PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request EPA, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances 2. OMB control number b. G None a. 2 0 7 0  0 1 5 8 __ __ __ __

3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. O Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. O Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes O No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. O Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title: Lead based Paint Pre Renovation Information Dissemination  TSCA Sec. 406( b)

8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) EPA ICR # 1669.03 9. Keywords Environmental Protection; Hazardous Substances; Lead Based Paint; Recordkeeping 10. Abstract Renovators of target housing are required to provide EPA's lead hazard information pamphlet to owners and occupants before beginning renovations for compensation. Renovators are also required to reveal the nature and extent of renovations in common areas of multifamily housing to occupants prior to beginning renovations for compensation.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. X Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. X Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. G Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. P Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 3,046,000 b. Total annual responses 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically N/ A % c. Total hours requested 2,938,546 d. Current OMB inventory 2,331,597 e. Difference + 606,949 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 0 2. Adjustment + 606,949 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars) a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 9,231 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 0 c. Total annualized cost requested 9,231 d. Current OMB inventory 3,622 e. Difference 5,609 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 0 2. Adjustment + 5,609 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Application for benefits e. Program planning or management b. Program evaluation f. Research c. General purpose statistics g. P Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. O Recordkeeping b. O Third party disclosure c. G Reporting 1. G On occasion 2. G Weekly 3. G Monthly 4. G Quarterly 5. G Semi annually 6. G Annually 7. G Biannually 8. G Other ( describe)

17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods? G Yes O No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Angela F. Hofmann, Director, Regulatory Coordination Staff Phone: 202 260 2922 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 RECEIVED OPPT NCIC 2003 July 25 9: 56AM OPPT 2003 0049 0001 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( i) Why the information is being collected; ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( i) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Official Angela F. Hofmann, Director Regulatory Coordination Staff ( OPPTS) Date Signature of Senior Official or Designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information ( OEI) Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 24 (Friday, February 4, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6500-6503]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2492]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63799; File No. SR-FINRA-2010-053]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting
Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Amendments
to the Panel Composition Rule, and Related Rules, of the Code of
Arbitration Procedure for Customer Disputes

January 31, 2011.

I. Introduction

    On October 25, 2010, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority,
Inc. (``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposal to amend the panel composition rule, and related rules, of the
Code of Arbitration Procedure for Customer Disputes (``Customer
Code''),\3\ to provide customers with the option to choose an all
public arbitration panel in all cases. The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on November 12, 2010.\4\
The Commission received 125 comments on the proposed rule change.\5\ Of
the comments received, 103 commenters support the proposal as filed, 21
commenters support the proposal with suggested modifications, and one
commenter opposes the proposal. On December 16, 2010, FINRA responded
to comments and filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\6\
The Commission is publishing this notice and order to solicit comment
on Amendment No. 1 and to approve, on an accelerated basis, the
proposal as modified by Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ FINRA Manual, Rule 12000, et seq., available on FINRA's Web
site, http:www.finra.org.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63250 (Nov. 5,
2010), 75 FR 69481 (Nov. 12, 2010) (``Notice'').
    \5\ The comment period ended on December 3, 2010; all comments
are posted on the Commission's Web site, http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
    \6\ See Response to Comments and Amendment No. 1. The text of
the proposal and Response to Comments and Amendment No. 1 are
available on FINRA's Web site, http:www.finra.org, at the principal
office of FINRA, and on the Commission's Web site, http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml. Amendment No. 1 imposes an additional
notice requirement from FINRA to customers, provides minor
clarifications regarding FINRA's original intent for the scope of
the rule change, and makes other minor technical edits. FINRA
identifies and discusses the particular commenters that support,
request modification and oppose the proposal in its Response to
Comments and Amendment No. 1. For the purposes of this Order, we
will use the same designations for the commenters that are used by
FINRA in that response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change as Modified by Amendment
No. 1

    FINRA proposed to amend the panel composition rule, and related
rules, of the Customer Code to provide customers with the option to
choose an all public arbitration panel in all cases.

A. Background

    Under the Customer Code, parties in arbitration participate in
selecting the arbitrators who serve on their cases. For customer claims
of more than $100,000, the Customer Code currently provides for a three
arbitrator panel \7\ comprised of a chair-qualified public
arbitrator,\8\ a public arbitrator,\9\ and a non-public arbitrator
(``Majority Public Panel'').\10\ FINRA uses its computerized Neutral
List Selection System (``NLSS'') to generate random lists of 10
arbitrators from each of these categories.\11\ The parties select their
panel through a process of striking and ranking the arbitrators on the
lists generated by NLSS. The Customer Code permits the parties to
strike the names of up to four arbitrators from each list. The parties
then rank the arbitrators remaining on the lists in order of
preference. FINRA appoints the panel from among the names remaining on
the lists that the parties return.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Rule 12401 provides for a single, chair-qualified public
arbitrator if the amount of the claim is not more than $100,000. It
provides for a three arbitrator panel if the amount of a claim is
more than $100,000, or is unspecified, or if the claim requests non-
monetary damages. The parties, in claims of more than $25,000, but
not more than $100,000, may agree in writing to have a three
arbitrator panel.
    \8\ Rule 12400(c) specifies the criteria for arbitrator
inclusion on the chairperson roster.
    \9\ Rule 12100(u) specifies the criteria FINRA uses to classify
arbitrators as public.
    \10\ Rule 12100(p) specifies the criteria FINRA uses to classify
arbitrators as non-public.
    \11\ Rule 12400.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. FINRA's Public Arbitrator Pilot Program

    In order to address the perception that FINRA's mandatory inclusion
of a non-public arbitrator (often referred to as the ``industry''
arbitrator) in the Majority Public Panel is not fair to customers,
FINRA launched a pilot program (``the Pilot'') that allows parties to
choose a panel of three public arbitrators instead of two public
arbitrators and one non-public arbitrator (``Optional All Public
Panel'').
    FINRA designed the Pilot to run for two sequential years (``Year
One'' and ``Year Two''), beginning October 6, 2008, and ending October
5, 2010. In Year One, 11 brokerage firms volunteered to participate in
the Pilot, each contributing a set number of cases to the Pilot per
year for two years. In Year Two, FINRA expanded the number of
participating brokerage firms to 14 firms. In addition, several of the
original participants increased their respective case commitments for
Year Two. Participating firms agreed to extend the Pilot for a third
year at the same case levels as Year Two, while FINRA proceeds with the
current rulemaking process. Year Three of the Pilot began October 6,
2010, and ends October 5, 2011, or upon implementation of this proposed
rule change, whichever comes first.
    Under the Pilot, only a customer may decide whether his or her case
should proceed under Pilot rules; the participating firms cannot select
the Pilot cases. Under the Pilot rules, the parties receive the same
three lists of proposed arbitrators that parties in non-Pilot cases
receive. However, in the Pilot cases, any party can strike up to four
arbitrators on the chair-qualified public arbitrator list, up to four
arbitrators on the public arbitrator list, as well as all of the
arbitrators on the non-public list. After striking arbitrators from the
lists, the parties will rank the remaining arbitrators in order of
preference and FINRA will appoint the panel from among the names
remaining on the lists that the parties return. By striking all the
arbitrators on the non-public list, any party may ensure a panel of
three public arbitrators.
    FINRA stated that reactions from participants in the Pilot indicate
that customer representatives strongly support the right of customers
to decide whether to exclude any non-public arbitrator.\12\ That
feedback led FINRA to propose amending the panel composition rule for
customer cases to follow the Pilot model, and to allow the customer
party to choose between the existing panel selection method and the
method used in the Pilot. Unlike the Pilot, however, the proposed rule
would apply to all customer disputes against

any firm and any registered representative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ During the Pilot FINRA conducted surveys, focus groups, and
met with customer representatives from the Securities Industry
Conference on Arbitration and FINRA's National Arbitration and
Mediation Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Details of the Proposed Rule Change

    FINRA based the proposed rule change on its experience with the
Pilot. Under the proposed rule change, a customer could elect either
arbitrator selection method within 35 days from service of the
Statement of Claim. If the customer declined to make an affirmative
election by the 35-day deadline, FINRA would apply the composition rule
for the existing Majority Public Panel.
    Under either panel selection option, the parties would receive
three lists--one with 10 chair-qualified public arbitrators, one with
10 public arbitrators, and one with 10 non-public arbitrators. The
parties would select their panel through a process of striking and
ranking the arbitrators on the lists. Under the Majority Public Panel
method, FINRA would permit each party to strike up to four arbitrators
on the chair-qualified public, public, and non-public lists, leaving at
least six arbitrator names remaining on each party's list. Under the
Optional All Public Panel, any party may strike up to four arbitrators
on the chair-qualified public and public lists, but may also strike all
proposed non-public arbitrators and thereby effectively choose a panel
of three public arbitrators.
    Currently, six rules enumerate the procedures for selecting,
appointing, and replacing arbitrators.\13\ FINRA proposed to
consolidate these six rules into two new rules: New Rule 12402 relating
to customer cases with one arbitrator, and new Rule 12403 relating to
customer cases with three arbitrators.\14\ New Rule 12402 would
describe the procedures for selecting, appointing, and replacing the
arbitrator in a single arbitrator case. New Rule 12403 would describe
the two options that customers have for selecting arbitrators and would
include the procedures for appointing and replacing arbitrators. The
proposed rule change would apply to all customer cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Rule 12402 (Composition of Arbitration Panels) specifies
the panel composition for all customer cases. Rules 12403
(Generating and Sending Lists to the Parties), 12404 (Striking and
Ranking Arbitrators), 12405 (Combining Lists), 12406 (Appointment of
Arbitrators; Discretion to Appoint Arbitrators Not on List), and
12411 (Replacement of Arbitrators) enumerate the procedures for
selecting, appointing, and replacing arbitrators.
    \14\ FINRA would delete current Rules 12402, 12403, 12404,
12405, 12406, and 12411 in their entirety. FINRA would renumber the
remaining rules in the 12400 series so that the numbering would
remain consecutive after FINRA consolidated the rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Comments

A. Customer Election of Panel Composition Method

    Some commenters suggested that the Optional All Public Panel method
of panel composition should be the default instead of the Majority
Public Panel method.\15\ Commenters also raised concerns that customers
without attorneys (``pro se'' claimants), or attorneys new to the
practice of securities arbitration, might not elect the Optional All
Public Panel method within the prescribed deadline, or might not
appreciate the benefit of electing this method.\16\ One commenter
stated that pro se claimants may be confused by receiving a list of
non-public arbitrators after making the election for the Optional All
Public Panel method.\17\ Another commenter suggested that, if a
customer elects to proceed with the Optional All Public Panel method of
panel composition, the parties should only receive lists of public
arbitrators (i.e., they should not receive a list of non-public
arbitrators).\18\ Finally, two commenters asked FINRA to clarify
whether customers may make their panel composition election at the time
of filing the Statement of Claim.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Haigney comment, Sutherland comment, Black and Gross
comment, Berg comment, PIABA comment; St. John's comment; and NASAA
comment.
    \16\ See Haigney comment.
    \17\ See NASAA comment. The comment also suggests that FINRA
change the ``majority public panel'' option label to ``mixed
affiliation'' and that FINRA describe the term ``non-public
arbitrator'' as ``industry-affiliated.'' In its response to
comments, FINRA stated that the Majority Public Panel label clearly
describes the panel composition and that changing the term ``non-
public'' at this point would cause confusion.
    \18\ See Berg comment.
    \19\ See the Haigney comment and the PIABA comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA responded to these comments by stating that it believes it is
appropriate to have customers elect the Optional All Public Panel
method rather than having that option as the default.\20\ During the
Pilot, a substantial percentage of customers opted for a Majority
Public Panel. From launch of the Pilot in October 2008, until December
1, 2010, in 74 percent of cases eligible for the Pilot, customers
accepted a non-public arbitrator on their panel either by choosing not
to participate in the Pilot or by ranking one or more non-public
arbitrators.\21\ FINRA stated that there were very few complaints from
customers that they were not aware of the Pilot and that it is
appropriate to have customers elect, rather than be defaulted to, the
Optional All Public Panel method.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Response to Comments and Amendment No. 1, supra, note
6.
    \21\ Id.
    \22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While FINRA indicated that the percentage of pro se claimants that
file arbitration claims over $100,000 at FINRA is very small, to
respond to the commenters' concerns relating to pro se claimants and to
attorneys new to the practice of securities arbitration, FINRA is
proposing to amend the proposed rule change to state that FINRA will
notify the customer in writing that the customer has 35 days from
service of the Statement of Claim to elect the Optional All Public
Panel method. Further, FINRA will highlight the rule change in its case
filing instructions, website information, and other materials, as
applicable. FINRA stated that it believes that amending the proposed
rule change to add a customer notification provision and highlighting
in its written materials how the panel composition methods work will
ensure that customers understand how to elect the Optional All Public
Panel method and are aware of the applicable deadlines for election.
FINRA also stated that during the Pilot, a substantial percentage of
customers opted for a majority public panel and for this reason did not
change the selection process in the proposal.
    With regard to the comment that customers electing the Optional All
Public Panel receive three lists of public arbitrators, FINRA stated
that given the data FINRA compiled from the Pilot, it did not at this
time find persuasive the comments requesting that customers receive a
list only of public arbitrators.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Response to Comments and Amendment No. 1, supra, note
6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA also stated that it intends to allow customers to make their
election of the Optional All Public Panel in the Statement of Claim (or
correspondence accompanying the Statement of Claim) in instances when
the customers are claimants.\24\ Therefore, FINRA is proposing to amend
the proposed rule change to state that the customer may elect in
writing to proceed under either the composition rules for the Majority
Public Panel or the composition rules for the Optional All Public Panel
in the customer's Statement of Claim, if the customer is a claimant, or
at any time up to 35 days from service of the Statement of Claim,
whether the customer is a complainant or respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, FINRA is proposing to correct an error in the title of
proposed Rule 12403(b) which, as proposed, states ``Customer Claimant
Election.'' FINRA proposes to amend the title to

eliminate the reference to ``Claimant'' because a customer may be a
respondent in FINRA arbitration and FINRA intends the proposed rule
change to apply to all customer disputes regardless of whether
customers are claimants or respondents.

B. Effect of Proposed Rule Change on Individually Named Registered
Representatives

    The proposed rule change would apply to all firms and all
registered representatives. One commenter opposed applying the proposed
rule change to individually named registered representatives.\25\
According to the commenter, FINRA should provide registered
representatives with the procedural protection of having a non-public
arbitrator on their arbitration panel. FINRA stated that it believes
that the commenter's suggestion is unworkable.\26\ If FINRA does not
apply the proposed rule change to individually named registered
representatives, customers that wish to proceed under the Optional All
Public Panel method for their claims against firms would be compelled
to bifurcate their claims against firms from their claims against
registered representatives. Moreover, if the firm wishes to assert a
third party claim against a registered representative in a customer
case where a customer elected the Optional All Public Panel composition
method, the firm's claim could interfere with the customer's election
of the Optional All Public Panel. Finally, FINRA believes that
bifurcation of customers' claims is likely to result in higher overall
arbitration costs for customers. FINRA, thus, concluded that the
consequences of the commenter's suggestion would make the suggestion
inefficient and impractical.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See SIFMA comment.
    \26\ See Response to Comments and Amendment No. 1, supra, note
6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Inclusion of a Non-Public Arbitrator

    Two commenters stated that inclusion of a non-public arbitrator
would benefit all the parties to a dispute, as well as the public
arbitrators on the panel, by appropriately educating them about
industry-related issues.\27\ One commenter stated that the non-public
arbitrator may also reduce costs for the parties by limiting the need
for the parties to call expert witnesses.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See SIFMA comment and Wacht comment.
    \28\ See SIFMA comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In contrast, a number of commenters stated that parties frequently
use expert witnesses in cases with majority public panels, which limits
the need for the non-public arbitrator's industry expertise and any
potential cost savings.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Neuman comment, Shewan comment, Banks comment, and
Rosenberg comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Pilot and the amended rules, customers who do not elect
the Optional All Public Panel selection method, will continue to have a
panel that includes a non-public arbitrator. FINRA stated that it
received feedback on the Pilot from both investor and industry
attorneys that indicates that panel composition made no difference in
how parties used experts to try their cases.\30\ In addition, a number
of commenters expressed concerns about the non-public arbitrator
offering expert opinions to the other arbitrators where those opinions
would not be subject to cross-examination.\31\ Regarding the comments
that a non-public arbitrator may act as an expert witness not subject
to cross-examination, FINRA stated that it believes that the proposed
rule mitigates the concern because any customer that shares this
concern may elect the Optional All Public Panel.\32\ Therefore, FINRA
did not amend the proposal as it relates to the non-public arbitrator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Response to Comments and Amendment No. 1, supra, note
6.
    \31\ See Aidikoff comment, Coleman comment, Amato comment,
Eccleston comment, Goldstein comment, Karen comment, Fogel comment,
Cornell comment, Mihalek comment, PIABA comment, and NASAA comment.
    \32\ See Response to Comments and Amendment No. 1, supra, note
6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Request To Reject the Proposed Rule Change

    One commenter requested that the Commission reject the proposed
rule change as contrary to the public interest.\33\ The commenter
stated that FINRA has other tools to correct the public's perception
that FINRA arbitration is not fair to investors. FINRA stated that it
believes that the results of the Pilot, the public's feedback on the
program, and the overwhelming support reflected in the comments
submitted on the proposed rule change support the need to provide
customers with the choice of whether to select an Optional All Public
Panel or a Majority Public Panel.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See Wacht comment.
    \34\ See Response to Comments and Amendment No. 1, supra, note
6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Comments Outside the Scope of the Proposed Rule Change

    Commenters raised a number of additional issues, including concerns
regarding mandatory arbitration of investor disputes; \35\ the
definition of ``public arbitrator''; \36\ investor arbitration fees;
\37\ the discovery process at FINRA; \38\ the NLSS; and blue sky
laws.\39\ Stating that all of these comments are outside of the scope
of the proposed rule change, FINRA declined to make changes to address
them.\40\ FINRA also stated that it believes its arbitration forum is
fair, and highlighted that it does not require firms to use pre-dispute
arbitration clauses.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See: Layne comment, Steiner comment, Chalmers comment,
Gladden comment, Estell comment, Sutherland comment, Furgison
comment, Healy comment, Samson comment, Berg comment, Miller
comment, Ilgenfritz comment, Rosenfield comment, Bleecher comment,
Mihalek comment, and NASAA comment.
    \36\ See Goldstein comment.
    \37\ See Layne comment.
    \38\ See Layne comment and Estell comment.
    \39\ See Estell comment.
    \40\ See Response to Comments and Amendment No. 1, supra, note
6.
    \41\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion and Finding

    After carefully reviewing the proposed rule change, the comment
letters, and FINRA's Response to Comments and Amendment No. 1, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to a national securities association.\42\ In particular, the
Commission believes that the proposed rule change, as amended, is
consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act, 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.\43\ The Commission believes the
proposed rule change, as amended, will enhance the public's perception
that the FINRA securities arbitration process and rules are fair and
would promote just and equitable principles of trade by giving
investors additional choices regarding the composition of panels that
will hear their cases. This, in turn, should help enhance public
confidence in, and perception of, the fairness of the FINRA arbitration
forum. We understand that FINRA plans to implement this rule change as
soon as possible to provide this option to as many customers as
possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the rule change's impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \43\ See 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Accelerated Approval

    The Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of
the

Act,\44\ for approving the proposed rule change, as amended, prior to
the 30th day after the date of publication in the Federal Register. The
changes proposed in Amendment No. 1 do not raise novel regulatory
concerns. Moreover, accelerating approval of this proposal should
benefit investors by providing customers with the immediate option to
select an all public arbitration panel for all cases. Accordingly, the
Commission finds that good cause exists to approve the proposal, as
modified by Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. 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-2010-053 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-2010-053. 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-2010-053
and should be submitted on or before February 25, 2011.

VII. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\45\ that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2010-053), as modified
by Amendment No. 1, be, and hereby is, approved on an accelerated
basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \46\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\46\
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-2492 Filed 2-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 6, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9456-9459]
[FR Doc No: 2018-04487]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2018-0029]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone for Fireworks Display; Patapsco River, Inner Harbor,
Baltimore, MD

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone
for certain waters of the Patapsco River. This action is necessary to
provide for the safety of life on the navigable waters of the Inner
Harbor at Baltimore, MD, during a fireworks display on April 21, 2018.
If necessary, due to inclement weather, the event will be rescheduled
to April 22, 2018. This action will prohibit persons and vessels from
entering the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port
Maryland-National Capital Region or a designated representative. We
invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before April 5, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2018-0029 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email Mr. Ronald Houck, Sector Maryland-
National Capital Region Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast
Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

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

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On December 15, 2017, the Baltimore Office of Promotion and The
Arts notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting a fireworks
display from 11:59 p.m. on April 21, 2018, to 12:06 a.m. on April 22,
2018, or if necessary, due to inclement weather, from 11:59 p.m. on
April 22, 2018 to 12:06 a.m. on April 23, 2018. Final details of the
event were received by the Coast Guard on January 30, 2018. The public
fireworks display will be conducted by Fireworks by Grucci, Inc., and
launched from five floating platforms located within the waters of
Inner Harbor Baltimore, between Inner Harbor Pier 3 and Inner Harbor
Pier 5 in Baltimore, MD. Hazards from firework displays include
accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling
hot embers or other debris. The COTP has determined that potential
hazards associated with the fireworks to be used in this display would
be a safety concern for anyone within 75 yards of each of the five
fireworks discharge sites.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of persons
and vessels on the navigable waters of the Inner Harbor before, during,
and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking
under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP proposes to establish a safety zone from 11 p.m. on April
21, 2018, until 1 a.m. on April 22, 2018, or if necessary, due to
inclement weather, from 11 p.m. on April 22, 2018, until 1 a.m. on
April 23, 2018. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of the
Patapsco River, Inner Harbor, from shoreline to shoreline, within an
area bounded on the east by longitude 076[deg]36'12'' W, and bounded on
the west by the Inner Harbor west bulkhead, located at Baltimore, MD.
The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of persons
and vessels on the specified navigable waters before, during, and after
the scheduled 11:59 p.m. fireworks display. No vessel or person will be
permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from
the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text we are
proposing appears at the end of this document.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed 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 NPRM has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, the NPRM 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-day of the safety zone. Although this
safety zone would restrict the entire width of the waterway, it would
impact a small designated area of the Inner Harbor for two hours during
the evening when vessel traffic is normally low. The Coast Guard will
issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine band channel 16
to provide information about the safety 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
proposed rule would 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
IV.A above this proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
    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 proposed 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. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action
of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would 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 proposed 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 proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would 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 proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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 proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made
a preliminary determination 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 proposed rule involves a safety
zone lasting two hours that would prohibit vessel movement within the
Inner Harbor at Baltimore, MD. Normally such actions are categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A,
Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A preliminary
Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any
comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

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.

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, visit http://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.

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 proposes
to amend 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: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 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.T05-0029 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T05-0029   Safety Zone for Fireworks Display; Patapsco River,
Inner Harbor, Baltimore, MD.

    (a) Definitions. As used in this section:
    (1) Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region means the
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region.
    (2) Designated representative means any Coast Guard commissioned,
warrant, or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the
Port Maryland-National Capital Region to assist in enforcement of the
safety zone described in paragraph (a) of this section.
    (b) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable
waters of the Patapsco River, Inner Harbor, from shoreline to
shoreline, within an area bounded on the east by longitude
076[deg]36'12'' W, and bounded on the west by the Inner Harbor west
bulkhead, located at Baltimore, MD. All coordinates refer to datum NAD
1983.
    (c) Regulations. The general safety zone regulations found in 33
CFR part 165, subpart C apply to the safety zone created by this
section.
    (1) All persons are required to comply with the general regulations
governing safety zones found in 33 CFR 165.23.
    (2) Entry into or remaining in this safety zone is prohibited
unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Maryland-
National Capital Region. All vessels underway within this safety zone
at the time it is implemented are to depart the zone.
    (3) Persons desiring to transit the area of the safety zone shall
obtain authorization from the Captain of the Port Maryland-National
Capital Region or designated representative. To request permission to
transit the area, the Captain of the Port Maryland-National

Capital Region and or designated representatives can be contacted at
telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER> or on marine band radio VHF-FM channel 16
(156.8 MHz). The Coast Guard vessels enforcing this section can be
contacted on marine band radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Upon
being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel, or other Federal, State, or
local agency vessel, by siren, radio, flashing light, or other means,
the operator of a vessel shall proceed as directed. If permission is
granted to enter the safety zone, all persons and vessels shall comply
with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Maryland-National
Capital Region or designated representative and proceed as directed
while within the zone.
    (4) Enforcement officials. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in
the patrol and enforcement of the zone by Federal, State, and local
agencies.
    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 11 p.m.
on April 21, 2018, until 1 a.m. on April 22, 2018, or if necessary, due
to inclement weather, from 11 p.m. on April 22, 2018, until 1 a.m. on
April 23, 2018.

    Dated: February 22, 2018.
Lonnie P. Harrison, Jr.,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Maryland-National
Capital Region.
[FR Doc. 2018-04487 Filed 3-5-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


The data in this folder this disc includes the mercury concentrations of
the raw materials and fuels as well as the TOC concentrations of the raw
materials for the Sugar Creek Plant.