[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 180 (Monday, September 19, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57228-57233]
[FR Doc No: 2022-20145]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-95760; File No. SR-NYSEARCA-2022-59]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the NYSE
Arca Equities Fees and Charges

September 13, 2022.
    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 on September 1, 2022, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' 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 amend the NYSE Arca Equities Fees and
Charges (``Fee Schedule'') to amend the Retail Tiers. The proposed rule
change is available on the Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to amend the Retail
Tiers. The proposed changes respond to the current competitive
environment where order flow providers have a choice of where to direct
liquidity-providing orders by offering further incentives for ETP
Holders to send additional displayed liquidity to the Exchange.
    The Exchange proposes to implement the fee changes effective
September 1, 2022.
Background
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. The
Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over
regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services
in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, the Commission
highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and
SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the
market system ``has been remarkably successful in promoting market
competition in its

broader forms that are most important to investors and listed
companies.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (File No. S7-10-04) (Final
Rule) (``Regulation NMS'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While Regulation NMS has enhanced competition, it has also fostered
a ``fragmented'' market structure where trading in a single stock can
occur across multiple trading centers. When multiple trading centers
compete for order flow in the same stock, the Commission has recognized
that ``such competition can lead to the fragmentation of order flow in
that stock.'' \4\ Indeed, equity trading is currently dispersed across
16 exchanges,\5\ numerous alternative trading systems,\6\ and broker-
dealer internalizers and wholesalers, all competing for order flow.
Based on publicly available information, no single exchange currently
has more than 17% market share.\7\ Therefore, no exchange possesses
significant pricing power in the execution of equity order flow. More
specifically, the Exchange currently has less than 10% market share of
executed volume of equities trading.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61358, 75 FR 3594,
3597 (January 21, 2010) (File No. S7-02-10) (Concept Release on
Equity Market Structure).
    \5\ See Cboe U.S Equities Market Volume Summary, available at
https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share. See generally
https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/divisionsmarketregmrexchangesshtml.html.
    \6\ See FINRA ATS Transparency Data, available at https://otctransparency.finra.org/otctransparency/AtsIssueData. A list of
alternative trading systems registered with the Commission is
available at https://www.sec.gov/foia/docs/atslist.htm.
    \7\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Equities Market Volume Summary,
available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/.
    \8\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
move order flow, or discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of
products. While it is not possible to know a firm's reason for shifting
order flow, the Exchange believes that one such reason is because of
fee changes at any of the registered exchanges or non-exchange venues
to which a firm routes order flow. The competition for Retail Orders
\9\ is even more stark, particularly as it relates to exchange versus
off-exchange venues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ A Retail Order is an agency order that originates from a
natural person and is submitted to the Exchange by an ETP Holder,
provided that no change is made to the terms of the order to price
or side of market and the order does not originate from a trading
algorithm or any other computerized methodology. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 67540 (July 30, 2012), 77 FR 46539 (August
3, 2012) (SR-NYSEArca-2012-77).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange thus needs to compete in the first instance with non-
exchange venues for Retail Order flow, and with the 15 other exchange
venues for that Retail Order flow that is not directed off-exchange.
Accordingly, competitive forces compel the Exchange to use exchange
transaction fees and credits, particularly as they relate to competing
for Retail Order flow, because market participants can readily trade on
competing venues if they deem pricing levels at those other venues to
be more favorable.
    To respond to this competitive environment, the Exchange has
established a number of Retail Tiers, which are designed to provide an
incentive for ETP Holders to route Retail Orders to the Exchange by
providing higher credits for adding liquidity correlated to an ETP
Holder's higher trading volume in Retail Orders on the Exchange. Under
three of these four tiers, ETP Holders also do not pay a fee when such
Retail Orders have a time-in-force of Day that remove liquidity from
the Exchange.
Proposed Rule Change
    The proposed rule change is designed to be available to all ETP
Holders on the Exchange and is intended to provide ETP Holders an
opportunity to receive enhanced rebates by quoting and trading more on
the Exchange.
    The Exchange currently provides tiered credits for Retail Orders
that provide liquidity on the Exchange. Specifically, Section VI. Tier
Rates--Round Lots and Odd Lots (Per Share Price $1.00 or Above),
provides a base Retail Order Tier credit of $0.0033 per share for
Adding. Additionally, the Exchange has established Retail Order Step-Up
Tier 1, Retail Order Step-Up Tier 2 and Retail Order Step-Up Tier 3
that provide a credit of $0.0038 per share, $0.0035 per share, and
$0.0036 per share, respectively, for Adding.\10\ The Retail Tiers are
designed to encourage ETP Holders that provide displayed liquidity in
Retail Orders on the Exchange to increase that order flow, which would
benefit all ETP Holders by providing greater execution opportunities on
the Exchange. In order to provide an incentive for ETP Holders to
direct providing displayed Retail Order flow to the Exchange, the
credits increase in the various tiers based on increased levels of
volume directed to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Retail Tiers table under Section VI. Tier Rates--Round
Lots and Odd Lots (Per Share Price $1.00 or Above).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described in greater detail below, the Exchange proposes to
amend the requirements and the associated per share credit payable
under the current pricing tiers applicable to Retail Orders that
provide liquidity in Tape A, Tape B and Tape C securities.
    Currently, to qualify for the Retail Order Tier, an ETP Holder must
have Retail Adding ADV of 0.15% or more of CADV. ETP Holders that meet
the current Retail Order Tier requirement are eligible to earn a credit
of $0.0033 per share for Retail Orders that add liquidity in Tape A, B
and C securities.
    The Exchange proposes the following changes to the current pricing
tier:
     Rename the Retail Order Tier to Retail Tier 3;
     Modify the requirement to qualify for the renamed tier;
and
     Increase the credit applicable to the renamed tier.
    More specifically, to qualify for proposed Retail Tier 3, an ETP
Holder must execute Retail Orders with a time-in-force of Day that add
or remove liquidity equal to 0.10% of CADV. ETP Holders that meet the
proposed Retail Tier 3 requirement would be eligible to earn an
increased credit of $0.0034 per share for Retail Orders that add
liquidity in Tape A, B and C securities.
    Next, to qualify for current Retail Order Step-Up Tier 1, an ETP
Holder must execute an ADV of Retail Orders with a time-in-force of Day
that add or remove liquidity that is an increase of 0.40% or more of
CADV above its April 2018 ADV taken as a percentage of CADV and have
Adding ADV of 1.00% or more of CADV. Alternatively, in addition to
providing an ADV of 1.00% or more of CADV, an ETP Holder can qualify
for the current fees and credits by executing an ADV of 55 million
shares of Retail Orders with a time-in-force of Day that add or remove
liquidity. ETP Holders that meet the current Retail Order Step-Up Tier
1 requirement are eligible to earn a credit of $0.0038 per share for
Retail Orders that add liquidity in Tape A, B and C securities.\11\
Under the Retail Order Step-Up Tier 1, the Exchange also does not
charge a fee for Retail Removing with a time-in-force of Day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Pursuant to footnote (d) under Retail Tiers, ETP Holders
that qualify for Retail Order Step-Up Tier 1 are subject to the
following rates in Tape C: ($0.0035) for Adding displayed liquidity;
$0.0027 for Removing; and Additional ($0.0002) for Adding non-
displayed liquidity. See Fee Schedule. With this proposed rule
change, the Exchange proposes to rename Retail Order Step-Up Tier 1
to Retail Tier 1 in footnote (d) under the Retail Tiers table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes the following changes to the current pricing
tier:

     Rename Retail Order Step-Up Tier 1 to Retail Tier 1; and
     Modify the percentage requirement to qualify for the
renamed tier.
    More specifically, to qualify for proposed Retail Tier 1, an ETP
Holder must execute an ADV of Retail Orders with a time-in-force of Day
that add or remove liquidity that is 0.50% or more of CADV and have
Adding ADV of 1.00% or more of CADV. ETP Holders may also alternatively
qualify for proposed Retail Tier 1 by executing an ADV of 55 million
shares of Retail Orders with a time-in-force of Day that add or remove
liquidity and have Adding ADV of 1.00% or more of CADV.\12\ With this
proposed rule change, to qualify for proposed Retail Tier 1, ETP
Holders would no longer be required to `step-up' above their April 2018
CADV and would instead qualify for the proposed tier by meeting the
amended volume requirement during the billing month. ETP Holders that
meet the proposed Retail Tier 1 requirement will continue to be
eligible to earn a credit of $0.0038 per share for Retail Orders that
add liquidity in Tape A, B and C securities. The Exchange is not
proposing any change to the level of the credit payable under proposed
Retail Tier 1. ETP Holders that qualify for the proposed Retail Tier 1
would also not be a charged a fee for Retail Orders with a time-in-
force of Day that remove liquidity.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ To streamline the Fee Schedule, the Exchange proposes a
non-substantive change to delete the words ``of Retail Orders with a
time-in-force of Day that add or remove'' from the proposed Retail
Tier 1 table because these words are repetitive as they currently
appear in the heading for that column under Minimum Requirement of
CADV.
    \13\ Pursuant to footnote (e) under Retail Tiers, ETP Holders
that qualify for current Retail Order Step-Up Tier 1, Retail Order
Step-Up Tier 2 and Retail Order Step-Up Tier 3 are not charged a fee
or provided a credit for Retail Orders where each side of the
executed order (1) shares the same MPID and (2) is a Retail Order
with a time-in-force of Day. See Fee Schedule. With this proposed
rule change, the Exchange proposes to rename Retail Order Step-Up
Tier 1 to Retail Tier 1, Retail Order Step-Up Tier 2 as Retail Step-
Up Tier and Retail Order Step-Up Tier 3 as Retail Tier 2 in footnote
(e) under the Retail Tiers table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Next, to qualify for current Retail Order Step-Up Tier 2, an ETP
Holder must execute an ADV of Retail Orders with a time-in-force of Day
that add or remove liquidity that is an increase of 0.10% or more of
CADV above its April 2018 ADV taken as a percentage of CADV. ETP
Holders that meet the current Retail Order Step-Up Tier 2 requirement
are eligible to earn a credit of $0.0035 per share for Retail Orders
that add liquidity in Tape A, B and C securities.
    The Exchange proposes the following changes to the current pricing
tier:
     Rename Retail Order Step-Up Tier 2 to Retail Step-Up Tier;
and
     Modify the requirement to qualify for the renamed tier.
    More specifically, to qualify for proposed Retail Step-Up Tier, an
ETP Holder must execute an ADV of Retail Orders with a time-in-force of
Day that add or remove liquidity that is an increase of 0.075% or more
of CADV above its April 2018 ADV taken as a percentage of CADV. ETP
Holders that meet the proposed Retail Step-Up Tier requirement will
continue to be eligible to earn a credit of $0.0035 per share for
Retail Orders that add liquidity in Tape A, B and C securities. The
Exchange is not proposing any change to the level of the credit payable
under proposed Retail Step-Up Tier. ETP Holders that qualify for the
proposed Retail Step-Up Tier would also not be charged a fee for Retail
Orders with a time-in-force of Day that remove liquidity.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, to qualify for current Retail Order Step-Up Tier 3, an ETP
Holder must execute an ADV of Retail Orders with a time-in-force of Day
that add or remove liquidity that is an increase of 0.20% or more of
CADV above its April 2018 ADV taken as a percentage of CADV. ETP
Holders that meet the current Retail Order Step-Up Tier 3 requirement
are eligible to earn a credit of $0.0036 per share for Retail Orders
that add liquidity in Tape A, B and C securities.
    The Exchange proposes the following changes to the current pricing
tier:
     Rename Retail Order Step-Up Tier 3 to Retail Tier 2; and
     Modify the requirement to qualify for the renamed tier.
    More specifically, to qualify for proposed Retail Tier 2, an ETP
Holder must execute an ADV of Retail Orders with a time-in-force of Day
that add or remove liquidity that is 0.20% or more of CADV. With this
proposed rule change, ETP Holders would no longer be required to `step-
up' above their April 2018 CADV and would instead qualify for the
proposed tier by meeting the volume requirement during the billing
month. ETP Holders that meet the proposed Retail Tier 2 requirement
will continue to be eligible to earn a credit of $0.0036 per share for
Retail Orders that add liquidity in Tape A, B and C securities. ETP
Holders that qualify for proposed Retail Tier 2 would also not be
charged a fee for Retail Orders with a time-in-force of Day that remove
liquidity.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With this proposed rule change, the Exchange proposes to reformat
the credits payable under the Retail Tiers such that the tier that pays
the highest credit would appear at the top of the table followed by the
tier that pays the second highest credit, then the tier that pays the
lowest credit, followed by the tier that requires ETP Holders to `step-
up' from their baseline CADV. Accordingly, the Retail Tiers table would
appear as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Tier                       Credit for retail adding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retail Tier 1.........................  $0.0038 (Tape A, Tape B and Tape
                                         C).
Retail Tier 2.........................  0.0036 (Tape A, Tape B and Tape
                                         C).
Retail Tier 3.........................  0.0034 (Tape A, Tape B and Tape
                                         C).
Retail Step-Up Tier...................  0.0035 (Tape A, Tape B and Tape
                                         C).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to encourage greater
participation from ETP Holders and promote additional liquidity in
Retail Orders. The Exchange notes that the current Retail Tiers have
been underutilized by ETP Holders. The Exchange believes that modifying
the requirement of the existing tiers should incentivize ETP Holders to
direct more of their Retail Orders to the Exchange and thus qualify for
the credits payable under the Retail Tiers. As described above, ETP
Holders with liquidity-providing orders have a choice of where to send
those orders. The Exchange believes that the proposed amendment to the
volume requirement and credit payable for Retail Orders could lead to
more ETP Holders choosing to route their liquidity-providing Retail
Orders to the Exchange rather than to a competing exchange.
    The Exchange does not know how much Retail Order flow ETP Holders
choose to route to other exchanges or to off-exchange venues. Without
having a view of ETP Holders' activity on other markets and off-
exchange venues, the Exchange has no way of knowing whether this
proposed rule change would result in any ETP Holders sending more of
their Retail Orders to the Exchange to qualify for the proposed Retail
Order credits. The Exchange cannot predict with certainty how many ETP
Holders would avail themselves of this opportunity, but additional
liquidity-providing Retail Orders would benefit all market participants
because it would provide greater execution opportunities on the
Exchange.
    The proposed changes are not otherwise intended to address any
other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any significant problems
that market participants would have in complying with the proposed
changes.

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\16\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\17\ in particular,
because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and other persons
using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between
customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposed Fee Change Is Reasonable
    As discussed above, the Exchange operates in a highly fragmented
and competitive market. The Commission has repeatedly expressed its
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically,
in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market
forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized
that current regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably
successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that
are most important to investors and listed companies.'' \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given this competitive environment, the proposal represents a
reasonable attempt to attract additional order flow to the Exchange.
    As noted above, the competition for Retail Order flow is stark
given the amount of retail limit orders that are routed to non-exchange
venues. The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among
the exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants
can shift order flow, or discontinue or reduce use of certain
categories of products, in response to fee changes. This competition is
particularly acute for non-marketable, or limit, retail orders, i.e.,
retail orders that can provide liquidity on an exchange. That
competition is even more fierce for retail limit orders that provide
displayed liquidity on an exchange. With respect to such orders, ETP
Holders can choose from any one of the 16 currently operating
registered exchanges to route such order flow. Accordingly, competitive
forces constrain exchange transaction fees, particularly as they relate
to competing for retail orders. Stated otherwise, changes to exchange
transaction fees can have a direct effect on the ability of an exchange
to compete for order flow.
    In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed modification
of the volume requirement to qualify for the proposed Retail Tiers is
reasonable because it is designed to encourage greater participation
from ETP Holders and promote additional liquidity in Retail Orders. The
Exchange believes it is reasonable to require ETP Holders to meet the
applicable volume threshold to qualify for the Retail Tier credits,
which the Exchange proposes to increase to encourage ETP Holders to
direct more of their liquidity-providing Retail Orders to the Exchange.
Further, the proposed change is reasonable as it would allow ETP
Holders additional opportunities to qualify for the credit payable
under the various pricing tiers. The Exchange believes it is reasonable
to modify two of the existing three Retail Tiers, from a `step-up,' to
a straight volume requirement, without significantly modifying the
volume requirement to qualify for each of the proposed Retail Tiers.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable to replace the `step-up' tiers
to `straight' tiers as the revised criteria would allow ETP Holders
that may have been unable to meet the existing requirement to reach the
proposed volume requirement more easily, particularly when there has
been an overall decline of Retail Orders as a percentage of total
volume in the equity markets, and yet sustained high consolidated daily
volumes.
    The Exchange believes that the proposal represents a reasonable
effort to provide enhanced order execution opportunities for ETP
Holders. All ETP Holders would benefit from the greater amounts of
liquidity on the Exchange, which would represent a wider range of
execution opportunities. The Exchange notes that market participants
are free to shift their order flow to competing venues if they believe
other markets offer more favorable fees and credits.
    The Exchange believes the proposed change is also reasonable
because the increased credits proposed herein would continue to
encourage ETP Holders to send Retail Orders to the Exchange to qualify
for the proposed pricing tiers. As noted above, the Exchange operates
in a highly competitive environment, particularly for attracting Retail
Order flow that provides displayed liquidity on an exchange. The
Exchange believes it is reasonable to continue to provide credits for
adding liquidity, in general, and higher credits for Retail Orders that
provide displayed liquidity if an ETP Holder meets the amended
requirement for the Retail Tiers.
    Further, given the competitive market for attracting Retail Orders,
the Exchange notes that with this proposed rule change, the Exchange's
pricing for Retail Orders would be comparable, and in some cases,
higher, to credits currently in place on other exchanges that the
Exchange competes with for order flow. For example, the Nasdaq Stock
Market LLC (``Nasdaq'') provides its members with a credit of $0.0033
per share if such member has an 85% add to total volume (adding and
removing) ratio during a billing month.\19\ Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.
(``BZX'') provides its members with a credit of $0.0032 per share for
retail orders that add liquidity to that market.\20\ In addition, Cboe
EDGX Exchange, Inc. (`EDGX'') provides its members with a credit of
$0.0037 per share for retail orders that add liquidity to that market
if an EDGX member adds liquidity in Retail Orders of 0.45% of CADV or
more and a credit of $0.0034 per share for retail orders that add
liquidity to that market if an EDGX member adds liquidity in Retail
Orders of 0.35% of CADV or more.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Nasdaq Price List, Rebate to Add Displayed Designated
Retail Liquidity, at http://nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=PriceListTrading2.
    \20\ See BZX Fee Schedule, Fee Codes and Associated Fees, at
https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/bzx/.
    \21\ See EDGX Fee Schedule, Fee Codes and Associated Fees, at
https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/edgx/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed change is also reasonable
because it is designed to attract higher volumes of Retail Orders
transacted on the Exchange by ETP Holders which would benefit all
market participants by offering greater price discovery, increased
transparency, and an increased opportunity to trade on the Exchange.
    On the backdrop of the competitive environment in which the
Exchange currently operates, the proposed rule change is a reasonable
attempt to increase liquidity on the Exchange and improve the
Exchange's market share relative to its competitors.
The Proposed Fee Change Is an Equitable Allocation of Fees and Credits
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change to modify the
requirement and credit payable under the proposed Retail Tiers
equitably allocates fees and credits among its market participants
because it is reasonably related to the value of the Exchange's market
quality associated with higher volume in Retail Orders. The Exchange
believes that pricing is just one of the factors that ETP Holders
consider when determining where to direct their order flow. Among other

things, factors such as execution quality, fill rates, and volatility,
are important and deterministic to ETP Holders in deciding where to
send their order flow.
    Further, the Exchange notes that, with this proposed rule change,
the difference between the highest credit provided for Retail Orders,
$0.0038 per share, as proposed, and the credit for Retail Orders that
do not qualify for any Retail Order pricing tiers, $0.0032 per share,
is $0.0006, or 15%, which the Exchange believes is relatively small
given the heightened requirements that ETP Holders must meet to qualify
for the higher credit. Similarly, with this proposed rule change, the
difference in the highest credit for Retail Orders, $0.0038 per share
under proposed Retail Tier 1 and the credit provided for Retail Orders
to those ETP Holders qualifying for Retail Tier 3, $0.0034 per share,
would only be $0.0004 per share, or 11%. Therefore, the Exchange
believes the proposed amendment to the proposed Retail Tiers is
equitably allocated and provides credits that are reasonably related to
the value to the Exchange's market quality associated with higher
volumes.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed amendment to the
Retail Tiers is equitable because the magnitude of the proposed credits
is not unreasonably high relative to credits paid by other exchanges
for orders that provide additional liquidity in Retail Orders.\22\ The
Exchange believes the proposed rule change would improve market quality
for all market participants on the Exchange and, as a consequence,
attract more Retail Orders to the Exchange, thereby improving market-
wide quality and price discovery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See supra notes 19-21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change equitably
allocates its fees and credits because maintaining the proportion of
Retail Orders in exchange-listed securities that are executed on a
registered national securities exchange (rather than relying on certain
available off-exchange execution methods) would contribute to
investors' confidence in the fairness of their transactions and would
benefit all investors by deepening the Exchange's liquidity pool,
supporting the quality of price discovery, promoting market
transparency and improving investor protection.
The Proposed Fee Change Is Not Unfairly Discriminatory
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change to modify the
requirement and credit payable under the proposed Retail Tiers is not
unfairly discriminatory. In the prevailing competitive environment, ETP
Holders are free to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they believe
that alternatives offer them better value. Moreover, the proposal
neither targets nor will it have a disparate impact on any particular
category of market participant. The Exchange believes that the proposal
does not permit unfair discrimination because the proposal would be
applied to all similarly situated ETP Holders and all ETP Holders would
be similarly subject to the proposed volume requirement to qualify for
the proposed modified Retail Tiers. Accordingly, no ETP Holder already
operating on the Exchange would be disadvantaged by the proposed
allocation of fees. The Exchange further believes that the proposed
changes would not permit unfair discrimination among ETP Holders
because the general and tiered rates are available equally to all ETP
Holders.
    As described above, in today's competitive marketplace, order flow
providers have a choice of where to direct liquidity-providing order
flow, and the Exchange believes the proposed modification of the
requirement and the credit payable under the proposed Retail Tiers will
incentivize greater number of ETP Holders to direct their order flow to
the Exchange. Lastly, the submission of Retail Orders is optional for
ETP Holders in that they could choose whether to submit Retail Orders
and, if they do, the extent of its activity in this regard. The
Exchange believes that it is subject to significant competitive forces,
as described below in the Exchange's statement regarding the burden on
competition.
    For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal
is consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\23\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. Instead, as discussed above, the Exchange believes
that the proposed changes would encourage the submission of additional
liquidity to a public exchange, thereby promoting market depth, price
discovery and transparency and enhancing order execution opportunities
for ETP Holders. As a result, the Exchange believes that the proposed
change furthers the Commission's goal in adopting Regulation NMS of
fostering integrated competition among orders, which promotes ``more
efficient pricing of individual stocks for all types of orders, large
and small.'' \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \24\ See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Intramarket Competition. The Exchange believes the proposed rule
change does not impose any burden on intramarket competition that is
not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed change represents a
significant departure from previous pricing offered by the Exchange or
its competitors. The proposed change is designed to attract Retail
Orders to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that amending criteria of
established tiers and associated credits would incentivize market
participants to direct liquidity adding retail order flow to the
Exchange, bringing with it additional execution opportunities for
market participants and improved price transparency. Greater overall
order flow, trading opportunities, and pricing transparency would
benefit all market participants on the Exchange by enhancing market
quality and would continue to encourage ETP Holders to send their
orders to the Exchange, thereby contributing towards a robust and well-
balanced market ecosystem. Additionally, the proposed changes would
apply to all ETP Holders equally in that all ETP Holders would be
eligible for the proposed Retail Tiers, have a reasonable opportunity
to meet each tier's criteria and would all receive the proposed credit
if such criteria is met.
    Intermarket Competition. The Exchange believes the proposed rule
change does not impose any burden on intermarket competition that is
not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market
participants can readily choose to send their orders to other exchanges
and off-exchange venues if they deem fee levels at those other venues
to be more favorable. As noted above, the Exchange's market share of
intraday trading (i.e., excluding auctions) is currently less than 10%.
In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees
and rebates to remain competitive with other exchanges and with off-
exchange venues. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees
and credits in response, and because market participants may readily
adjust their

order routing practices, the Exchange does not believe this proposed
fee change would impose any burden on intermarket competition.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change could promote
competition between the Exchange and other execution venues, including
those that currently offer similar order types and comparable
transaction pricing, by encouraging additional orders to be sent to the
Exchange for execution

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 foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \25\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \26\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \26\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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) \27\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 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 (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2022-59 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2022-59. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal offices of the Exchange.
All comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting
comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal
identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2022-59, and should
be submitted on or before October 11, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-20145 Filed 9-16-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 215 (Monday, November 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69040-69041]
[FR Doc No: 2011-28725]

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 215 / Monday, November 7, 2011 /
Notices

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-D-0730]

Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration
Staff; Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: In Vitro Diagnostic
Devices for Yersinia Species Detection; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of a draft guidance entitled ``Class II Special Controls
Guidance Document: In Vitro Diagnostic Devices for Yersinia Species
Detection.'' This draft guidance document describes a means by which in
vitro diagnostic devices for Yersinia species (spp.) detection may
comply with the requirement of special controls for class II devices.
This draft guidance is not final nor is it in effect at this time.

DATES: Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115 (g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on
this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the
guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft
guidance by February 6, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the draft
guidance document entitled ``Class II Special Controls Guidance
Document: In Vitro Diagnostic Devices for Yersinia spp. Detection'' to
the Division of Small Manufacturers, International, and Consumer
Assistance, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave. Bldg. 66, rm. 4613, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist
that office in processing your request, or fax your request to (301)
847-8149. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for information on
electronic access to the guidance.
    Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane
rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Identify comments with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beena Puri, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave. Bldg. 66, Rm. 5553, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, FDA is publishing
a proposed rule to classify in vitro diagnostic devices for Yersinia
spp. detection into class II (special controls). This draft special
controls guidance document was developed to support the proposed
classification of in vitro diagnostic devices for Yersinia spp.
detection, a previously unclassified preamendments device, into class
II (special controls). On March 7, 2002, the Microbiology Devices
Advisory Panel (the panel) recommended that in vitro diagnostic devices
for Yersinia spp. detection be classified into class II. The panel
believed that class II with the special controls (guidance document and
limitations on the distribution) would provide reasonable assurance of
the safety and effectiveness of the device. After the panel meeting,
FDA found one additional in vitro diagnostic device for Yersinia spp.
detection to be substantially equivalent to another device within that
type. This device has the same intended use as its predicate device but
makes use of newer nucleic acid amplification technology (NAAT). While
the NAAT detection devices exhibit technological differences from the
preamendments Yersinia spp. detection devices, FDA has determined that
they are as safe and effective as, and do not raise different questions
of safety and effectiveness than, their predicates. (See section 513(i)
of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360c(i)).)
    This draft guidance document identifies the proposed classification
regulation, the product code, identifies issues of safety and
effectiveness that require special controls, and proposes distribution
limitations. FDA believes that the special controls described in the
draft guidance when combined with the general controls will be
sufficient to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and
effectiveness of these devices.

II. Significance of Guidance

    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good
guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when
finalized will represent the Agency's current thinking on in vitro
diagnostic devices for Yersinia spp. detection. It does not create or
confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA
or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach
satisfies the requirements of the applicable statute and regulations.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the draft guidance may do
so by using the Internet. A search capability for all CDRH guidance
documents is available at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/default.htm. Guidance
documents are also available at http://www.regulations.gov. To receive
``Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: In Vitro Diagnostic
Devices for Yersinia spp. Detection,'' you may either send an email
request to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>to receive an electronic copy of the
document or send a fax request to<PHONE_NUMBER> to receive a hard
copy. Please use the document number 1714 to identify the guidance you
are requesting.

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information
are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 807, subpart E
have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120, and the
collections of information in 21 CFR part 801 and 21 CFR 809.10 have
been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.
    The labeling requirement listed in sections 5 and 8; Intended Use,
is not subject to review under the PRA because it is a public
disclosure of information originally supplied by the Federal Government
to the recipient for the purpose of disclosure to the public (5 CFR
1320.3(c)(2) and 21 CFR 1040.10(g)).

V. Comments

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) either electronic or written comments regarding this
document. It is only necessary to send one set of comments. It is no
longer necessary to send two copies of mailed comments. Identify
comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets
Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    Dated: November 1, 2011.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-28725 Filed 11-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 214 (Wednesday, November 5, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65744-65746]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26231]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73473; File No. SR-BATS-2014-037]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Order
Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change To Establish an Opening
Process for Non-BATS-Listed Securities

October 30, 2014.

I. Introduction

    On September 3, 2014, BATS Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BATS'') 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 add new BATS Rule (``Rule'') 11.24, entitled
``Opening Process for Non-BATS-Listed Securities,'' and to make several
corresponding changes, in order to modify the manner in which the
Exchange opens trading for non-BATS-listed securities at the beginning
of the day and after trading halts. The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on September 19, 2014.\3\
The Commission did not receive any comments on the proposed rule
change. This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73093 (September 15,
2014), 79 FR 56421 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The Exchange has proposed to implement a process for opening
trading in non-BATS-listed securities at the beginning of Regular
Trading Hours \4\ and re-opening trading in such securities following a
trading halt. Currently, the Exchange accepts orders in non-BATS-listed
securities during the Pre-Opening Session,\5\ and any such orders are
immediately eligible for execution. Orders that are on the BATS Book
\6\ at the beginning of Regular Trading Hours remain on the BATS Book,
subject to the User's instructions, and trading continues into Regular
Trading Hours without any transition period. Upon a halt, the Exchange
currently cancels all orders on the BATS Book, except Eligible Auction
Orders,\7\ and does not accept any orders until the halt is lifted. The
time-in-force of Regular Hours Only (``RHO'') \8\ that the Exchange
currently offers is not available for non-BATS-listed securities (it is
only available for BATS-listed securities).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Regular Trading Hours is defined in Rule 1.5(w).
    \5\ Pre-Opening Session is defined in Rule 1.5(r).
    \6\ BATS Book is defined in Rule 1.5(e).
    \7\ Eligible Auction Order is defined in Rule 11.23(a)(8).
    \8\ Regular Hours Only is currently defined in Rule 11.23(a)(22)
but, as described infra, the Exchange has proposed to replace Rule
11.23(a)(22) with proposed Rule 11.9(b)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposal, the Exchange would amend its rules to allow
orders in non-BATS-listed securities to be designated RHO, and would
accept and queue any such orders during the Pre-Opening Session for
execution at the midpoint of the NBBO \9\ shortly after the beginning
of Regular Trading Hours (the ``Opening Process'').\10\ The Exchange
also has proposed to implement a similar process for re-opening trading
after a halt, suspension, or pause (collectively, a ``Halt''), under
which a User's orders would remain on the BATS Book unless the User has
designated that they be cancelled upon a Halt (the ``Re-Opening
Process'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ NBBO is defined in BATS Rule 1.5(o).
    \10\ Only orders designated RHO would be queued for Opening
Process participation when submitted during the Pre-Opening Session;
orders not so designated would continue to be executable immediately
upon entry during the Pre-Opening Session.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange has proposed to replace current Rule
11.23(a)(22) with proposed new Rule 11.9(b)(7), which would re-define
RHO as a time-in-force modifier that applies to all securities, both
BATS-listed and non-BATS-listed.\11\ Prior to the beginning of Regular
Trading Hours, Users \12\ that wish to participate in the Opening
Process for a non-BATS-listed security may enter orders to buy or sell
with a time in force of RHO.\13\ All orders that are marked as RHO may
participate in the Opening Process except BATS Post Only Orders,
Partial Post Only at Limit Orders, ISO orders not modified by Rule
11.24(a)(1) (as described below), and Minimum Quantity Orders.\14\
Limit orders with a Reserve Quantity could participate to the full
extent of their displayed size and Reserve Quantity.\15\ Discretionary
Orders could participate only up to their ranked price for buy orders
or down to their ranked price for sell orders; the discretionary range
of such orders would not be eligible for participation in the Opening
Process.\16\ All Pegged Orders and Mid-Point Peg Orders would be
eligible for execution in the Opening Process based on their pegged
prices.\17\ Orders cancelled before the Opening Process and orders not
designated RHO would not be eligible to participate in the Opening
Process.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See proposed Rule 11.9(b)(7). Proposed Rule 11.9(b)(7) also
would specify that any remaining portion of market RHO order will be
cancelled immediately following any auction in which it is not
executed. Id. The Exchange also has proposed to delete the word
``limit'' from Rule 11.9(b) because a RHO order can be either a
limit order or a market order. See proposed Rule 11.9(b).
    \12\ User is defined in Rule 1.5(cc).
    \13\ See proposed Rule 11.24(a).
    \14\ See proposed Rule 11.24(a)(2). For the definitions of BATS'
order types, see Rule 11.9.
    \15\ See proposed Rule 11.24(a)(2).
    \16\ Id.
    \17\ Id.
    \18\ See proposed Rule 11.24(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to proposed Rule 11.24(a)(1), during the period between
9:30 a.m. Eastern Time and the occurrence of the Opening Process, all
non-RHO orders, subject to order instructions, and ISOs designated RHO
may execute against eligible Pre-Opening Session contra-side interest
resting in the BATS Book.\19\ The Exchange has proposed to convert any
unexecuted portion of an ISO designated RHO entered during this period
into a non-ISO and queue the order for participation in the Opening
Process.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See proposed Rule 11.24(a)(1).
    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has proposed to implement the Opening Process shortly
after the beginning of Regular Trading Hours, at which point the
Exchange would attempt to execute all orders eligible for the Opening
Process in a particular non-BATS-listed security at the midpoint of the
NBBO.\21\ All such orders would be processed in time sequence beginning
with the order with the oldest time stamp, and would be matched until
there is no remaining volume or there is an order imbalance.\22\ All
MTP modifiers would be ignored

during the matching process.\23\ If no matches can be made, or if
orders are not executed in whole or part due to an imbalance, the
Opening Process would conclude with all orders that participated in the
Opening Process being placed in the BATS Book, cancelled, executed, or
routed to away Trading Centers \24\ in accordance with Rule
11.13(a)(2).\25\ The Exchange notes that because an RHO order is not
executable until the Opening Process (rather than upon entry), to the
extent that any RHO order is not executed during the Opening Process
and is placed on the BATS Book, such order will receive a time stamp
that reflects the time that the order was placed on the BATS Book
during the Opening Process and not the time that the order was entered
for queuing.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See proposed Rule 11.24(a)(3).
    \22\ Id. According to the Exchange, time priority is more
appropriate for the Opening Process than price-time priority because
the price of the order is not particularly important to the Opening
Process, so long as the order is priced at or more aggressively than
the midpoint of the NBBO. As such, the Exchange believes that there
is no reason to reward a more aggressive order with priority in the
Opening Process. See Notice, supra note 3, 79 FR at 56422.
    \23\ See proposed Rule 11.24(b).
    \24\ Trading Center is defined in Rule 2.11(a).
    \25\ See proposed Rule 11.24(b).
    \26\ See Notice, supra note 3, 79 FR at 56423.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under proposed Rule 11.24(c), the NBBO that the Exchange would use
for purposes of setting the Opening Process price would be: (a) When
the listing exchange is either the NYSE or NYSE MKT, the first NBBO
subsequent to the first reported trade on the listing exchange after
9:30:00 a.m. Eastern Time, or the then-prevailing NBBO when the first
two-sided quotation is published by the listing exchange after 9:30:00
a.m. Eastern Time, if no first trade is reported by the listing
exchange within one second of publication of the first two-sided
quotation by the listing exchange; or (b) for any other listing market
except for the Exchange, the first NBBO disseminated after 9:30:00 a.m.
Eastern Time.\27\ The Exchange has proposed to differentiate its
calculation of the NBBO for NYSE and NYSE MKT-listed securities from
its calculation of the NBBO for securities listed on other exchanges
because NYSE and NYSE MKT do not offer continuous trading prior to
9:30:00 a.m. Eastern Time whereas the other listing exchanges do offer
continuous trading prior to 9:30:00 a.m. Eastern Time. Thus, according
to the Exchange, the market for trading in NYSE and NYSE MKT-listed
securities may take a moment to develop after 9:30:00 a.m. Eastern Time
whereas the market for securities listed on other exchanges is more
fully developed immediately after 9:30:00 a.m. Eastern Time.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See proposed Rule 11.24(c).
    \28\ See Notice, supra note 3, 79 FR at 56423.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the conditions to establish the price of the Opening Process set
forth under proposed Rule 11.24(c) do not occur by 9:45:00 a.m. Eastern
Time, the Exchange has proposed to implement a contingent opening
process (the ``Contingent Open Process'') under which, instead of being
matched at the midpoint of the NBBO, orders would be handled in time
sequence, beginning with the order with the oldest time stamp, and
placed on the BATS Book, routed, cancelled, or executed in accordance
with the terms of the order.\29\ The Exchange notes that, because an
RHO order is not executable until the Opening Process (rather than upon
entry), any order subject to the Contingent Open Process that is placed
on the BATS Book would receive a time stamp that reflects the time that
the order was placed on the BATS Book during the Opening Process and
not the time that the order was entered for queuing.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See proposed Rule 11.24(d).
    \30\ See Notice, supra note 3, 79 FR at 56423.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange has proposed that, in the event of a
Halt, all outstanding orders in the System \31\ will remain on the BATS
Book except where a User has designated that its orders be
cancelled.\32\ While a non-BATS-listed security is subject to a Halt,
the Exchange would accept and queue orders, prior to the resumption of
trading in the security, for participation in the Re-Opening
Process.\33\ The Re-Opening Process would occur in the same manner as
the Opening Process described above, with the following exceptions: (1)
Non-RHO orders would be eligible for participation in the re-opening,
but IOC, FOK, BATS Post Only Orders, Partial Post Only at Limit Orders,
and Minimum Quantity Orders would be cancelled or rejected, as
applicable, and any ISO that is not IOC or FOK would be converted into
a non-ISO and be queued for participation in the re-opening; and (2)
the re-opening would occur at the midpoint of: (i) The first NBBO
subsequent to the first reported trade on the listing exchange
following the resumption of trading after a Halt; or (ii) the NBBO when
the first two-sided quotation is published by the listing exchange
following the resumption of trading after a Halt if no first trade is
reported by the listing exchange within one second of publication of
the first two-sided quotation by the listing exchange.\34\ The Exchange
has proposed that, where neither of the above conditions required to
establish the price of the re-opening have occurred, the security may
be re-opened for trading at the discretion of the Exchange and orders
will be handled in the same manner as they are in the Contingent Open
Process.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ System is defined in Rule 1.5(aa).
    \32\ See proposed Rule 11.18(f).
    \33\ See proposed Rule 11.24(e).
    \34\ See proposed Rule 11.24(e)(1). The Exchange has proposed to
wait until the sooner of the first execution on the listing market
or one second following the publication of the first two-sided
quotation by the listing exchange because no continuous trading
occurs on any exchange during a Halt and, according to the Exchange,
waiting will provide time for the market to become more fully
established before determining the price at which the Re-Opening
Process will occur.
    \35\ See proposed Rule 11.24(e)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 that are applicable to a national securities
exchange.\36\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\37\ which
requires, among other things, that the rules of an exchange be 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ In approving the proposal, the Commission has considered
the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \37\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act
because it is designed to create a more orderly process for opening and
re-opening trading in non-BATS-listed securities, and to facilitate
price formation. Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed
Opening Process will create a more orderly opening for non-BATS-listed
securities and help facilitate the price formation process at the
beginning of Regular Trading Hours because allowing Users to enter
orders during the Pre-Opening Session for queuing and participation in
the Opening Process should help prevent the submission of a flood of
orders immediately following the beginning of Regular Trading
Hours.\38\ For similar reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed
Re-Opening Process will create a more orderly re-opening in non-BATS-
listed securities following a Halt and help facilitate price
formation.\39\ In addition, the Exchange

states that allowing certain RHO orders (ISOs designated RHO) and all
non-RHO orders to interact (and, in the case of non-RHO orders, to be
added to the BATS Book where there is no contra-side interest) during
the period between 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time and the occurrence of the
Opening Process will create a more orderly opening and facilitate the
price formation process because Users will have the option to enter
orders that will either participate in the Opening Process or
immediately interact with liquidity from the Pre-Opening Session,
allowing trading to continue while the Exchange is waiting for the
conditions necessary to complete the Opening Process.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See Notice, supra note 3, 79 FR at 56423-24. The Exchange
further states that, because the Opening Process price will be the
midpoint of the NBBO, the Opening Process will occur at a price that
is based on the best available pricing under current market
conditions, which also will help create a more orderly opening and
facilitate the price formation process. Id. at 56424.
    \39\ Id. at 56424.
    \40\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that certain features of the Opening
Process and Re-Opening Process are consistent with the Act. The
Exchange states that the proposed exclusion of BATS Post Only Orders,
Partial Post Only at Limit Orders, ISOs, and Minimum Quantity Orders
from participation in the Opening Process is consistent with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act because such order types do not make sense in the
context of queuing orders for the Opening Process.\41\ Moreover,
according to the Exchange, its proposal to allow an ISO marked RHO to
execute against eligible Pre-Opening Session interest during the period
between 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time and the occurrence of the Opening
Process, and then convert the unexecuted portion of the order into a
non-ISO for queuing for participation in the Opening Process, is
consistent with the requirements of Regulation NMS.\42\ According to
the Exchange, after 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time, there may be a protected
bid or offer displayed by the Exchange that a User who has submitted an
ISO designated RHO would like to execute against, and this aspect of
the proposal would permit such an execution to occur prior to the ISO
being converted into a non-ISO and queued for participation in the
Opening Process.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Id.
    \42\ Id.; see also 17 CFR 242.600.
    \43\ See Notice, supra note 3, 79 FR at 56424.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange states that the proposed Contingent
Opening Process is designed to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general to protect investors and the public interest because it will
help to ensure that the Exchange opens trading in a fair and orderly
manner by providing a means for opening trading in a non-BATS-listed
security when there is no two-sided NBBO in the security for fifteen
minutes after the beginning of Regular Trading Hours.\44\ The Exchange
believes that fifteen minutes is a reasonable amount of time to wait
for the establishment of a two-sided NBBO because it marks a point at
which the market in a security has had a sufficient amount of time to
develop while simultaneously providing a reasonable cut-off point at
which the Exchange may open the security for Regular Trading Hours
trading.\45\ The Exchange also believes that handling all orders queued
for participation in the Opening Process in time sequence after fifteen
minutes will help to ensure that trading opens in as fair and orderly a
manner as possible.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Id.
    \45\ Id.
    \46\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, the Exchange states that the proposed Opening Process will
provide Users with greater control and flexibility when entering orders
in non-BATS-listed securities by allowing them to enter orders for
participation in Regular Hours Trading during the Pre-Opening Session,
rather than permitting them to enter such orders only after Regular
Trading Hours have begun.\47\ According to the Exchange, allowing Users
that do not want to participate in the Pre-Opening Session to enter RHO
orders prior to Regular Trading Hours will simplify the order entry
process for such Users and remove impediments to a free and open
market.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Id.
    \48\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons noted above, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the Act, including Section 6(b)(5) of
the Act,\49\ which requires, among other things, that the rules of an
exchange be 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\50\ that the proposed rule change, SR-BATS-2014-037, be, and
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-26231 Filed 11-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 245 (Wednesday, December 21, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 79137-79140]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32563]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2011-1358; Airspace Docket No. 11-ANM-19]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Establishment of Area Navigation (RNAV) Routes; Seattle,
WA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish nine new RNAV routes
originating within Seattle Air Route Traffic Control Center's (ARTCC)
airspace. The routes would extend generally east-west providing
connection between the Seattle, WA, terminal area and destinations east
and southeast of Seattle and would enhance en route navigation within
the National Airspace System (NAS).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 6, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2011-
1358 and Airspace Docket No. 11-ANM-19 at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Gallant, Airspace, Regulations
and ATC Procedures Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2011-1358 and Airspace Docket No. 11-ANM-19) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to FAA Docket No. FAA-2011-1358 and Airspace Docket No. 11-ANM-19.''
The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An
informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at
the office of the Western Service Center, Operations Support Group,
Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to establish nine new high altitude RNAV
routes (Q-140, Q-142, Q-144, Q-146, Q-148, Q-150, Q-152, Q-154 and Q-
156) originating in Seattle ARTCC's airspace. The proposed routes would
connect the Seattle terminal area with destinations east and southeast
of Seattle. This action would enhance en route navigation for users,
and expand the use of RNAV within the NAS.
    High altitude RNAV routes are published in paragraph 2006 of FAA
Order 7400.9V dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15, 2011,
which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The RNAV routes
listed in this document would be subsequently published in the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
``significant rule'' under Department of Transportation (DOT)
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it modifies the route structure as required to preserve the safe and
efficient flow of air traffic.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

    1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

     Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order
7400.9V, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, Dated August 9,
2011, and effective September 15, 2011, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 2006 United States area navigation routes

* * * * *

Q-140 WOBED, WA to EEGEE, WI [New]
WOBED, WA              WP                    (Lat. 48[deg]36'01'' N., long. 122[deg]49'47'' W.)
GETNG, WA              WP                    (Lat. 48[deg]25'31'' N., long. 119[deg]31'39'' W.)
CORDU, ID              WP                    (Lat. 48[deg]10'46'' N., long. 116[deg]40'22'' W.)
PETIY, MT              WP                    (Lat. 47[deg]58'47'' N., long. 114[deg]36'20'' W.)
CHOTE, MT              INT                   (Lat. 47[deg]39'57'' N., long. 112[deg]09'38'' W.)
LEWIT, MT              WP                    (Lat. 47[deg]23'00'' N., long. 110[deg]08'45'' W.)
SAYOR, MT              INT                   (Lat. 47[deg]13'58'' N., long. 104[deg]58'39'' W.)
WILTN, ND              INT                   (Lat. 47[deg]04'58'' N., long. 100[deg]47'44'' W.)
TTAIL, ND              WP                    (Lat. 46[deg]41'28'' N., long. 96[deg]41'09'' W.)
CESNA, WI              WP                    (Lat. 45[deg]52'14'' N., long. 92[deg]10'59'' W.)
EEGEE, WI              WP                    (Lat. 45[deg]08'53'' N., long. 88[deg]45'58'' W.)

Q-142 METOW, WA to KIXCO, MT [New]
METOW, WA              WP                    (Lat. 48[deg]08'00'' N., long. 120[deg]09'00'' W.)
Mullan Pass, ID (MLP)  VOR/DME               (Lat. 47[deg]27'25'' N., long. 115[deg]38'46'' W.)
KEETA, MI              WP                    (Lat. 47[deg]20'39'' N., long. 112[deg]52'51'' W.)
OKVUJ, MT              WP                    (Lat. 47[deg]03'11'' N., long. 109[deg]35'31'' W.)
KIXCO, MT              WP                    (Lat. 46[deg]35'56'' N., long. 104[deg]35'27'' W.)

Q-144 ZIRAN, WA to LEWIT, MT [New]
ZIRAN, WA              WP                    (Lat. 47[deg]32'20'' N., long. 120[deg]25'05'' W.)
ZOOMR, WA              INT                   (Lat. 47[deg]25'32'' N., long. 118[deg]18'34'' W.)
BLOWS, MT              WP                    (Lat. 47[deg]16'10'' N., long. 115[deg]00'00'' W.)
KEETA, MT              WP                    (Lat. 47[deg]20'39'' N., long. 112[deg]52'51'' W.)
LEWIT, MT              WP                    (Lat. 47[deg]23'00'' N., long. 110[deg]08'45'' W.)

Q-146 CASHS, WA to HUFFR, MN [New]

CASHS, WA              INT                   (Lat. 47[deg]24'21'' N., long. 120[deg]27'30'' W.)
BLUNT, WA              INT                   (Lat. 47[deg]03'57'' N., long. 117[deg]39'41'' W.)
DIPHU, MT              INT                   (Lat. 46[deg]56'34'' N., long. 114[deg]41'22'' W.)
CUSDA, MT              INT                   (Lat. 46[deg]56'14'' N., long. 112[deg]01'02'' W.)
ZERZO, MT              WP                    (Lat. 46[deg]52'26'' N., long. 110[deg]05'08'' W.)
KIXCO, MT              WP                    (Lat. 46[deg]35'56'' N., long. 104[deg]35'27'' W.)
TIMMR, ND              INT                   (Lat. 46[deg]22'50'' N., long. 100[deg]54'33'' W.)
SMERF, SD              WP                    (Lat. 45[deg]55'16'' N., long. 97[deg]34'08'' W.)
HUFFR, MN              WP                    (Lat. 45[deg]08'49'' N., long. 93[deg]29'30'' W.)

Q-148 STEVS, WA to Bartlesville, OK (BVO) [New]
STEVS, WA              WP                    (Lat. 47[deg]14'54'' N., long. 120[deg]32'10'' W.)
ZAXUL, WA              INT                   (Lat. 47[deg]10'03'' N., long. 120[deg]02'42'' W.)
FINUT, WA              WP                    (Lat. 46[deg]44'56'' N., long. 117[deg]05'20'' W.)
WEDAK, MT              INT                   (Lat. 45[deg]53'18'' N., long. 114[deg]05'02'' W.)
WAIDE, MT              INT                   (Lat. 44[deg]50'49'' N., long. 111[deg]44'47'' W.)
JUGIV, WY              INT                   (Lat. 42[deg]57'44'' N., long. 108[deg]08'43'' W.)
Medicine Bow, WY       VOR/DME               (Lat. 41[deg]50'44'' N., long. 106[deg]00'15'' W.)
 (MBW)
MOCTU, WY              INT                   (Lat. 41[deg]11'54'' N., long. 104[deg]33'10'' W.)
LEWOY, CO              WP                    (Lat. 40[deg]31'51'' N., long. 103[deg]13'48'' W.)
CUGGA, KS              INT                   (Lat. 39[deg]19'04'' N., long. 100[deg]52'07'' W.)
PENUT, KS              WP                    (Lat. 38[deg]37'00'' N., long. 99[deg]38'25'' W.)
KIRKE, KS              INT                   (Lat. 38[deg]05'23'' N., long. 98[deg]24'05'' W.)
MORRR, KS              WP                    (Lat. 37[deg]31'11'' N., long. 97[deg]15'21'' W.)
Bartlesville, OK       VOR/DME               (Lat. 36[deg]50'03'' N., long. 96[deg]01'06'' W.)
 (BVO)

Q-150 STEVS, WA to OPPEE, ND [New]
STEVS, WA              WP                    (Lat. 47[deg]14'54'' N., long. 120[deg]32'10'' W.)
ZAXUL, WA              INT                   (Lat. 47[deg]10'03'' N., long. 120[deg]02'42'' W.)
LEZLE, WA              INT                   (Lat. 46[deg]08'36'' N., long. 117[deg]09'24'' W.)
BAXGO, ID              INT                   (Lat. 45[deg]02'57'' N., long. 114[deg]01'33'' W.)
LAMON, ID              INT                   (Lat. 43[deg]57'34'' N., long. 111[deg]14'58'' W.)
GANNE, WY              WP                    (Lat. 43[deg]18'37'' N., long. 109[deg]30'24'' W.)
OPPEE, WY              WP                    (Lat. 41[deg]27'33'' N., long. 106[deg]14'42'' W.)

Q-152 SUNED, WA to O'Neill, NE [New]
SUNED, WA              INT                   (Lat. 46[deg]17'42'' N., long. 119[deg]57'36'' W.)
LEZLE, WA              INT                   (Lat. 46[deg]08'36'' N., long. 117[deg]09'24'' W.)
WEDAK, MT              INT                   (Lat. 45[deg]53'18'' N., long. 114[deg]05'02'' W.)
IKFOM, WY              WP                    (Lat. 44[deg]54'59'' N., long. 108[deg]32'21'' W.)
WUVUT, WY              INT                   (Lat. 44[deg]14'40'' N., long. 105[deg]15'53'' W.)
O'Neill, NE (ONL)      VORTAC                (Lat. 42[deg]28'14'' N., long. 98[deg]41'13'' W.)

Q-154 WANTA, WA to Bowie, TX [New]
WANTA, WA              INT                   (Lat. 46[deg]28'24'' N., long. 121[deg]37'26'' W.)
JELTI, OR              INT                   (Lat. 44[deg]59'37'' N., long. 118[deg]21'12'' W.)
HOVEL, ID              INT                   (Lat. 44[deg]21'33'' N., long. 117[deg]11'31'' W.)
VELUY, ID              WP                    (Lat. 43[deg]38'24'' N., long. 115[deg]44'53'' W.)
Burley, ID (BYI)       VOR/DME               (Lat. 42[deg]34'49'' N., long. 113[deg]51'57'' W.)
PIMIE, UT              INT                   (Lat. 41[deg]49'19'' N., long. 112[deg]18'47'' W.)
NAGNE, UT              INT                   (Lat. 41[deg]10'19'' N., long. 111[deg]15'10'' W.)
BONGO, UT              INT                   (Lat. 40[deg]07'31'' N., long. 109[deg]21'23'' W.)
PITMN, CO              INT                   (Lat. 39[deg]06'03'' N., long. 107[deg]18'31'' W.)
TAYLR, CO              INT                   (Lat. 38[deg]47'36'' N., long. 106[deg]44'03'' W.)
GOSIP, CO              INT                   (Lat. 37[deg]37'15'' N., long. 104[deg]35'50'' W.)
KENTO, NM              INT                   (Lat. 36[deg]44'55'' N., long. 103[deg]04'48'' W.)
NOSEW, TX              WP                    (Lat. 35[deg]31'08'' N., long. 100[deg]59'38'' W.)
Bowie, TX (UKW)        VORTAC                (Lat. 33[deg]32'09'' N., long. 97[deg]49'17'' W.)

Q-156 STEVS, WA to ZZIPR, IA [New]
STEVS, WA              WP                    (Lat. 47[deg]14'54'' N., long. 120[deg]32'10'' W.)
ZAXUL, WA              INT                   (Lat. 47[deg]10'03'' N., long. 120[deg]02'42'' W.)
FINUT, WA              WP                    (Lat. 46[deg]44'56'' N., long. 117[deg]05'20'' W.)
TUFFY, MT              INT                   (Lat. 46[deg]42'29'' N., long. 114[deg]05'01'' W.)
UPUGE, MT              INT                   (Lat. 46[deg]38'05'' N., long. 112[deg]10'02'' W.)
HEXOL, MT              INT                   (Lat. 46[deg]36'49'' N., long. 111[deg]09'21'' W.)
TOUGH, MT              WP                    (Lat. 46[deg]13'58'' N., long. 105[deg]12'52'' W.)
JELRO, SD              INT                   (Lat. 45[deg]48'44'' N., long. 102[deg]51'47'' W.)
KEKPE, SD              WP                    (Lat. 45[deg]17'55'' N., long. 100[deg]16'49'' W.)
UFFDA, MN              WP                    (Lat. 44[deg]29'46'' N., long. 96[deg]05'25'' W.)
HSTIN, MN              WP                    (Lat. 44[deg]00'08'' N., long. 93[deg]57'40'' W.)
ZZIPR, IA              WP                    (Lat. 43[deg]11'09'' N., long. 91[deg]39'33'' W.)

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 14, 2011.
Gary A. Norek,
Acting Manager, Airspace, Regulations and ATC Procedures Group.
[FR Doc. 2011-32563 Filed 12-20-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P