[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75349-75353]
[FR Doc No: 2012-30615]

Vol. 77

Wednesday,

No. 244

December 19, 2012

Part IV

Environmental Protection Agency

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

Seventy-First Report of the TSCA Interagency Testing Committee to the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency; Receipt of Report
and Request for Comments; Notice

Federal Register / Vol. 77 , No. 244 / Wednesday, December 19, 2012 /
Notices

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-0820; FRL-9370-9]

Seventy-First Report of the TSCA Interagency Testing Committee to
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency; Receipt of
Report and Request for Comments

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Interagency Testing
Committee (ITC) transmitted its 71st ITC Report to the EPA
Administrator on November 14, 2012. In the 71st ITC Report, which is
included with this notice, the ITC is revising the TSCA section 4(e)
Priority Testing List by removing 16 High Production Volume (HPV)
Challenge Program orphan chemicals. The ITC is removing these 16
chemicals because actions have been taken to assess their hazardous
potential.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 18, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-0820, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: OPPT Document Control Office (DCO), EPA
East Bldg., Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. ATTN:
Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-0820. The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to
4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the DCO is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the DCO's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2012-0820. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or email. The
regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means
EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only
in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in
hard copy, at the OPPT Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of
operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room
is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is
(202) 566-0280. Docket visitors are required to show photographic
identification, pass through a metal detector, and sign the EPA visitor
log. All visitor bags are processed through an X-ray machine and
subject to search. Visitors will be provided an EPA/DC badge that must
be visible at all times in the building and returned upon departure.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For technical information contact: John D. Walker, TSCA Interagency
Testing Committee (7401M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This notice is directed to the public in general. It may, however,
be of particular interest to you if you manufacture (defined by statute
to include import) and/or process TSCA-covered chemicals and you may be
identified by the North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes 325 and 32411. Because this notice is directed to the
general public and other entities may also be interested, the Agency
has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be
interested in this action.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-DOM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.

    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Background

    The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (15 U.S.C. 260l et seq.)
authorizes the EPA Administrator to promulgate regulations under TSCA
section 4(a) requiring testing of chemicals and chemical groups in
order to develop data relevant to determining the risks that such
chemicals and chemical groups may present to health or the environment.
Section 4(e) of TSCA established the ITC to recommend chemicals and
chemical groups to the EPA Administrator for priority testing
consideration. Section 4(e) of TSCA directs the ITC to revise the TSCA
section 4(e) Priority Testing List at least every 6 months.
    You may access additional information about the ITC at http://www.epa.gov/oppt/itc.

A. The 71st ITC Report

    The ITC is revising the TSCA section 4(e) Priority Testing List by
removing 16 HPV Challenge Program orphan chemicals.

B. Status of the Priority Testing List

    The Priority Testing List includes 16 chemicals with insufficient
dermal absorption rate data, 2 alkylphenols, 148 HPV Challenge Program
orphan chemicals, cadmium, a category of cadmium compounds including
any unique chemical substance that contains cadmium as part of that
chemical's structure, 6 non-phthalate plasticizers, 25 phosphate ester
flame retardants, 2 other flame retardants, 9 chemicals to which
children living near hazardous waste sites may be exposed, and a
category of 69 diisocyanates and related compounds.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances.

    Dated: December 11, 2012.
Wendy C. Hamnett,
Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.

Seventy-First Report of the TSCA Interagency Testing Committee to the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency

Table of Contents

Summary
I. Background
II. ITC's Activities During This Reporting Period (June to October
2012)
III. HPV Challenge Program Orphan Chemicals Removed From the TSCA
Section 4(e) Priority Testing List
IV. References
V. The TSCA Interagency Testing Committee

Summary

    The ITC is revising the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) section
4(e) Priority Testing List by removing 16 High Production Volume (HPV)
Challenge Program orphan chemicals.
    The TSCA section 4(e) Priority Testing List is Table 1 of this
unit.

                                Table 1--TSCA Section 4(e) Priority Testing List
                                                 [October 2012]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       ITC report                   Date                 Chemical name/group                   Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
31.....................  January 1993.............  2 Chemicals with insufficient  Designated.
                                                     dermal absorption rate data,
                                                     methylcyclohexane and
                                                     cyclopentane.
32.....................  May 1993.................  10 Chemicals with              Designated.
                                                     insufficient dermal
                                                     absorption rate data.
35.....................  November 1994............  4 Chemicals with insufficient  Designated.
                                                     dermal absorption rate data,
                                                     cyclopentadiene, formamide,
                                                     1,2,3-trichloropropane, and
                                                     m-nitrotoluene.
37.....................  November 1995............  Branched 4-nonylphenol (mixed  Recommended.
                                                     isomers).
41.....................  November 1997............  Phenol, 4-(1,1,3,3-            Recommended.
                                                     tetramethylbutyl)-.
55.....................  December 2004............  147 High Production Volume     Recommended.
                                                     (HPV) Challenge Program
                                                     orphan chemicals.
56.....................  August 2005..............  1 HPV Challenge Program        Recommended.
                                                     orphan chemical, naphtha
                                                     (petroleum), clay-treated
                                                     light straight-run.
68.....................  May 2011.................  Cadmium......................  Recommended.
69.....................  November 2011............  Cadmium compounds............  Recommended.
69.....................  November 2011............  6 Non-phthalate plasticizers.  Recommended.
69.....................  November 2011............  25 Phosphate ester flame       Recommended.
                                                     retardants.
69.....................  November 2011............  2 Other flame retardants.....  Recommended.
69.....................  November 2011............  9 Chemicals to which children  Recommended.
                                                     living near hazardous waste
                                                     sites may be exposed.
69.....................  November 2011............  69 Diisocyanates and related   Recommended.
                                                     compounds.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

    The ITC was established by TSCA section 4(e) ``to make
recommendations to the Administrator respecting the chemical substances
and mixtures to which the Administrator should give priority
consideration for the promulgation of rules for testing under section
4(a) * * *. At least every six months * * *, the Committee shall make
such revisions to the Priority Testing List as it determines to be
necessary and transmit them to the Administrator together with the
Committee's reasons for the revisions'' (Public Law 94-469, 90 Stat.
2003 et seq., 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.). ITC reports are available from
the ITC's Web site (http://www.epa.gov/oppt/itc) and from
regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov) after publication in the
Federal Register. The ITC produces its revisions to the Priority
Testing List with administrative and technical support from the ITC
staff and ITC members. ITC members and staff are listed at the end of
this report.

II. ITC's Activities During This Reporting Period (June to October
2012)

    During this reporting period, the ITC discussed the 164 High
Production Volume (HPV) Challenge Program orphan chemicals remaining on
the TSCA section 4(e) Priority Testing List. As a result of these
discussions, the ITC removed 16 HPV Challenge Program orphan chemicals
from the TSCA section 4(e) Priority Testing List. Orphan chemicals are
those HPV chemicals for which no sponsors have volunteered to develop
and submit robust summaries of basic hazard and fate testing data to
the EPA. The hazard and fate testing data requested by the ITC for HPV
Challenge Program orphan chemicals are necessary to establish a
screening level understanding of their potential human health and
environmental impacts.

III. HPV Challenge Program Orphan Chemicals Removed From the TSCA
Section 4(e) Priority Testing List

    The Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) Registry numbers and names of
the 16 HPV Challenge Program orphan chemicals being removed from the
Priority Testing List are listed in Table 2 of this unit. Also listed
in Table 2 of this unit are the ITC reports in which the HPV Challenge
Program orphan chemicals were added to the Priority Testing List and
the rationale for their removal. The Universal Resource Locators (URLs
or Web site addresses) provide additional information about the
disposition of these chemicals and are included as footnotes to Table 2
of this unit.

       Table 2--HPV Orphan Chemicals Being Removed From the Priority Testing List in This 71st ITC Report
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             CAS No.                     Chemical name         ITC report            Removal rationale
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
62-56-6.........................  Thiourea..................           55  EPA NPRM.\a\
81-16-3.........................  1-Naphthalenesulfonic                55  OECD SIDS.\b\
                                   acid, 2-amino-.
84-69-5.........................  1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic              55  EPA NPRM.\a\
                                   acid, 1,2-bis(2-
                                   methylpropyl) ester.
91-68-9.........................  Phenol, 3-(diethylamino)-.           55  Sponsored chemical.\c\
110-18-9........................  1,2-Ethanediamine,                   55  Sponsored chemical.\d\
                                   N1,N1,N2,N2-tetramethyl-.
119-33-5........................  Phenol, 4-methyl-2-nitro-.           55  OECD SIDS program.\e\
121-69-7........................  Benzenamine, N,N-dimethyl-           55  Sponsored chemical.\c\
131-57-7........................  Methanone, (2-hydroxy-4-             55  EPA NPRM.\a\
                                   methoxyphenyl)phenyl-.
870-72-4........................  Methanesulfonic acid, 1-             55  EPA NPRM.\a\
                                   hydroxy-, sodium salt
                                   (1:1).
6473-13-8.......................  2-Naphthalenesulfonicacid,           55  EPA NPRM.\a\
                                   6-[2-(2,4-
                                   diaminophenyl)diazenyl]-3-
                                   [2-[4-[[4-[2-[7-[2-(2,4-
                                   diaminophenyl)diazenyl]-1-
                                   hydroxy-3-sulfo-2-
                                   naphthalenyl]diazenyl]phe
                                   nyl]amino]-3-
                                   sulfophenyl]diazenyl]-4-
                                   hydroxy-, sodium salt
                                   (1:3).
28188-24-1......................  Octadecanoic acid, 1,1'-2-           55  EPA NPRM\a\
                                   (hydroxymethyl)-2-[[(1-
                                   oxooctadecyl)oxy]methyl]-
                                   1,3-propanediyl ester.
61788-44-1......................  Phenol, styrenated........           56  Sponsored chemical.\f\
68334-01-0......................  Disulfides, alkylaryl                55  Sponsored chemical.\g\
                                   dialkyl diaryl, petroleum
                                   refinery spent caustic
                                   oxidn. products.
68457-74-9......................  Phenol, isobutylenated               56  Sponsored chemical.\f\
                                   methylstyrenated.
68915-39-9......................  Cyclohexane, oxidized, aq.           55  Analog to
                                   ext., sodium salt.                      CAS No. 68915-38-8.\h\
90640-80-5......................  Anthracene oil............           55  OECD SIDS program.\i\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes:
\a\ EPA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). Federal Register (65 FR 81658, December 26, 2000) (FRL-6758-4).
\b\ http://webnet.oecd.org/hpv/UI/Result.aspx?Q=2e64bf75-689c-4499-95c8-bb0a5616c03d.
\c\ http://www.epa.gov/chemrtk/pubs/summaries/aroamin/c13310tc.htm.
\d\ http://www.epa.gov/HPV/pubs/summaries/nnnntetr/c14715rs.pdf.
\e\ http://webnet.oecd.org/hpv/UI/Result.aspx?Q=df187798-b971-44f0-8323-b841fff85856.
\f\ http://www.epa.gov/HPV/pubs/summaries/hndrdphn/c13382tp.pdf.
\g\ http://www.epa.gov/HPV/pubs/summaries/resbscat/c14906.pdf.
\h\ http://www.epa.gov/chemrtk/pubs/summaries/cyclhxox/c15012tc.htm.
\i\ http://webnet.oecd.org/hpv/UI/SIDS_Details.aspx?id=289cb585-0b2f-4d84-bece-59184368cc20.
Note: OECD SIDS program = Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Screening Information Data Set
  program.

    Fourteen of the HPV Challenge Program orphan chemicals that were
removed from the Priority Testing List in this 71st ITC Report were
added to the Priority Testing List in the 55th ITC Report (Ref. 1). Two
of the HPV Challenge Program orphan chemicals that were removed from
the Priority Testing List in this 71st ITC Report were added to the
Priority Testing List in the 56th ITC Report (Ref. 2). Six of the HPV
Challenge Program orphan chemicals were removed because they were added
to a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that proposed to require
manufacturers and processors of these chemicals to conduct testing for
acute toxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental and reproductive
toxicity, genetic toxicity, ecotoxicity, and environmental fate (Ref.
3). Three of the HPV Challenge Program orphan chemicals were removed
because they were in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) Screening Information Data Set (SIDS) program
(http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/chemtest/pubs/oecdsids.html). The URLs for
the three OECD SIDS chemicals are provided as footnotes b, e, and i to
Table 2 of this unit. Six of the HPV Challenge Program orphan chemicals
were removed because their testing was sponsored by the chemical's
producers. The URLs for the six sponsored chemicals are provided as
footnotes c, d, f, and g to Table 2 of this unit. One chemical was
removed because it was an analog to a chemical with robust summaries
and test plans. The URL for that chemical is provided as footnote h to
Table 2 of this unit.

IV. References

1. ITC. Fifty-Fifth Report of the ITC; Notice. Federal Register (70
FR 7364, February 11, 2005) (FRL-7692-1). Available online at:
http://www.regulations.gov. Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-0820.
2. ITC. Fifty-Sixth Report of the ITC; Notice. Federal Register (70
FR 61520, October 24, 2005) (FRL-7739-9). Available online at:
http://www.regulations.gov. Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPPT-

2012-0820.
3. EPA. Testing of Certain High Production Volume Chemicals;
Proposed Rule. Federal Register (65 FR 81658, December 26, 2000)
(FRL-6758-4). Available online at: http://www.regulations.gov.
Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-0820.

V. The TSCA Interagency Testing Committee

Statutory Organizations With Representatives

Department of Commerce

National Institute of Standards and Technology
    Dianne L. Poster, Alternate

Environmental Protection Agency

Robert W. Jones, Member
John E. Schaeffer, Alternate

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

Nigel Walker, Member
Scott Masten, Alternate

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

Gayle DeBord, Member
Dennis W. Lynch, Alternate

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Janet Carter, Member
Thomas Nerad, Alternate

 Liaison Organizations With Representatives

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

Glenn D. Todd, Member

Consumer Product Safety Commission

Dominique Johnson, Member

Department of Agriculture

Clifford P. Rice, Member
Cathleen J. Hapeman, Alternate

Department of Defense

Laurie E. Roszell, Member

Department of the Interior

Barnett A. Rattner, Member

Food and Drug Administration

Kirk Arvidson, Member
Ronald F. Chanderbhan, Alternate

ITC Staff

John D. Walker, Director
Carol Savage, Administrative Assistant (NOWCC Employee)

TSCA Interagency Testing Committee (7401M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>url: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/itc.

[FR Doc. 2012-30615 Filed 12-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 22 (Friday, February 1, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 969-971]
[FR Doc No: 2019-00511]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2019-0030]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Containment Installation, South of New Orleans, LA,
Gulf of Mexico

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary moving safety zone
around the vessels OCEAN PATRIOT and ROSS CANDIES operating in the
Mississippi Canyon Block 20 in the Gulf of Mexico. The safety zone
encompasses all navigable waters within a 500-yard radius of the
vessels. The safety zone is needed to protect persons, vessels, and the
marine environment from hazards associated with the vessels' limited
maneuverability during installation of a containment system. Persons
and vessels are prohibited from entering or remaining in this zone
unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector New
Orleans or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 6 a.m. on February 14, 2019, through
8 p.m. on March 14, 2019.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2019-0030 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this rule,
call or email Lieutenant Commander Benjamin Morgan, Sector New Orleans,
U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
MM Mile marker
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), the Coast Guard finds that
good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. We must
establish this safety zone by February 14, 2019, and we lack sufficient
time to provide a reasonable comment period and then

consider those comments before issuing the rule.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be contrary to the public interest because the safety
zone is necessary to respond to potential hazards associated with sub-
surface containment installation.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034. The Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans (COTP) has determined
that a temporary moving safety zone is necessary to provide for the
safety of persons, vessels, and the marine environment during sub-
surface containment installation operations in the vicinity of the
Mississippi Canyon Block 20. Potential hazards include risk of injury
or pollution if normal vessel traffic were to interfere with the
vessel's movement or deployed equipment. The containment installations
are scheduled to take place from 6 a.m. on February 14, 2019, through 8
p.m. on March 14, 2019, in the navigable waters of the Mississippi
Canyon Block 20, South of New Orleans, LA, in the Gulf of Mexico. This
rule is needed to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment
from hazards associated with the vessels' limited maneuverability
during deployment of underwater equipment and containment installation.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a temporary moving safety zone from 6 a.m. on
February 14, 2019 through 8 p.m. on March 14, 2019. The safety zone
will cover all navigable waters within 500 yards of the vessels, OCEAN
PATRIOT and ROSS CANDIES, and equipment being used by personnel to
conduct sub-surface containment installation in Mississippi Canyon
Block 20, South of New Orleans, LA, in the Gulf of Mexico. The duration
of the zone is intended to protect persons, vessels, and the marine
environment on these navigable waters while installation is being
conducted. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter or remain in
the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a
designated representative. The COTP or designated representative may be
contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16 or 67 or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Persons and vessels permitted to enter this safety zone must transit at
their slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful directions issued
by the COTP or the designated representative. The COTP or a designated
representative will inform the public of the enforcement times and date
for this safety zone through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs),
Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information
Bulletins (MSIBs), as appropriate.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-year of the safety zone. This safety
zone will restrict vessel traffic from entering or remaining within a
500-yard area around vessels OCEAN PATRIOT and ROSS CANDIES for
approximately thirty days while these vessels conduct sub-surface
containment installation activities in Mississippi Canyon Block 20.
Other vessels can safely transit around the zone, which impacts a small
area of the Gulf of Mexico. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue BNMs
via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule allows
vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes,

or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has
implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the
Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is
one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively
have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves
a safety zone lasting approximately 30 days that will prohibit entry
within 500 yards of the vessels being used for sub-surface containment
installation. It is categorically excluded from further review under
paragraph L(60)a of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-
01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting
this determination will be made available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034; 46 U.S.C. 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1,
6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T08-0030 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-0030   Safety Zone; Mississippi Canyon Block 20, South of
New Orleans, LA, Gulf of Mexico.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable
waters within a 500-yard radius around the vessels, OCEAN PATRIOT and
ROSS CANDIES, in Mississippi Canyon Block 20, South of New Orleans, LA,
in the Gulf of Mexico.
    (b) Effective period. This section is effective from 6 a.m. on
February 14, 2019, through 8 p.m. on March 14, 2019.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23, entry into or remaining within this zone is prohibited
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans (COTP)
or designated representative. A designated representative is a
commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard
assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Sector New
Orleans.
    (2) Vessels requiring entry into this safety zone must request
permission from the COTP or a designated representative. They may be
contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16 or 67 or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Persons and vessels permitted to enter this safety zone must
transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful
directions issued by the COTP or the designated representative.
    (d) Information broadcasts. The COTP or a designated representative
will inform the public of the enforcement times and date for this
safety zone through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notices
to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs)
as appropriate.

    Dated: January 28, 2019.
K.M. Luttrell,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans.
[FR Doc. 2019-00511 Filed 1-31-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: September 13, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 177)]
[Notices]
[Page 54102-54104]
[DOCID:fr13se06-127]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54407; File No. SR-NYSE-2005-43]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC.;
Order Approving Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto to
Rule 607 Relating to the Classification of Arbitrators as Public or
Industry

September 6, 2006.

I. Introduction

    On June 17, 2005, the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (``NYSE'' or
the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``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 Rule 607 relating to the
classification of arbitrators as public or industry. On August 4, 2005,
the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\3\ In
this amendment, the Exchange stated that the rule change will become
effective 90 days following the publication of this order in the
Federal Register. The NYSE will update and reclassify arbitrators
during this time period. The proposed rule change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on August 29, 2005,\4\ and the
Commission received 38 comments on the proposal.\5\ The majority of
commenters are lawyers that represent investors in arbitrations. This
order approves the proposed rule change as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ In Amendment No. 1, which supplemented the original filing,
the Exchange modified the implementation date for the proposed rule
change and clarified certain aspects of the filing.
    \4\ See Exchange Act Release No. 52314 (Aug. 22, 2005), 70 FR
51104 (Aug. 29, 2005).
    \5\ Several commenters filed letters regarding the amendments to
Exchange Rule 607 in connection with the proposed change to NASD
Rule 10308 (NASD 2005-094), which also governs non-public/industry
and public arbitrators. The NYSE and the Commission have identified
letters in response to both rule filings that address the proposed
changes to NYSE Rule 607.
    See letters from Bradford D. Kaufman, Esq., Greenberg Traurig,
dated Oct. 7, 2005 (``Kaufman''); Jonathan W. Evans, Esq., Jonathan
W. Evans & Associates, dated Sept. 21, 2005 (``Evans''); L. Jerome
Stanley, dated Sept. 20, 2005 (``Stanley''); Thomas D. Mauriello,
Law Offices of Thomas D. Mauriello, dated Sept. 20, 2005
(``Mauriello''); William P. Torngren, Law Offices of William P.
Torngren, dated Sept. 20, 2005 (``Torngren''); Jason R. Doss, Page
Perry, LLC, dated Sept. 20, 2005 (``Doss''); Brian M. Greenman,
Esq., dated Sept. 20, 2005 (``Greenman''); Teresa M. Gillis,
Shustak, Jalil & Heller, dated Sept. 20, 2005 (``Gillis''); Susan N.
Perkins, Esq., dated Sept. 20, 2005 (``Perkins''); Charles C.
Mihalek, Esq. and Steven M. McCauley, Esq., Charles Mihalek, P.S.C.,
dated Sept. 20, 2005 (``Mihalek''); Steven J. Gard, Esq., Gard,
Smiley, Bishop & Dovin LLP, dated Sept. 20, 2005 (``Gard''); Scott
L. Silver, Blum & Silver, LLP., dated Sept. 20, 2005 (``Silver'');
Mitchell S. Ostwald, Esq., Law Offices of Mitchell S. Ostwald, dated
Sept. 20, 2005 (``Ostwald''); Joel A. Goodman, Esq., Goodman &
Nekvasil, P.A., dated Sept. 20, 2005 (``Goodman''); Alan C.
Friedberg, Pendleton, Friedberg, Wilson & Hennessey, P.C., dated
Sept. 19, 2005 (``Friedberg''); Debra G. Speyer, Law Offices of
Debra G. Speyer, dated Sept. 19, 2005 (``Speyer''); Harvey H.
Eckart, Eckart & Leonetti, P.A., dated Sept. 19, 2005 (``Eckart'');
G. Mark Brewer, Esq., Brewer Carlson, LLP, dated Sept. 19, 2005
(``Brewer''); Steve A. Buchwalter, first letter dated Sept. 19, 2005
and second letter dated Sept. 13, 2005 (``Buckwalter''); Royal B.
Lea, III, Esq., Bingham & Lea, and Randall A. Pulman, Esq., Pulman,
Bresnahan & Pullen, LLP, dated Sept. 19, 2005 (``Lea''); Richard P.
Ryder, Securities Arbitration Commentator, Inc., dated Sept. 19,
2005 (``Ryder''); Eliot Goldstein, Esq., dated Sept. 19, 2005
(``Goldstein''); Philip M. Aidikoff, Aidikoff & Uhl, dated Sept. 16,
2005 (``Aidikoff''); Bruce E. Baldinger, Esq., Baldinger & Levine,
L.L.C., dated Sept. 16, 2005 (``Baldinger''); Henry D. Fellows, Jr.,
Fellows Johnson & La Briola, LLP, dated Sept. 16, 2005
(``Fellows''); Rosemary J. Shockman, Public Investors Arbitration
Bar Association, dated Sept. 15, 2005 (``PIABA''); James D. Keeney,
dated Sept. 15, 2005 (``Keeney''); Bill Fynes, dated Sept. 15, 2005
(``Fynes''); Jay A. Salamon, Hermann, Cahn & Schneider LLP, dated
Sept. 14, 2005 (``Salamon''); Jorge A. Lopez, Esq., Law Offices of
Jorge A. Lopez, P.A., dated Sept. 14, 2005 (``Lopez''); Steven B.
Caruso, Esq., Maddox Hargett & Caruso, P.C., dated Sept. 14, 2005
(``Caruso''); Scott C. Ilgenfritz, dated Sept. 14, 2005
(``Ilgenfritz''); Tracey Pride Stoneman, Tracey Pride Stoneman,
P.C., dated Sept. 14, 2005 (``Stoneman''); Michael J. Willner,
Miller Faucher and Cafferty LLP, dated Sept. 13, 2005 (``Willner'');
Richard M. Layne, Layne & Lewis, LLP, dated Sept. 13, 2005
(``Layne''); Michael Knoll, Esq., Law Offices of Michael Knoll,
dated Sept. 13, 2005 (``Knoll''); John J. Miller, Law Offices of
John J. Miller, P.C., dated Sept. 13, 2005 (``Miller''); and Seth E.
Lipner, Professor of Law, Zicklin School of Business Baruch College
and Member, Deutsch & Lipner, dated Sept. 8, 2005 (``Lipner'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    Arbitration panels for disputes involving customers or non-members
in which the damages are alleged to exceed $25,000 are comprised of
three arbitrators: Two public arbitrators and one from the securities
industry. A customer or non-member also may request at least a majority
of arbitrators from the securities industry.
    Exchange Rule 607(a)(2) currently classifies an arbitrator as from
the securities industry if he or she: (1) Is, or within the past five
years was, associated with certain entities related to the securities
industry (or retired from, or spent a substantial part of his or her
career with such an entity); (2) is an attorney or other professional
who devoted 20 percent or more of his or her work effort to securities
industry clients within the past two years; or (3) is registered under
the Commodity Exchange Act, or is a member of a registered futures
association or any commodity exchange or is associated with any such
person.
    Exchange Rule 607(a)(3) currently classifies an arbitrator who is
not from the securities industry as a public arbitrator. However, a
person cannot be classified as a public arbitrator if he or she has a
spouse or household member who is associated with certain entities
related to the securities industry.
    The NYSE is concerned that some arbitrators currently classified as
public have affiliations with entities that have securities industry
ties such as banks, insurance companies, mutual funds, holding
companies and asset management firms. In an effort to enhance investor
confidence in the NYSE arbitration forum, and in order to further
ensure that persons serving as public arbitrators do not have ties to
the securities industry or related firms, the Exchange proposed to
amend Rule 607.

    The proposed amendments would: (1) Expand the list of entities
engaged in the securities business by adding certain membership
categories not previously specifically mentioned (but, nevertheless,
contemplated by the current rule), and by adding a catch-all for any
``other organization engaged in the securities business;'' \6\ (2)
preclude any individual who is associated with any entity that
controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with an entity
on the expanded list from being classified as a public arbitrator; and
(3) preclude any individual from being classified as a public
arbitrator who has an immediate family member associated with an entity
on the expanded list. The amendment would also define which persons are
included within the term ``immediate family member.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ These organizations would include any entity engaging in
securities transactions, including banks and other financial
institutions. Telephone conversation among Karen Kupersmith,
Director of Arbitration, NYSE; Lourdes Gonzalez, Assistant Chief
Counsel--Sales Practices, SEC; and Michael Hershaft, Special
Counsel, SEC (July 26, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to ensure the integrity of the classification of public
arbitrators, the Exchange will update and reclassify arbitrators in
compliance with the amended rule if approved.

III. Summary of Comments

    The Commission received 38 letters on the proposal.\7\ Several
commenters believed that the changes proposed were laudatory.\8\ Many,
nonetheless, viewed the proposed amendments as insufficient to address
what they considered as an arbitration process that is unfair to
investors. Their concern generally centered in three areas: (1) The
inclusion of any industry arbitrators on arbitration panels; (2) the
criteria for qualifying as a public arbitrator; and (3) the desire to
harmonize NYSE and NASD rules on this issue.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See footnote 5.
    \8\ See, e.g., Ilgenfritz, Stoneman, Buchwalter, Willner, and
PIABA.
    \9\ See Ryder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Inclusion of Industry Arbitrators

    The majority of commenters expressed the view that the mandatory
inclusion of arbitrators from the securities industry on arbitration
panels creates an unfair burden for investors seeking redress, and
stated that arbitration panels should be comprised only of individuals
with no ties to the securities industry.\10\ A number of commenters
maintained that the mandatory inclusion of securities industry
arbitrators creates a perception, rightly or wrongly, that the process
is unfair and biased against investors. Their suggestion was to
eliminate the securities industry arbitrator.\11\ One commenter opined
that, in cases where special expertise is important, the securities
industry arbitrator becomes a de facto expert witness, providing the
public arbitrators with his or her opinion in secret, and depriving
investors of due process because they and their counsel would have
notice of or a chance to rebut the opinion.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See, e.g., Willner, Caruso, Knoll, PIABA, Ilgenfritz,
Buchwalter, Mauriello, Torngren, Aidikoff, Doss, Brewer, Lea,
Speyer, Keeney, Stanley, Layne, Baldinger, Eckart, and Fellows.
    \11\ See, e.g., Torngren and Lewis.
    \12\ See Willner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Criteria for Public Arbitrators

    Several commenters also stated that the proposed rule change would
not adequately preclude persons with ties to the securities industry
from meeting the definition of public arbitrator.\13\ Currently, Rule
607(a)(2)(iv) permits an attorney, accountant or other professional to
serve as a public arbitrator if that person has devoted less than 20
percent of his or her work to securities industry clients within the
last two years.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See, e.g., Evans, Caruso, Lipner and Lopez.
    \14\ Several commenters explicitly or implicitly cited to NASD
Rule 10308(a)(5)(A)(iv), which prohibits an attorney, accountant or
other professional whose firm derived 10 percent or more of its
annual revenue in the past two years from securities activities
instead of the NYSE limitation. See, e.g., PIABA, Stoneman,
Buchwalter, Salamon, and Keeney.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some commenters favored amending the definition of public
arbitrator to exclude all attorneys, accountants or other professionals
who have represented the securities industry.\15\ One commenter stated
that arbitrators with industry ties have an ``inherent bias'' in favor
of the industry, and noted that the rule currently allows persons with
industry bias, such as an attorney with ties to the securities
industry, to serve on panels ``under the guise of being public.'' \16\
Another commenter maintained that attorneys with industry ties who
serve as public arbitrators would have a vested interest in keeping
monetary awards low.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See, e.g., Evans and Caruso.
    \16\ See Lopez.
    \17\ See Lipner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Harmonizing NYSE and NASD Rules

    One commenter expressed concern that the proposed rule change would
``differ significantly'' from the Uniform Code of Arbitration (``UCA'')
classification rule, and stated that the NYSE rule change and NASD's
proposal to amend its rule on the same subject should have been
``brought to the Commission with the same text after being vetted by
[the Securities Industry Conference on Arbitration (``SICA'')].'' \18\
In this commenter's view, the SEC should ``at least compel'' the NYSE
and NASD to develop ``identical solutions'' to this issue.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Ryder.
    \19\ Id. In particular, this highlighted the differences in who
would be considered an ``immediate family member'' under each rule.
While the NYSE rule would exclude immediate family members of
associated persons, the NASD rule would exclude immediate family
members of all control-related parties. In addition, the NYSE
definition of immediate family member would include in-laws, while
the NASD definition would not. Moreover, the NASD include step-
relatives, while the NYSE rule would not. Finally, while the NYSE
definition of ``control'' would not extend to the immediate family
of the ``control-related parties,'' the NASD's definition would.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. NYSE Response to Comments

    Responding to commenters' concerns, the NYSE noted that securities
industry arbitrators add value to the arbitration process.\20\ It also
stated that, as the administrator of a neutral forum, it believes
public investors, non-members and members should have input into
procedures by which arbitrators are appointed. Moreover, NYSE is a
member of SICA, and it will continue to consider any rule changes
regarding panel compositions that SICA may adopt to the UCA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Letter from Mary Yeager, NYSE, to Katherine A. England,
SEC, dated June 5, 2006 (``Yeager'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NYSE also stated that the 20 percent limitation on the
securities activities of public arbitrators allows individuals that
have minimal ties to the securities industry to serve as arbitrators.
In its view a complete bar on professionals with any ties to the
securities industry could also prohibit professionals who primarily
represent public investors from serving on arbitration panels.
    Acknowledging commenters' concerns regarding ties public
arbitrators have to the securities industry, the NYSE also indicated
that it will review the definition of public arbitrator to address
persons whose firms receive a percentage of revenue derived from
securities industry clients. NYSE stated that it will propose a
separate rule amendment to prohibit certain individuals from serving as
public arbitrators if their firms receive a certain percentage of
revenue from securities industry clients, which would be similar to the
current restrictions in NASD Rule 10308.
    In addressing the specific differences between its proposed rule
change and the rule change proposed by NASD, the NYSE stated that it
defined ``immediate family'' and ``control'' to ensure that

people with perceived ties to the securities industry would not be
defined as public arbitrators, while avoiding eliminating from the
arbitrator pool individuals with minimal ties to the securities
industry.
    Finally, the NYSE stated that alternatives to panel composition and
the method by which arbitrators are classified are beyond the scope of
this rule filing. It therefore declined to address these issues at this
time.\21\ The NYSE also stated that it is prepared to discuss those
issues at the appropriate time.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

V. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change, as amended, is consistent with the Act and, in particular, with
section 6(b)(5) of the Act, which requires, among other things, that
the NYSE'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.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the proposed rule change will promote
the public interest by limiting certain people who have ties to the
securities industry from serving as public arbitrators. In particular,
by expanding the list of entities engaged in the securities business
and companies they control, the rule will further limit the industry
ties the public arbitrator may have. The new definition of ``immediate
family member'' should have a similar result.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Section 19(b)(2) of the Act requires the Commission to
approve a proposed rule change if it finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act, and the
applicable rules and regulations thereunder. This standard does not
require the NYSE, NASD or SICA rules to be identical.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission appreciates the comments suggesting the elimination
of securities industry arbitrators, and the further restriction on
persons who have any ties to the securities industry from serving as
public arbitrators. While these comments are beyond the scope of this
rule filing, they raise important questions regarding the arbitration
process. We understand that SICA is actively considering proposals from
its membership regarding these issues. We note that the NYSE has stated
it will review any rule regarding panel composition that SICA adopts to
the UCA, and that it will propose a separate amendment further limiting
the definition of public arbitrator.

VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\25\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSE-2005-43), as amended, be,
and hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \26\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\26\
J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-15187 Filed 9-12-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P