[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 92 (Monday, May 15, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22362-22363]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09729]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-520, OMB Control No. 3235-0577]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549-2736

Extension:
    Rule 30b1-5

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the
collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to
submit this existing collection of information to the Office of
Management and Budget (``OMB'') for extension and approval.
    Rule 30b1-5 (17 CFR 270.30b1-5) under the Investment Company Act of
1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.) (the ``Investment Company Act'')
requires registered management investment companies, other than small
business investment companies registered on Form N-5 (17 CFR 239.24 and
274.5) (``funds''), to file a quarterly report via the Commission's
EDGAR system on Form N-Q (17 CFR 249.332 and 274.130), not more than
sixty calendar days after the close of each first and third fiscal
quarter, containing their complete portfolio holdings. The purpose of
the collection of information required by rule 30b1-5 is to meet the
disclosure requirements of the Investment Company Act and to provide
investors with information necessary to evaluate an interest in the
fund by improving the transparency of information about the fund's
portfolio holdings.
    The Commission estimates that there are 2,380 management investment
companies, with a total of approximately 11,757 portfolios, that are
governed by the rule. For purposes of this analysis, the burden
associated with the requirements of rule 30b1-5 has been included in
the collection of information requirements of Form N-Q, rather than the
rule.
    The collection of information under rule 30b1-5 is mandatory. The
information provided under rule 30b1-5 is not kept confidential. An
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information

technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions
submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549; or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: May 9, 2017.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-09729 Filed 5-12-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


need for analysts to maintain their objectivity, unlike equity research
analysts who have frequent interactions with issuer management and may
assist in the due diligence process for offerings, debt research
analysts typically do not participate in due diligence and do not have
the same opportunities to meet with issuer management and road shows
may present the only opportunity to do so.\163\ For the same reasons as
above, FINRA declined again to make this change.\164\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \161\ WilmerHale Debt One.
    \162\ See also Notice.
    \163\ WilmerHale Debt Two.
    \164\ FINRA Response
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Comments and Discussion Regarding Communications Between Research
Analysts and Trading Desk Personnel

    A commenter to the original proposal asked FINRA to delete the term
``attempting'' in the proposed Supplementary Material .03(a)(1), which
would require members to have policies and procedures reasonably
designed to prohibit sales and trading and principal trading personnel
from ``attempting to influence a debt research analyst's opinion or
views for the purpose of benefitting the trading position of the firm,
a customer, or a class of customers.'' \165\ The commenter stated that
it is unclear how a firm should enforce a prohibition on attempts to
influence. FINRA notes that Supplementary Material .03(b)(2) sets forth
permissible communications between debt research analysts and sales and
trading and principal trading personnel, including, for example,
allowing a debt research analyst to provide ``customized analysis,
recommendations or trade ideas'' to customers or traders upon request,
provided that the communications are ``not inconsistent with the
analyst's current or pending debt research, and that any subsequently
published debt research is not for the purpose of benefitting the
trading position of the firm, a customer or a class of customers.'' In
the context of such a request, FINRA stated that is not hard to
envision the possibility that a trader, for example, might attempt to
influence the analyst's view by emphasizing that a particular
recommendation would be beneficial to the firm. FINRA expressed its
belief that there are a variety of policies and procedures that could
address such attempts, including periodic monitoring of such
communications. As such, FINRA declined to delete ``attempting'' from
the provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \165\ WilmerHale Debt One.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter further expressed concern that the term ``pending''
is vague in the above-cited provision.\166\ The commenter suggested
that FINRA delete the term or confirm that ``pending'' means ``imminent
publication of a debt research report.'' FINRA stated it believes it is
important that any customized analysis, recommendations or trade ideas
be consistent not only with published research, but also any research
being drafted in anticipation of publication or distribution that may
contain changed or additional view or opinions. FINRA stated it
considers such research in draft to be pending and therefore declined
to delete the term or adopt an ``imminent'' standard as suggested by
the commenter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \166\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Supplementary Material .03(b)(3) would provide that, in
determining what is consistent with a debt research analyst's published
debt research for purposes of sharing certain views with sales and
trading and principal trading personnel, members

may consider the context, including that the investment objectives or
time horizons being discussed may differ from those underlying the debt
analyst's published views. One commenter to the original proposal asked
FINRA to clarify that the standard may be applied wherever consistency
with a debt research analyst's views may be assessed under the proposed
debt rule, such as with respect to debt research analyst account
trading or providing customized analysis, recommendations, or trade
ideas to sales and trading, principal trading, and customers.\167\
FINRA agreed in the Amendment Notice that context may be considered
whenever consistency of research or views is at issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \167\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Comments and Discussion Regarding Disclosure Requirements

    One commenter to the original proposal expressed concern about the
proposed requirements that a member disclose in retail debt research
reports its distribution of all debt security ratings (and the
percentage of subject companies in each buy/hold/sell category for
which the member has provided investment banking services within the
previous twelve months) and historical ratings information on the debt
securities that are the subject of the debt research report for a
period of three years or the time during which the member has assigned
a rating, whichever is shorter.\168\ The commenter asked FINRA to
eliminate these provisions because the commenter believes that they are
impractical and provide minimal benefit to investors in the context of
debt research, even though they may be very useful in the equity
context.\169\ The commenter stated that the large number of bond issues
followed by analysts make the provisions especially burdensome and do
not allow for helpful comparisons for investors across debt securities
or issuers. With respect to the ratings distribution requirements, the
commenter asserted that in some cases, a debt analyst may assign a
rating to the issuer that applies to all of that issuer's bonds,
thereby skewing the distribution because those issuers will be
overrepresented in the distribution. The commenter also stated that the
tracking requirements for these provisions would be particularly
burdensome, given the numerous bonds issued by the same subject company
and the fact that bonds are constantly being replaced with newer ones.
Finally, the commenter stated that the three-year look back period is
too long and suggested instead a one-year period if FINRA retains the
historical rating table requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \168\ WilmerHale Debt One.
    \169\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA stated it believes that, similar to the current equity rules,
to the extent that a firm produces retail debt research that assigns a
rating to an issuer--i.e., a credit analysis--these disclosure
provisions would provide value to retail investors to quickly gauge any
apparent bias toward more or less favorable ratings or investment
banking clients and to assess the accuracy of past ratings. Moreover,
FINRA stated it understands that the burden to comply with the
requirements with respect to this limited subset of debt research would
be manageable for firms. Therefore, FINRA proposed to amend Rules
2242(c)(2) and (3) in Amendment No. 1 to apply the ratings distribution
requirement and historical rating table requirement only to each debt
research report limited to the analysis of an issuer of a debt security
that includes a rating of the subject company. Since the proposal would
be limited to these issuer credit analyses and would not apply to
individual bonds, FINRA expressed belief that many of the commenter's
burden concerns would be alleviated and that it would be reasonable and
appropriate to maintain the proposed three-year look back period with
respect to the historical rating provision. In their second letter, the
commenter expressed support for this change.\170\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \170\ WilmerHale Debt Two.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While FINRA also believes that the disclosures would be valuable to
retail investors with respect to debt research on individual debt
securities, FINRA stated it recognizes the additional complexity and
cost associated with compliance, particularly where a retail debt
research report may include multiple ratings of individual debt
securities, some of which may be positive and others negative or
neutral. FINRA stated it believes it would be beneficial to obtain
additional information about the array of debt research products that
are now being distributed to retail investors, as well as the
operational challenges and costs to apply these disclosure provisions
to debt research on individual debt securities. Accordingly, FINRA
proposed in Amendment No. 1 to eliminate for now the requirements with
respect to debt research reports on individual debt securities. FINRA
stated it will reconsider the appropriateness of the disclosure
requirements as applied to research on individual debt securities after
obtaining and assessing the additional information.
    The same commenter also requested that FINRA allow members to
provide a hyperlink or web address to web-based disclosures in all debt
research reports, rather than requiring the disclosures within a
printed report.\171\ The commenter noted that while the Commission has
interpreted section 15D(b) of the Exchange Act to require disclosure in
each equity report, the law does not apply to debt research.\172\ FINRA
stated it believes that disclosures in retail debt research reports
should be proximate to the content of those reports and easily
available to recipients of the research without requiring any
substantive additional steps. Therefore, to the extent a debt research
report is not delivered electronically with hyperlinked disclosures,
FINRA stated it believes the disclosures must be in the research report
itself. FINRA also expressed its belief that this will promote
consistency between equity and retail debt research. FINRA further
noted that institutional debt research would not require the specific
disclosures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \171\ WilmerHale Debt One.
    \172\ See 15 U.S.C. 78o-6(b) and (d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Comments and Discussion Regarding the Institutional Debt Research
Exemption

    The proposed rule change would exempt debt research provided solely
to certain eligible institutional investors from many of the proposed
rule's provisions, provided that a member obtains consent from the
institutional investor to receive that research and the research
reports contain specified disclosure to alert recipients that the
reports do not carry the same protections as retail debt research. The
proposal distinguishes between larger and smaller institutions in the
manner in which the consent must be obtained. Firms would be permitted
to use negative consent where the customer meets the definition of a
QIB and satisfies the institutional suitability standards of FINRA Rule
2111 with respect to debt transactions and strategies. Institutional
accounts that meet the definition of FINRA Rule 4512(c), but do not
satisfy the higher tier standard required for negative consent, would
be permitted to affirmatively elect in writing to receive institutional
debt research.
    One commenter to the original proposal opposed providing any
exemption for debt research distributed solely to eligible
institutional investors, contending that it would deprive the

market's largest participants of the important protections of the
proposed rules for retail debt research.\173\ Another such commenter
reiterated concerns expressed in response to an earlier iteration of
the debt research proposal that the proposed standard for negative
consent would be difficult to implement and would disadvantage
institutional investors who are capable of, and in fact, make
independent investment decisions about debt transactions and
strategies. The commenter suggested as an alternative that the
institutional investor standard should be based on only on the
institutional suitability standard in Rule 2111.\174\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \173\ PIABA Debt.
    \174\ SIFMA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another commenter to the original proposal supported the proposed
tiered approach for how institutional investors may receive research
reports.\175\ The commenter stated that a QIB presumably has the
sophistication and human and financial resources to evaluate debt
research without the disclosures and other protections that accompany
reports provided to retail investors. The commenter also supported
permitting an institutional investor that does not fall within the
higher tier category to receive the debt research without the retail
investor protections if it notifies the firm in writing of its
election.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \175\ CFA Institute One.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA stated in the Notice and Amendment Notice that it believes an
institutional exemption is appropriate to allow more sophisticated
institutional market participants that can assess risks associated with
debt trading and are aware of conflicts that may exist between a
member's recommendations and trading interests, to continue to receive
the timely flow of analysis and trade ideas that they value. FINRA
noted that institutional debt research still would remain subject to
several provisions of the rules, including the required separation
between debt research and investment banking and the requirements for
conflict management policies and procedures to insulate debt analysts
from pressure by traders and others. In addition, FINRA noted that no
institutional investor will be exposed to this less-protected
institutional research without either negative or affirmative consent,
as applicable.
    FINRA noted, with regard to the standard for negative consent, it
does not believe that less sophisticated institutional investors should
be required to take any additional steps to receive the full
protections of the proposed rules. To the extent the QIB standard for
negative consent is too difficult to implement, the proposal would
provide an alternative to obtain a one-time affirmative consent for any
Rule 4512(c) institutional account and further provides a one-year
grace period to obtain that consent, so as not to disrupt the current
flow of debt research to institutional customers. As discussed in the
rule filing, FINRA included the alternative methods of consent and the
grace period to satisfy the differing industry views on which of two
consent options would be most cost effective.
    Another commenter to the original proposal asked that FINRA confirm
that, in distributing debt research reports under the institutional
debt research framework to certain non-U.S. institutional investors who
are customers of a member's non-U.S. broker-dealer affiliate, the
member may rely on similar classifications in the non-U.S.
institutional investors' home jurisdictions.\176\ The commenter
contended that this is necessary because some global firms distribute
their debt research reports to non-U.S. institutional investors who may
not have been vetted as QIBs for a variety of reasons. The debt
proposal never contemplated recognizing equivalent institutional
standards in other jurisdictions, and FINRA stated it does not believe
that approach is appropriate or workable. FINRA questioned whether
there are standards in other jurisdictions that are truly the
equivalent of the QIB standard, and stated that it is impractical for
FINRA to survey and assess the institutional standards around the world
to determine equivalency, not to mention whether the home jurisdiction
adequately examines for and enforces compliance with the standard.
FINRA noted that, under the proposal, to the extent non-U.S.
institutional investors have not been vetted as QIBs, firms have the
option of either vetting them if they wish to send them institutional
debt research by negative consent or obtaining affirmative written
consent to the extent the institution satisfies the Rule 4212(c)
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \176\ WilmerHale Debt One.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The same commenter asked FINRA to clarify the application of the
institutional debt research framework to desk analysts or other
personnel who are part of the trading desk and are not ``research
department'' personnel. In particular, the commenter suggested that
proposed Rules 2242(b)(2)(H) (with respect to pressuring) and (b)(2)(L)
(which would require policies and procedures reasonably designed to,
among other things, restrict or limit activities by debt research
analysts that can reasonably be expected to compromise their
objectivity) should not apply when sales and trading personnel or
principal trading personnel publish debt research reports in reliance
on the institutional research exemption because the requirements of
those provisions cannot be reconciled with the inherent nature of
conflicts present.\177\ Those provisions would require firms to have
policies and procedures to both establish information barrier or other
institutional safeguards reasonably designed to insulate debt research
analysts from pressure by, among others, principal trading or sales and
trading personnel and restrict or limit activities by debt research
analysts that can reasonably be expected to compromise their
objectivity. FINRA disagreed with the commenter. They stated that they
believe that minimum objectivity standards should apply to
institutional debt research regardless of whether the research is
published by research department personnel, sales and trading personnel
or principal trading personnel. FINRA further stated it believes that a
firm can and should put in place policies and procedures reasonably
designed to ensure that other traders or sales and trading personnel do
not overtly pressure a trader who produces debt research to express a
particular view and to prevent that trader from participating in
solicitations of investment banking or road show participation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \177\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Comments and Discussion Regarding the Exemptions for Limited
Investment Banking Activity and Limited Principal Trading Activity

    The proposed rule change would exempt members with limited
principal trading activity or limited investment banking activity from
the review, supervision, budget, and compensation provisions in the
proposed rule related to principal trading and investment banking
personnel, respectively. The limited principal trading exemption would
apply to firms that engage in principal trading activity where, in
absolute value on an annual basis, the member's trading gains or losses
on principal trades in debt securities are $15 million or less over the
previous three years, on average per year, and the member employs fewer
than ten debt traders. The limited investment banking exemption would
apply, as it does in the equity rules, to firms that have managed or
co-managed ten or fewer investment banking services

transactions on average per year, over the previous three years and
generated $5 million or less in gross investment banking revenues from
those transactions.
    One commenter to the original proposal questioned whether the
exemptions could compromise the independence and accuracy of the
analysis and opinions provided.\178\ The commenter further expressed
concern that the exemption might allow traders to act on debt research
prior to publication and distribution of that research. The commenter
noted FINRA's commitment to monitor firms that avail themselves of the
exemptions to evaluate whether the thresholds for the exemptions are
appropriate and asked FINRA to publish findings that could help
properly weigh the burdens on small firms while ensuring the
independence of investment research. The commenter also encouraged
FINRA to provide additional guidance as to what specific measures
should be taken to ensure that debt research analysts are insulated
from pressure by persons engaged in principal trading or sales and
trading activities or other persons who might be biased in their
judgment or supervision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \178\ CFA Institute One.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA stated in the Notice and the Amendment Notice that it
included the exemptions to balance the burdens of compliance with the
level or risk to investors. FINRA stated that it determined the
thresholds for each exemption based on data analysis and a survey of
firms that engage in principal trading activity or investment banking
activity, respectively. FINRA clarified that it has not found abuses
with respect to the limited investment banking exemption in the equity
context and notes that some important separation requirements would
still apply to the eligible firms, such as the prohibition on
compensating a debt research analyst based on a specific investment
banking transaction or contributions to a member's investment banking
services activities.
    FINRA clarified that the proposed limited principal trading
exemption would apply where, based on the survey and data analysis, it
reasonably believes the amount of potential principal trading profits
poses appreciably lower risk of pressure on debt research analysts by
sales and trading or principal trading personnel and where there would
be a significant marginal cost to add a trader dedicated to producing
research relative to the increase in investor protection. FINRA further
noted that the proposal would still prohibit debt research analysts at
exempt firms from being compensated based on specific trading
transactions.
    With respect to both exemptions, as the commenter noted, firms
would still be required to establish information barriers or other
institutional safeguards reasonably designed to ensure debt research
analysts are insulated from pressure by persons engaged in investment
banking or principal trading activities, among others. FINRA stated it
believes a number of policies could be implemented to achieve
compliance with this requirement. For example, in the context of
principal trading, these measures might include monitoring of
communications between debt research analysts and individuals on the
trading desk and reviewing published research in relation to
transactions executed by the firm in the subject company's debt
securities. FINRA also noted that neither exemption would allow trading
ahead of research by firm traders, as FINRA Rule 5280 would continue to
apply to both debt and equity research and prohibits such conduct.
Finally, as noted by the commenter, FINRA stated it intends to monitor
the research produced by firms that avail themselves of the exemptions
to assess whether the thresholds to qualify for the exemptions are
appropriate or should be modified.
    The commenter responded in its second letter that, while FINRA
addressed their concerns, they still had concerns that the examples
given by FINRA in the Amendment Notice were insufficient. They
recommended additional guidance by FINRA to help ensure adequate
compliance. They also approved of FINRA's commitment to continue to
monitor this issue and urged publication of the results.\179\ In their
response, FINRA noted that the examples were not intended to be
exhaustive and that, in light of the principles-based approach of the
proposal there will be different ways for members to design policies
and procedures reasonably designed to protect against pressure. FINRA
stated it will continue to monitor the issue and will consider sharing
its findings as appropriate.\180\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \179\ CFA Institute Two.
    \180\ FINRA Response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Comments and Discussion Regarding the Filing Requirement Exclusion

    One commenter to the original proposal asked FINRA to consider
amending FINRA Rule 2210 to exclude debt research reports from that
rule's filing requirements, since there is an exception from the filing
requirements for equity research reports that concern only equity
securities that trade on an exchange.\181\ FINRA stated it is willing
to separately consider the merits of the request, but does not believe
the issue is appropriate for resolution in the context of the debt
proposal since it primarily relates to the provisions of a rule that
are not the subject of the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \181\ WilmerHale Debt One.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

K. Comments and Discussion Regarding the Implementation Date

    One commenter to the original proposal requested that the
implementation date be at least twelve months after Commission approval
of the proposed rule change and that FINRA sequence the compliance
dates of the equity research filing and the proposed rule change in
that order.\182\ Another such commenter requested that FINRA provide a
``grace period'' of one year or the maximum time permissible, if that
is less than one year, between the adoption of the proposed rule and
the implementation date.\183\ FINRA stated that it is sensitive to the
time firms will require to update their policies and procedures and
systems to comply with the proposed rule change and will take those
factors into consideration when establishing implementation dates. As
stated in the Amendment Notice, FINRA will announce the effective date
of the proposed rule change in a Regulatory Notice to be published no
later than 60 days following Commission approval. FINRA further stated
that the effective date will be no later than 180 days following
publication of the Regulatory Notice announcing Commission approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \182\ SIFMA.
    \183\ WilmerHale Debt One.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Summary of Findings and Conclusion

    The Commission has carefully considered the proposed rule change,
all of the comments received, and FINRA's responses to the comments.
Based on its review of the record, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change, as amended by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with
the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to a national securities association.\184\ In particular,
the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended by
Amendment No. 1, is consistent with section 15A(b)(6) of the Act, which
requires, among other things, that FINRA's 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.\185\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \184\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \185\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA stated in its proposal that it ``believes that the proposed
rule change would promote increased quality, objectivity and
transparency of debt research distributed to investors by requiring
firms to identify and mitigate conflicts in the preparation and
distribution of such research'' and that ``the [proposed] rule will
provide investors with more reliable information on which to base
investment decisions in debt securities, while maintaining timely flow
of information important to institutional market participants and
providing those institutional investors with appropriate safeguards.''
    We generally agree with these assertions. The potential abuses
spawned by the conflicts of interest between research and the business
interests of broker-dealers in the equity space are well-known and
well-established.\186\ As FINRA explained in the Notice, debt research
is not immune to the challenges that these conflicts create. For
example, the Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth in 2008
alleged that a FINRA member ``co-opted its supposedly independent
[r]esearch [d]epartment to assist in sales efforts geared towards
reducing its inventory'' of debt instruments.\187\ These allegations
are similar to those raised in the allegations that led to the global
research analyst settlement as a result of the abuses found regarding
equity research.\188\ As a result, as noted by the U.S. Government
Accountability Office, ``until FINRA adopts a fixed-income research
rule, investors continue to face a potential risk.'' \189\ The proposed
rule change attempts to address this need in a way that seems to
effectively balance the public interest in effectively managing debt
research conflicts of interest with the ability of members to also
effectively provide research, and thus information, to the investing
public. We also note that the relevant commenters to the proposal as
amended, all of which were commenters to the original proposal, stated
in their second comment letters that they generally agree with the
proposal as amended.\190\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \186\ See, e.g., ``Ten of Nation's Top Investment Firms Settle
Enforcement Actions Involving Conflicts of Interest Between Research
and Investment Banking,'' Press Release 2003-54 (available at http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2003-54.htm). As one commenter noted, these
conflicts can still influence equity research. NASAA Debt Two. See
also ``FINRA Fines 10 Firms a Total of $43.5 Million for Allowing
Equity Research Analysts to Solicit Investment Banking Business and
for Offering Favorable Research Coverage in Connection With
Toys`R'Us IPO,'' FINRA News Release (available at http://www.finra.org/newsroom/2014/finra-fines-10-firms-total-435-million).
    \187\ Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Office of the Secretary of
the Commonwealth, Securities Division, In the Matter of Merrill
Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Incorporated, Administrative
Complaint, Docket No. 2008-0058 (Jul. 31, 2008) (available at http://archives.lib.state.ma.us/bitstream/handle/2452/213560/ocn886547410.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y).
    \188\ See, ``Ten of Nation's Top Investment Firms Settle
Enforcement Actions Involving Conflicts of Interest Between Research
and Investment Banking,'' Press Release 2003-54 (available at http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2003-54.htm) (stating that ``[t]he
enforcement actions allege that, from approximately mid-1999 through
mid-2001 or later, all of the firms engaged in acts and practices
that created or maintained inappropriate influence by investment
banking over research analysts, thereby imposing conflicts of
interest on research analysts that the firms failed to manage in an
adequate or appropriate manner'').
    \189\ U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO-12-209,
Securities Research: Additional Actions Could Improve Regulatory
Oversight of Analyst Conflicts of Interest, at 41 (Jan. 12, 2012)
(available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/590/587613.pdf).
    \190\ WilmerHale Debt Two, CFA Institute Two, and NASAA Debt
Two.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding concerns raised by commenters regarding the principles-
based structure of the proposal, we note the proposed rule change
establishes the key provisions of NASD Rule 2711 for debt research and
includes a number of protections for investors beyond those currently
found in that rule, including the requirement that research management
make independent decisions regarding research coverage,\191\
maintenance of information barriers or other institutional safeguards
between research and investment banking, sales and trading, and other
persons who might be biased in their judgment or supervision including,
for certain members, requiring physical separation,\192\ information
barriers between research analysts and trading desk personnel,\193\ and
ensure that purported facts in research reports are based on reliable
information.\194\ Further, FINRA's responses to interpretive questions
posed by the commenters to the original proposal in the Amendment
Notice should help eliminate uncertainty regarding how the proposal
will operate. For instance, one commenter noted with approval the
clarification regarding the ``at a minimum'' requirement which seemed
to be the source of the commenter's confusion.\195\ FINRA also provided
further guidance on other issues in the FINRA Response, such as whether
sales and trading personnel can provide feedback for purposes of
evaluating an analyst.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \191\ Proposed FINRA Rule 2242(b)(2)(B).
    \192\ Proposed FINRA Rule 2242(b)(2)(H) and Notice (``Among the
structural safeguards, FINRA believes separation between investment
banking and debt research, and between sales and trading and
principal trading and debt research, is of particular importance. As
such, while the proposed rule change does not mandate physical
separation between the debt research department and the investment
banking, sales and trading and principal trading departments (or
other person who might seek to influence research analysts), FINRA
would expect such physical separation except in extraordinary
circumstances where the costs are unreasonable due to a firm's size
and resource limitations. In those instances, a firm must implement
written policies and procedures, including information barriers, to
effectively achieve and monitor separation between debt research and
investment banking, sales and trading and principal trading
personnel.'')
    \193\ Proposed FINRA Rule 2242.03.
    \194\ Proposed FINRA Rule 2242(c)(1)(A).
    \195\ WilmerHale Debt Two.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In approving this proposal, however, we expect that FINRA will
continue to monitor the effectiveness of the rule proposal, especially
with regards to the treatment of research provided to institutional
investors, and modify the rule should it prove to be unworkable or fail
to provide an appropriate level of protection to investors.\196\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \196\ We note that, as one commenter to the equity version of
this proposal noted, the interpretation of what constitutes
``reasonableness'' may prove difficult for FINRA and member alike.
See Letter from Egidio Mogavero, Managing Director and Chief
Compliance Officer, JMP Securities, dated Mar. 19, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons stated above, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder.

IV. Conclusion

    IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\197\ that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2014-048), as
modified by Amendment No. 1 thereto, be, and it hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \197\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\198\

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

    \198\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-17972 Filed 7-21-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 6 (Friday, January 9, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1399-1400]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00191]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Application

Black Hills Shoshone Pipeline,     Docket No. CP15-32-000
 LLC.
Energy West Development, Inc.....  Docket No. CP15-33-000

    Take notice that on December 16, 2014, Black Hills Shoshone
Pipeline, LLC (BHS), 1301 West 24th Street, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82001,
and Energy West Development, Inc. (EWD), 1 First Avenue South, Great
Falls, Montana 59401, filed a joint application under section 7 of the
Natural Gas Act (NGA) requesting: (1) an order from the Commission
pursuant to Section 7(b) of the NGA authorizing EWD to abandon by sale
the Shoshone Pipeline, a natural gas pipeline located in Wyoming and
Montana; and (2) a certificate of public convenience and necessity
pursuant to Section 7(c) of the NGA authorizing BHS to own and operate
the Shoshone Pipeline. BHS proposes to operate the Shoshone Pipeline as
a natural gas pipeline performing the same NGA jurisdictional
transportation services currently offered under the ownership of EWD,
all as more fully described in the application which is on file with
the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be
viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link.
Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket
number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Patrick Joyce, Black Hills Corporation, 1102 E. First Street,
Papillion, Nebraska, 68046, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax (402) 829-
2691 or by email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 7 copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission
and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on January 23, 2015.

    Dated: January 2, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-00191 Filed 1-8-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


EXHIBIT 1 ANNUAL RESPONDENT BURDEN FOR NO MIGRATION VARIANCES1 Legal Managerial Technical Clerical Respondent Labor Cost Capital O & M Number of Total Hours Total Cost Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours per 3 years 3 per years Startup Costs Costs Respondent per year per year ACTIVITY $ 108.00 $ 77.00 $ 57.00 $ 29.00 Activities Read Regulations and Guidance Manual 0 10 80 0 90 $ 5,330.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 0.333 30 $ 1,775 Legal Counsel 300 0 0 0 300 $ 32,400.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 0.333 100 $ 10,789 Compiling Administrative Information 0 40 350 0 390 $ 23,030.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 0.333 130 $ 7,669 Description of Specific wastes and Units 0 80 500 0 580 $ 34,660.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 0.333 193 $ 11,542 Performing Waste Analyses 0 140 1300 0 1440 $ 84,880.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 0.333 480 $ 28,265 Performing Unsaturated and Saturated Zone Monitoring 0 150 1300 0 1450 $ 85,650.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 0.333 483 $ 28,521 Comprehensive Characterization of Site 0 80 550 0 630 $ 37,510.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 0.333 210 $ 12,491 Presentation of Waste Analyses, Monitoring,

and QA/ QC Results 0 25 200 0 225 $ 13,325.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 0.333 75 $ 4,437 Preparing Monitoring Plans ( Waste and unsaturated/ Saturated Zones) 0 35 200 0 235 $ 14,095.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 0.333 78 $ 4,694 Performing Unsaturated/ Saturated Zone Modeling 0 40 300 0 340 $ 20,180.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 0.333 113 $ 6,720 Interpretation & Presentation of Unsaturated and Saturated Zone Modeling and Monitoring Results and Conclusions 0 20 150 0 170 $ 10,090.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 0.333 57 $ 3,360 Performing Air Modeling 0 40 370 0 410 $ 24,170.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 0.333 137 $ 8,049 Preparing Air Monitoring Plan 0 20 150 0 170 $ 10,090.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 0.333 57 $ 3,360 Performing Air Monitoring Program 0 200 1600 0 1800 $ 106,600.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 0.333 599 $ 35,498 Interpretation & Presentation of Air Modeling and Monitoring Results and Conclusions 0 40 370 0 410 $ 24,170.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 0.333 137 $ 8,049 Performing Uncertainty Analyses 0 20 150 0 170 $ 10,090.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 0.333 57 $ 3,360 Preparing Quality Assurance and Quality Control Plans 0 30 250 0 280 $ 16,560.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 0.333 93 $ 5,514 Certifying Compliance with all Applicable Laws 0 5 50 0 55 $ 3,235.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 0.333 18 $ 1,077 Certification of Truth and Accuracy 0 1 10 0 11 $ 647.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 0.333 4 $ 215 Compilation/ Transmittal of Three Copies of the Petition 0 0 0 350 350 $ 10,150.00 $ 0.00 $ 121.00 0.333 117 $ 3,420 Total 300 976 7880 350 9506 $ 566,862.00 $ 0.00 $ 121.00 0.333 3,168 $ 188,805 No Migration Variance Petitions  Prepare and Gather Information/ Present in Written Form


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I might want to respond to. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I have already spent many hours researching and dissecting these issues, but they take time. I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. Quite simply, I know that they saved my life. I wish to provide you with my personal story, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation. Given that combustion Marijuana use for recreational purposes is already legal in states in the US I belive very strongly in the virtues and process of vapor.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 146 (Monday, July 30, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 44648]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18480]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3346-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2012-0002]

Ohio; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of an Emergency Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for
the State of Ohio (FEMA-3346-EM), dated June 30, 2012, and related
determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: July 2, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident
period for this emergency is closed effective July 2, 2012.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2012-18480 Filed 7-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 180 (Wednesday, September 17, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55792-55793]
[FR Doc No: 2014-22154]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9916-80-OEI]

Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision
Approval, State of Oklahoma

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA's) approval of the State of Oklahoma's request to revise/modify
certain of its EPA-authorized programs to allow electronic reporting.

DATES: EPA's approval is effective on September 17, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Seeh, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Mail Stop
2823T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 566-
1175<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 13, 2005, the final Cross-Media
Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) was published in the Federal
Register (70 FR 59848) and codified as part 3 of title 40 of the CFR.
CROMERR establishes electronic reporting as an acceptable regulatory
alternative to paper reporting and establishes requirements to assure
that electronic documents are as legally dependable as their paper
counterparts. Subpart D of CROMERR requires that state, tribal or local
government agencies that receive, or wish to begin receiving,
electronic reports under their EPA-authorized programs must apply to
EPA for a revision or modification of those programs and obtain EPA
approval. Subpart D provides standards for such approvals based on
consideration of the electronic document receiving systems that the
state, tribe, or local government will use to implement the electronic
reporting. Additionally, Sec.  3.1000(b) through (e) of 40 CFR part 3,
subpart D provides special procedures for program revisions and
modifications to allow electronic reporting, to be used at the option
of the state, tribe or local government in place of procedures
available under existing program-specific authorization regulations. An
application submitted under the subpart D procedures must show that the
state, tribe or local government has sufficient legal authority to
implement the electronic reporting components of the programs covered
by the application and will use electronic document receiving systems
that meet the applicable subpart D requirements. Once an authorized
program has EPA's approval to accept electronic documents under certain
programs, CROMERR Sec.  3.1000(a)(4) requires that the program keep EPA
apprised of any changes to laws, policies, or the electronic document
receiving systems that have the potential to affect the program's
compliance with CROMERR Sec.  3.2000.
    On October 2, 2013, the Oklahoma Department of Environmental
Quality (OK DEQ) submitted an amended application titled ``Electronic
Document Receiving System'' for revisions/modifications of its EPA-
approved electronic reporting program under its EPA-authorized programs
under title 40 CFR to allow new electronic reporting. EPA reviewed OK
DEQ's request to revise/modify its EPA-authorized programs and, based
on this review, EPA determined that the application met the standards
for approval of authorized program revisions/modifications set out in
40 CFR part 3, subpart D. In accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(d), this
notice of EPA's decision to approve Oklahoma's request to revise/modify
its following EPA-authorized programs to allow existing and expanded
electronic reporting under 40 CFR parts 51, 62, and 141 is being
published in the Federal Register: Part 52--Approval and Promulgation
of Implementation Plans; Part 62--Approval and Promulgation of State
Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; and Part 142--National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation.
    OK DEQ was notified of EPA's determination to approve its
application with respect to the authorized programs listed above.
    Also, in today's notice, EPA is informing interested persons that
they may request a public hearing on EPA's action to approve the State
of Oklahoma request to revise its authorized public

water system program under 40 CFR part 142, in accordance with 40 CFR
3.1000(f). Requests for a hearing must be submitted to EPA within 30
days of publication of today's Federal Register notice. Such requests
should include the following information:
    (1) The name, address and telephone number of the individual,
organization or other entity requesting a hearing;
    (2) A brief statement of the requesting person's interest in EPA's
determination, a brief explanation as to why EPA should hold a hearing,
and any other information that the requesting person wants EPA to
consider when determining whether to grant the request;
    (3) The signature of the individual making the request, or, if the
request is made on behalf of an organization or other entity, the
signature of a responsible official of the organization or other
entity.
    In the event a hearing is requested and granted, EPA will provide
notice of the hearing in the Federal Register not less than 15 days
prior to the scheduled hearing date. Frivolous or insubstantial
requests for hearing may be denied by EPA. Following such a public
hearing, EPA will review the record of the hearing and issue an order
either affirming today's determination or rescinding such
determination.
    If no timely request for a hearing is received and granted, EPA's
approval of the State of Oklahoma request to revise its part 142--
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation program to
allow electronic reporting will become effective 30 days after today's
notice is published, pursuant to CROMERR section 3.1000(f)(4).

    Dated: September 11, 2014.
Matthew Leopard,
Acting Director, Office of Information Collection.
[FR Doc. 2014-22154 Filed 9-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P