70230 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Notices 

1See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73383 

(October 17, 2014), 79 FR 63448. 

2 15 U.S.C. 78s(g)(1). 

3 15 U.S.C. 78q(d) and 15 U.S.C. 78s(g)(2), 

respectively. 

4 15 U.S.C. 78q(d)(1). 

5See Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Report 

of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and 

Urban Affairs to Accompany S. 249, S. Rep. No. 94– 

75, 94th Cong., 1st Session 32 (1975). 6 17 CFR 240.17d–1 and 17 CFR 240.17d–2, 

respectively. 

7See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 12352 

(April 20, 1976), 41 FR 18808 (May 7, 1976). 

8See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 12935 

(October 28, 1976), 41 FR 49091 (November 8, 

1976). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

November 17, 2014, the United States 

Postal Service® (Postal Service) filed a 

request with the Postal Regulatory 

Commission to remove Return Receipt 

for Merchandise service from the Mail 

Classification Schedule’s marketdominant product list, pursuant to 39 

U.S.C. 3642. Approval of this request 

would simplify the Postal Service’s 

Ancillary Services product by 

recognizing that: (1) Return Receipt for 

Merchandise service has become 

outmoded; and (2) equivalent or 

improved product features can be 

obtained by transitioning to Signature 

ConfirmationTM service or Certified 

Mail® service (return receipt requested). 

Interested persons may comment on, or 

view documents pertinent to, this 

request at http://www.prc.gov, Docket 

No. MC2015–8. 

Stanley F. Mires, 

Attorney, Federal Requirements. 

[FR Doc. 2014–27805 Filed 11–24–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P 

POSTAL SERVICE 

Transfer of First-Class Mail® Parcels to 

the Competitive Product List 

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Postal Service hereby 

provides notice that it has filed a 

request with the Postal Regulatory 

Commission to transfer First-Class Mail 

Parcels from the Mail Classification 

Schedule’s Market-Dominant Product 

List to its Competitive Product List. 

DATES: Effective date: November 25, 

2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

F. Rosato, 202–268–8597, or 

john.f.rosato@usps.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

November 14, 2014 the United States 

Postal Service® filed a request with the 

Postal Regulatory Commission to 

transfer First-Class Mail Parcels from 

the Mail Classification Schedule’s 

market-dominant product list to its 

competitive product list, pursuant to 39 

U.S.C. 3642. The transfer would: (1) 

Remove First-Class Mail Parcels from 

the Market-Dominant Product List; and 

(2) replace it with a new ‘‘retail’’ 

subcategory within the competitive 

product list’s First-Class Package 

Service product. The new retail 

subcategory would provide the same 

service standards and pricing structure 

as the current First-Class Mail Parcels 

product. Documents pertinent to this 

request are available at http://

www.prc.gov, Docket No. MC2015–7. 

Stanley F. Mires, 

Attorney, Federal Requirements. 

[FR Doc. 2014–27806 Filed 11–24–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–73641; File No. 4–678] 

Program for Allocation of Regulatory 

Responsibilities Pursuant to Rule 17d– 

2; Order Approving and Declaring 

Effective a Proposed Plan for the 

Allocation of Regulatory 

Responsibilities Between the Financial 

Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. and 

the Miami International Securities 

Exchange, LLC 

November 19, 2014. 

On October 14, 2014, Miami 

International Securities Exchange, LLC 

(‘‘MIAX’’) and the Financial Industry 

Regulatory Authority, Inc. (‘‘FINRA’’) 

(together with MIAX, the ‘‘Parties’’) 

filed with the Securities and Exchange 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’ or ‘‘SEC’’) 

a plan for the allocation of regulatory 

responsibilities, dated October 13, 2014 

(‘‘17d–2 Plan’’ or the ‘‘Plan’’). The Plan 

was published for comment on October 

23, 2014.1 The Commission received no 

comments on the Plan. This order 

approves and declares effective the 

Plan. 

I. Introduction 

Section 19(g)(1) of the Securities 

Exchange Act of 1934 (‘‘Act’’),2 among 

other things, requires every selfregulatory organization (‘‘SRO’’) 

registered as either a national securities 

exchange or national securities 

association to examine for, and enforce 

compliance by, its members and persons 

associated with its members with the 

Act, the rules and regulations 

thereunder, and the SRO’s own rules, 

unless the SRO is relieved of this 

responsibility pursuant to Section 17(d) 

or Section 19(g)(2) of the Act.3 Without 

this relief, the statutory obligation of 

each individual SRO could result in a 

pattern of multiple examinations of 

broker-dealers that maintain 

memberships in more than one SRO 

(‘‘common members’’). Such regulatory 

duplication would add unnecessary 

expenses for common members and 

their SROs. 

Section 17(d)(1) of the Act 4 was 

intended, in part, to eliminate 

unnecessary multiple examinations and 

regulatory duplication.5 With respect to 

a common member, Section 17(d)(1) 

authorizes the Commission, by rule or 

order, to relieve an SRO of the 

responsibility to receive regulatory 

reports, to examine for and enforce 

compliance with applicable statutes, 

rules, and regulations, or to perform 

other specified regulatory functions. 

To implement Section 17(d)(1), the 

Commission adopted two rules: Rule 

17d–1 and Rule 17d–2 under the Act.6

Rule 17d–1 authorizes the Commission 

to name a single SRO as the designated 

examining authority (‘‘DEA’’) to 

examine common members for 

compliance with the financial 

responsibility requirements imposed by 

the Act, or by Commission or SRO 

rules.7 When an SRO has been named as 

a common member’s DEA, all other 

SROs to which the common member 

belongs are relieved of the responsibility 

to examine the firm for compliance with 

the applicable financial responsibility 

rules. On its face, Rule 17d–1 deals only 

with an SRO’s obligations to enforce 

member compliance with financial 

responsibility requirements. Rule 17d–1 

does not relieve an SRO from its 

obligation to examine a common 

member for compliance with its own 

rules and provisions of the federal 

securities laws governing matters other 

than financial responsibility, including 

sales practices and trading activities and 

practices. 

To address regulatory duplication in 

these and other areas, the Commission 

adopted Rule 17d–2 under the Act.8

Rule 17d–2 permits SROs to propose 

joint plans for the allocation of 

regulatory responsibilities with respect 

to their common members. Under 

paragraph (c) of Rule 17d–2, the 

Commission may declare such a plan 

effective if, after providing for 

appropriate notice and comment, it 

determines that the plan is necessary or 

appropriate in the public interest and 

for the protection of investors; to foster 

cooperation and coordination among the 

SROs; to remove impediments to, and 


wreier-aviles on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES