43436 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 178 / Friday, September 15, 2017 / Notices 

25 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

3See Exchange Act Release No. 81196 (July 24, 

2017), 82 FR 35248 (July 28, 2017) (File No. SR– 

FINRA–2017–025) (‘‘Notice’’). 

4See Letters from Steven B. Caruso, Maddox 

Hargett Caruso, P.C., dated July 24, 2017 (‘‘Caruso 

Letter’’); Glenn S. Gitomer, McCausland Keen + 

Buckman, dated August 14, 2017 (‘‘Gitomer 

Letter’’); Jill Gross, Professor of Law and Former 

Director, and Elissa Germaine, Supervising 

Attorney, Adjunct Professor of Law, and Director, 

Pace Law School’s Investor Rights Clinic, dated 

August 17, 2017 (‘‘Pace Letter’’); Marnie C. Lambert, 

President, Public Investors Arbitration Bar 

Association (‘‘PIABA’’), dated August 18, 2017 

(‘‘PIABA Letter’’). Comment letters are available at 

https://www.sec.gov. 

5See Letter from Margo A. Hassan, Associate 

Chief Counsel, FINRA, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, 

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, dated 

August 30, 2017 (‘‘FINRA Letter’’). The FINRA 

Letter is available on FINRA’s Web site at http://

www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA, at 

the Commission’s Web site at https://www.sec.gov, 

and at the Commission’s Public Reference Room. 

6The subsequent description of the proposed rule 

change is substantially excerpted from FINRA’s 

description in the Notice. See Notice, 82 FR at 

35249. 

7See FINRA Rules 12100(r) and 13100(r). 

8See FINRA Rules 12100(y) and 13100(x). 

9See Exchange Act Rel. No. 74383 (Feb. 26, 

2015), 80 FR 11695 (Mar. 4, 2015) (File No. SR– 

FINRA–2014–028) (‘‘2015 Order’’). 

10See id. (stating that ‘‘the intent of the proposed 

rule change was to address concerns about 

arbitrator neutrality raised by forum users’’). 

11See 2015 Order. 

12Unless waived by FINRA at its discretion, 

arbitrator applicants must have a minimum of five 

years of paid business and/or professional 

experience and at least two years of college-level 

credits. Qualification criteria can be found at http:// 

www.finra.org/arbitration-and-mediation/finraarbitrators. See Notice, 82 FR at note 6. 

13See Notice, 82 FR at 35249. 

14 Id. 

15 Id. 

16See supra note 4. 

17 Id. 

available publicly. All submissions 

should refer to File Number SR– 

NYSEAMER–2017–13, and should be 

submitted on or before October 6, 2017. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.25

Eduardo A. Aleman, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2017–19584 Filed 9–14–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–81572; File No. SR–FINRA– 

2017–025] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; 

Financial Industry Regulatory 

Authority, Inc.; Order Approving a 

Proposed Rule Change Relating to the 

Definition of Non-Public Arbitrator 

September 11, 2017. 

I. Introduction 

On July 10, 2017, Financial Industry 

Regulatory Authority, Inc. (‘‘FINRA’’) 

filed with the Securities and Exchange 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’), pursuant 

to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities 

Exchange Act of 1934 (‘‘Exchange 

Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2 a 

proposed rule change to amend FINRA 

Rule 12100 of the Code of Arbitration 

Procedure for Customer Disputes 

(‘‘Customer Code’’) and FINRA Rule 

13100 of the Code of Arbitration 

Procedure for Industry Disputes 

(‘‘Industry Code’’ and, together with the 

Customer Code, ‘‘Codes’’). The proposed 

rule change would permit any person 

who is disqualified from service as a 

public arbitrator, but otherwise 

qualified to serve as an arbitrator, to 

serve as a non-public arbitrator. 

The proposed rule change was 

published for comment in the Federal 

Register on July 28, 2017.3 The public 

comment period closed on August 18, 

2017. The Commission received four 

comment letters in response to the 

Notice, all of which supported the 

proposed rule change.4 On August 30, 

2017, FINRA responded to the comment 

letters received in response to the 

Notice.5 This order approves the 

proposed rule change. 

II. Description of the Proposed Rule 

Change 6

FINRA classifies arbitrators under the 

Codes as either ‘‘non-public’’ or 

‘‘public.’’ The non-public arbitrator 

definition lists affiliations that might 

qualify a person to serve as a non-public 

arbitrator at the forum.7 Conversely, the 

public arbitrator definition describes 

criteria that disqualify an applicant from 

inclusion on the public arbitrator 

roster.8

In 2015, the Commission approved 

amendments to the definitions of nonpublic arbitrator and public arbitrator in 

the Codes (‘‘2015 amendments’’).9

Among other things, the 2015 

amendments: (i) Provided that persons 

who worked in the financial industry 

for any duration during their careers 

would always be classified as nonpublic arbitrators; (ii) added new 

disqualifications to the public arbitrator 

definition relating to an arbitrator’s 

provision of services to parties in 

securities arbitration and litigation and 

to revenues earned from the financial 

industry by an arbitrator’s co-workers; 

and (iii) broadened the disqualifications 

to the public arbitrator definition based 

on the activities or affiliations of an 

arbitrator’s family members.10

Under the definitions as revised by 

the 2015 amendments, the non-public 

arbitrator roster is composed of 

individuals who work, or worked, in the 

financial industry, or provide services to 

the financial industry or to parties 

engaged in securities arbitration and 

litigation. The public arbitrator roster is 

composed of individuals who do not 

have any significant affiliation with the 

financial industry. The public 

arbitrators have never been employed by 

the financial industry, do not provide 

services to the financial industry or to 

parties engaged in securities arbitration 

and litigation, and do not have 

immediate family members or coworkers who do so.11

However, FINRA believes that the 

2015 amendments to the arbitrator 

definitions also created an ‘‘eligibility 

gap’’ whereby certain otherwise 

qualified arbitrators 12 could not serve 

in any capacity. For example, FINRA 

states that over 800 public arbitrators 

were disqualified from the public 

arbitrator roster under the revised 

public arbitrator definition. More than 

100 of these disqualified arbitrators did 

not meet any of the criteria outlined in 

the non-public arbitrator definition for 

service on the non-public arbitrator 

roster. Accordingly, FINRA completely 

removed them from its arbitrator 

rosters.13 In addition, FINRA stated that 

due to the 2015 amendments it had to 

reject over 140 arbitrator applicants in 

2016 who otherwise met FINRA’s 

minimum arbitrator qualifications.14

Therefore, FINRA is proposing to 

amend Rules 12100(r) in the Customer 

Code and 13100(r) in the Industry Code 

to delete the specific criteria for 

inclusion on the non-public arbitrator 

roster. Specifically, the proposed rule 

would provide that the term ‘‘nonpublic arbitrator’’ means a person who 

is otherwise qualified to serve as an 

arbitrator, and is disqualified from 

service as a public arbitrator. 

Accordingly, the proposed rule change 

would allow FINRA to appoint 

individuals who cannot be classified as 

public arbitrators to the non-public 

arbitrator roster if they meet FINRA’s 

general arbitrator qualification 

criteria.15

III. Comment Summary 

As noted above, the Commission 

received four comment letters on the 

proposed rule change, all of which 

supported the proposal.16 All four 

commenters believe that the proposal 

would expand the pool of arbitrators 

and provide greater choice of nonpublic arbitrators for parties during the 

panel selection process.17 One 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 178 / Friday, September 15, 2017 / Notices 43437 

18Caruso Letter. 

19Pace Letter. 

20PIABA Letter. 

21PIABA Letter; see also Pace Letter. 

22See supra note 8. 

23Pace Letter. 

24See FINRA Letter; see also Notice at 82 FR 

35249 (stating that the intent of the proposed rule 

change was to address concerns about arbitrator 

neutrality raised by forum users. For example, 

‘‘prior to the 2015 amendments, the Codes, with 

specified exceptions, permitted former financial 

industry employees who ended their industry 

affiliations to qualify as public arbitrators five years 

after leaving the financial industry. Forum users 

raised concerns about the neutrality of these 

individuals, and indicated that they did not believe 

former industry employees should ever serve as 

public arbitrators. In response to these concerns, the 

2015 amendments eliminated the five-year coolingoff period, thereby classifying all former financial 

industry employees as non-public arbitrators’’). 

25See PIABA Letter. 

26See supra note 12. 

27PIABA Letter. 

28See id. 

29The Neutral Roster Subcommittee of the 

National Arbitration and Mediation Committee. 

30See FINRA Letter. 

31 Id. 

32See PIABA Letter. 

33PIABA Letter. 

34See PIABA Letter. 

35PIABA Letter. 

36 Id. 

37FINRA Letter. 

38 Id. 

39See FINRA Letter. 

40See FINRA Letter (stating that ‘‘[FINRA 

r]ecruitment efforts since July 2015 added 

approximately 596 arbitrators to the public 

arbitrator roster. . . . FINRA’s latest arbitrator 

demographic survey . . . showed that FINRA had 

particular success in adding women and AfricanAmericans to the roster. In 2016, 33 percent of the 

arbitrators added were women and 14 percent were 

African-American. This represents an important 

improvement from the 2015 survey results which 

showed that 26 percent of arbitrators added were 

women and four percent were African-American’’). 

41FINRA Letter at note 2. 

42 In approving this rule change, the Commission 

has considered the rule’s impact on efficiency, 

competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 

78c(f). 

43 15 U.S.C. 78o–3(b)(6). 

commenter stated that the proposal 

represents ‘‘a fair, equitable and 

reasonable approach that would 

facilitate the fairness and efficiency of 

the participant experience in the FINRA 

arbitration forum.’’ 18 Another 

commenter stated that expanding the 

pool of available arbitrators ‘‘translates 

to greater party control over the process, 

[which] increases parties[’] perceptions 

of the fairness of the forum.’’ 19

Similarly, another commenter stated 

that ‘‘having as many qualified, fair, and 

neutral arbitrators as possible will help 

advance the integrity of the arbitration 

process.’’ 20

In addition to supporting the 

proposed rule change, two of these 

commenters also recommended 

additional changes to the FINRA 

arbitration forum designed to ‘‘ensure a 

fair and efficient arbitration pool.’’ 21

One commenter recommended that 

FINRA consider simplifying the 

definition of ‘‘public arbitrator’’ 22 in the 

Codes, which the commenter thinks is 

‘‘also too complicated.’’ 23 In its 

response, FINRA stated that in 2016 it 

did reconsider its definition of ‘‘public 

arbitrator’’ in the Codes but determined 

not to change it.24

The second commenter recommended 

that FINRA amend its policies to lower 

or eliminate certain educational 

requirements for individuals to become 

arbitrators.25 Currently, unless waived, 

by FINRA, arbitrators must have at least 

two years of college-level credits in 

order to become an arbitrator.26 The 

commenter believes that ‘‘[w]hether 

someone has taken college-level courses 

does not necessarily mean that such 

person cannot grasp the concepts being 

discussed and considered during the 

arbitration process.’’ 27 Alternatively, 

the commenter thinks that one’s ability 

to understand and pass FINRA’s 

arbitrator training course is sufficient to 

qualify as an arbitrator.28 In its 

response, FINRA highlighted that it has 

authority to waive the educational 

requirement in light of, for example, a 

candidate’s number of years of 

employment and type of employment 

(e.g., his or her field of employment and 

his or her positions held). 

Notwithstanding its discretion to waive 

the education requirement, FINRA 

consulted the subcommittee responsible 

for reviewing the arbitrator 

application 29 on the commenter’s 

recommendation for its input.30 Based 

on these factors, FINRA did not agree to 

revise the proposal at this time.31

The second commenter also 

recommended that FINRA continue its 

efforts to address arbitrator demographic 

issues.32 In particular, the commenter 

recommended that FINRA continue 

recruiting new arbitrators to ‘‘help 

increase the diversity of the pool.’’ 33

Similarly, this commenter 

recommended that FINRA continue 

recruiting public arbitrators in small 

and mid-sized cities in order to expand 

the pool of public arbitrators from 

which parties in these areas of the 

country can make their selections.34 The 

commenter stated that ‘‘many 

constituents of FINRA arbitration . . . 

have had concerns about the number of 

. . . arbitrators who are selected to 

serve in the arbitrator pool outside of 

their nearest arbitrator site[.]’’ 35 The 

commenter claims that these ‘‘traveling 

arbitrators’’ create scheduling issues 

that delay the arbitration process and 

‘‘may not understand a neighboring 

state’s laws and procedures as much as 

a local arbitrator.’’ 36

In its response, FINRA stated that it 

‘‘has been actively recruiting new 

arbitrators, [especially in] locations with 

the greatest need.’’ 37 FINRA also 

agreed, however, that it should 

‘‘continue [its efforts] to increase its 

public arbitrator pool.’’ 38 In this regard, 

FINRA identified its recruiting methods, 

including, among other things, starting 

a program in which current FINRA 

arbitrators actively recruit arbitrator 

candidates, hiring national recruiters, 

utilizing social media platforms to 

circulate formal recruitment videos, 

focusing recruitment efforts in locations 

where public arbitrators are most 

needed, and targeting organizations to 

improve the diversity of its pool, such 

as women-focused groups and LGBTQ 

communities.39 As a result of these 

methods, FINRA identified the 

improvements in recruiting that it has 

made since the 2015 amendment, 

including increasing the total number of 

public arbitrators and increasing both 

the percentage of new arbitrators who 

are women and the percentage of new 

applicants who are African-American.40

FINRA also stated, however, that 

notwithstanding its efforts to minimize 

the commenter’s concerns about 

‘‘traveling arbitrators,’’ FINRA uses 

arbitrators in neighboring hearing 

locations to expand arbitrator pools in 

other locations, as needed. FINRA 

believes that this option is necessary to 

‘‘ensure an effective ratio of available 

arbitrators to open cases in each 

location.’’ 41

IV. Discussion and Commission 

Findings 

After careful review of the proposed 

rule change, the comment letters, and 

FINRA’s response, the Commission 

finds that the proposal is consistent 

with the requirements of the Exchange 

Act and the rules and regulations 

thereunder that are applicable to a 

national securities association.42

Specifically, the Commission finds that 

the proposed rule change is consistent 

with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Exchange 

Act,43 which requires, among other 

things, that FINRA rules be designed to 

prevent fraudulent and manipulative 

acts and practices, to promote just and 

equitable principles of trade, and, in 

general, to protect investors and the 

public interest. 

The Commission agrees with FINRA 

that amending the definition of public 

arbitrator as proposed would provide 

greater choice for parties to an 

arbitration to choose a panel. As stated 

in the Notice, the 2015 amendments to 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

43438 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 178 / Friday, September 15, 2017 / Notices 

44See supra notes 13 and 14. 45 Id. 46See Caruso Letter, Gitomer Letter, Pace Letter, 

PIABA Letter, and FINRA Letter. 

47Notice, 82 FR at 35249–35250; see Caruso 

Letter, Gitomer Letter, Pace Letter, and PIABA 

Letter. 

48Notice, 82 FR at 35250. 

49Telephone conversation between Kenneth L. 

Andrichik, Senior Vice President, FINRA Office of 

Dispute Resolution, and Daniel Fisher, Branch 

Chief, Division of Trading and Markets, 

Commission, on September 8, 2017. 

50FINRA Dispute Resolution Task Force, Final 

Report and Recommendations of the FINRA 

Dispute Resolution Task Force (dated December 16, 

2015) at page 17, available at http://www.finra.org/ 

sites/default/files/Final-DR-task-force-report.pdf 

(‘‘Task Force Report’’). 

In July 2014, FINRA formed the Task Force to 

‘‘suggest strategies to enhance the transparency, 

impartiality, and efficiency of FINRA’s securities 

dispute resolution forum for all participants.’’ 

FINRA News Release, FINRA Announces 

Arbitration Task Force (dated July 17, 2014), 

available at http://www.finra.org/newsroom/2014/ 

finra-announces-arbitration-task-force. 

51See Status Report on FINRA Dispute Resolution 

Task Force Recommendations (dated February 8, 

2017) at page 2, available at https://www.finra.org/ 

sites/default/files/DR_task_report_status_

020817.pdf. 

52See supra note 4. 

53PIABA Letter; see Pace Letter. 

54See Pace Letter. 

55See FINRA Letter. 

56See PIABA Letter. 

57See supra note 12; see also FINRA Letter. 

58See PIABA Letter. 

59 Id. 

60FINRA Letter. 

61 Id. 

62See PIABA Letter. 

63See FINRA Letter. 

64 Id. 

65 Id. 

the definitions of public and non-public 

arbitrators disqualified over 100 existing 

arbitrators from service at the FINRA 

forum and caused FINRA to reject over 

140 prospective arbitrators in 2016.44

FINRA stated that the disqualified 

arbitrators and rejected applicants 

would otherwise have met FINRA’s 

minimum arbitrator qualifications.45

The Commission agrees with FINRA 

and the commenters that the proposal 

amending the definition of non-public 

arbitrator would permit FINRA to admit 

these otherwise qualified individuals to 

its roster of arbitrators thus expanding 

parties’ choice or arbitrators.46

In addition, the Commission agrees 

with FINRA that the proposed rule 

change will not result in any burden on 

competition that is not necessary or 

appropriate in furtherance of the 

purposes of the Exchange Act. In the 

Notice, FINRA stated that it proposed 

the 2015 amendments to remove certain 

individuals from the public arbitrator 

roster and not to prevent these 

individuals from serving in any 

capacity. As stated above, however, the 

2015 amendments resulted in the 

exclusion of formerly qualified 

arbitrators and prospective arbitrators 

from the FINRA roster entirely. The 

proposed rule change would permit 

these previously eligible persons to 

again serve as non-public arbitrators. 

The Commission agrees with FINRA’s 

conclusion that increasing the number 

of qualified arbitrators benefits all 

parties who come before the forum 

because it ‘‘may reduce costs that arise 

due to an insufficient pool of qualified 

arbitrators such as the costs associated 

with arbitrators traveling from other 

hearing locations.’’ 47 The Commission 

also believes that ‘‘the proposal would 

impose no direct or indirect costs on 

persons previously eliminated from 

acting as arbitrators, new candidates for 

arbitrator, or parties accessing the 

forum’’ 48 because previously eliminated 

arbitrators will be reinstated 49 and any 

prospective applicant must invest the 

same cost to apply to be an arbitrator 

notwithstanding the definitions of 

public and non-public arbitrator. 

To note, the Commission additionally 

recognizes that the FINRA Dispute 

Resolution Task Force (‘‘Task Force’’) 

recommended that FINRA ‘‘monitor the 

application of the [2015 amended 

definitions of public and non-public 

arbitrators] in light of concerns that 

individuals with substantial process and 

subject matter expertise are stricken 

from the list of public arbitrators.’’ 50

The proposed rule change responds to 

the Task Force’s concerns.51

The Commission also acknowledges 

that the commenters’ unanimously 

supported the proposal 52 and 

recognizes commenters’ 

recommendations to make additional 

changes to the FINRA arbitration forum 

designed to ‘‘ensure a fair and efficient 

arbitration pool.’’ 53 However, those 

recommendations are outside the scope 

of this proposal. 

With regard to one commenter’s 

suggestion that FINRA also simplify the 

definition of public arbitrator,54 the 

Commission acknowledges FINRA’s 

response that it weighed, and decided 

against, amending the public arbitrator 

definition so soon after amending it in 

2015.55

With regard to another commenter’s 

recommendations to amend FINRA 

policies to lower or eliminate its 

educational requirements for 

individuals to become arbitrators, the 

Commission acknowledges an 

individual’s educational history is not 

necessarily determinative of his or her 

ability to serve as an arbitrator.56

However, the Commission also 

acknowledges that while the existing 

educational requirement sets a 

presumptive minimum threshold that 

may exclude otherwise appropriate 

candidates, FINRA has the authority to 

waive the requirement based on a 

candidate’s overall experience.57 The 

Commission believes that FINRA’s 

policies setting the minimum 

credentials for its arbitrators along with 

FINRA’s authority to waive those 

minimums appropriately balance 

FINRA’s interest in recruiting arbitrators 

while maintaining the integrity of its 

arbitration forum. 

The Commission also acknowledges 

this commenter’s request for FINRA to 

recruit new arbitrators to expand the 

pool of public arbitrators in small and 

mid-sized cities from which parties can 

make their selections.58 In particular, 

the Commission acknowledges the 

commenter’s concern that selecting 

arbitrators to serve in an arbitrator pool 

outside of their nearest arbitrator site 

can create scheduling issues that delay 

the arbitration process.59 The 

Commission also acknowledges, 

however, the ongoing recruitment 

efforts that FINRA has established and 

continues to employ in order to achieve 

this goal. In particular, the Commission 

notes FINRA’s efforts to actively recruit 

new arbitrators in ‘‘locations with the 

greatest need.’’ 60 For example, FINRA 

cites its 2017 recruitment efforts in 

Birmingham, Phoenix, Orlando, Las 

Vegas, Portland, Philadelphia, and 

Dallas—‘‘smaller locations where public 

arbitrators are most needed.’’ 61

In addition, the Commission 

acknowledges the commenter’s 

recommendation that FINRA continue 

its efforts to recruit new arbitrators in 

general to create a more diverse overall 

pool of arbitrators.62 The Commission 

also acknowledges the steps that FINRA 

has taken to help meet this goal. For 

instance, FINRA stated that it has 

started a program in which current 

FINRA arbitrators actively recruit 

arbitrator candidates, hired national 

recruiters, and utilized social media 

platforms to circulate formal 

recruitment videos.63 In addition, 

FINRA stated that it has focused its 

recruitment efforts on demographics 

that are less represented in the current 

arbitrator pool, targeting womenfocused groups and LGBTQ 

communities.64 Moreover, the 

Commission acknowledges the advances 

that FINRA has made in improving the 

diversity of its arbitrator pool.65 In its 

response, FINRA identified the 

improvements in recruiting that it has 

made since the 2015 amendments, 

including increasing the total number of 

public arbitrators and increasing the 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 178 / Friday, September 15, 2017 / Notices 43439 

66 Id. 

67 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 

68 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

percentage of new arbitrators who are 

women and the percentage of new 

arbitrators who are AfricanAmericans.66

Taking into consideration the 

comments and FINRA’s responses, the 

Commission believes that the proposal 

is consistent with the Exchange Act. 

The Commission believes that the 

proposal will help protect investors and 

the public interest by, among other 

things, increasing the size and diversity 

of the FINRA arbitrator pool from which 

parties can select a panel. The 

Commission believes that expanding 

investor choice in the arbitrator 

selection process improves efficiency 

and enhances the integrity of the forum. 

In addition, the Commission believes 

that FINRA’s response to commenters, 

as discussed in more detail above, 

appropriately addressed their concerns 

and adequately explained FINRA’s 

reasons for declining to modify its 

proposal. Accordingly, the Commission 

believes that the approach proposed by 

FINRA is appropriate and designed to 

protect investors and the public interest, 

consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the 

Exchange Act and the rules and 

regulations thereunder. 

V. Conclusion 

It is therefore ordered pursuant to 

Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act 67

that the proposal (SR–FINRA–2017– 

025), be and hereby is approved. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.68

Eduardo A. Aleman, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2017–19582 Filed 9–14–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release Nos. 33–10412; 34–8158; File No. 

265–28] 

Investor Advisory Committee Meeting 

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of meeting of Securities 

and Exchange Commission Dodd-Frank 

Investor Advisory Committee. 

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange 

Commission Investor Advisory 

Committee, established pursuant to 

Section 911 of the Dodd-Frank Wall 

Street Reform and Consumer Protection 

Act of 2010, is providing notice that it 

will hold a public meeting. The public 

is invited to submit written statements 

to the Committee. 

DATES: The meeting will be held on 

Thursday, October 12, 2017 from 9:30 

a.m. until 3:10 p.m. (ET). Written 

statements should be received on or 

before October 12, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in 

Multi-Purpose Room LL–006 at the 

Commission’s headquarters, 100 F 

Street NE., Washington, DC 20549. The 

meeting will be webcast on the 

Commission’s Web site at www.sec.gov. 

Written statements may be submitted by 

any of the following methods: 

Electronic Statements 

D Use the Commission’s Internet 

submission form (http://www.sec.gov/ 

rules/other.shtml); or 

D Send an email message to rulescomments@sec.gov. Please include File 

No. 265–28 on the subject line; or 

Paper Statements 

D Send paper statements to Brent J. 

Fields, Secretary, Securities and 

Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., 

Washington, DC 20549–1090. 

All submissions should refer to File No. 

265–28. This file number should be 

included on the subject line if email is 

used. To help us process and review 

your statement more efficiently, please 

use only one method. 

Statements also will be available for 

Web site viewing and printing in the 

Commission’s Public Reference Room, 

100 F Street NE., Room 1503, 

Washington, DC 20549, on official 

business days between the hours of 

10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. All statements 

received will be posted without change; 

we do not edit personal identifying 

information from submissions. You 

should submit only information that 

you wish to make available publicly. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marc Oorloff Sharma, Chief Counsel, 

Office of the Investor Advocate, at (202) 

551–3302, Securities and Exchange 

Commission, 100 F Street NE., 

Washington, DC 20549. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

meeting will be open to the public, 

except during that portion of the 

meeting reserved for an administrative 

work session during lunch. Persons 

needing special accommodations to take 

part because of a disability should 

notify the contact person listed in the 

section above entitled FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

The agenda for the meeting includes: 

Remarks from Commissioners; a 

discussion regarding blockchain and 

other distributed ledger technology and 

implications for securities markets; an 

overview of law school clinic advocacy 

efforts on behalf of retail investors; a 

discussion regarding electronic delivery 

of information to retail investors (which 

may include a recommendation of the 

Investor as Purchaser Subcommittee); 

subcommittee reports; and a nonpublic 

administrative work session during 

lunch. 

Dated: September 12, 2017. 

Brent J. Fields, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2017–19674 Filed 9–14–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Investment Company Act Release No. 

32813; 812–14780] 

Innovator ETFS Trust and Innovator 

Capital Management, LLC 

September 11, 2017. 

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’). 

ACTION: Notice. 

Notice of an application under section 

6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 

1940 (‘‘Act’’) for an exemption from 

section 15(a) of the Act and rule 18f–2 

under the Act. The requested exemption 

would permit an investment adviser to 

hire and replace certain subadvisers 

without shareholder approval. 

APPLICANTS: Innovator ETFS Trust (the 

‘‘Trust’’), a Delaware statutory trust 

registered under the Act as an open-end 

management investment company, and 

Innovator Capital Management, LLC, a 

Delaware limited liability company 

registered as an investment adviser 

under the Investment Advisers Act of 

1940 (the ‘‘Adviser’’ or ‘‘Innovator’’ and, 

collectively with the Trust, the 

‘‘Applicants’’). 

FILING DATES: The application was filed 

on June 7, 2017 and amended on 

September 8, 2017. 

HEARING OR NOTIFICATION OF HEARING: An 

order granting the application will be 

issued unless the Commission orders a 

hearing. Interested persons may request 

a hearing by writing to the 

Commission’s Secretary and serving 

Applicants with a copy of the request, 

personally or by mail. Hearing requests 

should be received by the Commission 

by 5:30 p.m. on October 5, 2017 and 

should be accompanied by proof of 

service on the Applicants, in the form 

of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a 

certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0– 

5 under the Act, hearing requests should 

state the nature of the writer’s interest, 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES