Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Hearing Location Rules of the Codes of Arbitration Procedure for Customer and Industry Disputes, 6769-6770 [2010-2867]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 10, 2010 / Notices
comments more efficiently, please use
only one method. The Commission will
post all comments on the Commission’s
Internet Web site (https://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the
submission,12 all subsequent
amendments, all written statements
with respect to the proposed rule
change that are filed with the
Commission, and all written
communications relating to the
proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than
those that may be withheld from the
public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission’s Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also
will be available for inspection and
copying at the principal office of the
ISE. 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–ISE–2010–10 and should be
submitted on or before March 3, 2010.
For the Commission, by the Division of
Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated
authority.13
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010–2947 Filed 2–9–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
[Release No. 34–61497; File No. SR–FINRA–
2009–073]
Self-Regulatory Organizations;
Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Order Approving
Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Hearing Location Rules of the Codes
of Arbitration Procedure for Customer
and Industry Disputes
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
February 4, 2010.
I. Introduction
On October 28, 2009, Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(‘‘FINRA’’) (f/k/a National Association of
Securities Dealers, Inc. (‘‘NASD’’)) filed
with the Securities and Exchange
12 The text of the proposed rule change is
available on ISE’s Web site at https://www.ise.com,
on the Commission’s Web site at https://
www.sec.gov, at ISE, and at the Commission’s
Public Reference Room.
13 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:21 Feb 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
Commission (‘‘SEC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2 a
proposed rule change to amend Rules
12213(a) and 13313(a) of the Code of
Arbitration Procedure for Customer
Disputes (‘‘Customer Code’’) and the
Code of Arbitration Procedure for
Industry Disputes (‘‘Industry Code’’),
respectively, to expand the criteria for
selecting a hearing location for an
arbitration proceeding. The proposed
rule change was published for comment
in the Federal Register on December 30,
2009.3 The Commission received three
comment letters, all of which supported
the proposed rule change.4 This order
approves the proposed rule change.
II. Description of the Proposed Rule
Change
Hearing Location Selection Under the
Customer Code
Currently, Rule 12213(a) of the
Customer Code states that generally, the
Director of FINRA Dispute Resolution
(‘‘Director’’) will select the hearing
location closest to the customer’s
residence at the time of the events
giving rise to the dispute. FINRA has
determined that its policy concerning
selection of a hearing location under the
Customer Code may be broader than the
rule describes.
Under the current rule in the
Customer Code, for example, if a
customer in an arbitration proceeding
lives in Hoboken, New Jersey, the
Director will select the New York City
hearing location, because this hearing
location is closer to the customer’s
residence, Hoboken,5 than FINRA’s
Newark, New Jersey hearing location.
There have been instances, however,
in which the Director has granted
customers’ requests to select a hearing
location in their state of residence at the
time of the events giving rise to the
dispute, even though the in-state
hearing location may not be the closest
hearing location. Thus, in the example
above, if the customer requests the
Newark, New Jersey hearing location,
the Director generally will grant the
request, even though the closest hearing
1 15
U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
CFR 240.19b–4.
3 74 FR 69184 (Dec. 30, 2009).
4 See letters from Steven B. Caruso, Maddox
Hargett Caruso, P.C., dated December 29, 2009;
Scott R. Shewan, President, Public Investors
Arbitration Bar Association (‘‘PIABA’’), dated
January 19, 2010; and Jill I. Gross, Director, The
Investors Rights Clinic at Pace University Law
School, dated January 20, 2010.
5 Hoboken, New Jersey is less than a mile by ferry
across the Hudson River from FINRA’s New York
City hearing location.
2 17
PO 00000
Frm 00148
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
6769
location is the New York City location.
The Director typically attempts to honor
such requests as a convenience to public
customers.
FINRA is proposing, therefore, to
amend Rule 12213(a) of the Customer
Code to add this criterion for selecting
a hearing location. The proposed
amendment to the rule would state that
the Director will select the hearing
location closest to the customer’s
residence at the time of the events
giving rise to the dispute, unless the
hearing location closest to the
customer’s residence is in a different
state. In that case, the customer may
request a hearing location in the
customer’s state of residence at the time
of the events giving rise to the dispute.
Under the proposal, the Director
would continue to select the hearing
location closest to the customer’s
residence at the time of the events
giving rise to the dispute. However, the
Director would honor a customer’s
request for a different hearing location
in the customer’s state of residence.6
FINRA believes the proposal is
customer-friendly because it gives
customers more control over the
arbitration process, by providing them
with a choice of hearing locations.
Hearing Location Selection Under the
Industry Code
Rule 13213(a) of the Industry Code
states, in relevant part, that in cases
involving an associated person, the
Director will generally select the hearing
location closest to where the associated
person was employed at the time of the
events giving rise to the dispute. FINRA
has not received requests from
associated persons for different hearing
locations, other than the closest hearing
location under the current rule.
However, FINRA believes that
associated persons also should have the
option to select a hearing location in
their state of employment at the time of
the events giving rise to the dispute, if
the closest hearing location to their
employment is in a different state.
Thus, FINRA is proposing to amend
Rule 13213(a) of the Industry Code in
two ways. First, FINRA would broaden
the criteria for selecting the appropriate
hearing location by referring to the time
6 If the customer requests a different hearing
location other than the location closest to the
customer’s residence at the time of the events giving
rise to the dispute and makes the request before the
arbitrator or arbitrators are selected, the Director
will grant the request. If the customer requests a
different hearing location other than the location
closest to the customer’s residence at the time of the
events giving rise to the dispute and makes the
request after the arbitrator or arbitrators are
selected, the customer must submit the request to
the arbitrator or panel.
E:\FR\FM\10FEN1.SGM
10FEN1
6770
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 10, 2010 / Notices
of the events giving rise to the dispute.
FINRA notes that this amendment
clarifies current practice and makes the
rule language under the Industry Code
consistent with the comparable rule
under the Customer Code. The second
change to Rule 13213(a) would allow an
associated person to request a different
hearing location, other than the closest
hearing location. Specifically, the
proposal would state that the Director
will select the hearing location closest
to where the associated person was
employed at the time of the events
giving rise to the dispute, unless the
hearing location closest to the
associated person’s employment is in a
different state. In that case, the
associated person may request a hearing
location in his or her state of
employment at the time of the events
giving rise to the dispute.
Under the proposal, the Director
would continue to select the hearing
location closest to where the associated
person was employed at the time of the
events giving rise to the dispute.
However, the Director would honor an
associated person’s request for a
different hearing location in the
associated person’s state of
employment.7 FINRA believes the
proposal would benefit associated
persons by providing them with a
choice of hearing locations.
Three commenters addressed the
proposed rule change and all three
urged the Commission to approve it.8
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
III. Discussion and Commission
Findings
The Commission finds the proposed
rule change to be consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules
and regulations thereunder applicable to
a national securities association.9 In
particular, the Commission finds that
the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6)
of the Act,10 which requires, among
7 If the associated person requests a different
hearing location other than the location closest to
where the associated person was employed at the
time of the of the events giving rise to dispute and
makes the request before the arbitrator or arbitrators
are selected, the Director will grant the request. If
the associated person requests a different hearing
location other than the location closest to where the
associated person was employed at the time of the
of the events giving rise to dispute and makes the
request after the arbitrator or arbitrators are
selected, the associated person must submit the
request to the arbitrator or panel.
8 In its comment, PIABA also recommended that
FINRA consider additional changes in a future rule
filing. Those suggestions are outside the scope of
the current proposed rule change.
9 In approving the proposed rule change, the
Commission has considered the proposed rule’s
impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
10 15 U.S.C. 78o–3(b)(6).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:21 Feb 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
other things, that FINRA rules must be
designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of
trade, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. The
Commission believes that the proposed
rule change is consistent with FINRA’s
statutory obligations under the Act to
protect investors and the public interest
because the proposal would assist in the
efficient administration of the
arbitration process by further clarifying
the procedures of selecting hearing
locations.
IV. Conclusion
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,11 that the
proposed rule change (SR–FINRA–
2009–073) be, and hereby is, approved.
For the Commission, by the Division of
Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated
authority.12
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010–2867 Filed 2–9–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
[Release No. 34–61492; File No. SR–Phlx–
2010–10]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness
of Proposed Rule Change by NASDAQ
OMX PHLX, Inc. Relating to the
Exchange’s Quote Lock Counting
Period
February 4, 2010.
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 January
29, 2010, NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc.
(‘‘Phlx’’ or the ‘‘Exchange’’) 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 the Exchange. Phlx has
designated the proposed rule change as
constituting a rule change under Rule
19b–4(f)(6) under the Act,3 which
renders the proposal effective upon
filing with the Commission. The
Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule
change from interested persons.
11 15
U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).
1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.
3 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6).
12 17
PO 00000
Frm 00149
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement of the Terms of Substance of
the Proposed Rule Change
The Exchange proposes to amend
Commentaries .02 and .03 to Exchange
Rule 1082, Firm Quotations, to modify
the duration of the ‘‘counting period’’
that is initiated when electronically
submitted quotations of specialists,
Streaming Quote Traders (‘‘SQTs’’),4 and
Remote Streaming Quote Traders
(‘‘RSQTs’’) 5 interact with one another
and result in a locked market (e.g., $1.00
bid—1.00 offer) or crossed market (e.g.,
$1.10 bid—1.00 offer). The Exchange
also proposes technical amendments as
described below.
The text of the proposed rule change
is available on the Exchange’s Web site
at https://www.nasdaqtrader.com/
micro.aspx?id=PHLXRulefilings, at the
principal office of the Exchange, 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, the
Exchange 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. The
Exchange 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
The purpose of the proposed rule
change is to give the Exchange the
ability to improve the speed with which
the Exchange’s systems can
automatically execute locked or crossed
quotations against one another.
4 An SQT is an Exchange Registered Options
Trader (‘‘ROT’’) who has received permission from
the Exchange to generate and submit option
quotations electronically through an electronic
interface with AUTOM via an Exchange approved
proprietary electronic quoting device in eligible
options to which such SQT is assigned. See
Exchange Rule 1014(b)(ii)(A).
5 An RSQT is an ROT that is a member or member
organization with no physical trading floor
presence who has received permission from the
Exchange to generate and submit option quotations
electronically through AUTOM in eligible options
to which such RSQT has been assigned. An RSQT
may only submit such quotations electronically
from off the floor of the Exchange. See Exchange
Rule 1014(b)(ii)(B).
E:\FR\FM\10FEN1.SGM
10FEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 27 (Wednesday, February 10, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6769-6770]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-2867]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-61497; File No. SR-FINRA-2009-073]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Hearing Location Rules of the Codes of Arbitration Procedure for
Customer and Industry Disputes
February 4, 2010.
I. Introduction
On October 28, 2009, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') (f/k/a National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.
(``NASD'')) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend Rules 12213(a) and 13313(a) of the Code
of Arbitration Procedure for Customer Disputes (``Customer Code'') and
the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Industry Disputes (``Industry
Code''), respectively, to expand the criteria for selecting a hearing
location for an arbitration proceeding. The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on December 30, 2009.\3\
The Commission received three comment letters, all of which supported
the proposed rule change.\4\ This order approves the proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
\2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
\3\ 74 FR 69184 (Dec. 30, 2009).
\4\ See letters from Steven B. Caruso, Maddox Hargett Caruso,
P.C., dated December 29, 2009; Scott R. Shewan, President, Public
Investors Arbitration Bar Association (``PIABA''), dated January 19,
2010; and Jill I. Gross, Director, The Investors Rights Clinic at
Pace University Law School, dated January 20, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change
Hearing Location Selection Under the Customer Code
Currently, Rule 12213(a) of the Customer Code states that
generally, the Director of FINRA Dispute Resolution (``Director'') will
select the hearing location closest to the customer's residence at the
time of the events giving rise to the dispute. FINRA has determined
that its policy concerning selection of a hearing location under the
Customer Code may be broader than the rule describes.
Under the current rule in the Customer Code, for example, if a
customer in an arbitration proceeding lives in Hoboken, New Jersey, the
Director will select the New York City hearing location, because this
hearing location is closer to the customer's residence, Hoboken,\5\
than FINRA's Newark, New Jersey hearing location.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Hoboken, New Jersey is less than a mile by ferry across the
Hudson River from FINRA's New York City hearing location.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There have been instances, however, in which the Director has
granted customers' requests to select a hearing location in their state
of residence at the time of the events giving rise to the dispute, even
though the in-state hearing location may not be the closest hearing
location. Thus, in the example above, if the customer requests the
Newark, New Jersey hearing location, the Director generally will grant
the request, even though the closest hearing location is the New York
City location. The Director typically attempts to honor such requests
as a convenience to public customers.
FINRA is proposing, therefore, to amend Rule 12213(a) of the
Customer Code to add this criterion for selecting a hearing location.
The proposed amendment to the rule would state that the Director will
select the hearing location closest to the customer's residence at the
time of the events giving rise to the dispute, unless the hearing
location closest to the customer's residence is in a different state.
In that case, the customer may request a hearing location in the
customer's state of residence at the time of the events giving rise to
the dispute.
Under the proposal, the Director would continue to select the
hearing location closest to the customer's residence at the time of the
events giving rise to the dispute. However, the Director would honor a
customer's request for a different hearing location in the customer's
state of residence.\6\ FINRA believes the proposal is customer-friendly
because it gives customers more control over the arbitration process,
by providing them with a choice of hearing locations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ If the customer requests a different hearing location other
than the location closest to the customer's residence at the time of
the events giving rise to the dispute and makes the request before
the arbitrator or arbitrators are selected, the Director will grant
the request. If the customer requests a different hearing location
other than the location closest to the customer's residence at the
time of the events giving rise to the dispute and makes the request
after the arbitrator or arbitrators are selected, the customer must
submit the request to the arbitrator or panel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hearing Location Selection Under the Industry Code
Rule 13213(a) of the Industry Code states, in relevant part, that
in cases involving an associated person, the Director will generally
select the hearing location closest to where the associated person was
employed at the time of the events giving rise to the dispute. FINRA
has not received requests from associated persons for different hearing
locations, other than the closest hearing location under the current
rule. However, FINRA believes that associated persons also should have
the option to select a hearing location in their state of employment at
the time of the events giving rise to the dispute, if the closest
hearing location to their employment is in a different state.
Thus, FINRA is proposing to amend Rule 13213(a) of the Industry
Code in two ways. First, FINRA would broaden the criteria for selecting
the appropriate hearing location by referring to the time
[[Page 6770]]
of the events giving rise to the dispute. FINRA notes that this
amendment clarifies current practice and makes the rule language under
the Industry Code consistent with the comparable rule under the
Customer Code. The second change to Rule 13213(a) would allow an
associated person to request a different hearing location, other than
the closest hearing location. Specifically, the proposal would state
that the Director will select the hearing location closest to where the
associated person was employed at the time of the events giving rise to
the dispute, unless the hearing location closest to the associated
person's employment is in a different state. In that case, the
associated person may request a hearing location in his or her state of
employment at the time of the events giving rise to the dispute.
Under the proposal, the Director would continue to select the
hearing location closest to where the associated person was employed at
the time of the events giving rise to the dispute. However, the
Director would honor an associated person's request for a different
hearing location in the associated person's state of employment.\7\
FINRA believes the proposal would benefit associated persons by
providing them with a choice of hearing locations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ If the associated person requests a different hearing
location other than the location closest to where the associated
person was employed at the time of the of the events giving rise to
dispute and makes the request before the arbitrator or arbitrators
are selected, the Director will grant the request. If the associated
person requests a different hearing location other than the location
closest to where the associated person was employed at the time of
the of the events giving rise to dispute and makes the request after
the arbitrator or arbitrators are selected, the associated person
must submit the request to the arbitrator or panel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three commenters addressed the proposed rule change and all three
urged the Commission to approve it.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ In its comment, PIABA also recommended that FINRA consider
additional changes in a future rule filing. Those suggestions are
outside the scope of the current proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Discussion and Commission Findings
The Commission finds the proposed rule change to be consistent with
the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to a national securities association.\9\ In particular, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\10\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. The Commission believes that the proposed rule change
is consistent with FINRA's statutory obligations under the Act to
protect investors and the public interest because the proposal would
assist in the efficient administration of the arbitration process by
further clarifying the procedures of selecting hearing locations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
\10\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Conclusion
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\11\ that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2009-073) be, and
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-2867 Filed 2-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
