[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 12 (Thursday, January 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2741-2743]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1004]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2011-1156]

Draft Guidance Regarding Inspection and Certification of Vessels
Under the Maritime Security Program

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces the availability of a draft
Navigation and Inspection Circular (NVIC) that sets forth the Coast
Guard's policies and procedures regarding the inspection and
certification of vessels under the

Maritime Security Program (MSP). The draft NVIC provides a
comprehensive approach to the MSP inspection process through the
establishment of two levels of MSP inspection and oversight. This
notice solicits public comment on the impacts that the policies and
procedures contained in this draft NVIC would have on applicable
vessels and other affected parties.

DATES: Comments and related material must either be submitted to our
online docket via http://www.regulations.gov on or before March 19,
2012 or reach the Docket Management Facility by that date.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2011-1156 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call or email Mr. John Hannon, Domestic Vessels Division, U.S. Coast
Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you
have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call
Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
(202) 366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments and related material on the
draft NVIC on Inspection and Certification of Vessels Under the
Maritime Security Program. All comments received will be posted,
without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.
    Submitting comments: If you submit a comment, please include the
docket number for this notice (USCG-2011-1156) and provide a reason for
each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and
material online, or by fax, mail or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. We recommend that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of
your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding
your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``submit a comment'' box, which will then become
highlighted in blue. In the ``Document Type'' drop down menu, select
``Notices'' and insert ``USCG-2011-1156'' in the ``Keyword'' box. Click
``Search'' then click on the balloon shape in the ``Actions'' column.
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an
unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period.
    Viewing the comments and draft NVIC: To view the comments and draft
NVIC, go to http://www.regulations.gov, click on the ``read comments''
box, which will then become highlighted in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box
insert ``USCG-2011-1156'' and click ``Search.'' If you do not have
access to the Internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the
Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. We have an agreement with the Department of
Transportation to use the Docket Management Facility.
    Privacy Act: Anyone can search the electronic form of comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a
Privacy Act, system of records notice regarding our public dockets in
the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Background and Purpose

    Title VI of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 was amended by passage
of the Maritime Security Act of 1996 (MSA), which authorized the
establishment of a Maritime Security Fleet under the Maritime Security
Program (MSP), which serves as a means for establishing a fleet of
commercially viable and military useful vessels to meet national
defense as well as other security requirements. The purpose of this
draft Navigation and Inspection Circular (NVIC) is to provide the
marine industry and Coast Guard personnel with uniform guidance
regarding the MSP.
    The U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) Office of Sealift Support
is the lead governmental office responsible for administration of the
MSP. MARAD, in coordination with the Department of Defense, established
a program whereby certain categories of militarily useful commercial
vessels may be designated for emergency service to carry military cargo
in time of war, national emergency, or military contingency. Some
vessels enrolled in the MSP may receive a payment as part of their
enrollment. Alternatively, vessels may enroll in other voluntary
sealift support programs established by MARAD. Both groups of vessels
would utilize the process outlined in this draft NVIC to obtain a Coast
Guard Certificate of Inspection (COI), provided they otherwise meet MSP
enrollment criteria.
    The MSA established standards for issuance of a COI to a previous
foreign flag vessel transitioning to U.S. Flag once eligibility for the
MSP has been established by MARAD and the Coast Guard (46 U.S.C.
53102(e)). The statute does not specify the scope or manner of the
inspections to be carried out by the Coast Guard to verify that MSP
vessels fulfill requirements necessary to receive and maintain a COI.
To avoid the inconsistent application of inspection procedures under
the MSP, this draft NVIC outlines the inspection process for such
transitioning foreign flag vessels to obtain initial and ongoing
certification under the MSP.
    To promote consistency and standardization of Coast Guard policies
and procedures, this draft NVIC provides a comprehensive approach to
the MSP inspection process through the establishment of two levels of
MSP inspection and oversight: (1) MSP (Regular); and (2) MSP Select.
This two-level approach would enable the Coast Guard to apply
traditional inspection methods to newly reflagged vessels, while at the
same time apply a less stringent level of oversight to vessels that
have consistently demonstrated satisfactory performance and substantial
compliance with applicable rules. Newly enrolled MSP vessels would
continue to be inspected by the Coast Guard in a manner similar to
traditional Coast Guard inspections. After a period of evaluation, MSP
vessels would be eligible to seek enrollment under MSP

Select. MSP Select vessel oversight would consist of risk-based vessel
examinations, periodic oversight, and evaluations of Authorized Class
Society (ACS) survey activities.
    We request comments from all interested parties to ensure that the
full range and significance of issues related to the Coast Guard's MSP
inspection process are identified.
    This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 33 CFR
1.05-1.

    Dated: January 12, 2012.
Paul F. Thomas,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Director, Prevention Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-1004 Filed 1-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 21, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10013-10016]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3899]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66391; File No. SR-CHX-2012-05]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend the Fee Schedule To Implement a Clearing Submission Fee Credit
for Institutional Brokers

 February 14, 2012.
    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 2, 2012, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX'' or
``Exchange'') filed with

the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by CHX. CHX has filed the proposal pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\
which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    CHX proposes to amend its Fee Schedule, effective February 16,
2012, to amend its Fee Schedule [sic] to implement a Clearing
Submission Fee Credit for Institutional Brokers.
    The text of this proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site at (www.chx.com) and in 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 CHX included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule changes and
discussed any comments it received regarding the proposal. The text of
these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV
below. The CHX 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 Changes

1. Purpose
    Through this filing, the Exchange proposes to amend its Schedule of
Fees and Assessments (the ``Fee Schedule''), effective February 16,
2012, to create a Clearing Submission Fee Credit to be paid to
Institutional Brokers and make other technical changes. In October
2011, the Exchange added Article 21, Rule 6 authorizing the submission
by the Exchange of non-CHX trades entered through an Institutional
Broker to a Qualified Clearing Agency for clearance and settlement.\5\
Among other things, the Exchange imposes a Trade Processing Fee on the
Clearing Participants named in these clearing submissions, pursuant to
the provisions of Section E.7. of the Fee Schedule. In November 2011,
the Exchange modified the definition of the Trade Processing Fee to be
based upon non-CHX executed trades for which clearing information is
entered by an Exchange-registered Institutional Broker into the
Exchange's systems and submitted to a Qualified Clearing Agency
pursuant to Article 21, Rule 6(a).\6\ The Exchange now proposes to
rename the Trade Processing Fee as the ``Clearing Submission Fee'' for
purposes of clarity and institute a Clearing Submission Fee Credit to
share the revenue generated by these fees and incentivize this activity
by its Institutional Brokers.\7\ The Exchange previously had in place a
Trade Processing Fee Credit beginning in August 2008 through April
2011, but repealed it pending the adoption of Article 21, Rule 6.\8\
With the implementation of that rule, the Exchange proposes to
reinstate the credit formerly paid to Institutional Brokers regarding
clearing submissions for non-CHX trades, albeit at a different rate
than previously.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65615 (Oct. 24,
2011), 76 FR 67239 (Oct. 31, 2011) (SR-CHX-2011-17). Currently, the
National Securities Clearing Corporation (``NSCC'') is the Qualified
Clearing Agency for such transactions.
    \6\ See, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65792 (Nov. 18,
2011), 76 FR 72739 (Nov. 25, 2011) (SR-CHX-2011-31).
    \7\ The Exchange is also proposing to add text to Section E.3.a.
of the Fee Schedule to emphasize that the fees imposed pursuant to
that section are for trades executed in the Matching System and to
distinguish that activity from transactions subject to Section E.7.
of the Fee Schedule.
    \8\ See, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58362, 73 FR 49511
(SR-CHX-2008-13) (Aug. 14, 2008) (adopting a Trade Processing Fee
Credit); Securities Exchange Act. Release No. 60259 (July 7, 2009),
74 FR 34062 (July 14, 2009) (SR-CHX-2009-08) (changes to calculation
and allocation of Trade Processing Fee Credits paid to Institutional
Brokers); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64173 (April 4, 2011),
76 FR 19818 (April 8, 2011) (SR-CHX-2011-02) (repealing Trade
Processing Fee Credit).
    \9\ At the time it was repealed, the Trade Processing Fee Credit
was set at the same rate as the current Transaction fee credit,
i.e., 16% of the fee paid by the Clearing Participant to the
Exchange in the transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to pay on a monthly basis a credit equal to
8% of the Clearing Submission Fees collected by the Exchange pursuant
to Section E.7. of the Fee Schedule to the Institutional Broker which
acted as the broker for the ultimate Clearing Participant to the
clearing submission (known as the ``Clearing Broker'').\10\ The
Exchange believes that payment of a Clearing Submission Fee Credit to
the Clearing Broker based on activity handled by it will incent
Institutional Brokers to utilize the Exchange's systems and services in
forwarding non-CHX trades to NSCC, rather than using alternative
mechanisms such as correspondent clearing or Nasdaq's Automated
Confirmation Transaction (``ACT'') system. The Exchange proposes to
provide a credit equal to 50% of the credit paid to Institutional
Broker for transactions handled by it which are executed on the
Exchange.\11\ The Exchange believes that payment of a credit for non-
CHX trades at a lower rate than for CHX trades appears to strike an
appropriate balance between incentivizing Institutional Brokers to
execute trades on the CHX's facilities and competing with other venues
to make clearing submissions for trades executed by Institutional
Brokers in the over-the-counter (``OTC'') marketplace.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The broker representing the ultimate clearing participant
is currently known as the ``broker of credit.'' Since both that
broker and the ``originating broker'' (defined as the Institutional
Broker that executes a trade) can receive a credit, the Exchange
believes that it would be more accurate to use the term ``Clearing
Broker.'' The Exchange also proposes to capitalize the terms
``Transaction Fee Credit,'' ``Clearing Broker'' and ``Originating
Broker'' in the Fee Schedule to emphasize that those are defined
terms. The Exchange notes that it is possible, although not
required, for the same Institutional Broker to act as both the
Originating Broker and Clearing Broker in any given transaction.
    \11\ A Transaction Fee Credit of 16% of the Transaction Fees
generated pursuant to Section E.3.a. is paid to Institutional
Brokers for trades submitted through that firm and which were
executed on the Exchange. [sic] Section F.2. of the Fee Schedule. Of
that amount, 4% is paid to the Originating Broker and 12% is paid to
the Clearing Broker.
    \12\ The Exchange notes that it is uncertain as to whether the
8% level for the Clearing Submission Fee Credit will ultimately
prove to be the correct amount in effectuating its purpose, which is
to incent Institutional Brokers to enter clearing submissions for
non-CHX trades through the Exchange's system. At some point, the
Exchange may seek to raise the 8% level of the Clearing Submission
Fee Credit in order to attract business. If so, the Exchange would
make the appropriate filing to modify its Fee Schedule as required
by the rules of the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Only Institutional Brokers which are members of the Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'') will be eligible for
the Clearing Submission Fee Credit. Since the trading activities
involved in the relevant clearing submissions by definition occurred in
a market center other than the Exchange (normally the OTC marketplace),
the provisions of Exchange Act Section 15(b)(8) are implicated.\13\
Under Section 15(b)(8), a registered broker or dealer must be a member
of a securities association registered under Section 15A of the
Exchange Act, unless it effects transactions in securities solely on a
national securities exchange of which it is a member. Currently, the
only registered securities association is

FINRA. Since transactions giving rise to a Clearing Submission Fee
Credit are normally executed in the OTC marketplace, the Exchange
proposes to limit the payment of Clearing Submission Fee Credits to
Institutional Brokers which are members of FINRA in order to avoid
creating a violation of Section 15(b)(8) by the Institutional Brokers
receiving such credits.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78o(b)(8).
    \14\ Exchange Act Rule 15b9-1 provides a limited exemption if
the broker-dealer carries no customer accounts and has annual gross
income derived from purchases and sales of securities otherwise than
on a national securities exchange of which it is a member in an
amount no greater than $1,000. 17 CFR 240.15b9-1. Since broker-
dealers can separately charge commissions, however, the Exchange
will not ordinarily know whether a non-FINRA member has already
received more than $1,000 compensation arising out of OTC
transactions as commissions or some other means. The Exchange's
proposed restriction will preclude an Institutional Broker's
violation of these provisions by the receipt of Clearing Submission
Fee Credits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange recognizes that the Commission has raised concerns
about so-called payment for order flow programs in variety of
scenarios. For example, the 2007 Report Concerning Examinations of
Options Order Routing and Execution stated, ``The Commission previously
has expressed concern that payment for order flow and internalization
in the markets contribute to an environment in which quote competition
is not always rewarded, thereby discouraging the display of
aggressively priced quotes and impeding investor's ability to obtain
better prices. [footnote omitted]'' \15\ The Exchange believes that the
proposed Clearing Submission Fee Credit materially differs from other
programs inasmuch as payment of the credit does not depend on the
execution of a trade on the CHX's facilities and therefore does not
discourage aggressive quote competition. Rather, the credit is based on
the receipt of a Clearing Submission Fee by the Exchange, which is
assessed for the post-execution submission via the CHX's systems to
NSCC for clearance and settlement.\16\ As such, the Exchange does not
believe that a payment of a credit for post-trade clearing submissions
raises the same execution quality issues which underlie the
Commission's stated concerns about payment for order flow programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Report Concerning Examinations of Options Order Routing and
Execution, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (Mar. 8, 2007),
p.2.
    \16\ See, Article 21, Rule 6 and Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 65615, supra, note 3. Among other things, the Exchange permits
the post-trade substitution of Clearing Participants on a non-CHX
trade prior to making the clearing submission. This substitution
process is particularly important in facilitating the execution of
the equity component of stock-option or stock-futures orders. The
Clearing Submission Fee is designed to compensate the Exchange for
the costs of providing the systems used, and oversight of, such
activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Even taking the view that the Clearing Submission Fee Credit
implicates market quality issues, the Exchange notes that a variety of
other payment for order flow practices are prevalent in the securities
industry. As the Commission has recognized, payment for order flow is
not in itself unlawful.\17\ For example, many options exchanges have
created payment for order flow programs which are reflected in their
rules and fee schedules.\18\ It is also not uncommon for broker-dealers
to ``internalize'' their order flow by trading as principal with their
own clients. The Exchange's goal in creating a Clearing Submission Fee
Credit is to incent transaction providers to conduct business using the
CHX's systems and services, by which the Exchange can generate revenue.
The implementation of a Clearing Submission Fee Credit should further
this legitimate objective by encouraging Institutional Brokers to make
clearing submissions for non-CHX trades using the Exchange's systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43833 (January 10,
2001), 66 FR 7822 (January 25, 2001) (SR-ISE-00-10) [sic] at p.7825,
note 28 and accompanying text.
    \18\ Id.; See, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43112 (Aug.
3, 2000), 65 FR 49040 (Aug. 10, 2000) (SR-CBOE-00-28) [sic];
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43177 (Aug. 18, 2000), 65 FR
51889 (Aug. 25, 2000) (SR-PHLX-00-77) [sic]; Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 43228 (Aug. 30, 2000), 65 FR 54330 (Sept. 7, 2000) (SR-
AMEX-00-38) [sic]; Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43290 (Sept.
13, 2000), 65 FR 57213 (Sept. 21, 2000) (SR-PCX-00-30) [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \19\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \20\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among members and other persons using any facility or
system which the Exchange operates or controls. The fundamental purpose
of the Clearing Submission Fee Credit is to incent the entry of post-
trade clearing submissions for non-CHX trades by Institutional Brokers
through the Exchange's systems, which generates revenue to the Exchange
in the form of Clearing Submission Fees. The Exchange notes that most,
if not all, other exchanges issue credits to their members in order to
incent them to direct business to their facilities. For example, many
exchanges offer a ``provide'' credit to members which provide liquidity
by entering orders on the trading facilities of the exchange with which
other orders can interact. Pursuant to Regulation NMS Rule 610 (the
``Access Rule''), the maximum rate an exchange can charge to execute
against its protected quote is $0.003 per share for transactions in
securities priced over $1 per share.\21\ In most cases, exchanges offer
a provide credit which is less than the maximum charge, although
transactions in certain securities, most often Tape B securities, may
offer a provide credit which is slightly higher than the maximum rate.
The CHX notes that the proposed Clearing Submission Fee Credit is to be
set at 8% of the Clearing Submission Fee. That Fee is currently set at
the Access Rule maximum rate of $0.003/share (with a $100 cap per side)
for securities priced over $1 per share, as specified in the Exchange's
Schedule of Fees and Assessment. Thus, even assuming that the Clearing
Submission Fee did not reach the $100 cap, the effective rate of the
Clearing Submission Fee Credit is $0.00024 per share, which is far
below the provide credits offered by many other exchanges.\22\ Based
upon these facts, the Exchange believes that the proposed Clearing
Submission Fee Credit represents an equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fee, credits and other charges among its members and issuers and
other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \21\ 17 CFR 242.610(c)(1).
    \22\ If the value of the trade was sufficiently large to result
in the application of the $100 maximum fee, the per share amount
would necessarily decline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \23\ in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \24\ in particular, in
that it provides for fees and credits which are not designed to permit
unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
The Exchange notes that other exchanges have authorized credit payment
programs which are available only to certain subcategories of their
members. For example, the New York Stock Exchange (``NYSE'') pays a
series of credits to its Designated Market Makers (``DMMs'').\25\ The
credits paid to DMMs can exceed the provide credits paid to non-DMMs
(which is $0.0015/share) by a substantial percentage. For example, DMMs
can receive a credit of $0.0035/

share (or more than twice as much as paid to ordinary members) when
adding liquidity in shares of less active securities under certain
specified circumstances.\26\ The payment by CHX of a much smaller
Clearing Submission Fee Credit to its Institutional Brokers would
appear to be well within the scope of this precedent. The Exchange also
notes that the entry of clearing submissions pursuant to Article 21,
Rule 6(a), which gives rise to the Clearing Submission Fee, is limited
to Institutional Brokers. Since only Institutional Brokers can engage
in the activity which results in Clearing Submission Fees, there would
be no purpose served in offering a financial incentive which is based
upon the generation of those fees to non-Institutional Brokers. For
these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed Clearing
Submission Fee Credit represents a lawful payment which is distributed
in a manner which is reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \25\ See, NYSE Price List 2012, Fees and Credits applicable to
Designated Market Makers (``DMMs''), p.4, available on the NYSE's
public Web site. DMMs (f/k/a specialists) are a subcategory of NYSE
members with special rights and obligations, particularly as they
relate to the execution of orders on the NYSE's facilities.
    \26\ Id., p.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that
payment of a Clearing Submission Fee Credit to the Clearing Broker
based on activity handled by it will incent Institutional Brokers to
utilize the Exchange's systems and services in forwarding non-CHX
trades to NSCC, rather than using alternative mechanisms such as
correspondent clearing or Nasdaq's ACT system.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The proposed rule change is to take effect pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \27\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder \28\ because it establishes or changes a due, fee or other
charge applicable to the Exchange's members and non-members, which
renders the proposed rule change effective upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \28\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal 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-CHX-2012-05 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-CHX-2012-05. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule changes 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 on official business
days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing will
also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of
the CHX. 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 No. SR-CHX-
2012-05 and should be submitted on or before March 13, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-3899 Filed 2-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P