[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 236 (Thursday, December 8, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 88720-88724]
[FR Doc No: 2016-29385]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79455; File No. SR-FINRA-2016-033]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule
12400 of the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Customer Disputes and
Rule 13400 of the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Industry Disputes
Relating To Broadening Chairperson Eligibility in Arbitration

December 2, 2016.

I. Introduction

    On August 18, 2016, 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 (``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend Rules 12400 of the Code
of Arbitration Procedure for Customer Disputes (``Customer Code'') and
Rule 13400 of the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Industry Disputes
(``Industry Code'' and, together with the Customer Code, ``Codes'').\3\
The proposed rule change would allow an attorney arbitrator to qualify
for the chairperson roster if he or she completes chairperson training
and serves as an arbitrator through award on at least one arbitration.
The Codes currently require that an attorney must serve as arbitrator
through award on at least two arbitrations in order to qualify for the
chairperson roster.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See File No. SR-FINRA-2016-033.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on September 6, 2016.\4\ The public comment period closed on
September 27, 2016. The Commission received five (5) comment letters on
the proposed amendments.\5\ On October 14, 2016, FINRA extended the
time period in which the Commission must approve the proposed rule
change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings
to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change
to December 5, 2016.\6\ On November 22, 2016, FINRA responded to the
comment letters received in response to the Notice.\7\ This order
approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Exchange Act Release No. 78729 (Aug. 30, 2016); 81 FR
61288 (Sept. 6, 2016) (``Notice'').
    \5\ See Letters from Steven B. Caruso, Esq., Maddox Hargett
Caruso, P.C. (Aug. 31, 2016) (``Caruso Letter''); Ryan K. Bakhtiari,
Aidikoff, Uhl and Bakhtiari (Sept. 9, 2016) (``Bakhtiari Letter'');
Hugh Berkson, President, Public Investors Arbitration Bar
Association (``PIABA'') (Sept. 23, 2016) (``PIABA Letter''); Nicole
Iannarone, Asst. Clinical Professor, and Geoffrey R. Hafer, Student
Intern, Investor Advocacy Clinic, Georgia State University College
of Law (``GSU'') (Sept. 26, 2016) (``GSU Letter''); and David T.
Bellaire, Esq., Executive Vice President and General Counsel,
Financial Services Institute (``FSI'') (Sept. 27, 2016) (``FSI
Letter''). The comment letters are available on FINRA's Web site at
http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA, at the
Commission's Web site at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-finra-2016-033/finra2016033.shtml, and at the Commission's Public Reference
Room.
    \6\ See Letter from Margo A. Hassan, Associate Chief Counsel,
FINRA, to Lourdes Gonzalez, Assistant Chief Counsel--Sales
Practices, Division of Trading and Markets, Securities and Exchange
Commission, dated October 14, 2016.
    \7\ See Letter from Margo A. Hassan, Associate Chief Counsel,
FINRA, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange the
Commission, dated November 22, 2016 (``FINRA Letter''). The FINRA
Letter is available on FINRA's Web site at http://www.finra.org, at
the principal office of FINRA, at the Commission's Web site at
https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-finra-2016-033/finra2016033.shtml,
and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The subsequent description of the proposed rule change is
substantially excerpted from FINRA's description in the Notice. See
Notice, 81 FR at 61288-61289.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    FINRA arbitrators possess the broad authority to ``interpret and
determine the applicability of all provisions under the Code[s]. Such
interpretations are final and binding upon the parties.'' \9\ To
facilitate the fair administration of proceedings in the FINRA forum,
arbitrators must possess sufficient qualifications and participate in
appropriate training \10\--particularly where an arbitrator presides
over the proceeding as chairperson, with the authority to, among other
things, direct witness appearances, order the production of documents
and information, and set deadlines in a given case.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See FINRA Rules 12409 (Jurisdiction of Panel and Authority
to Interpret the Code) and 13413 (Jurisdiction of Panel and
Authority to Interpret the Code).
    \10\ See Notice, 81 FR 61289.
    \11\ See FINRA Office of Dispute Resolution Arbitrator's Guide
(Oct. 2016), at page 31, available at http://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/arbitrators-ref-guide.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA maintains a roster of non-public arbitrators,\12\ public
arbitrators,\13\ and arbitrators who are eligible to serve as
chairperson in each of its 71 hearing locations.\14\ FINRA employs its
computerized Neutral List Selection System to randomly generate lists
of potential arbitrators for each proceeding from these rosters.\15\
The parties then select their arbitrators through a process of striking
and ranking the names on the list generated by the Neutral List
Selection System.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For the definition of ``non-public arbitrator,'' see FINRA
Rules 12100(p) and 13100(p).
    \13\ For the definition of ``public arbitrator,'' see FINRA
Rules 12100(u) and 13100(u).
    \14\ See FINRA Rules 12400(b) and 13400(b).
    \15\ See FINRA Rules 12400(a) and 13400(a).
    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Codes provide that arbitrators are eligible for the chairperson
roster if they have completed chairperson training provided by FINRA
and:
     Have a law degree and are a member of a bar of at least
one jurisdiction, and have served as an arbitrator through award on at
least two arbitrations administered by a self-regulatory organization
in which hearings were held; or
     Have served as an arbitrator through award on at least
three arbitrations administered by a self-regulatory organization in
which hearings were held.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See FINRA Rules 12400(c) and 13400(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, in customer disputes, chairpersons must be public
arbitrators.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See FINRA Rule 12400(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In February 2015, the Commission approved a proposal by FINRA to
amend its definition of ``public arbitrator,'' \19\ The amended
definition

took effect in June 2015,\20\ resulting in the reclassification of
approximately 13.8 percent of public arbitrators as non-public
arbitrators, and the rendering of 2.6 percent of its public arbitrator
roster as temporarily disqualified or ineligible for service.\21\ Many
of the arbitrators who were reclassified or disqualified had been
chair-qualified prior to the amendment.\22\ Currently, FINRA's rosters
contain approximately 6,750 arbitrators, of which 3,060 are currently
classified as public. Of those classified as public arbitrators,
approximately 1,000 are deemed chair-qualified.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Exchange Act Release No. 74383 (Feb. 26, 2015), 80 FR
11695 (Mar. 4, 2015) (Order Approving Filing No. SR-FINRA-2014-028)
(in part narrowing the public arbitrator definition by adding
disqualifications relating to, among other things, affiliations with
the securities industry concerning an arbitrator's family member or
place of employment).
    \20\ See Notice, 81 FR 61288.
    \21\ See id.
    \22\ See id.
    \23\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA contends that forum users have complained about the
diminished availability of public chairpersons after the amendment to
the public arbitrator definition. FINRA also states that forum users
have complained of scheduling difficulties and additional costs
associated with traveling chairpersons (i.e., public chairpersons that
FINRA asks to travel to other hearing locations to expand the roster of
available public chairpersons for a given location), as well as out-of-
town arbitrators' lack of familiarity with local venue customs and
procedures.\24\ Moreover, FINRA states that it has had limited success
in enrolling new public chairpersons, and that the need for public
chairpersons could potentially surpass the availability of public
chairpersons who meet the qualifications under the existing Codes.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See id.
    \25\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule Change
    FINRA is proposing to amend the eligibility requirements under the
Codes for arbitrators who seek to qualify as chairpersons. The
amendment would allow an attorney arbitrator to qualify for the
chairperson roster if he or she completes chairperson training and
serves as an arbitrator through award on at least one arbitration
administered by a self-regulatory organization where hearings are held,
instead of two arbitrations (as is currently required). FINRA is also
proposing to replace the bullets in Rules 12400 and 13400 with numbers
for ease of citation.
    FINRA states that reducing the case experience requirement for
would-be arbitrators from two arbitrations to one arbitration could add
more than 270 attorney arbitrators across 59 of its 71 hearing
locations, potentially resulting in a nearly 30 percent increase in the
number of arbitrators who might be eligible to serve as public
chairpersons once they take chairperson training.\26\ FINRA also
believes that the proposed rule change would increase the availability
of local chairpersons for forum users, lowering instances in which
chairpersons must travel, and ameliorating parties' concerns regarding
out-of-town arbitrators.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See id. at 61289.
    \27\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Comments and FINRA's Response

    The Commission received five (5) comment letters on the proposed
rule change,\28\ and a response letter from FINRA.\29\ Three commenters
supported the amendment,\30\ and two generally supported the amendment
while advocating for further action.\31\ FINRA's response to
commenters' concerns and suggestions are incorporated below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See supra note 5.
    \29\ See supra note 7.
    \30\ See Caruso Letter, Bakhtiari Letter, and FSI Letter.
    \31\ See PIABA Letter and GSU Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment Letters in Support of the Proposal
    As noted above, three commenters supported FINRA's proposed
amendments to the Codes. One commenter stated that the proposal would
``be a fair, equitable and reasonable approach that would facilitate
the increased appointment of local chairpersons to arbitration panels
and, at the same time, would reduce the necessity for the appointment
of out-of-state chairpersons.'' \32\ A second commenter supported the
proposed amendment on the ground that it ``would significantly increase
the available number of arbitrators included on the Chair roster and
represents an important step towards increasing the probability of
drawing local chairpersons in suburban or remote hearing locations.''
\33\ A third commenter supported the proposal based on its belief that
the requirement of a law degree and participation in one arbitration
through award are reasonable criteria for a public chair.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Caruso Letter.
    \33\ See Bakhtiari Letter.
    \34\ See FSI Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Supportive Comment Letters Recommending Modifications to the Proposal
    Two comment letters recommended modifications to the proposal,
while generally expressing support for the proposal. One commenter
stated that investors would ``benefit from a larger pool of qualified
public chairpersons'' and generally supported the proposed rule as ``a
positive step in regards to increasing the number of arbitrators in
proposed chair pools[.]'' \35\ Another commenter stated that it
``applaud[s] FINRA's decision to expand the public arbitrator chair
pool[.]'' \36\ However, both commenters raised additional concerns and
suggestions for the proposed amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See PIABA Letter.
    \36\ See GSU Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Enhancing Transparency of the Arbitrator Selection Process

    One commenter advocated for greater transparency regarding
arbitrators' backgrounds and qualifications, as well as greater
transparency in the arbitrator selection process generally in order to
improve investor confidence in FINRA arbitrators.\37\ According to this
commenter, FINRA's current disclosure system, which provides
information regarding arbitrators' education, employment history and
potential conflicts, is insufficient to eliminate the appearance of
impropriety and bias.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See PIABA Letter.
    \38\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, FINRA stated that it produces a disclosure report
reflecting the prior employment, educational history, and previous
arbitration awards for every potential arbitrator during the
appointment process.\39\ FINRA also requires arbitrators to either
certify the accuracy of the information in the disclosure report or
update the report when they are appointed to a case.\40\ In addition,
FINRA reminds arbitrators on a quarterly basis to review their
disclosure reports and revise them as needed. Moreover, FINRA stated
that it is revising its disclosure reporting system to alert parties of
the last time the arbitrator certified the accuracy of the information
contained therein.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See FINRA Letter.
    \40\ Id.
    \41\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Use of Out-of-Town Arbitrators and Recruitment Initiatives

    One commenter stated that the overall reduction in the number of
eligible chairpersons has reduced the pool of local chairpersons, and
caused FINRA to ask non-local chairpersons to travel to

multiple hearing locations.\42\ This commenter believes that the use of
non-local arbitrators has resulted in inconvenience, delay, and
additional costs to parties, and has led to a decrease in customer
awards because of non-local arbitrators' purported bias in favor of the
industry.\43\ For these reasons, the commenter suggested that, to the
extent possible, FINRA should eliminate the use of non-local
arbitrators and increase the size of regional pools--especially where
out-of-state arbitrators regularly appear on public and chair-qualified
ranking lists.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See PIABA Letter.
    \43\ See id.
    \44\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its response, FINRA stated that it uses arbitrators in
neighboring hearing locations ``to ensure an effective ratio of
available arbitrators to open cases in each location[.]'' \45\ For
example, ``as an interim measure, FINRA took steps to bolster the pool
of arbitrators in smaller hearing locations that were impacted by the
amended public arbitrator definition by asking chairs from larger
hearing locations . . . if they would be willing to serve[.]'' \46\
FINRA also stated, however, that it agrees that it should increase the
size of its public arbitrator pool, and stated that it has been
``actively recruiting new arbitrators, paying particular attention to
locations with the greatest need.'' \47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See FINRA Letter.
    \46\ Id.
    \47\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Additional Chairperson Training and Mentorship

    One commenter expressed the concern that the proposed rule change
might sacrifice chairperson quality at the expense of chairperson
quantity, as ``quality pools are paramount to a fair and equitable
arbitration proceeding, as well as the public investors' confidence in
the overall arbitration process.'' \48\ The commenter therefore
recommended, in part, that FINRA adopt a ``Chairperson Mentor program''
to increase the quality of chair-qualified arbitrators.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See PIABA Letter.
    \49\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another commenter similarly asserted that, by expanding chairperson
eligibility, the proposed rule change would reduce arbitrators'
exposure to live proceedings prior to serving as a chair.\50\ To
address this reduction in experience, the commenter proposed that FINRA
``include in the Office of Dispute Resolution Chairperson Training a
module or section that specifically addresses the procedural and
substantive issues that regularly arise in live arbitration
proceedings.'' \51\ Alternatively, the commenter proposed that FINRA
require arbitrators to observe a live or mock proceeding before
becoming eligible to serve as a public chair.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ See GSU Letter.
    \51\ Id.
    \52\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, FINRA stated that, earlier this year, it implemented a
chairperson mentorship program to facilitate interaction between new
chairpersons and experienced chairpersons.\53\ In addition, in November
2016, FINRA provided arbitrators access to online workshops that
address issues chairpersons regularly encounter.\54\ Moreover, FINRA
stated that it regularly invites qualified arbitrators to complete
chairperson training.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ See FINRA Letter.
    \54\ Id.
    \55\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Simplifying the Arbitrator Application Process

    One commenter expressed concern that the arbitrator application
process is ``burdensome and intimidating and surely drives away many
potential arbitrators which further weakens the number and quality of
arbitrators available in the FINRA system.'' \56\ Accordingly, PIABA
suggested that FINRA simplify the arbitrator application process.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ See PIABA Letter.
    \57\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA responded that, in 2017, it plans to replace the ``time-
consuming'' ``Securities Disputes Experience'' section of the
arbitrator application with a section that allows applicants to explain
their securities disputes expertise and skills in narrative form.\58\
FINRA believes that this change will simplify the arbitrator
application process.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ See FINRA Letter.
    \59\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Revisiting the ``Public Arbitrator'' Definition

    One commenter cited the 2015 amendments to the definition of
``Public Arbitrator'' as a significant contributor to the reduction in
the chairperson roster overall and disproportionately for claimants
with smaller claims.\60\ For instance, GSU stated that there are only
40 chair-qualified arbitrators in its primary hearing location,
Atlanta.\61\ The commenter thus recommended that FINRA revisit the 2015
amendments to the public arbitrator definition as a means for
increasing the chairperson roster.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ See GSU Letter.
    \61\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, FINRA stated that it had revisited the 2015 amendments
to the arbitrator definitions and determined not to change the public
arbitrator definition, as FINRA deemed it important for public
arbitrators to have no significant affiliation with the financial
industry.\62\ However, FINRA noted that a gap exists between the public
and non-public arbitrator definitions, which excludes otherwise
qualified individuals from service as arbitrators--often because of
family or co-workers' affiliations.\63\ According to FINRA, in
September 2016, its Board of Governors authorized FINRA to file with
the Commission proposed amendments to Rules 12100 and 13100 of the
Codes to revise the non-public arbitrator definition.\64\ These
amendments would define a non-public arbitrator as a person who is
otherwise qualified to serve as an arbitrator, and is disqualified from
classification as a public arbitrator.\65\ By closing this gap, FINRA
asserted that it could expand its roster of available arbitrators.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ See FINRA Letter.
    \63\ Id.
    \64\ Id.
    \65\ Id.
    \66\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion and Commission Findings

    The Commission has carefully considered the proposal, the comments
received, and FINRA's response to the comments. Based on its review of
the record, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
association.\67\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Exchange
Act,\68\ which requires, among other things, that FINRA's rules be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission has
also considered its impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \68\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the proposal would amend Rules 12400 and 13400
of the Codes to allow an attorney arbitrator to qualify for the
chairperson roster if he or she completes chairperson training and
serves as an arbitrator through award on at least one arbitration
administered by a self-regulatory

organization where hearings are held, instead of two arbitrations (as
is currently required). It would also replace the bullets in Rules
12400 and 13400 with numbers for ease of citation.
    The Commission has considered the five (5) comment letters received
on the proposed rule change,\69\ along with FINRA's response to the
comments.\70\ The Commission acknowledges the supportive commenters'
positions that the proposal would ``be a fair, equitable and reasonable
approach that would facilitate the increased appointment of local
chairpersons to arbitration panels,'' \71\ that it ``would
significantly increase the available number of arbitrators included on
the Chair roster and represents an important step towards increasing
the probability of drawing local chairpersons in suburban or remote
hearing locations,'' \72\ and that the requirement of a law degree and
participation in one arbitration through award are reasonable criteria
for a public chair.\73\ However, the Commission also acknowledges
commenters' concerns and recommended modifications to the proposal.\74\
These concerns and modifications are discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ See supra note 5.
    \70\ See supra note 7.
    \71\ See Caruso Letter.
    \72\ See Bakhtiari Letter.
    \73\ See FSI Letter.
    \74\ See PIABA Letter and GSU Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Enhancing Transparency of the Arbitrator Selection Process

    The Commission acknowledges the commenter's concern that FINRA's
current disclosure system does not always eliminate the appearance of
impropriety and bias in the FINRA arbitration forum, and agrees that
transparency in the arbitrator selection process improves investor
confidence in FINRA arbitrators.\75\ However, the Commission believes
that FINRA's disclosure reporting system provides parties with a basis
on which to identify potential arbitrator conflicts and biases.
Moreover, the Commission believes that by reminding arbitrators to
update their disclosure reports, and notifying parties of the last date
an arbitrator certified the accuracy of the disclosure report, FINRA
will further help ensure that parties have up-to-date information on
which to base their arbitrator selections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ See PIABA Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Use of Out-of-Town Arbitrators and Recruitment Initiatives

    The Commission acknowledges the commenter's concerns regarding the
inconvenience, delay, and additional costs caused by the use of non-
local arbitrators.\76\ However, given the reported insufficient levels
of local chairpersons in certain hearing locations,\77\ the Commission
does not believe it is feasible or practical to eliminate the use of
non-local arbitrators, as the commenter suggested.\78\ Instead, the
Commission acknowledges the necessity of FINRA's policy of asking
public chairs from larger, geographically proximate hearing locations
to serve as chairpersons in regions with insufficient levels of local
qualified chairpersons. The Commission additionally supports FINRA's
increased arbitrator recruitment efforts, and anticipates that such
efforts will eventually result in a broader, more diverse pool of
arbitrator candidates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ Id.
    \77\ See FINRA Letter.
    \78\ See PIABA Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Additional Chairperson Training and Mentorship

    With regard to commenters' concerns that the proposed amendment
might decrease the quality and experience of arbitrator chairpersons at
the expense of increasing the quantity of chairpersons, the Commission
acknowledges their recommendation that a mentor program or additional
trainings should be provided to chairpersons.\79\ The Commission
generally believes that FINRA's implementation of a chairperson
mentorship program, as well as its increased provision of and focus on
arbitrator trainings should effectively address the commenters'
concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ See PIABA Letter and GSU Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Simplifying the Arbitrator Application Process

    The Commission acknowledges the concern expressed regarding FINRA's
purportedly burdensome and intimidating arbitrator application process,
and the potential deterrent effect the process might have on would-be
arbitrator applicants.\80\ However, the Commission believes that a
rigorous application process is necessary to verify the qualifications
of arbitrator candidates. Furthermore, the Commission expects that
FINRA's use of a narrative application section where applicants can
explain their securities disputes expertise and skills will simplify
the arbitrator application process without degrading the value of the
elicited information, thereby addressing the commenter's concern.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ See PIABA Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Revisiting the ``Public Arbitrator'' Definition

    The Commission acknowledges the commenter's suggestion that FINRA
reconsider the 2015 amendments to the public arbitrator definition in
an effort to combat the resulting reduction in the chairperson
roster.\81\ However, at the time the Commission approved the 2015
amendments to the public arbitrator definition, the Commission
determined that the approach proposed by FINRA was appropriate and
designed to protect investors and the public interest, consistent with
Section 15A(b)(6) of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder.\82\ Accordingly, the Commission also gives due regard to
FINRA's decision not to amend the definition of public arbitrator at
this time.\83\ Nevertheless, the Commission will give appropriate
consideration to any proposed amendments to FINRA Rules 12100 and 13100
to revise the non-public arbitrator definition to eliminate any gaps in
the Codes' arbitrator classifications that could expand its roster of
available arbitrators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ See GSU Letter.
    \82\ See 80 FR 11695 at 11704-11705.
    \83\ See FINRA Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Taking into consideration the comments and FINRA's responses, the
Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the Exchange Act.
Specifically, the Commission believes that the proposal will help
protect investors and the public interest by, among other things,
broadening the roster of available arbitrator chairpersons, while
preserving the quality of arbitrators who would serve as chairpersons.
Furthermore, the Commission believes that FINRA's responses, as
discussed in more detail above, appropriately addressed commenters'
concerns and adequately explained FINRA's reasons for declining to
modify its proposal. Accordingly, the Commission believes that the
approach proposed by FINRA is appropriate and designed to protect
investors and the public interest, consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of
the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder.

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Exchange Act,\84\ that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2016-033) be,
and hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-29385 Filed 12-7-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 74 (Thursday, April 17, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21747-21748]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08749]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP14-4-001]

Texas Eastern Transmission, LP; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on April 7, 2014, Texas Eastern Transmission,
(Texas Eastern), having its principal place of business at 5400
Westheimer Court, Houston, Texas, 77056, filed an application in Docket
No. CP14-4-001 pursuant to Section 7(b) and Section 7(c) of the Natural
Gas Act (NGA), and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations, for a
certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct its
Emerald Longwall Mine Project. On October 10, 2013, Texas Eastern filed
an application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity
(Docket No. CP14-4-000), and had received an Order Issuing Certificate
and Approving Abandonment on January 29, 2014. The January 29 Order
authorized the excavation, elevation, replacement and abandonment of
certain pipeline and appurtenant facilities due to the anticipated
longwall mining activities of Panel D1 of Emerald Coal Resources, LP's
(Emerald) coal mine in Greene County, Pennsylvania.
    Emerald has since informed Texas Eastern that, in addition to Panel
D1, mining activities are now anticipated at Emerald's Panel D2 and are
expected to impact Texas Eastern beginning the first quarter of 2015.
The Texas Eastern facilities to be impacted by potential ground
subsidence resulting from longwall mining activities at Panel D2 are
sections of the same pipelines, immediately east of Lines 1, 2, 10, 15
and 25, that were described in the January 29 Order related to Panel
D1. Texas Eastern proposes to excavate, elevate, replace, and/or
abandon by removal certain sections of five different pipelines and
appurtenant facilities located in Greene County, Pennsylvania, all as
more fully set forth in the application, which is on file with the
Commission and open to public inspection. This filing may also be
viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link.
Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket
number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Lisa
A. Connolly, General Manager, Rates

and Certificates, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP, P.O. Box 1642,
Houston, Texas, 77251, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER> (telephone) or
(713) 627-5947 (fax<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's regulations, 18 CFR
157.9, within 90 days of this Notice, the Commission's staff will
either complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission's staff issuance of
the EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's
public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of
Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and
state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary
reviews, and the subsequent need to reach a final decision on a request
for federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the
Commission staff's EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 7 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
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. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the
Commission's Web site under the ``e-Filing'' link.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 2, 2014.

    Dated: April 11, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-08749 Filed 4-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: March 2, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 41)]
[Notices]
[Page 10734-10736]
[DOCID:fr02mr06-106]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53362; File No. SR-NASD-2006-028]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Allow Nasdaq
To Take Certain Actions on Behalf of Its Issuers in Connection With
Nasdaq's Transition to a National Securities Exchange

February 24, 2006.
    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 February 23, 2006, the National Association of Securities Dealers,
Inc. (``NASD''), through its subsidiary, The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc.
(``Nasdaq''), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by Nasdaq. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule
change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Nasdaq proposes to adopt NASD Rule 4130 to allow Nasdaq to file an
application with the Commission or another appropriate regulator on
behalf of its issuers to register their listed securities under Section
12(b) of the Act, or seek a temporary exemption from Section 12, in
connection with Nasdaq's transition to one of its subsidiaries
operating as a national securities exchange. Nasdaq will implement the
proposed rule upon approval. The text of the proposed rule change is
below. Proposed new language is in italics.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Changes are marked to the rule text that appears in the
electronic NASD Manual found at http://www.nasd.com. No pending rule

filings would affect the text of this rule. Because of the nature of
this rule, no conforming change will be made to the rules of The
NASDAQ Stock Market LLC. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
53128 (January 13, 2006), 71 FR 3550 (January 23, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4130. Permission to Act on Behalf of Issuer

    In connection with The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (the ``Nasdaq
Exchange'') commencing operations as a national securities exchange,
each issuer authorizes Nasdaq and the Nasdaq Exchange to file an
application to register under Section 12(b) of the Act any class of the
issuer's securities that is listed on Nasdaq on the day immediately
preceding the day the Nasdaq Exchange commences such operations;
provided, however, that this provision shall not be applicable to any
security that the issuer informs Nasdaq, pursuant to procedures set
forth by Nasdaq, should not be so registered. The application to
register under Section 12(b) of the Act will be filed with the
Commission or, for those securities subject to Section 12(i) of the
Act, with the appropriate banking regulator specified in Section 12(i).
The authorization in this paragraph includes allowing Nasdaq and the
Nasdaq Exchange to request any appropriate regulatory relief from the
provisions of Section 12.
* * * * *

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

    In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it had received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. Nasdaq 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
    On January 13, 2006, the Commission approved Nasdaq's application
to register one of its subsidiaries, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC
(``Nasdaq Exchange''), as a national securities exchange.\4\ Once the
Nasdaq Exchange begins operation, securities listed on Nasdaq will need
to have been registered under Section 12(b) of the Act so that brokers
and dealers may effect transactions in these securities on the Nasdaq
Exchange consistent with Section 12(a) of the Act.\5\ Accordingly,
absent relief from the Commission and other regulators, Nasdaq's
transition to the Nasdaq Exchange beginning operations as a national
securities exchange would require approximately 3,200 Nasdaq National
Market and Capital Market issuers to register their Nasdaq-listed
securities under Section 12(b) of the Act. This process would require
each issuer to file a registration statement with the Commission or
other appropriate regulator.\6\ The Nasdaq Exchange would then be
required to certify to the Commission and the Banking Regulators that
each issuer's securities are approved for listing and registration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53128 (January 13,
2006), 71 FR 3550 (January 23, 2006).
    \5\ Section 12(a) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78l(a). As discussed in
footnote 10, Nasdaq anticipates that it will seek relief from the
Section 12(b) registration requirement during a limited transition
period for certain securities that are currently exempt from
registration under Section 12(g).
    \6\ Section 12(i) of the Act requires filings relating to
certain financial institutions to be made with the Comptroller of
the Currency, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System,
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or the Office of Thrift
Supervision (collectively, the ``Banking Regulators''). 15 U.S.C.
78l(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq believes that this registration process would be confusing
and would place an unnecessary cost and administrative burden on
issuers, on the Commission and Banking Regulators, and on Nasdaq, and
would not be in the public interest. For the great majority of issuers
whose securities are currently listed on Nasdaq, this additional
registration process would not result in any significant benefit to the
marketplace or investors because they would not receive any additional
information regarding the security. Nasdaq issuers whose securities are
registered under Sections 12(b) or 12(g) of the Act would have already
filed a registration statement pursuant to the Act to register those
securities. Similarly, issuers registered under the Investment Company
Act of 1940 (the ``1940 Act'') will have filed detailed information
with the Commission.\7\ There are also no material differences in

the regulatory requirements for issuers whose securities are registered
under Section 12(b) and those whose securities are registered under
Section 12(g) or are exempted pursuant to Section 12(g)(2)(B) of the
Act that would negatively impact investors or place additional burdens
on the issuers.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In particular, each registered investment company has filed
a registration statement with the Commission under the 1940 Act and
has made periodic filings under the 1940 Act identical in form to
those required of investment companies that have registered their
securities under Section 12(b) of the Act.
    \8\ Nasdaq believes that the only differences relate to how the
issuer identifies itself on the cover of its periodic reports (e.g.,
as registered under Section 12(b) instead of Section 12(g)) and the
process surrounding a decision to delist or deregister. Nasdaq also
notes that an issuer registered under the 1940 Act will satisfy its
obligation to file reports under the Act through the filing of
reports that it is already required to make under the 1940 Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result, Nasdaq proposes to file a single application for
registration on behalf of these issuers by means of a letter to the
Commission and Banking Regulators. To provide notice of Nasdaq's plan
to seek Section 12(b) registration on behalf of its issuers and to
assure sufficient authority for Nasdaq to make this application,
however, Nasdaq has proposed adopting a rule specifically permitting
Nasdaq and the Nasdaq Exchange to take this action.
    Prior to filing this application, Nasdaq will provide notice to
each issuer and will allow any issuer that does not wish to register
under Section 12(b) the ability to opt-out of Nasdaq's request to the
Commission and Banking Regulators.\9\ Nasdaq expects to provide
companies 10 business days to request to opt-out of Nasdaq's
application on their behalf under Section 12(b). The result of an
issuer choosing to opt-out would be that the issuer's securities would
be ineligible to be listed and traded on the Nasdaq Exchange as of the
operational date; such issuers would instead trade on the pink sheets
or OTC Bulletin Board unless the issuer filed a Section 12(b)
registration statement with the Commission in connection with listing
on the Nasdaq Exchange or on another national securities exchange.
Following this opt-out period, Nasdaq will submit a letter to the
Commission and Banking Regulators requesting that such letter serve as
the application for registration under Section 12(b), as well as the
Nasdaq Exchange's certification of such application, for all those
issuers with securities registered under Section 12(b) or 12(g) or
exempt from registration under Section 12(g)(2)(B) and listed on Nasdaq
on the day immediately preceding Nasdaq Exchange's operation as a
national securities exchange.\10\ Nasdaq will notify issuers when this
relief is granted.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Nasdaq will make this notification via e-mail to the
issuer's e-mail address on file with Nasdaq, or, if no e-mail
address is available, via facsimile. Nasdaq will also issue a press
release describing this process and post information about this
process to its Web site.
    \10\ Nasdaq also anticipates that this letter will seek relief
from the registration requirement for securities currently exempt
from registration under Section 12(g)(2)(G) of the Act and Rule
12g3-2(b) thereunder to allow these securities to trade on the
Nasdaq Exchange during a limited transition period. The proposed
rule would specifically permit Nasdaq to request such regulatory
relief. Nasdaq would follow the same notice and opt-out procedures
for these companies.
    \11\ Nasdaq will make this notification in the same manner as
the earlier notification, including the issuance of a press release.
See footnote 9, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 15A of the Act,\12\ in general, and furthers
the objectives of section 15A(b)(6),\13\ in particular, in that it is
designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market, and
to protect investors and the public interest. The proposed rule change
would allow Nasdaq's issuers to seamlessly transition to the Nasdaq
Exchange, thus removing a potential impediment to the mechanism of a
free and open market and protecting the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3.
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Nasdaq 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, as amended.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Within 35 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 NASD consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve 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-NASD-2006-028 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2006-028. 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 inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the NASD. 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 publicly available. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NASD-2006-028 and should be submitted on or before March
23, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-2960 Filed 3-1-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 73 (Monday, April 19, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 20392]
[FR Doc No: 2021-07939]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4532-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

Vermont; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Vermont (FEMA-4532-DR), dated April 8, 2020, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued February 2, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the
President's Memorandum to Extend Federal Support to Governors' Use of
the National Guard to Respond to COVID-19 and to Increase Reimbursement
and Other Assistance Provided to States, dated January 21, 2021 and the
President's Memorandum on Maximizing Assistance from the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, dated February 2, 2021 FEMA is amending
the cost-sharing arrangements regarding Federal funds provided under
the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the ``Stafford Act'') for all of
the COVID-19 emergency and major disaster declarations. FEMA is
amending this declaration as follows:

    Federal funds for emergency protective measures (Category B),
including direct Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance
program (Section 403) are authorized at 100 percent of total
eligible costs for work performed from January 20, 2020 through
September 30, 2021.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

Robert J. Fenton,
Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Administrator, Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-07939 Filed 4-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: November 15, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 220)]
[Notices]
[Page 64253-64255]
[DOCID:fr15no07-107]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. IC-28045; 812-12984]

BTOP50 Managed Futures Fund and Asset Alliance Advisors, Inc.;
Notice of Application

November 8, 2007.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of application for an order under section 6(c) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940 (``Act'') for an exemption from sections
18(c) and 18(i) of the Act.

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

Summary of Application: Applicants request an order to permit certain
registered closed-end management investment companies to issue multiple
classes of shares.

Applicants: BTOP50 Managed Futures Fund (``Trust'') and Asset Alliance
Advisors, Inc. (``Advisor'').

Filing Dates: The application was filed on June 9, 2003 and amended on
December 9, 2003 and November 6, 2007.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the requested
relief will

be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons
may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and
serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail.
Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on
December 3, 2007, and should be accompanied by proof of service on
applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate
of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's
interest, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons
who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by
writing to the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants, 800 Third Avenue,
New York, NY 10022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia Kim Gilmer, Branch Chief, or
Nadya B. Roytblat, Assistant Director, at<PHONE_NUMBER> (Division of
Investment Management, Office of Investment Company Regulation).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained for a fee at the
Commission's Public Reference Desk, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC
20549-0102 (tel.<PHONE_NUMBER>).

Applicants' Representations

    1. The Trust is a closed-end management investment company
registered under the Act and organized as a Delaware statutory trust.
After the completion of its initial offering, the Trust expects to
continuously offer its shares to the public pursuant to rule 415 under
the Securities Act of 1933 at net asset value plus any applicable sales
charge. The Advisor is registered as an investment adviser under the
Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and serves as investment adviser to the
Trust. Applicants request that the requested relief also extend to any
other registered closed-end management investment companies that
continuously offer their shares that now or in the future are advised
by the Advisor, or any entity controlling, controlled by or under
common control with the Adviser (such investment companies, together
with the Trust, the ``Funds'').\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Any Fund relying on this relief in the future will comply
with the terms and conditions of the application. The Trust is the
only investment company that currently intends to rely on the
requested order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. The shares of the Trust will not be listed on any national stock
exchange and the Trust will not arrange for the quotation of its shares
on any over-the-counter market. The Trust does not expect that any
secondary market will develop for its shares. The Trust intends to make
monthly repurchase offers for up to 15% of its outstanding shares at
net asset value, up to a maximum of 25% in any three consecutive
months, pursuant to rule 13e-4 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
    3. The Funds seek the flexibility to be structured as multiple
class funds.The Trust intends to initially offer a single class of
shares (``Class A Shares'') without a service fee or an early
withdrawal charge (``EWC''). If the requested relief is granted, the
Trust may also offer Class B, C, D and E shares with an annual service
fee of 2%, 1.5%, 1% and .5% of net asset value, respectively. Class B,
C, D and E shares also will be subject to an EWC of 2%, 1.5%. 1% and
.5% of the purchase price, which will decline over approximately a 12-
month period. The Funds will not waive, schedule a variation in or
eliminate any EWCs established for a particular class of shares. The
Funds may in the future offer additional classes of shares and/or
another sales charge structure.
    4. Applicants represent that any asset-based service and
distribution fees will comply with the provisions of rule 2830(d) of
the Conduct Rules of the National Association of Securities Dealers,
Inc. (``NASD''). Applicants also represent that each Fund will disclose
in its prospectus, the fees, expenses and other characteristics of each
class of shares offered for sale by the prospectus as is required for
open-end multiple class funds under Form N-1A. As is required for open-
end funds, each Fund will disclose its expenses in shareholder reports,
and disclose any arrangements that result in breakpoints in or
elimination of sales loads in its prospectus.\2\ Each Fund and
principal underwriter of Fund shares will also comply with any
requirements that may be adopted by the Commission regarding disclosure
at the point of sale and in transaction confirmations about the costs
and conflicts of interest arising out of the distribution of open-end
investment company shares, and regarding prospectus disclosure of sales
loads and revenue sharing arrangements as if those requirements applied
to the Fund and the principal underwriter of the Fund's shares.\3 \
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Shareholder Reports and Quarterly Portfolio Disclosure
of Registered Management Investment Companies, Investment Company
Act Release No. 26372 (Feb. 27, 2004) (adopting release) (requiring
open-end investment companies to disclose fund expenses in
shareholder reports); and Disclosure of Breakpoint Discounts by
Mutual Funds, Investment Company Act Release No. 26464 (June 7,
2004) (adopting release) (requiring open-end investment companies to
provide prospectus disclosure of certain sales load information).
    \3\ Confirmation Requirements and Point of Sale Disclosure
Requirements for Transactions in Certain Mutual Funds and Other
Securities, and Other Confirmation Requirement Amendments, and
Amendments to the Registration Form for Mutual Funds, Investment
Company Act Release Nos. 26341 (Jan. 29, 2004) (proposing release)
and 26778 (Feb. 28, 2005) (re-opening the comment period for the
proposed rules and requesting additional comments).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. The Trust will allocate all expenses incurred by it among the
various classes of shares based on the net assets of the Trust
attributable to each class, except that the net asset value and
expenses of each class will reflect the expenses associated with the
service and/or distribution plan of the class and any other incremental
expenses of that class. Expenses of the Trust allocated to a particular
class of shares will be borne on a pro rata basis by each outstanding
share of that class. Applicants state that each Fund will comply with
the provisions of rule 18f-3 under the Act as if that rule applied to
the Funds. The Funds will not offer exchange privileges.

Applicants' Legal Analysis

    1. Section 18(c) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that a
closed-end investment company may not issue or sell any senior security
if, immediately thereafter, the company has outstanding more than one
class of senior security. Applicants state that the creation of
multiple classes of shares of the Funds may be prohibited by section
18(c).
    2. Section 18(i) of the Act provides that each share of stock
issued by a registered management investment company will be a voting
stock and have equal voting rights with every other outstanding voting
stock. Applicants state that permitting multiple classes of shares of
the Funds may violate section 18(i) of the Act because each class would
be entitled to exclusive voting rights with respect to matters solely
related to that class.
    3. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt
any person, security or transaction or any class or classes of persons,
securities or transactions from any provision of the Act, or from any
rule under the Act, if and to the extent such exemption is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection
of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and
provisions of the Act. Applicants request an exemption under section
6(c)

from sections 18(c) and 18(i) to permit the Funds to issue multiple
classes of shares.
    4. Applicants submit that the proposed allocation of expenses and
voting rights among multiple classes is equitable and will not
discriminate against any group of shareholders. Applicants submit that
the proposed arrangements would permit a Fund to facilitate the
distribution of its shares and provide investors with a broader choice
of shareholder services. Applicants assert that the proposed closed-end
investment company multiple class structure does not raise the concerns
underlying section 18 of the Act to any greater degree than open-end
investment companies' multiple class structures that are permitted by
rule 18f-3 under the Act. Applicants state that each Fund will comply
with the provisions of rule 18f-3 as if it were an open-end investment
company.
    5. Applicants also state that because the Funds, like open-end
investment companies, will continuously offer their shares and offer
investors a variety of distribution channels and service fees, they
will comply with rule 12b-1 and 6c-10 under the Act as if those rules
applied to the Funds.

Applicants' Condition

    Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will
be subject to the following condition:
    Each Fund relying on the order will comply with the provisions of
rules 6c-10, 12b-1 and 18f-3 under the Act, as amended from time to
time, as if those rules applied to closed-end management investment
companies, and will comply with NASD Conduct Rule 2830(d), as amended
from time to time, as if that rule applied to all closed-end management
investment companies.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-22204 Filed 11-14-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 51 (Monday, March 17, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 14706]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05810]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0132; FRL-9908-14-OECA]

Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request;
Recordkeeping Requirements for Producers, Registrants and Applicants of
Pesticides and Pesticide Devices Under Section 8 of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); EPA ICR Number
0143.12, OMB Control Number 2070-0028

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to
submit an information collection request (ICR), Recordkeeping
Requirements for Producers, Registrants and Applicants of Pesticides
and Pesticide Devices under Section 8 of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (EPA ICR No. 0143.12, OMB
Control No. 2070-0028) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public
comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as
described below. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is
currently approved through June 30, 2014. An Agency may not conduct or
sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before May 16, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OECA-
2014-0132, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA Docket Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Stevenson, Office of
Compliance, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division,
Pesticides, Waste & Toxics Branch (2225A), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov, or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting
comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of
the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA
will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate.
The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and
approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice
to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to
submit additional comments to OMB.
    Abstract: Producers of pesticides and pesticide devices must
maintain certain records with respect to their operations and make such
records available for inspection and copying as specified in Section 8
of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and
in regulations at 40 CFR Part 169. This information collection is
mandatory under FIFRA Section 8. It is used by the Agency to determine
compliance with the Act. The information is used by EPA Regional
pesticide enforcement and compliance staffs, the Office of Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance (OECA), and the Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP) within the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention
(OCSPP), as well as the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA), and other Federal agencies, States under
Cooperative Enforcement Agreements, and the public. An agency may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Producers of pesticides and
pesticide devices for sale or distribution in or exported to the United
States.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 169).
    Estimated number of respondents: 11,600 (total).
    Frequency of response: Annual.
    Total estimated burden: 23,200.
    Total estimated cost: $1,762,040. There are no annualized capital
or O&M costs associated with this ICR since all equipment associated
with this ICR is present as part of ordinary business practices.
    Changes in Estimates: There is a decrease of 3,600 hours in the
total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of
Approved ICR Burdens. This decrease is an adjustment due to a change in
the number of respondents since the last ICR.

    Dated: March 7, 2014.
Lisa C. Lund,
Director, Office of Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2014-05810 Filed 3-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P