[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 182 (Tuesday, September 20, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64564-64566]
[FR Doc No: 2016-22535]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78836; File No. SR-FINRA-2016-022]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule
12403 (Cases With Three Arbitrators) of the Code of Arbitration
Procedure for Customer Disputes Relating to the Panel Selection Process
in Arbitration

September 14, 2016.

I. Introduction

    On July 1, 2016, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend FINRA Rule 12403 (Cases with Three
Arbitrators) of the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Customer Disputes
(``Customer Code'') relating to the panel selection process in
arbitration. The proposal was published for comment in the Federal
Register on July 15, 2016.\3\ The comment period closed on August 5,
2016. The Commission received eight (8) comment letters on the
proposal.\4\ On August 12, 2016, FINRA extended the time, until October
13, 2016, for Commission action on the proposal.\5\ FINRA responded to
the comment letters on August 18, 2016.\6\ This order approves 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. 78279 (July 11,
2016), 81 FR 46139 (July 15, 2016) (File No. SR-FINRA-2016-022)
(``Notice'').
    \4\ See Letter from Steven B. Caruso, Maddox Hargett & Caruso,
P.C., dated July 14, 2016 (``Caruso Letter''); Letter from Julius Z.
Frager, J.D., M.B.A., dated July 24, 2016 (``Frager Letter'');
Letter from Ryan K. Bakhtiari, Aidikoff, Uhl & Bakhtiari, dated July
26, 2016 (``Bakhtiari Letter''); Letter from Philip M. Aidikoff,
Aidikoff, Uhl & Bakhtiari, dated July 27, 2016 (``Aidikoff
Letter''); Letter from Hugh D. Berkson, President, Public Investors
Arbitration Bar Association (``PIABA''), dated August 4, 2016
(``PIABA Letter''); Letter from David T. Bellaire, Esq., Executive
Vice President and General Counsel, Financial Services Institute
(``FSI''), dated August 4, 2016 (``FSI Letter''); Letter from Tyler
M. Fiorillo, Student Intern, and Elissa Germaine, Supervising
Attorney, Pace Investor Rights Clinic (``PIRC''), dated August 5,
2016 (``PIRC Letter''), and Letter from Glenn S. Gitomer, Chair of
Litigation Practice Group, McCausland Keen Buckman, dated August 5,
2016 (``Gitomer Letter'').
    \5\ See Letter from Margo A. Hassan, Associate Chief Counsel,
Office of Dispute Resolution, FINRA, to Lourdes Gonzalez, Assistant
Chief Counsel--Sales Practices, Division of Trading and Markets,
Securities and Exchange Commission, dated August 12, 2016.
    \6\ See Letter from Margo A. Hassan, Associate Chief Counsel,
Office of Dispute Resolution, FINRA, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary,
Securities and Exchange Commission, dated August 18, 2016 (``FINRA
Response Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    FINRA allows parties to participate in selecting the arbitrators
who serve on their cases. Parties select their arbitration panel from
computer generated lists of arbitrators that FINRA sends them. Under
current FINRA Rule 12403(a), in customer cases with three
arbitrators,\7\ FINRA sends the parties three lists: a list of ten (10)
chair-qualified public arbitrators, a list of ten (10) public
arbitrators, and a list of ten (10) non-public arbitrators.\8\ The
parties select their panel through a process of striking and ranking
the arbitrators on the lists.\9\ Under current Rule 12403(c)(2), each
party is allowed to strike up to four (4) arbitrators on the chair-
qualified public list and four (4) arbitrators on the public list. At
least six (6) names must remain on each list. However, Rule 12403(c)(1)
provides for unlimited strikes on the non-public list so that any party
may select a panel of all public arbitrators in a customer case.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See FINRA Rule 12401, which provides that if the amount of a
claim is more than $100,000, exclusive of interest and expenses, or
is unspecified, or if the claim does not request money damages, the
panel will consist of three arbitrators, unless the parties agree in
writing to one arbitrator.
    \8\ Public arbitrators do not have an affiliation with the
financial industry. The non-public arbitrator roster includes
individuals who: (1) Are employed in the financial industry; (2)
provide services to industry entities and their employees; or (3)
devote a significant part of their business to representing or
providing services to parties in disputes concerning investments or
employment relationships. See Notice, 81 FR at 46139; see also
Securities Exchange Act Release No 74383 (Feb. 26, 2014), 80 FR
11695 (Mar. 4, 2014) (File No. SR-FINRA-2014-028) (Self-Regulatory
Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Order
Approving a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Revisions to the
Definitions of Non-Public Arbitrator and Public Arbitrator).
    \9\ See FINRA Rule 12403(c).
    \10\ See Notice, 81 FR at 46139.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Customer Code, when parties collectively strike all of
the non-public arbitrators from the list, FINRA fills all three panel
seats from the two 10-person lists of public arbitrators.\11\ When
parties collectively strike all of the arbitrators appearing on the
non-public list, FINRA returns to the public list to select the next
highest ranked available arbitrator to fill the seat.\12\ If no public
arbitrators remain available to fill the vacancy, FINRA returns to the
chair-qualified public list to select the next highest ranked public
chair.\13\ In doing so, there is a likelihood that FINRA will appoint
an arbitrator who the parties accepted, but ranked lower on the public
or chair-qualified public lists.\14\ FINRA believes that where parties
collectively strike all the non-public arbitrators (i.e., where they
desire an all-public panel), the parties should have greater choice of
public arbitrators.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See FINRA Rule 12403(d), (e).
    \12\ See FINRA Rule 12403(e).
    \13\ Id.
    \14\ See Notice, 81 FR at 46139.
    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consequently, FINRA is proposing to amend Rule 12403(a)(1) to
increase the number of arbitrators on the public arbitrator list FINRA
sends the parties from ten (10) to fifteen (15). FINRA believes this
amendment would provide the parties with greater choice of public
arbitrators during the panel selection process.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Id. at 46139-40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA is also proposing to amend Rule 12403(c)(2) to increase the
number of strikes to the public arbitrator list from four (4) to six
(6), so that the proportion of strikes is the same under the amended
rule as it is under the current rule. FINRA believes that increasing
the number of strikes the parties can make to the newly increased
public list will improve the likelihood that the parties' preferred
arbitrators will be appointed to the panel.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Id. at 46140
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Comments and FINRA's Response

    The Commission received eight (8) comment letters on the proposed
rule change,\18\ and a response letter from FINRA.\19\ As discussed in
more detail below, six (6) commenters expressed support for the
proposal as filed,\20\ one (1) commenter generally supported the
proposal while expressing additional concerns,\21\ and one (1)
commenter proposed an alternative approach for panel selection in
customer cases.\22\ The sections below outline the support, concerns
raised and alternatives proposed by commenters, as well as FINRA's
response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See supra note 4.
    \19\ See supra note 6.
    \20\ See Caruso Letter; Bakhtiari Letter; Aidikoff Letter; FSI
Letter; PIRC Letter; Gitomer Letter.
    \21\ See PIABA Letter.
    \22\ See Frager Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Support for the Proposal

    Six (6) commenters supported the proposed increase in the number of
arbitrators on the public arbitrator list from ten (10) to fifteen
(15), as well as the proportional increase from four (4) to six (6)
strikes that parties may make to the public arbitrator list. These
commenters stated, among other things, that the proposal would provide
parties

with a greater choice in the arbitrator selection process, increasing
the likelihood that an arbitrator preferred by both parties would be
appointed to the panel.\23\ Consequently, these commenters generally
believe that the proposed rule change ``is a fair, equitable and
reasonable approach[,]'' \24\ ``is an important step towards protecting
the investing public[,]'' \25\ ``will greatly enhance the fairness of
the forum to both the investing public and FINRA members[,]'' \26\
``results in more equitable arbitration proceedings,'' \27\ and
``benefits all parties, with a particularly positive impact on modest-
means investors.'' \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Caruso Letter, Aidikoff Letter, FSI Letter, and PIRC
Letter; see also Bakhtiari Letter, Gitmore Letter and PIABA Letter
(stating that ``having the ability to consider more candidates helps
both claimants and respondents.''
    \24\ See Caruso Letter; see also Aidikoff Letter and FSI Letter.
    \25\ See Bakhtiari Letter.
    \26\ See Gitomer Letter.
    \27\ See FSI Letter.
    \28\ See PIRC Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additional Concerns

    One (1) commenter generally supported the proposal, but also
expressed concerns about other aspects of the arbitrator selection
process.\29\ Specifically, this commenter believes that FINRA should
address the shortage of local arbitrators by intensifying its efforts
to recruit suitable local individuals to serve as public and
chair[hyphen]qualified arbitrators, particularly in locations with
shallow arbitrator pools.\30\ In addition, this commenter recommends
that FINRA increase the transparency of its list-selection process.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See PIABA Letter.
    \30\ Id.
    \31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, FINRA stated that it believes this commenter's
suggestions are outside the scope of the proposal.\32\ Therefore, FINRA
did not address them in its response.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See FINRA Response Letter.
    \33\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alternative Proposal

    One (1) commenter did not directly oppose the proposal but did
recommend that FINRA adopt an alternative approach for panel selection
in customer cases. Among other things, this commenter suggested that
FINRA maintain the three current ten-person lists of non-public, chair-
public and public arbitrators. Each party could strike all of the names
on the non-public list, and four names on each public list. Each party
would then submit to FINRA one combined list of ranked chair-public and
public arbitrators. FINRA would appoint the highest ranked chair-
qualified arbitrator as chair. If the parties collectively struck all
of the non-public arbitrators, FINRA would then appoint two public
arbitrators from those remaining on the parties' combined list
(regardless of whether they are chair-qualified).\34\ The commenter
believes that this proposal would benefit parties to an arbitration
because, among other things, they would not need to vet the proposed
additional five public arbitrators.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See Frager Letter; see also FINRA Response Letter
(describing the commenter's proposal).
    \35\ See Frager Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its response, FINRA stated that forum users generally prefer
greater choice during the arbitrator selection process.\36\ FINRA also
stated that unlike the commenter's suggestion, the proposed rule change
would provide parties greater choice by adding five (5) public
arbitrators to the panel selection process.\37\ In addition, FINRA
believes that the commenter's approach to panel selection would be
complex and difficult for parties to navigate, especially parties or
party representatives that do not use the forum on a regular basis.\38\
Accordingly, FINRA did not amend the proposal to reflect the
commenter's recommended amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See FINRA Response Letter (stating that forum users have
indicated that ``the benefits of additional choice outweigh the cost
of vetting additional arbitrators'').
    \37\ See FINRA Response Letter.
    \38\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion and Commission Findings

    The Commission has carefully considered the proposal, the comments
received, and FINRA's response to the comments. Based on its review of
the record, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
association.\39\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\40\ which
requires, among other things, that FINRA's rules be designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors
and the public interest. FINRA believes, and the Commission agrees,
that the proposed rule change would protect investors and the public
interest by providing greater choice for parties in customer cases with
three arbitrators during the panel selection process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission has
also considered its impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \40\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the proposal would amend Rule 12403(a)(1) to
increase the number of arbitrators on the public arbitrator list that
FINRA sends the parties from ten (10) to fifteen (15).\41\ It would
also amend Rule 12403(c)(2) to increase the number of strikes to the
public arbitrator list from four (4) to six (6), so that the proportion
of strikes is the same under the amended rule as it is under the
current rule.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See Notice, 81 FR at 46139.
    \42\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has considered the eight (8) comment letters
received on the proposed rule change,\43\ along with FINRA's response
to the comments.\44\ The Commission notes that most of the commenters
support the proposed rule change, expressing the belief that the
proposal would increase parties' choice among public arbitrators during
the arbitrator selection process,\45\ and thereby benefit parties in
arbitration and enhance the fairness of the forum.\46\ However, the
Commission also recognizes commenters' concerns and suggestions.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See supra note 4.
    \44\ See supra note 6.
    \45\ See supra note 23.
    \46\ See supra notes 24-28.
    \47\ See PIABA Letter and Frager Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the Commission acknowledges that FINRA's proposed amendments
to Rule 12403 might result in an increased burden in vetting additional
arbitrators, the Commission agrees with FINRA that parties would
benefit from having greater choice in selecting public arbitrators, and
that the benefits of this greater choice would outweigh the cost of
additional vetting.\48\ The Commission additionally agrees with FINRA's
assessment that the proposed alternative arbitrator selection process
suggested by one commenter \49\ would not provide the benefit of
greater choice and would unnecessarily complicate the arbitrator
selection process.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See FINRA Response Letter.
    \49\ See Frager Letter.
    \50\ See FINRA Response Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Commission agrees with FINRA's assessment that the
``shortage of local arbitrators'' and the transparency of FINRA's
arbitrator list-selection process \51\ are outside the scope of the
proposal.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ See PIABA Letter.
    \52\ See FINRA Response Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons stated above, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the Act

and the rules and regulations thereunder.

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\53\ that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2016-022) be, and
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-22535 Filed 9-19-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: January 6, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 4)]
[Notices]
[Page 959-961]
[DOCID:fr06ja06-73]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53043; File No. SR-Phlx-2005-72]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
and Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to Remote Streaming Quote Trader
Permit Fees

December 29, 2005.
    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 November 10, 2005, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Phlx''
or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Phlx. On December
19, 2005, the Phlx submitted Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule
change.\3\ The Exchange has designated

the proposed rule change as one establishing or changing a due, fee, or
other charge imposed by the Phlx pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of
the Act \4\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\5\ which renders the
proposal effective upon filing with the Commission.\6\ The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule
change, as amended, from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange revised the proposed rule
text to clarify that RSQTs and SQTs will be included in the ROT
permit fee category. The Exchange also amended the purpose section
to clarify that, by including RSQTs in the ROT permit fee category,
the Exchange will be assessing a new permit fee on RSQTs.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
    \6\ The effective date of the original proposed rule change is
November 10, 2005, and the effective date of Amendment No. 1 is
December 19, 2005. For purposes of calculating the 60-day period
within which the Commission may summarily abrogate the proposed rule
change under Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, the Commission
considers the period to commence on December 19, 2005, the date on
which the Exchange submitted Amendment No. 1. See 15 U.S.C.
78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Phlx proposes to amend its permit fee schedule to assess a
permit fee on Remote Streaming Quote Traders (``RSQTs'') \7\ under the
Registered Options Trader (``ROT'') permit fee category. In addition,
the Exchange proposes to amend its permit fee schedule to clarify that
Streaming Quote Traders (``SQTs'') \8\ are currently included in the
ROT permit fee category.\9\ The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.phlx.com), at the

Phlx, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ An RSQT is an Exchange ROT that is a member or member
organization of the Exchange with no physical trading floor presence
who has received permission from the Exchange to generate and submit
option quotations electronically through the Exchange's Automated
Options Market in eligible options in which such RSQT has been
assigned. An RSQT may only trade in a market making capacity in
classes of options in which he is assigned. An RSQT may only submit
such quotations electronically from off the floor of the Exchange.
See Phlx Rule 1014(b)(ii)(B).
    \8\ An SQT is a ROT who has received permission from the
Exchange to generate and submit option quotations electronically
through an electronic interface with the Exchange's automated
options market (``AUTOM'') via an Exchange approved proprietary
electronic quoting device in eligible options to which the SQT is
assigned. See Exchange Rule 1014(b)(ii).
    \9\ Currently, SQTs are assessed a permit fee under the ROT (on
any trading floor) category, but are not specifically referred to on
the Exchange's fee schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Phlx 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 Phlx 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
    Phlx recently adopted equity option fees applicable to RSQTs.\10\
In addition to the equity options fees assessed on RSQTs, RSQTs must
also pay a monthly permit fee. Presently, RSQTs do not pay a ROT permit
fee because they are not on any trading floor \11\ and are thus not
included in the ROT permit fee category on the Exchange's fee schedule.
However, RSQTs pay a permit fee under another category of permit fees
such as a specialist or an order flow provider.\12\ Currently, monthly
permit fees are assessed as follows:

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51428 (March 24,
2005), 70 FR 16325 (March 30, 2005) (SR-Phlx-2005-12).
    \11\ See definition of ``RSQT,'' supra note 7.
    \12\ The Exchange assesses permit fees on its members. Monthly
permit fees are assessed based on how each permit is used, for
example, order flow provider, specialist or floor broker. However,
any member who qualifies a member organization in more than one
category of permit fees pays the higher of the applicable fees for
such permit. For example, if an RSQT permit holder qualifies a
member organization as an order flow provider and the RSQT permit
holder associated with the member organization then registered as a
floor broker on the Exchange for that or another member
organization, that RSQT permit holder would be subject to a permit
fee of $1,200, the higher of $200 (the order flow provider permit
fee) and $1,200 (the floor broker permit fee), but not both fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Permit Fees \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Exchange has established the date of notification of
termination of a permit as the date that permit fee billing will
cease. Additionally, a permit holder will be billed only one monthly
permit fee if the holder transfers from one member organization to
another previously unrelated member organization as a result of a
merger, partial sale or other business combination during a monthly
permit fee period in order to avoid double billing in the month the
merger or business combination occurred. If the permit holder
transfers from one member organization to another unrelated member
organization in the same month, both member organizations are
assessed a permit fee in the same billing period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Order Flow Provider Permit Fee \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ This fee applies to a permit held by a permit holder who
does not have physical access to the Exchange's trading floor, is
not registered as a Floor Broker, Specialist or ROT (on any trading
floor) or Off-Floor trader, and whose member organization submits
orders to the Exchange. Phlx Rule 620(a) requires such registration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    a. Permits used only to submit orders to the equity, foreign
currency options, or options trading floor (one floor only): $200.00
per month.
    b. Permits used only to submit orders to more than one trading
floor: $300.00 per month.

Floor Broker, Specialist, or ROT (on any trading floor) or Off-Floor
Trader Permit Fee
    a. First Permit: $1,200.00 per month.
    b. Additional permits for members in the same organization:
$1,000.00 per month.

Excess Permit Holders: $200.00 per month.
Other Permit Holders: \15\ $200.00 per month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ A permit holder or the member organization they solely
qualify must apply for ``other'' status in writing to the Membership
Services Department. This status requires that a permit holder or
the member organization have no transaction activity for the
applicable monthly billing period. Should a permit holder actively
transact business during a particular month, the highest applicable
monthly permit fee will apply to such permit holder and member
organization for that monthly period. The ``other'' status only
applies to permit holders who solely qualify their member
organization. These policies were effective as of February 2, 2004.

Any member who is associated with one or more member organizations and
uses a permit in more than one category pays the higher of the
applicable fees for such permit.
    Because RSQTs do not have a physical presence on the trading floor,
but are a subset of ROTs, the Exchange proposes to assess the same
permit fees on RSQTs as ROTs on any trading floor. As such, the
Exchange proposes to replace the words ``on any trading floor'' that
appear after the ROT category with ``including RSQTs and SQTs.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ As a practical matter, the effect of including RSQTs in the
ROT permit fee category should not increase overall costs to the
RSQTs due to the fact that RSQTs receive a permit credit, which is
applied against a member organization's RSQT fees. Specifically,
pursuant to the Exchange's fee schedule, RSQTs are assessed an RSQT
fee based on the number and type of option issues in which an RSQT
is assigned. A credit is given to RSQTs based on the total number of
permits held by the RSQT in a particular calendar month. For
example, currently an RSQT may receive a monthly credit of $200
(which is the same amount as the permit fee) because the permit
holder qualifies a member organization as an order flow provider.
Now, under this proposal, the RSQT will be charged a higher permit
fee of $1,200, but receive a permit credit of $1,200 to be applied
against the RSQT fee. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51428
(March 24, 2005), 70 FR 16325 (March 30, 2005) (SR-Phlx-2005-12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, although SQTs have a physical presence on the trading
floor and are thus currently included in the ROT (on any trading floor)
permit fee

category, the Exchange proposes to specifically refer to SQTs on the
fee schedule in order to help clarify that SQTs are also included in
the ROT category.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its schedule of
fees is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,\17\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\18\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees
among Exchange members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing proposed rule change has been designated as a fee
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \19\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(2) \20\ thereunder. Accordingly, the proposal will take effect
upon filing with the Commission. At any time within 60 days of the
filing of Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change, the Commission
may summarily abrogate 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.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
    \21\ See supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-Phlx-2005-72 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-9303.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2005-72. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of the filing
also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal
office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without
change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information
from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to
make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number
SR-Phlx-2005-72 and should be submitted on or before January 27, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-21 Filed 1-5-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 174 (Tuesday, September 8, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55443-55444]
[FR Doc No: 2020-19767]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice Of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP20-1132-000.
    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Agreement--EQT
FTS--9/1/2020 to be effective 9/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 8/31/20.
    Accession Number: 20200831-5111.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/14/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-1133-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmt (Atlanta
Gas 8438 to various eff 9-1-2020) to be effective 9/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 8/31/20.
    Accession Number: 20200831-5168.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/14/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-1134-000.
    Applicants: Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Fuel Filing on 8-31-20 to be
effective 10/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 8/31/20.
    Accession Number: 20200831-5124.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/14/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-1135-000.
    Applicants: Viking Gas Transmission Company.
    Description: Compliance filing Temporary and Limited Waiver of Part
8.26 Fuel and Loss Retention Adjustment.
    Filed Date: 8/31/20.
    Accession Number: 20200831-5125.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/14/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-1136-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmt
(Marathon 51754 to ConocoPhillips 53068) to be effective 9/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 8/31/20.
    Accession Number: 20200831-5133.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/14/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-1137-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmt
(Constellation 53028 to Exelon 53080) to be effective 9/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 8/31/20.
    Accession Number: 20200831-5134.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/14/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-1138-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmt (Mobile
42488 to Southern 53082) to be effective 9/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 8/31/20.
    Accession Number: 20200831-5136.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/14/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-1139-000.
    Applicants: Crossroads Pipeline Company.
    Description: Compliance filing Compliance to RP20-657 Settlement to
be effective 10/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 8/31/20.
    Accession Number: 20200831-5137.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/14/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-1140-000.
    Applicants: UGI Sunbury, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Modify Annual Charge
Adjustment (ACA) Provision to be effective 10/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 8/31/20.
    Accession Number: 20200831-5138.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/14/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-1141-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing CGT Cashout Report 2020 to be
effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 8/31/20.
    Accession Number: 20200831-5148.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/14/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-1142-000.
    Applicants: MoGas Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: MoGas Pipeline Annual Fuel
Tracker Filing to be effective 10/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 8/31/20.
    Accession Number: 20200831-5154.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/14/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-1143-000.
    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates--Various 9-1-
2020 Releases to be effective 9/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 8/31/20.
    Accession Number: 20200831-5167.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/14/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-1144-000.
    Applicants: Dauphin Island Gathering Partners.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Filing--
Chevron 8-31-2020 to be effective 9/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 8/31/20.
    Accession Number: 20200831-5184.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/14/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-1145-000.
    Applicants: NEXUS Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates--Columbia Gas
860005 9-1-2020 Releases to be effective 9/1/2020.

    Filed Date: 8/31/20.
    Accession Number: 20200831-5186.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/14/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-1146-000.
    Applicants: WBI Energy Transmission, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 2020 Semi-Annual Fuel &
Electric Power Reimbursement Adjustment to be effective 10/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 8/31/20.
    Accession Number: 20200831-5261.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/14/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-1147-000.
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 20200831 Negotiated Rate
Filing to be effective 9/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 8/31/20.
    Accession Number: 20200831-5264.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/14/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-1148-000.
    Applicants: Dominion Energy Cove Point LNG, LP.
    Description: Compliance filing DECP--2020 Revenue Crediting Report
to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 8/31/20.
    Accession Number: 20200831-5268.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/14/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-1149-000.
    Applicants: Dominion Energy Carolina Gas Transmission.
    Description: Compliance filing DECG--2020 Penalty Crediting Sharing
Report to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 8/31/20.
    Accession Number: 20200831-5300.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/14/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-1150-000.
    Applicants: MarkWest Pioneer, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Quarterly Fuel Adjustment
Filing to be effective 10/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 8/31/20.
    Accession Number: 20200831-5305.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/14/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-1151-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Agreement
Update (APS Sept 2020) to be effective 9/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 8/31/20.
    Accession Number: 20200831-5316.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/14/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-1152-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Agreements
Filing-Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC to be effective 10/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 8/31/20.
    Accession Number: 20200831-5386.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/14/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-1153-000.
    Applicants: Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Vol. 2--Non-Conforming
Discount Agreement--Spire Marketing to be effective 9/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 8/31/20.
    Accession Number: 20200831-5404.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/14/20.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: September 1, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-19767 Filed 9-4-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P