[Federal Register: December 16, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 240)]
[Notices]
[Page 66637-66638]
[DOCID:fr16de09-64]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM04-7-007]

Market-Based Rates For Wholesale Sales of Electric Energy,
Capacity and Ancillary Services by Public Utilities; Notice of Request
for Clarification

October 30, 2009.
    Take notice that on March 9, 2009, as amended on October 28, 2009,
the Compliance Working Group\1\ filed a request for clarification
regarding which employees can be ``shared'' for purposes of compliance
with the Commission's Affiliate Restrictions adopted under Order No.
697.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The members of the Compliance Working Group taking part in
the filing are: Allegheny Energy, Inc., American Electric Power
Company, Inc., Cleco Corporation, Consumers Energy Company, Dominion
Resources, Inc., Duke Energy Corporation, Edison International, El
Paso Electric Company, Energy East Corp., Entergy Corporation,
Exelon Corporation, FirstEnergy Corp., FPL Group, Inc., Pacific Gas
and Electric Co., Progress Energy, Inc., Public Service Enterprise
Group Inc., and Westar Energy, Inc.
    \2\ Market-Based Rates for Wholesale Sales of Electric Energy,
Capacity and Ancillary Services by Public Utilities, Order No. 697,
FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,252 (Order No. 697), clarified, 121 FERC ]
61,260 (2007), order on reh'g, Order No. 697-A, FERC Stats. & Regs.
] 31,268 (2008); clarified, 124 FERC ] 61,055 (2008), order on
reh'g, Order No. 697-B, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,285 (2008), order
on reh'g, Order No. 697-C, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,291 (2009).

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

    The Compliance Working Group states that the question presented
arises because of an unintended inconsistency in the treatment of
shared employees under the two major rulemakings--Order Nos. 697 and
717--that impose restrictions on employee interactions and
communications. The Compliance Working Group states that Order No. 697
sought to ensure consistency between the two rules by holding that
shared employees, for purposes of its Affiliate Restrictions, would be
the same as later defined by the Standards of Conduct. It states that
an inconsistency later arose because Order No. 717 ultimately revised
the Standards of Conduct by eliminating the concept of shared employees
altogether.\3\ The Compliance Working Group states that this disconnect
has created a compliance conundrum that should be remedied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Standards of Conduct for Transmission Providers, Order No.
717, FERC Stats. Regs. ] 31,280 (2008), order on reh'g, Order No.
717-A, 129 FERC ] 61,043 (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Compliance Working Group asks the Commission to interpret the
Affiliate Restrictions to permit sharing of employees who are not
``transmission function employees'' or ``marketing function
employees''--the same sharing that is now permitted under the Standards
of Conduct. The Compliance Working Group states that this
interpretation is consistent with the purpose of Order Nos. 697 and
717, will facilitate compliance by regulated companies, and enhance
enforcement by the Commission. It also states that, as was the case
with Order No. 717, this interpretation would not eliminate the
residual protection afforded by the rule against undue discrimination.
    Any person desiring to comment in the above-referenced proceeding
may file comments with the Commission on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time
on November 30, 2009.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of comments in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons
unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of comments to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-29907 Filed 12-15-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 242 (Wednesday, December 16, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81540-81548]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27626]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90635; File No. SR-FINRA-2020-011]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment No. 1, To Address Brokers With a Significant History of
Misconduct

December 10, 2020.

I. Introduction

    On April 3, 2020, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend FINRA's rules to help
further address the issue of associated persons with a significant
history of misconduct and the broker-dealers that employ them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal

Register on April 14, 2020.\3\ On May 27, 2020, FINRA consented to an
extension of the time period in which the Commission must approve the
proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed
rule change to July 13, 2020.\4\ On July 2, 2020, FINRA responded to
the comment letters received in response to the Notice and filed an
amendment to the proposed rule change (``Amendment No. 1'').\5\ On July
13, 2020, the Commission filed an Order Instituting Proceedings to
determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment No. 1.\6\ On October 5, 2020, FINRA consented to
an extension of the time period in which the Commission must approve
the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or
institute proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the
proposed rule change to December 10, 2020.\7\ On October 7, FINRA
responded to the comment letter received in response to the Order
Instituting Proceedings.\8\ This order approves the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Exchange Act Release No. 88600 (Apr. 8, 2020), 85 FR
20745 (Apr. 14, 2020) (File No. SR-FINRA-2020-011) (``Notice'').
    \4\ See letter from Michael Garawski, Associate General Counsel,
Office of General Counsel, FINRA, to Daniel Fisher, Branch Chief,
Division of Trading and Markets, Commission, dated May 27, 2020.
    \5\ See letter from Michael Garawski, Associate General Counsel,
Office of General Counsel, FINRA, to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary,
Commission, dated July 2, 2020 (``FINRA July 2 Letter''). The FINRA
July 2 Letter is available at the Commission's website at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-finra-2020-011/srfinra2020011-7399761-219028.pdf. Amendment No. 1 is available at https://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/2020-07/sr-finra-2020-011-amendment-no-1.pdf.
    \6\ See Exchange Act Release No. 89305 (July 13, 2020), 85 FR
43627 (July 17, 2020) (File No. SR-FINRA-2020-011) (``Order
Instituting Proceedings'').
    \7\ See letter from Michael Garawski, Associate General Counsel,
Office of General Counsel, FINRA, to Daniel Fisher, Branch Chief,
Division of Trading and Markets, Commission, dated October 5, 2020.
    \8\ See letter from Michael Garawski, Associate General Counsel,
Office of General Counsel, FINRA, to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary,
Commission, dated October 7, 2020 (``FINRA October 7 Letter''). The
FINRA October 7 Letter is available at the Commission's website at
https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-finra-2020-011/srfinra2020011-7884211-224193.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

Background

    FINRA's proposed rule change would: (1) Amend the FINRA Rule 9200
Series (Disciplinary Proceedings) and the 9300 Series (Review of
Disciplinary Proceedings by National Adjudicatory Council and FINRA
Board; Application for SEC Review) to allow a hearing officer to impose
conditions or restrictions on the activities of a respondent member
broker-dealer or respondent associated person (each a ``Respondent'' or
collectively ``Respondents''), and require the member broker-dealer
employing a respondent associated person to adopt heightened
supervisory procedures for such associated persons, when a disciplinary
matter is appealed to the National Adjudicatory Council (``NAC'') or
called for NAC review; (2) amend the FINRA Rule 9520 Series
(Eligibility Proceedings) to require member broker-dealers to adopt
heightened supervisory procedures for statutorily disqualified
associated persons during the period a statutory disqualification
eligibility request is under review by FINRA; (3) amend FINRA Rule 8312
(FINRA BrokerCheck Disclosure) to require disclosure through FINRA
BrokerCheck of the status of a member broker-dealer as a ``taping
firm'' under FINRA Rule 3170 (Tape Recording of Registered Persons by
Certain Firms); and (4) amend the FINRA Rule 1000 Series (Member
Application and Associated Person Registration) to require a member
broker-dealer to submit a written request to FINRA's Department of
Member Regulation (``Member Regulation''), through the Membership
Application Group (``MAP Group''), seeking a materiality consultation
\9\ and approval of a continuing membership application, if required,
when a natural person seeking to become an owner, control person,
principal, or registered person of the member broker-dealer has, in the
prior five years, one or more ``final criminal matters'' or two or more
``specified risk events.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In general, a member broker-dealer initiates a materiality
consultation with Member Regulation by submitting a letter,
requesting its determination on whether a proposed change is
material such that it requires the submission of a Continuing
Membership Application (``CMA''). If Member Regulation determines
that a proposed change is material, it will instruct the broker-
dealer to file a CMA if it intends to proceed with the proposed
change. See Regulatory Notice 18-23 (Proposal Regarding the Rules
Governing the New and Continuing Membership Application Process)
(July 2018).
    \10\ See Notice at 20745.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule Change to the FINRA Rule 9200 Series (Disciplinary
Proceedings) and 9300 Series (Review of Disciplinary Proceeding by
National Adjudicatory Council and FINRA Board; Application for SEC
Review)

    FINRA proposed amendments to the Rule 9200 Series and Rule 9300
Series to address investor protection concerns during the pendency of
an appeal from, or a NAC review of, a hearing panel or hearing officer
disciplinary decision, by authorizing hearing officers to impose
conditions or restrictions on disciplined Respondents and requiring
broker-dealers to adopt heightened supervision plans concerning their
associated persons who are disciplined respondents.\11\ The proposed
rule change would also establish a process for an expedited review by
the Review Subcommittee of the NAC of any conditions or restrictions
imposed.\12\ Currently, when a hearing panel or hearing officer
decision is on appeal or review before the NAC, any sanctions imposed
by the decision, including bars and expulsions, are automatically
stayed and not enforced against the Respondent during the pendency of
the appeal or review proceeding.\13\ Thereafter, the filing of an
application for Commission review stays the effectiveness of any
sanction, other than a bar or an expulsion, imposed in a decision
constituting a final FINRA disciplinary action.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Notice at 20746.
    \12\ Id.
    \13\ See FINRA Rules 9311(b) and 9312(b).
    \14\ See FINRA Rule 9370(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 9285(a) would provide that the hearing officer who
participated in an underlying disciplinary proceeding may impose
conditions or restrictions on the activities of the Respondent during
the appeal of any adverse finding. Specifically, if the hearing officer
found that a Respondent violated a statute or rule provision, which is
subsequently appealed to the NAC or called for NAC review, the hearing
officer may impose conditions or restrictions reasonably necessary for
the purpose of preventing customer harm.\15\ The scope of these
conditions or

restrictions would depend on what the hearing officer determines to be
reasonably necessary for the purpose of preventing customer harm.
Further, the conditions and restrictions would target the misconduct
demonstrated in the disciplinary proceeding and be tailored to the
specific risks posed by the Respondents during the appeal period.\16\
Accordingly, the conditions and restrictions are not intended to be as
restrictive as the underlying sanctions and would likely not be
economically equivalent to imposing the sanctions during the
appeal.\17\ In addition, Respondents would be able to seek expedited
reviews of orders imposing conditions or restrictions.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Notice at 20747. Under the proposed rule, the hearing
officer could not impose these conditions or restrictions sua sponte
but rather may only act on a motion by FINRA's Department of
Enforcement (``Enforcement''). Proposed Rule 9285(a)(1) would allow
Enforcement, within ten days after service of a notice of appeal
from, or the notice of a call for NAC review of, a disciplinary
decision of a hearing officer or hearing panel, to file a motion for
the imposition of conditions or restrictions on the activities of a
Respondent that are reasonably necessary for the purpose of
preventing customer harm. The motion must specify the conditions and
restrictions that are sought to be imposed and explain why they are
necessary. A Respondent would have the right to file an opposition
or other response to the motion within ten days after service of the
motion, unless otherwise ordered by the hearing officer, and must
explain why no conditions or restrictions should be imposed or
specify alternative conditions and restrictions that would prevent
customer harm. The hearing officer would then decide Enforcement's
motion for conditions or restrictions based on the moving and
opposition papers. See Proposed Rule 9285(a)(2)-(5) and (c); see
also Notice at 20747.
    \16\ See Notice at 20747.
    \17\ See Notice at 20756.
    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, any sanctions imposed by the hearing panel or hearing
officer decision, including bars and expulsions, are automatically
stayed and not enforced against the Respondent during the pendency of
the NAC appeal or review proceeding.\19\ Under the proposed rule
change, the conditions or restrictions imposed by a hearing officer
would remain in place until FINRA's final decision takes effect and all
appeals are exhausted.\20\ In addition, proposed FINRA Rule 9285(e)
would require a member broker-dealer to adopt a written plan of
heightened supervision for an associated person who is found to have
violated a statute or rule provision. The plan of heightened
supervision would be required to comply with FINRA Rule 3110, be
reasonably designed and tailored to include specific supervisory
policies and procedures that address the violations found by the
hearing panel or hearing officer, and be reasonably designed to prevent
or detect a reoccurrence of these violations.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See FINRA Rules 9311(b) and 9312(b); see also Notice at
20747. See also FINRA Rule 9370(a), which states that the filing of
an application for review by the SEC of the NAC's decision shall
stay the effectiveness of any sanction, other than a bar or
expulsion imposed in a final disciplinary action by FINRA.
    \20\ See Notice at 20748. The proposed rule change would also
amend Rule 9556 to grant FINRA the authority to bring an expedited
proceeding against a Respondent that fails to comply with conditions
and restrictions imposed pursuant to proposed Rule 9285 that could
result in a suspension or cancellation of membership or suspension
or bar from associating with any FINRA member. See Notice at 20749.
    \21\ See Notice at 20748.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule Change to the FINRA Rule 9520 Series (Eligibility
Proceedings)

    A broker-dealer is not currently required to place a statutorily
disqualified individual on heightened supervision while FINRA reviews
the member broker-dealer's application to continue associating with the
individual (although FINRA generally will not approve an application
without an acceptable plan of supervision).\22\ Under the proposed rule
change, FINRA would amend FINRA Rule 9522 to require a member broker-
dealer that files an application to continue associating with a
statutorily disqualified associated person under FINRA Rule 9522(a)(3)
or 9522(b)(1)(B) to include an interim plan of heightened supervision
that would be in effect throughout the entirety of the application
review process.\23\ The proposed rule changes would delineate the
circumstances under which a statutorily disqualified individual may
remain associated with a FINRA member while FINRA is reviewing the
application.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Notice at 20750.
    \23\ See Notice at 20749.
    \24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule Change to FINRA Rule 8312 (FINRA BrokerCheck Disclosure)

    FINRA proposed an amendment to FINRA Rule 8312 governing the
information FINRA releases to the public through its BrokerCheck
system. Currently, FINRA Rule 8312(b) requires that FINRA release
information about, among other things, whether a particular member
broker-dealer is subject to the provisions of FINRA Rule 3170 (``Taping
Rule''), but only in response to telephonic inquiries via the
BrokerCheck toll-free telephone listing.\25\ The Taping Rule is
designed to ensure that a member broker-dealer with a significant
number of registered persons that previously were employed by
``disciplined firms'' \26\ has specified supervisory procedures in
place to prevent fraudulent and improper sales practices or customer
harm, including, among other things, procedures for recording all
telephone conversations between the taping firm's registered persons
and both existing and potential customers.\27\ Proposed Rule 8312(b)
would not eliminate the toll-free telephone listing but rather would
also require FINRA to release through BrokerCheck information as to
whether a particular member broker-dealer is subject to the Taping
Rule.\28\ The proposed rule change would remove the requirement in
FINRA Rule 8312(b) that FINRA inform the public that a member broker-
dealer is subject to the Taping Rule only in response to telephonic
inquiry via the BrokerCheck toll-free telephone listing.\29\ FINRA
believes that broadening the disclosure through BrokerCheck of the
status of a member broker-dealer as a taping firm would help inform
more investors of the heightened procedures required of the firm, which
may incentivize investors to research more carefully the background of
a registered representative associated with the taping firm.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See FINRA Rule 8312(b). Under the Taping Rule, a broker-
dealer with a specified percentage of registered persons who have
been associated with disciplined firms in a registered capacity in
the last three years is designated as a ``taping firm.'' See FINRA
Rule 3170.
    \26\ See FINRA Rule 3170(a)(2) (defining the term ``disciplined
firm'').
    \27\ See Notice at 20751.
    \28\ FINRA Rule 8312 (FINRA BrokerCheck Disclosure) governs the
information FINRA releases to the public through its BrokerCheck
system (the BrokerCheck website address is brokercheck.finra.org).
BrokerCheck helps investors make informed choices about the brokers
and member firms with which they conduct business by providing
registration and disciplinary history to investors. FINRA requires
member firms to inform their customers of the availability of
BrokerCheck. Specifically, FINRA Rule 2210(d)(8) requires that each
of a member's websites include a readily apparent reference and
hyperlink to BrokerCheck on the initial web page that the member
intends to be viewed by retail investors and any other web page that
includes a professional profile of one or more registered persons
who conduct business with retail investors; and FINRA Rule 2267
requires members to provide to customers the FINRA BrokerCheck
Hotline Number and a statement as to the availability to the
customer of an investor brochure that includes information
describing BrokerCheck. See Notice at 20751.
    \29\ Id.
    \30\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule Change to FINRA Rule 1000 Series (Member Application and
Associated Person Registration)

    The FINRA Rule 1000 Series governs, among other things, FINRA's
membership proceedings. Currently, a member broker-dealer is permitted
(subject to exceptions) to expand its business under the safe harbor
set forth in FINRA interpretive material IM-1011-1 without the filing
and prior approval of a CMA.\31\ For example, under the existing
parameters of this safe harbor, a broker-dealer could hire an
associated person even if he or she has a significant history of
misconduct.\32\ The proposed rule change would limit the application of
the safe harbor by imposing additional obligations on a member broker-
dealer when a natural person who has, in the prior five years, either
one or more ``final criminal matters'' or two or more ``specified risk
events'' seeks to become

an owner, control person, principal, or registered person of the
broker-dealer.\33\ Specifically, when a natural person seeking to
become an owner, control person, principal, or registered person of a
member broker-dealer has, in the prior five years, one or more ``final
criminal matters'' or two or more ``specified risk events,'' proposed
Rule 1017(a)(7) would require a member broker-dealer to either: (1)
File a CMA; or (2) submit a written request seeking a materiality
consultation for the contemplated activity with FINRA's MAP Group.\34\
If the broker-dealer seeks a materiality consultation, the MAP Group
would consider, among other things, whether the ``final criminal
matters'' or ``specified risk events'' are customer-related; whether
they represent discrete actions or are based on the same underlying
conduct; the anticipated activities of the person; the disciplinary
history, experience and background of the proposed supervisors, if
applicable; and the disciplinary history, supervisory practices,
standards, systems and internal controls of the member broker-dealer
and whether they are reasonably designed to achieve compliance with
applicable securities laws and regulations and FINRA rules.\35\ Where
FINRA determines that a contemplated organizational change is material,
FINRA would instruct the broker-dealer to file a CMA if it intends to
proceed with such change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Notice at 20752.
    \32\ Id.
    \33\ Id. The proposed rule change would also adopt definitions
of ``final criminal matter'' and ``specified risk event'' to help
identify when a member broker-dealer must submit a materiality
consultation or continuing membership application when a natural
person seeks to become an owner, control person, principal, or
registered person of the firm and the person's history of misconduct
meets one or more of these definitions. Amendment No. 1 amended
proposed FINRA Rule 1011(h) to include in the definition of ``final
criminal matter'' a relevant criminal event that ``is or was''
required to be disclosed on a Uniform Registration Form, and to make
some grammar- and syntax-related modifications. The amendment
clarified that both ``final criminal matter'' and ``specified risk
event'' include disclosures that are required if the member broker-
dealer and natural person proceed with the contemplated change,
including disclosures that are required on Uniform Registration
Forms that have not yet been executed. For example, Sections 14A and
14B of Form U4 (defined below) require representatives of broker-
dealers to disclose, among other things, if they have ever been
convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere (``no contest'') in a
domestic, foreign or military court to (1) any felony, or (2) a
misdemeanor involving: investments or an investment-related business
or any fraud, false statements or omissions, wrongful taking of
property, bribery, perjury, forgery, counterfeiting, extortion, or a
conspiracy to commit any of these offenses. Proposed Rule 1011(r)
would define ``Uniform Registration Forms'' to mean the Uniform
Application for Broker-Dealer Registration (Form BD), the Uniform
Application for Securities Industry Registration or Transfer (Form
U4), the Uniform Termination Notice for Securities Industry
Registration (Form U5) and the Uniform Disciplinary Action Reporting
Form (Form U6), as such may be amended or any successor(s) thereto.
    \34\ See Notice at 20752 and 20753. This requirement would not
apply when the member is required to file a statutory
disqualification application or written request for relief pursuant
to Rule 9522 for approval of the same contemplated association. Id.
at 20753 and note 51.
    \35\ See Notice at 20753.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the proposed rule change would adopt a corresponding
change to IM-1011-1 (Business Expansions and Persons with Specified
Risk Events) to specify that the safe-harbor for business expansions in
IM-1011-1 would not be available to any broker-dealer seeking to add a
natural person who: (i) Has, in the prior five years, one or more
``final criminal matters'' or two or more ``specified risk events'' and
(ii) seeks to become an owner, control person, principal, or registered
person of the member.\36\ In those circumstances, proposed IM-1011-3
would provide that if the broker-dealer is not otherwise required to
file a CMA, it must comply with the requirements of proposed FINRA Rule
1017(a)(7).\37\ Proposed Rule 1017(a)(7) would establish that the safe-
harbor for business expansions in IM-1011-1 would not be available to a
member broker-dealer when a materiality consultation is required.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Id.
    \37\ See Notice at 20753. Proposed Rule 1017(a)(7) would require
the broker-dealer to submit a written request seeking a materiality
consultation for the contemplated activity so that FINRA's MAP Group
can determine whether a CMA is required. In a teleconference between
Michael Garawski, Associate General Counsel, Office of General
Counsel, FINRA, Kosha Dalal, Vice President and Associate General
Counsel, Legal Policy, Office of General Counsel, FINRA, Lourdes
Gonzalez, Assistant Chief Counsel, Division of Trading and Markets,
Commission, Daniel Fisher, Branch Chief, Division of Trading and
Markets, Commission, Edward Schellhorn, Special Counsel, Division of
Trading and Markets, Commission, and Meredith MacVicar, Special
Counsel, Division of Trading and Markets, Commission, on December 3,
2020, FINRA staff stated that of the 388 materiality consultations
received in 2019, the average processing time was approximately 15
calendar days. FINRA completed the review of 336 CMAs that were
received in 2019 and the average processing time was approximately
97 calendar days.
    \38\ See Notice at 20753.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would also make non-substantive changes to
the MAP rules by renumbering paragraphs and updating cross-references
to reflect the other proposed rule changes.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review of the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, the comment letters, and FINRA's responses to the
comments, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the requirements of the
Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are
applicable to a national securities association.\39\ Specifically, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, is consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Exchange
Act,\40\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ In approving this rule change, the Commission has
considered the rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \40\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 9200 Series (Disciplinary Proceedings) and 9300 Series (Review of
Disciplinary Proceeding by National Adjudicatory Council and FINRA
Board; Application for SEC Review)

    The proposed rule change to authorize hearing officers to impose
conditions or restrictions on disciplined Respondents reasonably
necessary for the purpose of preventing customer harm, and to require
broker-dealers to adopt heightened supervision plans concerning
individual respondents, will help protect investors from associated
persons found to have violated a statute or rule provision, by
potentially preventing them from engaging in additional misconduct
during the appeal process. These proposed rule changes are designed to
help prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices and address
concerns related to misconduct that may occur during the pendency of an
appeal from, or a NAC review of, a hearing panel or hearing officer
disciplinary decision.\41\ The Commission believes the ability to
impose conditions or restrictions along with the proposed requirement
to adopt a plan of heightened supervision will lead to greater
oversight of disciplined Respondents' activities during the appeal
period, thereby reducing the

potential risk of customer harm that may occur during this period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ In a teleconference between Michael Garawski, Associate
General Counsel, Office of General Counsel, FINRA, Kosha Dalal, Vice
President and Associate General Counsel, Legal Policy, Office of
General Counsel, FINRA, Lourdes Gonzalez, Assistant Chief Counsel,
Division of Trading and Markets, Commission, Daniel Fisher, Branch
Chief, Division of Trading and Markets, Commission, Edward
Schellhorn, Special Counsel, Division of Trading and Markets,
Commission, and Meredith MacVicar, Special Counsel, Division of
Trading and Markets, Commission, on December 1, 2020 (``December 1,
2020 Teleconference''), FINRA stated that during 2013-2019 the NAC
issued decisions in 131 disciplinary matters. The NAC affirmed the
hearing panel or hearing officer findings 121 times (92%), modified
the findings 6 times (5%), and reversed or dismissed the findings 4
times (3%).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two commenters supported the proposed rule change.\42\ Two other
commenters, however, expressed concern that these proposed rule changes
to the Rule 9200 Series and 9300 Series do not adequately ensure due
process and one specifically recommended FINRA take additional steps to
``ensure due process, both in appearance and actual.'' \43\ In
response, FINRA detailed the procedural protections proposed Rule 9285
would establish. Specifically, prior to imposing any conditions or
restrictions the proposed rule change would: (i) Require Enforcement to
file a motion with a hearing officer, seeking the imposition of
conditions or restrictions that are reasonably necessary for the
purpose of preventing customer harm, specifying the conditions and
restrictions that are sought to be imposed, and explaining why they are
necessary; (ii) provide the Respondent an opportunity to file a written
opposition or other response to the motion; (iii) require the hearing
officer to issue a written order ruling upon the motion no later than
20 days after any opposition or response is filed; and (iv) afford a
Respondent the right to seek expedited review \44\ before the NAC's
Review Subcommittee of an order that imposes conditions or
restrictions, and an automatic stay when a Respondent requests such an
expedited review.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See letter from William A. Jacobson, Esq., Clinical
Professor of Law, Cornell Law School, and Director, Securities Law
Clinic, and Ayomikun Loye, Student, Cornell Law School, to Vanessa
Countryman, Secretary, Commission, dated May 5, 2020; letter from
Samuel B. Edwards, President, Public Investors Advocate Bar
Association, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated May 5,
2020.
    \43\ See letter from Professor Lisa Miller, Esq., dated April
30, 2020; see also letter from Aaron D. Lebenta, Parsons Behle &
Latimore, to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Commission, dated August
3, 2020 (``Lebenta Letter'') (concerned that the proposed rule
change does not establish an effective appeal process to help ensure
FINRA's disciplinary decision is correct, and that the sanctions are
warranted, before they are imposed).
    \44\ Under proposed Rule 9285, an expedited review should take
no longer than 45 days from the date the hearing officer serves the
written order imposing conditions or restrictions on the Respondent.
Specifically, proposed Rule 9285(b)(1) states that the Respondent
may file a motion to modify or remove any or all of the conditions
or restrictions within ten (10) days after service of the order,
proposed Rule 9285(b)(3) would provide Enforcement up to five (5)
days from service of Respondent's motion to file an opposition or
other response to the motion, and proposed Rule 9285(b)(5) would
provide the Review Subcommittee up to thirty (30) days after any
opposition filed pursuant to Rule 9285(b)(3) to serve a written
order ruling upon a motion to modify or remove conditions or
restrictions in an expeditious manner.
    \45\ See FINRA July 2 Letter and FINRA October 7 Letter; see
also Notice at 20746.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated above, currently any sanctions imposed by the hearing
panel or hearing officer decision, including bars and expulsions, are
automatically stayed and not enforced against the respondent during the
pendency of the NAC appeal or review proceeding.\46\ One of the
commenters urging FINRA to ensure due process stated that the proposed
rule change should not ``be stripped away'' by changing the existing
stay and giving a hearing officer authority to impose conditions and
restrictions on the Respondent during the process of appealing a
hearing officer's decision. Accordingly, the commenter expressed
concern that the imposition of such conditions or restrictions could
ruin a broker-dealer's business before the expedited review process has
concluded, especially a smaller broker-dealer with fewer alternatives
to withstand extended impediments to one of its business lines.\47\
Another commenter,\48\ however, expressed support for the proposed rule
change and advocated for FINRA to go further by eliminating the
existing stay of decisions by the hearing officer or hearing panel in
disciplinary matters pursuant to Rule 9268 \49\ or Rule 9269,\50\ in
which the adjudicator finds that a Respondent violated a statute or
rule provision, during an appeal to the NAC by repealing FINRA Rule
9311.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See FINRA Rules 9311(b) and 9312(b).
    \47\ See Lebenta Letter (stating that a hearing officer
restricting a broker-dealer from engaging in the same activity which
is the subject of the initial sanction during its appeal of that
sanction would essentially impose the original sanction while the
matter is on appeal).
    \48\ See letter from Lev Bagramian, Senior Securities Policy
Advisor, Better Markets, Inc. to Vanessa A. Countryman, Secretary,
Commission, dated June 19, 2020 (``Better Markets Letter'').
    \49\ FINRA Rule 9268(f) states that unless otherwise provided in
the majority decision constituting a final disciplinary action of
FINRA issued under Rule 9268(a), a sanction (other than a bar or an
expulsion) specified in the decision shall become effective on a
date to be determined by FINRA, and a bar or an expulsion specified
in a decision shall become effective immediately upon the decision
becoming the final disciplinary action of FINRA.
    \50\ FINRA Rule 9269(d) states that unless otherwise provided in
the default decision constituting a final disciplinary action of
FINRA, the sanctions shall become effective on a date to be
determined by FINRA staff, except that a bar or expulsion shall
become effective immediately upon the default decision.
    \51\ FINRA Rule 9311(b) states that an appeal to the NAC from a
decision issued pursuant to Rule 9268 or Rule 9269 shall operate as
a stay of that decision until the NAC issues a decision pursuant to
Rule 9349 (National Adjudicatory Council Formal Consideration;
Decision) or, in cases called for discretionary review by the FINRA
Board, until a decision is issued pursuant to Rule 9351
(Discretionary Review by FINRA Board). Any such appeal, however,
will not stay a decision, or that part of a decision, that imposes a
permanent cease and desist order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA considered both suggestions and decided not to amend the
proposed rule change. Specifically, FINRA believes that enforcing the
hearing panel's disciplinary sanctions against the Respondents during
the pendency of the appeal or review proceedings could be too
restrictive in disciplinary matters with significant sanctions and
where the risk of harm may be specific to particular activities.\52\ On
the other hand, FINRA stated that the proposed rule change would
authorize a hearing officer to impose conditions and restrictions that
are tailored specifically to the risk posed by the Respondent during
the pendency of the appeals, and reasonably necessary for the purpose
of preventing customer harm that may occur during the pendency of the
appeal. Accordingly, FINRA determined that the proposed rule change
would strike a reasonable balance between protecting investors and
preventing undue burden on individuals and firms while their appeals
are pending.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See Notice at 20760.
    \53\ See Notice at 20760.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A system designed to protect investors and the public interest will
generally produce both costs and benefits. In this instance, FINRA's
proposed rule change should reduce the probability of investor losses
resulting from the violation of statutes or rules. At the same time, a
decision to impose conditions or restrictions may disrupt the business
opportunities of certain broker-dealers and individuals. In order to
assess the potential risk posed by brokers during the appeal period,
FINRA examined cases that were appealed to the NAC during the period of
2013-2016 and determined whether the brokers associated with an appeal
to the NAC had a new disclosure event--for this analysis, a ``final
criminal matter'' or a ``specified risk event,'' as defined above--at
any time from the filing of the appeal through the year-end after the
year in which the appeal reached a decision. Based on this analysis,
FINRA estimated that 21 of the 75 brokers who appealed to the NAC
during the 2013-2016 period were associated with a total of 28
disclosure events that occurred during the interstitial period after
the filing of their appeal to the NAC.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ See Notice at 20756. FINRA notes that these estimates
likely underrepresent the overall risk of customer harm posed by
these brokers, because they are based on a specific set of events
and outcomes used for classifying brokers for the proposed
amendments to the MAP Rules. In addition, these brokers had other
disclosure events after their appeal was filed, and some of these
other events may also be associated with risk of customer harm. See
Notice at note 75.

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

    After considering these benefits and costs, the Commission believes
that the proposed procedural protections provide a reasonable process
to Respondents who may disagree with the particular set of conditions
or restrictions imposed by a hearing officer to challenge those
conditions or restrictions before they go into effect by, among other
things, establishing an expedited process for the review of a hearing
officer's order by the Review Subcommittee of the NAC. During a hearing
officer's review, he or she may consider the specific facts and
circumstances when weighing the additional risk(s) posed by the
Respondent while the matter is on appeal against the costs of possible
restrictions and sanctions. The Commission believes this potential
disruption of the business opportunities of certain broker-dealers and
individuals has been appropriately balanced against the investor
protections the proposed rule change would establish, as well as the
need to prevent potential customer harm from Respondents who have been
found in violation of FINRA rules by a hearing officer or hearing
panel.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ The Commission notes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the adopted rules of other SROs, including: BOX Rule
12110 (``Pending effectiveness of a decision imposing a sanction on
the Respondent, the person, committee or panel issuing the decision
(the `adjudicator') may impose such conditions and restrictions on
the activities of the Respondent as it considers reasonably
necessary for the protection of investors and the Exchange''); CBOE
Rule 13.11(b) (``Pending effectiveness of a decision imposing a
sanction on the Respondent, the Hearing Panel or the Chief
Regulatory Officer (``CRO''), as applicable, may impose such
conditions and restrictions on the activities of the Respondent as
the Hearing Panel or the CRO, as applicable, considers reasonably
necessary for the protection of investors and the Exchange''); and
CBOE BZX Rule 8.11 (``Pending effectiveness of a decision imposing a
penalty on the Respondent, the CRO, Hearing Panel or committee of
the Board, as applicable, may impose such conditions and
restrictions on the activities of the Respondent as he, she or it
considers reasonably necessary for the protection of investors,
creditors and the Exchange.''). See Notice at note 112.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 9520 (Eligibility Proceedings)

    The proposed rule change to require broker-dealers to include a
plan of heightened supervision with an application to continue
associating with a statutorily disqualified individual that would be in
effect throughout the entirety of the application review process also
would address an investor protection concern by lowering the risk of
customer harm during the pendency of an application. One commenter
opposed this proposed rule change, arguing that establishing plans of
heightened supervision are costly and burdensome and would discourage
broker-dealers from hiring associated persons who have been
disciplined.\56\ However, FINRA is not creating an additional burden
with respect to the requirement to create a plan of heightened
supervision; it is only requiring a member broker-dealer implement such
plan at an earlier point in time than under the existing rules.
Currently, as part of the application process, a member broker-dealer
will propose a written plan of heightened supervision to become
effective upon approval of the application, and generally, the
continued association of a statutorily disqualified person approved
through a FINRA eligibility proceeding is conditioned on the individual
being subject to a heightened supervision plan.\57\ This proposed rule
change would help limit the potential for customer harm at an earlier
point in time and thereby help protect customers. In order to assess
the potential risk posed by a statutorily disqualified person during
the pendency of his or her application, FINRA examined whether
individuals who filed an application between 2013-2016 had a disclosure
event at any time from the filing of the application through two years
after filing. Based on this analysis, FINRA estimated that 26 (or 51
percent) of the 51 individuals associated with an applications during
the 2013-2016 period had a total of 41 disclosure events during the
interstitial period after the filing of their application.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ See Lebenta Letter. This commenter also recommended FINRA
streamline the statutory disqualification review process to produce
faster results, noting that imposing heightened supervisory
procedures would be unduly costly and burdensome if the statutorily
disqualified associated person's proposed association with a member
broker-dealer is denied. See Lebenta Letter. The Commission must
consider the proposed rule change that was filed and FINRA's process
for reviewing applications for statutorily disqualified associated
persons to associate with a member broker-dealer is beyond the scope
of this filing.
    \57\ See FINRA Regulatory Notice 18-23 and Notice at 20750.
    \58\ See Notice at 20757. FINRA notes that these results likely
underrepresent the overall risk of customer harm, because the
disclosure events in this analysis included only final criminal
matters and specified risk events. See Notice at note 84.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated above, although the Commission recognizes the potential
burden imposed by requiring the supervision plan to become effective at
an earlier stage of this process, it believes that the benefits of
added oversight of disqualified individuals subject to the pending
application process justifies the earlier timeframe. Accordingly, while
the proposed rule change may negatively impact the ability of certain
individuals to retain or find employment, it is a reasonable approach
for seeking to achieve greater oversight by sponsoring broker-dealers
of the activities of statutorily disqualified individuals during the
pendency of an application. The Commission believes that applying
heightened supervision specifically tailored in response to the
misconduct giving rise to the statutory disqualification at an earlier
stage in the process will facilitate a broker-dealer's supervision of
statutorily disqualified individuals and better protect its customers
from future harm.

Rule 8312 (FINRA BrokerCheck Disclosure)

    The proposed rule change adding disclosure in BrokerCheck of member
broker-dealers that are subject to the Taping Rule would help inform
more investors when certain broker-dealers are subject to certain
heightened procedures.\59\ One commenter stressed that this disclosure
may not be sufficient to ensure investors understand what it means to
be designated a ``taping firm'' and suggested that FINRA amend the
proposed rule change to require the BrokerCheck profiles of individual
registered representatives to denote when they are associated with
taping firms. FINRA did not accept this comment because it would be a
substantive amendment to what is otherwise a proposed technical
change.\60\ FINRA also expressed concern that the commenter's
suggestion to include a disclosure on the BrokerCheck profile of
individuals would capture registered representatives of a taping firm
with clean disciplinary histories.\61\ The commenter also recommended
that any disclosure of a firm as a taping firm on BrokerCheck should
include ``clear and complete information, comprehensible to investors,
explaining what it means to be such a firm.'' \62\ FINRA agreed with
the view expressed that the BrokerCheck disclosure should include a
clear explanation of what it means to be subject to the Taping Rule to
help investors understand why the taping firm is subject to heightened
procedures.\63\ FINRA did not make a corresponding amendment to the
rule but the Commission understands that FINRA has committed to
including a

clear explanation on BrokerCheck about what being subject to the Taping
Rule means.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ Currently, investors can only learn about a broker-dealer's
status as a Taping Firm in response to telephonic inquiries via the
BrokerCheck toll-free telephone listing. See FINRA Rule 8312(b).
    \60\ December 1, 2020 Teleconference.
    \61\ Id.
    \62\ See Better Markets Letter.
    \63\ See Notice at 20765.
    \64\ In a teleconference between Michael Garawski, Associate
General Counsel, Office of General Counsel, FINRA, and Daniel
Fisher, Branch Chief, Division of Trading and Markets, Commission,
on October 5, 2020, FINRA confirmed with the Division of Trading and
Markets that between now and the effective date of the proposed rule
change it has committed to including a clear explanation on
BrokerCheck about what being subject to the Taping Rule means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that this proposed rule change would
improve the ease of obtaining this information for investors through a
preexisting database with which the public is already familiar.
Furthermore, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change
would incentivize investors to research more carefully the background
of a registered representative associated with a broker-dealer that is
designated as a taping firm, including those registered representatives
associated with the firm who are not subject to heightened supervision.

Rule 1000 Series (Member Application and Associated Person
Registration)

    The proposed rule change, requiring a member broker-dealer to seek
a materiality consultation when a natural person seeking to become an
owner, control person, principal, or registered person has a
significant history of misconduct, would give FINRA an opportunity to
assess whether the proposed association is material and warrants closer
regulatory scrutiny. Similarly, in situations where a proposed
association of a natural person with a significant history of
misconduct would require the broker-dealer to submit a CMA, FINRA would
be able to: (i) Assess whether the broker-dealer would continue to meet
all of the membership standards in FINRA Rule 1014 if the proposed
association were approved, and (ii) prevent the proposed association if
the broker-dealer does not demonstrate that it can continue to meet
those standards. This proposed rule change will further promote
investor protection by applying additional safeguards and disclosure
obligations for a broker-dealer's continuing membership with FINRA and
for changes to a current member broker-dealer's ownership, control, or
business operations. The heightened scrutiny by FINRA of registered
representatives, registered principals, owners, and control persons who
meet the proposed definitions and criteria would be beneficial in
promoting investor protection by disincentivizing broker-dealers from
engaging in higher-risk activity that could lead to additional
regulatory restrictions.\65\ For example, one commenter stated that
this proposed rule would create obstacles for broker-dealers seeking to
hire and onboard associated persons with a significant history of
misconduct,\66\ which may incentivize broker-dealers to reexamine their
hiring practices and certain associated persons to change their
behavior to avoid future misconduct.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ According to FINRA, the cost of this proposed rule change
would fall on the broker-dealers that seek to add owners, control
persons, principals, or registered persons who meet the proposed
criteria. These broker-dealers would be directly impacted through
the requirements to seek a materiality consultation with FINRA and,
potentially, to file a CMA. While there is no FINRA fee for seeking
a materiality consultation, broker-dealers may incur internal costs
or costs associated with engaging external experts in conjunction
with filing a CMA. In addition, the proposed rule change could
result in delays to a broker-dealer's ability to add owners, control
persons, principals or registered persons who meet the proposed
criteria, during the time the mandatory materiality consultation and
any required CMA is being processed. These anticipated costs may
deter some broker-dealers from hiring individuals meeting the
proposed criteria, who as a result may find it difficult to remain
in the industry. See Notice at 20758.
    \66\ See Better Markets Letter (stating that requiring
materiality consultations before hiring is an important regulatory
innovation); see also Notice at 20766.
    \67\ The proposed rule change would not prevent a firm from
hiring an associated person with a history of ``final criminal
matters'' or ``specified risk events.'' Instead, the proposed rule
change would establish a system of investor protections tailored to
the facts and circumstances for firms that do seek to hire such
associated persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two commenters raised several concerns about, and suggested
revisions to, the proposed rule changes to the Rule 1000 Series (Member
Application and Associated Person Registration).\68\ One of these
commenters questioned whether adding one person should constitute a
material change in business operations. Specifically, the commenter
disagreed that adding a new owner or control person is sufficient to
make a material impact in business operations unless that person is
involved in sales. Accordingly, the commenter recommended revising
proposed IM-1011-3 to exclude from the IM-1011-1 safe harbor only
broker-dealers increasing their business operations by adding
associated persons involved in sales.\69\ FINRA declined to amend the
proposed rule change as suggested because adding a natural person as an
owner, control person, principal, or registered person who has, in the
prior five years, one or more final criminal matters or two or more
specified risk events could constitute a material change in business
operations given the greater risk of harm to customers than the risk
stemming from other associated persons. FINRA reiterated that IM-1011-3
is designed to prevent broker-dealers from relying on the IM-1011-1
safe harbor to avoid a materiality consultation--and any CMA that is
subsequently required--when it seeks to add such persons.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ See letter from Andrew R. Harvin, Partner, Doyle, Restrepo,
Harvin & Robbins, LLP, to Jill M. Peterson, Assistant Secretary,
Commission, dated April 28, 2020 (``Harvin Letter''); see also
Lebenta Letter.
    \69\ See Harvin Letter.
    \70\ See FINRA July 2 Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission agrees with FINRA's assessment of what could
constitute a material change in business operations. Specifically, the
Commission believes that natural persons with a certain history of
misconduct holding authority to control a firm's business operations
may increase the risk of investor harm. Accordingly, limiting the
interpretation of materiality to persons involved in sales as suggested
by the commenter could weaken the effectiveness of the proposed rule
change to protect investors and incentivize improved behavior. The
Commission also notes that the materiality consultation process
required by proposed Rule 1017(a)(7) would be similar to FINRA's
existing materiality consultation process and would provide the member
broker-dealer an opportunity to be heard on whether the contemplated
change is material. Specifically, under proposed Rule 1017(a)(7), a
member broker-dealer would submit a written request seeking a
materiality consultation and addressing the issues that are central to
the materiality consultation; as part of the materiality consultation,
Member Regulation must consider the written request and other
information or documents provided by the member, including whether the
proposed association would materially impact the broker-dealer's
business operations. If Member Regulation determines that a CMA is
required, the CMA would be governed by the existing process set forth
in FINRA Rule 1017 and the Rule 1010 Series, including its appeal
rights. The Commission agrees with FINRA's assessment that these
procedures would be similar to FINRA's existing materiality
consultation process and would provide the member broker-dealer an
opportunity to be heard on whether the contemplated change is
material.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The other commenter, critical of the proposed changes to the Rule
1000 Series, believes that the proposed rule changes are overbroad and
that inclusion of settled matters as a

criterion is ``indefensible.'' \72\ FINRA considered this comment but
did not exclude settled matters from the list of determining factors.
Instead, FINRA chose not to include certain settled matters in the
proposed rule changes to the Rule 1000 Series in order to exclude
individuals who are less likely to subsequently pose risk of harm to
customers.\73\ Specifically, in order to focus its analysis on outcomes
that are more likely associated with material customer harm, FINRA
studied complaints that led to an award against a broker or settled
above a de minimis threshold ($15,000), which is the current CRD
settlement threshold for reporting customer complaints on Uniform
Registration Forms. FINRA found that a proposal based on events
disclosed on the Uniform Registration Forms, which are generally
available to firms and FINRA, was important to avoid confusion and
provide transparency about the events that will trigger the need for a
materiality consultation.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ See Lebenta Letter (stating that the inclusion of
settlements is indefensible by FINRA because respondents may choose
to settle for any number of reasons that do not reflect the
respondent's own liability). When Member Regulation evaluates
compliance with the Rule 1000 Series, it takes into consideration,
among other things, whether persons associated with an applicant are
the subject of disciplinary actions taken against them by industry
authorities, criminal actions, civil actions, arbitrations, customer
complaints, remedial actions, or other industry-related matters that
could pose a threat to public investors. Some of these matters are
considered whether they are adjudicated, settled or pending. See
Notice at 20752.
    \73\ See FINRA October 7 Letter.
    \74\ See FINRA Study at 9; see also Notice at 20761 and 20767.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission agrees that the proposed rule changes to the Rule
1000 Series are tailored sufficiently to achieving the goal of
protecting investors from the risks associated with associated persons
who have a significant history of misconduct. Specifically, the
Commission agrees that excluding some settled matters from these
thresholds is appropriate. For instance, recently settled matters are
likely more indicative of an associated person's future misconduct than
matters occurring over five years ago (absent any intervening
disciplinary or other regulatory events); and individuals with a
history of misconduct who have little or no control over a broker-
dealer's activities may pose less threat to the broker-dealer's
customers than individuals who can exercise some discretion when
performing their jobs. Accordingly, settlements beyond the five-year
lookback period and settlements by persons other than those seeking to
be an owner, control person, principal, or registered person may have
less relevance in achieving the goal of protecting investors from the
risks associated with associated persons who have a significant history
of misconduct.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This commenter also argued that FINRA's proposed definition of a
``specified risk event''--a key triggering factor for the proposed
enhanced membership application proceedings--is overbroad and would
lead to unnecessary costs, burdens and disruptions for broker-dealer
members.\76\ As proposed, the definition would include any ``final
investment-related, consumer initiated arbitration'' that results in an
award or a settlement ``at or above $15,000.'' The commenter believes
the use of arbitration awards and settlements with customers at such a
``low'' dollar threshold is over-inclusive and would not appropriately
describe a ``risk event'' that should require a CMA or the proposed
mandatory materiality consultation.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ See Lebenta Letter.
    \77\ Id. This commenter also argued that FINRA's inclusion of
customer-initiated arbitration settlements for $15,000 or more in
the statistics it used to measure the recent rate of disciplinary
events was overly broad and thus does not support the premise of the
proposed rule change that there is a pattern of increased risk to
customers. Similarly, the commenter believes that relying on past
violative conduct to predict future wrongdoing undermines the
principle of due process and is not supported by FINRA's data. But
see Better Markets Letter (opining that the proposed rule change
would reflect an improvement over the status quo but is still
insufficient, and that FINRA should do more to reduce the number of
brokers with a significant history of misconduct and the prevalence
of recidivism (e.g., banning registered representatives with two
criminal convictions or three ``specified risk events'' at a $5,000
level (instead of the proposed $15,000 level) and immediately and
permanently expelling a broker-dealer where more than 20% of its
registered representatives have three or more ``specified risk
events'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA disagrees with the commenter's assessment that the proposed
definition of ``specified risk event'' attempts to replace the analysis
conducted in a CMA with a bright-line rule that any customer
arbitration at or above the $15,000 threshold is defined as creating a
risk to investors.\78\ Under proposed Rule 1017(a)(7), only arbitration
awards or settlements meeting the specific parameters detailed in Rule
1017(a)(7) and IM-1011-3 would be considered for determining when a
materiality consultation would be required.\79\ Moreover, a single
award or settlement would not necessarily require a materiality
consultation. In fact, even if a person meets the Rule 1017(a)(7)
standard, it would not necessarily mean a CMA is required or, if it is,
that the broker-dealer could not satisfy FINRA's membership
standards.\80\ FINRA also stated that the dollar thresholds as proposed
are appropriate given that settlements at that level are more likely to
be associated with material customer harm \81\ and they are the same
thresholds as those used for determining appropriate disclosure events
in FINRA's Uniform Registration Forms.\82\ FINRA has noted that using
different thresholds may result in less transparency to the public,
registered persons, and broker-dealers.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ See FINRA October 7 Letter (citing the Lebenta Letter).
    \79\ See FINRA October 7 Letter (outlining the proposed
parameters including the lookback period, the number of disclosure
events required, and the types of roles sought).
    \80\ Id.
    \81\ Id.
    \82\ See supra note 33.
    \83\ See FINRA October 7 Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes FINRA made a reasonable argument for
including settlements of at least $15,000 in its study \84\ and that
its proposed definition of ``specified risk event'' furthers the goal
of protecting investors from high risk associated persons. In addition,
the Commission believes that the proposed criteria and definitions of
``final criminal matter'' and ``specified risk event'' would provide
transparency regarding how the proposed rules would be applied, as the
underlying events are based on disclosure events required to be
reported on the Uniform Registration Forms. Accordingly, broker-dealers
would be able to identify the specific set of disclosure events that
would count towards the proposed criteria and, using available data,
determine independently whether a proposed association with an
individual would require a materiality consultation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ See Hammad Qureshi & Jonathan Sokobin, Do Investors Have
Valuable Information About Brokers? (FINRA Office of the Chief
Economist Working Paper, Aug. 2015) (``FINRA Study''). The
Commission believes the FINRA Study dealt with a common issue in
empirical work, the tradeoff between an increase in statistical
power that results from a larger sample size and the inclusion of
data points that may not be of the most interest, and made a
reasonable empirical design decision. Accordingly, contrary to the
commenter's concern, the Commission believes that FINRA had a sound
basis upon which to base the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter also challenged FINRA's statistical justification for
the proposed rule change.\85\ In particular, the commenter questioned
whether the studies upon which FINRA relied adequately demonstrate that
past disciplinary and other regulatory events associated with a member
broker-dealer or individual can be predictive of similar future events,
such as repeated disciplinary actions, arbitrations, and

complaints.\86\ The commenter suggested, among other things, that
FINRA's reports used data (i.e., violative events) to measure the
likelihood of recidivist behavior that would not be the subject of a
disciplinary action under the proposed rule change. Accordingly, the
commenter did not believe FINRA's statistical evidence justified the
proposed rule change, including the additional costs and loss of rights
that would result from approving the proposed rule change.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ See Lebenta Letter.
    \86\ Id. (stating that in the FINRA Study, the rate of new
disclosure events by associated persons during the pendency of their
appeals is less than 30%).
    \87\ Id. (arguing that the FINRA Study continued its analysis
through the year-end after the year in which the appeal reached a
decision thus skewing its results).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, FINRA reiterated its concern about the potential risks
posed by broker-dealers that persistently employ associated persons who
engage in misconduct, as well as its findings that past disciplinary
and other regulatory events, such as repeated disciplinary actions,
arbitrations and complaints associated with a member broker-dealer or
individual can be predictive of similar future events.\88\ Moreover,
FINRA believes the estimated number of disclosure events associated
with persons who appeal disciplinary decisions reflects a specific
potential risk to investors.\89\ FINRA asserted that the proposed rule
change would adopt processes directly tailored to target this specific
misconduct and minimize further investor harm.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ See FINRA October 7 Letter; see also Notice at 20745-46,
20755 and note 5.
    \89\ See FINRA October 7 Letter; see also Notice at 20748.
    \90\ See FINRA October 7 Letter; see also Notice at 20750,
20754.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the commenter's challenge to FINRA's
statistical justification for the proposed rule change obfuscates the
point of the FINRA Study. In its study, FINRA uses a model that
predicts investor harm based on information publicly released in
BrokerCheck and non-public Central Registration Depository data and
found that 20% of the 181,133 brokers in their sample with the highest
ex ante predicted probability of investor harm are associated with more
than 55% of the investor harm events and more than 55% of total dollar
harm. Accordingly, FINRA concluded that the risk of future harm is
predictable.\91\ The Commission believes that the methodology used in
the FINRA Study had a sound statistical basis. The Commission
understands the commenter's point that the FINRA Study measured the
likelihood of recidivist behavior using data (i.e., violative acts)
that would not be captured under the proposed rule change; however, the
Commission believes FINRA shows its result is not sensitive to a
particular threshold value. In addition, while the Commission
understands the commenter's point that FINRA continues the analysis
through the year-end after the year in which the appeal reached a
decision, the FINRA Study states that the complaint system tracks the
date the complaint was filed but not the date of the actual occurrence
of investor harm. The study makes a conservative assumption that the
harm occurred the year before the filing so that when running a
regression to predict an occurrence of harm, FINRA would not be
predicting an event with data that was only available concurrently with
or subsequent to the event.\92\ Accordingly, the Commission believes
that the methodology FINRA used to conduct its study had a sound
statistical basis and that FINRA had a sound basis upon which to base
the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ See FINRA Study at 17. Additional academic research
suggests that a higher rate of new disciplinary and other disclosure
events is highly correlated with past disciplinary and other
disclosure events, as far back as nine years prior. See Notice at
note 5.
    \92\ See FINRA Study at 9-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In sum, for the above reasons, the Commission believes that the
proposed rule change would strengthen the tools available to FINRA in
responding to associated persons who have a significant history of
misconduct. In addition, the Commission believes that the proposed rule
change has sufficiently tailored the proposed processes to target the
specific misconduct it seeks to address, which would minimize the
potential costs to broker-dealers. Moreover, the proposed rules would
establish processes by which an associated person or broker-dealer
would have adequate opportunities to challenge the imposed conditions
and restrictions and seek further review.
    Accordingly, the Commission finds the proposed rule change would
result in greater investor protections by helping address the concerns
raised by associated persons with a significant history of misconduct
and the broker-dealers that employ them while narrowly tailoring the
review process to mitigate the potential burdens on those individuals
and broker-dealers.

IV. Conclusion

    It Is Therefore Ordered pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Exchange Act \93\ that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2020-011), as
modified by Amendment No. 1, be, and hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-27626 Filed 12-15-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 169 (Thursday, August 30, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52744-52745]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21398]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0001]

Food and Drug Administration/European Medicines Agency Orphan
Product Designation and Grant Workshop

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

    The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Office of Orphan Products
Development is announcing the following meeting: Food and Drug
Administration/European Medicines Agency Orphan Product Designation and
Grant Workshop. This 1-day workshop is intended to provide valuable
information about the FDA and European Medicines Agency (EMA) Orphan
Drug Designation programs, the FDA Humanitarian Use Device (HUD)
Designation program, the FDA Orphan Products Grant program, and the
European Union (EU) rare disease research programs to participants
representing pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and device companies, as
well as academics.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on October 12, 2012, 8:30
a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
    Attendance: Online registration for the workshop will be limited to
240 participants for the morning session, of which approximately 30
teams (up to 90 participants) may register for the one-on-one sessions.
There will be no registration fee for the workshop.
    Location: The meeting will be held at FDA White Oak Campus, 10903
New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 1503, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002.
Entrance for the public meeting participants (non-FDA employees) is
through Building 1 where routine security check procedures will be
performed. For parking and security information, please refer to http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WorkingatFDA/BuildingsandFacilities/WhiteOakCampusInformation/ucm241740.htm. For participants who cannot
attend the morning meetings, simultaneous live interactive Webcasts
will be made available. Participants may access the drug and biologics
webcast by visiting the following site: https://collaboration.fda.gov/orphan2012/. The medical devices webcast can be accessed by visiting:
https://collaboration.fda.gov/devices2012/.
    Contact: Erica K. McNeilly at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or J.
Lloyd Johnson at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Food and Drug
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 5279, Silver
Spring MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Registration: Interested participants may register for this meeting
at the following Web site: https://events-support.com/events/FDA-EMA_Workshop. If you need sign language interpretation during this meeting,
please contact Erica K. McNeilly at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by
September 28, 2012.
    The workshop will consist of two simultaneous morning sessions. The
first will provide an overview of the EMA and FDA Orphan Drug

Designation programs, while the second will provide an overview of the
FDA HUD Designation Program. Both morning sessions will also cover the
Orphan Products Grant Program and the EU rare disease research programs
as it relates to drugs and biologics, and devices, respectively. Both
of these morning sessions will also be available by webcast.
    The afternoon session will provide an opportunity for appropriately
registered on-site participants to have one-on-one meetings with FDA or
EMA staff members to discuss the specifics on how to apply for an
orphan product grant, EU rare disease research assistance program, a
HUD designation, or orphan drug designation. Participants requesting
one-on-one meetings will need to undergo a second registration process
with FDA, and are expected to bring information for at least one
candidate orphan drug or device that holds promise for the treatment of
a rare disease or condition in order to discuss the processes for
putting together an application. In addition, participants of the HUD
or orphan drug designation one-one-one sessions are highly encouraged
to come prepared with a working draft submission of their particular
promising therapy in order to maximize the utility of the one-on-one
meetings. The FDA/EMA Orphan Product Designation and Grant Workshop is
supported by the FDA and the EMA, and is being conducted in partnership
with the European Organisation for Rare Disease (EURODIS), Genetic
Alliance, and the National Organization for Rare Diseases (NORD).

    Dated: August 24, 2012.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-21398 Filed 8-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 74 (Thursday, April 17, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21748-21749]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08666]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. 13948-002; 13994-002]

Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County; Notice of
Applications Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Motions To Intervene and
Protests, Ready for Environmental Analysis, and Soliciting Comments,
Terms and Conditions, Recommendations, and Prescriptions

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: New Major Licenses
    b. Project Nos.: 13948-002 and 13994-002
    c. Date filed: August 1, 2013
    d. Applicant: Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County
(Snohomish PUD)
    e. Name of Projects: Calligan Creek Hydroelectric Project and
Hancock Creek Hydroelectric Project
    f. Location: The Calligan Creek Hydroelectric Project would be
located on Calligan Creek and the Hancock Creek Hydroelectric Project
would be located on Hancock Creek. Both are located in King County,
approximately 9 miles northeast of North Bend, Washington, and would
not occupy any federal lands.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r)
    h. Applicant Contact: Kim D. Moore, P.E., Assistant General Manager
of Generation, Water and Corporate Services; Public Utility District
No. 1 of Snohomish County, 2320 California Street, P.O. Box 1107,
Everett, WA 98206-1107;<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Kelly Wolcott;<PHONE_NUMBER>;
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests, comments,
terms and conditions, recommendations, and prescriptions: 60 days from
the issuance date of this notice; reply comments are due 105 days from
the issuance date of this notice.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
motions to intervene and protests, comments, terms and conditions,
recommendations, and prescriptions using the Commission's eFiling
system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or
(202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper
copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should
include docket numbers P-13948-002 and/or P-13994-002.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the

official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files
comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an
issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource
agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource
agency.
    k. This application has been accepted for filing and is now ready
for environmental analysis. Note: Based on review of the comments in
response to this notice, the Commission may issue a single EA.
Likewise, if a draft EA is issued and no substantive comments are
received on it, the Commission may decide that a final EA is not
necessary, in which case the draft EA will become the final EA.
    l. The Calligan Creek Hydroelectric Project would consist of the
following new facilities: (1) An approximately 127-foot-long diversion
structure traversing Calligan Creek consisting of: (a) A 45-foot-long,
8-foot-high spillway with a 22-inch-long, 7-inch-deep crest slot, (b) a
40-foot-long, 14-foot-high left wingwall, and (c) a 42-foot-long, 14-
foot-high right wingwall; (2) an approximately 85-foot-long rockfill
ramp located downstream of and adjacent to the spillway; (3) a 1.04-
acre-foot impoundment; (4) a 25-foot-wide, 14-foot-high, 53-foot-long
intake equipped with a trashrack, a 220-square-foot angled fish screen
with 0.125-inch-wide openings, and a sluice gate; (5) a 1.2-mile-long,
approximately 41- to 45-inch-diameter buried penstock; (6) a powerhouse
containing a single 6-megawatt (MW) two-jet horizontal-shaft Pelton
turbine/generator; (7) a 13-foot-wide, approximately 135-foot-long rip-
rap-lined tailrace channel with a 2-foot vertical drop and concrete
apron near its confluence with Calligan Creek; (8) two access roads
totaling approximately 700 feet long; (9) a 2.5-mile-long, 34.5-
kilovolt (kV) buried transmission line connecting to the existing Black
Creek Hydroelectric Project (P-6221) switching vault; and (10)
appurtenant facilities. The project is estimated to generate an average
of 20,700 megawatt-hours (MWh) annually.
    The Hancock Creek Hydroelectric Project would consist of the
following new facilities: (1) An approximately 130-foot-long diversion
structure traversing Hancock Creek, consisting of: (a) A 45-foot-long,
6-foot-high spillway with a 56-inch-long, 7-inch-deep crest slot, (b) a
36-foot-long, 12-foot-high left wingwall, and (c) a 49-foot-long, 12-
foot-high right wingwall; (2) an approximately 55-foot-long rockfill
ramp located downstream of and adjacent to the spillway; (3) a 0.65-
acre-foot impoundment; (4) a 25-foot-wide, 12-foot-high, 53-foot-long
intake with a trashrack, a 220-square-foot angled fish screen with
0.125-inch-wide openings, and a sluice gate; (5) a 1.5-mile-long,
approximately 39- to 44-inch-diameter buried penstock; (6) a powerhouse
containing a single 6-MW two-jet horizontal-shaft Pelton turbine/
generator; (7) a 13-foot-wide, approximately 150-foot-long rip-rap-
lined tailrace channel with a 2-foot vertical drop and concrete apron
near its confluence with Hancock Creek; (8) two existing logging roads
totaling 1,210 feet long; (9) three new access roads totaling 1,220
feet long; (10) a 0.3-mile-long, 34.5-kV buried transmission line
connecting to the existing Black Creek Hydroelectric Project (P-6221)
switching vault; and (11) appurtenant facilities. The project is
estimated to generate an average of 22,100 MWh annually.
    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item h above.
    Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    n. Any qualified applicant desiring to file a competing application
must submit to the Commission, on or before the specified intervention
deadline date, a competing development application, or a notice of
intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely notice of
intent allows an interested person to file the competing development
application no later than 120 days after the specified intervention
deadline date. Applications for preliminary permits will not be
accepted in response to this notice.
    A notice of intent must specify the exact name, business address,
and telephone number of the prospective applicant, and must include an
unequivocal statement of intent to submit a development application. A
notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s) named in this
public notice.
    Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in
accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18
CFR 385.210, .211, and .214. In determining the appropriate action to
take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments
filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with
the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any
comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or
before the specified comment date for the particular application.
    All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title
``PROTEST'', ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', ``NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE
COMPETING APPLICATION,'' ``COMPETING APPLICATION,'' ``COMMENTS,''
``REPLY COMMENTS,'' ``RECOMMENDATIONS,'' ``TERMS AND CONDITIONS,'' or
``PRESCRIPTIONS;'' (2) set forth in the heading the name of the
applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing
responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the
person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments,
recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must set forth
their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of
18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly
from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must
be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the
particular application. A copy of all other filings in reference to
this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons
listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this
proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR4.34(b) and 385.2010.
    o. A license applicant must file no later than 60 days following
the date of issuance of this notice: (1) A copy of the water quality
certification; (2) a copy of the request for certification, including
proof of the date on which the certifying agency received the request;
or (3) evidence of waiver of water quality certification.

    Dated: April 10, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-08666 Filed 4-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 100 (Friday, May 23, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 29758]
[FR Doc No: 2014-11937]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP14-862-000.
    Applicants: Southeast Supply Header, LLC.
    Description: Negotiated Rate Cleanup to be effective 6/13/2014.
    Filed Date: 5/12/14.
    Accession Number: 20140512-5068.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/27/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-864-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Order to Show Cause Compliance Filing to be effective
5/20/2014.
    Filed Date: 5/12/14.
    Accession Number: 20140512-5085.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/27/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-865-000.
    Applicants: Hardy Storage Company, LLC.
    Description: Order to Show Cause Compliance Filing to be effective
5/20/2014.
    Filed Date: 5/12/14.
    Accession Number: 20140512-5087.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/27/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-866-000.
    Applicants: Crossroads Pipeline Company.
    Description: Order to Show Cause Compliance Filing to be effective
5/20/2014.
    Filed Date: 5/12/14.
    Accession Number: 20140512-5088.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/27/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-867-000.
    Applicants: Central Kentucky Transmission Company.
    Description: Order to Show Cause Compliance Filing to be effective
5/20/2014.
    Filed Date: 5/12/14.
    Accession Number: 20140512-5089.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/27/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-868-000.
    Applicants: Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.
    Description: Show Cause Order Compliance Filing--Posting of Offers
to Purchase Capacity to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 5/12/14.
    Accession Number: 20140512-5228.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/27/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-872-000.
    Applicants: Granite State Gas Transmission, Inc.
    Description: Change to General Terms and Conditions--Capacity
Release to be effective 7/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 5/14/14.
    Accession Number: 20140514-5019.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/27/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-873-000.
    Applicants: Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, LP.
    Description: Order to Show Clause Compliance Filing to be effective
7/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 5/14/14.
    Accession Number: 20140514-5034.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/27/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-874-000.
    Applicants: Trunkline Gas Company, LLC.
    Description: Order to Show Cause Compliance Filing to be effective
7/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 5/14/14.
    Accession Number: 20140514-5035.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/27/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-875-000.
    Applicants: Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC.
    Description: Order to Show Clause Compliance Filing to be effective
7/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 5/14/14.
    Accession Number: 20140514-5036.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/27/14.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP14-772-001.
    Applicants: Millennium Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Negotiated Rate Svc Agmts--SW Amendment to be
effective 5/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 5/13/14.
    Accession Number: 20140513-5145.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/27/14.
    Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: Wednesday, May 14, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-11937 Filed 5-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P