[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 226 (Wednesday, November 23, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72463-72467]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30255]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-65787; File No. SR-FINRA-2011-044]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
FINRA's Code of Procedure
November 18, 2011.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 8, 2011, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by FINRA. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
\2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change
FINRA is proposing to amend FINRA's Code of Procedure that
includes: (1) Allowing service of a complaint (and notices of certain
expedited proceedings) on counsel or another person authorized to
represent others when such representative agrees to accept service; (2)
permitting electronic filing of papers with an adjudicator; (3)
decreasing the number of copies required to be filed with the
adjudicator; (4) giving counsel to the National Adjudicatory Council
(``NAC'') authority to set the specifications and the number of copies
of all papers to be filed with the NAC; (5) requiring an attorney
seeking to withdraw from a disciplinary case to file a motion before
withdrawal would be approved; (6) adding an additional, permissive
subject for a pre-hearing conference; (7) allowing FINRA staff to set
the rate for copies; (8) allowing Hearing Officers to manage the
parties' pre-hearing submissions to reduce and eliminate duplicative
filings; (9) giving Hearing Panels and the NAC additional
[[Page 72464]]
flexibility as to required statements in decisions; (10) clarifying
that the Review Subcommittee may review certain default decisions; (11)
allowing an adjudicator to cancel a previously scheduled oral argument;
(12) clarifying the procedure for when an appealing party does not
participate in a disciplinary proceeding before a Hearing Officer, a
Hearing Panel or, if applicable, an Extended Hearing Panel; (13)
allowing a Hearing Panel in an eligibility proceeding to extend time
limits for the filing of any papers without consent of all the parties;
and (14) allowing counsel to the NAC to decide a procedural motion in
an eligibility proceeding or an expedited proceeding.
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
FINRA's Code of Procedure (the ``Code'') contains detailed
provisions for initiating and adjudicating various types of actions,
including disciplinary, eligibility, expedited, and cease and desist
proceedings.\3\ Since implementation on August 7, 1997, FINRA staff has
obtained significant experience using the Code, and believes that
certain Code provisions should be amended to improve workability,
provide more clarity and reduce unnecessary duplication. The proposed
rule change, as described below, seeks generally to improve the
efficient administration of FINRA proceedings, is procedural in nature,
and will not affect any party's substantive rights under FINRA rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The FINRA Rule 9000 Series is FINRA's Code of Procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Service of Complaint
FINRA Rule 9131(a) requires a complaint to be served on each party
by the Department of Enforcement or the Department of Market
Regulation. Currently, the rule does not explicitly permit FINRA staff
to serve the complaint on a party's counsel. Many parties, however, are
represented by counsel when a complaint is ready to be served. FINRA
proposes to accommodate respondents who have retained counsel and have
authorized them to accept service. The proposed rule change amends
FINRA Rule 9131(a) to clarify that only the Department of Enforcement
or the Department of Market Regulation can serve a complaint and to
allow for service on counsel or another person authorized to represent
others when such representative agrees to accept service of the
complaint. FINRA also seeks to address an issue created by the Rules of
Professional Conduct in many states, which require that, once a person
retains an attorney, unless the attorney specifically provides
otherwise, all communications be directed to counsel.\4\ The proposal
harmonizes FINRA's rules with these state bar rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See, e.g., American Bar Association Model Rule of
Professional Conduct 4.2 (Communication with Person Represented by
Counsel) (ABA Rule 4.2). ABA Rule 4.2 provides that, ``[i]n
representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate about the
subject of the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be
represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has
the consent of the other lawyer or is authorized to do so by law or
a court order.'' Many states have rules regarding communication with
a person represented by counsel that are based on ABA Rule 4.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FINRA Rule 9131(a) also provides that a party initiating a
proceeding shall serve a document initiating a proceeding on the other
party. FINRA proposes to delete this provision because it has been
superseded by other FINRA rules and no longer plays a role in expedited
proceedings.\5\ Further, the Code does not allow a party other than
FINRA to initiate a proceeding.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The references to a document initiating a proceeding have
been rendered unnecessary in FINRA Rule 9131 because each of FINRA's
expedited proceedings has a specific rule that typically states that
FINRA staff will serve the FINRA member or associated person with a
notice regarding the expedited proceeding. See FINRA Rules 9551(b),
9552(b), 9553(b), 9554(b), 9555(b), 9556(b), 9557(b) and 9558(b).
\6\ The concept of allowing an aggrieved person to initiate an
NASD disciplinary proceeding was eliminated, with Commission
approval, in 1997. See Russell A. Simpson, 53 S.E.C. 1042, 1044 n.3,
1998 SEC LEXIS 2503, at *3 n.3 (1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FINRA Rule 9550 Series provides procedures for initiating and
adjudicating expedited proceedings. The service provisions contained in
the rules under the Rule 9550 Series are similar to FINRA Rule 9131(a)
in that they require serving notice on a member, person associated with
a member or person subject to FINRA's jurisdiction, but do not discuss
service on counsel. For the reasons set forth above, FINRA is proposing
to amend FINRA Rules 9551(b), 9552(b), 9553(b), 9554(b), 9555(b) and
9556(b) to allow for service on counsel or other person authorized to
represent others when such representative agrees to accept service of a
notice.
Filing of Papers With Adjudicator
FINRA Rule 9135(a) prescribes the timing for the filing of papers
with an adjudicator. Complaints are deemed timely filed upon mailing or
delivery to the Office of Hearing Officers. Other papers required to be
filed are deemed timely if, on the same day such papers are served,
they are also hand-delivered, mailed via U.S. Postal service first
class mail or sent by courier to FINRA. In recognition of the increased
use of electronic mail, FINRA is proposing to amend FINRA Rule 9135(a)
to allow the use of electronic mail as another delivery method for
complaints and other papers required to be filed with an adjudicator.
FINRA Rule 9136 establishes the form for papers filed in connection
with a disciplinary proceeding or a review of a disciplinary
proceeding. FINRA is proposing to amend FINRA Rule 9136(a)(5) to
require such papers to contain single-spaced footnotes. Additionally,
to reduce duplication, FINRA is proposing to amend FINRA Rule 9136(c)
by decreasing the number of copies required to be filed with the
adjudicator from three to one, unless otherwise ordered. Finally, the
proposed rule change amends FINRA Rule 9313 by giving counsel to the
NAC the authority to set the specifications and the number of copies of
all papers to be filed with the NAC. The proposed rule change is
consistent with counsel to the NAC's other ministerial and
administrative responsibilities under the rule, and it furthers the
efficient administration of review proceedings.
Motion To Withdraw by Attorney
FINRA Rule 9142 requires an attorney for a party or person
authorized to represent others seeking to withdraw to give notice
setting forth good cause for the withdrawal at least 30 days prior to
withdrawal, unless circumstances do not permit. It has been FINRA
staff's experience that, on occasion, an attorney believes that his or
her withdrawal is effective immediately upon filing the notice, and the
attorney does not provide any contact
[[Page 72465]]
information for the party no longer being represented. To address these
concerns, and to lessen the potential disruption to parties and pending
proceedings caused by the withdrawal of counsel, FINRA is proposing to
amend FINRA Rule 9142 to require an attorney for a party (or person
authorized to represent others by FINRA Rule 9141) seeking to withdraw
to file a motion that sets forth the good cause for withdrawal and
contains the contact information of the party no longer being
represented.
Subjects Discussed at Pre-Hearing Conference
FINRA Rule 9241(c) delineates the subjects that the Hearing
Officer, in a pre-hearing conference, may consider and act upon. The
proposed rule change amends FINRA Rule 9241 by adding an additional,
permissive subject for a pre-hearing conference: designation of
relevant portions of transcripts from investigative testimony or other
proceedings and the inclusion of an index for such testimony. It has
been FINRA staff's experience that parties sometimes introduce
voluminous testimonial transcripts into evidence, without specifying
the particular sections of such transcripts that are relevant to the
proceeding and without an index. The proposed rule change promotes
efficiency by bringing into focus the relevant portions of testimonial
transcripts.
Fees for Copying Costs During Discovery
FINRA Rule 9251(f) allows a respondent to obtain a photocopy of all
documents made available for inspection by the Department of
Enforcement or the Department of Market Regulation. Unless otherwise
ordered, charges for copies made at the request of a respondent shall
be at a rate to be established by the Board of FINRA or FINRA
Regulation. The proposed rule change amends FINRA Rule 9251(f) to
identify FINRA staff as setting the rate for copies. Copying costs are
based on rates charged by local copying vendors in the area where FINRA
maintains the documents. FINRA staff is familiar with these copying
rates and will base the rates accordingly.
Submission of Evidence
FINRA Rule 9261(a) addresses pre-hearing disclosures and requires
each party to submit to all other parties and to the Hearing Officer
copies of documentary exhibits the parties intend to introduce and the
names of the witnesses each party intends to present at a hearing.
Currently, pre-hearing, proposed documentary evidence submitted to the
Hearing Officer becomes part of the record. At the hearing, all of the
documents that are admitted into evidence also become part of the
record.\7\ This results in the record containing a duplicate of nearly
every document that was admitted into evidence. When a Hearing Panel
decision is appealed to the NAC, FINRA staff makes several copies of
the record. The unnecessary duplication of pre-hearing exhibits is
therefore multiplied on appeal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See FINRA Rule 9267(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed rule change amends FINRA Rule 9261(a) to establish
that documentary evidence submitted prior to a hearing shall not become
part of the record, unless a Hearing Officer, Hearing Panel, or
Extended Hearing Panel orders that it will be. Further, the Hearing
Officer may order each party--who will continue to exchange proposed
documentary evidence with other parties--to refrain from submitting its
proposed documentary evidence to the Hearing Officer. The proposed
amendment reduces duplication of documents in the record and will
prevent the copying of thousands of pages of pre-hearing exhibits each
year.
Hearing Panel and NAC Decisions
FINRA Rules 9268(b)(1) and 9349(b)(1) require that a statement
describing the investigative or other origin of the disciplinary
proceeding be included in the contents of a decision of the Hearing
Panel or the NAC, respectively. The proposed rule change amends this
provision to require such statement only if it is not otherwise
contained in the record. The proposed amendment reduces unnecessary
statements from disciplinary decisions.
Review Proceedings
FINRA Rule 9312(a)(2) requires that if a default decision issued
pursuant to FINRA Rule 9269 is called for review by the General Counsel
within 25 days after the date of service of the decision, such decision
shall be reviewed by the NAC. FINRA proposes to amend the rule to
clarify that the Review Subcommittee also may review such decisions.\8\
The scope of review of default decisions is generally limited to
address omissions or apparent mistakes in default decisions. The
proposed rule change--in appropriate cases--allows for a speedier, more
efficient review process, as the Review Subcommittee will typically be
able to review a default decision and issue a short remand order more
expeditiously than the NAC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The Review Subcommittee is authorized to determine whether
disciplinary decisions should be called for review by the NAC. See
FINRA Regulation By-Laws, Article V, Section 5.13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oral Argument in Review of Proceedings
FINRA Rule 9341(a) establishes the procedure for a party requesting
an oral argument before the Subcommittee or, if applicable, the
Extended Proceeding Committee.\9\ Currently, once oral argument is
requested, there is no mechanism to cancel such argument if a
respondent abandons his or her request for oral argument subsequent to
filing a brief but prior to the date set for oral argument. The
proposed rule change allows the Subcommittee or, if applicable, the
Extended Proceeding Committee, to cancel in writing a previously
scheduled oral argument, and decide the matter based on the briefs and
the record without oral argument, if the adjudicator finds good cause
due to a respondent abandoning his or her prior request, or similar
unreasonable lack of availability. For example, a respondent may be
viewed as abandoning a previously scheduled oral argument if the
adjudicator has not received a response after attempting to confirm the
attendance of the respondent. If the adjudicator cancels an oral
argument but a respondent believes this action was taken in error, a
respondent may file a motion seeking to reschedule oral argument. The
proposed rule change promotes efficiency and conserves resources that
would have been expended in traveling to an oral argument when a
respondent does not attend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Upon consideration of the volume and complexity of the
certified record, the NAC or the Review Subcommittee may appoint an
Extended Proceeding Committee. See FINRA Rule 9331(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Failure to Participate in Disciplinary Proceeding
FINRA Rule 9344(a) gives the NAC or the Review Subcommittee
discretion on how to proceed when an appealing party did not
participate in the disciplinary proceeding before a Hearing Officer, a
Hearing Panel or, if applicable, an Extended Hearing Panel.\10\ The
proposed rule change eliminates the first sentence of the rule because
that sentence merely introduces the concept that the NAC could either
remand an appeal from a default decision or consider the appeal without
[[Page 72466]]
a remand.\11\ The proposal specifies that the NAC or the Review
Subcommittee will remand the disciplinary proceeding with instructions
when a party shows good cause for failing to participate below. If, on
the other hand, a party does not show good cause, the Subcommittee or
other adjudicator will decide the case based on the briefs and the
record and without oral argument. By amending this section, FINRA
intends to make the rule easier to understand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Upon consideration of the complexity of the issues
involved, the probable length of the hearing, or other material
factors, the Chief Hearing Officer may determine that a matter shall
be designated an Extended Hearing, and such matter shall be
considered by an Extended Hearing Panel. See FINRA Rule 9231(c).
\11\ The proposed rule change also removes the potentially
confusing language that the NAC would dismiss an appeal and remand
the matter. In practice, when the NAC has remanded a default
decision to a Hearing Officer, for example, the NAC remand order
does not also state that the appeal is dismissed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed rule change substitutes the word ``shall'' for ``may''
when describing the NAC's action when a party shows good cause because
the applicable remedy in this circumstance is always a remand with
instructions. Default decisions against a respondent allow the Hearing
Officer to deem the allegations in the complaint admitted, a practice
that is widely followed in FINRA proceedings.\12\ Consequently, when a
party shows good cause, the NAC would find it impracticable to review
the merits of the appeal because the NAC would have no record evidence
to review regarding the substance of alleged violations. Given the
state of the record, the NAC should order a remand with instructions
when a respondent shows good cause for failing to participate below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See FINRA Rule 9269(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filing of Papers in Eligibility Proceedings
FINRA Rule 9524(a)(5) gives a Hearing Panel in an eligibility
proceeding the ability, after obtaining consent of all the parties, to
extend or shorten any time limits prescribed by the Code for the filing
of any papers. The proposed rule change removes the consent requirement
for any extension of such time limits to empower Hearing Panels with
authority over such scheduling matters. This change makes eligibility
proceedings consistent with disciplinary proceedings.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See FINRA Rule 9322(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Procedural Motions in Eligibility or Expedited Proceedings
FINRA Rule 9146(j)(3) requires that in the FINRA Rule 9500 Series,
a motion shall be decided by an adjudicator. FINRA proposes to amend
the rule by allowing Counsel to the NAC to decide a procedural motion
made pursuant to an eligibility proceeding or an expedited proceeding.
This proposed rule change enables Counsel to the NAC to handle
procedural motions in a more efficient and expeditious manner, and is
similar to Counsel to the NAC's authority to dispose of procedural
motions in disciplinary proceedings.\14\ Counsel will not be authorized
to rule on dispositive motions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See FINRA Rule 9146(j)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FINRA will announce the effective date of the proposed rule change
in a Regulatory Notice to be published no later than 60 days following
Commission approval. The effective date will be no later than 30 days
following publication of the Regulatory Notice announcing Commission
approval. Once effective, the proposed rules will apply immediately to
all new and pending matters governed by FINRA's Code of Procedure.
2. Statutory Basis
FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(8) of the Act,\15\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules provide a fair procedure for the
disciplining of members and persons associated with members, and
Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\16\ which requires, among other things,
that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. FINRA's Code has been used in hundreds of disciplinary
cases since its adoption and has provided fair procedures. It has
allowed disciplinary cases to proceed in an orderly manner and thereby
facilitated Hearing Panel and NAC decisions that, in turn, protect
investors and the public interest. The proposed rule change will allow
FINRA to continue to uphold the purposes of the Act by improving
FINRA's case management of disciplinary cases, reducing costs, and
promoting an effective disciplinary system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(8).
\16\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, FINRA believes that the proposed rule change promotes fair
procedures by improving the ability of adjudicators and their advisors
to manage efficiently cases at both the trial level and on appeal.
Several proposed revisions give specific authority to Hearing Officers,
the Review Subcommittee, and counsel to the NAC such as: (1) Adding an
additional subject at a pre-hearing conference that brings into focus
the relevant portions of testimonial transcripts; (2) clarifying that
the Review Subcommittee may review certain default decisions rather
than the NAC; (3) giving counsel to the NAC authority to set the
specifications and the number of copies of all papers to be filed with
the NAC; (4) allowing counsel to the NAC to decide a procedural motion
made in an eligibility proceeding or an expedited proceeding; (5)
allowing a Hearing Panel in an eligibility proceeding to extend time
limits for the filing of any papers; and (6) allowing FINRA staff to
determine copying costs. These improvements to and confirmations of
case management authority will allow adjudicators and advisors to
follow fair procedures by applying appropriate rules to a suitable
case.
Second, the proposed rule change promotes fair procedures by
reducing costs, conserving resources, and making participation in the
disciplinary process somewhat easier. By decreasing the number of
copies that the parties must file with the adjudicator, the proposed
rule change to FINRA Rule 9136(e) will reduce costs to the parties.
From the perspective of FINRA and its adjudicators, moreover, the
proposed rule change to FINRA Rule 9261(a) will prevent the inclusion
in the record of hundreds of duplicate exhibits that are otherwise
contained in the record. Moreover, the proposed rule change to FINRA
Rules 9268(b)(1) and 9349(b)(1) reduces duplication by requiring a
statement describing the origin of a disciplinary proceeding be
included only if it is not otherwise contained in the record. And by
authorizing an adjudicator to cancel a previously scheduled oral
argument that has been abandoned by a respondent, the proposed rule
change to FINRA Rule 9341(a) prevents unnecessary travel by
adjudicators and FINRA staff. These latter revisions will reduce
FINRA's costs.
Another aspect of the proposed rule change promotes fair procedures
by allowing the parties to comply with the Code more easily. Parties
will be allowed to, but not required to, file papers with an
adjudicator by email. Respondents also will have the option of
authorizing their attorney or representative to accept service of a
complaint and notices of certain expedited proceedings. Additionally,
the proposed rule change promotes clarity by stating more directly the
process for a party who seeks to appeal from a default decision.
The proposed rule change also reserves an adjudicator's ability to
customize an order to promote fairness, based on the facts of that
case. For example, a Hearing Officer may order that a particular pre-
hearing submission
[[Page 72467]]
be included in the record pursuant to FINRA Rule 9261(a), which could
be based on fairness concerns.
Third, the proposed rule change protects the public interest by
requiring an attorney seeking to withdraw from a disciplinary case to
file a motion (which will provide contact information for the party
previously represented) before withdrawal would be approved. The
proposed revision seeks to reduce any uncertainly as to whether a
respondent is represented by an attorney. By requiring an attorney to
file a motion for withdrawal, adjudicators and the parties will know
that an attorney continues to represent the respondent until the motion
is granted. This proposed revision promotes an effective disciplinary
system in which cases can proceed to a hearing. By furthering an
effective disciplinary system, the proposed rule change is consistent
with the public interest in imposing disciplinary sanctions on FINRA
firms and associated persons who violate FINRA Rules or the federal
securities laws.
For each of these reasons, FINRA believes that the proposed rule
change will improve the process and procedures that govern the
adjudication of disciplinary cases and expedited proceedings.
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 were neither solicited nor received.
III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
(A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
(B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.
IV. Solicitation of Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:
Electronic Comments
Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2011-044 on the subject line.
Paper Comments
Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2011-044. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2011-044 and should be
submitted on or before December 14, 2011.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-30255 Filed 11-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P