[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 106 (Tuesday, June 3, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32003-32008]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12771]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72269; File No. SR-FINRA-2014-008]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting
Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment
No. 1, Relating To Protecting Personal Confidential Information in
Documents Filed With FINRA Dispute Resolution

May 28, 2014.

I. Introduction

    On February 13, 2014, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority,
Inc. (``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend FINRA's Code of Arbitration Procedure for
Customer Disputes (the ``Customer Code'') and the Code of Arbitration
Procedure for Industry Disputes (the ``Industry Code'') to require
parties to redact all but the last four digits of an individual's
Social Security number, taxpayer identification number, or financial
account number (collectively, ``personal confidential information'' or
``PCI'') from documents filed with FINRA Dispute Resolution (``DR'').
The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on February 28, 2014.\3\ The Commission received six comments
on the proposal.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71608 (Feb. 24,
2014), 79 FR 11491 (Feb. 28, 2014) (``Notice'').
    \4\ See Letters from Steven B. Caruso, Esq., Maddox Hargett &
Caruso, P.C., dated March 4, 2014 (``Caruso Letter''); Nataliya
Nemtseva, Student Intern, Timothy Guilmette, Student Intern, Thomas
Abrahamson, Student Intern, and Nicole Iannarone, Assistant Clinical
Professor, Georgia State University College of Law's Investor
Advocacy Clinic, dated March 14, 2014 (``Georgia State Letter'');
Kara Cain, Esq., Aderant CompuLaw, dated March 19, 2014 (``Aderant
Letter''); Jason Doss, Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association,
dated March 20, 2014 (``PIABA Letter''); Ryan Jennings, Legal
Intern, Christian Corkery, Legal Intern, and Daniel Coleman, Legal
Intern, Securities Arbitration Clinic, St. Vincent DePaul Legal
Program, Inc., St. John's University School of Law, dated March 20,
2014 (``St. John's Letter''); and Jill I. Gross, James D. Hopkins
Professor of Law, Director, Investor Rights Clinic, Pace Law School,
dated March 24, 2014 (``Pace Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 10, 2014, FINRA granted the Commission an extension of
time to act on the proposal until May 29, 2014.\5\ On May 5, 2014,
FINRA responded to the comment letters \6\ and filed Amendment No. 1 to
the proposed rule change in response to a commenter's concern.\7\ The
Commission is publishing this notice and order to solicit comments on
Amendment No. 1 from interested persons, and to approve the proposed
rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Letter from Margo A. Hassan, Assistant Chief Counsel,
FINRA Dispute Resolution, Inc., to Lourdes Gonzalez, Assistant Chief
Counsel, Sales Practices, Division of Trading and Markets,
Securities and Exchange Commission, dated April 10, 2014.
    \6\ See Letter from Margo A. Hassan, Assistant Chief Counsel,
FINRA Dispute Resolution, Inc., to Secretary, Securities and
Exchange Commission, dated May 5, 2014 (``FINRA Response Letter'').
    \7\ See Aderant Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

Overview

    FINRA filed the proposed rule change to amend the Customer Code and
the Industry Code to provide that any document that a party files with
DR that contains an individual's Social Security number, taxpayer
identification number, or financial account number must be redacted to
include only the last four digits of any of these numbers.\8\ The
proposed redaction requirements would apply only to documents filed
with DR and would not apply to documents that parties exchange with
each other or submit to the arbitrators at a hearing on the merits.\9\
In addition, the proposed redaction requirements would not apply to
cases administered under FINRA Rule 12800 of the Customer Code and
FINRA Rule 13800 of the Industry Code (collectively, the ``Simplified
Arbitration rules'').\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See proposed FINRA Rules 12300(g)(1) and 13300(g)(1); see
also Notice, 79 FR at 11492. The text of the proposed rule change is
available at the principal office of FINRA, on FINRA's Web site at
http://www.finra.org, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.
    \9\ See proposed FINRA Rules 12300(g)(2) and 13300(g)(2); see
also Notice, 79 FR at 11492.
    \10\ See proposed FINRA Rules 12300(g)(3) and 13300(g)(3); see
also Notice, 79 FR at 11492. The Simplified Arbitration rules
generally apply to arbitrations involving $50,000 or less, exclusive
of interest and expenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Requiring Parties To Redact Specified PCI From Documents Filed With
FINRA

    During an arbitration proceeding, parties file pleadings and other
supporting documents with DR that may contain individuals' PCI. FINRA
stated that, as a service to forum users, DR serves certain pleadings
on other parties to an arbitration.\11\ DR also provides arbitrators
with pleadings and attachments.\12\ FINRA believes that the greatest
risk of DR staff misdirecting PCI occurs when DR staff serves pleadings
on a party at an incorrect or outdated address (e.g., an associated
person of a member who has not updated his or her Central Registration
Depository record).\13\ In addition, FINRA stated that arbitrators
occasionally have misplaced parties' pleadings containing PCI.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Notice, 79 FR at 11492.
    \12\ See id.
    \13\ See id.
    \14\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA also stated that, since FINRA employees are regularly exposed
to PCI as they handle party documents, it has policies and procedures
in place to help guide staff on how to keep confidential information
safe.\15\ For example, FINRA maintains an Information Privacy and
Protection Policy, and administers Information Privacy and Protection
Training to all FINRA staff annually.\16\ In addition, DR has its own
procedures for protecting confidential information relating to, among
other matters, storage and disposal of case materials in a manner that
preserves the confidentiality of the information, and removal of PCI
that appears in awards

that will be published.\17\ In particular, DR procedures require
arbitrators to keep confidential all information obtained in connection
with arbitration and to participate in FINRA training programs on
information security.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Notice, 79 FR at 11492.
    \16\ See id.
    \17\ See id. at n.4 (stating that FINRA ``keeps all documents
and information in DR case files confidential except for arbitration
awards. FINRA publishes every award in the Arbitration Awards Online
Database on FINRA's Web site'').
    \18\ See Notice, 79 FR at 11492.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, FINRA has published guidance recommending that parties
to an arbitration and their counsel take steps to protect confidential
information.\19\ FINRA's Protecting PCI Notice states, among other
things, that parties and their counsel can safeguard confidential
information by redacting such information from pleadings, exhibits, and
other documents upon agreement of the parties.\20\ For example, parties
may agree not to use, or to redact, Social Security, account, or driver
license numbers and, where such data must be referenced, parties can
use only the last few digits of these numbers or similar
information.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ FINRA Notice to Parties, Protecting Personal Confidential
Information, available at http://www.finra.org/ArbitrationAndMediation/Arbitration/Rules/NoticestoArbitratorsParties/NoticestoParties/P123999 (``Protecting
PCI Notice''); see also id.
    \20\ See Notice, 79 FR at 11492 (discussing FINRA's Protecting
PCI Notice).
    \21\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA believes that while these efforts have enhanced the security
of parties' confidential information, the risks associated with the
loss of PCI (e.g., identity theft) remain as long as parties continue
to file with DR pleadings and attachments containing PCI.\22\
Accordingly, FINRA is proposing to amend the Customer Code and the
Industry Code to require parties to redact specified PCI from documents
that parties file with DR. Specifically, FINRA is proposing to amend
Rule 12300 (Filing and Serving Documents) \23\ and Rule 12307
(Deficient Claims) \24\ of the Customer Code and Rule 1330 (Filing and
Serving Documents) \25\ and Rule 13307 (Deficient Claims) \26\ of the
Industry Code as described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See id.
    \23\ See proposed FINRA Rule 12300(g)(1)-(3); see also Notice,
79 FR at 11492.
    \24\ See proposed FINRA Rule 12307(a)-(c); see also Notice, 79
FR at 11492.
    \25\ See proposed FINRA Rule 13300(g)(1)-(3); see also Notice,
79 FR at 11492.
    \26\ See proposed FINRA Rule 13307(a)-(c); see also Notice, 79
FR at 11492.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given that the proposed amendments to Rules 13300 and 13307 of the
Industry Code are identical to the proposed amendments to Rules 12300
and 12307 of the Customer Code, the description below only refers to
Rules 12300 and 12307 of the Customer Code. FINRA stated that its
rationale is the same for both sets of rules.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Notice, 79 FR at 11492.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Amendments to FINRA Rule 12300

    FINRA is proposing to amend Rule 12300 to provide that any document
that a party files with DR that contains an individual's Social
Security number, taxpayer identification number, or financial account
number must be redacted to include only the last four digits of any of
these numbers.\28\ As proposed, the rule would specify that a party
shall not include the full numbers.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See proposed FINRA Rule 12300(g)(1); see also Notice, 79 FR
at 11492.
    \29\ See proposed FINRA Rule 12300(g)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposed rule, if DR receives a claim, including
supporting documents, with a full Social Security, taxpayer
identification, or financial account number, it would deem the filing
deficient under Rule 12307 and request that the party refile the
document, without the PCI, within 30 days of receiving notice of non-
compliance from DR.\30\ In addition, if a party files a document with
PCI that is not covered by Rule 12307 (a document other than a claim,
such as a motion), FINRA would deem the filing to be improper and would
request that the party refile the document, with the required
redaction, within 30 days.\31\ If the party refiles the document within
the prescribed 30 days in compliance with the rule, FINRA would
consider the document to be filed on the date the party initially filed
it (i.e., the non-complying document) with DR.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See proposed FINRA Rule 12307; see also Notice, 79 FR at
11492 n.7 (stating that ``[t]he term ``claim'' means an allegation
or request for relief and includes counterclaims, cross claims and
third party claims'').
    \31\ See Notice, 79 FR at 11492.
    \32\ See proposed FINRA Rule 12307(c); see also Notice, 79 FR at
11492.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Two Exemptions to the Proposed Amendments to FINRA Rule 12300

    The proposed rule change would include two exemptions: (1) For
documents that parties exchange with each other (not with DR) or submit
to the arbitrators at a hearing on the merits; \33\ and (2) for cases
administered under the Simplified Arbitration rules.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See proposed FINRA Rule 12300(g)(2); see also Notice, 79 FR
at 11492.
    \34\ See proposed FINRA Rule 12300(g)(3); see also Notice, 79 FR
at 11492.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained above, FINRA believes that its greatest risk of
misdirecting PCI occurs when DR staff is transmitting pleadings and
documents to parties and arbitrators (e.g., serving pleadings).\35\
Therefore, FINRA is proposing to exempt documents that parties exchange
with each other or submit as exhibits during a hearing in order to
minimize the burden of the new requirements.\36\ FINRA stated, however,
that parties can always agree to measures that protect PCI in documents
they exchange with each other or submit or use at a hearing and DR
staff would not be at risk of transmitting PCI.\37\ Similarly, FINRA
stated that parties typically only bring hard copies of exhibits to
hearings, as opposed to transmitting them via email, and can safely
dispose of them by using secure shredding services.\38\ FINRA believes
that its proposal represents a balanced approach to protecting PCI
while minimizing the burden on parties.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See supra note 13 (``The greatest risk of DR staff
misdirecting PCI occurs when DR staff serves pleadings on a party .
. . at an incorrect/outdated address.'').
    \36\ See proposed FINRA Rule 12300(g)(2); see also Notice, 79 FR
at 11493.
    \37\ See Notice, 79 FR at 11493; see also supra note 19
(discussing FINRA's Protecting PCI Notice).
    \38\ See Notice, 79 FR at 11493.
    \39\ See Notice, 79 FR at 11493.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second exemption relates to claims administered under FINRA's
Simplified Arbitration rules.\40\ Generally, a single arbitrator
decides these claims based solely on the parties' written submissions.
FINRA noted that many claimants who initiate claims under its
Simplified Arbitration rules are not represented by counsel (i.e., pro
se parties).\41\ FINRA believes that the redaction requirements in the
proposed rule change may prove difficult for pro se parties.\42\
Therefore, FINRA is proposing to exempt from this proposed rule all
claims administered under the Simplified Arbitration rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See proposed FINRA Rule 12300(g)(3); see also Notice, 79 FR
at 11493.
    \41\ See Notice, 79 FR at 11493.
    \42\ See id. (noting that pro se parties may not be familiar
with the practice of redacting documents).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Amendments to FINRA Rule 12307

    FINRA Rule 12307 states that the DR Director will not serve any
claim that is deficient, and identifies many reasons why a claim may be
deficient, including that the claims does not name all the parties.\43\
FINRA is proposing to make conforming changes to FINRA Rule 12307(a) to
include as a claim that is deficient failure to ``comply with the
restrictions on filings with personal confidential information under
Rule

12300(g).'' \44\ The proposal would also amend Rule 12307(c) to clarify
that if the submitting party corrects any deficiency within 30 days,
the claim would be considered filed on the date the deficient claim was
filed initially with FINRA.\45\ FINRA would also amend Rule 12307(c) to
correct a typographical error by deleting the word ``the'' (indicated
by brackets below) in the sentence that currently reads: ``The Director
will notify the party making the counterclaim, cross claim or third
party claim of [the] any deficiencies in writing.'' \46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See proposed FINRA Rule 12307; see also Notice, 79 FR at
11493.
    \44\ See proposed FINRA Rule 12307(a).
    \45\ See proposed FINRA Rule 12307(c).
    \46\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Comments, FINRA's Response, and Proposed Amendment No.
1

Overview

    As noted above, the Commission received six comment letters on the
proposed rule change \47\ and a response letter from FINRA.\48\ Five of
the six commenters expressed support, in whole or in part, for FINRA's
proposal.\49\ Each of these five commenters, however, raised specific
concerns about certain aspects of the proposed rule change as discussed
in more detail below.\50\ The sixth commenter, although not expressing
a general view of support for or opposition to the proposal, questioned
what event triggers the 30-day deadline to correct a non-compliant
document that is included in the proposed rule change.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See supra note 4.
    \48\ See supra note 6.
    \49\ See Caruso Letter; Georgia State Letter; PIABA Letter; St.
John's Letter; and Pace Letter.
    \50\ See supra note 49.
    \51\ See Aderant Letter
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Deadline for Correcting Non-Compliant Documents and Amendment No. 1

    Under the proposed rule change, if FINRA finds a document to be
deficient because a party did not comply with the redaction
requirement, the filing party has 30 days to correct the
submission.\52\ One commenter affirmatively supported the proposed 30-
day cure period.\53\ Two other commenters, however, suggested
amendments to FINRA's proposal.\54\ One commenter suggested that FINRA
should give parties an additional 15 days to submit compliant documents
after the proposed 30-day period expired.\55\ Specifically, this
commenter suggested that if a party does not resubmit a compliant
document within the original 30-day cure period, FINRA should send the
party a second notice granting an additional 15 days in which to
comply.\56\ Another commenter requested that FINRA clarify what event
triggers the 30-day deadline for a non-complying party to correct a
deficiency.\57\ This commenter stated that, as drafted, the proposed
rule is ambiguous and could be read to begin either: 30 days from the
date FINRA deems the filing improper, 30 days from the date of FINRA's
written notice of the deficiency, or 30 days from the date of the
party's receipt of the notice.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See proposed FINRA Rule 12307(c).
    \53\ See PIABA Letter at 2.
    \54\ See Aderant Letter and Georgia State Letter.
    \55\ See Georgia State Letter.
    \56\ See id.
    \57\ See Aderant Letter.
    \58\ See id. at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the comment suggesting that FINRA provide parties an
additional 15 days to correct non-complaint submissions, FINRA noted
that its existing deficient claim Rules 12307(b) and 13307(b) provide a
30-day deadline to correct other claim deficiencies.\59\ FINRA also
stated that it believes that the 30-day deadline for correcting any
deficient claim, whether for non-compliance with redaction obligations
or otherwise, should be consistent under FINRA's rules.\60\ For this
reason, FINRA believes that the proposed 30-day cure period is
appropriate.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ See FINRA Response Letter at 4.
    \60\ See id.
    \61\ See id. (``FINRA staff believes that the deadline for all
non-compliance should be . . . consistent, and that 30 days is
sufficient.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the comment recommending that FINRA clarify what
event triggers the 30-day deadline to correct a deficiency, FINRA noted
that its existing Deficient Claims Rules 12307(b) and 13307(b) provide
that if the claimant corrects the deficiency ``within 30 days from the
time the claimant receives notice,'' FINRA would consider the claim to
be filed on the date the initial statement of claim was filed.\62\
FINRA also stated that it believes the deadline to submit compliant
documents should be consistent under its rules.\63\ Therefore, FINRA
proposed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change to clarify that
the triggering event for the deadline to submit compliant documents is
30 days ``from the time a party receives notice'' of non-compliance
from the Director of FINRA arbitration.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ See id.
    \63\ See id.
    \64\ See id. at 4-6 (reflecting the text of FINRA's Amendment
No. 1 to the proposed rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Exemptions From FINRA's Proposed Redaction Requirements

    As noted above, the proposed rule change would include two
exemptions: (1) For documents that parties exchange with each other
(not with DR) or submit to the arbitrators at a hearing on the merits;
\65\ and (2) for cases administered under the Simplified Arbitration
rules.\66\ Four commenters either raised concerns about or recommended
changes to the proposed exemptions.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ See proposed FINRA Rule 12300(g)(2); see also Notice, 79 FR
at 11492.
    \66\ See proposed FINRA Rule 12300(g)(3); see also Notice, 79 FR
at 11492.
    \67\ See Georgia State Letter; PIABA Letter; St. John's Letter;
and Pace Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter suggested that the proposal should be more
comprehensive.\68\ In particular, the commenter suggested that FINRA
require parties to redact PCI from all documents submitted or exchanged
in all stages, and in every type, of arbitration proceeding regardless
of whether the documents are submitted to DR, another party, or an
arbitrator.\69\ The same commenter reasoned that investors face the
same potential harm regardless of the method of submission (e.g.,
electronically or on paper), the type of proceeding (including
simplified arbitration), whether the submitting party is pro se or
represented by counsel, or to whom the documents are provided.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ See Georgia State Letter.
    \69\ See id.
    \70\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, another commenter suggested that FINRA not exempt from
the redaction obligations documents submitted to DR by pro se
parties.\71\ Specifically, this commenter stated that even if FINRA is
concerned that many claimants in simplified arbitration are pro se
parties who, in the absence of counsel, may have difficulty with the
redaction process, ``that concern is soundly outweighed by far greater
concerns over identity theft.'' \72\ The commenter also suggested that
instead of exempting pro se investors, FINRA should assist those pro se
parties with the redaction process, if needed.\73\ Alternatively, this
commenter stated that if indeed FINRA believes that pro se parties
might have difficulty

complying with the proposed redaction obligations, then the simplified
arbitration exemption should be amended to exempt all pro se parties
and not just all claims under the Simplified Arbitration rules. If
FINRA decides to adopt an exception for pro se parties, the commenter
stated that FINRA should explain to pro se parties the importance of
protecting confidential information and strongly encourage them to
redact PCI from the documents they file with FINRA.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ See Pace Letter.
    \72\ Id. (stating that ``[i]f anything, pro se investors need
more protection from the possibility of identity theft, not less'').
    \73\ See id.; see also Georgia State Letter at 2-3 (recommending
that FINRA inform parties about the redaction process by (1)
``creating a guide outlining the process and offering tips for
compliance'' and (2) providing instructions, in both the Submission
Agreement and the notices of non-compliance, on how to redact
documents and the risks associated with non-compliance).
    \74\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two other commenters recommended that FINRA exempt all pro se
parties from complying with the proposed redaction requirements, and
not just those filing simplified arbitration claims, noting that pro se
claims may be heard in both arbitration and simplified arbitration.\75\
One of these commenters also suggested that FINRA should not exempt
represented parties in simplified arbitration as many claimants in
simplified arbitration are represented by counsel.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ See PIABA Letter and St. John's Letter.
    \76\ See St. John's Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its response, FINRA stated that the exemption for documents
parties exchange with each other or submit to arbitrators at a hearing
is appropriate because it ``would reduce the burden of the redaction
requirements on the parties and would not raise the risk of DR staff
transmitting PCI.'' \77\ FINRA also noted that currently parties can
agree to measures to help protect PCI in documents they share (e.g.,
parties can agree to use secure shredding facilities to dispose of
documents used at a hearings).\78\ In addition, as a practical matter,
FINRA does not receive copies of the documents parties exchange with
each other during discovery, which would make policing that exchange
more difficult.\79\ Moreover, FINRA explained that if it instructed
arbitrators to reject documents with PCI at a hearing, the rejection
could disrupt the hearing, resulting in significant delays in
completing a case.\80\ FINRA also stated that given the current
precautions in place it believes that, by adopting this exemption, ``it
is taking a balanced approach to protecting PCI and minimizing burden
on parties.'' \81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ See FINRA Response Letter at 2 (claiming that ``[t]he
number and size of documents produced during discovery or submitted
at a hearing can be voluminous, and the burden of redaction can be
onerous'').
    \78\ See id. at 2-3.
    \79\ See id. at 3 n.6.
    \80\ See id. at 3.
    \81\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA also believes that the exemption for cases administered under
the Simplified Arbitration rules is appropriate because, in part, ``the
risk of FINRA, the parties, or arbitrators misdirecting or losing
documents with PCI is reduced'' in simplified arbitration because,
among other things, a single arbitrator resolves the dispute and
hearings are not generally held in simplified arbitration.\82\ In
addition, FINRA also stated that there is a large concentration of pro
se parties in cases administered under the Simplified Arbitration rules
and, as previously noted, those parties may have greater difficulty
with the redaction process than parties represented by counsel.\83\
Finally, FINRA acknowledged that while not every simplified arbitration
proceeding involves a pro se party and not every other type of
arbitration proceeding involves represented parties, as a practical
matter, ``having a clear distinction between cases administered under
the Simplified Arbitration rules and all other cases makes application
of the exemption more straight forward for FINRA staff administering
cases.'' \84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ See id.
    \83\ See id.; see also Notice, 79 FR at 11493 (noting that pro
se parties may not be familiar with the practice of redacting
documents).
    \84\ See FINRA Response Letter at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons stated above, FINRA declined to amend the two
exemptions from its proposed redaction requirements.\85\ FINRA also
stated, however, that in order to respond to the concerns raised by
commenters about the proposed exemption for cases administered under
the Simplified Arbitration rules, FINRA would add a discussion to its
Web page alerting pro se parties to the potential for identity theft
associated with the disclosure of PCI and emphasizing the importance of
excluding and/or redacting PCI from documents filed with FINRA.\86\
FINRA believes that this is a practical approach to alerting pro se
parties to the importance of protecting PCI. FINRA also noted that its
staff answers parties' questions about the arbitration process on a
regular basis, and that FINRA staff would explain the redaction process
if asked by a party, pro se or otherwise.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ See id. at 3.
    \86\ See id. (explaining that FINRA's Web site provides
resources to pro se parties in arbitration and mediation such as a
section on its Web site entitled ``Resources for Investors
Representing Themselves in FINRA Arbitrations and Mediations'').
    \87\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Additional Redaction Requested by Certain Commenters

    Two commenters requested that FINRA amend the proposal to require
the redaction of additional confidential information.\88\ One commenter
recommended that FINRA also require parties to redact the day and month
of birth from documents filed with FINRA, noting that this would be
consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal
Procedure, and Bankruptcy Procedure, and ``should not place an
unreasonable burden on the parties.'' \89\ The second commenter
recommended that FINRA amend the proposal to require parties to redact
the entire Social Security number and taxpayer identification number,
stating that full redaction would provide the parties with more
protection and would not be any more burdensome than partial
redaction.\90\ This second commenter also noted that FINRA's Discovery
Guide already requires full redaction of these numbers for certain
items set forth in the Document Production Lists.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ See Georgia State Letter and PIABA Letter.
    \89\ Georgia State Letter at 2.
    \90\ See PIABA Letter.
    \91\ See id.; see also Georgia State Letter (claiming that
FINRA's proposal ``would take away some investor protections that
are already in place, since the FINRA Discovery Guide requires
certain redactions on documents parties exchange in the discovery
process'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, FINRA stated that during the development of the
proposed rule change, FINRA identified Social Security numbers,
taxpayer identification numbers, and financial account numbers as the
types of confidential information ``most commonly found in arbitration
documents'' filed with DR and, as such, FINRA's constituents raised
concerns only about those numbers.\92\ Accordingly, FINRA declined to
amend the proposal to require the redaction of an individual's date of
birth at this time. FINRA also stated, however, that if the Commission
approves the proposal, FINRA would ``consider whether it makes sense to
propose additional redaction requirements after it evaluates the
efficacy of the amendments.'' \93\ In addition, FINRA stated that it
would update and reissue its Protecting PCI Notice \94\ to include a
reference to birth dates.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ See FINRA Response Letter at 3.
    \93\ Id.
    \94\ See supra note 19.
    \95\ See FINRA Response Letter at 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its response, FINRA also stated that it believes that the last
four digits of an individual's Social Security numbers, taxpayer
identification numbers, and financial account numbers provide a useful
way to identify parties and their accounts during an arbitration
proceeding.\96\ In addition, FINRA

explained that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow parties to
include the last four digits of the Social Security number and taxpayer
identification number in filings made with the court.\97\ For these
reasons, FINRA declined to amend the proposal to require the redaction
of individuals' entire Social Security numbers, taxpayer identification
numbers, and financial account numbers.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ See id. at 4 (FINRA also explained that its Discovery
Guide, which requires full redaction for certain items in the
Document Production Lists, applies only to customer cases over
$50,000, whereas the context of this proposed rule change is much
broader).
    \97\ See id.
    \98\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments on Amendment No. 1

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, as amended by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the Act.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2014-008 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-2014-008. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2014-008 and should be
submitted on or before June 24, 2014.

V. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After carefully considering the proposed rule change, as modified
by Amendment No. 1, the comments submitted, and FINRA's response to the
comments, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the requirements of the
Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities association.\99\ In particular, the Commission finds that
the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the
Act,\100\ which requires, among other things, that FINRA's rules be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission has
also considered the rule change's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \100\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, FINRA proposes to amend the Customer Code and
the Industry Code to provide that any document that a party files with
FINRA that contains an individual's Social Security number, taxpayer
identification number, or financial account number must be redacted to
include only the last four digits of any of these numbers.\101\
Pursuant to the proposal, the proposed redaction requirements would not
apply to documents (1) that parties exchange with each other or submit
to the arbitrators at a hearing on the merits \102\ or (2) related to
cases administered under its Simplified Arbitration rules.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ See proposed FINRA Rules 12300(g)(1) and 13300(g)(1); see
also Notice, 79 FR at 11492.
    \102\ See proposed FINRA Rules 12300(g)(2) and 13300(g)(2); see
also Notice, 79 FR at 11492.
    \103\ See proposed FINRA Rules 12300(g)(3) and 13300(g)(3); see
also Notice, 79 FR at 11492.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the proposed rule change would further
the purposes of the Act as it is reasonably designed to protect
investors and the public interest. In particular, the Commission agrees
with FINRA's assessment that prohibiting parties from submitting
documents with PCI would help ``reduce the risk to forum users of
identity theft.'' \104\ The Commission also agrees with FINRA's
assessment that given the processes FINRA already has in place,\105\
the proposed redaction requirements should enhance FINRA's ongoing
efforts to protect forum users' PCI and that the proposed exemptions to
those redaction requirements provide relief from the burden of
redaction at minimal risk to the parties.\106\ The Commission also
notes FINRA's representations, made in response to various commenters,
to: (1) Amend its Web site to alert pro se parties to the potential for
identity theft associated with the disclosure of PCI and emphasize the
importance of excluding and/or redacting PCI from documents filed with
FINRA; \107\ (2) explain the redaction process to any pro se party
seeking guidance; \108\ (3) consider whether to propose additional
redaction requirements after it evaluates the efficacy of the
amendments; \109\ and (4) update and reissue its 2010 Protecting PCI
Notice to include a reference to birth dates.\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ See FINRA Response Letter at 2; see also Notice, 79 FR at
11493.
    \105\ See FINRA Response Letter at 2 (explaining that, as a
general matter, FINRA has procedures in place to guide its staff on
how to keep confidential information safe, maintains an Information
Privacy and Protection Policy, and administers Information Privacy
and Protection training to all FINRA staff annually. FINRA also
noted that DR has its own procedures for protecting confidential
information).
    \106\ See FINRA Response Letter at 2; see also Notice, 79 FR at
11493.
    \107\ See FINRA Response Letter at 3.
    \108\ See id.
    \109\ See id.
    \110\ See id. at 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Commission also believes that the clarification
provided in Amendment No. 1 is also consistent with the Act. In
response to FINRA's initial proposal, one commenter suggested that, as
drafted, the proposed rule was ambiguous as to what event triggers the
30-day deadline for a non-complying party to correct a deficiency.\111\
FINRA responded by partially amending its proposed rule to clarify that
FINRA intends the deadline for correcting non-compliant documents to be
30 days from the time the party receives notice of non-compliance from
FINRA.\112\ The Commission agrees with FINRA's assessment that this
trigger event is consistent with other trigger events used in its
rules.\113\ Accordingly,

the Commission believes that Amendment No. 1 is consistent with the
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ See Aderant Letter.
    \112\ See FINRA Response Letter at 4-6 (reflecting the text of
FINRA's Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change).
    \113\ See id. at 4 (stating that FINRA believes that the
deadline for all non-compliance should be consistent under FINRA's
deficient claim rules).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Accelerated Approval

    The Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of
the Act,\114\ for approving the proposed rule change, as amended by
Amendment No. 1 thereto, prior to 30th day after publication of
Amendment No. 1 in the Federal Register. As discussed above, Amendment
No. 1 responds to one concern raised by a commenter by partially
amending FINRA's proposed rule change to clarify that FINRA intends the
deadline for correcting non-compliant documents to be 30 days from the
time the party receives notice of non-compliance from FINRA. The scope
of the amendment adds clarity to one aspect of the proposal, and does
not raise any novel regulatory concerns. Furthermore, accelerated
approval would allow FINRA to institute the proposed rule change, as
amended by Amendment No. 1, without delay. Accordingly, the Commission
finds that good cause exists to approve the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \114\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\115\ that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2014-008), as
modified by Amendment No. 1, be and hereby is approved on an
accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ Id.
    \116\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\116\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-12771 Filed 6-2-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 143 (Thursday, July 25, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 45010]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17972]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

 [File No. 500-1]

Order of Suspension of Trading; In the Matter of American Wenshen
Steel Group, Inc., Case Financial, Inc., Global ePoint, Inc., and
iMedia International, Inc.

July 23, 2013.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
American Wenshen Steel Group, Inc. because it has not filed any
periodic reports since the period ended June 30, 2010.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Case Financial, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports
since the period ended June 30, 2010.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Global ePoint, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since
the period ended September 30, 2007.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
iMedia International, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended June 30, 2006.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed companies. Therefore, it is ordered,
pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that
trading in the securities of the above-listed companies is suspended
for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on July 23, 2013, through 11:59 p.m.
EDT on August 5, 2013.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-17972 Filed 7-23-13; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 162 (Wednesday, August 25, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47527-47529]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18237]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-92710; File No. SR-FINRA-2021-011]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Amend FINRA
Rule 1011(p) (``Specified Risk Event'')

August 19, 2021.

I. Introduction

    On May 12, 2021, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'' or ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend FINRA Rule 1011(p)
(which defines the term ``specified risk event'') to clarify the scope
of ``final regulatory actions'' that are included in the definition of
``specified risk event'' for purposes of the Rule 1000 Series (Member
Application and Associated Person Registration).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Exchange Act Release No. 90635 (Dec. 10, 2020), 85 FR
81540 (Dec. 16, 2020) (Order Approving File No. SR-FINRA-2020-011)
(``December 2020 Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on May 26, 2021.\4\ The public comment period closed on June
16, 2021. The Commission received one comment letter in response to the
Notice.\5\ On July 9, 2021, FINRA consented to an extension of the time
period in which the Commission must approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change to
August 24, 2021.\6\ This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Exchange Act Release No. 91959 (May 20, 2021), 86 FR
28405 (May 26, 2021) (File No. SR-FINRA-2021-011) (``Notice'').
    \5\ See letter from Isaiah Sanderman, dated May 28, 2021
(``Sanderman Letter''), available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-finra-2021-011/srfinra2021011-8852748-238381.htm.
    \6\ See letter from Michael Garawski, Associate General Counsel,
OGC Regulatory Practice and Policy, FINRA, to Daniel Fisher, Branch
Chief, Division of Trading and Markets, Commission, dated July 9,
2021, available at SR-FINRA-2021-011-Extension1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    On December 10, 2020, the Commission approved a proposed rule
change concerning brokers with a significant history of misconduct
(``Misconduct Rule'').\7\ Among other things, the Misconduct Rule
amended the FINRA Rule 1000 Series (Member Application and Associated
Person Registration) to require a FINRA member broker-dealer (``member
firm'') to seek a materiality consultation and approval of a continuing
membership application, if required, when a natural person seeking to
become an owner, control person, principal, or registered person of the
member firm has, in the prior five years, one or more ``final criminal
matters'' or two or more ``specified risk events.'' \8\ The amendments
to the Rule 1000 Series will become effective on September 1, 2021.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See supra note 3.
    \8\ See December 2020 Order at 81541. In general, a member firm
initiates a materiality consultation with FINRA's Department of
Member Regulation (``Member Regulation'') by submitting a letter
requesting its determination as to whether a proposed change is
material such that it requires the submission of a Continuing
Membership Application (``CMA''). If Member Regulation determines
that a proposed change is material, it will instruct the broker-
dealer to file a CMA if it intends to proceed with the proposed
change. See Regulatory Notice 18-23 (Proposal Regarding the Rules
Governing the New and Continuing Membership Application Process)
(Jul. 2018); see also December 2020 Order at n. 9.
    \9\ See Regulatory Notice 21-09 (Mar. 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To provide clarity to member firms determining whether they need to
seek a materiality consultation or approval of a CMA, the Misconduct
Rule defines ``specified risk event'' to mean ``any one of the . . .
events'' described in Rule 1011(p) ``that are disclosed, or are or were
required to be disclosed, on an applicable Uniform Registration Form.''
\10\ The events described in Rule 1011(p) include, among others, a
``final regulatory action'' as set forth in Rule 1011(p)(4).
Specifically, Rule 1011(p)(4) describes ``a final regulatory action''
to include final regulatory actions ``where (A) the total monetary
sanctions (including civil and administrative penalties or fines,
disgorgement, monetary penalties other than fines, or restitution) were
ordered for a dollar amount at or above $15,000; or (B) the sanction
against the person was a bar (permanently or temporarily), expulsion,
rescission, revocation, or suspension from associating with a member.''
The proposed rule change

would delete from Rule 1011(p)(4) the phrase ``from associating with a
member,'' which appears after the word ``suspension.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See FINRA Rule 1011(p); see also Notice at 28406. FINRA
Rule 1011(r) defines ``Uniform Registration Forms'' to mean the
Uniform Application for Broker-Dealer Registration (Form BD), the
Uniform Application for Securities Industry Registration or Transfer
(Form U4), the Uniform Termination Notice for Securities Industry
Registration (Form U5) and the Uniform Disciplinary Action Reporting
Form (Form U6), as such may be amended or any successor(s) thereto.
    \11\ See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review of the proposed rule change and the comment
letter, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities
association.\12\ Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Exchange
Act,\13\ which requires, among other things, that FINRA rules be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ In approving this rule change, the Commission has
considered the rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Consistent With Basis for Approving the December 2020 Order

    FINRA stated that including the phrase ``from associating with a
member'' in Rule 1011(p)(4) was an ``inadvertent drafting error'' that
inappropriately narrowed the ``final regulatory actions'' included in
the ``specified risk event'' definition.\14\ In particular, FINRA notes
that the current rule may be interpreted to exclude from the definition
of ``specified risk event'' final SEC and CFTC regulatory actions where
the sanction against the person was a suspension other than a
suspension from associating with a member.\15\ FINRA stated that it did
not intend to narrow the scope of ``final regulatory actions'' that are
included in the ``specified risk event'' definition in this manner.\16\
Rather, FINRA stated that it intended Rule 1011(p)(4) to be consistent
with Rule 1011(p)(3), which describes the ``final investment-related
civil actions'' that are included in the ``specified risk event''
definition. Rule 1011(p)(3) includes final investment-related civil
actions that result in a ``suspension,'' and does not limit the
suspensions to suspensions from associating with a member.\17\ FINRA
further cited the mapping exhibits it provided in SR-FINRA-2020-011 to
illustrate its intent to include ``final regulatory actions'' beyond
those resulting in suspensions ``from associating with a member'' in
the ``specified risk event'' definition. FINRA stated that these
exhibits demonstrated how the ``final regulatory actions'' included
within the scope of the ``specified risk event'' definition should
include final regulatory actions disclosed on the Uniform Registration
Forms that resulted in a suspension.\18\ FINRA stated that those
mapping exhibits are consistent with how the relevant sanctions-related
questions on the Uniform Registration Forms require the reporting of
regulatory actions initiated by numerous regulators and self-regulatory
organizations--not just FINRA--and include data fields for
suspensions.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Notice at 28406.
    \15\ Id.
    \16\ Id.
    \17\ Id.
    \18\ See Form 19b-4, Exs. 3a and 3b, File No. SR-FINRA-2020-011,
available at https://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/2020-04/SR-FINRA-2020-011.pdf; see also Notice at n. 7.
    \19\ See Form U4, Regulatory Action Disclosure Reporting Page,
Questions 1 (requesting information about which regulator initiated
the regulatory action) and 13 (Sanction Detail); Form BD, Regulatory
Action Disclosure Reporting Page, Part II, Questions 1 (requesting
information about which regulator initiated the regulatory action)
and Question 2 (Principal Sanction). FINRA also stated that the data
that it provided in SR-FINRA-2020-011 concerning the regulatory
action disclosures included regulatory actions that resulted in any
suspension, not just suspensions from associating with a member; see
also Notice at n. 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA believes that by amending Rule 1011(p)(4) to accurately
describe the ``final regulatory actions'' that the definition of
``specified risk event'' should include, the proposed rule change would
provide greater clarity to members and the public and serve the
intended investor-protection purposes of the Misconduct Rule.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Notice at 28407.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. The Proposed Rule Change Would Impose No Additional Burden

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change would result
in any additional burdens not already contemplated in SR-FINRA-2020-
011.\21\ FINRA stated that the aspect of the economic impact assessment
undertaken in SR-FINRA-2020-011 that pertained to the amendments to the
Rule 1000 Series was based on the broader scope for the ``final
regulatory actions'' that are included in the ``specified risk event''
definition that FINRA is proposing here.\22\ Consistent with FINRA's
original intent, the broader scope for the ``final regulatory actions''
that are included in the ``specified risk event'' definition includes
final SEC and CFTC regulatory actions where the sanction against the
person was a suspension other than a suspension from associating with a
member.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Id.
    \22\ Id.
    \23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission received one comment letter in response to the
proposed rule change. Because the letter failed to address any
component of the proposed rule change, the Commission believes the
comment is beyond the scope of the proposal.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Sanderman Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In sum, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with its findings in the December 2020 Order. In the
December 2020 Order, the Commission found that the Misconduct Rules
would result in ``greater investor protections by helping address the
concerns raised by associated persons with a significant history of
misconduct and the broker-dealers that employ them.'' \25\
Specifically, the Commission stated that the Misconduct Rules would
``strengthen the tools available to FINRA in responding to associated
persons who have a significant history of misconduct'' and were
sufficiently tailored ``to target the specific misconduct it seeks to
address, which would minimize the potential costs to broker-dealers.''
\26\ The Commission agrees that by amending the ``final regulatory
actions'' that are included in the ``specified risk event'' definition,
the proposed rule change would provide greater clarity to members and
the public and serve the intended investor protection purposes of the
Misconduct Rules approved in the December 2020 Order.\27\ The
Commission also agrees with FINRA's assessment that the proposed rule
change would impose no additional burden not already contemplated and
approved by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See December 2020 Order at 81548.
    \26\ Id.
    \27\ See December 2020 Order at 81546 (explaining that the rules
approved in SR-FINRA-2020-011 ``further promote investor protection
by applying additional safeguards and disclosure obligations for a
broker-dealer's continuing membership with FINRA and for changes to
a current member broker-dealer's ownership, control, or business
operations,'' where those changes involve persons with a significant
history of misconduct). See Notice at note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Exchange Act \28\ that the proposal (SR-FINRA-2021-011), be and hereby
is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-18237 Filed 8-24-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38048-38049]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15518]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 11841-020]

Ketchikan Public Utilities; Notice of Application for Amendment
of License and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Application to amend project access road and
Whitman Lake trail plan.
    b. Project No: 11841-020.
    c. Date Filed: June 15, 2012.
    d. Applicant: Ketchikan Public Utilities.

    e. Name of Project: Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: Whitman Creek in Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Jennifer Holstrom, Ketchikan Public
Utilities, Electric Division, 1065 Fair Street, Ketchikan, Alaska
99901<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(907) 228-4733.
    i. FERC Contact: Mark Carter,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests: July 5, 2012.
    All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See, 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file,
mail an original and seven copies to: Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
Please include the project number (P-11841-020) on any comments,
motions, or recommendations filed.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Application: Ketchikan Public Utilities
(licensee) requests Commission approval to modify the location of the
project's access road, which has not yet been constructed. The access
road would also serve as a recreational hiking, bicycling, and skiing
trail pursuant to license article 422. The road and trail would
originate off South Tongass Highway, run approximately adjacent to
Whitman Creek, and terminate at an overlook near the Achilles
diversion, a project feature.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also
register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to
be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from
the applicant.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214, respectively. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only
those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Documents: Any filing must (1) Bear in all
capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO
INTERVENE'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the
applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing
responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the
person commenting, protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply
with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis. Any filing made by an intervenor must be accompanied
by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared
by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR
385.2010.

    Dated: June 20, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-15518 Filed 6-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: June 22, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 120)]
[Notices]
[Page 35954-35955]
[DOCID:fr22jn06-117]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Numbers Under the Paperwork
Reduction Act

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice; announcement of OMB approval of information collection
requirements.

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

SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
announces that OMB has extended its approval for a number of
information collection requirements found in sections of 29 CFR pars
1910, 1915, 1917, 1918, 1926, and 1928. OSHA sought approval under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA-95), and, as required by that Act,
is announcing the approval number and expiration dates for those
requirements.

DATES: This notice is effective June 22, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Owen or Theda Kenney, Directorate
of Standards and Guidance, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609, 200 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a series of Federal Register notices, the
Agency announced its requests to OMB to renew its current extensions of
approvals for various information collection (paperwork) requirements
in its safety and health standards for general industry, shipyard
employment, longshoring, marine terminals, the construction industry,
and agriculture (i.e., 29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, 1917, 1918, 1926, and
1928). In these Federal Register announcements, the Agency provided 60-
day comment periods for the public to respond to OSHA's burden-hour and
cost estimates.
    In accordance with PRA-95 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), OMB renewed its
approval for these information collection requirements and assigned OMB
control numbers to these requirements. The table below provides the
following information for each of these OMB-approved requirements: The
title of the collection; the date of the Federal Register notice; the
Federal Register reference (date, volume, and leading page); OMB's
control number; and the new expiration date.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Date of Federal Register
                   Title                        Publication, Federal Register       OMB Control     Expiration
                                                Reference, and OSHA Docket No.          No.            Date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acrylonitrile (29 CFR 1910.1045)...........  06/15/2005, 70 FR 34799, Docket No.       1218-0126      11/30/2008
                                              1218-0126 (2005).
1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane (DBCP) Standard  09/01/2005, 70 FR 52132, Docket No.       1218-0101      02.28/2009
 (29 CFR 1910.1044).                          1218-0101 (2005).
Asbestos in Construction (29 CFR 1926.1101)  10/27/2005, 70 FR 62002, Docket No.       1218-0134      02/28/2009
                                              1218-0134 (2006).

Asbestos in Shipyards (29 CFR 1915.1001)...  10/27/2005, 70 FR 62003, Docket No.       1218-0195      02/28/2009
                                              1218-0195 (2006).
Blasting and the Use of Explosives (29 CFR   11/25/2005, 70 FR 71174, Docket No.       1218-0217      03/31/2009
 part 1926, subpart U).                       1218-0217 (2006).
Cadmium in Construction (29 CFR 1926.1127).  10/27/2005, 70 FR 62006, Docket No.       1218-0185      03/31/2009
                                              1218-0186 (2006).
Cadmium in General Industry (29 CFR          10/27/2005, 70 FR 62005, Docket No.       1218-0185      03/31/2009
 1910.1027).                                  1218-0185 (2006).
Coke Oven Emissions (29 CFR 1910.1029).....  05/23/2005, 70 FR 29536, Docket No.       1218-0128      10/31/2008
                                              1218-0128 (2006).
Cotton Dust (29 CFR 1910.1043).............  06/28/2005, 70 FR 37122, Docket No.       1218-0061      11/30/2008
                                              1218-0061 (2005).
Design of Cave-in Protection Systems (29     12/07/2004, 69 FR 70710, Docket No.       1218-0137      06/30/2008
 CFR 1926.652).                               1218-0137 (2005).
Electrical Standards for Construction (29    04/20/2005, 70 FR 20604, Docket No.       1218-0130      09/30/2008
 CFR part 1926, subpart K) and for General    1218-0130 (2005).
 Industry (29 CFR part 1910, subpart S).
Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency     10/27/2005, 70 FR 61999, Docket No.       1218-0202      03/31/2009
 Response (HAZWOPER) (29 CFR 1910.120).       1218-0202 (2006).
Inorganic Arsenic (29 CFR 1910.1018).......  07/22/2005, 70 FR 42389, Docket No.       1218-0104      11/30/2008
                                              1218-0104 (2005).
Marine Terminals Standards (29 CFR part      11/21/2005, 70 FR 70102, Docket No.       1218-0196      03/31/2009
 1917) and Safety and Health Regulations      1218-0196 (2006).
 for Longshoring (29 CFR part 1918).
Methylene Chloride (29 CFR 1910.1052)......  12/07/2004, 69 FR 70709, Docket No.       1218-0179      06/30/2008
                                              1218-0179 (2005).
OSHA Strategic Partnership Program for       11/25/2005, 70 FR 71173, Docket No.       1218-0244      03/31/2009
 Worker Safety and Health (OSPP).             1218-0244 (2006).
Permit-Required Confined Spaces (29 CFR      08/31/2005, 70 FR 51849, Docket No.       1218-0203      02/28/2009
 1910.146).                                   1218-0203 (2005).
Servicing Multi-Piece and Single Piece Rim   07/22/2005, 70 FR 42392, Docket No.       1218-0219      11/30/2008
 Wheels (29 CFR 1910.177).                    1218-0219 (2005).
Shipyard Employment Standards (29 CFR        07/22/2005, 70 FR 42390, Docket No.       1218-0220      11/30/2008
 1915.113(b)(1) and 1915.172(d)).             1218-0220 (2005).
Slings (29 CFR 1910.184)...................  05/26/2005, 70 FR 30488, Docket No.       1218-0223      10/31/2008
                                              1218-0223 (2005).
Subpart A (``General Provisions'') and       04/01/2005, 70 FR 16871, Docket No.       1218-0011      07/31/2008
 Subpart B (``Confined and Enclosed Spaces    1218-0011 (2005).
 and other Dangerous Atmospheres in
 Shipyard Employment'') (29 CFR part 1915).
Telecommunications (Training Certification   07/22/2005, 70 FR 42391, Docket No.       1218-0225      12/31/2008
 Record) (29 CFR 1910.268(c)).                1218-0225 (2005).
Vinyl Chloride Standard (29 CFR 1910.1017).  06/10/2005, 70 FR 33926, Docket No.       1218-0010      10/31/2008
                                              1218-0010 (2005).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with 5 CFR 1320.5(b), an agency cannot conduct,
sponsor, or require a response to a collection of information unless
the collection displays a valid OMB control number and the agency
informs respondents that they are not required to respond to the
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.

Authority and Signature

    Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The
authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3506 et seq.), and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2002 (67 FR
65008).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on June 14, 2006.
Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary of Labor.
[FR Doc. 06-5578 Filed 6-21-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-M


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 213 (Friday, November 4, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66687-66689]
[FR Doc No: 2022-24037]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER23-287-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Duke Energy Progress, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: JOINT OATT Amendment--Gulf
Power Company's Withdrawal from the SERTP to be effective 1/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 10/31/22.
    Accession Number: 20221031-5072.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-288-000.
    Applicants: Guzman Energy, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Normal filing 2022 change in
status to be effective 11/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 10/31/22.
    Accession Number: 20221031-5075.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-289-000.
    Applicants: Guzman Energy Partners LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Normal filing 2022 change in
status to be effective 11/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 10/31/22.
    Accession Number: 20221031-5078.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-290-000.
    Applicants: Guzman Western Slope LLC.

    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Normal filing 2022 change in
status to be effective 11/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 10/31/22.
    Accession Number: 20221031-5079.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-291-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original Service Agreement
No. 6665; Queue Position No. AG1-507 to be effective 9/30/2022.
    Filed Date: 10/31/22.
    Accession Number: 20221031-5084.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-292-000.
    Applicants: Crete Energy Venture, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Non-Material Notice of
Change in Status to be effective 12/31/2022.
    Filed Date: 10/31/22.
    Accession Number: 20221031-5094.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-293-000.
    Applicants: Lincoln Generating Facility, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Notice of Non-Material
Change in Status to be effective 12/31/2022.
    Filed Date: 10/31/22.
    Accession Number: 20221031-5095.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-294-000.
    Applicants: Southern Illinois Generation Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Notice of Non-Material
Change in Status to be effective 12/31/2022.
    Filed Date: 10/31/22.
    Accession Number: 20221031-5096.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-295-000.
    Applicants: American Electric Power Service Corporation, PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: American Electric Power
Service Corporation submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: AEP
submits update to Attachment 1 of ILDSA, SA No. 1336 (10/31/22) to be
effective 10/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 10/31/22.
    Accession Number: 20221031-5099.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-296-000.
    Applicants: Basin Electric Power Cooperative.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Basin Electric Notice of
Cancellation of Service Agreements 9 & 16 to be effective 12/31/2022.
    Filed Date: 10/31/22.
    Accession Number: 20221031-5101.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-297-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: SCE 2023 TRBAA Update to be
effective 1/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 10/31/22.
    Accession Number: 20221031-5102.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-298-000.
    Applicants: Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative, Inc., PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Southern Maryland Electric
Cooperative, Inc. submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(1): SMECO
Revisions to OATT Schedule 1A and Attachment H-9C to be effective 1/1/
2023.
    Filed Date: 10/31/22.
    Accession Number: 20221031-5106.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-299-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., The Narragansett Electric
Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: ISO New England Inc. submits
tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: Change to Attachment F to add The
Narragansett Electric Company as a PTO to be effective 1/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 10/31/22.
    Accession Number: 20221031-5110.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-300-000.
    Applicants: Jayhawk Wind, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Notice of Non-Material
Change in Status and MBR Tariff Revisions to be effective 12/31/2022.
    Filed Date: 10/31/22.
    Accession Number: 20221031-5133.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-301-000.
    Applicants: CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: TFO Tariff Interim Rate
Revision to Conform with PUCT to be effective 10/28/2022.
    Filed Date: 10/31/22.
    Accession Number: 20221031-5158.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-302-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.,
Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Midcontinent Independent
System Operator, Inc. submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: 2022-
10-31_SA 3926 METC-Branch Solar E&P (J1550) to be effective 10/12/2022.
    Filed Date: 10/31/22.
    Accession Number: 20221031-5159.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-303-000.
    Applicants: Danske Commodities US LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application For Market Based
Rate Authorization to be effective 1/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 10/31/22.
    Accession Number: 20221031-5166.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-304-000.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Calhoun Facility IA
Amendment Filing to be effective 9/30/2022.
    Filed Date: 10/31/22.
    Accession Number: 20221031-5177.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-305-000.
    Applicants: Dynasty Power Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: Cost Justification Regarding
Certain WECC Spot Market Sales to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 10/31/22.
    Accession Number: 20221031-5185.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-306-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: PG&E UOG Amendments for
Attachments 4 and 5 (SA Nos. 448, 449, 450, and 495) to be effective 1/
1/2023.
    Filed Date: 10/31/22.
    Accession Number: 20221031-5205.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/22.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES23-4-000.
    Applicants: Kingsport Power Company.
    Description: Application Under Section 204 of the Federal Power Act
for Authorization to Issue Securities of Kingsport Power Company.
    Filed Date: 10/28/22.
    Accession Number: 20221028-5317.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/18/22.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For

other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call (202)
502-8659.

    Dated: October 31, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-24037 Filed 11-3-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 47 (Tuesday, March 11, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13735-13736]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05185]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0135; Notice 1]

General Motors, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: General Motors, LLC (GM) has determined that certain model
year (MY) 2013-2014 Chevrolet Express, GMC Savana, Chevrolet Silverado
HD and GMC Sierra HD compressed natural gas (CNG) multipurpose
passenger vehicles (MPVs) and trucks manufactured between May 20, 2012,
and September 25, 2013, do not fully comply with paragraph S5.3 of
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. FMVSS 303, Fuel
System Integrity of Compressed Natural Gas Vehicles. GM has filed an
appropriate report dated November 25, 2013, pursuant to 49 CFR part
573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is April 10, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket and notice number cited at the beginning of this notice and be
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to: U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Deliver: Deliver comments by hand to: U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. The
Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except
Federal Holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by: logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Comments may also be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that your comments were received, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that
all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
    Documents submitted to a docket may be viewed by anyone at the
address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by following the online
instructions for accessing the dockets. DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement is available for review in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477-78).
    The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received
before the close of business on the closing date indicated below will
be filed and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the extent possible. When the petition is granted or
denied, notice of the decision will be published in the Federal
Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. GM's Petition

    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see implementing rule
at 49 CFR part 556), GM submitted a petition for an exemption from the
notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the
basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety.
    This notice of receipt of GM's petition is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.

II. Vehicles Involved

    Affected are approximately 2,247 MY 2013-2014 Chevrolet Express,
GMC Savana, Chevrolet Silverado HD and GMC Sierra HD compressed natural
gas (CNG) MPVs and trucks manufactured between May 20, 2012, and
September 25, 2013.

III. Noncompliance

    GM explains that the noncompliance is an error on the vehicles CNG
labels. Specifically, the lettering height on the labels is 2.5 mm
instead of the minimum 4.76 mm as required by paragraph S5.3 of FMVSS
No. 303.

IV. Rule Text

    Paragraph S5.3 of FMVSS No. 303 requires:

    S5.3 Each CNG vehicle shall be permanently labeled, near the
vehicle refueling connection, with the information specified in
S5.3.1 and S5.3.2 of this section. The information shall be visible
to a person standing next to the vehicle during refueling, in
English, and in letters and numbers that are not less than 4.76 mm
(3/16 inch) high.
    S5.3.1 The statement: ``Service pressure ----kPa (----psig).''
    S5.3.2 The statement ``See instructions on fuel container for
inspection and service life.''

V. Summary of GM's Analyses

    GM stated its belief that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety for the following reasons:
    A. The information on the subject CNG labels is correct and
entirely legible.
    Paragraph S5.4 of FMVSS No. 303 requires that the information
required for the label also be included in the owner's manual using ``.
. . not less than 10 point type.'' The 2.5 mm lettering height on the
subject labels is 10 point type, i.e., the same lettering size as what
is specified for the owner's manual content. The 10 point type that is
legible for purposes of the owner's manual is also legible on the
labels installed at the CNG filler port.
    B. The subject CNG label is an ``information'' label, not a
``warning'' label.
    The subject label is not a ``warning'' label and does not warn the
user of a safety related risk or consequence. Even if the user does not
read the label information due to the font size, the user will not miss
information about a safety risk.
    C. The label font size does not create a risk of misfueling.

    Even if the user fails to read the information label due to the
reduced font size, there would be no adverse safety consequence. The
service pressure of the subject CNG tanks is 3,600 psi. There is no
risk of over-pressuring these tanks since CNG filling stations are
required to shutoff at 3,600 psi, per ANSI/IAS NGV 4.2-1999 CSA 12.52-
M99(R09). Accordingly, there is no risk of a fuel leak.
    Even if the shutoff function on a filling station were to
malfunction, all CNG tanks on the affected vehicles are equipped with
pressure-relief devices designed to deploy at 5,400 psi, which is below
the burst pressure of the tank itself.
    With regard to under-pressure (under-fill) potential, all affected
vehicles are equipped with a CNG fuel gauge in the instrument cluster
to inform the driver of the fuel level. While some drivers may estimate
the driving range associated with a full fill, most drivers typically
rely on fuel gauges, not anticipated range, to determine when to
refuel. Some CNG filling stations, primarily in Canada, are designed to
shutoff at 3,000 psi, which is below the 3,600 psi service pressure of
the affected CNG tanks. However, regardless of whether the CNG tanks on
the affected vehicles start out full (3,600 psi) or 83% full (3,000
psi), the driver has ample opportunity to monitor the fuel gauge and
refuel prior to the CNG being depleted. Additionally, the owner manual
instructs that ``the fuel gauge has been calibrated to display full at
approximately 24 800 kPa (3,600 psi) . . .''
    Finally, there is no risk that a customer would attempt to fuel the
CNG tanks from a conventional gasoline pump. The fueling nozzle and
filling port for CNG are completely distinct from the corresponding
nozzle and port used for gasoline, and the distinctions are obvious. In
the extraordinary event that a user attempted to connect a conventional
gasoline nozzle to the CNG fueling valve, it would be immediately
apparent that the mismatched gasoline nozzle does not attach to or work
with the CNG valve.
    GM also asserts that owners and operators of CNG vehicles (the
large majority being fleet purchasers) are well aware that their
vehicles use a non-conventional fuel, and are attuned to the unique
characteristics associated with CNG use, such as service pressure, and
tank inspection and replacement provisions. These aspects of the CNG
fuel system are likely known to owners when or even before they
purchase the CNG vehicle, and in any event are easily obtained for the
subject vehicles from the labels at the fueling port, from the vehicle
owner's manuals, and/or from the labels on the CNG tanks themselves. As
mentioned above, the information is provided in the owner's manual.
    In addition, GM stated its belief that NHTSA has previously granted
petitions for labeling related inconsequential noncompliances that GM
believes can be applied to a decision on its petition.
    GM informed NHTSA that it is not aware of any crashes, injuries or
customer complaints associated with this condition.
    GM also informed NHTSA that it has corrected the noncompliance for
all future production.
    In summation, GM believes that the described noncompliance of the
subject vehicles is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that
its petition, to exempt from providing recall notification of
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be granted.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
this petition only applies to the subject noncompliant vehicles that GM
no longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance
existed. However, any decision on this petition does not relieve motor
vehicle distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer
for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant motor vehicles under their control after
GM notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2014-05185 Filed 3-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P