[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 26 (Thursday, February 7, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9094-9098]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02708]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68807; File No. SR-NSX-2013-02]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt a New Order Type
Called the ``Auto-Ex Only'' Order

February 1, 2013.
    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 January 23, 2013, National Stock Exchange, Inc. (``NSX'' 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 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 proposing to: (1) add new definitions to clarify
its Automatic Execution Mode of order interaction (``Auto-Ex''); and
(2) implement a new order type called ``Auto-Ex Only,'' which would
only interact with orders entered though Auto-Ex mode.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.nsx.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 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 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 is proposing to: (1) add new definitions to clarify
Auto-Ex mode; and (2) implement a new order type called the ``Auto-Ex
Only'' order under NSX Rule 11.11(c)(13), which would allow a User \3\
to submit an order that will only interact with orders entered through
NSX's Auto-Ex mode.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A ``User'' is any ETP Holder or Sponsored Participant who is
authorized to obtain access to the System pursuant to Rule 11.9. See
Exchange Rule 1.5(U).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Auto-Ex Only Order Type

    On August 31, 2006, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``SEC'' or ``Commission'') approved amendments to NSX trading rules to
provide for a price-time priority market with two modes of order
interaction: (1) Auto-Ex and (2) Order Delivery.\4\ Every User of the
Exchange's trading system, NSX BLADE[supreg] (``Blade''), is eligible
to use the Auto-Ex mode, under which Blade matches and executes like-
priced orders (including against orders entered via Order Delivery
mode) that are resting on the NSX Book \5\ in accordance with the
process described in Exchange Rule 11.13(b)(1). Unlike Auto-Ex, a User
must meet certain eligibility standards prior to submitting displayed
and undisplayed orders using Order Delivery Mode (``Order Delivery
Participant'').\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54391 (August 31,
2006), 71 FR 52836 (September 7, 2006) (SR-NSX-2006-08). The
Exchange's two modes of order interaction are described in NSX Rule
11.13(b).
    \5\ Exchange Rule 1.5 defines ``NSX Book'' as ``the System's
electronic fie [sic] of orders.''
    \6\ See NSX Rule 11.13(b)(2) and the Interpretations and
Policies thereto. Order Delivery Participants typically submit their
orders as ``Post Only'' in order to preclude acting as a liquidity
taker (in Auto-Ex) and to prevent the Exchange from routing the
order away.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An incoming marketable order would be executed immediately against
contra-side orders entered via Auto-Ex mode resting in the NSX Book.
However, that same incoming marketable order may experience a delay if
matched against an order resting on the NSX Book that was entered by an
Order Delivery Participant via Order Delivery mode. The potential
delays are due to [sic] Exchange sending an Order Delivery Notification
\7\ to the Order Delivery Participant that posted the order requiring
them to execute a potential match. The Order Delivery Participant must
respond within defined time frames set by the Exchange with a complete
fill, a partial fill, or instruction to cancel in full.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ An Order Delivery Notification refers to a message sent by
the Exchange to the Order Delivery Participant communicating the
details of the full or partial quantity of an inbound contra-side
order that potentially may be matched within the System for
execution against an order entered via Order Delivery mode.
    \8\ See NSX Rule 11.13(b)(2) and the Interpretations and
Policies thereto.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To avoid such delays, the Exchange proposes to implement the Auto-
Ex Only order, a new order type that would allow Users to submit an
immediate-or-cancel (``IOC'') limit or market order with ``Auto-Ex
Only'' handling instructions. Auto-Ex Only orders would be executed
solely against orders with price-time priority entered via Auto-Ex mode
and posted to the NSX Book. An Auto-Ex Only order would not interact
with any orders resting on the NSX Book entered via Order Delivery Mode
nor would it be routed away to another trading center. Like an IOC
order,\9\ an unexecuted portion of an Auto-Ex Only order would be
cancelled if not fully matched for execution against Auto-Ex orders
with price/time priority on the NSX Book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Under NSX Rule 11.11(b)(1), an IOC order is a limit order
that is to be executed in whole or in part as soon as such order is
received, and the portion not so executed is to be treated as
cancelled. An order designated as IOC is not eligible to be routed
away pursuant to NSX Rule 11.15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that its price/time priority and order execution
rules \10\ would limit an Auto-Ex Only Order's ability to interact with
certain undisplayed orders. In addition, orders entered via Order
Delivery mode with price time priority may also inhibit an Auto-Ex Only
order's ability to interact with undisplayed liquidity. Specifically,
an Auto-Ex Only order would first execute against displayed orders on
the NSX Book. An Auto-Ex Only order could be precluded from interacting
with an undisplayed order (i.e., a Zero Display Reserve Order \11\)
entered via Auto-Ex mode if the undisplayed order shares a price point
with an order entered via Order Delivery mode.\12\ Similarly, an order
entered via Order Delivery mode could also prevent an incoming Auto-Ex
Only order from interacting with the undisplayed portion of a Reserve
Order \13\ under circumstances in which the order entered via Order
Delivery mode has price/time priority. Like displayed orders, the
displayed portion of a Reserve Order will interact against incoming
Auto-Ex Only orders only to the extent that there are no orders entered
via Order Delivery mode in the NSX Book with price/time priority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See NSX Rule 11.14(a) and, with respect to Reserve Orders
(including Zero Display Reserve Orders), NSX Rule 11.14(a)(4).
    \11\ See NSX Rule 11.11(c)(2)(A). A User may enter a Reserve
Order with zero display quantity, in which case the Reserve Order
will be known as a ``Zero Display Reserve Order.''
    \12\ An Auto-Ex Only order would interact with an undisplayed
order where an order entered via Order Delivery mode is also
undisplayed and has priority behind a displayed order not entered
via Order Delivery mode. See Example 4 infra.
    \13\ Under Exchange Rule 11.11(c)(2), a Reserve Order is defined
as a ``limit order with a portion of the quantity displayed
(``displayed quantity'') and with a reserve portion of the quantity
(``reserve quantity'') that is not displayed.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, the Exchange notes that Users may not rely on the Auto-Ex
Only order for compliance with Rule 611 of Regulation NMS because the
Auto-Ex Only order will not interact with orders entered via Order
Delivery mode that may be deemed ``protected quotations'' on the
Exchange.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Rule 611 of Regulation NMS, among other things, requires a
trading center to establish, maintain, and enforce written policies
and procedures reasonably designed to prevent ``trade-throughs''--
the execution of trades at prices inferior to protected quotations
displayed by other trading centers. To be protected, a quotation
must be immediately and automatically accessible. 17 CFR 242.611. An
Auto-Ex-Only order cannot be used as an Inter-market Sweep Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following examples describe the functionality of the proposed
Auto-Ex Only order. Each example lists orders

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
resting in the NSX Book in price/time priority.

    Example One:
National Best Bid and Offer (``NBBO''): 134.50-134.51

    Bids on the NSX Book:

134.50 x 400 (Order Delivery)
134.50 x 200 (Auto-Ex)

    Incoming Order:
Limit Order to sell 400 at 134.50

    Result: Currently, the Exchange would match the incoming limit
order to sell 400 shares at 134.50 against the order entered via Order
Delivery mode and send an Order Delivery Notification to the Order
Delivery Participant that posted the order. A potential delay may occur
while awaiting the Order Delivery Participant's response with a
complete fill, a partial fill, or instruction to cancel in full.
    If submitted as a proposed Auto-Ex Only order, the entire order
will be cancelled (like an IOC order) because the order is not eligible
to execute against the order entered via Order Delivery mode with
price/time priority ahead of the Auto-Ex order resting on the NSX Book.
A User sending an Auto-Ex Only order would receive an immediate
cancellation and avoid the delay inherent in otherwise interacting with
an order entered via Order Delivery.
    Example Two:
NBBO: 134.50-134.51

    Bids on the Exchange Book:

134.50 x 400 (Auto-Ex mode)
134.50 x 200 (Order Delivery mode)

    Incoming Order:

Limit Order to sell 400 at 134.50

    Result: Currently, an incoming limit order to sell 400 shares at
134.50 will be fully executed at 134.50 against the displayed Auto-Ex
order of 400 shares that is resting at the top of the NSX Book. The
system would operate the same under these circumstances, regardless of
which order type was selected, because the only resting order that
could interact with the incoming order was entered via Auto-Ex mode.
    Example Three:
NBBO: 134.50-134.51

    Bids on the Exchange Book:

134.50 x 400 (Auto-Ex mode)
134.50 x 200 (Order Delivery mode)

    Incoming Order:

Limit Order to sell 600 at 134.50

    Result: Currently, an incoming limit order to sell 600 shares will
execute at 134.50 against the 400 share Auto-Ex order resting at the
top of the NSX Book. The Exchange would then match the remaining 200
shares against the order entered via Order Delivery mode and send an
Order Delivery Notification to the Order Delivery Participant that
posted the order. A potential delay may occur while awaiting the Order
Delivery Participant's response with a complete fill, a partial fill,
or instruction to cancel in full.
    If submitted as a proposed Auto-Ex Only order, the incoming limit
order to sell 600 shares will receive a partial fill of 400 shares at
134.50 against the order entered via Auto-Ex mode at the top of the NSX
Book, and the remaining balance will be cancelled because, as per its
instructions, it could not interact with the resting order entered via
Order Delivery mode with second-in-time priority.
    Example Four:
NBBO: 134.50-134.51

    Bids on the Exchange Book:

Midpoint Peg x 500 (Auto-Ex mode/Dark)
134.50 x 400 (Order Delivery mode)
134.50 x 200 (Auto-Ex mode)
    Incoming Order:

Limit Order to sell 1000 at 134.50

    Result: Currently, an incoming limit order to sell 1000 shares
priced at 134.50 would execute against the Midpoint Peg Dark Auto-Ex
order of 500 shares at 134.505.
    The Exchange would then match the 400 shares at a price of 134.50
against the order entered via Order Delivery mode and send an Order
Delivery Notification to the Order Delivery Participant that posted the
order. A potential delay may occur while awaiting the Order Delivery
Participant's response with a complete fill, a partial fill, or
instruction to cancel in full. The 100 shares at a price of 134.50
would then execute against the 200 share order ender [sic] via Auto-Ex
mode with third-in-time priority.
    If submitted as an Auto-Ex Only order, the incoming limit order to
sell 1000 shares will receive a partial fill of 500 shares at 134.505
against the Midpoint Peg Dark Auto-Ex order with first price priority
on the NSX Book and the remaining balance of 500 shares will be
canceled because, as per its instructions, it cannot interact with the
order entered via Order Delivery mode that has next price/time
priority. The Midpoint Peg Dark Auto-Ex order executes first because,
even though it is a Dark order, it is an Auto-Ex order with first
(price) priority.
    Example Five:
NBBO: 134.51-134.52

    Bids on the Exchange Book:
134.50 x 400 (Auto-Ex mode)

134.50 x 200 (Order Delivery mode)
    Incoming Order:

Limit Order to sell 1000 at 134.50

    Result: Currently, an incoming limit order to sell 1000 shares at
134.50 would be routed to the away market to be matched against the
protected NBBO. If submitted as an Auto-Ex Only order, an incoming
limit order to sell any amount, will be cancelled because it would
otherwise trade through the NBBO in violation of Rule 611 of Regulation
NMS \15\ and Auto-Ex Only orders, as per their instructions, are not to
be routed away to another market center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 242.611.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Example Six:
NBBO: 134.50-134.51

    Bids on the Exchange Book:

134.50 x 400 (Auto-Ex mode)
134.50 x 800 (Auto-Ex mode)
134.50 x 600 (Auto-Ex mode)
134.50 x 200 (Order Delivery mode)
134.50 x 400 (Auto-Ex mode)
    Incoming Order:

Limit Order to sell 5000 shares at 134.50

    Result: Currently, an incoming limit order to sell 5000 shares at
134.50 would execute 2200 shares in the NSX Book at 134.50. The
Exchange would then match 200 shares at a price of 134.50 against the
order entered via Order Delivery mode and send an Order Delivery
Notification to the Order Delivery Participant that posted the order. A
potential delay may occur while awaiting the Order Delivery
Participant's response with a complete fill, a partial fill, or
instruction to cancel in full. The remaining 2600 shares would route to
an away market to be matched against the protected NBBO in compliance
with Rule 611 of Regulation NMS.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 242.611.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If submitted as an Auto-Ex Only order, an incoming limit order to
sell 5000 shares at 134.50 will receive a partial fill for 1800 shares
at 134.50 by being matched against the top three orders on NSX Book,
each of which was entered via Auto-Ex mode. The remaining shares will
be canceled because the order, as per its instructions, is not eligible
for execution against the order entered via Order Delivery that is next
in priority.
    Example Seven:
NBBO: 134.50-134.52

    Bids on the NSX Book:

134.50 x 400 (Auto-Ex mode)
134.50 x 200 (Order Delivery mode)

    Incoming Order:

Market Order to sell 600 shares at 134.50

    Result: Currently, an incoming market order to sell 600 shares at
134.50 would execute 400 shares against the order

entered via Auto-Ex mode resting in the NSX Book at 134.50. The
Exchange would then match the remaining 200 shares at a price of 134.50
against the order entered via Order Delivery mode and send an Order
Delivery Notification to the Order Delivery Participant that posted the
order. A potential delay may occur while awaiting the Order Delivery
Participant's response with a complete fill, a partial fill, or
instruction to cancel in full.
    If submitted as an Auto-Ex Only order, an incoming market order to
sell 600 shares will execute only against the Auto-Ex order for 400
shares at 134.50. The remaining unexecuted shares will cancelled
because the order, as per its instructions, is not eligible for
execution against the order entered via Order Delivery mode that is
next in priority.
    Example Eight:
NBBO: 134.50-134.51

    Bids on the Exchange Book:

134.50 x 100/500 (Auto-Ex mode/Reserve Order showing 100 displayed and
500 undisplayed)
134.50 x 200 (Auto-Ex mode)
134.50 x 400 (Order Delivery mode)

    Incoming Order:

Limit Order to sell 1000 at 134.50

    Result: Currently, an incoming limit order to sell 1000 shares
priced at 134.50 would execute 100 shares at 134.50 against the Reserve
Order's displayed quantity; would execute 200 at 134.50 against the
second-priority Auto-Ex order. The Exchange would then match 400 shares
at a price of 134.50 against the order entered via Order Delivery mode
and send an Order Delivery Notification to the Order Delivery
Participant that posted the order. A potential delay may occur while
awaiting the Order Delivery Participant's response with a complete
fill, a partial fill, or instruction to cancel in full. On the next
three passes through the NSX Book (and assuming a fill of 400 shares
against the order entered via Order Delivery mode), the balance of the
incoming order of 300 shares would be filled (in 100 lot increments on
each pass/refresh) at 134.50 against the refreshed, displayed portion
of the Reserve Order.
    If submitted as An Auto-Ex Only order, an incoming limit order to
sell 1000 shares will receive a fill of 100 shares at 134.50 against
the displayed portion of the Auto-Ex Reserve Order; a fill of 200
shares at 134.50 against the next Auto-Ex order with second-in-time
priority; and the remaining balance of 700 shares will cancelled
because, as per its instructions, it cannot interact with the order
entered via Order Delivery mode that has next price/time priority. The
displayed portion only of the Auto-Ex Reserve Order executes first
because it has first time priority, but the balance of the Reserve
Order is not matched for execution because the remaining portions of
the Reserve Order would refresh and become displayed with a time
priority after the resting order entered via Order Delivery mode, the
presence of which cancels the unfilled balance of the Auto-Ex Only
order before it can be matched against the refreshed portions of the
Reserve Order.

Rationale for Auto-Ex Only Order

    The proposed Auto-Ex Only order will benefit Users by allowing them
to interact only with orders entered via Auto-Ex mode, thereby avoiding
the delays associated with interacting with orders entered via Order
Delivery mode. Currently, when an incoming Auto-Ex order is matched
against an order entered via Order Delivery mode, the Exchange sends an
Order Delivery Notification to the Order Delivery Participant that
posted the order. The incoming Auto-Ex order may experience a potential
delay while awaiting the Order Delivery Participant's response with a
complete fill, a partial fill, or instruction to cancel in full.
Conversely, an Auto-Ex Only order would provide Users with a quicker
response by avoiding the processing time associated with potential
interaction with [sic] resting order entered via Order Delivery mode.

Proposed Definitions

    Lastly, the Exchange proposes to amend NSX Rule 1.5 and 11.11 to
include definitions for Auto-Ex Mode and Auto-Ex Orders. First, the
Exchange proposes to define ``Automatic Execution Mode'' under Exchange
Rule 1.5 as ``[t]he mode of order interaction on the Exchange as
described in Rule 11.13(b)(1).'' Second, the Exchange proposes to
define ``Auto-Ex Order'' under Exchange Rule 11.11(c)(11) as ``[a]
limit or market order that is automatically executed by the System
against any marketable contra side order as in the manner described in
Rule 11.13(b)(1).'' As discussed earlier, the Commission approved in
2006 amendments to NSX trading rules to provide for a price-time
priority market with two modes of order interaction: (1) Auto-Ex and
(2) Order Delivery.\17\ These definitions are meant to add clarity to
Exchange Rules and improve the ability to reference Auto-Ex mode
elsewhere in future amendments to Exchange rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Exchange Act Release No. 54391, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed Auto-Ex Only order is consistent
with Section 6 of the Act,\18\ and the rules and regulations thereunder
and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\19\
Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed Auto-Ex Only order
furthers the objective of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \20\ because it
promotes just and equitable principles of trade, removes impediments
to, and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system. The proposed Auto-Ex Only order allows Users to choose
to only interact with orders entered via Auto-Ex mode, thereby avoiding
the delays associated with interacting with orders entered via Order
Delivery mode. Currently, when an incoming Auto-Ex order is matched
against an order entered via Order Delivery mode, the Exchange sends an
Order Delivery Notification to the Order Delivery Participant who
posted the order alerting them of a potential match. The incoming Auto-
Ex order may experience a potential delay while awaiting the Order
Delivery Participant's response with a complete fill, a partial fill,
or instruction to cancel in full. On the contrary, an Auto-Ex Only
order would provide Users with a quicker response by interacting only
with orders entered via Auto-Ex mode, thereby avoiding the processing
delays associated with [sic] potential interaction with [sic] resting
order entered via Order Delivery mode. Therefore, the Exchange believes
the quicker response times resulting from the use of the Auto-Ex Only
order promotes just and equitable principles of trade, removes
impediments to, and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market
and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, the Exchange believes the proposed definitions under
Exchange Rules 1.5 and 11.11 are consistent with Section 6(b) \21\ of
the Act, in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5)
\22\ in that they are designed 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. The Exchange believes
that adding these definitions will add clarity to the Exchange's Rules
and, therefore,

promotes just and equitable principles of trade, removes impediments
to, and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. The proposed Auto-Ex Only
order will benefit Users by allowing them to interact only with orders
entered via Auto-Ex mode, thereby avoiding the delays associated with
interacting with orders entered via Order Delivery mode. The proposed
definitions under Exchange Rules 1.5 and 11.11 are meant to simply add
clarity to Exchange rules. Therefore, the Exchange believes the
proposed Auto-Ex Only Order and definitions under Exchange Rules 1.5
and 11.11 do not 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

    Written comments on the proposed rule change 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 up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate 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 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-NSX-2013-02 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-NSX-2013-02. 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-NSX-2013-02 and should be
submitted on or before February 28, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-02708 Filed 2-6-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 142 (Tuesday, July 26, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44386-44387]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15996]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER22-2412-000]

Bulldog Solar, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Bulldog Solar, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is August 9, 2022.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling

link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 20, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-15996 Filed 7-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 191 (Thursday, October 2, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59537-59541]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23480]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73237; File No. SR-BATS-2014-043]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt
Rule 11.24 To Permit Members To Designate Their Retail Orders To Be
Identified as Retail on the Exchange's Proprietary Data Feeds

September 26, 2014.
    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 September 18, 2014, BATS Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BATS'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
has designated this proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective upon filing with
the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange filed a proposed rule change to adopt a retail
attribution program under new Rule 11.24. Under the program, Members
\5\ will be able to designate that the orders they submit to the
Exchange on behalf of retail customers be identified as Retail on the
Exchange's proprietary data feeds.\6\ The proposed rule change is
substantially similar to the existing rules of the BATS Y-Exchange,
Inc. (``BYX'') \7\ and EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX'').\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A ``Member'' is defined ``any registered broker or dealer
that has been admitted to membership in the Exchange. A Member will
have the status of a ``member'' of the Exchange as that term is
defined in Section 3(a)(3) of the Act. Membership may be granted to
a sole proprietor, partnership, corporation, limited liability
company or other organization which is a registered broker or dealer
pursuant to Section 15 of the Act, and which has been approved by
the Exchange.'' BYX Rule 1.5(n).
    \6\ The Exchanges proprietary data feeds are set forth under
Exchange Rule 11.22.
    \7\ See BYX Rule 11.24. Securities Exchange Act Release Nos.
68303 (November 27, 2012), 77 FR 71652 (December 3, 2012) (``RPI
Approval Order'') (SR-BYX-2012-019); 69643 (May 28, 2013), 78 FR
33136 (June 3, 2013) (Approval Order) (SR-BYX-2013-008); 71249
(January 7, 2014), 79 FR 2229 (January 13, 2014) (SR-BYX-2014-001)
(Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness to Extend the Pilot
Period for the Retail Price Improvement Program); and 72730 (July
31, 2014), 79 FR 45857 (SR-BYX-2014-013) (Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness to Amend Rule 11.24(a)(2) to Include
Riskless Principal Orders to the Types of Orders that May Qualify as
Retail Orders under the Retail Price Improvement Program).
    \8\ See Footnote 4 of the Exchange's Fee Schedule available at
http://www.directedge.com/Trading/EDGXFeeSchedule.aspx; Securities
Exchange Act Release Nos. 68310 (November 28, 2012), 77 FR 71860
(December 4, 2012) (SR-EDGX-2012-47) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Amend EDGX Rule 15.1(a) and
(c)); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69378 (April 15, 2013), 78
FR 23617 (April 19, 2013) (SR-EDGX-2013-13) (Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Amend Footnote 4
of the Exchange's Fee Schedule Regarding Retail Orders); 69852 (June
25, 2013), 78 FR 39420 (July 1, 2013) (SR-EDGX-2013-20) (Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness to Amend Footnote 4 of the
Exchange's Fee Schedule Regarding Retail Orders); and 72292 (June 2,
2014), 79 FR 32798 (June 6, 2014) (SR-EDGX-2014-13) (Order Approving
Proposed Rule Change to Amend Footnote 4 of the Exchange's Fee
Schedule to Permit Members to Designate their Retail Orders to be
Identified as Retail on the EDGX Book Feed).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.batstrading.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 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 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 adopt a retail attribution program under
new Rule 11.24. Under the program, Members will be able to designate
that the orders they submit to the Exchange on behalf of retail
customers be identified as Retail on the Exchange's proprietary data
feeds. The proposed rule change is substantially similar to the
existing rules of BYX and EDGX.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See supra notes 7 and 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Earlier this year, the Exchange and its affiliate BATS Y-Exchange,
Inc. (``BYX'') received approval to effect a merger (the ``Merger'') of
the Exchange's parent company, BATS Global Markets, Inc., with Direct
Edge Holdings LLC, the indirect parent of EDGX and EDGA Exchange, Inc.
(``EDGA,'' and together with BATS, BYX and EDGX, the ``BGM Affiliated
Exchanges'').\10\ In the context of the Merger, the BGM Affiliated
Exchanges are working to align certain system functionality, retaining
only intended differences between the BGM Affiliated Exchanges. Thus,
the proposal set forth below is intended to add certain system
functionality currently offered by BYX and EDGX in order to provide a
consistent technology offering for members of the BGM Affiliated
Exchanges.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71375 (January 23,
2014), 79 FR 4771 (January 29, 2014) (SR-BATS-2013-059; SR-BYX-2013-
039).
    \11\ The Exchange anticipates that EDGA will submit a similar
proposed rule change in the future to add a definition for ``Retail
Order'' and to permit members to designate that their Retail Orders
be identified as Retail on their respective proprietary data feeds.

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

    Both BYX and EDGX \12\ have established programs in an attempt to
attract retail order flow to the Exchange. Under BYX's Retail Price
Improvement (``RPI'') Program, all exchange members are permitted to
submit Retail Price Improvement Orders (``RPI Orders'') \13\ which are
designed to provide potential price improvement for Retail Orders in
the form of non-displayed interest that is better than the national
best bid that is a Protected Quotation (``Protected NBB'') or the
national best offer that is a Protected Quotation (``Protected NBO,''
and together with the Protected NBB, the ``Protected NBBO'').\14\ Under
the EDGX program, eligible EDGX members may qualify for a rebate under
the Retail Order Tier included in Footnote 4 of the EDGX fee schedule.
Both the BYX and EDGX rules define a Retail Order \15\ and provides
[sic] attestation requirements \16\ that Members must complete to send
Retail Orders to the Exchange.\17\ Under the EDGX program, eligible
members may designate also that their Retail Orders be identified as
Retail on the EDGX book feed.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See supra notes 7 and 8.
    \13\ A ``Retail Price Improvement Order'' is defined in BYX Rule
11.24(a)(3) as an order that consists of non-displayed interest on
the Exchange that is priced better than the Protected NBB or
Protected NBO by at least $0.001 and that is identified as such. See
Rule 11.24(a)(3).
    \14\ The term Protected Quotation is defined in BYX Rule 1.5(t)
and has the same meaning as is set forth in Regulation NMS Rule
600(b)(58). The terms Protected NBB and Protected NBO are defined in
BYX Rule 1.5(s). The Protected NBB is the best-priced protected bid
and the Protected NBO is the best-priced protected offer. Generally,
the Protected NBB and Protected NBO and the national best bid
(``NBB'') and national best offer (``NBO,'' together with the NBB,
the ``NBBO'') will be the same. However, a market center is not
required to route to the NBB or NBO if that market center is subject
to an exception under Regulation NMS Rule 611(b)(1) or if such NBB
or NBO is otherwise not available for an automatic execution. In
such case, the Protected NBB or Protected NBO would be the best-
priced protected bid or offer to which a market center must route
interest pursuant to Regulation NMS Rule 611.
    \15\ Both BYX and EDGX define Retail Order (i) an agency or
riskless principal order that meets the criteria of FINRA Rule
5320.03 that originates from a natural person; (ii) is submitted to
EDGX by a Member, provided that no change is made to the terms of
the order; and (iii) the order does not originate from a trading
algorithm or any other computerized methodology. See supra notes 7
and 8.
    \16\ Both BYX and EDGX require Members to submit a signed
written attestation, in a form prescribed by the exchange, that they
have implemented policies and procedures that are reasonably
designed to ensure that substantially all orders designated by the
Member as a ``Retail Order'' comply with the above requirements. See
supra notes 7 and 8.
    \17\ The attestation requirements and definition of Retail Order
under Exchange Rule 11.24 are substantially similar to Footnote 4 of
the EDGX fee schedule. See supra notes 7 and 8.
    \18\ See Footnote 4 of the EDGX's fee schedule available at
http://www.directedge.com/Trading/EDGXFeeSchedule.aspx. To align
functionality with EDGX, BYX has also recently submitted a proposed
rule change to the Commission to add paragraph (i) to Rule 11.24 to
permit Members to designate that their Retail Orders submitted under
the Exchange's RPI Program be identified as Retail on BYX's
proprietary data feeds, rather than by their MPID. See SR-BYX-2014-
024 (filed September 17, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to adopt a retail attribution program under
new Rule 11.24. Under the program, Members who satisfy the requirements
under proposed Rule 11.24 will be able to designate that their orders
they submit to the Exchange on behalf of retail customers be identified
as Retail on the Exchange's proprietary data feeds. Specifically,
proposed Rule 11.24 would: (i) Define a Retail Order and Retail Member
Organization (``RMO''); (ii) set forth an RMO's qualification and
application requirements; (iii) outline procedures for when an RMO
fails to abide by the Retail Order requirements; and (iv) outline the
procedures under which a Member may appeal the Exchange's decision to
disapprove it or disqualify it as an RMO. The proposed rule change is
substantially similar to the existing functionality and requirements on
the BYX \19\ and EDGX.\20\ However, unlike the BYX and EDGX programs,
the proposed rule change would not include any rebate provision or
mechanics for price improvement, as described above. The proposed rule
change would only allow an RMO to designate that their Retail Orders be
identified as Retail on the Exchange's proprietary data feeds,\21\ as
is currently provided for by EDGX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See supra note 7.
    \20\ See supra note 8.
    \21\ The Exchange will submit a proposed rule change to the
Commission should it decide in the future to expand the program to
include a rebate or price improvement mechanism for Retail Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Definitions
    The Exchange proposes to adopt the following definitions under
proposed Rule 11.24(a). First, the term ``Retail Member Organization''
would be defined as a Member (or a division thereof) that has been
approved by the Exchange to submit Retail Orders. The proposed
definition of Retail Member Organization is identical to that contained
in BYX Rule 11.24(a)(1).\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the term ``Retail Order'' would be defined as an agency or
riskless principal order that meets the criteria of FINRA Rule 5320.03
that originates from a natural person and is submitted to the Exchange
by an RMO, provided that no change is made to the terms of the order
with respect to price or side of market and the order does not
originate from a trading algorithm or any other computerized
methodology. The proposed definition of Retail Order is identical to
that contained in BYX Rule 11.24(a)(1) and in Footnote 4 of the EDGX
fee schedule.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See supra notes 7 and 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Program Requirements and Procedures
    The proposed rule change would also include qualification standards
and a review process identical to BYX Rule 11.24(b). The qualification
and review standards under proposed Rule 11.24(b) are designed to
ensure that Members are properly qualified as an RMO and only attribute
as Retail those orders that meet the definition of Retail Orders under
proposed Rule 11.24(a)(1) described above. Like on BYX, under proposed
Rule 11.24(b), any Member could qualify as an RMO if it conducts a
retail business or handles Retail Orders on behalf of another broker-
dealer. Any Member that wishes to obtain RMO status would be required
to submit: (1) An application form; (2) an attestation, in a form
prescribed by the Exchange, that substantially all orders submitted by
the Member as Retail Orders would meet the qualifications for such
orders under proposed Rule 11.24(a)(1); and (3) supporting
documentation sufficient to demonstrate the retail nature and
characteristics of the applicant's order flow.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ For example, a prospective RMO could be required to provide
sample marketing literature, Web site screenshots, other publicly
disclosed materials describing the retail nature of their order
flow, and such other documentation and information as the Exchange
may require to obtain reasonable assurance that the applicant's
order flow would meet the requirements of the Retail Order
definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Like on BYX and EDGX, an RMO would be required to have written
policies and procedures reasonably designed to assure that it will only
designate orders as Retail Orders if all requirements of a Retail Order
are met. Such written policies and procedures must require the Member
to (i) exercise due diligence before entering a Retail Order to assure
that entry as a Retail Order is in compliance with the requirements of
this rule, and (ii) monitor whether orders entered as Retail Orders
meet the applicable requirements. If the RMO represents Retail Orders
from another broker-dealer customer, the RMO's supervisory procedures
must be reasonably designed to assure that the orders it receives from
such broker-dealer customer that it designates as Retail Orders meet
the definition of a Retail Order. The RMO

must (i) obtain an annual written representation, in a form acceptable
to the Exchange, from each broker-dealer customer that sends it orders
to be designated as Retail Orders that entry of such orders as Retail
Orders will be in compliance with the requirements of this rule, and
(ii) monitor whether its broker-dealer customer's Retail Order flow
continues to meet the applicable requirements.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ The Exchange or another self-regulatory organization on
behalf of the Exchange will review an RMO's compliance with these
requirements through an exam-based review of the RMO's internal
controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the Exchange disapproves the application, the Exchange would
provide a written notice to the Member. The disapproved applicant could
appeal the disapproval by the Exchange as provided in proposed Rule
11.24(d), and/or reapply for RMO status 90 days after the disapproval
notice is issued by the Exchange. The disapproval process is identical
to BYX Rule 11.24(b)(4). An RMO also could voluntarily withdraw from
such status at any time by giving written notice to the Exchange.
Failure of RMO To Abide by Retail Order Requirements
    Proposed Rule 11.24(c) addresses an RMO's failure to abide by
Retail Order requirements, which are identical to existing BYX Rule
11.24(c). If an RMO designates orders submitted to the Exchange as
Retail Orders and the Exchange determines, in its sole discretion, that
those orders fail to meet any of the requirements of Retail Orders, the
Exchange may disqualify a Member from its status as an RMO. When
disqualification determinations are made, the Exchange would provide a
written disqualification notice to the Member. A disqualified RMO could
appeal the disqualification as provided in proposed Rule 11.24(d) and/
or reapply for RMO status 90 days after the disqualification notice is
issued by the Exchange.
Appeal of Disapproval or Disqualification
    Proposed Rule 11.24(d) provides appeal rights to Members, which are
also identical to existing BYX Rule 11.24(d). If a Member disputes the
Exchange's decision to disapprove it as an RMO under Rule 11.24(b) or
disqualify it under Rule 11.24(c), such Member (``appellant'') may
request, within five business days after notice of the decision is
issued by the Exchange, that the Retail Attribution Panel (the
``Panel'') review the decision to determine if it was correct.
    The Panel would consist of the Exchange's Chief Regulatory Officer
(``CRO''), or a designee of the CRO, and two officers of the Exchange
designated by the Chief Information Officer (``CIO''). The Panel would
review the facts and render a decision within the time frame prescribed
by the Exchange. The Panel could overturn or modify an action taken by
the Exchange and all determinations by the Panel would constitute final
action by the Exchange on the matter at issue.
Attribution
    Currently, Members may elect that their display-eligible orders
entered into the Exchange utilize Attributable Orders \26\ to include
their market participant identifier (``MPID'') with their published
quotations on the Exchange's proprietary data feeds. Under the EDGX
program, eligible members may designate that their Retail Orders be
identified as Retail on the EDGX book feed, rather than by their
MPID.\27\ To align functionality with EDGX, the Exchange now proposes
Rule 11.24(i) [sic] to permit Members to designate that their Retail
Orders submitted under the Exchange's RPI Program be identified as
Retail on the Exchange's proprietary data feeds.\28\ Members will still
be permitted to designate their Retail Orders by their MPID if they do
not choose this optional functionality. The Exchange proposes to allow
Members to designate their orders as Retail on an order-by-order basis
or by establishing a port setting such that all orders submitted
through a specific order entry port are designated as Retail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ An Attributable Order is defined as, ``[a]n order that is
designated for display (price and size) including the User's market
participant identifier (`MPID').'' See Rule 11.9(c)(14).
    \27\ See supra note 8.
    \28\ A Member's decision on whether to identify their Retail
Order as Retail under the proposed rule change will not impact that
Member's eligibility to qualify as a Retail Member Organization
under Rule 11.24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\29\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\30\ in particular, in that it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule
change is consistent with these principles because it would increase
competition among execution venues, encourage additional liquidity, and
offer the potential for increased execution opportunities to retail
investors. The Exchange notes that a significant percentage of the
orders of individual investors are executed over-the-counter.\31\ The
Exchange believes that it is appropriate to create a [sic] such a
retail attribution program to bring more retail order flow to a public
market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \31\ See Concept Release on Equity Market Structure, Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 61358 (January 14, 2010), 75 FR 3594
(January 21, 2010) (noting that dark pools and internalizing broker-
dealers executed approximately 25.4% of share volume in September
2009). See also Mary L. Schapiro, Strengthening Our Equity Market
Structure (Speech at the Economic Club of New York, Sept. 7, 2010)
(available on the Commission's Web site). In her speech, Chairman
Schapiro noted that nearly 30 percent of volume in U.S.-listed
equities was executed in venues that do not display their liquidity
or make it generally available to the public and the percentage was
increasing nearly every month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change is substantially similar to the existing
functionality and rules of the BYX \32\ and EDGX.\33\ The Exchange also
notes that the Commission approved a similar programs [sic] by NYSE and
NYSE MKT.\34\ The proposed retail attribution program would contain
identical definitions, standards and qualification procedures as the
BYX, NYSE, and NYSE MKT programs. However, unlike these programs, the
proposed rule change would not include any rebate provision or
mechanics for price improvement, as described above. Like the
Commission approved for EDGX,\35\ the proposed rule change would only
allow an RMO to designate that their Retail Orders be identified as
Retail on the Exchange's proprietary data feeds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See supra note 7.
    \33\ See supra note 8.
    \34\ See New York Stock Exchange, Inc.'s (``NYSE'') Rule 107C.
See also NYSE MKT LLC (``NYSE MKT'') Rule 107C; NYSE Arca, Inc.
(``NYSE Arca'') Rule 7.44. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67347
(July 3, 2012), 77 FR 40673 (July 10, 2012) (SR-NYSE-2011-55; SR-
NYSEAmex-2011-84) (the ``RLP Approval Order''). In conjunction with
the approval of the NYSE Retail Liquidity Program, a nearly
identical program was proposed and approved to operate on NYSE MKT
LLC (formerly, the American Stock Exchange). For ease of reference,
the comparisons made in this section only refer to NYSE Rule 107C,
but apply equally to NYSE MKT Rule 107C. The Exchange notes that the
NYSE and NYSE MKT programs do not allow members to elect that their
retail orders be identified as Retail on the exchange's proprietary
data feeds.
    \35\ See supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposal will benefit market
participants and help to promote transparency by providing additional
information regarding quotations displayed on the Exchange and

disseminated via the Exchange's proprietary data feeds. Specifically,
any Member who satisfies the requirement under Rule 11.24(b) that
wishes to disclose via the Exchange's proprietary data feeds that their
order is a Retail Order will be permitted to do so, and such
functionality is substantially similar to that currently offered by
EDGX.\36\ The proposal also promotes transparency by disseminating
additional order information from Members who may otherwise designate
their order as non-attributable, and thereby not include their MPID
with their published quote on the Exchange's proprietary data
feeds.\37\ As a result, the proposal will provide Members additional
visibility into the types of orders they may interact with when an
order is identified as a Retail Order. The Exchange also believes that
the proposed rule change is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it would encourage Members who wish to execute
against Retail Orders to send additional orders to the Exchange.
Therefore, the Exchange believes the increased liquidity would
potentially stimulating further price competition for Retail Orders,
deepening the Exchange's liquidity pool, supporting the quality of
price discovery, and promoting market transparency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Id.
    \37\ The Exchange understands that, to date, EDGX has not
experienced members who attribute orders by their MPID electing to
instead attribute their Retail Orders as Retail on the EDGX book
feed. On the contrary, the Exchange understands that EDGX members
who previously did not attribute their order have chosen to do so as
Retail under the EDGX program. Therefore, the Exchange does not
anticipate its Members who currently utilize Attributable Orders to
now elect that their Retail Orders be attributed as Retail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes its proposed qualification standards and
review process under Rule 11.24 promote just and equitable principles
and are not unfairly discriminatory because they are designed to ensure
that Members are properly qualified as an RMO and only attribute as
Retail those orders that meet the definition of Retail Orders under
proposed Rule 11.24(a)(1) described above. The qualification process
proposed herein by the Exchange is not designed to permit unfair
discrimination, but rather ensure that order that are designated to be
attributed are Retail are, in fact, order submitted by a retail
customer that satisfy the proposed definition of Retail Order. Lastly,
the Exchange notes that these qualification and review provisions are
identical to those includes in the rules of the BYX, NYSE, and NYSE MKT
that have been previously approved by the Commission.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See supra notes 7 and 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that allowing a Member to designate orders as
Retail on either an order-by-order or on a port-by-port basis is
consistent with the Act for the same reasons as the proposal as a whole
is consistent with the Act. The Exchange believes that either method of
designation results in the same message being received and processed by
the Exchange's systems, and thus, merely reflects a detail in
connection with the implementation of the optional designation.
    Lastly, the proposed rule change is also generally intended to add
certain system functionality currently offered by EDGX in order to
provide a consistent technology offering for the Exchange and EDGX. A
consistent technology offering, in turn, will simplify the technology
implementation, changes and maintenance by Members of the Exchange that
are also participants on EDGX. The proposed rule change would also
provide Members with access to functionality that may result in the
efficient execution of such orders and will provide additional
flexibility as well as increased functionality to the Exchange's System
and its Members.

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

    The Exchange believes its proposed rule change would not impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the
proposed amendment will not burden intramarket competition because the
ability to designate Retail Orders to be identified as Retail on the
Exchange's proprietary data feeds, rather than by their MPID, would be
open to all Members that wish to send Retail Orders to the Exchange.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change would increase
intermarket competition by identifying orders as Retail via the
Exchange's proprietary data feeds would [sic] enable the Exchange to
better compete with other exchanges that offer similar retail order
programs.\39\ The Exchange believes that the amendment, by increasing
the amount of disseminated information regarding Retail Orders, will
increase the level of competition around retail executions resulting in
better prices for retail investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See supra note 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange reiterates that the proposed rule change is being
proposed in the context of the technology integration of the BGM
Affiliated Exchanges. Thus, the Exchange believes this proposed rule
change is necessary to permit fair competition among national
securities exchanges. In addition, the Exchange believes the proposed
rule change will benefit Exchange participants in that it is one of
several changes necessary to achieve offering consistent functionality
by the BGM Affiliated Exchanges.

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
the proposed rule change.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \40\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\41\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \41\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \42\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\43\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange believes
that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange believes
that waiver will provide market participants with additional
transparency by disseminating additional order information regarding
the types of orders they may interact with when an order is identified
as a Retail Order in

a timelier manner. The Exchange further believes that waiver will
immediately encourage market participants to send additional orders to
the Exchange, thereby potentially stimulating further price competition
for Retail Orders, deepening the Exchange's liquidity pool, supporting
the quality of price discovery, and promoting market transparency. The
Commission believes that waiver of the operative delay is consistent
with investor protection and the public interest. As a result, the
Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the
proposal operative upon filing.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \43\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \44\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

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-BATS-2014-043 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-BATS-2014-043. 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 such 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-BATS-2014-043, and should be
submitted on or before October 23, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-23480 Filed 10-1-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 86 (Tuesday, May 5, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25758-25761]
[FR Doc No: 2015-10411]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74841; File No. SR-NYSEARCA-2015-32]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Modifying Its Rules
To Provide for the Use of Ports That Provide Connectivity to the
Exchange's Trading Systems Solely for the Cancellation or ``Takedown''
of Quotes and Changes to the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule Related to
Quote Takedown Service

April 29, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on April 17 2015, 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 and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 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 modify its rules to provide for the use of
ports that provide connectivity to the Exchange's trading systems
solely for the cancellation or ``takedown'' of quotes. In addition, the
proposed rule change reflects changes to the NYSE Arca Options Fee
Schedule (``Fee Schedule'') related to this quote takedown service. 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 modify its rules to provide for the use of
ports that provide connectivity to the Exchange's trading systems
solely for the cancellation or ``takedown'' of quotes. In addition, the
proposed rule change reflects changes to the Fee Schedule related to
this quote takedown service.
Order/Quote Entry Ports
    The Exchange currently makes available to OTP Holders and OTP Firms
(``OTPs'') order/quote entry ports for connectivity to Exchange trading
systems (each an ``order/quote entry port''). OTPs may be authorized to
utilize order/quote entry ports for option activity on NYSE Arca
Options and incur monthly Port Fees. Currently, the Exchange charges
$450 per month, per order/quote entry port for the first 40 ports and
$150 per month, per order/quote entry port for any additional ports in
excess of 40 (i.e., ports 41 and

greater).\4\ While order/quote entry ports may be used by OTPs
registered as Market Makers to both enter and cancel or remove quotes,
Market Makers may dedicate certain ports solely to the removal of
quotes, i.e., a ``quote takedown port,'' \5\ and, until now, the
Exchange has treated such dedicated quote takedown ports the same as
order/quote entry port [sic] for Port Fee purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Fee Schedule, available at, https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/arca-options/NYSE_Arca_Options_Fee_Schedule.pdf. Unutilized order/quote entry
ports that connect to the Exchange via its backup datacenter are
considered established for backup purposes and are not subject to
Port Fees. In addition, for purpose of calculating the number of
order/quote entry ports, the Exchange shall aggregate the ports of
affiliates. See id.
    \5\ See Trader Update regarding Options Pre-Trade and Post-Trade
Risk Controls, available at,  https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/amex-options/US_Options_Risk_Controls_Client_Document.pdf
(announcing availability of ports dedicated to quote takedown to
minimize latency for quote takedowns).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote Takedown Ports
    The Exchange is proposing to modify its rules to provide ports
specifically dedicated to quote cancellation or ``quote takedown''
(each a ``Quote Takedown Port'') as a service distinct from order/quote
entry ports, which may be used both for entering quotes or orders and
removing or cancelling quotes. The proposed Quote Takedown Ports would
be designed to assist OTPs registered as Marker Makers in the
management of, and risk control over, their quotes, particularly if
they have a large number of options issues in their appointment. For
example, if a Market Maker detects market indications that may
influence the direction or bias of its quotes, the Market Maker may
attempt to cancel all of its quotes in a number of classes, thereby
avoiding unintended executions, while it evaluates the direction of the
market. Thus, to reduce uncertainty, the Marker Maker may submit to the
Exchange a ``quote takedown'' message through a dedicated Quote
Takedown Port for the prompt removal of quotes. By entering a quote
takedown message through a dedicated Quote Takedown Port, a Market
Maker may reduce its exposure to risk because of heavy quote traffic-
induced latency.
    The Exchange proposes to modify the Fee Schedule to provide that
certain Quote Takedown Ports would not be subject to Port Fees.
Specifically, for each order/quote entry port utilized, the Exchange
proposes to allow Market Makers to utilize, free of charge, one Quote
Takedown Port. Because Quote Takedown Ports would not be available for
quote or order submission, the Exchange is proposing to allow one Quote
Takedown Port free of charge for every order/quote entry port that a
Market Maker utilizes. In other words, provided a Market Maker does not
exceed a 1-to-1 ratio of order/quote entry port-to-Quote Takedown Port,
the Quote Takedown Port(s) would be free (the ``1-to-1 ratio'').
However, a Market Maker that exceeds the 1-to-1 ratio would be charged
for additional Quote Takedown Ports. For example, a Market Maker with
thirty-five (35) order/quote entry ports and forty-two (42) Quote
Takedown Ports would have forty-two (42) ports subject to charge
because the Exchange would charge for the 35 order/quote entry ports
and the seven Quote Takedown Ports that exceed the 1-1 ratio (42 - 35 =
7). The Exchange would not charge for the first 35 Quote Takedown Ports
because those ports would meet the 1-to-1 ratio.
    Similarly, the Exchange would not include those Quote Takedown
Ports that meet the 1-to-1 ratio to determine a Market Maker's total
number of ports for purposes of calculating Port Fees. As noted above,
the Exchange charges $450 per month, per port for the first forty
ports, and $150 per month for each additional port in excess of forty.
Thus, using the example above, the Exchange would not count the thirty-
five (35) Quote Takedown Ports (which align with the 35 order/quote
entry ports) against the Market Maker's total number of ports utilized,
but would count seven (7) additional Quote Takedown Ports. Thus,
because the Market Maker would have forty-two (42) chargeable ports,
the Market Maker's total monthly port fee would be $18,300 (i.e., 40
ports x $450 per port = $18,000; and 2 ports x $150 per port $300).
    The Exchange notes that options Market Makers typically require
more than forty (40) order/quote entry ports, in part to satisfy their
obligation to maintain continuous two-sided markets in their appointed
classes. Thus, the Exchange believes that the proposed change would
enhance the ability of Market Maker firms to manage quotes, quote
traffic, and their quoting obligations by eliminating fees for certain
Quote Takedown Ports, which function as risk management tools rather
than trade opportunity tools. The Exchange believes this proposed
change would permit the Exchange to remain competitive with other
exchanges with respect to fees charged for ports.
    To reflect the proposed change, the Exchange proposes to add to the
Fee Schedule, in the table regarding Port Fees under the section ``NYSE
Arca OPTIONS: FLOOR and EQUIPMENT and CO-LOCATION FEES,'' a new
category for ``Quote Takedown Ports,'' together with the following
language: ``For each order/quote entry port utilized, NYSE Arca Market
Makers may utilize, free of charge, one port dedicated to quote
cancellation or `quote takedown,' which port(s) will not be included in
the count of order/quote entry ports utilized. Any quote takedown port
utilized by a NYSE Arca Market Maker that is in excess of the number of
order/quote entry ports utilized will be counted and charged as an
order/quote entry port.'' In addition, to add clarity regarding Port
Fees, the Exchange proposes to move the existing text regarding how the
Exchange will aggregate the order/quote entry ports of a Marker Maker's
affiliate to appear immediately below the Quote Takedown Ports and to
specify that the Exchange will similarly aggregate the Quote Takedown
Ports of affiliates.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See proposed Fee Schedule, Port Fees (``For purpose of
calculating the number of order/quote entry ports and quote takedown
ports, the Exchange shall aggregate the ports of affiliates.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposal to offer Quote Takedown Ports
would ensure a fair and reasonable use of resources by eliminating
charges to Market Makers for certain Quote Takedown Ports (described
above), which are used to control and manage risk exposure to the
benefit of all marker participants.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) \7\ of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''), in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\8\ in particular, in that 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, and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would promote
just and equitable principles of trade and remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market because offering OTPs
registered as Market Makers designated Quote Takedown Ports would
enhance Market Makers' ability to manage quotes, quote traffic, and
their quoting obligations, which would, in turn, improve their risk
controls to the benefit of all participants. The Exchange believes that
the Quote Takedown Ports would foster

cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities because Quote Takedown Ports minimize
latency for quote takedown, which would enable the fair and reasonable
use of Market Makers' resources. Because Quote Takedown Ports, as the
name suggests, are only available for quote takedowns and not order or
quote entry (or order cancellation), the Quote Takedown Ports are not
designed to permit unfair discrimination but rather are designed to
enable Market Makers, that are subject to heightened obligations that
other market participants are not, to meet their quoting obligations,
which, in turn, benefits all market participants.
    The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,\9\ in general, and furthers
the objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\10\ in
particular, because it provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and
other persons using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate
between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed change is reasonable, equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory for the following reasons. First, all
OTPs would be subject to the same schedule of Port Fees and OTPs would
continue to be able to request, and pay for only those ports that they
require, with no impact to other OTPs. As noted above, because Quote
Takedown Ports are uniquely designed to address quotes and only Market
Makers are obliged to quote, the proposed fee structure for Quote
Takedown Ports would not disadvantage non-Market Makers trading on the
Exchange. Second, the proposal to enable Market Makers to utilize
certain Quote Takedown Ports free of charge would result in the fair
and reasonable use of resources by Market Makers and would encourage
trading on the Exchange, thus improving liquidity and price discovery,
to the benefit of all market participants. In addition, providing
Market Makers a free Quote Takedown Port for each order/quote entry
port may increase use of Quote Takedown Ports as a cost effective means
of improving risk controls. The increased use of Quote Takedown Ports
by Market Makers would improve Market Makers' ability to manage quotes,
quote traffic, and their quoting obligations, which would, in turn,
improve their risk controls to the benefit of all participants.
    The Exchange likewise believes that not including those Quote
Takedown Ports that meet the 1-to-1 ratio (order/quote entry ports-to-
Quote Takedown Ports) in the count against a Market Maker's total
number of ports utilized for purposes of calculating the monthly Port
Fees is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. The
Exchange notes that options Market Makers, require more than 40 ports
in order to satisfy their responsibilities and obligations to
investors, which stem from the significant number of series that exist
for any particular option class \11\ and the corresponding obligations
that Market Makers have to maintain continuous quotations in all series
in their appointed classes. Furthermore, Market Makers that quote
across a significant number, if not all, of the 2,710 classes traded on
the Exchange could have responsibility for upwards of 620,000
individual option series.\12\ Accordingly, the level of activity that
is required to satisfy the quoting obligations, which directly relates
to the number of ports needed, is such that the Exchange believes it is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to only include the number of
order/quote entry and Quote Takedown Ports in excess of the 1-to-1
ratio in determining the per port charge for Market Makers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For example, as of February 24, 2015, there were more than
1,952 individual option series overlying Chipotle Mexican Grill,
Inc.
    \12\ As of February 24, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed change is
reasonable, because the Quote Takedown Ports are used for purposes
distinct from order/quote entry ports, for which the Exchange
charges.\13\ In this regard, the Exchange believes that its Port Fees
are competitive with those charged by other venues, and that in some
cases its Port Fees are less expensive than many of its primary
competitors. For example, the Chicago Board Options Exchange (``CBOE'')
charges $750 per port per month for a Network Access Port.\14\ The
NASDAQ Options Market (``NOM'') charges $650 per port per month.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Exchange also charges for use of drop copy ports, which
are not discussed in this filing. See supra n. 4.
    \14\ See CBOE fee schedule, Command Connectivity Charges, at p
11, available at, http://www.cboe.com/publish/feeschedule/CBOEFeeSchedule.pdf (charging $750 per month for each Network Access
Port (1 Gbps) and $3,500 per month for each Network Access Port (10
Gbps)).
    \15\ See NOM Price List, Section 3, NASDAQ Options Market,
Access Services, available at, http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com/NASDAQTools/bookmark.asp?id=nasdaq-rule-options_XVS3&manual=/nasdaq/main/nasdaq-optionsrules/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is
consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\16\ the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden
on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act. Because the proposed change results in the
fair and reasonable use of resources by OTPs, particularly Market
Makers, in that the Exchange allows OTPs to utilize one Quote Takedown
Port per one order/quote entry port free of charge, the Exchange
believes this change would benefit all market participants. In
addition, because Quote Takedown Ports enhance Market Makers' risk
controls for transactions executed on the Exchange, the Exchange
believes the proposal is pro-competitive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market
in which market participants can readily favor competing venues. In
such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider
adjusting, its fees and credits to remain competitive with other
exchanges. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that
the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \17\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\18\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)

of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \19\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b4(f)(6)(iii),\20\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has
requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay so that
the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing and thereby
enable Market Makers to enhance their risk controls and risk management
processes without delay. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-
day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and
the public interest. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day
operative delay and designates the proposal effective upon filing.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \21\ For purposes of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the
Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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 under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \22\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-NYSEARCA-2015-32 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2015-32. 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 will also be
available for inspection and copying at the NYSE's principal office and
on its Internet Web site at www.nyse.com. 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-2015-32, and should be
submitted on or before May 26, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-10411 Filed 5-4-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 12, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 61642]
[FR Doc No: 2022-22125]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment on Proposed Land Use
Changes of Surplus Property at Everett-Stewart Regional Airport, Union
City, Tennessee

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is being given that the FAA is considering a request
from Obion County, Tennessee to change 507.07 acres of
airport property from Aeronautical Use to Non-Aeronautical Use for a
Solar Facility at Everett-Stewart Regional Airport. The solar facility
is being constructed on Surplus Property land not required for aviation
use. The land has been designed for non-aeronautical use on the Airport
Layout Plan. The County will have a land lease agreement with the solar
company that will generate non-aeronautical revenue to be deposited in
the airport operation and maintenance account.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 14, 2022.

ADDRESSES: The public may send comments using the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov, and follow the instructions on providing comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: L. Bernard Green, Community Planner, 2600 Thousand
Oaks Blvd., Suite 2250 Memphis, TN 38118.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to mail address above between 8
a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be
mailed or delivered to Obion County, Tennessee, Attn: Mayor Benny
McGuire, Obion County, Tennessee 316 S. Third Street Union City, TN
28281.
    Interested persons may inspect the request and supporting documents
by contacting the FAA at the address listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: L. Bernard Green, 2600 Thousand Oaks
Blvd., Suite 2250 Memphis, TN 38118,<PHONE_NUMBER>. The land release
request may be reviewed in person at this same location.

    Issued in Memphis, Tennessee on October 3, 2022.
Tommy L. Dupree,
Manager, Memphis Airports District Office, Southern Region.
[FR Doc. 2022-22125 Filed 10-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P