[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 8 (Thursday, January 12, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2144-2151]
[FR Doc No: 2023-00425]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-96607; File No. SR-FINRA-2022-033]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
the Codes of Arbitration Procedure To Make Various Clarifying and
Technical Changes to the Codes, Including in Response to
Recommendations in the Report of Independent Counsel Lowenstein Sandler
LLP

January 6, 2023.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'' or ``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice
is hereby given that on December 23, 2022, the Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule
change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have
been prepared by FINRA. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    FINRA is proposing to amend the Code of Arbitration Procedure for
Customer Disputes (``Customer Code'') and the Code of Arbitration
Procedure for Industry Disputes (``Industry Code'') (together,
``Codes'') to make changes to provisions relating to the arbitrator
list selection process in response to recommendations in the report of
independent counsel Lowenstein Sandler LLP. The proposed rule change
also makes clarifying and technical changes to requirements in the
Codes for holding prehearing conferences and hearing sessions,
initiating and responding to claims, motion practice, claim and case
dismissals, and providing a hearing record.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's
website at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA and
at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
Background and Discussion
    FINRA is proposing to amend the Codes to provide greater
transparency and consistency regarding the arbitrator list selection
process, and to clarify the application of certain procedures and
include expressly these procedures in various rules in the Codes. The
proposed rule change would enhance the transparency of the arbitration
forum administered by FINRA Dispute Resolution Services (``DRS'').\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ FINRA notes that the proposed rule change would impact all
members, including members that are funding portals or have elected
to be treated as capital acquisition brokers (``CABs''), given that
the funding portal and CAB rule sets incorporate the impacted FINRA
rules by reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. List Selection Process Amendments
    In June 2022, FINRA published the report from Lowenstein Sandler
LLP relating to an independent review and analysis of the DRS
arbitrator list selection process (``Report'').\4\ The Report made
several recommendations to provide greater transparency and consistency
in the arbitrator list selection process, some of which require
amendments to the Codes. In response to the recommendations in the
Report, FINRA is proposing to amend the Codes to implement the Report's
recommendations, as described below.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See FINRA, The Report of the Independent Review of FINRA's
Dispute Resolution Services--Arbitrator Selection Process, https://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/2022-06/report-independent-review-drs-arbitrator-selection-process.pdf. In February 2022, the Audit
Committee of FINRA's Board of Governors engaged independent counsel
Lowenstein Sandler LLP to provide a review and analysis in
connection with a Fulton County (Georgia) Superior Court decision
vacating an arbitration award in favor of Wells Fargo Clearing
Services, LLC. See Order Granting Mot. to Vacate Arb. Award and Den.
Cross Mot. to Confirm Arb. Award at 37, Leggett v. Wells Fargo
Clearing Servs., LLC, No. 2019-CV-328949 (Ga. Super. Ct., January
25, 2022). Since publication of the Report, the Fulton County
(Georgia) Superior Court's decision was reversed by the Court of
Appeals of Georgia. See Wells Fargo Clearing Servs. v. Leggett, No.
A22A1149, 2022 Ga. App. (Ct. App. August 2, 2022).
    \5\ Separately, FINRA addressed a recommendation from the Report
by making technical, non-substantive changes to the Codes to remove
references to the Neutral List Selection System from those rules
describing arbitrator list selection and instead refer to a ``list
selection algorithm.'' See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 95871
(September 22, 2022), 87 FR 58854 (September 28, 2022) (Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of File No. SR-FINRA-2022-026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Conflicts of Interest
    The Codes provide that a list selection algorithm will randomly
generate the ranking lists of arbitrators from the DRS roster of
arbitrators,\6\ and exclude arbitrators from the lists based upon
current conflicts of interest identified within the list selection
algorithm.\7\ In addition, once the lists are generated, DRS conducts a
manual review for other conflicts not identified within the list
selection algorithm. This manual review is described on FINRA's website
and in rule filings with the SEC, but not in the Codes.\8\ The Report
recommended that, ``to improve transparency, FINRA should amend Rule
12400 to specifically state that prior to sending the arbitrator list
to the parties, NM [DRS's Neutral Management

Department] shall conduct a manual review for conflicts of interest.''
\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See FINRA Rules 12400, 12402, 12403, 13400 and 13406.
    \7\ See FINRA Rules 12402(b), 12403(a)(3), 13403(a)(4) and
13403(b)(4).
    \8\ See FINRA, How Parties Select Arbitrators, https://www.finra.org/arbitration-mediation/arbitrator-selection. See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 40261 (July 24, 1998), 63 FR
40761, 40769 (July 30, 1998) (Notice of Filing of SR-NASD-98-48)
(stating that DRS will perform a manual review for conflicts of
interests between parties and potential arbitrators); Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 40555 (October 21, 1998), 63 FR 56670,
56675 (October 22, 1998) (Order Approving File No. SR-NASD-98-48)
(describing the manual review for conflicts of interests between
parties and potential arbitrators).
    \9\ See Lowenstein Report at 36, supra note 4 (citing to a
general rule on the list selection algorithm rather than specific
FINRA rules relating to excluding arbitrators from the lists based
upon current conflicts of interest identified within the list
selection algorithm). See supra note 7. FINRA notes that an
arbitration case may have three arbitrators. For a three-person
panel under the Customer Code, the list selection algorithm
generates three lists of arbitrators: one from the FINRA non-public
arbitrator roster, another from the FINRA public arbitrator roster,
and another from the FINRA chairperson roster. See FINRA Rule
12403(a)(1). Under the Industry Code, the number of lists generated
for a three-person panel will depend on whether the dispute is
between members or between associated persons or between or among
members and associated persons. See FINRA Rule 13402.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would amend the Codes to clarify the
current practice that the Director will exclude arbitrators from the
lists based upon a review of current conflicts of interest not
identified within the list selection algorithm.\10\ Under the proposed
rule change, if an arbitrator is removed based on this conflicts
review, consistent with current practice, the list selection algorithm
would randomly select an arbitrator to complete the lists.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See proposed Rules 12402(b)(3), 12403(a)(4), 13403(a)(5)
and 13403(b)(5). The term ``Director'' means the Director of DRS.
Unless the Codes provide that the Director may not delegate a
specific function, the term includes FINRA staff to whom the
Director has delegated authority. See FINRA Rules 12100(m) and
13100(m).
    \11\ Potential conflicts include that: the arbitrator is
employed by a party to the case; the arbitrator is an immediate
family member or relative of a party to the case or a party's
counsel; the arbitrator is employed at the same firm as a party to
the case; the arbitrator is employed at the same law firm as counsel
to a party to the case; the arbitrator is representing a party to
the case as counsel; the arbitrator is an account holder with a
party to the case; the arbitrator is employed by a member firm that
clears through a clearing agent that is a party to the case; or the
arbitrator is in litigation with or against a party to the case. DRS
may also remove an arbitrator for other reasons affecting the
arbitrator's ability to serve, such as if DRS learns the arbitrator
has moved out of the hearing location. These potential conflicts,
along with a description of the manual review process, are published
on FINRA's website. See FINRA, How Parties Select Arbitrators,
https://www.finra.org/arbitration-mediation/arbitrator-selection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Written Explanation of Director's Decision
    The Codes do not require the Director to provide a written
explanation when deciding a party-initiated challenge to remove an
arbitrator. The Report recommended that, to improve transparency, DRS
should consider amending its policies to require a written explanation
whenever a challenge to remove an arbitrator is granted or denied, if a
written explanation is requested by either party.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Lowenstein Report at 37, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Effective September 1, 2022, DRS updated its policy to provide a
written explanation whenever a party-initiated challenge to remove an
arbitrator is granted or denied, regardless of whether an explanation
is requested by either party.\13\ To provide transparency and
consistency, the proposed rule change would amend the Codes to codify
this practice by requiring the Director to provide a written
explanation to the parties of the Director's decision to grant or deny
a party's request to remove an arbitrator.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See FINRA, Status Report on Lowenstein Sandler LLP
Recommendations, https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/guidance/reports/report-independent-review-finra-dispute-resolution-services-arbitrator-selection-process.
    \14\ See proposed Rules 12407(c) and 13410(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Challenge To Remove an Arbitrator
    Although not a specific recommendation in the Report, the proposed
rule change would make an additional clarifying change to provisions in
the Codes relating to party-initiated challenges for cause.
Specifically, the Codes provide that before the first hearing session
begins, the Director may remove an arbitrator for conflict of interest
or bias, either upon request of a party or on the Director's own
initiative.\15\ To help ensure that parties are aware that they may
challenge an arbitrator for cause at any point after receipt of the
arbitrator ranking lists until the first hearing session begins, the
proposed rule change would amend the Codes to clarify that after the
Director sends the arbitrator ranking lists generated by the list
selection algorithm to the parties, but before the first hearing
session begins, the Director may remove an arbitrator for conflict of
interest or bias, either upon request of a party or on the Director's
own initiative.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See FINRA Rules 12407(a) and 13410(a).
    \16\ See proposed Rules 12407(a) and 13410(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Procedural Amendments
    The Codes include requirements for holding prehearing conferences
and hearing sessions, initiating and responding to claims, motion
practice, claim and case dismissals, and providing a hearing record.
Over the years, DRS has developed practices to help implement these
requirements so that arbitration cases are timely and efficiently
administered in its forum. The proposed rule change would amend the
Codes to incorporate these practices, as described below.
1. Virtual Prehearing Conferences
    Under the Codes, prehearing conferences are generally held by
telephone.\17\ Based on forum users' experiences during the COVID-19
pandemic, they have expressed a preference for holding prehearing
conferences by video conference.\18\ As a result, effective July 1,
2022, DRS updated its policy so that all prehearing conferences are
held by video conference. To provide greater transparency and
consistency, the proposed rule change would codify this policy by
amending the Codes to provide that prehearing conferences will
generally be held by video conference unless the parties agree to, or
the panel grants a motion for, another type of hearing session.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See, e.g., FINRA Rules 12500(b) and 13500(b). A
``prehearing conference'' means any hearing session, including an
Initial Prehearing Conference, that takes place before the hearing
on the merits begins. See FINRA Rules 12100(y) and 13100(w).
    \18\ While FINRA postponed in-person arbitration hearings and
mediation sessions in response to the pandemic, FINRA permitted
arbitration hearings and mediation sessions to proceed virtually
either by party agreement or arbitration panel order. See Regulatory
Notice 21-44 (December 2021). On February 22, 2022, DRS began two
pilot programs with some prehearing conferences held on the Zoom
platform with video and some without video before updating its
policy so that all prehearing conferences are held on the Zoom
platform with video. See The Neutral Corner, ``Pilot Programs:
Prehearing Conferences by Zoom,'' Volume 1--2022.
    \19\ See proposed Rules 12500(b), 12501(c) and 12504(a); see
also proposed Rules 13500(b), 13501(c) and 13504(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In contrast to prehearing conferences, under the Codes, hearings
are generally held in person.\20\ Forum users have not similarly
expressed a preference for making video conference the default for
hearings. Accordingly, the proposed rule change would amend the Codes
to clarify that hearings will generally be held in person unless the
parties agree to, or the panel grants a motion for, another type of
hearing session.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The term ``hearing'' means the hearing on the merits of an
arbitration under Rule 12600. See FINRA Rules 12100(o) and 13100(o).
    \21\ See proposed Rules 12600(b) and 13600(b). In addition, the
proposed rule change would require the renumbering of paragraphs in
the rules impacted by the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Virtual Option for Special Proceeding
    Arbitrations involving $50,000 or less, called simplified
arbitrations, generally are decided by a single arbitrator based on the
parties' written submissions, unless the customer requests a
hearing.\22\ In some cases, however, customers want an opportunity to
present their case to the arbitrator without the travel and expenses
associated with a full hearing. The

Codes permit such customers to elect to have an abbreviated telephonic
hearing (``special proceeding'').\23\ The special proceeding option is
intended to ensure that customers have an opportunity to present their
case to an arbitrator in a convenient and cost-effective manner without
being subject to cross-examination by an opposing party.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See FINRA Rules 12800(a) and 13800(a). Under the Industry
Code, the individual filing the claim is referred to as the
``claimant.'' For simplicity in this section, ``customer'' will be
used to refer to the individual filing the claim unless otherwise
noted.
    \23\ See FINRA Rules 12800(c)(3)(B)(i) and 13800(c)(3)(B)(i).
See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83276 (May 17, 2018),
83 FR 23959, 23960 (May 23, 2018) (Order Approving File No. SR-
FINRA-2018-003).
    \24\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82693 (February 12,
2018), 83 FR 7086, 7087 (February 16, 2018) (Notice of Filing of
File No. SR-FINRA-2018-003); see also 83 FR 23959, 23960, supra note
23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following suggestions from customers that they would prefer also to
have the option to have a special proceeding by video conference, FINRA
is proposing to amend the Codes to provide customers with this option.
Specifically, the proposed rule change would amend the Codes to provide
that a special proceeding will be held by video conference, unless the
customer requests at least 60 days before the first scheduled hearing
that it be held by telephone, or the parties agree to another type of
hearing session.\25\ Thus, the proposed rule change would make video
conference the default for special proceedings; however, customers or
claimants would have the option to select a telephonic hearing. The 60
days notification requirement would help ensure that the parties and
arbitrator are aware of how the hearing session will be conducted well
in advance of the hearing session and can prepare accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See proposed Rules 12800(c)(3)(B)(i) and 13800(c)(3)(B)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Redacting Confidential Information
    Under the Codes, when parties submit pleadings and supporting
documents to DRS, the parties must redact personal confidential
information (``PCI'') such as an individual's Social Security number,
taxpayer identification number or financial account number to include
only the last four digits of such numbers.\26\ This requirement does
not apply, however, to claims administered under FINRA's simplified
arbitration rules. As discussed above, generally a single arbitrator
decides these claims based solely on the parties' written submissions.
Many claimants who initiate claims under the simplified arbitration
rules are not represented by counsel, i.e., pro se customers. FINRA has
not applied the redaction requirements to simplified arbitrations due
to concerns that the requirements may prove difficult for pro se
customers.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See FINRA Rules 12300(d)(1)(A) and 13300(d)(1)(A).
    \27\ See FINRA Rules 12300(d)(1)(C) and 13300(d)(1)(C). See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72269 (May 28, 2014), 79 FR
32003, 32004 (June 3, 2014) (Notice of Filing and Order Approving
File No. SR-FINRA-2014-008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Due to increasing concerns with customers' identities being used
for fraudulent purposes in the securities industry,\28\ the proposed
rule change would extend the requirement to redact PCI to parties in
simplified arbitrations.\29\ In addition, if the proposal is approved
by the SEC, FINRA will update guidance on its website regarding the
steps parties can take to protect PCI, to include guidance to pro se
parties on the importance of safeguarding PCI and on how to redact PCI
from documents filed with DRS.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See, e.g., Regulatory Notice 20-13 (May 2020) (reminding
firms to be aware of fraud during the pandemic); Regulatory Notice
20-32 (September 2020) (reminding firms to be aware of fraudulent
options trading in connection with potential account takeovers and
new account fraud); Regulatory Notice 21-14 (March 2021) (alerting
firms to recent increase in automated clearing house ``Instant
Funds'' abuse); Regulatory Notice 21-18 (May 2021) (sharing
practices firms use to protect customers from online account
takeover attempts); and Regulatory Notice 22-21 (October 2022)
(alerting firms to recent trend in fraudulent transfers of accounts
through the Automated Customer Account Transfer Service).
    \29\ FINRA Rules 12300(d)(1)(C) and 13300(d)(1)(C) would be
deleted. See proposed Rules 12300(d)(1) and 13300(d)(1).
    \30\ See FINRA, Protecting Personal Confidential Information,
https://www.finra.org/arbitration-mediation/protecting-personal-confidential-information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Number of Hearing Sessions per Day
    Under the Codes, a ``hearing session'' is any meeting between the
parties and arbitrators of four hours or less, including a hearing or a
prehearing conference.\31\ Arbitrators are paid for each hearing
session in which they participate.\32\ Currently, some arbitrators have
the misunderstanding that they may be compensated for time spent
outside of the hearing session, such as on lunch breaks, because the
Codes do not specify when the next hearing session begins.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See FINRA Rules 12100(p) and 13100(p).
    \32\ See generally FINRA Rules 12214 and 13214.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DRS's current practice is to calculate the number of hearing
sessions per day by adding the number of hearing hours, subtracting
time spent for lunch, and dividing that number by four hours.\33\
Consistent with this practice and to provide transparency and
consistency, the proposal would amend the definition of ``hearing
session'' to clarify that in one day, the next hearing session begins
after four hours of hearing time has elapsed.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See FINRA, Honorarium, https://www.finra.org/arbitration-mediation/honorarium.
    \34\ See proposed Rules 12100(p) and 13100(p).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Update Submission Agreement When Filing a Third Party Claim
    Under the Codes, respondents must serve a signed and dated
Submission Agreement and an answer on each other party within 45 days
of receipt of the statement of claim.\35\ The answer may include a
third party claim.\36\ If the answer includes a third party claim, the
respondent must also serve the third party with the answer containing
the third party claim and all documents previously served by any party,
or sent to the parties by the Director.\37\ The Codes also provide that
the respondent must file the third party claim with the Director
through the Party Portal, except as otherwise provided.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See FINRA Rules 12303(a) and 13303(a). The Submission
Agreement is a document that parties must sign at the outset of an
arbitration in which they agree to submit to arbitration under the
Codes. See FINRA Rules 12100(dd) and 13100(ee). This document
confirms FINRA's jurisdiction over a case and binds parties to the
outcome of the case.
    \36\ A ``third party claim'' is a claim asserted against a party
not already named in the statement of claim or any other previous
pleading. See FINRA Rules 12100(ee) and 13100(gg).
    \37\ See FINRA Rules 12303(b) and 13303(b).
    \38\ See FINRA Rules 12303(b) and 13303(b). Parties must use the
Party Portal to file initial statements of claim and to file and
serve pleadings and any other documents on the Director or any other
party, except as otherwise provided. See FINRA Rules 12300(a) and
13300(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the Codes do not have express procedures related to the
filing of Submission Agreements if the answer includes a third party
claim, often, when a respondent includes a third party claim in the
answer, the respondent does not execute a Submission Agreement that
lists the name of the third party. Under the Codes, the Director will
not serve any claim that is deficient. A claim is deficient if the
Submission Agreement does not name all parties named in the claim.\39\
In addition, the Codes do not provide that if the answer includes a
third party claim, the respondent must file the Submission Agreement
with the Director. Thus, if the answer includes a third party claim,
DRS must contact the respondent to inform them of the deficiency and to
file an updated Submission Agreement with the Director. These
additional steps may result in delays and slower case processing times.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See FINRA Rules 12307(a) and 13307(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To clarify to parties the requirements related to third party
claims and Submission Agreements, the proposed rule change would amend
the Codes to provide that if the answer contains a

third party claim, the respondent must execute a Submission Agreement
that lists the name of the third party.\40\ In addition, the proposed
rule change would amend the Codes to clarify that the respondent must
file the Submission Agreement with the Director.\41\ FINRA believes
that the proposed rule change would help avoid potential delays and
slower case processing times that may result from a lack of clarity in
the Codes today regarding Submission Agreements when an answer contains
a third party claim.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See proposed Rules 12303(b) and 13303(b).
    \41\ See proposed Rules 12303(b) and 13303(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Amending Pleadings or Filing Third Party Claims
    As discussed above, currently, the Codes include provisions related
to including a third party claim in an answer to a statement of
claim.\42\ In addition, the Codes include provisions related to
answering third party claims.\43\ The Codes do not, however, include
express procedures related to the filing of third party claims other
than in an answer to a statement of claim. Instead, procedures for the
filing of third party claims are included broadly under the provisions
related to amended pleadings. Accordingly, the proposed rule change
would amend the Codes to expressly add the procedures for the filing of
third party claims to the provisions in the Codes, such that the
procedures that would apply to the filing and serving of third party
claims would be the same procedures that would apply to amended
pleadings.\44\ In addition, the proposed rule change would restructure
the provisions related to amending pleadings and filing third party
claims and add titles to clarify what processes are available based on
various milestones in a case, including before and after panel
appointment and before and after ranked arbitrator lists are due to the
Director.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See FINRA Rules 12303(b) and 13303(b).
    \43\ See FINRA Rules 12306 and 13306.
    \44\ See proposed Rules 12309 and 13309.
    \45\ See proposed Rules 12309 and 13309.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Clarifying the Process
    The proposed rule change would also amend the Codes to clarify the
processes related to amending pleadings and filing third party claims.
Specifically, the proposed rule change would clarify that: (1)
arbitrators are ``appointed to'' the panel, rather than placed ``on''
the panel; \46\ (2) the form of an amended pleading or third party
claim that should be included with a motion need not be a hard copy;
\47\ (3) once the ranked arbitrator lists are due, no party may amend a
pleading to add a party or file a third party claim until a panel has
been appointed and the panel grants a motion to amend a pleading or
file the third party claim; \48\ (4) service by first-class mail or
overnight mail service is accomplished on the date of mailing and that
service by any other means is accomplished on the date of delivery;
\49\ (5) the provisions in the Codes relating to responding to amended
pleadings are separate from the current provisions relating to
answering amended claims; \50\ and (6) before panel appointment, the
Director has authority to determine whether any party may file a
response to an amended pleading.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See proposed Rules 12309(a) and 13309(a).
    \47\ The phrase ``a copy of'' would be deleted. See proposed
Rules 12309(b)(1) and 13309(b)(1).
    \48\ See proposed Rules 12309(c)(1) and 13309(c)(1).
    \49\ See proposed Rules 12309(c)(3) and 13309(c)(3).
    \50\ See proposed Rules 12309(d) and 13309(d). See also FINRA
Rules 12310 and 13310.
    \51\ See proposed Rules 12309(d) and 13309(d). See also FINRA
Rules 12310 and 13310.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Member or Associated Person Becomes Inactive
    The proposed rule change would also amend provisions of the
Customer Code related to filing amended pleadings when a customer in an
arbitration is notified by FINRA that a member or associated person in
the arbitration has become inactive.
    Under the Customer Code, after panel appointment, a party may amend
a pleading if FINRA notifies a customer that a member or an associated
person has become inactive as set forth in FINRA Rule 12202.\52\ Once
the ranked arbitrator lists are due to the Director, a party may only
amend a pleading to add a new party to the arbitration if FINRA
notifies a customer that a member or an associated person has become
inactive as set forth in FINRA Rule 12202.\53\ The proposed rule change
would amend these provisions of the Customer Code to also apply to the
filing of third party claims.\54\ The same processes that would apply
to the filing of third party claims are those that are applicable today
to amending pleadings after panel appointment and amending pleadings to
add a new party once the ranked arbitrator lists are due.\55\ In
addition, FINRA is proposing to replace ``party'' with ``customer'' as
it is the customer to the arbitration proceeding who may amend a
pleading or file a third party claim if FINRA notifies the customer
that a member or associated person has become inactive.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See FINRA Rule 12309(b)(2).
    \53\ See FINRA Rule 12309(c).
    \54\ See proposed Rule 12309(b)(2) and (c)(2).
    \55\ See proposed Rules 12309 and 13309.
    \56\ See proposed Rule 12309(b)(2) and (c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Combining Claims
    Before ranked arbitrator lists are due to the Director, the Codes
permit the Director to combine separate but related claims into one
arbitration.\57\ The Codes also provide that once a panel has been
appointed, the panel may reconsider the Director's decision upon motion
of a party.\58\ The Codes do not address, however, if a panel can
combine separate but related claims into one arbitration, or which
panel may reconsider the Director's decision upon motion of party.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ See FINRA Rules 12314 and 13314.
    \58\ See FINRA Rules 12314 and 13314.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under current practice, if a panel has been appointed to the lowest
numbered case (i.e., the case with the earliest filing date), the panel
in that case may combine separate but related claims into one
arbitration and reconsider the Director's decision upon motion of a
party.\59\ If a panel has been appointed to the highest numbered case
(i.e., the case with the latest filing date), but not to the lowest
numbered case, under current practice, the panel appointed to the
highest numbered case may make these determinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ The current practice of having the panel appointed to the
lowest numbered case make such determinations is consistent with how
motions related to separated claims are decided under the Codes
today. For example, the Codes provide that in cases with multiple
claimants or multiple respondents, a party whose claims were
separated by the Director may make a motion to the panel in the
lowest numbered case to reconsider the Director's motion. See FINRA
Rules 12312, 12313, 13312 and 13313.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For transparency and consistency, FINRA is proposing to codify
current practice by amending the Codes to provide that if a panel has
been appointed to the lowest numbered case, the panel in that case may:
(a) combine separate but related claims into one arbitration; and (b)
reconsider the Director's decision upon motion of a party.\60\ In
addition, the proposed rule change would codify current practice that
if a panel has been appointed to the highest numbered case (i.e., the
case with the latest filing date), but not to the lowest numbered case,
the panel appointed to the highest numbered case may: (a) combine
separate but related claims into one arbitration; and (b) reconsider
the Director's decision upon motion of a party.\61\ The proposed rule
change would clarify for parties and

arbitrators procedures related to combining claims in the forum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ See proposed Rules 12314(b)(1) and 13314(b)(1).
    \61\ See proposed Rules 12314(b)(2) and 13314(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. Motion Practice
    Currently, some parties assume that the Party Portal automatically
sends the parties' responses and replies to the panel. In practice, DRS
sends all motions and all responses to the panel after the last reply
date has elapsed, unless otherwise directed by the panel. This practice
helps ensure that the arbitrators have the complete set of motion
papers before they begin considering the motion. Parties are often
unaware of this practice because the Codes do not address how DRS
processes motions including responses and replies.
    To provide transparency and consistency, the proposed rule change
would amend the Codes to codify the current practice by providing that
the Director will send all motions, responses, and replies to the panel
after the last reply date has elapsed, unless otherwise directed by the
panel.\62\ After the last reply date has elapsed, if the Director
receives additional submissions on the motion,\63\ the Director will
forward the submissions to the panel upon receipt and the panel will
then determine whether to accept them.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ See proposed Rules 12503(d) and 13503(d).
    \63\ With respect to motions to amend a pleading, the proposed
rule change would revise the Codes to state that such motions must
``include'' rather than ``be accompanied by copies of'' the proposed
amended pleading to clarify that hard copies are not required. See
proposed Rules 12504(a)(4) and 13504(a)(4). In addition, the
proposed rule change would renumber paragraphs in the rules impacted
by the proposed rule change.
    \64\ See proposed Rules 12503(d) and 13503(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the proposed rule change would amend the Codes to
clarify who has the authority to decide motions related to separating
and combining claims or arbitrations. Specifically, the proposed rule
change would amend the Codes to include cross-references to FINRA Rules
12312, 12313, 13312 and 13313, as applicable, which provide that
motions relating to separating claims or arbitrations are decided by
the Director before a panel is appointed, or by the panel after the
panel is appointed.\65\ In addition, the proposed rule change would
amend the Codes to include a cross-reference to proposed FINRA Rules
12314 and 13314,\66\ as applicable, which, as discussed above, would
clarify which panel from multiple arbitrations may combine separate but
related claims into one arbitration and reconsider the Director's
decision to combine claims upon motion of a party.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ See proposed Rules 12503(e)(3) and 13503(e)(3).
    \66\ See proposed Rules 12503(e)(4) and 13503(e)(4).
    \67\ See supra notes 60 and 61 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. Witness Lists Shall Not Be Combined With Document Lists
    Under the Codes, at least 20 days before the first scheduled
hearing date, all parties must provide all other parties with copies of
all documents and other materials in their possession or control that
they intend to use at the hearing that have not already been produced.
The parties should not file the documents with the Director or
arbitrators before the hearing.\68\ The Codes also provide that at
least 20 days before the first scheduled hearing date, all parties must
provide each other with the names and business affiliations of all
witnesses they intend to present at the hearing. All parties must file
their witness lists with the Director.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ See FINRA Rules 12514(a) and 13514(a).
    \69\ See FINRA Rules 12514(b) and 13514(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Often, parties file with the Director one document that contains
both the list of documents and other materials, such as exhibits, they
intend to use at the hearing that have not already been produced and
the witness list. As the list of documents and other materials could
contain prejudicial or inadmissible material, as a service to forum
users, the Director will manually remove this information from the
document containing the witness list before forwarding it to the panel.
However, on occasion, the Director may inadvertently disseminate the
list of documents and other materials to the arbitrators, which could
reveal potentially prejudicial or inadmissible information to the
arbitrators before the hearing.
    Because the Codes do not currently include language regarding the
sharing of document lists before the hearing, the proposed rule change
would specify that if the parties create lists of documents and other
materials in their possession or control that they intend to use at the
hearing and have not already been produced, the parties may serve the
lists on all other parties, but shall not combine the lists with the
witness lists filed with the Director.\70\ The proposed rule change
would clarify to parties that they should not combine document lists
with witness lists and, thereby, also help protect against the
inadvertent sharing of such document lists with the arbitrators before
the hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ See proposed Rules 12514(a) and 13514(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

10. Hearing Records
    Under the Codes, the Director will make a tape, digital or other
recording of every hearing with certain exceptions as specified in the
Codes.\71\ The Codes permit the panel to order the parties to provide a
transcription of the recording.\72\ The parties may also make a
stenographic record of the hearing.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ See FINRA Rules 12606(a) and 13606(a).
    \72\ See FINRA Rules 12606(a)(2) and 13606(a)(2).
    \73\ See FINRA Rules 12606(a) and 13606(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Distributing Copies
    The Codes do not set forth which party must provide to each
arbitrator, serve on each party and file with the Director a copy of a
transcription of a recording or the stenographic record if it is the
official record of the proceeding. Accordingly, the proposed rule
change would amend the Codes to provide that if the panel orders a
transcription, or the stenographic record is the official record of the
proceeding, a copy of the transcription or stenographic record must be
provided to each arbitrator, served on each party, and filed with the
Director by the party or parties ordered to make the transcription or
electing to make the stenographic record, as applicable.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ See proposed Rules 12606(a)(2), 13606(a)(2), 12606(b)(2)
and 13606(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Executive Sessions
    Executive sessions are discussions among arbitrators outside the
presence of the parties and their representatives, witnesses and
stenographers and are not recorded as they are not part of the official
record of the hearing. For transparency and consistency, the proposed
rule change would amend the Codes to provide that executive sessions
held by the panel will not be recorded.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ See proposed Rules 12606(a)(1) and 13606(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

11. Dismissal of Proceedings for Insufficient Service
    Under the Codes, parties, except for pro se parties, must serve all
pleadings and other documents through the Party Portal, and service is
accomplished on the day of submission through the Party Portal.\76\ If
a party who is served fails to submit an answer, DRS reviews the
service history with the panel and asks the panel to decide whether
service is complete and sufficient upon the unresponsive party before
the case may proceed to hearing.\77\ The Codes do not address, however,
what action a panel may take if the panel determines that

service on the unresponsive party was insufficient. In practice, if the
panel determines that service was insufficient, the panel may dismiss
the claim or arbitration without prejudice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ See FINRA Rules 12300(c) and 13300(c).
    \77\ See FINRA, Initial Prehearing Conference Script for Panel
Cases, https://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/2022-08/iphc_script_panel_cases.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For transparency and consistency, the proposed rule change would
codify current practice by amending the Codes to provide that the panel
may dismiss without prejudice a claim or an arbitration for lack of
sufficient service upon a respondent.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ See proposed Rules 12700(c) and 13700(c). In addition,
while FINRA Rules 12700(b) and 13700(b) currently include cross-
references to other rules in which a panel may dismiss a claim or an
arbitration, the rules do not include a cross-reference to FINRA
Rules 12504 or 13504, as applicable. Thus, the proposed rule change
would amend FINRA Rules 12700(b) and 13700(b) to include a cross-
reference to FINRA Rules 12504 or 13504, as applicable, which would
clarify that a panel may dismiss a claim or an arbitration prior to
the conclusion of a party's case in chief under very limited
circumstances (i.e., if it is time-barred upon motion of a party, as
a sanction for material and intentional failure to comply with an
order of the panel, or if there are multiple postponements). The
proposed rule change would also remove the bullets and replace them
with numbers for outline numbering consistency. See proposed Rules
12700(b)(1) and 13700(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

12. Dismissal of Claimant's Claims Requires Issuance of an Award
    Under the Codes, an award is a document stating the disposition of
a case,\79\ is final and is not subject to review or appeal,\80\ and
shall be made publicly available.\81\ The Codes permit a panel to grant
a motion to dismiss a party's case at the conclusion of the case in
chief.\82\ The Codes, however, do not address whether such a dismissal
requires the issuance of an award. As the dismissal of all a claimant's
claims disposes of the case, it is current practice to require the
issuance of an award for such dismissals.\83\ For transparency and
consistency, the proposed rule change would codify current practice by
amending the Codes to require that if a panel dismisses all of a
claimant's claims at the conclusion of the case in chief, the decision
must contain the elements of a written award and must be made publicly
available as an award.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ See FINRA Rules 12100(c) and 13100(c).
    \80\ See FINRA Rules 12904(b) and 13904(b).
    \81\ See FINRA Rules 12904(h) and 13904(h). See also FINRA,
Arbitration Awards Online, https://www.finra.org/arbitration-mediation/arbitration-awards.
    \82\ See FINRA Rules 12504(b) and 13504(b).
    \83\ See FINRA, FINRA Dispute Resolution Services Arbitrator's
Guide, https://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/arbitrators-ref-guide.pdf.
    \84\ See proposed Rules 12504(b) and 13504(b). See also FINRA
Rules 12904(e) and 13904(e). If the panel grants a motion to dismiss
some but not all of the claimant's claims, the hearing would proceed
as to the remaining claims and at the conclusion of the hearing, the
panel would issue an award that disposes of each claim. See FINRA,
FINRA Dispute Resolution Services Arbitrator's Guide, https://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/arbitrators-ref-guide.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\85\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change will enhance the transparency of the
arbitrator selection process by addressing recommendations in the
Report by codifying DRS's practice of conducting a manual review for
conflicts of interest prior to sending an arbitrator list to the
parties and requiring the Director to provide a written explanation to
parties of the Director's decision to grant or deny a party's request
to remove an arbitrator. In addition, the proposed rule change will
clarify for forum users that parties may challenge an arbitrator for
cause at any point after receipt of the arbitrator lists until the
first hearing session begins.
    The proposed rule change will address the preferences of forum
users to hold prehearing conferences by video conference and of
customers in simplified arbitrations to have the option to hold
simplified proceedings by video conference or by telephone, unless the
parties agree to another type of hearing session. It may also help
facilitate parties' ability to participate or interact in such
arbitration proceedings. The proposed rule change will also clarify for
forum users that hearings will generally be held in person unless the
parties agree to, or the panel grants a motion for, another type of
hearing session.
    The proposed rule change will enhance the transparency and
efficiency of the DRS arbitration forum for forum users, including
investors, by codifying current practices relating to how parties must
distribute transcriptions or stenographic records of hearings;
clarifying that an answer with a third party claim must include an
updated Submission Agreement that lists the name of the third party;
clarifying the processes relating to amending pleadings and filing
third party claims; codifying current practices relating to how DRS
processes motions; codifying current practice that the panel appointed
to the lowest numbered case makes decisions regarding combining claims;
codifying current practice to allow a panel to dismiss without
prejudice a claim or an arbitration for lack of sufficient service upon
a respondent; clarifying that executive sessions held by the panel will
not be recorded; and codifying current practice requiring a panel to
render a written award if the panel grants a motion to dismiss all of
the claimant's claims made after the conclusion of a party's case.
    Finally, the proposed rule change will help protect forum users,
including pro se parties, from the inadvertent disclosure of PCI or
other information that is potentially prejudicial or inadmissible by
requiring parties to redact PCI in simplified arbitrations and
prohibiting parties from prematurely filing the list of documents and
other materials they intend to use at a hearing with the Director.
    FINRA believes the proposed rule change reflects and aligns with
DRS's current practices and procedures, and enhances the transparency
and efficiency of the DRS arbitration forum by codifying and clarifying
these practices and procedures.

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

    FINRA has undertaken an economic impact assessment to analyze the
regulatory need for the proposed rule change, its potential economic
impacts, including anticipated costs, benefits, and distributional and
competitive effects, relative to the current baseline, and the
alternatives FINRA considered in assessing how best to meet FINRA's
regulatory objectives. As discussed below, FINRA does not believe that
the proposed rule change would result in any burden on competition that
is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the
Exchange Act.
Economic Impact Assessment
A. Regulatory Need
    Certain arbitration procedures are not formally described in the
Codes, whereas certain other arbitration procedures are formally
described in the Codes but questions arise regarding their application.
This potential ambiguity may reduce the ability of parties to
anticipate their future actions or obligations and thus may cause
parties to incur additional costs to prepare and participate in the DRS
arbitration forum. Parties and arbitrators may also incur the time to
make inquiries to DRS to clarify these arbitration procedures. In
addition, potential ambiguity regarding certain

arbitration procedures may result in delays and slower case processing
times. The proposed rule change would help address these costs by
providing greater transparency and consistency regarding the arbitrator
list selection process, and clarifying the application of certain
procedures.
B. Economic Baseline
    The economic baseline for the proposed rule change consists of the
current provisions under the Codes that address the administration of
arbitration proceedings. The economic baseline also includes current
practices concerning the administration of arbitration proceedings. The
proposed rule change is expected to affect parties to cases in the DRS
arbitration forum, their legal representatives, and arbitrators.
    The proposed rule change may affect any of the cases parties file
in the DRS arbitration forum. To describe the potential impact of the
proposed rule change, however, FINRA uses the cases that closed from
January 2017 to December 2021 (``sample period''). During the sample
period, 19,141 cases closed in the DRS arbitration forum. The 19,141
cases include 12,205 cases involving one or more customers and 6,936
cases involving only industry parties.
C. Economic Impacts
    Many of the proposed amendments would clarify in the Codes forum
procedures and the obligations of parties and arbitrators and, in some
instances, codify current practice. To the extent that these amendments
would permit forum users to better understand their options or to
anticipate their future actions or obligations, the proposed rule
change may also increase their ability to prepare and participate in
the forum. These amendments would also decrease the need for forum
users to inquire with DRS when questions arise. Where the actions of
parties or arbitrators vary from general current practice,
clarification and codification should increase the consistency of the
DRS arbitration forum. Relative to the baseline, such parties may incur
costs to adhere to the proposed requirements, but there should be few
such parties.
    Some of the proposed amendments may have other economic effects.
The proposed amendments would clarify that parties may challenge an
arbitrator for cause after receipt of the arbitrator lists. To the
extent that parties currently believe that they may seek to remove an
arbitrator through the challenge process only once the arbitrator is
appointed, the proposed clarification may help create efficiencies in
the DRS arbitration forum by minimizing potential delays from
challenges to arbitrators later in the arbitration proceedings. Among
the 19,141 cases that were closed during the sample period, FINRA can
identify 236 challenges to remove an arbitrator in 204 cases (one
percent).\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ See FINRA Rules 12407 and 13410. In general, the 236
challenges relate to challenges to remove an appointed arbitrator.
Information describing party challenges to remove an arbitrator from
a list was not collected during the sample period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed amendments would provide that prehearing conferences
would generally be held by video conference, unless the customer
requests at least 60 days before the first scheduled hearing that it be
held by telephone, or the parties agree to another type of hearing
session, and may affect the options parties have in arbitration. Among
the 19,141 cases that were closed during the sample period, a
prehearing conference was held in 14,648 cases (77 percent, with an
average of 1.7 prehearing conferences held per case) and a special
proceeding was held in 290 cases (two percent). For these hearings, the
use of video conference would generally be used in place of telephone.
    Some parties may perceive an increase in their ability to
participate or interact in the hearings by video conference. As noted
above, forum users have expressed a preference to hold prehearing
conferences by video conference.\87\ Other parties, however, may
perceive a decrease. The costs to these other parties may be mitigated
by their ability to move for another method of appearance (e.g.,
telephone) or to seek assistance from DRS. Parties to special
proceedings held by video conference may incur additional time to
prepare to present their case. This preparation may include meeting
with arbitrators to ensure that all hearing participants are able to
use the video conference application.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ See supra note 18 and accompanying text.
    \88\ The proposed amendments may ameliorate these additional
costs by requiring that a customer request that a special proceeding
be conducted by telephone at least 60 days before a scheduled
hearing. Within the 60 days, similar to today, parties can agree to
another type of hearing session
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed amendments related to combining claims may help
parties decide whether to move to combine claims and how to respond to
such motions in arbitration. Among the 19,141 cases that were closed
during the sample period, 143 cases (one percent) were closed and
consolidated with another case. The proposed rule change may improve
the ability of parties to the higher numbered case to weigh the
potential benefits of combining claims (e.g., lower legal and forum
fees) against the potential costs associated with having the claim
decided by the panel in the lowest numbered case.
    The parties to cases that combine as a result of the proposed
amendments may benefit from lower legal and forum fees relative to the
total fees parties would similarly incur in separate arbitrations.
Parties that would choose to combine claims under the baseline due to a
misunderstanding of the current practice, but not under the proposed
rule change, would incur the legal and forum fees to separately
arbitrate their dispute and have their claim decided by the panel to
their case. The fees these parties incur may be greater than their
share if they instead combined claims. The decision not to combine
claims and incur the higher fees, however, results from improved
information. The parties that do not want to combine claims, therefore,
must anticipate that the higher fees are justified.
    Finally, the proposed amendments would better organize the handling
of certain documents and records in the DRS arbitration forum by
imposing new obligations and requirements on parties. These new
obligations and requirements would reduce the level of involvement by
DRS, allow for more efficient document management and help protect
parties from the inadvertent sharing of potentially prejudicial or
confidential information. For example, the proposed rule change would
prohibit parties from combining lists of documents and other materials
with the witness list to help protect against the inadvertent sharing
of such document lists with the arbitrators before the hearing. In
addition, the proposed requirement to redact PCI from filings with
claims of $50,000 or less, exclusive of interest and expenses, would
benefit parties by reducing the risk of identity theft. However,
parties may incur additional costs to redact this information. Among
the 19,141 cases that closed during the sample period, 4,431 cases (23
percent) relate to claims of $50,000 or less. At least one party
appeared pro se in less than 30 percent of the 4,431 cases. These
parties may benefit from updated guidance on how to redact PCI from
documents filed with DRS.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ See supra note 30 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Alternatives Considered
    FINRA developed the proposed amendments over a multi-year process
during which FINRA considered and modified proposals based on feedback
from forum users, including investors, securities industry
professionals and

FINRA arbitrators. FINRA also considered the Report's recommendations
to provide greater transparency and consistency in the arbitrator list
selection process, some of which require amendments to the Codes. In
evaluating proposals, FINRA considered numerous factors including
efficiency, cost, fairness and transparency, and certain tradeoffs
among these factors. Codifying current practice may achieve greater
efficiency and fairness by reducing uncertainty among forum users. It
would also have the least impact on costs. Those amendments that do not
codify current practice and are new requirements for forum users may
result in the more efficient administration of cases in the DRS
arbitration forum, and would not impose an undue burden. Thus, the
proposed amendments strike an appropriate balance between further
enhancing the DRS arbitration forum while limiting any additional costs
of complying with the proposed amendments.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) by order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2022-033 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-2022-033. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3
p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and
copying at the principal office of FINRA. All comments received will be
posted without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that
we do not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2022-033 and
should be submitted on or before February 2, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-00425 Filed 1-11-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: January 31, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 21)]
[Notices]
[Page 5839-5840]
[DOCID:fr31ja08-61]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0002; FRL-8349-3]

System Research and Application Corporation; Transfer of Data

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces that pesticide related information
submitted to EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) pursuant to the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), including information
that may have been claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI)
by the submitter, will be tranferred to the System Research and
Application Corporation, in accordance with 40 CFR 2.309(c) and
2.308(h)(2). The System Research and Application Corporation, will
perform work for OPP under an Interagency Agreement (IAG). Access to
this information will enable System Research and Application
Corporation, to fulfill the obligations of the IAG.

DATES: The System Research and Application Corporation, will be given
access to this information on or before February 11, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Felicia Croom, Information Technology
and Resources Management Division (7502P), Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action applies to the public in general. As such, the Agency
has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be
affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

    1. Docket. EPA has established a docket for this action under
docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0002. Publicly
available docket materials are available either in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal
Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are
from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr.

II. Contractor Requirements

    Under IAG No. EP-W-050-24, which supports the OPP's regulatory
efforts, the System Research and Application Corporation, will perform
configuration management and monitor tasks for the Office of
Information Technology Resources Management Division.
    The OPP has determined that the IAG described involves work that is
being conducted in connection with FIFRA, in that pesticide chemicals
will be the subject of certain evaluations to be made under this IAG.
These evaluations may be used in subsequent regulatory decisions under
FIFRA.
    Some of this information may be entitled to confidential treatment.
The information has been submitted to EPA under sections 3, 4, 6, and 7
of FIFRA and under sections 408 and 409 of FFDCA.
    In accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 2.309(c), 2.307(h),
and 2.308(h)(2), this IAG with the System Research and Application
Corporation, prohibits use of the information for any purpose not
specified in the IAG; prohibits disclosure of the information to a
third party without prior written approval from the Agency; and
requires that each official and employee of the subcontractor sign an
agreement to protect the information from unauthorized release and to
handle it in accordance with the FIFRA Information Security Manual. In
addition, the System Research and Application Corporation, are required
to submit for EPA approval a security plan under which any CBI will be
secured and protected against unauthorized release

or compromise. No information will be provided to the System Research
and Application Corporation, until the requirements in this document
have been fully satisfied. Records of information provided under this
IAG will be maintained by EPA Project Officers for this contract. All
information supplied to the System Research and Application
Corporation, by EPA for use in connection with this IAG will be
returned to EPA when the System Research and Application Corporation,
have completed their work.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Business and industry, Government
contracts, Government property, Security measures.

    Dated: January 23, 2008.
Oscar Morales,
Acting Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. E8-1796 Filed 1-30-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 21 (Tuesday, February 2, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5467-5468]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01789]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2016-N-0001]

The Arthritis Foundation--Food and Drug Administration
Accelerating Osteoarthritis Clinical Trials Workshop

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of workshop.

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

SUMMARY: Osteoarthritis is the most common form of arthritis, and
occurs when the cartilage that cushions the bones of the joint break
down and the bones begin to rub together. This can cause pain,
swelling, and loss of motion of the joint. The Food and Drug
Administration's (FDA) Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, in co-
sponsorship with the Arthritis Foundation is announcing a workshop
entitled, ``Accelerating OA Clinical Trials Workshop''. The purpose of
the workshop is to discuss recommendations from the international
Arthritis Foundation Accelerating Osteoarthritis Clinical Trial
workgroup and identify next steps in forging new approaches to
osteoarthritis clinical trials that may improve the likelihood of
successful conduct and outcomes of these trials and lead to the
development of safe and effective treatments for osteoarthritis.

DATES: The workshop will be held on February 24, 2016, from 8 a.m. to
5:30 p.m., and February 25, 2016, from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The workshop will be held at the Atlanta Airport Hilton,
1031 Virginia Ave., Atlanta, GA 30354.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Yim, Office of New Drugs, Center
for Drug Evaluation and Research, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Amanda
Niskar, Arthritis Foundation, Inc., 1330 West Peachtree St., Atlanta,
GA 30309,<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Becky Bosworth, Arthritis Foundation, Inc.,
1330 West Peachtree St., Atlanta, GA 30309,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The osteoarthritis (OA) community of clinicians, physicians and
scientists have been challenged to get new treatments to market so that
people with OA can benefit at the point of care. The Arthritis
Foundation and FDA are convening experts to discuss alternative
approaches to clinical trials in OA.

Workshop objectives will include discussion and identification of
promising innovations that could facilitate successful trials in OA,
new approaches to recruitment for clinical trials, feasible and
clinically meaningful trial endpoints, and approaches for reducing the
time and cost of OA trials while maximizing the likelihood of success.
    Registration: There is no fee to attend the workshop, but attendees
must register in advance. Space is very limited. Persons interested in
attending this workshop may request to register by sending their resume
and inquiry to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The registration deadline is
February 2, 2016.

II. Accommodations

    An online registration link and a meeting code will be provided
through the registration process giving participants a reduced group
rate for hotel accomodations, not including applicable taxes. No
additional reservations are required. Industry and government attendees
are responsible for the cost of their own accomodations. If you need
special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Becky
Bosworth at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>at least 7 days in advance.

III. Transcripts

    No transcripts will be available from the event, however, the event
will be video taped for the purposes of the Arthritis Foundation.
Speaker presentation materials, if permitted by the presenter, will be
available on the Arthritis Foundation Web site following the workshop.

     Dated: January 27, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-01789 Filed 2-1-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 153 (Friday, August 7, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47957-47959]
[FR Doc No: 2020-17317]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: EC20-64-000.
    Applicants: Catalyst Old River Hydroelectric Limited Partnership,
Brookfield Power US Holding America Co.
    Description: Clarification to May 7, 2020 Joint Application for
Authorization Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act, et al. of
Catalyst Old River Hydroelectric Limited Partnership, et al.
    Filed Date: 8/3/20.
    Accession Number: 20200803-5152.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/10/20.

    Docket Numbers: EC20-86-000.
    Applicants: Weaver Wind, LLC, Weaver Wind Maine Master Tenant, LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act, et al. of Weaver Wind, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 7/31/20.
    Accession Number: 20200731-5337.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/21/20.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG20-223-000.
    Applicants: Diamond Spring, LLC.

    Description: Diamond Spring, LLC Notice of Self-Certification of
Exempt Wholesale Generator.
    Filed Date: 7/31/20.
    Accession Number: 20200731-5278.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/21/20.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2042-036; ER10-1944-009; ER10-2051-011; ER10-
1942-028; ER17-696-016; ER14-2931-009; ER10-1941-013; ER19-1127-003;
ER10-2043-011; ER10-2029-013; ER10-2041-011; ER18-1321-004; ER10-2040-
011; ER20-1939-002; ER10-1938-031; ER10-2036-012; ER13-1407-010; ER10-
1934-030; ER10-1893-030; ER10-3051-035; ER10-2985-034; ER10-3049-035;
ER10-1889-009; ER10-1888-013; ER10-1885-013; ER10-1884-013; ER10-1883-
013; ER10-1878-013; ER10-3260-011; ER10-1877-008; ER20-1699-001; ER10-
1895-009; ER10-1876-013; ER10-1875-013; ER10-1873-013; ER10-1871-009;
ER10-1870-009; ER11-4369-015; ER16-2218-015; ER12-1987-011; ER10-1947-
013; ER12-2645-006; ER10-1863-008; ER10-1862-030; ER12-2261-012; ER10-
1865-013; ER10-1858-009; ER13-1401-009; ER10-2044-011.
    Applicants: Calpine Energy Services, L.P., Bethpage Energy Center
3, LLC, Calpine Bethlehem, LLC, Calpine Construction Finance Company,
LP, Calpine Energy Solutions, LLC, Calpine Fore River Energy Center,
LLC, Calpine Gilroy Cogen, L.P., Calpine King City Cogen, LLC, Calpine
Mid-Atlantic Generation, LLC, Calpine Mid-Atlantic Marketing, LLC,
Calpine Mid Merit, LLC, Calpine Mid-Merit II, LLC, Calpine New Jersey
Generation, LLC, Calpine Northeast Development, LLC, Calpine Power
America--CA, LLC, Calpine Vineland Solar, LLC, CCFC Sutter Energy, LLC,
CES Marketing IX, LLC, CES Marketing X, LLC, Champion Energy, LLC,
Champion Energy Marketing LLC, Champion Energy Services, LLC, CPN
Bethpage 3rd Turbine, Inc., Creed Energy Center, LLC, Delta Energy
Center, LLC, Geysers Power Company, LLC, Gilroy Energy Center, LLC,
Goose Haven Energy Center, LLC, Granite Ridge Energy, LLC, Hermiston
Power, LLC, Johanna Energy Center, LLC, KIAC Partners, Los Esteros
Critical Energy Facility LLC, Los Medanos Energy Center, LLC, Metcalf
Energy Center, LLC, Morgan Energy Center, LLC, Nissequogue Cogen
Partners, North American Power and Gas, LLC, North American Power
Business, LLC, O.L.S. Energy-Agnews, Inc., Otay Mesa Energy Center,
LLC, Pastoria Energy Facility L.L.C., Pine Bluff Energy, LLC, Power
Contract Financing, L.L.C., Russell City Energy Company, LLC, TBG Cogen
Partners, South Point Energy Center, LLC, Zion Energy LLC, Westbrook
Energy Center, LLC.
    Description: Notification of Change in Status of the Calpine MBR
Sellers, et. al.
    Filed Date: 7/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200730-5279.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2861-007; ER13-1504-008; ER10-2866-007.
    Applicants: Fountain Valley Power, L.L.C., SWG Arapahoe, LLC, SWG
Colorado, LLC.
    Description: Amendment to December 20, 2019 Updated Market Power
Analysis for the Northwest Region of Fountain Valley Power, L.L.C., et.
al.
    Filed Date: 7/31/20.
    Accession Number: 20200731-5147.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/21/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1507-006.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Florida, LLC, Duke Energy Progress, LLC,
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Joint OATT Compliance Filing for
Order No. 845 (May 2020) to be effective 5/22/2019.
    Filed Date: 8/3/20.
    Accession Number: 20200803-5171.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/24/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2009-001.
    Applicants: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to Formula Rate Template
to be effective 7/15/2020.
    Filed Date: 8/3/20.
    Accession Number: 20200803-5054.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/24/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2594-000.
    Applicants: Vermont Transco LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Order 864 Compliance Filing to be
effective 1/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 7/31/20.
    Accession Number: 20200731-5182.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/21/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2595-000.
    Applicants: SR Rattlesnake, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: MBR Application to be
effective 9/30/2020.
    Filed Date: 7/31/20.
    Accession Number: 20200731-5184.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/21/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2596-000.
    Applicants: Exelon Generation Supply, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market-Based
Rate Authorization to be effective 9/30/2020.
    Filed Date: 7/31/20.
    Accession Number: 20200731-5192.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/21/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2597-000.
    Applicants: Soldier Creek Wind, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Soldier Creek Wind, LLC
Application for MBR Authority to be effective 9/30/2020.
    Filed Date: 7/31/20.
    Accession Number: 20200731-5216.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/21/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2598-000.
    Applicants: Appalachian Power Company, Indiana Michigan Power
Company, Kentucky Power Company, Kingsport Power Company, Ohio Power
Company, Wheeling Power Company, AEP Appalachian Transmission Company,
Inc., AEP Indiana Michigan Transmission Company, AEP Ohio Transmission
Company, Inc., AEP West Virginia Transmission Company, American
Electric Power Service Corporation, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: AEP submits revisions to PJM
OATT to Update Depreciation Rates to be effective 3/11/2020.
    Filed Date: 7/31/20.
    Accession Number: 20200731-5224.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/21/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2599-000.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Origis Holdings USA Subco
(Choctaw I Solar) LGIA Filing to be effective 7/20/2020.
    Filed Date: 8/3/20.
    Accession Number: 20200803-5149.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/24/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2600-000.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Origis Holdings USA Subco
(Choctaw II Solar) LGIA Filing to be effective 7/20/2020.
    Filed Date: 8/3/20.
    Accession Number: 20200803-5150.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/24/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2601-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original WMPA, Service
Agreement No. 5726; Queue No. AE1-188/AF1-224 to be effective 6/29/
2020.
    Filed Date: 8/3/20.
    Accession Number: 20200803-5151.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/24/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2602-000.
    Applicants: Nobles 2 Power Partners, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market-Based
Rate

Authorization and Request for Waivers to be effective 8/4/2020.
    Filed Date: 8/3/20.
    Accession Number: 20200803-5177.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/24/20.

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

    Docket Numbers: ES20-51-000.
    Applicants: GridLiance High Plains LLC.
    Description: Application Under Section 204 of the Federal Power Act
for Authorization to Issue Securities of GridLiance High Plains LLC.
    Filed Date: 7/31/20.
    Accession Number: 20200731-5328.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/20.

    Docket Numbers: ES20-52-000.
    Applicants: Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc.
    Description: Application Under Section 204 of the Federal Power Act
for Authorization to Issue Securities, et al. of Wolverine Power Supply
Cooperative, Inc.
    Filed Date: 7/31/20.
    Accession Number: 20200731-5336.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/20.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following public
utility holding company filings:

    Docket Numbers: PH20-15-000.
    Applicants: Consumers Energy Company.
    Description: CMS Energy Corporation submits FERC-65-B Notice of
Material Change to Waive Notification.
    Filed Date: 7/31/20.
    Accession Number: 20200731-5250.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/21/20.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying
facility filings:

    Docket Numbers: QF20-1228-000.
    Applicants: Kimberly-Clark Corporation.
    Description: Form 556 of Kimberly-Clark Corporation [Chester].
    Filed Date: 7/31/20.
    Accession Number: 20200731-5330.
    Comments Due: Non-Applicable.

    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<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 3, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-17317 Filed 8-6-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P