[Federal Register: April 14, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 71)]
[Notices]
[Page 19458-19459]
[DOCID:fr14ap10-121]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention
Standard; Nissan

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.

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

SUMMARY: This document grants in full the Nissan North America, Inc.'s,
(Nissan) petition for exemption of the Cube vehicle line in accordance
with 49 CFR Part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard.
This petition is granted because the agency has determined that the
antitheft device to be placed on the line as standard equipment is
likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft
as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part 541).

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with
the 2011 model year.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Rosalind Proctor, Office of
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, West
Building, W43-302, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Ms. Proctor's telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Her fax number is
(202) 493-0073.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated March 2, 2010, Nissan
requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part 541) for the MY 2011 Nissan Cube
vehicle line. The petition requested an exemption from parts-marking
pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft Prevention
Standard, based on the installation of an antitheft device as standard
equipment for the entire vehicle line.
    Under Sec.  543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to grant
exemptions for one vehicle line per model year. In its petition, Nissan
provided a detailed description and diagram of the identity, design,
and location of the components of the antitheft device for the Cube
vehicle line. Nissan will install its passive transponder-based,
electronic immobilizer antitheft device as standard equipment on its
Cube vehicle line beginning with MY 2011. Major components of the
antitheft device will include a body control module (BCM), an
immobilizer antenna, security indicator light, electronic immobilizer
and an engine control module. Nissan will also install an audible and
visible alarm system on the Cube as standard equipment. Nissan stated
that activation of the immobilization device occurs when the ignition
is turned to the ``OFF'' position and all the doors are closed and
locked through the use of the key or the remote control mechanism.
Deactivation occurs when all the doors are unlocked with the key or
remote control mechanism. Nissan's submission is considered a complete
petition as required by 49 CFR 543.7, in that it meets the general
requirements contained in Sec.  543.5 and the specific content
requirements of Sec.  543.6.
    Nissan stated that the immobilizer device prevents normal operation
of the vehicle without use of a special key. Nissan further stated that
incorporation of the theft warning alarm system in the device has been
designed to protect the belongings within the vehicle and the vehicle
itself from being stolen when the back door and all of the side doors
are closed and locked. If any of the doors are unlocked through an
inside door lock knob or any attempts are made to reconnect the device
after it has been disconnected, the device will also activate the
alarm. Nissan stated that upon alarm activation, the head lamps will
flash and the horn will sound, and the alarm can only be deactivated by
unlocking the driver's side door with the key or the remote control
device.
    In addressing the specific content requirements of 543.6, Nissan
provided information on the reliability and durability of the device.
Nissan stated that its antitheft device is tested for specific
parameters to ensure its reliability and durability. Nissan provided a
detailed list of the tests conducted and believes that the device is
reliable and durable since the device complied with its specified
requirements for each test.
    Nissan provided data on the effectiveness of the antitheft device
installed on its Cube vehicle line in support of the belief that its
antitheft device will be highly effective in reducing and deterring
theft. Nissan referenced the National Insurance Crime Bureau's data
which it stated showed a 70% reduction in theft when comparing the MY
1997 Ford Mustang (with a standard immobilizer) to the MY 1995 Ford
Mustang (without an immobilizer). Nissan also referenced the Highway
Loss Data Institute's data which reported that BMW vehicles experienced
theft loss reductions resulting in a 73% decrease in relative claim
frequency and a 78% lower average loss payment per claim for vehicles
equipped with an immobilizer. Additionally, Nissan stated that theft
rates for its Pathfinder vehicle experienced reductions from model year
(MY) 2000 to 2001 with implementation of the engine immobilizer device
as standard equipment and further significant reductions subsequent to
MY 2001. Specifically, Nissan noted that the agency's theft rate data
for MY's 2001 through 2006 reported a theft rate experience for the
Nissan Pathfinder of 1.9146, 1.8011, 1.1482, 0.8102, 1.7298 and 1.3474,
respectively.
    In support of its belief that its antitheft device will be as
effective as compliance with the parts-marking requirements in reducing
and deterring vehicle theft, Nissan compared its device to other
similar devices previously granted exemptions by the agency.
Specifically, it referenced the agency's grant of a full exemption to
General Motors Corporation for the Buick Riviera, Oldsmobile Aurora (58
FR 44872, August 25, 1993) and Cadillac Seville vehicle lines (62 FR
20058, April 24, 1997) from the parts-marking requirements of the theft
prevention standard. Nissan stated that it believes that since its
device is functionally equivalent to other comparable manaufacturer's
devices that have already been granted parts-marking exemptions by the
agency such as the ``PASS-Key III'' device used on the 1997 Buick Park
Avenue, the 1998 Cadillac Seville and, the 2000 Cadillac DeVille,
Pontiac Bonneville, Buick LeSabre and Oldsmobile Aurora lines, the
reduced theft rates of the ``PASS-Key'' and `PASS-Key II'' equipped
vehicle lines and the advanced technology of transponder electronic
security, the Nissan immobilizer device has the potential to achieve
the level of

effectiveness equivalent to the ``PASS-Key III device.
    Based on the supporting evidence submitted by Nissan on the device,
the agency believes that the antitheft device for the Cube vehicle line
is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle
theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard (49 CFR 541). The agency concludes that the device
will provide the five types of performance listed in Sec.  543.6(a)(3):
promoting activation; attracting attention to the efforts of
unauthorized persons to enter or operate a vehicle by means other than
a key; preventing defeat or circumvention of the device by unauthorized
persons; preventing operation of the vehicle by unauthorized entrants;
and ensuring the reliability and durability of the device.
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.7 (b), the agency grants
a petition for exemption from the parts-marking requirements of part
541 either in whole or in part, if it determines that, based upon
substantial evidence, the standard equipment antitheft device is likely
to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as
compliance with the parts marking requirements of part 541. The agency
finds that Nissan has provided adequate reasons for its belief that the
antitheft device for the Nissan vehicle line is likely to be as
effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance
with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard
(49 CFR Part 541). This conclusion is based on the information Nissan
provided about its device.
    For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full
Nissan's petition for exemption for the Nissan Cube vehicle line from
the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR Part 541, beginning with the
2011 model year vehicles. The agency notes that 49 CFR Part 541,
Appendix A-1, identifies those lines that are exempted from the Theft
Prevention Standard for a given model year. 49 CFR Part 543.7(f)
contains publication requirements incident to the disposition of all
Part 543 petitions. Advanced listing, including the release of future
product nameplates, the beginning model year for which the petition is
granted and a general description of the antitheft device is necessary
in order to notify law enforcement agencies of new vehicle lines
exempted from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention
Standard.
    If Nissan decides not to use the exemption for this line, it must
formally notify the agency. If such a decision is made, the line must
be fully marked according to the requirements under 49 CFR Parts 541.5
and 541.6 (marking of major component parts and replacement parts).
    NHTSA notes that if Nissan wishes in the future to modify the
device on which this exemption is based, the company may have to submit
a petition to modify the exemption. Part 543.7(d) states that a Part
543 exemption applies only to vehicles that belong to a line exempted
under this part and equipped with the anti-theft device on which the
line's exemption is based. Further, Part 543.9(c)(2) provides for the
submission of petitions ``to modify an exemption to permit the use of
an antitheft device similar to but differing from the one specified in
that exemption.''
    The agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden that Part
543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers and itself.
The agency did not intend in drafting Part 543 to require the
submission of a modification petition for every change to the
components or design of an antitheft device. The significance of many
such changes could be de minimis. Therefore, NHTSA suggests that if the
manufacturer contemplates making any changes, the effects of which
might be characterized as de minimis, it should consult the agency
before preparing and submitting a petition to modify.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 33106; delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.50.

    Issued on: April 8, 2010.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2010-8451 Filed 4-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 94 (Monday, May 16, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30397-30403]
[FR Doc No: 2016-11403]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77792; File No. SR-BatsEDGA-2016-08]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc. f/k/a
EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Exchange Rule 11.21(a) To Implement the
Quoting and Trading Provisions of the Regulation NMS Plan To Implement
a Tick Size Pilot Program

May 10, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on May 2, 2016, Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc. f/k/a EDGA Exchange, Inc.
(the ``Exchange'' or ``EDGA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Exchange has designated this proposal as a ``non-
controversial'' proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of
the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder,\4\ which renders it
effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to adopt Exchange Rule 11.21(a) to
implement the quoting and trading provisions of the Regulation NMS Plan
to Implement a Tick Size Pilot Program (``Plan''). The proposed rule
change is substantially similar to a proposed rule change approved by
the Commission by the Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. f/k/a BATS Exchange, Inc.
(``BZX'') to adopt BZX Rule 11.27(a) which also implemented the quoting
and trading provisions of the Plan.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77291 (March 3,
2016), 81 FR 12543 (March 9, 2016) (order approving SR-BATS-2015-
108).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    On August 25, 2014, NYSE Group, Inc., on behalf of the Exchange,
BZX, Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., Bats BYX Exchange, Inc. f/k/a BATS
Y-Exchange, Inc., Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc. f/k/a EDGX Exchange, Inc.,
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, 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''), filed with the

Commission, pursuant to Section 11A of the Act \6\ and Rule 608 of
Regulation NMS thereunder, the Plan to implement a tick size pilot
program (``Pilot'').\7\ The Participants filed the Plan to comply with
an order issued by the Commission on June 24, 2014.\8\ The Plan \9\ was
published for comment in the Federal Register on November 7, 2014, and
approved by the Commission, as modified, on May 6, 2015.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \7\ See Letter from Brendon J. Weiss, Vice President,
Intercontinental Exchange, Inc., to Secretary, Commission, dated
August 25, 2014.
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72460 (June 24,
2014), 79 FR 36840 (June 30, 2014).
    \9\ Unless otherwise specified, capitalized terms used in this
rule filing are defined as set forth in the Plan. The Exchange also
proposes supplementary material as part of this proposed rule change
to, among other things, provide that the terms used in proposed Rule
11.21 shall have the same meaning as provided in the Plan, unless
otherwise specified.
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74892 (May 6,
2015), 80 FR 27514 (May 13, 2015) (``Approval Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Plan 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 small-
capitalization companies. Each Participant is required to comply with,
and to enforce compliance by its member organizations, as applicable,
with the provisions of the Plan. As is described more fully below, the
proposed rules would require member organizations to comply with the
applicable quoting and trading increments for Pilot Securities.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Exchange proposes to add Information and Policy .03 to
Rule 11.21 to provide that the Rule shall be in effect during a
pilot period to coincide with the pilot period for the Plan
(including any extensions to the pilot period for the Plan).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Pilot will include stocks of companies with $3 billion or less
in market capitalization, an average daily trading volume of one
million shares or less, and a volume weighted average price of at least
$2.00 for every trading day. The Pilot will consist of a control group
of approximately 1400 Pilot Securities and three test groups with 400
Pilot Securities in each selected by a stratified sampling.\12\ During
the pilot, Pilot securities in the control group will be quoted and
traded at the currently permissible increments. Pilot Securities in the
first test group (``Test Group One'') will be quoted in $0.05 minimum
increments but will continue to trade at any price increment that is
currently permitted.\13\ Pilot Securities in the second test group
(``Test Group Two'') will be quoted in $0.05 minimum increments and
will trade at $0.05 minimum increments subject to a midpoint exception,
a retail investor order exception, and a negotiated trade
exception.\14\ Pilot Securities in the third test group (``Test Group
Three'') will be subject to the same restrictions as Test Group Two and
also will be subject to the ``Trade-at'' requirement to prevent price
matching by a market participant that is not displaying at a price of a
Trading Center's \15\ ``Best Protected Bid'' or ``Best Protected
Offer,'' unless an enumerated exception applies.\16\ In addition to the
exceptions provided under Test Group Two, an exception for Block Size
orders and exceptions that mirror those under Rule 611 of Regulation
NMS \17\ will apply to the Trade-at requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Section V of the Plan for identification of Pilot
Securities, including criteria for selection and grouping.
    \13\ See Section VI(B) of the Plan.
    \14\ See Section VI(C) of the Plan.
    \15\ The Plan incorporates the definition of ``Trading Center''
from Rule 600(b)(78) of Regulation NMS. Regulation NMS defines a
Trading Center as ``a national securities exchange or national
securities association that operates an SRO trading facility, an
alternative trading system, an exchange market maker, an OTC market
maker, or any other broker or dealer that executes orders internally
by trading as principal or crossing orders as agent.''
    \16\ See Section VI(D) of the Plan.
    \17\ 17 CFR 242.611.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Compliance With the Quoting and Trading Increments of the Plan
    The Plan requires the Exchange to establish, maintain, and enforce
written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to comply
with applicable quoting and trading requirements specified in the Plan.
Accordingly, the Exchange is proposing new paragraph (a) to Rule 11.21
(Compliance with Regulation NMS Plan to Implement a Tick Size Pilot
Program) to require Members \18\ to comply with the quoting and trading
provisions of the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The term ``Member'' is defined as ``any registered broker
or dealer, or any person associated with a registered broker or
dealer, that has been admitted to membership in the Exchange. A
Member will have the status of a ``member'' of the Exchange as that
term is defined in Section 3(a)(3) of the Act.'' See Exchange Rule
1.5(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 11.21(a) (Compliance with Quoting and Trading
Restrictions) sets forth the requirements for the Exchange and Members
in meeting their obligations under the Plan. Rule 11.21(a)(1) will
require Members to establish, maintain and enforce written policies and
procedures that are reasonably designed to comply with the applicable
quoting and trading requirements of the Plan. Rule 11.21(a)(2) provides
that the Exchange Systems \19\ will not display, quote or trade in
violation of the applicable quoting and trading requirements for a
Pilot Security specified in the Plan and this Rule, unless such
quotation or transaction is specifically exempted under the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The term ``System'' is defined as ``the electronic
communications and trading facility designated by the Board through
which securities orders of Users are consolidated for ranking,
execution and, when applicable, routing away.'' See Exchange Rule
1.5(aa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 11.21(a)(3) clarifies the treatment of Pilot
Securities that drop below $1.00 during the Pilot Period. In
particular, Rule 11.21(a)(3) provides that, if the price of a Pilot
Security drops below $1.00 during regular trading hours on any trading
day, such Pilot Security will continue to be a Pilot Security subject
to the Plan. However, if the Closing Price of a Pilot Security on any
given trading day is below $1.00, such Pilot Security will be moved out
of its Pilot Test Group into the Control Group, and may then be quoted
and traded at any price increment that is currently permitted for the
remainder of the Pilot Period.\20\ Rule 11.21(a)(3) also provides that,
notwithstanding anything contained within these rules to the contrary,
Pilot Securities (whether in the Control Group or any Pilot Test Group)
will continue to be subject to the data collection requirements of the
Plan at all times during the Pilot Period and for the six-month period
following the end of the Pilot Period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The NYSE, on behalf of the Plan Participants, submitted a
letter to Commission requesting exemption from certain provisions of
the Plan related to quoting and trading. See letter from Elizabeth
K. King, NYSE, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated
October 14, 2015 (``October Exemption Request''). FINRA, also on
behalf of the Plan Participants, submitted a separate letter to
Commission requesting additional exemptions from certain provisions
of the Plan related to quoting and trading. 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, granted BZX a
limited exemption from the requirement to comply with certain
provisions of the Plan as specified in the letter and noted herein.
See letter from David Shillman, Associate Director, Division of
Trading and Markets, Commission to Eric Swanson, General Counsel,
BZX, dated March 3, 2016 (``Exemption Letter''). The Exchange is
seeking the same exemptions as requested in the October Exemption
Request and the February Exemption Request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In approving the Plan, the Commission noted that the Participants
had proposed additional selection criteria to minimize the likelihood
that securities that trade with a share price of $1.00 or less would be
included in the Pilot, and stated that, once established, the universe
of Pilot Securities should stay as consistent as possible so that the
analysis and data can be accurate throughout the Pilot

Period.\21\ The Exchange notes that a Pilot Security that drops below
$1.00 during regular trading hours will remain in its applicable Test
Group; a Pilot Security will only be moved to the Control Group if its
Closing Price on any given trading day is below $1.00. The Exchange
believes that this provision is appropriate because it will help ensure
that Pilot Securities in Test Groups One, Two and Three continue to
reflect the Pilot's selection criteria, helping ensure the accuracy of
the resulting data. The Exchange also believes that this provision is
appropriate because it responds to comments that the Plan address the
treatment of securities that trade below $1.00 during the Pilot
Period.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Approval Order, supra note 10, 80 FR at 27535.
    \22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 11.21(a)(4) sets forth the applicable limitations for
securities in Test Group One. Consistent with the language of the Plan,
Rule 11.21(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, orders priced to execute
at the midpoint of the national best bid and national best offer
(``NBBO'') or best protected bid and best protected offer (``PBBO'')
\23\ and orders entered in a Participant-operated retail liquidity
program may be ranked and accepted in increments of less than $0.05.
Pilot Securities in Test Group One may continue to trade at any price
increment that is currently permitted by applicable Participant, SEC
and Exchange rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Regulation NMS defines a protected bid or protected offer
as a quotation in an NMS stock that (1) is displayed by an automated
trading center; (2) is disseminated pursuant to an effective
national market system plan; and (3) is an automated quotation that
is the best bid or best offer of a national securities exchange, the
best bid or best offer of The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc., or the best
bid or best offer of a national securities association other than
the best bid or best offer of The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. See 17
CFR 242.600(57). In the Approval Order, the Commission noted that
the protected quotation standard encompasses the aggregate of the
most aggressively priced displayed liquidity on all Trading Centers,
whereas the NBBO standard is limited to the single best order in the
market. See Approval Order, supra note 10, 80 FR at 27539.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 11.21(a)(5) sets forth the applicable quoting and
trading requirements for securities in Test Group Two. This provision
states 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, 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 Rule 11.21(a)(5) also sets forth the applicable trading
restrictions for Test Group Two securities. Absent any of the
exceptions listed in the Rule, no Member may execute orders in any
Pilot Security in Test Group Two in price increments other than $0.05.
The $0.05 trading increment will apply to all trades, including
Brokered Cross Trades.
    Consistent with the language of the Plan, the Rule provides that
Pilot Securities in Test Group Two may trade in increments of less than
$0.05 under the following circumstances: (1) Trading may occur at the
midpoint between the NBBO or the PBBO; (2) Retail Investor Orders may
be provided with price improvement that is at least $0.005 better than
the PBBO; and (3) Negotiated Trades may trade in increments of less
than $0.05.
    The Exchange also proposes to add an exception to Rule 11.21(a)(5)
to permit Members to fill a customer order in a Pilot Security in Test
Group Two at a non-nickel increment to comply with Exchange Rule 12.6
(Prohibition Against Trading Ahead of Customer Orders) under limited
circumstances. Specifically, the exception would allow the execution of
a customer order following a proprietary trade by the Member at an
increment other 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 Exchange Rule 12.6, where the triggering
proprietary trade was permissible pursuant to an exception under the
Plan.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The Commission granted BZX an exemption from Rule 608(c)
related to this provision. See February Exemption Request and
Exemption Letter, supra note 20. The Exchange is seeking the same
exemptions as requested in the October Exemption Request and the
February Exemption Request. Supra note 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, the Exchange is proposing to add a customer order protection
exception to Rule 11.21(a)(5) that would permit Members to trade Pilot
Securities in Test Group Two in increments less than $0.05, and where
the Member is executing a customer order to comply with Exchange 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. The Exchange believes that
this approach 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.
    Proposed Rule 11.21(a)(6) sets forth the applicable quoting and
trading restrictions for Pilot Securities in Test Group Three. The rule
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. However, 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. The rule also states that, absent any of
the applicable exceptions, no Member that operates a Trading Center may
execute orders in any Pilot Security in Test Group Three in price
increments other than $0.05. The $0.05 trading increment will apply to
all trades, including Brokered Cross Trades.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ A brokered cross trade is 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 Section
I(G) of the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 11.21(a)(6)(C) sets forth the exceptions pursuant to
which Pilot Securities in Test Group Three may trade in increments of
less than $0.05. First, trading may occur at the midpoint between the
NBBO or PBBO. Second, Retail Investor Orders may be provided with price
improvement that is at least $0.005 better than the PBBO. Third,
Negotiated Trades may trade in increments of less than $0.05.
    Similar to that proposed under Rule 11.21(a)(5) described above,
the Exchange also proposes to add an exception to Rule 11.21(a)(6) to
permit Members to fill a customer order in a Pilot Security in Test
Group Three at a non-nickel increment to comply with Exchange Rule 12.6
(Prohibition Against Trading Ahead of Customer Orders) under limited
circumstances. Specifically, the exception would allow the execution of
a customer order following a proprietary trade by the Member at an
increment other 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 Exchange Rule 12.6, where the triggering
proprietary trade was permissible pursuant to an exception under the
Plan.\26\ Thus, the Exchange is proposing

to add a customer order protection exception to Rule 11.21(a)(6) that
would permit Members to trade Pilot Securities in Test Group Three in
increments less than $0.05, and where the Member is executing a
customer order to comply with Exchange 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\ See supra note 22. The Exchange is seeking the same
exemptions as requested in the October Exemption Request and the
February Exemption Request. Supra note 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 11.21(a)(6)(D) sets forth the ``Trade-at
Prohibition,'' which is the prohibition against executions by a Member
that operates a Trading Center of a sell order for a Pilot Security in
Test Group Three at the price of a Protected Bid or the execution of a
buy order for a Pilot Security in Test Group Three at the price of a
Protected Offer during regular trading hours, absent any of the
exceptions set forth in Rule 11.21(a)(6)(D). Consistent with the Plan,
the rule reiterates that a Member that operates a Trading Center that
is displaying a quotation, via either a processor or an SRO quotation
feed, that is a 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 that is the same price as a Protected Quotation,
via either a processor or an SRO quotation feed, is prohibited from
price-matching protected quotations unless an exception applies.
    Consistent with the Plan, proposed Rule 11.21(a)(6)(D) also sets
forth the exceptions to the Trade-at prohibition, pursuant to which a
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. The first exception to the Trade-at
Prohibition is the ``display exception,'' which allows a trade to occur
at the price of the Protected Quotation, up to the Trading Center's
full displayed size, if the order ``is executed by a trading center
that is displaying a quotation.'' \27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Section VI(D)(1) of the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Rule 11.21(a)(6)(D), the Exchange proposes that a Member that
utilizes the independent aggregation unit concept may satisfy the
display exception only if the same independent aggregation unit that
displays interest via either a processor or an SRO Quotation Feed also
executes an order in reliance upon this exception. The rule provides
that ``independent aggregation unit'' has the same meaning as provided
under Rule 200(f) of SEC Regulation SHO.\28\ This provision also
recognizes that not all members may utilize the independent aggregation
unit concept as part of their regulatory structure, and still permits
such members to utilize the display exception if all the other
requirements of that exception are met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 17 CFR 242.200. Treatment as an independent aggregation
unit is available if traders in an aggregation unit pursue only the
particular trading objective(s) or strategy(ies) of that aggregation
unit and do not coordinate that strategy with any other aggregation
unit. Therefore, one independent aggregation unit within a Trading
Center cannot execute trades pursuant to the display exception in
reliance on quotations displayed by a different independent
aggregation unit. As an example, an agency desk of a Trading Center
cannot rely on the quotation of a proprietary desk in a separate
independent aggregation unit at that same Trading Center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As initially proposed by the Participants, the Plan contained an
additional condition to the display exception, which would have
required that, where the quotation is displayed through a national
securities exchange, the execution at the size of the order must occur
against the displayed size on that national securities exchange; and
where the quotation is displayed through the Alternative Display
Facility or another facility approved by the Commission that does not
provide execution functionality, the execution at the size of the order
must occur against the displayed size in accordance with the rules of
the Alternative Display Facility of such approved facility (``venue
limitation'').\29\ Some commenters stated that this provision was anti-
competitive, as it would have forced off-exchange Trading Centers to
route orders to the venue on which the order was displayed.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73511 (November 3,
2014), 79 FR 66423, 66437 (November 7, 2014).
    \30\ See Approval Order, supra note 10, 80 FR at 27540.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In approving the Plan, the Commission modified the Trade-At
Prohibition to remove the venue limitation.\31\ The Commission noted
that the venue limitation was not prescribed in its Order mandating the
filing of the Plan.\32\ The Commission also noted that the venue
limitation would have unnecessarily restricted the ability of off-
exchange market participants to execute orders in Test Group Three
Securities, and that removing the venue limitation should mitigate
concerns about the cost and complexity of the Pilot by reducing the
need for off-exchange Trading Centers to route to the exchange.\33\ The
Commission also stated that the venue limitation did not create any
additional incentives to display liquidity in furtherance of the
purposes of the Trade-At Prohibition, because the requirement that a
Trading Center could only trade at a protected quotation up to its
displayed size should be sufficient to incentivize displayed
liquidity.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Id.
    \32\ Id.
    \33\ Id.
    \34\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with Plan and the SEC's determination to remove the
venue limitation, the Exchange is making clear that the display
exception applies to trades done by a Trading Center otherwise than on
an exchange where the Trading Center has previously displayed a
quotation in either an agency or a principal capacity. As part of the
display exception, the Exchange also proposes that a Trading Center
that is displaying a quotation as agent or riskless principal may only
execute as agent or riskless principal, while a Trading Center
displaying a quotation as principal (excluding riskless principal) may
execute either as principal or agent or riskless principal. The
Exchange believes this is consistent with the Plan and the objective of
the Trade-at Prohibition, which is to promote the display of liquidity
and generally to prevent any Trading Center that is not quoting from
price-matching Protected Quotations. Providing that a Trading Center
may not execute on a proprietary basis in reliance on a quotation
representing customer interest (whether agency or riskless principal)
ensures that the Trading Center cannot avoid compliance with the Trade-
at Prohibition by trading on a proprietary basis in reliance on a
quotation that does not represent such Trading Center's own interest.
Where a Trading Center is displaying a quotation at the same price as a
Protected Quotation in a proprietary capacity, transactions in any
capacity at the price and up to the size of such Trading Center's
displayed quotation would be permissible. Transactions executed
pursuant to the display exception may occur on the venue on which such
quotation is displayed or over the counter.
    The proposal also excepts Block Size orders \35\ and permits
Trading Centers to trade at the price of a Protected Quotation,
provided that the order is of Block Size 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.\36\

The Plan only provides that Block Size orders shall be exempted from
the Trade-At Prohibition. In requiring that the order be of Block Size
at the time of origin and not an aggregation of non-block orders, or
broken into orders smaller than Block Size prior to submitting the
order to a Trading Center for execution; or executed on multiple
Trading Centers, the Exchange believes that it is providing clarity as
to the circumstances under which a Block Size order will be excepted
from the Trade-At Prohibition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ ``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.
    \36\ Once a Block Size order or portion of such Block Size order
is routed from one Trading Center to another Trading Center in
compliance with Rule 611 of Regulation NMS, the Block Size order
would lose the proposed Trade-at exemption, unless the Block Size
remaining after the first route and execution meets the Block Size
definition under the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the Plan, the proposal also excepts an order that
is a Retail Investor Order that is executed with at least $0.005 price
improvement.
    The exceptions set forth in proposed Rule 11.21(a)(6)(D)(ii) d.
through n. are based on the exceptions found in Rule 611 of Regulation
NMS.\37\ The subparagraph d. exception applies when 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. The subparagraph e. exception
applies to an order that is executed as part of a transaction that was
not a ``regular way'' contract. The subparagraph f. exception applies
to an order that is executed as part of a single-priced opening,
reopening, or closing transaction by the Trading Center. The
subparagraph g. exception applies to an order that is executed when a
Protected Bid was priced higher than a Protected Offer in a Pilot
Security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See 17 CFR 242.611.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The subparagraph h. exception applies when the order is identified
as a Trade-at Intermarket Sweep Order. The subparagraph i. exception
applies when the order is executed by a Trading Center that
simultaneously routed Trade-at Intermarket Sweep Orders to execute
against the full displayed size of a Protected Quotation with a price
that is better than or equal to the limit price of the limit order
identified as a Trade-at Intermarket Sweep Order. Depending on whether
Rule 611 or the Trade-at requirement applies, 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 (Rule 611), or it could mean that the sender of the ISO has
swept protected quotations at the same price that it wishes to execute
at (in addition to any better-priced quotations), so the recipient of
that ISO may trade at the price of the protected quotation (Trade-at).
Given that the meaning of an ISO may differ under Rule 611 and Trade-
at, the Exchange proposes Rule 11.21(a)(6)(D)(ii)(h) so that the
recipient of an ISO in a Test Group Three security would know, upon
receipt of that ISO, that the Trading Center that sent the ISO had
already executed against the full size of displayed quotations at that
price, e.g., the recipient of that ISO could permissibly trade at the
price of the protected quotation.
    The Exchange proposes to further clarify the use of an ISO in
connection with the Trade-at requirement by adopting, as part of
proposed Rule 11.21(a)(7), a definition of ``Trade-at Intermarket Sweep
Order.'' As set forth in the Plan and as noted above, the definition of
a Trade-at ISO does not distinguish ISOs that are compliant with Rule
611 from ISOs that are compliant with Trade-at. The Exchange therefore
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 Intermarket Sweep
Order; (2) simultaneously with the routing of the limit order
identified as a Trade-at Intermarket Sweep Order, 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 better than or equal to the limit price of the limit order
identified as a Trade-at Intermarket Sweep Order. These additional
routed orders also must be marked as Trade-at Intermarket Sweep Orders.
The Exchange believes that this proposed change will further clarify to
recipients of ISOs in Group Three securities whether the ISO satisfies
the requirements of Rule 611 or Trade-at.
    The exception under subparagraph j. of proposed Rule
11.21(a)(6)(D)(ii) applies when the order is executed as part of a
Negotiated Trade. The subparagraph k. exception applies when 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.
    The exception proposed in subparagraph l. applies to a ``stopped
order.'' The stopped order exemption in Rule 611 of SEC Regulation NMS
applies where ``[t]he price of the trade-through transaction was, for a
stopped buy order, lower than the national best bid in the NMS stock at
the time of execution or, for a stopped sell order, higher than the
national best offer in the NMS stock at the time of execution.'' \38\
The Trade-at stopped order exception applies where ``the price of the
Trade-at transaction was, for a stopped buy order, equal to the
national best bid in the Pilot Security at the time of execution or,
for a stopped sell order, equal to the national best offer in the Pilot
Security at the time of execution.'' \39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See 17 CFR 242.611(b)(9).
    \39\ See Plan, Section VI(D)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To illustrate the application of the stopped order exemption as it
currently operates under Rule 611 of SEC Regulation NMS and as it is
currently proposed for Trade-at, assume the NBB is $10.00 and another
protected quote is at $9.95. Under Rule 611 of SEC Regulation NMS, a
stopped order to buy can be filled at $9.95 and the firm does not have
to send an ISO to access the protected quote at $10.00 since the price
of the stopped order must be lower than the NBB. For the stopped order
to also be executed at $9.95 and satisfy the Trade-at requirements, the
Trade-at exception would have to be revised to allow an order to
execute at the price of a protected quote which, in this case, could be
$9.95.
    Based on the fact that a stopped order would be treated differently
under the Regulation NMS Rule 611 exception than under the proposed
Trade-at exception, the Exchange believes that it is appropriate to
amend the Trade-at stopped order exception to ensure that the
application of this exception will produce a consistent result under
both Regulation NMS and the Plan. The Exchange therefore proposes to
amend the stopped order exception to allow a transaction to satisfy the
Trade-at requirement if the stopped order price, for a stopped buy
order, is equal to or less than the NBB, and for a stopped sell order,
is equal to or greater than the NBO, as long as such order is priced at
an acceptable increment.
    Proposed subparagraph l. to Rule 11.21(a)(6)(D)(ii) would define a
``stopped order'' as an order that is 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.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ The Commission granted BZX an exemption from Rule 608(c)
related to this provision. See Exemption Letter, supra note 20. The
Exchange is seeking the same exemptions as requested in the October
Exemption Request and the February Exemption Request. Supra note 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The subparagraph m. exception applies where the order is for a
fractional share of a Pilot Security, provided that such fractional
share order was not the result of breaking an order 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 Trade-at
Prohibition or any other provisions of the Plan.
    The subparagraph n. exception applies to bona fide errors
transactions. Following the adoption of Rule 611 and its exceptions,
the Commission issued exemptive relief that created exceptions from
Rule 611 for certain error correction transactions.\41\ The Exchange
has determined that it is appropriate to incorporate the error
correction exception to the Trade-at prohibition, as this exception is
equally applicable in the Trade-at context. Accordingly, the Exchange
is proposing to exempt certain transactions to correct bona fide errors
in the execution of customer orders from the Trade-at prohibition,
subject to the conditions set forth by the SEC's order exempting these
transactions from Rule 611 of SEC Regulation NMS.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55884 (June 8,
2007), 72 FR 32926 (June 14, 2007).
    \42\ The Commission granted BZX an exemption from Rule 608(c)
related to this provision. See February Exemption Request and
Exemption Letter, supra note 20. The Exchange is seeking the same
exemptions as requested in the October Exemption Request and the
February Exemption Request. Supra note 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As with the corresponding exception under Rule 611 of SEC
Regulation NMS, the Exchange proposes to define a ``bona fide error''
as: (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. 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. To
avail itself of the exemption, 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 exemption. Finally, the Trading Center
must regularly surveil to ascertain the effectiveness of its policies
and procedures to address errors and transactions to correct errors and
take prompt action to remedy deficiencies in such policies and
procedures.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55884 (June 8,
2007), 72 FR 32926 (June 14, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the Plan, the final exception to the Trade-At
Prohibition and its accompanying supplementary material applies to an
order that is for a fractional share of a Pilot Security. The
supplementary material provides that such fractional share orders may
not be the result of breaking an order for one or more whole shares of
a Pilot Security into orders for fractional shares or that otherwise
were effected to evade the requirements of the Trade-at Prohibition or
any other provisions of the Plan. In approving the Plan, the Commission
noted that this exception was appropriate, as there could be potential
difficulty in the routing and executing of fractional shares.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See Approval Order, supra note 10, 80 FR at 27541.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change will become operative upon the
commencement of the Pilot Period.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \45\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \46\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \46\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that this proposal is consistent with the Act
because it implements, interprets, and clarifies the provisions of the
Plan, and is designed to assist the Exchange and Members in meeting
regulatory obligations pursuant to the Plan. In approving the Plan, the
SEC noted that the Pilot was an appropriate, data-driven test that was
designed to evaluate the impact of a wider tick size on trading,
liquidity, and the market quality of securities of smaller
capitalization companies, and was therefore in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. To the extent that this proposal implements,
interprets, and clarifies the Plan and applies specific requirements to
Members, the Exchange believes that this proposal is in furtherance of
the objectives of the Plan, as identified by the SEC, and is therefore
consistent with the Act.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange
notes that the proposed rule change implements the provisions of the
Plan, and is designed to assist the Exchange in meeting its regulatory
obligations pursuant to the Plan. The Exchange also notes that the
quoting and trading requirements of the Plan will apply equally to all
Members that trade Pilot Securities.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (A)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (B) impose any significant burden on competition; and (C) by
its terms, become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was
filed or such shorter time as the Commission may designate it has
become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the

Act \47\ and paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\48\ the
Exchange has designated this rule filing as non-controversial. The
Exchange has given the Commission written notice of its intent to file
the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of
the proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the date
of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as
designated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \48\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (1)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (2) for the protection
of investors; or (3) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the
Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be
approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BatsEDGA-2016-08 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-BatsEDGA-2016-08. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BatsEDGA-2016-08, and should
be submitted on or before June 6, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-11403 Filed 5-13-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 121 (Tuesday, June 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35841-35842]
[FR Doc No: 2014-14702]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Twenty-Sixth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 224, Airport
Security Access Control Systems

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Meeting Notice of RTCA Special Committee 224, Airport Security
Access Control Systems.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the
twenty-sixth meeting of the RTCA Special Committee 224, Airport
Security Access Control Systems.

DATES: The meeting will be held on July 24th, 2014 from 10:00 a.m.-
12:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1150 18th Street
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-
9339, fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is
hereby given for a meeting of Special Committee 224. The agenda will
include the following:

July 24th, 2014

     Welcome/Introductions/Administrative Remarks.

     Report from the TSA.
     Report from Chairman on PMC review of new Terms of
Reference for SC-224
     Individual document section reports.
     Action items for next meeting.
     Time and place of next meeting.
     Any Other Business.
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 18, 2014.
Mohannad Dawoud,
Management Analyst, NextGen, Business Operations Group, Federal
Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2014-14702 Filed 6-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: July 22, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 141)]
[Notices]
[Page 42650-42651]
[DOCID:fr22jy08-105]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Executive Committee of the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory; Meeting
Cancellation

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of meeting cancellation.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public the July
23, 2008, meeting of the Executive Committee of the Aviation Rulemaking
Advisory Committee (73 FR 36952, June 30, 2008) has been cancelled. The
meeting will be rescheduled in a subsequent Federal Register notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gerri Robinson, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 17, 2008.
Pamela Hamilton-Powell,
Executive Director, Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee.
 [FR Doc. E8-16715 Filed 7-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P