[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 37 (Wednesday, February 25, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10131-10137]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03852]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2013-1084]

Policy Letters: Guidance for the Use of Liquefied Natural Gas as
a Marine Fuel

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: On February 7, 2014, the Coast Guard announced the
availability, in the docket, of two draft policy letters for which it
sought public comment. This notice announces the availability of the
finalized Coast Guard policy letters, including explanations of changes
made to the policy letters and enclosures based on the public comments
received. The first policy letter provides voluntary guidance for
liquefied natural gas (LNG) fuel transfer operations on vessels using
natural gas as fuel in U.S. waters, and training of personnel on those
vessels. It recommends transfer and personnel training measures that we
believe will achieve a level of safety that is at least equivalent to
that provided for traditional fueled vessels. It applies to vessels
equipped to receive LNG for use as fuel, but not to vessels regulated
as LNG carriers that utilize boil-off gas as fuel. The second policy
letter discusses voluntary guidance and existing regulations applicable
to vessels and waterfront facilities conducting LNG marine fuel
transfer (bunkering) operations. The second policy letter provides
voluntary guidance on safety, security, and risk assessment measures we
believe will enhance safe LNG bunkering operations. Both policy letters
are available on the public docket. They have been updated to reflect
publication numbers of the current year. Accordingly, as discussed in
this notice, Policy Letter 01-14 became Policy Letter 01-15 and Policy
Letter 02-14 became Policy Letter 02-15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call or email Ken Smith, Vessel and Facility Operating Standards
Division (CG-OES-2), U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Viewing material in the docket: To view the policy letters and
related material, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket
number (USCG-2013-1084) in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.''
Click on ``Open Docket Folder'' on the line associated with this
notice. If you do not have access to the Internet, you may view the
docket online by visiting the Docket Management facility in Room W12-
140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We
have an agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the
Docket Management Facility.
    Privacy Act: Anyone can search the electronic form of comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a
Privacy Act, system of records notice regarding our public dockets in
the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Background and Purpose

    The shipping industry is exploring conversion from oil-based fuel
to cleaner burning natural gas, because the use of natural gas as fuel
would substantially reduce carbon emissions, sulfur emissions, and
nitrogen oxide emissions. This natural gas fuel would be stored on and
transferred to vessels in the form of liquefied natural gas (LNG).
Existing regulations cover design, equipment, operations, and training
of personnel on vessels that carry LNG as cargo and at waterfront
facilities that handle LNG in bulk. They also cover conventional oil
fuel transfer operations, but do not address LNG transferred as
fuel.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 33 CFR parts 127, 155 and 156; 46 CFR parts 10-15, 30-39,
and 154.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 7, 2014, the Coast Guard published two draft policy
letters (CG-OES 01-14 and CG-OES 02-14), requesting comments, that
recommended the transfer procedures and other operating guidelines for
vessels and waterfront facilities providing LNG to vessels for use as
fuel and for vessels operating in U.S. waters that will be fueled with
natural gas that will be stored onboard as LNG. The Coast Guard has
revised these policy letters based on comments received and now makes
the final policy letters available to the public.
    The policy letters and voluntary guidance do not apply to vessels
regulated as LNG carriers that utilize their boil-off gas as fuel. They
also do not provide guidance on vessel design criteria for natural gas
fuel systems or design of vessels providing LNG for use as fuel. If you
have questions about the design of these systems, please contact the
Coast Guard's Office of Design and Engineering Standards (CG-ENG,
formerly CG-521). See FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for
contact information.

Discussion

    The Coast Guard received 27 letters from the public containing a
combined total of 185 individual comments which are discussed below. We
discuss more fully the changes we made to the policy letters in
response to comments.
    All letters received were generally supportive of the Coast Guard's
effort to provide guidance on the use and transfer of LNG as a marine
fuel and the Coast Guard appreciates this important feedback.
    We also received various comments recommending changes that cannot
be made in a policy document because the Coast Guard would need to
undergo rulemaking to make these recommended changes enforceable. For
example, one submitter suggested that we provide specific details
concerning the information that risk assessments should contain.
Another submitter suggested that we provide common checklists for
industry to follow when conducting bunkering operations. The Coast
Guard will consider these comments and determine whether any further
action is necessary. Additionally, the Coast Guard received comments on
matters unrelated to the two policy letters discussed in this notice.
Those comments have been reviewed but did not effect any changes to
these policy letters. Examples of some of the comments we received
pertaining to design were related to venting arrangements, LNG tank
design, and gas detection.

    Vessel design issues relating to the technical aspects and problems
inherent in vessel design are not discussed in Policy Letters 01-15 and
02-15. We do not intend to include vessel design recommendations or
equivalencies in either policy letter and thus comments requesting
design related revisions cannot be incorporated. Information concerning
design criteria for natural gas fuel systems can be found in CG-521
Policy Letter 01-12, ``Equivalency Determination--Design Criteria For
Natural Gas Fuel Systems,'' which can be viewed at the following
location: http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg521/docs/CG-521.PolicyLetter.01-12.pdf.
    The Coast Guard also identified certain non-substantive
recommendations in comments. Many of these are useful and have been
incorporated where appropriate.
    Six comments were submitted recommending that Compressed Natural
Gas (CNG) and other alternative fuels be addressed in our policy
letters. The Coast Guard believes it is better at this time to evaluate
other alternative fuels on a case-by-case basis and will continue to
gather information on how these alternative fuels are used to determine
whether guidance is necessary and appropriate. One submitter suggested
that it would be useful if we added language indicating how LNG differs
from other ``conventional'' liquid hydrocarbon fuels. The Coast Guard
agrees and added additional information in Policy Letter 01-15,
Enclosure (1).
    Five comments were submitted on the topic of hot work. Based on the
comments received, the Coast Guard revised its discussion on hot work
in Policy Letter 01-15, Enclosure (1) to further clarify that hot work
must be conducted in accordance with the existing regulations to which
vessels are inspected. Where no regulations are specified, we recommend
that the regulations in 46 CFR 91.50-1 be followed.
    Six comments were received on the Coast Guard's use of the term
``in bulk.'' Three comments asked whether LNG packaged in ISO
tanktainers, and loaded on a vessel, is not ``in bulk'' and therefore
not subject to 33 CFR Part 127. The Coast Guard confirms that LNG in
packaged form such as LNG in ISO tanktainers is not considered an ``in
bulk'' shipment and the facility where those packages are loaded does
not need to comply with 33 CFR Part 127. The Coast Guard further
clarifies that LNG in ISO tanktainers is a hazardous material in
packaged form and as such must be loaded from a facility that complies
with 33 CFR Part 126. Three additional comments requested clarification
on the Coast Guard's definition of the term ``bulk.'' In response to
these requests, the Coast Guard clarifies in Policy Letter 01-15,
Enclosure (1) that ``bulk'' has the meaning defined in the Marine
Safety Manual as a material that is transported on board a vessel
without mark or count and which is directly loaded into a hold or tank
on a vessel without containers or wrappers.
    Six comments were received on LNG tank truck operations. Three
spoke to matters involving the driving and transfer of LNG from tank
trucks directly on a vessel, and one wanted to know why the Coast Guard
doesn't discuss the activity. The Coast Guard does not discuss this
type of operation because the operation is not considered as safe as
other forms of transfer operations available. Driving LNG tank trucks
aboard a vessel and conducting LNG transfer operations while aboard is
considered to be a transfer involving a greater risk than other forms
of LNG transfers because vessels and LNG tank trucks cannot remove
themselves from the area in the event of an emergency. The Coast Guard
does not wish to promote the operation in general, but remains open to
evaluating requests on a case-by-case basis. One submitter requested to
know if all of 33 CFR Part 127 would apply to LNG tank truck and rail
car transfers. As discussed in Enclosure 1 of Policy Letter 02-15,
existing regulatory standards may not be appropriate for small scale
(e.g., LNG fuel transfer) operations and the Coast Guard Captain of the
Port (COTP) may consider alternatives under 33 CFR 127.017.
    Five comments were received concerning ISO type tanks. One
submitter noted that ISO tanks need to be properly approved and
designed and are not as robust as type ``C'' tanks. The Coast Guard
notes that LNG in portable tanks must meet specifications outlined by
the Department of Transportation for transport and carriage of
hazardous materials in accordance with the Hazardous Material
Regulations contained in Title 49 of the U.S. Code of Federal
Regulations. The Coast Guard Office of Design and Engineering (CG-ENG)
and/or the Marine Safety Center will evaluate as part of their plan
review and approval process the design and construction of tanks used
to store LNG as fuel on board U.S. vessels.
    Four comments were received concerning guidance to the COTP for
considering alternatives to the requirements in 33 CFR Part 127. Of
those comments received, two comments also recommended Coast Guard
Headquarters oversight so as to ensure greater consistency from port to
port. The Coast Guard recognizes the need and desire for consistency
from port to port and throughout the Coast Guard. To help COTPs
understand alternatives which may be considered for the requirements in
33 CFR Part 127, we have added a new enclosure. Enclosure (4) to Policy
letter 02-15 has been added to provide COTPs with guidance as to
alternatives which may be considered in lieu of the requirements of 33
CFR Part 127 for LNG fuel facilities. Through publication of these
policy letters and continued work within the Coast Guard, we hope to
provide consistent application of regulations and policies for LNG
operations throughout the country.
    Ten comments were received on the topic of conducting Risk
Assessments. One of the submitters recommended we add more wording
concerning identification of hazards (HAZID's), operational hazards
(HAZOP's) and quantitaive risk assessments (QRA's). The Coast Guard
agrees and added additional guidance and information concerning the
need to conduct risk assessments. We have revised Enclosure 1 of Policy
Letter 01-15 and Enclosures 1 and 2 of Policy Letter 02-15 to include
more information on recommendations for risk assessments established by
recognized industry organizations. Finally, one submitter stated that
there is no clearly defined or broadly accepted standard for evaluating
risk assessments and noted that NFPA standard 551 has some guidance
which should be considered. For the purpose of harmonizing with the
international community, we recommend and reference in the policy
letters the publications of the classification society Det Norske
Veritas--Germanischer Lloyd (DNV-GL) and the International Organization
for Standardization (ISO) as guides which should be used to conduct
risk assessments.
    The Coast Guard received twelve comments on training and drills.
One submitter indicated that the Coast Guard should establish and
specify definite training intervals in order to avoid differing
interpretations. The Coast Guard agrees that guidance on appropriate
intervals would be helpful and suggests as an example that the drills
be conducted quarterly. One submitter indicated that they strongly
support having defined training requirements and believe this will
significantly contribute to a safer industry. The Coast Guard agrees.
The amendments to this policy include recommended training provisions.
This guidance identifies a two-tier system--basic and advanced training
that

companies may use to structure their training. In addition, the company
is also responsible for the vessel familiarization of the crew members
which is ship and fuel specific and tailored to each mariner's onboard
duties. The recommendations are consistent with the proposed
International Maritime Organization (IMO) ``Interim guidance on
training for seafarers on board ships using gases or other low-
flashpoint fuels'', STCW.7/Circ.23, the draft amendments to the STCW
Convention, and the MERPAC recommendations on this issue. The Coast
Guard has added a new Enclosure (3) to Policy Letter 01-15 which is
based upon ``Interim guidance on training for seafarers on board ships
using gases or other low-flashpoint fuels'', STCW.7/Circ.23. STCW.7/
Circ.23 is the final version of HTW 1/WP.3, Annex 5 that is referenced
by the submitters. Another submitter also indicated they believed the
Coast Guard should ensure the transitional provisions are followed as
an interim measure until relevant STCW requirements come into force to
allow for initial personnel training for the new technology. The Coast
Guard agrees and is recommending interim steps as part of this policy
letter to help ensure an orderly transition to future mandatory
requirements. One submitter suggested that Enclosure (2) of Policy
Letter 01-14 be deleted in its entirety because the guidelines
contained in Resolution MSC.285(86) are expected to be superseded by
new interim guidance recommended in HTW 1/WP.3, Annex 5 once the
guidance is adopted by MSC. The Coast Guard agrees in part. Enclosure 2
repeats Chapter 8 of IMO Resolution MSC.285(86), ``Interim guidelines
on safety for natural gas-fuelled engine installations in ships,''
which contains both training and operational components. We've retained
the operational components from Enclosure 2 and replaced the training
components with the product from STCW.7/Circ.23, ``Interim guidance on
training for seafarers on board ships using gases or other low-
flashpoint fuels'' as Enclosure (3). STCW.7/Circ.23 is the current IMO
circular which is based upon the HTW 1/WP.3, Annex 5 that is being
referenced by the submitters. One submitter recommended that the Coast
Guard work towards approving training courses that meet the proposed
requirements of part A (Annex 4) of HTW 1/WP.3 and look to begin
issuing endorsements as quickly as possible. The Coast Guard agrees in
principle but is unable to approve courses or issue endorsements until
enabling regulations are in place. However, the Coast Guard is
endeavoring to provide within CG-OES Policy Letter 01-15, interim
guidance that can be used by maritime training providers, maritime
companies and mariners to develop training courses and will review
courses submitted on a voluntary basis that are designed to meet the
training guidance outlined in Enclosure (3). The Coast Guard will issue
a letter to maritime training providers attesting to the Coast Guard's
review and conformance of these courses with the training recommended
in this guidance. One submitter additionally noted that the various
means of transfer would require various levels of qualification and
training specific to transfers. The Coast Guard agrees that training
guidelines would be helpful to companies involved in transfers. The
Coast Guard has expanded the training guidelines in line with work
currently ongoing at IMO and MERPAC recommendations. MERPAC provided
recommendations on the content of the training, transitional
provisions, and the proof of training. Their recommendations are
included in the revised policy letter. As for mariners holding
tankerman PIC (LG), tankerman-engineer (LG) and tankerman assistant
(LG) endorsements, transition requirements have also been addressed.
    One submitter presumed that the Coast Guard will not require a
special endorsement on a license or Merchant Mariner Document (MMD) for
mariners serving aboard an LNG powered vessel other than the PIC, who
must hold a proper endorsement in order to conduct the transfer
operation. The submitter also stated that the policy letter was silent
as to the level of competency that each company must provide for other
shipboard personnel involved in LNG bunkering operations. In response,
the Coast Guard has expanded the training section of the policy letter
to include recommended training for members of the vessel's crew who
have safety responsibilities in regard to the gases or low flashpoint
fuels being used and that documentary evidence such as course
completion certificates, company letters, etc., should be issued
indicating that the holder has successfully completed the basic or
advanced training, as appropriate--See Enclosure 3 of Policy Letter 01-
15. One submitter indicated that care should be taken to assure that
training for personnel on board vessels using gas fuels are
differentiated from a full tankerman (LG endorsement) as appropriate
and that referencing the parts of 46 CFR that are for Tankerman should
be eliminated. The Coast Guard agrees that vessel personnel on vessels
using gases and low flashpoint fuels should be differentiated from full
tankerman. As a result, recommendations specific to their training have
been provided in Enclosure (3) accordingly.
    The Coast Guard received three comments concerning PICs. One
submitter indicated that the Coast Guard needs to clarify the meaning
of the word ``enough'' where it is stated that, ``. . . there must be
enough Tankerman-PICs on duty . . .'' noting that the word ``enough''
is too vague. The Coast Guard notes the submitters concern, and
understands that the term may be ambiguous. However, the term is
carried forth from the existing regulations for cargo handling
operations in 46 CFR 35.35-1 allowing flexibilty to owners, managing
operators, masters, and PICs in determining the number of qualified
personnel needed to safely transfer liquid cargo based on the details
of a specific transfer operation. Enclosure 2 of Policy Letter 02-15,
pertaining to tank vessels transfering LNG, remains unchanged in this
regard and points to the regulations in 46 CFR 35.35-1 and 154.1831
outlining the qualifications for personnel involved in liquid cargo
transfer. However, aboard the receiving vessel that uses gases or low
flashpoint fuels, the Coast Guard recommends in Enclosure (1) of Policy
Letter 01-15, that the Master of a vessel using LNG as fuel should
ensure that all personnel involved with LNG fuel use, transfer, or
emergency response meet the standards of competence or advanced
standards of competence outlined in Enclosure (3) of Policy Letter 01-
15 for the duties to which they are assigned. One submitter noted that
both the receiving vessel and supplier of LNG have PICs but our policy
letters did not discuss an overall PIC, and requested to know who the
overall PIC is. The Coast Guard does not discuss designatation of an
overall PIC, because the Coast Guard does not believe an overall PIC is
necessary. Similar to conventional fuel transfer operations, no one
individual is designated as having overall control and responsibility
for the transfer. Each PIC is responsible for their part of the
transfer operation (supplier and receiver) and each side of the
transfer should have a means to stop the transfer in the event of an
emergency (See 33 CFR 127.205 and 155.780). Both supplier and receiver
must have a means for dedicated voice communication with each other in
order to maintain oversight and control of LNG tanks and transfer lines
(See 33 CFR 127.111 and 155.785). Given that personnel on either side
of the transfer

may not be familiar or experienced with equipment on the other side, it
would be improper to assign one entity as being in charge overall. For
this reason, the transfer operation should be an event highly
coordinated by both PICs. One submitter suggested the Coast Guard add
three additional points covering PIC responsibilities--``Establishment
of safety zone encompassing both supplier and receiving vessel,''
``Emergency response personnel defined and readiness,'' and
``Monitoring of climatic conditions prior to and during transfer
operations.'' The Coast Guard agrees in part and has modified the
section in Enclosure (1) of Policy Letter 01-15 discussing PIC
responsibilities to include checking for climatic conditions and
setting safety and security areas around the LNG transfer area.
Information related to emergency response is covered in item 2 of the
same section.
    Two comments were submitted on portable gas detectors. Both
expressed a belief that it was unnecessary for all personnel involved
in an LNG transfer to have a portable gas detector and suggested that
the policy letter align with existing regulations (See 33 CFR 127.203
and 46 CFR 154.1345) which require at least 2 portable gas detectors in
the marine transfer area. The Coast Guard agrees and has modified the
policy letters to align with existing regulations.
    Eight comments were received concerning simultaneous operations.
All but one supported the need to conduct simultaneous operations. The
one comment submitted against simultaneous operations stated that
simultaneous operations create a significant risk factor, dramatically
increasing the likelihood of a casualty while fueling. The Coast Guard
agrees that simultaneous operations may introduce increased risk, but
believes that performance of a risk analysis and incorporation of risk
mitigation measures can be useful toward decreasing the likelihood of a
casualty occurring while fueling. One comment stated that simultaneous
operations should not be treated any differently than current fueling
operations. One comment indicated that simultaneous operations should
only be allowed after a detailed risk analysis and dispersion analysis
are completed. Two comments indicated the need to have a definitive
statement that the Coast Guard recognizes the need to allow
simultaneous operations. The Coast Guard agrees with the majority of
commenters and has modified the discussion of simultaneous operations
in Policy Letter 01-15, Enclosure (1) to include a more definitive
statement concerning the need for considering simultaneous operations
and identifies recommended industry standards which may be used by
facility owners to conduct risk assessments. The Coast Guard does not
wish to specify what operations may or may not be conducted
simultaneously while LNG transfer operations are in progress and the
COTP will evaluate each proposal on a case-by-case basis based on the
specific hazards involved.
    Three comments were submitted on emergency shutdown devices (ESD).
One submitter said all ESD components are to be tested no more than 24
hours before commencement of the actual bunkering operation and that
the tests should be documented in accordance with the bunkering
procedure. The Coast Guard agrees. In accordance with 33 CFR
127.315(i), and 156.120(r), the ESD system is currently required to be
tested by the PIC prior to transfer which should be well within the 24
hour period suggested. One submitter suggested that there could be an
exemption for testing bunker tanker ESD equipment, provided evidence of
regular testing is available or alternative requirements are deemed as
an acceptable equivalence. The Coast Guard disagrees. As noted
previously, testing of the ESD system must be conducted by the PIC
prior to the transfer as required by existing regulations 33 CFR
127.315(i), and 156.120(r). One submitter suggested that automatic
activation of the ESD system due to a gas detection alarm should be
reconsidered noting that gas detection systems have been prone to false
alarms, particularly if located in humid areas, and repeated shutdowns
due to erroneous alarms could create an unanticipated hazard. The Coast
Guard is unaware of this being a widespread problem attributed to the
performance of all gas detection systems available on the market.
However, we have amended Policy Letter 01-15, Enclosure (1) such that
gas detection is one of eight items that can be considered as a means
to activate the ESD system.
    Two comments were received on checklists. One commenter indicated
that compatibility between the LNG supplier and the vessel receiving
LNG must be ensured in terms of LNG transfer system design, operational
manuals, emergency response procedures and a common checklist for the
LNG transfer operation. Another comment requested that we consider
adopting a professional industry organization's bunker checklists into
our policy letters. The Coast Guard agrees that the use of checklists
is valuable. We have provided a hyperlink in our policy letters
recommending that owners and operators involved in LNG transfer
operations consider using checklists in order to help globally
standardize LNG transfer operations.
    Five comments were submitted concerning hazard zones, safety
distances, and transfer areas. One submitter questioned whether or not
the transfer area is considered to be a hazardous area and asserted
that no ignition sources should exist in the transfer area. The Coast
Guard agrees and confirms that the transfer area is considered to be a
hazardous area. Details concerning removal of ignition sources
associated with LNG supply are addressed in Policy Letter 02-15 which
focuses on vessels and facilities providing LNG as fuel. One submitter
noted that we refer to transfer area and hazardous area, but believed
that consideration on `Determination of safety and security zones'
should be given. They also pointed out a key aspect with regard to the
responsibility of the PIC is to establish the exchange of sufficient
information to allow completion of a Declaration of Security (if
required), agreement on how and between whom, communications regarding
security that are to be made and actions to be taken in the event of a
breach of security. Another submitter commented that there should be a
discussion about hazardous areas and safety and security areas around
the LNG transfer area. The Coast Guard agrees and has added a new
paragraph discussing the items in Enclosure (1) of Policy Letter 01-15.
One additional submitter stated that advice needs to be given regarding
safety distances at different transfer rates, due to increasing
``largest credible spills'' and that dispersion analysis needs to be
included. The Coast Guard agrees with the need to provide additional
information concerning safety and security areas and has added
information in Policy Letter 01-15, Enclosure (1) indicating they
should be established in accordance with industry standards established
by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) which is a
recognized organization that has published information related to
determining the size of safety and security areas around LNG transfer
points. The Coast Guard doesn't agree with the need to require a
declaration of security at this time, and notes that existing
regulations concerning the declaration of inspection (33 CFR 127.317,
and 33 CFR 156.150) require PICs to conduct a series of checks before

transfer operations, including ensuring that communications are
operable between PICs involved in the transfer. The Coast Guard agrees
that breaches in safety and security areas should be evaluated and has
included a recommendation that a contingency plan be developed
concerning how to handle and respond to them. One submitter stated that
consideration should be given to include the scope for interaction of a
vessel's hazardous areas, emergency response equipment (firefighting,
mechanical ventilation, etc.) emergency response procedures and linked
ESD systems. The Coast Guard agrees. These items should be considered
as part of the compatability assessment we recommend to be conducted
between suppliers and receivers of LNG. We also recommend that
emergency response manuals be developed and provide a list of
recommended information they should contain.
    Four comments were submitted concerning pipelines. One comment
suggested that we delete references to bonding of pipelines in Policy
Letter 01-14, Enclosure (1) in the section discussing detailed diagrams
of the transfer area. The submitter indicated it was not clear how this
would be shown on a diagram. The Coast Guard agrees and has removed the
item as suggested. One submitter addressed the discussion on, ``Conduct
before a LNG Fuel Transfer'' under Regulations and Recommendations for
Vessels Bunkering LNG, of Enclosure (2) to CG-OES Policy Letter No. 02-
14. The submitter noted the policy letter states that before
transferring LNG to a vessel for use of gas as fuel, the PIC for
transferring LNG should inspect the accessible portions of the transfer
piping system and equipment to be used during the transfer and ensure
that any worn or inoperable parts are replaced and any leaks are
identified. The Coast Guard agrees and has added an item recommending
that the transfer piping be tested for leaks prior to the transfer of
LNG. Finally, one comment was received concerning Policy Letter 02-14,
Enclosure (2) section discussing, ``Conduct after a LNG Fuel
Transfer.'' The submitter requested adding a requirement to ensure that
transfer hoses, manifolds, and associated piping are purged so that
natural gas levels are below the lower flammability level. The Coast
Guard has amended the section to recommend these types of safety
measures.
    We received one comment on loading flanges. The submitter indicated
the existing regulations contain seemingly contradictory provisions
which could complicate the siting, permitting and operation of such
facilities. The submitter noted that Part 127 and Part 193 contain
differing requirements in terms of the location of LNG loading flanges
in relation to nearby bridges. The Coast Guard understands the
concerns, but notes that any correction to these regulations would need
to go through the Department of Transporation or USCG rulemaking
process. Therefore, the noted discrepancies cannot be rectified through
these policy letters.
    We received one comment concerning transfer hoses. The submitter
referenced an early draft version of our policy letter suggesting that
the transfer hose should include provisions to prevent electrical flow
during connection or disconnection of the transfer hose string through
the hose string or loading arm. The insertion of one short length of
non-conducting hose without internal bonding in each hose string, or
installation of an insulating flange, should be addressed. In addition,
the submitter suggested that each transfer hose string should contain
only one electrically discontinuous length of hose or insulating
flange, to prevent electrostatic build-up in the hose string. The Coast
Guard agrees and has amended Policy Letter 02-15, Enclosure (2) to
include these recommendations.
    One comment was received on lighting whereby the submitter
suggested that the intensity levels should not be specified. The Coast
Guard disagrees as the lighting intensity levels specified in the
policy letters simply mirror existing federal regulations already
imposed for transfer operations. See 33 CFR 127.109 and 155.790.
    One comment was submitted concerning operations manuals whereby the
submitter said there should be a provision to demonstrate that all
relevant personnel are familiar with the operations manual. The Coast
Guard agrees and has modified the opening paragraph discussing
operation, emergency, and maintenance manuals in policy letter 01-15,
Enclosure (1) indicating that the master of a vessel using LNG as fuel
should ensure that all personnel involved with LNG fuel use, transfer,
or emergency response are familiar with the contents of the LNG fuel
transfer system operations manual.
    We received three comments concerning emergency procedures. One
commenter stated that simultaneous operations imposes the need for more
requirements, especially where passengers, public or non-qualified/
briefed personnel are in proximity of the bunkering operation. At a
minimum, the submitter stated a need to consider emergency procedures
for handling of passengers in the event of an incident during
bunkering. The Coast Guard agrees and has modified Policy Letter 01-15,
Enclosure (1) to include a provision in the emergency manual for
removing or relocating passengers in the event of an LNG incident
during bunkering. One commenter suggested that the LNG bunkering and
emergency response procedures take into account the LNG bunkering
system in place and that the results of the risk assessment studies are
adequately managed. The Coast Guard agrees and has included reference
to recognized standards for conducting risk assessments which are
identified in Enclosure 1 of Policy Letter 01-15 and Enclosures 1 and 2
of Policy Letter 02-15. The risk assessment we recommend should be
based on specific details of the operation intended and identify
associated risks and hazards and the means to mitigate those risks. The
risk assessment is expected to be used as a guide to assist owners and
operators in developing their bunkering and emergency response
procedures. One commenter asked for guidance on what security
requirements, if any, will be required for the vessel arriving at the
facility to receive LNG for fuel. If applicable, the security
requirements for vessels may be based on the requirements of 33 CFR
part 104--Maritime Security: Vessels. Additionally, a safety or
security zone may be established around a vessel by the COTP if it is
determined necessary based on the results of a risk assessment.
    Six comments were received concerning the topic of LNG bunkering.
One commenter suggested that LNG bunkering procedures should ensure
that unauthorized and non-essential personnel cannot enter the
bunkering area. The Coast Guard agrees and has amended Policy Letter
01-15, Enclosure (1) to include a recommendation that procedures be
established for setting, securing, and clearing safety and security
areas around the LNG transfer point. Two commenters recommended that
the operator define the operational envelope under which transfer can
take place noting that this should be indicated as a ``permissible
range of motion where transfer operations can proceed (to be defined
for the operation as well as the transfer equipment)'', and be included
in the Operations manual. The Coast Guard agrees and has amended Policy
Letter 01-15, Enclosure (1) recommending that the operations manual
define the operating envelope for which safe transfer operations can

and cannot occur. One submitter suggested that paragraph 5b. of Policy
Letter No. 01-14 be modified to impose a mutual obligation on both the
transferring vessel operator and the receiving vessel operator to
ensure that both parties have the personnel and equipment to safely
conduct LNG bunkering operations. The Coast Guard agrees and has added
recommended information related to the declaration of inspection which
must be signed and completed by both persons in charge of the transfer
in accordance with 33 CFR 156.150 signifying a mutal obligation on the
part of both parties. One commenter stated that it is critical to have
a common set of regulatory procedures for all LNG bunkering operations
in all ports in the United States (as exists today under 33 CFR part
127 and elsewhere) which companies could incorporate into their
operational plans and crew training. The Coast Guard agrees that
standardized procedures help ensure safe transfer operations and
believes the policy letters will help establish guidelines for
standardized industry procedures.
    Eight comments were submitted concerning referenced standards. The
Coast Guard received one comment pointing out that the reference to
SIGTTO's LNG Ship to Ship Transfer Guidelines, 1st Edition, 2011, was
outdated and should be replaced with SIGTTO's ``Ship to Ship Transfer
Guide--Petroleum, Chemicals, & Liquefied Gases,'' 1st Edition, 2013,
whenever referenced. The Coast Guard agrees and has modified the policy
letters as suggested to reflect the updated industry standard. One
comment requested referencing NFPA 59A, the ``Standard for the
Production, Storage, and Handling of Liquefied Natural Gas'' and
SIGTTO's ``Liquid Gas Fire Hazard Management'' in our discussion of
firefighting equipment in Policy Letter 02-14, Enclosure (2). The Coast
Guard agrees in part and has added a reference to the SIGTTO
publication, but does not reference NFPA 59A because the standard
refers to shore based LNG storage and production facilities and
Enclosure (2) of Policy Letter 02-15 is focused on vessels providing
LNG as fuel. We received a comment suggesting that we add a reference
to SIGTTO 2009 publication, ``ESD Arrangements & Linked Ship/Shore
Systems for Liquefied Gas Carriers'' in the discussion of emergency
shutdown devices in Enclosure (1) of Policy Letter 01-14. The Coast
Guard agrees and has modified the section as requested. Two comments
suggested full incorporation of International Maritime Organization
(IMO) standards and guidelines. Policy letter 01-15 outlines these
operational items in great detail but we have added a recommendation to
better align with IMO guidance noting that procedures for confined
space entry should be included in the operations manual. One submitter
provided a list of industry standards and guides which the Coast Guard
should consider recognizing. The Coast Guard has provided a hyperlink
to a free publication provided by the LNG Ship Fuel Advisory Group,
titled, ``Standards and Guidelines for Natural Gas Fuelled Ship
Projects'' which identifies many of these standards and recommends that
owners and operators become familiar with its contents. This change can
be found in Policy Letter 01-15, Enclosure (1), and Policy Letter 02-
15, Enclosures (1) and (2) under the section labeled Job Aides.
    One submitter suggested Policy Letter 01-14, Enclosure (1) not
recommend installation of firefighting equipment on unmanned barges
because potential operating scenarios of a barge may include operations
away from the LNG facility and firefighting capabilities of a towing
vessel during vessel-to-vessel operations could be difficult to ensure.
The Coast Guard disagrees and believes operators should consider all
firefighting equipment available in the vicinity of an LNG transfer
operation whether the transfer is off port or at shore. When conducting
a safety assessment for a particular operation, all available
firefighting equipment and emergency response equipment should be
considered.
    One comment suggested that due to the cryogenic properties of LNG,
personal protective equipment should be listed with more specificity,
including such items as leather working boots (no canvas sneakers
should be worn during fueling or transfer operations), loose fitting
fire resistant gloves, full face shields, and fit-for purpose multi-
layer clothing. The Coast Guard agrees and has modified the sections in
Policy Letter 01-15, Enclosure (1) and Policy Letter 02-15, Enclosure
(2) discussing recommended personal protective equipment.
    The Coast Guard received comments about how the policy letters will
be enforced. One commenter raised concerns regarding the notice and
comment process of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C.
551, et seq., with regard to the guidance document process and Due
Process concerns of appealing a Coast Guard decision. The Coast Guard
notes that guidance documents are by their nature non-binding as they
are created to assist the industry in absence of other sources or in
explaining existing regulatory requirements. These policy letters
provide clarification to industry of existing requirements and how to
apply them in this quickly changing environment. These policy letters
do not impose legally binding requirements and a company can choose not
to adopt the recommendations in the policy letter if it desires. There
is no enforcement action associated with these recommendations and thus
no appeal process is necessary. However, it is important to note that
anyone affected by a direct decision of an OCMI/COTP can appeal that
decision to the District Commander as provided for in 46 CFR 1.03-20
and 33 CFR 127.015. Finally, the Coast Guard received one comment
requesting clarification on the statement in Policy Letter 01-14
indicating that it is the responsibility of the operator of the
facility and/or the transferring vessel to ensure that the receiving
vessel has the necessary personnel and equipment to safely and securely
participate in the conduct of an LNG transfer operation. While the
regulations in 33 CFR Part 127, Subpart B, indicate the primary
responsibility for ensuring appropriate LNG transfer protocols are
followed lies with the facility operator, the receiving vessel is
required by 33 CFR 156.120 and 156.150 to identify a PIC of transfer
operations on the vessel who will assist the PIC of shoreside transfer
operations in conducting the preliminary transfer inspection required
and completing the declaration of inspections required by 33 CFR
127.317 and 156.150. The qualifications set forth at 33 CFR 127.301 and
33 CFR 155.710 (Qualifications of person in charge) are good guidance
for assigning a PIC. Addtionally, this policy sets forth recommended
personnel training guidelines for those personnel who will participate
in the transfer operation.
    We received one comment asking for guidance on the topic of roll
over. As a result of this comment, the Coast Guard added roll over to
the list of items in Policy Letter 01-15, Enclosure (1) for which
emergency actions and response measures should be described in the
emergency manual.
    One comment suggested that the word, ``if used'' be deleted in
enclosure (1) to CG-OES Policy Letter No. 01-14, on page 2, under the
heading, ``Operations, Emergency, and Maintenance Manuals,'' noting
that inert gas must be used to prevent potentially explosive
conditions. The Coast Guard agrees and has amended the policy letter as
suggested.
    Finally, one comment was submitted requesting that the Coast Guard

elaborate what is meant by the boundary of a facility conducting
bunkering. In response, the Coast Guard provides that the boundaries of
an LNG facility handling LNG should be based on the requirements for
design and spacing in NFPA 59A as outlined in 33 CFR Part 127 and any
risk or fire safety assessments that may be prepared for the specific
operation. The boundary of each facility conducting bunkering should be
based on details of the specific bunkering operation.

Voluntary Policy

    The Coast Guard's intent in issuing these policy letters is to
assist the industry, public, Coast Guard, and other Federal and State
regulators in applying existing statutory and regulatory requirements.
Following the policy and guidance recommended in these policy letters
is voluntary. The policy letters are not a substitute for applicable
legal requirements nor are they regulations themselves. The policy
letters, however, do contain references to existing requlations which
may require certain action where applicable. The Coast Guard notes
those instances where it discusses requirements under existing
regulations instead of policy or guidance. Nothing in the policy
letters and guidance they contain are meant to override or subvert the
discretion of the COTP when addressing the unique safety and security
concerns of an LNG operation.
    This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).

    Dated: February 19, 2015.
J.G. Lantz,
Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2015-03852 Filed 2-24-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 74 (Wednesday, April 17, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16008-16010]
[FR Doc No: 2019-07742]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Sunshine Act Meetings

    The following notice of meeting is published pursuant to section
3(a) of the

government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. 94-409), 5 U.S.C. 552b:

Agency Holding Meeting:  Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

TIME AND DATE:  April 18, 2019 10:00 a.m.

PLACE:  Room 2C, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

STATUS:  Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:  Agenda.

* NOTE --Items listed on the agenda may be deleted without further
notice.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:  Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For a recorded message listing items struck from or added to the
meeting, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    This is a list of matters to be considered by the Commission. It
does not include a listing of all documents relevant to the items on
the agenda. All public documents, however, may be viewed on line at the
Commission's website at http://ferc.capitolconnection.org/ using the
eLibrary link, or may be examined in the Commission's Public Reference
Room.

                                                 1054th--Meeting
                                   [Open meeting; April 18, 2019; 10:00 a.m.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Item No.                      Docket No.                                     Company
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 ADMINISTRATIVE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A-1...................  AD19-1-000..........................  Agency Administrative Matters.
A-2...................  AD19-2-000..........................  Customer Matters, Reliability, Security and Market
                                                               Operations.
A-3...................  AD19-11-000.........................  State of the Markets 2018 Report.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    ELECTRIC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-1...................  EL19-11-000.........................  American Wind Energy Association and The Wind
                                                               Coalition v. Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
E-2...................  EL18-33-000.........................  New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
E-3...................  EL18-34-000.........................  PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
E-4...................  Omitted.............................  ..................................................
E-5...................  RM18-20-000.........................  Critical Infrastructure Protection Reliability
                                                               Standard CIP-012-1--Cyber Security--
                                                               Communications between Control Centers.
E-6...................  ER17-1357-002.......................  Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC and Duke Energy
                                                               Progress, LLC.
E-7...................  ER17-1568-002, ER17-1568-003, ER18-   Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
                         1854-001, ER18-2030-001, ER18-2058-
                         001, ER19-261-001.
E-8...................  ER19-1112-000.......................  Flat Ridge 2 Wind Energy LLC Fowler Ridge II Wind
                                                               Farm LLC Southwestern Electric Power Company
                                                               Indiana Michigan Power Company Ohio Power
                                                               Company.
E-9...................  ES19-15-000.........................  El Paso Electric Company.
E-10..................  ES19-14-000.........................  South Carolina Electric & Gas Company
                                                              South Carolina Generating Company, Inc.
E-11..................  EL19-42-000.........................  City Utilities of Springfield, Missouri.
E-12..................  EL18-205-000........................  Sunrun, Inc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       GAS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G-1...................  RM18-11-001, RP18-415-001...........  Interstate and Intrastate Natural Gas Pipelines;
                                                               Rate Changes Relating to Federal Income Tax Rate
                                                               American Forest & Paper Association.
G-2...................  RP15-23-000.........................  Transwestern Pipeline Company, LLC.
G-3...................  RP19-810-000........................  Tallgrass Interstate Gas Transmission, LLC.
                        RP19-811-000........................  Trailblazer Pipeline Company LLC.
                        RP19-812-000........................  Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.
G-4...................  IS18-228-002........................  Buckeye Pipe Line Company, L.P.
G-5...................  RP18-1038-003.......................  Northern Border Pipeline Company.
G-6...................  OR18-15-001.........................  Andeavor Field Services, LLC v. Mid-America
                                                               Pipeline Company, LLC and Enterprise Products
                                                               Operating LLC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      HYDRO
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-1...................  RM19-6-000..........................  Hydroelectric Licensing Regulations Under the
                                                               America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018.
H-2...................  P-2897-048, P-2932-047, P-2941-043,   Sappi North America, Inc.
                         P-2931-042, P-2942-051.
H-3...................  P-14655-001.........................  Cat Creek Energy, LLC.
H-4...................  P-2107-021..........................  Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
H-5...................  P-6461-027..........................  City of Port Angeles, Washington.
H-6...................  P-2079-080..........................  Placer County Water Agency.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  CERTIFICATES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C-1...................  CP17-219-001........................  Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.
C-2...................  CP17-117-000........................  Driftwood LNG LLC.
                        CP17-118-000........................  Driftwood Pipeline LLC.
C-3...................  CP17-20-000.........................  Port Arthur LNG, LLC and PALNG Common Facilities
                                                               Company, LLC.
                        CP17-21-000, CP17-21-001, CP18-7-000  Port Authur Pipeline, LLC.

C-4...................  Omitted                               ..................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issued: April 11, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
    A free webcast of this event is available through http://ferc.capitolconnection.org/. Anyone with internet access who desires to
view this event can do so by navigating to www.ferc.gov's Calendar of
Events and locating this event in the Calendar. The event will contain
a link to its webcast. The Capitol Connection provides technical
support for the free webcasts. It also offers access to this event via
television in the DC area and via phone bridge for a fee. If you have
any questions, visit http://ferc.capitolconnection.org/ or contact
Shirley Al-Jarani at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Immediately following the conclusion of the Commission Meeting, a
press briefing will be held in the Commission Meeting Room. Members of
the public may view this briefing in the designated overflow room. This
statement is intended to notify the public that the press briefings
that follow Commission meetings may now be viewed remotely at
Commission headquarters, but will not be telecast through the Capitol
Connection service.

[FR Doc. 2019-07742 Filed 4-15-19; 11:15 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 241 (Monday, December 20, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71936-71940]
[FR Doc No: 2021-27418]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-93769; File No. SR-FINRA-2021-032]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend FINRA Rule 2251 (Processing and
Forwarding of Proxy and Other Issuer-Related Materials)

December 14, 2021.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on December 7, 2021, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by FINRA. FINRA has designated
the proposed rule change as constituting a ``non-controversial'' rule
change under paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 under the Act,\3\ which
renders the proposal effective upon receipt of this filing by the
Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    FINRA is proposing to amend the provisions of FINRA Rule 2251
(Processing and Forwarding of Proxy and Other Issuer-Related Materials)
relating to seeking reimbursement from issuers for forwarding proxy and
other materials and to make minor conforming revisions.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's
website at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA and
at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    FINRA Rule 2251 requires FINRA members to transmit proxy materials
and other communications to beneficial owners of securities and limits
the circumstances in which FINRA members may vote proxies without
instructions from those beneficial owners.\4\ The Supplementary
Material under FINRA Rule 2251 (FINRA Rule 2251.01) sets forth the rate
reimbursement provisions pursuant to which FINRA members are entitled
to

receive fees in connection with the rule's forwarding obligations.
FINRA has previously indicated that, in the interest of ensuring
regulatory clarity and harmonization with respect to proxy rate
reimbursement, it intends to conform the rate reimbursement provisions
of FINRA Rule 2251 with the New York Stock Exchange (``NYSE'')
provisions in this area.\5\ Consistent with this approach, FINRA is
proposing amendments to Supplementary Material .01 under Rule 2251, as
described further below, in alignment with rulemakings by the NYSE that
have amended certain provisions under NYSE rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ FINRA Rule 2251 was adopted as a consolidation of former
NASD Rule 2260 and IM-2260 as part of FINRA's rulebook consolidation
process. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61052 (November 23,
2009), 74 FR 62857 (December 1, 2009) (Order Granting Approval of
Proposed Rule Change to Adopt FINRA Rule 2251 (Forwarding of Proxy
and Other Issuer-Related Materials) in the Consolidated FINRA
Rulebook; File No. SR-FINRA-2009-066).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71272 (January 9,
2014), 79 FR 2741 (January 15, 2014) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Amend FINRA Rule 2251
(Forwarding of Proxy and Other Issuer-Related Materials), Which
Includes Fees for Processing and Forwarding Proxy and Other Issuer
Communications to Beneficial Owners, and Establish a Fee Under
Certain Conditions for an Enhanced Brokers' internet Platform; File
No. SR-FINRA-2013-056); see also Securities Exchange Act Release No.
47392 (February 21, 2003), 68 FR 9730 (February 28, 2003) (Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by the
National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. Relating to an
Amendment to NASD Interpretive Material 2260 (``IM-2260''); File No.
SR-NASD-2003-019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

i. Proposed ``Notice and Access'' Amendments
    In 2018, the SEC adopted \6\ Investment Company Act (``ICA'') Rule
30e-3,\7\ which permits specified registered investment companies to
satisfy their shareholder report delivery obligations by making the
reports available electronically on a website using a ``notice and
access'' process, subject to conditions as set forth in the rule. When
Rule 30e-3 was proposed, but not yet adopted by the SEC, the NYSE
proposed \8\ to adopt amendments under NYSE Rule 451 that set maximum
fees its member organizations could charge to issuers utilizing a
notice and access process for proxy distribution. The NYSE noted that,
absent amendment to NYSE Rule 451, the notice and access fees under the
NYSE rule would not apply to the distribution of investment company
shareholder reports.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83380 (June 5,
2018), 83 FR 29158 (June 22, 2018) (Final Rule: Optional internet
Availability of Investment Company Shareholder Reports).
    \7\ 17 CFR 270.30e-3 (hereinafter referred to as ``Rule 30e-
3'').
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78589 (August 16,
2016), 81 FR 56717 (August 22, 2016) (Notice of Filing of Proposed
Rule Change Adopting Maximum Fees Member Organizations May Charge in
Connection with the Distribution of Investment Company Shareholder
Reports Pursuant to Any Electronic Delivery Rules Adopted by the
Securities and Exchange Commission; File No. SR-NYSE-2016-55).
    \9\ See supra note 8, at 81 FR 56717, 56718.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SEC approved \10\ the NYSE's proposal to amend the notice and
access fee provisions under NYSE Rule 451 to provide that the notice
and access fees set forth under the rule apply with respect to the
distribution of investment company shareholder reports pursuant to any
notice and access rules adopted by the SEC in relation to such
distributions. The amendments provide that NYSE member organizations
may not charge the notice and access fee for any account with respect
to which an investment company pays a ``preference management fee'' in
connection with a distribution of investment company shareholder
reports.\11\ In addition, to address investment companies that issue
multiple classes of shares, the NYSE amendments also provide that all
accounts holding shares of any class of stock of the investment company
eligible to receive the same report distribution will be aggregated in
determining the appropriate pricing tier as specified under the notice
and access fee provisions of the rule.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79355 (November 18,
2016), 81 FR 85291 (November 25, 2016) (Order Granting Approval of
Proposed Rule Change Adopting Maximum Fees Member Organizations May
Charge in Connection with the Distribution of Investment Company
Shareholder Reports Pursuant to Any Electronic Delivery Rules
Adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission; File No. SR-NYSE-
2016-55) (the ``Notice and Access Fee Approval Order'').
    \11\ Under the NYSE rule, and corresponding FINRA Rule
2251.01(a)(5), a ``preference management fee'' refers to specified
fees that the member may charge for each account for which the need
to send materials in paper format through the mails or by courier
service has been eliminated. The Notice and Access Fee Approval
Order noted that, as a result of the rule change, notice and access
fees would only be charged with respect to accounts that actually
receive a notice and access mailing. Prior to the rule change, an
issuer utilizing notice and access for proxy distributions would pay
the notice and access fee for all shareholder accounts, including
those for which it also would pay the preference management fee. See
supra note 10, at 81 FR 85291, 85293.
    \12\ See supra note 10, at 81 FR 85291, 85293; see also NYSE
Rule 451.90(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA Rule 2251.01(a)(6) sets forth the notice and access fees that
are designed to correspond with NYSE Rule 451.90(5). FINRA proposes to
amend FINRA Rule 2251.01(a)(6) to conform the rule, in virtually
identical language,\13\ with the NYSE's notice and access amendments.
FINRA believes this is appropriate to ensure harmonized treatment of
notice and access fees under NYSE and FINRA rules. As such, FINRA Rule
2251.01(a)(6), as proposed to be revised pursuant to this rule change,
would provide: ``The Notice and Access fees set forth herein will also
be charged with respect to the distribution of investment company
shareholder reports pursuant to the SEC's `notice and access' rules in
relation to such distributions. The Notice and Access fee will not be
charged for any account with respect to which an investment company
pays a Preference Management Fee in connection with a distribution of
investment company shareholder reports.'' \14\ Further, the rule as
revised would provide: ``In calculating the rates at which the issuer
will be charged Notice and Access fees for investment company
shareholder report distributions, all accounts holding shares of any
class of stock of the applicable issuer eligible to receive the same
distribution will be aggregated in determining the appropriate pricing
tier under this Supplementary Material .01(a)(6).'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The proposed rule change makes minor adjustments to the
NYSE rule provisions to conform with FINRA rules.
    \14\ See Exhibit 5.
    \15\ See Exhibit 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Proposed Prohibition on Processing Fees for Securities Transferred
at No Cost
    On August 13, 2021, the SEC approved a proposed rule change by the
NYSE \16\ that, in connection with forwarding proxy and related
materials to beneficial owners, prohibits NYSE member organizations
from imposing a fee \17\ for a nominee \18\ account that contains only
shares or units of the securities involved that were transferred to the
account holder by the member organization at no cost.\19\ The NYSE

stated that the rule is meant to address a recent practice in which
retail brokers provide customers, without charge, a small number of
shares with a very small dollar value as a commercial incentive, for
example, upon opening a new account or referring a new customer to the
broker.\20\ The NYSE said that, in certain cases, issuers can
experience a significant increase in their distribution reimbursement
expenses solely due to their shares being included in these broker
promotional schemes, and that it would be more appropriate for the
broker to bear the proxy distribution costs in these circumstances.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 92667 (August 13,
2021), 86 FR 46733 (August 19, 2021) (Order Granting Approval of
Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 2 and 3, to
Amend Its Rules to Prohibit Member Organizations from Seeking
Reimbursement, in Certain Circumstances, from Issuers for Forwarding
Proxy and Other Materials to Beneficial Owners; File No. SR-NYSE-
2020-98) (the ``Prohibited Fee Approval Order''). See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90653 (December 14, 2020), 85 FR
82539 (December 18, 2020) (Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change
to Amend Its Rules to Prohibit Member Organizations from Seeking
Reimbursement, in Certain Circumstances, from Issuers for Forwarding
Proxy and Other Materials to Beneficial Owners; File No. SR-NYSE-
2020-98).
    \17\ The NYSE stated that the prohibition on ``fees'' does not
apply to reimbursements for postage, envelope and voting return
communication expenses incurred in connection with a distribution of
proxy and other materials. See 86 FR 46733, 46734. The same would be
the case under FINRA's corresponding amendments pursuant to this
rule filing.
    \18\ The term ``nominee'' is defined under NYSE Rule 451.90, and
correspondingly under FINRA Rule 2251.01, to mean a broker or bank
subject to SEA Rule 14b-1 or SEA Rule 14b-2, respectively.
    \19\ The NYSE stated that the rule would not limit a broker's
right to reimbursement for distributions to any beneficial owner if
any part of that beneficial owner's position in an issuer's
securities was received by any means other than a transfer without
charge from the broker. The NYSE also stated that the new rule would
not limit a broker's right to receive reimbursement under NYSE Rules
451 and 465 unless that broker itself transferred the issuer's
shares without charge into the account of the beneficial owner.
Further, the NYSE stated that NYSE Rules 451 and 465 would continue
to apply to all distributions, so the broker would continue to be
fully obligated to solicit votes from, and make other distributions
on behalf of issuers to, all beneficial owners notwithstanding the
limitations on reimbursement of expenses imposed by the new rule.
See 86 FR 46733, 46735. These statements would apply under FINRA's
corresponding amendments pursuant to this rule filing.
    \20\ See 86 FR 46733, 46734.
    \21\ See supra note 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA believes that some member firms that are not NYSE members
engage in the promotional practices as described by the NYSE, and the
costs to affected issuers may be significant. FINRA believes that it is
appropriate to amend FINRA Rule 2251 to align with the NYSE's new rule
provision, both for the reasons provided by the NYSE and, as discussed
above, in the interest of ensuring regulatory clarity and harmonization
with respect to proxy rate reimbursement. As such, FINRA proposes to
amend FINRA Rule 2251.01(a)(7) by adding, in language virtually
identical to the corresponding NYSE provision,\22\ a sentence stating:
``Further, notwithstanding any other provision of this Supplementary
Material, no fee shall be imposed for a nominee account that contains
only shares or units of the securities involved that were transferred
to the account holder by the member at no cost.'' \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The proposed rule change makes minor adjustments to the
NYSE rule provisions to conform with FINRA rules.
    \23\ FINRA notes that the proposed rule change would not impact
members that are funding portals and would not impact members that
have elected to be treated as capital acquisition brokers
(``CABs''). These members are not subject to FINRA Rule 2251.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate
effectiveness and has requested that the SEC waive the requirement that
the proposed rule change not become operative for 30 days after the
date of the filing, so FINRA can implement the proposed rule change
immediately.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\24\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. FINRA believes that, by conforming the rate
reimbursement provisions under FINRA Rule 2251 with the NYSE proxy rate
rules, as amended pursuant to the Notice and Access Fee Approval Order
and the Prohibited Fee Approval Order, and thereby establishing these
requirements under the FINRA rule, the proposed rule change would help
to ensure regulatory clarity and harmonization with respect to proxy
rate reimbursement. This will facilitate the processing and transmittal
of proxy and other issuer-related materials to investors and conduce to
the orderly administration of the Commission's proxy rules. Further,
for the reasons set forth in the Notice and Access Fee Approval Order
and the Prohibited Fee Approval Order, the Commission found that the
NYSE proxy rate rule amendments as set forth pursuant to those
respective rulemakings are, with respect to the Notice and Access Fee
Approval Order, consistent with the requirements of Section
6(b)(4),\25\ Section 6(b)(5) \26\ and Section 6(b)(8) \27\ of the Act
and, with respect to the Prohibited Fee Approval Order, consistent with
Section 6(b)(4) and Section 6(b)(5) of the Act. Because the proposed
rule change conforms with the NYSE's proxy rate reimbursement
amendments, FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the corresponding provisions under Section 15A(b)(5),\28\ Section
15A(b)(6) \29\ and Section 15A(b)(9) \30\ of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). Section 6(b)(4) requires that an
exchange have rules that provide for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its members, issuers
and other persons using its facilities.
    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). Section 6(b)(5) requires that the
rules of an exchange be designed, among other things, to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system
and, in general to protect investors and the public interest, and
not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers or dealers.
    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8). Section 6(b)(8) prohibits any exchange
rule from imposing any burden on competition that is not necessary
or appropriate in furtherance of the Act.
    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(5). Section 15A(b)(5) requires that
FINRA rules provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among members and issuers and other persons
using any facility or system that FINRA operates or controls.
Relatedly, SEA Rule 14b-1 conditions a broker-dealer's obligation to
forward issuer proxy materials to beneficial owners on the issuer's
assurance that it will reimburse the broker-dealer's reasonable
expenses, both direct and indirect, incurred in connection with
performing that obligation. See 17 CFR 240.14b-1.
    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Economic Impact Assessment
    Issuers have an obligation to distribute certain communications to
their shareholders of record; however, they typically lack contact
information for shareholders who hold their stock in ``street name''
(beneficial owners) with a broker-dealer. As discussed above, SEA Rule
14b-1 requires a broker-dealer to forward issuer communications to
beneficial owners of the issuer's stock, unless the issuer does not
provide assurance of reimbursement of the broker-dealer's reasonable
expenses incurred in connection with performing this obligation. The
proposed rule change will conform FINRA Rule 2251 to changes made by
the NYSE to its rules regarding the reimbursement of expenses
concerning the processing and forwarding of issuer communications to
beneficial owners.
i. Proposed ``Notice and Access'' Amendments
    As discussed above, Rule 30e-3 permits specified registered
investment companies to satisfy their shareholder report delivery
obligations by making the reports available electronically on a website
using a ``notice and access'' process, subject to conditions as set
forth in the rule. The NYSE's processing fee rule applies the notice
and access maximum fee schedule to shareholder reports from investment
companies that choose to rely on Rule 30e-3. Under the NYSE rule, the
notice and access fee may not be charged if the preference management
fee is charged.\31\ While

FINRA Rule 2251 currently has a notice and access maximum fee schedule
for proxy materials, absent amendment to align the rule with the NYSE
provisions, the notice and access portion of the fee schedules under
Rule 2251 would not apply to fund shareholder reports. The proposed
rule change could impact any investment companies electing to
distribute shareholder reports using notice and access through member
broker-dealers that charge fees higher than the notice and access
maximum fee schedule.\32\ Several factors in addition to notice and
access impact fees charged to investment companies for distributing
shareholder reports. Thus, it is not possible to determine whether
costs would increase or decrease for any individual investment company.
FINRA has been informed that a substantial majority of eligible
registered investment companies rely on Rule 30e-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ As noted earlier, under the NYSE rule as revised, notice
and access fees would only be charged with respect to accounts that
actually receive a notice and access mailing. See supra note 11.
    \32\ FINRA understands that most, if not all, firms outsource
the distribution of shareholder reports to third party vendors and
that the majority of those vendors already use the notice and access
fee schedules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Proposed Prohibition on Processing Fees for Securities Transferred
at No Cost
    Recently, certain retail broker-dealers have begun offering free
shares of stock as a commercial incentive, in many cases to acquire new
customers or reward current customers who refer a new customer. A
broker-dealer may choose to engage in such a practice because it
believes it will result in a benefit to the firm. By so doing, the
recent proliferation of this practice has led to substantial increases
for certain issuers in their shareholder rolls as well as costs for
distributing communications to those shareholders.\33\ Many of these
shareholders own very few shares and thus have little voting power at
these issuers and do little to affect the liquidity of the issuers'
stock.\34\ Further, FINRA notes that customers of at least one broker-
dealer do not independently select an issuer's shares, as the firm
selects issuers' free shares randomly. Therefore, issuers would likely
incur significant costs to communicate with shareholders having limited
voting power.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ For example, see Letter from Patrick J. McEnany, Chairman
and CEO, Catalyst Pharmaceuticals, Inc., to Vanessa Countryman,
Secretary, SEC, dated June 9, 2021 (``Catalyst'') (letter commenting
on File No. SR-NYSE-2020-98). Catalyst estimates that the number of
beneficial owners increased from approximately 25,000 in 2019 to
about 280,000 in 2020, largely due to free shares given to investors
by Robinhood Markets, Inc. Distributing materials to those
additional shareholders increased Catalyst's costs by 1779%,
approximately $221,500 in one year. While this is only one example,
it is likely illustrative of the potential increase in costs that
issuers may experience due to broker-dealer stock promotions.
    \34\ The average number of Catalyst shares held by shareholders
through Robinhood was less than 1.25. Id. See also Letter from Kim
O. Warnica, Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary,
Marathon Oil Corporation, to Vanessa A. Countryman, Secretary, SEC,
dated April 27, 2021 (``Marathon Oil'') (letter commenting on File
No. SR-NYSE-2020-98). Marathon Oil estimates that as of 2020, 80% of
Robinhood's Marathon Oil stockholder base held fewer than five
shares.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change will transfer the fee-related costs of
providing shareholder communications from issuers to broker-dealers in
the instance where an account contains only shares of stock transferred
at no cost to the account holder by the broker-dealer. This transfer
would more closely align the cost burden with the benefits received
from the practice. FINRA estimates that approximately 12 to 15 member
firms will be impacted by the proposed change.\35\ The amount by which
these firms will be impacted depends on the number of accounts that
contain only the free promotional stock and the costs for the firms to
process and forward issuer-related communications. Given the voluntary
nature of the practice, firms may decide to modify or eliminate free
stock promotions if the costs outweigh the benefits. FINRA notes that
the firms engaging in this practice today represent a limited set of
business models. Thus, to the extent that shifting these costs to the
broker-dealer is material, it could have a competitive impact. These
broker-dealers, however, may identify alternative inducements that
retain most of their intended benefit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ FINRA has approximately 1,370 member firms with retail
clients.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \36\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \37\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
FINRA has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \38\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\39\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. FINRA has asked the
Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that FINRA can
implement the proposed rule change immediately, in the interest of
regulatory clarity and harmonization. The Commission previously
approved substantively similar rule changes on NYSE and found them
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.\40\ For these reasons, the
Commission believes that the proposed rule change presents no novel
issues and that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest. Accordingly, the
Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the
proposal operative upon filing.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \39\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \40\ See supra notes 10 and 16.
    \41\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule change's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \42\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2021-032 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2021-032. 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 website (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 website 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 the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of FINRA. All comments received
will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2021-032 and should be submitted
on or before January 10, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-27418 Filed 12-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 19 (Thursday, January 29, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4933-4934]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01625]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2015-N-0001]

Gastroenterology Regulatory Endpoints and the Advancement of
Therapeutics; Public Workshop

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of public workshop.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, in cosponsorship with the American College of
Gastroenterology, the American Gastroenterological Association, the
Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of America, Inc., the North American
Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, the
North American Society for the Study of Celiac Disease, and the
Pediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease Foundation, is announcing a 2-day
public workshop entitled ``Gastroenterology Regulatory Endpoints and
the Advancement of Therapeutics (GREAT III).'' The purpose of this
workshop is to provide a forum to consider issues related to selection
of endpoints and clinical outcome measures appropriate for drug
development in the following disease areas: Inflammatory bowel diseases
and celiac disease.

DATES: The public workshop will be held on March 30 and 31, 2015, from
8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The public workshop will be held at the FDA White Oak
Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Building 31 Conference Center, the
Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993. Entrance for the public
workshop participants (non-FDA employees) is through Building 1 where
routine security check procedures will be performed. For parking and
security information, please refer to http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WorkingatFDA/BuildingsandFacilities/WhiteOakCampusInformation/ucm241740.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly Richards, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Rm. 5237, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This workshop will address endpoints for
registration trials in inflammatory bowel diseases and celiac disease.
Stakeholders, including industry sponsors, academia, patients and FDA,
will address challenging issues related to selection of endpoints and
assessment methodologies in clinical trials intended to support
approval of products for treatment of inflammatory bowel diseases and
celiac disease. The first day of the workshop will discuss the
assessment of efficacy in Crohn's disease trials, including the use of
patient-reported outcome measures and endoscopic evaluation, as well as
the role of registries and patient participation in inflammatory bowel
disease drug development programs. The second day of the workshop will
discuss the appropriate target population for pharmacological therapy
in celiac disease, and the definition and measurement of a treatment
benefit in celiac disease registration trials, including the role and
timing of

assessment of histological and serological endpoints.

I. Participation in the Public Workshop

    There is no fee to attend the public workshop, but attendees must
register in advance. Space is limited and registration will be on a
first-come, first-served basis. Persons interested in attending this
workshop must register online at http://www.great3.org before March 1,
2015. For those without Internet access, please contact Kelly Richards
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) to register. Onsite registration
will not be available.
    If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please
contact Kelly Richards (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) at least 7
days in advance.

II. Transcripts

    Transcripts of the workshop will be available for review at the
Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration,
5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, and on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov approximately 30 days after the workshop.
A transcript will also be available in either hard copy or on CD-ROM
after submission of a Freedom of Information request. Send written
requests to the Division of Freedom of Information (ELEM-1029), Food
and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr., Element Bldg., Rockville,
MD 20857. Fax requests to<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: January 22, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-01625 Filed 1-28-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P