[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 111 (Friday, June 8, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34115-34117]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13893]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67101; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2012-48]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
of Proposed Rule Change Amending NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31(h) To Add
a PL Select Order Type

June 4, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on May 22, 2012, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the 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 proposes to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31(h) to
add a PL Select Order type. The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, 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 self-regulatory organization
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 those 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 parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31(h) to
add a PL Select Order type.
    Pursuant to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31(h)(4), a Passive Liquidity
(``PL'') Order is an order to buy or sell a stated amount of a security
at a specified, undisplayed price. The PL Order was initially designed
to attract liquidity to the Exchange by permitting market participants
to express their trading interest more accurately than was possible
with other order types available at the time.\3\ PL Orders were also
designed to offer potential price improvement to incoming marketable
orders submitted by any User.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54511 (September 26,
2006), 71 FR 58460, 58461 (October 3, 2006) (SR-PCX-2005-53).
    \4\ Id. The term ``User'' means any ETP Holder or Sponsored
Participant who is authorized to obtain access to the NYSE Arca
Marketplace pursuant to Rule 7.29. See NYSE Arca Equities Rule
1.1(yy).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is appropriate to provide Users who
enter PL Orders with the flexibility to be able to select what type of
contra-side interest that would interact with their PL Order. The
Exchange believes that by restricting specified contra-side interest
from interacting with PL Orders, Users may be incentivized to enter
larger-sized, more aggressively-priced orders. In particular, the
Exchange believes that market participants interested in providing
liquidity that would offer potential price improvement should be
provided the option to select that their ``provider'' interest would
not interact with pure ``taker'' interest, i.e., interest that will
execute immediately with interest at the Exchange without ever resting
on the Exchange's order book.
    The Exchange also believes that it would be able to attract larger-
sized, more aggressively priced PL Orders if the User has the choice
not to execute against contra-side orders that are larger sized than
the resting PL Order. Because large-sized orders are more likely to
trade at multiple price points, such an incoming order would likely
sweep up the PL order as it executes through multiple price points. In
such scenario, the PL Order would not serve its primary function of
providing price improvement, but would instead be an execution among
many that would ultimately be at an inferior price. The Exchange
believes that if Users entering PL Orders can select not to trade with
an incoming order that is larger in size,

the PL Order will remain available on the Arca Book to provide price
improvement for smaller incoming orders.
    To provide such flexibility, the Exchange proposes to add a new
order type, the PL Select Order, which would be a subset of a PL Order.
As proposed, NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31(h)(7) would define the PL
Select Order as a PL Order that would not interact with an incoming
order that: (i) has an immediate-or-cancel (``IOC'') time in force
condition,\5\ (ii) is an ISO,\6\ or (iii) is larger than the size of
the PL Select Order. The Exchange believes that the first two
restrictions on trading with incoming IOC or ISO orders would enable
Users to designate that their PL Orders would not trade with interest
that would never become displayed or passive liquidity at the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that the third restriction would serve to attract
larger-sized PL Orders because the User would not have to risk having
the PL Select Order being swept up by larger-sized contra interest
thereby obviating the primary purpose of the PL Order to provide price
improvement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31(e).
    \6\ See NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31(jj).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed, except for the specified restrictions on trading with
certain incoming orders, the PL Select Order would otherwise operate as
a PL order and would retain its standing in execution priority among PL
Orders. The Exchange notes, however, that for those instances when an
incoming order meets one of the PL Select Order restrictions, the PL
Select Order would be skipped and can be traded through.
    For example, assume that the protected best bid and offer is
$19.00-$19.50 and a User enters a PL Select Order to buy 5,000 at
$19.25 (B1). A second User enters an order to buy 1,000 at $19.00 (B2).
If an incoming ISO sell order at $19.00 for 500 shares arrives (S1), S1
would not trade with B1, and would instead trade with B2 for 500 shares
at $19.00. Because B1 is a PL Select Order, and is restricted from
trading with an ISO, it would be skipped. If another sell order at
$19.00 for 700 shares arrives (S2), and it is not marked IOC or ISO, S2
would execute against B1, 700 shares at $19.25. In this situation,
because S2 does not meet any of the restrictions of the PL Select
Order, B1, which arrived before B2, would receive the entire execution.
    In order to be placed on the Exchange's book initially, the
Exchange further proposes that incoming PL Select Orders that are
marketable would execute against all available contra-side interest,
which potentially could include IOCs, ISOs, or larger-sized interest.
After any marketable interest of the arriving PL Select Order executes,
any remaining balance of the PL Select Order would be subject to the
restrictions and would not trade with any incoming IOCs, ISOs, or
larger-sized interest.
    The Exchange further proposes to add that upon notice to ETP
Holders, the Corporation may suspend the entry of PL Select Orders. If
such provision is invoked, Users may continue to submit PL Orders, but
would not be able to enter PL Select Orders and all open PL Select
Orders on the NYSE Arca trading book would be cancelled back to the
User. The Exchange believes that it is appropriate to be able to
suspend the entry of PL Select Orders in circumstances where the volume
of orders creates an issue with the ability of the Exchange to timely
process inbound orders to the Exchange.
    Because of the related technology changes that this proposed rule
change would require, the Exchange proposes to announce the initial
implementation date via Trader Update.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\7\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\8\ in particular, because
it is 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would help
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices because it would
provide the ability for Users to select that a market participant that
may be seeking only to probe the availability of hidden interest, and
not add liquidity to the market, cannot execute against their passive
liquidity. In particular, in today's equities market structure, the
type of order flow that generally gets routed to the Exchange, and
other registered exchanges, is order flow of the last resort. As
evidenced by the increased use of off-Exchange trading venues, whether
at dark pools or via internalization agreements at broker-dealers, by
the time trading interest reaches an exchange, it is often cast-off
trading interest, rather than the primary order flow of a broker-
dealer. The Exchange sees this with the high volumes of pinging-type of
interest that arrives at the Exchange, and relatively low volumes of
trading interest that is intended to be displayed or become passive
interest. Such ``pinging'' interest generally comes from professional
traders, rather than from public customers, and is seeking to ferret
out hidden liquidity at an exchange, rather than to become passive
liquidity.
    In seeking to attract more interest that is intended to be
displayed interest and therefore promote just and equitable principles
of trade, the Exchange proposes to add the PL Select Order type. As
discussed in greater detail above, the PL Select Order type would be
available to execute against any incoming interest that has the
potential to become displayed or passive liquidity at the Exchange. The
Exchange believes that the availability of the PL Select Order type
could potentially incentivize the routing of interest to the Exchange
that is intended to be displayed, which would support the goals of
Regulation NMS to encourage the display of limit orders. In particular,
Users interested in routing displayable interest to the Exchange would
be aware that there is more likely to be hidden interest against which
to execute because such hidden interest would not have been ``taken''
by pinging interest. To the extent there is any disadvantage because a
PL Select Order skips an execution, it would be to professional traders
who are choosing to send pinging interest, rather than to the investing
public.
    Likewise, the Exchange believes that skipping executions with
larger-sized incoming interest would similarly incentivize Users to
route PL Orders to the Exchange because such orders would remain
available to provide price improvement and would not be swept up by
such larger-sized incoming orders. Because such PL Select Orders would
remain available to provide price improvement, it could similarly
incentivize Users to route displayable interest to the Exchange because
the likelihood of receiving price improvement could increase.
    The Exchange further believes that the rule proposal promotes just
and equitable principles of trade, and fosters cooperation and
coordination with market participants because it provides additional
flexibility for Users to specify against which interest their PL Orders
would execute. The Exchange notes that Users can continue to enter PL
Orders;

the ability to enter PL Select Orders would be an additional option for
Users. Furthermore, the Exchange believes that the proposed PL Select
Order furthers the goals of a free and open market and national market
system by providing Users with the ability to add additional
instructions to PL Orders to ensure that such orders are used primarily
for liquidity providing, price improvement purposes.
    The Exchange further believes that providing the Exchange with the
ability to suspend the entry of PL Select Orders supports the principle
of promoting just and equitable principles of trade and removing
impediments to and perfecting the mechanism of a free and open market.
Currently, the technology process associated with the proposed PL
Select Orders would be to assess each incoming order to determine
whether it can interact with resting PL Select Orders. If, in the rare
circumstances, the volume of orders received by the Exchange, including
of PL Select Orders, and the attendant need to assess each order,
results in reduced trading performance and increased latency, the
Exchange believes that it is appropriate to suspend the entry of PL
Select Orders, which would also result in cancelling any open PL Select
Orders, until such time that the potential cause of increased latencies
has been resolved.

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 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

    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

    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 the 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 Exchange 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-NYSEArca-2012-48 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-NYSEArca-2012-48. 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 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-NYSEArca-2012-48 and should
be submitted on or before June 29, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-13893 Filed 6-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 65 (Friday, April 3, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19055-19056]
[FR Doc No: 2020-06886]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2020-0081]

Inspection, Repair and Maintenance; Inspector Qualifications;
Application for an Exemption From the Intermodal Association of North
America (IANA)

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of application for exemption; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
requests public comment on an application from the Intermodal
Association of North America (IANA) for an exemption from the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) that would allow an
individual who successfully completes a training program consistent
with a set of Intermodal Recommended Practices (IRPs) developed by IANA
to be considered a qualified inspector for purposes of the periodic
inspection rule, or a qualified brake inspector, for purposes of the
brake system inspection, repair and maintenance requirements.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 4, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2020-0081 using any of the
following methods:
     Website: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments on the Federal electronic docket
site.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Ground Floor, Room W12-140, DOT Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
e.t., Monday-Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and
docket number for this notice. For detailed instructions on submitting
comments and additional information on the exemption process, see the
``Public Participation'' heading below. Note that all comments received
will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including
any personal information provided. Please see the ``Privacy Act''
heading for further information.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or to Room W12-140,
DOT Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. 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
www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Public participation: http://www.regulations.gov website is
generally available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. You may find
electronic submission and retrieval help and guidelines under the
``help'' section of the http://www.regulations.gov website as well as
the DOT's http://docketsinfo.dot.gov website. If you would like
notification that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgment
page that appears after submitting comments online.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Luke Loy, Vehicle and Roadside
Operations Division, Office of Carrier, Driver, and Vehicle Safety, MC-
PSV,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 CFR 381.315(a), FMCSA must publish a notice of each
exemption request in the Federal Register. The Agency must provide the
public with an opportunity to inspect the information relevant to the
application, including any safety analyses that have been conducted.
The Agency must also provide an opportunity for public comment on the
request.
    The Agency reviews the safety analyses and the public comments and
determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level
of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of
the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(b)). If the Agency denies the request, it must state the reason
for doing so. If the decision is to grant the exemption, the notice
must specify the person or class of persons receiving the exemption and
the regulatory provision or provisions from which an exemption is
granted. The notice must specify the effective period of the exemption
(up to 5 years) and explain the terms and conditions of the exemption.
The exemption may be renewed (49 CFR 381.315(c) and 49 CFR 381.300(b)).

IANA Application for Exemption

    The FMCSRs require individuals performing (1) annual inspections of
commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) under 49 CFR 396.17, or (2)
inspections, maintenance, repairs, or service to the brake systems on
CMVs under Sec.  396.25, to be properly qualified to perform such
inspections. Under Sec. Sec.  396.19(a)(3)(ii) and 396.25(d)(3)(ii), an
individual who has a combination of training or experience totaling at
least 1 year as outlined in those sections is considered to be
qualified to conduct those inspections. IANA has applied for an
exemption to allow a chassis mechanic who has successfully completed a
training program consistent with IANA's IRPs to be a qualified
inspector or qualified brake inspector without having the required 1
year of training or experience. A copy of the application is included
in the docket referenced at the beginning of this notice.

Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(6), FMCSA requests public
comment from all interested persons on IANA's application for an
exemption from Sec. Sec.  396.19(a)(3)(ii) and 396.25(d)(3)(ii) of the
FMCSRs. All comments received before the close of business on the
comment closing date indicated at the beginning of this notice will be
considered and will be available for examination in the docket at the
location listed under the ``Addresses'' section of this notice.
Comments received after the comment closing date will be filed in the
public docket and will be considered to the extent practicable. In
addition to late comments, FMCSA will also continue to file, in the
public docket, relevant information that becomes available after the
comment closing date. Interested persons should continue to examine the
public docket for new material.

Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-06886 Filed 4-2-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: June 3, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 107)]
[Notices]
[Page 31684]
[DOCID:fr03jn08-35]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-R05-OAR-2007-0520; FRL-8574-9]

Adequacy Status of the Indiana and Ohio Portions of the
Cincinnati-Hamilton, Ohio/Kentucky/Indiana, Submitted 8-Hour Ozone
Attainment Demonstration for Transportation Conformity Purposes;
Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of adequacy; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This document corrects an error in the table posted in the
April 23, 2008, notice of adequacy of the motor vehicle emissions
budgets (MVEB) for the Indiana and Ohio portions of the Cincinnati-
Hamilton OH/KY/IN area. The MVEBs were submitted by Indiana as part of
the 8-hour ozone attainment demonstration for the area. The MVEB table
in that notice conflicts with the actual MVEBs. EPA, therefore, is
correcting the erroneous table.

DATES: Effective Date: This correction is effective on June 3, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Maietta, Life Scientist,
Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA published a notice of adequacy on April
23, 2008, (73 FR 21932) which finds the 2008 MVEBs for volatile organic
compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) for the Indiana
and Ohio portions of the Cincinnati-Hamilton OH/KY/IN area to be
adequate for transportation conformity purposes. In this notice, EPA
erroneously identified the 2008 MVEBs as 72.16 tons per day (tpd) for
VOC and 18.99 tpd for NOX.
    The table in that notice conflicts with the actual MVEBs. The
actual 2008 MVEBs are 46.00 tpd for VOC and 91.36 tpd for
NOX. Therefore, the table is being corrected to refer to the
correct budget amounts.

Correction

    In the notice of adequacy published in the Federal Register on
April 23, 2008, (73 FR 21932), on page 21932, in second column, the
table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              2008 MVEB
                                                                (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC........................................................        72.16
NOX........................................................        18.99
------------------------------------------------------------------------

is corrected to read:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              2008 MVEB
                                                                (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC........................................................        46.00
NOX........................................................        91.36
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: May 20, 2008.
Richard C. Karl,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. E8-12373 Filed 6-2-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 77 (Wednesday, April 22, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22600-22602]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09267]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74738; File No. SR-BATS-2015-09]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Order
Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rules 11.9, 11.12,
and 11.13 of BATS Exchange, Inc.

April 16, 2015.

I. Introduction

    On January 30, 2015, BATS Exchange, Inc. (``BATS'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'' or ``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend Exchange Rules 11.9,
11.12, and 11.13. The proposed rule change was published for comment in
the Federal Register on February 18, 2015.\3\ The Commission received
no comments on the proposal. This order grants approval of the proposed
rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74247 (February 11,
2015), 80 FR 8720 (``Notice''). See also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 74247A (February 26, 2015), 80 FR 11695 (March 4, 2015)
(correcting file number in Notice heading to be ``SR-BATS-2015-
09'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange conducted a comprehensive review of its system
functionality.\4\ The proposal adds additional clarity and specificity
regarding the current functionality of the Exchange's System,\5\
including the

operation of its order types and order instructions. The Exchange
proposes no substantive modifications to the System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ On June 5, 2014, Chair Mary Jo White asked all national
securities exchanges to conduct a comprehensive review of each order
type offered to members and how it operates in practice. See Mary Jo
White, Chair, Commission, Speech at the Sandler O'Neill & Partners,
L.P. Global Exchange and Brokerage Conference, (June 5, 2014)
(available at http://www.sec.gov/News/Speech/Detail/Speech/1370542004312#.VD2HW610w6Y).
    \5\ Exchange Rule 1.5(aa) defines ``System'' as ``the electronic
communications and trading facility designated by the Board through
which securities orders of Users are consolidated for ranking,
execution and, when applicable, routing away.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The changes include: (i) Making clear that orders with a Time-in-
Force (``TIF'') of Immediate-or-Cancel (``IOC'') can be routed away
from the Exchange; (ii) specifying the methodology used by the Exchange
to determine whether BATS Post Only Orders \6\ will remove liquidity
from the BATS Book; \7\ (iii) adding additional detail to and re-
structuring the description of Pegged Orders; (iv) adding additional
detail to the description of Mid-Point Peg Orders; (v) adding
additional detail to the description of Discretionary Orders; (vi)
amending Rule 11.12, Priority of Orders, and Rule 11.13, Order
Execution, to provide additional specificity and enhance the structure
of Exchange rules describing the process for ranking, executing and
routing orders; (vii) adding additional detail to the description of
orders subject to Re-Route functionality; and (viii) making a series of
conforming changes to Rules 11.9, 11.12 and 11.13 to update cross-
references.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Rule 11.9(c)(6).
    \7\ As defined in Rule 1.5(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 11.9. The Exchange proposes revisions to Rule 11.9 to provide
greater detail as to the existing functionality of certain order types
and modifiers.\8\ Among other things, the Exchange proposes to make
clear that orders with an IOC TIF are routable but do not post to the
Exchange's book,\9\ whereas orders with a Fill-or-Kill (``FOK'') TIF
are not routable.\10\ The Exchange also proposes to clarify the
Exchange's methodology for determining whether BATS Post Only orders
will remove liquidity from the Exchange's order book upon entry.\11\ In
addition, the Exchange proposes to reformat the rule describing the
Primary Pegged and Market Pegged orders,\12\ and to make clear that
Mid-Point Peg Orders are not eligible to execute when the NBBO is
crossed but Users may elect whether such orders will be eligible to
execute when the NBBO is locked.\13\ Further, the Exchange proposes to
add additional detail to the rule describing Discretionary Orders so
that it specifies: (i) That Discretionary Orders may be fully non-
displayed, with a non-displayed ranked price (and discretionary price);
(ii) how resting Discretionary Orders interact with incoming contra-
side orders, including how the order type, TIF and price of the
incoming order affects whether the resting Discretionary Order removes
liquidity against the incoming order or the incoming order removes
liquidity against the resting Discretionary Order; and (iii) that
Discretionary Orders are routed away from the Exchange at their full
discretionary price.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For additional detail regarding the specific proposed
revisions for each order type and modifier, see Notice, supra note 3
at 8721-23, and proposed Rule 11.9.
    \9\ See proposed Rule 11.9(b)(1). In connection with this
proposed change the Exchange also proposes to specify that the
cancellation of an unfilled balance of an order is one possible
outcome after an order has been routed away. See proposed Rule
11.13(b)(2). This is what would occur with the unfilled balance of a
routed IOC order. See Notice, supra note 3 at 8721.
    \10\ See proposed Rule 11.9(b)(6).
    \11\ See proposed Rule 11.9(c)(6).
    \12\ See proposed Rule 11.9(c)(8).
    \13\ See proposed Rule 11.9(c)(9).
    \14\ See proposed Rule 11.9(c)(10). In addition, the Exchange
proposes to update cross references to rules that would be re-
numbered as a result of the proposal. See proposed Rules 11.9(c),
11.9(d) and 11.9(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 11.12. The Exchange proposes several modifications to Rule
11.12 that are intended to clarify existing functionality relating to
order priority. Some of these modifications would revise the structure
of Rule 11.12 or add cross references to other rules.\15\ In addition,
the Exchange proposes to revise Rule 11.12(a)(2) to refer to ranking,
rather than executing, equally-priced trading interest because,
according to the Exchange, the rule is intended to describe the manner
in which resting orders are ranked and maintained.\16\ The Exchange
also proposes to revise the reference to Pegged Orders in the priority
hierarchy set forth in Rule 11.12(a)(2) to make clear that the
reference is specifically to non-displayed Pegged Orders.\17\ The
Exchange notes that the purpose of this revision is to distinguish non-
displayed Pegged Orders from Primary Pegged Orders that, if displayed,
are ranked with other displayed orders.\18\ Further, the Exchange
proposes to adopt new Rule 11.12(a)(3), which would codify existing
match trade prevention rules that optionally prevent the execution of
orders from the same User.\19\ Lastly, the Exchange proposes to
renumber current Rules 11.12(a)(3) and (a)(4) as Rules 11.12(a)(4) and
(a)(5), respectively, and to revise them to clarify that time priority
in particular can be retained or lost in certain circumstances, as
opposed to both price and time priority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Notice, supra note 3 at 8723. See also proposed Rule
11.12(a).
    \16\ See Notice, supra note 3 at 8723. See also proposed Rule
11.12(a)(2).
    \17\ See Notice, supra note 3 at 8723. See also proposed Rule
11.12(a)(2)(C).
    \18\ See Notice, supra note 3 at 8723.
    \19\ See Notice, supra note 3 at 8723. See also proposed Rule
11.12(a)(3). The Exchange notes that proposed Rule 11.12(a)(3) is
based on EDGX Rule 11.9(a)(3). See Notice, supra note 3 at 8723.
    \20\ See Notice, supra note 3 at 8723. See also proposed Rules
11.12(a)(4) and (a)(5). In addition, the Exchange proposes to
renumber current Rules 11.12(a)(5) and (a)(6) as Rules 11.12(a)(6)
and (a)(7), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 11.13. The Exchange proposes several revisions to Rule 11.13,
which currently governs the execution and routing logic on the
Exchange. The Exchange proposes to restructure and reformat the rule in
certain ways, including by more clearly delineating between execution
(to be contained in new paragraph (a)) \21\ and routing (to be
contained in new paragraph (b)), adding sub-headings and descriptive
titles, adding a cross reference to the Exchange's rules related to the
Limit Up-Limit Down Plan, and revising existing cross references in the
rule.\22\ In addition, the Exchange proposes to add Rules
11.13(a)(4)(C) and (D), which would replace and amend existing text set
forth in Rule 11.13(a)(1) and are intended to provide further clarity
regarding how incoming orders are handled in certain situations when
there is undisplayed locking interest on the Exchange.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The Exchange proposes to move language contained within
Rule 11.13 to the beginning of new paragraph (a) such that the
language is more generally applicable to the rules governing
execution. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to relocate language
stating that any order falling within the parameters of the
paragraph shall be referred to as ``executable'' and that an order
will be cancelled back to the User if, based on market conditions,
User instructions, applicable Exchange Rules and/or the Act and the
rules and regulations thereunder, such order is not executable,
cannot be routed to another Trading Center pursuant to Rule 11.13(b)
(as proposed to be re-numbered), or cannot be posted to the BATS
Book. See Notice, supra note 3 at 8723-24. See also proposed Rule
11.13(a).
    \22\ See Notice, supra note 3 at 8724. See also proposed Rule
11.13.
    \23\ See Notice, supra note 3 at 8724. See also proposed Rules
11.13(a)(4)(C) and (D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes revisions to Rule 11.13 as it relates to
the Exchange's routing process, including its re-route functionality.
In particular, the Exchange proposes to add language to the rule's
description of the Aggressive Re-Route instruction (to be renumbered as
Rule 11.13(b)(4)(A)) that states that any routable non-displayed limit
order posted to the BATS Book that is crossed by another accessible
Trading Center will be automatically routed to that Trading Center.\24\
The Exchange also proposes to adopt new Rule 11.13(b)(4)(C), which
would specify when an order with a Super Aggressive Re-Route
instruction will remove liquidity against an incoming

order.\25\ Further, the Exchange proposes to revise Rule 11.13(b) (to
be renumbered as Rule 11.13(b)(5)) to make clear that orders that have
been routed pursuant to Rule 11.12(a) are not ranked and maintained by
the BATS Book, and therefore are not available to execute against
incoming orders pursuant to new Rule 11.13(a).\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Notice, supra note 3 at 8725. See also proposed Rule
11.13(b)(4)(A).
    \25\ See Notice, supra note 3 at 8725-26. See also proposed Rule
11.13(b)(4)(C).
    \26\ See Notice, supra note 3 at 8725. See also proposed Rule
11.13(b)(5). For additional detail regarding the Exchange's proposed
rule changes, including examples of the operation of functionality
addressed by this rule filing, see Notice, supra note 3 at 8721-26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\27\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of
the Act,\28\ which requires, among other things, that the Exchange's
rules be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest; and are not designed to permit unfair discrimination
between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will provide
additional clarity and specificity regarding the functionality of the
System, thus promoting just and equitable principals of trade and
promoting a fair and open market. In addition, the Exchange believes
the proposed rule change will contribute to the protection of investors
and the public interest by making the Exchange's rules easier to
understand.
    The Exchange states that the proposed rule changes add clarity and
transparency to the Exchange's rulebook regarding existing Exchange
functionality.\29\ For example, among other things, the Exchange's
proposal would amend Rule 11.9 to clarify that IOC orders are routable
and FOK orders are not routable, specify the methodology used by the
Exchange to determine whether BATS Post Only Orders will remove
liquidity from the BATS Book, and add additional detail describing the
operation of Mid-Point Peg Orders and Discretionary Orders. The
Exchange also has proposed to amend Rules 11.12 and 11.13 to provide
additional transparency as to, but not substantively modify, the
Exchange's process for ranking, executing and routing orders, including
orders subject to the Exchange's re-route functionality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Notice, supra note 3 at 8726.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that these proposed changes should provide
greater specificity, clarity and transparency with respect to certain
order type and modifier functionality available on the Exchange, as
well as the Exchange's methodologies for ranking, executing and routing
orders. Therefore, the proposal should help to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, promote just and equitable principles
of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and
open market and a national market system, and, in general, protect
investors and the public interest.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\30\ that the proposed rule change (SR-BATS-2015-09) be, and it
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-09267 Filed 4-21-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 214 (Friday, November 4, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 76956]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26719]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4286-DR]; [Docket ID FEMA-2016-0001]

South Carolina; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of South Carolina (FEMA-4286-DR), dated October 11, 2016,
and related determinations.

DATES: Effective October 17, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of South Carolina is hereby amended to include the
following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely
affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his
declaration of October 11, 2016.

    Allendale, Bamberg, Barnwell, Hampton, Lee, and Sumter Counties
for Individual Assistance and assistance for debris removal and
emergency protective measures (Categories A and B), including direct
federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.
    Beaufort, Colleton, Darlington, Dillon, Dorchester, Florence,
Georgetown, Jasper, and Williamsburg Counties for Individual
Assistance (already designated for assistance for debris removal and
emergency protective measures [Categories A and B], including direct
federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program).

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2016-26719 Filed 11-3-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P