Request for Comments. (a) Specific request for comments on the traditional annual PRA hourly burden and cost. FinCEN invites comments on any aspect of the traditional annual PRA burden, as set out in Part 1 of this 24 Net hourly burden and cost are the burden and cost a financial institution incurs to comply with requirements that are unique to the BSA, and that do not support any other business purpose or regulatory obligation of the financial institution. Burden for purposes of the PRA does not include the time and financial resources needed to comply with an information collection, if the time and resources are for things a business (or other person) does in the ordinary course of its activities if the agency demonstrates that the reporting activities needed to comply are usual and customary. 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2). For example, a financial institution may be collecting and maintaining information on certain transactions with designated FFAs in order to satisfy other obligations including (i) protecting the financial institution from fraud against itself or its customers, or (ii) complying with other non-BSA regulatory requirements such as those imposed by the specific Federal functional regulator.
Request for Comments. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection. They will also become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on:
Request for Comments. The FDIC is interested in receiving comments on all aspects of the proposed rule. In particular, do the amendments to the definitions of “qualifying master netting agreement,” “collateral agreement,” “repo-style transaction,” and “eligible margin loan” ensure that the regulatory capital and liquidity treatment of OTC derivatives, repo-style transactions, eligible margin loans and other collateralized transactions is unaffected by the ISDA Protocol and the BRRD? Is there any reason why the FDIC should not revise the above mentioned definitions? The ISDA Protocol also provides for limited stays of termination rights for cross-defaults resulting from affiliate insolvency proceedings under a limited number of U.S. general insolvency regimes, including the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.25 The proposed rule does not address this portion of the ISDA Protocol because this portion of the ISDA Protocol does not take effect on January 1, 2015. Instead it takes effect upon the effective date of implementing regulations in the United States. The FDIC requests comment on whether the definitions of “qualifying master 25 Under the ISDA Protocol, upon commencement of such proceedings, adhering counterparties would be subject to a limited stay of their termination rights and other remedies. The limited stay does not apply if a direct counterparty is subject to general insolvency proceedings. The stay also does not apply to payment or delivery defaults or to defaults that are not directly or indirectly related to the affiliate insolvency proceedings. netting agreement,” “collateral agreement,” “repo-style transaction,” and “eligible margin loan” should also be amended to recognize the stay of default rights in this context.
Request for Comments. Although comments may address any part or provision of the template, FHWA is specifically requesting comments on the following: • Whether revisions are needed to the template to delete standard terms requiring approval by the Secretary of the policies, procedures, processes, or manuals of the States, or other State actions, if Federal law (including regulations) does not specifically require an approval. The FHWA encourages commenters to specify each provision that should be revised. • Opportunities to modify the template to allow adjustments to the review schedules for State practices or actions, including through risk-based approaches, program reviews, process reviews, or other means. • Provisions of the template that describe how FHWA will perform oversight under 23 U.S.C. 106 (g), such as reviewing State DOT practices or actions through risk- based approaches, program reviews, process reviews, or other means. The FHWA is interested in how commenters believe FHWA could improve these provisions in the template. • Whether FHWA should allow the template to be modified by individual division offices and State DOTs to include State-specific provisions that do not otherwise conflict with the template and, if so, examples of what might be included in those provisions. The FHWA is particularly interested in whether commenters believe FHWA should allow the addition of such State-specific provisions under Section
Request for Comments. The Service solicits comments and suggestions relating to this revenue procedure. In particular, the Service requests (1) comments on the correction methods, earnings adjustment methods, and examples described in this revenue procedure, (2) suggestions for alternative methods of correction for the Operational Failures addressed in this revenue procedure, and (3) suggestions for methods of correction for Qualification Failures not addressed in this revenue procedure (including methods for correcting failures with respect to 403(b) plans). It is requested that comments and suggestions be submitted by November 21, 1999, addressed to CC:DOM:CORP:R (Rev. Proc. 99-31), Room 5228, Internal Revenue Service, POB 7604, Xxx Xxxxxxxx Station, Washington, DC 20044. In the alternative, comments may be hand-delivered between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. to CC:DOM:CORP:R (Rev. Proc. 99-31), Xxxxxxx’s Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 0000 Xxxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxx, XX, Xxxxxxxxxx, XX. Alternatively, taxpayers may transmit comments electronically by using the following site: xxxxxxx.xxxxxxx@x0.xxxxxxxxxx.xxxxx.xxx
Request for Comments. Written comments and/or suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following points: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) The accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
