Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2022 / Notices 38259 

1The IAWG members are Treasury, the Board of 

Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Federal 

Reserve Board), the Federal Reserve Bank of New 

York (FRBNY), the Securities and Exchange 

Commission (SEC), and the Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission (CFTC). 

2 In addition, at the November 2021 U.S. Treasury 

Market Conference, Treasury Under Secretary for 

Domestic Finance Nellie Liang highlighted past 

improvements in data quality and transparency and 

noted Treasury ‘‘will consider ways to improve 

transparency about transactions, such as providing 

data at a higher frequency, building on lessons 

learned from the recent expanded reporting of 

weekly volumes and recognizing investors’ needs to 

be able to transact quickly in large quantities.’’ 

Remarks by Under Secretary for Domestic Finance 

Nellie Liang at the 2021 Treasury Market 

Conference’’ (Nov. 17, 2021), available at https://

home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0491. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Proposed Collection; 

Comment Request; Bureau of 

Engraving and Printing Features of 

Interest Survey for Banknote 

Equipment Manufacturers 

AGENCY: Bureau of Engraving and 

Printing, Department of the Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of the 

Treasury, as part of its continuing effort 

to reduce paperwork and respondent 

burden, invites the general public and 

other federal agencies to comment on 

the proposed information collections 

listed below, in accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before August 26, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding 

the burden estimate, or any other aspect 

of the information collection, including 

suggestions for reducing the burden, to 

Crystal Johnson at Bureau of Engraving 

and Printing, BEP and CRM Customer 

Support, 14th and C Streets SW, 

Washington, DC 20228 or by emailing 

BEM_and_CRM_Customer_Support@

bep.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Copies of the submissions may be 

obtained from Crystal Johnson by 

emailing BEM_and_CRM_Customer_

Support@bep.gov, calling (202) 664– 

3466, or viewing the entire information 

collection request at www.reginfo.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Title: Bureau of Engraving and 

Printing Features of Interest Survey for 

Banknote Equipment Manufacturers. 

OMB Control Number: 1520–NEW. 

Type of Review: Request for a new 

OMB Control Number. 

Description: The Bureau of Engraving 

and Printing Feature of Interest Survey 

for Banknote Equipment Manufacturers 

(BEMs) is voluntarily completed by 

BEM companies to inform BEP’s efforts 

to develop features to be included in 

future Federal Reserve Note (FRN) 

redesigns. The survey gives BEM 

companies the opportunity to comment 

whether proposed features and/or FRN 

redesigns (a.k.a. Features of Interest) can 

be detected, validated, transported, and 

stored by their products. Banknote 

Equipment Manufacturers (BEMs) are 

companies that produce any type of 

equipment that handles banknotes for 

commercial purposes involving accept/ 

reject decisions for FRNs. 

Form: None. 

Affected Public: Businesses or other 

for profits. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

50. 

Frequency of Response: 3 per year. 

Estimated Total Number of Annual 

Responses: 150. 

Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 150. 

Request for Comments: Comments 

submitted in response to this notice will 

be summarized and included in the 

request for Office of Management and 

Budget approval. All comments will 

become a matter of public record. 

Comments are invited on: (a) whether 

the collection of information is 

necessary for the proper performance of 

the functions of the agency, including 

whether the information shall have 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

collection of information; (c) ways to 

enhance the quality, utility, and clarity 

of the information to be collected; (d) 

ways to minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on 

respondents, including through the use 

of technology; and (e) estimates of 

capital or start-up costs and costs of 

operation, maintenance, and purchase 

of services required to provide 

information. 

Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

Katherine A. Allen, 

BEP PRA Clearance Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2022–13594 Filed 6–24–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4840–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

[Docket No. TREAS–DO–2022–0012] 

Notice Seeking Public Comment on 

Additional Transparency for 

Secondary Market Transactions of 

Treasury Securities 

AGENCY: Department of the Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

information. 

SUMMARY: The Department of the 

Treasury (Treasury) is seeking public 

comment on additional post-trade 

transparency of data regarding 

secondary market transactions of 

Treasury securities, including potential 

benefits and risks of several examples of 

potential ways to build on existing 

public transparency. 

DATES: Comments are due by August 26, 

2022. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

using any of the following methods: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions on the website for 

submitting comments. 

Email: govsecreg@fiscal.treasury.gov. 

Include docket number TREAS–DO– 

2002–0012 in the subject line of the 

message. 

All submissions should refer to 

docket number TREAS–DO–2022–0012. 

Please submit your comments using 

only one method, along with your full 

name and mailing address. We will post 

comments on www.regulations.gov and 

www.treasurydirect.gov. In general, 

comments received, including 

attachments and other supporting 

materials, are part of the public record 

and are available to the public. Do not 

submit any information in your 

comments or supporting materials that 

you consider confidential or 

inappropriate for public disclosure. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred 

Pietrangeli, Director, Office of Debt 

Management, Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Financial Markets, at 

debtmanagement@treasury.gov or 

Fredrick.Pietrangeli@treasury.gov. 

Questions about submitting comments 

should be directed to Lori Santamorena, 

Government Securities Regulations 

Staff, at (202) 504–3632 or govsecreg@

fiscal.treasury.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Treasury, in consultation with other 

members of the Inter-Agency Working 

Group on Treasury Market Surveillance 

(IAWG),1 is exploring the possibility of 

additional post-trade transparency of 

data for secondary market cash 

transactions of Treasury securities 

(which we refer to as the ‘‘Treasury 

securities market’’ in this request for 

information).2 Providing additional 

insight into these transactions may 

enhance liquidity by fostering a greater 

understanding of market activity across 

market segments and supporting the 

smooth functioning of the Treasury 

securities market. Additional 

transparency may also promote greater 

competition in the Treasury securities 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
38260 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2022 / Notices 

3 Id. 

4 ‘‘Recent Disruptions and Potential Reforms in 

the U.S. Treasury Market: A Staff Progress Report’’ 

(Nov. 8, 2021), available at https://

home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/IAWGTreasury-Report.pdf. 

5 Id. 

6FINRA Regulatory Notice 16–39, available at 

https://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/notice_

doc_file_ref/Regulatory-Notice-16-39.pdf. 

7 ‘‘Remarks of Deputy Secretary Justin Muzinich 

at the 2019 US Treasury Market Structure 

Conference’’ (Sept. 23, 2019), available at https://

home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm782. 

8 ‘‘Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To 

Allow FINRA To Publish or Distribute Aggregated 

Transaction Information and Statistics on U.S. 

Treasury Securities,’’ available at https://

www.finra.org/sites/default/files/2019-12/SRFINRA-2019-028-Approval-Order.pdf. 

9 ‘‘Now Available—Weekly Aggregated Reports 

and Statistics for U.S. Treasury Securities’’ (Mar. 

10, 2020), available at https://www.finra.org/filingreporting/trace/now-available-weekly-aggregatedreports-and-statistics-us-treasury. 

10 ‘‘Enhancements to Weekly Aggregated Reports 

and Statistics for U.S. Treasury Securities’’ (Apr. 29, 

2021), available at https://www.finra.org/filingreporting/trace/enhancements-weekly-aggregatedreports-statistics-us-treasury-securities. 

11Effective April 1, 2019, large alternative trading 

systems were required to identify non-FINRA 

member subscriber counterparties in TRACE reports 

to be used for regulatory purposes and not made 

public. See FINRA Regulatory Notice 18–34, 

available at https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/ 

notices/18-34. 

12FINRA TRACE Trade Reporting Notice U.S. 

Treasury Securities Auction Awards, available at 

https://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/notice_

doc_file_ref/Trade-Reporting-Notice-010919.pdf. 

13Effective April 12, 2019, a temporary 

exemption expired that permitted aggregate 

reporting for certain ATS transactions. See FINRA 

Regulatory Notice 19–03, available https://

www.finra.org/rules-guidance/notices/19-03. 

14FINRA Regulatory Notice 20–43, available at 

https://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/2020-12/ 

Regulatory-Notice-20-43.pdf. 

15 Id. 

16 86 FR 59716 (Oct. 28, 2021). 

market. However, based on the vital 

roles and unique structure of the 

Treasury securities market, careful 

consideration is necessary regarding 

how much and in what form 

information should be made available, 

so that market participants are not 

disincentivized from providing liquidity 

and one group of participants is not 

unduly favored over another. 

Specifically, consideration is necessary 

given characteristics of the Treasury 

market structure that differ from other 

fixed-income markets, such as 

differences in market segmentation, 

overall volumes, individual trades sizes, 

types of market participants, and 

methods of execution. Treasury is 

interested in hearing from the public on 

the potential benefits and risks of 

several examples of potential ways to 

build on existing public transparency. 

IAWG Workstreams 

This request for information regarding 

additional post-trade transparency for 

secondary market cash transactions of 

Treasury securities is part of the 

ongoing work of the IAWG to strengthen 

the resilience of the Treasury market 

across all segments, including cash, 

futures, and financing. As the deepest 

and most liquid financial market in the 

world, the Treasury market serves 

several key functions, including 

enabling the financing of the federal 

government at the least cost, providing 

a safe and liquid asset to support the 

flow of capital and credit to households 

and businesses, and facilitating the 

implementation of monetary policy. To 

support these functions and to improve 

Treasury market resilience, the IAWG’s 

work has been organized into five 

workstreams: improving resilience of 

market intermediation; improving data 

quality and availability; evaluating 

expanded central clearing; enhancing 

trading venue transparency and 

oversight; and assessing effects of fund 

leverage and liquidity risk management 

practices.3 As outlined in the November 

2021 Staff Progress Report (Staff 

Progress Report), IAWG staffs proposed 

‘‘transparency that fosters public 

confidence, fair trading, and a liquid 

market’’ as a principle to guide public 

policy decisions in the Treasury 

securities market, and created a 

workstream on improving data quality 

and availability.4 The Staff Progress 

Report described variations in data 

quality and availability for various 

Treasury market segments, including 

cash, funding, and derivatives. 

In referring to the March 2020 public 

release of the TRACE Treasury 

Aggregate Statistics, the Staff Progress 

Report noted that ‘‘given the positive 

feedback received on the release of this 

data, and the lack of negative market 

feedback, it is consistent with prior 

principles to explore increasing 

transparency further.’’ 5

Timeline of Treasury TRACE Data 

Dissemination and Improving Data 

Quality 

Beginning in 2017, the Financial 

Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) 

required its members to report Treasury 

secondary market transactions through 

its Trade Reporting and Compliance 

Engine (TRACE) and shared this data 

with Treasury, the Federal Reserve 

Board, FRBNY, the SEC, and the CFTC.6

In 2018, Treasury conducted 

extensive market outreach and analysis 

to better understand the potential 

benefits and risks of additional public 

transparency for Treasury securities 

TRACE transaction data.7

Informed by that effort, FINRA, in 

consultation with Treasury and with the 

approval of the SEC,8 began publicly 

releasing weekly aggregate volumes, 

referred to as ‘‘TRACE Treasury 

Aggregate Statistics,’’ in March 2020 

based on security type, interdealer or 

dealer-to-customer venue, remaining 

term to maturity, and whether the 

securities were the most recently 

auctioned (on-the-runs) or were more 

seasoned (off-the-runs).9 The following 

year, enhancements were made to the 

weekly aggregates, specifically releasing 

historical data since January 2019 and 

incorporating the 20-year sector to 

accommodate the re-introduction of the 

20-year nominal coupon bond.10 Market 

feedback has indicated the current 

release of weekly aggregates provides 

helpful information without negative 

implications for liquidity, and that 

further transparency could be beneficial. 

Since receiving the TRACE data, 

Treasury has coordinated with other 

IAWG members and FINRA to 

understand how to improve the quality 

of the TRACE data, principally to better 

inform the official sector, but also in 

consideration of potential additional 

public transparency. FINRA has taken 

several actions to improve the quality 

and coverage of the TRACE data, 

including requiring large alternative 

trading systems (ATS) to identify nonFINRA member subscribers (such as 

principal trading firms) on transaction 

reports,11 clarifying the exclusion of 

auction transactions,12 and requiring 

FINRA members to separately report 

transactions that occur within discrete 

trading sessions on ATSs, thereby more 

clearly identifying who is trading with 

whom in certain instances.13

In addition, in consultation with 

Treasury, FINRA solicited comments in 

December 2020 on potential 

enhancements to the transaction data 

reported to TRACE.14 The potential 

changes to TRACE reporting of Treasury 

securities transactions would (1) require 

more granular timestamps where 

applicable, (2) shorten the reporting 

timeframe from end-of-day to within 60 

minutes in most cases, (3) standardize 

price reporting, including separating 

ATS fees, and (4) introduce new 

modifiers to identify non-ATS venues, 

methods of execution, trading units 

within a firm executing a trade, multileg trading strategies, and methods used 

to clear and settle transactions.15

Furthermore, in October 2021 the 

Federal Reserve Board adopted a 

proposal to require certain depository 

institutions to report Treasury securities 

transactions to TRACE beginning in 

September 2022.16 Reporting by 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2022 / Notices 38261 

17https://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/2022- 

05/SR-FINRA-2022-013.pdf. 

18 ‘‘May 2022 Board Update’’ (May 20, 2022), 

available at https://www.finra.org/about/ 

governance/finra-board-governors/meetings/ 

update-finra-board-governors-post-meeting-May2022. 

19Treasury staff calculations based on the 

publicly available TRACE Treasury Aggregate 

Statistics for 2021. 

20For a discussion of measuring liquidity, see 

‘‘Joint Staff Report: The U.S. Treasury Market on 

October 15, 2014’’ (July 13, 2015), available at 

https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/276/jointstaff-report-the-us-treasury-market-on-10-15- 

2014.pdf, and ‘‘Notice Seeking Public Comment on 

the Evolution of the Treasury Market Structure,’’ 81 

FR 3928 (Jan. 22, 2016). 

depository institutions will fill a key 

gap in the current TRACE data. 

Recent FINRA Actions 

Regarding data quality, in May 2022 

FINRA filed with the SEC a proposal to 

amend its rules for reporting 

transactions to TRACE, requiring that 

(1) timestamps for most electronic 

transactions are reported at the finest 

increment captured by the execution 

system, and (2) transactions are 

generally reported as soon as practicable 

but no later than 60 minutes.17

Regarding additional transparency, 

also in May 2022, the FINRA Board of 

Governors approved the submission to 

the SEC of a proposal to publish 

aggregated transaction information on 

Treasury securities more frequently, in 

response to a request from Treasury.18

II. Solicitation for Comments 

Treasury is seeking public comment 

on additional post-trade transparency in 

the Treasury securities market, 

including potential benefits and risks of 

several options to build on existing 

public transparency. 

Any additional transparency should 

take into consideration the differences 

among security types and trading 

venues. For example, on-the-run fixedrate nominal Treasury securities are 

actively traded, accounting for an 

average of about 60% of the weekly 

volume for all Treasury securities,19

with a significant portion occurring on 

electronic interdealer platforms. In 

contrast, other Treasury securities, 

including off-the-run fixed-rate nominal 

securities, are more often traded 

between dealers and customers, in 

larger individual trade sizes, and are 

more likely to use voice-based methods 

or electronic request-for-quote. In 

addition, further differences exist 

between fixed-rate nominal coupons, 

bills, floating rate notes (FRN), Treasury 

inflation-protected securities (TIPS), 

and STRIPS (Separate Trading of 

Registered Interest and Principal of 

Securities). 

Other considerations for the design of 

additional transparency include the 

timing of reporting of transactions to 

TRACE and the potential for subsequent 

revisions to reports. Under current 

FINRA rules, FINRA members must 

generally report transactions by the end 

of the day. As stated above, FINRA’s 

recent proposal would reduce this 

timeframe to 60 minutes. In some 

instances, transactions may be reported 

late or revised after the reporting 

timeframe. The current weekly aggregate 

statistics are released with a lag of two 

business days to incorporate most of 

these late or revised transactions. 

However, after the weekly aggregate 

statistics are published, they are not 

amended to incorporate additional late 

transactions or revisions. If transaction 

data were released with a shorter delay, 

additional consideration would need to 

be given to the potential effects or 

treatment of late or revised transactions. 

Another consideration when 

evaluating the benefits and risks of 

additional transparency is measuring 

liquidity. One common definition of 

liquidity in the Treasury securities 

market is the ability to both transact 

continuously and trade in large 

quantities at minimal cost.20 Measuring 

liquidity generally relies on observing a 

collection of price and quantity metrics, 

such as the quoted spread between bid 

and offer prices, the depth of resting 

orders in a central-limit order book, the 

replenishment rate of central-limit book 

orders, or the price impact in response 

to large net flows. Treasury is also 

interested in additional perspectives on 

how best to measure liquidity in the 

Treasury securities market and how 

liquidity is likely to change with 

additional transparency of transactions. 

More generally, Treasury seeks 

feedback on security characteristics, 

market structure features, and other 

factors when considering additional 

transparency, as well as specific 

recommendations to help ensure the 

public release of information 

appropriately balances the benefits and 

risks. 

Responses to the following topics will 

help inform Treasury’s policy 

perspectives on additional post-trade 

data transparency regarding the 

Treasury securities market. Historically, 

Treasury has taken a gradual approach 

to additional public transparency based 

on feedback from a range of Treasury 

market participants, including both 

intermediaries and end-user investors. 

Some market participants have 

expressed concerns regarding the effect 

of additional transparency on the 

potential willingness and ability of 

intermediaries to engage in large 

institutional risk transfer in the 

Treasury securities market, in particular 

for off-the-run Treasury securities. This 

could in turn adversely affect market 

liquidity including, but not limited to, 

bid-ask spread and depth of market and 

ultimately Treasury’s debt issuance 

costs. 

In contrast, other market participants 

have cited the benefits of additional 

transparency, including post-trade data 

for use in transaction cost analysis and 

for greater visibility into intermediation 

patterns, which could help inform 

investor decisions around capital 

allocation to various segments of the 

Treasury securities market. 

Please include in your comments: (1) 

any data or reasons related to your 

views, including examples; (2) any 

alternative approaches and options that 

should be considered; and (3) any 

specific recommendations regarding the 

appropriate form for publicly released 

transaction information. Where 

appropriate, please distinguish between 

the different Treasury security types 

(i.e., fixed-rate nominal coupons, bills, 

TIPS, FRNs, and STRIPS), 

characteristics (e.g., on-the-run, off-therun, etc.), and market segments (e.g., 

interdealer, dealer-to-customer, etc.). 

We also welcome comments on any 

aspect of additional post-trade 

transparency not addressed in this 

request for information. 

1. Benefits and Risks of Additional 

Public Transparency in the Treasury 

Securities Market 

1.1 What are the main benefits of 

additional transparency of data 

regarding transactions in the Treasury 

securities market? Please elaborate on 

the benefits. How should the benefits be 

measured? 

1.2 What are the main risks of 

additional transparency of data 

regarding transactions in the Treasury 

securities market? Please elaborate on 

the risks. How should the risks be 

measured? 

1.3 In what ways would additional 

transparency further increase public 

confidence in the Treasury securities 

market? 

1.4 What types of market 

participants would benefit from 

additional transparency? Would some 

market participants derive greater 

benefit from additional transparency 

relative to others? If yes, please 

elaborate on the types of market 

participants and the specific benefits. 

1.5 What types of market 

participants would be harmed more 

from additional transparency? Would 

some market participants derive greater 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
38262 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2022 / Notices 

21See ‘‘Recent Disruptions and Potential Reforms 

in the U.S. Treasury Market: A Staff Progress 

Report’’ (Nov. 8, 2021), available at https://

home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/IAWGTreasury-Report.pdf. 

harm from additional transparency 

relative to others? If yes, please 

elaborate on the types of market 

participants and the specific harms. 

1.6 In what form (e.g., granularity of 

data, aggregation of data, frequency of 

release, time of day, data format, etc.) 

would public release of Treasury 

securities transactions market data best 

balance the potential benefits and 

harms? Please elaborate. 

2. Considerations for Additional Public 

Transparency as it Relates to Market 

Resilience 

2.1 How would additional 

transparency improve Treasury 

securities market resilience? 

2.2 Please provide specific 

examples, if applicable, of how 

additional transparency would have 

helped improve or hurt market 

resilience during recent periods of 

market volatility such as the October 

2014 flash rally, the September 2019 

repo market pressures, and the March 

2020 COVID–19 pandemic-related 

dislocations.21

3. Considerations for Additional Public 

Transparency as it Relates to Market 

Liquidity 

3.1 How would you define liquidity 

in the Treasury securities market? 

3.2 What data or metrics should be 

used to measure liquidity in the 

Treasury securities market? 

3.3 How could additional 

transparency incentivize intermediation 

or otherwise improve Treasury 

securities market liquidity, if at all? 

Please provide specific examples of how 

additional transparency could improve 

market liquidity. 

3.4 How could additional 

transparency disincentivize 

intermediation or otherwise impair 

Treasury securities market liquidity, if 

at all? 

4. Examples of Additional Transparency 

Note the examples presented in this 

section are designed to illustrate a range 

of possible degrees of transparency to 

better understand market participants 

views on the benefits and risks of 

additional transparency. These 

illustrative examples are not the only 

options for levels of transparency. If 

market participants have other views, 

please elaborate. 

4.1 Example A. For each individual 

CUSIP, daily average prices, trade 

count, and traded volumes could be 

released. Please comment on the 

benefits and risks of this example. 

4.2 Example B. Adding to Example 

A, transaction-level details could be 

released for on-the-run nominal 

coupons. Please comment on the 

benefits and risks of this example, 

including whether transactions above a 

certain dollar value should disclose the 

actual trade size or be subject to caps or 

additional delays. What specific caps or 

delays would be preferable, if any? 

4.3 Example C. Adding to Example 

B, transaction-level details could be 

released for every Treasury security. 

Please comment on the benefits and 

risks of this example, including whether 

volume caps or delays should be 

tailored to different segments based on 

the different liquidity characteristics of 

Treasury securities in those segments. 

4.4 Are there other examples that 

Treasury should consider, or 

modifications to Examples A, B, and C? 

Please elaborate. 

4.5 In addition to the examples 

above, what are your views on 

providing transaction-level data with 

anonymized participant identification, 

with a significant lag, that could either 

be available to the public or only be 

available to academic institutions for 

the purpose of research? 

4.6 Please indicate which of the 

above examples you most prefer, or if 

you prefer an outcome not represented 

in these examples. Please elaborate. 

4.7 What are the potential benefits 

and risks of gradually phasing in 

additional transparency over time? 

What lessons can be drawn about 

phasing from the implementation of 

additional transparency in other 

markets? What would be your 

recommendation for a phase-in 

schedule? 

5. Volumes and Price Considerations 

and Scope 

5.1 Please describe how volume data 

could be adjusted for large trade sizes if 

the data is publicly disseminated. For 

example, should large trades be 

excluded from aggregates, or large 

volumes capped if provided at a 

transaction level as is done for 

transparency of certain other fixedincome securities? If so, please elaborate 

on how this should be different for onthe-run versus off-the-run securities, 

security type, or maturity segment. 

5.2 Pre- and post-auction whenissued volumes through the end of the 

auction day are currently excluded from 

the weekly data release. What are your 

views on continuing to exclude this data 

or separately identifying pre- or postauction when-issued volumes? 

5.3 How should additional 

transparency vary, if at all, based on (a) 

security type (i.e., fixed-rate nominal 

coupons, bills, FRNs, TIPS, and 

STRIPS), (b) on-the-run or off-the-run 

status, (c) maturity, or (d) other security 

characteristics including, but not 

limited to, average trading volumes or 

trade size? 

5.4 What pricing information would 

be the most beneficial to release, such 

as end-of-day prices, volume-weighted 

average prices, or transaction-level 

prices? What pricing information would 

be most harmful to release? Please 

explain your reasoning and how such 

information would be of use. 

5.5 If price information is aggregated 

for release, how should the pricing 

information be calculated, such as for a 

weighted average? Is there a certain time 

of day that prices should be captured, or 

is there a certain time range to calculate 

averages (e.g., volume-weighted prices 

by tenor from 9 a.m. to 3.30 p.m.)? Is 

there a preference for yield or price or 

some other pricing convention? Please 

be specific by security type. 

5.6 What types of transactions (e.g., 

swap box, basis, affiliate, and others) 

should be identified separately due to a 

different pricing convention that could 

result in prices appearing to be different 

from the prevailing market price if not 

properly identified? How should these 

trades be identified and represented in 

the data for public dissemination? What 

is your view on including indicators for 

transactions using a different pricing 

methodology? Should the pricing of 

different types of transactions be 

converted to comparable prices? Please 

elaborate on the benefits and risks. 

6. Other Trade Characteristics 

6.1 What additional trade details 

should be released, such as counterparty 

types, whether a trade occurs on an 

ATS, the type of trading venue or venue 

name, the trade direction (buy or sell), 

the trading protocol (e.g., request-forquote, central limit order book, etc.), or 

any other details that may be 

considered? What are the benefits and 

risks of releasing such additional 

information? 

6.2 The current release provides 

volume aggregates. How do your views 

change on what, if any, trade details 

should be released if the data is 

disseminated at the transaction level? 

6.3 When a trade involves two or 

more reporting counterparties, should 

the transaction reports be matched and 

consolidated before dissemination so 

that a trade is only reported once? 

Should only one side of each trade be 

released? What should be done for a 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2022 / Notices 38263 

trade with multiple counterparties (a socalled ‘‘one-to-many’’ trade)? 

6.4 Should trades in different market 

segments or on different venues be 

displayed differently? For example, the 

interdealer market often operates on a 

microsecond level, often through 

automated trading on electronic 

centralized order books. In contrast, the 

dealer-to-customer market, while 

utilizing electronic trading more than in 

the past, still exhibits a significant 

amount of manual or voice-based trades. 

Should these transactions be treated or 

displayed differently, and if so, why and 

in what way? 

7. Late Transactions and Revisions 

7.1 How should late transactions 

and revisions be addressed in the 

publicly disseminated data? 

7.2 To what extent should the 

volume of late transactions and 

revisions influence dissemination 

timing? 

Brian Smith, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Federal 

Finance. 

[FR Doc. 2022–13540 Filed 6–24–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–AK–P 

UNIFIED CARRIER REGISTRATION 

PLAN 

Sunshine Act; Meeting 

TIME AND DATE: June 30, 2022, 12 p.m. 

to 2 p.m., Eastern time. 

PLACE: This meeting will be accessible 

via conference call and via Zoom 

Meeting and Screenshare. Any 

interested person may call (i) 1–929– 

205–6099 (US Toll) or 1–669–900–6833 

(US Toll) or (ii) 1–877–853–5247 (US 

Toll Free) or 1–888–788–0099 (US Toll 

Free), Meeting ID: 984 5137 4096, to 

listen and participate in this meeting. 

The website to participate via Zoom 

Meeting and Screenshare is https://

kellen.zoom.us/meeting/register/ 

tJwpcuirqT8qE9JrExdxhInvTjO-4LtN_

WZV. 

STATUS: This meeting will be open to the 

public. 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Unified 

Carrier Registration Plan Audit 

Subcommittee (the ‘‘Subcommittee’’) 

will continue its work in developing 

and implementing the Unified Carrier 

Registration Plan and Agreement. The 

subject matter of this meeting will 

include: 

Proposed Agenda 

I. Call to Order—UCR Audit Subcommittee 

Chair 

The UCR Audit Subcommittee Chair will 

welcome attendees, call the meeting to 

order, call roll for the Audit 

Subcommittee, confirm whether a 

quorum is present, and facilitate selfintroductions. 

II. Verification of Publication of Meeting 

Notice—UCR Executive Director 

The UCR Executive Director will verify the 

publication of the meeting notice on the 

UCR website and distribution to the UCR 

contact list via email followed by the 

subsequent publication of the notice in 

the Federal Register. 

III. Review and Approval of Subcommittee 

Agenda and Setting of Ground Rules— 

UCR Audit Subcommittee Chair 

For Discussion and Possible Audit 

Subcommittee Action—The agenda will 

be reviewed, and the Subcommittee will 

consider adoption. 

Ground Rules 

➢ Subcommittee action only to be taken in 

designated areas on the agenda. 

IV. Review and Approval of Subcommittee 

Minutes from the April 14, 2022 

Meeting—UCR Audit Subcommittee 

Chair 

For Discussion and Possible Subcommittee 

Action—Draft minutes from the April 14, 

2022 Subcommittee meeting via 

teleconference will be reviewed. The 

Subcommittee will consider action to 

approve. 

V. Additional Compliance Evaluation Tools 

for the Annual State Audit Progress 

Report—UCR Audit Subcommittee Chair 

For Discussion and Possible Subcommittee 

Action—The UCR Audit Subcommittee 

Chair will lead a discussion regarding 

the current evaluation process for the 

participating states’ audit programs as 

required by the UCR Agreement. The 

Subcommittee will discuss options to 

require states to review and close all 

bracket 5 and 6 unregistered motor 

carriers. The Subcommittee may take 

action to approve and recommend to the 

UCR Board such requirement as 

discussed by the Subcommittee. 

VI. Potential revisions to the UCR 

Handbook—UCR Audit Subcommittee 

Chair and UCR Executive Director 

For Discussion and Possible Subcommittee 

Action—The UCR Audit Subcommittee 

Chair and UCR Executive Director will 

lead a discussion regarding potential 

revisions and clarifications to the 

language in the UCR Handbook 

pertaining to the usage of the term 

‘‘operated’’ as it relates to a motor carrier 

beginning operations. An update on 

other proposed revisions to the UCR 

Handbook will also be presented and 

discussed. The Subcommittee may take 

action to approve proposed revisions to 

the UCR Handbook and recommend the 

revisions to the UCR Board. 

VII. Motor Carriers Operating Without an 

Active USDOT Number—UCR Audit 

Subcommittee Vice-Chair 

The UCR Audit Subcommittee Vice-Chair 

will lead a discussion on how often a 49 

CFR Section 392.9b (Prohibited 

Transportation) violation occurs and 

how to contact operators to remedy the 

problem. 

VIII. State Compliance Review Program— 

UCR Audit Subcommittee Chair and 

UCR Depository Manager 

The UCR Audit Subcommittee Chair and 

the UCR Depository Manager will lead a 

discussion on program objectives and 

states scheduled for review in 2022. 

IX. Open Discussion Regarding Ways and 

Means to Increase UCR Registration 

Percentages—UCR Audit Subcommittee 

Chair and UCR Audit Subcommittee 

Vice-Chair 

The UCR Audit Subcommittee Chair and 

UCR Audit Subcommittee Vice-Chair 

will lead a discussion to share state 

resources (auditors and other contacts), 

leveraging partner relationships, auditing 

tools and other ideas to increase UCR 

registration percentages to promote 

improving fairness within the industry. 

X. Maximizing the Value of the Should Have 

Been (SHB) and Enforcement Efficiency 

Tools—UCR Audit Subcommittee Chair, 

UCR Audit Subcommittee Vice-Chair 

and DSL Transportation Services, Inc. 

(DSL) 

The UCR Audit Subcommittee Chair, UCR 

Audit Subcommittee Vice-Chair and DSL 

will provide an update on the value 

achieved by utilizing the Shadow 

MCMIS and other tools in the National 

Registration System (NRS). The 

discussion will highlight the financial 

value to the states by vetting businesses 

for UCR compliance, commercial 

registration, IFTA, intrastate, and 

interstate operating authority. 

XI. Future Virtual Audit Training Sessions 

for State Auditors—UCR Audit 

Subcommittee Chair, UCR Audit 

Subcommittee Vice-Chair and DSL 

The UCR Audit Subcommittee Chair, UCR 

Audit Subcommittee Vice-Chair and DSL 

will lead a discussion regarding the 

value of providing a series of 30-minute 

virtual audit training sessions. 

XII. Future Audit Subcommittee Meetings— 

UCR Audit Subcommittee Chair and 

UCR Audit Subcommittee Vice-Chair 

The UCR Audit Subcommittee Chair and 

UCR Audit Subcommittee Vice-Chair will 

lead a discussion regarding future virtual and 

in-person meetings. 

XIII. Other Items—UCR Audit Subcommittee 

Chair 

The UCR Audit Subcommittee Chair will 

call for any other items Subcommittee 

members would like to discuss. 

XIV. Adjournment—UCR Audit 

Subcommittee Chair 

The UCR Audit Subcommittee Chair will 

adjourn the meeting. 

The agenda will be available no later 

than 5 p.m. Eastern time, June 22, 2022 

at: https://plan.ucr.gov. 

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Elizabeth Leaman, Chair, Unified 

Carrier Registration Plan Board of 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1