[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 34 (Wednesday, February 20, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11916-11921]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03821]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68924; File No. SR-Phlx-2013-13]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
its Customer Rebate Program and Other Technical Amendments

February 13, 2013.
    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 February 1, 2013, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's Pricing Schedule at
Section A, entitled ``Customer Rebate Program.'' The Exchange also
proposes technical amendments to the Preface, Section I, entitled
``Rebates and Fees for Adding and Removing Liquidity in Select
Symbols,'' Section II, entitled ``Multiply

Listed Options Fees'' \3\ and Section IV entitled ``PIXL \4\ Pricing''
of the Pricing Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Multiply Listed Options Fees include options overlying
equities, ETFs, ETNs and indexes which are Multiply Listed.
    \4\ PIXL is the Exchange's price improvement mechanism known as
Price Improvement XL or (PIXL\SM\). See Rule 1080(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5. The
text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqomxphlx.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 the proposed rule change is to amend the Customer
Rebate Program to incentivize market participants to increase the
amount of Customer order flow they transact on the Exchange. The
Exchange also proposes to amend and add certain rule text in the
Pricing Schedule to provide additional clarity to the Pricing Schedule.
Customer Rebate Program
    Currently, the Exchange pays Customer Rebates by calculating an
Average Daily Volume Threshold. The Exchange calculates the Average
Daily Volume Threshold by totaling Customer volume in Multiply Listed
Options (including Select Symbols) that are electronically-delivered
and executed, except volume associated with electronic QCC Orders, as
defined in Exchange Rule 1080(o) (``Threshold Volume''). Rebates are
paid on Threshold Volume.
    The Exchange is proposing to base the Customer Rebate Program on
certain ``Rebate Tiers.'' The Exchange proposes to replace the current
three tier structure, which pays rebates based on the number of
contracts transacted in a month based on four Categories (A, B, C and
D) of transactions, with a four tier structure. The four tier structure
would pay rebates based on percentage thresholds of national customer
multiply-listed options volume by month based on the same four
Categories (A, B, C and D) of transactions. Specifically, the Exchange
would base a market participant's qualification for a certain Rebate
Tier on the percentage of total national customer volume in multiply-
listed options which are transacted monthly on Phlx. The Exchange
proposes to establish a four tier Customer rebate structure with a
column entitled ``Percentage Thresholds of National Customer Volume in
Multiply-Listed Options Classes (Monthly).'' The Exchange proposes the
following Customer Rebate Tiers by percentages:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Percentage thresholds of
                                    national customer volume
       Customer rebate tiers           in multiply-listed      Category A   Category B   Category C   Category D
                                         options classes
                                            (monthly)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1............................  0.00%-0.75%.............        $0.00        $0.00        $0.00        $0.00
Tier 2............................  Above 0.75%-1.60%.......         0.11         0.12         0.13         0.08
Tier 3............................  Above 1.60%-2.60%.......         0.13         0.13         0.14         0.08
Tier 4............................  Above 2.60%.............         0.15         0.15         0.15         0.09
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that replacing the current tiers which
require market participants to qualify for Customer Rebates based on a
certain number contracts transacted in a month with a tier structure
based on relative contracts per month as a percentage of total national
customer volume in multiply-listed options transacted on Phlx would
serve to control and account for industry-wide movements.
    The Exchange is not proposing to amend the criteria to qualify for
a certain rebate Category (A, B, C or D). These will remain the same
pursuant to this proposal.\5\ In addition, the Exchange would continue
to total Customer volume in Multiply Listed Options (including Select
Symbols) that are electronically-delivered and executed, except volume
associated with electronic QCC Orders, as defined in Exchange Rule
1080(o) in the same manner.\6\ The Exchange proposes to remove
references to the Average Daily Volume Threshold and replace those
references with Customer Rebate Tier references. The Exchange also
proposes to permit members and member organizations under common
ownership to aggregate their volume for purposes of calculating the
Customer Rebate Tiers and receiving rebates. Common ownership, which
the Exchange is proposing to define in the Preface to the Pricing
Schedule as described in more detail below, shall mean 75% common
ownership or control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Category A rebates are paid to members executing
electronically-delivered Customer Simple Orders in Penny Pilot
Options and Customer Simple Orders in Non-Penny Pilot Options in
Section II. Rebates are paid on PIXL Orders in Section II symbols
that execute against non-Initiating Order interest. Category B
rebates are paid to members executing electronically-delivered
Customer Complex Orders in Penny Pilot Options and Non-Penny Pilot
Options in Section II. Category C rebates are paid to members
executing electronically-delivered Customer Complex Orders in Select
Symbols in Section I. Category D rebates will be paid to members
executing electronically-delivered Customer Simple Orders in Select
Symbols in Section I. Rebates are paid on PIXL Orders in Section I
symbols that execute against non-Initiating Order interest.
    \6\ For clarity, the Exchange will calculate volume and pay
rebates based on a member organization's Phlx house account numbers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to amend the rebates paid to market
participants with this proposal. Currently, Categories A, B, C and D
receive no rebate for volume between 0 to 99,999 contracts in a month.
The Exchange proposes to pay Categories A, B, C and D no rebate with
proposed Tier 1 which is between 0.00% to 0.75% of national customer
volume in multiply-listed options classes. Currently, the Exchange pays
the following rebates for Tier 2 volume which is between 100,000 and
349,999 contracts in a month: Category A: $0.10, Category B: $0.12,
Category C: $0.13 and Category D: $0.05. The Exchange would pay the
following rebates for new Tier 2 for a percentage of national customer
volume in multiply-listed options

classes above 0.75% to 1.60%: Category A: $0.11, Category B: $0.12,
Category C: $0.13 and Category D: $0.08. Currently, the Exchange pays
the following rebates for Tier 3 volume which is over 350,000 contracts
in a month: Category A: $0.15, Category B: $0.15, Category C: $0.15 and
Category D: $0.07. The Exchange would pay the following rebates for new
Tier 3 for a percentage of national customer volume in multiply-listed
options classes above 1.60% to 2.60%: Category A: $0.13, Category B:
$0.13, Category C: $0.14 and Category D: $0.08. The Exchange would pay
the following rebates for new Tier 4 for a percentage of national
customer volume in multiply-listed options classes above 2.60%:
Category A: $0.15, Category B: $0.15, Category C: $0.15 and Category D:
$0.09. By way of example, a market participant that executes 3,000,000
electronically-delivered Customer Simple Order contracts in Select
Symbols, which are Multiply Listed Options, in a given month where
150,000,000 national customer multiply-listed options contracts were
executed would receive a credit of $240,000. The market participant
would have qualified for this rebate because the number of qualifying
contracts \7\ executed on Phlx represents 2% of the total national
customer multiply-listed options volume and because the Customers
orders were Simple Orders in Select Symbols, the Category D rate in
Tier 3 of $0.08 per contract would be applied to the 3,000,000 Customer
contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Presuming the contracts are not electronic QCC Orders as
defined in Rule 1080(o).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, today, member organizations qualifying for either a Tier 2
or Tier 3 rebate are entitled to receive a credit of $0.04 per contract
toward the Routing Fee specified in Section V of the Pricing Schedule
if a Customer order is routed to NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX Options'')
or the NASDAQ Options Market (``NOM''). Today, a member organization
qualifying for either a Tier 2 or Tier 3 rebate is entitled to receive
a credit of $0.10 per contract toward the Routing Fee specified in
Section V of the Pricing Schedule if the Customer order is routed to an
away market other than BX Options or NOM.
    The Exchange proposes to amend the qualifying tiers from Tier 2 or
3 to Tiers 2, 3 or 4 to receive credits to the various away markets.
The Exchange also proposes to amend the credit that will be paid per
contract to $0.10 per contract toward the Routing Fee specified in
Section V of the Pricing Schedule if a Customer order is routed to NOM
and $0.05 per contract credit toward the Routing Fee specified in
Section V of the Pricing Schedule if a Customer order is routed to BX
Options. A member organization qualifying for a Tier 2, 3 or 4 rebate
is entitled to a credit of $0.16 per contract toward the Routing Fee
specified in Section V of the Pricing Schedule if the Customer order is
routed to an away market other than BX Options or NOM, unless the away
market transaction fee is $0.00 or a rebate is paid by the away market,
in which case the credit would be reduced to $0.11 per contract. The
Exchange believes that offering credits toward Routing Fees will
continue to incentivize market participants to transact a greater
number of Customer orders on the Exchange.
Technical Amendments
    First, the Exchange utilizes the term ``common ownership''
throughout the Pricing Schedule and defines common ownership as 75%
common ownership or control among members and member organizations.\8\
The Exchange proposes to amend the Preface of the Pricing Schedule to
define ``Common Ownership'' for purposes of pricing. The Exchange also
proposes to revise Sections II, IV and VI of the Pricing Schedule to
simply refer to the defined term ``Common Ownership'' and eliminate the
definitions throughout the rule text which reflect the same 75% common
ownership or control language.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Sections II, IV and VI of the Pricing Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the Exchange proposes to amend Section I of the Pricing
Schedule to add the words ``Complex Order'' prior to the language
discussing the Pilot Program related to the $0.05 per contract fee
differential for Fees for Removing Liquidity for Specialists and Market
Makers that transact against a Customer order directed to them. The
Exchange received approval for a Pilot Program which commenced on
December 1, 2012.\9\ The Exchange believes the addition of the words
``Complex Order'' further clarifies the Pricing Schedule. The fee
differential for directed orders applies to Complex Orders and does not
apply to Simple Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Release No. 66884 (April 30, 2012),
77 FR 26595 (May 4, 2012) (SR-Phlx-2012-27and SR-Phlx-2012-54). See
also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68376 (December 6, 2012),
77 FR 74039 (December 12, 2012) (SR-Phlx-2012-139).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, the Exchange proposes to amend the Section II Monthly Market
Maker Cap rule text to specify that the Monthly Market Maker Cap
applies to electronic and floor transactions. The Exchange proposes to
remove the word ``equity'' from this paragraph as that word is not
necessary. Also, the Exchange proposes to refer to Options Transaction
Charges instead of ``fees'' in that same paragraph for consistency.
    Fourth, the Exchange proposes to remove the rule text describing
the common ownership in Section IV because the Exchange has proposed
herein to permit members and member organization under common ownership
to aggregate Customer Rebate volume in Section A. The Exchange proposes
to include rule text to permit any member or member organization under
common ownership with another member or member organization that
qualifies for a Customer Rebate Tier discount in Section A to receive
the discounted PIXL Initiating Order discount as proposed herein. For
example, if Phlx member A qualifies for a Tier 5 [sic] Customer Rebate
pursuant to Section A of the Pricing Schedule, Phlx member B, an
affiliate of member A and 75% commonly owned by the same parent, would
be entitled to the discounted Initiating Order Fee of $0.05 per
contract. The Exchange would utilize the proposed defined term ``Common
Ownership'' in this section.
    Fifth, the Exchange proposes to clarify in Section IV of the
Pricing Schedule that with respect to PIXL Order executions in Section
I Select Symbols,\10\ the pricing specified in Section IV is in
addition to other fees and rebates in Section I, including Payment for
Order Flow fees where appropriate. The Exchange makes a similar
statement in Section IV, Part A with respect to Section II PIXL fees
and proposes this additional language for consistency and clarity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Select Symbols are defined in Section I of the Pricing
Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Pricing
Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \11\ in general,
and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \12\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees
and other charges among Exchange members and other persons using its
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Customer Rebate Program
    The Exchange's proposal to convert the qualification for the rebate
tiers from measuring a market participant's per month Average Daily
Contract Volume to relative contracts per month based on national
customer volume in multiply-listed options classes executed on Phlx

is reasonable because it allows the Exchange to control and account for
changes in the national industry-wide customer multiply-listed options
volume. Further, it will still allow market participants to receive
rebates on Customer volume in Multiply Listed Options (including Select
Symbols) that are electronically-delivered and executed, except volume
associated with electronic QCC Orders, as is the case today. The
Exchange believes that the amended Customer Rebate Program should
incentivize market participants to increase the amount of Customer
orders that are transacted on the Exchange to obtain a rebate. In
addition, other exchanges employ similar incentive programs.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated's
(``CBOE'') Fees Schedule. CBOE offers each Trading Permit Holder
(``TPH'') a credit for each public customer order transmitted by the
TPH which is executed electronically in all multiply-listed option
classes, excluding QCC trades and executions related to contracts
that are routed to one or more exchanges in connection with the
Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Market Plan, provided
the TPH meets certain percentage thresholds in a month as described
in the Volume Incentive Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to convert the qualification for the rebate
tiers from measuring a market participant's per month Average Daily
Contract Volume to relative contracts per month based on national
customer volume in multiply-listed options classes executed on Phlx is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will be applied to
all market participants in a uniform matter. Any market participant is
eligible to receive the rebate provided they transact a qualifying
amount of electronic Customer volume. The Exchange is merely amending
the measuring stick that it utilized to determine the amount of
qualifying volume. The Exchange would account for changes in industry-
wide volume with the amendment.
    The Exchange believes that amending the rebates offered in
Categories A, B, C and D is reasonable because with respect to Tier 1,
the Exchange would continue to not offer a rebate to market
participants. The Exchange is also adding several new tiers which allow
market participants the opportunity to achieve higher rebates in
Category A and substantially the same and higher rebates in Categories
B, C and D. With respect to Tiers 2, 3, and 4, the Exchange believes
that it is providing market participants the opportunity to earn higher
rebates. Proposed Tier 2 rebates are the same or higher than the Tier 2
rebates today. Proposed Tier 3 rebates are slightly lower than the
current Tier 3 rebates. Proposed Tier 4 rebates are the same or higher
than the current Tier 3 rebates, which today are the highest rebates
that a market participant can achieve under the program. The Exchange
is unable to specify with certainty which tier would apply to
participants that are executing a certain amount of Customer volume
today. The Exchange believes that the rebates proposed herein are
reasonable because market participants may be able to obtain higher
rebates beyond Tier 1 if they are able to qualify for a higher tier as
compared to today's tiers with the proposed method of percentages of
national customer volume.
    The Exchange believes that amending the rebates offered in
Categories A, B, C and D is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because the rebates will be applied to all market participants in a
uniform matter. Any market participant is eligible to receive the
rebate provided they transact a qualifying amount of electronic
Customer volume.
    The Exchange believes that permitting members and member
organizations to aggregate their volume if they are under common
ownership, defined as 75% common ownership or control, is reasonable
because the Exchange desires to provide all market participants the
ability to obtain Customer Rebates. The Exchange believes that
permitting members and member organizations to aggregate their volume
if they are under common ownership is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the Exchange would permit all market
participants the ability to aggregate for purposes of receiving the
Customer Rebate even if certain members and member organizations chose
to operate under separate entities. The Exchange currently permits such
aggregation in the calculation of the Monthly Market Maker Cap and for
purposes of PIXL fees.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Section II of the Pricing Schedule. Specialists and
Market Makers are subject to a ``Monthly Market Maker Cap'' of
$550,000 for: (i) Equity option transaction fees; (ii) QCC
Transaction Fees (as defined in Exchange Rule 1080(o) and Floor QCC
Orders, as defined in 1064(e)); and (iii) fees related to an order
or quote that is contra to a PIXL Order or specifically responding
to a PIXL auction. The trading activity of separate Specialist and
Market Maker member organizations will be aggregated in calculating
the Monthly Market Maker Cap if there is at least 75% common
ownership between the member organizations. See also Section IV of
the Pricing Schedule. For purposes of the PIXL Initiating Order
members and member organizations under common ownership may
aggregate their Customer Rebate Program volume.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to further reduce Routing Fees \15\ in
Section V of the Exchange's Pricing Schedule for member organizations
that qualify for Tiers 2, 3 or 4 in the Customer Rebate Program in
Section A of the Pricing Schedule is reasonable because the Exchange
proposes to provide an additional incentive for transacting Customer
orders on the Exchange. By offering member organizations a credit
toward the cost of routing to an away market, the Exchange is seeking
to encourage market participants to transact a greater number of
Customer orders on Phlx which liquidity benefits all market
participants. In addition, the Exchange is offering the credit toward
Customer Routing Fees in addition to the Customer rebate received for
the qualifying Customer Rebate Tier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Each destination market's transaction charge varies and
there is a cost incurred by the Exchange when routing orders to away
markets. The costs to the Exchange include clearing costs,
administrative and technical costs associated with operating NOS
that are assessed on the Exchange, membership fees at away markets,
and technical costs associated with routing options. The Routing
Fees enable the Exchange to recover the costs it incurs to route
orders to away markets in addition to transaction fees assessed to
market participants for the execution of orders by the away market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that providing a credit of $0.10 per contract
toward the Customer Routing Fee specified in Section V of the Pricing
Schedule if a Customer order is routed to NOM and a $0.05 per contract
credit toward the Customer Routing Fee specified in Section V of the
Pricing Schedule if a Customer order is routed to BX Options is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because NOM does not pay a
Customer Rebate to Remove Liquidity and BX Options pays a Rebate to
Remove Liquidity.\16\ The Exchange believes that paying a $0.16 per
contract credit toward the Routing Fee specified in Section V of the
Pricing Schedule if a member organization qualifies for a Tier 2, 3 or
4 rebate if the Customer order is routed to away market other than BX
Options or NOM unless the away market transaction fee is $0.00 or a
rebate is paid by the away market, in which case $0.11 per contract
would be paid, is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the
Exchange assesses an $0.11 per contract fixed cost in addition to the
away market transaction fee to route to an away market other than NOM
or BX Options. The Exchange is offering a credit of $0.16 per contract
in those cases where there is an away market transaction fee or a
rebate is not offered by the away market. When no transaction fee is
assessed by the away market, the

Exchange would only assess the $0.11 per contract fixed fee and thus
the member organization would recoup the fee assessed by the Exchange.
If the away market pays a rebate to remove liquidity, the Exchange
assesses the member organization the fixed fee of $0.11 per contract,
the away market transaction fee and then credits the member
organization the rebate offered by the Exchange. In that case, the
Exchange would pay the reduced $0.11 per contract credit because the
member organization has the benefit of the rebate from the away market.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed credits are equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory because any market participant that
transacts Customer orders may qualify for the credit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ BX Options pays a $0.32 per contract Customer Rebate to
Remove Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options, a $0.70 Customer Rebate to
Remove Liquidity in Non-Penny Pilot Options (other than IWM, QQQ and
SPY) and a $0.12 per contract Customer Rebate to Remove Liquidity in
IWM, QQQ and SPY. See Chapter XV, Section 2(1) of the BX Options
Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange believes that offering member organizations a
lower credit for Routing to NOM and BX Options as compared to other
away markets is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the
fixed cost associated with Routing Fees in Section V of the Pricing
Schedule are lower for a Customer order routed to NOM or BX Options
($0.05 per contract) as compared to the fixed cost to route to an away
market other than BX Options or NOM ($0.11 per contract).\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The Exchange assesses a fixed fee of $0.11 per contract for
non-NASDAQ OMX exchanges and a $0.05 per contract fee for BX Options
and NOM. These fixed costs represent overall cost to the Exchange
for technical, administrative, clearing, regulatory, compliance and
other costs, which are in addition to the transaction fee assessed
by the away market. Also, market participants whose orders routed to
away markets are entitled to receive rebates offered by away
markets, which rebates would net against fees assessed by the
Exchange for routing orders. As explained in a previous rule change,
the actual cash outlays for the Exchange to route to BX Options and
NOM is lower as compared to routing to other non-NASDAQ OMX
exchanges. See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 68213 (November
13, 2012), 77 FR 69530 (November 19, 2012) (SR-Phlx-2012-129) and
68698 (January 18, 2013), 78 FR 5530 (January 25, 2013) (SR-Phlx-
2013-04). See also Section V of the Pricing Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Technical Amendments
    The Exchange's proposal to amend certain rule text in the Pricing
Schedule to provide additional clarity, such as defining Common
Ownership in the Preface to the Pricing Schedule and adding and
amending other language to indicate the Monthly Market Maker Cap
applies to electronic and floor transactions, and clarifying that the
pricing specified in Section IV is in addition to other fees and
rebates in Section I, including Payment for Order Flow fees where
appropriate, is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because the amendments further clarify the Pricing Schedule.
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory to amend Section I of the Pricing Schedule to
add the words ``Complex Orders'' prior to the language discussing the
Pilot Program related to the $0.05 per contract fee differential for
Fees for Removing Liquidity for Specialists and Market Makers that
transact against a Customer order directed to them because the addition
of the words ``Complex Order'' further clarifies the Pricing Schedule.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that amending Section IV to permit a
member or member organization under common ownership, defined as 75%
common ownership or control, with another member or member organization
that qualifies for a Customer Rebate Tier in Section A to receive
discounted PIXL fees is reasonable because the Exchange desires to
provide all market participants the ability to obtain discounted PIXL
pricing. The Exchange currently permits aggregation under common
ownership in Section IV for purposes of calculating the Threshold
Volume. The Exchange believes that permitting members and member
organizations that are affiliated and under common ownership to realize
discounted pricing by allowing one firm to qualify for a Customer
Rebate Tier and another affiliated member or member organization under
common ownership to realize the discount is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the Exchange would permit all market
participants the ability to aggregate the benefits of their trading
activity for purposes of the Customer Rebate, as is the case today,
even if certain members and member organizations chose to operate under
separate entities. The Exchange currently permits such aggregation in
the calculation of the Monthly Market Maker Cap and for purposes of
PIXL fees.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See supra note 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. The Exchange believes that the
Customer Rebate Program will encourage Customer order flow to be
directed to the Exchange, which will benefit all market participants.
By incentivizing members to route Customer orders, the Exchange desires
to attract Customer orders which benefits all market participants by
increasing liquidity on the Exchange. All market participants are
eligible to qualify for a Customer Rebate. The Exchange believes these
pricing amendments do not impose a burden on competition but rather
that the proposed rule change will continue to promote competition on
the Exchange.
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market, comprised of
eleven exchanges, in which market participants can easily and readily
direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a
particular venue to be excessive or rebates to be inadequate.
Accordingly, the fees that are assessed and the rebates paid by the
Exchange described in the above proposal are influenced by these robust
market forces and therefore must remain competitive with fees charged
and rebates paid by other venues and therefore must continue to be
reasonable and equitably allocated to those members that opt to direct
orders to the Exchange rather than competing venues.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please
include File Number SR-Phlx-2013-13 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2013-13. 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 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-2013-13 and should be
submitted on or before March 13, 2013.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-03821 Filed 2-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Attendees for NAM:

Bryan L. Brendle, NAM

Steven J. Arita- Chevron

Roger Martell- Sidley Austin LLP

Attendees for EPA:

Janet McCabe, OAR

Gautam Srinivasan, OGC

Steve Page, OAR

Rosalina Rodriguez, OAR

Summary-

Officials from EPA met with representatives of the National Association
of Manufacturers (NAM) on March 10, 2010 to discuss EPA’s ongoing
reconsideration of the 2008 ozone NAAQS rulemaking.  NAM had requested
the meeting.

NAM representatives began by noting that NAM, along with other groups,
would soon be sending a written request that EPA extend the comment
period on the Agency’s proposed rule regarding the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
The groups will likely ask for an additional 60 days to provide
comments.  The comment period is set to close on March 22, 2010.

NAM representatives then listed a few of the issues that the group will
discuss in greater detail in its written comments.  The issues were-

	1) The timing and process of EPA’s reconsideration

	2) Implementation of a potentially tighter standard

	3) Implications as the ozone standard approaches background levels

On the last issue, EPA requested that NAM submit any information in its
possession regarding background ozone levels.

The discussion lasted 20 minutes.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 50 (Thursday, March 14, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16341-16344]
[FR Doc No: 2013-05894]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69089; File No. SR-FINRA-2013-017]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated
Approval of Proposed Rule Change Relating to FINRA Rule 4240 (Margin
Requirements for Credit Default Swaps)

March 8, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'' or ``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice
is hereby given that on March 8, 2013, Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I and II below, which Items substantially have been
prepared by FINRA. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons and to
approve the proposed rule change on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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

    FINRA is proposing to amend FINRA Rule 4240 to permit a member to
require, with respect to credit default swaps that are security-based
swaps (``CDS'') held in an account subject to an approved portfolio
margining program, the amount of margin determined by the member's
portfolio margin methodology, subject to specified requirements. In
addition, the proposed rule change makes other revisions to FINRA Rule
4240 to clarify and update the rule.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web
site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, FINRA included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item V below. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B,
and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
Portfolio Margining
    On July 21, 2010, President Barack Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (``Dodd-Frank Act'') into
law.\3\ Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act (``Title VII'') establishes a
regulatory regime applicable to the over-the-counter derivatives
markets. Title VII provides the SEC and the CFTC with tools to oversee
these markets.\4\ Under the comprehensive framework established in
Title VII, the SEC is given regulatory authority over security-based
swaps, and the CFTC is given regulatory authority over swaps.\5\ The
Dodd-Frank

Act contemplates certain self-regulatory organization responsibilities
in this area as well.\6\ Section 713(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act amended
the Exchange Act to generally permit a broker-dealer that is also
registered as a futures commission merchant (``FCM'') under the CEA to
hold cash and securities in a portfolio margining account that is
carried as a futures account, pursuant to a portfolio margining program
that is approved by the CFTC. Reciprocally, Section 713(b) of the Dodd-
Frank Act amended the CEA to generally permit an FCM that is also
registered as a broker-dealer to hold futures contracts and options on
futures contracts (as well as money, securities or other property
received from a customer to margin, guarantee or secure such contracts,
or accruing to a customer as a result of such contracts) in a portfolio
margining account that is carried as a securities account pursuant to a
portfolio margining program that is approved by the SEC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010).
    \4\ Subtitle A of Title VII creates and relates to the
regulatory regime for swaps, while Subtitle B of Title VII creates
and relates to the regulatory regime for security-based swaps.
    \5\ See Section 3(a)(68) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C.
78c(a)(68) (as added by Section 761(a)(6) of the Dodd-Frank Act) and
Section 1a(47) of the Commodity Exchange Act (``CEA''), 7 U.S.C.
1a(47) (as added by Section 721(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act) for the
definitions of security-based swap and swap, respectively. See also
Exchange Act Release No. 67453 (July 18, 2012), 77 FR 48207 (August
13, 2012) (Joint Final Rule with the CFTC: Further Definition of
``Swap,'' ``Security-Based Swap,'' and ``Security-Based Swap
Agreement;'' Mixed Swaps; Security-Based Swap Agreement
Recordkeeping), further defining the terms swap and security-based
swap.
    \6\ See, e.g., Sections 712 and 763 of the Dodd-Frank Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SEC and the CFTC have recently acted to grant specific
exemptions to facilitate portfolio margining of swaps and security-
based swaps.\7\ To help facilitate portfolio margining pursuant to this
regulatory relief, FINRA proposes to amend FINRA Rule 4240, which
implements an interim pilot program (the ``Interim Pilot Program'')
with respect to margin requirements for certain transactions in CDS.\8\
Specifically, proposed new FINRA Rule 4240(c)(3) provides that, in lieu
of the requirements set forth in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of the
rule,\9\ a member may require, with respect to CDS held in an account
subject to an approved portfolio margining program, the amount of
margin determined by the member's portfolio margin methodology,
provided that, prior to margining CDS on a portfolio margin basis, the
member shall notify FINRA in advance in writing of its intent to
operate under the portfolio margin program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Exchange Act Release No. 68433 (Order Granting
Conditional Exemptions Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
Connection With Portfolio Margining of Swaps and Security-Based
Swaps) (December 14, 2012), 77 FR 75211 (Dec. 19, 2012); see also
CFTC Order, Treatment of Funds Held in Connection with Clearing by
ICE Clear Credit of Credit Default Swaps (January 14, 2013)
available at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    \8\ On July 13, 2012, FINRA extended the implementation of the
Interim Pilot Program to July 17, 2013. See Exchange Act Release No.
67449 (July 17, 2012), 77 FR 43128 (July 23, 2012) (Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change; File No. SR-
FINRA-2012-035).
    \9\ FINRA Rule 4240(c)(1) addresses transactions in CDS that
make use of the central counterparty clearing facilities of a
clearing agency using a margin methodology the use of which has been
approved by FINRA as announced in a Regulatory Notice. FINRA Rule
4240(c)(2) addresses transactions making use of facilities that do
not use such a methodology, or that settle over-the-counter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additional Amendments to FINRA Rule 4240
    FINRA proposes to amend the margin requirements set forth in
paragraph (c)(2) and Supplementary Material .01 \10\ of FINRA Rule 4240
to clarify that, in addition to requiring the applicable minimum margin
(``initial margin''), a member must collect daily from each customer or
broker-dealer counterparty an amount at least equal to the member's
current exposure, as defined in Exchange Act Rule 15c3-1e(c)(4)
(provided, however, that members not otherwise subject to Exchange Act
Rule 15c3-1e are not required to take into account paragraph
(c)(4)(v)(G) of such Rule),\11\ arising from the daily mark to market
of the CDS (``variation margin''). FINRA notes that collection of
variation margin has been implicitly required by the administration of
Rule 4240; the amendments would be designed to make this variation
margin requirement clear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Supplementary Material .01 of FINRA Rule 4240 sets forth
the rule's specific margin requirements.
    \11\ FINRA is similarly revising the reference to Exchange Act
Rule 15c3-1e(c)(4) in paragraph (e) of Rule 4240. Specifically, as
revised, the reference would read ``SEA Rule 15c3-1e(c)(4)
(provided, however, that members not otherwise subject to SEA Rule
15c3-1e are not required to take into account paragraph (c)(4)(v)(G)
of such Rule).'' Under Exchange Act Rule 15c3-1e(c)(4)(v)(G), a
broker-dealer, when calculating maximum potential exposure and
current exposure to a counterparty, is permitted to take into
account the fair market value of collateral pledged and held
provided, in part, that the Commission has approved the broker's or
dealer's use of a VaR model to calculate deductions for market risk
for the type of collateral in accordance with Exchange Act Rule
15c3-1e. FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is a useful
clarification for members that do not operate pursuant to Exchange
Act Rule 15c3-1e other than, for purposes of Rule 4240, to utilize
the specified definitions under Exchange Act Rule 15c3-1e(c)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA proposes to amend the reference to ``largest maximum possible
loss'' in paragraph (d)(8) of the rule by adding the phrase ``(that is,
the notional amount of the CDS less the estimated recovery given
default).'' FINRA believes that the proposed language, by providing
members a reference point for computing the largest maximum possible
loss pursuant to the rule, lessens the potential burdens from higher
capital charges that could result absent the proposed language.
    FINRA proposes to clarify the first sentence of paragraph (a) of
the rule and the first sentence of paragraph (c)(1) by removing the
references to ``matching transactions'' and making other conforming
edits so as to streamline the rule language. Also in the first sentence
of paragraph (a), FINRA proposes to amend the phrase ``transactions in
[CDS] executed by a member'' to read ``transactions in [CDS] held in an
account at a member'' so as to clarify the rule's scope and conform
with the remainder of the rule.
    Finally, FINRA proposes to amend paragraphs (c)(2) and (e) \12\ and
Supplementary Material .01 of Rule 4240 by adding the phrase ``Unless
otherwise permitted by FINRA in writing.'' FINRA anticipates that
members may need more flexibility to prepare for and respond to
regulatory requirements pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act in connection
with CDS. Accordingly, FINRA believes that this language will make the
rule's administration more flexible and efficient, and facilitate the
transition to such new requirements, by enabling FINRA staff to, for
example, permit members, where appropriate, to take capital charges in
lieu of collecting the margin required by the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ FINRA Rule 4240(e) addresses requirements with respect to
concentrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change will become effective upon approval by the
SEC. FINRA has requested the Commission to find good cause pursuant to
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \13\ for approving the proposed rule change
prior to the 30th day after its publication in the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\14\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. FINRA believes that the proposed rule change will
further the purposes of the Act by permitting a member to require, with
respect to CDS held in an account subject to an approved portfolio
margining program, the amount of margin determined by the

member's portfolio margin methodology, subject to specified
requirements. The proposed rule change will clarify and update
provisions of FINRA Rule 4240 with respect to margin requirements for
CDS. These changes will facilitate members' compliance with the Act and
help to stabilize the financial markets by requiring margin
commensurate to the risks of the portfolio.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. FINRA believes that the
proposed rule change with respect to FINRA Rule 4240(c)(3) would reduce
burdens on all members with customers using margin on multiple products
by permitting a member to require, with respect to CDS held in an
account subject to an approved portfolio margining program, the amount
of margin determined by the member's portfolio margin methodology,
subject to specified requirements. With respect to the additional
proposed amendments to FINRA Rule 4240, FINRA believes the proposed
rule change will, by streamlining and clarifying the rule, facilitate
the rule's orderly administration, thereby reducing burdens on members.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

III. Commission's Findings

    After careful consideration of the proposed rule change, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act.\15\ In particular, the Commission finds that
the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the
Exchange Act, which requires, among other things, that the rules of a
national securities association be designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in
general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change will further the
purposes of the Exchange Act by permitting a FINRA member to require
from a CDS customer, with respect to CDS held in an account subject to
an approved portfolio margining program, the amount of margin
determined by the member's portfolio margin methodology, subject to
specified requirements. More specifically, the proposed rule change
will facilitate portfolio margining treatment for customer-related
positions in cleared CDS that are security-based swaps for FINRA member
firms under an approved portfolio margining program. Currently, the
only portfolio margining program approved by the Commission, under
which FINRA member firms may operate, is the program established by the
conditional exemptive relief granted by the Commission, on December 14,
2012.\16\ The Commission's Order provides for conditional exemptive
relief from certain provisions of the Exchange Act to allow any dually-
registered clearing agency/derivatives clearing organization and its
members that are broker-dealer/FCMs to, among other things, (1) hold
customer assets used to margin, secure, or guarantee customer positions
consisting of cleared CDS, which include both swaps and security-based
swaps, in a commingled customer account subject to Section 4d(f) of the
CEA; and (2) calculate margin for this commingled customer account on a
portfolio margin basis. Absent such relief, CDS that are swaps would be
required to be held in a Section 4d(f) account under the CEA, while CDS
that are security-based swaps would be required to be held separately
in a securities account governed by the Commission's customer
protection requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change also will clarify and update provisions of
FINRA Rule 4240 with respect to margin requirements for CDS. These
changes will facilitate FINRA member firms' compliance with the
Exchange Act and help to stabilize the financial markets by requiring
margin commensurate to the risks of the portfolio.
    The Commission does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed
rule change with respect to FINRA Rule 4240(c)(3) will reduce burdens
on FINRA member firms by permitting them to operate under an approved
portfolio margining program if the firm notifies FINRA in advance in
writing. Under such a portfolio margining arrangement, FINRA member
firms may be able to maintain reduced levels of margin that are
commensurate with the risks of the portfolio based on correlations in a
member's cleared CDS positions consisting of both swaps and security-
based swaps. With respect to the additional proposed amendments to
FINRA Rule 4240, the proposed rule change will, by streamlining and
clarifying the rule, facilitate Rule 4240's orderly administration,
thereby reducing burdens on FINRA member firms.

IV. Accelerated Approval

    The Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Rule 19(b)(2) \17\ of
the Act, for approving the proposed rule change prior to the 30th day
after the date of publication in the Federal Register. On March 11,
2013, the CFTC's mandatory clearing requirement for certain index CDS
will begin to take effect.\18\ The proposed rule change facilitates
portfolio margining programs for CDS that are required to be cleared
beginning on March 11, 2013, under the CFTC's clearing mandate, by
permitting a FINRA member, under FINRA Rule 4240, to require from a CDS
customer, with respect to CDS that are security-based swaps held in an
account subject to an approved portfolio margining program, the amount
of margin determined by the member's portfolio margin methodology,
subject to specified requirements.\19\ Because a CDS customer, subject
to the CFTC's clearing mandate,\20\ would need to commingle swaps and
security-based swaps in a single account to receive portfolio margin
benefits, the Commission believes that accelerated approval of the
proposed rule change is necessary to prevent the potential disruption
of customer portfolio CDS activities. In addition, accelerated approval
will help ensure that FINRA member firms may participate in an approved
portfolio margining program without unnecessary delay. Accordingly, the
Commission finds that good cause exists to approve the proposed rule
change on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \18\ CFTC, ``Clearing Requirement Determination under Section
2(h) of the CEA'', 77 FR 74284 (December 13, 2012), which is a final
rule establishing the first mandatory clearing compliance date of
March 11, 2013, for certain classes of CDS and interest rate swaps.
    \19\ Id.; see also supra note 7.
    \20\ See supra note 30.

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

V. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2013-017 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2013-017. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2013-017 and should be
submitted on or before April 4, 2013.

VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) \21\ of the
Act, that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2013-017) be and hereby is
approved on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-05894 Filed 3-13-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: September 27, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 186)]
[Notices]
[Page 59259]
[DOCID:fr27se10-86]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER10-2661-000]

Viridian Energy NY LLC; Supplemental Notice that Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

September 16, 2010.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Viridian Energy NY LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is October 6, 2010.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also 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>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-24085 Filed 9-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P