[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 203 (Thursday, October 20, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65306-65307]
[FR Doc No: 2011-27136]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65575; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2011-141]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Modify Interpretation of Rule 4120(a)(11)

October 14, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on October 6, 2011, the NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC (``NASDAQ'' or
``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 NASDAQ. 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

    NASDAQ proposes to modify its interpretation of Rule 4120(a)(11)
regarding at what price level to initiate a subsequent trading halts
for any security that has been previously halted. NASDAQ will implement
the proposed change immediately upon filing. There is no new proposed
rule text, and a copy of the proposed rule change is available at
http://nasdaqomx.cchwallstreet.com, at NASDAQ's principal office, 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, NASDAQ 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. NASDAQ has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    NASDAQ is modifying its interpretation and practices related to
certain language contained in Rule 4120(a)(11) which generally allows
for the pausing of trading in individual securities should that
security experience a significant percentage price increase or decline.
Once a stock is halted pursuant to the rule, a five-minute halt period
commences, after which trading is re-commenced using prices determined
by NASDAQ's halt-cross process.
    Currently, NASDAQ interprets language in Rule 4120(a) that states
``[p]rice moves under this paragraph will be calculated by changes in
each consolidated last-sale price disseminated by a network processor
over a five minute rolling period measured continuously[.]'' as
requiring a continuous look back of five minutes--even when a stock is
currently halted for a previous triggering price increase or decline.
In this situation, trade reports for transactions taking place
immediately before, or contemporaneous with, the halt can be submitted
and disseminated, and thus set a new ``within five minutes'' comparison
price level with any subsequent opening price coming out of the halt-
cross process. Should a resulting price decline differential between
the late intra-halt disseminated price and any new opening price coming
out of the cross halt be great enough, another disruptive halt can be
triggered.
    In response, NASDAQ proposes to modify its interpretation of what
price its systems will for [sic] consider for evaluating the need for
any subsequent

halt during the initial time period when a stock is coming out of a
halt commenced pursuant to Rule 4120(a)(11). Under the proposed change,
NASDAQ systems will not look back for any prices disseminated during a
halt and instead will use the opening price determined by its halt-
cross process as the initial price level against which subsequent price
increases or declines will be measured. As before, any subsequent
triggering price increases or declines within any continuous five-
minute period, even one immediately triggering a halt in comparison to
the halt-cross process, will initiate a halt in conformity with Rule
4120(a)(11).
    NASDAQ believes that the above interpretation will ensure that
prices determined and submitted at a period of time around the start of
a trading halt do not carry over and inappropriately impact attempts to
re-start trading after that halt. NASDAQ also understands that this
approach to initial pricing coming out of a halt is already in effect
at other listing markets likewise subject to uniform percentage
increase or decline stock halt rules.
2. Statutory Basis
    NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\3\ in general, and with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \4\ in particular, in that the proposal 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 regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and 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. NASDAQ believes that the
change will result in the adoption of a clear policy with respect to
the meaning, administration, and enforcement of Rule 4120(a)(11),
thereby promoting members' understanding of the parameters of the rule
and the efficiency of its administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    As all listing markets are subject to uniform halt rules, and it is
NASDAQ's understanding that its proposed approach to evaluating prices
coming out of a halt is similar to that already being used by other
listing markets, NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed rule change
will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\5\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-NASDAQ-2011-141 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 No. SR-NASDAQ-2011-141. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between
the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of 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 No. SR-NASDAQ-
2011-141 and should be submitted on or before November 10, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-27136 Filed 10-19-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 145 (Tuesday, July 29, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44075-44076]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17638]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72650]

Order Granting Applications by NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. and the NASDAQ
Stock Market LLC for Exemption Pursuant to Section 36(a) of the
Exchange Act From the Rule Filing Requirements of Section 19(b) of the
Exchange Act With Respect to Certain Rules Incorporated by Reference

July 22, 2014.
    NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX'') and The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC
(``NASDAQ'' or collectively, ``Exchanges'') have filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') applications for an
exemption under Section 36(a)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Exchange Act'') \1\ from the rule filing requirements of Section
19(b) of the Exchange Act \2\ with respect to certain rules of NASDAQ
OMX PHLX LLC (``PHLX'') that the Exchanges seek to incorporate by
reference. Section 36 of the Exchange Act authorizes the Commission to
conditionally or unconditionally exempt any person, security, or
transaction, or any class thereof, from any provision of the Exchange
Act or rule thereunder, if necessary or appropriate in the public
interest and consistent with the protection of investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78mm(a)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BX and NASDAQ each recently filed rule changes with the Commission
to incorporate by reference comparable position and exercise limit
rules of PHLX.\3\ Specifically, in both the BX Options and NOM Rules,
(i) Chapter III, Section 7 incorporates the position limit rules of
PHLX for U.S. Dollar-Settled Foreign Currency Options; (ii) Chapter
III, Section 9 incorporates the exercise limit rules of PHLX for U.S.
Dollar-Settled Foreign Currency Options; (iii) Chapter XIV, Section 5
incorporates the position limit rules of PHLX for PHLX proprietary
broad-based index options products; and (iv) Chapter XIV, Section 7
incorporates the exercise limit rules of PHLX for PHLX proprietary
industry and micro-narrow based index options products. Thus, BX
Options Participants and NOM Participants comply with these BX Options
and NOM rules by complying with the relevant, incorporated PHLX
rule.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ BX modified its Options Rules Chapter III, Sections 7
(Position Limits) and 9 (Exercise Limits) and Chapter XIV, Sections
5 (Position Limits for Broad-Based Index Options) and 7 (Position
Limits for Industry and Micro-Narrow Based Index Options). See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71977 (April 21, 2014), 79 FR
23023 (April 25, 2014) (SR-BX-2014-019). NASDAQ modified its NASDAQ
Options Market (``NOM'') Rules bearing the same section references
and headings. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71978 (April
21, 2014), 79 FR 23036 (April 25, 2014) (SR-NASDAQ-2014-039).
    \4\ The Exchanges have not previously sought an exemption from
the Commission pursuant to Section 36(a)(1) of the Exchange Act from
the rule filing requirements of Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act
with respect to these incorporations by reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchanges have requested, pursuant to Rule 0-12 under the
Exchange Act,\5\ that the Commission grant them an exemption from the
rule filing requirements of Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act for
changes to BX Options and NOM Rules Chapter III, Sections 7 and 9, and
Chapter XIV, Sections 5 and 7 that are effected solely by virtue of a
change to the corresponding cross-referenced rules of PHLX.
Specifically, the Exchanges request that they be permitted to
incorporate by reference changes made to each such PHLX rule without
the need for them to file separately the same proposed rule changes
pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act.\6\ By virtue of these
incorporations by reference, the requirements applicable to BX Options
Participants and NOM Participants will change when the applicable
incorporated PHLX rules change, without the need for the Exchanges to
file separately the proposed rule changes pursuant to Section 19(b) of
the Exchange Act.\7\ The Exchanges state that the PHLX rules the
Exchanges seek to incorporate by reference are regulatory in nature and
that these incorporations by reference of PHLX rules are intended to be
a comprehensive integration of the relevant rules of PHLX into the
Exchanges' rules. The Exchanges have agreed to provide written notice
to their Options Participants whenever PHLX proposes a change to a
cross-referenced rule.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 240.0-12.
    \6\ See Letters from Angela S. Dunn, BX and NASDAQ, to
Secretary, Commission, dated April 25, 2014 (``Exemptive
Requests''), at 1.
    \7\ Id. at 1-2.
    \8\ Id. at 2. The Exchanges state that they will provide such
notice via a posting on the same Web sites where they post their own
proposed rule change filings pursuant to Rule 19b-4(l). In addition,
the Exchanges state that the Web site postings will include a link
to the location on the PHLX Web site where the proposed rule change
is posted. Id. at 2 n.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchanges believe this exemption is necessary and appropriate
because it will result in the BX Options and NOM rules being consistent
with the relevant cross-referenced PHLX rules at all times, thus
ensuring identical regulation of joint members of PHLX, BX, and NOM
with respect to the incorporated rules.\9\ The Exchanges also believe
that, without such an exemption, such members could be subject to two
different standards.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Id. at 2.
    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has issued exemptions similar to the Exchanges'
requests.\11\ In granting one such exemption in 2010, the Commission
repeated a prior, 2004 Commission statement that it would consider
similar future exemption requests from other SROs, provided that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For example, on behalf of their respective options markets,
BX, BATS Exchange, Inc. (``BATS''), and NASDAQ incorporate, among
other things, the position limit rules of other exchanges. See,
e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 67256 (June 26, 2012), 77
FR 39277, 39286 (July 2, 2012) (order approving SR-BX-2012-030 and
granting exemptive request relating to rules incorporated by
reference by the BX Options rules); 61534 (February 18, 2010), 75 FR
8760 (February 25, 2010) (order granting BATS' exemptive request
relating to rules incorporated by reference by the BATS Options
Market rules) (``BATS Options Market Order''); 57478 (March 12,
2008), 73 FR 14521, 14539-40 (March 18, 2008) (order approving SR-
NASDAQ-2007-004 and SR-NASDAQ-2007-080, and granting exemptive
request relating to rules incorporated by reference by NOM).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     An SRO wishing to incorporate rules of another SRO by
reference has submitted a written request for an order exempting it
from the requirement in Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act to file
proposed rule changes relating to the rules incorporated by reference,
has identified the applicable originating SRO(s), together with the
rules it wants to incorporate by reference, and otherwise has complied
with the procedural requirements set forth in the Commission's release
governing procedures for requesting exemptive orders pursuant to Rule
0-12 under the Exchange Act; \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See 17 CFR 240.0-12 and Securities Exchange Act Release No.
39624 (February 5, 1998), 63 FR 8101 (February 18, 1998) (Commission
Procedures for Filing Applications for Orders for Exemptive Relief
Pursuant to Section 36 of the Exchange Act; Final Rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     An incorporating SRO has requested incorporation of
categories of rules (rather than individual rules within a category)
that are not trading rules (e.g., the SRO has requested incorporation
of rules such as margin, suitability, or arbitration); and
     The incorporating SRO has reasonable procedures in place
to provide written notice to its members each time a change is proposed
to the incorporated rules of another SRO.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See BATS Options Market Order, supra note 11 (citing
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49260 (February 17, 2004), 69 FR
8500 (February 24, 2004) (order granting exemptive request relating
to rules incorporated by reference by several SROs) (``2004
Order'')).

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

    The Commission believes that the Exchanges have satisfied each of
these conditions. The Commission also believes that granting the
Exchanges an exemption from the rule filing requirements under Section
19(b) of the Exchange Act will promote efficient use of Commission and
the Exchanges' resources by avoiding duplicative rule filings based on
simultaneous changes to identical rule text sought by BX, NASDAQ, and
PHLX.\14\ The Commission therefore finds it appropriate in the public
interest and consistent with the protection of investors to exempt the
Exchanges from the rule filing requirements under Section 19(b) of the
Exchange Act with respect to the above-described rules they have
incorporated by reference. This exemption is conditioned upon the
Exchanges promptly providing written notice to their BX Options
Participants and NOM Participants, respectively, whenever PHLX changes
a rule that they have incorporated by reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See BATS Options Market Order, supra note 11, 75 FR at
8761; see also 2004 Order, supra note 13, 69 FR at 8502.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 36 of the Exchange
Act,\15\ that the Exchanges are exempt from the rule filing
requirements of Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act solely with respect
to changes to the rules identified in their requests that incorporate
by reference certain PHLX rules that are the result of changes to such
PHLX rules, provided that the Exchanges promptly provide written notice
to their BX Options Participants and NOM Participants, respectively,
whenever PHLX proposes to change a rule that the Exchanges have
incorporated by reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78mm.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(76).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-17638 Filed 7-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 5, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 191)]
[Notices]
[Page 51148-51150]
[DOCID:fr05oc09-46]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492; FRL-8965-5]

Draft Documents Related to the Review of the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Particulate Matter

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is announcing an extension of the public comment
period for two draft assessment documents titled, Risk Assessment to
Support the Review of the PM Primary National Ambient Air Quality
Standards--External Review Draft and Particulate Matter Urban-Focused
Visibility Assessment--External Review Draft (74 FR 46589; September
10, 2009). The EPA is extending the comment period that originally was
scheduled to end on October 15, 2009. The extended comment period will
close on November 9, 2009. The EPA is extending the comment period to
provide stakeholders and the public with adequate time to conduct
appropriate analysis and prepare meaningful comments.

DATES: Comments on the above reports must be received on or before
November 9, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2007-0492, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail: Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail)
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-
0492.
     Fax: Fax your comments to<PHONE_NUMBER>, Attention Docket
ID. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492.
     Mail: Send your comments to: Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to: EPA
Docket Center, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Room 3334, Washington, DC.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2007-0492. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/
epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Docket in the
EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. This Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions related to the draft
document titled, Risk Assessment to Support the Review of the PM
Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards: External Review Draft
(September 2009), please contact Dr. Zachary Pekar, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (Mail code C504-06), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For questions related to the draft document titled, Particulate
Matter Urban-Focused Visibility Assessment--External Review Draft
(September 2009), please contact Ms. Vicki Sandiford, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (Mail code C504-06), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For questions related to the preliminary draft document, Policy
Assessment for the Review of the Particulate Matter National Ambient
Air Quality Standards: Preliminary Draft (September 2009), please
contact Ms. Beth Hassett-Sipple, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (Mail code C504-06), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

General Information

A. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of
the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk
or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM
as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
     Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under section 108(a) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA), the Administrator identifies and lists certain pollutants which
``cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.'' The EPA then issues
air quality criteria for these listed pollutants, which are commonly
referred to as ``criteria pollutants.'' The air quality criteria are to
``accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge useful in
indicating the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on public

health or welfare which may be expected from the presence of [a]
pollutant in the ambient air, in varying quantities.'' Under section
109 of the CAA, EPA establishes primary (health-based) and secondary
(welfare-based) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for
pollutants for which air quality criteria are issued. Section 109(d) of
the CAA requires periodic review and, if appropriate, revision of
existing air quality criteria. The revised air quality criteria reflect
advances in scientific knowledge on the effects of the pollutant on
public health or welfare. The EPA is also required to periodically
review and revise the NAAQS, if appropriate, based on the revised
criteria.
    Air quality criteria have been established for particulate matter
(PM) and NAAQS have been established for PM2.5 and
PM10 to provide protection from fine and coarse particles,
respectively. Presently, EPA is reviewing the air quality criteria and
NAAQS for PM. The EPA's overall plan and schedule for this review is
presented in the Integrated Review Plan for the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Particulate Matter.\1\ A draft of the integrated
review plan was released for public review and comment in October 2007
and was the subject of a consultation with the Clean Air Scientific
Advisory Committee (CASAC) on November 30, 2007 (72 FR 63177; November
8, 2007). Comments received from that consultation and from the public
were considered in finalizing the plan and in beginning the review of
the air quality criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA 452R-08-004; March 2008; Available: http://www.epa.gov/
ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_2007_pd.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of EPA's review of the primary (health-based) and secondary
(welfare-based) PM NAAQS, the Agency is conducting quantitative
assessments characterizing (1) the health risks associated with
exposure to ambient PM and (2) urban visibility impairment associated
with PM. The EPA's plans for conducting these assessments, including
the proposed scope and methods of the analyses, were presented in two
planning documents titled, Particulate Matter National Ambient Air
Quality Standards: Scope and Methods Plan for Health Risk and Exposure
Assessment and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality
Standards: Scope and Methods Plan for Urban Visibility Impact
Assessment (henceforth, Scope and Methods Plans).\2\ These documents
were released for public comment in February 2009 and were the subject
of a consultation with the CASAC on April 2, 2009 (74 FR 11580; March
18, 2009). Comments received from the CASAC consultation (Samet, 2009)
\3\ as well as public comments on the Scope and Methods Plans have been
considered in developing the draft assessment documents being released
at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA-452/P-09-001 and -002; February 2009; Available: http://
www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_2007_pd.html.
    \3\ See http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/SABPRODUCT.NSF/
81e39f4c09954fcb85256ead006be86e/
350899ec134552948525746600691de5!OpenDocument&TableRow=2.3#2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The draft documents announced on September 10, 2009 (74 FR 46589)
convey the approaches taken to assess exposures to ambient PM and to
characterize associated health risks or urban visibility impairment, as
well as present the initial key results, observations, and related
uncertainties associated with the quantitative analyses performed.
These draft documents were made available on September 8, 2009, through
the Agency's Technology Transfer Network (TTN) Web site at http://
www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_index.html. These documents
may be accessed in the ``Documents from Current Review'' section under
``Risk and Exposure Assessments.'' The EPA is soliciting advice and
recommendations from the CASAC by means of a review of the draft
documents at an upcoming public meeting of the CASAC scheduled in
Chapel Hill, NC. Information about this public meeting was published as
a separate notice in the Federal Register on September 10, 2009 (74 FR
46586). Following the CASAC meeting, EPA will consider comments
received from the CASAC and the public in preparing revisions to these
assessment documents.
    In addition, on September 16, 2009, EPA made available a third
draft document titled, Policy Assessment for the Review of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards: Preliminary Draft. The development of
this document is a result of recent changes to the NAAQS review
process. On May 21, 2009, Administrator Jackson called for key changes
to the NAAQS review process including reinstating a policy assessment
document that contains staff analyses of the scientific bases for
alternative policy options for consideration by senior Agency
management prior to rulemaking. This document, which builds upon the
historical ``Staff Paper,'' will serve to ``bridge the gap'' between
the scientific information and the judgments required of the
Administrator in determining whether it is appropriate to retain or
revise the standards. In conjunction with this change, EPA will no
longer issue a policy assessment in the form of an Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/review.html for a copy of
Administrator Jackson's May 21, 2009 memorandum and for additional
information on the NAAQS review process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The preliminary draft Policy Assessment (PA) builds upon
information presented in the Integrated Science Assessment for
Particulate Matter (Second External Review Draft) \5\ and the two draft
assessment documents described above. This preliminary draft PA
includes several chapters but is not intended to be a complete draft PA
document in that it does not include staff conclusions on a range of
policy options that could be appropriate for the Administrator to
consider concerning whether, and if so how, to revise the primary and
secondary PM NAAQS. It is instead being released for informational
purposes to facilitate a discussion with CASAC on the overall
structure, areas of focus, and level of detail to be included in an
external review draft of the document, which EPA plans to release for
CASAC review and public comment later this year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ EPA/600/R-08/139B; July 2009; Available: http://www.epa.gov/
ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_2007_isa.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The preliminary draft PA may be accessed online through EPA's TTN
Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_
index.html. This document may be accessed in the ``Documents from
Current Review'' section under ``Policy Assessments.'' The discussion
with CASAC on this preliminary draft PA will be held at the same
meeting that CASAC will review the second draft Integrated Science
Assessment (ISA) and the two draft assessment documents described
above.
    The draft documents briefly described above do not represent and
should not be construed to represent any final EPA policy, viewpoint,
or determination. The EPA will consider any public comments submitted
in response to this notice when revising the documents.

    Dated: September 28, 2009.
Jennifer Noonan Edmonds,
Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
[FR Doc. E9-23940 Filed 10-2-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 48 (Thursday, March 12, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13054-13055]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05606]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74454; File No. SR-NYSE-2015-10]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Extend the Pilot Period for the Exchange's Retail Liquidity Program
Which Is Currently Scheduled To Expire on March 31, 2015, Until
September 30, 2015

March 6, 2015.
    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 February 27, 2015, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to extend the pilot period for the Exchange's
Retail Liquidity Program (the ``Retail Liquidity Program'' or the
``Program''), which is currently scheduled to expire on March 31, 2015,
until September 30, 2015. 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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to extend the pilot period of the
Retail Liquidity Program,\3\ currently scheduled to expire on March 31,
2015, until September 30, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72629 (July 16,
2014), 79 FR 42564 (July 22, 2014) (NYSE-2014-35).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    In July 2012, the Commission approved the Retail Liquidity Program
on a pilot basis.\4\ The Program is designed to attract retail order
flow to the Exchange, and allows such order flow to receive potential
price improvement. The Program is currently limited to trades occurring
at prices equal to or greater than $1.00 per share. Under the Program,
Retail Liquidity Providers (``RLPs'') are able to provide potential
price improvement in the form of a non-displayed order that is priced
better than the Exchange's best protected bid or offer (``PBBO''),
called a Retail Price Improvement Order (``RPI''). When there is an RPI
in a particular security, the Exchange disseminates an indicator, known
as the Retail Liquidity Identifier, indicating that such interest
exists. Retail Member Organizations (``RMOs'') can submit a Retail
Order to the Exchange, which would interact, to the extent possible,
with available contra-side RPIs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67347 (July 3,
2012), 77 FR 40673 (July 10, 2012) (``RLP Approval Order'') (SR-
NYSE-2011-55).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Retail Liquidity Program was approved by the Commission on a
pilot basis. Pursuant to NYSE Rule 107C(m), the pilot period for the
Program is scheduled to end on March 31, 2015.
Proposal To Extend the Operation of the Program
    The Exchange established the Retail Liquidity Program in an attempt
to attract retail order flow to the Exchange by potentially providing
price improvement to such order flow. The Exchange believes that the
Program promotes competition for retail order flow by allowing Exchange
members to submit RPIs to interact with Retail Orders. Such competition
has the ability to promote efficiency by facilitating the price
discovery process and generating additional investor interest in
trading securities, thereby promoting capital formation. The Exchange
believes that extending the pilot is appropriate because it will allow
the Exchange and the Commission additional time to analyze data
regarding the Program that the Exchange has committed to provide.\5\ As
such, the Exchange believes that it is appropriate to extend the
current operation of the Program.\6\ Through this filing, the Exchange
seeks to amend NYSE Rule 107C(m) and extend the current pilot period of
the Program until September 30, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See id. at 40681.
    \6\ Concurrently with this filing, the Exchange has submitted a
request for an extension of the exemption under Regulation NMS Rule
612 previously granted by the Commission that permits it to accept
and rank the undisplayed RPIs. See Letter from Martha Redding,
Senior Counsel, NYSE Group, Inc. to Brent J. Fields, Secretary,
Securities and Exchange Commission, dated February 27, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Act,\7\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\8\
in particular, in that it is 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, and, in
general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange
believes that extending the pilot period for the Retail Liquidity
Program is consistent with these principles because the Program is
reasonably designed to attract retail order flow to the exchange
environment, while helping to ensure that retail investors benefit from
the better price that liquidity providers are willing to give their
orders. Additionally, as previously stated, the competition promoted by
the Program may facilitate the price discovery

process and potentially generate additional investor interest in
trading securities. The extension of the pilot period will allow the
Commission and the Exchange to continue to monitor the Program for its
potential effects on public price discovery, and on the broader market
structure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 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 rule change
simply extends an established pilot program for an additional six
months, thus allowing the Retail Liquidity Program to enhance
competition for retail order flow and contribute to the public price
discovery process.

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 \9\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\10\
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \11\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b4(f)(6)(iii),\12\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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) \13\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 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-NYSE-2015-10 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-NYSE-2015-10. 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 offices 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-NYSE-2015-10,
and should be submitted on or before April 2, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-05606 Filed 3-11-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 1, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 191)]
[Notices]
[Page 57166-57167]
[DOCID:fr01oc08-127]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58630; File No. 4-443]

Joint Industry Plan; Order Granting Permanent Approval to
Amendment No. 2 to the Plan for the Purpose of Developing and
Implementing Procedures Designed To Facilitate the Listing and Trading
of Standardized Options

September 24, 2008.

I. Introduction

    On August 12, 2008, August 18, 2008, August 15, 2008, August 13,
2008, August 8, 2008, August 14, 2008, August 14, 2008, and August 18,
2008, the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex''), the Boston Stock
Exchange, Inc. (``BSE''), Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE''), the International Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE''), The
NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq''), NYSE Arca Inc.

(``NYSE Arca''), the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Phlx''), and
the Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') respectively, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
section 11A of the Securities Exchange Act \1\ of 1934 (``Act'') and
Rule 608 thereunder,\2\ Amendment No. 2 to the Plan for the Purpose of
Developing and Implementing Procedures Designed to Facilitate the
Listing and Trading of Standardized Options (``the Options Listing
Procedures Plan'' or ``OLPP'').\3\ Amendment No. 2 would provide a
uniform minimum volume threshold per underlying class to qualify for
the introduction of a new expiration year of Long-term Equity
AnticiPation securities (``LEAP'' or ``LEAPS'') options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \2\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \3\ On July 6, 2001, the Commission approved the OLPP, which was
originally proposed by the Amex, CBOE, ISE, OCC, Phlx, and Pacific
Exchange, Inc. (k/n/a NYSE Arca). See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 44521, 66 FR 36809 (July 13, 2001). On February 5, 2004,
BSE was added as a sponsor to the OLPP. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 49199, 69 FR 7030 (February 12, 2004). On March 21,
2008, Nasdaq was added as a sponsor to the OLPP. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 57546 (March 21, 2008), 73 FR 16393 (March
27, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 19, 2008, the Commission issued notice of and approved
Amendment No. 2 on a temporary basis not to exceed 120 days, and
solicited comment on the proposal.\4\ The Commission received no
comment letters in response to the Temporary Approval Order. This order
approves Amendment No. 2 on a permanent basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58385 (August 19,
2008), 73 FR 50375 (August 26, 2008) (``Temporary Approval Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    Currently, Plan Sponsors may list a new LEAP expiration year at the
appropriate time without any consideration as to the activity level of
the class of options. Amendment No. 2 proposes to apply a uniform
minimum volume threshold per underlying class to qualify for the
introduction of a new expiration year of LEAP options.
    By agreeing to a minimum volume threshold per underlying class to
qualify for an additional year of LEAP series, the Plan Sponsors intend
to mitigate the number of option series available for trading. It is
intended that this will in turn mitigate quote traffic, because
Participants will not be submitting quotes in the not-listed series.
The Plan Sponsors have agreed on a minimum volume threshold of 1,000
contracts national average daily volume in the preceding three calendar
months (excluding volume in LEAP and FLEX series) to qualify for the
introduction of a new LEAP expiration year.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Plan Sponsors represented that, in 2007, if this
proposal had been in effect, the industry would not have added a new
expiration year in 550 underlying securities, which would have
reduced the overall number of listed series (LEAP and non-LEAP
series) by 8%. These LEAP series generated only .43% of industry
trading volume in a typical (non-expiration) sample week.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Amendment does not restrict the introduction of a new LEAP
expiration year in Index options, or in classes that have had options
products trading at any exchange for less than six months. In addition,
it also does not restrict, for a particular options class, the
introduction of new LEAP series with an expiration year that has
already been introduced by at least one Exchange.

III. Discussion

    After careful review, the Commission finds that Amendment No. 2 is
consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder.\6\ Specifically, the Commission finds that
Amendment No. 2 to the OLPP is consistent with section 11A of the Act
\7\ and Rule 608 thereunder \8\ in that it is in the public interest
and appropriate for the protection of investors and the maintenance of
fair and orderly markets. Specifically, the Commission believes that by
adopting a uniform minimum volume threshold per underlying class to
qualify for the introduction of a new expiration year for LEAP series,
the options exchanges should reduce the number of option series
available for trading, and thus may reduce increases in the options
quote rate because market participants would not be submitting quotes
in the not-yet-available LEAP series. Accordingly, the Commission
believes that it is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly
markets, to remove impediments to, and perfect mechanisms of, a
national market system to approve Amendment No. 2 to the OLPP on a
permanent basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In approving this proposed OPRA Plan Amendment, the
Commission has considered its impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \8\ 17 CFR 242.608.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 11A of the Act,\9\ and
Rule 608 thereunder,\10\ that proposed Amendment No. 2 to the OLPP be,
and it hereby is, approved on a permanent basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \10\ 17 CFR 242.608.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(29).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-22965 Filed 9-30-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 36 (Friday, February 22, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5794-5798]
[FR Doc No: 2019-03035]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85158; File No. SR-NYSE-2018-52]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Order
Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend NYSE Rule 7.31
Relating to Discretionary Orders, Auction-Only Orders, Discretionary
Modifier, and Yielding Modifier and Related Amendments to Rules 7.16,
7.34, 7.36, and 7.37

February 15, 2019.

I. Introduction

    On November 29, 2018, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend NYSE Rule 7.31 (Orders and Modifiers) to:
(i) Add a new order type, Discretionary Orders; (ii) add two new order
type modifiers, the Last Sale Peg Modifier and the Yielding Modifier;
and (iii) make related changes to NYSE Rules 7.16, 7.34, 7.36, and 7.37
for trading on Pillar.\3\ The proposed rule change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on December 18, 2018.\4\ The Commission
has received no comments on the proposal. This order approves the
proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Pillar is a new trading technology for the Exchange that
currently trades securities pursuant to unlisted trading privileges
(``UTP''). The Exchange intends to migrate trading in NYSE-listed
securities to Pillar at a later date. See Securities Exchange
Release No. 82945 (Mar. 26, 2018), 83 FR 13553 (Mar. 29, 2018)
(Order approving equity trading rules for UTP securities on
Pillar)(``Pillar Trading Rules Approval'').
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84806 (Dec. 12,
2018), 83 FR 64913 (Dec. 18, 2018) (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Rule 7.31 (Orders and
Modifiers) to: (i) Add a new order type, Discretionary Orders; (ii) add
two new order type modifiers, the Last Sale Peg Modifier and the
Yielding Modifier; and (iii) make related changes to NYSE Rules 7.16,
7.34, 7.36, and 7.37.

Discretionary Order Overview

    Proposed NYSE Rule 7.31(d)(4) sets forth the general requirements
for a new order type, a Discretionary Order or ``D Order,'' for
securities trading on Pillar.

Specifically, a D Order would be a Limit Order that: (1) May trade at
an undisplayed discretionary price; (2) must be designated as ``Day;''
(3) may be designated as routable or non-routable; (4) must have a
minimum of one round lot displayed on entry; and (5) is only available
to Floor Brokers during the Core Trading Session.\5\ D Orders, like d-
Quotes, may be combined with a Reserve Order.\6\ However, unlike d-
Quotes, D Orders would be required to have a display quantity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Core Trading Session begins at 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time
and ends at the conclusion of Core Trading Hours. See NYSE Rule
7.34(a)(2). The term ``Core Trading Hours'' means ``the hours of
9:30 a.m. Easter Time through 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time or such other
hours as may be determined by the Exchange from time to time.'' See
NYSE Rule 1.1(d).
    \6\ See proposed NYSE Rule 7.31(d)(1)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Upon Arrival

    Proposed NYSE Rule 7.34(c)(1)(A) specifies that a D Order must be
designated as either a: (i) Limit Price D Order or (ii) Midpoint Price
D Order. Proposed NYSE Rule 7.31(d)(4)(A)(i) specifies that an arriving
Limit Price D Order to buy (sell) would trade with sell (buy) orders on
the Exchange Book, or, if designated as routable, route to an Away
Market up (down) to the limit price of the order. If after trading or
routing the PBBO is locked or crossed or there is no PBB (PBO), a Limit
Price D Order would be canceled. For a Limit Price D Order that is
partially routed to an Away Market on arrival, any returned quantity of
such D Order would join the working price of the resting odd-lot
quantity of the D Order.
    Proposed NYSE Rule 7.31(d)(4)(A)(ii) sets forth that an arriving
Midpoint Price D Order to buy (sell) would trade with sell (buy) orders
on the Exchange Book up (down) to the lower (higher) of the midpoint of
the PBBO (``Midpoint Price'') or the order's limit price. The proposed
rule also provides that a Midpoint Price D Order would not route on
arrival, even if designated as routable. If designated as routable, a
Midpoint Price D Order combined with a Reserve Order would be evaluated
for routing each time the display quantity is replenished as provided
for in NYSE Rule 7.31(d)(1)(D).\7\ The proposed rule further provides
that if the PBBO is locked or crossed or if the Midpoint Price is
unavailable, the Midpoint Price D Order would be rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ NYSE Rule 7.31(d)(1)(D) provides that a routable Reserve
Order will be evaluated for routing both on arrival and each time
the display quantity is replenished.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Working and Display Price

    Proposed NYSE Rule 7.31(d)(4)(B) provides that the working and
display price for a D Order to buy (sell) would be pegged to the PBB
(PBO).\8\ If the PBB (PBO) is higher (lower) than the limit price of a
D Order to buy (sell), the working and display price would be the limit
price of the order. The proposed rule also provides that a D Order to
buy (sell) would be canceled if there is no PBB (PBO) against which to
peg. As proposed, the rule further provides that, at its display price,
a D Order would be ranked Priority 2--Display Orders.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ ``Working price'' means the price at which an order is
eligible to trade at any given time, which may be different from the
limit price or display price of the order. See NYSE Rule 7.36(a)(3).
``Display price'' means the price at which a Limit Order is
displayed, which may be different from the limit price or working
price of the order. See NYSE Rule 7.36(a)(1).
    \9\ NYSE Rule 7.36(e) governs execution priority for orders
resting on the Exchange Book and currently sets forth three priority
categories: Priority 1--Market Orders, Priority 2--Display Orders,
and Priority 3--Non-Display Orders. If a D Order is combined with a
Reserve Order, the reserve interest of such order would be ranked
Priority 3--Non-Display Orders. See NYSE Rule 7.31(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discretion

    Proposed NYSE Rule 7.31(d)(4)(C) provides that a resting D Order to
buy (sell) would be eligible to exercise discretion up (down) to the
limit price of the order. This proposed rule further provides that the
display price of a D Order would: (i) Be pegged to the same-side PBBO;
(ii) not be based on the limit price; and (iii) not exercise discretion
if the PBBO is locked or crossed or if there is no Midpoint Price.
    Proposed NYSE Rule 7.31(d)(4)(C)(i) provides that a D Order to buy
(sell) would be triggered to exercise discretion if the price of an
Aggressing Order to sell (buy) is above (below) the PBB (PBO) and at or
below (above) the Midpoint Price (the ``discretionary price
range'').\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ An Aggressing Order is a buy (sell) order that is or
becomes marketable against sell (buy) interest on the Exchange Book.
See Rule 7.36(a)(6). A resting order may become an Aggressing Order
if its working price changes, if the PBBO or NBBO is updated,
because of changes to other orders on the Exchange Book, or when
processing inbound messages. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed NYSE Rule 7.31(d)(4)(C)(ii) provides that the
discretionary price at which a D Order to buy (sell) would trade would
be the price of the sell (buy) order. In addition, proposed NYSE Rule
7.36(a)(7) defines the term ``discretionary price'' as the undisplayed
price at which a D Order would trade if it exercises discretion.
    Proposed NYSE Rule 7.31(d)(4)(C)(ii) provides that if other
interest to buy (sell) priced equal to or higher (lower) than the price
of the sell (buy) order is present on the Exchange Book, the
discretionary price would be one MPV higher (lower) than the highest
(lowest) priced resting order to buy (sell), capped by the Midpoint
Price.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The MPV for securities is defined in NYSE Rule 7.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ranking and Working Time

    Proposed NYSE Rule 7.31(d)(4)(D)(i) provides that a D Order would
be assigned a new temporary working time that is later than any same-
side resting interest at its discretionary price. Proposed NYSE Rule
7.31(d)(4)(D)(ii) provides that multiple D Orders, when eligible to
trade at the same discretionary price, would be ranked by limit price
and time. Finally, proposed NYSE Rule 7.31(d)(4)(D)(iii) provides that
the unexecuted portion of a D Order at its discretionary price would be
given the working time associated with its working and display price.

Resting D Order That Becomes Marketable

    Proposed NYSE Rule 7.31(d)(4)(E) provides that after the PBBO
unlocks or uncrosses or a Midpoint Price becomes accessible, resting D
Orders to buy (sell) would be ranked based on the lower (higher) of the
Midpoint Price or limit price of the order to determine whether a D
Order is marketable within its discretionary price range with contra-
side orders on the Exchange Book.

D Orders Rejected and Modifiers

    Proposed NYSE Rule 7.31(d)(4)(F) provides that a D Order may be
designated with a Self Trade Prevention Modifier (``STP'') and would be
rejected if combined with any other modifiers or if the same-side PBBO
is zero.
    Proposed NYSE Rule 7.31(i)(2)(C) provides that a resting D Order
with an STP Modifier that is triggered to exercise discretion, and is
not an Aggressing Order, will not trade at a discretionary price
against a contra-side order that is also designated with an STP
Modifier and from the same Client ID, and that, in such case, the D
Order would not be canceled.

Last 10 Seconds of Trading

    Proposed NYSE Rule 7.31(d)(4)(G) provides that a request to enter a
D Order in any security 10 seconds or less before the scheduled close
of trading would be rejected.

Allocation of D Orders

    Proposed NYSE Rule 7.37(b) sets forth the allocation process for D
Orders. Pursuant to NYSE Rule 7.37(b)(1) the allocation sequence would
be as follows: (1) Market Orders trade first based on time; (2) orders
with Setter

Priority as described in NYSE Rule 7.36(h) receive an allocation; (3)
orders ranked Priority 2--Displayed Orders are allocated on parity by
Participant; (4) orders ranked Priority 3--Non-Display Orders, other
than Mid-Point Liquidity (``MPL'') Orders \12\ with an MTS Modifier,
are allocated on parity by Participant; \13\ and then (5) MPL Orders
with an MTS Modifier are allocated based on MTS size (smallest to
largest) and time. After these order types have been allocated, D
Orders trading at a discretionary price would be allocated next on
parity by a Floor Broker Participant pursuant to proposed NYSE Rule
7.37(b)(1)(F).\14\ Specifically, at their discretionary price, D Orders
would be allocated after all other orders at that price, except for
Yielding Orders, which are described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See NYSE Rule 7.31(d)(3) for a description of MPL Orders.
    \13\ An order with an MTS Modifier would only trade with contra-
side orders that, either individually or in the aggregate, satisfy
the order's minimum trade size condition. See NYSE Rule 7.31(i)(3)
for a full description of the MTS Modifier.
    \14\ See NYSE Rule 7.36(a)(5) for the definition of the term
``Floor Broker Participant.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NYSE Rule 7.37(b)(2) describes the process for the parity
allocation wheel. Currently, the Exchange creates separate allocation
wheels for orders ranked Priority 2--Display Orders and orders ranked
Priority 3--Non-Display Orders. The Exchange proposes to create a third
allocation wheel if there is more than one D Order eligible to trade at
a discretionary price. In that case, the Exchange would create an
allocation wheel for D Orders at that discretionary price.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See proposed NYSE Rule 7.37(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Rule 7.37(b)(2)(A) to provide
that for each D Order parity allocation wheel, a D Order to buy (sell)
with the highest (lowest) limit price would establish the first
position on that allocation wheel.

Re-Pricing of D Orders During a Short Sale Period

    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Rule 7.16(f)(5)(C) to specify
that, during a Short Sale Period,\16\ the Exchange proposes to process
sell short D Orders as Pegged Orders and MPL Orders are processed under
the current rules. Thus, under proposed NYSE Rule 7.16(f)(5)(C), D
Orders--including orders marked buy, sell long, and sell short exempt--
would use the National Best Bid and Offer (``NBBO'') instead of the
PBBO as the reference price. The proposed rule also provides that the
Midpoint Price of D Orders would be the midpoint price of the NBBO,
including situations in which the midpoint is less than one minimum
price increment above the National Best Bid (``NBB'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ A ``Short Sale Period'' is defined in NYSE Rule 7.16(f)(4)
to mean the period when a Short Sale Price Test is in effect. A
``Short Sale Price Test'' is defined in NYSE Rule 7.16(f)(3) to mean
the period during which Exchange systems will not execute or display
a short sale order with respect to a covered security at a price
that is less than or equal to the current NBB in compliance with
Rule 201 of Regulation SHO (``Rule 201''). 17 CFR 242.201. The
Commission notes that the re-pricing of D Orders during a Short Sale
Period would need to be compliant with the requirements of Rule 201.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Last Sale Peg Modifier

    Proposed Rule 7.31(i)(4) would add a new order type modifier, Last
Sale Peg, that would be similar to the current Buy Minus Zero Plus
(``BMZP'') \17\ instruction for trading in Exchange-listed securities,
with specified differences to reflect Pillar functionality and
terminology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See NYSE Rule 13(f)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to proposed Rule 7.31(i)(4), a Non-Routable Limit Order to
buy may be designated with a Last Sale Peg modifier and would be
referred to as a ``Last Sale Peg Order.'' Proposed Rule 7.31(i)(4) also
provides that a Last Sale Peg Order would not trade or be displayed at
a price higher than the later of the most recent last-sale eligible
trade executed on the Exchange or the most recent consolidated last-
sale eligible trade, which would be defined, for purposes of this rule,
as the ``last-sale price.'' \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ A consolidated last-sale eligible trade is the last-sale
eligible trade reported to the responsible single plan processor.
See Notice, supra note 4, 83 FR at 64917, n.50. A last-sale eligible
trade must be of at least one round lot. See id. at 64917, n.49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed NYSE Rule 7.31(i)(4)(A) provides that the working price of
a Last Sale Peg Order would be pegged to the lower of the last-sale
price, the limit price of the order, or the PBO. Proposed NYSE Rule
7.31(i)(4)(A) also provides that the working price of a resting Last
Sale Peg Order would not be adjusted until an Aggressing Order is fully
processed. In other words, if an Aggressing Order trades at multiple
prices, the Exchange would wait for the last price at which that order
trades to determine the last-sale price for purposes of re-pricing the
working price of a resting Last Sale Peg Order. The proposed rule
further provides that if the last-sale price is not at a permissible
MPV, the working price of the order would be rounded down to the
nearest MPV.
    Pursuant to proposed NYSE Rule 7.31(i)(4)(B), the display price of
a Last Sale Peg Order would be the same as the working price, unless
the working price is pegged to the PBO, in which case, the display
price would be determined pursuant to NYSE Rule 7.31(e)(1).
    Proposed NYSE Rule 7.31(i)(4)(C) provides that a Last Sale Peg
Order may be designated with an STP Modifier and would be rejected if
combined with any other modifiers or if there is no last-sale price.
    NYSE Rule 7.34(c)(1)(A) is being amended to add Last Sale Peg
Orders to the description of orders that may be accepted, but not
eligible to trade, during the Early Trading Session.

Yielding Modifier

    Proposed NYSE Rule 7.31(i)(5) sets forth the requirements for the
Yielding Modifier and provides that a Limit Order, Non-Routable Limit
Order, or Reserve Order may be designated with a Yielding Modifier,
which, for purposes of this proposed rule, would be referred to as
``Yielding Order.'' A Yielding Order would yield priority to all other
displayed and non-displayed orders at the same price, and, similar to
g-Quotes,\19\ may only be entered by Floor brokers and would be ranked
Priority 4--Yielding Orders. Proposed NYSE Rule 7.36(e)(4) would add
this additional priority category and provide that Priority 4--Yielding
Orders have fourth priority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Rule 70(a)(ii) and (iii). The Exchange states that g-
Quotes are designed to assist Floor Brokers with compliance with
Section 11(a)(1) of the Act. See Notice, supra note 4, 83 FR at
64918. Section 11(a)(1) of the Act generally prohibits a member of a
national securities exchange from effecting transactions on that
exchange for its own account, the account of an associated person,
or any account over which it or an associated person exercises
discretion. Subsection (G) of Section 11(a)(1) provides an exemption
from this prohibition, allowing an exchange member to have its own
floor broker execute a proprietary order, also known as a ``G
order,'' provided such order yields priority, parity, and precedence
(the ``G Rule''). Under the G Rule, G orders are not required to
yield to other orders that are for the account of a member, e.g.,
Designated Market Maker (``DMM'') interest or other g-Quotes. See
id. at 64918, n.54.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed NYSE Rule 7.31(i)(5)(A) provides that an Aggressing
Yielding Order to buy (sell) with a limit price higher (lower) than the
limit price of a resting order to buy (sell) would trade ahead of the
resting order.
    Proposed NYSE Rule 7.31(i)(5)(B) provides that an Aggressing
Yielding Order to buy (sell) with a limit price equal to the limit
price of a resting order to buy (sell) would either: (i) Trigger the
resting order to become an Aggressing Order, unless the order to sell
(buy) is an MPL-ALO Order or an MPL Order with an MTS Modifier,\20\ in
which case neither the Yielding Order nor the same-side resting order
would trade; or (ii)

trade ahead of the resting order if the resting order is not eligible
to trade (e.g., an ALO Order or an order with an MTS Modifier).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Rule 7.31(e)(2) for a description of the ALO Order. An
MPL Order may be designated with the ALO modifier. See Rule
7.31(d)(3)(E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similar to the proposed Last Sale Peg Order, proposed NYSE Rule
7.31(i)(5)(C) provides that a Yielding Order may be designated with an
STP Modifier and would be rejected if combined with any other
modifiers.
    NYSE Rule 7.37(b) would also be amended to describe how orders with
a Yielding Modifier would participate in the allocation process. The
Exchange proposes that after the allocation of all other displayed and
non-displayed orders, D Orders would be allocated on parity. Proposed
NYSE Rule 7.37(b)(1)(G) provides that after D Orders have been
allocated, the display quantity of orders ranked Priority 4--Yielding
Orders would be allocated based on time. Proposed NYSE Rule
7.37(b)(1)(H) would provide that, next, the non-display quantity of
orders ranked Priority 4--Yielding Orders would be allocated based on
time.
    The Exchange asserts that by extending the availability of order
types that are currently available for Exchange-listed securities to
trading on Pillar, the Exchange would provide its members with
consistency across trading of all securities on the Exchange, thus
promoting just and equitable principals of trade and promoting a fair
and open market. Specifically, the Exchange states that the proposed D
Order is based in part on current d-Quote functionality, which is
available only to Floor brokers, and is designed to replicate
electronically the Floor broker's agency role to exercise price
discretion on behalf of its customer.\21\ The Exchange asserts that
differences between g-Quotes and the proposed D Orders are aimed at
simplifying and streamlining D Order functionality, while allowing such
orders to contribute to the display of liquidity at the Exchange and
offering price improvement opportunities to contra-side orders.\22\
Similarly, the Exchange states that the proposed Last Sale Peg Modifier
would offer functionality based on the existing BMZP instruction,\23\
with differences designed to streamline the operation of the modifier,
while maintaining its core purpose.\24\ In addition, the Exchange
states that the proposed Yielding Modifier is based on current g-Quote
functionality, including its availability to Floor brokers only. The
Exchange notes that, because this modifier provides Floor brokers with
an electronic method for representing orders on Pillar that is in
compliance with the G Rule,\25\ offering this modifier to non-Floor
brokers in unnecessary, because Floor brokers are the only members with
the specified G Rule obligation today.\26\ The Exchange states that it
believes the proposed rule change will contribute to the protection of
investors and the public interest by enhancing transparency with
respect to system functionality across trading of all securities in the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ In the Notice, the Exchange represents that Floor brokers
provide services certain illiquid securities, which upstairs trading
desks may not be staffed to manage, without any conflict of interest
because they are is not trading for her their account and do not
sell research to customers. This allows Floor brokers to manage
order flow with a focus on price discovery and volume discovery in
order to minimize price impact on the market. See Notice, supra note
4, 83 FR at 13569.
    \22\ See Notice, supra note 4, 83 FR at 64920. The Exchange
states proposed NYSE Rule 7.16(f)(5)(C) to add D Orders, like Pegged
Orders and MPL Orders today, including orders marked buy, sell long,
and sell short exempt, is based on the existing Pillar logic for D
Orders that peg to the PBBO. See Notice, supra note 4, 83 FR at
63917.
    \23\ The Exchange states that the Last Sale Peg Modifier is
based on the existing Buy Minus Zero Plus Instruction available to
buy orders, and is designed to facilitate compliance with the safe
harbor provisions of Rule 10b-18 under the Act. See, e.g., Notice,
supra note 4, 83 FR at 64921; NYSE Rule 13(f)(4).
    \24\ For example, the Exchange states that limiting this
modifier to Non-Routable Limit Orders would simplify its operation,
because the Exchange would not be able to assist a member
organization to comply with Rule 10b-18 if such order were routed to
an away market. See Notice, supra note 4, 83 FR at 64921.
    \25\ See, e.g., supra, note 23 and accompanying text; Notice,
supra note 4, 83 FR at 64918, 64921.
    \26\ Exchange asserts that the electronic, off-Floor entry of
orders is subject to an exception to the G Rule. See Notice, supra,
note 4, 83 FR at 64918, 64021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to making the proposed D Order available only to Floor
brokers, the Exchange states that D Orders are based on current d-Quote
functionality, which is available only to Floor brokers and is designed
to replicate electronically the Floor broker's agency role to exercise
price discretion on an order on behalf of a customer. Additionally, the
Exchange asserts that Floor brokers fulfill an agency broker role on
behalf of their customers without conflicts and fill a void for firms
that have chosen to allocate resources away from trading desks. In
addition to this role, according to the Exchange, Floor brokers provide
services for more illiquid securities, which upstairs trading desks may
not be staffed to manage. The Exchange asserts that use of the D Order
would facilitate this agency function by allowing Floor brokers to
enter orders on behalf of their customers without pricing impact
because the discretionary price range would be undisplayed and that,
when managing this customer order flow, Floor brokers trading in UTP
Securities would continue to be subject to Exchange rules that are
unique to Floor brokers, including Rules 95, 122, 123, and paragraphs
(d)-(j) of Rule 134.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Notice, supra note 4, 83 FR at 64920.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange notes that, while D Orders would be
available only to Floor brokers, any member organization can choose to
have a Floor broker operation and thus have direct access to D Orders
on behalf of its customers, and that any such orders would not receive
any execution priority or benefit when trading at a discretionary
price. To the contrary, the Exchange asserts, if a D Order were to
exercise discretion and trade at an undisplayed, discretionary price,
that D Order would be ranked behind all other same-side orders at that
price, except for a Yielding Order, which by definition yields to all
other orders and can only be entered by another Floor broker.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\29\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of
the Act,\30\ which requires, among other things, that the Exchange's
rules be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest; and are not designed to permit unfair discrimination
between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change would extend the
availability of certain orders and modifiers--which are currently
available for the trading of Exchange-listed securities on the
Exchange's existing technology platform--to trading on Pillar.
Specifically, the D Order, Last Sale Peg Modifier, and Yielding
Modifier that the Exchange proposes for Pillar would operate in a
manner similar to the Exchange's existing d-Quotes, BMZP, and g-Quotes,
respectively.

Additionally, the Commission notes that--after considering the
potential effects on competition and the potential for discrimination
against other exchange participants--it previously approved the
extension of parity allocations to Floor brokers with respect to
trading UTP Securities.\31\ The Commission believes that the rules that
the Exchange now proposes with respect to the use of D Orders by Floor
brokers are similarly designed to ensure that the benefits of this
order type will flow to the customers of the Floor brokers.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Pillar Trading Rules Approval, supra, note 3, 83 FR at
13572.
    \32\ See supra notes 27-28 and accompanying text. See also
Pillar Trading Rules Approval, supra, note 3, 83 FR at 13572
(finding that the Exchange's proposal to provide Floor brokers with
parity allocation in UTP Securities was designed to ensure that the
benefit of parity allocation would flow to customers of the floor
brokers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to amend NYSE Rule 7.16(f)(5)(C) to
specify that D Orders--including orders marked buy, sell long, and sell
short exempt--would use the NBBO instead of the PBBO as the reference
price. The Commission notes that any repricing of orders by the
Exchange must be done consistent with applicable rules and regulations,
including Rule 201 of Regulation SHO.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See 17 CFR 242.201.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\34\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSE-2018-52) be, and it
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-03035 Filed 2-21-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: November 9, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 217)]
[Notices]
[Page 65798]
[DOCID:fr09no06-78]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-44-000]

Southern LNG Inc.; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

November 2, 2006.
    Take notice that on October 31, 2006, Southern LNG Inc. (SLNG)
tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No.
1, the following tariff sheets, to become effective December 1, 2006:
Sixteenth Revised Sheet No. 5, Sixteenth Revised Sheet No. 6.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible online at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-18936 Filed 11-8-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P