Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 48061 

1Section 608 of the Dodd-Frank Act adds to 

paragraph 7 of the definition of ‘‘covered 

transaction’’ in Section 23A of the Federal Reserve 

Act (12 U.S.C. 371(c)): ‘‘A derivative transaction, as 

defined in paragraph (3) of section 5200(b) of the 

Revised Statutes of the United States (12 U.S.C. 

84(b)), with an affiliate, to the extent that the 

transaction causes a member bank or a subsidiary 

to have credit exposure to the affiliate.’’ Hence, all 

derivatives transactions will be subjected to Section 

23A of the Federal Reserve Act to the extent that 

they cause the bank to have credit exposure to the 

affiliate. Section 23B of the Federal Reserve Act 

contains an arm’s-length requirement stating that a 

member bank and its subsidiaries may engage in 

any covered transaction with an affiliate only ‘‘on 

terms and under circumstances, including credit 

standards, that are substantially the same, or at least 

as favorable to such bank or its subsidiary, as those 

prevailing at the time for comparable transactions 

with or involving other nonaffiliated companies, or 

in the absence of comparable transactions, on terms 

and under circumstances, including credit 

standards, that in good faith would be offered to, 

or would apply to, nonaffiliated companies.’’ 

SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission (‘‘CFTC’’ or 

‘‘Commission’’) published the RealTime Public Reporting of Swap 

Transaction Data (‘‘Real-Time Public 

Reporting’’) rule and an accompanying 

preamble in the Federal Register on 

Monday, January 9, 2012 (77 FR 1182). 

This document makes an editorial 

correction to language of the preamble 

that conflicted with the rule text of the 

final rule. 

DATES: Effective Date: These corrections 

are effective August 13, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nancy Markowitz, Deputy Director, 

202–418–5453, nmarkowitz@cftc.gov, 

Laurie Gussow, Attorney-Advisor, 202– 

418–7623, lgussow@cftc.gov, Division of 

Market Oversight, Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission, Three Lafayette 

Center, 1155 21st Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20581. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The Commission published the final 

rule entitled Real-Time Public Reporting 

of Swap Transaction Data (‘‘Final 

Rule’’) in the Federal Register on 

January 9, 2012, (77 FR 1182), adopting 

rules to implement a framework for the 

real-time public reporting of swap 

transactions and pricing data for all 

swap transactions. The final rule, which 

became effective on March 9, 2012, 

contains a sentence in a footnote that 

created an inconsistency as to the type 

of swap transactions that may be 

considered ‘‘publicly reportable swap 

transactions’’ under the Final Rule. The 

sentence is corrected in this release to 

eliminate the inconsistent language in 

the footnote and, thus, make clear that 

certain, and not all, covered transactions 

as described in Sections 23A and 23B of 

the Federal Reserve Act may be 

considered ‘‘publicly-reportable swap 

transactions.’’ 

II. Summary of the Correction to the 

Real-Time Public Reporting Rule 

The Commission received inquiries 

whether it considered all ‘‘covered 

transactions’’ between affiliates, as 

defined in Sections 23A and 23B of the 

Federal Reserve Act 1 to be ‘‘publicly 

reportable swap transactions.’’ As 

published, the last sentence of footnote 

44 of the Final Rule reads: ‘‘The 

Commission considers any covered 

transaction between affiliates as 

described in Sections 23A and 23B of 

the Federal Reserve Act to be publicly 

reportable swap transactions.’’ This 

sentence unintentionally conflicts with 

the text of § 43.2 defining ‘‘publicly 

reportable swap transaction,’’ and with 

the preamble of the Final Rule. 

Section 43.2 defines the term 

‘‘publicly reportable swap transaction,’’ 

and also provides an example of certain 

swap transactions that do not fall within 

the definition. Under § 43.2, in 

paragraph (2)(i) of the definition of 

‘‘publicly reportable swap transaction,’’ 

certain inter-affiliate trades may not be 

reportable as the rule excludes from the 

definition of reportable swap 

transactions: ‘‘Internal swaps between 

one hundred percent owned 

subsidiaries of the same parent entity.’’ 

Paragraph (3) of the definition states 

that the examples of transactions set 

forth paragraph (2) of the definition that 

do not fall within the publicly 

reportable swap transaction definition 

‘‘represent swaps that are not at arm’s 

length and thus are not publicly 

reportable swap transactions, 

notwithstanding that they do result in a 

corresponding change in the market risk 

position between two parties.’’ Indeed, 

there may be covered transactions as 

defined in Sections 23A and 23B of the 

Federal Reserve Act that are not at 

‘‘arm’s length’’ transactions under Part 

43, but which nevertheless result in a 

corresponding change in market risk 

between the two parties. Under § 43.2, 

those types of covered transactions 

would not be ‘‘publicly reportable swap 

transactions.’’ 

Further, correction of the footnote 44 

sentence will remove any conflict with 

the preamble language. The preamble 

language immediately preceding the 

footnote states: ‘‘As adopted, the 

definition of a publicly reportable swap 

transaction also provides, by way of 

example, that internal transactions to 

move risk between wholly-owned 

subsidiaries of the same parent, without 

having credit exposure to the other 

party would not presently require 

public dissemination because such 

swaps are not arm’s-length 

transactions.’’ Again, there may be 

covered transactions as defined in 

Sections 23A and 23B of the Federal 

Reserve Act that may be internal 

transactions to move risk between 

wholly-owned subsidiaries of the same 

parent, without having credit exposure 

to the other party. Those transactions 

thus do not require public 

dissemination because they are not 

arm’s-length transactions. 

Accordingly, this document revises 

the language of the last sentence of 

footnote 44 on page 1187 of the Federal 

Register to read as follows: ‘‘Certain 

covered transactions between affiliates 

as described in Sections 23A and 23B of 

the Federal Reserve Act may be 

considered to be publicly reportable 

swap transactions.’’ 

For compliance purposes, this 

correction of the footnote sentence will 

result in a more accurate reflection of 

the regulatory language that the 

determination of whether a covered 

transaction under Section 23A or 23B of 

the Federal Reserve Act is a publicly 

reportable swap transaction should be 

made by the parties to the swap, rather 

than the Commission. In turn, the 

Commission’s review of such 

determination will be based upon the 

standards as set forth in § 43.2. 

III. Correction 

In FR Doc. 2011–33173 appearing on 

page 1182 in the Federal Register on 

Monday, January 9, 2012, the following 

correction is made: 

On page 1187, revise the last sentence 

of footnote 44 to read, ‘‘Certain covered 

transactions between affiliates as 

described in Sections 23A and 23B of 

the Federal Reserve Act may be 

considered to be publicly reportable 

swap transactions.’’ 

Dated: August 7, 2012. 

Sauntia S. Warfield, 

Assistant Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2012–19664 Filed 8–10–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6351–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0002; FRL–9710–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Pennsylvania; Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan; Correction 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

48062 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

ACTION: Final rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: This document corrects errors 

in the amendatory instructions and 

paragraph heading regarding EPA’s 

limited approval of Pennsylvania’s 

Regional Haze State Implementation 

Plan (SIP). 

DATES: Effective Date: August 13, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Melissa Linden, (215) 814–2096 or by 

email at linden.melissa@.epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ are used we mean 

EPA. On July 13, 2012 (77 FR 41279), 

we published a final rulemaking action 

announcing our limited approval of 

Pennsylvania’s Regional Haze SIP. In 

this document, we inadvertently 

provided an incorrect amendatory 

instruction on page 41284 regarding the 

addition of an entry to § 52.2020(e)(1), 

and also omitted a paragraph heading. 

This action corrects both the erroneous 

amendatory instruction and the omitted 

paragraph heading in part 52 for this 

paragraph. 

In rule document 2012–16428, 

published in the Federal Register on 

July 13, 2012 (77 FR 41279), the 

following corrections are made: 

§ 52.2020 [Corrected] 

■ 1. On page 41284 in the third column, 

amendatory instruction number 2 is 

revised to read as follows: 

‘‘2. In § 52.2020, the table in 

paragraph (e)(1) is amended by adding 

an entry for Regional Haze Plan at the 

end of the table to read as follows:’’ 

■ 2. On page 41284 in the third column, 

the paragraph designation is revised 

from ‘‘(e)’’ to ‘‘(e)(1).’’ 

Section 553 of the Administrative 

Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), 

provides that, when an agency for good 

cause finds that notice and public 

procedure are impracticable, 

unnecessary or contrary to the public 

interest, the agency may issue a rule 

without providing notice and an 

opportunity for public comment. We 

have determined that there is good 

cause for making today’s rule final 

without prior proposal and opportunity 

for comment because we are merely 

correcting an incorrect citation in a 

previous action. Thus, notice and public 

procedure are unnecessary. We find that 

this constitutes good cause under 5 

U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). 

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 

(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 

action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ and is therefore not subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget. For this reason, this action is 

also not subject to Executive Order 

13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001)). Because the agency has made 

a ‘‘good cause’’ finding that this action 

is not subject to notice-and-comment 

requirements under the Administrative 

Procedures Act or any other statute as 

indicated in the Supplementary 

Information section above, it is not 

subject to the regulatory flexibility 

provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or to sections 

202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 

104–4). In addition, this action does not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments or impose a significant 

intergovernmental mandate, as 

described in sections 203 and 204 of 

UMRA. This rule also does not have a 

substantial direct effect on one or more 

Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor 

will it have substantial direct effects on 

the States, on the relationship between 

the national government and the States, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of governments, as specified by 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not 

economically significant. 

This technical correction action does 

not involve technical standards; thus 

the requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. The rule also 

does not involve special consideration 

of environmental justice related issues 

as required by Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In 

issuing this rule, EPA has taken the 

necessary steps to eliminate drafting 

errors and ambiguity, minimize 

potential litigation, and provide a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct, as 

required by section 3 of Executive Order 

12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996). 

EPA has complied with Executive Order 

12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1998) by 

examining the takings implications of 

the rule in accordance with the 

‘‘Attorney General’s Supplemental 

Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk 

and Avoidance of Unanticipated 

Takings’’ issued under the executive 

order. This rule does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

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. Section 808 allows 

the issuing agency to make a rule 

effective sooner than otherwise 

provided by the CRA if the agency 

makes a good cause finding that notice 

and public procedure is impracticable, 

unnecessary or contrary to the public 

interest. This determination must be 

supported by a brief statement. 5 U.S.C. 

808(2). As stated previously, EPA had 

made such a good cause finding, 

including the reasons therefore, and 

established an effective date of August 

13, 2012. EPA will submit a report 

containing this rule 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. This correction for 

40 CFR part 52, subpart NN 

(Pennsylvania) is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Dated: July 23, 2012. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 

III. 

[FR Doc. 2012–19044 Filed 8–10–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0666; FRL–9712–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans and Designation 

of Areas for Air Quality Planning 

Purposes; Illinois; Ozone 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a request 

from the State of Illinois to redesignate 

the Illinois portion of the Chicago-GaryLake County, Illinois-Indiana (IL–IN) 

area (the Greater Chicago area) to 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS or standard). The Illinois 

portion of the Greater Chicago area 

includes Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES