[Federal Register: May 20, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 96)]
[Notices]
[Page 23750-23759]
[DOCID:fr20my09-94]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59916; File No. SR-FINRA-2009-008]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change as Modified by
Amendment No. 1 and Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated
Approval to Filing as Amended by Amendment No. 2 Relating to Changes to
Forms U4, U5, and FINRA Rule 8312

May 13, 2009.

I. Introduction

    On March 6, 2009, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and

Exchange Commission (``Commission'' or ``SEC''), pursuant to Section
19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule
19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend the Uniform
Application for Securities Industry Registration or Transfer (``Form
U4'') and the Uniform Termination Notice for Securities Industry
Registration (``Form U5'') as well as FINRA Rule 8312 (FINRA
BrokerCheck Disclosure).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change was published in the Federal Register on
March 27, 2009.\3\ The Commission received 1654 comment letters on the
proposed rule change.\4\ FINRA responded to the comments on May 6,
2009.\5\ FINRA filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change on May
6, 2009.\6\ On May 11, 2009, FINRA filed Amendment No. 2 to the
proposed rule change.\7\ This order approves the proposed rule change,
as modified by Amendment No. 1 and issues notice of, and solicits
comments on, Amendment No. 2, and approves the filing, as modified by
Amendment No. 2, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59616 (March 20,
2009), 74 FR 13491 (``Notice'').
    \4\ Approximately 1,451 comment letters were form comment
letters. Of these, 770 utilized ``Letter Type A'' (from financial
advisors expressing their desire to have an opportunity to respond
to unadjudicated allegations before they are reported to CRD and
thus opposing the aspect of the proposal which would require
reporting of allegations of sales practice violations in
arbitrations or civil lawsuits in which the registered person is not
a named party). Six hundred eighty one utilized ``Letter Type B''
(expressing similar thoughts as Letter Type A but from persons who
are qualified as both insurance agents and financial advisors). Each
of the letter types is posted on the Commission's Internet Web site
(http://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-finra-2009-008/finra2009008.shtml).
See Exhibit 1 for a list of individual comment letters.
    \5\ See letter to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
from Richard E. Pullano, Associate Vice President and Chief Counsel,
Registration and Disclosure, FINRA, dated May 5, 2009 (``Response
Letter'').
    \6\ Amendment No. 1 is a technical amendment which corrects a
minor error in the rule text.
    \7\ In Amendment No. 2, FINRA states that it will delay the
effective date of the willful violation questions for 180 days
following Commission approval of the proposed rule change and makes
other adjustments concerned with implementation of the statutory
disqualification change in response to issues raised by commenters,
which changes are discussed infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed rule change would make certain changes to Forms U4 and
U5 (together referred to as the ``Forms'') by:
     Revising questions on the Forms to reflect the most recent
change to the definition of statutory disqualification \8\ and to help
more accurately identify individuals and firms (collectively referred
to as ``persons'') subject to a statutory disqualification pursuant to
Section 15(b)(4)(D) or (E) of the Act (referred to as ``willful
violations'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Section 3(a)(39) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Revising questions on the Forms regarding disclosure of
arbitrations or civil lawsuits to require reporting of allegations of
sales practice violations made against a registered person in
arbitration or a civil suit regardless of whether that person is named
as a party.
     Revising questions on the Forms regarding customer
complaints, arbitrations or civil litigation to clarify the manner in
which individuals and firms must report sales practice violations
alleged against registered persons.
     Raising the monetary threshold that triggers reporting of
settlements of customer complaints, arbitrations or civil lawsuits from
$10,000 to $15,000, and making a conforming change in the description
of ``Historic Complaints'' in FINRA Rule 8312.
     Revising the definition of ``Date of Termination'' in Form
U5, and permitting firms to amend the ``Date of Termination'' and
``Reason for Termination'' sections of the Form U5.
    The proposal would also make certain technical and conforming
changes to the Forms.

A. Revisions to the Forms Regarding Willful Violations

    The revised Forms would enable FINRA and other regulators \9\ to
query the Central Registration Depository (``CRD'') to identify persons
who are subject to a statutory disqualification as a result of a
willful violation. The proposal would add questions to Form U4, which
would require a person to answer whether the SEC, the U.S. Commodity
Futures Trading Commission (``CFTC'') \10\ or any SRO \11\ has ever:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In addition to FINRA, regulators that use the Forms include
other self-regulatory organizations (``SROs'') and securities
regulators of states and other jurisdictions.
    \10\ Proposed Questions 14C(6)-(8), respectively.
    \11\ Proposed Questions 14E(5)-(7), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Found you to have willfully violated any provision of the
Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
Investment Advisers Act of 1940, the Investment Company Act of 1940,
the Commodity Exchange Act, or any rule or regulation under any of such
Acts, or any of the rules of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board,
or found you to have been unable to comply with any provision of such
Act, rule or regulation?
     Found you to have willfully aided, abetted, counseled,
commanded, induced, or procured the violation by any person of any
provision of the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, the Investment Company Act
of 1940, the Commodity Exchange Act, or any rule or regulation under
any of such Acts, or any of the rules of the Municipal Securities
Rulemaking Board?
     Found you to have failed reasonably to supervise another
person subject to your supervision, with a view to preventing the
violation of any provision of the Securities Act of 1933, the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Investment Advisers Act of 1940,
the Investment Company Act of 1940, the Commodity Exchange Act, or any
rule or regulation under any of such Acts, or any of the rules of the
Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board?
    FINRA proposes to require firms to amend Form U4 to respond to
these new questions the first time they file an amendment to Form U4
after the effective date of the proposed rule change, but in any event,
no later than 180 days following the effective date of the proposed
rule change.\12\ If a firm determines that the registered person must
answer ``yes'' to any part of these questions, the amended U4 filing
would have to include completed disclosure reporting pages (``DRP(s)'')
covering the proceedings or action reported.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The Commission notes that FINRA originally proposed 120
days for firms to comply with this aspect of the proposed rule
change but amended the filing to state that these questions would
not become effective for 180 days, which gives firms 180 days to
comply with this provision. See Amendment No. 2, supra note 7.
    \13\ FINRA is not proposing any new questions addressing willful
violations on the Form U4 Regulatory Action DRP, which elicits
specific information regarding the status of the events reported in
response to Questions 14C and 14E. See Notice at 13492.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA proposes to add a question \14\ to the Form U5 Regulatory
Action DRP. After implementation, firms would be required to provide
more detailed information about certain regulatory actions. In
addition, for regulatory actions in which the SEC, CFTC or an SRO is
involved, the proposal would require firms to answer questions
eliciting whether the action involves a willful violation, which
correspond to those questions proposed to be added to Form U4. A firm
would not be required to amend Form U5 to answer this question and/or
add information to a Form U5 Regulatory Action DRP that

was filed previously, unless it is updating a regulatory action that it
reported as pending on the current DRP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Question 12C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Revisions to Forms To Require Reporting of Allegations of Sales
Practice Violations Against Registered Persons Made in Arbitrations or
Civil Lawsuits in Which the Registered Person Is Not a Named Party

    The proposed rule change would revise the Forms to require the
reporting of allegations of sales practices violations made against
registered persons in a civil lawsuit or arbitration in which the
registered person is not a named party. Specifically, the proposal
would amend the Forms to require the reporting of alleged sales
practice violations made by a customer against persons identified in
the body of a civil lawsuit or an arbitration claim, regardless of
whether those persons are named as parties.\15\ The proposed questions
would apply only to arbitration claims or civil suits filed on or after
the effective date of the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The proposed rule change would add Questions 14I(4) and (5)
to Form U4 and Questions 7E(4) and (5) to Form U5. These questions
would, in most respects, reflect the language of the corresponding
questions regarding alleged sales practice violations of persons
identified in consumer complaints (i.e., Questions 14I(2) and (3) in
Form U4 and Questions 7E(2) and (3) in Form U5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A ``yes'' answer to the newly-proposed questions \16\ would
indicate that the applicant or registered person, though not named as a
respondent/defendant in a customer-initiated arbitration or civil
lawsuit, was either named in or could be reasonably identified from the
body of the arbitration claim or civil suit as a registered person who
was involved in one or more of the alleged sales practice violations. A
firm would be required to answer yes only after it has conducted a
reasonable investigation into the allegations in the arbitration claim
or lawsuit and made a good faith determination that the alleged sales
practice violation(s) involved the registered person.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Question 14I(4)-(5) on Form U4 and Question 7E(4)-(5) on
Form U5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of the proposed rule change, alleged sales practice
violations made by a customer against persons identified in the body of
a civil lawsuit or arbitration claim would be treated the same way that
customer complaints are currently treated in the Forms.\17\ Such
matters would be required to be reported no later than thirty days
after receipt by the firm of the arbitration claim or lawsuit. In
addition, as is currently the practice with respect to customer
complaints reported to the CRD, registered persons would have an
opportunity to provide context on the reported matter on Form U4.
Persons not currently registered with a member firm, but who were
registered within the previous two years, would be afforded an
opportunity to provide context on the reported matter through a Broker
Comment, which would be disclosed through BrokerCheck consistent with
FINRA Rule 8312. To the extent a matter becomes non-reportable (if, for
example, the arbitration or civil suit is dismissed and the dismissal
is not part of a settlement, or it is settled for less than the
monetary threshold designated on Form U4), it would, like other
customer complaints that become non-reportable after a 24-month period,
be eligible for disclosure through BrokerCheck as an ``Historic
Complaint,'' provided it meets certain criteria.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The proposed rule change would make corresponding changes
to Customer Complaint/Arbitration/Civil Litigation DRPs to reflect
the changes discussed. These changes would include, e.g., eliciting
specifically whether, in the case of an arbitration or lawsuit, the
individual was named as a respondent or defendant. The DRPs would
require disclosure of the alleged damages and disposition for
matters in which sales practice violations are alleged against an
individual who was not named in an arbitration or lawsuit.
    \18\ See FINRA Rule 8312(b)(7) and proposed conforming
revisions. FINRA has proposed replacing NASD Rule 3070 and
Incorporated NYSE Rule 351 with a single rule, proposed FINRA Rule
4530, in the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook. See Regulatory Notice 08-
71 (November 2008). FINRA stated that it would consider whether
corresponding changes to the reporting requirements currently found
in NASD Rule 3070 and Incorporated NYSE Rule 351 would be warranted
as a result of the proposed rule change. See Notice at 13494.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Revisions To Clarify the Manner in Which Individuals and Firms Must
Report Sales Practice Violations Alleged Against Registered Persons

    The proposed rule change would revise questions on the Forms \19\
to clarify the manner in which individuals and firms must report
allegations of sales practice violations against registered persons
made in an arbitration filing or civil lawsuit or through consumer-
initiated complaints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Questions 14I on Form U4 and 7E on Form U5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Revisions To Raise the Monetary Threshold for Reporting Customer
Complaints, Arbitration, or Civil Lawsuits From $10,000 to $15,000 on
the Forms and Conforming Change to FINRA Rule 8312

    Currently, the Forms require consumer-initiated arbitration or
civil lawsuits to be reported only when they have been settled for
$10,000 or more,\20\ and customer complaints to be reported only when
they have been settled for $10,000 or more.\21\ The proposed rule
change would raise these amounts to $15,000. In addition, the proposed
rule change would amend the description of ``Historic Complaints'' in
FINRA Rule 8312 to conform to these revised monetary thresholds for
reporting of settlements of customer complaints, arbitrations or civil
lawsuits in the Forms.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Question 14I(1)(c) on Form U4 and Question 7E(1)(c) on
Form U5.
    \21\ See Question 14I(2) on Form U4 and Question 7E(2) on Form
U5.
    \22\ The increase of the monetary threshold in Rule 8312 to
$15,000 is a conforming change to the description of ``Historic
Complaint'' that will only be applied to settlements that occur
after the effective date of the proposed rule change. Under the
proposal, matters settled for more than $10,000 before the proposed
monetary change would continue to be disclosed through the
BrokerCheck program. See Response to Comments at 8-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Revisions To Clarify the Definition of ``Date of Termination'' in
Form U5 and To Allow Firms To Amend the ``Date of Termination'' and
``Reason for Termination''

    FINRA proposes to amend Form U5 by clarifying the definition of
``date terminated'' and to permit a firm to amend the ``Date of
Termination'' and ``Reason for Termination,'' subject to certain
conditions and notifications, provided the firm provides a reason for
the amendment.
    FINRA would notify other regulators and the broker-dealer with
which the person is currently associated (if the person is associated
with another firm) when the date of termination or reason for
termination has been changed. The original date of termination or
reason for termination would remain in the CRD in form filing history,
which information is available only to regulators. Any changes to the
``Date of Termination'' filed by firms would not affect the manner in
which FINRA determines whether an individual is required to requalify
by examination or obtain an appropriate waiver upon reassociating with
another firm, or whether FINRA has retained jurisdiction over the
individual. Rather, FINRA would continue to determine such periods
based on the original ``Date of Termination'' provided by the firm and/
or the date that the original filing was processed by CRD,
respectively.

F. Technical and Conforming Changes to the Forms

    The proposed rule change would make various technical and
conforming changes to the Forms, including, among others, converting
certain free text fields to discrete fields on the DRPs of the Forms;
adding to Section 7 of Form U5

(Disclosure Questions) an optional ``Disclosure Certification
Checkbox'' that would enable firms to affirmatively represent that all
required disclosure for a terminated person has been reported and the
record is current at the time of termination; and incorporating the
definition of ``found'' from the Form U4 Instructions into the Form U5
Instructions.

III. Discussion of Comments and Commission Findings

    The Commission received 1,451 form comment letters, and 203
individual comment letters, regarding this proposal. FINRA responded to
the comment letters on May 6, 2009.\23\ After careful review of the
proposal and consideration of the comment letters and the Response
Letter, the Commission finds, for the reasons discussed below, that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities association.\24\ In particular, the Commission finds that
the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the
Act,\25\ which requires, among other things, that FINRA's rules be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, and to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Response Letter, supra note 5.
    \24\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Revisions to the Forms Regarding Willful Violations

    Approximately forty-two commenters provided comments on this aspect
of the proposal.\26\ While most support the policy in general,\27\ many
were concerned with the potential administrative burden firms face in
complying with this provision and offered a variety of ways to lessen
the burden on the industry.\28\ Specifically, these commenters
requested, in combination or separately, among other suggestions, (1) a
time period of more than 120 days (commenters asked for up to eight
months) to submit amended Forms U4 with answers to the new questions;
(2) disabling the CRD ``completeness check'' so that U4 amendments may
continue to be processed without firms having to respond to the new
questions the first time they submit an amended U4 for a registered
representative; (3) eliminating the requirement that a registered
person sign the U4 amendment; (4) providing a mechanism to ``batch
file'' answers to the new questions for those persons who have all
``no'' answers; and (5) that FINRA pre-populate the new questions with
a ``no'' answer until the final time period to comply with the
provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See, e.g., comment letters from PIABA, NSCP, Torngren, S.
Brown/LPL, T. Rowe Price, Hefren-Tillotson, Janney, ARM, Raymond
James, CGMI, Goldman Sachs, Mougey/Kraszewski, NASAA, Fidelity,
Wells Fargo, SIFMA, UBS, St. John's, Morgan Stanley, NAIBD, Sherman,
BofA, Deutsche Bank, Charles Schwab, Sutherland, Malecki, Edward
Jones, PFS, TIAA-CREF, Capital Investment, Nelson, Genworth, MWA,
FSI, St. Bernard Financial, Farmers Financial, Silver, Ilgenfritz,
T. Greene/Woodforest, Lincoln Investment, MML, and NPH.
    \27\ See, e.g., comment letters from PIABA, NSCP, Torngren, S.
Brown/LPL, T. Rowe Price, Hefren-Tillotson, Janney, ARM, Raymond
James, CGMI, Goldman Sachs, Mougey/Kraszewski, NASAA, Fidelity,
Wells Fargo, SIFMA, UBS, St. John's, Morgan Stanley, NAIBD, Sherman,
BofA, Deutsche Bank, Charles Schwab, Sutherland, Malecki, Edward
Jones, PFS, TIAA-CREF.
    \28\ Other comments relate to fees and the proposed language. A
few commenters requested that FINRA waive the fees associated with
the U4 amendments filed to comply with the proposal. See, e.g., T.
Rowe Price, FSI, and MML. FINRA responded that it would not charge
for ``no'' answers; however, as is FINRA's current practice, it
would charge a disclosure review fee for ``yes'' answers, given that
FINRA staff must review these events. See Response Letter at 3. Some
commenters objected to the language in FINRA's proposed questions
and requested that FINRA use less legalese and restate the questions
in ``plain English.'' See, e.g., St. Bernard Financial, NPH, and
Sutherland. FINRA responded that its language tracks the language in
the Act. Persons should contact FINRA or other regulators if needed
for further guidance on compliance with the Forms. See Response
Letter at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA stated that it appreciates the industry's concerns, and as a
result, has determined to provide firms with 180 days to comply with
the proposed rule change.\29\ In order to accomplish this, pursuant to
Amendment No. 2, the questions regarding willful violations will not
become effective until 180 days after Commission approval of this
proposal.\30\ In addition, FINRA stated in Amendment No. 2 that during
the 180-day period, answers to the new questions will be provisional,
indicating that ``no'' answers may change to ``yes'' answers as of the
181st day. Furthermore, FINRA will allow firms to batch file Form U4
amendments for purposes of filing ``no'' answers to the six new
questions for as many as 65,000 registered persons at one time for 180
days after implementation of the proposal, up to the effective date of
these questions, at which time all answers provided to these questions
must be complete and accurate.\31\ Finally, FINRA noted that it filed a
proposal to allow firms to file amendments to the U4 disclosure
information without obtaining the registered person's manual signature
under certain circumstances.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Response Letter at 2.
    \30\ For persons filing their initial U4, the Commission would
expect firms to get the correct answer to these questions before
filing the U4 and not merely to check no.
    \31\ FINRA stated that it believes this approach represents an
effective alternative to relaxing Web CRD system completeness
checks, which FINRA is unable to accomplish due to system
constraints. This would achieve the same result and provides firms
with the full 180 days to conduct the due diligence necessary to
respond to the new questions. See Response Letter at 2-3. After 180
days, starting on the date the answers become effective, for any
``no'' answers provided, whether batched or not, the firm and
registered person will have represented that the person has not been
the subject of any finding addressed by the question(s).
    \32\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59784 (April 17,
2009), 74 FR 18779 (April 24, 2009) (SR-FINRA-2009-019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes this aspect of the proposal is consistent
with the Act and will provide more accurate disclosure regarding
individuals who are subject to statutory disqualification as a result
of willful violations. This should enable FINRA and other regulators to
more easily identify persons subject to these disqualifications.\33\
Furthermore, in Amendment No. 2, FINRA provided firms with a number of
accommodations which should address the concerns raised by the firms
regarding the administrative burden associated with answering the
revised questions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ The Commission believes it is reasonable for FINRA to
charge disclosure review fees, consistent with FINRA's current
practice, for persons who respond ``yes'' to the newly-proposed
questions regarding willful violations to help defray costs
associated with review of the disclosure event.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Revisions to Forms To Require Reporting of Allegations of Sales
Practice Violations Against Registered Persons Made in Arbitrations or
Civil Lawsuits in Which the Registered Person Is Not a Named Party

    Registered persons, who comprised a majority of the commenters,
objected to the new requirement to report arbitration claims or
lawsuits alleging sales practice violations in which the registered
person is not named as a respondent.\34\ Among the objections raised by
the commenters were their inability to defend themselves against a
claim in arbitration or lawsuit if they were not named as a respondent;
that the charge would in effect render them guilty without any finding
by an arbitration panel or court; that they

would not have notice of a claim or lawsuit if they were not
respondents; and that this change could lead to inaccurate information
being included in CRD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See, e.g., form comment letters, Letter Type A and Letter
Type B, infra note 4, and comment letters from Morey, NEXT, FNIC,
McDaniel, Jeff White, Herrick, H. Garrett/Financial Network, Calley,
Preston, Johns, and Livingston.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Those in support of the change state that this change will fill a
loophole in FINRA's rules, that written customer complaints are
currently reported, and that it does not make sense to distinguish
between a written complaint and an arbitration filing or lawsuit.\35\
Commenters also note that a variety of legitimate reasons exist for not
naming a registered person in an arbitration claim or lawsuit. For
example, one commenter noted that under FINRA's arbitration rules, each
separately-represented party in an arbitration claim has four
opportunities to strike a participant from the panel. Accordingly, if a
firm and registered representative are both named and separately
represented, the defense has eight opportunities to strike potential
arbitrators, whereas the plaintiff would only have four.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See, e.g., Aidikoff, Bakhtiari, Caruso, Layne, Lewins,
Lipner, J. Miller, Meyer, NASAA, Neuman, PIABA, Pounds, Sadler,
Silver, Stark, and Torngren.
    \36\ See comment letter from Shewan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other commenters note that attorneys use CRD to screen industry
arbitrators to determine whether to strike a particular arbitrator from
the list of potential arbitrators.\37\ With this change to the
reporting requirements, registered representatives will have to update
their arbitration disclosure forms to reflect these new disclosures.
These commenters believe that customers should have access to
information with respect to whether a potential arbitrator has a claim
in arbitration or is being sued for allegations involving sales
practice violations.\38\ This additional information should enable
claimants and their attorneys to make a more informed judgment with
respect to striking a particular industry arbitrator from the
arbitration selection list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See, e.g., comment letters from Kruske, Meissner, Shockman,
and Davis.
    \38\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has weighed the arguments on both sides of the issue
and, on balance, believes that the benefit to investors of having
information in BrokerCheck regarding registered representatives who are
the subject of an arbitration claim or lawsuit involving a sales
practice violation outweighs the potential harm to registered
representatives of having to disclose the information. BrokerCheck
already includes information on written customer complaints. It is
difficult to justify different reporting requirements for a written
customer complaint and an arbitration claim or lawsuit, merely because
the registered representative was named as a respondent. The commenters
note that there are a number of reasons why an attorney might decide
not to name a registered representative as a respondent.\39\ The
Commission agrees with the commenters that disclosure in CRD should not
depend on a tactical decision made by an attorney who is representing a
claim in an arbitration proceeding or civil suit. Investors are
entrusting registered representatives with their savings and should
have sufficient pertinent information available to enable them to
select a registered representative with whose background they are
comfortable. Furthermore, FINRA provides registered representatives
with the ability to respond to the arbitration claim or lawsuit in Web
CRD, which information will also be public in BrokerCheck.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See, e.g., comment letters from from Pounds, Layne, Caruso,
Bakhtiari, Neuman, Stephens, Sadler, PIABA, Stark, Buchwalter, J.
Miller, Torngren, Aidikoff, Lipner, Feldman, Rosca, Dunlap, Haigney,
Fellows, Thompson, Schultz, Banks, Davis, Keeney, Ilgenfritz,
Ostwald, Silver, Van Kampen, Meissner, Lewins, Kruske, Graham,
Harrison, Cornell, Carlson, Burke, St. John's, Port, Krosschell,
Vasquez, Shockman, Bernstein, Gladden, Gana, Shewan, and Malecki.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the central role of CRD as the repository for information on
registered persons in the securities industry, its use by firms,
regulators, and the public,\40\ and the Congressional mandate in
Section 15A(i) of the Act, the Commission believes that FINRA should
continuously strive to improve CRD and BrokerCheck. The changes
proposed in this filing should enhance CRD and BrokerCheck by including
more relevant information that should prove useful to regulators,
brokerage firms, and the investing public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See, e.g., FINRA's Web site encouraging investors to use
BrokerCheck at http://www.finra.org/Investors/ToolsCalculators/
BrokerCheck/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Revisions To Clarify the Manner in Which Individuals and Firms Must
Report Sales Practice Violations Alleged Against Registered Persons

    Approximately four commenters opined that the proposed
clarification regarding written or oral complaints would expand what
constitutes a complaint and represents a significant change in the
current reporting requirements.\41\ FINRA responded that it has issued
interpretive guidance for approximately the past decade indicating that
an oral complaint by itself is not reportable,\42\ but an oral
complaint that alleges a sales practice violation that is settled for
$10,000 or more is reportable.\43\ FINRA stated that this rule proposal
would not alter or expand this interpretation. The Commission agrees
with FINRA and believes that this clarification should be helpful to
persons in complying with reporting requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See, e.g., comment letters from T. Rowe Price, Lincoln
Investment, FSI, and Sutherland.
    \42\ See Form U4, Question 14I(3).
    \43\ See Form U4, Question 14I(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Proposal To Raise the Monetary Threshold for Reporting Customer
Complaints, Arbitration, or Lawsuits from $10,000 to $15,000 on the
Forms and Conforming Change to FINRA Rule 8312

    Approximately eleven commenters expressly wrote in support of
increasing the monetary threshold for reporting a customer complaint,
arbitration or lawsuit from $10,000 to $15,000.\44\ Two commenters
suggested raising the threshold to higher amounts, $25,000 \45\ and
$30,000.\46\ One commenter postulates that raising the threshold would
increase the ability of public investors with small claims to receive
compensation without the necessity of participating in a hearing.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See, e.g., comment letters from Capital Investment, S.
Brown/LPL, T. Rowe Price, Canning, Cornell, NASAA, FSI, St. John's,
NAIBD, Charles Schwab, and TIAA-CREF.
    \45\ See comment letter from T. Greene/Woodforest.
    \46\ See comment letter from Sutherland.
    \47\ See comment letter from Cornell.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Eight commenters oppose the proposed revision of the monetary
threshold.\48\ These commenters believe that the monetary threshold
should be eliminated completely and that all settled matters should be
reported. The commenters state that public investors should have access
to information on all settled matters so that they may determine how,
or whether, such matters affect a registered person's integrity and
trustworthiness.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See comment letters from Layne, PIABA, Torngren, Steiner,
Meyer, Mougey/Kraszewski, NAIBD, and Malecki.
    \49\ Id. One commenter supports the proposed rule change with
respect to the Forms, but opposes the conforming change to FINRA
Rule 8312 and argues that all historic complaints in FINRA Rule 8312
should be revealed by FINRA for the use of public investors. See
comment letter from NASAA at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission understands that firms and registered persons may
wish to settle claims they consider non-meritorious rather than incur
the costs associated with litigation. The Commission believes that it
is reasonable for FINRA to raise the monetary threshold amount below
which settled matters are not reported from $10,000 to $15,000, to
reflect an increase in costs that has occurred since the $10,000
threshold was established in 1998.

E. Revisions To Clarify the Definition of ``Date of Termination'' in
Form U5 and to Allow Firms to Amend the ``Date of Termination'' and
``Reason for Termination''

    Twelve commenters support the proposal to allow firms to amend the
``Date of Termination'' and the ``Reason for Termination'' sections of
the Form U5.\50\ Some of these commenters note that the change will
help to ensure the accuracy of information contained in the CRD.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ See comment letters from Capital Investment, S. Brown/LPL,
T. Rowe Price, Canning, NASAA, Lincoln Investment, FSI, AALU,
Charles Schwab, Sutherland, PFS, and TIAA-CREF.
    \51\ See, e.g., comment letters from Canning and FSI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Approximately six commenters oppose the proposal to allow firms to
amend the ``Reason for Termination'' section of the Form U5.\52\ At
least one commenter notes that firms should know at the time they file
a Form U5 why they are terminating a registered representative.\53\ In
general, these commenters believe that allowing firms to make such a
change increases the potential for abuse by firms and collusion between
a firm and a registered representative in changing the reason for
termination. All of the commenters who oppose the change, except for
one, believe that firms should continue to be required to obtain a
court order or an arbitration award to revise the ``Reason for
Termination'' section of the Form U5.\54\ That commenter suggests that
firms be allowed to amend the reason for termination without a court
order or arbitration award only in those circumstances where the change
is based on a clerical error.\55\ Similarly, the commenter also
suggests that firms be allowed to amend the date of termination only in
those cases involving clerical errors.\56\ In its Response Letter,
FINRA stated that given the safeguards in place, which include a firm's
requirement to provide a reason for the amendment, FINRA's monitoring
of the amendments, and notification to regulators, it did not want to
restrict changes to the date of or reason for termination due to
clerical errors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See comment letters from Layne, PIABA, Torngren, Cornell,
Mougey/Kraszewski, and Malecki.
    \53\ See comment letter from Cornell.
    \54\ See comment letter from Cornell.
    \55\ This commenter, unlike the other commenters, also opposes
allowing firms to amend the date of termination, other than in
circumstances of clerical error, contending that a change in the
date of termination for any other reason may be subject to
manipulation and negotiation. See comment letter from Cornell.
    \56\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that it is reasonable for FINRA to amend
its rules to allow firms to modify the ``Reason for Termination'' and
``Date of Termination'' filed on a Form U5 through an amendment to that
original filing, and that it is acceptable for FINRA to not restrict
this aspect of the proposal to situations of clerical error. However,
the Commission expects FINRA to monitor all changes to the date of and
reason for termination, and to notify other regulators and the broker-
dealer with which the person is currently associated (if the person is
associated with another firm) when a date of termination or reason for
termination is amended,\57\ as it has represented it will do, to assure
these amendments are not made for inappropriate reasons.\58\ The
Commission believes that under the proposal, safeguards are in place to
help prevent abuse of the ability to change the date and reason for
termination and that the proposal should make it more efficient for
firms to correct inaccurate information in the CRD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ See Notice at 13496 and Response Letter at 9-10.
    \58\ See e.g., comment letters from Layne, Smiley, Mougey/
Kraszewski, Silver, and Ilgenfritz.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Technical and Conforming Changes to the Forms

    Four commenters wrote in support of these proposed changes.\59\ One
commenter believes that the proposed revisions to the Forms would make
them more user-friendly and, in the case of the Form U4, more likely to
elicit from a registered person all pertinent information necessary to
complete the form accurately and completely.\60\ Another commenter
states that the incorporation of the definition of the term ``found''
into the Form U5 instructions would remove any possible ambiguity and
achieve consistency in the interpretation and application of the
reporting requirements.\61\ The Commission agrees that these technical
and conforming changes should add clarity and consistency to the Forms
and should assist persons in completing the Forms more accurately and
completely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ See comment letters from T. Rowe Price, Lincoln Investment,
FSI, and Charles Schwab.
    \60\ See comment letter from T. Rowe Price.
    \61\ See comment letter from Charles Schwab.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments Concerning Amendment No. 2

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning Amendment No. 2 including whether the filing, as
amended, is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any
of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2009-008 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2009-008. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room on official
business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of FINRA. All comments received will be posted without
change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information
from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to
make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number
SR-FINRA-2009-008 and should be submitted on or before June 10, 2009.

V. Accelerated Approval of Filing as Amended by Amendment No. 2

    The Commission finds good cause to approve the filing, as amended,
prior to the thirtieth day after publication in the Federal Register
pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act.\62\ As discussed above, in
Amendment No. 2, FINRA is proposing to delay the effective date of the
questions regarding willful

violations for 180 days and providing other adjustments with respect to
the willful violation questions to lessen the burden on the industry of
complying with the change in response to the concerns raised by the
commenters. The Commission believes that the proposed change in
Amendment No. 2 should substantially lessen the burden of complying
with the changes. The Commission notes that the changes to the
questions relating to willful violations are to reflect changes made to
the definition of statutory disqualification in the Act. The Commission
believes that it is important to implement the other changes to the
Forms as soon as practicable, and FINRA will implement the remainder of
the changes upon Commission approval. Accordingly, pursuant to Section
19(b)(2) of the Act,\63\ the Commission finds good cause exists to
approve the filing as amended by Amendment No. 2 prior to the thirtieth
day after notice in the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \63\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Conclusion

    For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the
rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
association, and, in particular, with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\65\ that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2009-008), as amended,
be, and hereby is, approved on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \66\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\66\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.

EXHIBIT 1

Comments on FINRA Rulemaking

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority,
Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Proposed
Changes to Forms U4 and U5

(Release No. 34-59616; File No. SR-FINRA-2009-008)

Total Number of Comment Letters Received--1654
Comments have been received from individuals and entities using the
following Letter Types:
a. 770 individuals or entities using Letter Type A.
b. 681 individuals or entities using Letter Type B.
1. Robert Keenan, CEO, St. Bernard Financial Services, Inc., dated
March 26, 2009 (``St. Bernard Financial'')
2. Patricia A. Nelson, dated March 26, 2009 (``Nelson'')
3. Edward J. Wiles, Jr., SVP, CCO Genworth Financial Securities Corp.,
received April 1, 2009 (``Genworth'')
4. John L. Small, dated April 3, 2009 (``Small'')
5. Herb Pounds, dated April 3, 2009 (``Pounds'')
6. Richard M. Layne, Law Office of Richard M. Layne, received April 6,
2009 (``Layne'')
7. Steven B. Caruso, Esq., Maddox Hargett Caruso, P.C., dated April 7,
2009 (``Caruso'')
8. Ryan K. Bakhtiari, Aidikoff, Uhl & Bakhtiari, dated April 7, 2009
(``Bakhtiari'')
9. Neal E. Nakagiri, President, CEO, CCO, NPB Financial Group, LLC,
dated April 8, 2009 (``NPB'')
10. John Morey, Financial Advisor, Raymond James Financial Services,
dated April 8, 2009 (``Morey'')
11. John Dardis, Division Manager, NEXT Financial Group, dated April 8,
2009 (``NEXT'')
12. J. Richard Coe, President, Coe Financial Services, dated April 8,
2009 (``Coe Financial'')
13. Michael Klimis, President and CEO, Klimis & Associates, Inc., dated
April 8, 2009 (``Klimis'')
14. Mary Allen, Financial Advisor, Royal Alliance Associates, Inc.,
dated April 8, 2009 (``M. Allen/Royal Alliance'')
15. Marsha Williams, Woodforest Financial Services, dated April 8, 2009
(``M. Williams/Woodforest'')
16. Daniel Thomas, Jr., Certified Financial Planner, Thomas Financial
Group LLC, dated April 8, 2009 (``Thomas Financial'')
17. Jerome Bonnett, President, Bonnett Financial Services, Inc., dated
April 8, 2009 (``Bonnett Financial'')
18. Gregory J. Spinazze, Senior Vice President, Cambridge Wealth
Strategies, dated April 9, 2009 (``Cambridge Wealth'')
19. Charles Robertson, Financial Planner/Advisory Rep., Triad Advisors,
dated April 9, 2009 (``Triad'')
20. Thomas Schirmer, Registered Representative & Principal, FNIC, dated
April 9, 2009 (``FNIC'')
21. Jude McDaniel, President, McDaniel & McDaniel, dated April 9, 2009
(``McDaniel'')
22. Jeff White, CFP, Retirement-Coach, dated April 9, 2009 (``Jeff
White'')
23. Henry W. Garrett, Investment Adviser Representative, Financial
Network, dated April 9, 2009 (``H. Garrett/Financial Network'')
24. David P. Neuman, Stoltmann Law Offices, P.C., dated April 9, 2009
(``Neuman'')
25. Richard A. Stephens, Esq., dated April 9, 2009 (``Stephens'')
26. J. Pat Sadler, Esq., Sadler Hovdesven, P.C., dated April 9, 2009
(``Sadler'')
27. Daniel W. Roberts, dated April 9, 2009 (``Roberts'')
28. John Austin, Registered Principal, Financial Network, dated April
9, 2009 (``J. Austin/Financial Network'')
29. Arthur F. Grant, President, Cadaret Grant, dated April 9, 2009
(``Cadaret Grant'')
30. William Grace, Registered Representative, dated April 10, 2009
(``Grace'')
31. Charles Lutrick, Registered Representative, dated April 10, 2009
(``Lutrick'')
32. Suzanne Seay, CFP, dated April 10, 2009 (``Seay'')
33. Ken Loebel, Vice President, BankFinancial, dated April 10, 2009
(``BankFinancial'')
34. Brian N. Smiley, President, Public Investors Arbitration Bar
Association, received April 10, 2009 (``PIABA'')
35. Alan Freedman, Financial Advisor, Geronimo Financial, LLC, dated
April 10, 2009 (``Geronimo Financial'')
36. Hugh Nichols, Registered Representative, Mutual Service
Corporation, dated April 10, 2009 (``Mutual Service'')
37. Pam Fritz, Chief Compliance Officer, MWA Financial Services, Inc.,
dated April 13, 2009 (``MWA'')
38. Brent Johnson, President, Financial Synergies, Inc., dated April
13, 2009 (``Financial Synergies'')
39. Leonard Steiner, dated April 13, 2009 (``Steiner'')
40. Steve A. Buchwalter, Esq., dated April 13, 2009 (``Buchwalter'')
41. Bradley R. Stark, P.A., dated April 13, 2009 (``Stark'')
42. Joan Hinchman, Executive Director, President and CEO, The National
Society of Compliance Professionals, Inc., dated April 13, 2009
(``NSCP'')
43. Ronald L. King, Chief Compliance Officer, Capital Investment
Companies, dated April 13, 2009 (``Capital Investment'')
44. Keith Miller, dated April 13, 2009 (``K. Miller'')

45. John Miller, Swanson Midgley, LLC, dated April 14, 2009 (``J.
Miller'')
46. Stephen P. Meyer, Esq., dated April 14, 2009 (``Meyer'')
47. William P. Torngren, dated April 14, 2009 (``Torngren'')
48. Philip M. Aidikoff, Esq., dated April 14, 2009 (``Aidikoff'')
49. Seth E. Lipner, Prof. of Law, Zicklin School of Business, Baruch
College, CUNY, Member, Deutsch Lipner, dated April 14, 2009
(``Lipner'')
50. Jeffrey A. Feldman, Law Offices of Jeffrey A. Feldman, dated April
14, 2009 (``Feldman'')
51. Gregory C. Sernett, Vice President and Chief Compliance Officer,
Ameritas Investment Corp., dated April 14, 2009 (``G. Sernett/
Ameritas'')
52. Stephanie L. Brown, Managing Director, General Counsel, LPL
Financial Corporation, dated April 15, 2009 (``S. Brown/LPL'')
53. Michael J. Frailey, LUTCF, dated April 15, 2009 (``Frailey'')
54. Jill Clark, dated April 15, 2009 (``Clark'')
55. Stephen D. Mann, dated April 15, 2009 (``Mann'')
56. Christopher Taggart, dated April 15, 2009 (``Taggart'')
57. David Moffet, dated April 15, 2009 (``Moffet'')
58. Lawrence A. Wanek, CFP, ChFC, LUTCF, dated April 15, 2009
(``Wanek'')
59. Tom Schmidt, dated April 15, 2009 (``Schmidt'')
60. Bradley J. Green, dated April 15, 2009 (``Green'')
61. Ralph Barringer, dated April 15, 2009 (``Barringer'')
62. Norajane McIntyre, dated April 15, 2009 (``McIntyre'')
63. Shaun Seedhouse, CFP, dated April 15, 2009 (``Seedhouse'')
64. Terry Lewis, LUTCF, dated April 15, 2009 (``Lewis'')
65. Laura Drake, dated April 15, 2009 (``Drake'')
66. Lori Susalla Oancea, J.D., dated April 15, 2009 (``Oancea'')
67. Douglas Olawsky, ChFC, FIC, dated April 15, 2009 (``Olawsky'')
68. Courtney L. Livingston, LUTCF, FIC, dated April 15, 2009
(``Livingston'')
69. Robert T. MacDonald, dated April 15, 2009 (``MacDonald'')
70. Richard N. Preston, ChFC Wealth Management Advisor, dated April 15,
2009 (``Preston'')
71. Jan Carpenter, CPCU, ChFC, Agent, dated April 15, 2009
(``Carpenter'')
72. Stephen Coon, dated April 15, 2009 (``Coon'')
73. James A. White, CLU, ChFC, dated April 15, 2009 (``James White'')
74. Cynthia Jo Johns, dated April 15, 2009 (``Johns'')
75. Gary R. Young, dated April 15, 2009 (``G. Young'')
76. Roger Gainer, ChFC, dated April 15, 2009 (``Gainer'')
77. Steven P. Brooks, dated April 15, 2009 (``Brooks'')
78. Harold A. Schwartz, dated April 15, 2009 (``Schwartz'')
79. Raymond Kojetin, dated April 15, 2009 (``Kojetin'')
80. Steve Klein, Chief Compliance Officer, Farmers Financial Solutions,
LLC, dated April 15, 2009 (``Farmers Financial'')
81. Jerry R. Neill, CLU, ChFC, dated April 15, 2009 (``Neill'')
82. Marian H. Desilets, President, Association of Registration
Management, dated April 15, 2009 (``ARM'')
83. James Schuberth, dated April 15, 2009 (``Schuberth'')
84. Sarah McCafferty, Vice President and Chief Compliance Officer, T.
Rowe Price, dated April 15, 2009 (``T. Rowe Price'')
85. R. Drew Kistler, Vice Chairman & Chief Compliance Officer, Hefren-
Tillotson, Inc., dated April 15, 2009 (``Hefren-Tillotson'')
86. Frederick T. Greene, Senior Vice President and Portfolio Manager,
Woodforest Financial Services, Inc., dated April 15, 2009 (``T. Greene/
Woodforest'')
87. Lance B. Kolbet, RHU, LUTCF, President, University Financial Group,
Inc., dated April 15, 2009 (``University Financial'')
88. Nancy Kay, CCO, Wall Street Financial Group, dated April 15, 2009
(``Wall Street Financial'')
89. Michael Kish, dated April 16, 2009 (``Kish'')
90. Blair M. Broussard, LUTCF, dated April 16, 2009 (``Broussard'')
91. Steven Van Scoik, dated April 16, 2009 (``Van Scoik'')
92. Tim Chisholm, dated April 16, 2009 (``Chisholm'')
93. Paul Dougherty, dated April 16, 2009 (``Dougherty'')
94. Bert Reames, CLU, dated April 16, 2009 (``Reames'')
95. Joseph Kosek, dated April 16, 2009 (``Kosek'')
96. J. P. Hildebrand, dated April 16, 2009 (``Hildebrand'')
97. Anthony P. Ladas, CLU, ChFC, dated April 16, 2009 (``Ladas'')
98. Charlene Logan, dated April 16, 2009 (``Logan'')
99. Richard J. Cooney, ChFC, dated April 16, 2009 (``Cooney'')
100. Nancy A. Dorsett, dated April 16, 2009 (``Dorsett'')
101. Nicola Young, dated April 16, 2009 (``N. Young'')
102. Mark J. Miller, dated April 16, 2009 (``M. Miller'')
103. Maria Buss, LUTCF, RFC, dated April 16, 2009 (``Buss'')
104. Jay Mccluskey, dated April 16, 2009 (``Mccluskey'')
105. Joseph W. Guess, dated April 16, 2009 (``Guess'')
106. Rick Theobald, dated April 16, 2009 (``Theobald'')
107. Michael Kidd, dated April 16, 2009 (``Kidd'')
108. Daniel G. Stockemer, dated April 16, 2009 (``Stockemer'')
109. Alin L. Rosca, Attorney at Law, John S. Chapman & Associates, LLC,
dated April 16, 2009 (``Rosca'')
110. Linda L. Paulsen, dated April 16, 2009 (``Paulsen'')
111. Thomas F. Taylor, CLU, ChFC, dated April 16, 2009 (``Taylor'')
112. R. Graham Self, dated April 16, 2009 (``Self'')
113. James A. Dunlap Jr., Esq., James A. Dunlap Jr. & Associates LLC,
dated April 16, 2009 (``Dunlap'')
114. William B. (Blake) Woodard, dated April 16, 2009 (``Woodard'')
115. Dayton P. Haigney, III, dated April 16, 2009 (``Haigney'')
116. Gwendolyn L. Wood, dated April 16, 2009 (``Wood'')
117. Henry D. (``Hank'') Fellows, Jr., Esq., Fellows LaBriola LLP,
dated April 16, 2009 (``Fellows'')
118. Charles M. Thompson, Attorney at Law, dated April 16, 2009
(``Thompson'')
119. Laurence S. Schultz, Driggers, Schultz and Herbst, dated April 16,
2009 (``Schultz'')
120. Robert S. Banks, Jr., Banks Law Office, P.C., dated April 16, 2009
(``Banks'')
121. Ronald M. Amato, Shaheen, Novoselsky, Staat, Filipowski,
Eccleston, PC, dated April 16, 2009 (``Amato'')
122. Steven W. Stambaugh, Registered Principal, LPL Financial
Corporation, dated April 16, 2009 (``S. Stambaugh/LPL'')
123. Theodore M. Davis, Esq., dated April 16, 2009 (``Davis'')
124. James D. Keeney, Esq., James D. Keeney, P.A., dated April 16, 2009
(``Keeney'')
125. Sharon Herrick, dated April 16, 2009 (``Herrick'')
126. Merrell Dean, Registered Representative, Ameritas Investment
Corp., received April 16, 2009 (``M. Dean/Ameritas'')
127. Gerald Calley, dated April 16, 2009 (``Calley'')
128. Roscoe O. Orton, CLU, President, Eastern Idaho Association of
Insurance and Financial Advisors, dated April 16, 2009 (``EIAIFA'')
129. Scott C. Ilgenfritz, Esq., Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel Burns,
LLP, dated April 16, 2009 (``Ilgenfritz'')

130. Culpepper Webb, dated April 16, 2009 (``Webb'')
131. Kevin Vasilik, dated April 16, 2009 (``Vasilik'')
132. Janice K. Nielsen, dated April 16, 2009 (``Nielsen'')
133. Mitchell S. Ostwald, Law Offices of Mitchell S. Ostwald, dated
April 16, 2009 (``Ostwald'')
134. Mario Dalla Valle, dated April 16, 2009 (``Valle'')
135. Scott L. Silver, Esq., Blum & Silver, LLP, dated April 16, 2009
(``Silver'')
136. William J. Gladden, Securities Arbitration Attorney, dated April
16, 2009 (``Gladden'')
137. John M. Ivan, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Janney
Montgomery Scott LLC, dated April 16, 2009 (``Janney'')
138. Adam J. Gana, Napoli Bern Ripka, LLP, dated April 16, 2009
(``Gana'')
139. Scott R. Shewan, Born Pape Shewan, LLP, dated April 16, 2009
(``Shewan'')
140. Tim Canning, Law Offices of Timothy A. Canning, dated April 17,
2009 (``Canning'')
141. Al Van Kampen, Attorney at Law, dated April 17, 2009 (``Van
Kampen'')
142. Diane Anderson, Registrations Manager, Raymond James & Associates,
Inc., received April 17, 2009 (``Raymond James'')
143. Justin Slattery, dated April 17, 2009 (``Slattery'')
144. James Livingston, President/Chief Executive Officer, National
Planning Holdings, Inc., dated April 17, 2009 (``NPH'')
145. Charles Maurice, dated April 17, 2009 (``Maurice'')
146. Richard G. Wallace, Foley Lardner LLP, dated April 17, 2009
(``Wallace'')
147. Stuart D. Meissner, Esq., Stuart D. Meissner LLC, dated April 17,
2009 (``Meissner'')
148. Richard A. Lewins, Esq., Special Counsel, Burg Simpson Eldredge
Hersh Jardine PC, dated April 17, 2009 (``Lewins'')
149. Jeffrey Kruske, Law Office of Jeffrey S. Kruske, P.A., dated April
17, 2009 (``Kruske'')
150. David Shrom, Shrom Associates/FSC Securities Corporation, dated
April 17, 2009 (``Shrom/FSC'')
151. Nicholas J. Taldone, Attorney, dated April 17, 2009 (``Taldone'')
152. Evan J. Charkes, Managing Director and Deputy General Counsel,
Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., dated April 17, 2009 (``CGMI'')
153. John W. Curtis, General Counsel Global Compliance, Goldman, Sachs
Co., dated April 17, 2009 (``Goldman Sachs'')
154. Jan Graham, Graham Law Offices, dated April 17, 2009 (``Graham'')
155. David Harrison, Esq., Law Offices of David Harrison, dated April
17, 2009 (``Harrison'')
156. William A. Jacobson, Esq., Associate Clinical Professor of Law,
Director, Cornell Securities Law Clinic, dated April 17, 2009
(``Cornell'')
157. Peter J. Mougey, Esq. and Kristian P. Kraszewski, Esq., dated
April 17, 2009 (``Mougey/Kraszewski'')
158. Fred Joseph, President, North American Securities Administrators
Association, Inc., Colorado Securities Commissioner, received April 17,
2009 (``NASAA'')
159. Robert K. Savage, Esq., The Savage Law Firm, P.A., dated April 17,
2009 (``Savage'')
160. Gary A. Sanders, Vice President, Securities and State Government
Relations, National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors,
dated April 17, 2009 (``NAIFA'')
161. Kert Martin, dated April 17, 2009 (``Martin'')
162. Carl J. Carlson, Attorney, dated April 17, 2009 (``Carlson'')
163. Nancy L.H. Boyd, Director of Compliance, Lincoln Investment
Planning, Inc., dated April 17, 2009 (``Lincoln Investment'')
164. John S. Burke, Esq., Higgins Burke, P.C., dated April 17, 2009
(``Burke'')
165. Charles V. Senatore, Senior Vice President, Chief Compliance
Officer, Fidelity Investments, dated April 17, 2009 (``Fidelity'')
166. Jonathan W. Evans, Esq., dated April 17, 2009 (``J. Evans'')
167. William S. Shepherd, Managing Partner, Shepherd, Smith & Edwards,
LLP, received April 17, 2009 (``Shepherd'')
168. Ronald C. Long, Director, Regulatory Affairs, Wells Fargo
Advisors, dated April 17, 2009 (``Wells Fargo'')
169. Dale E. Brown, President & CEO, Financial Services Institute,
Inc., dated April 17, 2009 (``FSI'')
170. Amal Aly, Managing Director and Association General Counsel,
Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, dated April 17,
2009 (``SIFMA'')
171. W. Scott Greco, Greco & Greco, P.C., received April 17, 2009
(``Greco'')
172. Eileen O'Connell Arcuri, UBS Financial Services Inc., dated April
17, 2009 (``UBS'')
173. Colin S. Casey, dated April 17, 2009 (``Casey'')
174. Christine Lazaro and Lisa Catalano, Securities Arbitration Clinic,
St. John's University School of Law, dated April 17, 2009 (``St.
John's'')
175. Laura Lang, IBSI, received April 17, 2009 (``IBSI'')
176. Barry D. Estell, Attorney at Law, received April 17, 2009
(``Estell'')
177. Robert S. Rosenthal, Chief Legal Officer, MML Investors Services,
Inc., dated April 17, 2009 (``MML'')
178. Michael P. Corry, President, Association for Advanced Life
Underwriting, dated April 17, 2009 (``AALU'')
179. Michelle Oroschakoff, Managing Director, and Jill Ostergaard,
Managing Director, Morgan Stanley, dated April 17, 2009 (``Morgan
Stanley'')
180. Geoffrey Boyer, President, Boyer Financial Group, received April
17, 2009 (``Boyer Financial'')
181. David M. Koll, dated April 17, 2009 (``Koll'')
182. Robert C. Port, Esq., Cohen, Goldstein, Port Gottlieb, LLP, dated
April 17, 2009 (``Port'')
183. Lisa M. Roth, National Association of Independent Broker-Dealers
Member Advocacy Committee Chair, Keystone Capital Corporation, CEO/CCO,
dated April 17, 2009 (``NAIBD'')
184. Steven M. Sherman, Law Offices of Steven M. Sherman, received
April 17, 2009 (``Sherman'')
185. Douglas G. Preston, Senior Vice President, Head of Regulatory
Affairs, Bank of America Securities LLC, dated April 17, 2009
(``BofA'')
186. Stephen Krosschell, Goodman & Nekvasil, P.A., dated April 17, 2009
(``Krosschell'')
187. Jessica Vasquez, Willeford Law Firm, dated April 17, 2009
(``Vasquez'')
188. Rosemary J. Shockman, Shockman Law Office, dated April 17, 2009
(``Shockman'')
189. John R. Tait, dated April 17, 2009 (``Tait'')
190. Margie Adams, Director, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., received
April 17, 2009 (``Deutsche Bank'')
191. Bari Havlik, SVP and Chief Compliance Officer, Charles Schwab &
Co., Inc., dated April 17, 2009 (``Charles Schwab'')
192. Clifford Kirsch and Susan Krawczyk, Sutherland Asbill & Brennan
LLP, dated April 17, 2009 (``Sutherland'')
193. Jenice L. Malecki, Esq., Malecki Law, dated April 17, 2009
(``Malecki'')
194. Jesse Hill, Director of Regulatory Relations, Edward Jones, dated
April 17, 2009 (``Edward Jones'')
195. Scot Bernstein, Law Offices of Scot D. Bernstein, A Professional
Corporation, dated April 18, 2009 (``Bernstein'')

196. Robert Mabe, Registered Representative, dated April 18, 2009
(``Mabe'')
197. John R. Still, dated April 20, 2009 (``Still'')
198. David Farrell, dated April 20, 2009 (``Farrell'')
199. Daniel Woodring, V.P. and Chief Compliance Officer, PFS
Investments Inc., dated April 20, 2009 (``PFS'')
200. James Rice, Registered Principal, Royal Alliance Associates, dated
April 21, 2009 (``J. Rice/Royal Alliance'')
201. Hattie Evans, Registered Representative, Financial Network, dated
April 21, 2009 (``H. Evans/Financial Network'')
202. Doria G. Bachenheimer, VP, Associate General Counsel, Regulatory
Law, and Pamela Lewis Marlborough, Associate General Counsel, TIAA-
CREF, dated April 22, 2009 (``TIAA-CREF'')
203. Doug Richards, dated April 27, 2009 (``Richards'')

[FR Doc. E9-11697 Filed 5-19-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 168 (Thursday, September 2, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 49283]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18913]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 282

[EPA-R07-UST-2021-0345; FRL-8775-01-R7]

Kansas: Final Approval of State Underground Storage Tank Program
Revisions, Codification, and Incorporation by Reference

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA
or Act), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve revisions to the State of Kansas's Underground Storage Tank
(UST) program submitted by the Kansas Department of Health and
Environment (KDHE). This action is based on the EPA's determination
that these revisions satisfy all requirements needed for program
approval. This action also proposes to codify EPA's approval of
Kansas's State program and incorporate by reference those provisions of
the State regulations that we have determined meet the requirements for
approval. The provisions will be subject to EPA's inspection and
enforcement authorities under sections 9005 and 9006 of RCRA Subtitle I
and other applicable statutory and regulatory provisions.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received on or before
October 4, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by EPA-R07-UST-2021-0345, by one
of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-UST-
2021-0345. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov, or email. The Federal https://www.regulations.gov
website is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means the EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA
without going through https://www.regulations.gov, your email address
will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that
is placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. If
you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in the body of your comment and also
with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due
to technical difficulties, and cannot contact you for clarification,
EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should
avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be
free of any defects or viruses. EPA encourages electronic submittals,
but if you are unable to submit electronically, please reach out to the
EPA contact person listed in the document for assistance. You can view
and copy the documents that form the basis for this codification and
associated publicly available materials either through
www.regulations.gov or by contacting Cassandra Mance at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Out of an abundance of caution for members
of the public and our staff, the EPA Region 7 office will be closed to
the public to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19. Please call or
email the contact listed above if you need access to material indexed
but not provided in the docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cassandra Mance, Tanks, Toxics, and
Pesticides Branch, Land, Chemical, and Redevelopment Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 11201 Renner Boulevard,
Lenexa, Kansas 66219;<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has explained the reasons for this
action in the preamble to the direct final rule. For additional
information, see the direct final rule published in the ``Rules and
Regulations'' section of this Federal Register.

    Authority: This proposed rule is issued under the authority of
sections 2002(a), 7004(b), and 9004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act,
as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912, 6991c, 6991d, and 6991e.

    Dated: August 24, 2021.
Edward H. Chu,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2021-18913 Filed 9-1-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 111 (Monday, June 10, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34608-34609]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13596]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0433; Airspace Docket No. 12-AAL-5]

Proposed Establishment of Class D Airspace; Bryant AAF,
Anchorage, AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing a SNPRM for the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) published on August 22, 2012 to establish Class D
airspace at Bryant Army Airfield (AAF), Anchorage, AK. After review of
comments received, the FAA determined that the portion of controlled
airspace east of Glenn Highway needs further review and, therefore,
would be eliminated from this proposal for the safety and management of
aircraft operations at the airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 25, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, 20590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2012-
0433; Airspace Docket No. 12-AAL-5, at the beginning of your comments.
You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Roberts, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On August 22, 2012, the FAA published a NPRM to establish Class D
airspace at Bryant AAF, Anchorage, AK, to provide controlled airspace
due to an increase in the complexity, volume and variety of aircraft in
the immediate vicinity of Bryant AAF (77 FR 50646). Thirteen comments
were received, including comments from the Aircraft Owners and Pilots
Association (AOPA), Alaska Airmen's Association (AAA), and the Alaskan
Aviation Safety Foundation (AASF). One commenter believes it is a good
idea to reestablish the Class D airspace, which previously existed at
Bryant AAF.
    AOPA identified three issues that affect pilots using the Eastside
VFR corridor they would like to see addressed. These include the impact
on pilots' situational awareness due to additional communication
frequencies to monitor, the possible compression of traffic using the
Eastside VFR flyway (Glenn Highway), and the availability of weather
information at Fort Richardson. The FAA agrees that additional
information is needed to adequately address these concerns and will
exclude that portion of the original design east of the highway from
the surface to 1,600 feet MSL. The FAA does not agree with their
concern for weather observation. The establishment of Class D airspace
requires weather observation at the primary airport (Bryant AAF). As
part of the activation of this airspace the United States Air Force
(USAF) will assume responsibility for weather support and dissemination
through normal means.
    AASF, along with several commenters, requested additional time to
review the proposal. They were concerned with the impact of the
proposal on pilots operating east of Glenn Highway, citing an increase
in military aircraft operating east of the highway, a possible change
in communication requirements, a potential negative impact in the
pilots' situational awareness, the compression of traffic along the VFR
corridor, a decrease in safety when weather is below 1600 feet AGL; and
that reestablishment of the Class D at Bryant AAF will reduce the
maneuvering room for aircraft entering the Merrill Field airspace area.
The FAA finds merit in these comments and will exclude that portion of
the original design east of the highway from the surface to 1,600 feet
MSL. AASF also noted that there was an error in the latitude and
longitude for two waypoints, which has been corrected in this SNPRM;
and AWOS weather observation needs to be broadcast through all normal
weather dissemination channels. The USAF will assume responsibility for
weather support and dissemination through normal methods at the primary
airport (Bryant AAF) as required for Class D airspace.
    The AAA requested additional time to review the proposal and that
the entire composition of airspace be considered before making a
determination. The FAA has completed an aeronautical study of the air
traffic operations in this area and concludes that the majority of air
traffic transits east of Glenn Highway. As previously stated, the FAA
has excluded that portion east of Glenn Highway.

Remove Return

    After review of public comments, analysis of the traffic flow and
the operational requirements for this area, the FAA believes the
effects of operating with Class D airspace east of Glenn Highway would
require further study. This SNPRM has excluded that portion of the
original design east of the highway from the surface to 1,600 feet MSL.
The FAA seeks comments on this SNPRM.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA 2012-0433 and Airspace Docket No. 12-AAL-5) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to FAA
Docket No. FAA-2012-0433 and airspace Docket No. 12-AAL-5''. The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://

www.faa.gov/airports--airtraffic/air--traffic/publications/airspace--
amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal
Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service
Center, Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA
98057.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Supplemental Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by establishing Class D airspace extending
upward from the surface to and including 2,900 feet MSL at Bryant AAF,
Anchorage AK. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate the
increased volume and variety of aircraft arriving and departing the
immediate vicinity of Bryant AAF. This action would enhance the safety
and management of terminal VFR operations at the airport.
    Class D airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000 of
FAA Order 7400.9W, dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15,
2012, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in this Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation; (1) Is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a
regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since
this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when
promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes
the authority for the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would establish controlled airspace at Bryant AAF, Anchorage AK.
    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9W, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15,
2012, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

AAL AK D Bryant Army Airfield, Anchorage AK [NEW]

Bryant AAF, AK
    (Lat. 61[deg]15'57'' N., long. 149[deg]39'12'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
2,900 feet MSL within an area bounded by a line beginning at lat.
61[deg]17'3'' N., long. 149[deg]37'35'' W.; to lat. 61[deg]17'13''
N., long. 149[deg]43'08'' W.; to lat. 61[deg]13'49'' N., long.
149[deg]43'08'' W.; to lat. 61[deg]13'54'' N., long. 149[deg]42'44''
W.; to lat. 61[deg]14'24'' N., long. 149[deg]41'23'' W.; to lat.
61[deg]15'54'' N., long. 149[deg]38'20'' W.; thence to the point of
beginning.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on May 24, 2013.
Clark Desing,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2013-13596 Filed 6-7-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 223 (Wednesday, November 18, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73521-73522]
[FR Doc No: 2020-25355]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

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

Extension:
    Rule 12d2-2 and Form 25 [SEC File No. 270-86, OMB Control No.
3235-0080]

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collections
of information provided for in Rule 12d2-2 (17 CFR 240.12d2-2) and Form
25 (17 CFR 249.25) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78a et seq.). The Commission plans to submit these existing collections
of information to the Office of Management and Budget for extension and
approval for
    On February 12, 1935, the Commission adopted Rule 12d2-2 \1\ and
Form 25, under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''), to
establish the conditions and procedures under which a security may be
delisted from an exchange and withdrawn from registration under Section
12(b) of the Act.\2\ The Commission adopted amendments to Rule 12d2-2
and Form 25 in 2005.\3\ Under the amended Rule 12d2-2, all issuers and
national securities exchanges seeking to delist and deregister a
security in accordance with the rules of an exchange must file the
adopted version of Form 25 with the Commission. The Commission also
adopted amendments to Rule 19d-1 under the Act to require exchanges to
file the adopted version of Form 25 as notice to the Commission under
Section 19(d) of the Act. Finally, the Commission adopted amendments to
exempt standardized options and security futures products from Section
12(d) of the Act. These amendments are intended to simplify the
paperwork and procedure associated with a delisting

and to unify general rules and procedures relating to the delisting
process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 98 (February 12,
1935).
    \2\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 7011 (February 5,
1963), 28 FR 1506 (February 16, 1963).
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52029 (July 14,
2005), 70 FR 42456 (July 22, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Form 25 is useful because it informs the Commission that a security
previously traded on an exchange is no longer traded. In addition, Form
25 enables the Commission to verify that the delisting and/or
deregistration has occurred in accordance with the rules of the
exchange. Further, Form 25 helps to focus the attention of delisting
issuers to make sure that they abide by the proper procedural and
notice requirements associated with a delisting and/or a
deregistration. Without Rule 12d2-2 and Form 25, as applicable, the
Commission would be unable to fulfill its statutory responsibilities.
    There are 24 national securities exchanges that could possibly be
respondents complying with the requirements of the Rule and Form 25.\4\
The burden of complying with Rule 12d2-2 and Form 25 is not evenly
distributed among the exchanges, however, since there are many more
securities listed on the New York Stock Exchange, the NASDAQ Stock
Market, and NYSE American than on the other exchanges. However, for
purposes of this filing, the Commission staff has assumed that the
number of responses is evenly divided among the exchanges. Since
approximately 830 responses under Rule 12d2-2 and Form 25 for the
purpose of delisting and/or deregistration of equity securities are
received annually by the Commission from the national securities
exchanges, the resultant aggregate annual reporting hour burden would
be, assuming on average one hour per response, 830 annual burden hours
for all exchanges (24 exchanges x an average of 34.6 responses per
exchange x 1 hour per response). In addition, since approximately 110
responses are received by the Commission annually from issuers wishing
to remove their securities from listing and registration on exchanges,
the Commission staff estimates that the aggregate annual reporting hour
burden on issuers would be, assuming on average one reporting hour per
response, 110 annual burden hours for all issuers (110 issuers x 1
response per issuer x 1 hour per response). Accordingly, the total
annual hour burden for all respondents to comply with Rule 12d2-2 is
940 hours (830 hours for exchanges + 110 hours for issuers). The total
related internal cost of compliance associated with these burden hours
is $201,615 ($166,415 for exchanges plus $35,200 for issuers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The staff notes that a few of these 24 registered national
securities exchanges only have rules to permit the listing of
standardized options, which are exempt from Rule 12d2-2 under the
Act. Nevertheless, the staff counted national securities exchanges
that can only list options as potential respondents because these
exchanges could potentially adopt new rules, subject to Commission
approval under Section 19(b) of the Act, to list and trade equity
and other securities that have to comply with Rule 12d2-2 under the
Act. Notice registrants that are registered as national securities
exchanges solely for the purposes of trading securities futures
products have not been counted since, as noted above, securities
futures products are exempt from complying with Rule 12d-2-2 under
the Act and therefore do not have to file Form 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: David Bottom, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o
Cynthia Roscoe, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: November 12, 2020.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-25355 Filed 11-17-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 76 (Friday, April 19, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23616-23617]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09190]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69374; File No. SR-CME-2013-05]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Related to the Acquisition of the Kansas City Board of Trade Clearing
Corporation

April 15, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on April 4, 2013, Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. (``CME'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed
rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have
been prepared primarily by CME. CME filed the proposed rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act,\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4)(ii)
\4\ thereunder, so that the proposal was effective upon filing with the
Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    CME proposes to adopt revisions to certain CME rules in connection
with the November 30, 2012, acquisition of the Kansas City Board of
Trade Clearing Corporation (``KCBTCC'') by CME Group Inc., the parent
holding company of CME. The proposed changes that are the subject of
this filing would establish the eligibility of the Board of Trade of
the City of Chicago, Inc. (``CBOT'') and CME Clearing Members to clear
trades executed on the Board of Trade of Kansas City, Missouri, Inc.
(``KCBT'').
    The proposed revisions became effective upon filing but will not
become operational until April 15, 2013, or the effective date
established by a Commodity Futures Trading Commission (``CFTC'') order
permitting the transfer of open interest from the KCBTCC to CME.

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

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

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

    CME is proposing certain revisions to its rulebook related to its
November 30, 2012, acquisition of KCBTCC by CME Group Inc., the parent
holding company of CME. KCBTCC is currently the derivatives clearing
organization (``DCO'') for transactions executed on the KCBT. CME is
the DCO for transactions executed on CME, CBOT, the New York Mercantile
Exchange, Inc., and Commodity Exchange, Inc. In a letter dated January
14, 2013, CME and KCBTCC jointly petitioned the CFTC for approval to
transfer all open interest from KCBTCC to CME on April 15, 2013. Upon
the transfer of open interest from KCBTCC to CME, KCBTCC will cease
clearing transactions for KCBT and CME will assume the role of DCO for
all trades executed on or through KCBT. To facilitate clearing of KCBT
products by CME, the proposed changes that are the subject of this
filing would simply establish the eligibility of CBOT and CME Clearing
Members (collectively, the ``Clearing Members'') to clear trades
executed on KCBT.
    CME also certified the proposed changes that are the subject of
this filing to its primary regulator, the CFTC, in CME Submission 13-
115. Although these changes are effective on filing, CME proposes to
make them operational on April 15, 2013, or the effective date
established by a CFTC order permitting the transfer of open interest
from the KCBTCC to CME.
    The proposed CME changes relate to CME's activities as a
derivatives clearing organization clearing futures transactions. As
such, CME believes the proposed changes do not significantly affect the
security-based swap clearing operations of CME or any related rights or
obligations of CME security-based swap clearing participants. CME
believes the proposed change is therefore properly filed under Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \5\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4)(ii) \6\ thereunder
because it effects a change in an existing service of a registered
clearing agency that primarily affects the futures clearing operations
of the clearing agency with respect to futures that are not security
futures and does not significantly affect any securities clearing
operations of the clearing agency or any related rights or obligations
of the clearing agency or persons using such service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \6\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CME does not believe that the proposed change will have any impact,
or impose any burden, on competition.

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

    CME has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments
regarding this proposed change. CME has not received any unsolicited
written comments from interested parties.

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

    The foregoing rule change has been filed pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \7\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4)(ii) \8\ thereunder and
was effective upon filing but will not become operational until April
15, 2013, or the effective date established by a CFTC order permitting

the transfer of open interest from the KCBTCC to CME. At any time
within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the
Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4)(ii).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml) or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CME-2013-05 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CME-2013-05. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of CME and on CME's
Web site at http://www.cmegroup.com/market-regulation/files/SEC_19b-4_13-05.pdf.
    All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CME-2013-05
and should be submitted on or before May 10, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-09190 Filed 4-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P