[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 141 (Monday, July 23, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42980-42988]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17763]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 241

[Release No. 34-67448; File No. S7-06-12]

Commission Guidance Regarding Definitions of Mortgage Related
Security and Small Business Related Security

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Interpretation; solicitation of comment.

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

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') is
publishing interpretive guidance with respect to sections 3(a)(41) (the
definition of ``mortgage related security'') and 3(a)(53)(A) (the
definition of ``small business related security'') of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Exchange Act''), in light of section 939(e)
of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the
``Dodd-Frank Act''). Section 939(e) strikes provisions in sections
3(a)(41) and 3(a)(53)(A) of the Exchange Act that reference credit
ratings issued by nationally recognized statistical rating
organizations (``NRSROs''), and inserts new text that provides that in
order to satisfy these definitions a security must meet ``standards of
credit-worthiness as established by the Commission.'' Because more time
is needed to develop and establish standards of creditworthiness for
purposes of these definitions, the Commission is providing a
transitional interpretation that will be applicable on and after July
20, 2012, and until such time as final Commission rules establishing
new standards of creditworthiness become effective. The Commission also
is seeking comment on potential standards of creditworthiness that
could be established to replace the use of NRSRO credit ratings in the
definitions of the terms ``mortgage related security'' and ``small
business related security.''

DATES: Effective Date: July 20, 2012.
    Comments: Comments should be received on or before August 22, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael A. Macchiaroli, Associate
Director, at<PHONE_NUMBER>; Thomas K. McGowan, Deputy Associate
Director, at<PHONE_NUMBER>; Randall W. Roy, Assistant Director, at
(202) 551-5522; Mark M. Attar, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER>; Carrie
A. O'Brien, Special Counsel, at<PHONE_NUMBER>; and Rachel B. Yura,
Attorney-Adviser, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office of Financial
Responsibility, Division of Trading and Markets, Securities and
Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-7010.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/interp.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number S7-06-12 on the subject line; or
     Use the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov). Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number S7-06-12. This file number
should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the
Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please
use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the
Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/interp.shtml).
Comments also are available for Web site viewing and printing in the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. All comments received will be posted without change; we do
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make publicly available.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

    Section 3(a)(41) of the Exchange Act defines the term ``mortgage
related security'' as, among other things, a security that is rated in
one of the two highest rating categories by at least one NRSRO.\1\
Section 3(a)(53)(A) of the Exchange Act defines the term ``small
business related security'' as, among other things, a security that is
rated in one of the four highest rating categories by at least one
NRSRO.\2\ A ``rating category'' refers to a distinct level in an
NRSRO's rating scale represented by a unique symbol, number, or score.
For example, a rating scale consisting of AAA, AA, A, BBB, BB, B, CCC,
CC, C, and D has ten rating categories, with the AAA and AA categories
being the two

highest categories and the AAA through BBB categories being the four
highest categories. Securities rated in the two highest categories of
such a rating scale are sometimes colloquially referred to as ``highly
rated'' and securities rated in the four highest categories as
``investment grade.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(41).
    \2\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(53)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 939(e) of the Dodd-Frank Act strikes the text in sections
3(a)(41) and 3(a)(53)(A) of the Exchange Act that reference NRSRO
credit ratings and in its place inserts text providing that a
``mortgage related security'' and a ``small business related security''
means a security that ``meets standards of creditworthiness as
established by the Commission.'' \3\ The effective date of these
amendments to the Exchange Act is July 20, 2012.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Public Law 111-203 Sec.  939(e).
    \4\ See Public Law 111-203 Sec.  939(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission previously discussed and requested comment on
section 939(e) of the Dodd-Frank Act and potential standards of
creditworthiness that could be used for purposes of the terms
``mortgage related security'' and ``small business related security.''
\5\ The Commission is continuing to work on rule proposals to establish
standards of creditworthiness to implement section 939(e) of the Dodd-
Frank Act. However, as explained below, these definitions are
referenced in numerous statutes and regulations--the majority of which
are not Commission authorizing statutes or regulations administered by
the Commission. Consequently, the new standards of creditworthiness
established by the Commission under section 939(e) of the Dodd-Frank
Act will impact different types of persons and transactions, including
persons and transactions for which the Commission does not have
oversight authority. This impact adds a layer of complexity to the
process of developing and establishing a standard or standards of
creditworthiness for each definition. The considerations involved in
undertaking this difficult task include seeking to accommodate, to the
extent practicable, the varied uses of the definitions of ``mortgage
related security'' and ``small business related security'' in statutes
and regulations without lowering protections for investors, disrupting
the markets for these securities, increasing risk to financial
institutions, or imposing undue burdens and costs to market
participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Removal of Certain References to Credit Ratings under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Exchange Act Release No. 64352
(Apr. 27, 2011), 76 FR 26550 (May 6, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, as explained below, the Commission and other Federal
agencies are continuing their efforts to remove references to credit
ratings in regulations they administer as mandated by section 939A of
the Dodd-Frank Act.\6\ In the case of some proposed amendments under
section 939A, commenters--as explained below--have raised concerns that
replacing the benchmark of credit ratings with another standard could,
among other things, be harmful to investors, increase risk to financial
institutions, distort financial markets, and increase burdens and
costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Public Law 111-203 Sec.  939a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, the Commission needs additional time to analyze
and understand the potential impact that could result from the
establishment of new standards of creditworthiness in the definitions
of the terms ``mortgage related security'' and ``small business related
security.'' At the same time, under section 939(e) of the Dodd-Frank
Act, the use of NRSRO credit ratings in sections 3(a)(41) and
3(a)(53)(A) of the Exchange Act will be stricken from the statutory
text on July 20, 2012. Absent further guidance from the Commission,
this change could create uncertainty among market participants that
rely on these definitions and potentially negatively impact the market
for mortgage related securities and small business related securities.
In this regard, the Commission does not believe that, in the absence of
established standards of creditworthiness by the Commission, Congress
intended for the statutory definitions to become unworkable or to
create market uncertainty regarding the status or meaning of these
definitions. Consequently, the Commission is issuing this transitional
interpretation to ensure that the markets can continue to function
while the Commission continues its work on rule proposals to establish
standards of creditworthiness to implement section 939(e) of the Dodd-
Frank Act.
    Therefore, until new standards of creditworthiness are established
by final rules, the Commission is providing a transitional
interpretation that will be applicable beginning on July 20, 2012 with
respect to section 3(a)(41) (the definition of ``mortgage related
security'') and section 3(a)(53)(A) (the definition of ``small business
related security'') of the Exchange Act. Specifically, for purposes of
these sections, the Commission interprets the terms ``standards of
creditworthiness as established by the Commission'' to mean that on and
after July 20, 2012, and until such time as final Commission rules
establishing new standards of creditworthiness are effective:
     The standard of creditworthiness for purposes of the
definition of the term ``mortgage related security'' in section
3(a)(41) of the Exchange Act is a security that is rated in one of the
two highest rating categories by at least one NRSRO; and
     The standard of creditworthiness for purposes of the
definition of the term ``small business related security'' in section
3(a)(53)(A) of the Exchange Act is a security that is rated in one of
the four highest rating categories by at least one NRSRO.

The Commission is not interpreting any other provisions of sections
3(a)(41) and 3(a)(53)(A) of the Exchange Act herein.

II. Background

A. Use of the Definitions of These Securities

1. Mortgage Related Security
    Congress defined the term ``mortgage related security'' in section
3(a)(41) of the Exchange Act as part of the Secondary Mortgage Market
Enhancement Act of 1984 (``SMMEA'').\7\ SMMEA was intended to encourage
private sector participation in the secondary mortgage market by, among
other things, relaxing certain regulatory requirements for ``private-
label issuers'' \8\ to sell mortgage-backed securities.\9\ For example,
SMMEA: (1) Pre-Empted certain state investment laws to permit state
regulated institutions to invest in private-label mortgage-backed
securities to the same

extent as agency securities;\10\ (2) granted authority for certain
depository institutions to invest in these securities;\11\ and (3)
required states to exempt private-label mortgage-backed securities from
state registration to the same extent as agency securities, unless the
state specifically deemed otherwise.\12\ A security that qualifies as a
mortgage related security under section 3(a)(41) of the Exchange Act
receives the benefits intended by SMMEA.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Public Law 98-440, Sec.  101, 98 Stat. 1689 (1984).
    \8\ Most mortgage-backed securities are issued or guaranteed by
the Government National Mortgage Association (``Ginnie Mae''), a
U.S. government agency, or the Federal National Mortgage Association
(``Fannie Mae'') and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation
(``Freddie Mac''), U.S. government-sponsored enterprises. These
securities are commonly referred to as ``agency'' mortgage-backed
securities. Ginnie Mae, backed by the full faith and credit of the
U.S. government, guarantees that investors receive timely payments.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac also provide certain guarantees and,
while not backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S.
government, have special authority to borrow from the U.S. Treasury.
Some private institutions, such as brokerage firms, banks, and
homebuilders, also securitize mortgages, known as ``private-label''
mortgage-backed securities.
    \9\ The legislation was aimed at encouraging participation in
the secondary mortgage market by investment banks, investment
entities, mortgage bankers, private mortgage insurance companies,
pension funds and other investors, depositary institutions, and
federal credit unions. See Kenneth G. Lore & Cameron L. Cowan,
Mortgage-Backed Securities; Developments and Trends in the Secondary
Market 2-39 (2001), at 1-14. See also Edward L. Pittman, Economic
and Regulatory Developments Affecting Mortgage Related Securities,
64 Notre Dame L. Rev. 497, 499 (1989).
    \10\ See 15 U.S.C. 77r-1.
    \11\ See 12 U.S.C. 1464(c)(1), 12 U.S.C. 1757, and 12 U.S.C. 24.
    \12\ See 15 U.S.C. 77d. For further discussion of SMMEA, see
also Protecting Investors: A Half Century of Investment Company
Regulation, Division of Investment Management (May 1992).
    \13\ See Pittman, p. 514.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, section 3(a)(41) of the Exchange Act defines the term
``mortgage related security'' as a ``security that is rated in one of
the two highest rating categories by at least one [NRSRO]'' and that:
(1) Represents ownership of one or more promissory notes, or interests
therein, which notes are directly secured by a first lien on a single
parcel of real estate upon which is located a dwelling or mixed
residential and commercial structure, or on a residential manufactured
home or one or more parcels of real estate upon which is located one or
more commercial structures and were originated by a savings or banking
institution or other similar institution approved for insurance by the
Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; or
(2) is secured by one or more promissory notes, or interests therein,
and provides for payments of principal in relation to payments, or
reasonable projections of payments, on notes, or interests therein,
meeting such requirements.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(41).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 1 identifies examples of Federal statutes and regulations
that refer to the term ``mortgage related security'' as defined under
the Exchange Act and indicates the type of entity that is subject to
the statute or regulation.

                                 Table 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Citation                  Entities subject to requirement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11 U.S.C. 101(47).................  Participants in bankruptcy
                                     proceedings.
12 U.S.C. 24......................  National banking associations.
12 U.S.C. 1464....................  Federal savings associations.
12 U.S.C. 1757....................  Federal credit unions.
12 U.S.C. 1787....................  Federal credit unions.
12 U.S.C. 1821....................  Depository institutions insured by
                                     the Federal Deposit Insurance
                                     Corporation.
12 U.S.C. 4520....................  Fannie Mae and any affiliate thereof
                                     or Freddie Mac and any affiliate
                                     thereof.
12 U.S.C. 4617....................  Fannie Mae and any affiliate thereof
                                     or Freddie Mac and any affiliate
                                     thereof.
15 U.S.C. 77r-1...................  Any person, trust, corporation,
                                     partnership, association, business
                                     trust, or business entity created
                                     pursuant to or existing under the
                                     laws of the United States or any
                                     State.
15 U.S.C. 78g.....................  Broker-dealers.
15 U.S.C. 78k.....................  Broker-dealers.
12 CFR 1.2........................  National banks, District of Columbia
                                     banks, and federal branches of
                                     foreign banks, State banks that are
                                     members of the Federal Reserve
                                     System and foreign branches of
                                     national banks.
12 CFR Part 3, Appendix A.........  National banking associations.
12 CFR Part 208, Appendix A.......  State banks that are members of the
                                     Federal Reserve System.
12 CFR Part 225, Appendix A.......  Bank holding companies.
12 CFR Part 325, Appendix A.......  Depository institutions insured by
                                     the Federal Deposit Insurance
                                     Corporation.
12 CFR 567.1......................  Savings associations.
12 CFR 567.6......................  Savings associations.
12 CFR 703.2......................  Federal credit unions.
12 CFR 703.16(d)..................  Federal credit unions.
12 CFR 704, Appendix C............  Corporate credit unions.
12 CFR Part 1750, Appendix A to     Fannie Mae and any affiliate thereof
 Subpart B.                          and Freddie Mac and any affiliate
                                     thereof.
17 CFR 230.424....................  Persons filing a prospectus or
                                     prospectus supplement relating to
                                     an offering of mortgage related
                                     securities on a delayed basis.
17 CFR 240.15c3-1.................  Broker-dealers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Numerous State laws also contain references to the definition of
the term ``mortgage related security'' in section 3(a)(41) of the
Exchange Act.\15\ The entities subject to these laws include insurance
companies, banks, and trusts.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See, e.g., ALA. CODE Sec. Sec.  10A-10-1.10 and 11-81-21;
ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. Sec.  44-1843; ARK. CODE ANN. Sec.  23-42-503;
COLO. REV. STAT. ANN. Sec.  11-59.5-101; CONN. GEN. STAT. Sec. Sec.
36a-459a and 38a-905; DC CODE Sec. Sec.  31-1372.03 and 31-1372.04;
HAW. REV. STAT. Sec.  412:10-502; KAN. STAT. ANN. Sec.  40-2a25; LA.
REV. STAT. ANN. 6:611; ME. REV. STAT. 10, Sec.  969-A; ME. REV.
STAT. 30-A, Sec.  4722; MD. CODE ANN., INS Sec.  9-229.1; MICH.
COMP. LAWS Sec.  500.901; MISS. CODE ANN. Sec.  81-27-5.101; MO.
ANN. STAT. Sec.  362.170; N.H. REV. STAT. ANN Sec. Sec.  392:25 and
392-B:20; N.J. STAT. ANN. Sec.  17:9-41; N.Y. MUN. HOME RULE LAW
Sec.  10; N.Y. INS. LAW Sec. Sec.  1401, 1404, and 1409; N.C. GEN.
STAT. ANN. Sec.  53-342; OHIO REV. CODE ANN. Sec. Sec.  3907.141 and
3925.081; OKLA. STAT. ANN. 6, Sec.  806; OKLA. STAT. ANN. 71, Sec.
1-201; 7 PA. CONS. STAT. ANN. Sec. Sec.  315 and 502; S.C. CODE ANN.
Sec. Sec.  38-12-220, 38-12-230, 38-12-430, and 38-12-440; TEX. FIN.
CODE ANN. Sec. Sec.  34.101, 184.101, and 443.004; and UTAH CODE
ANN. Sec.  61-1-11.
    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Small Business Related Security
    Congress defined the term ``small business related security'' in
section 3(a)(53)(A) as part of the Riegle Community Development and
Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 (the ``CDRI'').\17\ Among other
things, the CDRI removed limitations on purchases of certain small
business-related securities by national banks.\18\ The CDRI was
designed to increase small business access to capital by removing
impediments in existing law to the securitizations of small business
loans.\19\ The CDRI created a framework for small business related
securities

similar to the SMMEA framework for mortgage related securities with the
goal of stimulating the flow of funds to small businesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Public Law 103-325, Sec.  202, 108 Stat. 2198 (1994).
    \18\ See Conf. Rep. on H.R. 3474, 140 Cong. Rec. H6685, H6690
(Aug. 2, 1994).
    \19\ Id. See also Remarks of Sen. Domenici, Vol. 140 Cong.
Record, p. S11039 (Aug. 2, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, section 3(a)(53)(A) defines the term ``small business
related security'' as ``a security that is rated in one of the four
highest rating categories by at least one [NRSRO]'' and that either:
(1) Represents an interest in one or more promissory notes or leases of
personal property evidencing the obligation of a small business concern
and originated by an insured depository institution or other similar
institution which is supervised and examined by federal or state
authority or certain other regulated types of issuers; or (2) is
secured by an interest in one or more promissory notes or leases of
personal property (with or without recourse to the issuer or lessee)
and provides for payments of principal in relation to payments, or
reasonable projections of payments, on notes or leases of the type
described in the preceding clause.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(53)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 2 identifies examples of Federal statutes and regulations
that use the term ``small business related security'' and indicates the
type of entity that is subject to the statute or regulation.

                                 Table 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Citation                  Entities subject to requirement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
12 U.S.C. 24......................  National banking associations.
12 U.S.C. 1464....................  Federal savings associations.
12 U.S.C. 1757....................  Federal credit unions.
15 U.S.C. 77r-1...................  Any person, trust, corporation,
                                     partnership, association, business
                                     trust, or business entity created
                                     pursuant to or existing under the
                                     laws of the United States or any
                                     State.
15 U.S.C. 78g.....................  Broker-dealers.
15 U.S.C. 78k.....................  Broker-dealers.
12 CFR 1.2........................  National banks, District of Columbia
                                     banks, and federal branches of
                                     foreign banks, State banks that are
                                     members of the Federal Reserve
                                     System and foreign branches of
                                     national banks.
12 CFR 1.3........................  National banking associations.
12 CFR 703.2......................  Federal credit unions.
12 CFR 703.16.....................  Federal credit unions.
12 CFR 704.2......................  Corporate credit unions.
12 CFR 704.5......................  Corporate credit unions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several State laws also contain references to the definition of the
term ``small business related security'' in section 3(a)(53)(A) of the
Exchange Act.\21\ Banks and trust companies are subject to these
laws.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See, e.g., LA. REV. STAT. ANN. Sec.  6:611; MISS. CODE.
ANN. 81-27-5.101; TEX. FIN. CODE ANN. Sec.  34.101; and TEX. FIN.
CODE ANN. Sec.  184.101.
    \22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Use of the Definitions by the Commission and Other Agencies
    As identified in the tables set forth above, rules administered by
the Commission and other Federal agencies reference the terms
``mortgage related security'' and ``small business related security,''
as those terms are defined in Exchange Act Sections 3(a)(41) and
3(a)(53)(A), respectively. Since the Dodd-Frank Act was adopted,
several Federal agencies have proposed to continue to rely on the
Exchange Act definitions of these terms. For example, the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency (the ``OCC'') proposed to retain rule
provisions applicable to national banks that reference the statutory
definitions of the terms ``mortgage related security'' and ``small
business related security'' in the Exchange Act.\23\ Similarly, the
National Credit Union Administration (the ``NCUA'') also proposed to
continue to reference the Exchange Act definitions of the terms
``mortgage related security'' and ``small business related security''
in its rules.\24\ However, the NCUA stated in its proposal that in the
time period before the Commission moves to specify ``standards of
creditworthiness'' for mortgage related securities and small business
related securities, a Federal credit union is prohibited from
purchasing such security unless the Federal credit union has specific
evidence that the Commission considers that security to meet the
requirements of section 3(a)(41) or section 3(a)(53)(A), as
applicable.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Alternatives to the Use of External Credit Ratings in
the Regulations of the OCC, 76 FR 73526, 73529 (Nov. 29, 2011),
Docket OCC-2011-0019.
    \24\ See Removing References to Credit Ratings in Regulations;
Proposing Alternatives to the Use of Credit Ratings, 76 FR 11164,
11166 (Mar. 1, 2011).
    \25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Regulatory Initiatives To Remove References to Credit Ratings

1. Introduction
    The use of NRSRO credit ratings in statutes and regulations has
been criticized as fostering undue reliance by investors on credit
ratings.\26\ In addition, concerns have been raised that using NRSRO
credit ratings in statutes and regulations impedes competition in the
credit rating industry by giving NRSROs an unfair advantage over credit
rating agencies that do not operate as NRSROs because entities subject
to the statutes and regulations, or seeking favorable treatment under
the statutes and regulations, must use NRSRO credit ratings.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Id.; see also H.R. Rep. No. 111-517, Joint Explanatory
Statement of the Committee of Conference, Title IX, Subtitle C
``Improvement to the Regulation of Credit Rating Agencies,'' at 871-
72 (Conf. Rep.) (Jun. 29, 2010) (noting that ``[t]o reduce reliance
on ratings, the report amends several statutes to remove references
to credit ratings, credit rating agencies and NRSROs'') and
Principles for Reducing Reliance on CRA Ratings, Financial Stability
Board (Oct. 2010) (``The `hard wiring' of CRA ratings in standards
and regulations contributes significantly to market reliance on
ratings. This in turn is a cause of the `cliff effects' of the sort
experienced during the recent crisis, through which CRA rating
downgrades can amplify procyclicality and cause systemic
disruptions. It can be also one cause of herding in market
behaviour, if regulations effectively require or incentivise large
numbers of market participants to act in similar fashion. But, more
widely, official sector uses of ratings that encourage reliance on
CRA ratings have reduced banks', institutional investors' and other
market participants' own capacity for credit risk assessment in an
undesirable way.'').
    \27\ See, e.g., Introduction of the Consumer Protection and
Regulatory Enhancement Act, 155 Cong. Rec. E1965, E1965-67 (Jul. 23,
2009) (statement of Rep. Bachus).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has for many years studied the issue of using NRSRO
credit ratings in its rules and is engaged in an extensive rulemaking
initiative to remove references to NRSRO credit ratings from its rules
that commenced

prior to enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act. The development of
alternatives to NRSRO credit ratings raises complex issues as indicated
by comments received by the Commission and other Federal agencies.
2. Regulatory Initiatives
    In 1975, the Commission adopted the term ``nationally recognized
statistical rating organization'' as part of amendments to the ``net
capital rule'' for broker-dealers (Rule 15c3-1).\28\ The Commission's
initial regulatory use of the term was intended to provide a method for
determining net capital charges on different grades of debt securities
under Rule 15c3-1.\29\ The Commission eventually inserted references to
NRSRO credit ratings in other rules under the Securities Act of 1933
(the ``Securities Act''), the Exchange Act, and the Investment Company
Act of 1940 (the ``Investment Company Act'').\30\ In addition, credit
ratings by NRSROs have been used as benchmarks in Federal and State
legislation, rules administered by other Federal agencies, and foreign
regulatory schemes.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Adoption of Uniform Net Capital Rule and an Alternative
Net Capital Requirement for Certain Brokers and Dealers, Exchange
Act Release No. 11497 (Jun. 26, 1975), 40 FR 29795 (Jul. 16, 1975),
and 17 CFR 240.15c3-1. The net capital rule prescribes minimum net
capital requirements for broker-dealers and it uses NRSRO credit
ratings to determine the amount of the charge to capital
(``haircut'') a broker-dealer must apply to certain types of debt
instruments. See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1.
    \29\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1.
    \30\ See, e.g., Report on Review of Reliance on Credit Ratings:
As Required by Section 939A(c) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform
and Consumer Protection Act, Commission Staff (Jul. 2011).
    \31\ See, e.g., Report to Congress on Credit Ratings, Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Jul. 2011); References to
Credit Ratings in FDIC Regulations, Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation (Jul. 2011); and Stocktaking on the use of credit
ratings, the Joint Forum (Jun. 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Concerns about the use of NRSRO credit ratings in statutes and
regulations have prompted the Commission to study whether this use
should be eliminated and whether there are practical alternatives to
NRSRO credit ratings that could be used as benchmarks in regulations.
For example, in 1994, the Commission published a concept release
soliciting comment on whether references to NRSRO credit ratings should
be eliminated from its rules.\32\ Commenters generally supported the
continued use of NRSRO credit ratings.\33\ As summarized by the
Commission, one commenter noted that the use of NRSRO credit ratings
provides an objective, simple standard.\34\ Some commenters suggested
that internal models could be used for purposes of determining net
capital charges under the Commission's broker-dealer net capital
rule.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations,
Exchange Act Release No. 34616 (Aug. 31, 1994), 59 FR 46314 (Sep. 7,
1994).
    \33\ See Capital Requirements for Brokers or Dealers Under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Exchange Act Release No. 39457
(Dec. 17, 1997), 62 FR 68018 (Dec. 30, 1997).
    \34\ Id.
    \35\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2003, the Commission again sought comment on whether to
eliminate the use of NRSRO credit ratings from Commission rules, and,
if so, what alternative benchmarks could be used to meet the
Commission's regulatory objectives.\36\ Commenters raised concerns
about alternatives to credit ratings, highlighting the challenge of
replacing credit ratings, though some commenters stated that
alternatives such as internally developed credit ratings could be
used.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See Rating Agencies and the Use of Credit Ratings under the
Federal Securities Laws, Exchange Act Release No. 47972 (Jun. 4,
2003), 68 FR 35258 (Jun. 12, 2003). See also Report of the Role and
Function of Credit Rating Agencies in the Operations of the
Securities Markets as Required by Section 702(b) of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002, Commission (Jan. 2003).
    \37\ The comment letters are available on the Commission's
Internet Web site at the following address: http://www.sec.gov/rules/concept/s71203.shtml. See, e.g., letter dated Jul. 28, 2003
from Gregory V. Serio, Superintendent, New York Insurance
Department, Chair, NAIC Rating Agency Working Group, National
Association of Insurance Commissioners (stating that replacing NRSRO
credit ratings ``could be costly and complicated''); letter dated
Jul. 25, 2003 from Steven C. Nelson, Director of Taxable Money
Market Research, Fidelity Investments Money Management, Inc.
(stating that replacing NRSRO credit ratings in Rule 2a-7 under the
Investment Company Act (``Rule 2a-7'') ``would not provide
sufficient protection for investors'' in money market funds and
``could lead to significant risk inequality across money market
funds''); letter dated Jul. 24, 2003 from Charles M. Nathan, Chair,
Committee on Securities Regulation and Nicolas Grabar, Committee on
Securities Regulation, Association of the Bar of the City of New
York (stating that with respect to replacing NRSRO credit ratings in
Rule 2a-7 that a ``change to a more subjective standard could
disrupt the market in unpredictable and undesirable ways.''); and
letter dated Jul. 28, 2003 from Raymond W. McDaniel, Moody's
Investors Service (suggesting internally generated credit ratings as
an alternative).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In July 2008, the Commission proposed amendments to remove
references to NRSRO credit ratings from its rules under the Securities
Act, Exchange Act, and Investment Company Act.\38\ Commenters again
raised concerns about alternatives to credit ratings.\39\ In October
2009, the Commission adopted several of the proposed amendments and re-
opened for comment the remaining amendments.\40\ Commenters to the
October 2009 re-proposal continued to raise concerns about alternatives
to NRSRO credit ratings.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See References to Ratings of Nationally Recognized
Statistical Rating Organizations, Exchange Act Release No. 58070
(Jul. 1, 2008), 73 FR 40088 (Jul. 11, 2008).
    \39\ The comment letters are available on the Commission's
Internet Web site at the following addresses: http://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-18-08/s71808.shtml (Securities Act rules); http://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-19-08/s71908.shtml (Investment Company Act
rules); and http://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-17-08/s71708.shtml
(Exchange Act rules). See, e.g., letter dated Sep. 5, 2008 from
Jeffrey T. Brown, Senior Vice President, Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.
(stating that replacing NRSRO credit ratings ``may be destabilizing
and inject risk and uncertainty into the operations of broker-
dealers, investment advisers and money market mutual funds.'');
letter dated Sep. 4, 2008 from Deborah A. Cunningham, Chief
Investment Officer, Federated Investors and Boyce I. Greer,
President, Fixed Income & Asset Allocation, Fidelity, on behalf of
the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (stating
that replacing NRSRO credit ratings would ``be to the detriment of
all investors''); letter dated Sep. 10, 2008 from Ronald W. Forbes
and Rodney D. Johnson, The Independent Directors of The BlackRock
Liquidity Funds (stating that replacing NRSRO credit ratings would
``impose significant and unrealistic new burdens on money market
fund boards''); letter dated Sep. 12, 2008 from Keith F. Higgins,
Chair, Committee on Federal Regulation of Securities, and Vicki O.
Tucker, Chair, Committee on Securitization and Structured Finance,
Business Law Section, American Bar Association (stating that
replacing NRSRO credit ratings would ``eliminate all objective
indicia of credit quality and will provide greater opportunity for
abuse.'').
    \40\ See References to Ratings of Nationally Recognized
Statistical Rating Organizations, Exchange Act Release No. 60789
(Oct. 5, 2009), 74 FR 52358 (Oct. 9, 2009) (adopting release). In
the adopting release, the Commission amended Exchange Act Rule 3a1-1
(17 CFR 240.3a1-1), Exchange Act Rules 300, 301(b)(5) and 301(b)(6)
of Regulation ATS (17 CFR 242.300, 242.301(b)(5) and 242.301(b)(6)),
Form ATS-R (17 CFR 249.638) and Form PILOT (17 CFR 249.821). The
Commission also adopted amendments to Rules 5b-3 and 10f-3 under the
Investment Company Act (17 CFR 270.5b-3 and 17 CFR 270.10f-3). See
also References to Ratings of Nationally Recognized Statistical
Rating Organizations, Exchange Act Release No. 60790 (Oct. 5, 2009),
74 FR 52374 (Oct. 9, 2009) (re-opening comment for net capital rule
purposes and various Exchange Act rules).
    \41\ The comment letters are available on the Commission's
Internet Web site at the following address: http://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-17-08/s71708.shtml. See, e.g., letter dated Dec. 9, 2009
from Steven G. Tepper, Arnold & Porter LLP, letter dated Dec. 8,
2009 from Sean C. Davy, Managing Director, Corporate Credit Markets
Division, Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, and
letter dated Dec. 8, 2009 from Karrie McMillan, General Counsel,
Investment Company Institute (stating that the removal of ratings
from Commission rules would result in ``serious unintended
consequences.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Dodd-Frank Act--enacted in 2010--includes section 939A.\42\
This section requires Federal agencies to ``review any regulation
issued by such agency that requires the use of an assessment of the
creditworthiness of a security or money market instrument and any
references to or requirements in such regulations regarding credit
ratings.'' \43\ Once the agency has completed that review, the statute

provides that the agency ``remove any reference to or requirement of
reliance on credit ratings, and to substitute in such regulations such
standard of creditworthiness'' as the agency determines to be
appropriate.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See Public Law 111-203 Sec.  939A.
    \43\ See Public Law 111-203 Sec.  939A(a)(1)-(2).
    \44\ See Public Law 111-203 Sec.  939A(b); see also Report on
Review of Reliance on Credit Ratings: As Required by Section 939A(c)
of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act,
Commission Staff (Jul. 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to section 939A of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Commission
proposed amendments in 2011 to remove references to NRSRO credit
ratings in its rules and forms under the Securities Act, the Exchange
Act, and the Investment Company Act. In particular, in February 2011,
the Commission proposed to remove references to credit ratings in rules
and forms promulgated under the Securities Act and the Exchange Act
related to offerings of securities or issuer disclosure.\45\ In March
2011, the Commission proposed amending certain rules and forms under
the Investment Company Act, including Rule 2a-7 governing the
operations of money market funds.\46\ Further, in April 2011, the
Commission proposed to amend additional rules and one form under the
Exchange Act applicable to broker-dealer financial responsibility,
distributions of securities, and confirmations of transactions.\47\ In
that same release, the Commission also requested comment on potential
standards of creditworthiness for purposes of Exchange Act sections
3(a)(41) and 3(a)(53)(A), in order to consider how to implement section
939(e) of the Dodd-Frank Act.\48\ Commenters to the various Commission
proposals identified above continued to raise concerns about
alternatives to NRSRO credit ratings.\49\ Other Federal agencies have
proposed and, in some cases, adopted amendments to regulations that
they administer that contain references to NRSRO credit ratings.\50\
Commenters have raised a number of concerns with respect to these
proposals.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See Security Ratings, Securities Act Release No. 9186 (Feb.
9, 2011), 76 FR 8961 (Feb. 16, 2011). See also Security Ratings,
Securities Act Release No. 9245 (Jul. 27, 2011), 76 FR 46603 (Aug.
3, 2011) (adopting amendments to Rules 134 (17 CFR 230.134), 138 (17
CFR 230.138), 139 (17 CFR 230.139), 168 (17 CFR 230.168), Form S-3
(17 CFR 239.13), Form S-4 (17 CFR 239.25), Form F-3 (17 CFR 239.33),
and Form F-4 (17 CFR 230. 34) under the Securities Act, rescinded
Form F-9 (17 CFR 239.39) and adopted amendments to the Securities
Act and Exchange Act forms and rules that referred to Form F-9 to
eliminate those references, and amended Schedule 14A (17 CFR
240.14a-101) under the Exchange Act).
    \46\ See References to Credit Ratings in Certain Investment
Company Act Rules and Forms, Securities Act Release No. 9193 (Mar.
3, 2011), 76 FR 12896 (Mar. 9, 2011). In particular, the Commission
requested public comment on proposed amendments to rules 2a-7 (17
CFR 270.2a-7) and 5b-3 (17 CFR 270.5b-3) under the Investment
Company Act, to Forms N-1A (17 CFR 239.15A and 17 CFR 274.11A), N-2
(17 CFR 239.14 and 17 CFR 274.11a-1) and N-3 (17 CFR 239.17a and 17
CFR 274.11b) under the Investment Company Act and the Securities
Act, and Form N-MFP (17 CFR 274.201) under the Investment Company
Act.
    \47\ See Removal of Certain References to Credit Ratings under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 76 FR 26550. In particular, the
Commission requested public comment on proposed amendments to
Exchange Act Rule 15c3-1 (17 CFR 240.15c3-1), 15c3-3 (17 CFR
240.15c3-3), 17a-4 (17 CFR 240.17a-4), 101 and 102 of Regulation M
(17 CFR 242.101 and 242.102), and 10b-10 (17 CFR 240.10b-10), and
one Exchange Act form--Form X-17A-5, Part IIB (17 CFR 249.617)--to
remove references to credit ratings and, in certain cases,
substitute alternative standards of creditworthiness.
    \48\ Id.
    \49\ See comment letters to the proposals available on the
Commission's Internet Web site at the following addresses: (1)
http://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-18-08/s71808.shtml (letters
commenting on Security Ratings, 76 FR 8961); (2) http://sec.gov/comments/s7-07-11/s70711.shtml (letters commenting on References to
Credit Ratings in Certain Investment Company Act Rules and Forms, 76
FR 12896); and (3) http://sec.gov/comments/s7-15-11/s71511.shtml
(letters commenting on Removal of Certain References to Credit
Ratings under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 76 FR 26550).
See, e.g., letter dated Apr. 25, 2011 from Dennis M. Kelleher,
President & CEO of Better Markets, Inc., commenting on References to
Credit Ratings in Certain Investment Company Act Rules and Forms, 76
FR 12896 (``In theory, incorporating alternative standards of
credit-worthiness into the Commission's rules can be accomplished in
one of two ways: Either incorporating by reference some reliable,
external measure of credit-worthiness other than credit ratings, or
setting forth in the rules the actual standards of credit-worthiness
that market participants must apply * * * As a practical matter, a
reliable and objective shorthand measure of credit risk, which could
be incorporated by reference into the Commission's regulations, is
not currently available.'').
    \50\ See, e.g., Alternatives to the Use of External Credit
Ratings in the Regulations of the OCC, Department of the Treasury,
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 76 FR 73526 (Nov. 29,
2011).
    \51\ See, e.g., comments submitted in response to Alternatives
to the Use of External Credit Ratings in the Regulations of the OCC,
76 FR 73526, available at http://www.regulations.gov/#!searchResults;a=OCC;rpp=25;po=0;dktid=OCC-2011-0019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, in its April 2011 proposal to amend rules under the
Exchange Act, the Commission sought comment on potential standards of
creditworthiness for purposes of sections 3(a)(41) and 3(a)(53)(A) of
the Exchange Act.\52\ One specific alternative that the Commission
discussed and requested comment on was whether a more subjective
standard of creditworthiness--modeled on the ``minimal amount of credit
risk'' standard proposed with respect to the broker-dealer net capital
rule--would be a practical and workable standard of creditworthiness
for purposes of the definition of ``mortgage related security'' in
section 3(a)(41) of the Exchange Act and ``small business related
security'' in section 3(a)(53)(A) of the Exchange Act.\53\ Four comment
letters addressed this general request for comment.\54\ One commenter
suggested that using the same standard of creditworthiness as proposed
for the net capital rule would be too subjective and that a more
objective standard is needed.\55\ According to this commenter, a
standard that is too subjective could create uncertainty in the
markets, which in turn would reduce liquidity and ``limit buyside
demand, distribution and secondary trading, thereby further harming the
ability of non-Agency securitization to fund mortgage credit.'' \56\
Another commenter stated that using the single standard proposed for
the net capital rule--the ``minimal amount of credit risk'' standard--
may not work given that the definition of ``mortgage related security''
refers to a security that is rated in the two highest categories by an
NRSRO and the definition of ``small business related security'' refers
to a security that is rated in the four highest categories.\57\ The
commenter suggested potential alternative standards based on the
characteristics of assets underlying the securities.\58\ A third
commenter acknowledged the ``challenge facing the Commission here is an
especially important one, since the alternative standards of credit-
worthiness ultimately adopted will undoubtedly

have an impact on a huge number of investors.'' \59\ The commenter
supported using the ``minimal amount of credit risk'' standard provided
that an appropriate set of factors were incorporated into the test.\60\
The fourth commenter supported the ``minimal amount of credit risk''
standard without elaboration.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See Removal of Certain References to Credit Ratings under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 76 FR at 26566.
    \53\ Id.
    \54\ See letter dated Jun. 6, 2011 from Chris Barnard (the
``Barnard Letter''); letter dated Jul. 5, 2011 from Dennis M.
Kelleher, President & CEO, and Stephen W. Hall, Securities
Specialist, Better Markets, Inc. (the ``Better Markets Letter'');
letter dated Sep. 23, 2011 from Richard A. Dorfman, Managing
Director, Head of Securitization, and Christopher B. Killian, Vice
President, Securitization Group, Securities Industry and Financial
Markets Association (the ``SIFMA Letter''); and letter dated Dec.
20, 2011 from Kurt N. Schacht, Managing Director, Standards and
Financial Market Integrity, and Linda L. Rittenhouse, Director,
Capital Markets Policy, CFA Institute (the ``CFA Letter'').
    \55\ See the SIFMA Letter.
    \56\ Id.
    \57\ See the CFA Letter.
    \58\ Id. (``With respect to objective measures that could be
used to determine whether securities qualify as mortgage-related
securities or small business-related securities, we suggest
consideration of the following factors: Average loan-to-value for
borrowers in secured borrowings; Term to maturity of the security;
Regional concentrations of loans within the pools; Loan category
concentration of loans within the pools, such as loans secured with
either commercial or residential real estate, commercial and
industrial loans, or small business credit card loans; Average debt-
to-equity ratios for the loan pools supporting small business-
related securities; Guarantees for bond guarantors.'').
    \59\ See the Better Markets Letter.
    \60\ Id.
    \61\ See the Barnard Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Solicitation of Comment

    The Commission solicits comment on section 939(e) of the Dodd-Frank
Act and potential standards of creditworthiness that could be used for
the definition of the terms ``mortgage related security'' in section
3(a)(41) of the Exchange Act and ``small business related security'' in
section 3(a)(53)(A) of the Exchange Act in order to assist the
Commission in developing proposed standards of creditworthiness to
replace NRSRO credit ratings. The Commission seeks comment from all
interested parties, including: (1) Persons that are subject to, or rely
on, Federal or State statutes and/or regulations that use these
definitions; (2) Federal and State agencies that oversee persons that
are subject to, or rely on, Federal or State statutes and/or
regulations that use these definitions; (3) Federal and State agencies
that administer regulations that use these definitions; (4) persons
that participate in the markets for mortgage related securities and/or
small business related securities, including issuers, underwriters,
investors, and NRSROs; (5) originators of mortgages and/or small
business loans that are securitized into mortgage related securities
and/or small business related securities; and (6) any other interested
persons, including persons that will need to rely on the standards of
creditworthiness the Commission establishes to replace the use of NRSRO
credit ratings.
    The Commission invites commenters to provide their views and
recommendations on all aspects of section 939(e) of the Dodd-Frank Act,
including identifying approaches for developing new standards and
creditworthiness to be used in the definitions and the benefits, costs,
and competitive impacts of such approaches. To supplement the April
2011 proposing release and its formal solicitation of comments,\62\ the
Commission seeks comments on the following questions and topics:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ See Removal of Certain References to Credit Ratings under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 76 FR 26550.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. To help the Commission obtain relevant market information,
commenters are invited to provide data and statistics on the nature of
the market for ``mortgage related securities'' as defined in section
3(a)(41) of the Exchange Act, including the size of the market in terms
of the number and aggregate principal amount of issuances per year.
    2. To help the Commission obtain relevant market information,
commenters are invited to provide data and statistics on the nature of
the market for ``small business related securities'' as defined in
section 3(a)(53)(A) of the Exchange Act, including the size of the
market in terms of the number and aggregate principal amount of
issuances per year.
    3. With respect to establishing a standard of creditworthiness to
be used in the definition of the term ``mortgage related security,''
would any of the proposals or final rules by the Commission and other
Federal agencies under section 939A of the Dodd-Frank Act serve as a
model to develop a practical and workable new standard of
creditworthiness in section 3(a)(41) of the Exchange Act? If so,
identify the proposal and explain how it may accommodate the varied
uses of the definition of the term ``mortgage related security'' in
statutes and regulations as well as how it may impact protections for
investors, the market for these securities, risk to the financial
system, and burdens and costs to market participants. Are there other
approaches that could serve as models for developing a practical and
workable new standard of creditworthiness in section 3(a)(41) of the
Exchange Act? If so, identify the approach and explain how it would
meet the Commission's objective.
    4. With respect to establishing a standard of creditworthiness to
be used in the definition of ``small business related security,'' would
any of the proposals or final rules by the Commission and other Federal
agencies under section 939A of the Dodd-Frank Act serve as a model to
develop a practical and workable new standard of creditworthiness in
section 3(a)(53)(A) of the Exchange Act? If so, identify the proposal
and explain how it may accommodate the varied uses of the definition of
the term ``small business related security'' in statutes and
regulations as well as how it may impact protections for investors, the
market for these securities, risk to the financial system, and burdens
and costs to market participants. Are there other approaches that could
serve as models for developing a practical and workable new standard of
creditworthiness in section 3(a)(53)(A) of the Exchange Act? If so,
identify the approach and explain how it would meet the Commission's
objective.
    5. Should the new standards of creditworthiness in sections
3(a)(41) and 3(a)(53)(A) of the Exchange Act be modeled on Commission
proposals under section 939A of the Dodd-Frank Act that would replace
the use of NRSRO credit ratings with definitional standards? For
example, as discussed above, the Commission proposed to remove
references to NRSRO credit ratings in the net capital rule for purposes
of determining whether lower haircuts apply to certain debt
instruments.\63\ In place of credit ratings, the Commission proposed a
new standard of creditworthiness; namely, that the debt instrument has
only ``a minimal amount of credit risk'' as determined by the broker-
dealer pursuant to written policies and procedures the broker-dealer
establishes, maintains, and enforces to assess creditworthiness. Would
such a definitional approach be a practical and workable standard of
creditworthiness for sections 3(a)(41) and 3(a)(53)(A) of the Exchange
Act? In this regard, the Commission seeks comment in response to the
following questions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ See Removal of Certain References to Credit Ratings under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 76 FR at 26552-54.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    a. Would there need to be different creditworthiness definitions
for the terms ``mortgage related security'' and ``small business
related security'' given that the current standard in section 3(a)(41)
of the Exchange Act is a security that is rated in one of the two
highest rating categories by at least one NRSRO and the current
standard in section 3(a)(53)(A) of the Exchange Act is a security that
is rated in one of the four highest rating categories by at least one
NRSRO? For example, should the standard of creditworthiness for
purposes of the definition of the term ``mortgage related security''
require a more stringent level of creditworthiness than the standard of
creditworthiness in the definition of the term ``small business related
security''? If so, should the Commission use the ``minimal amount of
credit risk'' standard proposed for the net capital rule for a small
business related security and a different, more stringent standard of
creditworthiness for a mortgage related security?
    b. Under the Commission's net capital rule proposal, the broker-
dealer holding the security would be required to determine whether the
security has a ``minimal amount of credit risk.'' As noted above, the
statutes and

regulations using the definitions of ``mortgage related security'' and
``small business related security'' implicate a range of market
participants. Consequently, who could be responsible for making the
determination that a security meets the definitional creditworthiness
standard used for purposes of sections 3(a)(41) and 3(a)(53)(A) of the
Exchange Act? For example, could the issuer or underwriter represent
that the security meets the definitional standard? If so, should the
representation be made as of a point in time (e.g., at or before
issuance of the security) and/or would it need to be updated throughout
the term of the debt security? Alternatively, if the investor in the
security is subject to oversight and inspection by a Federal or State
agency, could the investor be required to make the determination
(subject to review by the agency) as to whether the security meets the
definitional standard of creditworthiness in order to obtain favorable
treatment under an applicable statute or regulation using the
definition of ``mortgage related security'' or ``small business related
security''? Could the issuer or underwriter be required to make the
representation that the security meets the definitional standard at
issuance and, thereafter, the investor be responsible for determining
on an on-going basis whether the security continues to meet the
definitional standard? Issuers, underwriters, and investors may have
incentives to determine that a security meets the definitional standard
in order to get favorable treatment under statutes and regulations
using the terms ``mortgage related security'' or ``small business
related security.'' Given this potential conflict, could a third-party
be required to verify that the security meets the definitional
standard? If so, what type of entity could perform the verification and
who would be responsible for compensating the third-party for this
work?
    c. The following examples of different possible definitional
standards are designed to provide context to assist commenters in
responding to the questions above:

Mortgage Related Security

Example 1

    For purposes of section 3(a)(41) of the Act (15 U.S.C.
78c(a)(41)), a ``mortgage related security'' means a security that
has virtually no credit risk, including virtually no vulnerability
to changes in business or economic circumstances.

Example 2

    For purposes of section 3(a)(41) of the Act (15 U.S.C.
78c(a)(41)), a ``mortgage related security'' means a security that
the issuer or underwriter of the security represents has virtually
no credit risk, including virtually no vulnerability to changes in
business or economic circumstances.

Example 3

    For purposes of section 3(a)(41) of the Act (15 U.S.C.
78c(a)(41)), a ``mortgage related security'' means a security that
the issuer or underwriter of the security represents at the time of
issuance has virtually no credit risk, including virtually no
vulnerability to changes in business or economic circumstances, and
thereafter has virtually no credit risk, including virtually no
vulnerability to changes in business or economic circumstances.

Example 4

    For purposes of section 3(a)(41) of the Act (15 U.S.C.
78c(a)(41)), a ``mortgage related security'' means a security that
the issuer or underwriter of the security represents has virtually
no credit risk, including virtually no vulnerability to changes in
business or economic circumstances. The representation of the issuer
or underwriter must be verified by an independent third party that
is in the business of performing credit analysis.

Small Business Related Security

Example 1

    For purposes of section 3(a)(53)(A) of the Act (15 U.S.C.
78c(a)(53)), a ``small business related security'' means a security
that has only a minimal amount of credit risk.

Example 2

    For purposes of section 3(a)(53)(A) of the Act (15 U.S.C.
78c(a)(53)), a ``small business related security'' means a security
that the issuer or underwriter of the security represents has only a
minimal amount of credit risk.

Example 3

    For purposes of section 3(a)(53)(A) of the Act (15 U.S.C.
78c(a)(53)), a ``small business related security'' means a security
that the issuer or underwriter of the security represents at the
time of issuance has only a minimal amount of credit risk and
thereafter has only a minimal amount of credit risk.

Example 4

    For purposes of section 3(a)(53)(A) of the Act (15 U.S.C.
78c(a)(53)), a ``small business related security'' means a security
that the issuer or underwriter of the security represents has only a
minimal amount of credit risk. The representation of the issuer or
underwriter must be verified by an independent third party that is
in the business of performing credit analysis.

    d. Provide additional examples of definitions that could be used as
standards of creditworthiness. For any example provided, explain why it
would be a practical and workable standard for purposes of the
definitions of mortgage related security and small business related
security.
    6. Rather than using a definitional standard, could the new
standards of creditworthiness in sections 3(a)(41) and 3(a)(53)(A) of
the Exchange Act be based on objective criteria? For example, could the
criteria be based on structural characteristics of securities that meet
the current definitions of the terms ``mortgage related security'' and
``small business related security'' such as the features, underlying
asset pool quality, and the performance of the underlying assets after
issuance that are typical of such securities? If so, what
characteristics could be used to develop the criteria? In this regard,
the Commission seeks comment in response to the following questions:
    a. What are the typical features of mortgage related securities
that meet the current standard of creditworthiness in section 3(a)(41)
of the Exchange Act (i.e., rated in the top two rating categories by at
least one NRSRO)?
    b. What are the characteristics of the loans underlying mortgage
related securities that meet the current standard of creditworthiness
in section 3(a)(41) of the Exchange Act (i.e., rated in the top two
rating categories by at least one NRSRO)? Would the characteristics of
a ``qualified mortgage,'' as that term is defined under the Truth in
Lending Act section 129C(b)(2), meet the current standard of
creditworthiness in section 3(a)(41)? Could the criteria for a mortgage
related security be tied to that definition? Could the criteria be tied
to the definition of a ``qualified residential mortgage,'' as is used
in section 15G of the Exchange Act? \64\ If so, explain how.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ On April 29, 2011, the Commission, together with the Office
of Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury, Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and
Department of Housing and Urban Development, published a joint
notice of public comment to implement the risk retention
requirements of Section 15G, including the proposed requirements for
a qualified residential mortgage. See Credit Risk Retention,
Exchange Act Release No. 64148 (Mar. 30, 2011), 76 FR 24090 (Apr.
29, 2011). The proposed definition has been the subject of
significant comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    c. What is typical of the level of performance of the loans
underlying mortgage related securities that meet the current standard
of creditworthiness in section 3(a)(41) of the Exchange Act (i.e.,
rated in the top two rating categories by at least one NRSRO)?
    d. What are the typical features of small business related
securities that meet the current standard of creditworthiness in
section 3(a)(53)(A) of the Exchange Act (i.e., rated in the top four
rating categories by at least one NRSRO)?
    e. What are the characteristics of the loans underlying small
business related securities that meet the current standard of
creditworthiness in section 3(a)(53)(A) of the Exchange Act (i.e.,

rated in the top four rating categories by at least one NRSRO)?
    f. What is typical of the level of performance of the loans
underlying small business related securities that meet the current
standard of creditworthiness in section 3(a)(53)(A) of the Exchange Act
(i.e., rated in the top four rating categories by at least one NRSRO)?
    7. Could the requirements of Regulation AB or the proposed shelf
eligibility requirements described below serve, in whole or in part, as
a standard for creditworthiness for a mortgage related security? In
2010, the Commission proposed to eliminate the provision for shelf
eligibility for mortgage related securities regardless of the form that
can be used for registration of the securities.\65\ Under the proposal,
offerings of mortgage related securities would only be eligible for
shelf registration on a delayed basis if, like other asset-backed
securities, they meet the proposed criteria for eligibility for shelf
registration that would be contained in new proposed Form SF-3. Note
that the proposed requirements for shelf eligibility would replace, in
part, the requirement that the securities be investment grade
rated.\66\ Could the standards distinguish between issuers that meet
the shelf eligibility requirements and those that do not? If so, why
and how should the conditions differ? Could we require that a mortgage
related security be required to be registered on existing Form S-3 or,
if adopted, Form SF-3? Commentators should be specific in their
responses and provide data and statistics, if possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ See Asset-Backed Securities, Securities Act Release No.
9117 (Apr. 7, 2010), 75 FR 23328 (May 3, 2010).
    \66\ In July 2011, in light of the Dodd-Frank Act and comments
received, the Commission re-proposed the shelf eligibility
requirements that would replace the investment grade ratings
criteria. See Re-proposal of Shelf Eligibility Conditions for Asset-
Backed Securities and Other Additional Requests for Comment, Release
No. 33-9244 (Jul. 26, 2011), 76 FR 47948 (Aug. 5, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    For the foregoing reasons, the Commission is providing a
transitional interpretation that will be applicable on and after July
20, 2012, and until such time as final Commission rules establishing
new standards of creditworthiness are effective. The Commission's
interpretation herein does not address any other provisions of the
definitions of ``mortgage related security'' or ``small business
related security'' in sections 3(a)(41) and 3(a)(53)(A) of the Exchange
Act, respectively.

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 241

    Securities.

Amendment to the Code of Federal Regulations

    For the reasons set forth above, the Commission is amending title
17, chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:

PART 241--INTERPRETIVE RELEASES RELATING TO THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE
ACT OF 1934 AND GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS THEREUNDER

0
Part 241 is amended by adding Release No. 34-67448 to the list of
interpretive releases as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Federal Register vol. and
                Subject                    Release No.               Date                        page
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission Guidance Regarding                  34-67448   July 17, 2012.............  75 FR [INSERT FR PAGE
 Definitions of Mortgage Related                                                       NUMBER].
 Security and Small Business Related
 Security.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By the Commission.

    Dated: July 17, 2012.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-17763 Filed 7-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 147 (Thursday, July 31, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44451-44452]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18046]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9914-61-Region 3]

Adequacy Status of the Maintenance Plan for the Baltimore,
Maryland 1997 Fine Particulate National Ambient Air Quality Standard
Nonattainment Area for Transportation Conformity Purposes

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of adequacy.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
notifying the public that EPA has found that the motor vehicle
emissions budgets (MVEBs) in the Baltimore, Maryland (MD) 1997 Fine
Particulate (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS) Nonattainment Area Maintenance Plan (Baltimore Maintenance
Plan), submitted as a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision by
Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE), are adequate for
transportation conformity purposes. As a result of EPA's finding, the
State of Maryland must use the 2017 and 2025 MVEBs from the Baltimore
Maintenance Plan for future conformity determinations for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS.

DATES: The adequacy finding for the PM2.5 MVEBs is effective
on August 15, 2014

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Becoat, Physical Scientist,
Office of Air Program Planning (3AP30), United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA
19103,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Today's notice is simply an announcement of a finding that EPA has
already made. EPA Region III sent a letter to MDE on July, 2, 2014,
stating that EPA has found that the MVEBs in the Baltimore Maintenance
Plan for budget years 2017 and 2025, submitted on December 12, 2013 by
MDE, are adequate for transportation conformity purposes. As a result
of EPA's finding, the State of Maryland must use the 2017 and 2025
MVEBs from the December 12, 2013 Baltimore Maintenance Plan for future
conformity determinations in the Baltimore, MD 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS Nonattainment Area. Receipt of the submittal was announced on
EPA's transportation conformity Web site. No comments were received.
The findings letter is available at EPA's conformity Web site: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm.

The adequate particulate matter (PM) and nitrogen oxides
(NOX) MVEBs are provided in Table 1.

  Table 1--On-Road MVEBs Contained in the Baltimore, MD 1997 PM2.5 Nonattainment Area Maintenance Plan for the
                                                1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Motor vehicle emissions      Mobile vehicle emissions
                        Year                            budget for PM2.5 on-road       budget for NOX on-road
                                                        emissions (tons per year)     emissions (tons per year)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017................................................                      1,218.60                     29,892.01
2025................................................                      1,051.39                     21,594.96
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the
Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA's conformity rule requires that transportation
plans, transportation improvement programs, and projects conform to
SIPs and establishes the criteria and procedures for determining
whether or not they do. Conformity to a SIP means that transportation
activities will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing
violations, or delay timely attainment of the national ambient air
quality standards.
    The criteria by which EPA determines whether a SIP's MVEBs are
adequate for conformity purposes are outlined in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).
EPA described the process for determining the adequacy of submitted SIP
budgets in a July 1, 2004 preamble starting at 69 FR 40038 and used the
information in these resources in making this adequacy determination.
The State of Maryland did not provide emission budgets for sulfur
dioxide (SO2), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), or ammonia
for the Baltimore Maintenance Plan because it concluded that emissions
of these precursors from motor vehicles are not significant
contributors to the Area's PM2.5 air quality problem. The
transportation conformity rule provision at 40 CFR 93.102(b)(2)(v)
indicates that conformity does not apply for these precursors, due to
the lack of motor vehicle emissions budgets for these precursors and
state's conclusion that motor vehicle emissions of SO2,
VOCs, and ammonia do not contribute significantly to the area's
PM2.5 nonattainment problem. This provision of the
transportation conformity rule predates and was not disturbed by the
January 4, 2013 decision in the litigation on the PM2.5
implementation rule.\1\ EPA has preliminarily concluded that Maryland's
decision to not include budgets for SO2, VOCs, and ammonia
is consistent with the requirements of the transportation conformity
rule. That decision does not affect EPA's adequacy finding for the
submitted PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for the Baltimore
Maintenance Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA issued conformity regulations to implement the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS (69 FR 40004, July 1, 2004 and 70 FR 24280,
May 6, 2005, respectively). Those actions were not part of the final
rule recently remanded to EPA by the Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia in NRDC v. EPA, No. 08-1250 (January 4, 2013),
in which the Court remanded to EPA the implementation rule for the
PM2.5 NAAQS because it concluded that EPA must implement
that NAAQS pursuant to the PM-specific implementation provisions of
subpart 4 of Part D of Title I of the CAA, rather than solely under
the general provisions of subpart 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Please note that an adequacy review is separate from EPA's
completeness review, and should not be used to prejudge EPA's ultimate
approval action for the SIP. Even if EPA finds the budgets for the
Baltimore Maintenance Plan adequate, the SIP could later be
disapproved. The finding and the response to comments are available at
EPA's conformity Web site: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

    Dated: July 11, 2014.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2014-18046 Filed 7-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 168 (Tuesday, August 30, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59488-59490]
[FR Doc No: 2016-20656]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0675; FRL-9951-59-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; Kentucky; Source Specific Revision for
Louisville Gas and Electric

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of
Kentucky through its Energy and Environment Cabinet, Department of
Environmental Protection, Division for Air Quality (KY DAQ) on February
13, 2013, for the purpose of establishing emission requirements for the
changeover from coal-fired units U4, U5

and U6 to a new natural gas-fired combined cycle (NGCC) generating unit
U15 and auxiliary boiler U16 at the Louisville Gas and Electric
Company, Cane Run Generating Station (LG & E Cane Run Facility).

DATES: This rule will be effective September 29, 2016.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0675. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane Spann of the Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Ms. Spann may be reached by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Ozone is created when chemical reactions between volatile organic
compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) occur in the
presence of sunlight. Ozone is reduced by reducing VOC and
NOX emissions. The Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control
District (LMAPCD) adopted regulation 6.42 Reasonably Available Control
Technology Requirements for Major Volatile Organic Compound and
Nitrogen Oxides Emitting Facilities on February 2, 1994. LMAPCD's
regulation 6.42 was submitted to EPA, through the Commonwealth of
Kentucky, on May 21, 1999. On October 23, 2001, EPA approved LMAPCD's
regulation 6.42, section 4.4 of which requires LMAPCD to submit each
source-specific reasonably available control technology (RACT)
determination to EPA for approval into the Kentucky SIP. See 66 FR
53658. On the same date, EPA approved the NOX RACT plan for
LG & E's Cane Run Facility into the SIP. See 66 FR 53684.
    On June 13, 2011, LG & E submitted to the Air Pollution Control
Board of Jefferson County (Board) an application for a permit to
construct a new NGCC generating unit U15 and auxiliary boiler U16 and
retire coal-fired units U4, U5 and U6 at LG & E's Cane Run Facility to
comply with other federal requirements, including the Mercury & Air
Toxics Standards and the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule.\1\ In
response, on July 18, 2012, the Board adopted Amendment 2 establishing
NOX emission rates for the new units. On February 13, 2013,
KY DAQ, on behalf of LMAPCD, submitted a SIP revision for EPA to
approve the LG & E Cane Run Generating Station NOX RACT Plan
Amendment 2 into the Kentucky SIP. The LG & E Cane Run Generating
Station NOX RACT Plan Amendment 2 includes two parts: Part
1, the existing NOX RACT Plan for the coal-fired units,
which will remain in effect until those units are retired; and Part 2,
the plan that will become effective upon the start of operation of the
NGCC facility and the shut-down of the coal-fired units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Amendment 2 of the February 13, 2013, submittal includes a
Dew Point Heater (U17). In 2014, LG&E notified LMAPCD that LG&E is
not installing U17 after all.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on June 15,
2016 (81 FR 39002), EPA proposed to approve Kentucky's February 13,
2013, submission, for the purpose of establishing emission requirements
for the changeover from coal-fired units U4, U5 and U6 to a new NGCC
generating unit U15 and auxiliary boiler U16 at the LG & E Cane Run
Facility. No comments were received on the June 15, 2016, proposed
rulemaking. The details of Kentucky's submittal and the rationale for
EPA's actions are further explained in the NPRM. See 81 FR 39002 (June
15, 2016).

II. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of KY DAQ
source-specific provision entitled ``Air Pollution Control Board of
Jefferson County Board Order--Amendment 2,'' approved by LMAPCD on July
18, 2012. Therefore, this material has been approved by EPA for
inclusion in the SIP, has been incorporated by reference by EPA into
that plan, is fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of
the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's
approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the
Federal Register in the next update to the SIP compilation.\2\ EPA has
made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available
through www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region 4 Office (please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this preamble for more information)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Final Action

    EPA is taking final action to approve the February 13, 2013,
Kentucky SIP revision which adds LG & E Cane Run Generating Station
NOX RACT Plan Amendment 2 to the federally-approved Kentucky
SIP. This SIP revision includes emission requirements for the
changeover from coal-fired units to natural gas-fired combined cycle
EGUs and associated equipment.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely

affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by October 31, 2016. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.

    Dated: August 17, 2016.
Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart S--Kentucky

0
2. Section 52.920(d) is amended by adding a new entry ``LG & E Cane Run
Generating Station NOX RACT Plan Amendment 2'' at the end of
the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.920  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *

                               EPA-Approved Kentucky Source-Specific Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            State
          Name of source                Permit No.        effective     EPA approval date       Explanations
                                                             date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
LG & E Cane Run Generating         N/A.................    7/18/2012  8/30/2016, [Insert
 Station NOX RACT Plan Amendment                                       citation of
 2.                                                                    publication].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-20656 Filed 8-29-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P