[Federal Register: December 31, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 249)]
[Notices]
[Page 74375-74379]
[DOCID:fr31de07-98]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57022; File No. SR-Amex-2007-138]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Establish a New Class of
Off Floor Market Makers in ETFs Called Designated Amex Remote Traders

December 20, 2007.
    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 December 19, 2007, the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'' 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 substantially prepared by the
Amex. 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 Amex proposes to adopt changes to its rules to create a new
class of off-floor market makers in all ETF securities that trade on
the Exchange, including the implementation of related changes to the
Exchange's AEMI trading platform. These market makers, to be called
``Designated Amex Remote Traders'' or ``DARTs,'' will electronically
enter competitive quotations on a regular basis sufficient to satisfy
market maker regulatory requirements. Business requirements will
include minimum performance standards with respect to each assigned
security that a DART trades. The purpose of the new program is to (1)
encourage competitive quoting within the Amex and between the Amex and
other market centers, (2) retain and increase order flow by attracting
new market makers to the Exchange, and (3) encourage greater depth at
or around the national best bid or offer (``NBBO'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Amex's Web
site at http://www.amex.com, at the Amex's Principal Office, and at the

Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Amex 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 Amex 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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    In order to (1) encourage competitive quoting within the Amex and
between the Amex and other market centers, (2) retain and increase ETF
order flow in AEMI by attracting new market makers to the Exchange, and
(3) encourage greater depth at or around the NBBO, the Exchange
proposes to adopt changes to its rules to create a new class of off-
floor market makers in all ETF securities that trade on the Exchange,
including the implementation of related changes to the Exchange's AEMI
trading platform. These market makers, to be called ``Designated Amex
Remote Traders'' or ``DARTs,'' will electronically enter competitive
quotations on a regular basis sufficient to satisfy market maker
regulatory requirements. DARTs will also have to meet certain business
requirements, which will include minimum performance standards as
discussed below. The Exchange anticipates that the implementation of
the DARTs program should increase the liquidity available in those ETF
securities to which DARTs are assigned and reduce the likelihood of
tolerance breaches in AEMI due to the resultant additional depth at or
around the NBBO.
    This proposed rule change replaces a similar proposed rule change
for a DARTs program at the Exchange that was recently approved by the
Commission. \3\ The earlier approved rule change was deleted in a
subsequent rule filing by the Exchange \4\ in order to allow
consideration of certain Amex equity Specialists' comments on the DARTs
program that were received but

inadvertently overlooked by the Commission.\5\ In the instant filing,
the Exchange responds to a number of the issues raised by the Comment
Letter. In addition, the proposed rule change contains certain
differences from the previously approved rule change for the DARTs
program. The most significant difference is that the DARTs program as
proposed herein is limited to ETF securities, in contrast to the
Exchange's earlier rules which would have allowed DARTs in equity
securities as well. The Exchange has determined that the implementation
of DARTs for equities requires substantially greater time and effort
than that required for ETFs alone, in part due to the substantially
different treatment of Crowd Orders in the Exchange's priority and
parity rules for equities and for ETFs.\6\ Consequently, the Exchange
believes that it should focus its initial efforts on creating a DARTs
program for ETFs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56446 (Sept. 17,
2007), 72 FR 54303 (Sept. 24, 2007) (approving File No. SR-Amex-
2007-85).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56764 (Nov. 7,
2007), 72 FR 64095 (Nov. 14, 2007) (File No. SR-Amex-2007-113).
    \5\ See letter dated September 5, 2007 to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Commission, from Brendan E. Cryan, Managing Member,
Brendan E. Cryan & Company, LLC; Jonathan Q. Frey, Managing Partner,
J. Streicher & Co., Michael Marchisi, Managing Partner, AIM
SEcurities Co.; and Robert B. Nunn, Chief Operating Officer, Cohen
Specialist, LLC (``Comment Letter'').
    \6\ In general, under Rule 126-AEMI (Precedence of Bids and
Offers), after giving priority to customer orders, the ETF portion
of the rule establishes parity between the Specialist quote, non-
customer Crowd Orders (which would include quotes from DARTs),a nd
non-customer public orders (with the latter treated as a group foer
the initial parity allocation). In contrat, the equity portion of
the rule requires the Specialist quote to yield to public orders, as
well as any Crowd Orders (including quotes from DARTs) to the exent
such Crowd Orders are in parity with the public orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DARTs will be members or member organizations physically located
off-floor that will electronically enter competitive quotations into
AEMI on a regular basis in all ETF securities to which they are
assigned in the DARTs program. The proposed DARTs program is similar to
the Supplemental Registered Options Traders (``SROT'') program
implemented by the Amex for options,\7\ with its own unique caveats.
Under the DARTs proposal, Amex Specialist firms may also be DARTs,
although they may not be registered as such in securities in which they
are also the Specialist. DARTs will trade in an identical way as
Registered Traders in the same ETF securities on the Exchange when
auto-ex is on, with similar obligations under Exchange rules such as
those relating to a course of dealings that contributes to the
maintenance of a fair and orderly market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Amex Rule 993-ANTE (Supplemental Registered Options
Traders).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Due to their lack of a physical presence in the trading crowd,
which is a basic requirement of the auction market, DARTs will not
participate in any post-trade allocation in connection with an auction
trade. Instead, a DART's participation in an auction pair-off on the
Exchange will be limited to the marketable amount of its quotation on
the AEMI Book at the time of the pair-off. For example, suppose the
breach of a Tolerance has occurred (disabling auto-ex as provided in
Rule 128A-AEMI) due to a large incoming buy order that leaves an
imbalance of 100,000 shares of XYZ ETF to be executed. Assume that a
DART in that security is offering 10,000 shares at $9.90, 10,000 shares
at $9.95, and 5,000 shares at $10.10. If the Specialist sets the
auction price at $10.00 and there are marketable sell orders/offers on
the AEMI Book at that price for 70,000 shares (including the 10,000
shares offered by the DART at $9.90 and the 10,000 shares offered at
$9.95), all of those shares would execute against the imbalance,
leaving the remaining 30,000 shares for the post-trade allocation. Even
though the DART has a remaining offer of 5,000 shares on the contra
side of the aggressing order, he would not be considered an ``active
crowd participant'' for purposes of the post-trade allocation and
cannot therefore elect to participate in the disposition of the
remaining 30,000 shares.
    Amex will establish minimum requirements for a DART to remain in
the program, which may be modified by the Exchange from time to time.
First, a DART must provide competitive quotations on a regular basis
sufficient to satisfy market maker regulatory requirements.\8\ Business
requirements will include minimum performance standards determined from
time to time by the Exchange, including volume participation rate and
trade participation rate. A DART that fails to comply with one or more
of the performance standards, as determined by the Chief Executive
Officer of the Exchange or his/her designee, may be subject to loss of
all or a portion of any benefits to which they would otherwise be
entitled under Amex rules by virtue of its status as a DART, including
possible suspension or termination of DART status. A DART may be either
a regular member of the Exchange or an associate member of the Exchange
that meets the requirements for electronic access to the Exchange's
automated systems. The number of ETF securities in which a DART may be
permitted to make markets will be determined by the Exchange in
accordance with Commentary .05 in proposed Rule 110A-AEMI.
    The Exchange expects that the proposed rules for the DARTs program
will set a high bar for prospective DART participants, and, while
management anticipates starting the program with a limited group of
DARTs, no specific upper limit on the number of DARTs is anticipated.
In addition to the requirements described above, DARTs shall be
required to meet eligibility criteria similar to those specified in the
SROT program, which criteria will include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See proposed Rule 110A-AEMI(b)(i), which requires DARTs to
``provide continuous two-sided quotations in all assigned securities
* * * .'' This basic market maker requirement mirrors the definition
of ``market maker'' set forth in Section 3(a)(38) of the Act, which
requires a dealer in the security involved to hold himself out ``as
being willing to buy and sell such security for his own account on a
regular or continuous basis.'' The following additional regulatory
requirements will be imposed by proposed Rule 110A-AEMI(b)(ii):
``With respect to each security to which he/she is assigned by the
Exchange, a DART's transactions must constitute a course of dealings
reasonably calculated to contribute to the maintenance of a fair and
orderly market. In connection with this function, a DART is required
to make competitive bids and offers as reasonably necessary to
contribute to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market and shall
engage, to a reasonable degree under the existing circumstances, in
dealings for his/her own account when there exists a lack of price
continuity, a temporary disparity between the supply of and demand
for the security(ies) in which he/she is trading, or a temporary
distortion of the price relationships between the security(ies) in
which he/she is trading and the security(ies) underlying or
otherwise related to such security(ies).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Adequacy of resources including capital, technology and
personnel;
     history of stability, superior electronic capacity, and
superior operational capacity;
     level of market-making and/or specialist experience in a
broad array of securities;
     ability to interact with order flow in all types of
markets;
     existence of order flow commitments;
     willingness and ability to make competitive markets on the
Exchange and otherwise promote the Exchange in a manner that is likely
to enhance the ability of the Exchange to compete successfully for
order flow in the ETF securities it trades;
     the number of member organizations requesting approval to
act as a DART; and
     ability to transact in any ETF underlying markets.
    The Exchange would use the factor relating to the existence of
order flow commitments to evaluate existing order flow commitments
between a DART applicant and order flow providers. A future change to,
or termination of, any such commitments would not be used by the
Exchange at any point in the

future to terminate or take remedial action against a DART.
Furthermore, the Exchange would not take remedial action solely because
orders subject to any such commitments were not subsequently routed to
the Exchange. The factor relating to willingness to promote the
Exchange includes assisting in meeting and educating market
participants, maintaining communications with member firms in order to
be responsive to suggestions and complaints, responding to suggestions
and complaints, and other similar activities. The Exchange would use
this criterion to determine which applicants would best be able to
enhance the competitiveness of the Exchange. The Exchange would not
apply this factor to in any way restrict, either directly or
indirectly, a DART's activities as a market maker or specialist on
other exchanges, or to restrict how a DART handles orders it holds in a
fiduciary capacity to which it owes a duty of best execution.
    The regulatory requirements applicable to DARTs will be surveilled
for by the FINRA Amex Regulation Division (``FINRA Amex'') consistent
with current surveillance procedures for Registered Traders on the
Exchange. FINRA Amex staff will work with Amex technical staff on
planning the necessary changes to AEMI to capture required surveillance
data and in surveilling the increased number of market makers that the
program is expected to attract. Adjustments to current technology and
surveillance procedures will likely also be necessitated by the fact
that the DARTs will not be physically located on the floor of the
Exchange.
    DARTs will interface with the Amex's Floor Officials in the case of
trade disputes substantially in accordance with existing procedures
used for SROTs, another off-floor market participant. DARTs accordingly
will be required to designate persons on- and/or off-floor to be in
direct real-time contact with Floor Officials on such matters.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In accordance with the current Amex service desk written
procedures manual, SROTs have floor representation through their
affiliated member firm or clearing entity. Service desk personnel
have direct contact with the SROTs by telephone and e-mail. An SROT
can request a trade review under obvious error rules through initial
contact with the service desk, which will take specified follow-up
steps. The service desk serves as the liaison between the SROT and
floor activity, and in all situations requiring involvement by the
Trading Floor Regulatory Liaison Group and a Floor Official. The
service desk, in a customer service capacity, will present all data
and communicate the SROT requests and follow-up detail to the
appropriate parties. Documentation associated with corrective
actions and/or floor rulings is presented to the SROT's on-floor
representation for signature/stamp of approval and relevant
documentation is recorded and saved. In situations involving clearly
erroneous transactions or other events involving the SROT (although
not initiated by the SROT), the Amex service desk will contact the
SROT by phone or e-mail to provide notification of a possible
dispute involving one or more SROT trades.
    A similar provision relating to DARTs will be added to the
manual. However, Amex has recently received Commission approval of a
proposed rule change making an on-floor presence to resolve trade
disputes optional, with an off-floor presence to resolve disputes
mandatory. Consequently, corresponding changes will be made to the
above-referenced manual provisions. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 56882 (December 3, 2007), 72 FR 69261 (December 7, 2007)
(approving File No. SR-Amex-2007-56).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulation M will apply to DARTs in the same way that it applies to
any other market participants, as will Amex Rule 193 to the extent the
DART is affiliated with a Specialist member organization. However, no
expansion of the application of Amex Rule 193 beyond current practice
is intended.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The language in Rule 110A-AEMI(c)(ii) cross-referencing
Amex Rule 193 is substantively identical to language also contained
in Amex Rules 993-ANTE(d)(iii) (Supplemental Registered Options
Traders) and 994-ANTE(d)(iii) (Remote Registered Options Traders),
neither of which have been interpreted to expand the applicability
of Amex Rule 193 beyond affiliates of Specialists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Comment Letter had observed that a provision in
previously proposed Rule 110A-AEMI(a) relating to minimum capital
requirements for DARTs is unnecessary due to its current
inapplicability to DARTs (who will be subject to the Commission's net
capital rule).\11\ The Exchange has eliminated the provision from the
rule change proposed herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Rule 15c3-1 under the Act, 17 CFR 240.15c3-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The specific AEMI rules to which changes are being proposed are
discussed below.

Rule 110A-AEMI

Designated Amex Remote Traders
    This proposed new rule will contain the basic requirements for
DARTs as described herein, in the same manner that Rule 110-AEMI
contains the basic requirements for Registered Traders.

Rule 1A-AEMI

Applicability, Definitions, References and Phase-In
    The Exchange is proposing revisions to Rule 1A-AEMI in order to (1)
update the definition of the AEMI Book to include electronic
submissions from DARTs, (2) provide that a Crowd Order includes any bid
or offer in the AEMI Book entered by a DART, (3) provide a definition
of a DART with a cross-reference to proposed Rule 110A-AEMI, (4) update
the definition of the Specialist Order Book to exclude bids and offers
of DARTs, and (5) make a minor unrelated correction to the definition
of Exchange Traded Funds (``ETFs'').

Rule 109-AEMI

``Stopping'' Stock
    The Exchange proposes to revise Rule 109-AEMI to add DARTs to the
list of Amex market participants prohibited from granting or accepting
a stop with respect to a security traded in AEMI.

Rule 112-AEMI

Suspension of Registration of Registered Trader or Designated Amex
Remote Trader
    The Exchange is proposing to add a provision to this rule to
provide for the suspension of the registration of a DART under
circumstances similar to the current provision that provides for the
suspension of a Registered Trader. Both types of participants are
market makers with respect to securities traded in AEMI.

Rule 115-AEMI

Exchange Procedures for Use of Unusual Market Exception
    The Exchange proposes to revise Rule 115-AEMI to provide procedures
that will cover situations in which a DART is unable to publish
quotations or is streaming in incorrect quotes under unusual market
conditions. The Exchange also is proposing to correct an inaccuracy in
the current rule in order to clarify that such issues with respect to
Registered Traders are handled via the Service Desk and not by a Floor
Official.

Rule 123-AEMI

Manner of Bidding and Offering
    The Exchange is proposing revisions to this rule to provide that
AEMI shall accept electronic bids and offers from DARTs and include
them in the AEMI Book. The proposed changes would also place DARTs on a
par with Specialists and Registered Traders in terms of their ability
to stream bids and offers into AEMI at multiple price levels (with the
maximum number being changed from five to four to reflect current AEMI
system capabilities) and would require (as with Specialists and
Registered Traders) that all quotes provided be two-sided. A DART would
also be prohibited from streaming in a quote that locks or crosses an
existing quote that the same DART has previously streamed in for the
same security.

Rule 128A-AEMI

Automatic Execution
    The Exchange is proposing two minor changes to Rule 128A-AEMI so
that DARTs will be treated in the same manner as Registered Traders in
connection with certain automatic executions when a DART's quotation
(1) matches the APQ on the other side of the market or (2) would lock
or cross the APQ in certain circumstances.

Rule 128B-AEMI

Auction Trades
    The changes being proposed to this rule would exclude DARTs from
participation in any post-trade allocation in connection with an
auction, as described above.

Rule 719-AEMI

Comparison of Exchange Transactions
    The Exchange is proposing to add DARTs to one of the equity account
type codes used for market maker transactions in the AEMI securities in
which they are registered.

Rule 957

Accounts, Orders and Records of Registered Traders, Designated Amex
Remote Traders, Specialists and Associated Persons
    The Exchange is proposing changes to Rule 957 that will place the
same requirements on DARTs that Registered Traders are subject to with
respect to reporting certain trading accounts and orders to the
Exchange and producing books, records and other information pertaining
to certain transactions.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is designed to be consistent with
Regulation NMS, as well as consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,\12\
in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\13\ in
particular, in that it is 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 national market system, and, in general,
to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act. The Exchange notes that a substantial portion of the Comment
Letter on the Exchange's earlier rule filing on DARTs was devoted to
business-side critiques of how best to allocate Amex resources to craft
a market structure that will best ensure Amex's future success. The
suggestion was made that adding DARTs to the Amex would somehow degrade
market quality and injure Amex's competitive position. However, Amex
management believes that, in the post-Regulation NMS world, it is
essential that the Exchange's existing structure be enhanced by the
introduction of additional quoting participants, while preserving those
aspects of the Specialist system that order flow providers still value.
Combined with other changes to Amex's market structure, Amex management
believes that the addition of DARTs will create additional resident
liquidity at the Amex needed to better compete with other trading
centers for order flow.
    Further, the Exchange notes that most of the concerns expressed in
the Comment Letter regarding the potential negative impact of the DARTs
program on competition seemed focused on preventing the introduction of
competitive market makers into the marketplace for equities, as opposed
to the marketplace for ETFs in which market makers (Registered Traders)
already participate.\14\ Now that the proposed scope of the DARTs
program is limited to ETFs only, such concerns--with which the Exchange
takes strong issue in any event--are moot. Other statements in the
Comment Letter regarding the stabilization rules are moot for the same
reason.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For example, the Comment Letter at page 2 states, ``This
business as usual approach entirely ignores the fact that Registered
Traders are not allowed to make markets in equities, which DARTs
would be entitled to do should the Proposal be approved'' and ``we
believe that the introduction of market makers into the Exchange's
equity marketplace raises a number of significant concerns.'' In
addition, the Comment Letter at page 3 states, ``While it is true
that the Proposal appears to leave the role of equity specialists
unchanged, the introduction of market makers, whether they act from
on or off-floor, into the Amex's equity marketplace, is clearly
duplicative of the specialist function.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    As noted in Section II.A.(1) above, the Comment Letter was the only
comment letter received on the Exchange's earlier DARTs rule filing
that relates to the substance of the rule change proposed herein, and
the Exchange has addressed herein a number of issues raised in that
letter.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-Amex-2007-138 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2007-138. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 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 the Amex. 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-Amex-2007-138 and should be submitted on
or before January 22, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-25351 Filed 12-28-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 37 (Thursday, February 25, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9550-9555]
[FR Doc No: 2016-03960]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77196; File No. SR-FINRA-2016-005]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Reduce
the Synchronization Tolerance for Computer Clocks That Are Used To
Record Events in NMS Securities and OTC Equity Securities

February 19, 2016.
    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 9, 2016, 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,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by FINRA. 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

    FINRA is proposing to reduce the synchronization tolerance for
members' computer clocks that are used to record events in NMS
securities, including standardized options, and OTC Equity Securities.
This proposal would not change the current clock synchronization
requirement for members' mechanical time stamping devices or computer
clocks that are used to record events for securities other than NMS
securities or OTC Equity Securities.
    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, on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov, and at the Commission's
Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    Current FINRA rules require that firms synchronize their business
clocks in conformity with procedures prescribed by FINRA. Specifically,
FINRA Rule 7430 requires that firms synchronize their business clocks
that are used for purposes of recording the date and time of any event
that must be recorded pursuant to the FINRA By-Laws or other FINRA
rules (e.g., the time a trade was executed or the time an order was
received or routed), with reference to a time source as designated by
FINRA. As specified in the current OATS technical specifications, all
computer system clocks and mechanical time stamping devices must be
synchronized to within one second of the NIST atomic clock.\3\ To
maintain clock synchronization, clocks should be checked against the
NIST atomic clock and re-synchronized, if necessary, at pre-determined
intervals throughout the day.\4\ FINRA understands that currently, some
firms synchronize their clocks continuously throughout the day, while
others do so at various times during the day and still others do so
only once a day.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Any time provider may be used for synchronization; however,
all clocks and time stamping devices must remain accurate within a
one-second tolerance of the NIST clock. This tolerance includes (1)
the difference between the NIST standard and a time provider's
clock, (2) transmission delay from the source and (3) the amount of
drift of the member firm's clock. The OATS technical specifications
further specify that computer system and mechanical clocks must be
synchronized every business day before market open to ensure that
recorded order event timestamps are accurate.
    \4\ The OATS technical specifications also provide that member
firms must document and maintain their clock synchronization
procedures. In addition, the technical specifications state that
member firms should keep a log of the times when they synchronize
their clocks and the results of the synchronization process,
including notice of any time a member's clock drifts more than the
one second standard. The technical specifications further provide
that such logs should be maintained for the period of time and
accessibility specified in SEC Rule 17a-4(b), and maintained and
preserved for the required time period in paper format or in a
format permitted under SEC Rule 17a-4(f).
    \5\ FINRA generally believes that the firms that synchronize
once daily are firms that accept manual orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the increasing speed of trading in today's automated markets,
FINRA believes the current one second tolerance is no longer
appropriate for computer system clocks recording

events in NMS securities \6\ and OTC Equity Securities \7\ under FINRA
rules. Automated systems have evolved to the point where order
placement and trading decisions in these asset classes are made on a
millisecond basis, if not finer. Moreover, in many cases firms report
events to FINRA's equity trade reporting and audit trail facilities in
milliseconds.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The term ``NMS security'' is defined in Rule 600 of
Regulation NMS to mean ``any security or class of securities for
which transaction reports are collected, processed and made
available pursuant to an effective transaction reporting plan, or an
effective national market system plan for reporting transactions in
listed options. 17 CFR 242.600(b)(46). As Commission staff has
noted, the term NMS security generally ``refers to exchange-listed
equity securities and standardized options, but does not include
exchange-listed debt securities, securities futures, or open-end
mutual funds, which are not currently reported pursuant to an
effective transaction reporting plan.'' See Division of Trading and
Markets Staff's Responses to Frequently Asked Questions Concerning
Large Trader Reporting, question 1.1, available at https://www.sec.gov/divisions/marketreg/large-trader-faqs.htm.
    \7\ The term ``OTC Equity Security'' is defined in FINRA Rule
6420(f) to mean ``any equity security that is not an `NMS stock' as
that term is defined in Rule 600(b)(47) of Regulation NMS; provided,
however, that the term `OTC Equity Security' shall not include any
Restricted Equity Security.''
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71623 (February 27,
2014), 79 FR 12558 (March 4, 2014) (order approving SR-FINRA-2014-
050, FINRA's proposal to require firms to report order and trade
information to the FINRA TRFs, ADF, ORF, and OATS in milliseconds,
if the firms' systems capture time in milliseconds). See also
Regulatory Notice 14-21 (May 2014) (announcing the effective date of
millisecond reporting changes); Regulatory Notice 14-47 (November
2014) at page 7, n. 7 (describing the extended implementation
schedule for millisecond reporting changes).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, FINRA is proposing to tighten the synchronization
requirement for computer system clocks that record events in NMS
securities and OTC Equity Securities. The proposal would reduce the
drift tolerance for computer clocks that record events in these
securities from one second to 50 milliseconds. The proposal would not
change the current one second standard for securities other than NMS
securities or OTC Equity Securities and would not change the current
one second standard for events recorded by mechanical clocks or time
stamping devices, as opposed to computer clocks.
    As a technical matter, the proposal would codify the existing OATS
technical specifications cited above, along with the new proposed 50
millisecond standard, in FINRA's Rule 4500 Series (Books, Records and
Reports). The purpose of this technical change is to relocate the clock
synchronization requirements from OATS rules to a rule set where it is
clear the requirements apply to the recording of the date and time of
any event that must be recorded under FINRA By-Laws or rules. As noted
above, under a combination of Rule 7430 and the OATS technical
specifications, the current one second synchronization standard already
applies to the recording of the date and time of any event that must be
recorded under FINRA By-Laws or rules. Under this proposal, FINRA would
consolidate and codify the clock synchronization requirements in new
Rule 4590 for clarity and ease of reference. This consolidation would
include the current provision in the OATS technical specifications that
conveys guidance on recordkeeping to demonstrate compliance with the
synchronization standard, which would be codified without material
change as Supplementary Material .01 to Rule 4590.
    In arriving at this proposal, FINRA solicited and received feedback
from its industry advisory committees, as well as through a public
request for comment. After thoroughly evaluating all of the feedback
received, FINRA has determined that the proposed 50 millisecond
standard is the best approach given existing technology and FINRA's
regulatory needs. In addition, as described in more detail below, FINRA
further determined that it should proceed with the proposal now, rather
than wait for approval and implementation of the clock synchronization
requirements proposed in the National Market System Plan governing the
Consolidated Audit Trail (``CAT NMS Plan'').\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The CAT NMS Plan, which was submitted by the national
securities exchanges and FINRA on February 27, 2015, is available at
catnmsplan.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an initial step, FINRA staff solicited industry input from
several of its industry advisory committees prior to publishing the
proposal for comment in a Regulatory Notice. These committees were
generally supportive. To the extent the committees raised concerns,
they focused on the proposal's potential impact on small firms,
particularly firms that do not rely on highly automated systems. In
response to these concerns, and similar concerns raised in the comment
letters discussed below, FINRA modified the proposal to allow for
phased implementation which would grant less automated firms up to 18
months to comply with the proposed 50 millisecond standard. In
addition, the proposal retains the current one second standard for
events recorded by mechanical clocks or time stamping devices, which
FINRA believes are more likely to be used by small firms.
    Next, in November 2014, FINRA published Regulatory Notice 14-47 to
request written comments on the proposal. FINRA received eight comment
letters in response.\10\ In general, five of the eight commenters
supported tightening current clock synchronization requirements, at
least to some extent.\11\ Two of the eight commenters opposed the
proposal to some extent, questioning either the proposed 50 millisecond
standard or the need for FINRA to amend its clock synchronization
requirement at this time, before the CAT NMS Plan is approved and
implemented.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Letters from Crews & Associates, January 5, 2015
(``Crews Letter''); FSMLabs, dated January 7, 2015 (``FSMLabs
Letter''); Quincy Data, LLC, dated January 9, 2015 (``Quincy Data
Letter''); Wiley Bros. Aintree Capital, dated January 9, 2015
(``Wiley Bros. Aintree Capital Letter''); IEX Services LLC, February
12, 2015 (``IEX Letter''); Financial Information Forum, dated
February 20, 2015 (``FIF Letter''); Sync-n-Scale, dated February 20,
2015 (``Sync-n-Scale Letter''); and KOR Group LLC, dated February
20, 2015 (``KOR Letter'').
    \11\ See FSMLabs Letter, Quincy Data Letter, IEX Letter, Sync-n-
Scale Letter, and KOR Letter.
    \12\ See Crews Letter and FIF Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of the five commenters that supported tightening clock
synchronization requirements at least to some extent, all agreed that a
millisecond standard is necessary given the speed of trading in today's
markets. For example, according to FSMLabs, FINRA's proposal is
``timely and necessary'' because ``[w]ide use of electronic trading
systems and proliferation of trading venues make it impossible to
understand market operation or to manage risks without precise and
reliable time information.'' \13\ Similarly, IEX stated its belief that
``the proposal represents an important and beneficial advance over the
current [one second] standard.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See FSMLabs Letter at 6-7.
    \14\ See IEX Letter at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenters that supported the proposal generally took the view
that the proposed 50 millisecond standard would not be overly
burdensome to adopt, even for smaller firms. FSMLabs stated that a 50
millisecond standard ``can be met with low cost off-the-shelf software
only.'' \15\ According to KOR, ``the technology to perform such high-
resolution synchronization is low-cost and has been available for
years.'' \16\ Sync-n-Scale took the view that the proposed 50
millisecond standard ``is highly likely not an onerous imposition on
market participants in any of the relevant dimensions: financially,
technologically and operationally.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See FSMLabs Letter at 1.
    \16\ See KOR Letter at 2.
    \17\ See Sync-n-Scale Letter at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several of these commenters proposed tightening the clock
synchronization standard even further, to below 50

milliseconds. For example, FSMLabs said that a one millisecond standard
would not impose significant additional costs, while even a one
microsecond standard could be practical with low-cost off-the-shelf
technology.\18\ KOR agreed that reducing the standard to one
millisecond ``would not impose significant additional costs to market
participants over a 50 millisecond requirement.'' \19\ And according to
IEX, ``the permitted variance could be further reduced consistent with
the systems capabilities of most member firms.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See FSMLabs Letter at 1.
    \19\ See KOR Letter at 2.
    \20\ See IEX Letter at 2. Additionally, another commenter
submitted its own proposal, which it said could ``replace CAT
requirements.'' Under this commenter's proposal, all matching
engines would be time synchronized to an accuracy that is within 10
microseconds of the global time standard, and manual trades would be
time stamped within an accuracy of 1 minute. See Quincy Data Letter
at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two commenters took different views and opposed the proposal. Crews
& Associates stated that any standard less than 200 milliseconds is not
feasible at any cost, based on the time it takes to receive data
packets with updated time information from NIST servers.\21\ The
Financial Information Forum (``FIF''), which conducted an industry
survey on current synchronization practices and the anticipated costs
of tighter synchronization standards, did not take issue with the
proposed 50 millisecond standard itself. In fact, FIF supported a 50
millisecond standard; however, FIF suggested that FINRA ``work through
the CAT NMS Plan process to achieve [its] clock synchronization
objectives and avoid redundant, and potentially conflicting, rule-
making.'' \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Crews & Associates Letter at 1.
    \22\ See FIF Letter at 3. As noted elsewhere in this filing, FIF
cautioned that its survey did not necessarily reflect small firms,
which it thought would be more likely to have trouble meeting the
proposed clock synchronization standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, several of the commenters argued that FINRA should
consider different standards for different types of market
participants. KOR suggested that highly automated firms--i.e., firms
that co-locate their equipment at an exchange datacenter or in a data
center with modern clock synchronization technology--should be held to
a one millisecond standard, while all other firms should be subject to
a 50 millisecond standard.\23\ Crews & Associates said that there
should be a separate rule for firms that engage in high frequency
trading, although this commenter did not offer a detailed
recommendation on how the standards should differ for firms that do and
do not engage in HFT.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See KOR Letter at 2.
    \24\ See Crews & Associates Letter at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA carefully considered the committee views and written
comments. After analyzing this feedback, FINRA believes it is necessary
and appropriate to proceed with the proposed 50 millisecond standard
for NMS securities and OTC Equity Securities, with a phased
implementation that allows less automated firms more time to adjust
their systems. FINRA believes that 50 milliseconds is the right
standard at this time, given prevailing technology for trading systems
and clock synchronization, because it strikes an acceptable balance
between audit trail integrity and the costs of compliance. FINRA also
believes it is important to apply the same standard to all computer-
recorded events, regardless of firm size or activity type. Audit trail
integrity relies on the ability to accurately sequence events for a
given period of time, including events generated by firms that do not
engage in HFT.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ While FINRA does not believe it is practicable to adopt
different standards for firms that engage in HFT and those that do
not, as some commenters suggested, it is proposing to provide less
automated firms with more time to adjust their systems to the new
proposed standard, as discussed more below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA's decision to pursue the proposed 50 millisecond standard is
informed in part by the CAT NMS Plan filed in February, 2015. The CAT
NMS Plan was required by SEC Rule 613, which directed FINRA and the
national securities exchanges to submit a national market system plan
to govern the creation, implementation, and maintenance of a
consolidated audit trail and central repository.\26\ Rule 613 further
contains specific provisions that require the CAT NMS Plan to adopt a
clock synchronization standard ``consistent with industry standards.''
\27\ Guided by these provisions, the CAT NMS Plan contains detailed
discussion of current clock synchronization practices, as well as the
potential costs that broker-dealers would incur under various
synchronization standards ranging from 1 second to 100
microseconds.\28\ As part of its cost analysis, the CAT NMS Plan refers
to the same FIF survey that accompanied the FIF's comment letter to
FINRA on this proposal.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 17 C.F.R Sec.  242.613(a).
    \27\ 17 CFR Sec.  242.613(d)(1).
    \28\ See CAT NMS Plan, available at catnmsplan.com, at Appendix
C-125.
    \29\ See CAT NMS Plan at Appendix C-125 to C-126 (citing the FIF
Clock Offset Survey, which FIF also attached to its comment letter
on this proposal).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ultimately, the CAT NMS Plan concluded ``that a clock offset of
50ms represents an aggressive, but achievable, industry standard.''
\30\ FINRA agrees that, at present, while a 50 millisecond standard may
impose some costs on firms, it is nevertheless achievable with existing
technology, and that it would allow FINRA significantly greater
regulatory and surveillance capabilities. Moreover, FINRA recognizes
that proposing a standard different from the CAT NMS Plan could create
additional and potentially burdensome costs for firms.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See id.
    \31\ The FIF comment letter supported the view that FINRA should
not adopt a standard that is different from what was proposed in the
CAT NMS Plan, even if that standard were more lenient and less
costly to implement now than the CAT NMS Plan standard. See FIF
Letter at 2 (noting that respondents to the FIF Clock Offset Survey
``questioned the benefits of an interim tolerance citing that any
changes to the current clock offset would require modifications to
systems and processes'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    But while FINRA believes it is appropriate to propose the same 50
millisecond clock synchronization standard advanced by the CAT NMS
Plan, FINRA does not agree with the comment that FINRA should forego
this proposal and wait for the CAT NMS Plan to become effective. It may
be some time before the clock synchronization requirements of the CAT
NMS Plan take effect.\32\ Meanwhile, as the Commission has recognized,
a sub-one second clock synchronization standard is an important element
of market data reliability.\33\ And FINRA, as a national securities
association, relies on the accuracy of market data to fulfill its
regulatory obligations. Accordingly, FINRA believes it has a current
need to tighten the clock synchronization standard for events that must
be recorded pursuant to the FINRA By-Laws or other FINRA rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ The CAT NMS Plan was filed pursuant to Rule 608 of
Regulation NMS, which provides the general procedure for national
market system plans. Under Rule 608(b)(2), the Commission has 120
days from the date it publishes a national market system plan, or up
to 180 days of such date if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or as to which
the sponsors of the plan consent, to approve the plan, with such
changes or subject to such conditions as the Commission may deem
necessary or appropriate. As proposed, the CAT NMS Plan would become
effective upon approval by the Commission and execution by all of
the participants that submitted the plan (see CAT NMS Plan, Section
2.1), and the clock synchronization requirements would apply within
four months of the effective date (see CAT NMS Plan, Section
6.7(a)(ii)).
    \33\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67457 (July 17,
2012), 77 FR 45722, 45774 (August 1, 2012) (``Consolidated Audit
Trail Adopting Release'') (``The Commission believes that the
current industry standard for conducting securities business is more
rigorous than one second.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA acknowledges that a tightened clock synchronization standard
could impose costs, particularly on small or

less automated firms. As a result, FINRA has revised the proposal in
response to comments in two ways, in order to minimize the burden
associated with the proposed rule and ease implementation. First, FINRA
has narrowed the scope of the proposal so that the 50 millisecond
standard proposed in this filing would apply only to NMS securities and
OTC Equity Securities, and not to fixed income securities. FINRA
believes this modification is warranted because fixed income products
generally are not traded with the same level of automation as equity or
option securities. Moreover, the revised scope would parallel the
current scope of the CAT NMS Plan, which, as filed, would apply to NMS
securities and OTC Equity Securities, but not debt securities.\34\
FINRA notes that the CAT NMS Plan contemplates whether debt securities
may become subject to CAT reporting in the future, and FINRA will
continue to consider the appropriate clock synchronization standard for
systems that record events in debt securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See, e.g., CAT NMS Plan at Appendix C-127 (discussing the
Plan's applicability to OTC Equity Securities in addition to NMS
securities, and whether debt securities may be subject to the CAT
NMS Plan in the future). Because the scope of this proposal would
align with the scope of the current proposed CAT NMS Plan, FINRA
believes that costs incurred by firms to meet the proposed FINRA
clock synchronization standard would support the changes needed to
meet any future requirement imposed under CAT and, therefore, should
not result in duplicative efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA proposes to adopt a phased implementation for the proposed 50
millisecond standard. If the Commission approves the filing, FINRA will
announce the effective date of the proposed rule change in a Regulatory
Notice to be published no later than 90 days following Commission
approval. FINRA would then require firms with systems that capture time
in milliseconds to comply with the new 50 millisecond standard within
six months of the effective date; remaining firms that do not have
systems which capture time in milliseconds would have 18 months from
the effective date to comply with the 50 millisecond standard.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ FINRA recognizes that a phased implementation does not
necessarily on its own reduce the costs of the proposal. However, a
phased implementation could allow firms, particularly smaller or
less automated firms, a greater time period over which they can
identify and implement the most cost effective clock synchronization
solution that meets the standard required by this proposal. FINRA
notes that the FIF Clock Offset Survey recommended a delayed
implementation and noted that ``[w]hile additional time may not
reduce costs, it may ease implementation as firms manage this effort
in conjunction with other compliance initiatives.'' See FIF Letter
and attached FIF Clock Offset Survey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\36\ 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
bolster FINRA's ability to meet its regulatory obligations as a
national securities association. As the Commission has noted, time
drift away from a universal, synchronized standard is an important
issue to address to enhance the integrity of audit trail data.\37\
FINRA therefore believes it is important to pursue a 50 millisecond
standard at this time, for the reasons explained above, so that it can
compile more accurate audit trail data and conduct surveillance with
more precise time-sequenced data. By doing so, the proposal would
facilitate FINRA's efforts to detect and 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
    \37\ See Consolidated Audit Trail Adopting Release, 77 FR at
45774.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 has undertaken an
economic impact assessment, as set forth below, to analyze the
regulatory need for the proposed rule change, its potential economic
impacts, including anticipated costs and benefits, and the alternatives
FINRA considered in assessing how to best meet its regulatory
objectives.
Economic Impact Assessment
A. Regulatory Need
    FINRA's current rules require members to synchronize their business
clocks to within one second of the NIST atomic clock. Considering the
speed of trading in today's automated equity and options markets, FINRA
believes that the current one second tolerance is no longer appropriate
for computer system clocks recording time for events in these
securities under FINRA rules. For example, the wide use of automated
trading systems entails order placement and trading decisions made on a
millisecond, or finer, basis. In such a fast-paced environment, the one
second tolerance is insufficient for audit trail and surveillance
purposes. Accordingly, FINRA is proposing a tighter synchronization
standard for NMS securities and OTC Equity Securities that will give
FINRA the capability to better determine the order in which reportable
events occur, thereby bolstering its surveillance of the markets and
enhancing investor protection.
B. Economic Impacts
    The proposed rule change would impact member firms that receive or
route orders or execute trades directly in NMS securities and OTC
Equity Securities. As a baseline, FINRA estimates that there are
approximately 1,720 firms that would be subject to the proposal.\38\
These firms would be required to synchronize their computer clocks that
are used to record applicable events in equity and options securities
to within 50 millisecond of the NIST atomic clock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ This baseline estimate is intended to capture the total
number of firms that received orders in any security subject to OATS
reporting, as reflected by the number of unique routing firm market
participant identifiers from a recent calendar quarter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA understands that some firms already synchronize their
computer clocks within 50 milliseconds, and as a result, will not
experience any material direct economic impacts as a result of this
rule. Additionally, the proposed rule change would not alter the
current clock synchronization requirement for members' mechanical time
stamping devices. As a result, members solely using mechanical time
stamping would not be impacted. Based on FINRA staff's experience,
FINRA estimates that only a small fraction of firms use mechanical time
stamping devices for trading in NMS securities and OTC Equity
Securities.
    The proposal would be implemented in phases that would allow less
automated firms more time to comply with the 50 millisecond clock
synchronization standard. Specifically, FINRA would require firms with
systems that capture time in milliseconds to comply with the new 50
millisecond standard within six months of the effective date. Of firms
that report to OATS, FINRA estimates that there are 736 firms that
report some or all of their order events in milliseconds, accounting
for 76 percent of OATS-reporting firms and 95 percent of OATS
reportable order events (ROE). FINRA further estimates that there are
roughly 237 less automated OATS-reporting firms,

accounting for 24 percent of OATS-reporting firms and five percent of
ROE, that are not currently reporting order events in milliseconds;
these firms would have 18 months from the effective date to comply with
the proposed standard. For the remainder of firms that would be subject
to the proposal but do not currently report to OATS, FINRA believes
that the majority rely on systems provided by their clearing firm or
are not likely to have systems that capture time in milliseconds, and
they would therefore also have 18 months to comply.
(i) Anticipated Benefits
    The proposed rule change would allow FINRA to more accurately
determine, with respect to NMS securities and OTC Equity Securities,
the sequence of order, quote and trade events across market
participants and market centers. By doing so, the proposal would
improve FINRA's surveillance program, and as a result, support FINRA's
compliance with its regulatory obligations set forth in Section
15A(b)(6) of the Act. In particular, the proposal would enhance FINRA's
ability to monitor for manipulative trading practices, including
spoofing or layering, and to evaluate best execution and compliance
with SEC Regulation NMS, among other things. For example, potentially
manipulative trading practices often involve large numbers of orders
placed in short periods of time, such that more granular and precise
order event sequencing would enhance FINRA's market surveillance
abilities. As a result, the proposal would facilitate FINRA's efforts
to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, and to protect investors and
the public interest.
(ii) Anticipated Costs
    Member firms that receive or route orders or execute trades
directly in NMS securities and OTC Equity Securities would likely incur
costs associated with updating their systems and procedures to comply
with a tightened clock synchronization standard. These costs may
include costs to develop and maintain software programs that allow and
monitor for synchronization within 50 milliseconds. FINRA notes that
there are third party software products that could help firms maintain
the proposed 50 millisecond standard. Firms may find these software
products to be more cost effective than developing and maintaining
their own programs. Some firms may also need to update their technology
hardware, including servers and event logging platforms, or implement
other networking enhancements to achieve the 50 millisecond drift
standard. These costs will likely vary across firms depending on their
current technology systems and procedures, their business models and
the frequency with which they synchronize their clocks, as well as
their current drift standards.
    FINRA's analysis of current practices and potential costs is
informed in part by the industry survey that FIF performed and
submitted along with its comment on this proposal. The FIF Clock Offset
Survey, which is discussed in detail in the CAT NMS Plan, collected
information on existing synchronization systems, current clock
management costs, and anticipated costs of meeting tighter
synchronization standards from 28 firms, including 23 broker-dealers
and 5 service bureaus.\39\ The survey found that 39% of responding
firms do not already synchronize their clocks to at least a 50
millisecond standard, suggesting that many firms may already have the
capacity to meet the proposed standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See FIF Letter and attached FIF Clock Offset Survey.
    FINRA notes that the respondents primarily comprised of firms
with a significant amount of reportable order events (ROE) in OATS.
For example, 64% of the respondents reported 3 million or more ROE/
month. Smaller firms with low ROE/month tiers did not generally
respond to the survey. As a result, these survey results may not be
representative of the views of smaller firms with less trading
activity. The FIF survey notes that an effort is underway to solicit
feedback from smaller firms. See the attached FIF Clock Offset
Survey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FIF survey estimates an average cost of adopting a 50
millisecond standard would be roughly $550,000 per firm.\40\ FINRA
notes, however, that the FIF survey seems to estimate the costs of
implementing a synchronization standard with the assumption that
synchronization logs would be required to be maintained for more than
three years.\41\ Since this FINRA proposal would require
synchronization logs to be stored for only three years, FINRA believes
the FIF cost estimate may overstate the implementation costs of this
aspect of the proposal. FINRA notes further that the FIF survey
estimates did not include data from smaller firms and therefore may not
be informative as to what small firm implementation costs may be.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See id.
    \41\ See id. at Survey page 12 (noting survey respondent
comments about the costs of implementing larger storage requirements
to log synchronization events) and 23 (recommending a requirement to
log only exceptions for a period of three years to reduce costs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Implementation costs would likely vary across firms based on their
current clock synchronization systems and procedures, their business
models and trading activity. Firms that already synchronize their
clocks to the 50 millisecond standard would likely incur much lower
implementation costs, whereas other firms with less tight
synchronization standards may incur relatively higher costs. As noted
above, FINRA is aware of third party clock synchronization software
products that could help firms, in particular smaller firms, reduce
costs relative to developing and maintaining their own programs.
    The survey results indicate that the average annual costs of
maintaining a 50 millisecond standard are anticipated to be
approximately $313,000 per firm and this represents a 31% increase over
current annual clock management costs. Based on these survey results,
FINRA estimates current annual clock management costs to be
approximately $239,000 per firm. Hence the anticipated increase in the
annual cost from the current standard to the proposed 50 millisecond
synchronization standard is expected to be approximately $74,000 per
firm. FINRA notes again, however, that to the extent the FIF survey
assumed a more than 3 year log retention period, its maintenance cost
estimates may be greater than the maintenance costs of this proposal,
which requires that synchronization logs be retained for three years.
    According to the FIF survey, implementation and maintenance costs
would increase significantly for synchronization standards below 50
milliseconds. For instance, survey respondents indicated that a 1
millisecond standard, recommended by some of the commenters on this
proposal, would cost over $1.1 million to implement and more than
$530,000 to annually maintain.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on its evaluation of the FIF Clock Offset Survey, as well as
the CAT NMS Plan's economic analysis of potential clock synchronization
requirements, FINRA believes that a 50 millisecond standard is the best
achievable standard at this time. Furthermore, to minimize undue cost
burdens, particularly for small or less automated firms, FINRA modified
the proposal as described above--specifically, FINRA narrowed the scope
of the proposal to apply only to NMS securities and OTC Equity
Securities, and FINRA is proposing a phased implementation that would
allow less automated firms up to 18 months to come into compliance. In
addition,

FINRA notes that the scope of this proposal would align with the scope
of the CAT NMS Plan that has been filed with the Commission. As such,
in the presence of an adopted CAT NMS plan, the costs associated with
this proposal are only associated with the timing of the obligation to
meet the proposed clock synchronization standard. Accordingly, FINRA
believes that costs incurred by firms to meet the proposed FINRA clock
synchronization would support the changes needed to meet any future
requirement imposed under CAT and therefore, should not result in
duplicative efforts.
C. Alternatives
    In considering how to best meet its regulatory objectives, FINRA
considered several alternatives to particular features of this proposed
rule change. For example, FINRA considered whether to impose less
costly 100 or 200 millisecond standards. For the reasons referenced in
part above, FINRA chose not to pursue these alternatives.
    FINRA's decision not to pursue these alternatives is based in part
on its own observations. The range of variance among market
participants' clocks may be up to twice the permitted synchronization
standard; for example, one participant's clocks may drift ahead of the
NIST clock by 50 milliseconds, while another's may drift behind by 50
milliseconds, meaning their clocks would be 100 milliseconds apart.
FINRA studied OATS data for a single trading day and found a large
number of events that occur within any single 100 millisecond window of
time. However, FINRA observed that the number of events within 200 or
400 millisecond windows--twice the possible alternative 100 and 200
millisecond standards--increased significantly. Departing from the 50
millisecond standard would therefore cause significantly greater
numbers of events to be recorded with less certainty and accuracy.
    In addition, FINRA notes that the FIF Clock Offset Survey supported
the proposed 50 millisecond standard, as opposed to a 100 or 200
millisecond standard. The survey asked respondents about possible
reduced burdens if FINRA were to adopt one of these alternative
standards in advance of tighter tolerances imposed as part of the CAT
NMS Plan. In response, survey respondents ``questioned the benefits of
an interim tolerance citing that any changes to the current clock
offset would require modifications to systems and processes.'' \43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See FIF Letter at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In developing this proposal, FINRA also considered suggestions by
commenters regarding different clock synchronization standards
depending on the type of market participants (e.g. tighter standard for
highly automated or HFT firms and less strict standard for other
firms). FINRA believes it is important to apply the same standard to
all computer-recorded events, regardless of firm size or activity type,
since the integrity of the audit trail relies on the ability to
accurately sequence all events for a given period of time, including
events generated by firms that do not engage in HFT. As discussed
above, FINRA believes that in light of the prevailing technology for
trading systems and clock synchronization, 50 milliseconds is the right
standard for all participants, and strikes a reasonable balance between
audit trail integrity and the costs of compliance.

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

    The proposed rule change was published for comment in Regulatory
Notice 14-47 (November 2014). Eight comments were received in response
to the Regulatory Notice. A copy of the Regulatory Notice is attached
as Exhibit 2a.\44\ Copies of the comment letters received in response
to the Regulatory Notice are attached as Exhibit 2c.\45\ The comments
are summarized above in Item A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ The Commission notes that all references to Exhibit 2a
refer to Exhibit 2a to the proposed rule change.
    \45\ The Commission notes that all references to Exhibit 2c
refer to Exhibit 2c to the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2016-005 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2016-005. 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 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-2016-005 and should be
submitted on or before March 17, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\46\
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-03960 Filed 2-24-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: August 2, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 147)]
[Notices]
[Page 45112-45113]
[DOCID:fr02au10-55]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9184-1; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2010-0403]

Draft Toxicological Review of Hexachloroethane: In Support of
Summary Information on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of peer review workshop.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is announcing that Versar, Inc., an EPA contractor for
external scientific peer review, will convene an independent panel of
experts and organize and conduct an external peer review workshop to
review the draft human health assessment titled, ``Toxicological Review
of Hexachloroethane: In Support of Summary Information on the
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)'' (EPA/635/R-09/007). The
draft assessment was prepared by the National Center for Environmental
Assessment (NCEA) within the EPA Office of Research and Development.
    EPA is releasing this draft assessment solely for the purpose of
pre-dissemination peer review under applicable information quality
guidelines. This draft assessment has not been formally disseminated by
EPA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any
Agency policy or determination.
    Versar, Inc., invites the public to register to attend this
workshop as observers. In addition, Versar, Inc., invites the public to
give brief oral comments and/or provide written comments at the
workshop regarding the draft assessment under review. Space is limited,
and reservations will be accepted on a first-come, first-served basis.
In preparing a final report, EPA will consider Versar, Inc.'s report of
the comments and recommendations from the external peer review workshop
and any written public comments that EPA receives in accordance with
this notice.

DATES: The peer review panel workshop on the draft assessment for
hexachloroethane will be held on September 21, 2010, beginning at 9
a.m. and ending at 4 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time. Registration will
begin at 8:30 a.m.

ADDRESSES: The draft ``Toxicological Review of Hexachloroethane: In
Support of Summary Information on the Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS)'' is available primarily via the Internet on the NCEA
home page under the Recent Additions and Publications menus at http://
www.epa.gov/ncea. A limited number of paper copies are available from
the Information Management Team (Address: Information Management Team,
National Center for Environmental Assessment [Mail Code: 8601P], U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile: 703-347-
8691). If you request a paper copy, please provide your name, mailing
address, and the draft assessment title.
    The peer review workshop on the draft hexachloroethane assessment
will be held at the Radisson Hotel Reagan National Airport, 2020
Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202. To attend the workshop,
register no later than September 15, 2010, via e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(subject line: Hexachloroethane Peer Review
Workshop), by phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, ext. 545, or toll free at 1-800-2-
VERSAR (1-800-283-7727), ask for Kathy Coon, the Hexachloroethane Peer
Review Workshop Coordinator, or by faxing a registration request to
703-642-6809 (please reference the ``Hexachloroethane Workshop'' and
include your name, title, affiliation, full address and contact
information). Space is limited, and reservations will be accepted on a
first-come, first-served basis. There will be a limited time at the
peer review workshop for comments from the public. Please inform
Versar, Inc., if you wish to make comments during the workshop.
    Information on Services for Individuals with Disabilities: EPA
welcomes public attendance at the ``Hexachloroethane Peer Review

Workshop'' and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
disabilities. Questions regarding access or services for individuals
with disabilities, should be directed to Versar, Inc., 6850 Versar
Center, Springfield, VA 22151; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(subject
line: Hexachloroethane Peer Review Workshop); phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
ext. 545, or toll free at 1-800-2-VERSAR (1-800-283-7727), ask for
Kathy Coon, the Hexachloroethane Peer Review Workshop Coordinator; fax:
703-642-6809 (please reference the Hexachloroethane Peer Review
Workshop and include your name, title, affiliation, full address and
contact information).
    Additional Information: For information on registration, access or
services for individuals with disabilities, or logistics for the
external peer review workshop, please contact Versar, Inc., 6850 Versar
Center, Springfield, VA 22151; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(subject
line: Hexachloroethane Peer Review Workshop); phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
ext. 545, or toll free at 1-800-2-VERSAR (1-800-283-7727), ask for
Kathy Coon, the Hexachloroethane Peer Review Workshop Coordinator; fax:
703-642-6809 (please reference the Hexachloroethane Peer Review
Workshop and include your name, title, affiliation, full address and
contact information).
    For information on the draft assessment, please contact, John
Cowden, National Center for Environmental Assessment (B243-01), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27709; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile: 919-541-
0245; or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Information about IRIS

    EPA's IRIS is a human health assessment program that evaluates
quantitative and qualitative risk information on effects that may
result from exposure to chemical substances found in the environment.
Through the IRIS program, EPA provides the highest quality science-
based human health assessments to support the Agency's regulatory
activities. The IRIS database contains information for more than 540
chemical substances that can be used to support the first two steps
(hazard identification and dose-response evaluation) of the risk
assessment process. When supported by available data, IRIS provides
oral reference doses (RfDs) and inhalation reference concentrations
(RfCs) for chronic noncancer health effects and cancer assessments.
Combined with specific exposure information, government and private
entities use IRIS to help characterize public health risks of chemical
substances in a site-specific situation and thereby support risk
management decisions designed to protect public health.

    Dated: July 28, 2010.
Rebecca Clark,
Acting Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment.
[FR Doc. 2010-18912 Filed 7-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1

Project No.: 0<IP_ADDRESS>2

DISTRIBUTION

Page _1_ of  __1_

Project Name: 304m – Coal Mining Detailed Study

TELEPHONE CALL RECORD

	  Outgoing Call

Date: 5/11/2007

Time: 10:00 am

Company Name: PA DEP, Moshannon District

Contact Name:   Mike Smith

Phone No.:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Name:  Ellie Ku Codding

GENERAL SUBJECT:  Basis for Manganese NPDES Permit Limits at Mines in
the Moshannon District:  Part 434 or Water-Quality Standards?

TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN

Friday, May 11, 2007 at 10 am, I spoke with Mr. Mike Smith, PA DEP
Moshannon District Mining Manager.  I asked Mr. Smith if he could
estimate how often NPDES permit limits for manganese were water-quality
based, instead of being based on the Part 434 monthly-average limit of 2
mg/L.  I told him that, from what we had seen in PA NPDES permits for
coal mines, monthly-average effluent limits were 1 mg/L, which must be
water-quality based.

Mr. Smith said that permit writers first apply BAT from Part 434, to
establish the least-stringent limit.  From there, they apply
water-quality based limits or TMDLs (for those streams with TMDLs).  He
estimated that roughly half of the NPDES permit limits were Part
434-based.  For example, the Part 434 limit applies most sites with
perpetual treatment that discharge to an acid-impaired stream, because
water-quality standards may not apply to acid-impaired streams.
Although many permit limits are water quality or TMDL based, Mr. Smith
stresses that the BAT limit for manganese is still restrictive for mines
discharging to streams that are of low quality.

We also discussed research regarding the toxicity of manganese.  Mr.
Smith agreed that most published work he has seen demonstrates no
effects of manganese on the typical chronic and acute toxicity tests,
such as for fathead minnows and ceriodaphnia.  However, anecdotally, Mr.
Ron Huey of PA DEP has observed deposits of manganese covering
streambeds.  Mr. Huey recommends a more thorough study be done to fully
study the effect on manganese on stream health, rather than focusing on
the toxicity of specific species.  For example, aquatic life that feed
on the bottom of the stream (“scum scrapers”) may be affected by
manganese coating stream beds.  Mr. Smith recommended contacting Mr. Bob
Ross, of the U.S.G.S. Research Center in Wellsboro, PA, to see if any
studies had been published (or at least considered) regarding entire
stream health and manganese.

Need to return call by         /         at/between         and
.	Signature:


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 12, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34943-34944]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14201]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC12-108-000.
    Applicants: Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC.
    Description: Application pursuant to Section 203 of Michigan
Electric Transmission Company, LLC.
    Filed Date: 6/5/12.
    Accession Number: 20120605-5071.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/12.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG12-74-000.
    Applicants: High Majestic Interconnection Services, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of High Majestic Interconnection Services, LLC.
    Filed Date: 6/5/12.
    Accession Number: 20120605-5090.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/12.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3859-004; ER11-3863-003; ER11-3861-003; ER11-
3864-004; ER11-3866-004; ER12-192-002; ER11-3867-004; ER11-3857-004.
    Applicants: Milford Power Company, LLC, MASSPOWER, Liberty Electric
Power, LLC, Lake Road Generating Company, L.P., Empire Generating Co,
LLC, ECP Energy I, LLC, EquiPower Resources Management, LLC, Dighton
Power, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of the ECP MBR Sellers.
    Filed Date: 6/5/12.
    Accession Number: 20120605-5068.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1823-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: 2009-2010 CWIP ROE Refund Report to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 6/5/12.
    Accession Number: 20120605-5005.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1942-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: J122 Filing to be effective 6/6/2012.
    Filed Date: 6/5/12.
    Accession Number: 20120605-5033.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1943-000.
    Applicants: DeWind Novus, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Succession Filing to be effective 5/4/2012.
    Filed Date: 6/5/12.
    Accession Number: 20120605-5054.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1944-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Ohio, Inc.
    Description: Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. submits tariff filing per
35.15: Cancel Reactive to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 6/5/12.
    Accession Number: 20120605-5082.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1945-000.
    Applicants: AEP Texas North Company.
    Description: AEP Texas North Company submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: TNC-Texas New Mexico Power Amd. 3 to IA to be
effective 5/7/2012.
    Filed Date: 6/5/12.
    Accession Number: 20120605-5083.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1946-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Beckjord, LLC.
    Description: Duke Energy Beckjord, LLC submits tariff filing per
35.1: MBR Filing to be effective 10/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 6/5/12.
    Accession Number: 20120605-5096.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1947-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Beckjord, LLC.
    Description: Duke Energy Beckjord, LLC submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: Reactive Filing to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 6/5/12.
    Accession Number: 20120605-5098.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1948-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Conesville, LLC.
    Description: Duke Energy Conesville, submits tariff filing per
35.1: MBR Filing to be effective 10/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 6/5/12.
    Accession Number: 20120605-5099.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1949-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Conesville, LLC.
    Description: Duke Energy Conesville, submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: Reactive Filing to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 6/5/12.
    Accession Number: 20120605-5100.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1950-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Texas, Inc.
    Description: Entergy Texas, Inc. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: ETEC Partial Req Agrmt 199 to be effective 8/
1/2012.
    Filed Date: 6/5/12.
    Accession Number: 20120605-5104.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1951-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Dicks Creek, LLC.
    Description: Duke Energy Dicks Creek, LLC submits tariff filing per
35.1: MBR Filing to be effective 10/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 6/5/12.
    Accession Number: 20120605-5106.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1952-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Texas, Inc.
    Description: Entergy Texas, Inc. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: ETEC Coordination Agrmt 200 to be effective
8/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 6/5/12.
    Accession Number: 20120605-5107.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1953-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Dicks Creek, LLC.
    Description: Duke Energy Dicks Creek, LLC submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: Reactive Filing to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 6/5/12.
    Accession Number: 20120605-5108.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1954-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Killen, LLC.
    Description: Duke Energy Killen, LLC submits tariff filing per
35.1: MBR Filing to be effective 10/2/2012.
    Filed Date: 6/5/12.
    Accession Number: 20120605-5111.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1955-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Killen, LLC.
    Description: Duke Energy Killen, LLC submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: Reactive Filing to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 6/5/12.
    Accession Number: 20120605-5112.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/12.

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

    Dated: June 5, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-14201 Filed 6-11-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P