1 SECTION I: PART A OF THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT 1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 1( a) Title and Number of the Information Collection This Information Collection Request ( ICR) is entitled " Participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises in Procurement under Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) Financial Assistance Agreements" Proposed Rule, ICR Number [ 2047.01].

1( b) Short Characterization EPA is proposing to revise its Minority Business Enterprise ( MBE) and Women's Business Enterprise ( WBE) Program and rename it as EPA's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise ( DBE) Program. EPA is proposing to delete existing MBE and WBE specific provisions in 40 CFR Part 30 ( Grants and Agreements With Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non Profit Organizations), Part 31 ( Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments), Part 35 ( State and Local Assistance), and Part 40 ( Research and Demonstration Grants) and is proposing to consolidate and add to these provisions in a new Part 33. Part 33 is intended to harmonize EPA's statutory DBE procurement goal requirements with the United States Supreme Court's decision in Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 115 S. Ct. 2097 ( 1995). In Adarand, the Supreme Court extended strict judicial scrutiny to federal programs that use racial or ethnic criteria as a basis for decision making. This proposed rule reflects EPA efforts to ensure that the compelling government interest of remedying past and current racial discrimination through the use of agency wide DBE procurement goals at EPA is served by a narrowly tailored program.

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements for EPA's existing MBE and WBE specific provisions in 40 CFR Parts 30 and 31 are covered by existing ICR control number 2030 0020, with an expiration date of December 31, 2002; an ICR renewal package has been sent to OMB for approval. That ICR encompasses EPA's MBE/ WBE Reporting Form for MBE/ WBE Utilization under Federal Grants, Cooperative Agreements, and Interagency Agreements for all EPA financial assistance programs, Form 5700 52A. That ICR is not superseded by this ICR and will remain in effect.

MBE/ WBE reporting and recordkeeping requirements for EPA's Clean Water State Revolving Fund ( CWSRF) Program codified in 40 CFR 35.3145( d) and ( e) are covered by ICR control number 2040 0118, with an expiration date of November 30, 2004; MBE and WBE reporting and recordkeeping requirements for EPA's Drinking Water State Revolving Fund ( DWSRF) Program, codified in 40 CFR 35.3575( d) are covered by ICR control number 2040 0185, with an expiration date of June 30, 2003; MBE/ WBE reporting and recordkeeping requirements for EPA's Superfund Program regulations are covered by ICR control number 2050 0179, with an expiration date of November 30, 2004. Those ICRs are not superseded by this ICR and will remain in effect. 2 EPA is proposing to require an entity to be certified in order to be considered an MBE or WBE under EPA's DBE Program for its financial assistance programs. EPA is proposing to require an MBE/ WBE to first try to become certified by a federal agency ( e. g., the Small Business Administration ( SBA), or the Department of Transportation ( DOT)), or by a State, locality, Indian Tribe or independent private organization so long as their applicable criteria match those under Section 8( a)( 5) and ( 6) of the Small Business Act and applicable implementing regulations. EPA will only certify firms that cannot get certified by one of these entities. Accordingly, EPA, working through Contractors (" EPA Private Certifiers"), may certify some MBE and WBE contractors. To qualify as an MBE or WBE under EPA's programs an entity must establish that it is owned and/ or controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals who are of good character and are citizens of the United States.

EPA currently recognizes an entity which is certified as socially and economically disadvantaged by the SBA, certified as an MBE by a State or Federal Agency or self certifies that it is an independent business concern owned and controlled by a minority group member( s) as an MBE. See, e. g., 40 CFR 35.6015( a)( 26). EPA currently does not require WBEs to be certified.

This information collection involves the information which will need to be submitted in order for a respondent to be certified by EPA. It also includes related information.

EPA estimates that this information collection will involve 6,731 respondents at a cost of $ 1300 each or a total of $ 8,750,300 over a three year period.

This ICR examines the respondent reporting and recordkeeping requirements and associated hour and cost burden of the proposed rule for the certification and related requirements. Increases in burden for existing ICRs resulting from the proposed rule that are not certification related ( e. g. reporting and recordkeeping) will be addressed in renewals for the existing ICRs.

2. NEED/ AUTHORITY FOR THE COLLECTION ( 2)( a) Need/ Authority for this Collection This ICR is for the purpose of ensuring that EPA's statutory DBE procurement goal requirements are implemented in harmony with the United States Supreme Court's decision in Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 115 S. Ct. 2097 ( 1995).

EPA's legal authorities for its DBE Program are:

Public Law 102 389, a 1993 appropriations act ( 42 U. S. C. § 4370d) ( EPA's 8% statute), which provides in pertinent part:

" The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall, hereafter, to the fullest extent possible, ensure that at least 8 per centum of Federal funding for prime and subcontracts awarded in 3 support of authorized programs, including grants, loans and contracts for wastewater treatment and leaking underground storage tanks grants, be made available to business concerns or other organizations owned or controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals ( within the meaning of Section 8( a)( 5) and ( 6) of the Small Business Act ( 15 U. S. C. § 637 ( a)( 5) and( 6)), including historically black colleges and universities. For purposes of this section, economically and socially disadvantaged individuals shall be deemed to include women..."

Public Law 101 549, Title X of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 ( 42 U. S. C. § 7601 note) ( EPA's 10% statute), which provides in pertinent part:

" In providing for any research relating to the requirements of the amendments made by the Clean Air Act Amendments which use funds of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall, to the extent practicable, require that not less than 10 percent of the total Federal funding for such research will be made available to disadvantaged business concerns."

3. NON DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA 3( a) Non Duplication All of the information collected pursuant to this ICR is specific to the associated rulemaking. To the extent MBEs and/ or WBEs are certified by another Federal agency, there is no duplication of effort involved for them to become certified under this rulemaking since they are not required to obtain EPA certification under those circumstances.

3( b) Consultations Over the course of the development of the proposed rule EPA has met with key constituency groups to discuss the likely direction the proposed rule was heading. These include discussions at the EPA/ State/ Tribal Annual conference held in Albuquerque, New Mexico on February 2 4, 1999 attended by 99 representatives from States, local governments and Indian Tribes. In addition, EPA representatives have discussed the likely direction the proposed rule was heading at a number of external meetings and conferences over the course of the past two years. These include discussions with the National Minority Supplier Development Council, the National Environmental Justice Action Committee, the Minority Business Development Agency, the National Black Chamber of Commerce, and at the National Women's Small Business Summit and the Business Women's National Leadership Summit.

On June 19, 2000, EPA issued a staff draft of a rulemaking proposal for this rule. A copy was posted on EPA's Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization ( OSDBU)' s website at http//: www. epa. gov/ osdbu and EPA requested public comments. EPA representatives met with 4 163 representatives from States, local governments, Indian Tribes and affected businesses at the EPA/ State/ Tribal Annual conference held in Albuquerque, New Mexico the week of June 27 30, 2000, to discuss the staff draft. EPA sent out letters to key constituency groups, including the National Governors Association, the U. S. Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Council of State Governments, the International City/ County Management Association, the National Association of Counties, County Executives of America, the National Association of Towns and Townships and the Associated General Contractors of America.

Subsequently, EPA held public meetings in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on November 9, 2000 ( encompassing Regions 1 and 2), Chicago, Illinois on December 4, 2000 ( encompassing Regions 5 and 7), Dallas, Texas on January 23, 2001, San Francisco, California on February 13, 2001, Atlanta, Georgia on March 6, 2001, Boston, Massachusetts on April 10, 2001, Denver, Colorado on April 22, 2001, and Seattle, Washington on May 22, 2001 to discuss the staff draft rulemaking proposal.

In addition, as part of its ongoing consultation with tribes, EPA representatives held meetings with Tribal Officials/ Representatives in Boston, Massachusetts on April 11, 2001 and in Seattle, Washington on May 23, 2001 to discuss the draft rulemaking proposal, and met with Tribal Officials/ Representatives to discuss an earlier version of this proposed rule in Ocean Shores, Washington during the week of January 28, 2002. During the comment period for the staff draft EPA received a total of 41 written comments. EPA has considered these comments as well as those received at the June, 2000 Albuquerque conference and has made changes to the staff draft preamble and rule in response to a number of them, including adding the proposed requirement for certification of women's business enterprises.

3( c) Effects of Less Frequent Collection This rule would not impose any additional reporting and recordkeeping requirements on MBE/ WBE achievements that are not already covered by existing ICR 2030 0020 which covers " MBE/ WBE Utilization under Federal Grants, Cooperative Agreements, and Interagency Agreements," EPA Form 5700 52A. To the extent additional burden is imposed, EPA will adjust the burden hours when its existing Grants, Cooperative Agreements and Interagency Agreements ICR 2030 0020 is renewed as well as when the other ICRs which encompass MBE/ WBE reporting and recordkeeping are renewed. The certification information collection activities under section 33.205( a) are activity based. No lower frequency of filing an annual affidavit regarding an entity's status under section 33.210( a) is possible. The requirement for an entity certified by EPA as an MBE or WBE to file an affidavit regarding any change in circumstance affecting the MBE or WBE's ability to meet disadvantaged status, ownership and/ or control requirements or any material change in the information provided in its application form, under section 33.210( b), is activity based.

The requirement under section 33.302( e) for a recipient to provide EPA Form 6100 2  DBE Program Subcontractor Participation Form to all DBE subcontractors giving them the opportunity to describe the work they received from the prime contractor, how much the DBE subcontractor was 5 paid, and any other concerns the DBE Subcontractor might have, is activity based.

The requirement under section 33.302( f) for a recipient to require its prime contractor to have any anticipated DBE subcontractors complete EPA Form 6100 3  DBE Subcontractor Performance Form is activity based.

The requirement under section 33.302( g) for a recipient to require its prime contractor to complete and submit EPA Form 6100 4  DBE Program Subcontractor Utilization Form as part of the prime contractor's bid or proposal package is activity based.

The requirement under section 33.501 for a recipient to create and maintain a bidders list is activity based.

3( d) General Guidelines This rulemaking is consistent with OMB's General Guidelines.

3( e) Confidentiality Information gathered as part of the certification process that may reasonably be regarded as proprietary or other confidential business information will be safeguarded from disclosure to unauthorized persons, consistent with applicable Federal, State and local law. EPA has regulations concerning confidential business information. See 40 CFR Part 2 Subpart B.

3( f) Sensitive Questions The requirements do not involve information of a sensitive nature.

4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED 4( a) Respondents/ NAICS Codes The respondents to this collection, are basically entities in the fields of construction, equipment, services and supplies, who may need to become certified MBEs or WBEs in order for their participation in EPA funded financial assistance agreements to be counted towards EPA's 8% and 10% MBE/ WBE statutory goals. The respondents include:

Category of respondents NAICS Code Architectural, engineering and other related services 5413 Architectural services ( designing and planning the development of land) 541320 6 Remediation services and other waste management services 56291 Hazardous waste treatment and disposal 562211 Testing laboratories 541380 Wastewater remediation 562211 Construction equipment ( wholesale) 421810 Construction engineering services 541330 Computer peripheral equipment 421430 Computer systems design programming services 541511 Computer systems design services 541512 Highway and street construction ( Includes roadwork) 234110 All other heavy construction 234990 Water sewer and pipeline construction 234910 Water treatment equipment ( wholesale) 421850 Environmental consulting 541620 Management consulting services 541618 Soil testing 562910 Water, supply and irrigation systems ( water filtration) 221310 7 Sewage treatment facilities 221320 Hazardous waste treatment and disposal 562211 Long distance trucking of waste 56211 Office supplies 453210 Office machinery and equipment rental or leasing 532420 4( b) Information Requested ( i) Data Items, Including Recordkeeping Requirements Information requested as a result of this rulemaking relate to the certification requirements contained in section 33.205( a), to the annual affidavit required under section 33.210( a), the affidavit required under section 33.210( b) if there are changes in a certified MBE or WBE's ability to continue to meet DBE status requirements under section 33.205( b), to the forms which are required if there are DBE subcontractors involved in a procurement under sections 33.302( e), ( f) and ( g), and to the requirement for a recipient to create and maintain a bidders list under section 33.501. Under Subpart B of the Rule, section 33.204, an entity may become certified under EPA's 8% and 10% statutes under the procedures set forth in 33.205. Federal certifications by the Small Business Administration ( SBA), under its 8( a) Business Development Program ( 13 CFR 124, Subpart A) or its Small Disadvantaged Business ( SDB) Program ( 13 CFR 124, Subpart B) and by the Department of Transportation ( DOT), under its program for Participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises in DOT Programs, 49 CFR Parts 23 and 26, are acceptable for EPA certification requirements for eligible U. S. citizens. Certifications by State, local, or Indian Tribal Governments or independent private organizations in accordance with EPA's 8% or 10% statute as applicable are also acceptable for EPA certification requirements. Again, U. S. citizenship is required for certification eligibility under EPA's DBE program.

EPA anticipates that the following types of entities will have to be certified by EPA: 1. disabled American owned firms under EPA's 10% statute; 2. private and voluntary organizations controlled by individuals who are socially and economically disadvantaged under EPA's 10% statute; 3. women owned businesses under EPA's 8% and 10% statutes who cannot get certified under DOT or SBA size criteria ( EPA does not have size criteria) or by a State Government, Indian Tribal Government or independent private organization consistent with EPA's 8% or 10% statute as applicable; 4. DBE owned or controlled businesses under EPA's 8% statute ( note SBA and DOT require a DBE to be owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals. ( as does EPA's 10% statute)); and 5. Entities which are certified under criteria which are inconsistent with EPA's DBE program criteria. It is important to note that to qualify as an MBE or 8 WBE under EPA programs an entity must establish that it is owned and/ or controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals who are of good character and citizens of the United States.

An entity may apply directly to EPA, or through an EPA Private Certifier, to be certified as an MBE or WBE. EPA's Regional Offices will provide further information and required application forms to any entity interested in becoming certified by EPA.

( ii) Respondent Activities In order to reduce burden hours, EPA is proposing to use separate " EPA DBE Certification Application" forms depending on the entity seeking to be certified ( EPA Form 6100 1a for sole proprietorships, EPA Form 6100 1b for limited liability companies, EPA Form 6100 1c for partnerships, EPA Form 6100 1d for corporations, EPA Form 6100 1e for Alaska Native Corporations ( ANCs), EPA Form 6100 1f for Tribally owned concerns, and EPA Form 6100 1g for private and voluntary organizations owned by individuals who are socially and economically disadvantaged). This approach is consistent with the approach taken by SBA in its SDB certification program. The information will be used to evaluate the MBE and/ or WBE status of applicants.

EPA Form 6100 2  DBE Program Subcontractor Participation Form, under section 33.302( e), gives a subcontractor the opportunity to describe the work the subcontractor received from the prime contractor, how much the subcontractor was paid and other concerns the subcontractor might have, for example reasons why the subcontractor believes it was terminated by the prime contractor. The information will be used to evaluate whether prime contractors have tried to game the system by using " bait and switch" tactics in representing they would use MBE/ WBE subcontractors without actually doing so; the information will also be used to determine whether any changes in EPA oversight are needed.

EPA Form 6100 3  DBE Subcontractor Performance Form, under section 33.302( f), and EPA Form 6100 4  DBE Program Subcontractor Utilization Form under section 33.302( g), are intended to prevent any " bait and switch' tactics at the subcontract level by prime contractors which may circumvent the spirit of the DBE Program.

The requirement for a recipient to create and maintain a bidders list under Section 33.501, which would be new, is intended to assist recipients in implementing the good faith efforts; such a list also could be used by a recipient in establishing its MBE/ WBE fair share objectives. This requirement would apply to all recipients, including recipients under the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund and the Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund.

5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION, METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT The following section discusses how EPA or an EPA Private Certifier will collect and 9 manage the information received from respondents.

5( a) Agency Activities EPA will review certification applications to determine whether an entity is owned and/ or controlled by one or more individuals claiming disadvantaged status. EPA or an EPA Private Certifier will advise each applicant, within 15 days, whenever practicable, after receipt of an application, whether the application is complete and suitable for evaluation, and if not, what additional information or clarification is required, in accordance with Section 33.205( b). EPA will make its certification decision within 30 days of receipt of a complete application package, whenever practicable, in accordance with Section 33.205( b).

EPA will maintain a list of certified MBEs and WBEs as well as a list of approved EPA Private Certifiers on EPA's Home Page on the Internet in accordance with Sections 33.205( d) and 33.206, and 33.215, respectively. Interested persons will also be able to obtain copies of these lists from EPA OSDBU.

EPA will safeguard confidential business information in accordance with 40 CFR Part 2, Subpart B, " Confidentiality of Business Information."

5( b) Collection Methodology and Management EPA will use the forms being submitted to OMB to evaluate MBE/ WBE certifications. Similar forms, consisting of separate forms for corporations, partnerships, limited liability corporations, sole proprietorships, Alaska Native Corporation ( ANC) owned concerns, and Tribally owned concerns have already been approved by OMB, ICR control Number 3245 0317, for SBA's SDB certification program. EPA is submitting a separate form for private and voluntary organizations owned by individuals who are socially and economically disadvantaged because they are a separately designated group under EPA's 10% statute whose structure as organizations is different from the other types of entities being certified. EPA will store the data in OSDBU's office space. This collection of information does not involve the use of automated, electronic, mechanical or other forms of technological collection which permits electronic submission of responses.

5( c) Small Entity Flexibility EPA's DBE Program is aimed at providing contracting opportunities for small businesses owned and/ or controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals, among others ( e. g., historically black colleges and universities) ( HBCUs). If the proposed exemption from the fair share negotiations process for any single assistance agreement or more than one financial assistance agreement with a combined total of $ 250,000 or less in any one fiscal year is adopted, EPA believes that the effect of the rule on small entities, including small government jurisdictions, would be minimal. Additionally, under this rulemaking proposal, small entity recipients would be able to use State Agency negotiated MBE/ WBE goals if such recipients solicit bids/ offers from a substantially 10 similar geographic market as that State Agency. Accordingly, EPA believes that the economic impact of this rule, if enacted, on small entities should be minimal.

In EPA's view, this rule would not affect the total funds or business opportunities available to small businesses that seek to work under EPA financial assistance programs. To the extent that the provisions in this rulemaking proposal ( e. g., with respect to changes in the methods used to set goals) lead to different goals than those under EPA's current program policy, some firms may gain and others may lose business.

EPA is unaware of any data which would enable the Agency at this time to measure the distributive effects of the rulemaking proposal on various types of small entities. In the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA stated that the agency continues to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcomes comments on issues related to such impacts, including comments related to the financial and time burden associated with the requirements ( including actual hours and dollars).

5( d) Collection Schedule Once certified by EPA, an entity will generally remain on EPA's list of certified MBEs and WBEs for a period of three years from the date of its certification. To remain on EPA's list after three years, an entity would have to submit a new application and receive a new certification.

6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION 6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden for Affected MBEs/ WBEs Table 6 1 presents the estimated respondent burden and costs for the information collection activities associated with this rule.

A conservative ( high cost) scenario estimate is presented for the number of respondents as well as their burdens and costs. Each of EPA's 12 grant making offices ( 10 regions, headquarters, and Cincinnati) reported on their 5700 52A forms, " MBE/ WBE Utilization under Federal Grants, Cooperative Agreements, and Interagency Agreements", the number of MBEs/ WBEs utilized in procurement under these agreements. The total number of tribal MBEs/ WBEs is unknown since fewer than 10% of tribes submitted reports. In the absence of more complete information, this analysis assumes that the total number of tribal MBEs/ WBEs is equal to the total number of MBEs/ WBEs reported by all grant and loan recipients. The number of MBEs/ WBEs needing to be certified under affected tribal programs is likely to be smaller than the 3,208 reported by grant and loan recipients. Likewise, information on the number of affected MBEs/ WBEs in the five Insular areas is not available. The analysis assumes the number of affected MBEs/ WBEs for each Insular area is equal to the average number of affected MBEs/ WBEs per State, which is 63 MBEs/ WBEs.

As seen in Table 6 1, the total number of affected MBEs/ WBEs expected to incur costs to 11 certify is 6,731 in the first year of the program. This is believed to be a conservative number, because many of these same MBEs/ WBEs will already be certified, e. g., by Small Business Administration ( SBA) or Department of Transportation ( DOT) programs, and would therefore not be required to incur additional expenses to be certified under this rule. In addition, it is expected that a substantial number of MBEs/ WBEs participate in more than one procurement issued under the variety of related government grant and loan programs. In these cases, the MBEs/ WBEs would not be required to incur the same costs to be recertified, since they would have already met the requirements under a separate procurement. Therefore, for purposes of calculating the total costs for the three year period covered by the ICR, we assume that the first year cost is a suitable estimate for the total cost to MBEs/ WBEs required to certify over the three year period of the ICR. The average annual burden and costs are estimated by spreading the first year cost over the three year period of the ICR, yielding a total annual average burden of 56,092 hours and $ 2,916,767 in costs.

The burden hours and costs of filling out MBE/ WBE certification forms for this rule are also likely to be lower than these estimates because the numbers are derived from information provided by the DOT's ICR estimates for certification in its analysis of burden hours ( 25 hours per certification) and costs ($ 1,300 per certification) under 49 CFR Part 26. EPA's certification forms are more similar to the SBA's Small Disadvantaged Business ( SDB) Certification Application Forms ( OMB control number 3245 0317). The SBA forms were expected to take three hours to complete. Also, a certified MBE/ WBE would have to file an annual affidavit affirming that no changes in circumstances had occurred which would have affected the entity's status as an MBE or WBE. It is estimated that this would take about 30 minutes to complete. Therefore, allowing for the three hours for the EPA certification application forms, and the half hour to complete the annual affidavit, the total time that might be required to complete the information collection activities associated with this rule will be considerably less than the 25 hours necessary to complete the DOT certification requirements. Nevertheless, in order to provide a conservative estimate of the burden in the ICR of the proposed rule, the analysis uses the 25 hour and $ 1,300 cost estimate derived from the DOT analysis.

Table 6 1. Total Labor Burden and Costs to MBE/ WBE for Certification under State, Tribal and Insular Funding Programs Activities Total Estimated Burden and Cost for Three Year Period ICR is Effective Average Annual Estimated Burden and Cost Number of Affected MBE & WBE entities Number of Hours Dollars Number of Affected MBE/ WBE entities Number of Hours Dollars 12 MBE & WBEs under grant & loan programs 3208 80,200 ( 25* 3208) $ 4,170,000 ( 3208*$ 1,300) 1,069 26,733 $ 1,390,133 MBE & WBE under Tribal funded programs 3208 ( same as State total; ~ 6 per tribal govt.) 80,200 ( 25* 3208) $ 4,170,400 ( 3208*$ 1,300) 1,069 26,733 $ 1,390,133 MBE & WBE under Insular funded Programs 315 ( 5* 63) 7,875 ( 25* 315) $ 409,500 ( 315*$ 1,300) 105 2,625 $ 136,500 Total Labor Burden and Costs for MBE & WBE 6,731 168,275 $ 8,750,300 2,244 56,092 $ 2,916,767 Average Annual Labor Burden and Cost per MBE & WBE 25 hours $ 1,300 Key Assumptions:

° All affected MBEs/ WBEs have not already been certified by another eligible institution [ likely to result in an overestimate of burden and cost]. ° No additional MBEs/ WBEs seek certification within the effective three year period for the ICR [ likely to result in an underestimate of burden and cost]. ° Number of burden hours to complete certification forms ( 25 hours) is significantly greater than the estimate developed for SBA form ( 3 hours) [ likely to result in an overestimate of burden and cost].

6( b) Estimating all Grant Recipient Burden and Costs and Loan Recipient Burden and Costs The Agency has used a conservative set of assumptions to calculate the costs to all EPA grant and loan recipients that will have to perform an availability analysis to meet the requirements of the proposed rule. To estimate the number of affected recipients, the Agency used information assembled 13 for the total number of grant and loan recipients receiving $ 250,000 or more from EPA over recent representative years. We used data from Fiscal Year 1999 for affected governments and nongovernmental entities receiving grants, and Fiscal Year 2000 for affected governmental and nongovernmental entities receiving loans. Using burden and cost data provided on sample availability analyses prepared by State government agencies, we estimated the median cost of an availability analysis used to comply with the proposed rule would require 265 burden hours at a cost of $ 5,300 ( using an average labor cost of $ 20 per hour).

Table 6 2 provides the burden and cost estimates for affected grant and loan recipients. Because each availability analysis can be used for up to three years, we assume that States, Tribes and Insular governments will develop their availability analyses once over the three year period of the ICR. Hence, there are no affected recipients in years two and three. For non governmental grant recipients affected by this rule, we believe 325 will need to prepare an availability analysis in the first year. However, we expect that in the second and third years only half as many will need to prepare one.

We expect the number of loan recipients needing to prepare an availability analysis in the first year ( 822) to remain at that level in years two and three, for a combined total of 2,466 and $ 13,069,000 over the three year period of the ICR.

The total labor burden and cost estimates for preparing an availability analysis for grant and loan recipients are 825,475 hours and $ 16,509,500 over the three year period of the ICR.

In addition to the availability analysis, recipients will have other paperwork requirements under the proposed rule. EPA has proposed three additional forms to be used in the program, each of which is expected to take approximately 15 minutes to complete. These include:

1) DBE Program Subcontractor Participation Form, 2) DBE Program Subcontractor Performance Form, and 3) DBE Program Subcontractor Utilization Form.

In addition, a recipient would have to review the existing list of HUBZone contractors maintained by the SBA and attempt to solicit such companies as part of the recipient's good faith efforts. It is estimated that this process will take 30 minutes to complete. A recipient would also be required to create and maintain a bidders list. This requirement would take about 15 minutes to complete. Recordkeeping requirements of the proposal would take another approximately 30 minutes. Therefore approximately two hours would be required to complete these information collection activities. We conservatively estimate that the additional two hours would be necessary for each grant and loan recipient each year of the ICR.

The annual average burden and cost of the rule are estimated to be 202,548 hours and $ 4,050,967 as a consequence of the proposed rule. 14 Table 6 2. Total Labor Burden and Costs to Affected Grant and Loan Recipients Activities Total Estimated Burden and Cost for Three Year Period ICR is Effective Average Annual Burden and Cost Number of Affected Recipients Number of Hours Dollars Number of Affected Recipients Number of Hours Dollars

Grants Recipients: States, Tribes, & Insular govt Year 1 161 42,665 ( 265* 161) $ 853,300 54 14,222 $ 284,433 Years 2+ 3 0 0 0 Sub Total 161 42,665 $ 853,300 Grants Recipients: Non Government Year 1 325 86,125 ( 265* 325) $ 1,722,500 163 43,107 $ 862,133 Years 2+ 3 163 43,195 ( 265* 163) $ 863,900 Sub Total 488 129,320 $ 2,586,400 Loan Recipients:

SRFdrinking & wastewater; Brownfields Year 1 822 217,830 ( 265* 822) $ 4,356,600 822 215,830 4,356,600 Years 2+ 3 1644 217,830 ( 265* 822) $ 8,713,200 Sub Total 2466 653,490 $ 13,069,800 15 All recipients   ot her activities Years 1 3 2293 13,758 ( 2293* 2hr s* 3yrs) 275,160 764 4,586 91,720 Total Labor Burden and Cost for Grant and Loan Recipients Year 1 1308 346,620 $ 6,932,400 1,038 275,158 $ 5,503,167 Years 2+ 3 1807 478.855 $ 9,577,100 Total 3115 825,475 $ 16,509,500 Average Annual Labor Burden and Cost per Availability Analysis 265 hours $ 5,250

Scenario if all affected Governments bear these burdens and costs in the same ( i. e., first) year.

Key Assumptions: ° Some percent of government entities will already have a suitable availability analysis [ likely to result in an overestimate of burden and cost]. ° Some percent of non governmental entities will use States' availability analyses [ likely to result in an overestimate of burden and cost]. ° The number of new non governmental grant recipients and all loan recipients seeking aid in the second and third years is assumed to be the same as in the first year.

( i) Estimating Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs EPA estimates that operations and maintenance costs for this ICR to be zero.

6( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost An estimate of the annual EPA burden and costs associated with the proposed rule is provided in Table 6 3. We have developed an estimate of the number and type of staff necessary to administer the monitoring and reporting requirements in the proposed rule. Legal, database management and administrative support staff will be required to administer the program at EPA. The total estimated cost of all labor, benefits and overhead for the Agency is 42,432 hours and $ 1,884,320 for the three 16 year period the ICR is in effect. The average annual burden is 14,144 hours and the cost is $ 631,440. We assume there will be additional costs to develop, administer and maintain a computer based system for MBE/ WBE certifications, and data from grant and loan recipient information ( including costs of availability analyses). The total fixed cost of the computer system and computer workstations is estimated to be $ 170,000. A maintenance and service contract to support the computer system is estimated to cost $ 30,000 per year, giving a total of $ 260,000. Assuming the average life of the fixed costs is equal to the three year period the ICR is in effect, we spread the fixed costs over the three years to provide an average annual cost of approximately $ 60,000. Combined with the annual maintenance costs of $ 30,000 yields a total average annual cost for equipment, supplies and maintenance of approximately $ 90,000.

Table 6 3. Total Labor Burden and Costs to Agency to Operate DBE Certification Program Activities Total Estimated Burden and Cost for Three Year Period ICR is Effective Average Annual Burden and Cost Number of Hours Dollars Hours Dollars Staff; wages and benefits; and overhead 42,432 $ 1,624,320 2,080 ( 1 Program Analyst) 3,744 ( 1.8 Attorneys) 2,080 ( 1 Data Entry Clerk) 6,240 ( 3 SEE L III Support) + benefits ( 0.6* wages) + overhead ( 0.2* staff cost) $ 78,000 $ 118,800 $ 29,000 $ 75,000 $ 190,080 $ 60,160 Total 14,144 $ 541,440 Equipment, Supplies and Maintenance 0 $ 260,000 0 $ 90,000 Total Labor Burden and Cost for Agency 42,432 $ 1,884,320 14,144 $ 631,440 Key Assumptions:

° Total number of EPA employees and SEE program enrollees required is constant over time. ° Lifetime of fixed capital investment is three years for computer and set up costs. ° No extra enforcement costs estimated. 17 6( d) Total Burden and Costs Table 6 4 summarizes the total estimated annual burden and cost of the proposed rule. We estimate that the rule will require 345,394 hours and cost $ 9,051,373, estimated annually, with the vast majority of costs attributed to labor hours required to meet the requirements of the rule. We estimate the average annual labor burden for an availability analysis to be 265 hours and the wage rate to be $ 20 an hour based on Virginia's estimated wage rate for preparing an availability analysis. Over the first three years of the proposed rule, the total number of labor burden is estimated to be 1,036,182 hours with total costs of $ 27,154,120. The first year of the program is expected to have higher costs than subsequent years because new certifications need to be developed and issued, and new availability analyses must be prepared by grant and loan recipients. Since the certifications and availability analyses both are designed to have a three year useful life, they can be reused by these institutions without having to incur new costs to participate in the grant and loan programs covered under the proposed rule. Because of the many other conservative assumptions used to generate the information underlying the analysis, we believe that these total burden and cost estimates will be higher than those which will be actually incurred as a result of the rule.

Table 6 4. Total Labor Burden and Costs for DBE Program Respondents Total Estimated Burden and Cost for Three Year Period ICR is Effective Average Annual Burden and Cost Number of Respondents Total Burden Hours Total Cost Number of Respondent s Total Burden Hours Total Cost MBE/ WBE 6,731 168,275 $ 8,750,000 2,244 56,092 $ 2,916,767 Grant and Loan Recipients 3,115 825,475 $ 16,509,503 1,038 275,158 $ 5,503,167 Agency 1 42,432 $ 1,894,320 1 14,144 $ 631,440 TOTAL 9,847 1,036,182 $ 27,154,120 3,283 345,394 $ 9,051,373 6( e) Sensitivity Analysis for Estimate of Burden and Costs There are a number of assumptions the analysis was required to make in order to fill several missing pieces of information. Higher cost estimates may occur if additional hours are needed by the States and other recipients to perform an availability analysis. Higher costs may also occur if an availability analysis is developed under contract and a higher wage rate is needed.

Applying these higher average costs for an availability analysis to all entities required to file an availability analysis under the proposed rule, the resulting change in the total burden and costs of the rule 18 are summarized in Table 6 5. For this sensitivity analysis we are using a higher burden hour ( 1140 hours) and wage rate of $ 52 an hour ( based on DOT's estimated wage rate for private labor used in preparing an availability analysis). These estimates resulted in a cost of $ 59,280 for each availability analysis ( 1140 hours * $ 52 an hour) which represents the upper end of the central range of cost estimates supplied by the States.

Under these highly conservative sets of assumptions, the average annual cost of the rule will be $ 65,208,528 and require 1,253,936 labor hours. The total cost over the three year life of the ICR is estimated to be $ 195,625,583 and require about 3,761,807 labor hours.

Table 6 5. Sensitivity Analysis for Total Labor Burden and Costs for DBE Program ( High Unit Cost Estimate for Availability Analysis)

Respondents Total Estimated Burden and Cost for Three Year Period ICR is Effective Average Annual Burden and Cost Number of Respondents Total Burden Hours Total Cost Number of Respondents Total Burden Hours Total Cost MBE/ WBE 6731 168,275 $ 8,750,000 2,244 56,092 $ 2,916,767 Grant and Loan Recipients 3,115 3,551,100 $ 184,657,200 1038 1,183,700 $ 61,552,400 Agency 1 42,432 $ 2,218,083 1 14,144 $ 739,361 TOTAL 9,847 3,761,807 $ 195,625,583 3,283 1,253,936 $ 65,208,528 Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 25 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OA 2002 0001, which is available for public viewing at the OEI Docket in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public 19 Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is ( 202) 566 1752. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select " search," then key in the docket ID number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID No. OA 2002 0001 in any correspondence.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 226 (Friday, November 23, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 70121]
[FR Doc No: 2012-28395]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2012-0954]

Special Local Regulation; Annual Marine Events on the Colorado
River Between Davis Dam (Bullhead City, AZ) and Headgate Dam (Parker,
AZ) Within the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce special local regulations during
the Lake Havasu City Boat Parade of Lights on December 01, 2012 from 5
p.m. to 9 p.m. This event occurs on Lake Havasu on the Bridgwater
Channel. These special local regulations are necessary to provide for
the safety of the participants, crew, spectators, sponsor vessels of
the regatta, and general users of the waterway. During the enforcement
period, persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into,
transiting through, or anchoring within this safety zone unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated
representative.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 100.1102 will be enforced on December
1, 2012 from 5 p.m. until 9 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call or email Petty Officer Bryan Gollogly, Waterways Management, U.S.
Coast Guard Sector San Diego, CA; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the special
local regulations in 33 CFR 100.1102 in support of the Lake Havasu City
Boat Parade of Lights (Item 10 on Table 1 of 33 CFR 100.1102). The
Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulations between Thompson
Bay and Windsor State Beach on December 01, 2012 from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m.
The event will include approximately fifty powerboats and sailboats
participating in a follow-the-leader style parade. The vessels will be
decorated in Christmas lights according to a predetermined theme. The
route will begin in Thompson Bay, proceed through the channel, make a
large circle in Windsor bay, and return to Thompson Bay along the same
route.
    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 100.1102, persons and vessels are
prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within
this safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his
designated representative. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other
Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this
regulation.
    This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 100.1102 and 5
U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the
Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with extensive advance
notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to
Mariners, state, or local agencies.

    Dated: November 5, 2012.
S.M. Mahoney,
Captain of the Port San Diego, United States Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2012-28395 Filed 11-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 3 (Monday, January 6, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 535-538]
[FR Doc No: 2019-28448]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87871; File No. SR-MIAX-2019-52]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange Rule 315, Anti-Money Laundering
Compliance Program, To Reflect the Financial Crimes Enforcement
Network's Adoption of a Final Rule on Customer Due Diligence
Requirements for Financial Institutions

December 30, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on December 20, 2019, Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC
(``MIAX Options'' or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared
by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-
controversial'' proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission''), the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange, to
reflect the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network's (``FinCEN'')
adoption of a final rule on Customer Due Diligence Requirements for
Financial Institutions (``CDD Rule''). Specifically, the proposed
amendments would conform MIAX Rule 315 to the CDD Rule's amendments to
the minimum regulatory requirements for Members' \5\ anti-money
laundering (``AML'') compliance programs by requiring such programs to
include risk-based procedures for conducting ongoing customer due
diligence. This ongoing customer due diligence element for AML programs
includes: (1) Understanding the nature and purpose of customer
relationships for the purpose of developing a customer risk profile;
and (2) conducting ongoing monitoring to identify and report suspicious
transactions and, on a risk basis, to maintain and update customer
information. The Exchange has designated this proposal as ``non-
controversial'' under paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 under the Act,\6\
and provided the Commission with the notice required by Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) under the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``Member'' means an individual or organization
approved to exercise the trading rights associated with a Trading
Permit. Members are deemed ``members'' under the Exchange Act. See
Exchange Rule 100.
    \6\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings/ at MIAX Options'
principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
I. Background
    The Bank Secrecy Act \7\ (``BSA''), among other things, requires
financial institutions,\8\ including broker-dealers, to develop and
implement AML programs that, at a minimum, meet the statutorily
enumerated ``four pillars.'' \9\ These four pillars currently require
broker-dealers to have written AML programs that include, at a minimum:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 31 U.S.C. 5311, et seq.
    \8\ See U.S.C. 5312(a)(2) (defining ``financial institution'').
    \9\ 31 U.S.C. 5318(h)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The establishment and implementation of policies,
procedures and internal controls reasonably designed to achieve
compliance with the applicable provisions of the BSA and implementing
regulations;

     independent testing for compliance by broker-dealer
personnel or a qualified outside party;
     designation of an individual or individuals responsible
for implementing and monitoring the operations and internal controls of
the AML program; and
     ongoing training for appropriate persons.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 31 CFR 1023.210(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to meeting the BSA's requirements with respect to AML
programs, Exchange Members \11\ must also comply with Exchange Rule
315, which incorporates the BSA's four pillars, as well as requires
Members' AML programs to establish and implement policies and
procedures that can be reasonably expected to detect and cause the
reporting of suspicious transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Exchange Rule 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 11, 2016, FinCEN, the bureau of the Department of the
Treasury responsible for administering the BSA and its implementing
regulations, issued the CDD Rule \12\ to clarify and strengthen
customer due diligence for covered financial institutions,\13\
including broker-dealers. In its CDD Rule, FinCEN identifies four
components of customer due diligence: (1) Customer identification and
verification; (2) beneficial ownership identification and verification;
(3) understanding the nature and purpose of customer relationships; and
(4) ongoing monitoring for reporting suspicious transactions and, on a
risk basis, maintaining and updating customer information.\14\ As the
first component is already required to be part of a broker-dealers AML
program under the BSA, the CDD Rule focuses on the other three
components.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ FinCEN Customer Due Diligence Requirements for Financial
Institutions; CDD Rule, 81 FR 29397 (May 11, 2016) (CDD Rule
Release); 82 FR 45182 (September 28, 2017) (making technical
correcting amendments to the final CDD Rule published on May 11,
2016). FinCEN is authorized to impose AML program requirements on
financial institutions and to require financial institutions to
maintain procedures to ensure compliance with the BSA and associated
regulations. 31 U.S.C. 5318(h)(2) and (a)(2). The CDD Rule is the
result of the rulemaking process FinCEN initiated in March 2012. See
77 FR 13046 (March 5, 2012) (Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking)
and 79 FR 45151 (Aug. 4, 2014) (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking).
    \13\ See 31 CFR 1010.230(f) (defining ``covered financial
institution'').
    \14\ See CDD Rule Release at 29398.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the CDD Rule focuses particularly on the second
component by adding a new requirement that covered financial
institutions identify and verify the identity of the beneficial owners
of all legal entity customers at the time a new account is opened,
subject to certain exclusions and exemptions.\15\ The CDD Rule also
addresses the third and fourth components, which FinCEN states ``are
already implicitly required for covered financial institutions to
comply with their suspicious activity reporting requirements,'' by
amending the existing AML program rules for covered financial
institutions to explicitly require these components to be included in
AML programs as a new ``fifth pillar.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See 31 CFR 1010.230(d) (defining ``beneficial owner'') and
31 CFR 1010.230(e) (defining ``legal entity customer'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 21, 2017, FINRA published Regulatory Notice 17-40 to
provide guidance to member firms regarding their obligations under
FINRA Rule 3310 in light of the adoption of FinCEN's CDD Rule. In
addition, the Notice summarized the CDD Rule's impact on member firms,
including the addition of the new fifth pillar required for member
firms' AML programs. FINRA also amended FINRA Rule 3310 to explicitly
incorporate the fifth pillar.\16\ This proposed rule change amends MIAX
Rule 315 to harmonize it with the FINRA rule and incorporate the fifth
pillar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83154 (May 2,
2018), 83 FR 20906 (May 8, 2018) (File No. SR-FINRA-2018-016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Exchange Rule 315 and Amendment to Minimum Requirements for
Members' AML Programs
    Section 352 of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 \17\ amended the BSA to
require broker-dealers to develop and implement AML programs that
include the four pillars mentioned above. Consistent with Section 352
of the PATRIOT Act, and incorporating the four pillars, MIAX Rule 315
requires each Member to develop and implement a written AML program
reasonably designed to achieve and monitor the Member's compliance with
the BSA and implementing regulations. Among other requirements, MIAX
Rule 315 requires that each Member firm, at a minimum: (1) Establish
and implement policies and procedures that can be reasonably expected
to detect and cause the reporting of suspicious transactions; (2)
establish and implement policies, procedures, and internal controls
reasonably designed to achieve compliance with the BSA and implementing
regulations; (3) provide independent testing for compliance to be
conducted by Member personnel or a qualified outside party; (4)
designate and identify to MIAX an individual or individuals (i.e., AML
compliance person(s)) who will be responsible for implementing and
monitoring the day-to-day operations and internal controls of the AML
program and provide prompt notification to the Exchange of any changes
to the designation; and (5) provide ongoing training for appropriate
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate
Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001, Pub.
L. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272 (2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FinCEN's CDD Rule does not change the requirements of Exchange Rule
315, and Members must continue to comply with its requirements.\18\
However, FinCEN's CDD Rule amends the minimum regulatory requirements
for broker-dealers' AML programs by explicitly requiring such programs
to include risk-based procedures for conducting ongoing customer due
diligence.\19\ Accordingly, the Exchange is proposing to amend Exchange
Rule 315 to incorporate this ongoing customer due diligence element, or
``fifth pillar'' required for AML programs. Thus, proposed Rule 315(f)
would provide that the AML programs required by this Rule shall, at a
minimum include appropriate risk-based procedures for conducting
ongoing customer due diligence, to include, but not be limited to: (1)
Understanding the nature and purpose of customer relationships for the
purpose of developing a customer risk profile; and (2) conducting
ongoing monitoring to identify and report suspicious transactions and,
on a risk basis, to maintain and update customer information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ FinCEN notes that broker-dealers must continue to comply
with FINRA Rules, notwithstanding differences between the CDD Rule
and FINRA Rule 3310, which is substantially identical to Exchange
Rule 315. See CDD Rule Release 29421, n. 85.
    \19\ See CDD Rule Release at 29420; 31 CFR 1023.210.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in the CDD Rule, these provisions are not new and merely
codify existing expectations for Members to adequately identify and
report suspicious transactions as required under the BSA and
encapsulate practices generally already undertaken by securities firms
to know and understand their customers.\20\ The proposed rule change
simply incorporates into Exchange Rule 315 the ongoing customer due
diligence element, or ``fifth pillar,'' required for AML programs by
the CDD Rule to aid Members in complying with the CDD Rule's
requirements. However, to the extent that these elements, which are
briefly summarized below, are not already included in Members' AML

programs, the CDD Rule requires Members to update their AML programs to
explicitly incorporate them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Id. at 29419.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Fifth Pillar's Requirements
Understanding the Nature and Purpose of Customer Relationships
    FinCEN states in the CDD Rule that firms must necessarily have an
understanding of the nature and purpose of the customer relationship in
order to determine whether a transaction is potentially suspicious and,
in turn, to fulfill their SAR obligations.\21\ To that end, the CDD
Rule requires that firms understand the nature and purpose of the
customer relationship in order to develop a customer risk profile. The
customer risk profile refers to information gathered about a customer
to form the baseline against which customer activity is assessed for
suspicious transaction reporting.\22\ Information relevant to
understanding the nature and purpose of the customer relationship may
be self-evident and, depending on the facts and circumstances, may
include such information as the type of customer, account or service
offered, and the customer's income, net worth, domicile, or principal
occupation or business, as well as, in the case of existing customers,
the customer's history of activity.\23\ The CDD Rule also does not
prescribe a particular form of the customer risk profile.\24\ Instead,
the CDD Rule states that depending on the firm and the nature of its
business, a customer risk profile may consist of individualized risk
scoring, placement of customers into risk categories or another means
of assessing customer risk that allows firms to understand the risk
posed by the customer and to demonstrate that understanding.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Id. at 29421.
    \22\ Id. at 29422.
    \23\ Id.
    \24\ Id.
    \25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CDD Rule also addresses the interplay of understanding the
nature and purpose of customer relationships with the ongoing
monitoring obligation discussed below. The CDD Rule explains that firms
are not necessarily required or expected to integrate customer
information or the customer risk profile into existing transaction
monitoring systems (for example, to serve as the baseline for
identifying and assessing suspicious transactions on a contemporaneous
basis).\26\ Rather, FinCEN expects firms to use the customer
information and customer risk profile as appropriate during the course
of complying with their obligations under the BSA in order to determine
whether a particular flagged transaction is suspicious.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Id.
    \27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conduct Ongoing Monitoring
    As with the requirement to understand the nature and purpose of the
customer relationship, the requirement to conduct ongoing monitoring to
identify and report suspicious transactions and, on a risk basis, to
maintain and update customer information, merely adopts existing
supervisory and regulatory expectations as explicit minimum standards
of customer due diligence required for firms' AML programs.\28\ If, in
the course of its normal monitoring for suspicious activity, the Member
detects information that is relevant to assessing the customer's risk
profile, the Member must update the customer information, including the
information regarding the beneficial owners of legal entity
customers.\29\ However, there is no expectation that the Member update
customer information, including beneficial ownership information, on an
ongoing or continuous basis.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Id. at 29402.
    \29\ Id. at 29420-21. See also FINRA Regulatory Notice 17-40
(discussing identifying and verifying the identity of beneficial
owners of legal entity customers).
    \30\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\31\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change
is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \32\ requirements that the rules
of an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts
and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest
because it will aid Members in complying with the CDD Rule's
requirement that Members' AML programs include risk-based procedures
for conducting ongoing customer due diligence by also incorporating the
requirement into Exchange Rule 315.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed
rule change simply incorporates into Exchange Rule 315 the ongoing
customer due diligence element, or ``fifth pillar,'' required for AML
programs by the CDD Rule. Regardless of the proposed rule change, to
the extent that the elements of the fifth pillar are not already
included in Members' AML programs, the CDD Rule requires Members to
update their AML programs to explicitly incorporate them. In addition,
as stated in the CDD Rule, these elements are already implicitly
required for covered financial institutions to comply with their
suspicious activity reporting requirements. Further, all Exchange
Members that have customers are required to be members of FINRA
pursuant to Rule 15b9-1 under the Exchange Act,\33\ and are therefore
already subject to the requirements of FINRA Rule 3310. Additionally,
the proposed rule change is virtually identical \34\ to FINRA Rule
3310. The Exchange is not imposing any additional direct or indirect
burdens on member firms or their customers through this proposal, and
as such, the proposal imposes no new burdens on competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 17 CFR 240.15b9-1.
    \34\ The Exchange notes that changes between the proposed Rule
and FINRA Rule 3310 are non-substantive and relate to cross
references.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective
pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \35\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \36\
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \36\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.

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

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-MIAX-2019-52 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2019-52. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2019-52 and
should be submitted on or before January 27, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\37\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-28448 Filed 1-3-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 102 (Thursday, May 28, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30465-30466]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12752]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-D-0369]

M7 Assessment and Control of DNA Reactive (Mutagenic) Impurities
in Pharmaceuticals to Limit Potential Carcinogenic Risk; International
Conference on Harmonisation; Guidance for Industry; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
the availability of a guidance entitled ``M7 Assessment and Control of
DNA Reactive (Mutagenic) Impurities in Pharmaceuticals to Limit
Potential Carcinogenic Risk.'' The guidance was prepared under the
auspices of the International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical

Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH).
The guidance emphasizes considerations of both safety and quality risk
management in establishing levels of mutagenic impurities that are
expected to pose negligible carcinogenic risk. It outlines
recommendations for assessment and control of mutagenic impurities that
reside or are reasonably expected to reside in a final drug substance
or product, taking into consideration the intended conditions of human
use. The guidance is intended to provide guidance for new drug
substances and new drug products during their clinical development and
subsequent applications for marketing.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances
at any time.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to
the Division of Drug Information (HFD-240), Center for Drug Evaluation
and Research (CDER), Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire
Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993; or the
Office of Communication, Outreach, and Development, Center for
Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration,
10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-
0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist the office in
processing your requests. The guidance may also be obtained by mail by
calling CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or<PHONE_NUMBER>. See the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for electronic access to the guidance document.
    Submit electronic comments on the guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    Regarding the guidance: Aisar Atrakchi, Center for Drug Evaluation
and Research, Food and Drug Administration, Bldg. 22, Rm. 4118, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Regarding the ICH: Michelle Limoli, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research, International Programs, Food and Drug Administration, 10903
New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 1174, Rockville, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-8377.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In recent years, many important initiatives have been undertaken by
regulatory authorities and industry associations to promote
international harmonization of regulatory requirements. FDA has
participated in many meetings designed to enhance harmonization and is
committed to seeking scientifically based harmonized technical
procedures for pharmaceutical development. One of the goals of
harmonization is to identify and then reduce differences in technical
requirements for drug development among regulatory agencies.
    ICH was organized to provide an opportunity for tripartite
harmonization initiatives to be developed with input from both
regulatory and industry representatives. FDA also seeks input from
consumer representatives and others. ICH is concerned with
harmonization of technical requirements for the registration of
pharmaceutical products among three regions: The European Union, Japan,
and the United States. The six ICH sponsors are the European
Commission; the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries
Associations; the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare; the
Japanese Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association; CDER and CBER, FDA;
and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. The ICH
Secretariat, which coordinates the preparation of documentation, is
provided by the International Federation of Pharmaceutical
Manufacturers Associations (IFPMA).
    The ICH Steering Committee includes representatives from each of
the ICH sponsors and the IFPMA, as well as observers from the World
Health Organization, Health Canada, and the European Free Trade Area.
    In the Federal Register of April 15, 2013 (72 FR 22269), FDA
published a notice announcing the availability of a draft guidance
entitled ``M7 Assessment and Control of DNA Reactive (Mutagenic)
Impurities in Pharmaceuticals to Limit Potential Carcinogenic Risk''
The notice gave interested persons an opportunity to submit comments by
June 14, 2013. Changes made to the guidance took into consideration
written comments received. Minor editorial changes were made to improve
clarity.
    After consideration of the comments received and revisions to the
guidance, a final draft of the guidance was submitted to the ICH
Steering Committee and endorsed by the three participating regulatory
agencies in June 2014.
    The guidance provides guidance on the regulation of genotoxic
impurities in new drug substances and drug products.
    This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance
practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the
current thinking of FDA on this topic. It does not establish any rights
for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an
alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable
statutes and regulations.

II. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding
this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the
Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to
send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments
may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at
http://www.regulations.gov, http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm, or
http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm.

    Dated: May 20, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-12752 Filed 5-27-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: March 11, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 46)]
[Notices]
[Page 10596]
[DOCID:fr11mr09-89]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0572]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Implementation of the Animal Generic Drug User Fee Act
of 2008; User Fee Cover Sheet Form FDA 3728

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY:  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(the PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information,
including each proposed extension of an existing collection of
information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the
notice. This notice solicits comments on the Animal Generic Drug User
Fee Cover Sheet Form FDA 3728 that further implements certain
provisions of the Animal Generic Drug User Fee Act of 2008 (AGDUFA).

DATES:  Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of
information by May 11, 2009.

ADDRESSES:  Submit electronic comments on the collection of information
to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the
collection of information to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-
305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Denver Presley, Jr., Office of
Information Management (HFA-710), Food and Drug Administration, 5600
Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520),
Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or
sponsor. ``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)
and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that
members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide
information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day
notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of
information, including each proposed extension of an existing
collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for
approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of
the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Implementation of the Animal Generic Drug User Fee Act of 2008; User
Fee Cover Sheet Form FDA 3728--21 U.S.C. 379j-21--(OMB Control Number
0910-0632)--Extension

    This collection of information is currently approved under the
emergency processing provisions of the PRA of 1995 for 90 days. FDA is
now seeking a 3-year clearance.
    Section 741 of the act (21 U.S.C. 379j-21), establishes three
different kinds of user fees: (1) Fees for certain types of abbreviated
applications for generic new animal drugs, (2) annual fees for certain
generic new animal drug products, and (3) annual fees for certain
sponsors of abbreviated applications for generic new animal drugs and/
or investigational submissions for generic new animal drugs. Because
the submission of user fees concurrently with applications is required,
the review of an application cannot begin until the fee is submitted.
Form FDA 3728, the Animal Generic Drug User Fee Cover Sheet, is
designed to provide the minimum necessary information in order to: (1)
Determine whether a fee is required for review of an application, (2)
determine the amount of fee required, and (3) account for and track
user fees.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                     Table 1.--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden\1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Annual Frequency      Total Annual
                21 U.S.C. 379j-21                  No. of Respondents      per Response          Responses        Hours per Response      Total Hours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Form FDA 3728                                                       20                  2                    40                   .08                3.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    Respondents to this collection of information are generic animal
drug applicants. Based on FDA's data base system, there are an
estimated 20 sponsors of new animal drugs potentially subject to
AGDUFA.

    Dated: March 4, 2009.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.
[FR Doc. E9-5107 Filed 3-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 43 (Monday, March 6, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13818-13819]
[FR Doc No: 2023-04536]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG23-86-000.
    Applicants: Nestlewood Solar I LLC.
    Description: Nestlewood Solar I LLC submits Notice of Self-
Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.
    Filed Date: 2/28/23.
    Accession Number: 20230228-5220.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/21/23.

    Docket Numbers: EG23-87-000.
    Applicants: North Central Valley Energy Storage, LLC.
    Description: North Central Valley Energy Storage, LLC submits
Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.
    Filed Date: 2/28/23.
    Accession Number: 20230228-5229.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/21/23.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER23-539-001.
    Applicants: Morongo Transmission LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Deficiency Response in Docket ER23-
539 to be effective 1/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 2/27/23.
    Accession Number: 20230227-5223.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/20/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-577-002.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment of Amended ISA, SA No.
2360, Queue No. AD2-133/Q36 Docket No. ER23-577 to be effective 2/6/
2023.
    Filed Date: 2/27/23.
    Accession Number: 20230227-5187.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/20/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-882-001.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to Amended ISA and ICSA,
SA Nos. 5366 and 5367; Queue No. AB2-161 to be effective 3/20/2023.
    Filed Date: 2/28/23.
    Accession Number: 20230228-5101.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/21/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-940-001.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment of Amended WMPA, SA No.
5294; Queue No. AC2-120 in Docket No. ER23-940 to be effective 3/27/
2023.

    Filed Date: 2/28/23.
    Accession Number: 20230228-5200.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/21/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-962-001.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment of Amended ISA, SA No.
6116; Queue No. AE1-129 in Docket No. ER23-962 to be effective 3/28/
2023.
    Filed Date: 2/28/23.
    Accession Number: 20230228-5215.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/21/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1189-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original ISA and ICSA,
Service Agreement Nos. 6810 and 6811; Queue No. AE1-179 to be effective
1/30/2023.
    Filed Date: 2/28/23.
    Accession Number: 20230228-5044.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/21/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1190-000.
    Applicants: Ohio Power Company, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Ohio Power Company submits
tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: AEP and METC submit Amended and
Restated Interconnection Agreement, SA No. 4251 to be effective 12/21/
2019.
    Filed Date: 2/28/23.
    Accession Number: 20230228-5068.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/21/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1191-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: CCSF Warnerville Substation
WPA (TO SA 284) to be effective 1/26/2023.
    Filed Date: 2/28/23.
    Accession Number: 20230228-5184.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/21/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1192-000.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Rate Schedule No. 316,
Interconnection Agreement with AEPCO at Saguaro to be effective 4/30/
2023.
    Filed Date: 2/28/23.
    Accession Number: 20230228-5223.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/21/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1194-000.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Service Agreement No. 409,
HV Sunrise LLC LGIA to be effective 1/30/2023.
    Filed Date: 2/28/23.
    Accession Number: 20230228-5235.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/21/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1195-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2023-02-28_DIR vis-[agrave]-
vis Ramp Capability Products Filing to be effective 6/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 2/28/23.
    Accession Number: 20230228-5254.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/21/23.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 28, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-04536 Filed 3-3-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P