Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 13 / Thursday, January 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 3371 

1Section 14 of the Act establishes the 

Commission’s reparations program, which provides 

an ‘‘expeditious, inexpensive, and easy to use 

dispute resolution process, available to as many 

customers as possible.’’ Marianne K. Smythe, The 

Reparations Program of the Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission: Reducing Formality in 

Agency Adjudication, 2 Admin. L.J. 39, 40 (1988) 

(quoting Government Accounting Office Report, 

Reparations and Other Presently Available Forums 

for Resolution of Customer Claims, reprinted in 

CFTC Oversight: Hearings before the Subcomm. on 

Commerce, Consumer, and Monetary Affairs on the 

House Comm. on Government Operations, 97th 

Cong., 2d Sess. 861 app. 5 (1982)). 

2 Kenneth M. Raisler & Edward S. Geldermann, 

The CFTC’s New Reparation Rules: In Search of a 

Fair, Responsive, and Practical Forum for Resolving 

Commodity-Related Disputes, 40 Bus. Law 537, 540 

(1985). 

3 Id. 

§ 1115.28 Multiple products or models. 

For each product or model covered by 

a recall notice, the notice must meet the 

requirements of this subpart. 

§ 1115.29 Final determination regarding 

form and content. 

(a) Commission or court discretion. 

The recall notice content required by 

this subpart must be included in a recall 

notice whether or not the firm admits 

the existence of a defect or of an actual 

or potential hazard, and whether or not 

the firm concedes the accuracy or 

applicability of all of the information 

contained in the recall notice. The 

Commission will make the final 

determination as to the form and 

content of the recall notice for purposes 

of an order under section 15(c) or (d) of 

the CPSA (15 U.S.C. 2064(c) or (d)), and 

a United States district court will make 

the final determination as to the form 

and content of a recall notice for 

purposes of an order under section 12 

of the CPSA (15 U.S.C. 2061). 

(b) Recall notice exceptions. The 

Commission for purposes of an order 

under section 15(c) or (d) of the CPSA 

(15 U.S.C. 2064(c) or (d)), or a United 

States district court for purposes of an 

order under section 12 of the CPSA (15 

U.S.C. 2061), may determine that one or 

more of the recall notice requirements 

set forth in this subpart is not required, 

and will not be included, in a recall 

notice. 

(c) Commission approval. Before a 

firm may publish, broadcast, or 

otherwise disseminate a recall notice to 

be issued pursuant to an order under 

section 15(c) or (d) of the CPSA (15 

U.S.C. 2064(c) or (d)), the Commission 

must review and agree in writing to all 

aspects of the notice. 

Dated: January 13, 2010. 

Todd A. Stevenson, 

Secretary, United States Consumer Product 

Safety Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–873 Filed 1–20–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION 

17 CFR Part 12 

Commission Guidance Concerning the 

Rules of Practice Relating to 

Reparations 

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission. 

ACTION: Statement of policy. 

SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission (‘‘Commission’’ or 

‘‘CFTC’’) is issuing this policy statement 

to clarify and provide guidance to 

Commission staff and affected parties 

that Commission Rule 12.1(a), 17 CFR 

12.1(a), requires that all rules of practice 

relating to reparation proceedings under 

17 CFR part 12 ‘‘shall be construed 

liberally so as to secure the just, speedy 

and inexpensive determination of the 

issues presented with full protection for 

the rights of all parties.’’ 

DATES: Effective Date: This Statement of 

Policy is effective January 21, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Edwin J. Yoshimura, Office of General 

Counsel, Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission, 525 West Monroe Street, 

Suite 1100, Chicago, IL 60661. 

Telephone: (312) 596–0562. E-mail: 

eyoshimura@cftc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Under Section 14(a) of the 

Commodity Exchange Act, as amended, 

(‘‘Act’’), 7 U.S.C. 18(a), any person 

complaining of a violation of the Act or 

any rule, regulation, or order 

thereunder, by any person registered or 

required to be registered with the 

Commission, may file a complaint with 

the Commission seeking an award of 

damages.1

On January 22, 1976, the Commission 

issued its original ‘‘Rules Relating to 

Reparation Proceedings.’’ 2 17 CFR part 

12. These rules originally were intended 

to conform to the procedural 

requirements of the Administrative 

Procedure Act (‘‘APA’’), as well as the 

guidelines established by section 14 of 

the Act.3

On January 11, 1983, Section 14(b) of 

the Act, 7 U.S.C. 18(b) was amended, 

effective May 11, 1983, to authorize the 

Commission to ‘‘promulgate such rules, 

regulations and orders as it deems 

necessary or appropriate for the efficient 

administration of this section.’’ Congress 

conferred this broad discretion upon the 

Commission ‘‘[t]o enable the 

Commission to simplify its rules of 

procedure regarding reparations and 

streamline the process,’’ H.R. Rep. No. 

565, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. 55 (1982). In 

addition, the amendments to Section 

14(b) were intended to authorize the 

Commission ‘‘to use its best judgment in 

fashioning appropriate procedures that 

will be both fair and efficient.’’ Id. 

II. Statement of Policy 

Currently, Rule 12.1(a), 17 CFR 

12.1(a), provides that ‘‘[t]he rules in [17 

CFR Part 12] shall be construed liberally 

so as to secure the just, speedy and 

inexpensive determination of the issues 

presented with full protection for the 

rights of all parties.’’ 

The Commission generally has 

maintained a longstanding policy of 

liberally construing its Part 12 

Reparation Rules. We have restated that 

policy in several decisions: 

As we said in Wade v. Chevalier, 

[2007–2009 Transfer Binder] Comm. 

Fut. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 30,781 at 61,680 

(CFTC Feb. 27, 2008), ‘‘Congress created 

the reparation forum as an informal 

venue and decreed that parties are not 

to be subjected to strict rules found in 

the courts.’’ In Sommer v. 

Conticommodity Services, Inc., [1987– 

1990 Transfer Binder] Comm. Fut. L. 

Rep. (CCH) ¶ 24,244 at 35,106 (CFTC 

May 20, 1988), we also said, that 

‘‘Congress[] inten[ded] that the 

reparations program provide a more 

flexible and informal forum than that 

available in court * * *.’’ Further, in 

Cook v. Monex International, Ltd., 

[1984–1986 Transfer Binder] Comm. 

Fut. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 22,532 at 30,295 

(CFTC Mar. 19, 1985) (citations to 

legislative history omitted), we held that 

‘‘[a]s remedial legislation, the 

reparations procedure should be 

liberally interpreted to effectuate that 

congressional purpose.’’ 

We stated elsewhere that the 

complexities and formalities of district 

court litigation are not involved in the 

reparation program. Nelson v. Chilcott 

Commodities Corp., [1982–1984 

Transfer Binder] Comm. Fut. L. Rep. 

(CCH) ¶ 21,934 at 28,033 (CFTC Dec. 12, 

1983). Furthermore, ‘‘[t]o remain 

inexpensive, the reparations forum 

must, at a minimum, remain hospitable 

to the participation of pro se parties.’’ 

Hall v. Diversified Trading Systems, 

Inc., [1992–1994 Transfer Binder] 

Comm. Fut. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 26,131 at 

41,751 (CFTC July 7, 1994). ‘‘As a result, 

we have recognized that allowances 

must be made for pro se status in 

interpreting and applying procedural 

requirements.’’ Id. 

Recently, we said in Moss-Thomas v. 

East Coast Commodities: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
3372 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 13 / Thursday, January 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

[A] presiding officer’s exercise of his 

authority under the reparation rules must ‘‘be 

guided by his general responsibility for the 

‘fair and orderly conduct of a formal 

decisional proceeding.’ ’’ Jenne v. Paine 

Webber, Inc., [1987–1990 Transfer Binder] 

Comm. Fut. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 24,329 at 35,424 

(CFTC Aug. 31, 1988) (quoting Commission 

Regulation 12.304(a)). * * * The principles 

of fairness and orderliness must be 

understood in light of Congress’s intent that 

our procedures provide an ‘‘inexpensive’’ and 

expeditious alternative to the courts and 

arbitration. Anderson v. Beach, [2007–2009 

Transfer Binder] Comm. Fut. L. Rep. (CCH) 

¶ 30,763 at 61,607 (CFTC Feb. 14, 2008). 

[Current Transfer Binder] Comm. Fut. L. 

Rep. (CCH) ¶ 31,322 at 62,685 (CFTC 

Mar. 3, 2009). 

Notwithstanding this guidance, we 

have noticed that parties in some 

matters have been held to an unusually 

strict interpretation of the rules of 

practice, including nonsubstantive rules 

relating to document formatting. As a 

result, it is necessary and appropriate to 

issue this policy statement to clarify and 

provide further guidance to Commission 

staff and affected parties. 

Rule 12.1(a), 17 CFR 12.1(a), requires 

that rules of practice relating to 

reparation proceedings under 17 CFR 

part 12 ‘‘shall be construed liberally so 

as to secure the just, speedy and 

inexpensive determination of the issues 

presented with full protection for the 

rights of all parties.’’ 

For example, the requirement in Rule 

12.11, 17 CFR12.11, for documents filed 

with the Proceedings Clerk to be signed 

in ink should not be applied literally to 

documents filed by e-mail or facsimile. 

The formatting requirements need not 

be strictly enforced, as long as pleadings 

are legible. This policy statement does 

not affect the existing right of pro se 

parties to file handwritten pleadings. 17 

CFR 12.11(c). 

In another example, the forum does 

not require claimants to cite specific 

provisions of the Act, despite language 

in Rule 12.13(b)(iv)(A) requiring 

complainants to allege ‘‘each and every 

act or omission which it is claimed 

constitutes a violation of the Act.’’ 17 

CFR 12.13(b)(iv)(A). The discussion of 

these rules is meant to be illustrative, 

not exhaustive. We expect the 

Commission’s presiding officers, all of 

whom have extensive experience in this 

forum, to apply the Part 12 Rules 

generally in accordance with Rule 

12.1(a). 

III. Related Matters 

A. No Notice Required Under 5 U.S.C. 

553 

The Commission has determined that 

this policy statement is exempt from the 

provisions of the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553, 

which generally requires notice of 

proposed rulemaking and provides 

opportunity for public participation. In 

accord with the exemptive language of 

5 U.S.C. 553, this policy statement gives 

guidance to staff members and affected 

parties pertaining to the administration 

of reparation proceedings under 17 CFR 

part 12. In addition, this policy 

statement relates solely to ‘‘rules of 

agency * * * practice.’’ Therefore, the 

notice requirements under 5 U.S.C. 553 

are not applicable. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(‘‘RFA’’), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., requires 

agencies with rulemaking authority to 

consider the impact those rules will 

have on small businesses. With respect 

to persons involved in reparations 

proceedings, the interpretive rule 

imposes no additional burden, and in 

fact provides greater flexibility in 

complying with Part 12. Thus, the 

Chairman, on behalf of the Commission, 

hereby certifies, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

605(b), that this policy statement will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

businesses. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This policy statement concerning Part 

12 does not impose a burden within the 

meaning and intent of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq. 

D. Cost-Benefit Analysis 

Section 15(a) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 

19(a), requires the Commission to 

consider the costs and benefits of its 

actions before issuing a new regulation. 

The Commission understands that by its 

terms, Section 15(a) does not require it 

to quantify the costs and benefits of a 

new regulation or to determine whether 

the benefits of the regulation outweigh 

its costs. Nor does it require that each 

rule be analyzed in isolation when that 

rule is a component of a larger package 

of rules or rule revisions. Rather, 

Section 15(a) simply requires the 

Commission to ‘‘consider the costs and 

benefits’’ of its action. 

Section 15(a) further specifies that 

costs and benefits shall be evaluated in 

light of five broad areas of market and 

public concern: (1) Protection of market 

participants and the public; (2) 

efficiency, competiveness, and financial 

integrity of futures markets; (3) price 

discovery; (4) sound risk management 

practices; and (5) other public interest 

considerations. Accordingly, the 

Commission can, in its discretion, give 

greater weight to any one of the five 

enumerated areas of concern, and can, 

in its discretion determine that 

notwithstanding its costs, a particular 

rule is necessary or appropriate to 

protect the public interest, or to 

effectuate any of the provisions, or 

accomplish any of the purposes, of the 

Commodity Exchange Act. 

This policy statement will not create 

any significant change in the 

Commission’s reparation proceedings. 

This statement will enhance the 

protection of market participants and 

the public by providing greater 

flexibility in complying with Part 12. 

This statement will make it easier for 

parties to participate in reparations 

proceedings, either as complainants or 

respondents. The cost-benefit factors are 

not influenced by this policy statement, 

which simply articulates and clarifies 

applicable law and precedent in 

reparation proceedings. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 14, 

2010, by the Commission. 

David A. Stawick, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–1101 Filed 1–20–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6351–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2009–1072] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone: Congress Street Bridge, 

Pequonnock River, Bridgeport, CT 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Temporary final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

establishing a temporary safety zone in 

the waters surrounding the Congress 

Street Bridge over the Pequonnock River 

in Bridgeport, Connecticut. This zone is 

necessary to protect vessels transiting in 

the area from hazards imposed by 

construction barges and equipment that 

are being utilized for partial demolition 

of the Congress Street Bridge. Entry into 

this zone is prohibited unless 

authorized by the Captain of the Port 

Long Island Sound, New Haven, 

Connecticut. 

DATES: This rule is effective from 11:59 

p.m. on January 31, 2010, through 11:59 

p.m. on April 16, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this 

preamble as being available in the 

docket are part of docket USCG–2009– 

1072 and are available online by going 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES