			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on June 3, 2003

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST 1996-1231

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant:  AEROCER, S.A. de C.V.
                                           Date Filed: May 8, 2003

Relief requested:  Exemption from 49 USC section 41301 to permit the
applicant to continue to conduct passenger charter operations between
Mexico and the United States, and other passenger charter operations in
accordance with 14 CFR Part 212, using small equipment.

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  June 11, 2002, in this
Docket.

Applicant representative(s):  Lee A. Bauer,<PHONE_NUMBER>        DOT
analyst:  Allen F. Brown,<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None.

	DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved.
         Action date:  June 3, 2003

Effective dates of authority granted:  June 3, 2003, through June 14,
2004.

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity):  United
States-Mexico Air Transport Services Agreement of August 15, 1960, as
amended and extended (Agreement).

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:  Standard exemption
conditions.

Special conditions/Partial grant/Denial basis/Remarks:  In the conduct
of these operations, the carrier must adhere to all applicable
provisions of the U.S.-Mexico Agreement.  In the conduct of these
operations, the carrier may only use aircraft capable of carrying no
more than 60 passengers and having a maximum payload capacity of no more
than 18,000 pounds (small equipment).  The above grant includes
authority to conduct Third and Fourth Freedom charter operations.  While
we have subjected, consistent with the provisions of the Agreement,
Mexican carriers conducting charter operations with large aircraft to
prior approval or submission of notice for their Third and Fourth
Freedom charters, we determined that any such requirement was not
necessary on public interest grounds in this case, since the carrier
will be conducting these operations solely with small aircraft.  (Other
charter operations to/from the United States under this authority,
however, are subject to prior approval under 14 CFR Part 212.)  Further,
we are continuing to allow Mexican carriers conducting passenger
charters using small equipment to make stopovers in the United States in
the conduct of such operations.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed
operations; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in
the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such
effe瑣癩湥獥⹳഍湁攠敬瑣潲楮敶獲潩景琠楨⁳潤
畣敭瑮椠⁳癡楡慬汢湯琠敨圠牯摬圠摩敗瑡ഺ瑨
灴⼺搯獭搮瑯朮癯⼯敲潰瑲⽳敲潰瑲彳癡慩楴湯愮灳


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 136 (Wednesday, July 15, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42853-42854]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15260]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12726-002]

Warm Springs Hydro, LLC; Notice of Availability of Environmental
Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations, 18 CFR part
380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office of Energy Projects has
reviewed the application for license for the Rock Creek Hydroelectric
Project (project)

and has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA). The project is
located on Rock Creek near the City of Haines in Baker County, Oregon,
and occupies federal lands administered by the Forest Service.
    In the EA, Commission staff analyzes the potential environmental
effects of the project and concludes that issuing a license for the
project, with appropriate environmental measures, would not constitute
a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment.
    The Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to
view and/or print the EA via the internet through the Commission's Home
Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the
docket number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number
field, to access the document. At this time, the Commission has
suspended access to Commission's Public Reference Room, due to the
proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning the Novel
Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the President on March 13,
2020. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
(202) 502-8659. You may also register online at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/eSubscription.aspx to be notified via email of new
filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For
assistance, contact FERC Online Support.
    Any comments should be filed within 45 days from the date of this
notice.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments using the Commission's eFiling system at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/eFiling.aspx. Commenters can submit brief comments
up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment
system at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/QuickComment.aspx. You must
include your name and contact information at the end of your comments.
For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support. In lieu of
electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC
20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-
12726-002.
    For further information, please contact Kelly Wolcott at (202) 502-
6480 or at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: July 9, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-15260 Filed 7-14-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 223 (Friday, November 18, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71612-71614]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29786]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65722; File No. SR-FINRA-2011-065]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of
Proposed Rule Change To Update Rule Cross-References Within Certain
FINRA Rules

November 10, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 2, 2011, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by FINRA. FINRA has
designated the proposed rule change as constituting a non-controversial
rule change under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act,\3\ which renders the
proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    FINRA is proposing to update cross-references within certain FINRA
rules to reflect changes adopted in the consolidated FINRA rulebook.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web
site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    FINRA is in the process of developing a new consolidated rulebook
(``Consolidated FINRA Rulebook'').\4\ That process involves FINRA
submitting to the Commission for approval a series of proposed rule
changes over time to adopt rules in the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook.
The phased adoption and implementation of those rules necessitates
periodic amendments to update rule cross-references and other non-
substantive technical changes in the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The current FINRA rulebook consists of (1) FINRA Rules; (2)
NASD Rules; and (3) rules incorporated from NYSE (``Incorporated
NYSE Rules'') (together, the NASD Rules and Incorporated NYSE Rules
are referred to as the ``Transitional Rulebook''). While the NASD
Rules generally apply to all FINRA members, the Incorporated NYSE
Rules apply only to those members of FINRA that are also members of
the NYSE (``Dual Members''). The FINRA Rules apply to all FINRA
members, unless such rules have a more limited application by their
terms. For more information about the rulebook consolidation
process, see Information Notice, March 12, 2008 (Rulebook
Consolidation Process).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would update rule cross-references to
reflect changes adopted in the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook. In this
regard, the proposed rule change would update references in FINRA Rules
0150 (Application of Rules to Exempted Securities Except Municipal
Securities),\5\ 2114 (Recommendations to Customers in OTC Equity
Securities), 2124 (Net Transactions with Customers), 2130 (Approval
Procedures for Day-Trading Accounts), 2264 (Margin Disclosure
Statement), 2270 (Day-Trading Risk Disclosure Statement), 2330
(Members' Responsibilities Regarding Deferred Variable Annuities), 2360
(Options), 2370 (Security Futures), 5122 (Private Placements of
Securities Issued by Members), 5320 (Prohibition Against Trading Ahead
of Customer Orders), 6630 (Applicability of FINRA Rules to Securities
Previously Designated as PORTAL Securities),\6\ 7230A (Trade Report
Input), 7330 (Trade Report Input), 9217 (Violations Appropriate for
Disposition Under Plan Pursuant to SEA Rule 19d-1(c)(2)), 9559 (Hearing
Procedures for Expedited Proceedings Under the Rule 9550 Series), and
9610 (Application) that are needed as the result of Commission approval
of three recent FINRA proposed rule changes.\7\ Also, the proposed rule
change will delete the general recordkeeping provisions of NYSE Rule
440 (Books and Records).\8\ In addition, the proposed rule change would
update reference to former MSRB Rule G-36 (Delivery of Official
Statements, Advance Refunding Documents and Forms G-36(OS) and G-
36(ARD) to Board or its Designee) in FINRA Rule 9217 to reflect changes
made in a MSRB Rule filing.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The proposed rule change would update FINRA Rule 0150 to
reflect (1) the adoption of Rules 2268, 4510 Series, and 5340 and
the deletion of NASD Rule 3110 and NASD IM-3110, effective December
5, 2011, and (2) the deletion of NASD Rule 3020 to add Rule 4360,
effective January 1, 2012. See Regulatory Notice 11-19 (April 2011)
(regarding File No. SR-FINRA-2010-052) and Regulatory Notice 11-21
(May 2011) (regarding File No. SR-FINRA-2010-059).
    \6\ The proposed rule change would update FINRA Rule 6630 to
reflect (1) the adoption of Rules 4510 Series and the deletion of
NASD Rule 3110, effective December 5, 2011, and (2) the deletion of
NASD Rule 3020 to add Rule 4360, effective January 1, 2012. See
Regulatory Notice 11-19 (April 2011) (regarding File No. SR-FINRA-
2010-052) and Regulatory Notice 11-21 (May 2011) (regarding File No.
SR-FINRA-2010-059).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63784 (January 27,
2011), 76 FR 5850 (February 2, 2011) (Order Approving File No. SR-
FINRA-2010-052); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63961 (February
24, 2011), 76 FR 11542 (March 2, 2011) (Order Approving File No. SR-
FINRA-2010-059); and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65281
(September 7, 2011), 76 FR 56848 (September 14, 2011) (Order
Approving File No. SR-FINRA-2011-031).
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63784 (January 27,
2011), 76 FR 5850 (February 2, 2011) (Order Approving File No. SR-
FINRA-2010-052). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63999
(March 1, 2011), 76 FR 12380 (March 7, 2011) (Order Approving File
No. SR-FINRA-2010-061).
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59966 (May 21,
2009), 74 FR 25790 (May 29, 2009) (Order Approving File No. SR-MSRB-
2009-02).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted in Item 2 of this filing, FINRA has filed the proposed
rule change for immediate effectiveness. The implementation date for
the proposed change to FINRA Rule 9559 will be December 2, 2011.\10\
The implementation date for certain proposed rule changes to FINRA
Rules 0150 and 6630, and proposed rule changes to FINRA Rules 2114,
2124, 2130, 2264, 2270, 2330, 2360, 2370, 5122, 5320, 7230A, 7330 and
9217 will be December 5, 2011. The implementation date for the proposed
rule changes to update certain references in FINRA Rules 0150,
6630(c)(2) and 9610(a) that would delete the reference to NASD Rule
3020 and add the reference to FINRA Rule 4360 will be January 1, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Regulatory Notice 11-50 (November 2011) (regarding File
No. SR-FINRA-2011-031).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\11\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. FINRA believes the proposed rule change will provide
greater clarity to members and the public regarding FINRA's rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest, does not
impose any significant burden on competition, and, by its terms, does
not become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed,
or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section

19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2011-065 on the subject line.

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 SR-FINRA-2011-065. 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/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for 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
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2011-065 and should be
submitted on or before December 9, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-29786 Filed 11-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 13 (Tuesday, January 21, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 3459]
[FR Doc No: 2014-00950]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2003-15011]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document
dated September 17, 2013, the Eastern Maine Railway (EMRY) has
petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for an extension
of its waiver of compliance from certain provisions of 49 CFR part 241,
United States Locational Requirements for Dispatching of United States
Rail Operations. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2003-
15011.
    In its petition, EMRY requests an extension of its existing waiver
of compliance, pursuant to 49 CFR 241.7(c), to allow the continuation
of Canadian dispatching of that part of the Mattawamkeag Subdivision
located in the United States, extending between Vanceboro and
Brownville Junction, Maine, approximately 99 miles, as defined in
Appendix A to part 241. This request was submitted in accordance with
49 CFR 241.7(c)(3), which permits waiver of the requirements found in
part 241, specifically that all dispatching of U.S. rail operations be
conducted in the U.S. This territory was previously grandfathered in
the exceptions to extraterritorial dispatching contained in FRA's
interim final rule (see 66 FR 63942, December 11, 2001).
    In this regard, the track segment identified in the interim final
rule remains the same as identified above. This segment consists of a
single main track dispatched from a single desk at EMRY's rail traffic
control office in St. John, New Brunswick, Canada, under Canadian Rail
Operating Rules and EMRY's Timetable and Special Instructions. The
trackage is nonsignaled and operated under occupancy control system
rules. All dispatching is conducted in English. All units of measure
are the same as those used in the U.S. EMRY operates approximately two
trains a day over this segment.
    The train dispatchers who perform the dispatching function for EMRY
are employed by the New Brunswick Southern Railway (NBSR) and are
therefore covered under their company drug and alcohol policies, and
their dispatching office is under 24-hour security. The Department of
Transportation of the Province of New Brunswick, Canada, is the
regulatory authority that exercises safety jurisdiction over NBSR.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations
Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by March 7, 2014 will be considered by FRA
before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be
considered as far as practicable.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
See http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the privacy notice
of regulations.gov or interested parties may review DOT's complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477).

Robert C. Lauby,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-00950 Filed 1-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register: September 10, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 174)]
[Notices]
[Page 46655-46658]
[DOCID:fr10se09-117]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records Notice

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice to alter a Privacy Act system of records.

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

SUMMARY: NHTSA is republishing the Privacy Act system of records notice
(SORN) for the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save program (CARS
program) database system replacing the previously published SORN of
July 27, 2009 in order to: (1) Expand the routine uses of records
maintained in the system to include sharing complaint records with
State Attorneys General and the National Association of Attorneys
General (NAAG), for purposes of investigating and prosecuting criminal
violations, including fraud associated with the CARS program, and (2)
update the system location, storage and retrievability sections of the
SORN to reflect the use of word-searchable electronic files (i.e.,
Excel spreadsheets) to store complaint information, including that to
be shared with the State Attorneys General and NAAG. These changes are
more thoroughly detailed below and in the accompanying updated Privacy
Impact Assessment (PIA) that may be found on the DOT Privacy Web site
at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.

DATES: Effective September 10, 2009. The CARS Program is a temporary
program covering eligible automobile purchases/leases occurring between
July 1, 2009 and November 1, 2009. The Consumer Assistance to Recycle
and Save Act of 2009 (the CARS Act), which authorized the CARS Program,
requires the Secretary of Transportation, acting through NHTSA, to take
steps to identify, prevent and penalize fraud associated with the
Program. Since the inception of the CARS Program, NHTSA has received a
substantial number of complaints from consumers located nation-wide,
including time-sensitive complaints of dealer misconduct associated
with the conduct of the Program. In order for these consumer complaints
to be investigated and resolved in a timely manner (i.e., while the
CARS Program remains operational and before the complaints become
moot), NHTSA has sought the assistance of State Attorneys General. For
this reason, NHTSA must begin sharing consumer complaint information,
including personally identifiable information (PII) of consumers, with
State Attorneys General and NAAG prior to completion of a 30-day public
notice and comment period under this SORN. NHTSA nonetheless seeks and
will accept public comment on this SORN for a 30 day period. Because
our ability to consider comments received may be limited, we encourage
the earliest possible submission of comments. If feasible, we may
publish a further alteration to this SORN in light of any comments
received.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Dee Smith, NHTSA Privacy Officer, NHTSA
Office of the CIO, NPO-420, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For privacy issues please contact: Dee
Smith, NHTSA Privacy Officer, NHTSA Office of the CIO, NPO-420, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC 20590 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. CARS Program

    On June 24, 2009, the President signed into law the Consumer
Assistance to Recycle and Save Act of 2009 (the CARS Act) (Pub. L. 111-
32). The Act establishes, within DOT's National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA), a temporary program under which an owner of a
motor vehicle meeting statutorily specified criteria may trade in the
vehicle and receive a monetary credit from the dealer toward the
purchase or lease of a new motor vehicle meeting statutorily specified
criteria (the CARS Program or Program).
    The Program covers qualifying transactions that occur between July
1, 2009 and November 1, 2009. If all of the conditions of eligibility
are met and the dealer provides NHTSA with sufficient documentation
relating to the transaction, NHTSA will make an electronic payment to
the dealer equal

to the amount of the credit extended by the dealer to the consumer, not
exceeding the statutorily authorized amount. The dealer must agree to
transfer the trade-in vehicle to a salvage auction or disposal facility
that will crush or shred it so that it will never be returned to the
road, although parts of the vehicle other than the engine block may be
sold prior to disposal.
    Under the Program, NHTSA must collect a variety of information from
individuals and entities about qualifying transactions. Vehicle
manufacturers must provide data about vehicles and authorized dealers.
Dealers must provide information about their business operations and
individual financial transactions. Salvage auctions and disposal
facilities may be required to provide comparable data about their
business operations and information confirming the sale or destruction
of trade-in vehicles. This information is required to ensure compliance
with the terms of the CARS Act--specifically, to verify that purchasing
consumers, new and trade-in vehicles, dealers, salvage auctions and
disposal facilities are eligible to participate in the Program; to
identify, prevent and penalize fraud; and to confirm appropriate
disposal of the trade-in vehicles. Participating car buyers also will
be asked to complete a survey about the Program for use in reporting to
Congress on the efficacy of the Program, as mandated by the CARS Act.
Surveys will be voluntary and anonymous. Additionally, under the Act,
NHTSA is required to coordinate with the U.S. Department of Justice
(DOJ) to ensure that the National Motor Vehicle Title Information
System (NMVTIS) (which is administrated by the American Association of
Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA)) is updated appropriately to
reflect the disposal of vehicles traded in under the CARS Program.

II. CARS Database System

    In order to support the CARS Program, NHTSA will utilize one or
more secure databases (i.e., the CARS Database System) to collect,
process and store information about eligible transactions and about car
purchasers/lessees, dealers, salvage auctions and disposal facilities
participating in the CARS Program. This information will include
Personally Identifiable Information (PII), including financial
transaction information of individual car purchasers/lessees, and may
include PII about a limited number of salvage auctions and disposal
facilities participating in the program, which in some States may be
operated by individuals (sole proprietors).

III. The Privacy Act

    The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) governs the means by which the
United States Government collects, maintains, and uses PII in a system
of records. A ``system of records'' is a group of any records under the
control of a Federal agency from which information about individuals is
retrieved by name or other personal identifier.
    The Privacy Act requires each agency to publish in the Federal
Register a notice (SORN) identifying and describing each system of
records the agency maintains, including the purposes for which the
agency uses PII in the system, the routine uses for which the agency
discloses such information outside the agency, and how individual
record subjects can exercise their rights under the Privacy Act (e.g.,
to determine if the system contains information about them).

IV. Privacy Impact Assessment

    NHTSA is publishing an updated Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) to
coincide with the expansion of the SORN.
    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), a report on the alteration of
this existing system of records has been sent to Congress and to the
Office of Management and Budget.
SYSTEM NUMBER:
    DOT/NHTSA 464.

SYSTEM NAME:
    CARS Database System.

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION:
    Sensitive, unclassified.

SYSTEM LOCATION:
    Servers: The Servers hosting the CARS Database System are housed in
a contractor-owned facility at Oracle On Demand in Austin, Texas.
    Portals: This system is accessed via portals located at:
     Registered, participating new car dealers via the Internet
at http://www.cars.gov.
     NHTSA Headquarters, located at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, and
in various of NHTSA's regional offices and at other off-site locations
used in connection with CARS Program.
     The off-site facilities of NHTSA and DOT Contractors.
    Authorized users at NHTSA Headquarters access their records in the
CARS Database System via the DOT Intranet. Authorized users at the
NHTSA portal locations and at the contractor portal locations access
their records in the CARS Database System via the Internet at http://
www.cars.gov.
    Some system software is maintained by Oracle On Demand in Austin,
Texas. The CARS Database System interfaces with participating new car
dealers, and with other DOT systems used to pay the dealers, through
that system software, as well as other software maintained by the
Federal Aviation Administration's Enterprise Services Center (ESC) at
the Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Oklahoma City, OK.
    Any electronic or hard-copy files containing CARS-related records
will be maintained at the pertinent NHTSA, DOT or Contractor portal
locations.

CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM:
    The system covers the following individuals:
     Individual buyers/lessees of new cars participating in the
CARS program.
     Sole proprietors of salvage auctions and automobile
disposal facilities participating in the CARS program.

CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:
     Records about individual car buyers/lessees participating
in the CARS Program consist of transaction records containing the
following PII data elements: name and address of the purchaser/lessee;
the purchaser/lessee's State driver's license number or other State
identification number; the State driver's license number or other State
identification number of the co-purchaser/lessee (if any), as listed in
the title; and the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) of the trade-in
vehicle and the VIN of the new vehicle. Depending on the State and
content of the sales contract, PII also may be found on the following
documents required to be scanned by dealers and entered into the
system: Document of title of trade-in vehicle (or, in certain States,
documentation of paperless title), proof of insurance for trade-in
vehicle (cards or letter from insurer), trade-in registration, sales
summary sheet, and salvage certificate.
     Records about any sole proprietors of salvage auctions and
disposal facilities participating in the CARS Program consist of
business operation records that may include the following PII elements:
Name, home address, telephone number and email address, to the extent
that such individuals operate their businesses out of their homes.

AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM:
    Public Law 111-32, 123 Stat. 1859.

PURPOSE(S):
    The purpose for collecting records in the CARS Database System is
to implement the CARS Program and

ensure compliance with the terms of the CARS Act. Specifically:
     NHTSA personnel and contractors use the information that
each car dealer enters into the CARS database to verify that
purchasing/leasing consumers, new and trade-in vehicles, dealers,
salvage auctions and disposal facilities are eligible to participate in
the Program.
     NHTSA personnel and contractors use information entered
into the system to determine if individual transactions satisfy CARS
program requirements.
     NHTSA personnel and contractors use the system to send
information about eligible transaction to a DOT financial management
system to process vouchers and cause dealers to be paid by DOT/NHTSA
for eligible transactions.
     Both to establish eligibility and for audit purposes,
NHTSA compares dealer-entered information in the CARS Database System
to purchaser/lessee and transactional information already within the
system.
     NHTSA personnel and contractors and the DOT Inspector
General may use information about individual transactions, purchasers/
lessees, dealers, salvage auctions and disposal facilities
participating in the CARS Program to prevent, identify and investigate
program violations and fraud.
     NHTSA personnel and contractors will use survey data
provided by purchasers/lessees to report to Congress on the efficacy of
the Program.

ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES
OF USERS AND THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES:
    The CARS Database System shares PII about individual purchasers/
leasees and their new and trade-in vehicles, and about any sole
proprietors of salvage auctions and automobile disposal facilities, as
follows:
     NHTSA personnel and contractors will use VINs from the
system to update DOJ's NMVTIS database, as required by the CARS Act.
     NHTSA personnel and contractors, as well as the DOT
Inspector General, may provide to the U.S. Department of Justice, State
Attorneys General and the National Association of Attorneys General
(NAAG) information about certain transactions, including PII about
individual purchasers/lessees and any sole proprietors of salvage
auctions and disposal facilities participating in the CARS Program, for
purposes of investigating complaints and investigating and prosecuting
criminal violations, including fraud.
     NHTSA personnel and contractors will provide to States
lists of VINs of trade-in vehicles for which they issued car titles,
for purposes of cancelling the car titles.
     Salvage auctions and disposal facilities receive the VIN
and voucher transaction code for each trade-in car sent to them for
sale or destruction. They include the VIN and code on a certificate
that they return to DOT/NHTSA.
    Other possible routine uses of the information, applicable to all
DOT systems, are published in the Federal Register at 65 FR 19476
(April 11, 2000), under ``Prefatory Statement of General Routine Uses''
(available at http://www.dot.gov/privacy/privacyactnotices/).

DISCLOSURE TO CONSUMER REPORTING AGENCIES:
    None.

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING,
AND DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM--
STORAGE:
    Records are stored in databases, on magnetic tape, on magnetic disk
and in secure electronic and hard-copy files at DOT, NHTSA and
contractor portal locations, as required. The databases are on servers;
the data is typically stored on a Storage Area Network (SAN) and
backed-up on tape stored in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Kansas City,
Kansas and Austin, Texas. Magnetic tape and disk records are maintained
at the central maintenance site in Oklahoma City, at the disaster
recovery site in Kansas City, and at the remote hosting site in Austin.
Storage of electronic or hard-copy file folders is at the geographic
location of the pertinent portal location.

RETRIEVABILITY:
    Records related to individual purchasing/leasing consumers
participating in the CARS program are retrieved by State identification
number (ID). This will be either a State driver's license and/or
another form of State ID (i.e., driver's permit or standard ID).
Complaint records relating to consumers participating in the CARS
program also may be retrieved from electronic files (i.e., Excel
spreadsheets) by word searches.
    Records related to any sole proprietors of automobile disposal
facilities are retrieved through the use of a unique number given to
the proprietors through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The
EPA number will be listed on the http://www.cars.gov Web site for
disposal facilities that are authorized to receive CARS vehicles.

SAFEGUARDS:
    Access to records in the CARS Database system will be limited to
NHTSA personnel and contractors through password security, encryption,
firewalls, and secured operating system, except for bank account
information and a limited amount of eligible transaction information
which will be encrypted and sent securely to DOT's financial management
system for purposes of effecting payments to participating dealers for
eligible transactions.
    Registered dealers entering data into the system will be able to
access only records relating to transactions initiated by the same
dealer--and not records relating to other transactions entered into the
system.
    Any electronic or hard copies of CARS-related records containing
PII at DOT, NHTSA and contractor portal locations will be kept in
secure electronic files or in hard-copy file folders locked in secure
file cabinets during non-duty hours.

RETENTION AND DISPOSAL:
    Under the CARS Final Rule, records created under the CARS program
will be kept for 5 years. Records that are needed longer, such as to
resolve claims and audit exceptions and prosecute fraud, will be
retained until such matters are resolved.
    The records may be moved at a future date to one or more different
locations in response to the operational needs of DOT, NHTSA, the CARS
Program or DOT/NHTSA contractors.

SYSTEM MANAGER AND ADDRESS:
    The CARS Database System Manager (NPO-400), Office of the Chief
Information Officer, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC
20590.

NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE:
    Individuals or business entities wishing to know if their records
appear in this system should direct their requests to the System
Manager identified above.

RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURE:
    Individuals seeking access to information about them in this system
should follow the same procedure as indicated under ``Notification
Procedure.''

CONTESTING RECORDS PROCEDURE:
    Individuals seeking to contest the content of information about
them in this system should follow the same procedure as indicated under
``Notification Procedure.''

RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:
    Transaction information pertaining to individual purchasers/lessees
is obtained by car dealers, on behalf of NHTSA, directly from the
individuals, from source documents the individuals provide (some of
which are scanned into the database by the dealer), and/or directly
from their new and trade-in cars. Dealers scan and/or enter the
information into the CARS database and manually compare the information
to the source documents or systems to verify its accuracy. NHTSA
personnel and contractors then review the records to ensure accuracy
prior to assessing the eligibility of individual transactions.
    Business operations information about any sole proprietor salvage
auctions and disposal facilities is obtained directly from the
proprietors.
    Consumer complaint information is obtained by DOT/NHTSA employees
or contractors directly from consumers, including through NHTSA's CARS
Hotline.

EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THIS SYSTEM:
    None.

    Dated: September 3, 2009.
Habib Azarsina,
Departmental Privacy Officer.
[FR Doc. E9-21802 Filed 9-9-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 211 (Wednesday, October 31, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 54737]
[FR Doc No: 2018-23772]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. 14858-001 and 4093-035]

Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment; McMahan
Hydroelectric, LLC

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission)
regulations, 18 CFR part 380, the Office of Energy Projects has
reviewed the application for the Bynum Hydroelectric Project, located
on the Haw River, in Chatham County, North Carolina, and has prepared
an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project. The project would not
occupy federal land.
    The EA contains the staff's analysis of the potential environmental
impacts of the project and concludes that licensing the project, with
appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a
major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the
human environment.
    A copy of the EA is available for review at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website at
http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected], toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY).
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    Any comments should be filed within 30 days of the issuance date of
the EA or by November 24, 2018.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to
6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system
at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your
name and contact information at the end of your comments. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support. In lieu of electronic
filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. The
first page of any filing should include docket number P-14858-001.
    For further information, please contact Sean Murphy by telephone at
(202) 502-6145 or by email at [email protected].

    Dated: October 25, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-23772 Filed 10-30-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 238 (Monday, December 12, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77284-77285]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31764]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65903; File No. SR-EDGX-2011-37]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule To Amend EDGX Rule
11.9

December 6, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on December 2, 2011, the EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'' or ``EDGX'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to introduce an additional routing option to
Rule 11.9 and amend existing routing options. The text of the proposed
rule change is attached as Exhibit 5 and is available on the Exchange's
Web site at www.directedge.com, at the Exchange's principal office, and
at the Public Reference Room of the Commission.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries,
set forth in

Sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange's current list of routing options are codified in Rule
11.9(b)(3). In this filing, the Exchange proposes to amend several
routing options contained in Rule 11.9(b)(3)(c) to allow Users more
discretion if shares remain unexecuted after routing. In particular,
Rules 11.9(b)(3)(c)(i)-(iii) are proposed to be amended to provide
Users with the added option of posting any remainder of an order to
another destination on the System routing table.
    Currently, Rules 11.9(b)(3)(c)(i)-(iii) provide that the ROUE, ROUT
and ROUX routing strategies check the System for available shares and
then are sent to destinations on the System routing table. If shares
remain unexecuted after routing, they are posted on the Exchange's
book, unless otherwise instructed by the User. The Exchange proposes to
modify this strategy to add the option that any remainder of an order
can be posted to another destination on the System routing table or the
Exchange's book. This User instruction would consequently allow the
User added discretion to post the remainder to a destination other than
the EDGX book.
    The Exchange believes the proposed modification of the routing
options described above will provide market participants with greater
flexibility in routing orders without having to develop their own
complicated routing strategies.
    The Exchange will notify its Members in an information circular of
the exact implementation date of this rule change, which will be no
later than March 31, 2012.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\3\ which requires the rules of an
exchange to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. The proposed change to introduce the routing options
described above will provide market participants with greater
flexibility in routing orders without having to develop their own order
routing strategies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \4\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-EDGX-2011-37 on the subject line.

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 SR-EDGX-2011-37. 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/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room on official business
days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also
will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of
the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
EDGX-2011-37 and should be submitted on or before January 3, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-31764 Filed 12-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 98 (Tuesday, May 21, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29761-29762]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12003]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2013-0002]

Final Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final notice.

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

SUMMARY: Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or
modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths,
Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or
regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where
applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have
been made final for the communities listed in the table below.
    The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management
measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show
evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified
for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's)
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS
report are used by insurance

agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium
rates for buildings and the contents of those buildings.

DATES: The effective date of September 27, 2013 which has been
established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS
report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each
community.

ADDRESSES: The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the
final flood hazard information for each community is available for
inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in
the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map
Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov by the effective date indicated
above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
(email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or
modified flood hazard information for each community listed.
Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local
circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since that publication.
The Deputy Associate Adminstrator for Mitigation has resolved any
appeals resulting from this notification.
    This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part
67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone
areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
    Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to
review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address
cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service
Center at www.msc.fema.gov. The flood hazard determinations are made
final in the watersheds and/or communities listed in the table below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Community                 Community map repository address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hillsborough County, Florida, and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-
                                  1267
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unincorporated Areas of Hillsborough   Hillsborough County Department of
 County.                                Planning and Growth Management,
                                        5701 East Hillsborough Avenue,
                                        Suite 1140, Tampa, FL 33610.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Sumter County, Florida, and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-1251
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Bushnell.....................  Code Compliance Division, 117
                                        East Joe P. Strickland Avenue,
                                        Bushnell, FL 33513.
City of Center Hill..................  Sumter County Planning
                                        Department, 7375 Powell Road,
                                        Wildwood, FL 34785.
City of Coleman......................  Office of Public Services, 3502
                                        East Warm Springs Avenue,
                                        Coleman, FL 33521.
City of Webster......................  City Hall, 49 Southeast 1st
                                        Street, Webster, FL 33597.
City of Wildwood.....................  Office of Development Services,
                                        100 North Main Street, Wildwood,
                                        FL 34785.
Unincorporated Areas of Sumter County  Sumter County Planning
                                        Department, 7375 Powell Road,
                                        Wildwood, FL 34785.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hancock County, Kentucky, and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-1270
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Hawesville...................  City Hall, 395 Main Street,
                                        Hawesville, KY 42348.
City of Lewisport....................  City Hall, 405 Second Street,
                                        Lewisport, KY 42351.
Unincorporated Areas of Hancock        Hancock County Administration
 County.                                Building, 225 Main Cross Street,
                                        Hawesville, KY 42348.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2013-12003 Filed 5-20-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 49 (Thursday, March 13, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14321-14325]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05456]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71665; File No. SR-MSRB-2013-07]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change Consisting of
Proposed MSRB Rule G-47, on Time of Trade Disclosure Obligations,
Proposed Revisions to MSRB Rule G-19, on Suitability of Recommendations
and Transactions, Proposed MSRB Rules D-15 and G-48, on Sophisticated
Municipal Market Professionals, and the Proposed Deletion of
Interpretive Guidance

March 7, 2014.

I. Introduction

    On September 17, 2013, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board
(the ``MSRB'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``SEC'' or ``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change consisting of new MSRB Rule G-47
(time of trade disclosures), new MSRB Rules D-15 and G-48
(sophisticated municipal market professionals or ``SMMPs''), and
amendments to MSRB Rule G-19 (suitability). The proposed rule change
was published for comment in the Federal Register on October 22,
2013.\3\ The Commission received two (2) comment letters in response to
the proposed rule change.\4\ On January 14, 2014, the MSRB responded to
the comments.\5\ On January 16, 2014, the Commission published an order
to solicit comments from interested persons and to institute
proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \6\ to determine
whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change
(``Proceedings Order.'').\7\ The Commission received no comment letters
in response to the Proceedings Order. The Commission is approving the
proposed rule change.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Exchange Act Release No. 70593 (October 1, 2013), 78 FR
62867 (October 22, 2013) (Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change
Consisting of Proposed MSRB Rule G-47, on Time of Trade Disclosure
Obligations, Proposed Revisions to MSRB Rule G-19, on Suitability of
Recommendations and Transactions, Proposed MSRB Rules D-15 and G-48,
on Sophisticated Municipal Market Professionals, and the Proposed
Deletion of Interpretive Guidance) (``Proposing Release''). The
comment period closed on November 12, 2013.
    \4\ Letters from Tamara K. Salmon, Senior Associate Counsel,
Investment Company Institute to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, SEC,
dated November 1, 2013 (``ICI Letter'') and David L. Cohen, Managing
Director/Associate General Counsel, Securities Industry and
Financial Markets Association, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary,
SEC, dated November 12, 2013 (``SIFMA Letter'').
    \5\ See Letter from Michael L. Post, Deputy General Counsel,
MSRB, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, SEC dated January 14, 2014
(``Response'').
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \7\ See Exchange Act Release No. 71326 (January 16, 2014), 79 FR
3909 (January 23, 2014) (Order Instituting Proceedings 2013-SR-MSRB-
07). The comment period closed on February 13, 2014.
    \8\ The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
MSRB's Web site at www.msrb.org/Rules-and-Interpretations/SEC-Filings/2013-Filings.aspx, at the MSRB's principal office, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of Proposal

    As further described in the Proposing Release, the MSRB states that
it has examined its interpretive guidance related to time of trade
disclosures, suitability, and SMMPs and proposes to consolidate this
guidance and codify it into several rules: a new time of trade
disclosure rule (proposed Rule G-47), a revised suitability rule (Rule
G-19), and two new SMMP rules (proposed Rules D-15 and G-48).
Additionally, the proposed revisions to Rule G-19 are designed to
harmonize the MSRB's suitability rule with the Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority's (``FINRA'') suitability rule.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See FINRA Rule 2111.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In connection with the rule changes described above, the MSRB
proposed to delete certain interpretive guidance affected by these rule
changes from the MSRB's Rule Book. Additionally, in the Proposing
Release, the MSRB indicated that it did not intend to preserve the
relevant guidance, because doing so ``would not advance the MSRB's goal
to streamline its rulebook.'' \10\ In its Response, the MSRB
articulated a different approach. Specifically, to address a commenter
concern, the MSRB stated that it will archive on its Web site the
existing guidance that is to be deleted from the Rule Book in
connection with the proposed rule change.\11\ Moreover, the MSRB states
that ``[t]o the extent that past interpretive guidance does not
conflict with any MSRB rules or interpretations thereof, it remains
potentially applicable, depending on the facts and circumstances of a
particular case.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Proposing Release at 21 (responding to a SIFMA comment
regarding proposed Rule G-47). See also Proposing Release at 4,
describing the MSRB's streamlining goals (``The structure of
Proposed G-47 (rule language followed by supplementary material) is
the same structure used by FINRA and other selfregulatory
organizations (``SROs''). The MSRB intends generally to transition
to this structure for all of its rules going forward in order to
streamline the rules, harmonize the format with that of other SROs,
and make the rules easier for dealers and municipal advisors to
understand and follow.'')
    \11\ See Response at 2. See also discussion of comments, below.
    \12\ Response at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Rule G-47 on Time of Trade Disclosures

    MSRB Rule G-17 provides that, in the conduct of its municipal
securities or municipal advisory activities, each broker, dealer,
municipal securities dealer (``dealer''), and municipal advisor must
deal fairly with all persons and may not engage in any deceptive,
dishonest or unfair practice. The MSRB has interpreted Rule G-17 to
require a dealer, in connection with a municipal securities
transaction, to disclose to its customer, at or prior to the time of
trade, all material information about the transaction known by the
dealer, as well as material information about the security that is
reasonably accessible to the market.\13\ The MSRB stated in the
Proposing Release that it has issued extensive interpretive guidance
discussing this time of trade disclosure obligation in general, as well
as in specific scenarios. Proposed Rule G-47 is designed to consolidate
most of the previously issued guidance into rule language which the
MSRB believes would ease the burden on dealers and other market
participants who endeavor to understand, comply with and enforce these
obligations. The MSRB asserted that the proposed codification of the
interpretive guidance on time of trade disclosure obligations is not
intended to, and will not, substantively change the current
obligations. Rather, the MSRB maintained that the codification is an
effort to consolidate the current obligations into streamlined rule
language.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See, e.g., MSRB Answers Frequently Asked Questions
Regarding Dealer Disclosure Obligations Under MSRB Rule G-17
(November 30, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A summary of proposed Rule G-47 is as follows:
1. General Disclosure Obligation
    Proposed Rule G-47(a) states that dealers cannot sell municipal
securities to a customer, or purchase municipal securities from a
customer, without disclosing to the customer, at or prior to the time
of trade, all material information known about the

transaction and material information about the security that is
reasonably accessible to the market. The rule applies regardless of
whether the transaction is unsolicited or recommended or whether it
occurs in a primary offering or the secondary market. The proposed rule
provides that the disclosure can be made orally or in writing.
    Proposed Rule G-47(b) states that information is considered to be
``material information'' if there is a substantial likelihood that the
information would be considered important or significant by a
reasonable investor in making an investment decision. The proposed rule
defines ``reasonably accessible to the market'' as information that is
made available publicly through ``established industry sources.''
Finally, the proposed rule defines ``established industry sources'' as
including the MSRB's Electronic Municipal Market Access
(``EMMA''[supreg]) \14\ system, rating agency reports, and other
sources of information generally used by dealers that effect
transactions in the type of municipal securities at issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ EMMA is a registered trademark of the MSRB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Supplementary Material
    In addition to stating the general disclosure obligation, proposed
Rule G-47 includes supplementary material describing the disclosure
obligation in more detail. Proposed supplementary material .01 provides
that dealers have a duty to give customers a complete description of
the security, which includes a description of the features that would
likely be considered significant by a reasonable investor, and facts
that are material to assessing potential risks of the investment. This
section of the proposed supplementary material further provides that
the public availability of material information through EMMA, or other
established industry sources, does not relieve dealers of their
disclosure obligations. Section .01 of the proposed supplementary
material also provides that dealers may not satisfy the disclosure
obligation by directing customers to established industry sources or
through disclosure in general advertising materials. Finally, section
.01 of the proposed supplementary material states that whether the
customer is purchasing or selling the municipal securities may be a
consideration in determining what information is material.
    Proposed supplementary material .02 provides that dealers operating
electronic trading or brokerage systems have the same time of trade
disclosure obligations as other dealers. Proposed supplementary
material .03 provides a list of examples describing information that
may be material for certain types of securities and in specific
scenarios and, therefore, would require disclosures to a customer.
    Finally, proposed supplementary material .04 provides that dealers
must implement processes and procedures reasonably designed to ensure
that material information regarding municipal securities is
disseminated to registered representatives who are engaged in sales to
and purchases from a customer.

B. Rule G-19, on Suitability of Recommendations and Transactions

    The amendments described below are designed to more closely
harmonize Rule G-19 with FINRA's suitability rule,\15\ and to
incorporate elements of the MSRB's current interpretive guidance on
suitability into Rule G-19. Proposed Rule G-19 includes Supplementary
Material .01 through .06, which generally tracks Supplementary Material
.01 through .06 in FINRA Rule 2111.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See FINRA Rule 2111.
    \16\ The Proposing Release states that ``. . . Rule G-19 will be
interpreted in a manner consistent with FINRA's interpretations of
Rule 2111. If the MSRB believes an interpretation should not be
applicable to Rule G-19, it will affirmatively state that specific
provisions of FINRA's interpretation do not apply.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A summary of the proposed revisions to Rule G-19 is as follows:
1. Account Information
    Current MSRB Rule G-19(a) requires dealers to obtain a record of
certain customer information at or before completion of a transaction
in municipal securities. The MSRB did not include a provision
equivalent to current Rule G-19(a) in proposed Rule G-19, because MSRB
Rule G-8 already independently requires dealers to make and keep a
record of this information for each customer. Additionally, by deleting
this provision, the MSRB intends to streamline the rule and more
closely align it with FINRA's suitability rule, which does not contain
this specific requirement.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See FINRA Rule 2111.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Information Required for Suitability Determinations
    The current MSRB suitability rule contains a list of customer
information that dealers must obtain prior to recommending a
transaction to a non-institutional account.\18\ The proposed revisions
to Rule G-19 would expand this list to include additional items from
FINRA's suitability rule \19\ such as: age, investment time horizon,
liquidity needs, investment experience and risk tolerance. The proposed
revision also would delete Rule G-19(b) and replace it with rule
language corresponding to FINRA's suitability rule. The list of
customer information that dealers must assess in the proposed rule
would also include ``any other information the customer may disclose to
the broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer in connection with
such recommendation,'' which corresponds to language in the FINRA
rule.\20\ Therefore, the proposed rule would delete the similar
requirement in current MSRB Rule G-19(c)(ii) which states that, in
recommending a transaction, a dealer shall have reasonable grounds
``based upon the facts disclosed by such customer or otherwise known
about such customer for believing that the recommendation is
suitable.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See MSRB Rule G-19(b).
    \19\ See FINRA Rule 2111(a).
    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the proposed revisions to Rule G-19 incorporate the
reasonable-basis suitability terminology from FINRA Rule 2111 in
supplementary material .05(a) and delete section (c)(i) of Rule G-
19.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ As noted in the Proposing Release, although this change
deletes the explicit requirement in MSRB Rule G-19(c)(i) for dealers
to consider information available from the issuer of the security or
otherwise in making suitability determinations, the MSRB asserts
that in order to perform a reasonable-basis suitability analysis,
dealers must necessarily consider information available from the
issuer of the security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Discretionary Accounts
    Current MSRB Rule G-19(d)(i) provides that dealers cannot effect
transactions in municipal securities with or for a discretionary
account unless permitted by the customer's prior written authorization
that has been accepted in writing by a municipal securities principal.
The MSRB proposed to delete this provision, because there is a
substantially similar provision already included in MSRB Rule G-
8(a)(xi)(I) which requires that, for customer discretionary accounts,
dealers must make and keep a record of the customer's written
authorization to exercise discretionary power over the account, written
approval of the municipal securities principal who supervises the
account, and written approval of the municipal securities principal
with respect to each transaction in the account stating the date and
time of approval.
    Current MSRB Rule G-19(d)(ii) states that a dealer cannot effect a
transaction

in municipal securities with or for a discretionary account unless the
dealer first determines that the transaction is suitable for the
customer or the transaction is specifically directed by the customer
and was not recommended by the dealer. Instead, proposed MSRB Rule G-19
includes a general requirement, providing that a dealer must have a
reasonable basis to believe that a recommended transaction or
investment strategy is suitable for the customer. The MSRB proposed
deleting current Rule G-19(d)(ii) on the basis that: (1) The
suitability obligation is the same for discretionary and non-
discretionary accounts, and therefore, there is no reason to restate
the obligation as it specifically relates to discretionary accounts;
and (2) there is no corresponding provision in FINRA Rule 2111. The
MSRB noted in its Response that it plans to consider adopting a
separate rule addressing discretionary accounts and dealers continue to
owe their customers a duty of fair dealing under MSRB Rule G-17
regarding discretionary accounts.
4. Churning
    The proposed revisions to Rule G-19 retain the substance of the
existing MSRB prohibition on churning,\22\ but recast it using the
current terminology of ``quantitative suitability'' used in FINRA's
suitability rule.\23\ The quantitative suitability requirement is
included in proposed Rule G-19, supplementary material .05(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See MSRB Rule G-19(e).
    \23\ See FINRA Rule 2111, Supplementary Material .05(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Investment Strategies
    The proposed amendments to Rule G-19 incorporate the application of
suitability to ``investment strategies.'' Specifically, proposed
supplementary material .03 defines the phrase ``investment strategy
involving a municipal security or municipal securities'' by stating
that it is ``to be interpreted broadly and would include, among other
things, an explicit recommendation to hold a municipal security or
municipal securities.'' This definition is consistent with the
definition of ``investment strategy involving a security or
securities'' in FINRA's suitability rule.\24\ The proposed MSRB
suitability rule, like the FINRA rule, carves out communications of
certain types of material as long as such communications do not
recommend a particular municipal security or municipal securities.\25\
The MSRB stated in the Proposing Release that the list of materials in
proposed Rule G-19, supplementary material .03, differs in minor
respects from the list of materials in FINRA's suitability rule \26\ to
account for unique attributes of the municipal securities market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See FINRA Rule 2111, Supplementary Material .03.
    \25\ Id.
    \26\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Proposed Technical Revisions to Rule G-8, on Books and Records
    MSRB Rule G-8(a)(xi)(F) includes references to MSRB Rule G-
19(c)(ii) and G-19(b). These referenced provisions are not codified as
such in the proposed revisions to MSRB Rule G-19, but the concepts will
remain in the proposed rule. Therefore, the MSRB proposed revising MSRB
Rule G-8(a)(xi)(F) to include a reference to the entire MSRB Rule G-19.

C. Rules D-15 and G-48 on SMMPs

    Proposed Rules D-15 and G-48 on SMMPs (the ``proposed SMMP rules'')
consist of a new definitional rule, D-15, defining an SMMP and a new
general rule, G-48, on the regulatory obligations of dealers to SMMPs.
    A summary of proposed Rules D-15 and G-48 is as follows:
    Proposed Rule D-15 defines the term ``sophisticated municipal
market professional'' or ``SMMP'' as a customer of a dealer that is a
bank, savings and loan association, insurance company, or registered
investment company; or an investment adviser registered with the
Commission under Section 203 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 or
with a state securities commission (or any agency or office performing
like functions); or any other entity with total assets of at least $50
million. Proposed Rule D-15 further requires that the dealer have a
reasonable basis to believe that the customer is capable of evaluating
investment risks and market value independently, both in general and
with regard to particular transactions and investment strategies in
municipal securities, and that the customer affirmatively indicate that
it is exercising independent judgment in evaluating the recommendations
of the dealer.
    The supplementary material to proposed Rule D-15 addresses the
reasonable basis analysis and the customer affirmation. Section .01
states that as part of the reasonable basis analysis, the dealer should
consider the amount and type of municipal securities owned or under
management by the customer. Section .02 states that a customer may
affirm that it is exercising independent judgment either orally or in
writing, and such affirmation may be given on a trade-by-trade basis,
on a type-of-municipal-security basis, or on an account-wide basis.
    Proposed Rule G-48 describes the application of certain obligations
to SMMPs. More specifically, the proposed rule provides that a dealer's
obligations to a customer that it reasonably concludes is an SMMP are
modified as follows: (1) With respect to the time of trade disclosure
obligation in proposed Rule G-47, the dealer would not have any
obligation to disclose material information that is reasonably
accessible to the market; (2) with respect to transaction pricing
obligations under Rule G-18, the dealer would not have any obligation
to take action to ensure that transactions meeting certain conditions
set forth in the proposed rule are effected at fair and reasonable
prices; (3) with respect to the suitability obligation in Rule G-19,
the proposed rule provides that the dealer would not have any
obligation to perform a customer-specific suitability analysis; and (4)
with respect to the obligation regarding bona fide quotations in Rule
G-13, the dealer disseminating an SMMP's quotation which is labeled as
such would be required to apply the same standards described in Rule G-
13(b) for quotations made by another dealer.

III. Summary of Comments Received and the MSRB's Response

    On October 22, 2013, the Commission published the MSRB's proposed
rule change in the Federal Register.\27\ The comment period ended on
November 12, 2013, and the Commission received two (2) comment letters
in response to the proposed rule change.\28\ Both commenters expressed
general support for the proposed rule change but sought further changes
or clarification as discussed below.\29\ The MSRB responded to comments
in a letter dated January 14, 2014.\30\ On January 16, 2014, the
Commission published the Proceedings Order in the Federal Register to
provide interested parties an opportunity to consider the MSRB's
proposed treatment of past interpretive guidance, as set forth in the
Response.\31\ The Commission received no comment letters in response to
the Proceedings Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See supra note 3.
    \28\ See supra note 4.
    \29\ See ICI Letter and SIFMA Letter.
    \30\ See supra note 5.
    \31\ See supra note 7.

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

A. General Support for the Proposed Rule Change

    Both commenters expressed support for harmonizing MSRB Rule G-19
with FINRA's suitability rule.\32\ One commenter noted that it supports
the efforts by the MSRB to provide clarity to regulated entities by
developing new or revised rules that highlight core principles.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ ICI Letter and SIFMA Letter.
    \33\ See SIFMA Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Suggestions for Changes to Proposal

1. Include Suitability Guidance Regarding 529 Plans
    One commenter recommended that the MSRB incorporate into Rule G-19
existing interpretive guidance relating to suitability assessments for
529 college savings plans.\34\ The commenter noted that that inclusion
would, among other things, ``[e]liminate the confusion that may result
from MSRB registrants believing that the MSRB's suitability rule
contains all relevant information relating to their suitability
obligations. . . .'' \35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ ICI Letter.
    \35\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB responded by explaining that the guidance is not proposed
to be codified in Rule G-19 because the MSRB may propose a separate
rule addressing 529 plans in the future, and the relevant guidance will
remain intact until such time as the MSRB may adopt such a rule.
2. Differentiate Disclosure Obligations Between Sales to Customers
Versus Purchasers From Customers
    One commenter stated that proposed MSRB Rule G-47 should reflect
that there is a different time of trade disclosure obligation when a
dealer is selling a bond to a customer as opposed to when a dealer is
purchasing a bond from a customer arguing that customers should know
the characteristics of the bonds they own.\36\ The commenter
acknowledged that in answer to a similar comment it previously made,
the MSRB clarified in the rule that whether the customer is purchasing
or selling is a factor in determining what information is material and
must be disclosed by the dealer.\37\ The commenter stated that the
modification did ``not go far enough'' and requested that the MSRB
further modify Rule G-47 to include supplementary material explaining
the differences in disclosure obligations.\38\ The MSRB responded this
modification would involve a substantive change to the current
disclosure obligations beyond the scope of this rulemaking and that the
MSRB Board may consider substantive changes as part of a future
initiative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ SIFMA Letter.
    \37\ Id.
    \38\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Extend Implementation Period to One Year
    One commenter advocated for a one year implementation period,
stating that the period proposed by the MSRB was too brief given the
scope of the training and system changes required.\39\ The MSRB
responded that it does not believe such a lengthy implementation period
is necessary, noting that the revised rule will largely be consistent
with FINRA's suitability rule, with which many dealers already are
familiar. Nonetheless, to address this concern, the MSRB extended the
effective date for the proposed rule change for an additional 60 days,
to total 120 days following the date of SEC approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Reflect Reduced Duties to SMMPs Within Rules Governing non-SMMPs
    One commenter suggested that rules governing non-SMMPs should also
reflect dealers' reduced duties to SMMPs.\40\ The MSRB responded that
stand-alone rules are more prominent, and that the proposed stand-alone
SMMP rule would address dealers' modified duties in multiple areas
under rules not part of this rulemaking. Additionally, the MSRB noted
that future modifications to dealer obligations with respect to SMMPs
could be accomplished more efficiently by having a stand-alone SMMP
rule. The commenter also suggested that Rule G-19 and proposed Rules G-
47 and G-48 should cross-reference each other stating that cross-
referencing would further the MSRB's objective to provide clarity to
investors, dealers, and regulators.\41\ The MSRB responded that such
cross-references are unnecessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Id.
    \41\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Retain Existing Interpretive Guidance
    One commenter asked the MSRB to archive and preserve existing time
of trade disclosure interpretive notices.\42\ As noted previously, the
MSRB stated that it will archive on its Web site the existing guidance
that is to be deleted from the MSRB's Rule Book in connection with the
proposed rule change. The MSRB further responded that to the extent
that past interpretive guidance does not conflict with any MSRB rules
or interpretations thereof, it remains potentially applicable,
depending on the facts and circumstances of a particular case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Requests for Clarifications

1. Use of a Preliminary Official Statement (``POS'') To Satisfy Time of
Trade Disclosure Obligations
    One commenter noted that dealers, in reliance on previous guidance
indicating that a POS can serve as a primary vehicle for providing time
of trade disclosures, have either delivered or provided access to a POS
to fulfill time of trade disclosure obligations.\43\ The commenter
requested that the MSRB affirm that a POS can serve as a primary
vehicle for providing the required time of trade disclosures under Rule
G-47.\44\ The MSRB found this comment to be outside the scope of the
current proposal because it would require a substantive change, which
the MSRB may consider as part of a future initiative. Nevertheless, in
response, the MSRB stated that existing guidance does not state that
providing mere access to a POS would be a sufficient means of
disclosure, and the adequacy of disclosure depends on facts and
circumstances. The MSRB noted, however, that existing guidance will
continue to be potentially applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Id.
    \44\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Additional Clarifications
    One commenter requested that the MSRB affirm (1) that information
barriers do not need to be dismantled in order to provide time of trade
disclosures, and (2) that time of trade disclosures need not be given
to customers that hold discretionary accounts.\45\ The MSRB indicated
that these requests would require substantive changes to existing
requirements and are thus outside the scope of the current proposal.
The MSRB stated that it may consider these requests if the MSRB Board
undertakes to amend the rule in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion and Commission Findings

    The Commission has carefully considered the proposed rule change,
as well as the comment letters received and the MSRB's response, and
finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements
of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
MSRB. In particular, as discussed below, the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act, which, among other
things, provides that the MSRB's

rules shall be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in municipal securities and municipal
financial products, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market in municipal securities and municipal
financial products, and, in general, to protect investors, municipal
entities, obligated persons, and the public interest.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The disclosure of material information about a transaction to
investors and the performance of a meaningful suitability analysis are
central to the role of a dealer in facilitating municipal securities
transactions. Proposed Rule G-47, on time of trade disclosures,
codifies current interpretive guidance and protects investors by
requiring dealers to make disclosures to customers in connection with
purchases and sales of municipal securities. These required disclosures
are designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices
by dealers, and promote just and equitable principles of trade, by
requiring dealers to disclose information about a security and
transaction that would be considered significant or important to a
reasonable investor in making an investment decision. Similarly, the
proposed revisions to Rule G-19, on suitability, further these purposes
by requiring dealers and their associated persons to make only suitable
recommendations to customers and fosters more efficient regulation by
harmonizing the rule with FINRA's suitability rule. The proposed
revisions to Rule G-19 are also aligned with a recommendation of the
SEC in its 2012 Report on the Municipal Securities Market that the MSRB
consider ``amending Rule G-19 (suitability) in a manner generally
consistent with recent amendments by FINRA to its Rule 2111, including
with respect to the scope of the term `strategy' . . . . .'' \47\ The
Commission believes that the proposed rule, which would require a
dealer to have a reasonable basis in recommending an investment
strategy, enhances investor protection. Specifically, by interpreting
the term ``investment strategy'' broadly, the MSRB will provide
important protections to investors who receive this type of
recommendation. Moreover, the Commission believes that the MSRB,
through it Response, has addressed commenters' concerns, other than
those it determined are outside the scope of the current proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See http://www.sec.gov/news/studies/2012/munireport073112.pdf at 141.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition and
capital formation.\48\ The Commission found significant that the
proposed changes related to time-of-trade disclosure and SMMPs involve
no substantive change to existing requirements. Additionally, the rule
changes could ease burdens on dealers and promote competition by
clarifying certain core dealer obligations and the reduced obligations
when transacting business with SMMPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, harmonizing MSRB Rule G-19 with the FINRA suitability
rule enhances efficiency in the market by enabling those dealers that
are dually registered with the MSRB and FINRA to establish and
implement one suitability standard.\49\ Although one commenter implied
that further efficiency could be attained by including suitability
guidance relating to 529 plans within proposed Rule G-19, the commenter
did not indicate that the proposed rule created inefficiencies.
Moreover, the Commission notes that the existing guidance relating to
529 plans continues to apply and understands that the MSRB may
determine to propose a separate rule for 529 plans in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See Attachment to ICI Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also believes that the MSRB's Response includes
certain accommodations that help promote efficiency and do not impede
competition. Specifically, the MSRB's retention of its interpretative
guidance and the continuing applicability of such guidance to the
extent it does not conflict with any MSRB rules or interpretations
provides continuity to dealers. Moreover, the MSRB's extension of the
implementation period from 60 to 120 days gives additional time, if
needed, for dealers to establish or modify their compliance systems.

V. Conclusion

    For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the
rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the MSRB, and in
particular, Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act. The proposal will become
effective 120 days following the date of this order.
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\50\ that the proposed rule change (SR-MSRB-2013-07) be, and hereby
is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-05456 Filed 3-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P