[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 125 (Friday, June 28, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39038-39046]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15492]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69834; File No. SR-MSRB-2013-05]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend MSRB Rules
G-8, G-11 and G-32 To Include Provisions Specifically Tailored for
Retail Order Periods

June 24, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on June 17, 2013, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (the
``MSRB'' or ``Board'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared
by the MSRB. 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 MSRB is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change
consisting of amendments to MSRB Rules G-8, G-11 and G-32, and
conforming changes to Form G-32 (the ``proposed rule change'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the MSRB's Web
site at www.msrb.org/Rules-and-Interpretations/SEC-Filings/2013-Filings.aspx, at the MSRB'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 MSRB 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 MSRB 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 proposed rule change amends Rules G-8, G-11 and G-32 to include
provisions specifically tailored for retail order periods. These
provisions will establish basic protections for issuers and customers
and provide additional tools to assist with the administration and
examinations of retail order period requirements, as further described
below under ``Summary of Proposed Rule Change'' and under ``Discussion
of Comments.''
    The MSRB previously issued guidance to dealers on the subject of
retail order periods. In 2010, the MSRB stated that Rule G-17 requires
an underwriter to follow an issuer's directions in any applicable
retail order period.\3\ Most recently, the MSRB stated that fair
dealing requires an underwriter to take reasonable steps to ensure that
retail clients are bona fide; that an underwriter that knowingly
accepts an order that has been improperly designated as a retail order
violates Rule G-17; and that a dealer placing a non-qualifying order
under a retail order period violates Rule G-17.\4\ In that same notice,
the MSRB indicated that it will continue to monitor retail order period
practices to ensure that they are conducted in a fair and orderly
manner consistent with the intent of the issuer and the MSRB's investor
protection mandate. The proposed rule change reflects the MSRB's
determination that additional rulemaking in this area is necessary and
appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See MSRB Notice 2010-26 (August 15, 2010).
    \4\ See MSRB Notice 2012-25 (May 7, 2012) (the ``G-17
Underwriters' Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is necessary in
consideration of its mandate to protect municipal entities and
investors. The proposed rule change addresses

concerns related to retail order periods presented from issuers,
dealers, and municipal advisors. Those concerns include the
mischaracterization of orders as ``retail'' and the failure of
syndicate managers to disseminate timely notice of the terms and
conditions of a retail order period to all dealers, including selling
group members,\5\ or that pricing information that had been requested
was not delivered or had not been delivered in sufficient time to allow
for communication with the requesting dealer's ``retail'' customers to
determine whether the investor would like to purchase the bonds.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In some cases the length of a retail order period may be
less than five hours.
    \6\ In some jurisdictions, it is not common practice to
advertise the issuer's intention to conduct retail order periods on
the radio, television or in the newspaper to inform the investing
public of upcoming issuances and terms related to a retail order
period. Advertisements to notify the investing public of retail
order periods in connection with primary offerings of municipal
securities can be very expensive and often issuers do not wish to
incur this cost or reimburse dealers for this expense.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address these concerns, the proposed rule change establishes
specific obligations on the senior syndicate manager to disseminate to
the syndicate and selling group members detailed information about the
terms and conditions of any retail order period. The proposed rule
change also requires dealers to capture certain additional information
in connection with orders placed under a retail order period designed
to ensure that such orders are from bona fide retail customers. In
addition, the MSRB proposes to increase transparency for regulators
regarding the use of retail order periods by amending Form G-32 to
require an underwriter to report to the Electronic Municipal Market
Access (EMMA[supreg]) \7\ system when a retail order period was
conducted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ EMMA is a registered trademark of the MSRB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB proposed, but thereafter reconsidered a decision to issue
interpretive guidance related to Rules G-17 and G-30 in connection with
the proposed rule change. The proposed interpretive guidance, among
other things, emphasized that during a retail order period, an issuer
may require underwriters to make a bona fide public offering to retail
customers at the initial offering price for the securities, either
directly or through other dealers, and that dealers must follow the
issuer's instructions for retail order periods. The particular
statement that a duty of fair dealing includes following an issuer's
instructions for retail order periods is inherent in a rule on fair
dealing, and, as mentioned earlier, was recently addressed in the G-17
Underwriters' Notice.
    The proposed guidance also addressed pricing differentials,
including that large differences between institutional and individual
prices that exceed the price/yield variance that normally applies to
transactions of different sizes in the primary market provide evidence
that the duty of fair pricing to individual clients may not have been
met. This statement repeated guidance previously provided by the
MSRB.\8\ The discussion that followed sought to apply that previously
articulated guidance to a few specific factual scenarios but did not
provide any analysis or guidance that did not fairly and reasonably
flow from the MSRB's prior guidance. As discussed below, the limited
scope of the discussion and the perception that only those items
discussed would justify a pricing differential was of concern to some
commenters. The thrust of this proposed rule change is to provide
mechanisms by which issuers can have greater assurance that a dealer
has, when directed to do so by the issuer, made a bona fide public
offering of the securities to retail customers at their initial
offering prices, as well as provide regulators with enhanced
information to monitor the activities of dealers participating in
retail order periods. A further discussion for the reasons the MSRB has
not included the interpretive guidance is set forth below under ``Self-
Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule
Change Received from Members, Participants, or Others.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Guidance of Disclosure and Other Sales Practice
Obligations to Individual and Other Retail Investors in Municipal
Securities (July 14, 2009) (the ``Sales Practice Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB proposes to establish two separate implementation dates
for the proposed rule change. The amendments to Rules G-11 and G-8, the
core of the proposal, would be implemented six months after the SEC
approval date to allow dealers sufficient time to make necessary
software or systems modifications. It also would allow time for the
MSRB to create educational materials, host webinars and conduct
outreach to the dealer and issuer communities, as appropriate,
regarding the new rules.
    The second implementation date would relate to the amendments to
Rule G-32 that require syndicate managers or sole underwriters to
designate to EMMA whether a retail order period was conducted. The
implementation date would be not later than March 31, 2014, or such
earlier date to be announced by the MSRB in a notice published on the
MSRB Web site with at least a thirty day advance notification prior to
the effective date. This time frame would allow for the MSRB to design
an automated system for dealers to report to the EMMA system. It would
include approximately six months of lead time for Rule G-32 submitters
to design automated interfaces and allow time for both Rule G-32
submitters and FINRA to test all of these changes.
    Certain proposed rule changes are intended to be clarifying changes
only and are not related to retail order periods, as further described
below under ``Summary of Proposed Rule Change.''
Summary of Proposed Rule Change
Rule G-11
    MSRB Rule G-11 addresses syndicate practices and management of the
syndicate, and among other things, requires syndicates to establish
priorities for different categories of orders and requires certain
disclosures to syndicate members, which are intended to assure that
allocations are made in accordance with those priorities.
    The proposed addition of provisions addressing retail order periods
necessitates several new definitions in Rule G-11. First, the term
``retail order period'' is defined in subparagraph (a)(vii) to mean an
order period during which solely going away orders will be solicited
solely from customers that meet the issuer's designated eligibility
criteria. Second, the term ``going away order'' is defined in
subparagraph (a)(xii) to mean an order for which a customer is already
conditionally committed. Third, the term ``selling group'' is defined
in subparagraph (a)(xiii) to mean a group of brokers, dealers, or
municipal securities dealers formed for the purpose of assisting in the
distribution of a new issue of municipal securities for the issuer
other than members of the syndicate. Selling groups are sometimes
included by issuers in the distribution of new issues of municipal
securities to expand the distribution channel beyond the customers of
syndicate members.
    Rule G-11(f) requires that the senior syndicate manager furnish in
writing to the other members of the syndicate a written statement of
all terms and conditions required by the issuer. The proposed rule
change expands these requirements to require expressly that such
written statement must be delivered to selling group members and that
the statement must include all of

the issuer's retail order period terms and conditions and pricing
information. The proposed rule change further requires that an
underwriter furnish each dealer with which it has an arrangement to
market the issuer's securities all of the information provided by the
senior syndicate manager.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ This arrangement, commonly referred to as a ``distribution
or marketing agreement,'' is used by some firms to enhance the
firm's ability to ``reach'' retail customers, such as in the case
where a firm does not have a significant retail distribution
network. Under the proposed rule change, the onus to furnish the
information is placed on the underwriter that has entered into such
arrangement, rather than the senior syndicate manager, to circulate
this information because the senior syndicate manager may not be
aware that a given syndicate member has entered into this type of
arrangement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule G-11(f) also provides that if a senior syndicate manager
prepares the statement of all of the terms and conditions required by
the issuer (including those related to the issuer's retail order period
requirements), the statement must be provided to the issuer. The
proposed rule change adds the requirement to obtain the approval of the
issuer of any statement prepared by the senior syndicate manager. This
approval must be secured in all cases and is not solely limited to
those instances when a retail order period is conducted. The MSRB
believes that it is important to ensure that an issuer is aware of, and
agrees with, any requirements imposed on the syndicate and selling
group members in its name.
    New paragraph (k) requires any dealer placing an order during a
retail order period to provide certain information to assist in the
determination that such order is a bona fide retail order.
Specifically, the order must provide (i) Whether the order met the
issuer's eligibility criteria for participation in the retail order
period; (ii) whether the order was a going away order; (iii) whether
the dealer received more than one order from a single customer for a
security for which the same CUSIP number has been assigned; (iv) any
identifying information required by the issuer, or the senior syndicate
manager on the issuer's behalf, in connection with such retail order
(but not including customer names or social security numbers); and (v)
the par amount of the order. This information must be submitted no
later than the Time of Formal Award (as defined in Rule G-
34(a)(ii)(C)(1)(a)), and may be part of the order submitted to the
senior syndicate manager through an electronic order entry system.
Because a senior syndicate manager generally would not have independent
knowledge of the details of an order placed on behalf of another
dealer's customer, the proposed rule change provides that the senior
syndicate manager may rely on the information furnished by such dealer,
unless the senior syndicate manager knows, or has reason to know, that
the information is not true, accurate or complete.
Rule G-8
    Under Rule G-8(a)(viii)(A), for each primary offering for which a
syndicate has been formed for the purchase of municipal securities, the
syndicate manager shall maintain a variety of records which show: the
description and aggregate par value of the securities; the name and
percentage of participation of each member of the syndicate; the terms
and conditions governing the formation and operation of the syndicate;
a statement of all terms and conditions required by the issuer
(including whether there was a retail order period and the issuer's
definition of ``retail,'' if applicable); all orders received for the
purchase of the securities from the syndicate; \10\ all allotments of
the securities and the price at which sold; those instances in which
the syndicate manager allocated securities in a manner other than in
accordance with the priority provisions, including those instances in
which the syndicate manager accorded equal or greater priority over
other orders to orders by syndicate members for their own accounts or
their respective related accounts and the specific reason for doing so;
the date and amount of any good faith deposit made to the issuer; the
date of settlement with the issuer; the date of closing of the account;
and a reconciliation of profits and expenses of the account. The
proposed rule change to Rule G-8(a)(viii)(A) would add to the
documentation that must be maintained in the files of the syndicate
manager all orders received for the purchase of the securities from the
selling group; the information required by Rule G-11(k) and all pricing
information distributed pursuant to Rule G-11(f). Such changes will
facilitate review by the examining authorities of all of the records
related to a primary offering from files maintained by one underwriter
\11\ (which is more efficient) rather than a review of the files of
each dealer that participates in the primary offering. The proposed
rule change to Rule G-8(a)(viii)(A) (and the identical provision found
in subsection (B)) reflects a change in phraseology. The parenthetical
would be revised in each case to delete the reference to ``whether
there was a retail order period and the issuer's definition of retail''
and to replace it with ``those of any retail order period.'' This part
of proposed rule change is not intended to be a substantive change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Rule G-8(a)(vii) relating to dealer records for
principal transactions. Dealers are not required to retain records
related to customer orders unless an order has been filled. The
requirement in the rule for a memorandum of the transaction
including a record of the customer's order applies only in the event
such purchase or sale occurs with the customer.
    \11\ Records related to a successful primary offering are
required to be maintained for a period of not less than six years.
See Rule G-9(a)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under Rule G-8(a)(viii)(B), for each primary offering for which a
syndicate has not been formed for the purchase of municipal securities,
the sole underwriter shall maintain a variety of records which show:
the description and aggregate par value of the securities; all terms
and conditions required by the issuer (including whether there was a
retail order period and the issuer's definition of ``retail,'' if
applicable); all orders received for the purchase of the securities
from the underwriter; all allotments of the securities and the price at
which sold; those instances in which the underwriter accorded equal or
greater priority over other orders to orders for its own account or its
related accounts and the specific reason for doing so; the date and
amount of any good faith deposit made to the issuer; and the date of
settlement with the issuer. The proposed rule change to Rule G-
8(a)(viii)(B) would add to the documentation that must be maintained in
the files of the sole underwriter the information required by Rule G-
11(k).
Rule G-32
    Generally, Rule G-32(b) provides detailed requirements for
underwriters submitting documents or disclosure-related information to
EMMA. Rule G-32(b)(vi)(C)(1)(a) provides that an underwriter must
submit data such as CUSIP numbers, initial offering prices or yields,
if applicable, the expected closing date for the transaction and
whether the issuer or other obligated persons have agreed to undertake
to provide continuing disclosure information as contemplated by
Securities Exchange Act Rule 15c2-12. The proposed rule change to Rule
G-32(b)(vi)(C)(1)(a) adds to the data that must be submitted a
requirement that the underwriter report to the EMMA system (for solely
regulatory purposes) whether a primary offering of securities included
a retail order period and each

date and time (beginning and end)\12\ it was conducted.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ All times would be required to be reported as Eastern Time
to be consistent, for example, with the requirement to report time
of trade under Rule G-14 as Eastern Time.
    \13\ Under the proposed rule change, the underwriter would be
required to report to EMMA that a retail order period has occurred
by no later than the closing date of the transaction. Under Rule G-
32(b)(vi)(C)(1)(a), Form G-32 submissions shall be ``initiated on or
prior to the date of first execution . . . '' The ``date of first
execution'' is defined in Rule G-32(d)(xi) and, for purposes of this
report, is deemed to occur by no later than the closing date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Miscellaneous Clarifying Changes Unrelated to Retail Order Periods
    Rule G-11(h)(i) provides that discretionary fees for clearance
costs to be imposed by a syndicate manager and management fees shall be
disclosed to the syndicate members prior to submission of a bid. The
proposed rule change would require the syndicate manager specifically
to disclose to each syndicate member the amount of any discretionary
fees for clearance costs or any management fees imposed by the
syndicate manager. The proposed rule change addresses concerns that
certain syndicate managers failed to disclose the amount of such fees.
    Rule G-32(a) provides requirements for the disclosure to customers
of certain information in connection with primary offerings of
municipal securities. Rule G-32(a)(i) provides, among other
requirements, that no broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer
shall sell, whether as a principal or agent, any offered securities to
a customer unless such dealer delivers to the customer a copy of the
official statement. The proposed rule change amends Rule G-32(a)(i) to
clarify that all dealers, not just underwriters, are subject to the
official statement delivery requirement of the rule during the primary
offering disclosure period. This proposed change codifies the MSRB's
long-standing position and would promote consistent application and
reduce the number of interpretive questions surrounding this
requirement.
    Rule G-32(b)(v) provides that in the event a syndicate or similar
account has been formed for the underwriting of a primary offering, the
managing underwriter shall take the actions required under the
provisions of the rule and shall also comply with the recordkeeping
requirements of Rule G-8(a)(xiii)(B). Subsection (B) of Rule G-
8(a)(xiii) addresses the recordkeeping requirements in the case of a
primary offering in which a syndicate has not been formed. The proposed
rule change would delete the reference to such recordkeeping
requirements because the cross reference to ``(B)'' is incorrect.
2. Statutory Basis
    The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act,\14\ which provides that the MSRB's
rules shall:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C).

be 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
regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect
to, and facilitating transactions in municipal securities and
municipal financial products, to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market in municipal securities and
municipal financial products, and, in general, to protect investors,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
municipal entities, obligated persons, and the public interest.

    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of
the Act. As summarized above, the proposed rule change protects, among
others, investors and municipal entities by establishing certain basic
regulatory standards to support the use of retail order periods. It
would prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices by
requiring additional representations and disclosures to support whether
the orders placed during a retail order period meet the eligibility
criteria for retail orders established by issuers. It also provides
enhanced recordkeeping to assist regulators in determining whether the
requirements of Rule G-11 are being met. By ensuring that a syndicate
manager must communicate an issuer's requirements for the retail order
period and other syndicate information to all dealers, including
selling group members, the proposed rule change should also foster
cooperation and coordination among all dealers engaged in the marketing
and sale of new issue municipal securities. In addition, the proposed
rule change should minimize the opportunities for misrepresentation of
orders as ``retail orders'' by requiring that certain information about
each order is submitted in writing to the syndicate manager or sole
underwriter in sufficient time so that the information can be examined
by issuers and their financial advisors before bonds are allocated to
dealers.

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

    The MSRB does not believe that the proposed rule change would
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The MSRB solicited comment on
the potential burdens of the proposed rule change in the most recent
request for comment.\15\ Among the questions asked were:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See MSRB Notice 2012-50 (October 2, 2012) (the ``October
Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Would the Revised Draft Proposal effectively further the
MSRB's objective of protecting issuers and retail investors?
     Would any aspects of the Revised Draft Proposal have a
negative effect on the protection of issuers, retail investors or the
public interest, or on the fair and efficient operation of the
municipal securities market?
     What would be the incremental additional burden, if any,
to dealers resulting from the Revised Draft Proposal beyond the
existing burden of compliance with Rule G-11?
     Are there alternative methods the MSRB should consider to
providing the protections sought under the Revised Draft Proposal that
would be more effective and/or less burdensome?
    The specific comments and responses thereto are discussed below
under ``Discussion of Comments.'' The MSRB believes that the proposed
rule change will benefit issuers, individual investors and the
municipal market by improving the fairness and effectiveness of retail
order periods. Specifically, the benefits of the proposed rule change
should accrue to those issuers who have decided to conduct retail order
periods by providing greater assurance that bonds will in fact be
marketed to those ``retail'' investors that issuers have determined
should have the opportunity to compete to buy their bonds in the
primary market. Retail investors will benefit from the proposed rule
change because they will have greater access to bonds sold in the
primary market. Dealers will benefit through improved management of
primary offerings and enhanced communication by and among syndicate
members and selling group members. Also, improvements to the order
taking process as a result of the proposed rule change will foster
greater accuracy and fairness and limit opportunities for abuse.
Finally, the proposed rule change will benefit the municipal market
because it provides regulators with the necessary tools and information
to ensure compliance with retail order period requirements.
    The MSRB could, as an alternative to the proposed rule change,
determine to ``wait and see'' if earlier rulemaking related to retail
order periods issued in 2010 and 2012 \16\ results in significant
improvements in the conduct of

syndicate managers and other dealers participating in retail order
periods. However, the Board believes that earlier rulemaking lacked
specific, concrete requirements necessary to modify dealer practices
and foster improvements in compliance. In addition, previous rulemaking
did not address many of the issues associated with recordkeeping which
the Board believes is necessary and appropriate to support enforcement
of Rule G-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See MSRB Notices cited in footnotes 3 and 4 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB also considered whether education and training of issuers
and dealers was a suitable regulatory alternative. However, the MSRB
concluded that a significant and uniform regulatory response is needed
to efficiently and effectively address widespread concerns involving
retail order period practices.
    The MSRB recognizes that there are costs of compliance associated
with the proposed rule change. The MSRB notes that the requirement to
submit additional information about each order would apply equally to
all dealers that participate in primary offerings that include retail
order periods. At the present time, dealers routinely submit a number
of details related to each order. Many dealers have utilized software
platforms which can be modified to capture the newly required
disclosures. Details about orders are reflected in a report created by
the platform. The customer specific information required under the
proposed rule change is consistent with the type of information dealers
normally must obtain in performing appropriate diligence on a
customer's order. The proposed rule change attempts to minimize the
potential burden on dealers by allowing the required information about
each order to be submitted electronically. Moreover, any dealer that
believes that gathering this additional information is an undue burden
does not need to participate in collecting orders for an issuer's
retail order period. The burden on dealers to capture additional
information on each customer order in a retail order period is balanced
against the need for issuers to have confidence that orders placed
during a retail order period are bona fide and meet the issuer's
eligibility requirements for participation in the retail order period.
    The MSRB addressed concerns regarding the potential burdens to
syndicate managers of auditing potentially large numbers of orders
submitted to it by other dealers by expressly stating that a senior
syndicate manager may rely upon the information furnished by each
broker, dealer, or municipal securities dealer unless the senior
syndicate manager knows, or has reason to know, that the information is
not true, accurate or complete. The proposed rule change does not
require that a syndicate manager undertake an exhaustive investigation
of the disclosures about each order. Thus, the proposed rule change
does not impose additional requirements on the senior syndicate manager
other than those that would normally be required under principles of
fair dealing that currently apply.
    The recordkeeping requirements in Rule G-8 would be expanded under
the proposed rule change to require the syndicate manager or sole
underwriter to maintain all of the new documentation required as a
result of amendments to Rule G-11. The MSRB believes that the
maintenance of this basic information is necessary to ensure the
integrity of the primary offering process in general and the retail
order period in particular. These burdens are incremental in that under
current Rule G-8, these parties are already required to maintain
comprehensive records relating to each primary offering including all
of the terms and conditions required by the issuer and whether there
was a retail order period. Any reports produced electronically can be
easily printed or saved and included in the deal file for easy
retrieval.
    Lastly, the amendments to Rule G-32 in the proposed rule change
requiring the syndicate manager or sole underwriter to notify the MSRB
of the date and time of each retail order period conducted presents
only a modest, incremental burden to the existing requirements of Rule
G-32, but provides significant regulatory value. Without this reporting
requirement, neither the MSRB nor the examination authorities will have
any notification of whether an offering contained a retail order
period. To minimize the costs to dealers associated with this
requirement, the MSRB would undertake to design an automated system for
dealers to report to the EMMA system. The MSRB believes that it is
reasonable to delay the implementation date for this part of the
proposed rule change until such time as the automated system has been
tested by the dealer community.
    The MSRB notes that one issuer \17\ has stated that the proposed
rule change does not negatively impact the municipal securities market
or its efficient operation and that, while there may be claims that the
proposed rule change creates some additional burdens, in the opinion of
that commenter, it is far outweighed by the benefit of an open, fair
and efficient municipal marketplace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See the comment letter submitted by the Executive Director
of the Rhode Island Health and Educational Building Corp (RIHEBC)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change was developed with input from a diverse
group of market participants. On October 2, 2012, the MSRB requested
comment on a revised proposal on retail order periods under Rules G-11,
G-8 and G-32 and a draft interpretive notice concerning the application
of Rules G-17 and G-30 to retail order periods.\18\ The revised
proposal in the October Notice modified certain draft provisions of
Rules G-11, Rule G-8 and the draft interpretive notice but did not
further revise the provisions of Rule G-32 under the initial draft
proposal.\19\ The MSRB received 24 comment letters in response to the
March and October Notices.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See the October Notice.
    \19\ See MSRB Notice 2012-13 (March 6, 2012) (the ``March
Notice''), which contained the initial draft proposal regarding
retail order periods under Rules G-11, G-8 and G-32 and a draft
interpretive notice concerning the application of Rules G-17 and G-
30 to retail order periods.
    \20\ Comment letters were received from: Alamo Capital
(``Alamo''); Bond Dealers of America (``BDA''); CFA Institute
(``CFA''); Dorsey & Company, Inc. (``Dorsey''); Edward D. Jones &
Co. (``Edward Jones''); Financial Planning Association (``FPA'');
Full Life Financial LLC (``Full Life''); Government Finance Officers
Association (``GFOA''); Investment Company Institute (``ICI'');
Richard Li (``Li''); Chris Melton (``Melton''); National Association
of Independent Public Finance Advisors (``NAIPFA''); Rhode Island
Health and Educational Building Corp. (``RIHEBC''); Securities
Industry and Financial Markets Association (``SIFMA''); Thornburg
Investment Management (``Thornburg''); Vanguard (``Vanguard''); and
Wells Fargo Advisors (``Wells Fargo''). Some of the commenters
submitted comment letter responses to both notices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion of Comments
Definition of Retail Customer for Purposes of a Retail Order Period
    Comments: MSRB Should Not Create a Definition of ``Retail:'' SIFMA
generally supported the approach that it is an issuer's prerogative to
determine whether there should be a retail order period and to define
retail, but indicated concern on the part of some members that lack of
uniformity as to the definition of retail may make it difficult to
comply with the MSRB requirements to ensure that only qualifying orders
are placed and to maintain adequate records. FPA agreed that there is
no reason for the MSRB to create a uniform definition of retail but
understood the appeal of a uniform base definition that could be
modified by an issuer.

    Comments: MSRB Should Create a Definition of ``Retail:'' Many
commenters recommended, for a variety of reasons, that the MSRB
establish a uniform definition of ``retail'' for use by issuers, or, in
the alternative, create a ``model'' definition that issuers can use or
modify as they deem appropriate.\21\ GFOA's comments were
representative of those commenters that believed that a boilerplate
definition would benefit infrequent issuers who do not have sufficient
expertise or who do not engage a financial advisor and may avoid
reliance on other parties to the transaction who do not have a
fiduciary duty to the issuer. Wells Fargo, Li and CFA believed that a
uniform definition would make compliance more effective and less
costly. Li, Full Life, GFOA and Edward Jones also supported a standard
definition created by the MSRB with the option provided to issuers to
create their own definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ CFA, Edward Jones, Full Life, GFOA, ICI, Li, NAIPFA, and
Wells Fargo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Divergent Views of ``Retail:'' Many commenters proffered
specific proposals regarding definitions of retail that should be
considered by the MSRB.\22\ Some commenters favored a more limited
definition that would include only individuals (i.e., natural persons)
while others would include orders from a trust department or registered
investment advisor acting on behalf of a specifically identifiable
natural person. Still others were either in favor of or against
including mutual funds as ``retail'' customers. A few commenters
offered arguments on behalf of or against the size of the customer
order or locality of the customer as appropriate criteria for
``retail.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Dorsey, Edward Jones, FPA, Full Life, ICI, NAIPFA,
Vanguard, and Wells Fargo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MSRB Response: The current MSRB rules do not contain a definition
of a ``retail'' customer and the MSRB has declined to create a
definition in the proposed rule change in part because of concerns that
an MSRB definition of ``retail'' may unduly influence certain issuers
regarding the scope of eligible customers for a retail order period.
The MSRB believes that issuers should designate the eligibility
criteria for their retail order period on an issue-by-issue basis and
issuers should have the flexibility to choose the criteria that best
suits their unique circumstances even if this option results in lack of
uniformity in the marketplace or challenges in compliance. As an
alternative to a model MSRB definition, the MSRB believes that it is
preferable to develop educational materials concerning retail order
periods that would assist issuers in selecting their own definition.
The MSRB can work with issuers and industry groups to develop model
definitions and other best practices which would address this issue
without the imprimatur of being a regulatory standard.
Communications Relating to Issuer Requirements
    Comments: CFA supported the need for better and honest
communication between various parties involved in the initial sale of
municipal securities to investors. Full Life supported the proposals in
principal, in particular requiring syndicate managers to disseminate
timely notice of issuer requirements to all dealers, including selling
group members.
    MSRB Response: The MSRB appreciates these comments.
    Comments: SIFMA was supportive of the timing in the current rule
which requires the dissemination of information ``prior to the first
offer of any securities. . . .'' SIFMA stated that among the terms and
conditions required by the issuer related to the retail order period
would be any time parameters for which the retail order period would be
conducted. SIFMA stated that this information is especially important
to dealers contacting customers with non-discretionary accounts. GFOA
was supportive of a specific time frame in which the syndicate manager
must provide issuer terms and conditions for the retail order period to
other dealers.
    MSRB Response: The MSRB is appreciative of SIFMA's comments. The
MSRB does not agree that it is appropriate to impose a fixed time frame
on dealers in a rule because of concerns that such a requirement could
have unintended consequences. For example, it could hamper the
marketing of a transaction if an issuer determines that an offering
must come to market quickly.
Length of the Retail Order Period
    Comments: Full Life said that the length of a retail order period
should be sufficiently long to fulfill the issuer's intent. Full Life
and Dorsey said that it should afford a genuine opportunity for retail
investor participation. FPA stated that the period should be
meaningful--it should be sufficiently long to allow an individual
investor to make an informed decision.
    Two commenters recommended that either the MSRB or the syndicate
should fix the length of the retail order period. Dorsey said that the
syndicate should specify a time reasonably sensible in length and
should include the pricing structure. NAIPFA suggested that the MSRB
establish a fixed timeframe for the retail order period.
    Edward Jones recommended that ``meaningful notice of the retail
order period'' would include 24-hour notice with preliminary pricing
terms (e.g., coupon, maturity, price and yield that an individual
retail investor could use to form a reasoned investment decision)
before the retail order period is to begin. Edward Jones suggested that
an adequate retail order period should include a minimum of a full
trading day with the issuer having the opportunity to extend the retail
order period beyond a single trading day. Edward Jones supported a
``full day retail order period'' even if an institutional order period
runs concurrently for some portion of the day.
    MSRB Response: The MSRB believes that the current rule should not
be revised because an issuer should retain control over the issuance
process which includes the ability to adjust the length of time for the
retail order period to suit its needs or market conditions.
Representations and Required Disclosures About Each Order
    Comments: GFOA was supportive of the requirement to provide
additional information about each order. NAIPFA was also supportive and
believed it would be beneficial to issuers because it would allow
issuers to better assess the effectiveness of their underwriter's
ability to sell the issuers' securities as well as the underwriter's
adherence to the issuers' instructions and also may help curtail
flipping. Li said that details regarding the order could possibly be
required by the senior manager to be communicated during the order
process not just afterwards in order to prevent inadvertent
misrepresentations. RIHEBC stated that it already requires much of the
same information listed in the proposed rule change in order for it to
judge the performance of the senior manager and co-managers.
    MSRB Response: The MSRB appreciates these comments.
    Comments: Alamo and BDA generally did not support the additional
disclosures about each order because it would be an unreasonable
administrative burden, costly and inconsistent. BDA said that the
requirements are particularly burdensome in cases in which the dealer
obtains large numbers of retail orders during retail order periods. BDA
stated that burdens on dealers could have unintended consequences for
everyone and perhaps discourage the practice of retail order periods

altogether and this can hurt issuers and retail investors. BDA
suggested that, at most, dealers should comply with requirements of
issuers to document or represent that they have complied with retail
order period requirements. Melton said that required detailed
disclosures regarding each order is inconsistent with permitting
issuers to define retail and may not be completely necessary.
    MSRB Response: The MSRB believes that the additional required
disclosures will provide important information to the issuer. The MSRB
understands that it is not uncommon for certain experienced issuers
already to demand this additional information about orders. The MSRB
believes it is essential to require the type of information contained
in the rule because some issuers may not be sufficiently knowledgeable
to ask for it or have appropriate leverage. Moreover, even when issuers
have requested this information be gathered, it may not have been
provided to them prior to the execution of the bond purchase agreement;
this deadline is important so that the senior syndicate manager has all
of the information it will need before committing the underwriters to
the purchase of the bonds and before it allocates a share of securities
to each dealer. In addition, one of the benefits of requiring written
representations and disclosures is that it should help to minimize the
likelihood of inadvertent misrepresentations related to whether or not
a particular order meets the issuer's designated eligibility criteria.
    Comments: SIFMA said that the representation that an order meets
the issuer's definition of retail is more appropriate for the master
Agreement Among Underwriters (AAU). Rather than providing the
information about each order, the MSRB could provide that a dealer is
deemed to have made the required representations by virtue of
submitting an order during a retail order period or the representations
can be made in the AAU or Selling Group Agreement (SGA), and that,
therefore, it is not necessary for the representation to be made
separately for each order submitted during the retail order period.
    MSRB Response: SIFMA may wish to revise its standard form of AAU or
SGA in support of the proposed rule change and the MSRB would be
supportive of any agreement which seeks to bind members of the
syndicate or selling group to honor the issuer's intentions. However,
compliance with MSRB rules should stand independent of private
agreements between parties.
    Comment: Melton noted privacy concerns that may have led the MSRB
to require dealers to identify customers without providing names and
social security numbers. Dorsey and Edward Jones supported the required
disclosure of zip codes to support retail priority as adequate and
stated this should be adopted as an industry standard practice. Edward
Jones suggested that the MSRB revise the proposal to limit the
identifying information that the issuer may require. Edward Jones also
suggested that an issuer should not be allowed to require dealers to
provide customer account numbers, addresses, phone numbers or tax
identification numbers. SIFMA said the rule should specify that any
identifying information required by the issuer may not include customer
account numbers, names or taxpayer identification numbers.
    MSRB Response: Certain issuers have said to the MSRB that it would
be helpful to have additional tools to verify orders. The MSRB believes
that, if there are legitimate customer privacy protection issues
associated with a specific request, particularly as it relates to
certain identifying information or account numbers, an issuer may be
amenable to allowing a dealer to truncate numbers before submission.
The MSRB is aware that zip codes are often requested by issuers and
usually provided by dealers in support of evidence that an order is
from an individual or that the order is from a customer from a
particular locality. Both issuers and dealers have acknowledged that it
is easy to supply a zip code for a residential area and ``claim'' that
it belongs to the order.
    Comment: SIFMA also recommended that the MSRB create a safe harbor
for senior syndicate managers so that senior managers would satisfy
their own fair dealing obligations to the issuer when relying on
representations made to them by other dealers that any orders submitted
are retail orders.
    MSRB Response: The MSRB agrees that a senior syndicate manager
should, subject to certain exceptions, be entitled to rely on the
information furnished by another dealer. However, the MSRB believes
that a senior syndicate manager would not be entitled to rely on the
information if the senior syndicate manager knows, or has reason to
know, that the information is not true or accurate.
Recordkeeping
    Comments: GFOA supported the new recordkeeping requirements on
syndicate managers. SIFMA said that the proposed amendments requiring
the syndicate members to keep such records are not warranted as they
would be duplicative of recordkeeping requirements already imposed upon
dealers. Edward Jones sought clarification as to whether the
recordkeeping requirements applied to a sole managed deal, i.e., a deal
where there is no syndicate.
    MSRB Response: The MSRB does not agree that proposed revisions to
the recordkeeping requirements would be duplicative of recordkeeping
requirements already imposed on dealers. Rule G-8(a)(vii) provides that
the dealer keep a record of the customer's order in the event of a
purchase or sale of municipal securities (so that a record of orders
need not be retained if the order is not filled). Existing Rule G-
8(a)(viii) requires that the records of all orders received (regardless
of whether an order is filled) be maintained by the syndicate manager.
The proposed rule change is necessary so that the additional
information that must be provided by the senior syndicate manager or by
each dealer as a result of the amendments to Rule G-11 will be retained
in the centralized file maintained by the syndicate manager. The MSRB
agrees and the proposed rule change applies to recordkeeping
requirements in the case of a sole managed deal.
    Comment: SIFMA said that dealers should not be required to share
customer specific information with syndicate managers, and that it
would be more appropriate (and should be sufficient for recordkeeping
and enforcement purposes) that these customer order details remain with
the dealer that maintains the customer relationship.
    MSRB Response: The MSRB disagrees for the reasons stated above.
Issuers will benefit from having access to customer specific
information to verify orders and examinations will likely be more
efficient due to centralized recordkeeping.
Revisions to Rule G-32 To Indicate That a Transaction Included a Retail
Order Period
    Comments: SIFMA and Full Life supported the proposed revisions to
Rule G-32. Full Life said that it provides an opportunity for
regulatory oversight essential to fostering administration of bona fide
retail order periods that actually result in retail participation.
SIFMA also recommended that the dates and times of any retail order
period be reported to EMMA.
    MSRB Response: The MSRB appreciates these comments. The MSRB agrees
with SIFMA's recommendation and it is reflected in the proposed rule
change to Rule G-32.

Additional Rulemaking Regarding Retail Order Periods
    Comment: SIFMA stated that the G-17 Underwriters' Notice has
adequately addressed the concerns regarding retail order periods so
that additional rulemaking is not necessary.
    MSRB Response: The MSRB considers the G-17 Underwriters' Notice as
an important step towards improving practices in this area but it did
not address all of the issues associated with retail order periods.
More specific, concrete requirements in the proposed rule change should
assist in compliance. For example, the G-17 Underwriters' Notice does
not address many of the issues associated with recordkeeping. The
proposed rule change also will support efforts by the issuer and the
syndicate manager to audit orders.
Alternatives to Rulemaking
    Comment: BDA suggested that if the MSRB produces educational
materials, they should include specific guidance practices that issuers
should consider in formulating effective retail order period rules. BDA
recommended that issuers reserve the right to conduct an audit of
compliance by the syndicate of retail order period rules. GFOA
recommended that the MSRB seek to establish some type of protocol or
system so that the issuer can have some comfort that retail orders meet
the preset criteria set by the issuer.
    MSRB Response: The MSRB would consider working with issuer trade
associations on best practices which may address these issues.
Other Comments
    Comment: Combined Order Periods: Vanguard said that all interested
investors should be permitted to submit orders for municipal securities
in the primary market and no priority should be given to retail orders,
and that issuers would benefit from more accurate price discovery.
    MSRB Response: The MSRB does not wish to substitute its judgment in
place of that of issuers who manage their debt issuances. Issuers may
choose to conduct combined order periods and the proposed rule change
does not prevent them from doing so.
    Comment: Definition of Selling Group: SIFMA suggested the
definition of selling group be limited to those dealers that sign an
SGA or substantially similar agreements for a particular new issue of
municipal securities.
    MSRB Response: The MSRB does not wish to define selling group by
reference to an agreement which may not be executed in all cases,
although the MSRB recognizes that it may be customary practice for
selling group members to execute an SGA. In addition, duties of selling
group members and the duties of syndicate managers to selling group
members should apply to a dealer in a selling group even if for some
reason it does not become a party to an SGA since to provide otherwise
might have the unintended consequence of subverting the intent of Rule
G-11 to apply to all dealers.
    Comments: Definition of Going Away Orders: SIFMA suggested that the
term going away order has not been previously defined under MSRB rules.
Li included recommendations to address flipping.
    MSRB Response: The term going away order was defined in an approval
order concerning a previous revision to Rule G-11.\23\ The proposed
rule change was not directed at concerns related to flipping.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Securities Exchange Act Release 34-62715 (August 13,
2010); 75 FR 51128 (August 18, 2010); File No. SR-MSRB 2009-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Interpretive Guidance related to Duties of All Dealers
Placing Orders in Retail Order Periods and Fair Pricing: Wells Fargo
suggested that the proposed guidance created a compliance challenge for
firms, making almost any pricing difference subject to the whims and
vagaries of which person is viewing the pricing and its fairness.
SIFMA, BDA and Edward Jones raised concerns related to differential
pricing between retail and institutional investors seeking specific
examples of the characteristics of the securities that may fairly
justify differences in pricing. SIFMA recommended that the MSRB clarify
that the specific examples provided are not an exhaustive list and
acknowledge that market conditions could shift within a day. GFOA
suggested that the MSRB revise the interpretive guidance to state that
price differences between the retail order period and the later
institutional order period do not per se create an assumption of lack
of fair dealing.
    BDA found that revisions to the guidance provided a helpful
discussion of how prices and yields may legitimately differ on sales of
the same security. Wells Fargo suggested that retail and institutional
orders should not receive different pricing and Full Life was
supportive of guidance that would discourage differences in pricing as
between retail and institutional investors in the new issue market.
GFOA and NAIPFA were not supportive of the guidance as it related to
fair pricing because of concerns that it would hurt issuers and, in the
long-term, retail customers may be forced from the market.
    MSRB Response: The MSRB is not proposing to issue additional
guidance related to fair pricing at this time. The MSRB most recently
issued guidance on the issue of fair pricing to individual clients in
2009.\24\ The comments received on retail order periods and the Board's
study of such programs does not establish a basis for additional
pricing guidance at this time. In particular, that MSRB is mindful that
any guidance should be grounded from further study and analysis and
should consider the extent to which pricing differentials may affect an
issuer's willingness to use a retail order period. As the MSRB
continues to promote price transparency in the primary market, new
issue pricing practices will be monitored to ascertain whether
additional guidance is warranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See the Sales Practice Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Topics Related to Primary Offerings But Beyond the Scope of the
Proposed Rule Change
    Comment: Takedown: Full Life suggested that the MSRB should
discourage consideration of disparity in takedown as influencing
dealers' motivation to exhibit greater effort to secure institutional
customers versus retail.
    MSRB Response: The MSRB appreciates this comment but believes that
at this time the MSRB should direct its rulemaking efforts towards
ensuring that dealers submit orders only from retail customers.
    Comment: Disclosures of Sales by Underwriters Following the End of
the Underwriting Period: Li requested that the MSRB consider
promulgating a rule requiring disclosure to issuers of sales for a
period of time (perhaps seven days) following the end of the
underwriting period. Li believed that this might allow the issuer to
identify any pricing problems and support fair dealing.
    MSRB Response: The MSRB appreciates this comment and will consider
whether additional rulemaking is appropriate, but views this comment as
outside the scope of the proposed rule change on retail order periods.

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 of up to 90 days (i) as
the Commission may designate if it finds such longer period

to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as
to which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission
will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-MSRB-2013-05 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-MSRB-2013-05. 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 the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the MSRB. 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-MSRB-2013-05 and should be
submitted on or before July 19, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\25\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-15492 Filed 6-27-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: August 30, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 168)]
[Notices]
[Page 51596-51597]
[DOCID:fr30au06-80]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-494-000]

SCG Pipeline, Inc.; Notice of Penalty Revenue Report

August 22, 2006.
    Take notice that on August 17, 2006, SCG Pipeline, Inc. (SCG)
submitted for filing its Penalty Revenue Report. SCG states that the
purpose of this filing is to inform the Commission that SCG did not
assess or collect any penalty revenues in the year ending July 31,
2006.
    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 and 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 date as indicated
below. Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a

copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention
or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not 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 e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY,

call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Intervention and Protest Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time August 28, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-14379 Filed 8-29-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: March 22, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 54)]
[Notices]
[Page 13614]
[DOCID:fr22mr10-116]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

In the Matter of Talisman Enterprises, Inc., Tangent Solutions,
Inc., Telepanel Systems, Inc., Telesis North Communications, Inc.,
Telzuit Medical Technologies, Inc., Tengtu International Corp.,
Thomaston Mills, Inc., Three D Departments, Inc., Tiger Telematics,
Inc., and TIS Mortgage Investment Co.; Order of Suspension of Trading

March 18, 2010.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Talisman Enterprises, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended September 30, 2000.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Tangent Solutions, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports
since the period ended March 31, 2003.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Telepanel Systems, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports
since the period ended January 31, 2002.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Telesis North Communications, Inc. because it has not filed any
periodic reports since the period ended February 28, 2002.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Telzuit Medical Technologies, Inc. because it has not filed any
periodic reports since the period ended September 30, 2007.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Tengtu International Corp. because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended March 31, 2005.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Thomaston Mills, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports
since the period ended December 30, 2000.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Three D Departments, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports
since the period ended August 1, 1998.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Tiger Telematics, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports
since the period ended September 30, 2005.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
TIS Mortgage Investment Co. because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended September 30, 2004.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed companies.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the
above-listed companies is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT
on March 18, 2010, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on March 31, 2010.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-6315 Filed 3-18-10; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: February 4, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 23)]
[Notices]
[Page 5844]
[DOCID:fr04fe10-97]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activity Seeking OMB Approval

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA invites public comments about our intention to request
the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) revision of a current
information collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day
comment period soliciting comments on the following collection of
information was published on October 16, 2009, vol. 74, no. 199, page
53314. The FAA has established requirements for human space flight crew
and space flight participants as required by the Commercial Space
Launch Amendments Act of 2004.

DATES: Please submit comments by March 8, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carla Mauney at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

    Title: Human Space Flight Requirements for Crew and Space Flight
Participants.
    Type of Request: Extension without change of a currently approved
collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0720.
    Form(s): There are no FAA forms associated with this collection.
    Affected Public: A total of 5 respondents.
    Frequency: This information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: Approximately 4 hours per
response.
    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: An estimated 2,975 hours annually.
    Abstract: The FAA has established requirements for human space
flight crew and space flight participants as required by the Commercial
Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004. This rulemaking established
requirements for crew qualifications, training and notification, and
training and informed consent requirements for space flight
participants. The rulemaking also modified existing financial
responsibility requirements to account for space flight participants,
crew, and FAA's new authority to issue an experimental permit.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be
addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of
Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to oira_
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington,
DC 20503.
    Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimates of the burden of
the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 27, 2010.
Carla Mauney,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business
Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. 2010-2474 Filed 2-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: November 17, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 221)]
[Notices]
[Page 69751]
[DOCID:fr17no05-59]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2082-039]

PacifiCorp; Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order and
Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

November 9, 2005.
    On October 3, 2005, the United States Department of the Interior
(Interior), filed a petition for a declaratory order to resolve matters
relating to the terms and conditions of any annual license that may
issue for the Klamath Hydroelectric Project No. 2082, which is licensed
to PacifiCorp. The project is located primarily on the Klamath River in
Klamath County, Oregon, and Siskiyou County, California.
    The petition contends that the project license includes a contract
between Interior and PacifiCorp's predecessor in interest, California
Oregon Power Company, which the Commission required to be executed and
filed as a condition of issuance of the license (Link River Dam
contract). The Link River Dam contract provides, among other things,
for the licensee to furnish electric power at specified rates to the
United States for pumping and drainage of irrigation water at the
Klamath River irrigation project, which is administered by Interior's
Bureau of Reclamation. Interior seeks a declaration that the terms and
conditions of the Link River Dam contract, particularly those relating
to the sale of power, will continue in force during any annual licenses
issued for the project when the existing license expires on March 1,
2006.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest the petition should
file comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with
the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure,
18 CFR 385.210, 385.211 and 385.214. In determining the appropriate
action to take, the Commission will consider all protests and other
comments, but only those who file a motion to intervene may become
parties to the proceeding. Comments, protests, or motions to intervene
must be filed within 10 days of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register and must bear in all capital letters the title
``COMMENTS,'' ``PROTEST,'' or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE,'' as applicable,
and Project No. 2082-039.
    Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically
via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's web site under the ``e-filing''
link.
    Send the filings (original and 8 copies) to: The Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426. Copies of the petition for declaratory order are on file with
the Commission and are available for public inspection in Room 2A and
may also be viewed on the Web at http://www.ferc.gov/onlinerims.htm.

For assistance, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-6343 Filed 11-16-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:I am requesting more time for the vaping community to read over the FDA proposal. Vaping has saved my life! I had smoked cigarettes for over 40 years. I've been smoke free for over a year. Cathy Hodges


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 150 (Monday, August 9, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 43572]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16885]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-92556; File No. SR-BOX-2021-14]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Exchange LLC; Notice of
Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule
Change in Connection With the Proposed Commencement of Operations of
Boston Security Token Exchange LLC

August 3, 2021.
    On June 7, 2021, BOX Exchange LLC (the ``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change in connection with
the proposed commencement of operations of Boston Security Token
Exchange LLC as a facility of the Exchange. The proposed rule change
was published for comment in the Federal Register on June 24, 2021.\3\
The Commission has received no comment letters on the proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 92206 (June 17,
2021), 86 FR 33402.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that, within 45 days of
the publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day after publication of the notice for this proposed rule change
is August 8, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission hereby is extending the 45-day time period for
Commission action on the proposed rule change. The Commission finds
that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to
take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time
to consider the proposed rule change. Accordingly, pursuant to Section
19(b)(2) of the Act,\5\ the Commission designates September 22, 2021,
as the date by which the Commission shall either approve or disapprove,
or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove, the
proposed rule change (File No. SR-BOX-2021-14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id.
    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-16885 Filed 8-6-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 171 (Wednesday, September 4, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 46521]
[FR Doc No: 2019-19031]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0091; FRL-9998-99]

Product Cancellation Order for Certain Pesticide Registrations;
Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA issued a cancellation order in the Federal Register of
August 14, 2019, concerning the cancellations voluntarily requested by
the registrants and accepted by the Agency. This notice is being issued
to correct the cancellation order in Table 1, of Unit II., to remove
three entries that the registrant inadvertently requested be cancelled.

DATES: The Federal Register of August 14, 2019, announced the order to
voluntarily cancel three registrations in Table 1, of Unit II., that
the registrant inadvertently requested.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Green, Information
Technology and Resources Management Division (7502P), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide
users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution,
or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency
has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be
affected by this action.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0091, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. What does this correction do?

    EPA is correcting the cancellation order issued in the Federal
Register of August 14, 2019 (84 FR 40405; FRL-9996-70), by removing
three entries in Table 1, of Unit II., because the registrant of those
registrations inadvertently requested the voluntary cancellations. As
such, this correction removes registration numbers 1043-87, 1043-91 and
1043-92 from the cancellation order.
    On page 40405, in Table 1, of Unit II., please remove the entries
for registration numbers 1043-87, 1043-91 and 1043-92.

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: August 26, 2019.
Hamaad A. Syed,
Acting Director, Information Technology and Resource Management
Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2019-19031 Filed 9-3-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 121 (Monday, June 24, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29574-29576]
[FR Doc No: 2019-13304]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-86140; File No. SR-Phlx-2019-24]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Phlx Rule
1034 To Extend Through December 31, 2019 or the Date of Permanent
Approval, if Earlier, the Penny Pilot Program in Options Classes in
Certain Issues

June 18, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on June 14, 2019, Nasdaq PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') 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 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 Phlx Rule 1034 (Minimum Increments)
\3\ to extend through December 31, 2019 or the date of permanent
approval, if earlier, the Penny Pilot Program in options classes in
certain issues (``Penny Pilot'' or ``Pilot'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ References herein to rules refer to rules of Phlx, unless
otherwise noted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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
    The purpose of this filing is to amend Phlx Rule 1034 to extend the
Penny Pilot through December 31, 2019 or the date of permanent
approval, if earlier.\4\ The Exchange believes that extending the Penny
Pilot will allow for further analysis of the Penny Pilot and a
determination of how the program should be structured in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The options exchanges in the U.S. that have pilot programs
similar to the Penny Pilot (together ``pilot programs'') are
currently working on a proposal for permanent approval of the
respective pilot programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Penny Pilot, the minimum price variation for all
participating options classes, except for the Nasdaq-100 Index Tracking
Stock (``QQQQ''), the SPDR S&P 500 Exchange Traded Fund (``SPY'') and
the iShares Russell 2000 Index Fund (``IWM''), is $0.01 for all
quotations in options series that are quoted at less than $3 per
contract and $0.05 for all quotations in options series that are quoted
at $3 per contract or greater. QQQQ, SPY and IWM are quoted in $0.01
increments for all options series. The Penny Pilot is currently
scheduled to expire on June 30, 2019.\5\ The Exchange now proposes to
extend the time period of the Penny Pilot through December 31, 2019 or
the date of permanent approval, if earlier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84961 (December 26,
2018), 84 FR 838 (January 31, 2019) (SR-Phlx-2018-84).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This filing does not propose any substantive changes to the Penny
Pilot Program; all classes currently participating in the Penny Pilot
will

remain the same and all minimum increments will remain unchanged. The
Exchange believes the benefits to public customers and other market
participants who will be able to express their true prices to buy and
sell options have been demonstrated to outweigh the potential increase
in quote traffic.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\6\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ 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, and to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the proposed rule change, which extends the Penny
Pilot for an additional six months through December 31, 2019 or the
date of permanent approval, if earlier, will enable public customers
and other market participants to express their true prices to buy and
sell options for the benefit of all market participants. This is
consistent with the Act.

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. To the contrary, this proposal
is pro-competitive because it allows Penny Pilot issues to continue
trading on the Exchange.
    Moreover, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will
allow for further analysis of the Pilot and a determination of how the
Pilot should be structured in the future; and will serve to promote
regulatory clarity and consistency, thereby reducing burdens on the
marketplace and facilitating investor protection.
    The Pilot is an industry-wide initiative supported by all other
option exchanges. The Exchange believes that extending the Pilot will
allow for continued competition between market participants on the
Exchange trading similar products as their counterparts on other
exchanges, while at the same time allowing the Exchange to continue to
compete for order flow with other exchanges in option issues trading as
part of the Pilot.

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 Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\9\
Because the 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 prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \9\ 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.
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \12\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\13\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing. The Commission believes
that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest because doing so will
allow the Pilot Program to continue without interruption in a manner
that is consistent with the Commission's prior approval of the
extension and expansion of the Pilot Program.\14\ Accordingly, the
Commission designates the proposed rule change as operative upon filing
with the Commission.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \14\ See Securities Exchange Release No. 61061 (November 24,
2009), 74 FR 62857) (December 1, 2009) (SR-NYSEARCA-2009-44).
    \15\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 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-Phlx-2019-24 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-2019-24. 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 submissions.
You should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2019-24 and
should be submitted on or before July 15, 2019.

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

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

Vanessa A. Countryman,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-13304 Filed 6-21-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P