[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 13, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41791-41798]
[FR Doc No: 2022-14874]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-95206; File No. SR-NYSENAT-2022-09]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE National, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Modify
Rule 7.31

July 7, 2022.
    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 June 23, 2022, NYSE National, Inc. (``NYSE National'' or
the ``Exchange'') 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
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 Rule 7.31 to (1) permit certain
non-routable order types to be designated to cancel if they would be
displayed at a price other than their limit price; (2) allow ALO Orders
to be designated as non-displayed; (3) permit ALO Orders to be entered
in any size; (4) modify the operation of the Non-Display Remove
Modifier and eliminate its use with MPL-ALO Orders; and (5) make MPL
Orders eligible to trade at their limit price and eliminate the ``No
Midpoint Execution'' Modifier. The proposed rule change is available on
the Exchange's website 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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.31 to (1) permit certain non-
routable order types to be designated to cancel if they would be
displayed at a price other than their limit price; (2) allow ALO Orders
to be designated as non-displayed; (3) permit ALO Orders to be entered
in any size; (4) modify the handling of orders designated with the Non-
Display Remove Modifier and eliminate the use of the Non-Display Remove
Modifier for MPL-ALO Orders; and (5) allow MPL Orders to trade at
either the midpoint or their limit price and eliminate the ``No
Midpoint Execution'' Modifier.
Designation To Cancel
    The Exchange proposes to modify Rules 7.31(e)(1), 7.31(e)(2), and
7.31(e)(3)(D) to permit Non-Routable Limit Orders, displayed ALO
Orders,\4\ and Day ISO ALO Orders to be designated to cancel if they
would be displayed at a price other than their limit price for any
reason.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ As noted above, the Exchange also proposes in this filing to
permit ALO Orders to be designated as non-displayed, and discussion
of the proposed modification of Rule 7.31(e)(2) to effect that
change appears in the ``Non-Displayed ALO'' section below. The
proposed new designation to cancel would be inapplicable to Non-
Displayed ALO Orders, as proposed, because such orders are not
eligible to be displayed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed, Non-Routable Limit Orders, displayed ALO Orders, and
Day ISO ALO Orders would be eligible to be designated to cancel at the
ETP Holder's instruction, thereby providing ETP Holders with increased
flexibility with respect to order handling and the ability to have
greater determinism regarding order processing when such orders would
be repriced to display at a price other than their limit price. The
Exchange notes that this designation would be optional, and if not
designated to cancel, Non-Routable Limit Orders, displayed ALO Orders,
and Day ISO ALO Orders would continue to function as set forth in
current Exchange rules (except as proposed in this filing with respect
to the function of the Non-Display Remove Modifier and odd lots). The
Exchange further notes that providing ETP Holders with the ability to
designate orders to cancel if they would be repriced is not novel, and
other cash equity exchanges currently offer their members a similar
option.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See, e.g., Members Exchange (``MEMX'') Rules 11.6(a)
(defining the Cancel Back instruction, which a User may attach to an
order to instruct that such order be cancelled if it cannot be
posted to the MEMX Book at its limit price) and 11.6(l)(2) (defining
the Post Only instruction; an order with such instruction functions
similarly to the ALO Order and may be designated to be cancelled by
the User); Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX'') Rules 11.9(c)(6) and
11.9(g)(d) (defining the BZX Post Only Order, which functions
similarly to the ALO Order and may be designated to be cancelled at
the User's instruction); Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (``BYX'') Rule
11.9(c)(6) and 11.9(g)(d) (defining the BYX Post Only Order, which
functions similarly to the ALO Order and may be designated to be
cancelled at the User's instruction); Nasdaq Stock Exchange LLC
(``Nasdaq'') Rule 4702(b)(4)(A) (defining the Post-Only Order, which
functions similarly to the ALO Order and may be designated to be
cancelled back to the Participant at the Participant's election).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To effect this change, the Exchange proposes the following
modifications to Rules 7.31(e)(1), 7.31(e)(2), and 7.31(e)(3)(D):
 Rule 7.31(e)(1)--Non-Routable Limit Orders
    As defined in Rule 7.31(e)(1), a Non-Routable Limit Order is a
Limit Order that does not route. Currently, a Non-Routable Limit Order
to buy (sell) will trade with orders to sell (buy) on the Exchange Book
that are priced at or below (above) the PBO (PBB) and will be repriced
based on updates to the Away Market PBO (PBB) as set forth in current
Rules 7.31(e)(1)(A)(i) through (iv).
    The Exchange proposes to delete the current text of Rule
7.31(e)(1)(A) and add new text to provide that a Non-Routable Limit
Order would not be displayed at a price that would lock or cross the
PBO (PBB) of an Away Market, and such order to buy (sell) would trade
with orders on the Exchange Book that are priced equal to or below
(above) the PBO (PBB) of an Away Market. These proposed changes would
merely rephrase and clarify the existing behavior of a Non-Routable
Limit Order as already set forth in Rule 7.31(e)(1)(A), without
substantive changes.
    The Exchange further proposes to modify Rule 7.31(e)(1)(A)(i) to
delete the current text and add new text providing for the option to
designate a Non-Routable Limit Order to be cancelled, as described
above.
    The Exchange also proposes to modify Rule 7.31(e)(1)(A)(ii) and add
new subparagraphs thereunder to describe how any untraded quantity of a
Non-Routable Limit Order would be processed if not designated to
cancel. New subparagraph (a) would contain the rule text previously set
forth in Rule 7.31(e)(1)(A)(i), without substantive changes, and
provide that, if the limit price of a Non-Routable Limit Order to buy
(sell) locks or crosses the PBO (PBB) of an Away Market, it would have
a working price equal to the PBO (PBB) of the Away Market and a display
price one MPV below (above) the PBO (PBB) of the Away Market. Proposed
new subparagraph (b) would contain rule text currently set forth in
Rule 7.31(e)(1)(A)(ii) describing how a Non-Routable Limit Order would
be processed when the PBO (PBB) of an Away Market reprices higher
(lower), without substantive changes. Finally, the Exchange proposes to
renumber current Rules 7.31(e)(1)(A)(iii) and (iv) as Rules
7.31(e)(1)(A)(ii)(c) and (d), respectively, with no changes to the rule
text.
 Rule 7.31(e)(2)--ALO Orders
    Rule 7.31(e)(2) and the subparagraphs thereunder define the ALO
Order, which is a Non-Routable Limit Order that will trade with contra-
side interest if its limit price crosses the working price of any
displayed or non-displayed orders to sell (buy) on the Exchange Book
priced equal to or below (above) the PBO (PBB) of an Away Market. In
other words, an ALO Order will not remove liquidity from the Exchange
Book unless it receives price improvement. Accordingly, the Exchange
proposes to modify Rule 7.31(e)(2) to simplify the definition of an ALO
Order, without any substantive changes, and state that ALO Orders are
Non-Routable Limit Orders that would not remove liquidity from the
Exchange Book unless they receive price improvement. The Exchange also
proposes to add new text to Rule 7.31(e)(2) \6\ to effect the change
described above, permitting an ALO Order to be designated to cancel if
it would be displayed at a price other than its limit price for any
reason.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ As noted above, the Exchange also proposes in this filing to
permit ALO Orders to be designated as non-displayed and to permit
ALO Orders to be entered in odd lots, and discussion of the proposed
modification of Rule 7.31(e)(2) to effect those changes appears in
the ``Non-Displayed ALO'' and ``ALO Odd Lots'' sections below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange next proposes to reorganize Rules 7.31(e)(2)(A)
through (C) to describe the operation of the ALO Order in a more
logical flow, but without any substantive changes to the operation of
the order type. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to reorganize Rules
7.31(e)(2)(A) through (C) to first describe when an ALO Order would
trade, then describe how any untraded quantity of an ALO Order not
designated to cancel would be processed, and then describe the handling
of any untraded quantity of an ALO Order that locks non-displayed
interest.

    First, the Exchange proposes to delete the current text of Rule
7.31(e)(2)(A), which states only that an ALO Order will be assigned a
working price and display price pursuant to Rule 7.31(e)(2)(B) and is
thus redundant of the substantive rule text in Rule 7.31(e)(2)(B) and
its subparagraphs. The Exchange proposes to add new rule text in Rule
7.31(e)(2)(A) providing that an Aggressing ALO Order to buy (sell)
would trade if its limit price crosses the working price of any
displayed or non-displayed orders to sell (buy) on the Exchange Book
priced equal to or below (above) the PBO (PBB) of an Away Market, in
which case, the ALO Order would trade as the liquidity taker with such
orders. The Exchange notes that this change is not intended to propose
any modification to the current operation of the ALO Order and merely
restates text that currently appears in Rule 7.31(e)(2)(B)(ii)
describing when an ALO Order may trade, with no substantive changes.
The Exchange believes that this proposed reorganization would improve
the clarity of Rule 7.31(e)(2) by describing how an ALO Order would
trade before progressing on to describe how any untraded quantity of an
ALO Order would be handled if it is not designated to cancel upon
repricing.
    The Exchange next proposes to delete the current text of Rule
7.31(e)(2)(B) and reorganize Rule 7.31(e)(2)(B) and the subparagraphs
thereunder. Rule 7.31(e)(2)(B) and the subparagraphs that follow would,
as proposed, specify how untraded quantities of an ALO Order would be
processed if such order has not been designated to cancel. To effect
this change, the Exchange proposes that Rule 7.31(e)(2)(B) would now
provide that, if an ALO Order is not designated to cancel, any untraded
quantity of such order would trade as described in subparagraphs (i)
and (ii).
    In subparagraph (i), the Exchange proposes to delete the existing
rule text and modify subparagraph (i) to provide that, if the limit
price of an ALO Order locks the display price of any order to sell
(buy) ranked Priority 2--Display Orders on the Exchange Book, it would
have a working price and display price (if it has been designated to
display) one MPV below (above) the price of the displayed order on the
Exchange Book. The Exchange notes that the content of Rule
7.31(e)(2)(B)(i) would be incorporated into Rule 7.31(e)(2)(B)(ii) (as
proposed below) and that this proposed change merely moves rule text
from where it is currently located in Rule 7.31(e)(2)(B)(iii) and does
not reflect any proposed change to the operation of the ALO Order when
the limit price of any untraded quantity of such order locks displayed
interest on the Exchange Book.
    The Exchange next proposes to delete the current text of Rule
7.31(e)(2)(B)(ii) and replace it with text that would provide that, if
the limit price of an ALO Order locks or crosses the PBO (PBB) of an
Away Market, it would have a working price equal to the PBO (PBB) of
the Away Market and a display price (if designated to display) one MPV
below (above) the PBO (PBB) of the Away Market. The Exchange notes that
proposed Rule 7.31(e)(2)(B)(ii) rephrases text currently set forth in
Rules 7.31(e)(2)(B)(i) and (iv) and is not intended to propose any
change to the operation of the ALO Order when the limit price of any
untraded quantity of such order locks or crosses the PBBO of an Away
Market. The Exchange also notes that the current text of Rule
7.31(e)(2)(B)(ii) was, as described above, incorporated into revised
Rule 7.31(e)(2)(A).
    The Exchange further proposes to delete current Rules
7.31(e)(2)(B)(iii) and (iv) (including subparagraph (a) under Rule
7.31(e)(2)(B)(iv)), as the content of such Rules has been covered by
the proposed Rules described above and would be incorporated into
proposed Rule 7.31(e)(2)(C) (as discussed below), without changes to
the current operation of the ALO Order. Specifically, Rule
7.31(e)(2)(B)(iii) has been incorporated into proposed Rule
7.31(e)(2)(B)(i), the content of Rule 7.31(e)(2)(B)(iv) would be
clarified by proposed Rules 7.31(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 7.31(e)(2)(C), and
the content of Rule 7.31(e)(2)(B)(iv)(a) would be covered by proposed
Rule 7.31(e)(2)(B)(i). The Exchange also proposes to delete
subparagraph (b) under 7.31(e)(2)(B)(iv), which currently describes how
ALO Orders would interact with resting Non-Displayed Limit Orders and
Non-Routable Limit Orders designated with the Non-Displayed Remove
Modifier, as repetitive of rule text in Rule 7.31(d)(2)(B) with respect
to Non-Displayed Limit Orders and in Rule 7.31(e)(1)(C) with respect to
Non-Routable Limit Orders.
    Proposed Rule 7.31(e)(2)(C) would next provide that if any untraded
quantity of an ALO Order to buy (sell), whether designated to cancel or
not, locks non-displayed interest on the Exchange Book, it would have a
working price and display price (if designated to display) equal to its
limit price. The Exchange notes that this rule text reflects the
current behavior of ALO Orders when their limit price locks non-
displayed interest on the Exchange Book, which would not change based
on whether an ALO Order has been designated to cancel, as proposed.
    The Exchange next proposes to rename current Rule 7.31(e)(2)(B)(v)
as Rule 7.31(e)(2)(D) and current Rule 7.31(e)(2)(C) as Rule
7.31(e)(2)(E). The Exchange also proposes changes to subparagraphs (i)
and (ii) of proposed Rule 7.31(e)(2)(E). In subparagraphs (i) and (ii),
the Exchange proposes to add clarity to its Rules by specifying that
the reference to the PBO (PBB) is of an Away Market and proposes to
update the paragraph references to reflect the reorganization of the
Rule as described above. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to update
subparagraph (i) to refer to paragraphs (e)(2)(A) (which now describes
when an Aggressing ALO Order is eligible to trade), (e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii)
(which now describe the processing of any untraded quantity of an ALO
Order that is not designated to cancel), and (e)(2)(C) of the Rule
(which now describes the processing of any untraded quantity of an ALO
Order that locks non-displayed interest). The Exchange further proposes
to update subparagraph (ii) to refer to paragraphs (e)(1)(A)(ii)(c) and
(d) of the Rule, which simply updates the paragraph references
consistent with the changes described above to renumber paragraphs
(e)(1)(A)(iii) and (iv) as paragraphs (e)(1)(A)(ii)(c) and (d).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In addition, to effect the proposed change to permit ALO
Orders to be designated as non-displayed, the Exchange proposes an
additional revision to Rule 7.31(e)(2)(E)(ii) discussed below in the
``Non-Displayed ALO'' section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to rename current Rule 7.31(e)(2)(D) as
Rule 7.31(e)(2)(F) and modify new Rule 7.31(e)(2)(F) to provide that an
ALO Order would not trigger a contra-side MPL Order that is resting at
the midpoint to trade, except as specified in Rule 7.31(d)(3)(F). Rule
7.31(d)(3)(F), in relevant part and as modified in this filing, would
provide that an MPL Order designated with the Non-Display Remove
Modifier would trade as the liquidity-taking order with an Aggressing
ALO Order or MPL-ALO Order that has a working price equal to the
working price of the MPL Order.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Changes to Rule 7.31(d)(3)(F) to effect the proposed
modification of the Non-Display Remove Modifier's operation with
respect to MPL-ALO Orders are discussed further in the ``Non-Display
Remove Modifier'' section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the proposed changes described above are
intended only to implement the addition of the option to designate an
ALO Order to cancel and, in connection with such proposal, to improve
the clarity and organization of Rule 7.31(e)(2). The proposed changes
set forth above

otherwise reflect how an ALO Order currently behaves and are not
intended to propose any other changes to the operation of the order
type.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Exchange notes that its proposed changes to provide for
a non-displayed ALO Order, to permit ALO Orders to be entered in odd
lots, and to modify the operation of the Non-Display Remove Modifier
are discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Rule 7.31(e)(3)(D)--Day ISO ALO Orders
    Rule 7.31(e)(3) provides that an Intermarket Sweep Order (``ISO'')
is a Limit Order that does not route and meets the requirements of Rule
600(b)(30) of Regulation NMS. Rule 7.31(e)(3)(C) provides that an ISO
designated Day (``Day ISO''), if marketable on arrival, will be
immediately traded with contra-side interest in the Exchange Book up to
its full size and limit price, and that any untraded quantity of a Day
ISO will be displayed at its limit price and may lock or cross a
protected quotation that was displayed at the time of arrival of the
Day ISO. Rule 7.31(e)(3)(D) provides that a Day ISO ALO is a Day ISO
that has been designated with an ALO Modifier and, on arrival, may
trade through or lock or cross a protected quotation that was displayed
at the time of arrival of the Day ISO ALO.
    In order to effect the change described above to permit a Day ISO
ALO Order to be designated to cancel if it would be displayed at a
price other than its limit price for any reason, the Exchange proposes
to modify and reorganize Rule 7.31(e)(3)(D) and the paragraphs
thereunder similar to its proposal with respect to Rule 7.31(e)(2) for
ALO Orders. As in proposed Rule 7.31(e)(2), the Exchange proposes to
reorganize Rule 7.31(e)(3)(D) to describe when a Day ISO ALO Order
would trade, how any untraded quantity of a Day ISO ALO Order not
designated to cancel would be processed, and the handling of any
untraded quantity of a Day ISO ALO Order that locks non-displayed
interest, in that logical order.
    First, the Exchange proposes to modify Rule 7.31(e)(3)(D) to add
text providing that a Day ISO ALO can be designated to cancel. The
Exchange does not propose any changes to the first sentence of current
Rule 7.31(e)(3)(D)(i), which describes when a Day ISO ALO Order may
trade, but proposes to combine the second sentence of current Rule
7.31(e)(3)(D)(i) with Rule 7.31(e)(3)(D)(ii). Rule 7.31(e)(3)(D)(ii)
would now specify that, if not designated to cancel, any untraded
quantity of a Day ISO ALO Order to buy (sell) would be assigned a
working price and display price one MPV below (above) the price of the
displayed order on the Exchange Book when the limit price of the Day
ISO ALO Order locks the display price of a displayed order on the
Exchange Book.
    The Exchange next proposes to delete the current text of Rule
7.31(e)(3)(D)(iii) and the subparagraphs thereunder and add new rule
text specifying that any untraded quantity of a Day ISO ALO Order that
locks non-displayed interest on the Exchange Book would have a working
price and display price equal to its limit price. The Exchange notes
that this proposed change merely rephrases current Rule
7.31(e)(3)(D)(iii) and eliminates redundant rule text (thereby
simplifying Exchange rules) and is not intended to change the meaning
or operation of such rules. The Exchange notes that current Rule
7.31(e)(3)(D)(iii)(a) would be covered by Rule 7.31(e)(3)(D)(ii), as
proposed, and that it proposes to delete Rule 7.31(e)(3)(D)(iii)(b)
because, like Rule 7.31(e)(2)(B)(iv), it is redundant of rule text
describing the behavior of the Non-Displayed Remove Modifier in Rule
7.31(d)(2)(B) with respect to Non-Displayed Limit Orders and in Rule
7.31(e)(1)(C) with respect to Non-Routable Limit Orders.
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to make clarifying changes to Rule
7.31(e)(3)(D)(iv). First, the Exchange proposes to replace ``After
being displayed'' with ``Once resting on the Exchange Book'' to align
the rule text with existing rule text in current Rule 7.31(e)(2)(C),
which similarly describes how ALO Orders would be processed once
resting on the Exchange Book. The Exchange further proposes to clarify
that the PBO (PBB) referenced in this subparagraph is of an Away
Market. The Exchange also proposes to update the reference to
paragraphs (e)(2)(C)(i) and (ii) of Rule 7.31 to paragraphs
(e)(2)(E)(i) and (ii) to reflect the proposed reorganization of Rule
7.31(e)(2) as described above.
    The Exchange notes that the proposed changes described above are
not intended to impact the operation of the Day ISO ALO Order other
than to implement the new optional designation to cancel and, in
connection with that proposed change, to improve the clarity and
organization of Rule 7.31(e)(3)(D).\10\ The proposed changes set forth
above otherwise reflect how a Day ISO ALO Order currently behaves and
are not intended to propose any other changes to the operation of the
order type.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Exchange notes that it also proposes a modification to
Rule 7.31(e)(3)(D) in connection with its proposal to permit Day ISO
ALO Orders to be entered in odd lots, which is described below in
the ``ALO Odd Lots'' section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Non-Displayed ALO Order
    As noted above, the Exchange proposes to permit ALO Orders to be
designated as non-displayed, and to effect this change, proposes to
modify Rule 7.31(e)(2) to add text specifying that ALO Orders may be
designated as non-displayed orders. The Exchange proposes that a non-
displayed ALO Order would function in the same way as an ALO Order
currently behaves except that it would not have a display price (and
thus would not be eligible to be designated to cancel, as such proposed
option is described above) and would be repriced when crossed by the
PBO (PBB) of an Away Market.
    The Exchange also proposes to add text to Rule 7.31(e)(2)(E)(ii)
(as renumbered above) to provide that, if the PBO (PBB) of an Away
Market reprices lower (higher) than the working price of a non-
displayed ALO Order to buy (sell), the non-displayed ALO Order would
have a working price equal to the PBO (PBB) of the Away Market. This
proposed rule text would indicate, as noted above, a difference in
behavior between a non-displayed ALO Order, as proposed, and a
displayed ALO Order.
    The Exchange believes that permitting an ALO Order to be non-
displayed would provide ETP Holders with greater flexibility with
respect to the operation of an existing order type and would provide
ETP Holders with the option to designate ALO Orders to be non-displayed
in accordance with their desired trading strategy.
    The Exchange notes that displayed ALO Orders would continue to be
available for use by ETP Holders, and designating an ALO Order to be
non-displayed would be at the ETP Holder's option. The Exchange also
believes that other cash equity exchanges similarly permit order types
analogous to the ALO Order to be non-displayed and that this proposed
change thus does not raise any novel issues.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See, e.g., MEMX Rules 11.8(b)(3) and (7) (providing that a
Limit Order may be non-displayed and designated with a Post Only
instruction). The Exchange also notes that BZX Rule 11.9(g)(1)(D)
and BYX Rule 11.9(g)(1)(D) refer to ``display-eligible'' BZX Post
Only Orders and BYX Post Only Orders, respectively, suggesting that
such orders could also be designated as non-displayed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ALO Odd Lots
    Currently, Rules 7.31(e)(2) and 7.31(e)(3)(D) provide that ALO
Orders and Day ISO ALO Orders, respectively, must be entered with a
minimum of one displayed round lot. The Exchange proposes to permit ALO
Orders and Day

ISO ALO Orders to be entered in any size, and thus proposes to delete
the round lot requirement from Rules 7.31(e)(2) and 7.31(e)(3)(D). The
Exchange believes that requiring ALO Orders and Day ISO ALO Orders to
be entered in round lots is unnecessary, particularly since the
Exchange already permits odd lot residual quantities for ALO Orders and
Day ISO ALO Orders. The Exchange also believes that permitting ALO
Orders and Day ISO ALO Orders to be entered in odd lots could increase
liquidity and enhance opportunities for order execution on the
Exchange. The Exchange notes that permitting odd lot order quantities,
including for ALO Orders, is not novel on the Exchange or other cash
equity exchanges and thus believes that this proposed change would
align the Exchange's treatment of ALO Orders and Day ISO ALO Orders
with features available on other cash equity exchanges.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See, e.g., MEMX Rules 11.8(b)(2) and (7) (providing that a
Limit Order may be of odd lot size and designated with the Post Only
instruction). The Exchange also notes that the rules of Nasdaq, BZX,
and BYX do not appear to prohibit entry of their order types
analogous to the ALO Order in odd lots.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Non-Display Remove Modifier
    The Exchange proposes to modify the handling of orders designated
with the Non-Display Remove Modifier (``NDR Modifier''). Currently,
Exchange rules provide that Non-Displayed Limit Orders, Non-Routable
Limit Orders (when not displayed), MPL Orders, and MPL-ALO Orders are
eligible to be designated with the NDR Modifier.\13\ When so
designated, Non-Displayed Limit Orders and Non-Routable Limit Orders
would trade as the liquidity-taking order with an incoming ALO Order
with a working price equal to the working price of such order. MPL
Orders and MPL-ALO Orders designated with the NDR Modifier will, on
arrival, trade with resting MPL Orders at the midpoint of the PBBO and
be the liquidity taker; a resting MPL Order or MPL-ALO Order with the
NDR Modifier will be the liquidity taker when trading with arriving MPL
Orders and MPL-ALO Orders that do not include the NDR Modifier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Rules 7.31(d)(2)(B); 7.31(e)(1)(C); 7.31(d)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to modify the operation of the NDR Modifier
to provide that any resting order with the NDR Modifier would remove
liquidity when it is locked by any ALO Order. The Exchange believes
that this proposed change would expand the circumstances under which an
order with the NDR Modifier would be eligible to trade, thereby
increasing opportunities for order execution to the benefit of all
market participants. Non-Displayed Limit Orders, Non-Routable Limit
Orders (when not displayed), and MPL Orders would continue to be
eligible to be designated with the NDR Modifier, but the Exchange
proposes to provide that MPL-ALO Orders may no longer be designated
with the NDR Modifier. The Exchange proposes to eliminate use of the
NDR Modifier with MPL-ALO Orders because designating such order with an
NDR Modifier is inconsistent with the purpose of the order type (as an
MPL-ALO Order is not intended to remove liquidity at the midpoint).
Moreover, because ETP Holders have not used the NDR Modifier with MPL-
ALO Orders, the Exchange believes that eliminating this order type-
modifier combination will simplify its Rules.
    To effect the proposed modification to the operation of the NDR
Modifier, the Exchange proposes the following changes:
     The Exchange proposes to modify Rule 7.31(d)(2)(B) to
provide that, when a Non-Displayed Limit Order is designated with the
NDR Modifier, it would trade as the liquidity-taking order with an
Aggressing ALO Order or MPL-ALO Order when the working price of such
order locks the working price of the Non-Displayed Limit Order.
     The Exchange proposes to modify Rule 7.31(d)(3)(F) to
delete the reference to MPL-ALO Orders, as it proposes that such orders
may no longer be designated with the NDR Modifier. The Exchange also
proposes to modify Rule 7.31(d)(3)(F) to provide that an MPL Order
designated with the NDR Modifier would trade as the liquidity-taking
order with an Aggressing ALO Order or MPL-ALO Order that has a working
price equal to the working price of the MPL Order.
     The Exchange proposes to modify Rule 7.31(e)(1)(C) to
provide that, when a Non-Routable Limit Order is designated with the
NDR Modifier and has a working price (but not display price) equal to
the working price of an Aggressing ALO Order or MPL-ALO Order, the Non-
Routable Limit Order would trade as the liquidity taker against the ALO
Order or MPL-ALO Order.
     The Exchange also proposes to add new subparagraph
(d)(3)(E)(iii) to Rule 7.31 to provide that an MPL-ALO Order may not be
designated with a NDR Modifier.
    The Exchange believes that the operation of the NDR Modifier, as
proposed, would not be novel and that the modifier would function
similarly to modifiers offered by other cash equity exchanges.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See, e.g., BYX Rule 11.9(c)(12) (providing for the Non-
Displayed Swap or ``NDS'' Order, which is an instruction on an order
resting on the BYX book that, when locked by an incoming BYX Post
Only Order that does not remove liquidity, causes such order to be
converted to an executable order that removes liquidity against such
incoming order); BZX Rule 11.9(c)(12) (providing for the Non-
Displayed Swap or ``NDS'' Order, which is an instruction on an order
resting on the BZX book that, when locked by an incoming BZX Post
Only Order that does not remove liquidity, causes such order to be
converted to an executable order that removes liquidity against such
incoming order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

MPL Orders
    A Mid-Point Liquidity Order or MPL Order is currently defined in
Rule 7.31(d)(3) as a non-displayed, non-routable Limit Order with a
working price of the midpoint of the PBBO. The Exchange proposes to
modify the definition of an MPL Order to provide that an MPL Order to
buy (sell) would have a working price of the lower (higher) of the
midpoint of the PBBO or its limit price. In other words, the Exchange
proposes that an MPL Order would be eligible to trade at the less
aggressive of the midpoint of the PBBO or its limit price. The Exchange
believes that permitting MPL Orders to trade at the less aggressive of
the midpoint of the PBBO or their limit price would provide ETP Holders
with increased opportunities for order execution, thereby enhancing
market quality for all market participants. The Exchange notes that
permitting MPL Orders to trade at the less aggressive of the midpoint
of the PBBO or at their limit price is not novel and that comparable
order types on other cash equity exchanges currently behave in this
manner.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See, e.g., MEMX Rule 11.6(h)(2) (providing that a Pegged
Order with a Midpoint Peg instruction may execute at its limit price
or better when its limit price is less aggressive than the midpoint
of the NBBO); Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. Rule 11.8(d) (describing the
MidPoint Peg Order, which is a non-displayed Market Order or Limit
Order with an instruction to execute at the midpoint of the NBBO,
but that may execute at its limit price or better when its limit
price is less aggressive than the midpoint of the NBBO); Cboe EDGX
Exchange, Inc. Rule 11.8(d) (same); Nasdaq Rule 4702(b)(5)(A)
(describing the Midpoint Peg Post-Only Order, which will be priced
at the midpoint between the NBBO or at its limit price when the
midpoint is higher than (lower than) the limit price of such order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To effect this change, the Exchange proposes to modify the
following portions of Rule 7.31(d)(3):
     Rule 7.31(d)(3) currently provides that an MPL Order has a
working price of the midpoint of the PBBO. The Exchange proposes to
modify this Rule to provide that an MPL Order to buy (sell) would have
a working price at the lower (higher) of the midpoint of the PBBO or
its limit price.

     Rule 7.31(d)(3)(A) currently provides that an MPL Order to
buy (sell) is eligible to trade only if the midpoint of the PBBO is at
or below (above) the limit price of the MPL Order. The Exchange
proposes to modify this Rule to provide that an MPL Order would be
eligible to trade at the working price of the order (which, as
described above, would be defined to be the less aggressive of the
midpoint of the PBBO or the limit price of the MPL Order).
     Rule 7.31(d)(3)(C) currently provides that an Aggressing
MPL Order to buy (sell) will trade with resting orders to sell (buy)
with a working price at or below (above) the midpoint of the PBBO at
the working price of the resting orders. The Exchange proposes to
modify this Rule to provide that an Aggressing MPL Order would trade
with a resting order, at the working price of such order, when the
resting order has a working price at or below (above) the working price
of the MPL Order. Rule 7.31(d)(3)(C) also currently states that resting
MPL Orders to buy (sell) will trade at the midpoint of the PBBO against
all Aggressing Orders to sell (buy) priced at or below (above) the
midpoint of the PBBO. The Exchange proposes to instead provide that
resting MPL Orders would trade against Aggressing Orders priced at or
below (above) the working price of the MPL Order, consistent with the
proposed changes described above to permit MPL Orders to trade at the
less aggressive of the midpoint of the PBBO or their limit price.
     Rule 7.31(d)(3)(E) currently provides that an MPL-ALO
Order is an MPL Order that has been designated with an ALO Modifier.
The Exchange proposes to revise subparagraphs (i) and (ii) thereunder
to make changes consistent with those described above with respect to
MPL Orders. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to modify Rule
7.31(d)(3)(E)(i) to be similar to Rule 7.31(d)(3)(C) but with modified
phrasing specific to the behavior of MPL-ALO Orders. Accordingly, Rule
7.31(d)(3)(E)(i), as proposed, would provide that an Aggressing MPL-ALO
Order to buy (sell) would trade with a resting order, at the working
price of such order, when the resting order has a working price below
(above) the less aggressive of the midpoint of the PBBO or the limit
price of the MPL-ALO Order. In addition, to reflect the operation of
the ALO Modifier, the Exchange further proposes to modify Rule
7.31(d)(3)(E)(i) to specify that an MPL-ALO Order would not trade with
resting orders priced equal to the less aggressive of the midpoint of
the PBBO or the limit price of the MPL-ALO Order.\16\ The Exchange
believes that these proposed changes would provide additional clarity
with respect to the particular behavior of MPL-ALO Orders, as such
orders (unlike MPL Orders) would not take liquidity at the less
aggressive of the midpoint of the PBBO or their limit price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The proposed changes to Rule 7.31(d)(3)(E)(i) relating to
the operation of the NDR Modifier are described above in the ``Non-
Display Remove Modifier'' section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, because the Exchange proposes to allow MPL Orders--
including MPL-ALO Orders--to trade at the less aggressive of the
midpoint of the PBBO or their limit price, the Exchange proposes to
modify Rule 7.31(d)(3)(E)(ii) to replace the reference to the
``midpoint'' with the ``working price of the MPL-ALO Order''
(consistent with the revised definition of MPL Order proposed above).
    To effect the proposed change to eliminate the ``No Midpoint
Execution'' Modifier, the Exchange proposes to modify Rule
7.31(d)(3)(C) to delete text providing that an incoming Limit Order may
be designated with a ``No Midpoint Execution'' Modifier and that orders
so designated would not trade with resting MPL Orders and may trade
through MPL Orders.
    The Exchange believes that the elimination of the ``No Midpoint
Execution'' Modifier would simplify order processing on the Exchange
and, in conjunction with the proposed changes to MPL Orders described
above, encourage the use of MPL Orders and provide increased
opportunities for order execution.
    Finally, the Exchange proposes a modification to Rule 7.11, which
sets forth rules pertaining to the Limit Up-Limit Down (``LULD'') Plan.
The proposed change would modify the handling of MPL Orders relative to
the Upper and Lower Price Bands, consistent with the proposed changes
described above with respect to the behavior of MPL Orders.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to modify Rule 7.11(a)(5), which
describes the repricing or cancellation of orders to buy (sell) that
are priced or could be traded above (below) the Upper (Lower) Price
Band. Rule 7.11(a)(5)(F) currently provides that, if the midpoint of
the PBBO is above (below) the Upper (Lower) Price Band, an MPL Order
will not be repriced or rejected and will not be eligible to trade
unless the ETP Holder enters an instruction to cancel or reject such
MPL Order.
    The Exchange proposes to delete the text of Rule 7.11(a)(5)(F) and
designate the Rule as Reserved. The Exchange believes Rule
7.11(a)(5)(F) is no longer necessary because MPL Orders, as proposed,
would be permitted to reprice and trade relative to LULD Price Bands.
The Exchange believes that this change is consistent with the proposed
change to permit MPL Orders to trade at prices other than the midpoint
of the PBBO and would similarly increase execution opportunities for
MPL Orders within the bounds of the LULD Price Bands in effect. The
Exchange notes that MPL Orders would behave in the same way as other
Limit Orders with respect to LULD Price Bands and would thus be
processed as set forth in current Rule 7.11(a)(5)(B).
Reserve Orders
    Rule 7.31(d)(1) provides for Reserve Orders, which are Limit or
Inside Limit Orders with a quantity of the size displayed and with a
reserve quantity that is not displayed. Rule 7.31(d)(1)(C) provides
that a Reserve Order must be designated Day and may only be combined
with a Non-Routable Limit Order or a Primary Pegged Order.
    The Exchange proposes to modify Rule 7.31(d)(1)(C) to clarify that
a Reserve Order may not be designated as an ALO Order. Rule
7.31(d)(1)(C) currently provides that a Reserve Order may be combined
with a Non-Routable Limit Order. However, although an ALO Order is a
Non-Routable Limit Order, the Exchange currently does not permit
Reserve Orders to be designated as ALO Orders and thus proposes a
clarifying change to Rule 7.31(d)(1)(C) to specify accordingly. The
Exchange notes that this change is intended only to clarify and reflect
current behavior and does not propose any changes to the current
operation of Reserve Orders or ALO Orders.
* * * * *
    Because of the technology changes associated with this proposed
rule change, the Exchange will announce the implementation date by
Trader Update, which, subject to effectiveness of this proposed rule
change, will be in the third quarter of 2022.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Act,\17\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5),\18\ in particular, because it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in facilitating

transactions in securities, to remove impediments to, and perfect the
mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the proposed changes to permit Non-Routable Limit
Orders, displayed ALO Orders, and Day ISO ALO Orders to be designated
to cancel, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes would remove
impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market
and a national market system because it would offer ETP Holders the
option to cancel such orders when they would be displayed at a price
other than their limit price. The Exchange believes that providing ETP
Holders with this option would afford them increased flexibility with
respect to order handling for existing order types, as well as the
ability to have greater determinism regarding order processing in times
when such orders would be repriced to display at a price other than
their limit price. The Exchange notes that this designation would be
optional for ETP Holders, and if not designated to cancel, Non-Routable
Limit Orders, displayed ALO Orders, and Day ISO ALO Orders would
continue to function as set forth in current Exchange rules (except as
otherwise proposed in this filing). The Exchange also notes that
providing ETP Holders with the option to designate orders to cancel if
they would be repriced is not novel, and would align the Exchange's
rules with those of other cash equity exchanges that currently offer
their members similar functionality.\19\ The Exchange also believes
that the proposed changes described above to reorganize and rephrase
rule text that describes the current operation of Non-Routable Limit
Orders, displayed ALO Orders, and Day ISO ALO Orders are designed to
remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open
market and a national market system and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest because they do not propose any
functional changes other than to add the option to cancel instead of
repricing and would improve the clarity of Exchange rules governing
such orders in connection with the proposed addition of the option to
designate such orders to cancel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See note 5, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the proposed change to permit ALO Orders to be
designated as non-displayed, the Exchange believes that the proposed
change would remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a
free and open market and a national market system and protect investors
and the public interest because it would offer ETP Holders greater
flexibility with respect to the entry of ALO Orders and could offer ETP
Holders increased opportunities for order execution. The Exchange
believes that permitting an ALO Order to be non-displayed would simply
provide ETP Holders with increased options with respect to an existing
order type, and ETP Holders are free to designate ALO Orders to be non-
displayed or to continue using displayed ALO Orders as provided under
current Exchange rules. The Exchange further believes that permitting
ALO Orders to be designated as non-displayed is not novel and that this
proposed change would remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism
of, a free and open market and a national market system by aligning
Exchange rules with the rules of other cash equity exchanges.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See note 11, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the proposed change to permit ALO Orders and Day
ISO ALO Orders to be entered in any size, the Exchange also believes
that the proposed change would promote just and equitable principles of
trade, remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and
open market and a national market system, and protect investors and the
public interest. Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed
change would provide ETP Holders with the flexibility and optionality
to enter ALO Orders and Day ISO ALO Orders in odd lot sized orders,
which could increase liquidity and enhance opportunities for order
execution on the Exchange, to the benefit of all market participants.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed change would align
Exchange rules with the treatment of post-only orders on other cash
equity exchanges, thereby removing impediments to, and perfecting the
mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See note 12, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the proposed change to modify the
operation of the NDR Modifier would remove impediments to, and perfect
the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system
and protect investors and the public interest. Specifically, the
Exchange believes that this proposed change, which would provide that
any resting order with the NDR Modifier would remove liquidity when it
is locked by any ALO Order, would expand the circumstances under which
an order with the NDR Modifier would be eligible to trade, thereby
increasing opportunities for order execution to the benefit of all
market participants. The Exchange also believes that eliminating the
use of the NDR Modifier with MPL-ALO Orders would remove impediments
to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national
market system because the order type-modifier combination is
inconsistent with the purpose of an MPL-ALO Order (and has not been
used by ETP Holders), and the elimination of the NDR Modifier in this
context would simplify the Exchange's rules. The Exchange further
believes that the operation of the NDR Modifier, as modified, would not
be novel and that the proposed change would promote just and equitable
principles of trade and remove impediments to, and perfect the
mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system
because the NDR Modifier would function similarly to analogous
modifiers offered by other cash equity exchanges.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See note 14, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the proposed changes to make an MPL
Order eligible to trade at the less aggressive of the midpoint of the
PBBO or its limit price and to permit an MPL Order to reprice and trade
relative to LULD Price Bands would promote just and equitable
principles of trade and remove impediments to, and perfect the
mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system
because MPL Orders could have more opportunities to trade with contra-
side interest, thereby providing ETP Holders with increased
opportunities for order execution and enhancing market quality for all
market participants. The Exchange also believes that this proposed
change would remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a
free and open market and a national market system because permitting
MPL Orders to trade at the less aggressive of the midpoint of the PBBO
or at their limit price is not novel and that comparable order types on
other cash equity exchanges currently behave in this manner.\23\ The
Exchange further believes that the proposed change to eliminate the
``No Midpoint Execution'' Modifier would remove impediments to, and
perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market
system because the proposed change, along with the proposed changes to
MPL Orders, could result in greater opportunities for order execution,
thereby enhancing market quality on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See note 15, supra.

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

    Finally, the Exchange believes that its proposed change to specify
that Reserve Orders may not be designated as an ALO Order would remove
impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market
and a national market system and protect investors and the public
interest because it is not intended to effect any functional change but
would instead add clarity to Exchange rules regarding the current
behavior of Reserve Orders.

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. As noted above, the Exchange
believes the proposed rule changes would generally align order handling
on the Exchange with behavior on other cash equity exchanges \24\ and
thus would promote competition among exchanges by offering ETP Holders
similar functionality and order handling options available on other
cash equity exchanges. The Exchange also believes that, to the extent
the proposed changes would increase opportunities for order execution,
the proposed change would promote competition by making the Exchange a
more attractive venue for order flow and enhancing market quality for
all market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See notes 5, 11, 12, 14, 15, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing 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 for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \25\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \26\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 change 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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSENAT-2022-09 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-NYSENAT-2022-09. 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 website (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 website 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. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSENAT-2022-09 and should be submitted
on or before August 3, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-14874 Filed 7-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 204 (Tuesday, October 26, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59167-59168]
[FR Doc No: 2021-23334]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2021-N-0008]

Neurological Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory
Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming
public advisory committee meeting of the Neurological Devices Panel of
the Medical Devices Advisory Committee. The general function of the
committee is to provide advice and recommendations to the Agency on
FDA's regulatory issues. The meeting will be open to the public.

DATES: The meeting will take place virtually on December 10, 2021, from
9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Eastern Time.

ADDRESSES: Please note that due to the impact of this COVID-19
pandemic, all meeting participants will be joining this advisory
committee meeting via an online teleconferencing platform. Answers to
commonly asked questions including information regarding special
accommodations due to a disability may be accessed at: https://www.fda.gov/advisory-committees/about-advisory-committees/common-questions-and-answers-about-fda-advisory-committee-meetings.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Swink, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5214, Silver Spring,

MD 20993-0002, [email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER>, or FDA Advisory
Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the
Washington, DC area). A notice in the Federal Register about last
minute modifications that impact a previously announced advisory
committee meeting cannot always be published quickly enough to provide
timely notice. Therefore, you should always check the Agency's website
at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down
to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link, or call the
advisory committee information line to learn about possible
modifications before the meeting.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Agenda: The meeting presentations will be heard, viewed, captioned,
and recorded through an online teleconferencing platform. On December
10, 2021, the committee will discuss, make recommendations, and vote on
information regarding the premarket approval application (PMA) for the
BrainsGate Ischemic Stroke System (ISS500) by BrainsGate Ltd. The
proposed indications for use, submitted by the sponsor, as stated in
the PMA, are as follows: The ISS500 is indicated to increase cerebral
blood flow and reduce disability in adult patients with acute ischemic
stroke with confirmed cortical involvement in the anterior circulation
who are ineligible or have no access to IV-tPA and endovascular
thrombectomy. Treatment is to be initiated between 8 and 24 hours from
stroke onset (last known well).
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its website prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available on FDA's website at
the time of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material
will be posted on FDA's website after the meeting. Background material
and the link to the online teleconference meeting room will be
available at https://www.fda.gov/advisory-committees/medical-devices-advisory-committee/neurological-devices-panel. Select the link for the
2021 Meeting Materials. The meeting will include slide presentations
with audio components to allow the presentation of materials in a
manner that most closely resembles an in-person advisory committee
meeting.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before
November 29, 2021. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled
on December 10, 2021, between approximately 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. Eastern
Time. Those individuals interested in making formal oral presentations
should notify the contact person (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
The notification should include a brief statement of the general nature
of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and
addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the
approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before
November 18, 2021. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited.
If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be
reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing
session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the
scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify
interested persons regarding their request to speak by November 19,
2021.
    For press inquiries, please contact the Office of Media Affairs at
[email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please
contact Artair Mallett at [email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER> at
least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our website at https://www.fda.gov/advisory-committees/about-advisory-committees/public-conduct-during-fda-advisory-committee-meetings for procedures on public conduct during
advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: October 19, 2021.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-23334 Filed 10-25-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 16, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2241-2242]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00502]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-104, OMB Control No. 3235-0119]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

Extension:
    Rule 12g3-2

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Rule 12g3-2 (17 CFR 240.12g3-2) under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (the ``Exchange Act'') provides an exemption from Section 12(g)
of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78l(g)) for foreign private issuers.
Rule 12g3-2 is designed to provide investors in foreign securities with
information about such securities and the foreign issuer. The
information filed under Rule 12g3-2 must be filed with the Commission
and is publicly available. We estimate that it takes 8.95 hours per
response to prepare and is filed by approximately 1,386 respondents.
Each respondent files an estimated 12 times submissions pursuant to
Rule 12g3-2 per year for a total of 16,632 respondents. We estimate
that 25% of 8.95 hours per response (2.237 hours per response) to
provide the information required under Rule

12g3-2 for a total annual reporting burden of 37,206 hours (2.237 hours
per response x 16,632 responses).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this proposed
collection of information is necessary for the performance of the
functions of the agency, including whether the information will have
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the
burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance
the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    Please direct your written comment to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email
to: [email protected].

    Dated: January 9, 2018.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-00502 Filed 1-12-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 74 (Tuesday, April 18, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23667-23669]
[FR Doc No: 2023-08133]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. CP22-503-000, CP22-502-000]

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line
Company, LLC; Notice of Availability of The Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for The Proposed Virginia Reliability Project and
Commonwealth Energy Connector Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared a draft environmental impact statement (EIS)
for the Virginia Reliability Project (VRP), proposed by Columbia Gas
Transmission, LLC (Columbia) and the Commonwealth Energy Connector
Project (CEC Project) proposed by Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line
Company, LLC (Transco) in the above-referenced dockets.
    Columbia requests authorization to construct and operate its VRP in
Greensville, Prince George, Sussex, Surry, Southampton, and Isle of
Wight Counties, Virginia, and in the cities of Suffolk and Chesapeake,
Virginia. The VRP is designed to provide an additional 100,000
Dekatherms per day (Dth/d) of firm transportation service for Virginia
Natural Gas, Inc. (VNG), from Emporia I/C to VNG's existing delivery
point in Chesapeake County, Virginia.
    Transco requests authorization to construct, operate, and maintain
its CEC Project in Mecklenburg, Brunswick, and Greensville Counties,
Virginia. The CEC Project is designed to provide an additional 105,000
Dth/d of firm transportation service for VNG from Transco's existing
Station 165 Zone 5 Pooling Point in Pittsylvania County, Virginia, to
the existing interconnection between Transco and Columbia in
Greensville County, Virginia (Emporia I/C), where VNG has contracted
with Columbia for further firm transportation service.
    The draft EIS assesses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the VRP and the CEC Project (the
Projects) in accordance with the requirements of the

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that
approval of the proposed Projects, with the mitigation measures
recommended in the EIS, would result in some adverse environmental
impacts; however, with the exception of potential impacts on climate
change, FERC staff concludes that impacts would be reduced to less than
significant levels. Regarding climate change impacts, the EIS is not
characterizing the Projects' greenhouse gas emissions as significant or
not significant because the Commission is conducting a generic
proceeding to determine whether and how the Commission will conduct
significance determinations going forward.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Natural Gas
Infrastructure Project Reviews, 178 FERC ] 61,108 (2022); 178 FERC ]
61,197 (2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Norfolk District, and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) participated as cooperating
agencies in the preparation of the EIS. Cooperating agencies have
jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to resources
potentially affected by the proposal and participate in the NEPA
analysis. Although the cooperating agencies provided input to the
conclusions and recommendations presented in the draft EIS, the
agencies will present their own conclusions and recommendations in any
applicable Records of Decision or other documentation for the Projects.
    The draft EIS addresses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the following VRP facilities, all in
Virginia:
     replacement of about 49.2 miles of the existing 12-inch-
diameter VM-107 and VM-108 pipelines with 24-inch-diameter pipeline
mostly within Columbia's existing right-of-way, in Sussex, Surry,
Southampton, and Isle of Wight Counties, as well as in the cities of
Suffolk and Chesapeake;
     installation of one new 5,500-horsepower (HP) dual-drive
compressor unit at the existing Emporia Compressor Station in
Greensville County;
     modification of the existing compressor units and an
increase in power by 2,700 HP at the existing Petersburg Compressor
Station in Prince George County;
     modification of the Emporia Point of Receipt in
Greensville County, Regulator Station 7423 in Prince George County, and
MS-831010 Point of Delivery in Chesapeake; and
     replacement of eight mainline valves (MLV), installation
of one new MLV and five new launchers/receivers, and replacement or
installation of other minor appurtenant facilities.
    The draft EIS addresses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the following CEC Project facilities, all
in Virginia:
     construction of a 6.35-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter
pipeline loop \2\ (referred to as the Commonwealth Loop), including
valve and launcher/receiver facilities, in Brunswick and Greensville
Counties;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A pipeline loop is a segment of pipe constructed parallel to
an existing pipeline to increase capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     addition of a 33,000-HP electric motor-driven compressor
unit at the existing Compressor Station 168 in Mecklenburg County; and
     modification of the existing Emporia Metering and
Regulation Station in Greensville County.
    The Commission mailed a copy of the Notice of Availability to
federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies;
elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native
American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested
individuals and groups; and newspapers and libraries in the area of the
Projects. The draft EIS is only available in electronic format. It may
be viewed and downloaded from the FERC's website (www.ferc.gov), on the
natural gas environmental documents page (https://www.ferc.gov/industries-data/natural-gas/environment/environmental-documents). In
addition, the draft EIS may be accessed by using the eLibrary link on
the FERC's website. Click on the eLibrary link (https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/search) select ``General Search'' and enter
the docket number in the ``Docket Number'' field, excluding the last
three digits (i.e., CP22-503-000 or CP22-502-000). Be sure you have
selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC
Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-
3676, or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The draft EIS is not a decision document. It presents Commission
staff's independent analysis of the environmental issues for the
Commission to consider when addressing the merits of all issues in this
proceeding. Any person wishing to comment on the draft EIS may do so.
Your comments should focus on draft EIS's disclosure and discussion of
potential environmental effects, measures to avoid or lessen
environmental impacts, and the completeness of the submitted
alternatives, information and analyses. To ensure consideration of your
comments on the proposal in the final EIS, it is important that the
Commission receive your comments on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern
Daylight Time on June 5, 2023.
    For your convenience, there are four methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. The Commission will provide equal
consideration to all comments received, whether filed in written form
or provided verbally. The Commission encourages electronic filing of
comments and has staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
[email protected]. Please carefully follow these instructions
so that your comments are properly recorded.
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
FERC Online. This is an easy method for submitting brief, text-only
comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
FERC Online. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a variety of
formats by attaching them as a file with your submission. New eFiling
users must first create an account by clicking on ``eRegister.'' If you
are filing a comment on a particular project, please select ``Comment
on a Filing'' as the filing type; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the Commission. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP22-
503-000 or CP22-502-000) on your letter. Submissions sent via the U.S.
Postal Service must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A,
Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier must be
addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    (4) In lieu of sending written or electronic comments, the
Commission invites you to attend one of the in-person or virtual public
comment sessions its staff will conduct to receive comments on the
draft EIS. The primary goal of these comment sessions is to have you
identify the specific environmental issues and concerns with the draft
EIS. Individual oral comments will be taken on a one-on-one basis with
a court reporter. This format is designed to receive the maximum amount
of oral

comments in a convenient way during the timeframe allotted.
    The in-person comment sessions are scheduled as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Date and time                          Location
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday April 25, 2023, 5:00 p.m.--8:00     Appomattox Event Center, 9 W
 p.m..                                       Old St. #100, Petersburg,
                                             VA 23803,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Wednesday April 26, 2023, 5:00 p.m.-8:00    Chesapeake Conference
 p.m..                                       Center, 700 Conference
                                             Center Dr., Chesapeake, VA
                                             23320,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Thursday April 27, 2023, 5:00 p.m.--8:00    Golden Leaf Commons, 1300
 p.m..                                       Greensville County, Cir B,
                                             Emporia, VA 23847, 434-348-
                                             4125.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each in-person comment session is scheduled from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00
p.m. Eastern Daylight Time. You may arrive at any time after 5:00 p.m.
There will not be a formal presentation by Commission staff when the
session opens. If you wish to speak, the Commission staff will hand out
numbers in the order of your arrival. Comments will be taken until 8:00
p.m. However, if no additional numbers have been handed out and all
individuals who wish to provide comments have had an opportunity to do
so, staff may conclude the session at 7:30 p.m. Please see appendix 1
for additional information on the session format and conduct.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of the appendices were sent to all
those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at
www.ferc.gov using the link called ``eLibrary'' or from the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Your oral comments will be recorded by the court reporter (with
FERC staff or a representative present) and become part of the public
record for this proceeding. If a significant number of people are
interested in providing oral comments in the one-on-one settings, a
time limit of 5 minutes may be implemented for each commentor. Although
there will not be a formal presentation, Commission staff will be
available throughout the comment session to answer your questions about
the environmental review process.
    FERC staff will also conduct a virtual comment session by
telephone, scheduled as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Date and time                       Call-in number
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday, May 3, 2023, 5 p.m. to 7 p.m.<PHONE_NUMBER>, Participant
 Eastern Daylight Time.                      Passcode: 6833301.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Individual oral comments will be taken on a one-on-one basis with a
court reporter present on the line. You may call at any time after 5:00
p.m., at which time you will be placed on mute and hold. Calls will be
answered in the order they are received. Once your call is answered,
you will have the opportunity to provide your comment directly to a
court reporter with FERC staff or a representative present on the line.
A time limit of 3 minutes will be implemented for each commentor.
    Transcripts of the virtual and in-person comment sessions will be
publicly available on FERC's eLibrary system (see page 3 for
instructions on using eLibrary).
    It is important to note that the Commission provides equal
consideration to all comments received, whether filed in written form
or provided orally at a comment session.
    Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a
motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedures (18 CFR part 385.214). Motions to intervene are
more fully described at https://www.ferc.gov/how-intervene. Only
intervenors have the right to seek rehearing or judicial review of the
Commission's decision. The Commission grants affected landowners and
others with environmental concerns intervenor status upon showing good
cause by stating that they have a clear and direct interest in this
proceeding which no other party can adequately represent. Simply filing
environmental comments will not give you intervenor status, but you do
not need intervenor status to have your comments considered.

Questions?

    Additional information about the Projects is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC website (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. The eLibrary link
also provides access to the texts of all formal documents issued by the
Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and
submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you
spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/overview to
register for eSubscription.

    Dated: April 11, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-08133 Filed 4-17-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 18, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5645-5646]
[FR Doc No: 2017-00984]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Contracting Initiative

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

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The DOT is extending the contracting initiative pilot program
for a period of 5 years.

DATES: This pilot program became effective on March 6, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information: Mr. Michael
Harkins, Deputy Assistant General Counsel for General Law, Office, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER> (telephone<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(email).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded from the
Office of the Federal Register's home page at http://www.archives.gov/federal_register and the Government Printing Office's Web page at
http://www.gpoaccess.gov.

Background

    On March 6, 2015, DOT published a notice in the Federal Register
(80 FR 12257) establishing a contracting initiative pilot program under
which, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) recipients and subrecipients could utilize various
contracting requirements that generally have been disallowed due to
concerns about adverse impacts on competition. The purpose of the pilot
program is to determine whether the use of such requirements ``unduly
limit competition,'' as provided in an August 23, 2013, opinion from
the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). DOT
established the pilot program for a period of 1 year unless extended.
On March 17, 2016, DOT extended this pilot program for a period of 1
additional year, until March 6, 2017 (81 FR14524). To date, DOT has
received only limited data from the program. As a result, DOT has
decided to extend the pilot program until March

6, 2022, so that it can gather additional data from more projects to
better assess the effect of local hire preferences on competition. The
extension of this pilot program will provide FHWA and FTA recipients
and subrecipients flexibility to continue operating under the pilot
program while DOT conducts its evaluation as well as provide DOT with
additional projects to consider in evaluating the impacts on
competition.
    Please note that Section 415 of the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2016, Public Law 114-113 (FY 2016 Appropriations Act), extended by
Public Law 114-223 and Public Law 114-254, continues the restriction on
the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) from using FY 2016 funds to
implement, administer or enforce 49 CFR 18.36(c)(2) for construction
hiring. Accordingly, FTA recipients and subrecipients do not need to
submit applications for participation in the pilot program for
contracts awarded or advertised on or before September 30, 2016.
    Additionally, we note that Section 192 of the FY 2016
Appropriations Act (also extended by Public Law 114-223 and Public Law
114-254) expressly authorizes DOT assisted contracts under titles 49
and 23 of the United States Code utilizing geographic, economic, or
other hiring preferences not otherwise authorized by law if the grant
recipient certifies the following:
    (1) That except with respect to apprentices or trainees, a pool of
readily available but unemployed individuals possessing the knowledge,
skill, and ability to perform the work that the contract requires
resides in the jurisdiction;
    (2) That the grant recipient will include appropriate provisions in
its bid document ensuring that the contractor does not displace any of
its existing employees in order to satisfy such hiring preference; and
    (3) That any increase in the cost of labor, training, or delays
resulting from the use of such hiring preference does not delay or
displace any transportation project in the applicable Statewide
Transportation Improvement Program or Transportation Improvement
Program.
    Accordingly, recipients and subrecipients should follow the
application process described in the March 6, 2015, Federal Register
notice (80 FR 12257), except that recipients and subrecipients must
also include the required certifications from Section 192 of the FY
2016 Appropriations Act as discussed above.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 28, 2016.
Anthony R. Foxx,
Secretary of Transportation.
[FR Doc. 2017-00984 Filed 1-17-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P