[Federal Register: March 16, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 50)]
[Notices]
[Page 12584-12588]
[DOCID:fr16mr10-93]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61677; File No. SR-FINRA-2009-054]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified
by Amendment No. 1, To Extend Certain Regulation NMS Protections to
Quoting and Trading in the Market for OTC Equity Securities

March 9, 2010.
    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 August 7, 2009, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by FINRA. The proposed
rule change was subsequently amended by FINRA on March 1, 2010. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    FINRA is proposing Amendment No. 1 to SR-FINRA-2009-054, a proposed
rule change to adopt new FINRA Rules 6434 (Minimum Pricing Increment
for OTC Equity Securities), 6437 (Prohibition from Locking or Crossing
Quotations in OTC Equity Securities), 6450 (Restrictions on Access
Fees) and 6460 (Display of Customer Limit Orders). The text of the
proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web site at http://
www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA and at the Commission's
Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, FINRA included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item 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
Rule Filing History
    On August 7, 2009, FINRA filed with the SEC SR-FINRA-2009-054, a
proposed rule change to adopt new FINRA rules to extend certain
Regulation NMS protections to quoting and trading in over-the-counter
equity securities.\3\ On August 26, 2009, the Commission published for
comment the proposed rule change in the Federal Register and received
twelve comment letters.\4\ Based on comments received, FINRA is filing
this Amendment No. 1 to respond to the comments received and to propose
amendments, where appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60515 (August 17,
2009), 74 FR 43207 (August 26, 2009) (Notice of Filing File No. SR-
FINRA-2009-054) (``Proposing Release'').
    \4\ Letter from Ann L. Vlcek, Managing Director and Associate
General Counsel, Securities Industry and Financial Markets
Association, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, SEC, dated October
13, 2009 (``SIFMA''); Letter from Christopher Nagy, Managing
Director Order Strategy, TD Ameritrade, Inc., to Elizabeth M.
Murphy, Secretary, SEC, dated October 6, 2009 (``TD Ameritrade'');
Letters from R. Cromwell Coulson, Chief Executive Officer, Pink OTC
Markets Inc., to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, SEC, dated
September 23, 2009 (``Pink1'') and January 6, 2010 (``Pink2'');
Letter from Janet M. Kissane, Senior Vice President, Legal &
Corporate Secretary, NYSE Euronext, to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary,
SEC, dated September 23, 2009 (``ArcaEdge''); Letter from William
Assatly, Sr. Vice President, Trading, Mercator Associates, to
Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, SEC, dated September 16, 2009
(``Mercator''); Letter from Leonard J. Amoruso, General Counsel, and
Michael T. Carrao, Chief Compliance Officer, Knight Capital Group,
Inc., to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, SEC, dated September 16,
2009 (``Knight''); Letter from Elaine M. Kaven, Chief Compliance
Officer, StockCross Financial Services, Inc., to Florence H. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary, SEC, dated September 16, 2009 (``StockCross'');
Letters from Kimberly Unger, Executive Director, Security Traders
Association of New York, Inc., to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary,
SEC, dated September 14, 2009 (``STANY1) and September 16, 2009
(``STANY2''); Letter from Daniel Kanter, President, and Craig
Carlino, Chief Compliance Officer, Monroe Securities, Inc., to
Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, SEC, dated September 16, 2009
(``Monroe''); and Letter from Anonymous dated September 1, 2009.
(available at http://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-finra-2009-054/
finra2009054.shtml).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal
    As described in the Proposing Release, FINRA proposes to adopt
rules to: (1) Restrict sub-penny quoting; (2) restrict locked and
crossed markets; (3) implement a cap on access fees; and (4) require
the display of customer limit orders. FINRA believes that these
Regulation NMS principles, if applied to over-the-counter equity
securities (``OTC

Equity Securities''),\5\ would enhance market quality and investor
protections in this market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``OTC Equity Security'' means any non-exchange-listed
security and certain exchange-listed securities that do not
otherwise qualify for real-time trade reporting. See FINRA Rule
6420(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments to the Proposed Rule Change
Restriction on Access Fees
    Currently, FINRA Rule 6540(c), which applies only to the OTC
Bulletin Board (``OTCBB'') montage, requires that an alternative
trading system (``ATS'') \6\ and electronic communications network
(``ECN'') \7\ reflect non-subscriber access or post-transaction fees in
their posted quote. Consistent with Regulation NMS, FINRA proposed to
eliminate the OTCBB access fee display requirement and to, instead,
implement a cap on access fees in all OTC Equity Securities, wherever
displayed, that exceed or accumulate to more than the following limits:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Rule 300(a) of Regulation ATS under the Act.
    \7\ See Rule 600(b)(23) of the Act (defining ``electronic
communications network'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    a. If the price of the quotation is $1.00 or more, the fee or fees
cannot exceed or accumulate to more than $0.003 per share; or
    b. If the price of the quotation is less than $1.00, the fee or
fees cannot exceed or accumulate to more than 0.3% of the quotation
price per share.
Also consistent with Regulation NMS, the proposal would explicitly
permit market makers to charge access fees.
    While some commenters generally expressed support for the proposal
to impose a cap on access fees,\8\ most commenters opposed it.\9\
Several commenters expressed concern that the proposal would lead to a
reduction in the transparency of over-the-counter (``OTC'') quotations
by permitting market participants to charge an access fee without
displaying it in the quoted price, making it difficult for investors to
compare prices offered by different broker-dealers across different
marketplaces.\10\ Commenters also expressed concern that an access fee
cap (without a corresponding display requirement) would result in a
shift in market structure that harms investors by leading to an
increase in transaction costs.\11\ Some commenters also argued that the
proposal would unfairly favor the ATS business model, result in an
increase in the incidence of locked and cross markets, and lead to an
increase in gaming practices.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See ArcaEdge and TD Ameritrade.
    \9\ See Knight, Mercator, Pink1, SIFMA, STANY2 and StockCross.
    \10\ See e.g., Knight, Pink1 and SIFMA.
    \11\ See e.g., Mercator and Pink1.
    \12\ See e.g., Knight, Pink1 and SIFMA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters noted that the proposed access fee cap of 0.3% of the
quotation price per share for securities priced under $1.00 may result
in the assessment of an undisclosed access fee that is greater than the
price increment, which may provide an incentive for gaming activity and
``access fee trading.'' \13\ One commenter presented a scenario that
would result in ``access fee trading'' through crossing quotes across
inter-dealer quotation systems.\14\ In the example, the inside market
for a stock quoted on the OTCBB is $.8999 x $.90 (the relevant access
fee cap under the original proposal would have been $.0027 per share).
Rather than take the offering at $.90, the commenter states that a
market maker could cross the market in the Pink Sheets by posting a bid
of $.9001. If the market maker's bid is hit in the Pink Sheets, it will
be able to buy the stock at $.9001 and then immediately sell to the
OTCBB bid at $.8999. The commenter notes that, although the market
maker sold the stock at a slight loss of $.0002 per share, the access
fee of $.0027 per share provided an instant, virtually riskless
profit.\15\ Accordingly, certain commenters argued that the appropriate
access fee cap should never be greater than 30% of the relevant pricing
increment, which would ensure that the access fee is always lower than
the relevant increment.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See generally ArcaEdge, STANY2 and Pink1. As an example,
Pink noted that, using the proposed formula, the access fee cap on a
$0.90 security would be $0.0027 while the pricing increment would be
$0.0001.
    \14\ See Knight.
    \15\ See Knight.
    \16\ See ArcaEdge, Pink1 and STANY2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA has considered the comments opposing the elimination of the
access fee display requirement in conjunction with the establishment of
an access fee cap, and continues to believe that the proposal strikes
the appropriate balance between addressing the practical difficulties
of incorporating access fees in published quotes and the need to
curtail potentially excessive undisclosed access fees. FINRA notes that
similar concerns and debate were raised in the context of the adoption
of Regulation NMS, to which the Commission concluded that a uniform fee
limitation of $0.003 per share is the fairest and most appropriate
resolution of the access fee issue.\17\ FINRA believes that the same
holds true in this context as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005) (order adopting rules under
Regulation NMS, SEC File No. S7-10-04).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, in light of the lower price points for securities in the
OTC market, and in response to commenters' concerns regarding potential
gaming activities, FINRA believes that an adjustment to the proposed
access fee cap calculation method is appropriate. FINRA is proposing a
revised method of calculating the access fee for securities priced
under $1.00 to ensure that the access fee is always less than the
relevant quotation increment. FINRA is proposing that the cap on access
fees for securities priced under $1.00 would be the lesser of: (a) 0.3%
of the published quotation price on a per share basis, or (b) 30% of
the relevant minimum pricing increment applicable to the display of the
quotation. The revised proposal would provide that:
    A member shall not impose, nor permit to be imposed, non-subscriber
access or post-transaction fees against its published quotation in any
OTC Equity Security that exceeds or accumulates to more than:
    (a) $0.003 per share, if the published quotation is priced equal to
or greater than $1.00; or
    (b) the lesser of 0.3% of the published quotation price on a per
share basis or 30% of the minimum pricing increment under Rule 6434
relevant to the display of the quotation on a per share basis if the
published quotation is less than $1.00.
    FINRA believes that this approach would ensure that a permissible
access fee would always be smaller than the pricing increment (which
would address concerns regarding gaming). If the security is priced at
$1.00 or more, the access fee cap would continue to be $0.003 per
share.
Sub-Penny Restrictions
    Currently there are no restrictions in place for quotations in
subpenny increments in the OTC marketplace. Subpenny increments have
been associated with certain market abuses, including stepping ahead of
standing limit orders for an economically insignificant amount.
Subpenny increments also have been associated with added difficulty for
broker-dealers in meeting certain regulatory obligations by increasing
the incidence of so-called ``flickering'' quotes. Thus, FINRA has
proposed restrictions on the display of quotations and orders in sub-
penny increments for OTC Equity Securities.
    Specifically, FINRA proposed to prohibit members from displaying,
ranking or accepting from others a bid, offer, order, or indication of
interest in

OTC Equity Securities in an increment smaller than:
--$0.01 if the bid or offer, order, or indication of interest is priced
$1.00 or greater per share,
--$0.0001 if the bid or offer, order, or indication of interest is
priced below $1.00 and equal to or greater than $0.01 per share, and
--$0.000001 if the bid or offer, order or indication of interest is
priced less than $0.01 per share.

    Commenters generally favored a restriction on quoting in subpenny
increments, though some argued for modifications to the increments
proposed. Commenters also generally believed that the proposal should
go further by prohibiting subpenny quotations in increments of more
than four decimal places.\18\ Certain commenters also proposed specific
alternative quotation increments for the OTC market.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See ArcaEdge and Pink1.
    \19\ See ArcaEdge and Pink1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA has considered commenters' concerns and is proposing a
modification to the tiers originally proposed. Specifically, FINRA is
proposing to reduce the minimum pricing increment from $0.000001 to
$0.0001 for all securities priced under $1.00. However, with respect to
securities priced less than $0.0001, members would be permitted to rank
or accept (but not display) orders and indications of interest in an
increment of $0.000001 or greater so as not to effectively eliminate
trading in such securities. For example, a member would be permitted to
rank or accept an order of $.000089, but would not be permitted to
display the order at such increments. A member would not be permitted
to rank or accept an order of $.00059, because it has an increment of
$.00001 and is not priced less than $.0001. The proposed exception to
allow the ranking and acceptance of orders in smaller increments for
securities priced below $.0001 per share is in recognition of the fact
that some OTC Equity Securities trade at prices below $.0001 and having
a restriction on increments below that amount would in effect eliminate
trading of those securities. The proposal for securities priced $1.00
or greater would continue to be a penny. Therefore the revised proposal
would provide that:
    No member shall display, rank, or accept a bid or offer, an order,
or an indication of interest in any OTC Equity Security priced in an
increment:
    (1) Smaller than $0.01 if that bid or offer, order or indication of
interest is priced equal to or greater than $1.00 per share; and
    (2) Smaller than $0.0001 if that bid or offer, order or indication
of interest is priced less than $1.00 per share except, where an order
or indication of interest is priced less than $0.0001, a member may
rank or accept (but not display) such order or indication of interest
in an increment of $0.000001 or greater.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ FINRA also is clarifying that such orders priced less than
$.0001 are not required to be displayed pursuant to proposed Rule
6460 (Display of Customer Limit Orders).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA believes that most, if not all, systems cannot accommodate
the display of pricing increments smaller than four decimal places and
that increasing the minimum pricing increment to $0.0001 would further
promote and solidify uniformity in the OTC market at these price
levels.
Prohibition on Locking and Crossing Quotations
    FINRA rules do not currently prohibit locking or crossing
quotations in OTC Equity Securities. FINRA believes that locked and
crossed markets can cause confusion among investors concerning the
trading interest in a stock and, therefore, FINRA believes that
restricting the practice of submitting locking or crossing quotations
(and requiring reconciliation of locked/crossed quotes) will enhance
the usefulness of quotation information for OTC Equity Securities.
Thus, FINRA proposed requiring members to implement policies and
procedures that reasonably avoid the display of, or engaging in a
pattern or practice of displaying, locking or crossing quotations in
any OTC Equity Security within the same inter-dealer quotation system.
    Commenters generally supported the adoption of a rule reasonably
designed to prohibit locked and crossed markets, though commenters
preferred that the prohibition apply across interdealer quotation
systems.\21\ One commenter expressed concern that the proposed rule
takes a ``fragmented'' approach and should, instead, require members to
canvas multiple venues for the purpose of avoiding locking/crossing the
market in a similar manner as is currently required to meet best
execution obligations.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See e.g., ArcaEdge, Pink1 and TD Ameritrade.
    \22\ See Pink1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As FINRA stated in the Proposing Release, because there currently
is no mandated consolidated quotation dissemination mechanism for OTC
Equity Securities (as exists for NMS stocks), the proposed rule would
only restrict locking and crossing quotations within inter-dealer
quotation systems. FINRA continues to believe that, at the present
time, the lock/cross rule can only reasonably be made to impose
restrictions on locking and crossing quotations within, but not across,
interdealer quotations systems due to the lack of a widely accessible,
consolidated national best bid and offer for OTC Equity Securities.
FINRA notes, however, that FINRA has proposed a rule that would require
members to submit all quotation information in OTC Equity Securities to
FINRA, and FINRA would, in turn, disseminate a best bid and offer as
part of the Level 1 data feed entitlement.\23\ If this proposed
quotation consolidation facility is approved, FINRA believes that it
would then be reasonable to propose that members must avoid locking and
crossing across interdealer quotation systems. Thus, FINRA does not
believe that any amendments to the proposed rule addressing locked and
crossed quotations are warranted at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60999 (November 13,
2009), 74 FR 61183 (November 23, 2009). (Notice of Filing File No.
SR-FINRA-2009-077; Proposed Rule Change to Restructure Quotation
Collection and Dissemination for OTC Equity Securities).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Limit Order Display
    FINRA proposed requiring market makers displaying a priced
quotation in a security to immediately display customer limit orders
received where such order: (1) improves the price of the bid or offer
displayed by the market maker, or (2) improves the size of its bid or
offer by more than a de minimis amount where it is the best bid or
offer in the interdealer quotation system where the market maker is
quoting. Regulation NMS includes several exceptions from its limit
order display requirements, which generally also would apply to the
proposed limit order display rule for OTC Equity Securities.
    Commenters generally supported a display requirement for limit
orders but requested certain clarifications and modifications. For
example, commenters request that the rule permit market makers to
retain discretion as to the size displayed because small orders are
more likely to be executed than large ones.\24\ Certain commenters also
argued that market makers should not be required to display limit
orders in thinly traded securities, but that these orders should be
excepted for the same reason block orders are excepted (i.e., market
impact).\25\ One commenter expressed concern that requiring automatic
display prevents market makers from

exercising discretion to handle the order in the best possible manner,
which will disadvantage retail customers.\26\ One commenter believed
that the proposal should be amended to require the display in an
interdealer quotation system of all limit orders in OTC Equity
Securities (unless immediately executed by the member or transmitted to
another firm that would display such order in an interdealer quotation
system) and should be expanded to include debt securities.\27\
Commenters asserted that any automatic limit order display size
requirement should be based on the current OTCBB tier sizes, and
provide members with discretion above the size of the tier.\28\
Commenters argued that the proposed definition of ``block size'' in the
context of the exception to the display requirement still would require
display of orders at sizes that may disadvantage the customer.\29\
Therefore, these commenters believed that members should be required to
display only a portion of the order equal to the minimum quote size.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Pink1 and STANY2.
    \25\ See Mercator, Pink1 and STANY2.
    \26\ See Pink1.
    \27\ See Pink2.
    \28\ See Pink1.
    \29\ See Knight and SIFMA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA appreciates the issues raised by commenters regarding the
possible impact of limit order display on OTC Equity Securities in
general and thinly traded OTC Equity Securities in particular. We
confirm that the proposed limit order display rule would not require
display of customer orders that would result in a violation of the
tiers prescribed in FINRA Rule 6450 (Minimum Quotation Size
Requirements For OTC Equity Securities).\30\ FINRA is proposing a new
exception for limit orders less than $0.0001, consistent with the
changes made to proposed FINRA Rule 6434 prohibiting the display of a
bid or offer, order, or indication of interest in any OTC Equity
Security priced less than $0.0001 per share.\31\ However, FINRA does
not believe that any additional modifications to the proposed rule are
appropriate, including with respect to comments that market makers
should retain discretion over display of the size of a customer's limit
order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ If a member is already displaying a quotation at or above
the minimum quotation size, then the displayed size must be
increased to reflect the full size of any customer limit order (if
the limit order size represents more than a de minimis amount).
    \31\ See supra note 20 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA notes that, where the member believes that a customer would
be best served by not displaying the full size of a limit order, the
member is free to obtain the customer's consent to refrain from
displaying such customer's order as is permitted by a proposed
exception to the limit order display provision. FINRA is not persuaded
that the suggested more volatile nature of OTC Equity Securities in
general (or of any subset of especially thinly traded OTC Equity
Securities) should permit a member independently to determine to
withhold display of the full size of a customer limit order. Finally,
FINRA does not agree that the proposed definition of ``block size''
should be modified. As stated in the Proposing Release, the proposed
definition of ``block size'' is consistent with the existing large
order size exception under IM-2110-2 (Trading Ahead of Customer Limit
Order) and we believe it is appropriate that large orders be defined
consistently across both rule sets.\32\ Furthermore, if a member
believes that full display of a limit order that does not meet the
definition of ``block size'' would disadvantage the customer, the
member may obtain that customer's consent to refrain from display of
the full size. As stated in the Proposing Release, FINRA believes that
extending limit order display requirements to OTC Equity Securities
will improve transparency in the OTC equity market and will advance the
goal of the public availability of quotation information, as well as
fair competition, market efficiency, best execution and
disintermediation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ FINRA filed proposed rule change SR-FINRA-2009-090 to adopt
NASD IM-2110-2 (Trading Ahead of Customer Limit Order) and NASD Rule
2111 (Trading Ahead of Customer Market Orders) with significant
changes in the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook as new FINRA Rule 5320
(Prohibition Against Trading Ahead of Customer Orders). However,
FINRA is not proposing changes to the definition of ``large order.''
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61168 (December 15, 2009),
74 FR 68084 (December 22, 2009) (Notice of Filing File No. SR-FINRA-
2009-090).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the recommendation that all customer limit orders
in OTC Equity Securities be displayed, irrespective of whether the firm
that receives the order is already quoting the security, FINRA
continues to believe that the appropriate conditions for the trigger of
an obligation to display a customer limit order is where a market maker
is already displaying a priced quotation in an interdealer quotation
system in the same security (unless an exception applies). Finally, the
changes recommended by the commenter to expand the limit order display
requirements to debt securities are outside the scope of the proposed
changes that are part of this rule filing and therefore, FINRA is not
responding to these recommendations specifically herein. FINRA will
review and analyze these recommendations in the same manner in which it
would consider any requests for rulemaking, and, based on such review
and analysis, will determine whether further action on these
recommendations is appropriate.
    As stated in the Proposing Release, because the proposed new rules
provide for significant regulatory changes, FINRA plans to implement
the requirements in two phases to minimize the impact on firms. Phase
one would implement sub-penny quoting restrictions, an access fee cap
and restrictions on locked and crossed markets. Phase two would
implement customer limit order display requirements. FINRA will
announce the implementation dates for the proposed rule change in a
Regulatory Notice to be published no later than 90 days following
Commission approval. The implementation date of Phase one will be at
least 120 days but no more than 365 days from the date of Commission
approval and Phase two will be at least 90 days following the
implementation of Phase one, but no more than 365 days from the date of
Commission approval.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\33\ which requires that
FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative
acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in
regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to,
and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA further believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of 15A(b)(11) of the Act,\34\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must govern the form and content of
quotations relating to securities sold otherwise than on a national
securities exchange and require that such rules relating to quotations
shall be designed to produce fair and informative quotations, to
prevent fictitious or misleading quotations, and to promote orderly
procedures for collecting, distributing, and publishing quotations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA is proposing to: (1) Restrict sub-penny quoting; (2) restrict
locked and crossed markets; (3) implement a cap on access fees; and (4)
require the

display of customer limit orders. FINRA believes that the proposed
restrictions on sub-penny quoting will promote greater price
transparency and consistency, reduce the potential harms associated
with sub-penny quoting in OTC equity securities and improve the depth
and liquidity of this market.
    FINRA believes that locked and crossed markets can cause confusion
among investors concerning trading interest in a stock and that
restricting the practice of submitting locking or crossing quotations
will enhance the usefulness of quotation information in the over-the-
counter market, facilitate more fair and orderly markets and support
market efficiency.
    Where wide disparities in access fees are permitted, the prices of
quotations are less useful and accurate. Therefore, FINRA believes that
a cap on access fees would improve the usefulness and accuracy of
quotations and address the potential distortions caused by substantial,
disparate fees. Finally, FINRA believes that applying limit order
display requirements to OTC Equity Securities would improve
transparency in the OTC equity market and advance the goal of the
public availability of quotation information, as well as fair
competition, market efficiency, best execution and disintermediation.
    FINRA believes that the proposed extension of the specified
Regulation NMS protections to quoting and trading in OTC Equity
Securities will prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices
in this market, promote just and equitable principles of trade, and
protect investors and the public interest.

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.

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

    Written comments on the proposed rule change were solicited by the
Commission in response to the publication of SR-FINRA-2009-054, which
proposed new rules to: (1) Restrict sub-penny quoting; (2) restrict
locked and crossed markets; (3) implement a cap on access fees; and (4)
require the display of customer limit orders.\35\ The Commission
received twelve comment letters.\36\ The comments are summarized above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See Proposing Release.
    \36\ See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 self-regulatory organization 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-FINRA-2009-054 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2009-054. 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 Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between
the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make publicly
available. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2009-
054 and should be submitted on or before April 6, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-5648 Filed 3-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 6, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 192)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 51246-51249]
[DOCID:fr06oc09-14]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2009-0751-200920; FRL-8965-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and
Designations of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; North
Carolina: Hickory-Morganton-Lenoir; Determination of Attaining Data for
the 1997 Fine Particulate Matter Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to determine that the Hickory-Morganton-
Lenoir, North Carolina, (hereafter referred to as ``Hickory, North
Carolina'') nonattainment area for the 1997 fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) has
attained the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS. This proposed determination is based upon three years of
complete quality assured, quality controlled, and certified ambient air
monitoring data showing that this area has monitored attainment of the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS for the years of 2006-2008. In addition,
monitoring data thus far available, but not yet certified, in the EPA
Air Quality System (AQS) database for 2009 show that this area
continues to meet the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. If this proposed
determination is made final, the requirement for the State of North
Carolina to submit an attainment demonstration and associated
reasonably available control measures (RACM), a reasonable further
progress (RFP) plan, contingency measures, and other planning State
Implementation Plans (SIPs) related to attainment of the standard for
the Hickory, North Carolina, PM2.5 nonattainment area, shall
be suspended. This requirement would remain suspended as long as this
area continues to meet the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before November 5, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2009-0751 by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2009-0751,'' Regulatory Development Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation.
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2009-0751. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit through http://www.regulations.gov
or by e-mail information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous
access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the
EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joel Huey, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Huey may be reached by
phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What Action Is EPA Taking?
II. What Is the Effect of This Action?
III. What Is the Background for This Action?
IV. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Relevant Air Quality Data?
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Action Is EPA Taking?

    EPA is proposing to determine that the Hickory, North Carolina,
PM2.5 nonattainment area has attained the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS. This determination is based upon complete
quality assured, quality controlled, and certified ambient air
monitoring data for the years 2006-2008 showing that the area has
monitored attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition,
quality controlled and quality assured monitoring data thus far
available, but not yet certified, in the EPA AQS database for 2009,
show that this area continues to meet the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.

II. What Is the Effect of This Action?

    If this determination is made final, under the provisions of EPA's
PM2.5 implementation rule (see 40 CFR 51.1004(c)), the
requirement for the State of North Carolina to submit an attainment
demonstration and associated RACM, RFP plan, contingency measures, and
any other planning SIPs related to attainment of the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS for the Hickory, North Carolina,
PM2.5 nonattainment area, shall be suspended. This
requirement would remain suspended as long as this area continues to
meet the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    As further discussed below, the proposed determination for the
Hickory, North Carolina, PM2.5 nonattainment area would: (1) Suspend
the requirement to submit an attainment demonstration and associated
RACM (including reasonably available control technologies), RFP plan,
contingency measures, and any other planning SIPs related to attainment
of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS; (2) continue until such time, if
any, that EPA subsequently determines that the area has violated the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS; (3) be separate from, and not influence or
otherwise affect, any future designation determination or requirements
for the Hickory, North Carolina, area based on the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS; and (4) remain in effect regardless of whether
EPA designates this area as a nonattainment area for purposes of the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Furthermore, as described below, any

such final determination would not be equivalent to the redesignation
of the area to attainment based on the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    If this rulemaking is finalized and EPA subsequently determines,
after notice-and-comment rulemaking in the Federal Register, that the
area has violated the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, the basis for the
suspension of the specific requirements, set forth at 40 CFR
51.1004(c), would no longer exist, and the area would thereafter have
to address pertinent requirements.
    The determination that EPA proposes with this Federal Register
notice is not equivalent to a redesignation of the area to attainment.
This proposed action, if finalized, would not constitute a
redesignation to attainment under section 107(d)(3) of the Clean Air
Act (CAA) because we would not yet have an approved maintenance plan
for the area as required under section 175A of the CAA nor a
determination that the area has met the other requirements for
redesignation. The designation status of the area would remain
nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS until such time as
EPA determines that it meets the CAA requirements for redesignation to
attainment.
    This proposed action, if finalized, is limited to a determination
that the Hickory, North Carolina, PM2.5 nonattainment area
has attained the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. The 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS became effective on July 18, 1997 (62 FR 36852), and are set
forth at 40 CFR 50.7. The 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, which became
effective on December 18, 2006 (71 FR 61144), are set forth at 40 CFR
50.13. EPA is currently in the process of making designation
determinations, as required by CAA section 107(d)(1), for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA has not made any designation determination
for the Hickory, North Carolina, area based on the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. This proposed determination, and any final
determination, will have no effect on, and is not related to, any
future designation determination that EPA may make based on the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS for the Hickory, North Carolina, area.
Conversely, any future designation determination of the Hickory, North
Carolina, area, based on the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, will not have
any effect on the determination proposed by this notice.
    If this proposed determination is made final and the Hickory, North
Carolina, area continues to demonstrate attainment with the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS, the requirement for the State of North Carolina
to submit for the Hickory, North Carolina, PM2.5
nonattainment area an attainment demonstration and associated RACM, RFP
plan, contingency measures, and any other planning SIPs related to
attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS will remain suspended
regardless of whether EPA designates this area as a nonattainment area
for purposes of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Once the area is
designated for the 2006 NAAQS, it will have to meet all applicable
requirements for that designation.

III. What Is the Background for This Action?

    On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 36852), EPA established a health-based
PM2.5 NAAQS at 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/
m\3\) based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5
concentrations, and a twenty-four hour standard of 65 [micro]g/m\3\
based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour
concentrations. EPA established the standards based on significant
evidence and numerous health studies demonstrating that serious health
effects are associated with exposure to particulate matter. The process
for designating areas following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS
is contained in section 107(d)(1) of the CAA. EPA and State air quality
agencies initiated the monitoring process for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS in 1999 and began operating all air quality monitors by January
2001. On January 5, 2005, EPA published its air quality designations
and classifications for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS based upon air
quality monitoring data from those monitors for calendar years 2001-
2003 (70 FR 944). These designations became effective on April 5, 2005.
The Hickory, North Carolina, area is composed of Catawba County, North
Carolina, and was designated nonattainment for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS (see 40 CFR part 81).

IV. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Relevant Air Quality Data?

    EPA has reviewed the ambient air monitoring data for
PM2.5, consistent with the requirements contained in 40 CFR
part 50, as recorded in the EPA AQS database for the Hickory, North
Carolina, PM2.5 nonattainment area. On the basis of that
review, EPA has concluded that this area attained the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS during the 2006-2008 monitoring period. Under
EPA regulations at 40 CFR 50.7:
    (1) The annual primary and secondary PM2.5 standards are
met when the annual arithmetic mean concentration, as determined in
accordance with 40 CFR Part 50, Appendix N, is less than or equal to
15.0 [micro]g/m\3\.
    (2) The 24-hour primary and secondary PM2.5 standards
are met when the 98th percentile 24-hour concentration, as determined
in accordance with 40 CFR Part 50, Appendix N, is less than or equal to
65 [micro]g/m\3\.
    Table 1 shows the design values (the metrics calculated in
accordance with 40 CFR part 50, appendix N, for determining compliance
with the NAAQS) for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS for the
Hickory, North Carolina, nonattainment area monitors for the years
2006-2008. Table 2 shows the design values for the 1997 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS for these same monitors and for the same 3-year
period.

               Table 1--Design Value for Counties in the Hickory, North Carolina Nonattainment Area for 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS--Annual Standard
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                2006-2008 design
                      Location                            AQS site ID        2006 average        2007 average        2008 average            value
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catawba County......................................        37-035-0004              15.163              14.592              12.806                14.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

               Table 2--Design Value for Counties in the Hickory, North Carolina Nonattainment Area for 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS--24-Hour Standard
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               2006 98th           2007 98th           2008 98th       2006-2008 design
                      Location                            AQS site ID         percentile          percentile          percentile             value
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catawba County......................................        37-035-0004                32.9                30.7                25.2                  30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's review of these data indicates that the Hickory, North
Carolina, nonattainment area has met and continues to meet the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues
discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before
taking final action.

V. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to determine that the Hickory, North Carolina,
nonattainment area for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS has attained the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS based on 2006-2008 monitoring data. As
provided in 40 CFR 51.1004(c), if EPA finalizes this determination, it
will suspend the requirement for the State of North Carolina to submit
for this area an attainment demonstration and associated RACM, RFP
plan, contingency measures, and any other planning SIPs related to
attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS as long as the area
continues to attain the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action proposes to make a determination based on air quality
data, and would, if finalized, result in the suspension of certain
Federal requirements. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications, as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Particulate matter.

A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. E9-24059 Filed 10-5-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 4, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 831]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31842]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL17-25-000]

Dayton Power and Light Company AES Ohio Generation, LLC; Notice
of Institution of Section 206 Proceeding and Refund Effective Date

    On December 21, 2016, the Commission issued an order in Docket No.
EL17-25-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16
U.S.C. 824e (2012), instituting an investigation into whether the
Revised Reactive Rate Schedule of Dayton Power and Light Company may be
unjust and unreasonable. Dayton Power and Light Company, et al., 157
FERC ] 61,231 (2016).
    The refund effective date in Docket No. EL17-25-000, established
pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication
of this notice in the Federal Register.
    Any interested person desiring to be heard in Docket No. EL17-25-
000 must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as
appropriate, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rule 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214, within 21
days of the date of issuance of the order.

    Dated: December 27, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-31842 Filed 1-3-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 57 (Wednesday, March 25, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15834-15838]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06716]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74538; File No. SR-MIAX-2015-22]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change by Miami International Securities Exchange LLC To
Amend Its Fee Schedule

March 19, 2015.
    Pursuant to the provisions of 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 March 12, 2015, Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC (``MIAX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared
by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Options Fee
Schedule.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.miaxoptions.com/filter/wotitle/rule_filing, at
MIAX'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 Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed

any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these
statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below.
The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C
below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to make several
changes to the Member and non-Member testing and certification fees.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to: (i) Change the Member and non-
Member Application Programming Interface (``API'') Testing and
Certification Fees from a one-time fee to a per API and per test fee;
(ii) increase the API Testing and Certification Fees for non-Members by
$200; (ii) [sic] change the Member Network Testing and Certification
fee from a one-time per firm fee to a per connection and per test fee;
(iii) [sic] change the non-Member Network Testing and Certification fee
from a one-time per connection fee to a per connection and per test
fee; (iv) [sic] increase the non-Member Network Testing and
Certification Fee by $200; and (v) [sic] modify the name of the Network
Testing and Certification Fee.
API Testing and Certification Fees
    An API makes it possible for Member and non-Member software to
communicate with Exchange software applications, and is subject to
Member and non-Member testing with, and certification by, the Exchange.
API testing and certification includes testing all available order
types, new order entry, order management, order throughput and mass
order cancellation, and also includes testing of all available quote
types, quote throughput, quote management and cancellation, risk
management settings and triggers, and confirmation of quotes within the
Exchange's trading engines.
    The Exchange currently assesses a one-time API Testing and
Certification Fee to Members and non-Members. Electronic Exchange
Members (``EEMs'') \3\ are assessed a one-time API Testing and
Certification Fee of $1,000. Market Makers \4\ are assessed a one-time
API Testing and Certification Fee of $2,500. Non-Members are assessed a
one-time API Testing and Certification Fee of $1,000. The fee
represents the costs incurred by the Exchange as it works with each
Member or non-Member while testing and certifying that the Member's
software systems communicate properly with the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``Electronic Exchange Member'' means the holder of
a Trading Permit who is not a Market Maker. Electronic Exchange
Members are deemed ``members'' under the Exchange Act. See Exchange
Rule 100.
    \4\ The term ``Market Makers'' refers to ``Lead Market Makers'',
``Primary Lead Market Makers'' and ``Registered Market Makers''
collectively. See Exchange Rule 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to modify the API Testing and Certification
Fees from a one-time fee to a per API and per test fee in order to
compensate for the additional costs associated with testing and
certifying Members and non-Members multiple times for multiple
connections. Member and Non-Member API Testing and Certification Fees
will be assessed initially per API and each time API testing and
certification is required due to a change to existing API either
initiated by the Member/non-Member, or in response to a new or modified
API offered but not mandated by the Exchange. API Testing and
Certification Fees will not be assessed in situations where the
Exchange requires API testing and certification due to a change
mandated by the Exchange. The Exchange believes that it is reasonable
not to charge Testing and Certification Fees in such situations because
it involves an Exchange mandated testing and certification.
    The Member API Testing and Certification Fees will remain unchanged
from the current $1,000 for EEMs and $2,500 for Market Makers.
    The Exchange proposes to increase the non-Member API Testing and
Certification Fees from $1,000 to $1,200 for Third Party Vendors,\5\
Service Bureaus,\6\ and other non-Members. It has been MIAX's
experience that Member testing takes less time than non-Member testing
because Members have more experience testing these systems with the
Exchange; generally fewer questions and issues arise during the testing
and certification process. Also, because third party vendors and
Service Bureaus are redistributing data and reselling services to other
Members and market participants the number and types of scenarios that
need to be tested are more numerous and complex than those tested and
certified for a single Member. Therefore, the Exchange believes that it
is reasonable to charge non-Members more for API testing and
certification than Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Third Party Vendors are subscribers of MIAX's market and
other data feeds, which they in turn use for redistribution
purposes. Third party vendors do not provide connectivity and
therefore are not subject to Network testing and certification. See
Fee Schedule note 20.
    \6\ A Service Bureau is a technology provider that offers and
supplies technology and technology services to a trading firm that
does not have its own proprietary system. The technology and
technology services supplied by Service Bureaus include both
software applications and connectivity, thus Service Bureaus are
subject to both API testing and certification and network testing
and certification. See Fee Schedule note 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that these changes will result in an increase to
the API Testing and Certification Fees charged to Members and non-
Members for those Members and non-Members that need testing and
certification beyond the initial one. For example, Market Maker
(``MM1'') conducts API testing and certification initially upon
connection to the Exchange, and then two more times during the year
each time it upgrades its software. Currently, MM1 would be assessed
$2,500 in API Testing and Certification Fees for the three testing and
certifications that were conducted by Exchange staff. As proposed, MM1
would be assessed $7,500 in API Testing and Certification Fees for the
three testing and certifications that were conducted by Exchange staff.
Example 2, a Third Party Vendor (``V1'') conducts API testing and
certification initially upon connection to the Exchange for (2) API,
and then two more times during the year each time it upgrades its
software. Currently, V1 would be assessed $2,000 in API Testing and
Certification Fees for the four testing and certifications that were
conducted by Exchange staff. As proposed, V1 would be assessed $4,800
in API Testing and Certification Fees for the four testing and
certifications that were conducted by Exchange staff. The proposed fee
changes more closely represent the costs incurred by the Exchange as it
works with each Member or non-Member while testing and certifying that
the Member's or non-Member's software systems communicate properly with
the Exchange.
Network Testing and Certification Fees
    Network Testing and Certification Fees are charged to recoup
installation and support costs incurred by the Exchange as it works
with each Member and non-Member to make sure there are appropriate
electronic connections with the Exchange's system. The Exchange
currently assesses Members a one-time Network Testing and Certification
Fee of $1,000 per Member firm for a one gigabit connection, and $4,000
per Member firm for a ten gigabit connection. Members are currently not
charged a Network Testing and Certification Fee for any additional
connections and tests. The Exchange currently assesses non-Members a
one-

time Network Testing and Certification Fee of $1,000 per Non-Member for
a one gigabit connection, and $4,000 per Non-Member for a ten gigabit
connection. In contrast to Members, non-Members are charged a Network
Testing and Certification Fee for each additional connection, but not
additional tests.
    The Exchange proposes to modify the Member Network Testing and
Certification Fee from a one-time fee per firm to a per connection and
per test fee in order to compensate for the additional costs associated
with testing and certifying Members multiple times. The Exchange also
proposes to modify the non-Member Network Testing and Certification Fee
from a one-time fee per connection to a per connection and per test
fee. Member and non-Member Network Testing and Certification Fees will
be assessed initially per connection, and each time testing and
certification is required due to a change to existing network
connectivity, either initiated by the Member/non-Member or in response
to new or modified network connectivity offered but not mandated by the
Exchange.\7\ Network Connectivity Testing and Certification Fees will
not be assessed in situations where the Exchange requires network
connectivity testing and certification due to a change or changes
mandated by the Exchange. As stated above, the Exchange believes that
it is reasonable not to charge Testing and Certification Fees in such
situations because it involves an Exchange mandated testing and
certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For example, the Exchange could determine to make available
a higher Gigabit connection, not currently offered by the Exchange,
such as a 15 Gigabit connection. A Member or non-Member with a
relatively high level of interaction with the Exchange's system may
wish to establish such a connection, whereas a Member or non-Member
with a relatively lower level of interaction with the Exchange's
system may not have a need for such connectivity and would therefore
elect not to engage in such a connection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Member Network Testing and Certification Fees will remain unchanged
from the current $1,000 per 1 gigabit connection and $4,000 per 10
gigabit connection.
    The Exchange proposes to increase the non-Member Network Testing
and Certification Fees from $1,000 to $1,200 per 1 gigabit connection,
and from $4,000 to $4,200 per 10 gigabit connection. It has been MIAX's
experience that Member testing takes less time than non-Member testing
because Members have more experience testing these systems with the
Exchange; generally fewer questions and issues arise during the testing
and certification process. Also, because third party vendors and
Service Bureaus are redistributing data and reselling services to other
Members and market participants the number and types of scenarios that
need to be tested are more numerous and complex than those tested and
certified for a single Member. Therefore, the Exchange believes that it
is reasonable to charge non-Members more for network testing and
certification than Members.
    The Exchange notes that these changes will result in an increase to
the Network Testing and Certification Fees charged to Members and non-
Members for those Members and non-Members that need testing and
certification beyond the initial one. For example, MM1 conducts network
testing and certification for a one gigabit connection initially upon
connection to the Exchange, and then two more times during the year
each time it upgrades its hardware. Currently, MM1 would be assessed
$1,000 in Network Testing and Certification Fees for the three testing
and certifications that were conducted by Exchange staff. As proposed,
MM1 would be assessed $3,000 in Network Testing and Certification Fees
for the three testing and certifications that were conducted by
Exchange staff. Example 2, MM2 conducts networking and testing for (3)
one gigabit connections, and then two more times during the year each
time it upgrades its hardware. Currently, MM2 would be assessed $1,000
in Network Testing and Certification Fees for the five testing and
certifications that were conducted by Exchange staff. As proposed, MM1
would be assessed $5,000 in Network Testing and Certification Fees for
the five testing and certifications that were conducted by Exchange
staff. Example 3, V1 conducts networking and testing for (3) one
gigabit connections, and then two more times during the year each time
it upgrades its software. Currently, V1 would be assessed $3,000 in
Network Testing and Certification Fees for the five testing and
certifications that were conducted by Exchange staff. As proposed, V1
would be assessed $6,000 in Network Testing and Certification Fees for
the five testing and certifications that were conducted by Exchange
staff. The proposed fee changes more closely represent the costs
incurred by the Exchange as it works with each Member or non-Member
while testing and certifying that the Member's or non-Member's
connections are appropriate for the Exchange's system.
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to modify the name of Network
Testing and Certification Fee to Network Connectivity Testing and
Certification Fee, and the title of the column in the chart from
``Member Network Connectivity Testing and Certification'' to ``Type of
Member''. The Exchange believes that the new title more clearly
describes the type of service that is being provided in exchange for
the fee.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \8\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \9\ in particular, in that it
is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees and other charges among
Exchange members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes of Member and non-
Member API Testing and Certification Fees are reasonable, equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange believes that the proposed
fees are a reasonable allocation of its costs and expenses among its
Members and other persons using its facilities since it is recovering
the costs associated with providing such infrastructure testing and
certification services, and with offering access through the network
connections and access and services through API, responding to customer
requests, configuring MIAX systems, programming API user specifications
and administering the various services connectivity services. Access to
the Exchange is provided on fair and non-discriminatory terms. The
Exchange believes the proposed fees are equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the new fee levels result in a more reasonable
and equitable allocation of fees amongst non-Members and Members for
similar services.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes of Member Network
Testing and Certification Fees are reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange believes that the proposed fees
are a reasonable allocation of its costs and expenses among its Members
and other persons using its facilities since it is recovering the costs
associated with providing such infrastructure testing and certification
services, and with offering access through the network connections and
access and services through Ports, responding to customer requests,
configuring MIAX systems, programming user specifications and
administering the various connectivity services. Access to the Exchange
is provided on fair and non-discriminatory terms. The Exchange believes
the proposed fees are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because
the new

fee levels result in a more reasonable and equitable allocation of fees
amongst non-Members and Members for similar services.
    The Exchange believes that Testing and Certification Fees and
Network Connectivity Testing and Certification Fees should only be
assessed when a Member or non-Member initiates a change to its system
that requires testing and certification. The Exchange believes that it
is reasonable not to charge Testing and Certification Fees and Network
Connectivity Testing and Certification Fees in situations where the
Exchange initiates a change to its own system that requires testing and
certification. The proposed changes to the Fee Schedule are intended,
among other things, to eliminate the potential burden of unexpected
costs to users of the Exchange's system when testing and certification
is required due to an Exchange-initiated system change.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed fees are an equitable
allocation of its costs and expenses among its Members and other
persons using its facilities. The higher fee charged to non-Members
reflects the greater amount of technological, financial and human
resources devoted to testing and certification of non-Members. It has
been the Exchange's experience that Members have more experience
testing these systems with the Exchange; generally fewer questions and
issues arise during the testing and certification process. In addition,
non-Members will be charged a higher Network Testing and Certification
Fee because each connection will be used by different customers of a
non-Member such as a Service Bureau or Extranet Provider, and each such
customer must be individually tested and certified. The complexity,
number and various types of scenarios involved in non-Member testing
and certification require the Exchange to expend more resources in
testing and certifying non-Member API and network connectivity
requirements than those tested and certified for a single Member.
Therefore, the higher fee applicable to non-Members is not unfairly
discriminatory and is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees and
other charges among Exchange Members and others using its facilities.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed change to modify
the name of the Network Testing and Certification Fee to Network
Connectivity Testing and Certification Fee is reasonable in that the
new title more clearly describes the type of service that is provided
by the Exchange.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposal is reasonably
designed to increase the fee charged for testing and certification in a
manner to recoup the costs associated with multiple tests and
certifications by both Members and non-Members. The Exchange believes
that the proposal should reduce the disparity of testing and
certification fees between Members and non-Members in a manner that
promotes competition amongst these participants for these types of
services. The higher fees charged to non-Members for testing and
certification reflects the greater amount of technological, financial
and human resources devoted to testing and certification of non-
Members. It has been the Exchange's experience that Members have more
experience testing these systems with the Exchange; generally fewer
questions and issues arise during the testing and certification
process. In addition, non-Members will be charged a higher Network
Testing and Certification Fee because each connection will be used by
different customers of a non-Member such as a Service Bureau or
Extranet Provider, and each such customer must be individually tested
and certified. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust
its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and to attract
order flow.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\10\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-MIAX-2015-22 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-MIAX-2015-22. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
    Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington,
DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2015-22 and should be
submitted on or before April 15, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-06716 Filed 3-24-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 26, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61120-61121]
[FR Doc No: 2017-27777]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2017-0123]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    Under part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this
provides the public notice that on November 27, 2017, the Canadian
National Railway (CN) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) for relief from the requirements of 49 CFR 236.23, Aspects and
indications, to allow CN to display a dark aspect as a ``stop.'' FRA
assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2017-0123.
    The regulation requires that a red signal aspect must be displayed
for a ``stop'' indication. In its petition, CN requests relief from
this requirement, and explains that with the use of advanced processor
technology in the railway signaling field, failsafe checks that have
never before been incorporated into the wayside signal system can now
economically be provided. In CN's particular case, the

solid-state electronics have the ability to monitor lamp driver
circuits for foreign and/or undesired voltage. CN explains that if the
lamp driver monitoring circuits detect foreign or undesirable voltage,
all voltage produced by the lamp driver is switched off by the central
processing unit as defined by the executive software. CN states that
this relief would allow a continuing and industry-wide practice that
ensures absolute safety under undesirable conditions. These conditions
include but are not limited to, component failures on lamp driver
modules, grounds, incorrect9*/wiring and cross connections.
    CN's position is that it is far safer to remove all operating
voltage to affected lamps, versus running the risk of having an
undesired aspect displayed. The relief is sought for all current solid-
state applications and all future solid-state applications on CN
Southern Region, inclusive of all United States properties.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the Department of Transportation's
(DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations Facility is open from 9
a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties
desire an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Website: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by February 9, 2018 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered if practicable.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). In
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public
to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit,
including any personal information the commenter provides, to
www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/
ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice for the
privacy notice of regulations.gov.

Robert C. Lauby,
Associate Administrator for Safety Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2017-27777 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 144 (Friday, July 26, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36160-36161]
[FR Doc No: 2019-15913]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2015-0221]

30-Day Notice of Request for Renewal of a Previously Approved
Collection

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation
(Department) or (DOT).

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The OSDBU invites public comments about our intention to
request the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval to renew
an information collection. The collection involves ``SBTRC Regional
Field Offices Intake Form (DOT F 4500)'' with OMB Control Number 2105-
0554. A 60-day notice was published on May 23, 2019 (84 FR 23827). No
comments were received.

DATES: Please submit comments by August 26, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments [identified by Docket No. DOT-OST-
2015-0221] through one of the following methods:
     Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer
for U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary of
Transportation, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503,
     email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Harris,<PHONE_NUMBER> ext.
62253, Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, Office
of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Room W56-444, Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from
9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: SBTRC Regional Field Offices Intake Form (DOT F 4500).
    OMB Control Number: 2105-0554.
    Background: In accordance with Public Law 95-507, an amendment to
the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1953,
OSDBU is responsible for the implementation and execution of DOT
activities on behalf of small businesses, in accordance with Section 8,
15 and 31 of the Small Business Act (SBA), as amended. The Office of
Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization also administers the
provisions of Title 49, of the United States Cole, Section 332, the
Minority Resource Center (MRC) which includes the duties of advocacy,
outreach, and financial services on behalf of small and disadvantaged
businesses and those certified under CFR 49 parts 23 and or 26 as
Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE). SBTRC's Regional Field
Offices will collect information on small businesses, which includes
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE), Women-Owned Small Business
(WOB), Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB), 8(a), Service Disabled
Veteran Owned Business (SDVOB), Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB),
HubZone, and types of services they seek from the Regional Field
Offices. Services and responsibilities of the Field Offices include
business analysis, general management & technical assistance and
training, business counseling, outreach services/conference
participation, short-term loan and bond assistance. The cumulative data
collected will be analyzed by the OSDBU to determine the effectiveness
of services provided, including counseling, outreach, and financial
services. Such data will also be analyzed by the OSDBU to determine
agency effectiveness in assisting small businesses to enhance their
opportunities to participate in government contracts and subcontracts.
    We are required to publish this notice in the Federal Register by
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13.

    Title: Small Business Transportation Resource Center Regional Field
Office Intake Form (DOT F 4500).
    Form Numbers: DOT F 4500.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    The Regional Field Offices Intake Form, (DOT F 4500) is used to
enroll small business clients into the program in order to create a
viable database of firms that can participate in government contracts
and subcontracts, especially those projects that are transportation
related. Each area on the fillable pdf form must be filled in
electronically by the Field Offices and submitted every quarter to
OSDBU. The Offices will retain a copy of each Intake Form for their
records. The completion of the form is used as a tool for making
decisions about the needs of the business, such as; referral to
technical assistance agencies for help, identifying the type of
profession or trade of the business, the type of certification that the
business holds, length of time in business, and location of the firm.
This data can assist the Field Offices in developing a business plan or
adjusting their business plan to increase its ability to market its
goods and services to buyers and potential users of their services.
    Respondents: SBTRC Regional Field Offices.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 100.
    Frequency: The information will be collected quarterly.
    Estimated Number of Responses: 100.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 600 hours per year.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Department, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Department's estimate
of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection;
and d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, by the use of electronic means, including the use of
automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology. The agency will summarize and/or include your comments in
the request for OMB's clearance of this information collection.

    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1:48.

    Issued in Washington, DC on July 19, 2019.
Michelle Harris,
Manager, Regional Assistance Division, Office of Small and
Disadvantaged Business Utilization.
[FR Doc. 2019-15913 Filed 7-25-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register: March 11, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 46)]
[Notices]
[Page 10629-10630]
[DOCID:fr11mr09-152]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59509; File No. SR-CBOE-2009-013]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change To Eliminate the CBSX Direct Connectivity Charge and the
Trading Permit Application Fee

March 4, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1), notice is hereby given that on February 26,
2009, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the CBOE. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested parties.

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

    CBOE proposes to amend its CBOE Stock Exchange (``CBSX'') Fees
Schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.org/legal), at the Exchange's
Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, CBOE 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 CBOE 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, Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The CBSX fee schedule lists the fees applicable to CBSX users. The
Exchange proposes to eliminate the CBSX Trading Permit Application Fee
(currently $1,000) and the CBSX Direct Connectivity Charge ($50 per
quarter but waived through the first quarter of 2009). The Exchange
believes that eliminating these fees will facilitate greater interest
in and promote usage of CBSX. The Exchange proposes to discontinue the
Trading Permit Application Fee and the CBSX Direct Connectivity Charge
effective March 1, 2009.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) \2\ of the Act in particular, in that
it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees, and other charges

among CBOE members and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing rule change establishes or changes a due,
fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange, it has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and subparagraph (f)(2)
of Rule 19b-4 \4\ thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing
of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such
rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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-CBOE-2009-013 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2009-13. 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 the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the CBOE. 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-CBOE-2009-13 and
should be submitted on or before April 1, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-5208 Filed 3-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P