and 101A require the use of six impinges. In addition, EN 13211 does not include many of the quality control procedures of EPA Method 29 and 101A, especially for the use and calibration of temperature sensors and controllers,

sampling train assembly and disassembly, and filter weighing. SIMILAR EPA STANDARD REFERENCE METHOD VOLUNTARY CONSENSUS STANDARD EPA'S COMMENTS ON VOLUNTARY CONSENSUS STANDARD 8 EPA Method 324 CAN/ CSA Z223.26 M1987

Measurement of Total Mercury in Air Cold Vapour Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometeric Method This standard is not acceptable as an alternative to EPA Methods 101A and 324, for the cold vapor atomic absorption spectrometry ( CVAAS) analytical procedures only, because of lack of detail in quality control. Specifically, CAN/ CSA Z223.26 does not include specifications for the number of calibration samples to be analyzed, procedures to prevent carryover from one sample to the next, and procedures for subtraction of the instrument response to calibration blank as in the EPA methods. Also, CAN/ CSA Z223.26 does not require that the calibration curve be forced through or close to zero ( or a point no further than ± 2 percent of the recorder full scale) as in the EPA methods. Also, CAN/ CSA Z223.26 does not include a procedure to assure that two consecutive peak heights agree within 3 percent of their average value and that the peak maximum is greater than 10 percent of the recorder full scale, as in the EPA methods. CAN/ CSA Z223.26 does not include instructions for a blank and a standard to be run at least every five samples, and specifications for the peak height of the blank and the standard as in the EPA methods. SIMILAR EPA STANDARD REFERENCE METHOD VOLUNTARY CONSENSUS STANDARD EPA'S COMMENTS ON VOLUNTARY CONSENSUS STANDARD 9 EPA Performance Specification 2 ( nitrogen oxide portion only) ISO 10849: 1996  Determination of the Mass Concentration of Nitrogen Oxides

Performance Characteristics of Automated Measuring Systems This standard is not acceptable as an alternative to EPA Performance Specification ( PS) 2 because it is missing key components included in the EPA PS, as follows: 1) the calibration drift performance specification of EPA PS 2 is not one of the main performance specifications of the VCS;

the allowable value for the drift is offered as a " guideline" in an " informative" appendix rather than in a required section of the standard . Also, the standard only requires that the calibration drift checks made only at " regular" intervals rather than the specified 24 hour checks of PS 2; 2) the standard does not specify the measurement locations and traverse points needed to obtain a representative sample for the performance tests; 3) no specifications are included for data recorder use or operation; 4) the high level values used to calibrate the CEMS in the standard are derived from the instrument scale and not the maximum potential emissions at the source, as in EPA PS 2; 5) the standards does not require moisture measurement or show how to correct results for moisture as in PS2, and does not show how to standardize to a specific diluent concentration ( e. g., 7 percent oxygen). SIMILAR EPA STANDARD REFERENCE METHOD VOLUNTARY CONSENSUS STANDARD EPA'S COMMENTS ON VOLUNTARY CONSENSUS STANDARD 10 EPA Performance Specification 12A prEN 14884 ( draft January 2004)  Air Quality Stationary Source Emissions B Determination of Total Mercury: Automated measuring Systems prEN 14884 ( draft 01/ 04) is not acceptable as an alternative to PS 12A because it is not specifically intended as a method for measurement of gaseous mercury. Also, prEN 14884 is missing some critical QA measures that are included in PS 12A. prEN 14884 also specifies using a linear regression of the reference method ( RM) and CEMS data to report CEMS results during normal operation, whereas EPA PS 12A uses the RM results as a quality control criteria for improper CEMS installation when the CEMS data is greater than 20 percent of the mean RM data or 10 percent of the applicable standard. Other deficiencies in this EN standard are as follows: ( 1) prEN 14884 only requires two ( zero and span)

of the three reference gas concentrations ( zero, mid level,

and high level) required by EPA PS 12A to determine the measurement error; ( 2) prEN 14884 is missing much of the detail of PS 12A as in, for example, the siting of the CEMS,

reference gas delivery system design, data recorder ranges and response, and correlation of the RM and CEMS stack conditions during RA tests; and ( 3) prEN 14884 does not require as many RM tests as EPA PS 12A and a shorter minimum sampling period. PrEN 14884 only requires 15 single tests as compared to the nine paired tests ( 18 total) in EPA PS 12A; prEN 14884 allows as little as 7.5 hours of sampling time ( with 8 to 10 hours recommended) as compared to the minimum of 18 hours sampling time in PS 12A. 1 Attachment 2. List of Voluntary Consensus Standards Not Final for the Supplemental Notice for the Proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; and, in the Alternative,

Proposed Standards of Performance for New and Existing Stationary Sources Electric Utility Steam Generating Units SIMILAR EPA STANDARD REFERENCE METHOD VOLUNTARY CONSENSUS STANDARD EPA'S COMMENTS ON VOLUNTARY CONSENSUS STANDARD EPA Method 2 ( possibly 1) ASME/ BSR MFC 13M  Flow Measurement by Velocity Traverse Under development when search was completed.

Possibly similar to EPA Methods 1 and 2.

EPA Method 2 ASME/ BSR MFC 12M  Flow in Closed Conduits Using Multiport Averaging Pitot Primary Flowmeters Under development when search was completed.

Possibly similar to EPA Method 2.


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 241 (Monday, December 16, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68462-68463]
[FR Doc No: 2019-27053]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2019-N-3077]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Obtaining Information
To Understand Challenges and Opportunities Encountered by Compounding
Outsourcing Facilities

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by January
15, 2020.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-New and
title ``Obtaining Information to Understand Challenges and
Opportunities Encountered by Compounding Outsourcing Facilities''. Also
include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of this
document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601
Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Obtaining Information To Understand Challenges and Opportunities
Encountered by Compounding Outsourcing Facilities

OMB Control Number 0910-NEW

    This information collection supports Agency-sponsored research.
Drug compounding is generally the practice of combining, mixing, or
altering ingredients of a drug to create a medication tailored to the
needs of an individual patient. Although compounded drugs can serve an
important medical need for certain patients when an approved drug is
not medically appropriate, they also present a risk to patients.
Compounded drugs are not FDA-approved. Therefore, they do not undergo
premarket review by FDA for safety, effectiveness, and quality. Since
compounded drugs are subject to a lower regulatory standard than
approved drugs, Federal law places conditions on compounding that are
designed to protect the public health.
    The Drug Quality and Security Act of 2013 created ``outsourcing
facilities''--a new industry sector of drug compounders held to higher
quality standards to protect patient health. Outsourcing facilities are
intended to offer a more reliable supply of

compounded drugs needed by hospitals, clinics, and other providers.
Five years since its creation, this domestic industry is still
relatively small and is experiencing growth and market challenges. In
addition, FDA continues to find concerning quality and safety problems
during inspections.
    To help this industry meet its intended function, FDA intends to
engage in several initiatives to address challenges and support
compliance and advancement. One initiative includes conducting in-depth
research to better understand challenges and opportunities encountered
by the outsourcing facility sector in a number of different areas.
These include: Operational barriers and opportunities related to the
outsourcing facility market and business viability; knowledge and
operational barriers and opportunities related to compliance with
federal policies and good quality drug production; and barriers and
opportunities related to outsourcing facility interactions with FDA.
    The results of this research will be used by FDA to develop a
comprehensive understanding of the outsourcing facility sector, its
challenges, and opportunities for advancement. The information will be
essential to help identify knowledge and information gaps, operational
barriers, and views on interactions with FDA. The research results will
inform FDA's future approaches to communication, education, training,
and other engagement with outsourcing facilities to address challenges
and support advancement.
    Researchers will engage pharmacists, staff, and management from
outsourcing facilities and similar compounding businesses. Researchers
may use surveys, interviews, and focus groups to obtain information
concerning challenges and opportunities encountered by outsourcing
facilities. Within this context, the following questions or similar,
related questions may be posed:
    1. What financial and operational considerations inform outsourcing
facility operational and business model decisions?
    2. What factors impact the development of a sustainable outsourcing
facility business?
    3. What financial and operational considerations inform outsourcing
facility product decisions?
    4. Do outsourcing facilities understand the federal legislative and
regulatory policies that apply to them? What, if any, knowledge gaps
need to be addressed?
    5. What challenges do outsourcing facilities face when implementing
federal Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP) requirements?
    6. How do outsourcing facilities implement quality practices at
their facilities?
    7. How is CGMP and quality expertise developed by outsourcing
facilities? How do they obtain this knowledge, and what training do
they need?
    8. What are the economic consequences of CGMP non-compliance/
product failures for outsourcing facilities?
    9. What are outsourcing facility management and staff views on
current interactions with FDA? How do they want the interactions to
change?
    10. What are outsourcing facilities' understanding of how to engage
with FDA during and following an inspection?
    In the Federal Register of July 29, 2019 (84 FR 36609), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. Although two comments were received, one was
not responsive to the four collection of information topics solicited
and therefore will not be discussed in this document. The other comment
included a number of suggested questions to expand upon the questions
posed in the 60-day notice and therefore can be considered ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be
collected. While the questions will not be included verbatim in our
survey instrument, FDA will give the questions due consideration as the
Agency proceeds with this study.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                     Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of
                              Activity                                  Number of      responses per     Total annual   Average  burden    Total hours
                                                                       respondents       respondent       responses      per  response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surveys, focus groups, and interviews..............................             300                2              600                1              600
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    We base our estimate of the average burden per response on review
activities familiar to the Agency.

    Dated: December 10, 2019.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-27053 Filed 12-13-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


However, unlike the case of applications for orders under the Advisers
Act where an applicant may have no prior experience with EDGAR and
therefore may bear some initial cost, managers, by virtue of the fact
that they are already filing Form 13F, are experienced in using the
EDGAR system. The proposed amendments would merely change the manner in
which a 13(f) Confidential Treatment Request is submitted, should a
filer choose to make such a request. While filers are likely to incur
some costs associated with the transition to an electronic process for
the submission of 13(f) Confidential Treatment Requests, we believe
these costs will be offset by the reduction in printing and delivery
costs currently associated with paper submissions.\145\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \145\ See infra footnote 187.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed amendments to Form 13F would also impose costs on
managers because they would have to modify their electronic filing
processes to, among other things, round dollar values on Form 13F to
the nearest dollar, to discontinue omitting the ``000'' for such
values, and to remove the character limits on the cover and summary
pages.\146\ In addition, managers may incur some costs to provide
additional identifying information, though we do not believe these
costs will be substantial because managers already have this
information available. We do not expect the costs associated with these
changes to be significant.\147\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \146\ See supra footnote 119.
    \147\ See supra footnote 134.

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

3. Efficiency, Competition, and Capital Formation
    Generally, because most of the proposed amendments simply
streamline filing processes, we do not expect these amendments to have
a significant effect on efficiency, competition, or capital formation.
Nonetheless, in this section, we discuss the effects of the proposed
amendments on efficiency, competition, and capital formation.
    As discussed above, the proposed amendments regarding applications
for orders under the Advisers Act could increase the speed at which the
public has access to these applications. To the extent that
applications for orders inform investors' decisions with respect to the
selection or retention of investment advisers, more timely access to
this information could result in more efficient decisions by investors
with respect to how they select their investment advisers.
    Similarly, as discussed above, the proposed technical amendments to
Form 13F requiring that dollar values be rounded to the nearest dollar,
that the ``000'' no longer be omitted, and the removal of character
limits should increase the accuracy and utility of the information
filed on Form 13F. In addition, the requirement that filers include
additional identifying information when filing Form 13F should increase
the usefulness of the information filed on Form 13F. To the extent the
more accurate and useful data available to the public informs
investment decisions, the information efficiency of the market may be
enhanced.

D. Reasonable Alternatives

    In formulating the proposed amendments, we considered several
alternatives to the proposed amendments that retain the central
requirement that filings that are currently filed on paper be filed
electronically, but they differ with respect to how the filings would
be made. This section discusses these alternatives.
1. Alternative Filing System for Advisers Act Orders
    The proposed amendments would require investment advisers to file
applications for orders under the Advisers Act on the Commission's
EDGAR system. Alternatively, the Commission could require investment
advisers to file applications through some other system. For example,
as noted in section III.A.1.a above, advisers who register with the
Commission do so through the IARD system rather than EDGAR. Thus,
filing through the IARD system would offer the potential benefit of
greater applicant familiarity with the filing system.
    While we acknowledge that some applicants may be more familiar with
the IARD system than EDGAR, we propose to make mandatory electronic
submissions of Advisers Act applications on EDGAR for several reasons.
First, we believe the cost to advisers would be relatively low because
we are proposing to assess no filing fees associated with these
submissions through EDGAR. Many advisers also likely have experience
submitting electronic filings via EDGAR because their managers may
already be required to submit Form 13F via EDGAR, reducing the costs
associated with setting up systems and processes to comply with the
amendments. Second, filing in EDGAR would allow for applications under
the Investment Company Act and the Advisers Act to be filed jointly,
reducing filing cost.
2. Alternative Filing System for 13(f) Confidential Treatment Requests
    The proposed amendments would require managers to file 13(f)
Confidential Treatment Requests on the Commission's EDGAR system.
Alternatively, the Commission could require that confidential treatment
requests be submitted electronically via a secure file transfer
service. Some managers were able to use such a service to submit their
confidential treatment requests to mitigate delays in receiving paper
filings during the events of COVID-19.\148\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \148\ See supra footnote 132.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Requiring submission via a secure file transfer service would have
the benefit that some managers may already be familiar with the process
of submitting filings using such a system based on their experience
over the last year. However, in light of the fact that all managers are
already familiar with the process of making filings on EDGAR, we
believe it would be less burdensome for managers to make 13(f)
Confidential Treatment Request filings on EDGAR as well.\149\
Additionally, because 13(f) Confidential Treatment Requests would be
viewable on the same system as a manager's public Form 13F filing, the
Commission would be able to review all of a manager's holdings
efficiently.\150\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \149\ See supra footnote 84.
    \150\ See supra text following footnote 82.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Single Form 13F Filing With Electronic Attachment
    Rather than requiring managers to file 13(f) Confidential Treatment
Requests electronically via EDGAR, we considered modifying existing
Form 13F in such a way that filers would list all reportable 13(f)
Securities on the form but indicate for which securities, if any, they
were seeking confidential treatment. Filers would indicate that they
were seeking confidential treatment for particular securities by
checking a box associated with a security and also indicating the
length of time for which they were seeking confidential treatment.
Securities for which the filer checked the box would not be visible to
public users of the EDGAR system. Filers requesting confidential
treatment would still be required to attach a confidential electronic
document in which they would indicate the type of confidential request
and provide factual support to enable the Commission to make an
informed judgment as to the merits of the request.
    This alternative of a single Form 13F filing offers the benefit of
slightly reducing the burden on the filer from filing multiple lists of
securities to filing a single list and potentially decreasing the time
between when a 13(f) Confidential Treatment Request is denied or
expires and the time when an amended Form 13F is filed publicly.
However, we believe that this approach would significantly increase the
risk of confidential information inadvertently being made public,
including by filers who complete the single form incorrectly.

E. Request for Comment

    The Commission requests feedback on any aspect of the above
economic analysis, including our description of the current economic
baseline, the potential costs and benefits of the proposed amendments,
their effect on efficiency, competition, and capital formation, and any
reasonable alternatives we should consider. In addition, we request
comment on the following aspect of the proposal:
    34. Would filers, investors, or other members of the public realize
any benefits if we required that applications for orders under the
Advisers Act be submitted in a structured data language, such as a
custom XML-based data language, rather than in ASCII or HTML? Please
explain why or why not. If so, are there certain data fields in
particular that would provide such benefits to filers, investors, and
other interested parties if submitted in a

structured data language? What costs would these parties incur if we
required such applications to be submitted using a structured data
language?

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The proposed rule and form amendments contain ``collections of
information'' within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(``PRA'').\151\ We are submitting the proposed collections of
information to the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') for review
in accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) and 5 CFR 1320.11. The titles for
the collections of information we are proposing to amend are: (i)
``Rule 0-4 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, General
Requirements of Papers and Applications'' (OMB Control No. 3235-0633);
(ii) ``Form 13F, Report of Institutional Investment Managers (pursuant
to sec. 13(f) of the Securities Exchange of 1934)'' (OMB Control No.
3235-0006); and, (iii) ``Rule 0-2 and Form ADV-NR under the Investment
Advisers Act of 1940'' (OMB Control No. 3235-0240). We are not
proposing to amend the collections of information entitled (i) ``Form
ID'' (OMB Control No. 3235-0328),\152\ or (ii) ``Form ADV'' (OMB
Control No. 3235-0049). 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \151\ 44 U.S.C. 3501 through 3521.
    \152\ The Commission estimates that each year only one applicant
for an order under any provision of the Advisers Act would need to
file a Form ID with the Commission in order to gain access to EDGAR.
Form ID is used to request the assignment of access codes to file on
EDGAR. Any applicant that has made at least one filing with the
Commission via EDGAR since 2002 has been entered into the EDGAR
system by the Commission and would not need to file Form ID in order
to file electronically on EDGAR. However, applicants that have never
made a filing with the Commission via EDGAR would need to file Form
ID. We estimate that only one applicant for an order under any
provision of the Advisers Act would need to file a Form ID with the
Commission each year in order to gain access to EDGAR. Thus, we
believe that the proposed amendments would not impose substantive
new burdens on the overall population of respondents or affect the
current overall cost estimates for Form ID. Therefore, we believe
that the current burden and cost estimates for Form ID remain
appropriate. Accordingly, we are not revising the current burden or
cost estimates for Form ID.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Amendments to Rule 0-4

    Rule 0-4 under the Advisers Act prescribes general instructions for
filing papers and applications under the Advisers Act with the
Commission. The proposed amendments to rule 0-4 would require that
every application for an order under any provision of the Advisers Act,
for which a form with instructions is not specifically prescribed, and
every amendment to such application be electronically filed pursuant to
Regulation S-T.\153\ The proposed amendments to rule 0-4 would
eliminate the requirements to have verifications of applications and
statements of facts made in connection with applications notarized
\154\ and would eliminate the requirement that applications include
proposed notices as exhibits to applications.\155\ In addition, the
proposed amendments to rule 0-4 would specify that paper submissions
should be addressed to the Secretary of the Commission,\156\ remove the
reference to microfilming \157\ and clarify the wording related to
duplicate original copies of paper applications.\158\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \153\ Proposed rule 0-4(b).
    \154\ See rule 0-4(d) [17 CFR 275.0-4(d)].
    \155\ See rule 0-4(g) [17 CFR 275.0-4(g)].
    \156\ Proposed rule 0-4(a).
    \157\ Proposed rule 0-4(b).
    \158\ Proposed rule 0-4(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Respondents to the collection of information are applying for
orders of the Commission exempting them from one or more provisions of
the Advisers Act. The requirements of rule 0-4 are designed to provide
Commission staff with the necessary information to assess whether
granting the orders of exemption is necessary and appropriate, in the
public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the
intended purposes of the Act. This collection of information is
necessary in order to obtain or retain benefits. Responses will not be
kept confidential.
    Applicants for orders under the Advisers Act file applications as
they deem necessary. Applicants can include registered investment
advisers, affiliated persons of registered investment advisers and
entities seeking to avoid investment adviser status, among others. The
Commission estimates that it receives seven initial applications per
year submitted under rule 0-4 of the Advisers Act.\159\ Although some
applications are submitted on behalf of multiple applicants, these
applicants in the vast majority of cases are related entities and are
treated as a single respondent for purposes of this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \159\ See e.g., 17 CFR 275.206(4)-5(e) (providing that the
Commission may, upon application, exempt an adviser from certain of
the rule's restrictions, and providing a non-exclusive list of
factors the Commission will consider when evaluating these
applications).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Burden Estimate for Rule 0-4
    Most of the work of preparing an application is performed by
outside counsel and, therefore, imposes no internal hourly burden on
the respondents.\160\ We do not believe that our proposed amendments
would change the burden on applicants. Likewise, we do not believe that
our proposed amendments would change the number of such applications
that are filed annually. Therefore, because there will continue to be
no internal hourly burden we believe that the current initial and
annual hour burdens for such applications remain appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \160\ Nevertheless, the Commission continues to estimate one
burden annual hour for administrative purposes. See Supporting
Statement for ``Rule 0-4 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940,
General Requirements of Papers and Applications'' (OMB Control No.
3235-0633).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are, however, proposing to decrease the external costs
associated with the existing collection of information for rule 0-4 to
reflect the proposed amendments.\161\ The proposed amendments would
eliminate the requirement to notarize applications. The notary service
is typically provided by a secretary or similar administrative employee
of the applicant or the outside counsel preparing the application and
represents a negligible hour or cost burden to the applicant, so
elimination of the notarization requirement would reduce the cost
burden only a small amount. However, we believe that these cost savings
would be offset by the costs associated with transitioning to an
electronic submission process, such as updating policies and
procedures, recordkeeping methods and time spent learning to use the
IARD system. The proposed amendments would require that paper
submissions under rule 0-4 be addressed to the Secretary of the
Commission, remove the reference to microfilming \162\ and clarify the
wording related to duplicate original copies of paper applications.
These amendments decrease the applicant's cost burden. However, we
believe that these cost savings would also be offset by the time and
costs associated with transitioning to an electronic submission
process. The proposed amendments would also eliminate the requirement
that applicants include proposed notices as exhibits to applications. A
proposed notice is a summary of the statements in the application.
Based on staff experience, we believe that preparation of the proposed
notice by outside counsel represents approximately 1% of the cost of
preparing an application.\163\ We estimate that the total reduction in

the external costs would be approximately $4,091.\164\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \161\ We most recently estimated the annual cost burden to
applicants of filing all applications to be $392,500.
    \162\ Proposed rule 0-4(b).
    \163\ See 2008 IC Applications Release, supra footnote 15.
    \164\ The total external cost reduction of 1% would amount to
$4,091 given the estimated distribution of all applications: ($141 x
3) + ($483 x 3) + ($2,219 x 1) = $4,091. See Table 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 3 below summarizes the proposed cost burden estimates to
applicants applying for exemptive relief under proposed rule 0-4.

                                                                         Table 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Current        Estimated       Estimated                                  Estimated
                                                                external cost   reduction in    external cost                Number of     external cost
                                       Types of applications     burden per     external cost    burden per                applications     burden per
                                                                 filing \1\          \2\           filing                       \3\         filing type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adviser Act Exemptive Applications..  Well Precedented            \4\ $14,182          $(141)         $14,041  x                       3         $42,123
                                       Applications.
                                      Medium Complexity                48,282           (483)          47,799                          3         143,397
                                       Applications.
                                      High Complexity                 221,909         (2,219)         219,690                          1         219,690
                                       Applications.
                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total estimated annual external cost           405,210
                                                                                burden for Advisers Act Applications
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\1\ Based on conversations with applicants and attorneys, the cost for applications ranges from approximately $14,182 for preparing a well-precedented,
  routine (or otherwise less involved) application, $48,282 for preparing medium complex applications and approximately $221,909 to prepare a complex or
  novel application.
\2\ We estimate that preparation of the proposed notice by outside counsel represents approximately 1% of the cost of preparing an application.
\3\ We estimate that the Commission annually receives three of the well-precedented applications, three applications of medium complexity, and one high
  complexity applications.
\4\ The cost outside counsel charges applicants depends on the complexity of the issues covered by the application and the time required. Based on
  conversations with applicants and attorneys, the cost for applications ranges from approximately $14,182 for preparing a well-precedented, routine (or
  otherwise less involved) application to approximately $221,909 to prepare a complex or novel application. $48,282 is the median between $14,182 and
  $221,909. Supporting Statement for ``Rule 0-4 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, General Requirements of Papers and Applications'' (OMB
  Control No. 3235-0633). We have adjusted these numbers to reflect changes in prices from the 2019 estimates based on the U.S. Bureau of Labor
  Statistic's CPI Inflation calculator. We estimate that the Commission receives one of the most time-consuming applications annually, three
  applications of medium complexity, and three of the least complex applications subject to rule 0-4. There are no ongoing expenses.

B. Amendment to Form ADV-NR

    Rule 0-2 under the Advisers Act establishes procedures by which a
person may serve process, pleadings, or other papers on a non-resident
investment adviser, or on a non-resident general partner or non-
resident managing agent of an investment adviser.\165\ Under Rule 0-2,
persons who wish to serve the above-referenced parties may do so by
furnishing the Commission with one copy of the papers that are to be
served along with one copy for each named party.\166\ The Secretary
will promptly forward a copy to each named party by registered or
certified mail. If the Secretary certifies that the rule was followed,
the certification constitutes evidence of service of process under Rule
0-2. Form ADV-NR is required to be submitted by an investment adviser's
non-resident general partner and non-resident managing agent in
connection with the adviser's initial Form ADV submission or within 30
days of becoming a non-resident after the investment adviser submits
its initial Form ADV.\167\ The proposed amendments would require an
investment adviser's non-resident general partners and non-resident
managing agents to file Form ADV-NR electronically through IARD.\168\
As part of the proposed amendments, the IARD would be modified to
permit non-resident general partners and non-resident managing agents
to meet this filing requirement electronically without the need for
specialized software or hardware. In addition, IARD would not charge a
separate fee for filing the Form ADV-NR or accessing the filing system
apart from what IARD charges for filing Form ADV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \165\ 17 CFR 275.0-2.
    \166\ 17 CFR 275.0-2.
    \167\ 17 CFR 279.4, 17 CFR 297.1.
    \168\ See proposed Form ADV-NR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The respondents to this information collection would be each non-
resident general partner or non-resident managing agent of an SEC-
registered investment adviser and each non-resident general partner or
non-resident managing agent of an exempt reporting adviser. This
collection of information is mandatory. Responses are not kept
confidential. The collection of information is necessary to provide
appropriate consent to permit the Commission and other parties to bring
actions against non-resident partners and managing agents for
violations of the federal securities laws and to enable the
commencement of legal and/or regulatory actions against investment
advisers that are doing business in the United States, but are not
residents.
1. Burden Estimate for Form ADV-NR

    We estimate that proposed changes to the filing of ADV-NR would
require an average of one hour to complete, the same as our current
internal burden estimate. The currently approved collection of
information burden in Form ADV-NR is 53 hours, which is based on our
prior estimate of 53 annual responses at 1 hour per response. During
2018 to 2020 period, a total of 147 registered investment advisers and
exempt reporting advisers filed reports with the Commission that
included a Form ADV-NR, for an average of 49 filed reports per
year.\169\ Accordingly, we estimate that, based on the change in the
estimate of number of filers of Form ADV-NR, the annual aggregate
information collection burden for Form ADV-NR will be 49 hours, a
decrease of 4 hours under the currently approved burden of 53 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \169\ The number of Form ADV-NRs filed between 2018 and 2020
were as follows: 2020, 5 filings; 2019, 53 filings; and, 2018, 89
filings. Three year average: (5 + 53 + 89)/3 = 49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An adviser would likely use a combination of compliance clerks and
general clerks to complete Form ADV-NR and file it with the Commission
through IARD. The Commission staff estimates the hourly wage for
compliance clerks to be $71 per hour, including benefits,\170\ and the
hourly wage for general clerks to be $63 per hour, including
benefits.\171\ For each burden hour, compliance clerks would perform an
estimated 0.75 hours, and general clerks also would perform an
estimated 0.25 hours. The total cost per response therefore would be an
estimated $69,\172\ for a total burden cost of $3,381.\173\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \170\ Data from the SIFMA Office Salaries in the Securities
Industry 2013 report, modified by Commission staff to account for a
1,800-hour work-year and inflation, and multiplied by 2.93 to
account for bonuses, firm size, employee benefits and overhead,
suggest that the cost for a compliance clerk is approximately $71
per hour.
    \171\ Data from the SIFMA Office Salaries in the Securities
Industry 2013 report, modified by Commission staff to account for a
1,800-hour work-year and inflation, and multiplied by 2.93 to
account for bonuses, firm size, employee benefits and overhead,
suggest that the cost for a general clerk is approximately $63 per
hour.
    \172\ (0.75 hours per compliance clerk x $71) + (0.25 hours per
general clerk x $63) = $69.
    \173\ $69 per adviser x 49 advisers = $3,381.

 Table 4--Summary of the Aggregate Annual Number of Investment Advisers, Time Burden, and Monetized Time Burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Previously
                           Description                               Requested       approved         Change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of registered investment advisers and exempt reporting                 49              53             (4)
 advisers who filed Form ADV-NR.................................
Time burden (hours).............................................              49              53             (4)
Monetized Time Burden (Dollars) \1\.............................          $3,381          $3,657          $(276)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:
\1\ See supra footnotes 173-176 and accompanying text.

C. Form ADV and Rule 203-1

    Form ADV is the investment adviser registration form and exempt
reporting adviser reporting form filed electronically with the
Commission pursuant to rules 203-1 (17 CFR 275.203-1), 204-1 (17 CFR
275.204-1) and 204-4 (17 CFR 275.204-4) under the Advisers Act by
advisers registered with the Commission or applying for registration
with the Commission or by exempt reporting advisers filing reports with
the Commission. Rule 203-1 under the Advisers Act requires every person
applying for investment adviser registration with the Commission to
file Form ADV.\174\ The paperwork burdens associated with rules 203-1,
204-1, and 204-4 are included in the approved annual burden associated
with Form ADV and thus do not entail separate collections of
information. These collections of information are found at 17 CFR
275.203-1, 275.204-1, 275.204-4 and 279.1 (Form ADV itself) and are
mandatory. Responses are not kept confidential.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \174\ Rule 204-4 under the Advisers Act requires certain
investment advisers exempt from registration with the Commission
(``exempt reporting advisers'') to file reports with the Commission
by completing a limited number of items on Form ADV. Rule 204-1
under the Advisers Act requires each registered and exempt reporting
adviser to file amendments to Form ADV at least annually, and
requires advisers to submit electronic filings through IARD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are proposing to amend the instructions to Form ADV and rule
203-1 to require an investment adviser's non-resident general partner
and non-resident managing agents to file Form ADV-NR electronically
through IARD. As discussed above, the collection of information is
necessary for us to obtain appropriate consent to permit the Commission
and other parties to bring actions against non-resident partners and
agents for violations of the federal securities laws and to enable the
commencement of legal and/or regulatory actions against investment
advisers that are doing business in the United States, but are not
residents.\175\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \175\ See section IV.B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We do not believe that the proposed amendments to Form ADV or rule
203-1 would change the burden on investment advisers' application for
registration with the Commission. Likewise, we do not believe that our
proposed amendments would change the number of such registrations that
are filed annually. Therefore, we believe that the current burden and
cost estimates for Form ADV remain appropriate. Accordingly, we are not
revising the current burden or cost estimates for Form ADV.

D. Amendments to Form 13F

    In our most recent PRA submission for Form 13F, we estimated a
total hour burden of 472,521.6 hours, with an internal cost burden of
$31,186,425.60, and with no annual external cost burden.\176\ In the
2020 Form 13F Proposal, the Commission expressed its belief that these
estimates do not appropriately reflect the information collection costs
associated with Form 13F.\177\ The Commission also noted that the
current burden estimates assume that the same number of hours and costs
are necessary to prepare and file Form 13F-HR and the abbreviated Form
13F-NT filings, even though reports on Form 13F-HR would involve
greater burdens.\178\ This results in a current overestimation of the
costs associated with filing Form 13F-NT. Therefore, the Commission
proposed to revise the current PRA burdens associated with filing Form
13F and requested comment on whether the revised estimates accurately
reflected the PRA burdens associated with filing Form 13F.\179\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \176\ This estimate is based on the last time the rule's
information collection was submitted for PRA renewal in 2018.
    \177\ See 2020 Form 13F Proposal, supra footnote 4 (explaining
that the current burden estimates for Form 13F assume that all of
the functions are carried out by a compliance clerk, whereas we
understand that additional professionals are typically involved. The
current burden estimates also do not include external costs for
third-party vendors, which we understand many managers use in
connection with their filings on Form 13F, or external legal
counsel, who may provide advice in connection with the form's
reporting requirements or actual or potential 13F Confidential
Treatment Requests).
    \178\ See supra footnote 98 (explaining the difference between
Form 13F-HR and Form 13F-NT).
    \179\ The Commission did not revise the burden hours previously
estimated for Form 13F compliance. Rather, the Commission revised
the internal time costs associated with complying with Form 13F by
assuming that a compliance attorney and senior programmer, in
addition to a compliance clerk, would be involved in completing and
filing Form 13F and its related amendments and requests for
confidential treatment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters generally disagreed with our proposed estimates and
stated that we over-estimated the costs associated with complying with
the Form 13F filing obligations.\180\ Commenters stated that the
advances in technology have made the process of completing and filing
Form 13F highly automated, reducing the time and external costs to
managers in complying with this requirement.\181\ One commenter
disagreed with our assumption that a compliance attorney would need to
be involved with the determination of whether a manager meets the
filing threshold for Form 13F.\182\ However, another commenter stated
that complying with the requirements to file a 13(f) Confidential
Treatment Request can be particularly time consuming and costly.\183\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \180\ See e.g., Comment Letter of Mack-Cali Realty Corporation
on File No. S7-08-20 (Nov. 19, 2020), available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-08-20/s70820-8032834-225591.pdf; Comment
Letter of Becker/Glynn on File No. S7-08-20 (Aug. 19, 2020),
available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-08-20/s70820-7669323-222569.pdf; Comment Letter of the CFA Institute on File No. S7-08-20
(Oct. 1, 2020), available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-08-20/s70820-7864226-224033.pdf; Comment Letter of ConocoPhillips on File
No. S7-08-20 (Sept. 29, 2020), available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-08-20/s70820-7860025-223864.pdf; Comment Letter of the
Consumer Federation of America on File No. S7-08-20 (Sept. 16,
2020), available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-08-20/s70820-7777971-223451.pdf; MFA 2020 Form 13F Proposal Comment Letter, supra
footnote 120; Comment Letter of Sun Communities Inc. on File No. S7-
08-20 (Sept. 21, 2020), available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-08-20/s70820-7797961-223610.pdf; Comment Letter of MarketCounsel
Consulting, LLC on File No. S7-08-20 (Sept. 29, 2020), available at
https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-08-20/s70820-7860014-223889.pdf
(recommending that the Commission review its estimates through
engaging with various managers who may have different cost
structures); Wachtell Lipton 2020 Form 13F Proposal Comment Letter,
supra footnote 110; WhaleWisdom 2020 Form 13F Proposal Comment
Letter, supra footnote 99.
    \181\ Id; see also Comment Letter of The Security Traders
Association of New York, Inc. on File No. S7-08-20 (Sept. 29, 2020),
available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-08-20/s70820-7860080-223918.pdf (also stating that the Commission's estimated hourly
costs of filing likely overestimates costs of reporting by using
standard and equal estimate of compliance, attorney, and coding
time); Comment Letter of ACN Solutions LLC on File No. S7-08-20
(Sept. 10, 2020), available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-08-20/s70820-7757531-223233.pdf (``ACN 2020 Form 13F Proposal Comment
Letter'') (stating that the Commission's estimates overstate the
burdens of Form 13F on firms and estimating that managers incur $500
in external costs annually); Comment Letter of Global Endowment
Management, LP on File No. S7-08-20 (Sept. 29, 2020), available at
https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-08-20/s70820-7859976-223853.pdf
(estimating that the commenter spends 2 hours of internal time and
$125 of external service provider expense each quarter); see also
AIMA 2020 Form 13F Proposal Comment Letter, supra footnote 99 (also
noting that the Commission did not take into account other external
costs of complying with Form 13F, such as the licensing fees charges
for the use of CUSIP numbers).
    \182\ ACN 2020 Form 13F Proposal Comment Letter, supra footnote
180.
    \183\ See Private Investor Coalition 2020 Form 13F Proposal
Comment Letter, supra footnote 132 (stating that, in addition to the
costs of the Form 13F, managers entitled to confidential treatment
bear the burdens of preparing a 13(f) Confidential Treatment
Request, including the associated expenses of engaging an attorney
or other service to file a paper copy of the 13(f) Confidential
Treatment Request with the Commission each quarter).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have considered the comments we received on our proposed
estimates and are revising the current PRA burdens associated with
filing Form 13F to incorporate the feedback we received from
commenters.\184\ While we continue to believe that professionals beyond
a compliance clerk are involved in complying with Form 13F, we agree
with commenters that advances in technology over time have
significantly decreased the number of hours managers spend to satisfy
their compliance obligations. Additionally, we agree with commenters
that using a blended rate for all the professionals involved may
overestimate the costs of the time spent on complying with Form
13F.\185\ After considering the comments, we also believe that the
Commission's proposed revisions to the external costs associated with
complying with Form 13F as well as the revisions to the PRA burdens
associated with Form 13F amendments that were included in the 2020 Form
13F Proposal are appropriate. Therefore, the table below summarizes our
adjustments to the current PRA estimates of complying with Form 13F
based on commenter feedback as well as the initial and ongoing annual
burden estimates associated with amendments to Form 13F related to the
requirements for managers to provide additional identifying information
and the technical amendments to Form 13F discussed above.\186\ We
believe that our proposed amendments to the process for filing 13(f)
Confidential Treatment Requests would not change the burden of filing
Form 13F Reports with the Commission.\187\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \184\ We are proposing to revise the current burden estimates
for Form 13F-HR and Form 13F-NT.
    \185\ In particular, while a compliance attorney may be involved
in determining whether a manager can, or should, file a 13(f)
Confidential Treatment Request for each Form 13F filing, it is
unlikely that a compliance attorney will spend the same amount of
time as other professionals tasked with making the Form 13F filing
itself, such as a senior programmer and compliance clerk.
    \186\ See supra section II.B.2.
    \187\ We believe that our proposed amendments to the process for
filing 13(f) Confidential Treatment Requests would reduce printing
and delivery expenses that managers incur to comply with Form 13F.
However, we believe that these savings would be offset by the costs
associated with transitioning to an electronic submission process
for 13(f) Confidential Treatment Requests. Therefore, for PRA
purposes, we do not believe that these proposed amendments would
change the burdens associated with complying with Form 13F. We
likewise do not believe that our proposed amendments would change
the number of Form 13F Reports or Form 13(f) Confidential Treatment
Requests that are filed annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19NO21.574

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19NO21.575

BILLING CODE 8011-01-C

E. Request for Comments

    We request comment on whether our estimates for burden hours and
external costs as described above are reasonable. Pursuant to 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(2)(B), the Commission solicits comments in order to: (1)
Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission,
including whether the information will have practical utility; (2)
evaluate the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection

of information; (3) determine whether there are ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) determine 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.
    Persons wishing to submit comments on the collection of information
requirements of the proposed amendments should direct them to the OMB
Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission,
[email protected], and should send a copy to
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549-1090, with reference to File No. S7-15-21. OMB is
required to make a decision concerning the collections of information
between 30 and 60 days after publication of this release; therefore a
comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB
receives it within 30 days after publication of this release. Requests
for materials submitted to OMB by the Commission with regard to these
collections of information should be in writing, refer to File No. S7-
15-21, and be submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission,
Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-2736.

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    Pursuant to Section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act \188\
(``RFA''), the Commission hereby certifies that the proposed amendments
to rules 11, 100, 101, 102, and 201 of Regulation S-T \189\ rule 0-4
under the Advisers Act \190\ relating to the electronic filing of
applications for orders under the Advisers Act and the Investment
Company Act; rule 203-1,\191\ Form ADV-NR and the instructions to Form
ADV under the Advisers Act \192\ relating to the electronic filing of
Form ADV-NR, would not, if adopted, have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities.\193\ The Commission
estimates that it will receive initial applications seeking relief from
various provisions of the Advisers Act from six applicants per year.
The Commission estimates that few, if any, of the six applicants would
be small entities for the purposes of the Advisers Act and the
RFA.\194\ Moreover, as discussed in Sections III and IV above, the
proposed amendments would have little, if any, economic impact.
Therefore, there would be no significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \188\ 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
    \189\ 17 CFR 232.11, 232.100, 232.101, 232.102, and 232.201.
    \190\ 17 CFR 275.0-4.
    \191\ 17 CFR 274.203-1.
    \192\ 17 CFR 279.4; 17 CFR 279.1.
    \193\ For the purposes of the Advisers Act and the RFA, an
investment adviser generally 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 $5
million or more on the last day of its most recent fiscal year. 17
CFR 275.0-7(a).
    \194\ This estimate is based on the fact that none of the 17
initial applications received over the last three calendar years as
posted on the Commission website came from small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 605(b) of the RFA,\195\ the Commission hereby
certifies that the proposed amendments to rule 0-2 under the Investment
Company Act \196\ would not, if adopted, have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.\197\ As discussed in
Sections III and IV above, the proposed amendments would have little,
if any, economic impact. Therefore, there would be no significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \195\ See supra footnote 187.
    \196\ 17 CFR 270.0-2.
    \197\ For purposes of the Investment Company Act and the RFA, an
investment company is a small entity if it, together with other
investment companies in the same group of related investment
companies, has net assets of $50 million or less as of the end of
its most recent fiscal year. 17 CFR 270.0-10(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 605(b) of the RFA,\198\ the Commission hereby
certifies that the proposed amendments to rule 24b-2 under the Exchange
Act, Form 13F and rules 101(a)(1)(xxii) and 101(d) of Regulation S-T
relating to the requirement that Managers electronically file requests
for 13(f) Confidential Treatment Requests, along with other amendments
to Form 13F, would not, if adopted, have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The definition of the term
``small entity'' in rule 0-10 under the Exchange Act does not
explicitly reference investment advisers or other investment managers.
However, rule 0-10 provides that the Commission may ``otherwise
define'' small entities for purposes of a particular rulemaking
proceeding. For purposes of the proposed amendments relating to
managers electronically filing requests for 13(f) Confidential
Treatment Requests and the other amendments to Form 13F, the Commission
is defining small entity by using the definition of small entity under
rule 0-7(a) under the Advisers Act as more appropriate to the functions
of managers.\199\ The Commission believes that this definition would
help ensure that all persons or entities that might be institutional
investment managers under section 13(f) of the Exchange Act will be
included within a category addressed by the definition. The Commission
requests comments on the use of this definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \198\ See supra footnote 187.
    \199\ See supra footnote 192. Therefore, for purposes of this
rulemaking and the RFA, a manager 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Managers are not required to submit reports on Form 13F unless they
exercise investment discretion with respect to accounts holding 13(f)
Securities having an aggregate fair market value on the last trading
day of any month of any calendar year of at least $100 million.
Therefore, no small entities for purposes of rule 0-10 under the
Exchange Act are affected by the form. Therefore, there would be no
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Commission requests written comments regarding these
certifications. The Commission requests that commenters describe the
nature of any impact on small businesses and provide empirical data to
support the extent of the impact.

VI. Consideration of the Impact on the Economy

    For purposes of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996, or ``SBREFA,'' \200\ we must advise OMB whether a proposed
regulation constitutes a ``major'' rule. Under SBREFA, a rule is
considered ``major'' where, if adopted, it results in or is likely to
result in: (1) An annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more;
(2) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers or individual
industries; or (3) significant adverse effects on competition,
investment or innovation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \200\ Public Law 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996)
(codified in various sections of 5 U.S.C., 15 U.S.C. and as a note
to 5 U.S.C. 601).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission requests comment on the potential impact of the
proposed amendments on the economy on an annual basis. The Commission
requests that commenters provide empirical data and other factual
support for their views to the extent possible.

VII. Statutory Authority

    The Commission is proposing the amended rules and form under the
rulemaking authority set forth in sections 3, 12, 13, 14, 15(d), 23(a),
and 35A of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. 78c, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o(d),
78w(a), and 78ll]; sections 8, 30, 31, and 38 of the Investment Company
Act [15 U.S.C. 80a-8, 80a-29, 80a-30, and 80a-37]; and sections 203,
204, 206A, 210, and 211 of the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. 80b-3, 80b-4,
80b-6a, 80b-10, and 80b-11].

List of Subjects

17 CFR Part 232

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.

17 CFR Parts 240 and 249

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.

17 CFR Part 270

    Investment companies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Securities.

17 CFR Part 275

    Investment advisers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Securities.

17 CFR Part 279

    Investment advisers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Securities.

Text of Proposed Rule and Form Amendments

    In accordance with the foregoing, title 17, chapter II of the Code
of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 232--REGULATION S-T--GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR
ELECTRONIC FILINGS

0
1. The general authority citation for part 232 is revised to read as
follows:

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 77c, 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77s(a), 77z-3,
77sss(a), 78c(b), 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o(d), 78w(a), 78ll, 80a-6(c),
80a-8, 80a-29, 80a-30, 80a-37, 80b-4, 80b-6a, 80b-10, 80b-11, 7201
et seq.; and 18 U.S.C. 1350, unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *
0
2. Amend Sec.  232.11 by adding the definition of ``Investment Advisers
Act'' in alphabetical order to read as follows:

Sec.  232.11   Definitions of terms used in this part.

* * * * *
    Investment Advisers Act. The term Investment Advisers Act means the
Investment Advisers Act of 1940.
* * * * *

Sec.  232.100  [Amended]

0
3. Amend Sec.  232.100 paragraph (b) by removing the term
``Registrants'' and adding in its place ``Persons or entities''.
0
4. Amend Sec.  232.101 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(1)(iv);
0
b. In paragraph (a)(1)(xxi), removing the period at the end of the
paragraph and adding in its place a semicolon;
0
c. Adding paragraphs (a)(1)(xxii) and (xxiii); and
0
d. Revising paragraph (d).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  232.101   Mandated electronic submissions and exceptions.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iv) Documents filed with the Commission pursuant to sections 8,
17, 20, 23(c), 24(b), 24(e), 24(f), and 30 of the Investment Company
Act (15 U.S.C. 80a-8, 80a-17, 80a-20, 80a-23(c), 80a-24(b), 80a-24(e),
80a-24(f), and 80a-29) and any application for an order under any
section of the Investment Company Act (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.). The
filing of an application for an order under any section of the
Investment Company Act must be made on EDGAR as required by the EDGAR
Filer Manual, as defined in Sec.  232.11 (Rule 11 of Regulation S-T).
Notwithstanding Sec.  232.104 (Rule 104 of Regulation S-T), the
documents filed or furnished under this paragraph will be considered as
officially filed with or furnished to, as applicable, the Commission;
* * * * *
    (xxii) Confidential treatment requests filed with the Commission
pursuant to section 13(f) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78m(f)) and
the rules and regulations thereunder, including Form 13F (17 CFR
249.325). The filings must be made on EDGAR in the format required by
the EDGAR Filer Manual, as defined in Sec.  232.11 (Rule 11 of
Regulation S-T). Notwithstanding Sec.  232.104 (Rule 104 of Regulation
S-T), the documents filed or furnished under this paragraph will be
considered as officially filed with or furnished to, as applicable, the
Commission; and
    (xxiii) Any application for an order under any section of the
Investment Advisers Act (15 U.S.C. 80b-1 et seq.). The filings must be
made on EDGAR in the format required by the EDGAR Filer Manual, as
defined in Sec.  232.11 (Rule 11 of Regulation S-T). Notwithstanding
Sec.  232.104 (Rule 104 of Regulation S-T), the documents filed or
furnished under this paragraph will be considered as officially filed
with or furnished to, as applicable, the Commission.
* * * * *
    (d) All documents, including any information with respect to which
confidential treatment is requested, filed pursuant to section 13(n)
(15 U.S.C. 78m(n)) and section 13(f) (15 U.S.C. 78m(f)) of the Exchange
Act and the rules and regulations thereunder shall be filed in
electronic format.

Sec.  232.102  [Amended]

0
5. Amend Sec.  232.102 paragraph (a) by adding the phrase ``, Rule 0-6
under the Advisers Act (Sec.  275.0-6 of this chapter)'' after ``Rule
0-4 under the Investment Company Act (Sec.  270.0-4 of this chapter),''
0
6. Amend Sec.  232.201 by revising paragraph (a) introductory text to
read as follows:

Sec.  232.201   Temporary hardship exemption.

    (a) If an electronic filer experiences unanticipated technical
difficulties preventing the timely preparation and submission of an
electronic filing, other than a Form 3 (Sec.  249.103 of this chapter),
a Form 4 (Sec.  249.104 of this chapter), a Form 5 (Sec.  249.105 of
this chapter), a Form ID (Sec. Sec.  239.63, 249.446, 269.7 and 274.402
of this chapter), a Form TA-1 (Sec.  249.100 of this chapter), a Form
TA-2 (Sec.  249.102 of this chapter), a Form TA-W (Sec.  249.101 of
this chapter), a Form D (Sec.  239.500 of this chapter), an application
for an order under any section of the Investment Company Act of 1940
(15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.), an application for an order under any
section of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-1 et
seq.), an Interactive Data File (as defined in Sec.  232.11), or an
Asset Data File (as defined in Sec.  232.11), the electronic filer may
file the subject filing, under cover of Form TH

(Sec. Sec.  239.65, 249.447, 269.10 and 274.404 of this chapter), in
paper format no later than one business day after the date on which the
filing was to be made.
* * * * *

PART 240--GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS, SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF
1934

0
7. The general authority citation for part 240 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 77c, 77d, 77g, 77j, 77s, 77z-2, 77z-3,
77eee, 77ggg, 77nnn, 77sss, 77ttt, 78c, 78c-3, 78c-5, 78d, 78e, 78f,
78g, 78i, 78j, 78j-1, 78k, 78k-1, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78n-1, 78o, 78o-4,
78o-10, 78p, 78q, 78q-1, 78s, 78u-5, 78w, 78x, 78ll, 78mm, 80a-20,
80a-23, 80a-29, 80a-37, 80b-3, 80b-4, 80b-11, 7201 et seq. and 8302;
7 U.S.C. 2(c)(2)(E); 12 U.S.C. 5221(e)(3); 18 U.S.C. 1350; Pub. L.
111-203, 939A, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010); and Pub. L. 112-106, sec. 503
and 602, 126 Stat. 326 (2012), unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *
0
8. Amend Sec.  240.24b-2 by:
0
a. Removing the preliminary note in its entirety;
0
b. Adding an introductory paragraph;
0
c. In paragraph (b) removing the phrase ``paragraphs (g) and (h)'' and
adding in its place ``paragraphs (g) through (i)''; and
0
d. Adding paragraph (i).
    The additions read as follows:

Sec.  240.24b-2   Nondisclosure of information filed with the
Commission and with any exchange.

    Except as otherwise provided in this rule, confidential treatment
requests shall be submitted in paper format only, whether or not the
filer is required to submit a filing in electronic format.
* * * * *
    (i) An institutional investment manager shall omit the confidential
portion from the material publicly filed in electronic format pursuant
to section 13(f) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78m(f)) and the rules and
regulations thereunder. The institutional investment manager shall
indicate in the appropriate place in the material publicly filed that
the confidential portion has been so omitted and filed separately with
the Commission. In lieu of the procedures described in paragraph (b) of
this section, an institutional investment manager shall request
confidential treatment electronically pursuant to section 13(f) of the
Act (15 U.S.C. 78m(f)) and the rules and regulations thereunder.

PART 249--FORMS, SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

0
9. The general authority citation for part 249 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 78a et seq. and 7201 et seq.; 12 U.S.C.
5461 et seq.; and 18 U.S.C. 1350; Sec. 953(b), Pub. L. 111-203, 124
Stat. 1904; Sec. 102(a)(3), Pub. L. 112-106, 126 Stat. 309 (2012),
Sec. 107, Pub. L. 112-106, 126 Stat. 313 (2012), Sec. 72001, Pub. L.
114-94, 129 Stat. 1312 (2015), and secs. 2 and 3 Pub. L. 116-222,
134 Stat. 1063 (2020), unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *

    Note: The text of Form 13F does not, and these amendments will
not, appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.

0
10. Revise Form 13F (referenced in Sec.  249.325) to read as follows:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19NO21.579

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19NO21.580

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19NO21.581

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19NO21.582

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19NO21.583

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19NO21.584

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19NO21.585

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19NO21.586

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19NO21.587

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19NO21.588

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19NO21.589

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19NO21.590

PART 270--RULES AND REGULATIONS, INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT OF 1940

0
11. The general authority citation for part 270 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq., 80a-34(d), 80a-37, 80a-39,
and Pub. L. 111-203, sec. 939A, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010), unless
otherwise noted.
* * * * *

Sec.  270.0-2   [Amended]

0
12. Amend Sec.  270.0-2 by:
0
a. In paragraph (a), adding the phrase ``Secretary of the'' after ``be
delivered through the mails or otherwise to the''; and
0
b. In paragraph (b), removing the sentence ``The application must be
typed, printed, copied or prepared by any process which, in the opinion
of the commission, produces copies suitable for microfilming.''

PART 275--RULES AND REGULATIONS, INVESTMENT ADVISERS ACT OF 1940

0
13. The general authority citation for part 275 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 80b-2(a)(11)(G), 80b-2(a)(11)(H), 80b-
2(a)(17), 80b-3, 80b-4, 80b-4a, 80b-6(4), 80b-6a, and 80b-11, unless
otherwise noted.
* * * * *
0
14. Amend Sec.  275.0-4 by:
0
a. In paragraph (a)(1), adding the phrase ``Secretary of the'' after
``be delivered through the mails or otherwise to the'';
0
b. Revising paragraphs (b), (d) and (i); and
0
c. Removing and reserving paragraph (g).
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  275.0-4  General requirements of papers and applications.

* * * * *
    (b) Formal specifications respecting applications. Every
application for an order under any provision of the Act, for which a
form with instructions is not specifically prescribed, and every
amendment to such application, shall be filed electronically pursuant
to 17 CFR part 232 (Regulation S-T). Any filings made in paper,
including filings made pursuant to a hardship exemption under
Regulation S-T, shall be filed in quintuplicate. One copy shall be
signed by the applicant, but the other four copies may have facsimile
or typed signatures. Such applications shall be on paper no larger than
8\1/2\ x 11 inches in size. To the extent that the reduction of larger
documents would render them illegible, those documents may be filed on
paper larger than 8\1/2\ x 11 inches in size. The left margin should be
at least 1\1/2\ inches wide and, if the application is bound, it should
be bound on the left side. All typewritten or printed matter (including
deficits in financial statements) should be set forth in black so as to
permit photocopying.
* * * * *
    (d) Verification of applications and statements of fact. Every
application for an order under any provision of the Act, for which a
form with instructions is not specifically prescribed, and every
amendment to such application, and every statement of fact formally
filed in support of, or in opposition to, any application or
declaration shall be verified by the person executing the same. An
instrument executed on behalf of a corporation shall be verified in
substantially the following form, but suitable changes may be made in
such form for other kinds of companies and for individuals:
    The undersigned states that he or she has duly executed the
attached __ dated, __20__, for and on behalf of __ (Name of company);
that he or she is the __ (Title of officer) of such company; and that
all action by stockholders, directors, and other bodies necessary to
authorize the undersigned to execute and file such instrument has been
taken. The undersigned further states that he or she is familiar with
such instrument, and the contents thereof, and that the facts therein
set forth are true to the best of his or her knowledge, information and
belief.

(Signature)
* * * * *
    (i) The manually signed original (or in the case of duplicate
originals, one duplicate original) of all registrations, applications,
statements, reports, or other documents filed under the Investment
Advisers Act of 1940, as amended, shall be numbered sequentially (in
addition to any internal numbering which otherwise may be present) by
handwritten, typed, printed, or other legible form of notation from the
facing page of the document through the last page of that document and
any exhibits or attachments thereto. Further, the total number of pages
contained in a numbered original shall be set forth on the first page
of the document.
0
15. Amend Sec.  275.203-1 by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:

Sec.  275.203-1  Application for investment adviser registration.

* * * * *
    (d) Form ADV-NR--(1) General Requirements. Each non-resident, as
defined in 17 CFR 275.0-2(b)(2) (Rule 0-2(b)(2)), general partner or a
non-resident managing agent, as defined in 17 CFR 275.0-2(b)(2) (Rule
0-2(b)(1)), of any investment adviser registered, or applying for
registration with, the Commission must submit Form ADV-NR (17 CFR
279.4). Form ADV-NR must be completed in connection with the adviser's
initial registration with the Commission. If a person becomes a non-
resident general partner or a non-resident managing agent after the
date the adviser files its initial registration with the Commission,
the person must file Form ADV-NR with the Commission within 30 days of
becoming a non-resident general partner or a non-resident managing
agent. If a person serves as a general partner or managing agent for
multiple advisers, they must submit a separate Form ADV-NR for each
adviser.
    (2) When an amendment is required. Each non-resident general
partner or a non-resident managing agent of any investment adviser must
amend its Form ADV-NR within 30 days whenever any information contained
in the form becomes inaccurate by filing with the Commission a new Form
ADV-NR.
    (3) Electronic filing. Form ADV-NR (and any amendments to Form ADV-
NR) must be filed electronically through the Investment Adviser
Registration Depository (IARD), unless a hardship exemption under 17
CFR 275.203-3 (Rule 203-3) has been granted.
    (4) When filed. Each Form ADV-NR is considered filed with the
Commission upon acceptance by the IARD.
    (5) Filing fees. No fee shall be assessed for filing Form ADV-NR
through IARD.
    (6) Form ADV-NR is a report. Each Form ADV-NR (and any amendment to
Form ADV-NR) required to be filed under this rule is a ``report''
within the meaning of sections 204 and 207 of the Act.

PART 279--FORMS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE INVESTMENT ADVISERS ACT OF
1940

0
16. The authority citation for part 279 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  The Investment Advisers Act of 1940, 15 U.S.C. 80b-
1, et seq., Pub. L. 111-203, 124 Stat. 137617.

0
17. In Form ADV (referenced in Sec.  279.1):
0
a. Amend the instructions to the form by revising the section entitled
``Who is required to file Form ADV-NR?''; and
0
b. Amend the instructions to the form by adding a section entitled
``How is Form ADV-NR filed?''.
    The revision and addition read as follows:

    Note: The text of Form ADV does not, and this amendment will
not, appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19NO21.591

0
18. Revise Sec.  279.4 to read as follows:

Sec.  279.4   Form ADV-NR, appointment of agent for service of process
by non-resident general partner and non-resident managing agent of an
investment adviser.

    This form shall be filed and amended pursuant to Sec.  275.203-1 of
this chapter (Rule 203-1) as an appointment of agent for service of
process by non-resident general partners and non-resident managing
agents of an investment adviser pursuant to section 203 of the
Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

    Note: The next of Form ADV-NR does not, and this amendment will
not, appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.

0
19. Form ADV-NR (referenced in Sec.  279.4) is amended by adding the
sections entitled ``Instructions to Form ADV-NR'', ``Who is required to
file Form ADV-NR?'' and ``How is Form ADV-NR filed?'' to read as
follows:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19NO21.592

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19NO21.593

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19NO21.594

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19NO21.595

    By the Commission.

    Dated: November 4, 2021.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-24522 Filed 11-18-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P