[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 191 (Tuesday, October 2, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49596-49599]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21365]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84290; File No. SR-Phlx-2018-59]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing
of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rules 1000, 1064, and 1069 To Allow
for the Snapshot Functionality of the Floor Based Management System to
be Used for All Orders

September 26, 2018.
    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 September 18, 2018, Nasdaq PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``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. 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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rules 1000, 1064, and 1069
to allow for the Snapshot functionality of the Floor Based Management
System (``FBMS'') to be used for all orders.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://nasdaqphlx.cchwallstreet.com/, 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
    On October 30, 2017, the Commission approved the Exchange's
proposal to establish the ``Snapshot'' functionality within the Floor
Broker Management System (now known as the ``Floor Based Management
System'' or ``FBMS'').\3\ On July 17, 2018, the Commission approved
another Exchange proposal to expand the availability of Snapshot to
Registered Options Traders (``ROTs'') and Specialists.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-81980 (Oct. 30,
2017), 82 FR 51313 (Nov. 3, 2017) (the ``Snapshot Approval Order'').
As described in Exchange Rule 1063, FBMS is the electronic system
that enables members to submit option orders represented or
negotiated on the Exchange trading floor (the ``Floor'') to the
Exchange's Trading System for execution and reporting to the
consolidated tape. FBMS also facilitates the creation of an
electronic audit trail for such orders.
    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-83656 (July 17,
2018), 83 FR 34899 (July 23, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As set forth in Rule 1069, Snapshot allows a Floor Broker, ROT, or
Specialist, at the time when they ``provisionally execute'' \5\ a trade
in the

trading crowd, to capture and record the market conditions that
prevailed at the time of the provisional execution.\6\ Once a member
triggers a Snapshot by pressing a button on FBMS, the member has up to
30 seconds to use the information captured by the Snapshot for purposes
of entering the terms of the provisionally-executed trade into FBMS and
submitting the trade to the Trading System. After 30 seconds, a
Snapshot expires and can no longer be used to capture the market that
existed at the time when it was taken. When a trade that is subject to
a valid Snapshot is submitted to the Trading System, the trade will
execute only to the extent that it is consistent with applicable
priority and trade-through rules based upon the prevailing market at
the time of the Snapshot. The Trading System will reject a trade
subject to a Snapshot if it would violate trade-through or priority
rules. Whenever a Snapshot becomes invalid due to expiration, rejection
by the Trading System, or cancellation in anticipation of expiration or
rejection, a member may take a new Snapshot that reflects the market
prevailing at the time the new Snapshot is taken, provided that the
member first re-announces the trade to the trading crowd and reaches a
new agreement as to the terms of the trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A ``provisional execution'' occurs in the trading crowd when
either (i) the participants to a trade reach a verbal agreement in
the trading crowd as to the terms of the trade, or (ii) a Floor
Broker announces a cross in accordance with Phlx Rule 1064(a). See
Rule 1069(a)(i)(A).
    \6\ Snapshot records the time when a member triggers the
functionality and the prevailing market conditions for an options
class or series, which includes all information required to
determine compliance with priority and trade through requirements,
including the Away Best Bid and Offer, the Exchange Best Bid and
Offer, customer orders at the top of the Exchange book, and the best
bid and offer of all-or-none orders. See Rule 1069(a). The market
conditions captured by Snapshot are derived from the same real-time
market information that exists in the Trading System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Snapshot exists to provide members with a means of mitigating risks
that are inherent in a Floor-based options trading environment. In
particular, Snapshot mitigates the risk that market conditions will
shift between the time when members provisionally execute trades on the
Floor in open outcry and the time when they enter such trades into FBMS
and submit them to the Trading System for execution. This risk exists
because, even with the advent of FBMS, which is the Exchange's
electronic Floor order entry system, a member still must manually enter
the terms of a trade into FBMS prior to submission to the Trading
System. This manual process can take several seconds or more to
complete, depending upon the complexity of the trade. The Exchange
notes that this manual process is not required when trading in an all-
electronic environment, such that Snapshot also serves the purpose of
rendering Floor trading venues more competitive with electronic venues.
    When the Exchange developed Snapshot, it made certain design
choices, in coordination with the Commission, to mitigate the risk that
Snapshot could be subject to overuse or abuse. For example, the
Exchange limited the time period during which a Snapshot remains valid
to 30 seconds. Moreover, once a Snapshot expires, a member may take a
new Snapshot only after it re-announces the trade to the trading crowd
and reaches a new agreement regarding its terms. Additionally, a member
may have only one Snapshot outstanding across all option classes and
series at a time. The Exchange also prohibits members from triggering
Snapshot to obtain favorable priority or trade-through conditions or to
improperly avoid unfavorable priority or trade-through conditions, and
it surveils the market for proper use of Snapshot, both on a post-trade
and a real-time basis.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Conduct that would constitute a violation includes repeated
instances in which members permit valid Snapshots to expire without
submitting associated trades to the Trading System for verification
and reporting to the Consolidated Tape, as well as repeated
instances in which a member waits longer than is reasonably
necessary to submit a trade subject to a Snapshot to the Trading
System for execution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, to mitigate the risk of Snapshot overuse, the Exchange
initially limited its applicability only to multi-leg orders and simple
orders involving options on exchange traded funds (``ETFs'') that are
included in the Options Penny Pilot. The Exchange limited Snapshot to
these two categories of orders because they presented the most
immediately compelling use cases for Snapshot.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Snapshot Approval Order, supra, at 51315 (These types of
orders were at ``heightened risk of failing to execute when market
conditions change between the time when Floor Brokers and
participants in the crowd agree upon the terms of the trade and the
time when the Trading System receives the trade for verification and
execution.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Snapshot became available for use by Floor Brokers on December 4,
2017 and it recently became available to ROTs and Specialists. Since
the Exchange first introduced Snapshot, it has monitored when Snapshot
has been used and the frequency of such uses. Such monitoring reveals
that concerns regarding the prospective misuse and abuse of Snapshot
were greatly overstated. In fact, Snapshot was utilized only 24 times
(21 times in executed trades, 3 times in rejected trades) over the
course of eight months (December 2017-July 2018). In four of these
eight months, it was not used at all. In the other four months in which
Snapshot was used, it was used (successfully or otherwise) only once
more than 10 times in a month and otherwise, no more than six times in
a month.
    To improve the competitive position of the Exchange Floor relative
to other venues, the Exchange now proposes to broaden the applicability
of Snapshot to all orders. The Exchange believes that this proposal
will make Snapshot simpler, more consistent, and useful in more
circumstances than it is now. Moreover, the Exchange believes that its
experience with Snapshot demonstrates that it can accommodate this
proposal while continuing to systematically enforce trade-through and
priority rules and without materially raising the risk that Snapshot
will be overused or abused. The existing design controls that mitigate
such risks will continue to apply, and if Surveillance--which will
continue monitor Snapshot usage closely--detects a significant uptick
in improper usage, then the Exchange will evaluate whether additional
controls are appropriate.
    The Exchange expects to begin making Snapshot available for all
orders before the end of the fourth quarter of 2018. The Exchange will
notify members via an Options Trader Alert, to be posted on the
Exchange's website, at least seven calendar days prior to the date when
Snapshot will be available for expanded use.
    Lastly, the Exchange proposes to remove from Rules 1000 and 1064
language that announced the initial launch of the Snapshot
functionality in Q4 2017. This language is no longer required as
Snapshot is operational.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \9\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \10\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Snapshot promotes just and equitable principles of trade and serves
the interests of investors and the public by increasing the likelihood
that investors will be able to execute their orders and do so in line
with their expectations and needs. Similarly, Snapshot mitigates the
risk that the Trading System will reject

a trade due to a change in market conditions that occurs between the
time when the parties negotiate a lawful and valid trade on the Floor
and the time when the Trading System receives it. The proposal to
expand the applicability of Snapshot to all orders will broaden the
scope of such protections.
    The expansion of Snapshot to all orders will also help Snapshot to
better achieve its intended purpose of rendering the Exchange Floor
more competitive with other trading venues at which the Exchange
observes trade executions occurring seconds or even minutes after
verifications occur, but on trading terms that existed as of the time
of verification.
    The Exchange believes that it is consistent with the Act to broaden
the applicability of Snapshot to all option orders traded on the
Exchange Floor. Although multi-leg orders and simple orders in options
on Options Penny Pilot ETFs were perhaps the most immediately
compelling use cases for Snapshot, they are by no means the only use
cases for the functionality. Indeed, all options orders that are
negotiated on the Exchange Floor are subject to the same risk of market
movement, to varying extents, from the time of their negotiation in
open outcry to the time of their submission to the Trading System. For
all of these orders, Snapshot will help to mitigate this risk. Enabling
members to provisionally execute all categories of options on the Floor
(using Snapshot when needed), rather than execute them in the Trading
System, will not adversely impact investors or the quality of the
market due to the controls that the Exchange proposes on the
circumstances in which members may use Snapshot. In fact, the proposal
will protect investors and the public interest by improving members'
ability to execute orders negotiated on the Floor while continuing to
ensure that all priority and trade through rules are systematically
enforced.
    Moreover, this proposal is consistent with Rule 611 of Regulation
NMS,\11\ which requires the Exchange to establish policies and
procedures that are reasonably designed to prevent trade-throughs of
protected quotations. Presently, the Exchange verifies that a proposed
trade complies with the trade-through and priority rules as of the time
when the Trading System receives the trade from FBMS; if the trade
complies, then the Trading System executes the trade and reports it to
the consolidated tape. However, the proposal would serve as an
exception to this practice. It would permit members, upon reaching a
meeting of the minds in the trading crowd regarding the terms of a
trade, to take a Snapshot that provisionally executes the trade on the
Floor. When the member submits the trade to the Trading System using
Snapshot, the Trading System will verify that the provisionally
executed trade complied with the trade-through and priority rules as of
the time of its execution--i.e., the time when the crowd agreed to the
terms of the trade and Snapshot was taken--rather than at the time when
the Trading System receives the trade. If the Trading System determines
that the provisionally executed trade complied with the trade-through
and priority rules, then it will report the trade to the Consolidated
Tape. If, however, the Trading System determines that the provisionally
executed trade was non-compliant with the trade-through and priority
rules as of the time when the Snapshot was taken, then it will reject
the trade. In other words, even though the proposal will change the
time of execution of a trade for purposes of verifying compliance with
the trade-through and priority rules, the automated compliance
verification process will otherwise be unchanged and will still apply
to systematically prevent any violation of the trade-through and
priority rules for all trades, including those utilizing Snapshot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 12 CFR 242.611 [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange's proposal accomplishes the above in a manner
that: (1) Continues to provide automated and verifiable enforcement of
applicable trade-through and priority rules; (2) is documented in
writing and transparent; (3) provides for trade reporting to occur in a
timely fashion, even for the most complex trades, and within a 30
second time frame that is far less than the maximum 90 second reporting
period allowable; and (4) imposes surveillance and responsible
limitations upon Snapshot that ensure appropriate usage and prevents
violations and abuse.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
    In fact, the proposal is pro-competitive for several reasons. The
Exchange believes that the Snapshot feature will result in the
Exchange's Floor operating more efficiently, which will help it compete
with other floor-based exchanges.
    Moreover, the proposal helps the Exchange compete by ensuring the
robustness of its regulatory program, ensuring members' compliance with
that program, and by enhancing Customer protections through further
utilization of electronic tools by members. The Exchange considers all
of these things to be differentiators in attracting participants and
order flow.
    Finally, the proposal does not impose an unreasonable burden on
intramarket competition because the Exchange would make Snapshot
available for use for all orders by all members that trade on the
Options Floor.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or 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 Exchange consents, the Commission shall: (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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2018-59 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-Phlx-2018-59. 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 website (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 website
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 the filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change. Persons
submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit
personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2018-59 and should be
submitted on or before October 23, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[FR Doc. 2018-21365 Filed 10-1-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Page 1 of 4 October 24, 2005   8: 00 AM ET Estimates of Concentration of Lead in Paint by Age of Housing Estimates of the concentration of lead in paint by the age of housing are presented in Table 1. Specifically Table 1 presents estimates of 1) average lead concentration in those painted surfaces that contain lead based paint, These average lead concentrations represent housing categories specified in the column headings ( i. e., housing with LBP and children under age 6, within the specified age category) and the specific building component categories specified in the row headings. These averages are accompanied by estimates of their standard errors. and 2) estimates of the number of housing units in the U. S. housing stock within specified categories as noted in the row and column headings of the table. In particular, numbers of units are presented within three age categories of housing: ° Housing built prior to 1950 ° Housing built from 1950 to 1960 ° Housing built from 1961 to 1978 The housing categories included in Table 1 focus on the presence of lead based paint ( LBP) on specific types of painted surfaces in the interior and exterior of the housing unit that could be disturbed by renovation and remodeling ( R& R) activities in the unit. Therefore, housing built after 1978 were not represented among the age categories as the Federal government banned use of lead based paint in housing after 1978. The housing categories also focus on the presence of children aged 6 years or younger residing in the unit, as this age group is highly vulnerable to experiencing immediate and lasting adverse health effects from exposure to lead based paint hazards.

The source of data represented in Table 1 is the National Survey of Lead and Allergens in Housing ( NSLAH; Jacobs et al., 2002; Westat, 2001), a survey sponsored by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ( HUD) and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences ( NIEHS). The NSLAH is the most recent nationallyrepresentative survey on the extent of lead based paint in target housing, with the main field component of the survey being conducted in 1998 and 1999. The target population in this survey consisted of all permanently occupied, noninstitutional housing units in the U. S. housing stock, including single and multi family buildings, that had the potential for housing young children. This corresponded to approximately 96 million units. Within the 831 units selected for the survey, x ray fluorescence ( XRF) technology was used to measure the concentration of lead on each painted surface in each of four randomly selected rooms, with one room selected within each of four room types: kitchen, common living areas, bedrooms ( preferably those containing children), and other rooms.. Lead based paint was deemed present on a given painted surface if the XRF measure taken on the surface was 1.0 mg/ cm2 or higher.

The NSLAH featured a complex probabilistic survey design, where eligible units were allowed to differ in their selection probabilities. As a result, survey weights were assigned to each of the 831 selected housing units. Proper use of these weights allows data collected at the Page 2 of 4 October 24, 2005   8: 00 AM ET housing unit level to be used in calculating representative, unbiased estimates of unknown parameters within the survey's target population. In particular, the numbers of housing units Table 1. Number of U. S. Housing Units in Specified Categories by Age, Presence of Lead Based Paint ( LBP), and Presence of Children Under Age 6 Years, and Average Lead Content ( mg/ cm2) of Surfaces Containing LBP by Component Type Source of data: National Survey of Lead and Allergens in Housing Pre 1950 housing 1950  1960 housing 1961 1978 housing Total # of units 24,561 14,377 29,200 # of units with LBP 20,302 9,271 6,464 # of units w/ one or more children under age 6 years 3,186 2,730 4,640 Pre 1950 housing units with LBP & children under 6 1950 1960 housing units with LBP & children under 6 1961 1978 housing units with LBP & children under 6 Total # of units 2,916 1,523 688 # of rental units 912 418 398 # of owner occupied units 2,004 1,105 290 # of units w/ interior LBP 2,524 1,144 464 # of units w/ exterior LBP 2,550 1,315 375 # of units w/ LBP on interior walls, ceiling or floors   Average ( S. E.) lead conc. in LBP 1,438 5.96 mg/ cm2 ( 1.14) 485 4.28 mg/ cm2 ( 0.85) 151 1.19 mg/ cm2 ( 0.03)

# of units w/ LBP on exterior walls   Average ( S. E.) lead conc. in LBP 1,280 7.47 mg/ cm2 ( 2.64) 955 2.57 mg/ cm2 ( 0.39) 202 10.34 mg/ cm2 ( 6.86)

# of units w/ LBP on interior windows   Average ( S. E.) lead conc. in LBP 2,030 13.04 mg/ cm2 ( 3.98) 644 1.63 mg/ cm2 ( 0.23) 151 3.07 mg/ cm2 ( 2.65)

# of units w/ LBP on exterior windows   Average ( S. E.) lead conc. in LBP 1,615 14.18 mg/ cm2 ( 3.45) 857 3.72 mg/ cm2 ( 0.98) 296 5.11 mg/ cm2 ( 2.81)

# of units w/ LBP on interior doors   Average ( S. E.) lead conc. in LBP 1,784 9.66 mg/ cm2 ( 5.39) 949 6.09 mg/ cm2 ( 3.23) 250 1.66 mg/ cm2 ( 0.65)

# of units w/ LBP on exterior doors   Average ( S. E.) lead conc. in LBP 1,499 7.70 mg/ cm2 ( 1.99) 1,107 6.41 mg/ cm2 ( 1.91) 161 9.45 mg/ cm2 ( 4.40)

# of units w/ LBP on interior trim   Average ( S. E.) lead conc. in LBP 1,449 11.08 mg/ cm2 ( 2.76) 295 6.11 mg/ cm2 ( 5.70) 32 2.46 mg/ cm2 ( 0.01)

# of units w/ LBP on exterior trim   Average ( S. E.) lead conc. in LBP 634 22.60 mg/ cm2 ( 7.49) 316 4.79 mg/ cm2 ( 3.06) 120 8.71 mg/ cm2 ( 6.32)

Notes: 1. All estimates on numbers of units presented in this table are specified in thousands and take into account the survey design and the sample weights assigned to each surveyed unit. Data for only those surveyed housing units that could be successfully placed in the housing category specified by the row and column headings were considered in calculating a particular estimate. 2. The last eight rows of this table contain numbers of units ( in thousands), followed by a weighted average of reported XRF measurements across all painted surfaces for the component type specified in the row heading, where only XRF measurements at or above 1.0 mg/ cm2 were included in the average. Each measurement was weighted by the full survey weight assigned at the building component level. The standard error ( S. E.) of this Page 3 of 4 October 24, 2005   8: 00 AM ET weighted average is given in parentheses and also takes into account the survey design. Only XRF measurements taken within surveyed housing units that could be successfully placed in the housing category specified by the row and column headings were included in these calculations.

specified in each cell of Table 1 are sums of the assigned full survey weights across all surveyed units that fall within the housing categories represented by that cell ( i. e., as specified in the row and column headings). Thus, these numbers are estimates of the total number of units within the target population that fall within the specified housing category at approximately the time at which the survey was conducted ( 1998 99).

In addition to survey weights assigned at the housing unit level, the NSLAH also assigned a second set of full survey weights at the room/ component level. These weights are meant to be used when analyzing data at the room/ component level in order to obtain results that are representative of all such rooms or building components within the survey's target population. Therefore, those XRF measures encountered in the NSLAH database that were at or above 1.0 mg/ cm2 were included in the average lead measures presented in the last eight rows of Table 1, and each measure was weighted by the component specific survey weight assigned to the given building component within the NSLAH database when calculating these averages. In addition, each average is accompanied by its estimated standard error, which was calculated using the set of 99 jackknife replicate survey weights assigned to each room and surface in the NSLAH database.

SAS ® Release 9 ( Version 9.1) was used to calculate the numbers of units and average paint lead levels presented in Table 1, while a SUDAAN ® Release 9 software module, called within SAS ® , was used to generate standard errors on the average paint lead levels. Note that the NSLAH database is accompanied by only limited guidance, and no sample programs, on proper application of survey weights in calculating summary statistics for subsets of the survey's target population. As a result, the accuracy of the summary statistics presented in Table 1 depend in part on the approach used to incorporate survey weights into the calculations.

The most recognized source of nationally representative data on the U. S. housing stock is the American Housing Survey ( AHS), a periodic national survey conducted by the Bureau of the Census for HUD. The 2003 AHS is the most recent nationally representative source of household data available on the U. S. housing stock, involving approximately 55,000 sampled housing units. The target population for the AHS is the entire U. S. housing stock, including vacant housing and housing that may not necessarily have the potential for containing young children. While the broader target population slightly limits the usefulness of the AHS to estimate statistics needed for Table 1, its primary limitation is the lack of information on the lead content of painted surfaces or on the presence of lead based paint in surveyed housing. However, AHS data could be used to estimate statistics by age category on the total number of units and the number of units with children under age 6 years, which are specified in the first and third rows of Table 1. Table 2 lists estimates of these statistics based on 2003 AHS data for housing units that are meant to be occupied year round. Page 4 of 4 October 24, 2005   8: 00 AM ET Estimated numbers of housing units differ between Table 1 and Table 2 for a number of reasons. The primary reasons include differences between the AHS and NSLAH in their target populations, housing category definitions, survey methods, and time periods represented. For example, the AHS considers all housing units within its target population, including vacant units, while the NSLAH focused only on occupied housing units with the potential for containing children. Also, note that the column headings in Table 2 differ slightly from those in Table 1, as the AHS recorded the year in which a housing unit was built only within pre specified categories. This may contribute in part to lower estimates for the middle age category ( i. e., housing built from 1950 to 1959/ 1960) in Table 2 versus Table 1, while estimates in the other two age categories are higher in Table 2 versus Table 1.

Table 2. Estimated Number of U. S. Housing Units That Could Be Occupied Year Round, by Age Category and Presence of Children Under Age 6 Years Source of data: 2003 American Housing Survey ( national sample)

Pre 1950 housing 1950  1959 housing 1960 1979 housing Total # of units Occupied units only 25,584 11,933 34,255 % difference from Table 1 + 4.2%  17.0% + 17.3%

Occupied + vacant units 28,928 13,033 37,668 # of units w/ one or more children under 6 3,821 1,658 4,744 % difference from Table 1 + 2.0%  3.9% + 2.2%

References Jacobs, DE, Clickner, RP, Zhou, JV, et al. ( 2002) The prevalence of lead based paint hazards in U. S. housing. Environmental Health Perspectives. 110( 10): A599 A606.

Westat ( 2001) National Survey of Lead and Allergens in Housing. Final Report. Volume I: Analysis of Lead Hazards. Revision 6.0. Final report prepared for the Office of Lead Hazard Control, U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 18 April 2001.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 243 (Tuesday, December 18, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74843-74844]
[FR Doc No: 2012-30393]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. OR13-10-000]

Seaway Crude Pipeline Company LLC; Notice of Petition for
Declaratory Order

    Take notice that on December 10, 2012, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2)
of the Commission's Rules of Practices and Procedure, 18 CFR
385.207(a)(2)(2012), Seaway Crude Pipeline Company LLC (Seaway), filed
a petition seeking a declaratory order affirming that the tariff rates
agreed to by shippers who sign contracts in an open season applies
equally to Seaway's Shippers that signed Transportation Services
Agreements.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to

serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the
Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on Monday, January 7, 2013

    Dated: December 12, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-30393 Filed 12-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 105 (Thursday, May 31, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32165-32167]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13144]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67047; File No. SR-Phlx-2012-70]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Reversal and Conversion Strategies

May 23, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that, on May 16, 2012, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
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 prepared by the Exchange. 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

    The Exchange proposes to amend a fee cap on equity options
transactions on certain reversals \3\ and conversion \4\ strategies in
Section II, entitled ``Equity Options Fees.'' \5\ The Exchange also
proposes to make technical amendments to the Pricing Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Reversals are established by combining a short stock
position with a short put and a long call position that shares the
same strike and expiration.
    \4\ Conversions are established by combining a long position in
the underlying security with a long put and a short call position
that shares the same strike and expiration.
    \5\ Section II Equity Options Fees include options overlying
equities, ETFs, ETNs, indexes and HOLDRS which are Multiply Listed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/micro.aspx?id=PHLXfilings, 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 amend the
applicability of a fee cap relating to reversal and conversion
strategies in Section II of the Pricing Schedule to conform the
applicability of that cap to that of the dividend,\6\ merger \7\ and
short stock interest \8\ strategies cap. The Exchange believes that all
strategy caps should be applied in the same manner, in this case

only when such members are trading in their own proprietary accounts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ A dividend strategy is defined as transactions done to
achieve a dividend arbitrage involving the purchase, sale and
exercise of in-the-money options of the same class, executed the
first business day prior to the date on which the underlying stock
goes ex-dividend.
    \7\ A merger strategy is defined as transactions done to achieve
a merger arbitrage involving the purchase, sale and exercise of
options of the same class and expiration date, executed the first
business day prior to the date on which shareholders of record are
required to elect their respective form of consideration, i.e., cash
or stock.
    \8\ A short stock interest strategy is defined as transactions
done to achieve a short stock interest arbitrage involving the
purchase, sale and exercise of in-the-money options of the same
class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, Market Maker,\9\ Professional,\10\ Firm and Broker-
Dealer equity option transaction fees are capped at $1,000 for
dividend, merger and short stock interest strategies executed on the
same trading day in the same options class when such members are
trading in their own proprietary accounts.\11\ The Exchange also
currently has a cap for reversal and conversion strategies wherein
Market Maker, Professional, Firm and Broker-Dealer options transaction
fees in Multiply Listed Options are capped at $500 per day for reversal
and conversion strategies executed on the same trading day in the same
options class (``Reversal and Conversion Cap'').\12\ The Exchange
proposes to further qualify the Reversal and Conversion Cap by applying
the cap only when such members are trading in their own proprietary
accounts, similar to dividend, merger and short stock interest
strategies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Exchange market maker category includes Specialists (see
Rule 1020) and Registered Options Traders (see Rule 1014(b)(i) and
(ii), which includes Streaming Quote Traders (``SQTs'') (see Rule
1014(b)(ii)(A)) and Remote Streaming Quote Traders (``RSQTs'') (see
Rule 1014(b)(ii)(B)). This would also include Directed Participants.
The term ``Directed Participant'' applies to transactions for the
account of a Specialist, SQT or RSQT resulting from a Customer order
that is (1) directed to it by an order flow provider, and (2)
executed by it electronically on Phlx XL II.
    \10\ The Exchange defines a ``professional'' as any person or
entity that (i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii)
places more than 390 orders in listed options per day on average
during a calendar month for its own beneficial account(s)
(hereinafter ``Professional'').
    \11\ Equity option transaction fees for dividend, merger and
short stock interest strategies combined will be further capped at
the greater of $10,000 per member or $25,000 per member
organization.
    \12\ The Reversal and Conversion Cap applies to executions
occurring on either of the two days preceding the standard options
expiration date, which is typically the third Thursday and Friday of
every month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange proposes to make certain technical
amendments to the Pricing Schedule. The Exchange recently amended the
title of the Pricing Schedule from a ``Fee Schedule'' to a ``Pricing
Schedule.'' \13\ There are a few places in the Pricing Schedule, namely
in Section III, Part A (Other Transaction Fees, PIXL Pricing) and
Section VII ((NASDAQ OMX PSX Fees, Other Requests for Data) that still
refer to a Fee Schedule. The Exchange is proposing to amend those
references from ``Fee Schedule'' to a ``Pricing Schedule.'' The
Exchange is also proposing to remove a reference in Section I (Rebates
and Fees for Adding and Removing Liquidity in Select Symbols) to the
Market Exhaust auction. The Exchange recently filed a rule change to
discontinue the Market Exhaust functionality, a feature of the
Exchange's PHLX XL[supreg] automated trading system.\14\ The reference
to Market Exhaust was deleted from Rule 1080(c). This functionality was
discontinued as of January 31, 2012. The Exchange proposes to remove a
reference to Market Exhaust in Section I of the Pricing Schedule.
Finally, the Exchange purposes to replace certain reference symbols
with numbers for clarity in various sections of the Pricing
Schedule.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66668 (March 28,
2012), 77 FR 20090 (April 3, 2012) (SR-PhlX-2012-35).
    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66087 (January 3,
2012), 77 FR 1095 (January 9, 2012) (SR-Phlx-2011-182).
    \15\ For example, various symbols such as ``[infin],'' ``+'' and
other symbols that are non-numeric, while be replaced with numbers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Pricing
Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \16\ in general,
and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \17\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees
and other charges among Exchange members and other persons using its
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed amendment to the
applicability of the Reversal and Conversion Cap is reasonable because
the Exchange is proposing to apply the cap only when such members are
trading in their own proprietary account, which is the case today for
dividend, merger and short stock interest strategies. All members would
continue to be offered an opportunity to reduce option transaction fees
in Multiply Listed options for reversals and conversions.\18\ The
Exchange also believes that the proposed amendment to the applicability
of the Reversal and Conversion Cap is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the Exchange would uniformly apply the reversal
cap to all members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Customers are not subject to the Reversal and Conversion
Cap because they do not pay option transaction charges for reversal
and conversion strategies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the technical amendments are reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange intends
to amend the Pricing Schedule to conform the text to recent rule
amendments which eliminated and/or replaced certain references.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition 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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\19\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-Phlx-2012-70 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2012-70. 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 a.m. and 3
p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and
copying at the principal office of the Exchange. 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-Phlx-2012-70 and should be submitted on
or before June 21, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-13144 Filed 5-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 165 (Friday, August 26, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52552-52554]
[FR Doc No: 2022-18425]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2018-0248; FRL-10155-01-OECA]

Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Air
Stationary Source Compliance and Enforcement Information Reporting
(Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit
an information collection request (ICR), the Air Stationary Source
Compliance and Enforcement Information Reporting (Renewal) (EPA ICR No.
0107.13, OMB Control No. 2060-0096) to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act. Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on
specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described
below. This is a proposed extension of the currently approved ICR. An
Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before October 25, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing the Docket ID number EPA-
HQ-OECA-2018-0248, online using https://www.regulations.gov/ (our
preferred method), by email to [email protected], or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.
    The EPA's policy is that all relevant comments received will be
included in the public docket without change including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats,
information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. We
encourage the public to submit comments via https://www.regulations.gov/ or email, as there may be a delay in processing
mail and faxes. Hand deliveries and couriers may be received by
scheduled appointment only. For further information on EPA Docket
Center services and the current status, please visit us online at
https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David A. Meredith, Enforcement
Targeting and Data Division, Office of Compliance, (2222A), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at https://www.regulations.gov/ or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The
telephone number

for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional information about
EPA's public docket, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the EPA is soliciting
comments and information to enable it to: (i) evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of
the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Burden
is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b). EPA will consider the comments received
and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be
submitted to OMB for review and approval. At that time, the EPA will
issue another Federal Register document to announce the submission of
the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to
OMB.
    Abstract: Air Stationary Source Compliance and Enforcement
Information Reporting is an activity whereby State, Local, Native
American, Territorial, and Commonwealth governments (hereafter referred
to as either ``states/locals'' or ``state and local agencies'') make
air stationary source compliance and enforcement information available
to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) on a
cyclic basis via input to the Air component of the Integrated
Compliance Information System (ICIS-Air). ICIS-Air supports EPA and
state and local agency efforts to ensure compliance with the nation's
environmental laws pertaining to air, via the collection and management
of important Clean Air Act (CAA or the ``Act'') compliance and
enforcement information. ICIS-Air is a subcomponent of ICIS, which
provides compliance and enforcement information on thousands of
facilities regulated under numerous federal statutes. The majority of
delegated agencies maintain their own data system and extract data from
it and report it to ICIS-Air using either electronic data transfer
(EDT) or manually (``direct entry''). A small number of delegated
agencies use ICIS-Air exclusively, since they have no internal air
compliance and enforcement database. The information provided to EPA
via ICIS-Air includes source characterization, compliance monitoring,
and enforcement activities. The EPA uses this information and
information from other data systems, such as the Compliance and
Emissions Data Interface (CEDRI) to assess the health of the compliance
and enforcement program established under the Clean Air Act (CAA), to
perform oversight activities of delegated agencies, and to provide
public transparency about activities and findings related to compliance
and enforcement both at individual facilities or aggregated categories
of facilities. The EPA also uses ICIS-Air to record comparable federal
activities to support program management and transparency. Agencies
receive delegation of the CAA through regulated grant authorities, and
report compliance/enforcement activities undertaken at stationary
sources pursuant to the Minimum Data Requirements (MDRs) as outlined in
this ICR. The provisions of section 114(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act, 42
U.S.C. 7414(a)(1) provide the broad authority for the reporting of
compliance monitoring and enforcement information, along with Subpart
Q--Reports in 40 CFR part 51: Sec. Sec.  51.324(a) and (b) and 51.327.
This renewal requires the continuation of reporting of previously
established MDRs via either direct, on-line entry or electronic data
transfer (EDT) to ICIS-Air.
    The EPA collects compliance data from regulated sources via CEDRI
and tracks enforcement and compliance monitoring information for
stationary sources from delegated agencies and EPA Regions via ICIS-
Air. The EPA is considering a process to standardize the facility
identification process so that data can easily be shared across
systems. As such, the EPA seeks comments, on a voluntary basis,
regarding the following issues and questions we consider improvements
to the integration of ICIS-Air and CEDRI information.
     The EPA seeks comments on whether it would be beneficial
for the EPA to import facilities from CEDRI into ICIS-Air that are
currently not found in ICIS-Air and create a means to link those
facilities for purposes of more comprehensive compliance tracking.
Additionally, we are seeking comment on, for cases where a delegated
agency uses EDT to share data with EPA, whether the delegated agency
would want the ability to create facilities from CEDRI facilities and
manage those data in the delegated agency's database.
     Assuming that some delegated agencies are reviewing
compliance reports within CEDRI, the EPA seeks comments on how data
within the CEDRI reports could be provided to ICIS-Air to reduce the
need for overlapping data entry in ICIS-Air. We are seeking comment on
whether delegated agencies perceive that there are identical data in
CEDRI reports and data uploads into ICIS-Air, and whether data exists
in CEDRI but not in ICIS-Air that would be helpful to share with ICIS-
Air. We are specifically seeking comment on which data would be most
helpful to share between the systems.
     The EPA is seeking comment on the utility of future
functionality that would automatically flag situations within ICIS-Air
when a CEDRI compliance report is due, but not received by the
deadline.
     The EPA is seeking information on whether delegated
agencies that do not currently provide Title V Certifications to CEDRI
plan to do so in the near future.
     The EPA seeks comments on whether we should consider
requiring that violations have a linkage to a discovery action, or
CEDRI ID number, so that ECHO users can understand the activity that
led to the violation finding(s).
     The EPA seeks comments on whether we should consider, in
the future, developing a new reporting approach for delegated agencies
that provide the CEDRI document ID to limit potential duplicate data
entry (for example, linking certain fields that would not have to be
manually entered).
     The EPA has begun collecting benzene fenceline monitoring
data from refineries on a bi-weekly basis. We seek comment on whether,
when deficiencies are noted that require follow-up actions by the
facility, those deficiencies should be populated into ICIS-Air and
shared via ECHO.
     Through CEDRI, the EPA is receiving performance reports
directly from regulated entities. Some of these reports are used by
delegated agencies to make compliance determinations. The EPA seeks
comments on the effectiveness of the current process of making these
reports accessible through the Agency's WebFIRE website and suggestions
for improvements that could assist delegated agencies with making
compliance determinations.
     Finally, we seek comments on whether having a common
facility numbering protocol for ICIS-Air and CEDRI would improve the
overall management of the CAA program and associated data.

    Although we are soliciting comment on these issues, the EPA intends
to continue the status quo with respect to the minimum data
requirements reported to ICIS-Air at this time. We will consider any
comments received as we evaluate potential future improvements to the
integration of information collected via ICIS-Air and CEDRI. The
anticipated burden requirements for the current minimum data
requirements associated with ICIS-Air are as follows:
    Respondents: State, Local, Territorial, Indian Nations, and
Commonwealth governments.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (section 114(a)(1) of
the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7414(a)(1)).
    Estimated number of respondents: 99.
    Frequency of response: Every 60 days.
    Estimated annual burden: 26,100 hours.
    Estimated annual cost: $1,280,000. There are no annualized capital/
startup or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in estimates: There is no anticipated change in burden from
the most recently approved ICR as currently identified in the OMB
Inventory of Approved Burdens. This is due to several considerations.
First, the ICIS-Air reporting system and minimum data reporting
requirements have not changed over the past three years. Second, there
is no anticipated change in the number of respondents or the number of
responses from the prior ICR, so there is likely no significant change
in the overall burden. For this ICR renewal, EPA will use experience
from the last three years to provide burden estimates that adequately
reflect the actual burden. EPA will consider any comments received and
will conduct consultation with delegated agencies that are use ICIS-
Air. There are no capital/startup or operation and maintenance (O&M)
costs associated with this reporting activity. There is likely a slight
increase in costs, due to the use of updated labor rates. This ICR will
use labor rates from the most recent Office of Personnel Management
(OPM), 2022 General Schedule.

John Dombrowski,
Director, Office of Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2022-18425 Filed 8-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 213 (Tuesday, November 4, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65445-65447]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26124]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73463; File No. SR-MIAX-2014-54]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Add Exchange Rule 531, Trade Nullification and
Price Adjustment Procedure

October 29, 2014.
    Pursuant to the provisions of 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 October 20, 2014, Miami International
Securities Exchange LLC (``MIAX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule
change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have
been prepared by the Exchange. 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 the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to add Rule 531, Trade
Nullification and Price Adjustment Procedure.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.miaxoptions.com/filter/wotitle/rule_filing, at
MIAX's principal office, 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 Exchange proposes to add Rule 531, Trade Nullification and
Price Adjustment Procedure.\3\ As proposed, Rule 531 will allow for
transactions to be nullified if both parties to the transaction agree
to the nullification and allow the price of transaction [sic] and
authorized by the Exchange.\4\ The proposal is based upon a recent
filing of another options exchange.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange notes that this proposal is only intended to be
effective until the joint efforts by the exchanges to create uniform
trade nullification and adjustment rules are approved and in effect.
Once the uniform rule has been approved and is effective, the
Exchange will amend its rules appropriately.
    \4\ The Exchange notes that, as proposed, Rule 6.19 [sic] will
only apply to trades that were executed on the Exchange and, as
such, any orders that were either fully or partially routed to, or
executed, on another Exchange will not be subject to the Proposed
Rule 531.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72970 (September 3,
2014), 79 FR 53498 (September 9, 2014) (SR-CBOE-2014-066).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to add Rule 531, ``Trade Nullification and
Price Adjustment Procedure,'' which would: (a) Allow for any trades on
the Exchange

to be nullified if both parties to the trade agree to such
nullification, and (b) allow for prices of executions to be adjusted if
the price adjustment is agreed upon by both parties of the trade and
authorized by the Exchange.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is also proposing to add a provision to allow Members
to mutually agree to adjust a price of an execution. The Exchange
believes this provision is necessary given the benefits of adjusting a
trade price rather than nullifying the trade completely. Because
options trades are used to hedge transactions in other markets,
including securities and futures, many Members, and their customers,
would rather adjust prices of executions rather than nullify the
transactions and, thus, lose a hedge altogether. As such, the Exchange
believes it is in the best interest of investors to allow for price
adjustments as well as nullifications. In addition, the Exchange
believes it is in the nature of a fair and orderly market to allow for
price adjustments rather than only cancellations because an adjustment
will result in the least amount of disruption to the overall market.
The Exchange also notes that current Exchange Rules allow for prices of
trades to be adjusted at the consent of both parties if such
transactions are within the current obvious error provisions.\7\ The
Exchange is now proposing to merely allow this practice for any trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange notes that no changes are being proposed to the
procedures for nullification or adjustment of a trade by mutual
agreement in the Exchange's obvious error rules. See MIAX Rule
521(c)(3). MIAX Rule 521(c)(3) provides that the ``determination as
to whether a trade was automatically executed at an erroneous price
may be made by mutual agreement of the affected parties to a
particular transaction within the time periods specified in
subparagraphs (e)(1) or (2) [of Rule 531 [sic]] below. A trade may
be nullified or adjusted on the terms that all parties to a
particular transaction agree. In the absence of mutual agreement by
the parties, a particular trade may only be nullified or adjusted
when the transaction results from an Obvious Error as provided in
this Rule.'' With the effectiveness of Proposed Rule 531, members
will have two options to choose from in order to have the their
trades nullified or adjusted by mutual agreement: (i) request under
the procedures of MIAX Rule 521(c)(3) including the timeframes in
Rule 521(e)(1), (2); or (ii) request under the procedures of
Proposed Rule 531 which requires the authorization of the Exchange
prior to the nullification or adjustment. The Exchange believes both
provisions are complimentary [sic] in that they provide protections
in different situations under procedures that are correspondingly
appropriate based on the situation in which a nullification or an
adjustment is requested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed, Rule 531 expressly states that trades may be subject
to nullification or price adjustment only if such trades are authorized
by the Exchange. As part of the authorization process, in the case of a
mutual nullification or mutual price adjustment, the Exchange will only
authorize if the Exchange received verification from both parties to
the trade that a mutual agreement has been made. In addition, prior to
an authorization for a mutual price adjustment, the Exchange will
ensure the agreed upon price would have been permissible and in
compliance with all Exchange and Securities and Exchange Commission
Rules, as amended, at the time the original transaction was
executed.\8\ Finally, the proposed rule will state that the format and
information required by the Exchange for this submission will be
released by the Exchange via Regulatory Circular. As such, prior to
Rule 531 becoming operative, the Exchange will provide Members with
specific requirements via an Exchange Regulatory Circular. The circular
will, among other things, state specific timeframes required for
requests and the format in which the requests will be accepted by the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For example, the Exchange would ensure that the mutually
agreed upon price would not have traded through resting interest at
the time of the initial execution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To conclude, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes are in
furtherance of the Act because the proposed Rule 531 will allow Members
to agree to nullify transactions or adjust prices of transactions to
maintain a fair and orderly market. As stated above, the Exchange
intends to release a Regulatory Circular to announce the implementation
of the Rule and other specifics surrounding the procedures of the
implementation. In addition, prior to implementation, the Exchange will
ensure it has proper policies and procedures in place to correctly
administer the Rule.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) \9\ of the Act in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \10\ of the Act in particular, in that it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes
are consistent with the Act as they are designed to promote just and
equitable principles and protect investors and the public interest.
Because options trades are used to hedge transactions in other markets,
including securities and futures, many market participants would rather
adjust prices of executions rather than nullify the transactions and,
thus, lose a hedge altogether. As such, the Exchange believes it is in
the best interest of investors to allow for price adjustments as well
as nullifications. In addition, the Exchange believes it is in the
nature of a fair and orderly market to allow for price adjustments
rather than only cancellations because an adjustment will result in the
least amount of disruption to the overall market. Finally, the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed changes are unfairly discriminatory
because they will be applied to all Members equally.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In fact, the Exchange believes
that the proposed rule change will foster competition as it will allow
for less overall disruption to the market and encourage participation
on the Exchange.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective
pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \12\
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may

temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or 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-MIAX-2014-54 on the subject line.

Paper Comments:

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2014-54. 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 the Exchange. 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-MIAX-2014-54, and should be
submitted on or before November 25, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-26124 Filed 11-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 141 (Monday, July 23, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43128-43130]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17803]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67449; File No. SR-FINRA-2012-035]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of
Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Implementation of FINRA Rule 4240
(Margin Requirements for Credit Default Swaps)

July 17, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'' or ``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice
is hereby given that on July 13, 2012, 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 and II below, which Items have been prepared by
FINRA. FINRA has designated the proposed rule change as constituting a
``non-controversial'' rule change under paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA is proposing to extend to July 17, 2013 the implementation of
FINRA Rule 4240. FINRA Rule 4240 implements an interim pilot program
with respect to margin requirements for certain transactions in credit
default swaps that are security-based swaps.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web
site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA 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
    On May 22, 2009, the Commission approved FINRA Rule 4240,\4\ which
implements an interim pilot program (the ``Interim Pilot Program'')
with respect to margin requirements for certain transactions in credit
default swaps (``CDS'').\5\ On March 7, 2012, the SEC approved
extending the implementation of Rule 4240 to July 17, 2012.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Exchange Act Release No. 59955 (May 22, 2009), 74 FR
25586 (May 28, 2009) (Notice of Filing and Order Granting
Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change; File No. SR-FINRA-
2009-012) (``Approval Order'').
    \5\ In March 2012, the SEC approved amendments to FINRA Rule
4240 that, among other things, limit at this time the rule's
application to credit default swaps that are security-based swaps.
See Exchange Act Release No. 66527 (March 7, 2012), 77 FR 14850
(March 13, 2012) (Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated
Approval of Proposed Rule Change; File No. SR-FINRA-2012-015).
    \6\ See Exchange Act Release No. 66528 (March 7, 2012), 77 FR
14848 (March 13, 2012) (Notice of Filing and Order Granting
Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change; File No. SR-FINRA-
2012-014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained in the Approval Order, FINRA Rule 4240, coterminous
with certain Commission actions, was intended to address concerns
arising from systemic risk posed by CDS, including, among other things,
risks to the financial system arising from the lack of a central
clearing counterparty to clear and settle CDS.\7\ On July 21, 2010,
President Obama signed into law the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act (the ``Dodd-Frank Act''),\8\ Title VII of which
established a comprehensive new regulatory framework for swaps and

security-based swaps,\9\ including certain CDS. The new legislation was
intended, among other things, to enhance the authority of regulators to
implement new rules designed to reduce risk, increase transparency, and
promote market integrity with respect to such products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 74 FR at 25588-89.
    \8\ Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010).
    \9\ The terms ``swap'' and ``security-based swap'' are defined
in Sections 721 and 761 of the Dodd-Frank Act. The Commodity Futures
Trading Commission (``CFTC'') and the Commission jointly have
approved rules to further define these terms. See SEC File No. S7-
16-11 (Joint Final Rule; Interpretations: Further Definition of
``Swap,'' ``Security-Based Swap,'' and ``Security-Based Swap
Agreement;'' Mixed Swaps; Security-Based Swap Agreement
Recordkeeping), available at: http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2012/s71611-draft.pdf. See also Exchange Act Release No. 66868 (April 27,
2012), 77 FR 30596 (May 23, 2012) (Joint Final Rule; Joint Interim
Final Rule; Interpretations: Further Definition of ``Swap Dealer,''
``Security-Based Swap Dealer,'' ``Major Swap Participant,'' ``Major
Security-Based Swap Participant'' and ``Eligible Contract
Participant'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFTC and the
Commission are engaged in ongoing rulemaking with respect to swaps and
security-based swaps.\10\ FINRA believes it is appropriate to extend
the Interim Pilot Program for a limited period, to July 17, 2013, in
light of the continuing development of the CDS business within the
framework of the Dodd-Frank Act and pending the final implementation of
new CFTC and SEC rules pursuant to Title VII of that legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See, e.g., supra note 9 and Exchange Act Release No. 67177
(June 11, 2012), 77 FR 35625 (June 14, 2012) (Statement of General
Policy on the Sequencing of the Compliance Dates for Final Rules
Applicable to Security-Based Swap).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate
effectiveness and has requested that the SEC waive the requirement that
the proposed rule change not become operative for 30 days after the
date of the filing, such that FINRA can implement the proposed rule
change immediately. The proposed rule change will expire on July 17,
2013.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\11\ 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 will
further the purposes of the Act because, consistent with the goals set
forth by the Commission when it adopted the interim final temporary
rules with respect to the operation of central counterparties to clear
and settle CDS, and pending the final implementation of new CFTC and
SEC rules pursuant to Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act, the margin
requirements set forth by the proposed rule change will help to
stabilize the financial markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA has requested that the Commission waive the five-day pre-
filing notice requirement specified in Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) under the
Act.\14\ FINRA proposes to make the proposed rule change operative on
July 17, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires
a self-regulatory organization to submit to the Commission written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Commission has waived the five-day pre-filing period in this case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative
delay, so that the proposed rule change may become operative upon
filing. The Commission hereby grants FINRA's request and believes that
waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest.\15\ This will allow the Interim
Pilot Program to continue without interruption and extend the benefits
of a pilot program that the Commission approved and previously
extended. For these reasons, the Commission designates the proposed
rule change as operative on July 17, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For the purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative
delay, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or 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-2012-035 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2012-035. 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 a.m. and 3 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-2012-035 and should be submitted on or before August 13, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-17803 Filed 7-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P