[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 128 (Thursday, July 3, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38080-38086]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15607]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72491; File No. SR-FINRA-2014-028]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Revisions to the Definitions of Non-Public Arbitrator and Public
Arbitrator

June 27, 2014.
    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 June 17, 2014, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by
FINRA. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on
the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    FINRA is proposing to refine and reorganize the definitions of
``non-public arbitrator'' and ``public arbitrator.'' The amendments
would, among other matters, provide that persons who worked in the
financial industry for any duration during their careers would always
be classified as non-public arbitrators, and persons who represent
investors or the financial industry as a significant part of their
business would also be classified as non-public arbitrators, but could
become public arbitrators after a cooling-off period. The amendments
would also reorganize the definitions to make it easier for arbitrator
applicants and parties, among others, to determine the correct
arbitrator classification.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available, at the principal
office of FINRA, on FINRA's Web site at http://www.finra.org, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, FINRA included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements

may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. FINRA has
prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
Background
    FINRA classifies arbitrators as ``non-public'' or ``public'' based
on their professional and/or personal affiliations. The Code of
Arbitration Procedure for Customer Disputes (``Customer Code'') and the
Code of Arbitration Procedures for Industry Disputes (``Industry
Code'') define these terms. The non-public arbitrator definition (Rules
12100(p) and 13100(p)) lists financial industry affiliations that might
qualify a person to serve as a non-public arbitrator in the forum.
Conversely, the public arbitrator definition (Rules 12100(u) and
13100(u)) itemizes affiliations that disqualify a person from serving
as a public arbitrator in the forum. In general, public arbitrators do
not have a significant affiliation with the financial industry.
    FINRA has amended its arbitrator definitions several times over the
years to address constituent perceptions that an affiliation might
affect an arbitrator's neutrality.\3\ The SEC approved the latest
amendments in 2013 (the ``2013 amendments'').\4\ Under the 2013
amendments, FINRA disqualified persons associated with a mutual fund or
hedge fund from serving as public arbitrators. The 2013 amendments also
provided that specified individuals must wait for two years after
ending certain disqualifying affiliations (``cooling-off period'')
before they may serve as public arbitrators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 49573 (Apr. 16, 2004),
69 FR 21871 (Apr. 22, 2004) (File No. SR-NASD-2003-95) and Notice to
Members 04-49 (Jun. 2004); Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 54607
(Oct. 16, 2006), 71 FR 62026 (Oct. 20, 2006) (File No. SR-NASD-2005-
094) and Notice to Members 06-64 (Nov. 2006); and Securities
Exchange Act Rel. No. 57492 (Mar. 13, 2008), 73 FR 15025 (Mar. 20,
2008) (File No. SR-NASD-2007-021) and Regulatory Notice 08-22 (May
2008).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 69297 (Apr. 4, 2013),
78 FR 21449 (Apr. 10, 2013) (File No. SR-FINRA-2013-003) and
Regulatory Notice 13-21 (Jun. 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SEC received several comment letters on the 2013 amendments.
Commenters recommended that FINRA increase the proposed two-year
cooling-off period, add new categories of individuals whom FINRA would
disqualify from serving as public arbitrators, and add new categories
of individuals to the non-public arbitrator definition.\5\ In its
response to the comment letters, FINRA asked the SEC to approve the
proposed rule change as a significant measure to address constituent
perceptions about the fairness and neutrality of the public arbitrator
roster. FINRA staff agreed to conduct a comprehensive review in
consultation with the National Arbitration and Mediation Committee
(``NAMC''),\6\ of both the non-public arbitrator and public arbitrator
definitions with a view towards clarifying the definitions and
reviewing the additional issues raised in the comment letters.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 69297 (Apr. 4, 2013),
78 FR 21449 (Apr. 10, 2013) Discussion of Comment Letters. The
comment letters are available on the SEC's Web site at www.sec.gov.
    \6\ The NAMC, which is composed of investor, industry, and
neutral (arbitrator and mediator) representatives, provides policy
guidance to FINRA Dispute Resolution staff. A majority of the NAMC
members and its chair are public.
    \7\ See letter from Margo A. Hassan, Assistant Chief Counsel,
FINRA Dispute Resolution, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, dated March 11,
2013. The letter is available on FINRA's Web site at www.finra.org,
and on the SEC's Web site at www.sec.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA staff met with the NAMC several times to review both
arbitrator definitions. As the result of these discussions, as well as
general discussions with interested groups over a period of time, FINRA
is proposing to amend the non-public arbitrator and public arbitrator
definitions. The intent of the proposed rule change is to address the
concerns about arbitrator neutrality that were raised by the commenters
on the 2013 amendments. As noted above, these concerns related to the
cooling-off periods, the categories of individuals whom FINRA
disqualifies from serving as public arbitrators, and the categories of
individuals whom FINRA classifies as non-public arbitrators.
    The proposed rule change includes several substantive changes to
the definitions and an extensive reorganization of the public
arbitrator definition. In light of extensive revisions, FINRA is
proposing to delete the definitions in their entirety, and replace them
with new definitions. The proposed amendments are described below. For
ease of reading, the discussion only refers to Rule 12100 of the
Customer Code. The proposed amendments to Rule 13100 of the Industry
Code are identical, and FINRA's rationale is the same.
Non-Public Arbitrator Definition
    The non-public arbitrator definition lists financial industry
affiliations that might qualify a person to serve as a non-public
arbitrator in the forum. The affiliations relate to individuals who
work in the financial industry, and individuals who provide services to
industry entities and their employees. Each qualifying affiliation has
a corresponding disqualification in the public arbitrator definition.
Currently, FINRA permits individuals who worked in the financial
industry to join the public arbitrator roster after a cooling-off
period so long as they meet other requirements.
    FINRA is proposing to expand the scope of the non-public arbitrator
definition in three ways. First, the definition would provide that
individuals who worked in the financial industry for any duration
during their careers would always be classified as non-public
arbitrators. Second, FINRA would add new categories of financial
industry personnel who might qualify to serve as non-public
arbitrators. Third, FINRA would add to the definition professionals who
devote a significant part of their business to representing or
providing services to parties in disputes concerning investments or
employment relationships.
    Expansion of the non-public arbitrator definition becomes
particularly significant when parties are selecting arbitrators in
customer cases with three arbitrators.\8\ In these cases, FINRA sends
the parties three randomly generated lists of arbitrators--a list of 10
chair-qualified public arbitrators, a list of 10 public arbitrators,
and a list of 10 non-public arbitrators. The parties select their panel
through a process of striking and ranking the arbitrators on the lists.
FINRA limits the parties to four strikes on the chair-qualified public
arbitrator list and four strikes on the public arbitrator list.
However, FINRA gives parties unlimited strikes on the non-public
arbitrator list. By expanding the scope of the non-public arbitrator
definition, parties would have a greater ability to address their own
perceptions of bias through the use of their unlimited strikes on the
non-public arbitrator list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Under Rule 12401, one arbitrator hears customer claims up to
$100,000 and three arbitrators hear customer claims of more than
$100,000 or unspecified claims.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

New Rule 12100(p)(1)
    Under the current non-public arbitrator definition, if a person is
currently, or was within the past five years, affiliated with a
securities industry entity specified in the rule (e.g., associated with
a broker or dealer), the person may qualify to serve as a

non-public arbitrator at the forum.\9\ Subject to two exceptions, FINRA
allows these individuals to join the public arbitrator roster five
years after ending all industry affiliation. The first exception to the
five-year provision applies to persons who retired from, or who spent a
substantial part of their career with, a specified industry entity.\10\
FINRA keeps these individuals on the non-public arbitrator roster for
the duration of their service to the forum. The second exception
applies to persons who were affiliated for 20 years or more with a
specified industry entity.\11\ FINRA also keeps these arbitrators on
the non-public arbitrator roster for the duration of their service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See current Rule 12100(p)(1). This provision applies to a
person who is, or was within the past five years:
    (A) Associated with, including registered through, a broker or
dealer (including a government securities broker or dealer or a
municipal securities dealer);
    (B) Registered under the Commodities Exchange Act;
    (C) A member of a commodities exchange or a registered futures
association; or
    (D) Associated with a person or firm registered under the
Commodity Exchange Act.
    \10\ See current Rule 12100(p)(2).
    \11\ See current Rule 12100(u)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Investor representatives raised concerns about the neutrality of
FINRA's public arbitrator roster because they do not believe that
former industry-affiliated persons should ever serve as public
arbitrators. In response to these concerns, FINRA is proposing to adopt
new Rule 12100(p)(1) to eliminate the five-year cooling-off provision
for persons who work in the financial industry. Under the new rule,
FINRA would classify persons who are, or were, affiliated with a
specified financial industry entity at any point in their careers, for
any duration, as non-public arbitrators.\12\ Once FINRA classifies an
arbitrator as non-public, FINRA would never reclassify the arbitrator
as public. Under the proposed rule change, there would be no exceptions
to this provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See new Rule 12100(p)(1). The financial industry
affiliations enumerated in new Rule 12100(p)(1) relate to a person
who is, or was, associated with, including registered through:
    (A) a broker or a dealer (including a government securities
broker or dealer or a municipal securities broker or dealer); or
    (B) a member of, or an entity registered under, the Commodity
Exchange Act, the Commodities Future Trading Commission, the
National Futures Association, or the Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; or
    (C) an entity that is organized under or registered pursuant to
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Investment Company Act of 1940,
or the Investment Advisers Act of 1940; or
    (D) a mutual fund or a hedge fund; or
    (E) an investment adviser.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA is also proposing to add two new categories of financial
industry professionals to new Rule 12100(p)(1)--persons associated
with, including registered through, a mutual fund or hedge fund, and
persons associated with, including registered through, an investment
adviser. Currently, FINRA does not permit these professionals to serve
in any capacity, but if they end their affiliation, they may serve as
public arbitrators after a two-year cooling-off period.\13\ FINRA
believes that these professionals would bring valuable knowledge and
experience to the forum and that FINRA should classify them as non-
public arbitrators. Under the proposed rule change, once FINRA
classifies them as non-public arbitrators, these arbitrators would
remain on the non-public arbitrator roster for the duration of their
service to the forum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ These persons may serve as non-public arbitrators if they
are qualified to serve under another provision (e.g., dually
registered as an investment adviser and an associated person of a
FINRA member).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, FINRA is proposing to add clarity to new Rule 12100(p)(1)
by revising the references in several ways. First, instead of referring
to a person registered under the Commodity Exchange Act, or associated
with a person or firm registered under the Commodity Exchange Act, or a
member of a commodities exchange, FINRA would simplify the reference in
Rule 12100(p)(1)(B) by referring to a person who is, or was, associated
with, including registered through, under, or with (as applicable), the
Commodity Exchange Act or the Commodities Futures Trading Commission.
FINRA is not proposing any substantive change to the categories of
persons relating to commodities. Second, instead of referring to a
member of a registered futures association, FINRA proposes in Rule
12100(p)(1)(B) to specify the association by name--the National Futures
Association. FINRA is not proposing any substantive change to the
category of persons relating to futures. Third, FINRA is proposing to
add in Rule 12100(p)(1)(B) a reference to a person who is, or was,
associated with, including registered through, under, or with (as
applicable), the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (``MSRB'').
While such an individual would be covered under the current ``municipal
securities broker or dealer,'' FINRA believes adding the MSRB would add
clarity to the rule. Fourth, FINRA is proposing an omnibus reference in
Rule 12100(p)(1)(C) to cover industry affiliated persons not otherwise
specified in the rule and potential categories of industry
professionals that may be created in the future.
New Rule 12100(p)(2)
    Under the current non-public arbitrator definition, attorneys,
accountants, and other professionals who devoted 20 percent or more of
their professional work in the last two years to serving specified
industry entities and/or employees, may qualify to serve as non-public
arbitrators at the forum.\14\ FINRA currently permits these individuals
to join the public arbitrator roster two years after they stop
providing services to the industry. However, they are permanently
disqualified from serving as public arbitrators if they provided
services to the industry for 20 years or more over the course of their
careers.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See current Rule 12100(p)(3). The rule applies to the
persons and entities listed in current Rule 12100(p)(1).
    \15\ See current Rule 12100(u)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA is proposing to adopt new Rule 12100(p)(2) to broaden the
current provision in two ways. First, the new rule increases the look-
back period from two years to five years. Second, it broadens
application of the provision to include services to industry entities
and any persons or entities associated with those industry entities.
The proposed new public arbitrator definition provides that persons
would be permanently disqualified from serving as public arbitrators if
they provided the specified services for 15 calendar years or more over
the course of their careers (in contrast to the current 20 year
provision).\16\ The 15 years are a total number of years--they would
not have to be consecutive years. After 15 years of service, FINRA
would keep these arbitrators on the non-public arbitrator roster for
the duration of their service to the forum. FINRA is increasing the
look-back period, and decreasing the number of years before it applies
a permanent disqualification, so that only individuals who are
sufficiently removed from their industry affiliation are permitted to
serve on the public arbitrator roster.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See new Rule 12100(u)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, FINRA is proposing to add clarity to the rule by changing
the phrase ``professional work'' to ``professional time.'' FINRA staff
believes that the term ``time'' is better because time would be more
easily quantified by the professionals in the category.
New Rule 12100(p)(3)
    Currently, FINRA permits professionals who represent or provide

services to investors in securities disputes to serve as public
arbitrators at the forum.\17\ Industry representatives raised concerns
about the neutrality of the public arbitrator roster, and they do not
believe that these professionals should serve as public arbitrators. To
address these concerns, FINRA is proposing to add a new qualifying
affiliation to the non-public arbitrator definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ These individuals are not qualified under the non-public
arbitrator definition to serve as non-public arbitrators, nor are
they disqualified from serving as public arbitrators under the
public arbitration definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under new Rule 12100(p)(3), FINRA would classify as non-public
arbitrators, attorneys, accountants, and other professionals who
devoted 20 percent or more of their professional time, within the past
five years, to serving parties in investment or financial industry
employment disputes. FINRA selected the 20 percent threshold for
application of the provision to keep it consistent with the threshold
in new Rule 12100(p)(2).
    FINRA would permit these individuals to serve as public arbitrators
five years after their business mix changes. However, if the person
accumulates 15 calendar years of providing the qualifying services over
the course of a career, FINRA would keep that arbitrator on the non-
public arbitrator roster for the duration of the arbitrator's service
to the forum. The 15 years are a total number of years--they would not
have to be consecutive years.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See new Rule 12100(u)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

New Rule 12100(p)(4)
    FINRA currently classifies as non-public arbitrators, persons
working in a bank or other financial institution (e.g., a credit union)
who execute transactions in securities or who supervise employees who
execute transactions in securities.\19\ This provision covers persons
who are not employed by an industry entity that falls under current
paragraph (p)(1). When such persons end their affiliation, they may
immediately apply to serve as public arbitrators at the forum unless
they have engaged in this type of work for 20 years or more over the
course of their careers.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See current Rule 12100(p)(4).
    \20\ See current Rule 12100(u)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA is proposing to adopt new Rule 12100(p)(4) to add a five-year
look-back period to this provision. The substance of the qualifying
affiliation is the same. Only the look-back period is new. Under the
new rule, FINRA would classify as a non-public arbitrator, any person
who, within the last five calendar years, worked in a bank or other
financial institution and executed transactions in securities or
supervised or monitored compliance with the securities and commodities
laws of employees who execute transactions in securities. FINRA would
permit these persons to serve as public arbitrators five years after
they ended their industry affiliation unless they provided these
services for 15 years or more. As is the case with proposed new
paragraphs (p)(2) and (p)(3) described above, the proposed new public
arbitrator definition provides that these persons would be permanently
disqualified from serving as public arbitrators if they provided the
specified services for 15 calendar years or more over the course of
their careers.\21\ Again, the 15 years are a total number of years--
they would not have to be consecutive years. After 15 years of service,
FINRA would keep these arbitrators on the non-public arbitrator roster
for the duration of their service to the forum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See new Rule 12100(u)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Arbitrator Definition
    The public arbitrator definition lists affiliations that disqualify
a person from serving as a public arbitrator in the forum. It includes
a disqualification that corresponds to each qualifying affiliation in
the non-public arbitrator definition. Currently, the definition
reflects these disqualifications by cross-references to the non-public
arbitrator definition. The public arbitrator definition includes
additional disqualifiers that do not have a corresponding qualifier in
the non-public arbitrator definition. Over the years, FINRA added these
disqualifications to the public arbitrator definition to address
investors' perceptions about the neutrality of the public arbitrator
roster.
    FINRA is proposing substantive changes to the public arbitrator
definition that: Add new disqualifications; amend an existing
disqualification to simplify it; and revise the cooling-off periods.
Under new Rule 12100(u), FINRA would subject individuals to a five-year
cooling-off period after they end an affiliation based on their own
activities, and a two-year cooling-off period after they end an
affiliation based on someone else's activities (provided that another
disqualification is not applicable).
    FINRA is also proposing to reorganize the public arbitrator
definition to make it easier for FINRA staff, arbitrators and potential
arbitrators, and parties to ascertain the correct arbitrator
classification. Under the proposed rule change, FINRA would remove the
cross-references between the definitions, and fully describe each
disqualification. FINRA would also separate the disqualifications into
categories of those that are permanent versus those that are temporary,
and those based on a person's own activities versus those based on the
activities of others (e.g., others at a person's firm). FINRA would
repeat some of the disqualifying affiliations to make it clear that the
affiliations are subject to both a temporary disqualification and a
permanent disqualification depending on how many years a person was
engaged in a stated activity.
New Rule 12100(u)(1)
    FINRA is proposing to adopt new Rule 12100(u)(1) to specify the
types of financial industry employment that disqualify a person from
serving as a public arbitrator.\22\ Substantively, the affiliations are
identical to those listed in new Rule 12100(p)(1). None of the
disqualifying affiliations is new--FINRA currently includes each of
them in the public arbitrator definition.\23\ Rather, FINRA is
proposing to add clarity to new Rule 12100(u)(1) by revising the
references in a manner identical to what it is proposing for new Rule
12100(p)(1).\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Under new Rule 12100(u)(1), A person shall not be
designated as a public arbitrator who is, or was, associated with,
including registered through:
    (A) a broker or a dealer (including a government securities
broker or dealer or a municipal securities broker or dealer); or
    (B) a member of, or an entity registered under, the Commodity
Exchange Act, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, the
National Futures Association, or the Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; or
    (C) an entity that is organized under or registered pursuant to
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Investment Company Act of 1940,
or the Investment Advisers Act of 1940; or
    (D) a mutual fund or a hedge fund; or
    (E) an investment adviser.
    \23\ See current Rule 12100(u)(1) and Rule 12100(u)(3).
    \24\ First, instead of referring to a person registered under
the Commodity Exchange Act, or associated with a person or firm
registered under the Commodity Exchange Act, or a member of a
commodities exchange, FINRA would simplify the reference in Rule
12100(u)(1)(B) by referring to a person who is, or was, associated
with, including registered through, under, or with (as applicable),
the Commodity Exchange Act or the Commodities Futures Trading
Commission. FINRA is not proposing any substantive change to the
categories of persons relating to commodities. Second, instead of
referring to a member of a registered futures association, FINRA
proposes in Rule 12100(u)(1)(B) to specify the association by name--
the National Futures Association. FINRA is not proposing any
substantive change to the category of persons relating to futures.
Third, FINRA is proposing to add in Rule 12100(u)(1)(B) a reference
to a person who is, or was, associated with, including registered
through, under, or with (as applicable), the MSRB. While such an
individual would be covered under the current ``municipal securities
broker or dealer,'' FINRA believes adding the MSRB would add clarity
to the rule. Fourth, FINRA is proposing an omnibus reference in Rule
12100(u)(1)(C) to cover industry affiliated persons not otherwise
specified in the rule and potential categories of industry
professionals that may be created in the future.

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

    FINRA currently permits non-public arbitrators to become public
arbitrators at some point after ending their affiliations (subject to
specified exceptions). As explained in the above discussion on new Rule
12100(p)(1), under the proposed rule change, FINRA would classify these
individuals as non-public arbitrators for the duration of their service
to the forum and would never reclassify them as public arbitrators.
Therefore, anyone disqualified under new Rule 12100(u)(1) would be
subject to a permanent disqualification from the public arbitrator
roster.
New Rules 12100(u)(2) and 12100(u)(6)
    Under the current public arbitrator definition, attorneys,
accountants, and other professionals who devoted 20 percent or more of
their professional work in the last two years to serving securities
industry employees and/or entities, may not serve as public arbitrators
at the forum.\25\ These individuals may join the public arbitrator
roster two years after they stop providing services to the industry.
However, FINRA permanently disqualifies them from the public arbitrator
roster if they provided the services for 20 years or more over the
course of their careers.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See current Rule 12100(u)(1), which incorporates, among
other things, current Rule 12100(p)(3).
    \26\ See current Rule 12100(u)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA is proposing to adopt new Rules 12100(u)(2) and 12100(u)(6)
to expand the current provision. FINRA would broaden application of the
disqualification to include services to financial industry entities and
any persons or entities associated with those financial industry
entities.\27\ In new Rule 12100(u)(6), FINRA would increase the
cooling-off period in the rule from two years to five years,\28\ and in
new Rule 12100(u)(2), FINRA would decrease the number of years for a
permanent disqualification from 20 years to 15 years.\29\ The 15 years
are a total number of years--they would not have to be consecutive
years. Although the description of the disqualification in paragraphs
(u)(2) and (u)(6) is identical, FINRA believes it would add clarity to
the definition to separate out when the provision results in a
permanent disqualification, and when it results in a temporary
disqualification. Substantively, new Rules 12100(u)(2) and 12100(u)(6)
are identical to new Rule 12100(p)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See current Rule 12100(p)(3) for content to be expanded by
new Rules 12100(u)(2) and 12100(u)(6).
    \28\ See current Rule 12100(u)(1), referencing current Rule
12100(p)(3), which includes a two year look-back period.
    \29\ See current Rule 12100(u)(2) which references a 20 year
time period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

New Rules 12100(u)(3) and 12100(u)(7)
    As explained above, FINRA currently permits professionals who
represent or provide services to investors in securities disputes to
serve as public arbitrators at the forum. Industry representatives
raised concerns about the neutrality of the public arbitrator roster,
and they do not believe that these professionals should serve as public
arbitrators.
    To address these concerns, FINRA is proposing to disqualify from
the public arbitrator roster attorneys, accountants, expert witnesses,
and other professionals who devote 20 percent or more of their
professional time to serving parties in investment or financial
industry employment disputes. Under new Rule 12100(u)(7), FINRA would
apply a five-year cooling-off period to the rule. Under new Rule
12100(u)(3), these persons would be permanently disqualified from
serving as public arbitrators if they provide the specified services
for 15 calendar years or more over the course of their careers. The 15
years are a total number of years--they would not have to be
consecutive years. The substance of the disqualification corresponds to
the proposed qualifying affiliation in new Rule 12100(p)(3). FINRA
selected the 20 percent threshold for application of the provision to
keep it consistent with the thresholds in new Rules 12100(u)(2) and
12100(u)(6).
New Rules 12100(u)(4) and 12100(u)(8)
    FINRA currently disqualifies personnel working in a bank or other
financial institution (e.g., a credit union) who execute transactions
in securities, or who supervise employees who execute transactions in
securities, from serving as public arbitrators.\30\ This provision
applies to persons who are employed by a financial industry entity that
is not covered by current Rule 12100(p)(1). When these individuals end
their affiliation, they may immediately apply to serve as public
arbitrators at the forum unless they have engaged in this type of work
for 20 years or more over the course of their careers.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See current Rule 12100(u)(1) which references current Rule
12100(p)(4).
    \31\ See current Rule 12100(u)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA is proposing to adopt new Rules 12100(u)(4) and 12100(u)(8)
to expand the current provision. In new Rule 12100(u)(8), FINRA would
impose a five-year cooling-off period in the rule; and, in new Rule
12100(u)(4), FINRA would decrease the number of years for a permanent
disqualification from 20 years to 15 years. The 15 years are a total
number of years--they would not have to be consecutive years. Although
the description of the disqualification in paragraphs (u)(4) and (u)(8)
is identical, FINRA believes it would add clarity to the definition to
separate out when the provision results in a permanent
disqualification, and when it results in a temporary disqualification.
Substantively, new Rules 12100(u)(4) and 12100(u)(8) are identical to
new Rule 12100(p)(4).
New Rule 12100(u)(5)
    FINRA currently disqualifies individuals employed by, or who are
directors or officers of, an entity that directly or indirectly
controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with, any
partnership, corporation, or other organization that is engaged in the
securities business.\32\ These persons may become public arbitrators
two years after ending their affiliation.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See current Rules 12100(u)(6) and 12100(u)(7).
    \33\ See current Rule 12100(u).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA is proposing to adopt new Rule 12100(u)(5) to expand
application of the provision in two ways. First, FINRA would expand the
disqualification from an ``organization that is engaged in the
securities business'' to an ``organization that is engaged in the
financial industry.'' Second, FINRA would increase the cooling-off
period from two years to five years. This disqualification addresses
the perception that employees, officers, and directors of entities that
are associated with industry entities should not serve as public
arbitrators because they may favor an industry party in an arbitration
proceeding. The term ``financial industry'' would replace the term
``securities business'' to ensure that the provision covers all
financial services entities that may raise concerns about neutrality.
The term securities business may be interpreted too narrowly to apply
only to the affiliations in current Rule 12100(p)(1).

New Rule 12100(u)(9)
    Currently, professionals may not serve as public arbitrators if
their firm: Derived 10 percent or more of its annual revenue in the
past two years from providing services to the financial industry; \34\
or derived $50,000 or more in annual revenue in the past two years from
providing services to the securities industry relating to customer
disputes concerning an investment account or transaction.\35\ For
example, a real estate attorney working at a law firm with a securities
practice devoted to serving the industry is disqualified from serving
as a public arbitrator if the threshold percentage or dollar figure is
met. He or she may, however, become a public arbitrator two years after
leaving the firm or two years after the firm no longer derives annual
revenue from the financial industry or securities industry exceeding
those thresholds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See current Rule 12100(u)(4).
    \35\ See current Rule 12100(u)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA is proposing to adopt new Rule 12100(u)(9) to combine the two
disqualifications into one, and to simplify the disqualification
relating to the $50,000 threshold. New Rule 12100(u)(9) would provide
that professionals may not serve as public arbitrators if their firm
derived $50,000 or more, or at least 10 percent of its annual revenue,
in any single calendar year during the course of the past two calendar
years, from: The entities listed in paragraph (u)(1) and/or to any
persons or entities associated with any of the entities listed in
paragraph (u)(1); or from a bank or other financial institution where
persons effect transactions in securities including government or
municipal securities, commodities, futures, or options. The cooling-off
period of two years would be the same. FINRA is proposing to remove the
requirement that the $50,000 in revenue relate to customer disputes
concerning an investment account or transaction to make it easier for
potential and existing arbitrators to determine if the disqualification
would apply.
New Rule 12100(u)(10)
    FINRA is proposing to adopt new Rule 12100(u)(10) to disqualify
from the public arbitrator roster, professionals whose firm derived
$50,000 or more, or at least 10 percent of its annual revenue, in any
single calendar year during the course of the past two calendar years,
from individual and/or institutional investors relating to securities
matters. FINRA would apply a two-year cooling-off period to this
provision. For example, a trust and estates attorney working at a law
firm with a securities practice devoted to serving investors would be
disqualified from serving as a public arbitrator if the threshold
percentage or dollar figure is met.
    New Rule 12100(u)(10) is not based on an existing
disqualification--it is entirely new. The purpose of this provision is
to address an industry perception that a professional whose firm
derives significant revenue from representing investors in securities
matters in not neutral, and should not be permitted to serve as a
public arbitrator. The revenue thresholds and cooling-off period are
consistent with proposed new Rule 12100(u)(9).
New Rule 12100(u)(11)
    FINRA currently disqualifies individuals from serving as public
arbitrators if their spouse or immediate family member is employed by,
or is a director or officer of, an entity that directly or indirectly
controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with, any
partnership, corporation, or other organization that is engaged in the
securities business.\36\ FINRA applies a two-year cooling-off period to
these disqualifications.\37\ In addition, if an individual's spouse or
immediate family member is employed in a securities industry entity or
provides services to such an entity and/or the entity's employees, the
person may not serve as a public arbitrator.\38\ While the current
public arbitrator definition does not include a cooling-off period for
this disqualification, it has been FINRA's practice to make these
individuals wait for five years after their spouse or immediate family
member ends the disqualifying affiliation before they may become public
arbitrators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See current Rules 12100(u)(6) and 12100(u)(7).
    \37\ See current Rule 12100(u).
    \38\ See current Rule 12100(u)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA is proposing to simplify these disqualifications and add
clarity to them by combining them into one disqualification with a two-
year cooling-off period. New Rule 12100(u)(11) would provide that a
person shall not be designated as a public arbitrator if his or her
immediate family member is an individual whom FINRA would disqualify
from serving on the public arbitrator roster. If the person's immediate
family member ends the disqualifying affiliation, or the person ends
the relationship with the individual so that the individual is no
longer the person's immediate family member, the person may, after two
calendar years have passed from the end of the affiliation or
relationship, be designated as a public arbitrator. FINRA believes it
is appropriate to have a two-year cooling-off period for all
disqualifications based on the activities of others.
Immediate Family
    In the current public arbitrator definition, the term spouse
appears in the disqualification text, not in the description of
immediate family member. The term immediate family member includes a
person's parent, stepparent, child, stepchild, or household member. It
also includes an individual that the person supports financially,\39\
and an individual who is claimed as a dependent for federal tax
purposes. FINRA is proposing to update the term to reflect current
societal relationships. Under proposed new Rule 12100(u)(11), FINRA
would add as immediate family members a person's spouse, partner in a
civil union, and domestic partner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Financial support is defined as providing an individual
with more than 50 percent of his or her annual income.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\40\ 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. FINRA believes that the proposed rule change would
benefit users of FINRA's arbitration forum by addressing concerns
raised about the fairness and neutrality of FINRA's public arbitrator
roster. FINRA expects all arbitrators to be fair and neutral, and
believes that they are. However, FINRA believes that it must address
perceptions about the allegiances or inclinations of arbitrators that
may erode confidence in the forum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA believes that classifying any individual who worked in the
financial industry for any duration as a non-public arbitrator would
improve investors' views about the neutrality of the public arbitrator
roster. FINRA also believes that classifying professionals who
represent or provide services to parties in disputes concerning
investment accounts or transactions as non-public arbitrators would
enable all parties in customer cases with three arbitrators to address
their perceptions about the neutrality of public arbitrator roster
through the use of strikes during the panel selection process.
Moreover, FINRA believes that including cooling-

off periods in the proposed public arbitrator definition would help
ensure that potential arbitrators have sufficient separation from their
financial industry affiliations before FINRA permits them to serve as
public arbitrators.

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

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

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

    Written comments on the proposed rule change were neither solicited
nor received.

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2014-028 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2014-028. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet 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
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 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-2014-028 and
should be submitted on or before July 24, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-15607 Filed 7-2-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 21 (Friday, January 31, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 5294]
[FR Doc No: 2014-02088]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, South
Coast Air Quality Management District

CFR Correction

0
In Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 52 (Sec. Sec.
52.01 to 52.1018), revised as of July 1, 2013, on page 277, in Sec.
52.220, the paragraph designation for paragraph (311)(A)(i)(2) is
italicized and the paragraph is moved to before paragraph
(311)(A)(i)(3).

[FR Doc. 2014-02088 Filed 1-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D


[Federal Register: June 16, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 116)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 34864-34867]
[DOCID:fr16jn06-29]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0379; FRL-8184-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; Reasonably Available Control Technology
Requirements for Volatile Organic Compounds and Nitrogen Oxides

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to remove the limited status of its approval
of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision that requires all major sources of volatile organic compounds
(VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) to implement reasonably
available control technology (RACT). EPA is proposing to convert its
limited approval of Pennsylvania's VOC and NOX RACT
regulations to full approval because EPA has approved or is currently
conducting rulemaking to approve all of the case-by-case RACT
determinations submitted by Pennsylvania for the affected sources. In
prior final rules, EPA has previously fully approved Pennsylvania's VOC
and NOX RACT regulations for the Philadelphia-Wilmington-
Trenton, and Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley areas. EPA is now proposing to
convert its limited approval of Pennsylvania's VOC and NOX
RACT regulations as they apply in the remainder of the Commonwealth to
full approval because EPA has approved or is currently conducting
rulemaking to approve all of the case-by-case RACT determinations
submitted by Pennsylvania for the affected sources in the remainder of
the Commonwealth. Final action converting the limited approval to full
approval shall occur once EPA has completed rulemaking to approve
either (1) the case-by-case RACT proposals for all sources subject to
the RACT requirements currently known in the remainder of the State,
outside of the Pittsburgh and Philadelphia areas; or (2) for a
sufficient number of sources such that the emissions from any remaining
subject sources represent a de minimis level of emissions. This action
is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 17, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-

R03-OAR-2006-0379 by one of the following methods:
    A. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
    B. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0379, Makeba Morris, Chief, Air Quality
Planning and Analysis Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2006-0379. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at http://www.regulations.gov. providing any personal information provided,

unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail.

The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,

which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov,

your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or

in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal
are available at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources
Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street,
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Wentworth,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
I. Background

    Pursuant to sections 182(b) and 182(f) of the Clean Air Act (CAA),
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (the Commonwealth or Pennsylvania) is
required to establish and implement RACT for all major VOC and
NOX sources. SIP revisions imposing RACT for three classes
of VOC sources are required under section 182(b)(2). The categories are
all sources covered by a Control Technique Guideline (CTG) document
issued between November 15, 1990 and the date of 1-hour ozone
attainment; all sources covered by a CTG issued prior to November 15,
1990; and all other major non-CTG sources. Section 182(f) provides that
the planning requirements applicable to major stationary sources of
VOCs in other provisions in part D, subpart 2 (including section 182)
apply to major stationary sources of NOX.
    The Pennsylvania SIP already includes approved RACT regulations for
sources and source categories of VOCs covered by the CTGs as required
by section 182(b)(2)(A) and (B). Regulations requiring RACT for all
major sources of VOC and NOX were to be submitted to EPA as
SIP revisions by November 1992 and compliance required by May of 1995.
On February 4, 1994, PADEP submitted a revision to its SIP, consisting
of 25 PA Code Chapters 129.91 through 129.95, to require major sources
of NOX and additional major sources of VOC emissions (not
covered by a CTG) to implement RACT (non-CTG RACT rules). The February
4, 1994 submittal was amended on May 3, 1994 to correct and clarify
certain presumptive NOX RACT requirements under Chapter
129.93. As described in more detail, below, EPA granted conditional
limited approval of the Commonwealth's VOC and NOX RACT
regulations on March 23, 1998 (63 FR 13789), and removed the
conditional aspect of the approval on May 3, 2001 (66 FR 22123).
    Under section 184 of the CAA, RACT as specified in sections
182(b)(2) and 182(f) applies throughout the ozone transport region
(OTR). The entire Commonwealth is located within the OTR. Therefore,
RACT is applicable statewide in Pennsylvania. The major source size
generally is determined by the classification of the area in which the
source is located. However, for areas located in the OTR, the major
source size for stationary sources of VOCs is 50 tons per year (tpy)
unless the area's 1-hour ozone classification prescribes a lower major
source threshold. The RACT regulations contain technology-based or
operational ``presumptive RACT emission limitations'' for certain major
NOX sources. For other major NOX sources, and all
major non-CTG VOC sources (not otherwise already subject to RACT
pursuant to a source category regulation under the Pennsylvania SIP),
the regulations contain a ``generic'' RACT provision. A generic RACT
regulation is one that does not, itself, specifically define RACT for a
source or source categories, but instead allows for case-by-case RACT
determinations. The generic provisions of Pennsylvania's regulations
allow for PADEP to make case-by-case RACT determinations that are then
to be submitted to EPA as revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP.
    On March 23, 1998 (63 FR 13789), EPA granted conditional limited
approval of a Pennsylvania SIP revision that established and required
all major sources of VOCs and NOX to implement RACT. This
approval was granted on the condition that Pennsylvania must, by no
later than April 22, 1999 certify that (1) it had submitted case-by-
case RACT proposals for all sources subject to the RACT requirements
currently know to PADEP, or (2) demonstrate that the emissions from any
remaining subject sources represented a de minimis level of emissions
as defined in the rulemaking document.
    On April 22, 1999, the PADEP submitted a letter certifying that it
had met the terms and conditions imposed by EPA in its March 23, 1998
(63 FR 13789) conditional limited approval of its VOC and
NOX RACT regulation by submitting case-by-case VOC/
NOX RACT determinations as SIP revisions. EPA concurred that
Pennsylvania's April 22, 1999 certification satisfied the condition
imposed in its conditional limited approval published on March 23, 1998
(63 FR 13789), and published a direct final rulemaking (May 3, 2001, 66
FR 22123) removing the conditional status of its approval of the

Commonwealth's SIP revision that required all major sources of VOCs and
NOX to implement RACT. That final rule became effective on
June 18, 2001. The regulation retained a limited approval status on the
basis that it strengthened the Pennsylvania SIP. Conversion from
limited to full approval would occur when EPA had approved all of the
case-by-case RACT determinations as SIP revisions.
    On October 16, 2001 (66 FR 52533), EPA published a final rulemaking
for the Commonwealth removing the limited status of its approval of
Pennsylvania's SIP revision that required all major sources of VOCs and
NOX to implement RACT as it applied in the Pittsburgh-Beaver
Valley ozone nonattainment area (Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler,
Fayette, Washington, and Westmoreland counties), because EPA had
approved all of the case-by-case RACT determinations submitted by PADEP
for affected major sources of NOX and/or VOC sources located
in the area. EPA converted its limited approval of Pennsylvania's RACT
regulation to full approval as it applied to that area. That rulemaking
became effective on November 15, 2001.
    On October 30, 2001 (66 FR 54698), EPA published a final rulemaking
for the Commonwealth removing the limited status of its approval of
Pennsylvania's SIP revision that required all major sources of VOCs and
NOX to implement RACT as it applied in the Philadelphia-
Wilmington-Trenton ozone nonattainment area (Bucks, Chester, Delaware,
Montgomery, and Philadelphia counties) because EPA had approved all of
the case-by-case RACT determinations submitted by PADEP for affected
major sources of NOX and/or VOC sources located in the area.
EPA converted its limited approval of Pennsylvania's RACT regulation to
full approval as it applied to that area. That rulemaking became
effective on November 29, 2001.

II. EPA's Proposed Action

    As EPA stated in its May 3, 2001 final rule (66 FR 22123),
conversion of Pennsylvania's VOC and NOX regulation from
limited to full approval would occur when EPA had approved all of the
case-by-case RACT determinations submitted by Pennsylvania into the
Pennsylvania SIP. EPA has previously removed the limited status of its
approval of Pennsylvania's SIP revisions that requires all major
sources of VOC and NOX to implement RACT as it applies in
the Pittsburgh and Philadelphia areas because EPA has approved all of
the case-by-case RACT determinations for these areas. In this action
EPA is proposing to convert its limited approval of Pennsylvania's RACT
regulation to full approval as it applies in the remainder of the
Commonwealth because EPA has approved or is currently conducting
rulemaking to approve all remaining case-by-case RACT determinations
submitted by PADEP. Final action converting the limited approval to
full approval shall occur once EPA has completed rulemaking to approve
either (1) the case-by-case RACT proposals for all sources subject to
the RACT requirements currently known in the remainder of the State,
outside of the Pittsburgh and Philadelphia areas; or (2) for a
sufficient number of sources such that the emissions from any remaining
subject sources represent a de minimis level of emissions as defined in
the March 23, 1998 rulemaking (63 FR 13789). EPA is soliciting public
comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will
be considered before taking final action.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)).
This action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that
this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-
existing requirements under state law and does not impose any
additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does
not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect
small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This proposed rule also does not have a
substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have substantial direct
effects 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, as specified
in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it
merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal
requirement, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of
power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This
proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act.
    Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.
As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February
7, 1996), in issuing this proposed rule, EPA has taken the necessary
steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential
litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct.
EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15,
1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance
with the ``Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the
Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued
under the executive order.
    This proposed rule, regarding Pennsylvania's VOC and NOX
RACT regulations as they apply in the remainder of the Commonwealth,
does not impose an information collection under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide,
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: June 7, 2006.
Donald S. Welsh,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
 [FR Doc. E6-9461 Filed 6-15-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 166 (Monday, August 27, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 43607]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18606]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 721

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0464; FRL-9982-25]
RIN 2070-AB27

Significant New Use Rules on Certain Chemical Substances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing significant new use rules (SNURs) under the
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for 19 chemical substances which
were the subject of premanufacture notices (PMNs). The chemical
substances are subject to Orders issued by EPA pursuant to section 5(e)
of TSCA. This action would require persons who intend to manufacture
(defined by statute to include import) or process any of these 19
chemical substances for an activity that is designated as a significant
new use by these rules to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing
that activity. The required notification initiates EPA's evaluation of
the intended use within the applicable review period. Persons may not
commence manufacture or processing for the significant new use until
EPA has conducted a review of the notice, made an appropriate
determination on the notice, and has taken such actions as are required
with that determination. In addition to this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, EPA is issuing the action as a direct final rule elsewhere
in this issue of the Federal Register.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 26, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0464, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.

Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact:
Kenneth Moss, Chemical Control Division (7405M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 564-9232; email address: [email protected].
    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In addition to this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, EPA is issuing the action as a direct final rule elsewhere
in this issue of the Federal Register. For further information about
the proposed significant new use rules, please see the information
provided in the direct final action, with the same title, that is
located in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this issue of the
Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 721

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: August 17, 2018.
Jeffery T. Morris,
Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
[FR Doc. 2018-18606 Filed 8-24-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 45 (Monday, March 9, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12365-12368]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05471]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2015-0071]
RIN 1625-AA08

Safety Zone; 24 Mile Tampa Bay Marathon Swim, Tampa Bay, Tampa,
FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a temporary moving
safety zone on the waters of the Tampa Bay in Tampa, Florida during the
24 Mile Tampa Bay Marathon Swim. The swim is scheduled to take place
from 4 a.m. to 9 p.m. on April 25, 2015. Approximately 30 swimmers are
anticipated to participate in the marathon swim event. No spectators
are expected to be present during the event. The safety zone is
necessary to provide for the safety of the participants, participant
vessels, and the general public on the navigable waters of the United
States during the event. The safety zone will establish a moving
protective area around all swimmers involved in the race. Persons and
vessels, except those participating in the event, will be prohibited
from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within
the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port St.
Petersburg or a designated representative.

DATES: Requests for public meetings, comments or related material must
be received by the Coast Guard on or before March 16, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number using
any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail or Delivery: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Deliveries
accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
federal holidays. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for further instructions
on submitting comments. To avoid duplication, please use only one of
these three methods.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Tyrone J. Stafford, Sector St. Petersburg Prevention
Department, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or submitting material
to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

1. Submitting Comments

    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. You may submit your comments and material online at
http://www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but
please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online, it
will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully
transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment,
it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when
it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you
include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a
telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact
you if we have questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number USCG-2015-0071 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on ``Submit a Comment'' on the line associated with
this rulemaking.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period and may change the rule
based on your comments.

2. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number USCG-2015-0071 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with
this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in
Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays.

3. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

4. Public Meeting

    We do not plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one, using one of the methods specified under ADDRESSES.
Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If
we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a
time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

B. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard is proposing to establish this temporary moving
safety zone on the waters of the Tampa Bay in Tampa, Florida during the
24 Mile Tampa Bay Marathon Swim. The race is scheduled to take place
from 4 a.m. to 9 p.m. on April 25, 2015. This proposed rule is
necessary to protect the safety of the participants, participant
vessels, and the general public on the navigable waters of the United
States during the event.

C. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for the proposed rule is the Coast Guard's
authority to establish safety zones: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 33 CFR 1.05-1,
6.04-1, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
    The purpose of the proposed rule is to provide for the safety of
life on navigable waters of the United States during the 24 Mile Tampa
Bay Marathon Swim.

D. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    This proposed rule is to establish a temporary moving safety zone
that will encompass certain waters of Tampa Bay in Tampa, Florida. The
proposed safety zone will be enforced from 4 a.m. to 9 p.m. on April
25, 2015. The safety zone will establish a moving protective area
around all swimmers involved in the race. Persons and vessels, except
those participating in the event, will be prohibited from entering,
transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated
area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a
designated representative.
    Persons and vessels may request authorization to enter, transit
through, anchor in, or remain within the enforcement areas by
contacting the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg by telephone at (727)
824-7506, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16.
If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within
the enforcement areas is granted by the Captain of the Port St.
Petersburg or a designated representative, all persons and vessels
receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the
Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative.

E. 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 or executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
    The economic impact of this proposed rule is not significant for
the following reasons: (1) The temporary moving safety zone would be
enforced for 17 hours; (2) although persons and vessels are prohibited
to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the enforcement
areas without authorization from the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg
or a designated representative, they may operate in the surrounding
area during the enforcement period; (3) persons and vessels may still
enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the enforcement
areas during the enforcement period if authorized by the Captain of the
Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative; and (4) the

Coast Guard would provide advance notification of the safety zone to
the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast
Notice to Mariners and/or on-scene designated representatives.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The
Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    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.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    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 above. 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.

4. Collection of Information

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

5. Federalism

    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
determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. 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.

7. 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 expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    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.

12. Energy Effects

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' under
Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. 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 (NEPA) (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 rule is categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the
Commandant Instruction. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist
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.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--SAFETY ZONES

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub. L. 107-
295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add a temporary Sec.  165.T07-0071 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T07-0071  Safety Zone; 24 Mile Tampa Bay Marathon Swim, Tampa
Bay; Tampa, FL.

    (a) Regulated Areas. All waters within a 50-yard radius around the
swimmers and safety vessels including kayaks.
    (b) Definition. The term ``designated representative'' means Coast
Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty
officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and
Federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the

Captain of the Port St. Petersburg in the enforcement of the regulated
areas.
    (c) Regulations. (1) All persons and vessels are prohibited from
entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the
regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port St.
Petersburg or a designated representative.
    (2) Non-participant persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit
through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the
Captain of the Port St. Petersburg by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or a
designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16. If authorization
to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated
area is granted by the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a
designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such
authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the
Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative.
    (3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area by
Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and/or on-scene
designated representatives.
    (d) Effective Date. This rule is effective on April 25, 2015 and
will be enforced from 4 a.m. to 9 p.m.

     Dated: February 18, 2015.
G.D. Case,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port St. Petersburg.
[FR Doc. 2015-05471 Filed 3-6-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P