[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 13, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49221-49227]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19530]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0724; Directorate Identifier 99-CE-013-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Piper Aircraft, Inc. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to revise airworthiness directive (AD) 99-26-19
that applies to certain The New Piper Aircraft, Inc. Model J-2
airplanes equipped with wing lift struts. AD 99-26-19 currently
requires repetitively inspecting the wing lift struts for dents and
corrosion; repetitively inspecting the wing lift strut forks for
cracks; replacing any dented or corroded wing lift strut; replacing any
cracked wing lift strut fork; and repetitively replacing the wing lift
strut forks at specified times for certain airplanes. AD 99-26-19 also
currently requires incorporating a ``NO STEP'' placard on the wing lift
strut. Since we issued AD 99-26-19, we have been informed that
paragraph (c) is being misinterpreted and causing confusion. This
proposed AD would clarify the intent of the language currently in
paragraph (c) of AD 99-26-19 and would retain all other requirements of
AD 99-26-19. We are proposing this AD to correct the unsafe condition
on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 27,
2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Piper Aircraft, Inc., Customer Services, 2926 Piper Drive, Vero Beach,
Florida 32960; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet: www.piper.com.
Information about the Jensen Aircraft STCs may be obtained from F.
Atlee Dodge, Aircraft Services, LLC, 6672 Wes Way, Anchorage, Alaska
99518-0409, Internet: www.fadodge.com. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate,
901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory ``Keith'' Noles, Aerospace
Engineer, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, 1701 Columbia
Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (404)
474-5606; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2013-0724;
Directorate Identifier 99-CE-013-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On December 16, 1999, we issued AD 99-26-19, Amendment 39-11479 (64
FR 72524, December 28, 1999), (``AD 99-26-19''), for certain The New
Piper Aircraft, Inc. (currently Piper Aircraft, Inc.) J-2 series
airplanes equipped with wing lift struts. We issued AD 99-26-19 because
J-2 series airplanes were inadvertently omitted from the applicability
of AD 99-01-05, Amendment 39-10972 (63 FR 72132, December 31, 1998,
(``99-01-05'').
    AD 99-01-05 was issued to supersede AD 93-10-06, Amendment 39-8586
(58 FR 29965, May 25, 1993), which previously included J-2 series
airplanes in the Applicability section, in order to include a
terminating action for repetitively inspecting and replacing the wing
lift struts and the wing lift strut forks.
    We issued both ADs to detect and correct corrosion and cracking on
the front and rear wing lift struts and forks, which could cause the
wing lift strut to fail. This failure could result in the wing
separating from the airplane.

Actions Since AD 99-26-19 Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 99-26-19, we have been informed that the
language in paragraph (c) is being misinterpreted and causing
confusion. Paragraph (c) of AD 99-26-19 currently states, ``If holes
are drilled in wing lift strut assemblies installed in accordance with
(a)(4) or (b)(3) of this AD to attach cuffs, door clips, or other
hardware, inspect the wing lift struts at intervals not to exceed 24
calendar months using the procedures specified in either paragraphs
(a)(1) or (a)(2), including all subparagraphs, of this AD.''
    Our intention was to specify that if a sealed wing lift strut
assembly is installed as a replacement part, the repetitive inspection
requirement is terminated only if the seal is never improperly broken.
We also intended to specify that if the seal is improperly broken then
that wing lift strut becomes subject to continued repetitive
inspections.
    We did not intend to promote drilling holes into or otherwise
unsealing a sealed strut. Properly unsealing and resealing a sealed
wing lift strut is still considered a terminating action for the
repetitive inspection requirements of this proposed AD as long as all
appropriate regulations and issues are considered, such as static
strength, fatigue, material effects, immediate and long-term (internal
and external) corrosion protection, resealing methods, etc. Current FAA
regulations in 14 CFR 43.13(b) specify that maintenance performed will
result in the part's condition to be at least equal to its original or
properly altered condition. There are provisions in this proposed AD
for approving such actions as an alternative method of compliance
(AMOC).

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would retain all requirements of AD 99-26-19. This
proposed AD would also clarify our intent of required actions if the
seal on a sealed wing lift strut is ever improperly broken.

Paragraph Designation Changes to AD

    Since AD 99-26-19 was issued, the AD format has been revised, and
certain paragraphs have been rearranged. As a result, the corresponding
paragraph identifiers have changed in this proposed AD, as listed in
the following table:

                 Table 1--Revised Paragraph Identifiers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Corresponding requirement in this
     Requirement in AD 99-26-19                  proposed AD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  paragraph (a)                        paragraph (h)
               paragraph (a)(1)                     paragraph (i)(1)
            paragraph (a)(1)(i)                  paragraph (i)(1)(i)
           paragraph (a)(1)(ii)                 paragraph (i)(1)(ii)
               paragraph (a)(2)                     paragraph (i)(2)
            paragraph (a)(2)(i)                  paragraph (i)(2)(i)
           paragraph (a)(2)(ii)                 paragraph (i)(2)(ii)
               paragraph (a)(3)                     paragraph (j)(1)
               paragraph (a)(4)                     paragraph (j)(2)
                  paragraph (b)                        paragraph (k)
  paragraph (b)(1), (b)(1)(i) &                        paragraph (l)
                      (b)(1)(ii)
        paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A)                     paragraph (l)(1)
      paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(B) &                     paragraph (l)(2)
                      (b)(1)(iv)
          paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(C) &                 paragraph (l)(3)
                      (b)(1)(iv)
 paragraph (b)(1)(iii) & (b)(2)                     paragraph (m)(1)
  paragraph (b)(3), (b)(3)(i) &                     paragraph (m)(2)
                      (b)(3)(ii)
                  Paragraph (c)                              Removed
                  paragraph (d)                     paragraph (n)(1)
               paragraph (d)(1)                  paragraph (n)(1)(i)
               paragraph (d)(2)                 paragraph (n)(1)(ii)
                            N/A                     Paragraph (n)(2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 91 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD.
However, the only difference in the costs presented below and the costs
associated with AD 99-26-19, is the change in the labor rate from $65
per hour to $85 per hour:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
             Action                   Labor cost          Parts cost       Cost per  product       operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection of the wing lift       8 work-hours x $85  Not applicable....  $680 per            $61,880 per
 struts and wing lift strut        per hour = $680                         inspection cycle.   inspection cycle.
 forks.                            per inspection
                                   cycle.
Installation placard............  1 work-hour x $85   $30...............  $115..............  $10,465.
                                   = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements
that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection.
We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need
these replacements:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per product
                   Action                       Labor cost per wing lift      Parts cost per     per wing lift
                                                         strut               wing lift strut         strut
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement of the wing lift strut and/or    4 work-hours x $85 per hour =              $440               $780
 wing lift strut forks.                       $340.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This proposed regulation is
within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe
condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in
this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing airworthiness directive (AD)
99-26-19, Amendment 39-11479 (64 FR 72524, December 28, 1999), and
adding the following new AD:

Piper Aircraft, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2013-0724; Directorate
Identifier 99-CE-013-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by September 27,
2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD revises AD 99-26-19, Amendment 39-11479 (64 FR 72524,
December 28, 1999). AD 99-01-05, Amendment 39-10972 (63 FR 72132,
December 31, 1998), which superseded AD 93-10-06, Amendment 39-8586
(58 FR 29965, May 25, 1993), also relates to the subject of this AD.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Piper Aircraft, Inc. Model J-2 airplanes,
serial numbers 500 through 1975, that are:
    (1) equipped with wing lift struts; and
    (2) certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    The subject of this AD was originally prompted by reports of
corrosion damage found on the wing lift struts. We are revising AD
99-26-19, Amendment 39-11479 (64 FR 72524, December 28, 1999),
because of reports that paragraph (c) in the existing AD is being
misinterpreted and is causing confusion. This AD clarifies the
intent of the language currently in paragraph (c) of AD 99-26-19,
which is being removed by this AD. Our intention was to specify that
if a sealed wing lift strut assembly is installed as a replacement
part, the repetitive inspection requirement is terminated only if
the seal never improperly broken. This AD retains all the actions
currently required in AD 99-26-19. There are no new requirements in
this AD and it does not add any additional burden to the owners/
operators of the affected airplanes. We are issuing this AD to
detect and correct corrosion and cracking on the front and rear wing
lift struts and forks, which could cause the wing lift strut to
fail. This failure could result in the wing separating from the
airplane.

(f) Paragraph Designation Changes to AD 99-26-19

    Since AD 99-26-19, Amendment 39-11479 (64 FR 72524, December 28,
1999), was issued, the AD format has been revised, and certain
paragraphs have been rearranged. As a result, the corresponding
paragraph identifiers have changed in this AD, as listed in the
following table:

   Table 1 to Paragraph (f) of This AD--Revised Paragraph Identifiers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Corresponding requirement in this
     Requirement in AD 99-26-19                       AD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  paragraph (a)                        paragraph (h)
               paragraph (a)(1)                     paragraph (i)(1)
            paragraph (a)(1)(i)                  paragraph (i)(1)(i)
           paragraph (a)(1)(ii)                 paragraph (i)(1)(ii)
               paragraph (a)(2)                     paragraph (i)(2)
            paragraph (a)(2)(i)                  paragraph (i)(2)(i)
           paragraph (a)(2)(ii)                 paragraph (i)(2)(ii)
               paragraph (a)(3)                     paragraph (j)(1)
               paragraph (a)(4)                     paragraph (j)(2)
                  paragraph (b)                        paragraph (k)

       paragraph (b)(1) through                        paragraph (l)
                      (b)(1)(ii)
        paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A)                     paragraph (l)(1)
    paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(B) and                     paragraph (l)(2)
                      (b)(1)(iv)
          paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(C) and               paragraph (l)(3)
                      (b)(1)(iv)
 paragraph (b)(1)(iii) and (b)(2)                   paragraph (m)(1)
       paragraph (b)(3) through                     paragraph (m)(2)
                      (b)(3)(ii)
                  Paragraph (c)                              Removed
                  paragraph (d)                     paragraph (n)(1)
               paragraph (d)(1)                  paragraph (n)(1)(i)
               paragraph (d)(2)                 paragraph (n)(1)(ii)
                            N/A                     Paragraph (n)(2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(g) Compliance

    Unless already done (compliance with AD 99-26-19, Amendment 39-
11479 (64 FR 72524, December 28, 1999)), do the following actions
within the compliance times specified in paragraphs (h) through (n)
of this AD, including all subparagraphs.
    Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD: This AD does not require any
actions over that already required by AD 99-26-19, Amendment 39-
11479 (64 FR 72524, December 28, 1999). This AD clarifies the FAA's
intention that if a sealed wing lift strut assembly is installed as
a replacement part, the repetitive inspection requirement is
terminated only if the seal is never improperly broken. If the seal
is improperly broken, then that wing lift strut becomes subject to
continued repetitive inspections. We did not intend to promote
drilling holes into or otherwise unsealing a sealed strut. Properly
unsealing and resealing a sealed wing lift strut is still considered
a terminating action for the repetitive inspection requirements of
this AD as long as all appropriate regulations and issues are
considered, such as static strength, fatigue, material effects,
immediate and long-term (internal and external) corrosion
protection, resealing methods, etc.

(h) Remove Wing Lift Struts

    At whichever of paragraphs (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD that
occurs later, remove the wing lift struts following Piper Aircraft
Corporation Mandatory Service Bulletin (Piper MSB) No. 528D, dated
October 19, 1990. Before further flight after the removal, do one of
the actions in either paragraph (i)(1), (i)(2), (j)(1), or (j)(2) of
this AD, including all subparagraphs.
    (1) Within 1 calendar month after February 14, 2000 (the
effective date retained from AD 99-26-19, Amendment 39-11479 (64 FR
72524, December 28, 1999)); or
    (2) Within 24 calendar months after the last inspection done in
accordance with AD 93-10-06, Amendment 39-8586 (58 FR 29965, May 25,
1993).

(i) Inspect Wing Lift Struts

    (1) Before further flight after the removal required in
paragraph (h) of this AD, inspect each wing lift strut for corrosion
and perceptible dents following Piper MSB No. 528D, dated October
19, 1990.
    (i) If no corrosion is visible and no perceptible dents are
found on any wing lift strut during the inspection required in
paragraph (i)(1) of this AD, before further flight, apply corrosion
inhibitor to each wing lift strut following Piper MSB No. 528D,
dated October 19, 1990. Repetitively thereafter inspect each wing
lift strut at intervals not to exceed 24 calendar months following
the procedures in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD, including
all subparagraphs.
    (ii) If corrosion or perceptible dents are found on any wing
lift strut during the inspection required in paragraph (i)(1) of
this AD or during any repetitive inspection required in paragraph
(i)(1)(i) of this AD, before further flight, replace the affected
wing lift strut with one of the replacement options specified in
paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD. Do the replacement following
the procedures specified in those paragraphs, as applicable.
    (2) Before further flight after the removal required in
paragraph (h) of this AD, inspect each wing lift strut for corrosion
following the procedures in the Appendix to this AD. This inspection
must be done by a Level 2 or Level 3 inspector certified using the
guidelines established by the American Society for Non-destructive
Testing or the ``Military Standard for Nondestructive Testing
Personnel Qualification and Certification'' (MIL-STD-410E).
    (i) If no corrosion is found on any wing lift strut during the
inspection required in paragraph (i)(2) of this AD and all
requirements in the Appendix to this AD are met, before further
flight, apply corrosion inhibitor to each wing lift strut following
Piper MSB No. 528D, dated October 19, 1990. Repetitively thereafter
inspect each wing lift strut at intervals not to exceed 24 calendar
months following the procedures in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of
this AD, including all subparagraphs.
    (ii) If corrosion is found on any wing lift strut during the
inspection required paragraph (i)(2) of this AD or during any
repetitive inspection required in paragraph (i)(2)(i) of this AD, or
if any requirement in the Appendix of this AD is not met, before
further flight after any inspection in which corrosion is found or
the Appendix requirements are not met, replace the affected wing
lift strut with one of the replacement options specified in
paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD. Do the replacement following
the procedures specified in those paragraphs, as applicable.

(j) Wing Lift Strut Replacement Options

    (1) Install original equipment manufacturer (OEM) part number
wing lift struts (or FAA-approved equivalent part numbers) that have
been inspected following the procedures in either paragraph (i)(1)
or (i)(2) of this AD, including all subparagraphs, and are found to
be airworthy. Do the installations following Piper MSB No. 528D,
dated October 19, 1990. Repetitively thereafter inspect the newly
installed wing lift struts at intervals not to exceed 24 calendar
months following the procedures in either paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2)
of this AD, including all subparagraphs.
    (2) Install new sealed wing lift strut assemblies (or FAA-
approved equivalent part numbers) (these sealed wing lift strut
assemblies also include the wing lift strut forks) following Piper
MSB No. 528D, dated October 19, 1990. Installing one of these new
sealed wing lift strut assemblies terminates the repetitive
inspection requirements in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD,
and the wing lift strut fork removal, inspection, and replacement
requirements in paragraphs (k) and (l) of this AD, including all
subparagraphs, for that wing lift strut assembly.

(k) Remove Wing Lift Strut Forks

    Within the next 100 hours time-in-service (TIS) after February
14, 2000 (the effective date retained from AD 99-26-19, Amendment
39-11479 (64 FR 72524, December 28, 1999)) or within 500 hours TIS
after the last inspection done in accordance with AD 93-10-06,
Amendment 39-8586 (58 FR 29965, May 25, 1993), whichever occurs
later, remove the wing lift strut forks (unless already replaced in
accordance with paragraph (j)(2) of this AD). Do the removal
following Piper MSB No. 528D, dated October 19, 1990. Before further
flight after the removal, do one of the actions in either paragraph
(l) or (m) of this AD, including all subparagraphs.

(l) Inspect and Replace Wing Lift Strut Forks

    Before further flight after the removal required in paragraph
(k) of this AD, inspect the wing lift strut forks for cracks using
magnetic particle procedures, such as those contained in FAA
Advisory Circular (AC) 43.13-1B, Chapter 5, which can be found in
the Internet at http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory--and--Guidance--
Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/99c827db9baac81b86256b4500596c4e/

$FILE/Chapter%2005.pdf. Repetitively thereafter inspect at intervals
not to exceed 500 hours TIS until the replacement time requirement
specified in paragraph (l)(2) or (l)(3) of this AD is reached
provided no cracks are found.
    (1) If cracks are found during any inspection required in
paragraph (l) of this AD or during any repetitive inspection
required in paragraph (l)(2) or (l)(3) of this AD, before further
flight, replace the affected wing lift strut fork with one of the
replacement options specified in paragraph (m)(1) or (m)(2) of this
AD. Do the replacement following the procedures specified in those
paragraphs, as applicable.
    (2) If no cracks are found during the initial inspection
required in paragraph (l) of this AD and the airplane is currently
equipped with floats or has been equipped with floats at any time
during the previous 2,000 hours TIS since the wing lift strut forks
were installed, at or before accumulating 1,000 hours TIS on the
wing lift strut forks, replace the wing lift strut forks with one of
the replacement options specified in paragraph (m)(1) or (m)(2) of
this AD. Do the replacement following the procedures specified in
those paragraphs, as applicable. Repetitively thereafter inspect the
newly installed wing lift strut forks at intervals not to exceed 500
hours TIS following the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of
this AD, including all subparagraphs.
    (3) If no cracks are found during the initial inspection
required in paragraph (l) of this AD and the airplane has never been
equipped with floats during the previous 2,000 hours TIS since the
wing lift strut forks were installed, at or before accumulating
2,000 hours TIS on the wing lift strut forks, replace the wing lift
strut forks with one of the replacement options specified in
paragraph (m)(1) or (m)(2). Do the replacement following the
procedures specified in those paragraphs, as applicable.
Repetitively thereafter inspect the newly installed wing lift strut
forks at intervals not to exceed 500 hours TIS following the
procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this AD, including all
subparagraphs.

(m) Wing Lift Strut Fork Replacement Options

    (1) Install new OEM part number wing lift strut forks of the
same part numbers of the existing part (or FAA-approved equivalent
part numbers) that were manufactured with rolled threads. Wing lift
strut forks manufactured with machine (cut) threads are not to be
used. Do the installations following Piper MSB No. 528D, dated
October 19, 1990. Repetitively thereafter inspect and replace the
newly installed wing lift strut forks at intervals not to exceed 500
hours TIS following the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of
this AD, including all subparagraphs.
    (2) Install new sealed wing lift strut assemblies (or FAA-
approved equivalent part numbers) (these sealed wing lift strut
assemblies also include the wing lift strut forks) following Piper
MSB No. 528D, dated October 19, 1990. This installation may have
already been done through the option specified in paragraph (j)(2)
of this AD. Installing one of these new sealed wing lift strut
assemblies terminates the repetitive inspection requirements in
paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD, and the wing lift strut
fork removal, inspection, and replacement requirements in paragraphs
(k) and (l) of this AD, including all subparagraphs, for that wing
lift strut assembly.

(n) Install Placard

    (1) Within 1 calendar month after February 14, 2000 (the
effective date retained from AD 99-26-19, Amendment 39-11479 (64 FR
72524, December 28, 1999), or within 24 calendar months after the
last inspection required by AD 93-10-06, Amendment 39-8586 (58 FR
29965, May 25, 1993), and before further flight after any
replacement of a wing lift strut assembly required by this AD, do
one of the following:
    (i) Install ``NO STEP'' decal, Piper (P/N) 80944-02, on each
wing lift strut approximately 6 inches from the bottom of the wing
lift strut in a way that the letters can be read when entering and
exiting the airplane; or
    (ii) Paint the words ``NO STEP'' approximately 6 inches from the
bottom of the wing lift struts in a way that the letters can be read
when entering and exiting the airplane. Use a minimum of 1-inch
letters using a color that contrasts with the color of the airplane.
    (2) The ``NO STEP'' markings required by paragraph (n)(1)(i) and
(n)(1)(ii) of this AD must remain in place for the life of the
airplane.

(o) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in the Related Information
section of this AD.
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) AMOCs approved for AD 93-10-06, Amendment 39-8586 (58 FR
29965, May 25, 1993) and AD 99-26-19, Amendment 39-11479 (64 FR
72524, December 28, 1999) are approved as AMOCs for this AD.

(p) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Gregory K.
Noles, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Atlanta ACO, 1701 Columbia Avenue,
College Park, Georgia 30337; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (404) 474-
5606; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Piper
Aircraft, Inc., Customer Services, 2926 Piper Drive, Vero Beach,
Florida 32960; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet: www.piper.com.
You may review copies of the referenced service information at the
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri
64106. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Appendix to Docket No. FAA-2013-0724

Procedures and Requirements for Ultrasonic Inspection of Piper Wing
Lift Struts

Equipment Requirements

    1. A portable ultrasonic thickness gauge or flaw detector with
echo-to-echo digital thickness readout capable of reading to 0.001-
inch and an A-trace waveform display will be needed to do this
inspection.
    2. An ultrasonic probe with the following specifications will be
needed to do this inspection: 10 MHz (or higher), 0.283-inch (or
smaller) diameter dual element or delay line transducer designed for
thickness gauging. The transducer and ultrasonic system shall be
capable of accurately measuring the thickness of AISI 4340 steel
down to 0.020-inch. An accuracy of +/- 0.002-inch throughout a
0.020-inch to 0.050-inch thickness range while calibrating shall be
the criteria for acceptance.
    3. Either a precision machined step wedge made of 4340 steel (or
similar steel with equivalent sound velocity) or at least three shim
samples of same material will be needed to do this inspection. One
thickness of the step wedge or shim shall be less than or equal to
0.020-inch, one shall be greater than or equal to 0.050-inch, and at
least one other step or shim shall be between these two values.
    4. Glycerin, light oil, or similar non-water based ultrasonic
couplants are recommended in the setup and inspection procedures.
Water-based couplants, containing appropriate corrosion inhibitors,
may be utilized, provided they are removed from both the reference
standards and the test item after the inspection procedure is
completed and adequate corrosion prevention steps are then taken to
protect these items.
     Note: Couplant is defined as ``a substance used between
the face of the transducer and test surface to improve transmission
of ultrasonic energy across the transducer/strut interface.''
     Note: If surface roughness due to paint loss or
corrosion is present, the surface should be sanded or polished
smooth before testing to assure a consistent and smooth surface for
making contact with the transducer. Care shall be taken to remove a
minimal amount of structural material. Paint repairs may be
necessary after the inspection to prevent further corrosion damage
from occurring. Removal of surface irregularities will enhance the
accuracy of the inspection technique.

Instrument Setup

    1. Set up the ultrasonic equipment for thickness measurements as
specified in the instrument's user's manual. Because of the variety
of equipment available to perform ultrasonic thickness measurements,
some modification to this general setup procedure may be necessary.
However, the tolerance requirement of step 13 and the record keeping
requirement of step 14, must be satisfied.

    2. If battery power will be employed, check to see that the
battery has been properly charged. The testing will take
approximately two hours. Screen brightness and contrast should be
set to match environmental conditions.
    3. Verify that the instrument is set for the type of transducer
being used, i.e. single or dual element, and that the frequency
setting is compatible with the transducer.
    4. If a removable delay line is used, remove it and place a drop
of couplant between the transducer face and the delay line to assure
good transmission of ultrasonic energy. Reassemble the delay line
transducer and continue.
    5. Program a velocity of 0.231-inch/microsecond into the
ultrasonic unit unless an alternative instrument calibration
procedure is used to set the sound velocity.
    6. Obtain a step wedge or steel shims per item 3 of the
Equipment Requirements. Place the probe on the thickest sample using
couplant. Rotate the transducer slightly back and forth to ``ring''
the transducer to the sample. Adjust the delay and range settings to
arrive at an A-trace signal display with the first backwall echo
from the steel near the left side of the screen and the second
backwall echo near the right of the screen. Note that when a single
element transducer is used, the initial pulse and the delay line/
steel interface will be off of the screen to the left. Adjust the
gain to place the amplitude of the first backwall signal at
approximately 80% screen height on the A-trace.
    7. ``Ring'' the transducer on the thinnest step or shim using
couplant. Select positive half-wave rectified, negative half-wave
rectified, or filtered signal display to obtain the cleanest signal.
Adjust the pulse voltage, pulse width, and damping to obtain the
best signal resolution. These settings can vary from one transducer
to another and are also user dependent.
    8. Enable the thickness gate, and adjust the gate so that it
starts at the first backwall echo and ends at the second backwall
echo. (Measuring between the first and second backwall echoes will
produce a measurement of the steel thickness that is not affected by
the paint layer on the strut). If instability of the gate trigger
occurs, adjust the gain, gate level, and/or damping to stabilize the
thickness reading.
    9. Check the digital display reading and if it does not agree
with the known thickness of the thinnest thickness, follow your
instrument's calibration recommendations to produce the correct
thickness reading. When a single element transducer is used this
will usually involve adjusting the fine delay setting.
    10. Place the transducer on the thickest step of shim using
couplant. Adjust the thickness gate width so that the gate is
triggered by the second backwall reflection of the thick section. If
the digital display does not agree with the thickest thickness,
follow your instruments calibration recommendations to produce the
correct thickness reading. A slight adjustment in the velocity may
be necessary to get both the thinnest and the thickest reading
correct. Document the changed velocity value.
    11. Place couplant on an area of the lift strut which is thought
to be free of corrosion and ``ring'' the transducer to surface.
Minor adjustments to the signal and gate settings may be required to
account for coupling improvements resulting from the paint layer.
The thickness gate level should be set just high enough so as not to
be triggered by irrelevant signal noise. An area on the upper
surface of the lift strut above the inspection area would be a good
location to complete this step and should produce a thickness
reading between 0.034-inch and 0.041-inch.
    12. Repeat steps 8, 9, 10, and 11 until both thick and thin shim
measurements are within tolerance and the lift strut measurement is
reasonable and steady.
    13. Verify that the thickness value shown in the digital display
is within +/- 0.002-inch of the correct value for each of the three
or more steps of the setup wedge or shims. Make no further
adjustments to the instrument settings.
    14. Record the ultrasonic versus actual thickness of all wedge
steps or steel shims available as a record of setup.

Inspection Procedure

    1. Clean the lower 18 inches of the wing lift struts using a
cleaner that will remove all dirt and grease. Dirt and grease will
adversely affect the accuracy of the inspection technique. Light
sanding or polishing may also be required to reduce surface
roughness as noted in the Equipment Requirements section.
    2. Using a flexible ruler, draw a 1/4-inch grid on the surface
of the first 11 inches from the lower end of the strut as shown in
Piper Service Bulletin No. 528D. This can be done using a soft
(2) pencil and should be done on both faces of the strut.
As an alternative to drawing a complete grid, make two rows of marks
spaced every 1/4-inch across the width of the strut. One row of
marks should be about 11 inches from the lower end of the strut, and
the second row should be several inches away where the strut starts
to narrow. Lay the flexible ruler between respective tick marks of
the two rows and use tape or a rubber band to keep the ruler in
place. See Figure 1.
    3. Apply a generous amount of couplant inside each of the square
areas or along the edge of the ruler. Re-application of couplant may
be necessary.
    4. Place the transducer inside the first square area of the
drawn grid or at the first 1/4-inch mark on the ruler and ``ring''
the transducer to the strut. When using a dual element transducer,
be very careful to record the thickness value with the axis of the
transducer elements perpendicular to any curvature in the strut. If
this is not done, loss of signal or inaccurate readings can result.
    5. Take readings inside each square on the grid or at 1/4-inch
increments along the ruler and record the results. When taking a
thickness reading, rotate the transducer slightly back and forth and
experiment with the angle of contact to produce the lowest thickness
reading possible. Pay close attention to the A-scan display to
assure that the thickness gate is triggering off of maximized
backwall echoes.
     Note: A reading shall not exceed .041 inch. If a
reading exceeds .041-inch, repeat steps 13 and 14 of the Instrument
Setup section before proceeding further.
    6. If the A-trace is unsteady or the thickness reading is
clearly wrong, adjust the signal gain and/or gate setting to obtain
reasonable and steady readings. If any instrument setting is
adjusted, repeat steps 13 and 14 of the Instrument Setup section
before proceeding further.
    7. In areas where obstructions are present, take a data point as
close to the correct area as possible.
     Note: The strut wall contains a fabrication bead at
approximately 40% of the strut chord. The bead may interfere with
accurate measurements in that specific location.
    8. A measurement of 0.024-inch or less shall require replacement
of the strut prior to further flight.
    9. If at any time during testing an area is encountered where a
valid thickness measurement cannot be obtained due to a loss of
signal strength or quality, the area shall be considered suspect.
These areas may have a remaining wall thickness of less than 0.020-
inch, which is below the range of this setup, or they may have small
areas of localized corrosion or pitting present. The latter case
will result in a reduction in signal strength due to the sound being
scattered from the rough surface and may result in a signal that
includes echoes from the pits as well as the backwall. The suspect
area(s) shall be tested with a Maule ``Fabric Tester'' as specified
in Piper Service Bulletin No. 528D.
    10. Record the lift strut inspection in the aircraft log book.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13AU13.010

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on August 6, 2013.
Earl Lawrence,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 2013-19530 Filed 8-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 99 (Wednesday, May 22, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 23559]
[FR Doc No: 2019-10686]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EF19-3-000]

Western Area Power Administration; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on May 10, 2019, Western Area Power Administration
submitted tariff filing per: Extension of the Falcon and Amistad
Projects' Firm Power Formula Rate-Rate Order No. WAPA-186 to be
effective April 1, 2019.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on June 11, 2019.

    Dated: May 16, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-10686 Filed 5-21-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


HUMAN HEALTH SUBCOMMITTEE

DRAFT MEETING AGENDA

January 13-15, 2009

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Research and Development

109 T. W. Alexander Drive

Building C -   Room  C111A, B, C

Research Triangle Park, NC

Tuesday, January  13, 2009  _____________________________________________

8:00 AM	Registration

Welcome and Overview:                               _____________________________________________________

8:30 AM	 Welcome and Opening Remarks	Dr. James Klaunig

		Subcommittee Chair

		Dr. Henry Falk

		Subcommittee Vice-Chair

8:40 AM	  	 BOSC DFO Remarks	Ms. Virginia Houk, Designated Federal

			Official, Office of Research and Development (ORD)

8:50 AM		ORD Welcome & Brief Overview of	Dr. Sally Darney, National Program the Human Health Research Program	Director, ORD

Human Health Research Program Long Term Goal 1:  Use of Mechanistic Data in Risk Assessment___

9:05 AM	 	 LTG 1:  Poster Session Overview	Dr. Julian Preston, Associate

			Director for Health, NHEERL, ORD

9:20 AM		 LTG 1:  Poster Session (Atrium)

11:40 AM	 	 LTG 1:  Subcommittee Discussion	HH Subcommittee

Poster Session Discussion

Q & A

12:25 PM	  Break to Get Lunch

12:40 PM			 Working Lunch – Subcommittee Discussion	HH Subcommittee

1:40 PM	  Public Comment

Human Health Research Program Long Term Goal 2:  Cumulative Risk _____________________

1:55 PM	LTG 2:  Poster Session Overview	Dr. Linda Sheldon, Associate

			Director for Human Health, NERL,

			ORD

2:10 PM 	LTG 2:  Poster Session (Atrium)

4:00 PM		LTG2:  Subcommittee Discussion	HH Subcommittee

Poster Session Discussion

Q & A

4:45 PM	LTG 1 & 2:  Partner Testimonials	Dr. Peter Preuss, NCEA

			Dr. Vickie Dellarco, OPPTS

			Dr. Ed Ohanian, OW

5:30 PM	ADJOURN

	LTG 1 & 2 Workgroups Breakout

	End of public session for the day

Wednesday , January 14, 2009   __________________________________________________

8:30 AM		Review of Yesterday’s Activities	Dr. James Klaunig

	 Overview of Today’s Agenda			  Subcommittee 	Chair

Human Health Research Program Long Term Goal 3:_Susceptible Populations_____________________

8:45 AM		LTG 3:  Poster Session Overview	Dr. Devon Payne-Sturges, Assistant 			Center Director for Human Health, 			NCER, ORD

9:00 AM	LTG 3:  Poster Session (Atrium)

11:15 AM	LTG 3:  Subcommittee Discussion	HH Subcommittee

Poster Session Discussion

Q & A

12:00 PM	Break to Get Lunch

12:30 PM	Working Lunch – Subcommittee Discussion	HH Subcommittee

Human Health Research Program Long Term Goal 4: Evaluation of Risk Management Decisions_______

1:30 PM		LTG 4:  Poster Session Overview 	Dr. Andrew Geller

			Assistant Laboratory Director

			NHEERL, ORD

1:45 PM 	   	LTG 4:  Poster Session (Atrium)

3:15 PM	 	LTG 4:  Subcommittee Discussion	HH Subcommittee

Poster Session Discussion

Q & A

4:00 PM		Inter-relationships between HH and Clean Air	Dr. Dan Costa, Air NPD

		Research programs

4:05PM		LTG 3 & 4:  Partner Testimonials	Mr. Mike Kenyon, Region 1

			Mr. Michael Firestone, OCHPEE

			Dr. Peter Scheidt, NIH/NICHD

4:50 PM	     ADJOURN

		LTG 3 & 4 Workgroups Breakout

		End of public session for the day

Thursday , January 15, 2009   ___________________________________________________

8:00 AM	    Review of Yesterday’s Activities	Dr. James Klaunig

	    Overview of Today’s Agenda	Subcommittee 	Chair

8:15 AM		 Future Directions	Dr. Sally Darney

9:15 AM		Break

9:45 AM		Preliminary Subcommittee Discussion of	HH  Subcommittee

		Charge Questions/Rating of LTGs

11:45 AM		General Report Out	Dr. James Klaunig

			Subcommittee Chair

1:00 PM 		ADJOURN

            A Federal Advisory Committee for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Research and Development


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 146 (Friday, July 29, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45631-45636]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19193]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64954; File No. SR-FINRA-2010-036]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing Proposed Rule Change and Amendment
No. 1 To Amend the Codes of Arbitration Procedure To Permit Arbitrators
To Make Mid-Case Referrals

 July 25, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on July 12, 2010, 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. On July 7,
2011, FINRA filed Amendment No. 1.\3\ The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Amendment No. 1 to SR-FINRA-2010-036 replaces and supersedes
the original rule filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA is proposing to amend Rule 12104 of the Code of Arbitration
Procedure for Customer Disputes (``Customer Code'') and Rule 13104 of
the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Industry Disputes (``Industry
Code'') to broaden arbitrators' authority to make referrals during an
arbitration proceeding.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web
site 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
(a) Background
    In light of well publicized securities frauds that resulted in harm
to investors, FINRA has reviewed the Customer and Industry Codes
(together, Codes) and determined that its rules on arbitrator referrals
should be amended to permit arbitrators to make referrals during an
arbitration proceeding, rather than solely at the conclusion of a
matter as is currently the case.
    Currently, Rule 12104(b) of the Customer Code and Rule 13104(b) of
the Industry Code state, in relevant part, that any arbitrator may
refer to FINRA for disciplinary investigation any matter that has come
to the arbitrator's attention during and in connection with the
arbitration only at the conclusion of an arbitration (emphasis added).
FINRA is concerned that the current rule's requirement that arbitrators
in all instances must wait until a case is concluded before making a
referral could hamper FINRA's efforts to uncover fraud as early as
possible. FINRA is proposing, therefore, to broaden the arbitrators'
authority under the Codes to make referrals, in limited

circumstances, during the hearing phase of an arbitration.
(b) Explanation of the Proposed Rule Changes to the Customer Code \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ As noted, FINRA also is proposing to amend Rule 13104 of the
Industry Code to broaden the arbitrators' authority to make
referrals in intra-industry cases. The explanations for the proposed
changes to Rule 13104 are the same as those for Rule 12104 of the
Customer Code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 12104--Effect of Arbitration on FINRA Regulatory Activities
    First, FINRA proposes to add the phrase ``Arbitrator Referral
During or at Conclusion of Case'' to the title of Rule 12104 so that it
reflects accurately the proposed changes. The new title would read:
``Effect of Arbitration on FINRA Regulatory Activities; Arbitrator
Referral During or at Conclusion of Case.''
    Second, the current rule would be rearranged to reflect the order
in which an arbitrator may make a referral in an arbitration case.
Subparagraph (a) would remain unchanged. The rule language in current
subparagraph (b) of the rule, which addresses arbitrator referrals made
only at the conclusion of the case (hereinafter, ``the post-case
referral provision''), would be amended and moved to new subparagraph
(e). In its place, FINRA would insert new rule language in subparagraph
(b) to address arbitrator referrals made during the hearing phase of an
arbitration (hereinafter, ``the mid-case referral provision''). New
subparagraph (c) would require the Director of Arbitration to disclose
the mid-case referral to the parties and permit the parties to request
the referring arbitrators' recusal. New subparagraph (d) would provide
the President of FINRA Dispute Resolution (President) and the Director
with the authority to evaluate the arbitrator referral to determine
whether to transmit it to other divisions of FINRA. Finally, new
subparagraph (e) would contain the rule language in current
subparagraph (b), with some minor amendments, to address post-case
referrals.
Rule 12104(b)--Mid-Case Referral Provision
    Rule 12104(b) would be amended to state that during the pendency of
an arbitration, any arbitrator may refer to the Director any matter or
conduct that has come to the arbitrator's attention during the hearing,
which the arbitrator has reason to believe poses a serious threat,
whether ongoing or imminent, that is likely to harm investors unless
immediate action is taken. The proposed rule would also state that
arbitrators should not make referrals during the pendency of an
arbitration based solely on allegations in the statement of claim,
counterclaim, cross claim, or third party claim. Further, the proposed
rule would also state that if a case is nearing completion, the
arbitrator should wait until the case concludes to make the referral
if, in the arbitrator's judgment, investor protection would not be
materially compromised by this delay.
    First, FINRA is proposing to permit any arbitrator to make a mid-
case referral to the Director but only after the commencement of an
evidentiary hearing. The amended proposal would limit mid-case
referrals, so that the referrals would be based on evidence presented
by the parties during a hearing. FINRA believes this limitation would
ensure that arbitrators have reviewed or heard actual evidence that
would enable them to make an informed decision before making a mid-case
referral.
    Second, proposed Rule 12104(b) would state that arbitrators must
not make mid-case referrals based only on allegations in the statement
of claim, counterclaim, cross claim, or third party claim. Thus, mid-
case referrals could not be based solely on the parties' pleadings.\5\
Because Dispute Resolution routinely provides copies of arbitration
claims and other pleadings to other FINRA divisions for analysis, mid-
case referrals based only on the pleadings are not necessary to apprise
those divisions of possible wrongdoing.\6\ But if, during a hearing,
arbitrators learn of information relating to an ongoing or imminent
threat, the new rule would give them the discretion to make a mid-case
referral to protect other investors. Moreover, by providing that the
arbitrators should not make a mid-case referral based solely on the
pleadings, the rule would limit unnecessary disruption to an ongoing
case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A pleading is a statement describing a party's causes of
action or defenses. Documents that are considered pleadings are: a
statement of claim, an answer, a counterclaim, a cross claim, a
third party claim, and any replies. Rule 12100(s) of the Customer
Code and Rule 13100(s) of the Industry Code.
    \6\ Dispute Resolution provides copies of all statements of
claim, amended initial claims, counterclaims, amended counterclaims,
cross claims, amended cross claims, third party claims, amended
third party claims, and answers in promissory note cases to the
Central Review Group (CRG), which is part of the Office of Fraud
Detection and Market Intelligence, to analyze for fraudulent
securities activity. If this analysis indicates possible securities
violations, CRG may alert Enforcement for further review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, the proposed rule would require that the arbitrator have
reason to believe the serious threat, whether ongoing or imminent, is
likely to harm investors unless immediate action is taken before making
a mid-case referral. Under the proposed threshold of certainty, the
referring arbitrator would not need to conclude that there is fraud,
only that there is an indication of an ongoing or imminent threat that
requires immediate action. FINRA believes the proposed threshold for
making a mid-case referral would reduce the potential for a finding of
arbitrator bias and would help a prevailing investor defend against a
possible motion to vacate the award.
    The Federal Arbitration Act establishes four grounds for vacating
an arbitration award, one of which is evident partiality.\7\ A party
can establish an arbitrator's evident partiality by demonstrating that
the arbitrator either failed to disclose relevant facts or displayed
actual bias at the arbitration proceeding.\8\ Thus, a party may attempt
to overturn an award issued through FINRA's dispute resolution forum,
based on an arbitrator's mid-case referral, on the ground that such a
referral establishes an arbitrator's evident partiality. Generally,
case law permits arbitrators to form opinions based on the evidence
presented to them after they are appointed, and an award would not be
vacated because arbitrators developed their views prior to the
conclusion of the proceedings.\9\ Accordingly, FINRA believes that the
new standards, which would require an arbitrator to base a mid-case
referral on evidence learned at a hearing, would reduce the potential
for establishing arbitrator bias and would help a prevailing investor
defend against a motion to vacate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 9 U.S.C. 10(a).
    \8\ See Timothy L. Woods v. Saturn Distribution Corporation, 78
F.3d 424, 427 (9th Cir. 1996).
    \9\ Ballantine Books Inc. v. Capital Distributing Company, 302
F.2d 17, 21 (2nd Cir. 1962).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Last, proposed Rule 12104(b) also would provide arbitrators with
the discretion to delay their referral until the end of a case if, in
the arbitrator's judgment, investor protection will not be materially
compromised by a short delay in making the mid-case referral. For
example, if, during the third of four consecutively scheduled hearing
days,\10\ where the case is to conclude on the fourth day, the
arbitrators learn of an ongoing or imminent threat that meets the
criteria of the proposed rule, the arbitrators could defer making the
mid-case referral until the conclusion of the case.\11\ In deciding
whether to delay

making a mid-case referral, however, arbitrators should weigh the
potential harm a mid-case referral could have on the individual
claimant against the possible harm to the markets and other investors
that a brief delay, one day in the example above, could cause.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The average arbitration hearing takes slightly under 5
days.
    \11\ If the referring arbitrator delays making the referral
until the conclusion of the case, the referral would then take place
under the current rule, which provides for referrals at the
conclusion of a case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA contemplates that the mid-case referral rule would typically
be used in those circumstances where a hearing is scheduled for many
days, or even weeks, and, in particular, where the hearing days are not
scheduled consecutively. In the example above, if four hearing days
were scheduled, but there was a significant time gap between scheduled
hearing dates, then a delay in making a mid-case referral would not
likely be appropriate. The proposed rule would encourage arbitrators to
determine, based on their judgment and the facts and circumstances of
the case, whether a mid-case or post-case referral is more appropriate.
    FINRA believes that the criteria in proposed Rule 12104(b) would
limit the use of the mid-case referral rule to only rare circumstances.
While FINRA has lowered the threshold of certainty that arbitrators
must have to make a mid-case referral, the referral must be based on
evidence presented at a hearing, not information provided in the
pleadings. Further, the evidence must support the arbitrators' belief
that the threat is either ongoing or imminent, and likely to harm
investors unless immediate action is taken. Although the proposed rule
provides arbitrators with discretion to determine whether a delay in
making a mid-case referral is appropriate, the arbitrators must
determine as an initial matter whether the threat, as supported by the
evidence, meets the criteria of the proposed rule. For these reasons,
FINRA believes that arbitrators would rarely invoke the mid-case
referral rule.
Rule 12104(c)--Arbitrator Disclosure and Arbitrator Recusal
    If any arbitrator makes a mid-case referral under proposed Rule
12104(c), the Director will disclose to the parties the arbitrator's
act of making such referral. The proposed rule also states that a party
may request that referring arbitrators recuse themselves, as provided
in the Codes. Under the proposal, if an arbitrator makes a mid-case
referral, the arbitrator will notify the Director, who, in turn, will
notify the parties.
    Currently, under the Codes, any party may ask arbitrators to recuse
themselves from the panel for good cause.\12\ The arbitrators, who are
the subject of the request, decide such requests.\13\ FINRA believes
that, in any case, a party should have the right to challenge an
arbitrator's appearance on a panel. However, FINRA also believes that
the arbitrator who is the subject of the challenge is best suited to
assess the merits of a party's challenge and respond appropriately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Rule 12406 of the Customer Code and Rule 13409 of the
Industry Code.
    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, FINRA is proposing to change the requirement that the
referring arbitrators withdraw from the panel upon a party's request,
as provided in the original proposal. Rather, under the amended
proposal, parties may make a recusal request of the referring
arbitrators in the event of a mid-case referral. However, the referring
arbitrators should honor such a request only if they conclude that they
cannot serve impartially as a result of the act of making such a
referral.
    In cases with one arbitrator, if, after the arbitrator makes a mid-
case referral, the parties submit a recusal request and the arbitrator
honors it, the Director will appoint a replacement arbitrator as
provided for in the Codes.\14\ The arbitration case will begin anew
with the replacement arbitrator. The parties may stipulate to facts,
prior witness testimony, documents and other evidence provided during
the initial case to educate the replacement arbitrator and expedite the
subsequent case.\15\ If the parties cannot agree or are unable to
provide suggestions on how to educate the replacement arbitrator, the
arbitrator will determine the best approach to commence the subsequent
case including, but not limited to, reviewing transcripts from the
initial case, listening to tapes from the initial case, or recalling
witnesses. If the replacement arbitrator holds hearings in the
subsequent case, the arbitrator will have the discretion in the award
to determine which party or parties will pay the additional costs and
expenses.\16\ Further, in the award, the arbitrator will have
discretion to order a party to reimburse another party for all or part
of any filing fee paid.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Rule 12402(g) of the Customer Code and Rule 13411 of
the Industry Code.
    \15\ See Rule 12105(a) of the Customer Code and Rule 13105(a) of
the Industry Code.
    \16\ See Rule 12902(c) of the Customer Code and Rule 13902(c) of
the Industry Code.
    \17\ See Rule 12900(d) of the Customer Code and Rule 13900(d) of
the Industry Code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a case involving three arbitrators, if any arbitrator honors a
request for recusal, the Director will appoint a replacement arbitrator
as provided for in the Codes, unless the parties agree in writing to
proceed with only the remaining arbitrators.\18\ If a replacement
arbitrator is appointed in these cases, the parties may stipulate to
facts, prior witness testimony, documents and other evidence provided
during the initial case to educate the new arbitrator.\19\ If the
parties cannot agree or are unable to provide suggestions on how to
educate the new arbitrator to proceed in the case, the panel, including
the replacement arbitrator, will determine the best approach to educate
the new arbitrator to proceed in the case including, but not limited
to, reviewing transcripts from the initial case, listening to tapes
from the initial case, or recalling witnesses. If the panel holds
hearings after FINRA appoints a replacement arbitrator, the panel will
have the discretion in the award to determine which party or parties
will pay the additional costs and expenses.\20\ Further, in the award,
the panel will have discretion to order a party to reimburse another
party for all or part of any filing fee paid.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Rules 12403(c)(6) and 12403(d)(6)-(8) of the Customer
Code and Rule 13411 of the Industry Code.
    \19\ Supra note 15.
    \20\ See Rule 12902(c) of the Customer Code and Rule 13902(c) of
the Industry Code.
    \21\ See Rule 12900(d) of the Customer Code and Rule 13900(d) of
the Industry Code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 12104(d)--President's and Director's Authority
    Proposed Rule 12104(d) would authorize the President or the
Director to evaluate the arbitrator referral to determine whether it
should be transmitted to other FINRA divisions, and limit this
authority to the President or the Director.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The process for handling mid-case referrals would be
similar to the Director's authority to remove an arbitrator after
the first hearing or initial pre-hearing conference. Thus, the
mechanism for such a review currently exists in the forum. See Rule
12408 of the Customer Code and Rule 13412 of the Industry Code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA believes the proposed rule provides an added layer of
protection for the investor by providing only the President or Director
with the authority to determine whether to forward the mid-case
referral to other FINRA divisions. This requirement would insulate the
referring arbitrator from reaching the ultimate conclusion that there
was the likelihood of imminent investor harm before making a mid-case
referral, since that determination would reside with the President or
the Director.
Rule 12104(e)--Post-Case Referral Provision
    The rule language in current subparagraph (b) of the Rule 12104,

which addresses arbitrator referrals made only at the conclusion of the
case, would be amended and moved to new subparagraph (e).
    The current rule states that ``only at the conclusion of an
arbitration, any arbitrator may refer to FINRA for disciplinary
investigation any matter that has come to the arbitrator's attention
during and in connection with the arbitration, either from the record
of the proceeding or from material or communications related to the
arbitration, which the arbitrator has reason to believe may constitute
a violation of NASD or FINRA rules, the federal securities laws, or
other applicable rules or laws.''
    The proposal would continue to permit arbitrators to make post-case
referrals. However, FINRA would remove the term ``disciplinary'' to
ensure that the scope of potential referrals is not limited to
disciplinary findings, and would add the phrase ``or conduct,'' so that
the subject-matter of Rule 12104 is consistent throughout the rule. The
rule also would be amended to replace the reference to violations of
``NASD or FINRA rules'' with ``the rules of'' FINRA because the current
FINRA rulebook consists of FINRA Rules, NASD Rules, and incorporated
NYSE Rules.
    Dispute Resolution would continue the current practice of
forwarding all post-case arbitrator referrals to FINRA's regulatory
divisions for review.
Conclusion
    FINRA believes the proposal would strengthen its regulatory
structure and provide an additional layer of protection to investors
and the markets from fraudulent securities market schemes. In addition,
FINRA believes the proposed rule change would provide it with a vital
tool for detecting and addressing serious ongoing or imminent threats
to the securities markets as early as possible.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\23\ 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. The proposed rule change is consistent with FINRA's
statutory obligations under the Act to protect investors and the public
interest because the proposal could help FINRA detect serious ongoing
or imminent threats to the securities markets at an earlier stage,
which could minimize the financial losses of investors as well as the
effects these threats could have on the securities markets. Thus, the
proposed rule change would strengthen FINRA's ability to carry out its
regulatory mission and provide another layer of protection to investors
and the markets against fraud.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    On July 12, 2010, FINRA filed a proposal to amend Rules 12104 and
13104 of the Codes to permit arbitrators to make referrals during an
arbitration case. The SEC published the proposal in the Federal
Register on September 23, 2010.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 62930 (Sept. 17,
2010), 75 FR 58007 (Sept. 23, 2010) (SR-FINRA-2010-036).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The original proposal would have provided arbitrators with express
authority to alert the Director during the prehearing, discovery, or
hearing phase of a case when they learned of what they believed to be
fraudulent activity that required immediate action. The original
proposal also would have required the Director to disclose the mid-case
referral to the parties, and would have required the entire panel to
withdraw upon a party's request that a referring arbitrator withdraw
(hereinafter, ``new panel request''). The proposed disclosure and new
panel request requirements reflected FINRA's concern about the
perception of possible arbitrator bias against the party that is the
subject of the referral, and about the ramifications such perception
might have on any award rendered by the panel in place at the time of
the referral. Therefore, FINRA included these requirements to minimize
the chances of a court vacating an award on the grounds of arbitrator
bias, which could further delay resolution of an investor's dispute.
    The SEC received eleven comments, all of which opposed the
proposal.\25\ The commenters raised the following issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ The SEC received comments on Notice of Filing of Proposed
Rule Change to Amend the Codes of Arbitration Procedure to Permit
Arbitrators to Make Mid-case Referrals from Barry D. Estell,
Attorney at Law, Oct. 11, 2010 (``Estell Comment''); Richard A.
Stephens, Esq., Attorney and FINRA Chairman, Oct. 11, 2010
(``Stephens Comment''); Theodore M. Davis, Esq., Law Office of
Theodore M. Davis, Oct. 11, 2010 (``Davis Comment''); Richard M.
Layne, Law Office of Richard M. Layne, Oct. 11, 2010 (``Layne
Comment''); Scott R. Shewan, President, Public Investors Arbitration
Bar Association (``PIABA Comment''); Leonard Steiner, Steiner & Libo
P.C., Oct. 11, 2010 (``Steiner Comment''); Dale Ledbetter, Ledbetter
& Associates, P.A., Oct. 13, 2010 (``Ledbetter Comment''); William
A. Jacobson, Esq., Associate Clinical Professor and Director, and
Meghan Tente, Cornell Securities Law Clinic, Oct. 14, 2010
(``Cornell Comment''); Rob Bleecher, Esquire, Pecht Associates,
P.C., Oct. 14, 2010 (``Bleecher Comment''); Joelle B. Franc and Gary
J. Pieples, Syracuse Securities and Consumer Law Clinic, Syracuse
University College of Law, Oct. 19, 2010 (``Syracuse Comment''); and
Richard P. Ryder, Esquire, Securities Arbitration Commentator, Inc.,
Jan. 16, 2011 (``Ryder Comment'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the commenters contend that the new panel request provision
benefits the industry party, which would be the only party to be the
subject of the referral, and which might routinely invoke the rule to
remove unsympathetic arbitrators.\26\ They also believe that the
provision would help the industry parties conceal their alleged
malfeasance, by allowing them, through a request for a new panel, to
re-start the arbitration, hence, further delaying the outcome of the
case.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Id.
    \27\ Estell Comment, Layne Comment, PIABA Comment, Bleecher
Comment, and Stephens Comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, several commenters raised the possibility that, under the
original proposal, the initial panel's withdrawal could lead to a
number of subsequent panel withdrawals involving the same parties,
which would jeopardize further an investor's chances to recover lost
assets.\28\ They questioned how FINRA would administer a case if, after
the initial panel's withdrawal, the second panel learned the same
information and made the same referral.\29\ They also expressed concern
that the proposal does not limit the number of times the same parties
would be subject to a panel withdrawal. If multiple withdrawals
occurred, these commenters believe this result would further delay the
resolution of an investor's case and would significantly increase their
costs.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Estell Comment, Layne Comment, PIABA Comment, and Bleecher
Comment.
    \29\ Id.
    \30\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, several commenters also argue that the costs that an
investor would incur as a result of a new panel request are not
mitigated adequately under the original proposal.\31\ The commenters

contend that the original proposal underestimates the costs that
investors would incur if the panel withdraws mid-case.\32\ In support
of their contention, they cite examples of some of the additional costs
investors would incur (e.g., paying expenses for experts to testify at
a second hearing, or paying to transcribe the record of the prior
hearings) if a party requests a new panel.\33\ They believe the
additional costs in time and money would be substantial and would not
be covered by waiving the fees for any hearing sessions conducted prior
to the referral.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Estell Comment, Layne Comment, PIABA Comment, Bleecher
Comment, and Syracuse Comment.
    \32\ Id.
    \33\ Id.
    \34\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fourth, several commenters contend that the new panel request
provision would create a disincentive for arbitrators to make a mid-
case referral, because to do so would result in their likely removal
from the case.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Ledbetter Comment, Stephens Comment and Ryder Comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, several commenters noted that it would be unlikely that
arbitrators would learn of a serious, ongoing, or imminent threat
during the discovery phase of a case because the type of evidence
needed to support a mid-case referral is not typically provided during
discovery.\36\ According to these commenters, arbitrators generally do
not receive information or evidence during the discovery phase of a
case.\37\ Therefore, the rules would impact only arbitrations in which
hearings have begun.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Estell Comment, Layne Comment, PIABA Comment, and Bleecher
Comment.
    \37\ Id.
    \38\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several commenters supported FINRA's efforts to enhance enforcement
to thwart ongoing frauds and thus supported the concept of FINRA
amending its rules to broaden arbitrators' authority to make mid-case
referrals.\39\ In their comments, they indicated or implied that if the
proposal did not contain the new panel request provision, they could
support the proposal.\40\ These commenters questioned FINRA's concern
that arbitrators may be perceived as biased once an arbitrator makes a
mid-case referral, and that this bias could be grounds to vacate an
award rendered by the panel in place at the time of the referral.
Several \41\ commenters cited relevant case law, which supports the
view that arbitrators are permitted to form opinions based on the
evidence presented to them after they are appointed, and an award would
not be vacated because arbitrators developed their views prior to the
conclusion of the proceedings.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Stephens Comment, Steiner Comment, Ledbetter Comment, and
Cornell Comment.
    \40\ Id.
    \41\ Stephens Comment, Ledbetter Comment, and Davis Comment. The
Davis Comment opposes the proposal.
    \42\ See, e.g., Spector v. Torenberg, 852 F. Supp. 201, 209
(S.D.N.Y. 1994) (citing Ballantine Books Inc., 302 F.2d at 21).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA agrees that the new panel request provision may have the
unintended consequences of providing parties who would be the subject
of the referral with a tool to delay the outcome of an arbitration,
increase significantly claimants' costs, and create a disincentive for
arbitrators to make mid-case referrals. As these potential effects were
not FINRA's intent, FINRA is proposing to replace the original proposal
in its entirety with the amended proposal, which would remove the new
panel request provision and establish new referral criteria to reduce
the potential for a finding of arbitrator bias should an arbitrator
make a mid-case referral.
    The amended proposal would retain the requirement that the Director
notify parties of a mid-case referral, but would eliminate the new
panel request. By removing the new panel request mechanism, the amended
proposal could reduce the possibility that an entire panel would be
removed from an arbitration case before it has concluded. Thus, it is
less likely that the case would have to start over again if an
arbitrator makes a mid-case referral.\43\ Therefore, the customer would
be less likely to experience procedural disadvantages, significant
delays, and increased costs of starting the arbitration anew.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Accordingly, the fee waiver provisions that would have
compensated a claimant for hearings conducted prior to the referral
in the original proposal are no longer warranted, and have not been
included in the amended proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In place of the new panel request, FINRA would permit the parties
to request that the referring arbitrators recuse themselves. As the
Codes currently provide, any party may ask arbitrators to recuse
themselves from the panel for good cause, and the arbitrators, who are
the subject of the request, decide such requests. \44\ FINRA believes
this element of the amended proposal would provide those parties, who
believe the referring arbitrators are biased by making a mid-case
referral, with the opportunity to challenge the arbitrators'
neutrality. However, unlike the original proposal, the arbitrators
would not be required to withdraw from the case.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Supra note 12.
    \45\ An arbitrator is not precluded from developing views
regarding the merits of a dispute early in the proceedings, and an
award will not be vacated because he expresses those views.
Ballantine Books Inc., 302 F.2d at 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Even though case law supports the view that arbitrators are
permitted to form opinions based on the evidence presented to them
after they are appointed, FINRA is proposing new criteria in its
amended proposal to minimize the potential for a finding of arbitrator
bias in the event of a mid-case referral. First, FINRA would lower the
proposed threshold of certainty to require that the arbitrators believe
that there is an indication of an ongoing or imminent threat that
requires immediate action, rather than conclude that there is a fraud,
as the original proposal would have required.
    Second, the proposed rules would limit a mid-case referral to
information learned during a hearing. FINRA agrees with the commenters
that a mid-case referral should be based on information learned during
a hearing, so that the referral would be based on evidence presented by
the parties. As case law suggests, arbitrators are permitted, indeed
even expected, to form opinions based on the evidence presented to them
after they are appointed, and such an expression of those views would
not be considered proof of bias.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Health Services Management Corp. v. Hughes, 975 F.2d 1253,
1267 (7th Cir. 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, the amended proposal would provide only the President or
Director with the authority to determine whether to forward a mid-case
referral to other FINRA divisions. This requirement would insulate the
referring arbitrator from having to conclude definitively that there
was ongoing or imminent investor harm before making a mid-case
referral.
    Last, the amended proposal would add new language urging
arbitrators to weigh the need to make a referral immediately, rather
than waiting until the case is over, when an arbitration case is close
to completion. FINRA believes providing arbitrators with express
discretion to consider the timing of the mid-case referral and the
stage of the arbitration proceeding would minimize the impact of the
proposal on those customers whose hearings are almost completed.
    FINRA believes these modifications would address concerns raised by
comments filed with the SEC in response to the original proposal and
minimize the potential burdens on investor-claimants, while still
achieving its regulatory goals.

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2010-036 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2010-036. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between
the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2010-036
and should be submitted on or before August 19, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-19193 Filed 7-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P