[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 9, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12543-12552]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05185]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77291; File No. SR-BATS-2015-108]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing of Partial Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated
Approval to a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt BATS Rule 11.27(a) To
Implement the Quoting and Trading Requirements of the Regulation NMS
Plan To Implement a Tick Size Pilot Program

March 3, 2016.

I. Introduction

    On November 30, 2015, BATS Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'' or
``BATS'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'' or ``SEC''), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposal to adopt BATS Rule 11.27(a) to implement the
quoting and trading requirements of the Plan to Implement Tick Size
Pilot Program (``Plan'') submitted to the Commission pursuant

to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS under the Act (``Tick Size Pilot'').\3\
The proposal was published for comment in the Federal Register on
December 9, 2015.\4\ The Commission received three comment letters on
the proposal and a response letter from BATS.\5\ On January 21, 2016,
the Commission designated a longer period for Commission action on the
proposal, until March 8, 2016.\6\ On March 2, 2016, BATS filed Partial
Amendment No. 1.\7\ This order approves the proposal, as modified by
Partial Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74892 (May 6, 2015),
80 FR 27513 (May 13, 2015) (order approving the Tick Size Pilot)
(``Approval Order'').
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76552 (December 3,
2015), 80 FR 76591 (``BATS Proposal'').
    \5\ See letters from Theodore R. Lazo, Managing Director and
Associate General Counsel, Securities Industry and Financial Markets
Association, dated December 18, 2015 (``SIFMA Letter''); Mary Lou
Von Kaenel, Managing Director, Financial Information Forum, dated
December 22, 2015 (``FIF Letter''); Brendon J. Weiss, Co-Head,
Government Affairs, Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. and John K.
Kerin, CEO, Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., dated January 15, 2016
(``NYSE Letter''); and Andrew Madar, Associate General Counsel,
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'') and Chris
Solgan, Assistant General Counsel, BATS, dated February 23, 2016
(``BATS Response Letter'').
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76945, 81 FR 4734
(January 27, 2016).
    \7\ In Partial Amendment No. 1, BATS proposes to: (1) Add an
exception to permit members to fill a customer order in a Pilot
Security in Test Group Two or Test Group Three at a non-nickel
increment to comply with BATS Rule 12.6 under limited circumstances;
(2) add an exception to the Trade-at Prohibition for certain error
correction transactions; (3) modify the stopped order exception to
the Trade-at Prohibitions to better align it with the stopped order
exception for Rule 611 of Regulation NMS; and (4) clarify the use of
Trade-at Intermarket Sweep Orders in connection with the Trade-At
Prohibition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

    On August 25, 2014, NYSE Group, Inc., on behalf of BATS Exchange,
Inc., BATS Y-Exchange, Inc., Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., EDGA
Exchange, Inc., EDGX Exchange, Inc., FINRA, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., NASDAQ
OMX PHLX LLC, the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, New York Stock Exchange LLC
(``NYSE''), NYSE MKT LLC, and NYSE Arca, Inc. (collectively
``Participants'' \8\), filed with the Commission, pursuant to section
11A of the Act \9\ and Rule 608 of Regulation NMS thereunder,\10\ the
Plan to Implement the Tick Size Pilot.\11\ The Participants filed the
Plan to comply with an order issued by the Commission on June 24,
2014.\12\ The Plan was published for comment in the Federal Register on
November 7, 2014,\13\ and approved by the Commission, as modified, on
May 6, 2015.\14\ On November 6, 2015, the Commission issued an
exemption to the Participants from implementing the Plan until October
3, 2016.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Commission notes that on February 5, 2016, National
Stock Exchange, Inc. (``NSX'') filed a Plan amendment with the
Commission to become a Plan Participant pursuant to section II.C of
the Plan. This amendment is effective upon filing pursuant to Rule
608(b)(3)(iii) of Regulation NMS.
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \10\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \11\ See letter from Brendon J. Weiss, Vice President,
Intercontinental Exchange, Inc., to Secretary, Commission, dated
August 25, 2014.
    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72460, 79 FR 36840
(June 30, 2014).
    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73511 (November 3,
2014), 79 FR 66423.
    \14\ See Approval Order, supra note 3.
    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76382, 80 FR 70284
(November 13, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Tick Size Pilot is designed to allow the Commission, market
participants, and the public to study and assess the impact of
increment conventions on the liquidity and trading of the common stocks
of certain small-capitalization companies. Each Participant is required
to comply, and to enforce compliance by its members, as applicable,
with the provisions of the Plan.\16\ The Plan requires Participants to
develop quoting and trading requirements for the Tick Size Pilot as
well as collect, publish, and submit to the Commission a variety of
data elements such as market quality statistics and market maker
profitability.\17\ BATS is proposing to adopt BATS Rule 11.27(a) and
certain Interpretations and Policies to implement the quoting and
trading requirements of the Tick Size Pilot.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Rule 608(c) of Regulation NMS. 17 CFR 242.608(c). See also
Plan Sections II.B and IV.
    \17\ The data collection requirements for the Plan are specified
in Appendices B and C. See Approval Order, supra note 3. BATS has
adopted rules to implement the data collection requirements under
the Plan. See BATS Rule 11.27(b); see also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 77105 (February 10, 2016), 81 FR 8112, (February 17,
2016).
    \18\ NYSE, on behalf of the Plan Participants, submitted a
letter to the Commission requesting exemption from certain
provisions of the Plan related to the quoting and trading
requirements as they apply to Pilot Securities that have a price
under $1.00. See letter from Elizabeth K. King, General Counsel &
Corporate Secretary, NYSE, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary,
Commission, dated October 14, 2015 (``October Exemption Request'').
In addition, FINRA, on behalf of the Plan Participants, submitted a
letter to the Commission requesting additional exemptions from
certain provisions of the Plan related to the quoting and trading
requirements. See letter from Marcia E. Asquith, Senior Vice
President and Corporate Secretary, FINRA, to Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary, Commission, dated February 23, 2016 (``February
Exemption Request''). The Commission, pursuant to its authority
under Rule 608(e) of Regulation NMS, has granted BATS a limited
exemption from the requirement to comply with certain provisions of
the Plan as specified in the letters and noted herein. See letter
from David Shillman, Associate Director, Division of Trading and
Markets, Commission to Eric Swanson, Executive Vice President,
General Counsel and Secretary, BATS, dated March 3, 2016 (``SEC
Exemption Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

A. Policies and Procedures To Comply With the Plan

    Proposed BATS Rule 11.27(a) would establish the rules necessary for
compliance with the applicable quoting and trading requirements
specified in the Plan for BATS and its members.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ BATS proposed that its Rule 11.27(a) be in effect during a
pilot period to coincide with the Pilot Period of the Plan,
including any extensions. See Proposed BATS Rule 11.27(a)
Interpretations and Policies .03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed BATS Rule 11.27(a)(1) provides that members shall
establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures that
are reasonably designed to comply with the applicable quoting and
trading requirements of the Plan. Proposed BATS Rule 11.27(a)(2) sets
forth that BATS system will not display, quote or trade in violation of
the applicable quoting and trading requirements for a Pilot Security
specified in the Plan or its proposed rule, unless the quotation or
transaction is specifically exempted under the Plan.

B. Compliance and Pilot Securities Under $1.00 During the Pilot Period

    Proposed BATS Rule 11.27(a)(3) sets forth the procedures for Pilot
Securities whose price drops below $1.00 during the Pilot Period.\20\
If the price of a Pilot Security drops below $1.00 during regular
trading hours on any trading day, the Pilot Security will continue to
trade according to the quoting and trading requirements of its
originally assigned Test Group within the Plan. If a Pilot Security has
a Closing Price \21\ below $1.00 on any trading day, the Pilot Security
would be moved from its respective Test Group into the Control Group,
and would be quoted and traded at any price increment that is currently
permitted for the remainder of the Pilot Period. Proposed BATS Rule
11.27(a)(3) further provides, that notwithstanding anything to the
contrary, all Pilot Securities will continue to be subject to BATS Rule
11.27(b), which sets forth BATS' data collection requirements for Tick
Size Pilot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ BATS has requested an exemption from the Plan related to
this provision. See October Exemption Request, supra note 18.
    \21\ Capitalized terms used in this Order are defined in the
Plan, unless otherwise specified herein. Further, BATS has proposed
to use the Plan's defined terms in its Rule 11.27(a). See Proposed
BATS Rule 11.27(a) Interpretations and Policies .01.

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

C. Quoting and Trading Rules for Test Group One

    Proposed BATS Rule 11.27(a)(4) describes the quoting and trading
requirements for Pilot Securities in Test Group One. Specifically, BATS
proposes that no member may display, rank, or accept from any person
any displayable or non-displayable bids or offers, orders, or
indications of interest in increments other than $0.05 for Pilot
Securities in Test Group One. Orders priced at either the midpoint of
the national best bid and national best offer (``NBBO'') or best
protected bid and best protected offer (``PBBO'') and orders entered
into a Participant-operated retail liquidity program may be ranked and
accepted in increments of less than $0.05. The provision also sets
forth that Pilot Securities in Test Group One would continue to be able
to trade at any price increment that is currently permitted by
applicable Participant, Commission, and BATS rules.

D. Quoting and Trading Rules for Test Group Two

    Proposed BATS Rule 11.27(a)(5) describes the quoting and trading
requirements of Pilot Securities in Test Group Two. Specifically, BATS
proposes that no member may display, rank, or accept from any person
any displayable or non-displayable bids or offers, orders, or
indications of interest in increments other than $0.05 for Pilot
Securities in Test Group Two.\22\ Further, BATS proposes that absent
any enumerated exceptions, no member organization may execute an order
in any increment other than $0.05 for Pilot Securities in Test Group
Two.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Similar to the exception in Test Group One, orders priced
to trade at the midpoint of the NBBO or PBBO and orders entered into
a Participant-operated retail liquidity price program may be ranked
and accepted in increments of less than $0.05. See Proposed BATS
Rule 11.27(a)(5)(A).
    \23\ Proposed BATS Rule 11.27(a)(5)(B) applies to all trades,
including Brokered Cross Trades. A Brokered Cross Trade is defined
in the Plan as a trade that a broker-dealer that is a member of a
Participant executes directly by matching simultaneous buy and sell
orders for a Pilot Security. See Plan Section I.G.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed BATS Rule 11.27(a)(5)(C) provides that Test Group Two
Pilot Securities may trade in increments less than $0.05 in the
following circumstances: (1) At the midpoint between the NBBO or the
PBBO; (2) for Retail Investor Orders that are provided with price
improvement that is at least $0.005 better than the PBBO; and (3)
Negotiated Trades. In Partial Amendment No. 1, BATS proposed a fourth
exception to the Test Group Two requirement that Pilot Securities trade
in $0.05 increments. Specifically, BATS proposed that a member may
execute a customer order at an increment other than $0.05, following
the execution of a permissible proprietary trade by that member, in
order to comply with BATS Rule 12.6.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Partial Amendment No. 1, supra note 7. BATS has
requested an exemption from the Plan related to this provision. See
February Exemption Request, supra note 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Quoting and Trading Rules for Test Group Three

    Proposed BATS Rule 11.27(a)(6) describes the quoting and trading
requirements of Pilot Securities in Test Group Three. BATS proposes for
Pilot Securities in Test Group Three that no member may display, rank,
or accept from any person any displayable or non-displayable bids or
offers, orders, or indications of interest in increments other than
$0.05.\25\ Proposed BATS Rule 11.27(a)(6)(B) states that for Test Group
Three Pilot Securities no member would be permitted to execute an
order, including Brokered Cross Trades, in an increment other than
$0.05 unless there was an exception enumerated by proposed BATS's Rule
11.27(a)(6)(C). Proposed BATS Rule 11.27(a)(6)(C) sets forth four
exceptions for trading of Test Group Three Pilot Securities to occur in
increments of less than $0.05: (1) At the midpoint between the NBBO or
the PBBO; (2) for Retail Investor Orders that are provided with price
improvement at least $0.005 better than the PBBO; (3) for Negotiated
Trades; and (4) for executions of a customer order to comply with BATS
Rule 12.6 following the execution of a proprietary trade by the member
at an increment other than $0.05, where such proprietary trade was
permissible pursuant to an exception under the Plan.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Similar to the exceptions for Test Group One and Test Group
Two, orders priced to trade at the midpoint of the NBBO or PBBO and
orders entered in a Participant-operated retail liquidity program
may be ranked and accepted in increments of less than $0.05. See
Proposed BATS Rule 11.27(a)(6)(A).
    \26\ See Partial Amendment No. 1, supra note 7. BATS has
requested an exemption from the Plan related to this provision. See
February Exemption Request, supra note 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed BATS Rule 11.27(a)(6)(D)(i) sets forth that, absent an
exception set forth in proposed BATS Rule 11.27(a)(6)(D)(ii), no member
that operates a Trading Center may execute a sell order for a Pilot
Security in Test Group Three at the price of a Protected Bid or execute
a buy order for a Pilot Security in Test Group Three at the price of a
Protected Offer during regular trading hours (i.e., the ``Trade-at
Prohibition''). Under the Trade-at Prohibition, a member that operates
a Trading Center that is displaying a quotation, via either a processor
or an SRO quotation feed, that is at a price equal to the traded-at
Protected Bid or Protected Offer is permitted to execute orders at that
level, but only up to the amount of its displayed size. A member that
operates a Trading Center that was not displaying a quotation at a
price equal to the traded-at Protected Quotation, via either a
processor or an SRO quotation feed, is prohibited from price-matching
protected quotations unless at least one of the exceptions applies.
    Proposed BATS Rule 11.27(a)(6)(D)(ii) sets forth the exceptions to
the Trade-at Prohibition for members that operate Trading Centers as
follows:

    (a) The order is executed within the same independent
aggregation unit \27\ of the member that operates the Trading Center
that displayed the quotation via either a processor or an SRO
quotation feed, to the extent such member uses independent
aggregation units, at a price equal to the traded-at Protected
Quotation that was displayed before the order was received, but only
up to the full displayed size of that independent aggregation unit's
previously displayed quote. Further, proposed BATS Rule
11.27(a)(6)(D)(ii)(a) also specifies that a Trading Center that is
displaying a quotation as agent or riskless principal may only
execute as agent or riskless principal and a Trading Center
displaying a quotation as principal (excluding riskless principal)
may execute as principal, agent or riskless principal;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ BATS proposes that, ``Independent aggregation unit'' has
the same meaning as provided under Rule 200(f) of Regulation SHO.
See 17 CFR 242.200(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) the order that is of Block Size \28\ at the time of origin
and is not an aggregation of non-block orders; broken into orders
smaller than Block Size prior to submitting the order to a Trading
Center for execution; or executed on multiple Trading Centers;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ ``Block Size'' is defined in the Plan as an order (1) of at
least 5,000 shares or (2) for a quantity of stock having a market
value of at least $100,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) the order is a Retail Investor Order that is executed with
at least $0.005 price improvement;
    (d) the order is executed when the Trading Center displaying the
Protected Quotation that was traded-at was experiencing a failure,
material delay, or malfunction of its systems or equipment;
    (e) the order is executed as part of a transaction that was not
a ``regular way'' contract;
    (f) the order is executed as part of a single-priced opening,
reopening, or closing transaction by the Trading Center;
    (g) the order is executed when a Protected Bid is priced higher
than a Protected Offer in the Pilot Security;
    (h) the order is identified as a Trade-at Intermarket Sweep
Order (``ISO''); \29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Partial Amendment No. 1, supra note 7. In Partial
Amendment No. 1, BATS proposes to define a Trade-At ISO as a limit
order for a Pilot Security that meets the following requirements: 1.
When routed to a Trading Center, the limit order is identified as a
Trade-at ISO; and 2. simultaneously with the routing of the limit
order identified as a Trade-at ISO, one of more additional limit
orders, as necessary, are routed to execute against the full size of
any protected bid, in the case of a limit order to sell, or the full
displayed size of any protected offer, in the case of a limit order
to buy, for the Pilot Security with a price that is better than or
equal to the limit price of the limit order identified as a Trade-at
ISO. These additional routed orders also must be marked as Trade-at
ISOs. See Proposed BATS Rule 11.27(a)(7)(A)(i).

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

    (i) the order is executed by a Trading Center that
simultaneously routed Trade-at ISOs to execute against the full
displayed size of the Protected Quotation with a price that is
better than, or equal to, the limit price of the limit order
identified as a Trade-at ISO;
    (j) the order is executed as part of a Negotiated Trade;
    (k) the order is executed when the Trading Center displaying the
Protected Quotation that was traded at had displayed within one
second prior to execution of the transaction that constituted the
Trade-at, a Best Protected Bid or Best Protected Offer, as
applicable, for the Pilot Security with a price that was inferior to
the price of the Trade-at transaction;
    (l) the order is executed by a Trading Center, which at the time
of order receipt, had guaranteed an execution at no worse than a
specified price (a ``stopped order'') where: (1) The stopped order
was for the account of a customer; (2) the customer agreed to the
specified price on an order-by-order basis; and (3) the price of the
Trade-at transaction was, for a stopped buy order, equal to or less
than the National Best Bid in the Pilot Security at the time of
execution or, for a stopped sell order, equal to or greater than the
National Best Offer in the Pilot Security at the time of execution,
as long as such order is priced at an acceptable increment; \30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Partial Amendment No. 1, supra note 7. BATS has
requested an exemption from the Plan related to this provision. See
February Exemption Request, supra note 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (m) the order is for a fractional share order of a Pilot
Security, provided that such fractional share order was not the
result of breaking an order \31\ for one or more whole shares of a
Pilot Security into orders for fractional shares or was not
otherwise effected to evade the requirements of the Tick Size Pilot;
or
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Additionally, no member shall break an order into smaller
orders or otherwise effect or execute an order to evade the
requirements of the Trade-at Prohibition or any other provisions of
the Plan. See Proposed BATS Rule 11.27(a) Interpretations and
Policies .02.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (n) the order is to correct a bona fide error, which is recorded
by the Trading Center in its error account. BATS proposes to define
a bond fide error as: 1. The inaccurate conveyance or execution of
any term of an order including, but not limited to, price, number of
shares or other unit of trading; identification of the security;
identification of the account for which securities are purchased or
sold; lost or otherwise misplaced order tickets; short sales that
were instead sold long or vice versa; or the execution of an order
on the wrong side of a market; 2. the unauthorized or unintended
purchase, sale, or allocation of securities, or the failure to
follow specific client instructions; 3. the incorrect entry of data
into relevant systems, including reliance on incorrect cash
positions, withdrawals, or securities positions reflected in an
account; or 4. a delay, outage, or failure of a communication system
used to transmit market data prices or to facilitate the delivery or
execution of an order.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Partial Amendment No. 1, supra note 7. BATS has
requested an exemption from the Plan related to this provision. See
February Exemption Request, supra note 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Summary of Comments

    As noted above, the Commission received three comment letters
concerning the proposed rule change[thinsp]\33\ and a response letter
from BATS.\34\ All three commenters discussed various aspects of the
Trade-at Prohibition. The commenters noted differences between the
Trade-at Prohibition rules proposed by BATS and NYSE.\35\ One commenter
noted that the NYSE's proposal would limit a Trading Center from price
matching a Protected Quotation to when the Trading Center is displaying
in a principal capacity, while the BATS Proposal would not restrict
price matching to a Trading Center's principal capacity.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See supra note 5. The Commission notes that the SIFMA
Letter and the FIF Letter also addressed the proposed rule changes
submitted by FINRA and NYSE to implement the quoting and trading
requirements of the Tick Size Pilot. See SIFMA Letter and FIF
Letter. Also see Securities Exchange Act Release No. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 77218 (February 23, 2016), 81 FR 10290
(February 29, 2016) (order approving the ``FINRA Proposal'') and
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73229 (October 22, 2015), 80 FR
66065 (October 28, 2015) (notice of the ``NYSE Proposal'').
    \34\ As noted above, BATS and FINRA submitted a joint response
to comment letters. See BATS Response Letter, supra note 5.
    \35\ See SIFMA Letter and FIF Letter. For example, these two
commenters highlighted two distinctions between the NYSE Proposal
and the BATS Proposal. The commenters noted that the BATS Proposal
does not limit the Retail Investor Order exception to the Trade-at
Prohibition to only orders submitted by an exchange program whereas
the NYSE Proposal does include this limitation. Additionally, the
commenters noted that the BATS Proposal allows for a Trade-at
Prohibition for orders that were displayed as either an agency,
riskless principal, or principal capacity whereas the NYSE proposal
only allows for orders that were displayed on a principal basis. One
commenter indicated that if the differences persisted it would be
``virtually impossible'' for its members to comply with the Plan.
See SIFMA Letter.
    \36\ See SIFMA Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter expressed support for BATS's Trade-at Prohibition
proposal.\37\ However, one commenter, NYSE, stated that the BATS
Proposal was inconsistent with the goals of the Plan because it would
incentivize a migration of trading to dark venues.\38\ This commenter
stated that the BATS Proposal would allow an alternative trading system
(``ATS'') to execute matched trades of any of its participants at the
Traded-at Protected Quotation if the ATS is displaying on an agency
basis, a quotation of another participant at the Protected
Quotation.\39\ The commenter noted that all participant orders
displayed by an ATS are agency orders of the ATS and that trades
matched by ATS participants without display are also agency orders of
that ATS. Therefore, the commenter believes that the BATS Proposal
would allow trades by ATS participants at the Trade-at Protected
Quotation without that participant displaying a Protected Quotation.
The commenter believes that the proposal allows ATS participants to
``free-ride'' on the displayed Protected Quotation of other ATS
participants.\40\ The commenter stated that if implemented, trading
would continue in dark pools at a price of displayed liquidity and that
the proposal would result in similar trading behaviors between Test
Group Three and Test Group Two.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See SIFMA Letter. For example, SIFMA stated that it
believed that the Commission should approve BATS's proposal.
    \38\ The commenter also indicated that the proposal did not
follow the procedure outlined by the Plan's Operating Committee. See
NYSE Letter.
    \39\ See NYSE Letter.
    \40\ See NYSE Letter.
    \41\ See NYSE Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its response, BATS disagreed with NYSE's characterization of the
display exception's operation as set forth in the BATS Proposal, and
confirmed that a broker-dealer would not be permitted to trade based on
interest that it is not responsible for displaying.\42\ BATS noted that
it would view a broker-dealer that matches orders in the over-the-
counter (``OTC'') market, as principal, agent or riskless principal, to
have ``executed'' such orders as a Trading Center for purposes of
proposed BATS Rule 11.27(a), regardless of whether such broker-dealer
ultimately executes and reports such trade through an OTC trade
reporting facility, an ATS or another Trading Center. Accordingly, if a
broker-dealer has displayed, as principal, a buy order at the protected
bid on an exchange or Electronic Communications Network (``ECN'') prior
to its receipt of a customer sell order, it could internalize that
customer sell order, up to its displayed size, in reliance on the
proposed BATS Rule 11.27(a)(6)(D)(ii)(a) exceptions. If, however, that
broker-dealer has not displayed a principal buy order at the

protected bid, but matches its customer order with an order for its own
account and submits the paired orders to an ECN where another broker-
dealer is displaying a buy order at the protected bid, the broker-
dealer submitting the paired orders could not rely on the proposed
display exceptions. While the ECN, as a Trading Center, could execute
the displayed order as agent with offsetting interest because it was
displaying an agency quotation at the protected bid, the broker-dealer
submitting the paired orders could not, as a Trading Center, trade with
its customer order, because it was not displaying a principal quotation
at the protected bid. Accordingly, such a transaction could not be
effected consistent with the Trade-at Prohibition under the BATS
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ As noted above, BATS and FINRA submitted a joint response
to comments. See BATS Response Letter, supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter discussed other provisions related to the Trade-at
Prohibition.\43\ Specifically, the commenter stated the definition of
Block Size order, used for the Block Size exception to the Trade-at
Prohibition, would prevent a Trading Center from facilitating a block
cross trade.\44\ The commenter requested that the proposal be amended
to permit the aggregation of non-block orders as long as at least one
component of the order was of the defined Block Size.\45\ In response,
BATS opined that such an exception was inconsistent with the Plan. BATS
believes that permitting the aggregation of non-block orders or the
combination of Block Size orders with non-block size orders would
undermine the Block Size exception by making it overly broad.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See FIF Letter. The Commission notes that FIF asked several
interpretative questions and provided explanatory examples in its
comment letter on the FINRA proposal that were not raised within the
FIF Letter related to the BATS proposal. However, these issues were
discussed in the BATS Response Letter and discussed in the FINRA
Order.
    \44\ According to the commenter, a ``block cross trade'' is
block size order that includes smaller orders. The commenter noted
that the three additional qualifications contained within the BATS
proposal are meant to ensure the purpose of the Trade-at Prohibition
is not undermined. See FIF Letter. See also Proposed BATS Rule
11.27(a)(6)(D)(ii)(b).
    \45\ See FIF Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter suggested that the exceptions to the Trade-at
Prohibition contained in this proposal should be more closely aligned
with the exemptions granted to Rule 611 of Regulation NMS.\46\
Specifically, the commenter referenced the Rule 611 exemptions for (1)
certain error correction transactions and (2) certain print protection
transactions.\47\ BATS agreed with the commenter, in part, and amended
this proposal to include an exception for certain error correction
transactions for the Trade-at Prohibition.\48\ BATS, however, did not
believe that it was appropriate to provide a print protection
transaction exception for the Trade-at Prohibition that correlates to
the exemption for Rule 611 of Regulation NMS.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ 17 CFR 242.611.
    \47\ The commenter noted Commission orders related to Rule 611
of Regulation NMS. Order Exempting Certain Error Correction
Transactions from Rule 611 of Regulation NMS under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (http://www.sec.gov/rules/exorders/2007/34-55884.pdf); Order Exempting Certain Print Protection Transactions
from Rule 611 (http://www.sec.gov/rules/exorders/2007/34-55883.pdf).
See FIF Letter.
    \48\ See Partial Amendment No. 1, supra note 7.
    \49\ See Partial Amendment No. 1, supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter also noted there was a distinction between the
stopped order exception applicable to Rule 611 of Regulation NMS
exception and the proposed stopped order exception for the Trade-at
Prohibition. The commenter provided an example where an order would
satisfy Rule 611 of Regulation NMS but would not satisfy the proposed
Trade-at Prohibition exception. In response, BATS amended and
harmonized the respective stopped trade exceptions to harmonize the
stopped order exception.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ See Partial Amendment No. 1, supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, one commenter requested clarification on the treatment of
a variety of order types, including Good Till Canceled orders entered
in non-nickel increments before the Pilot Period, indications of
interest priced to execute at the midpoint, and market maker peg
orders. BATS noted that Test Group One permits indications of interest
priced to execute at the midpoint. With regard to the other orders,
BATS noted that the Participants are drafting FAQs to address the
commenter's questions.

V. Discussion and Findings

    After carefully considering the proposed rule change, the comments
submitted, and BATS's response to the comments, the Commission finds
that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange.\51\ Specifically, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\52\
which requires, among other things, that the rules of an exchange 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. In addition, the Commission
finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b)(8)
of the Act,\53\ which requires that the rules of an exchange not impose
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ 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).
    \52\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \53\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission stated in the Approval Order that the Tick Size
Pilot should provide a data-driven approach to evaluate whether certain
changes to the market structure for Pilot Securities would be
consistent with the Commission's mission to protect investors, maintain
fair, orderly and efficient markets, and facilitate capital
formation.\54\ As discussed below, the Commission believes that BATS's
proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and would
further the purpose of the Plan to provide meaningful data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ See Approval Order, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BATS, as a Participant in the Plan, has an obligation to comply,
and enforce compliance by its members, with the terms of the Plan. Rule
608(c) of Regulation NMS provides that ``[e]ach self-regulatory
organization shall comply with the terms of any effective national
market system plan of which it is a sponsor or participant. Each self-
regulatory organization also shall, absent reasonable justification or
excuse, enforce compliance with any such plan by its members and
persons associated with its members.'' \55\ Proposed BATS Rule 11.27(a)
would impose compliance obligations on its members with the quoting and
trading requirements set forth in section VI of the Plan. As discussed
below, the Commission also believes the proposal is consistent with the
Act because it is designed to assist BATS in meeting its regulatory
obligations pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS and the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ 17 CFR 242.608(c). See also Section II.B of the Plan which
provides that each Participant will adopt rules requiring compliance
by its members with provisions of the Plan. In addition, Section IV
of the Plan requires all Participants and members of Participants to
establish maintain and enforce written policy and procedures that
are reasonably designed to comply with the applicable quoting and
trading requirements specified in section VI of the Plan for the
Pilot Securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Policies and Procedures To Comply With the Plan

    Proposed BATS Rule 11.27(a)(1) provides that BATS members must
establish, maintain, and enforce written

policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to meet the
applicable quoting and trading requirements of the Plan. Proposed BATS
Rule 11.27(a)(2) states that BATS's system will not display, quote, or
trade in violation of the applicable quoting and trading requirements
for a Pilot Security specified in the Plan and its rule. As noted
above, sections II.B and IV of the Plan provide that each Participant
must establish, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures
that are reasonably designed to comply with the quoting and trading
requirements of the Plan and adopt rules requiring compliance by its
members with the terms of the Plan. Accordingly, proposed BATS Rules
11.27(a)(1) and (2) are consistent with the Act as they implement these
Plan provisions.

B. Compliance and Pilot Securities Under $1.00 During the Pilot Period

    Proposed BATS Rule 11.27(a)(3) provides a mechanism to address
instances where the price of a Pilot Security assigned to a Test Group
falls below $1.00. Specifically, if the price of a Pilot Security
assigned to a Test Group falls below $1.00 during a trading day, the
Pilot Security would remain in its assigned Test Group. If, however, a
Pilot Security has a Closing Price below $1.00 during any trading day,
that Pilot Security would be moved out of its respective Test Group and
into the Control Group.\56\ The Commission notes that the selection
criteria for Pilot Securities were developed to minimize the likelihood
of the inclusion of securities that trade with a share price of $1.00
or less. However, the Commission understands that there could be
instances over the course of the Pilot Period where a Pilot Security's
price falls below $1.00. According to the Participants, a $0.05 quoting
and/or trading increment could be harmful to trading for such low
priced Pilot Securities. Accordingly, the Commission believes that this
provision is consistent with the Act because it should help to ensure
that the universe of Pilot Securities remains constant over the Pilot
Period while also addressing trading concerns for Pilot Securities that
experience a fall in price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ The Commission notes that it has granted BATS an exemption
from Rule 608(c) related to this provision. See SEC Exemption
Letter, supra note 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed BATS Rule 11.27(a) Interpretations and Policies .03
specifies that the rule's effectiveness shall be contemporaneous with
the pilot period. The Commission believes that this proposed rule is
consistent with the Act because it reinforces and clarifies important
dates and obligations under the Plan.

C. Quoting and Trading Rules for Test Group One and Test Group Two

    Proposed BATS Rule 11.27(a)(4) provides that no member may display,
rank, or accept from any person any displayable or non-displayable bids
or offers, orders, or indications of interest in any Pilot Security in
Test Group One in increments other than $0.05. However, proposed BATS
Rule 11.27(a)(4) also provides that orders priced to execute at the
midpoint of the NBBO or PBBO and orders entered in a Participant-
operated retail liquidity program may be ranked and accepted in
increments of less than $0.05. Finally, proposed BATS Rule 11.27(a)(4)
provides that Pilot Securities in Test Group One may continue to trade
at any price increment that is currently permitted by applicable
Participant, SEC and BATS rules. The Commission finds that proposed
BATS Rule 11.27(a)(4) is consistent with the Act because it implements
provisions of the Plan.
    Proposed BATS Rule 11.27(a)(5) provides that no member may display,
rank, or accept from any person any displayable or non-displayable bids
or offers, orders, or indications of interest in any Pilot Security in
Test Group Two in increments other than $0.05. However, proposed BATS
Rule 11.27(a)(5) also provides that orders priced to execute at the
midpoint of the NBBO or PBBO and orders entered in a Participant-
operated retail liquidity program may be ranked and accepted in
increments of less than $0.05. Proposed BATS Rule 11.27(a)(5)(B)
further provides that no member may execute an order in a Test Group
Two Pilot Security in an increment other than $0.05, unless an
exception applies. Pilot Securities in Test Group Two may trade in
increments less than $0.05 when trading: (i) At the midpoint between
the NBBO or the PBBO; (ii) Retail Investor Orders that are provided
price improvement that is at least $0.005 better than the PBBO; (iii)
Negotiated Trades; and (iv) customer orders to comply with BATS Rule
12.6 following the execution of a proprietary trade that is permissible
pursuant to Plan exception.\57\ The Commission finds that proposed BATS
Rules 11.27(a)(5)(C)(i), (ii) and (iii) are consistent with the Act
because they implement provisions of the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ See Partial Amendment No. 1, supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Partial Amendment No. 1, BATS proposes to add a trading
increment exception in BATS Rule 11.27(a)(5)(C)(iv), which would allow
the execution of a customer order following a proprietary trade by a
BATS member at an increment less than $0.05 in the same security, on
the same side and at the same price as (or within the prescribed amount
of) a customer order owed a fill pursuant to BATS Rule 12.6, where the
triggering proprietary trade was permissible pursuant to an exception
under the Plan. BATS believes that this customer order protection
exception should facilitate the ability of its members to continue to
protect customer orders while retaining the flexibility to engage in
proprietary trades that comply with an exception to the Plan. Based on
the foregoing, the Commission finds that proposed BATS Rule
11.27(a)(5)(C)(iv) is consistent with the Act.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ The Commission notes that it has granted BATS an exemption
from Rule 608(c) related to this provision. See SEC Exemption
Letter, supra note 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Quoting and Trading Rules for Test Group Three

    Proposed BATS Rule 11.27(a)(6)(A) provides that no member may
display, rank, or accept from any person any displayable or non-
displayable bids or offers, orders, or indications of interest in any
Pilot Security in Test Group Three in increments other than $0.05.
Proposed BATS Rule 11.27(a)(6)(A) also provides that for Test Group
Three Pilot Securities orders priced to execute at the midpoint of the
NBBO or PBBO and orders entered in a Participant-operated retail
liquidity program may be ranked and accepted in increments of less than
$0.05. Proposed BATS Rule 11.27(a)(6)(B) specifies that the $0.05
trading increment will apply to all trades, including Brokered Cross
Trades; and that trades for Test Group Three Pilot Securities may not
occur in increments of less than $0.05 unless there is an applicable
exception listed in proposed Rule BATS Rule 11.27(a)(6)(C). Pursuant to
proposed Rule BATS Rule 11.27(a)(6)(C), Test Group Three Pilot
Securities may trade in increments less than $0.05 when trading: (i) At
the midpoint between the NBBO or the PBBO; (ii) Retail Investor Orders
that are provided price improvement that is at least $0.005 better than
the PBBO and; (iii) Negotiated Trades; and (iv) customer orders to
comply with BATS Rule 12.6 following the execution of a proprietary

trade that is permissible pursuant to Plan exception.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ See Partial Amendment No. 1, supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that proposed BATS Rule 11.27(a)(6)(A),
proposed BATS Rule 11.27(a)(6)(B), and proposed BATS Rules
11.27(a)(6)(C)(i), (ii) and (iii) are consistent with the Act because
they implement provisions of the Plan. In addition, as discussed
above,\60\ the Commission finds that proposed BATS Rule
11.27(a)(6)(C)(iv) is consistent with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ See Section V.C above related to the discussion of proposed
BATS Rule 11.27(a)(5)(C)(iv). The Commission notes that it has
granted BATS an exemption from Rule 608(c) related to this
provision. See SEC Exemption Letter, supra note 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Quoting and Trading Rules for Test Group Three: Trade-at Prohibition
    Proposed BATS Rule 11.27(a)(6)(D) describes the Trade-at
Prohibition and the exceptions applicable thereto.\61\ Specifically,
proposed BATS Rule 11.27(a)(6)(D)(i) sets forth that absent any of the
exceptions listed in subparagraph (D)(ii), no member that operates a
Trading Center may execute a sell order for a Pilot Security in Test
Group Three at the price of a Protected Bid or execute a buy order for
a Pilot Security in Test Group Three at the price of a Protected Offer
during regular trading hours (i.e., the Trade-at Prohibition). Proposed
BATS Rule 11.27(a)(6)(D)(i) also states that under the Trade-at
Prohibition, a member that operates a Trading Center that is displaying
a quotation, via either a processor or an SRO quotation feed, that is
at a price equal to the traded-at Protected Bid or Protected Offer is
permitted to execute orders at that level, but only up to the amount of
its displayed size. Finally, proposed BATS Rule 11.27(a)(6)(D)(i)
states that a member that operates a Trading Center that was not
displaying a quotation at a price equal to the traded-at Protected
Quotation, via either a processor or an SRO quotation feed, is
prohibited from price-matching protected quotations unless an exception
applies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ The Commission notes that the BATS Response Letter contains
detailed responses to a number of interpretive questions that were
raised by a commenter in regards to the BATS and FINRA Proposals.
See supra note43. The Commission understands that the Participants
are developing interpretative guidance on the quoting and trading
rules under the Plan and expects that Participants will continue to
work with market participants on the implementation of the quoting
and trading rules of the Tick Size Pilot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed BATS Rule 11.27(a)(6)(D)(ii) lists the exceptions to the
Trade-at Prohibition. The proposed exceptions set forth in BATS Rules
11.27(a)(6)(D)(ii)(c) through (g), (j), (k), and (m) mirror the
exceptions set forth in the Plan.\62\ The Commission finds these
exceptions to be consistent with the Act because they implement Plan
provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ See Section VI.D(3) through (7), (10), (11) and (13) of the
Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In proposed BATS Rule 11.27(a)(6)(D)(ii)(a), BATS proposes to
implement the display exception to the Trade-at Prohibition. As
proposed, BATS has added several details about its operation and
implementation. For example, BATS proposes that a Trading Center that
uses independent aggregation units execute orders within the same
independent aggregation unit that displayed the quotation. In addition,
BATS proposes to specify that Trading Centers that display a quotation
as agent or riskless principal may only execute as agent or riskless
principal. If the Trading Center is displaying a quotation as principal
(excluding riskless principal), the Trading Center may execute as
principal, agent or riskless principal.
    As noted above, one commenter suggested that BATS's proposal would
create an incentive for trading in Test Group Three to migrate to dark
venues.\63\ According to the commenter, BATS's proposal would permit a
non-displayed Trading Center to submit matched trades to an ATS that
was displaying on an agency basis the quotation of another ATS
subscriber.\64\ BATS responded that it did not believe this scenario
could occur under its proposal, and confirmed that the broker-dealer
submitting the matched trade could not, as a Trading Center trade with
its customer order because it was not displaying a principal quotation.
The Commission finds that BATS's proposed Rule 11.27(a)(6)(D)(ii)(a) to
be consistent with the Act. The Commission believes that BATS's
proposed rule clarifies the operation of the display exception in a
manner consistent with the goals of the Plan. First, a Trading Center
would only be able to execute an order in the same capacity in which it
has displayed a quotation. Accordingly, a Trading Center could not rely
on an agency quotation to execute on a principal basis. Further, a
Trading Center that uses independent aggregation units would be
restricted in its ability to rely on quotations displayed by other
independent aggregation units. As noted above, a Trading Center that
utilizes independent aggregation units may only execute an order in the
independent aggregation unit that displayed the quotation. The
Commission believes that these additional rules implement the display
exception to the Trade-at Prohibition in a manner that should incent
the display of liquidity.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ See NYSE Letter.
    \64\ Id.
    \65\ See Approval Order, supra note 3. In the Approval Order,
the Commission stated that the Trade-at Prohibition should test
whether market participants are incentivized to display more
liquidity in a wider tick environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed BATS Rule 11.27(a)(6)(D)(ii)(b) sets forth the exception
to the Trade-at Prohibition for orders of Block Size. BATS proposes
additional provisions with respect to Block Size orders including that
orders at the time of origin may not be: (1) An aggregation of non-
block orders; (2) broken into orders smaller than Block Size prior to
submitting the order to a Trading Center for execution; or (3) executed
on multiple Trading Centers.
    As noted above, one commenter suggested that these additional
provisions would limit firms' ability to facilitate block cross
trades.\66\ BATS responded that the additional criteria would clarify
this Trade-at Prohibition exception. Further, BATS noted that
permitting the aggregation of non-block orders or permitting members to
combine a block order with non-block orders would overly expand the
scope of the exception.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ See FIF Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the additional criteria for the Block
Size exception are consistent with the Act. In the Approval Order, the
Commission modified the Block Size definition for the purposes of the
Plan to more closely reflect the trading characteristics of potential
Pilot Securities.\67\ The Commission believes proposed BATS Rule
11.27(a)(6)(D)(ii)(b) appropriately limits the scope and applicability
of the Block Size exception, and should help to exclude trades and
order handling scenarios that were not contemplated or intended to be
considered for an exception for the Trade-at Prohibition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ See Approval Order, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed BATS Rule 11.27(a)(6)(D)(ii)(h) sets forth the exception
to the Trade-at Prohibition for orders identified as Trade-at ISO. In
Partial Amendment No. 1, BATS proposes to clarify the definition of a
Trade-at ISO for purposes of the exception. Specifically, BATS proposes
to define Trade-At ISO as a limit order for a Pilot Security that meets
the following requirements: (1) When routed to a Trading Center, the
limit order is identified as a Trade-at ISO; and (2) simultaneously
with the routing of the limit order identified as a Trade-at ISO, one
of more additional limit orders, as necessary, are routed to execute

against the full size of any protected bid, in the case of a limit
order to sell, or the full displayed size of any protected offer, in
the case of a limit order to buy, for the Pilot Security with a price
that is better than or equal to the limit price of the limit order
identified as a Trade-at ISO. These additional routed orders also must
be marked as Trade-at ISO.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ See Proposed BATS Rule 11.27(a)(7)(A)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to BATS, the use of the term ISO as set forth in the Plan
could be unclear in Test Group Three.\69\ As noted in BATS's Partial
Amendment No. 1, an ISO may mean that the sender of the ISO has swept
better-priced protected quotations, so that the recipient of that ISO
may trade through the price of the protected quotation (in compliance
with Rule 611 of Regulation NMS \70\), or it could mean that the sender
of the ISO has swept protected quotations at the same price at which it
wishes to execute (in addition to any better-priced quotations), so
that the recipient of that ISO may trade at the price of the protected
quotation (as an exception to the Trade-at Prohibition). Accordingly,
since the meaning of an ISO may differ under Rule 611 of Regulation NMS
and the Trade-at Prohibition under the Plan, BATS proposes Rule
11.27(a)(6)(D)(ii)(h) to reflect that the order is a Trade-at ISO so
that a receiving Trading Center in a Test Group Three Pilot Security
would know, upon receipt of that Trade-at ISO, that the Trading Center
that sent the Trade-at ISO had already executed against the full size
of displayed quotations at that price (e.g., the recipient of that
Trade-at ISO could permissibly trade at the price of the protected
quotation). In addition, BATS proposes to make a corresponding change
to BATS Rule 11.27(a)(6)(D)(ii)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ Section VI.D(8) of the Plan provides an exception to the
Trade-at Prohibition for ISOs. In addition, Section I(MM) defined a
Trade-at ISO as a limit order for a Pilot Security that meets the
following requirements: (1) When routed to a Trading Center, the
limit order is identified as an ISO; and (2) simultaneously with the
routing of the limit order identified as an ISO, one or more
additional limit orders, as necessary, are routed to execute against
the full displayed size of any protected bid, in the case of a limit
order to sell, or the full displayed size of any protected offer, in
the case of a limit order to buy, for the Pilot Security with a
price that is equal to the limit price of the limit order identified
as an ISO. These additional routed orders also must be market as
ISO.
    \70\ 17 CFR 242.611.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that proposed BATS Rule
11.27(a)(6)(D)(ii)(h) and BATS Rule 11.27(a)(6)(D)(ii)(i) are
consistent with the Act because they clarify the use and operation of
ISOs under the Plan. The definition in the Plan provided that an ISO
received under the Plan would indicate to the recipient that orders to
execute against the full displayed size at a price equal to the ISO's
limit price had been routed. However, the Commission understands that
the use of the term ISO in connection with the exception to the Trade-
at Prohibition could cause confusion. Therefore, the Commission
believes that BATS's proposal should clarify the use of ISOs under the
Plan and facilitate their implementation.
    Proposed BATS Rule 11.27(a)(6)(D)(ii)(l) sets forth an exception to
the Trade-at Prohibition for stopped orders. A stopped order is defined
as an order executed by a Trading Center which, at the time of order
receipt, the Trading Center had guaranteed an execution at no worse
than a specified price where: (1) The stopped order was for the account
of a customer; (2) the customer agreed to the specified price on an
order-by-order basis; and (3) the price of the Trade-at transaction
was, for a stopped buy order, equal to or less than the National Best
Bid in the Pilot Security at the time of execution or, for a stopped
sell order, equal to or greater than the National Best Offer in the
Pilot Security at the time of execution, as long as such order is
priced at an acceptable increment.
    As noted above, one commenter raised questions about how the
stopped order exception would operate as an exception to the Trade-at
Prohibition.\71\ In Partial Amendment No. 1, BATS amended the rule text
of proposed BATS Rule 11.27(a)(6)(D)(ii)(l) to clarify its operation
under the Trade-at Prohibition. The Commission finds that proposed BATS
Rule 11.27(a)(6)(D)(ii)(l), as modified by Partial Amendment No. 1, is
consistent with the Act because it implements the Plan provision is a
manner that clarifies its operation for these order types.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ See FIF Letter.
    \72\ The Commission notes that it has granted BATS an exemption
from Rule 608(c) related to this provision. See SEC Exemption
Letter, supra note 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Partial Amendment No. 1, BATS proposes an additional exception
to the Trade-at Prohibition.\73\ Specifically, proposed BATS Rule
11.27(a)(6)(D)(ii)(n) sets forth an exception to the Trade-at
Prohibition for ``bona fide errors.'' \74\ Proposed BATS Rule
11.27(a)(6)(D)(ii)(n) provides an exception to the Trade-at Prohibition
where the order is to correct a bona fide error, which is recorded by
the Trading Center in its error account. The proposed definition for a
``bona fide error'' is: (i) The inaccurate conveyance or execution of
any term of an order including, but not limited to, price, number of
shares or other unit of trading; identification of the security;
identification of the account for which securities are purchased or
sold; lost or otherwise misplaced order tickets; short sales that were
instead sold long or vice versa; or the execution of an order on the
wrong side of a market; (ii) the unauthorized or unintended purchase,
sale, or allocation of securities, or the failure to follow specific
client instructions; (iii) the incorrect entry of data into relevant
systems, including reliance on incorrect cash positions, withdrawals,
or securities positions reflected in an account; or (iv) a delay,
outage, or failure of a communication system used to transmit market
data prices or to facilitate the delivery or execution of an order. In
order to utilize this exception to the Trade-at Prohibition, the
following conditions must be met: (1) The bona fide error must be
evidenced by objective facts and circumstances, the Trading Center must
maintain documentation of such facts and circumstances, and the Trading
Center must record the transaction in its error account; (2) the
Trading Center must establish, maintain, and enforce written policies
and procedures that are reasonably designed to address the occurrence
of errors and, in the event of an error, the use and terms of a
transaction to correct the error in compliance with this exception; and
(3) the Trading Center must regularly surveil to ascertain the
effectiveness of its policies and

procedures to address errors and transactions to correct errors and
takes prompt action to remedy deficiencies in such policies and
procedures.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ This additional exception was requested by a commenter. See
FIF Letter.
    \74\ The Commission notes that one commenter suggested that
there should be a print protection exception to the Trade-at
Prohibition that corresponds to the print protection exemption that
is applicable to Rule 611 of Regulation NMS. See FIF Letter. The
Commission does not agree that a print protection exception would be
consistent with the Trade-At Prohibition in the Plan. First, the
print protection exemption applicable to Rule 611 is inconsistent
with the Trade-at Prohibition because the Rule 611 print protection
exemption explicitly contemplates protection for both displayed and
reserve (undisplayed) size of orders. In this regard, the Commission
believes that such an exception for the Trade-at Prohibition often
will be unnecessary because a print protection exception for the
Trade-at Prohibition would need to be premised upon a displayed
customer order, which already is excepted from the Trade-at
Prohibition if it satisfies the requirements of proposed BATS Rule
11.27(a)(6)(D)(i) and the Plan. Moreover, providing a print
protection exemption from the Trade-At Prohibition would create the
potential for trading scenarios that would result in better-priced,
displayed orders being bypassed for the execution of inferior, same-
priced orders. The Commission believes such a result is inconsistent
with the Plan in general, and the Trade-at Prohibition in
particular. Finally, the Commission notes that BATS represents that
the print protection exemption applicable to Rule 611 of Regulation
NMS is rarely used by its members.
    \75\ See Partial Amendment No. 1, supra note 7. See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55884 (June 8, 2007), 72 FR
32926 (June 14, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that the exception to the Trade-at Prohibition
for the correction of bona fide errors is consistent with the Act.\76\
The Commission believes that this exception should promote efficiency
and the best execution of investor orders. As noted in the Commission's
order exempting such orders from Rule 611 of Regulation NMS, the
exemption will allow Trading Centers to execute error correction
transactions at the appropriate prices to correct bona fide errors
without having to qualify for one of the exceptions to the Trade-at
Prohibition.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ The Commission notes that the conditions for a bona fide
error exception for the Trade-at Prohibition would be consistent
with the corresponding bona fide error exemption for Rule 611 and
would apply only to the error correction transaction itself and
would not, for example, apply to any subsequent trades effected by a
Trading Center to eliminate a proprietary position connected with
the error correction transaction or a broker dealer's mere failure
to execute a not-held order in accordance with a customer's
expectations. See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55884
(June 8, 2007), 72 FR 32926 (June 14, 2007).
    \77\ The Commission notes that it has granted BATS an exemption
from Rule 608(c) related to this provision. See SEC Exemption
Letter, supra note 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that the BATS proposal to implement the Tick
Size Pilot quoting and trading requirements, including the
Interpretations and Policies, are consistent with the Act. The proposal
clarifies and implements the quoting and trading requirements set forth
in the Plan.

VI. Solicitation of Comments of Partial Amendment No. 1

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning Partial Amendment No. 1, including whether the
proposed rule change, as modified by Partial Amendment No. 1, is
consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the
following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BATS-2015-108 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-BATS-2015-108. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BATS-2015-108 and should be
submitted on or before March 30, 2016.

VII. Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Partial Amendment No. 1

    The Commission finds good cause, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of
the Act, to approve the proposed rule change, as modified by Partial
Amendment No. 1, prior to the 30th day after the date of publication of
Partial Amendment No. 1 in the Federal Register. Partial Amendment No.
1 amends four of the requirements set forth in this proposed rule
change. First, BATS proposes to add an exception to permit members to
fill a customer order in a Pilot Security in Test Group Two or Three at
a non-nickel increment to comply with BATS Rule 12.6 (Prohibition
Against Trading Ahead of Customer Orders) under limited circumstances.
Second, BATS is amending the proposal to adopt an exception to the
Trade-at Prohibition for certain error correction transactions. Third,
BATS is proposing to modify the stopped order exception to the Trade-at
Prohibition to clarify its operation under the Plan. Finally, BATS is
proposing to clarify the use of ISOs in connection with the Trade-at
Prohibition.
    BATS believes that the change to allow members to fill a customer
order at a non-nickel increment to comply with BATS Rule 12.6 under
limited circumstances best facilitates the ability of members to
continue to protect customer orders while retaining the flexibility to
engage in proprietary trades that comply with an exception to the Plan.
BATS believes adding an exception to the Trade-at Prohibition for error
correction transactions is appropriate as this exception is equally
applicable to the Trade-at Prohibition as to Rule 611 of Regulation
NMS, and that adopting this exception appropriately aligns the
requirements of the Trade-at Prohibition with Rule 611 of Regulation
NMS. Similarly, BATS believes that amending the stopped order exception
will result in more consistent treatment under Regulation NMS and the
Plan, which should ease compliance burdens for members. Finally, BATS
believes that amending the reference to ISOs in connection with the
Trade-at Prohibition is consistent with the Act because it will better
align that reference to the definition of ``Trade-At Intermarket Sweep
Order'' as set forth in the Plan.
    Based on the foregoing, the Commission believes that the changes
to: (1) Add an exception to BATS Rule 11.27(a)(5)(C)(iv) and
11.27(a)(6)(C)(iv) to permit members to fill a customer order in a
Pilot Security at a non-nickel increment to comply with BATS Rule 12.6
under limited circumstances, (2) create an exception to the Trade-at
Prohibition for certain error correction transactions, (3) modify the
stopped order exception to the Trade-at Prohibition, and (4) to clarify
the use of ISOs in connection with the Trade-at Prohibition are all
consistent with the Act. Accordingly, the Commission finds good cause
for approving the proposed rule change, as modified by Partial
Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated basis, pursuant to section 19(b)(2)
of the Act.

VIII. Conclusion

    IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\78\ that the proposed rule change, as modified by Partial Amendment
No. 1 (SR-BATS-2015-108) be, and it hereby is, approved on an
accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-05185 Filed 3-8-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Summary Nonattainment Area Population Exposure Report  As of July 20, 2012

Ordered by state code(s)  All Carbon Monoxide areas were redesignated to maintenance areas as of September 27, 2010.  The NO2 nonattainment area became a maintenance area on September 22, 1998.                                     State(s)                          General Area Name (see note)                      2010 Population in 1000s (area count)

                               8-Hr Ozone (2008)                                8-Hr Ozone (1997)                                  PM-2.5 (2006)                                  PM-2.5 (1997)                                      PM-10                                       SO2                                   Lead (2008)                                      Lead AK  Anchorage         219(1)       AK  Fairbanks     87(1)           AK  Juneau         14(1)       AL  Birmingham     858(1) 858(1)         AL  Troy             2(1)   AZ  Ajo         9(1)       AZ  Douglas/Paul Spur (Cochise County)         17(1)       AZ  Hayden/Miami         26(2) 5(1)     AZ  Nogales     31(1)   30(1)       AZ  Phoenix-Mesa 3,850(1) 3,849(1)     3,853(1)       AZ  Rillito (Pima County)         1(1)       AZ  West Central Pinal     52(1)   283(1)       AZ  Yuma         101(1)       CA  Amador and Calaveras Cos (Central Mountain Cos) 46(1) 84(1)             CA  Chico 220(1) 220(1) 218(1)           CA  Imperial County 175(1) 175(1) 154(1)   147(1)       CA  Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin 15,723(3) 15,719(1) 15,716(1) 15,716(1) 15,799(1)   9,437(1)   CA  Mariposa and Tuolumne Cos (Southern Mountain Cos) 18(1) 74(1)             CA  Mono County         7(2)       CA  Nevada Co. (Western Part) 82(1) 82(1)             CA  Owens Valley         7(1)       CA  Red Bluff 0(1)               CA  Sacramento Metro 2,241(1) 2,244(1) 2,206(1)   1,419(1)       CA  San Diego 3,095(1) 3,093(1)             CA  San Francisco-Bay Area 6,973(1) 6,971(1) 6,971(1)           CA  San Joaquin Valley 3,938(2) 3,938(2) 3,842(1) 3,842(1) 126(1)       CA  San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles 2(1)               CA  Searles Valley         4(1)       CA  Southeast Desert Modified AQMA 1,294(2) 1,294(2)     495(2)       CA  Ventura County 823(1) 823(1)             CA  Yuba City   0(1) 165(1)           CO  Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Ft. Collins-Loveland Area 3,330(1) 3,330(1)             CT  Greater Connecticut 1,629(1) 1,629(1)             DC-MD-VA  Washington 5,136(1) 5,136(1)   5,047(1)         FL  Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater             4(1)   GA  Atlanta 4,753(1) 5,260(1)   5,265(1)         GA  Macon       158(1)         GA  Rome       96(1)         GU  Piti Power Plant           1(1)     GU  Tanguisson Power Plant           1(1)     IA  Council Bluffs             13(1)   ID  Bonner County (Sandpoint)         41(1)       ID  Pocatello         1(1)       ID  Shoshone County         11(2)       IL-IN  Chicago-Gary-Lake County 9,180(1) 9,050(1)   9,050(1)     36(1)   IN  Indianapolis       1,532(1)         IN  Muncie             1(1)   KS  Salina             0(1)   KY-IN  Louisville       1,019(1)         LA  Baton Rouge 733(1)               MA  Springfield (W. Mass)   824(1)             MA-NH  Boston-Worcester-Manchester 17(1) 6,464(2)             MD  Baltimore 2,663(1) 2,663(1)   2,663(1)         MD-WV  Hagerstown-Martinsburg       252(1)         MI  Belding             2(1)   MI  Detroit-Ann Arbor     4,705(1) 4,705(1)         MN  Minneapolis-St. Paul             9(1)   MO  Iron             0(1)   MO-IL  St. Louis 2,571(1) 2,594(1)   2,573(1)     44(2) 3(1) MT  Billings/Laurel           7(1)     MT  Butte         34(1)       MT  Columbia Falls (Flathead County)         5(1)       MT  East Helena           3(1)   3(1) MT  Kalispell (Flathead County)         18(1)       MT  Lame Deer         1(1)       MT  Libby       9(1) 3(1)       MT  Missoula         60(1)       MT  Polson (Lake County)         4(1)       MT  Ronan (Lake County)         3(1)       MT  Thompson Falls         1(1)       MT  Whitefish (Flathead County)         6(1)       NC-SC  Charlotte-Gastonia 1,901(1) 1,969(1)             NM  Anthony         3(1)       NV  Las Vegas   1,919(1)     1,951(1)       NV  Reno         421(1)       NY  Albany-Schenectady-Troy   970(1)             NY  Buffalo-Niagara Falls   1,136(1)             NY  Essex County; Whiteface Mountain   0(1)             NY  Jamestown 135(1) 135(1)             NY  Jefferson County   116(1)             NY  Poughkeepsie   770(1)             NY  Rochester   1,114(1)             NY-NJ-CT  New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island 20,217(1) 20,217(1) 20,404(1) 20,404(1) 1,586(1) 109(1)     OH  Bellefontaine             6(1)   OH  Canton-Massillon     376(1) 376(1)         OH  Cleveland-Akron-Lorain 2,882(1)   2,687(1) 2,710(1)     8(1)   OH  Columbus 1,755(1)     1,652(1)         OH  Dayton-Springfield       835(1)         OH  Delta             3(1)   OH-KY-IN  Cincinnati-Hamilton 1,989(1)               OH-WV  Steubenville-Weirton     124(1) 124(1)         OR  Eugene-Springfield         195(1)       OR  Klamath Falls     47(1)           OR  Oakridge     4(1)   4(1)       PA  Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton 712(1)   647(1)           PA  Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle     1,072(1) 637(1)         PA  Johnstown     157(1) 157(1)         PA  Lancaster 519(1)   519(1) 519(1)         PA  Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley 2,356(1) 2,356(1) 2,164(2) 2,164(2)   5(1) 18(1)   PA  Reading 411(1)     411(1)     49(2)   PA  York       435(1)         PA-DE-NJ-MD Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton 7,634(2) 7,797(1) 5,798(1) 5,798(1)         PR  Arecibo             32(1)   RI  Providence (all of RI)   1,053(1)             TN  Johnson City-Kingsport-Bristol             2(1)   TN  Knoxville 573(1)   682(1) 682(1)         TN  Memphis 1,127(1)               TN-GA-AL  Chattanooga       471(1)         TX  Dallas-Fort Worth 6,280(1) 6,221(1)         4(1)   TX  El Paso         649(1)       TX  Houston-Galveston-Brazoria 5,892(1) 5,892(1)             UT  Ogden         83(1)       UT  Provo     518(1)   517(1)       UT  Salt Lake City     1,665(1)   1,030(1) 1,030(1)     UT  Tooele County           58(1)     UT-ID  Logan     125(1)           WA  Seattle-Tacoma     540(1)           WI  Milwaukee-Racine   1,918(1) 1,533(1)           WI  Sheboygan 116(1) 116(1)             WV  Charleston     249(1) 249(1)         WV-KY-OH  Huntington-Ashland       343(1)         WV-OH  Parkersburg-Marietta       150(1)         WV-OH  Wheeling       148(1)         WY  Sheridan         17(1)       WY  Upper Green River Basin 11(1)                 2010 Population (area count) by Pollutant Total Estimated 2010 Population in Nonattainment

Across All Criteria Pollutants: 159,086

8-Hr Ozone (2008)

8-Hr Ozone (1997)

PM-2.5 (2006)

PM-2.5 (1997)

PM-10

SO2

Lead (2008)

Lead

123,004 ( 46)

129,214 ( 43)

74,316 ( 32)

91,050 ( 35)

29,202 ( 46)

1,217 ( 9)

9,669 ( 21)

5 ( 2)

The Summary Population Exposure Report is a summary of the population living in an area that is in nonattainment for at least one of the NAAQS.  Area Name:  The "State(s) Area Name" column contains a common or general name for the nonattainment areas on the row, but may not reflect the exact name of any area on the row. This column cannot be exact since the nonattainment area for one pollutant may not contain the same counties, cities, or states as the nonattainment area for another pollutant on the same row. The abbreviations listed in the "State(s)" column reflect all states identified in row. However, some states on a row may be nonattainment for some pollutants and not for others in the general area. A multi-state area with states that have not all been redesignated to maintenance is counted as a nonattainment area until all of the states in the area are redesignated, with the whole area population displayed.


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 204 (Tuesday, October 22, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56453-56454]
[FR Doc No: 2019-23002]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2206-089]

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for
Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Non-project use of project lands and water.
    b. Project No: 2206-089.
    c. Date Filed: September 19, 2019.
    d. Applicant: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (licensee).
    e. Name of Project: Yadkin Pee-Dee Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the Yadkin and Pee Dee
Rivers in Anson, Montgomery, Richmond, and Stanly Counties, North
Carolina.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Duke Energy, Mr. Kelvin Reagan, Duke Energy
Lake Services, 526 S. Church Street, EC12Q, Charlotte, NC. 28202; phone
exception occurred on : 2019-23002.htm
(704) 382-9386, energy.com">[email protected]energy.com.
    i. FERC Contact: Robert Ballantine at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests: November 15, 2019.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's
eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without
prior registration, using the

eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-2206-089. Comments emailed to Commission staff are not
considered part of the Commission record.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Request: The licensee requests Commission
approval of a non-project use of project lands and water for the
construction and operation of a municipal water treatment plant. The
proposed construction would affect 0.34 acres of project land. The Town
of Norwood and Union County, North Carolina seek to withdrawal an
instantaneous maximum daily withdrawal of 49.0 million gallons of water
per day (MGD), with an annual average withdrawal of 19.6 MGD from Lake
Tillery. A maximum monthly average of 23.3 MGD of the water withdrawn
from the proposed intake would be transferred out of the Yadkin River
Basin into the Rocky River Basin.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE, Room 2A, Washington, DC
20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed on
the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. You may also register
online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be
notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from
the applicant.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all
capital letters the title ``COMMENTS''; ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO
INTERVENE'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the
applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing
responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the
person commenting, protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply
with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests, must set forth their
evidentiary basis. Any filing made by an intervenor must be accompanied
by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared
by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR
385.2010.

    Dated: October 16, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-23002 Filed 10-21-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 124 (Friday, June 27, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36442-36443]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15139]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0742; Directorate Identifier 2013-CE-012-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Piper Aircraft, Inc.

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: This document withdraws a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
that would have applied to certain Piper Aircraft, Inc. Models PA-28-
140, PA-28-150, PA-28-160, PA-28-180, PA-28R-180, and PA-28R-200
airplanes. The proposed airworthiness directive (AD) would have
superseded AD 71-21-08, Amendment 39-1312, which currently requires
replacement of the fuel selector valve cover. This proposed AD would
have added additional airplanes to the AD's applicability section and
changed the compliance time of the required actions. Since issuance of
the NPRM, the FAA has re-evaluated this airworthiness concern and
determined that an unsafe condition does not exist that would warrant
AD action. This withdrawal does not prevent the FAA from initiating
future rulemaking on this subject.

DATES: As of June 27, 2014, the proposed rule published August 20, 2013
(78 FR 51121), is withdrawn.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Wechsler, Aerospace Engineer,
Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 1701 Columbia Avenue,
College Park, Georgia 30337; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (404) 474-
5606; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to Piper Aircraft, Inc.
Models PA-28-140, PA-28-150, PA-28-160, PA-28-180, PA-28R-180, and PA-
28R-200 airplanes. That NPRM published in the Federal Register on
August 20, 2013 (78 FR 51121). That NPRM proposed to supersede AD 71-
21-08, Amendment 39-1312 (36 FR 19572, October 8, 1971), by adding
airplanes to and changing the compliance time of AD 71-21-08 fuel
selector valve cover replacement requirements.
    Because of the comments received on the NPRM (78 FR 51121, August
20, 2013), the FAA re-evaluated the data collected on the safety
concern and concluded that:
     There was evidence of pilot inexperience and an absence of
fuel selector valve maintenance (in accordance with Piper Service
Bulletin 355, dated June 5, 1972) in the Piper PA-28-180 crash of
December 28, 2011; and
     The low frequency of PA-28 series safety events due to the
inadvertent selection of the ``OFF'' position of fuel selector valves,
since AD 71-21-08 was published on October 13, 1971, does not warrant
AD action.
    To mitigate the safety concern from recurring, the FAA may take
other airworthiness action such as a special airworthiness information
bulletin (SAIB) to recommend the actions contained in the proposed rule
and capture the concerns identified by the public during the NPRM (78
FR 51121, August 20, 2013) comment period.
    Withdrawal of this NPRM (78 FR 51121, August 20, 2013) constitutes
only such action and does not preclude the agency from issuing future
rulemaking on this issue, nor does it commit the agency to any course
of action in the future.

Regulatory Findings

    Since this action only withdraws an NPRM, it is neither a proposed
nor a final rule and therefore, is not covered under Executive Order
12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, or DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979).

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Withdrawal

    Accordingly, the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), FAA-2013-
0742, published in the Federal Register on August 20, 2013 (78 FR
51121), is withdrawn.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on June 19, 2014.
Timothy Smyth,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-15139 Filed 6-26-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P