[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 17, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68860-68863]
[FR Doc No: 2019-27105]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2019-0460]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; San Juan Harbor, San Juan, PR

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to revise an existing moving
safety zone for San Juan Harbor, San Juan, Puerto Rico. The proposed
revisions would expand the existing moving safety zone to include an
adjacent berthing; add a 50-yard radius around moored liquefied natural
gas and liquefied petroleum gas carriers; and update terminal names.
This action would continue to prohibit persons and vessels from
entering the safety zone, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port
San Juan or a designated representative. This action is necessary to
better meet the safety and security needs of San Juan Harbor. We invite
your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before January 16, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2019-0460 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant Commander Pedro Mendoza,
Sector San Juan Prevention Department, Waterways Management Division,
U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    The existing regulation in 33 CFR 165.754, contains a moving safety
zone

around transiting liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) carriers en route to,
or departing from, the Gulf Refinery Oil dock or the Cata[ntilde]o Oil
dock. On December 12, 2017, the Coast Guard received a request to
assess the waterway suitability of transiting and semi-permanently
moored liquefied natural gas (LNG) carriers within the San Juan Harbor.
On September 26, 2018, the Coast Guard determined the Port of San Juan
could accommodate the safe navigation and mooring of LNG carriers
within the San Juan Harbor. On July 18, 2019, a Notice was published in
the Federal Register (84 FR 34323) announcing two public meetings would
be held on July 26, 2019 by the Coast Guard and New Fortress Energy to
receive comments regarding the safe navigation and mooring of LNG
carriers through the San Juan Harbor. There were approximately 50
attendees at the public meeting. We received approximately 20 comments,
addressing 25 concerns, at the public meetings and through written
submissions made in response to the Notice announcing the public
meetings on https://www.regulations.gov under Docket Number USCG-2019-
0460.
    While the Coast Guard completes the rulemaking process for this
NPRM, we published two temporary final rules (TFR) under the same
docket number (USCG-2019-0686) and both entitled ``Safety Zone; San
Juan Harbor, San Juan, PR.'' These TFRs established temporary safety
zones for navigable waters within an area of one half mile around each
LNG carrier or LPG carrier (collectively referred to as LG carriers)
entering and departing San Juan Harbor. The TFRs also established a 50-
yard radius around each vessel when moored at the Puma Energy dock,
Cata[ntilde]o Oil dock, or Wharf B. The first TFR was published on
September 13, 2019 (see 84 FR 48278), and was effective from August 23,
2019 until November 15, 2019. The second TFR was published on October
31, 2019 (84 FR 59726), and is effective until February 28, 2020.
    Due to their cargoes, size, draft, and the local channel
restrictions, LNG carriers must use of the center of navigation
channels for safe transit. The COTP San Juan has determined that
potential hazards associated with LNG carriers would be a safety
concern for anyone within an area of one half mile during their transit
and a 50-yard radius while moored. The purpose of this rulemaking is to
ensure the safety of vessels and the navigable waters within one half
mile during the transit of LG carriers through San Juan Harbor and a
50-yard radius while the LG carriers are moored at Puma Energy dock,
Cata[ntilde]o Oil dock, or Wharf B. The proposed rule would safeguard
vessels at an adjacent berthing location, Puerto Nuevo Berth B, which
supplies LNG to the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA) and
other industrial sectors.
    These regulations are necessary for the protection of life and
property on the navigable waters of the United States. The Coast Guard
is proposing this rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The proposed rule would amend the existing moving safety zone in 33
CFR 165.754 to include LNG carriers, in addition to LPG carriers. We
are proposing to change the terminal names, ``Gulf Refinery Oil dock or
Catano Oil dock'' currently referenced in Sec.  165.754 to ``Puma
Energy Dock, Cata[ntilde]o Oil dock, and Wharf B'' to reflect current
ownership. The current safety zone is only enforced when LPG carriers
are transiting the waters of the San Juan Harbor. However, the moving
safety zone in the proposed rule would remain in effect while LG
carriers are transiting through the Harbor, and when the carriers are
moored. A 50-yard radius is proposed to be added around an LG carriers
when these vessels are moored at the terminals. Vessels may seek
permission from the COTP to enter, transit through, anchor in, or
remain within the safety zone. The public would be notified of the
safety zone by a Marine Broadcast Notice to Mariners, which would be
issued to the maritime community before the safety zone is activated.
    The proposed safety zone would continue to prohibit persons and
vessels from entering the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain
of the Port San Juan or a designated representative. The new LNG
facility at Wharf B expects to receive one carrier every three days
with ship-to-ship transfer operations lasting approximately 18 hours in
duration. We do not anticipate this would significantly affect current
port operations or navigation. Neighboring facilities would be able to
safely continue operations when a LG carrier is transiting, moored, or
engaged in transfer operations. The proposed regulatory text appears at
the end of this document.
    As noted above, we received approximately 20 comments, addressing
25 concerns, at the public meetings. A discussion of the comments and
responses follows.
    Two commenters raised concerns about the source of the LNG.
Although, this comment is outside of the scope of this proposed
rulemaking, New Fortress Energy advised the Coast Guard that the gas
will be sourced from a variety of places including Trinidad and Europe.
It is unlikely to be sourced from fracking.
    Four commenters asked questions about the specific operations being
conducted at the new facility. Although, this comment is outside of the
scope of this proposed rulemaking, New Fortress Energy advised they
anticipate one LNG carrier to arrive every three days and that each
ship-to-ship transfer would take around 18 hours. The gas would then be
loaded to trucks to be delivered to another primary or secondary power
source.
    Three commenters raised concerns about changes to operations within
San Juan Harbor. Maritime operations within San Juan Harbor are not
expected to be hindered by the proposed safety zone, due to its limits
in size and duration during the transit and mooring of each LNG vessel.
Neighboring facilities will still be able to conduct operations as
normal during each LNG transfer.
    Two commenters raised concerns about safety, specifically risk for
explosion. The Coast Guard has reviewed dispersion rates and explosive
limits of the facility's operation and has set the safety zone
accordingly to reduce the risk of such an event. Additionally, New
Fortress Energy has considered this issue and determined that the
effects of an explosion, which is considered highly unlikely, would be
contained within the property lines because there is no landed LNG
storage at the facility.
    Four commenters raised concerns about not having access to certain
documents including the Letter of Intent (LOI) and Waterway Suitability
Assessment (WSA). These documents contain business and security
sensitive information and would need to be requested through the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). FOIA requests may be submitted in
writing via mail or overnight carrier to: Commandant (Cg-611), ATTN
FOIA Officer, US Coast Guard Stop 7710, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr Ave.
SE, Washington, DC 20593-7710.
    Five commenters asked questions about the Coast Guard's rulemaking
process. We explained our rulemaking process including the purpose of
the Federal Register and the types of documents commonly uploaded to
the docket folder associated with the rulemaking and contained at
https://www.regulations.gov. This NPRM provides additional opportunity
for public comment on the proposed safety zone.

    One commenter raised concern about climate change in Puerto Rico.
This comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking.
    One commenter asked about the relationship between New Fortress
Energy and the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard shares the same
relationship and partnership with all of our stakeholders equally and
serves as regulators.
    Two commenters asked about the project cost, funding source, and
consumer savings. This comment is outside the scope of this proposed
rulemaking; however, this project has received no public funding and
the cost is in the hundreds of millions.
    One commenter asked if New Fortress Energy is building any other
facilities in Puerto Rico. This comment is outside the scope of this
proposed rulemaking; however, New Fortress Energy does not intend to
build other facilities in Puerto Rico at this time.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and
we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
available exceptions to the enforcement of the safety zone, and notice
to mariners. The regulated area will impact small designated areas of
navigable channels within San Juan Harbor. The rule will allow vessels
to seek permission to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain
within the safety zone. Additionally, notifications to the marine
community will be made through Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast
Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16, and on-scene
representatives. The notifications will allow the public to plan
operations around the affected areas.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity, and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action
of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism), if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments) because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Directive 023-01 and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1
(series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made
a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a safety
zone that would establish a 50-yard radius around transiting and moored
liquefied gas carriers. Normally such actions are categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) in Table 3-1 of
U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning Implementing Procedures. A
preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this
determination will be available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed
rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places, or vessels.

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and
submissions in response to this document, see DHS's Correspondence
System of Records notice (84 FR 48645, September 26, 2018).
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is
proposing to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Revise Sec.  165.754 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.754  Safety Zone; San Juan Harbor, San Juan, PR.

    (a) Regulated area. A moving safety zone is established in the
following area:
    (1) The waters around liquefied gas (LG) carriers entering San Juan
Harbor in an area one half mile around each vessel, beginning one mile
north of the Bahia de San Juan Lighted Buoy #3, in approximate position
18[deg]28'17.8'' N, 066[deg]07'36.4'' W and continuing until the vessel
is moored at the Puma Energy dock, Cata[ntilde]o Oil dock, or Wharf B
in approximate position 18[deg]25'47'' N, 066[deg]6'32'' W. All
coordinates are North American Datum 1983.
    (2) The waters around LG carriers in a 50-yard radius around each
vessel when moored at the Puma Energy dock, Cata[ntilde]o Oil dock, or
Wharf B.
    (3) The waters around LG carriers departing San Juan Harbor in an
area one half mile around each vessel beginning at the Puma Energy
Dock, Cata[ntilde]o Oil dock, or Wharf B in approximate position
18[deg]25'47'' N, 066[deg]6'32'' W when the vessel gets underway, and
continuing until the stern passes the Bahia de San Juan Lighted Buoy
#3, in approximate position 18[deg]28'17.8'' N, 066[deg]07'36.4'' W.
All coordinates referenced use datum: NAD 83.
    (b) Regulations. (1) No person or vessel may enter, transit or
remain in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port
(COTP), San Juan, Puerto Rico, or a designated Coast Guard
commissioned, warrant, or petty officer. Those operating in the safety
zone with the COTP's authorization must comply with all lawful orders
or directions given to them by the COTP or his designated
representative.
    (2) Persons desiring to transit the area of the safety zones may
contact the COTP San Juan or his designated representative to seek
permission to transit the area. If permission is granted, all persons
and vessels must comply with the instructions of the COTP or his
designated representative.
    (3) Vessels encountering emergencies, which require transit through
the moving safety zone, should contact the Coast Guard patrol craft or
Duty Officer on VHF Channel 16. In the event of an emergency, the Coast
Guard patrol craft may authorize a vessel to transit through the safety
zone with a Coast Guard designated escort.
    (4) The Captain of the Port and the Duty Officer at Sector San
Juan, Puerto Rico, can be contacted at telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>.
The Coast Guard Patrol Commander enforcing the safety zone can be
contacted on VHF-FM channels 16 and 22A.
    (5) Coast Guard Sector San Juan will, when necessary and
practicable, notify the maritime community of periods during which the
safety zones will be in effect by providing advance notice of scheduled
arrivals and departure of liquefied gas carriers via a Marine Broadcast
Notice to Mariners.
    (6) All persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of
on-scene patrol personnel. On-scene patrol personnel include
commissioned, warrant, or petty officers of the U.S. Coast Guard. Coast
Guard Auxiliary and local or state officials may be present to inform
vessel operators of the requirements of this section, and other
applicable laws.

    Dated: November 27, 2019.
G.H. Magee,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port San Juan.
[FR Doc. 2019-27105 Filed 12-16-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: March 25, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 56)]
[Notices]
[Page 12913-12918]
[DOCID:fr25mr09-185]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59599; File No. SR-FINRA-2008-020]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment No. 2 Thereto, Relating to Private Placements of Securities
Issued by Members

March 19, 2009.

I. Introduction

    The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'') (f/k/
a National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (``NASD'')) filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'' or ``SEC'')
on September 11, 2008, and amended on January 7, 2009,\1\ pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of

the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'' or ``Act'') \2\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ a proposal to adopt new FINRA Rule 5122
(``Rule'') which would prohibit FINRA members or associated persons
from offering or selling any security in a ``Member Private Offerings''
unless certain conditions have been met. This proposal was published
for comment in the Federal Register on January 26, 2009.\4\ The
Commission received two comments on the proposal.\5\ This order
approves this proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Amendment No. 2 to SR-FINRA-2008-020. This amendment
replaced and superseded the original filing submitted to the SEC on
September 11, 2008. Amendment No. 1, which was filed on December 22,
2008, was withdrawn on January 7, 2009.
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \4\ Exchange Act Release No. 59262 (January 16, 2009), 74 FR
4487 (January 26, 2009) (SR-FINRA-2008-020).
    \5\ See letter from Neville Golvala for ChoiceTrade dated
February 7, 2009 (``2009 ChoiceTrade letter'') and letter from Jack
L. Hollander for the Investment Program Association (``IPA'') dated
February 17, 2009 (``IPA letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    FINRA proposed to adopt new FINRA Rule 5122, which would require a
member that engages in a private placement of unregistered securities
issued by the member or a control entity to (1) disclose to investors
in a private placement memorandum, term sheet or other offering
document the intended use of offering proceeds and the offering
expenses, (2) file such offering document with FINRA, and (3) commit
that at least 85 percent of the offering proceeds will be used for
business purposes, which shall not include offering costs, discounts,
commissions and any other cash or non-cash sales incentives.

A. Background

    FINRA proposed the Rule in response to problems identified in
connection with private placements by members of their own securities
or those of a control entity (referred to as ``Member Private
Offerings'' or ``MPOs''). In recent years, FINRA has investigated and
brought numerous enforcement cases concerning abuses in connection with
MPOs.\6\ Among the allegations in these cases were that members failed
to provide written offering documents to investors or provided offering
documents that contained misleading, incorrect, or selective
disclosure, such as omissions and misrepresentations regarding selling
compensation and the use of offering proceeds. In addition, as part of
its examination program, FINRA conducted a non-public sweep of firms
that had engaged in MPOs and found widespread problems. The MPO sweep
revealed that in some cases, offering proceeds were used for individual
bonuses, sales contest awards, commissions in excess of 20 percent, or
other undisclosed compensation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Franklin Ross, Inc., NASD No. E072004001501 (settled April
2006), summarized in NASD Notice Disciplinary Actions, p. 1 (May
2006); Capital Growth Financial, LLC, NASD No. E072003099001
(settled February 2006), summarized in NASD Notice Disciplinary
Actions, p. 1 (April 2006); Craig & Associates, NASD No.
E3B2003026801 (settled August 2005), summarized in NASD Notice
Disciplinary Actions, p. D6 (October 2005); Online Brokerage
Services, Inc., NASD No. C8A050021 (settled March 2005), summarized
in NASD Notice Disciplinary Actions, p. D5 (May 2005); IAR
Securities/Legend Merchant Group, NASD No. C10030058 (settled July
2004), summarized in NASD Notice Disciplinary Actions, p. D1 (July
2004); Shelman Securities Corp., NASD No. C06030013 (settled
December 2003), summarized in NASD Notice Disciplinary Actions, p.
D1 (February 2004); Neil Brooks, NASD No. C06030009 (settled June
2003), summarized in NASD Press Release, NASD Files Three
Enforcement Actions for Fraudulent Hedge Fund Offerings (August 18,
2003); Dep't of Enforcement v. L.H. Ross & Co., Inc., Complaint No.
CAF040056 (Hearing Panel decision January 15, 2005); Dep't of
Enforcement v. Win Capital Corp., Complaint No. CLI030013 (Hearing
Panel decision August 6, 2004). In addition to these cases, FINRA
has numerous ongoing investigations involving MPOs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because MPOs are private placements, they are not subject to
existing FINRA rules governing underwriting terms and arrangements and
conflicts of interest by members in public offerings.\7\ This proposed
rule change is intended to provide investor protections for MPOs that
are similar to the protections provided by NASD Rule 2720 for public
offerings by members.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ FINRA Rule 5110 and NASD Rules 2720 and 2810 govern member
participation in public offerings of securities.
    \8\ Members would remain subject to other FINRA rules that
govern a member's participation in the offer and sale of a security,
including FINRA Rules 2010 and 2020 and NASD Rule 2310. Members also
are subject to the anti-fraud provisions of the Federal securities
laws, including Sections 10(b), 11, 12 and 17 of the Exchange Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to concerns about MPOs, FINRA issued Notice to Members
07-27 (``NTM 07-27'') in June 2007 to solicit comment on a proposed new
rule regarding MPOs (then numbered proposed NASD Rule 2721). FINRA
received sixteen comment letters in response to NTM 07-27.\9\ These
comments were varied. Some of these commenters expressed support for
the intent of the proposed rule but voiced concerns about its breadth
and scope,\10\ while others questioned the benefit or necessity of the
proposed rule.\11\ Most of these comment letters also suggested edits
to the proposed rule.\12\ These comments received in response to NTM
07-27, and changes to the Rule as proposed as compared to the rule as
it appeared in NTM 07-27, are described in more detail below in
Sections II.B through II.F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The following is a list of persons and entities submitting
comment letters in response to NTM 07-27: Letter from Timothy P.
Selby for Alston & Bird LLP dated July 20, 2007 (``Alston & Bird
letter''), letter from Keith F. Higgins for American Bar Association
(``ABA'') Committee on Federal Regulation of Securities dated July
20, 2007 (``ABA letter''), letter from Todd Anders dated July 13,
2007 (``Anders letter''), letter from Neville Golvala for
ChoiceTrade dated July 19, 2007 (``2007 ChoiceTrade letter''),
letter from Stephen E. Roth, et al of Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan,
LLP for the Committee of Annuity Insurers (``CAI'') dated July 20,
2007 (``CAI letter''), letter from Peter J Chepucavage for the
International Association of Small Broker-Dealers and Advisors
(``IASBDA'') dated July 20, 2007 (``IASBDA letter''), letter from
Alan Z. Engel for LEC Investment Corp. dated June 14, 2007 (``LEC
letter''), letter from Daniel T. McHugh for Lombard Securities Inc.
dated July 20, 2007 (``Lombard letter''), letter from Dexter M.
Johnson for Mallon & Johnson, P.C. dated July 19, 2007 (``Mallon &
Johnson letter''), letter from John G. Gaine for Managed Funds
Association (``MFA'') dated July 20, 2007 (``MFA letter''), letter
from Curtis N. Sorrells for MGL Consulting Corp. dated July 20, 2007
(``MGL letter''), letter from Thomas W. Sexton for the National
Futures Association (``NFA'') dated July 20, 2007 (``NFA letter''),
letter from Michael S. Sackheim and David A. Form for the New York
City Bar Committee of Futures and Derivatives Regulation
Distribution Co. dated July 19, 2007 (``PFG letter''), letter from
Mary Kuan for Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association
(``SIFMA'') dated July 27, 2007 (``SIFMA letter''), and letter from
Bill Keisler for Stephens Inc. dated July 20, 2007 (``Stephens
letter'').
    \10\ See MFA letter, CAI letter, and Alston & Bird letter.
    \11\ See Anders letter, Mallon & Johnson letter, 2007
ChoiceTrade letter, ABA letter, and SIFMA letter. FINRA did not
agree with SIFMA that the potential for abuses in connection with
private offerings by non-members is a reason to abandon the proposed
rule change. The FINRA staff believed that offerings by members
raise unique conflicts that require the protections of the proposed
rule change. FINRA also disagreed with SIFMA's contention that they
do not have legal authority to adopt the proposed rule change.
    \12\ See Alston & Bird letter, ABA letter, LEC letter, Mallon &
Johnson letter, MFA letter, MGL letter, PFG letter, and SIFMA
letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Definitions

    The proposed rule change states that no member or associated person
may offer or sell any security in a MPO unless certain conditions are
met. The proposed rule change defines a MPO as ``a private placement of
unregistered securities issued by a member or control entity.'' The
proposed rule further defines two of the terms in the definition of
MPO, ``private placement'' and ``control entity.'' In response to one
comment received in response to NTM 07-27,\13\ FINRA defined the term
``private placement'' to be ``a non-public offering of securities
conducted in reliance on an available exemption from registration under
the Securities Act [of 1933].''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See ABA letter and SIFMA letter.

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

    The proposed rule change defines the term ``control entity'' as
``any entity that controls or is under common control with a member, or
that is controlled by a member or its associated persons.'' The term
``control'' is defined as ``a beneficial interest, as defined in Rule
5130(i)(1), of more than 50 percent of the outstanding voting
securities of a corporation, or the right to more than 50 percent of
the distributable profits or losses of a partnership or other non-
corporate legal entity.'' \14\ The power to direct the management or
policies of a corporation or partnership alone (e.g., a general
partner), absent meeting the majority ownership or right to the
majority of profits, would not constitute ``control'' as defined in
proposed FINRA Rule 5122. For purposes of this definition, FINRA
clarified that entities may calculate the percentage of control using a
``flow through'' concept, by looking through ownership levels to
calculate the total percentage of control. For example, if broker-
dealer ABC owns 50 percent of corporation DEF that in turn holds a 60
percent interest in corporation GHI, and ABC is engaged in a private
offering of GHI, ABC would have a 30 percent interest in GHI (50
percent of 60 percent), and thus GHI would not be considered a control
entity under this definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ FINRA added language regarding ``other non-corporate legal
entities'' based on commenters' suggestions to clarify that control
would extend to entities other than corporations or partnerships.
See ABA letter and SIFMA letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA also reaffirmed, as stated in NTM 07-27, that performance and
management fees earned by a general partner would not be included in
the determination of partnership profit or loss percentages. However,
if such performance and management fees are subsequently re-invested in
the partnership, thereby increasing the general partner's ownership
interest, then such interests would be considered in determining
whether the partnership is a control entity.
    In response to several comments received in response to NTM 07-27
advocating that the timing for determining control take place at the
conclusion rather than the commencement of an offering,\15\ FINRA
revised the definition of control to be determined immediately after
the closing of an offering. The definition also clarifies that, in the
case of multiple closings, control will be determined immediately after
each closing. If an offering is intended to raise sufficient funds such
that the member would not control the entity under the control
standard, but fails to raise sufficient funds, the member must promptly
come into compliance with the Rule, including providing the required
disclosures to investors and filings with FINRA's Corporate Financing
Department (``Department'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Alston & Bird letter, ABA letter, LEC letter, MFA
letter, MGL letter, NYC Bar letter, and SIFMA letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Disclosure Requirements

    The proposed rule change would require that a member provide a
written offering document to each prospective investor in an MPO,
whether accredited or not, and that the offering document disclose the
intended use of offering proceeds as well as offering expenses and
selling compensation.\16\ If the offering has a private placement
memorandum or term sheet, then such memorandum or term sheet must be
provided to each prospective investor and must contain these
disclosures. If the offering does not have a private placement
memorandum or term sheet, then the member must prepare an offering
document that discloses the intended use of offering proceeds as well
as offering expenses and selling compensation. FINRA clarified that the
Rule is not meant to require a particular form of disclosure, however.
To emphasize this point, FINRA proposed to issue Supplemental Material
5122.01, which would note that nothing in the Rule shall require a
member to prepare a private placement memorandum that meets the
additional requirements of Rule 502 under the Securities Act of 1933
(``Securities Act'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Given that FINRA is not imposing limits on selling
compensation as it does in other rules, they did not believe it was
necessary to provide a detailed definition of ``selling
compensation'' as urged by SIFMA. FINRA believed that the term
``selling compensation'' for purposes of a disclosure requirement is
sufficiently clear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA believed that every investor in an MPO should receive basic
information concerning the offering. FINRA also believed that none of
the disclosures required in the proposed rule change would conflict
with requirements under Federal or State securities laws.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See SIFMA letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to comments received in response to NTM 07-27,\18\ the
proposed rule change eliminates the previously proposed requirements to
disclose risk factors and ``any other information necessary to ensure
that required information is not misleading.'' One commenter at the
time was concerned that requiring disclosure of these items could lead
to an inconsistent scheme of regulation in interpreting the application
of the Federal securities laws to private placements if FINRA's
expectation of what should be disclosed differed from the expectations
of the SEC and the courts.\19\While FINRA omitted these disclosures
from the proposed rule change, they specifically requested comment on
their decision to exclude such disclosures.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\?????
    \19\ See ABA letter.
    \20\ Exchange Act Release No. 59262 (January 16, 2009), 74 FR
4487 (January 26, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Filing Requirements

    The proposed rule change would require that a member file a private
placement memorandum, term sheet, or other offering document with the
Department at or prior to the first time such document is provided to
any prospective investor. Any amendments or exhibits to the offering
document also must be filed by the member with the Department within
ten days of being provided to any investor or prospective investor. The
filing requirement is intended to allow the Department to identify
those offering documents that are deficient ``on their face'' from the
other requirements of the proposed rule change. Notably, the filing
requirement in the proposed rule change differs from that in Rule 5110
(Corporate Financing Rule) in that the Department would not review the
offering and issue a ``no-objections'' letter before a member may
commence the offering.
    FINRA affirmed, in response to concerns raised in comment letters
received in response to NTM 07-27,\21\ that information filed with the
Department pursuant to proposed FINRA Rule 5122 would be subject to
confidential treatment. FINRA included a provision in the proposed rule
change explicitly clarifying this position.\22\ FINRA has stated that
the Department plans to develop a Web-based filing system that would
allow for the filing to be deemed filed upon submission.\23\ In
addition, the proposed rule change would not impose any additional
requirements regarding filing of advertisements or sales materials,
which

would continue to be governed by NASD Rule 2210.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See ABA letter, Mallon & Johnson letter, and SIFMA letter.
    \22\ See proposed 5122(d). This confidential treatment provision
is similar to that provided in FINRA Rule 5110(b)(3).
    \23\ As noted supra, and in NTM 07-27, neither FINRA nor the
Department would issue a ``no objections opinion'' regarding any
offering document filed with the Department. However, FINRA has
stated that if it subsequently determined that disclosures in the
offering document appeared to be incomplete, inaccurate or
misleading, they could make further inquiries. The filing
requirement also could facilitate the creation of a confidential
Department database on MPO activity that would be used in connection
with the member examination process.
    \24\ See NYC Bar letter and SIFMA letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter responding to NTM 07-27 suggested that a member's
filing of Form D pursuant to Securities Act Regulation D should provide
sufficient information to FINRA.\25\ FINRA staff disagreed. For
example, FINRA noted that the information in Form D does not include
information on a wide variety of expenses or applications of proceeds,
nor does Form D require that such information is contained in the
offering documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Mallon & Johnson letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Use of Offering Proceeds

    Proposed Rule 5122(b)(3) would require that each time an MPO is
closed at least 85 percent of the offering proceeds raised be used for
business purposes, which would not include offering costs, discounts,
commissions, or any other cash or non-cash sales incentives. The use of
offering proceeds also must be consistent with the disclosures to
investors, as described above. This requirement was created to address
the abuses where members or control entities used substantial amounts
of offering proceeds for selling compensation and related party
benefits, rather than business purposes. The proposed rule change does
not limit the total amount of underwriting compensation. Rather, under
the proposed rule change, offering and other expenses of the MPO could
exceed a value greater than 15 percent of the offering proceeds, but no
more than 15 percent of the money raised from investors in the private
placement could be used to pay these expenses. FINRA noted that the 15
percent figure is consistent with the limitation of offering fees and
expenses, including compensation, in NASD Rule 2810 and the North
American Securities Administrators Association guidelines with respect
to public offerings subject to State regulation.
    Some commenters responding to NTM 07-27 expressed concern that the
85 percent limit was arbitrary or unnecessary,\26\ and should be
reduced or eliminated to allow flexibility for management in MPOs.\27\
FINRA believed that when a member engages in a private placement of its
own securities or those of a control entity, investors should be
assured that, at a minimum, 85 percent of the proceeds of the offering
are dedicated to business purposes. FINRA recognized that changing the
business purpose or use of proceeds in an offering may in some
instances benefit investors and reminded members that the member may
change its use of proceeds, provided it makes appropriate disclosure to
investors and files the amended offering document with the Department.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See IASBDA letter, Mallon & Johnson letter, ABA letter, and
SIFMA letter.
    \27\ See IASBDA letter, Mallon & Johnson letter, and ABA letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter responding to NTM 07-27 requested that, when an
issuer plans a series of MPOs, the issuer should be allowed to
calculate the 85 percent limit at the end of the series.\28\ FINRA
believed, however, that the limit should apply to each MPO in order to
assure investors that at least 85 percent of each offering in a series
is dedicated to the business purposes described in that offering's
offering document. As a result, FINRA clarified that the 85 percent
limit applies to each MPO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See NYC Bar letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Proposed Exemptions

    Proposed Rule 5122 would include a number of exemptions for sales
to institutional purchasers because FINRA's findings did not reveal
abuse vis-[agrave]-vis such purchasers, who are generally sophisticated
and able to conduct appropriate due diligence prior to making an
investment. Specifically, the proposed Rule would exempt MPOs sold
solely to the following:
     Institutional accounts, as defined in NASD Rule
3110(c)(4);
     Qualified purchasers, as defined in Section 2(a)(51)(A) of
the Investment Company Act;
     Qualified institutional buyers, as defined in Securities
Act Rule 144A;
     Investment companies, as defined in Section 3 of the
Investment Company Act;
     An entity composed exclusively of qualified institutional
buyers, as defined in Securities Act Rule 144A; and
     Banks, as defined in Section 3(a)(2) of the Securities
Act.
    In addition, the proposed rule change excludes the following types
of offerings, which do not raise the concerns identified in the sweep
or enforcement actions:
     Offerings of exempted securities, as defined by Section
3(a)(12) of the Exchange Act;
     Offerings made pursuant to Securities Act Rule 144A or SEC
Regulation S;
     Offerings in which a member acts primarily in a
wholesaling capacity (i.e., it intends, as evidenced by a selling
agreement, to sell through its affiliate broker-dealers, less than 20%
of the securities in the offering);
     Offerings of exempted securities with short term
maturities under Section 3(a)(3) of the Securities Act;
     Offerings of subordinated loans under Exchange Act Rule
15c3-1, Appendix D;\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Members' offerings of subordinated loans are subject to an
alternative disclosure regime. In 2002, the SEC approved a rule
change to require, as part of a subordination agreement, the
execution of a Subordination Agreement Investor Disclosure Document.
See Exchange Act Release No. 45954 (May 17, 2002), 67 FR 36281 (May
23, 2002); see also Notice to Members 02-32 (June 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Offerings of ``variable contracts,'' as defined in NASD
Rule 2820(b)(2);
     Offerings of modified guaranteed annuity contracts and
modified guaranteed life insurance policies, as referred to in FINRA
Rule 5110(b)(8)(E);
     Offerings of securities of a commodity pool operated by a
commodity pool operator, as defined under Section 1a(5) of the
Commodity Exchange Act;
     Offerings of equity and credit derivatives, including
over-the-counter (``OTC'') options, provided that the derivative is not
based principally on the member or any of its control entities; and
     Offerings filed with the Department under FINRA Rule 5110
or NASD Rules 2720 or 2810.
    Finally, the proposed rule change also would exempt MPOs in which
investors would be expected to have access to sufficient information
about the issuer and its securities in addition to the information
provided by the member conducting the MPO. These exemptions include:
     Offerings of unregistered investment grade rated debt and
preferred securities;
     Offerings to employees and affiliates of the issuer or its
control entities; and
     Offerings of securities issued in conversions, stock
splits and restructuring transactions executed by an already existing
investor without the need for additional consideration or investments
on the part of the investor.
    This list of exemptions is largely based on the exemptions
previously proposed in NTM 07-27, with a few additions and
clarifications in response to comments.\30\ FINRA clarified that
exempted securities, as defined by Section 3(a)(12) of the Exchange
Act, would not be subject to the Rule.\31\ In

addition, FINRA proposed an exemption for commodity pools in view of
the oversight and regulation performed by the NFA and the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission.\32\ FINRA also clarified that variable
contracts and other life insurance products would be excluded,\33\
because the offer and sale of these types of offerings are already
subject to existing FINRA rules.\34\ FINRA also proposed an exemption
for member private offerings that are filed with the Department under
FINRA Rule 5110 or NASD Rules 2720 or 2810.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Lombard letter, ABA letter, MGL letter, NYC Bar letter,
MFA letter, NFA letter, Alston & Bird letter, Anders letter, PFG
letter, CAI letter, 2007 ChoiceTrade letter, Mallon & Johnson
letter, and SIFMA letter.
    \31\ Accordingly, FINRA noted that in connection with this
proposed Rule, they do not plan to recommend amending NASD Rule 0116
or the List of NASD Conduct Rules and Interpretive Materials that
apply to Exempted Securities. See CAI letter.
    \32\ See NYC Bar letter, MFA letter, NFA letter, Alston & Bird
letter, and SIFMA letter.
    \33\ See CAI letter and PFG letter.
    \34\ See, e.g., NASD Rule 2820.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, FINRA clarified aspects of other previously proposed
exemptions. FINRA clarified that their intent regarding the exemption
for wholesalers is to provide an exemption for those that do not
primarily engage in direct selling to investors.\35\ FINRA also
clarified that offerings of securities issued in conversions, stock
splits, and restructuring transactions that are executed by an already-
existing investor without the need for additional consideration or
investment on the part of the investor would be exempt.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See MGL letter and SIFMA letter.
    \36\ See Mallon & Johnson letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA also noted that equity and credit derivatives, such as OTC
options, would be exempt, provided that the derivative is not based
principally on the member or any of its control entities.\37\ As a
technical matter, the issuer of an equity or credit derivative is the
member firm, and thus would make such offering an MPO. However, where
the security offered is not based principally on the member or any of
its control entities (e.g., an OTC option on Microsoft Corporation),
FINRA does not believe such sale should be subject to the provisions of
the proposed rule change. On the other hand, if the derivative is based
principally on the member or a control entity (e.g., an OTC option
overlying the member), then the sale of such security should be treated
as an MPO and subject to the requirements of the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See SIFMA letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, FINRA clarified that the exemption for employees and
affiliates of issuers would apply to employees and affiliates of
control entities as well, because these persons are expected to have
access to a level of information about the securities of the issuer
similar to employees and affiliates of the issuer itself.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See Stephens letter; see also Lombard letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the comment letters received in response to NTM 07-27,\39\
FINRA also reconsidered whether offerings to accredited investors
should be exempt. However, FINRA continued to believe that an exemption
for offerings made to accredited investors would not be in the public
interest due to the generally low thresholds for meeting the definition
of the term ``accredited investor.'' FINRA noted that the SEC has
recently proposed clarifying and modernizing its ``accredited
investor'' standard.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See 2007 ChoiceTrade letter, PFG letter, and SIFMA letter.
    \40\ See, e.g., Securities Act Release No. 8828 (Aug. 3, 2007),
72 FR 45116 (Aug. 10, 2007); Securities Act Release No. 8766 (Dec.
27, 2006), 72 FR 400 (Jan. 4, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, FINRA believed that financial products offered by a
public reporting company,\41\ an investment fund,\42\ or a State or
Federal bank affiliate of a FINRA member,\43\ should not be excluded
based solely on their status as a reporting company, a fund, or a bank.
FINRA's belief was that, as a general matter, exemptions are best
tailored based on the type of securities offered or the type (and
sophistication) of the purchaser rather than the type of offeror. FINRA
also declined to exempt offerings that contribute below a specified
level of a member's net worth (e.g., 5%), to create a categorical
exemption for all exempted securities under Section 3(a) of the
Securities Act, or to expand the exemption for securities with short
term maturities under Section 3(a)(3) of the Securities Act to include
all securities with a maturity of nine months or less.\44\ As a
practical matter, however, many of these products would be exempt
because they meet one of the other exemptions enumerated in the Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See ABA letter and SIFMA letter.
    \42\ See MFA letter.
    \43\ See Anders letter and ABA letter.
    \44\ See SIFMA letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Comment Letters

    The Commission received two comment letters in response to the
proposed rule change.\45\ The Commission also received FINRA's response
to comments.\46\ One letter voiced serious objections to the Rule,\47\
while the other raised issues relating to the scope of the Rule.\48\
The specific comments from these two letters, as well as FINRA's
response to these comments, are discussed in detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Supra note 5.
    \46\ Letter from Stan Macel, FINRA, dated March 9, 2009.
    \47\ 2009 ChoiceTrade Letter.
    \48\ IPA Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter stated that FINRA did not have jurisdiction to adopt
the Rule.\49\ FINRA found no basis in this allegation because they
believe that the Rule is consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the
Exchange Act and that the proposed rule change will provide important
investor protections. FINRA also points out that the Rule, by its
terms, would apply to members and their associated persons in
connection with the offer and sale of a specific type of security
offering.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ 2009 ChoiceTrade Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Both commenters argued that the requirements of the proposed rule
change as applied to control entities of a member are overly broad. One
commenter argued that the Rule would affect private placements by
control entities that are not members which should not be part of the
proposal.\50\ The other commenter argued that FINRA did not have
jurisdiction over control entities that are not broker-dealers.\51\
FINRA disagreed with the commenters, stating that it has narrowly
tailored the Rule to apply only in those instances where it believes
oversight is warranted. For example, the definition of ``control'' in
the Rule was limited to situations where the member owns more than 50%
of the shares or distributable profits of the entity, where control has
been found elsewhere at as little as 10%. Further, FINRA asserts that
the Rule is designed to address conflicts attendant to private
offerings by the member and its control entities. FINRA does not
believe that this conflict is any less relevant when the capital is not
being raised directly for the member's business purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ IPA letter.
    \51\ 2009 ChoiceTrade letter. See also supra for FINRA's
response to the jurisdictional question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter argued that FINRA should issue no-objection letters
or otherwise demarcate the end of their review process.\52\ FINRA
responded that the purpose of their review is to find filings that are
deficient on their face, and thus does not intend to engage in an
extended review as it does in other situations. FINRA did note that the
filed documents may be utilized in the member examination process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ IPA letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Both commenters raised objections to the imposition of a limit on
offering expenses. FINRA disagrees with the commenters and believes
that the limits placed on members in the Rule are warranted based on
the abuses FINRA has found. They believe that investors should be
assured that in the case where

members are placing their own or a control entity's securities. They
also point out that some limits are already in place via other rules or
guidelines.
    NTM 07-27 required additional disclosures beyond what was proposed
by FINRA to the Commission, but FINRA requested specific comment as to
whether those additional disclosures should be put back into the
Rule.\53\ Only one commenter addressed this question, but did support
FINRA's decision to remove these additional disclosures.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ Exchange Act Release No. 59262 (January 16, 2009), 74 FR
4487 (January 26, 2009). See also supra Section II.C.
    \54\ IPA letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter objected to limiting the requirement of filing the
offering document with FINRA to FINRA members only.\55\ FINRA responded
that private offerings by members raise unique conflicts that
necessitate the Rule. Further, that there is potential for abuse in
private offerings by non-members is not a rationale for abandoning the
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ 2009 ChoiceTrade letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter challenged FINRA's ability to keep the documents
submitted to them confidential in spite of the promise of confidential
treatment in proposed Rule 5122(d).\56\ FINRA strongly disagreed with
this assessment. This commenter also argued that there were
insufficient occurrences of disconcerting behavior by members to
warrant a rule, asserted that the Rule required a private placement
memorandum and objected to a new requirement to do so, argued that the
anti-fraud rules were sufficient to address the behavior FINRA was
concerned with, objected to the filing requirement generally, objected
to making the offering document available for the member examination
process, argued that accredited investors should be excepted from the
Rule, and argued that the Rule was an over-reaction to the findings
cited by FINRA in the proposal.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ Id.
    \57\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion and Findings

    After careful review of the proposed rule change, the comments, and
FINRA's response to the comments, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act,
and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a
national securities association.\58\ In particular, the Commission
believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\59\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules 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. The Commission believes that FINRA is seeking to
protect investors and the public interest as a result of numerous
findings of disconcerting behavior by its members in connection with
MPOs. The Commission also believes that FINRA has tailored the Rule to
prohibit members or associated persons from offering or selling
securities in certain MPOs in order to ensure that investors are
protected from such abusive conduct with minimal disruption on capital
formation. The Commission notes that, as explained in the supplementary
material to the Rule, nothing in the Rule shall require a member to
prepare a private placement memorandum that meets the additional
requirements of Securities Act Rule 502.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered
the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \59\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\60\ that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-FINRA-2008-020), as
modified by Amendment No. 2, be, and hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-6466 Filed 3-24-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: April 13, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 69)]
[Notices]
[Page 16911-16912]
[DOCID:fr13ap09-134]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Office of Hazardous Materials Safety; Notice of Applications for
Modification of Special Permit

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: List of applications for modification of special permits.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures governing the application
for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of
Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations (49 CFR Part 107,
Subpart B), notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous
Materials Safety has received the applications described herein. This
notice is abbreviated to expedite docketing and public notice. Because
the sections affected, modes of transportation, and the nature of
application have been shown in earlier Federal Register publications,
they are not repeated here. Requests for modification of special
permits (e.g., to provide for additional hazardous materials, packaging
design changes, additional mode of transportation, etc.) are described
in footnotes to the application number. Application numbers with the
suffix ``M'' denote a modification request. These applications have
been separated from the new application for special permits to
facilitate processing.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 28, 2009.
    Address Comments to: Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety

Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC
20590.
    Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in
triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include
a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
    For Further Information: Copies of the applications are available
for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, Southeast, Washington DC, or at http://fdms.gov.
    This notice of receipt of applications for modification of special
permit is published in accordance with Part 107 of the Federal
hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR
1.53(b)).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 3, 2009.
Delmer F. Billings,
Director, Office of Hazardous Materials, Special Permits and Approvals.

                                          Modification Special Permits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Regulation(s)       Nature of special permit
    Application No.       Docket No.          Applicant               affected                  thereof
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8162-M................  ..............  Structural Composites  49 CFR 173.302(a)(1);  To modify the special
                                         Industries, LLC        173.304(a)(1); 175.3.  permit to remove one type
                                         Pomona, CA.                                   of material for use in
                                                                                manufacturing cylinders.
11470-M...............  ..............  The Procter & Gamble   49 CFR 172.301(a)(2).  To modify the special
                                         Company West                                  permit to add cargo
                                         Chester, OH.                                  vessel as an additional
                                                                                mode of transportation.
13292-M...............  ..............  Seaquist Perfect       49 CFR 173.306(h)....  To modify the special
                                         Dispensing Cary, IL.                          permit to authorize an
                                                                                increase in volume and to
                                                                                increase the lot size.
14453-M...............  ..............  FIBA Technologies,     49 CFR 180.209.......  To modify the special
                                         Inc. Millbury, MA.                            permit to authorize an
                                                                                additional Division 2.1
                                                                                hazardous material and to
                                                                                increase maximum
                                                                                acceptance flaw size used
                                                                                on UE requalification.
14728-M...............  ..............  International          49 CFR 173.416(c)....  To modify the special
                                         Isotopes Inc. Idaho                           permit to authorize an
                                         Falls, ID.                                    increase in the number of
                                                                                times the packaging can
                                                                                be used and extending the
                                                                                expiration date.
14790-M...............  ..............  Cargill, Incorporated  49 CFR 49 CFR Parts    To modify the special
                                         and its affiliated     171-180.               permit to and its
                                         companies                                     authorize ID affiliated
                                         Minneapolis, MN.                              number markings instead
                                                                                of placards and change
                                                                                from emergency to
                                                                                permanent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. E9-8222 Filed 4-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4909-60-M


[Federal Register: December 29, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 249)]
[Notices]
[Page 77209-77211]
[DOCID:fr29de05-102]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53016; File No. SR-CBOE-2005-107]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change Relating to its Marketing Fee Program

December 22, 2005.
    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 9, 2005, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'' or ``Exchange'') 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 the
Exchange. The CBOE has designated this proposal as one establishing or
changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the CBOE under Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\
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\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The CBOE proposes to amend its Fees Schedule and its marketing fee
program. The Exchange states that these changes to the marketing fee
program would be effective December 12, 2005, and would continue until
June 2, 2006.
    Below is the text of the proposed rule change. Proposed new
language is in italics; proposed deletions are in [brackets].
Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc.--Fees Schedule
[December 1] December 9, 2005
    1. No Change.
    2. MARKETING FEE (6)(16): $[.22].65
    3.-4. No Change.
    FOOTNOTES:
    (1)-(5) No Change.
    (6) Commencing on December 12, 2005, [T]the Marketing Fee will be
assessed only on transactions of Market-Makers, RMMs, e-DPMs, DPMs, and
LMMs resulting from orders for less than 1,000 contracts (i) from
payment accepting firms, or (ii) that have designated a ``Preferred
Market-Maker'' under CBOE Rule 8.13 at the rate of [$.22] $.65 per
contract on all classes of equity options, options on HOLDRs, options
on SPDRs, and options on DIA. The fee will not apply to Market-Maker-
to-Market-Maker transactions or transactions resulting from P/A orders.
This fee shall not apply to index options and options on ETFs (other
than options on SPDRs and options on DIA). If less than 80% of the
marketing fee funds are paid out by the DPM/LMM or [LMM] Preferred
Market-Maker in a given month, then the Exchange would refund such
surplus at the end of the month on a pro rata basis based upon
contributions made by the Market-Makers, RMMs, e-DPMs, DPMs and LMMs.
However, if 80% or more of the accumulated funds in a given month are
paid out by the DPM/LMM or [LMM] Preferred Market-Maker, there will not
be a rebate for that month and the funds will carry over and will be
included in the pool of funds to be used by the DPM/LMM or [LMM]
Preferred Market-Maker the following month. At the end of each quarter,
the Exchange would then refund any surplus, if any, on a pro rata basis
based upon contributions made by the Market-Makers, RMMs, DPMs, e-DPMs
and LMMs. CBOE's marketing fee program as described above will be in
effect until June 2, 2006.
    Remainder of Fees Schedule--No change.

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 CBOE 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 CBOE 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
    On November 2, 2005, the CBOE amended its marketing fee program in
a number of respects in light of the recent adoption of its Preferred
Market-Maker program.\5\ In particular, the CBOE amended its marketing
fee program to provide that a Market-Maker will have access to the
marketing fee funds generated by orders sent to the Exchange
designating that Market-Maker as a ``Preferred Market-Maker.'' The CBOE
now proposes to amend its marketing fee program, which changes would be
effective December 12, 2005, and would continue until June 2, 2006
(which is the same date that the CBOE's Preferred Market-Maker program
is scheduled to expire, unless extended).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange states that, under its Preferred Market-Maker
program, order providers can send an order to the Exchange
designating any CBOE Market-Maker (including any DPM, e-DPM, LMM,
RMM, and Market-Maker) as a Preferred Market-Maker. If the Preferred
Market-Maker is quoting at the NBBO at the time the order is
received on CBOE, the Preferred Market-Maker is entitled to a
participation entitlement of 50% when there is one Market-Maker also
quoting at the best bid/offer on the Exchange and 40% when there are
two or more Market-Makers quoting at the best bid/offer on the
Exchange. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52506 (September
23, 2005), 70 FR 57340 (September 30, 2005) (SR-CBOE-2005-58).
    \6\ See CBOE Rule 8.13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Current Marketing Fee Program

    The current marketing fee is assessed upon Designated Primary
Market-Makers (``DPMs''), Electronic DPMs (``e-DPMs''), Remote Market-
Makers (``RMMs''), Lead Market-Makers (``LMMs''), and Market-Makers at
a rate

of $0.22 for every contract they enter into on the Exchange other than
Market-Maker-to-Market-Maker transactions (which includes all
transactions between any combination of DPMs, e-DPMs, RMMs, LMMs, and
Market-Makers).\7\ The marketing fee is assessed in all equity option
classes and options on HOLDRs[reg], options on SPDRs[reg], and options
on DIA. The following is a description of the three-step process by
which the entire pool of funds generated by the marketing fee is
apportioned between the DPM or LMM, and Preferred Market-Makers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52818 (November 22,
2005), 70 FR 71568 (November 29, 2005) (SR-CBOE-2005-91).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, each month all funds generated by the marketing fee are
collected by the Exchange and recorded according to the DPM or LMM, as
applicable, station, and class where the option classes subject to the
fee are traded. If a Market-Maker (including any DPM, e-DPM, LMM, and
RMM) is designated as a Preferred Market-Maker on an order from a
payment accepting firm (``PAF''), the Market-Maker will be given access
to the marketing fee funds generated from that order, even if the
Preferred Market-Maker did not participate in the execution of the
order because the Market-Maker was not quoting at the NBBO at the time
the order was received on the CBOE.
    Second, the DPM or LMM, as applicable, are given access to the
marketing fee funds generated from all other orders from PAFs in its
appointed classes in a particular trading station.
    Third, the marketing fee funds generated by orders from non-PAFs,
if any, are apportioned monthly among the DPM or LMM, and Preferred
Market-Makers on a on a pro-rata basis, based on the percentage of
contracts traded by each DPM or LMM, and Preferred Market-Maker against
orders from PAFs during the month in the option classes located at a
particular trading station.

Revised Marketing Fee Program--Effective December 12, 2005

    Effective December 12, 2005, the CBOE proposes to amend the fee
such that it is assessed upon DPMs, LMMs, e-DPMs, RMMs, and Market-
Makers at the rate of $.65 per contract on transactions of Market-
Makers, RMMs, e-DPMs, DPMs, and LMMs resulting from orders for less
than 1,000 contracts (i) from payment accepting firms (``PAF''), or
(ii) that have designated a ``Preferred Market-Maker'' under CBOE Rule
8.13 (``Preferred orders''). The Exchange states that Market-Maker-to-
Market-Maker transactions (which include all transactions between any
combination of DPMs, e-DPMs, RMMs, LMMs, and Market-Makers) would
continue to be excluded from the fee, and the CBOE would also now
exclude transactions of Market-Makers, RMMs, e-DPMs, DPMs, and LMMs
resulting from inbound P/A orders. The marketing fee would also
continue to be assessed in all equity option classes and options on
HOLDRs[supreg], options on SPDRs[supreg], and options on DIA.
    The following is a description of the manner in which funds
generated by the marketing fee would be allocated between the DPM or
LMM, and Preferred Market-Makers.
    First, if a Market-Maker (including any DPM, e-DPM, LMM, and RMM)
is designated as a Preferred Market-Maker on an order for less than
1,000 contracts, the Market-Maker would be given access to the
marketing fee funds generated from the Preferred order, even if the
Preferred Market-Maker did not participate in the execution of the
Preferred order because the Market-Maker was not quoting at the NBBO at
the time the Preferred order was received on the CBOE.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For example, assume a Market-Maker is designated as a
Preferred Market-Maker on an order for 50 contracts which is
executed on CBOE. Under this first step, the Preferred Market-Maker
would be given access to a total of $32.50 (50 contracts x $.65),
whether or not the Preferred Market-Maker traded with the order or
not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the DPM or LMM, as applicable, would be given access to the
marketing fee funds generated from all other orders for less than 1,000
contracts from PAFs in its appointed classes in a particular trading
station.
    The Exchange states that, as in the current program, the money
collected would be disbursed by the Exchange according to the
instructions of the DPM, LMM, or Preferred Market-Maker. These funds
could only be used to attract order flow to CBOE, and the funds made
available to the DPM or LMM could only be used to attract orders in the
option classes located at the trading station where the fee was
assessed. Thus, a member organization appointed as the DPM at a
particular trading station on the trading floor could not use the funds
from that trading station to attract order flow to another trading
station on the trading floor where that member organization serves as
the DPM.
    With respect to the rebate provisions of its marketing fee program,
the Exchange states that currently, if a Preferred Market-Maker does
not disburse all of the funds generated by the marketing fee in a given
month, then the funds the Preferred Market-Maker does not disburse are
made available to the DPM or LMM, as applicable, for the following
month to attract orders in the classes of options where the DPM or LMM
is appointed. Going forward, the CBOE proposes to allow the Preferred
Market-Maker to carry-over any funds it does not disburse in a given
month to the same extent a DPM or LMM is permitted to do so.
    Thus, the Exchanges states that its marketing fee program as
amended would provide that if less than 80% of the marketing fee funds
are paid out by the DPM/LMM or Preferred Market-Maker in a given month,
then the Exchange would refund such surplus at the end of the month on
a pro rata basis based upon contributions made by the Market-Makers,
RMMs, e-DPMs, DPMs, and LMMs. However, if 80% or more of the
accumulated funds in a given month are paid out by the DPM/LMM or
Preferred Market-Maker, there would not be a rebate for that month and
the funds will carry over and would be included in the pool of funds to
be used by the DPM/LMM or Preferred Market-Maker the following month.
At the end of each quarter, the Exchange states that it would then
refund any surplus, if any, on a pro rata basis based upon
contributions made by the Market-Makers, RMMs, DPMs, e-DPMs, and LMMs.
    The Exchange states that it would not be involved in the
determination of the terms governing the orders that qualify for
payment or the amount of any such payment. The Exchange states that it
would provide administrative support for the program in such matters as
maintaining the funds, keeping track of the number of qualified orders
each firm directs to the Exchange, and making the necessary debits and
credits to reflect the payments that are made. The CBOE states that its
Market-Makers, RMMs, DPMs, e-DPMs, and LMMs would have no way of
identifying prior to execution whether a particular order is from a PAF
or is an order designating a Preferred Market-Maker.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\9\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\10\ in particular, in that it is designed to
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its members and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).

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

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any inappropriate burden on competition 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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing proposed rule change has been designated as a fee
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \11\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(2) \12\ thereunder, because it establishes or changes a due,
fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange. Accordingly, the proposal
will take effect upon filing with the Commission. At any time within 60
days of the filing of such proposed rule change the Commission may
summarily abrogate 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-CBOE-2005-107 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-9303.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2005-107. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the CBOE. 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-CBOE-2005-107 and should be submitted on or before
January 19, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-8047 Filed 12-28-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 159 (Monday, August 17, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 50068]
[FR Doc No: 2020-18010]

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

UNIFIED CARRIER REGISTRATION PLAN

Sunshine Act Meeting Notice; Unified Carrier Registration Plan
Board Subcommittee Meeting

DATES: August 20, 2020, from Noon to 2 p.m., Eastern time.

PLACE: This meeting will be accessible via conference call and via Zoom
Meeting and Screenshare. Any interested person may call (i) 1-929-205-
6099 (U.S. Toll) or 1-669-900-6833 (U.S. Toll) or (ii) 1-877-853-5247
(U.S. Toll Free) or 1-888-788-0099 (U.S. Toll Free), Meeting ID: 978
5932 8076, to listen and participate in this meeting. The website to
participate via Zoom Meeting and Screenshare is https://kellen.zoom.us/j/97859328076.

STATUS: This meeting will be open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Unified Carrier Registration Plan
Education and Training Subcommittee (the ``Subcommittee'') will
continue its work in developing and implementing the Unified Carrier
Registration Plan and Agreement. The subject matter of this meeting
will include:

Proposed Agenda

I. Call to Order--Subcommittee Chair

    The Subcommittee Chair will welcome attendees, call the meeting to
order, call roll for the Subcommittee, confirm whether a quorum is
present, and facilitate self-introductions.

II. Verification of Publication of Meeting Notice--UCR Executive
Director

    The UCR Executive Director will verify the publication of the
meeting notice on the UCR website and distribution to the UCR contact
list via email followed by the subsequent publication of the notice in
the Federal Register.

III. Review and Approval of Subcommittee Agenda and Setting of Ground
Rules--Subcommittee Chair

For Discussion and Possible Subcommittee Action
    The Subcommittee Agenda will be reviewed and the Subcommittee will
consider adoption.
Ground Rules
    Subcommittee action only to be taken in designated areas on agenda.

IV. Approval of Minutes From May 14, 2020 Meeting--Subcommittee Chair

For Discussion and Possible Subcommittee Action
    Draft minutes from the May 14, 2020 Education and Training
Subcommittee meeting via teleconference will be reviewed. The
Subcommittee will consider action to approve.

V. Discuss Needed Future Training Modules--Subcommittee Chair

    The Subcommittee will discuss and provide comments on needed future
education and training modules.

VI. Discuss Priority of Training Modules To Be Developed--Subcommittee
Chair

    The Subcommittee will discuss and rank by development priority
needed future education and training modules.

VII. Other Items--Subcommittee Chair

    The Subcommittee Chair will call for any other items the committee
members would like to discuss.

VIII. Adjournment--Subcommittee Chair

    The Subcommittee Chair will adjourn the meeting.
    The agenda will be available no later than 5 p.m. Eastern time,
August 11, 2020 at: https://plan.ucr.gov.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Elizabeth Leaman, Chair, Unified
Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Alex B. Leath,
Chief Legal Officer, Unified Carrier Registration Plan.
[FR Doc. 2020-18010 Filed 8-13-20; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-YL-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 202 (Monday, October 20, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62645-62646]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24811]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2014-0003]

Notice of Adjustment of Statewide Per Capita Impact Indicator

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: FEMA gives notice that the statewide per capita impact
indicator under the Public Assistance program for disasters declared on
or after October 1, 2014, will be increased.

DATES: Effective Date: October 1, 2014, and applies to major disasters
declared on or after October 1, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Roche, Recovery Directorate,

Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 44 CFR 206.48 provides that FEMA will adjust
the statewide per capita impact indicator under the Public Assistance
program to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban
Consumers published by the Department of Labor.
    FEMA gives notice that the statewide per capita impact indicator
will be increased to $1.41 for all disasters declared on or after
October 1, 2014.
    FEMA bases the adjustment on an increase in the Consumer Price
Index for All Urban Consumers of 1.7 percent for the 12-month period
that ended in August 2014. The Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S.
Department of Labor released the information on September 17, 2014.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.036, Disaster Grants--
Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters).

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2014-24811 Filed 10-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P