[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 9, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37257-37271]
[FR Doc No: 2017-16742]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81310; File No. SR-NYSE-2017-36]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change for Trading UTP Securities on
Pillar, the Exchange's New Trading Technology Platform, Including
Orders and Modifiers, Order Ranking and Display, and Order Execution
and Routing

August 3, 2017
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on July 28, 2017, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C.78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes rules for trading UTP Securities on Pillar,
the Exchange's new trading technology platform, including rules
governing orders and modifiers, order ranking and display, and order
execution and routing. The proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    On January 29, 2015, the Exchange announced the implementation of
Pillar, which is an integrated trading technology platform designed to
use a single specification for connecting to the equities and options
markets operated by the Exchange and its affiliates, NYSE Arca, Inc.
(``NYSE Arca'') and NYSE MKT LLC (``NYSE MKT'').\4\ NYSE Arca Equities,
Inc. (``NYSE Arca Equities [sic]),\5\ which operates the cash equities
trading platform for NYSE Arca, was the first trading system to migrate
to Pillar.\6\

NYSE MKT's equities market will transition to Pillar in the third
quarter of 2017 and as part of this transition, will be renamed NYSE
American LLC (``NYSE American'').\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Trader Update dated January 29, 2015, available here:
www.nyse.com/pillar.
    \5\ NYSE Arca Equities is a wholly-owned corporation of NYSE
Arca and operates as a facility of NYSE Arca. NYSE Arca has filed a
proposed rule change to merge NYSE Arca Equities with and into NYSE
Arca. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80929 (June 14, 2017),
82 FR 28157 (June 20, 2017) (Notice) (``NYSE Arca Merger Filing'').
As part of the NYSE Arca Merger Filing, NYSE Arca has proposed that
the NYSE Arca Equities rules will be integrated in the NYSE Arca
rule book using the same rule number, but with an additional suffix
of ``-E'' added to a rule. For example, ``NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7
(Equities Trading)'' will become ``NYSE Arca Rule 7-E (Equities
Trading),'' and ``NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31'' will become ``NYSE
Arca Rule 7.31-E.'' Accordingly, if the NYSE Arca Merger Filing is
approved, all references in this proposed rule change to an NYSE
Arca Equities rule should be deemed to be a reference to an NYSE
Arca rule with the same number and added ``-E'' suffix.
    \6\ In connection with the NYSE Arca implementation of Pillar,
NYSE Arca filed four rule proposals relating to Pillar. See
Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 74951 (May 13, 2015), 80 FR
28721 (May 19, 2015) (Notice) and 75494 (July 20, 2015), 80 FR 44170
(July 24, 2015) (SR-NYSEArca-2015-38) (Approval Order of NYSE Arca
Pillar I Filing, adopting rules for Trading Sessions, Order Ranking
and Display, and Order Execution); Securities Exchange Act Release
Nos. 75497 (July 21, 2015), 80 FR 45022 (July 28, 2015) (Notice) and
76267 (October 26, 2015), 80 FR 66951 (October 30, 2015) (SR-
NYSEArca-2015-56) (Approval Order of NYSE Arca Pillar II Filing,
adopting rules for Orders and Modifiers and the Retail Liquidity
Program); Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 75467 (July 16,
2015), 80 FR 43515 (July 22, 2015) (Notice) and 76198 (October 20,
2015), 80 FR 65274 (October 26, 2015) (SR-NYSEArca-2015-58)
(Approval Order of NYSE Arca Pillar III Filing, adopting rules for
Trading Halts, Short Sales, Limit Up-Limit Down, and Odd Lots and
Mixed Lots); and Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 76085 (October
6, 2015), 80 FR 61513 (October 13, 2015) (Notice) and 76869 (January
11, 2016), 81 FR 2276 (January 15, 2016) (Approval Order of NYSE
Arca Pillar IV Filing, adopting rules for Auctions).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 80283 (March 21,
2017), 82 FR 15244 (March 27, 2017) (SR-NYSEMKT-201714 [sic])
(Notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of proposed rule
change to change the name of NYSE MKT to NYSE American) and 80748
(May 23, 2017), 82 FR 24764, 24765 (SR-NYSEMKT-2017-20) (Notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness of proposed rule change to change
the name of NYSE MKT to NYSE American) (``NYSE American Filings'').
In connection with the NYSE American implementation of Pillar, NYSE
MKT filed several rule changes. See Securities Exchange Act Release
Nos. 79242 (November 4, 2016), 81 FR 79081 (November 10, 2016) (SR-
NYSEMKT-2016-97) (Notice and Filing of Immediate Effectiveness of
Proposed Rule Change of framework rules); 81038 (June 28, 2017), 82
FR 31118 (July 5, 2017) (SR-NYSEMKT-2016-103) (Approval Order) (the
``ETP Listing Rules Filing''); 80590 (May 4, 2017), 82 FR 21843 (May
10, 2017) (Approval Order) (NYSE MKT rules governing automated
trading); 80577 (May 2, 2017), 82 FR 21446 (May 8, 2017) (SR-
NYSEMKT-2017-04) (Approval Order) (NYSE MKT rules governing market
makers); 80700 (May 16, 2017), 82 FR 23381 (May 22, 2017) (SR-
NYSEMKT-2017-05) (Approval Order) (NYSE MKT rules governing delay
mechanism).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overview
    Currently, the Exchange only trades securities listed on the
Exchange. With Pillar, the Exchange proposes to introduce trading of
UTP Securities.\8\ Consistent with the Exchange's current allocation
model for its listed securities, trading in UTP Securities would be
subject to a parity allocation model. Unlike the trading of listed
securities on the Exchange, when trading UTP Securities on Pillar, the
Exchange would not offer Floor-based point-of-sale trading, Designated
Market Makers (``DMMs'') would not be assigned to UTP Securities, and
the Exchange would not conduct any auctions in UTP Securities.\9\ As
with listed securities, member organizations approved as Supplemental
Liquidity Providers would be eligible to be assigned UTP
Securities.\10\ In addition, member organizations that operate Floor
broker operations that are physically located on the Floor \11\ would
be eligible to trade UTP Securities.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The term ``UTP Security'' means a security that is listed on
a national securities exchange other than the Exchange and that
trades on the Exchange pursuant to unlisted trading privileges. See
Rule 1.1(ii). The Exchange has authority to extend unlisted trading
privileges to any security that is an NMS Stock that is listed on
another national securities exchange or with respect to which
unlisted trading privileges may otherwise be extended in accordance
with Section 12(f) of the Act. See Rule 5.1(a)(1).
    \9\ The Exchange will continue to trade NYSE-listed securities
on its current trading platform without any changes. The Exchange
will transition trading in NYSE-listed securities to Pillar at a
separate date, which will be the subject of separate proposed rule
changes.
    \10\ See Rule 107B, which the Exchange is proposing to amend,
see infra.
    \11\ The term ``Floor'' means the trading Floor of the Exchange
and the premises immediately adjacent thereto, such as the various
entrances and lobbies of the 11 Wall Street, 18 New Street, 8 Broad
Street, 12 Broad Street and 18 Broad Street Buildings, and also
means the telephone facilities available in these locations. See
Rule 6. The term ``Trading Floor'' means the restricted-access
physical areas designated by the Exchange for the trading of
securities, commonly known as the ``Main Room'' and the ``Buttonwood
Room,'' but does not include (i) the areas in the ``Buttonwood
Room'' designated by the Exchange where NYSE Amex-listed options are
traded, which, for the purposes of the Exchange's Rules, shall be
referred to as the ``NYSE Amex Options Trading Floor'' or (ii) the
physical area within fully enclosed telephone booths located in 18
Broad Street at the Southeast wall of the Trading Floor. See Rule
6A.
    \12\ Member organizations trading UTP Securities would continue
to be required to comply with Section 11(a)(1) of the Act, 15 U.S.C.
78k(a)(1), and any applicable exceptions thereto as are currently
applicable to trading on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Trading in UTP Securities would be subject to the Pillar Platform
Rules, as set forth in Rules 1P-13P.\13\ With this proposed rule
change, the Exchange proposes changes to Rule 7P Equities Trading that
would govern trading in UTP Securities. The proposed rules are based in
part on the rules of NYSE Arca Equities and NYSE American,\14\ with the
following substantive differences:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 76803 (December
30, 2015), 81 FR 536 (January 6, 2016) (SR-NYSE-2015-67) (Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change)
(``Framework Filing''); and 80214 (March 10, 2017), 82 FR 14050
(March 16, 2017) (SR-NYSE-2016-44) (Approval Order) (``ETP Listing
Rules Filing''). See also SR-NYSE-2017-35.
    \14\ In the NYSE American Filings, supra note 7, NYSE MKT
represented that the name change to NYSE American would become
operative upon the effectiveness of an amendment to NYSE MKT's
Certificate of Formation, which is expected to be no later than July
31, 2017. Because the NYSE American name would be operative before
this proposed rule change would be approved, the Exchange believes
it would promote transparency and reduce confusion to refer to NYSE
MKT rules as ``NYSE American'' rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Consistent with the Exchange's current allocation model,
trading in UTP Securities on the Exchange would be a parity allocation
model with a setter priority allocation for the participant that sets
the BBO.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The term ``BBO'' means the best bid or offer on the
Exchange. See Rule 1.1(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The Exchange would not offer a Retail Liquidity Program
and related order types (Retail Orders and Retail Price Improvement
Orders) for UTP Securities.
     The Exchange would not conduct auctions in UTP Securities.
     The Exchange would offer two trading sessions, with the
Early Trading Session beginning at 7:00 a.m. Eastern Time.
     The Exchange is not proposing to offer the full suite of
order instructions and modifiers that are available on NYSE Arca
Equities and NYSE American.
    Subject to rule approvals, the Exchange will announce the
implementation of trading UTP Securities on the Pillar trading system
by Trader Update, which the Exchange anticipates will be in the fourth
quarter of 2017.
    Once trading in UTP Securities on the Pillar trading platform
begins, specified current Exchange trading rules would not be
applicable for trading UTP Securities. As described in more detail
below, for each current rule that would not be applicable for trading
on the Pillar trading platform, the Exchange proposes to state in a
preamble to such rule that ``this rule is not applicable to trading UTP
Securities on the Pillar trading platform.'' Current Exchange rules
governing equities trading that do not have this preamble will govern
Exchange operations on Pillar.
Proposed Rule Changes
    As noted above, the Exchange proposes rules that would be
applicable to trading UTP Securities on Pillar that are based on the
rules of NYSE Arca Equities and NYSE American. As a global matter, the
Exchange proposes non-substantive differences as compared to the NYSE
Arca Equities rules to use the terms ``Exchange'' instead of the terms
``NYSE Arca Marketplace,'' ``NYSE Arca,'' or ``Corporation,'' and to
use the terms ``mean'' or ``have meaning'' instead of the terms ``shall
mean'' or ``shall have the meaning.'' In addition, the Exchange will
use the term ``member organization,'' which is defined in Rule 2,
instead of the terms ``ETP Holder'' or ``User.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Because these non-substantive differences would be applied
throughout the proposed rules, the Exchange will not note these
differences separately for each proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As previously established in the Framework Filing, Section 1 of
Rule 7P sets forth the General Provisions relating to trading on the
Pillar trading platform and Section 3 of Rule 7P sets forth Exchange
Trading on the Pillar trading platform. In this filing, the Exchange
proposes new Rules 7.10, 7.11, and 7.16

and to amend Rule 7.18 for Section 1 of Rule 7P and new Rules 7.31,
7.34, 7.36, 7.37, and 7.38 for Section 3 of Rule 7P. In addition, the
Exchange proposes new Section 5 of Rule 7P to establish rules for the
Plan to Implement a Tick Size Pilot Program, and proposes new Rule 7.46
in that section.
    Below, the Exchange first describes proposed Rules 7.36 and 7.37,
as these rules would establish the Exchange's Pillar rules governing
order ranking and display and order execution and routing. Next, the
Exchange describes proposed Rule 7.31, which would establish the orders
and modifiers available for trading UTP Securities on Pillar. Finally,
the Exchange describes proposed Rules 7.10, 7.11, 7.16, 7.34, 7.38, and
7.46 and amendments to Rule 7.18.
Proposed Rule 7.36
    Proposed Rule 7.36 (Order Ranking and Display) would establish how
orders in UTP Securities would be ranked and displayed on the Pillar
trading platform. As described above, the Exchange proposes to retain
its current allocation model for trading UTP Securities on Pillar,
including the concept of ``setter interest,'' which the Exchange would
define in proposed Rule 7.36 as ``Setter Priority.'' Except for the
addition of Setter Priority, the Exchange proposes to use Pillar
functionality for determining how orders would be ranked and displayed.
Accordingly, proposed Rule 7.36 is based in part on NYSE Arca Equities
Rule 7.36 and NYSE American Rule 7.36E, with substantive differences as
described below.
Proposed Rule 7.36(a)-(g)
    Proposed Rules 7.36(a)-(g) would establish rules defining terms
that would be used in Rule 7P--Equities Trading and describing display
and ranking of orders on the Exchange, including ranking based on
price, priority category, and time. The proposed rule text is based on
NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.36(a)-(g) and NYSE American Rule 7.36E(a)-(g)
with the following substantive differences:
     Proposed Rule 7.36(a)(5) would add a definition of the
term ``Participant,'' which is based on how the term ``individual
participant'' is defined in current Rule 72(c)(ii), with non-
substantive differences. The Exchange proposes that the term
``Participant'' would mean for purposes of parity allocation, a Floor
broker trading license (each, a ``Floor Broker Participant'') or orders
collectively represented in the Exchange Book that have not been
entered by a Floor Broker (``Book Participant''). The Exchange proposes
to use the term ``Floor broker trading license'' rather than ``each
single Floor broker'' because pursuant to Rule 300 a trading license is
required to effect transactions on the Floor of the Exchange or any
facility thereof and a member organization designates natural persons
to effect transactions on the Floor on its behalf. Accordingly,
reference to a ``Floor broker trading license'' makes clear that the
Floor broker participant is at the trading license level, rather than
at the member organization level. The Exchange also proposes to use the
term ``Exchange Book,'' which is a defined term, rather than referring
more generally to ``Exchange systems.''
     Proposed Rule 7.36(a)(6) would add the definition of
``Aggressing Order'' to mean a buy (sell) order that is or becomes
marketable against sell (buy) interest on the Exchange Book. This
proposed term would be used in proposed Rule 7.37, described below.
     Because all displayed Limit Orders would be displayed on
an anonymous basis, the Exchange does not propose to include text based
on the first clause of NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.36(b)(2) in proposed
Rule 7.36(b)(2).
     Proposed Rule 7.36(c) regarding ranking would not include
reference to price-time priority, as the Exchange's allocation model
would not always be a price-time priority allocation, as described
below. As further described below, the Exchange would rank orders
consistent with proposed Rule 7.36(c).
     Proposed Rule 7.36(e) would establish three priority
categories: Priority 1--Market Orders, Priority 2--Display Orders, and
Priority 3--Non-Display Orders. The Exchange would not offer any
additional priority categories for trading of UTP Securities.
    In addition to these substantive differences, the Exchange proposes
a non-substantive clarifying difference for proposed Rule 7.36(f)(1)(B)
to add ``[o]ther than as provided for in Rule 7.38(b)(2),'' to make
clear that the way in which a working time is assigned to an order that
is partially routed to an Away Market and returns to the Exchange is
addressed in both proposed Rule 7.36(f)(1)(B) and proposed Rule
7.38(b)(2). The Exchange also proposes non-substantive differences to
proposed Rule 7.36(f)(2) and (3) to streamline the rule text.
Proposed Rule 7.36(h)--Setter Priority
    Proposed Rule 7.36(h) would establish how Setter Priority would be
assigned to an order and is based in part on current Rules 72(a) and
(b). Rule 72(a)(ii) provides that when a bid or offer, including
pegging interest is established as the only displayable bid or offer
made at a particular price and such bid or offer is the only
displayable interest when such price is or becomes the Exchange BBO
(the ``setting interest''), such setting interest is entitled to
priority for allocation of executions at that price as described in
Rule 72. The rule further provides that:
     Odd-lot orders, including aggregated odd-lot orders that
are displayable, are not eligible to be setting interest. (Rule
72(a)(ii)(A))
     If, at the time displayable interest of a round lot or
greater becomes the Exchange BBO, there is other displayable interest
of a round lot or greater, including aggregated odd-lot orders that are
equal to or greater than a round lot, at the price that becomes the
Exchange BBO, no interest is considered to be a setting interest, and,
therefore, there is no priority established. (Rule 72(a)(ii)(B))
     If, at the time displayable interest of a round lot or
greater becomes the Exchange BBO, there is other displayable interest
the sum of which is less than a round lot, at the price that becomes
the Exchange BBO, the displayable interest of a round lot or greater
will be considered the only displayable bid or offer at that price
point and is therefore established as the setting interest entitled to
priority for allocation of executions at that price as described in
this rule. (Rule 72(a)(ii)(C))
     If executions decrement the setting interest to an odd-lot
size, a round lot or partial round lot order that joins such remaining
odd-lot size order is not eligible to be the setting interest. (Rule
72(a)(ii)(D))
     If, as a result of cancellation, interest is or becomes
the single displayable interest of a round lot or greater at the
Exchange BBO, it becomes the setting interest. (Rule 72(a)(ii)(E))
     Only the portion of setting interest that is or has been
published in the Exchange BBO is entitled to priority allocation of an
execution. That portion of setting interest that is designated as
reserve interest and therefore not displayed at the Exchange BBO (or
not displayable if it becomes the Exchange BBO) is not eligible for
priority allocation of an execution irrespective of the price of such
reserve interest or the time it is accepted into Exchange systems.
However, if, following an execution of part or all of setting interest,
such setting interest is replenished from any reserve interest, the
replenished volume of such setting interest shall be entitled to
priority if the setting interest is still the only

interest at the Exchange BBO. (Rule 72(a)(ii)(F))
     If interest becomes the Exchange BBO, it will be
considered the setting interest even if pegging interest, Limit Orders
designated ALO, or sell short orders during a Short Sale Period under
Rule 440B(e) are re-priced and displayed at the same price as such
interest, and it will retain its priority even if subsequently joined
at that price by re-priced interest. (Rule 72(a)(ii)(G))
    Rule 72(b)(i) provides that once priority is established by setting
interest, such setting interest retains that priority for any execution
at that price when that price is at the Exchange BBO and if executions
decrement the setting interest to an odd-lot size, such remaining
portion of the setting interest retains its priority for any execution
at that price when that price is the Exchange BBO. Rule 72(b)(ii)
further provides that for any execution of setting interest that occurs
when the price of the setting interest is not the Exchange BBO, the
setting interest does not have priority and is executed on parity.
Finally, Rule 73(b)(ii) provides that priority of setting interest will
not be retained after the close of trading on the Exchange or following
the resumption of trading in a security after a trading halt in such
security has been invoked pursuant to Rule 123D or following the
resumption of trading after a trading halt invoked pursuant to the
provisions of Rule 80B. In addition, priority of the setting interest
is not retained on any portion of the priority interest that is routed
to an away market and is returned unexecuted unless such priority
interest is greater than a round lot and the only other interest at the
price point is odd-lot orders, the sum of which is less than a round
lot.
    Proposed Rule 7.36(h) would use Pillar terminology to establish
``Setter Priority,'' which would function similarly to setting interest
under Rule 72. The Exchange proposes the following substantive
differences to how Setter Priority would be assigned and retained on
Pillar:
     To be eligible for Setter Priority, an order would have to
establish not only the BBO, but also either join an Away Market NBBO or
establish the NBBO. The Exchange believes that requiring an order to
either join or establish an NBBO before it is eligible for Setter
Priority would encourage the display of aggressive liquidity on the
Exchange.
     A resting order would not be eligible to be assigned
Setter Priority simply because it is the only interest at that price
when it becomes the BBO (either because of a cancellation of other
interest at that price or because a resting order that is priced worse
than the BBO becomes the BBO). The Exchange believes that the benefit
of Setter Priority should be for orders that are aggressively seeking
to improve the BBO, rather than for passive orders that become the BBO.
     The replenished portion of a Reserve Order would not be
eligible for Setter Priority. The Exchange believes that Setter
Priority should be assigned to interest willing to be displayed, and
because the reserve interest would not be displayed on arrival, it
would not be eligible for Setter Priority.
     Orders that are routed and returned unexecuted would be
eligible for Setter Priority consistent with the proposed rules
regarding the working time assigned to the returned quantity of an
order. As described in greater detail below, if such orders meet the
requirements to be eligible for Setter Priority, e.g., establish the
BBO and either join or establish the NBBO, they would be evaluated for
Setter Priority.
    Proposed Rule 7.36(h) would provide that Setter Priority would be
assigned to an order ranked Priority 2--Display Orders with a display
quantity of at least a round lot if such order (i) establishes a new
BBO and (ii) either establishes a new NBBO or joins an Away Market
NBBO. The rule would further provide that only one order is eligible
for Setter Priority at each price. This proposed rule text is based in
part on Rule 72(a)(ii), 72(a)(ii)(A), 72(a)(ii)(B), 72(a)(ii)(C),
subject to the substantive differences described above.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Because of the proposed substantive differences, the
Exchange is not proposing rules based on current Rules 72(a)(ii)(D)
and (E). In addition, when an order is considered displayed on
Pillar would be addressed in proposed Rule 7.36(b)(1). Accordingly,
the Exchange is not proposing rule text based on Rule 72(a)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 7.36(h)(1) would set forth when an order would be
evaluated for Setter Priority. As noted above, the Exchange proposes a
substantive difference from current Rule 72(a)(ii) in that a resting
order would not be eligible to be assigned Setter Priority simply
because it is the only interest at that price when it becomes the BBO.
     Proposed Rule 7.36(h)(1)(A) would provide that an order
would be evaluated for Setter Priority on arrival, which would include
when any portion of an order that has routed returns unexecuted and is
added to the Exchange Book. Pursuant to proposed Rule 7.37(a)(1),
described below, an order that is routed on arrival to an Away Market
would not be assigned a working time. Proposed Rule 7.36(f) provides
that an order would not be assigned a working time until it is placed
on the Exchange Book. As such, an order that has returned after routing
would be processed similarly to a newly arriving order. Therefore, the
Exchange believes that an order should be evaluated for Setter Priority
when it returns from an Away Market unexecuted in the same way as
evaluating an order for Setter Priority on arrival.
    When evaluating Setter Priority for an order that has returned from
an Away Market unexecuted, the Exchange would assess whether such order
meets the requirements of proposed Rule 7.36(h), which is based in part
on the second sentence of Rule 72(b)(iii). The Exchange proposes that
for Pillar, an order that was routed to an Away Market and returned
unexecuted would be evaluated for Setter Priority based on how a
working time would be assigned to the returned quantity of the routed
order, as described in proposed Rules 7.16(f)(5)(H), 7.36(f)(1)(A) and
(B), and 7.38(b)(2).
    [cir] Proposed Rule 7.16(f)(5)(H) provides that if a Short Sale
Price Test, as defined in that rule, is triggered after an order has
routed, any returned quantity of the order and the order it joins on
the Exchange Book would be adjusted to a Permitted Price.\18\ In such
case, the returned quantity and the resting quantity that would be re-
priced to a Permitted Price would be a single order and the Exchange
would evaluate such order for Setter Priority. If such order would set
a new BO and either join or establish a new NBO, it would be assigned
Setter Priority. For example, if the Exchange receives a sell short
order of 200 shares ranked Priority 2--Display Orders, routes 100
shares (``A'') of such order and adds 100 shares (``B'') of such order
to the Exchange Book, ``B'' would be displayed at the price of the sell
short order. If an Away Market NBB locks the price of ``B'' and then a
Short Sale Price Test is triggered, ``B'' would remain displayed at the
price of the NBB.\19\ If subsequently, ``A'' returns unexecuted,
pursuant to proposed Rule 7.16(f)(5)(H), ``A'' and ``B'' would be
considered a single order and would be re-priced to a Permitted Price,
at which point the order would be evaluated for Setter Priority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Pursuant to proposed Rule 7.16(f)(5)(A), described below,
during a Short Sale Period, as defined in that rule, short sale
orders with a working price and/or a display price equal to or lower
than the NBB will have the working price and/or display price
adjusted one minimum price increment above the current NBB, which is
the ``Permitted Price.''
    \19\ See proposed Rule 7.16(f)(6).

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

    [cir] Proposed Rule 7.36(f)(1)(A) provides that an order that is
fully routed to an Away Market would not be assigned a working time
unless and until any unexecuted portion of the order returns to the
Exchange Book. As proposed, if the Exchange routes an entire order and
a portion returns unexecuted, the Exchange would evaluate the returned
quantity for Setter Priority as if it were a newly arriving order. For
example, if less than a round lot returns unexecuted, the returned
quantity would not be eligible for Setter Priority. If at least a round
lot returns unexecuted, establishes a new BBO, and either joins or
establishes the NBBO, it would be eligible for Setter Priority.
    [cir] Proposed Rule 7.36(f)(1)(B) provides that (except as provided
for in proposed Rule 7.38(b)(2)), if an order is partially routed to an
Away Market on arrival, the portion that is not routed would be
assigned a working time and any portion of the order returning
unexecuted would be assigned the same working time as any remaining
portion of the original order resting on the Exchange Book and would be
considered the same order as the resting order. In such case, if the
resting portion of the order has Setter Priority, the returned portion
would also have Setter Priority. For example, if the Exchange receives
a 200 share order ranked Priority 2--Display Orders, routes 100 shares
(``C'') of such order and adds 100 shares (``D'') of such order to the
Exchange Book, which establishes the BBO and joined the NBBO, ``D''
would be assigned Setter Priority. If ``D'' is partially executed and
decremented to 50 shares and another order ``E'' for 100 shares joins
``D'' at its price, pursuant to proposed Rules 7.36(h)(2)(A) and (B),
described below, ``D'' would retain Setter Priority. If ``C'' returns
unexecuted, it would join the working time of ``D'' pursuant to
proposed Rule 7.36(f)(1)(B), ``C'' and ``D'' would be considered a
single order, and ``C'' would therefore also receive Setter Priority.
    [cir] Proposed Rule 7.38(b)(2) provides that for an order that is
partially routed to an Away Market on arrival, if any returned quantity
of such order joins resting odd-lot quantity of the original order and
the returned and resting quantity, either alone or together with other
odd-lot orders, would be displayed as a new BBO, both the returned and
resting quantity would be assigned a new working time. In such case,
the returned quantity and the resting odd-lot quantity together would
be a single order and would be evaluated for Setter Priority.
    For example, if the Exchange receives an order for 100 shares,
routes 50 shares (``E'') of such order and the remaining 50 shares
(``F'') of such order are added to the Exchange Book, pursuant to
proposed Rule 7.36(f)(1)(B), ``F'' would be assigned a working time
when it is added to the Exchange Book. If ``E'' returns unexecuted, and
``E'' and ``F'' together would establish a new BBO at that price,
pursuant to proposed Rule 7.38(b)(2), ``F'' would be assigned a new
working time to join the working time of ``E,'' and ``E'' and ``F''
would be considered a single order. If the returned quantity together
with the resting quantity establishes the BBO pursuant to proposed Rule
7.38(b)(2), the order would be eligible to be evaluated for Setter
Priority.
     Proposed Rule 7.36(h)(1)(B) would provide that an order
would be evaluated for Setter Priority when it becomes eligible to
trade for the first time upon transitioning to a new trading session.
When an order becomes eligible to trade upon a trading session
transition, it is treated as if it were a newly arriving order.
Accordingly, the Exchange believes it would be consistent with its
proposal to evaluate arriving orders for Setter Priority to also
evaluate orders that become eligible to trade upon a trading session
transition for Setter Priority. For example, pursuant to proposed Rule
7.34(c)(1), described below, the Exchange would accept Primary Pegged
Orders during the Early Trading Session, however, such orders would not
be eligible to trade until the Core Trading Session begins. In such
case, a Primary Pegged Order would be evaluated for Setter Priority
when it becomes eligible to trade in the Core Trading Session.
    Proposed Rule 7.36(h)(2) would establish when an order retains its
Setter Priority, as follows:
     If it is decremented to any size because it has either
traded or been partially cancelled (proposed Rule 7.36(h)(2)(A)). This
proposed rule is based on Rule 72(b)(i), with non-substantive
differences to use Pillar terminology.
     if it is joined at that price by a resting order that is
re-priced and assigned a display price equal to the display price of
the order with Setter Priority (proposed Rule 7.36(h)(2)(B)). This
proposed rule is based on Rule 72(a)(ii)(G), with non-substantive
differences to use Pillar terminology.
     if the BBO or NBBO changes (proposed Rule 7.36(h)(2)(C)).
This proposed rule, together with proposed Rule 7.37(b)(1)(B),
described below, is based on Rule 72(b)(ii), with non-substantive
differences to use Pillar terminology. Specifically, once an order has
been assigned Setter Priority, it has that status so long as it is on
the Exchange Book, subject to proposed Rule 7.36(h)(3), described
below, regardless of the BBO or NBBO. However, as described in proposed
Rule 7.37(b)(1)(B), it would only be eligible for a Setter Priority
allocation if it is executed when it is the BBO.
     if the order marking changes from (A) sell to sell short,
(B) sell to sell short exempt, (C) sell short to sell, (D) sell short
to sell short exempt, (E) sell short exempt to sell, and (F) sell short
exempt to sell short (proposed Rule 7.36(h)(2)(D)). This proposed rule
text is consistent with proposed Rule 7.36(f)(4) because if an order
retains its working time, the Exchange believes it should also retain
its Setter Priority status.
     when transitioning from one trading session to another
(proposed Rule 7.36(h)(2)(E)). This text would be new because, with
Pillar, the Exchange would be introducing an Early Trading Session. The
Exchange believes that if an order entered during the Early Trading
Session is assigned Setter Priority, it should retain that status in
the Core Trading Session.
    Proposed Rule 7.36(h)(3) would establish when an order would lose
Setter Priority, as follows:
     If trading in the security is halted, suspended, or paused
(proposed Rule 7.36(h)(3)(A)). This proposed rule is based on the first
sentence of current Rule 72(b)(iii), with non-substantive differences
to use Pillar terminology. In addition, because all orders expire at
the end of the trading day, the Exchange believes that the current rule
text providing that setting interest would not be retained after the
close of trading on the Exchange would not be necessary for Pillar.
     if such order is assigned a new display price (proposed
Rule 7.36(h)(3)(B)). The Exchange believes that if an order has Setter
Priority at a price, and then is assigned a new display price, it
should not retain the Setter Priority status that was associated with
its original display price.
     if such order is less than a round lot and is assigned a
new working time pursuant to proposed Rule 7.38(b)(2). As discussed
above, pursuant to proposed Rule 7.38(b)(2) the resting odd-lot portion
of an order would be assigned a new working time if the returned
quantity of that order, together with the resting portion, would
establish a new BBO. In such case, if the resting quantity had Setter
Priority status, it would lose that status, and would be re-evaluated
for Setter Priority at its new working time.

    For example, if the Exchange receives an order for 200 shares
ranked Priority 2--Display Orders, routes 100 shares (``G'') of such
order, and the remaining 100 shares (``H'') of such order are added to
the Exchange Book and assigned Setter Priority, ``H'' would retain
Setter Priority even if it is partially executed and the remaining
portion of ``H'' is less than a round lot. If ``G'' returns unexecuted
and ``G'' and ``H'' together would establish a new BBO at that price,
pursuant to proposed Rule 7.38(b)(2), ``H'' would be assigned a new
working time to join the working time of ``G,'' and ``G'' and ``H''
would be considered a single order. When ``H'' is assigned a new
working time, it would lose its Setter Priority status. Even though
``G'' and ``H'' would establish the BBO, if that order does not also
join or establish an NBBO, it would not be assigned Setter Priority. In
this scenario, ``H'' would have lost its Setter Priority. The Exchange
believes it is appropriate to re-evaluate such order for Setter
Priority because it is being assigned a new working time together with
the returned quantity of the order.
    Proposed Rule 7.36(h)(4) would establish when Setter Priority is
not available, as follows:
     For any portion of an order that is ranked Priority 3--
Non-Display Orders (proposed Rule 7.36(h)(4)(A)). This proposed rule
text is based on the second sentence of Rule 72(a)(ii)(F), with non-
substantive differences to use Pillar terminology.
     when the reserve quantity replenishes the display quantity
of a Reserve Order (proposed Rule 7.36(h)(4)(B)). This proposed rule
text would be new and would be a substantive difference, described
above, as compared to the third sentence of Rule 72(a)(ii)(F).
    Because proposed Rule 7.36 would address the display and working
time of orders and Setter Priority, the Exchange proposes that Rules
72(a), (b), and (c)(xii) would not be applicable to trading UTP
Securities on the Pillar trading platform.
Proposed Rule 7.37
    Proposed Rule 7.37 (Order Execution and Routing) would establish
rules governing order execution and routing on the Pillar trading
platform. As described above, the Exchange proposes to retain its
parity allocation model, which the Exchange would set forth in proposed
Rule 7.37(b). Except for the addition of parity allocation, the
Exchange proposes to use Pillar functionality for determining how
orders would be executed and routed. Accordingly, the proposed rule is
based in part on NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.37 and NYSE American Rule
7.37E, with substantive differences as described below.
Proposed Rules 7.37(a), (c)-(g)
    Proposed Rules 7.37(a) and paragraphs (c)-(d) would establish rules
regarding order execution, routing, use of data feeds, locking or
crossing quotations in NMS Stocks, and exceptions to the Order
Protection Rule. The proposed rule text is based on NYSE Arca Equities
Rule 7.37(a)-(f) and NYSE American Rule 7.37E(a)-(f) with the following
substantive differences: \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Because proposed Rule 7.37(b) would establish parity
allocation, proposed Rule 7.37(c)-(g) would be based on NYSE Arca
Rules 7.37(b)-(f) and NYSE American Rules 7.37E(b)-(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Proposed Rule 7.37(a) would use the proposed new term
``Aggressing Order'' rather than the term ``incoming marketable order''
to refer to orders that would be matched for execution. In addition,
because the Exchange would not use a price-time priority allocation for
all orders, the Exchange proposes to specify that orders would be
matched for execution as provided for in proposed Rule 7.37(b).
     As discussed below, the Exchange would not offer all order
types that are available on NYSE Arca Equities and NYSE American.
Accordingly, proposed Rule 7.37(a)(4) would not include a reference to
Inside Limit Orders.
     Similar to NYSE American, because the Exchange would not
be taking in data feeds from broker-dealers or routing to Away Markets
that are not displaying protected quotations, the Exchange proposes
that proposed Rule 7.37 would not include rule text from paragraph
(b)(3) of NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.37, which specifies that an ETP
Holder can opt out of routing to Away Markets that are not displaying a
protected quotation, i.e., broker dealers, or paragraph (d)(1) of NYSE
Arca Equities Rule 7.37, which specifies that NYSE Arca Equities
receives data feeds directly from broker dealers.
     As discussed in greater detail below, because the Exchange
would not offer all orders available on NYSE Arca Equities and NYSE
American, including orders based on NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31(f)
that are orders with specific routing instructions, the Exchange
proposes that proposed Rules 7.37(c)(5) and (c)(7)(B) would not include
reference to orders that are designated to route to the primary listing
market. Similarly, the Exchange would not include rule text based on
NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.37(b)(7)(C) and NYSE American Rule
7.37E(b)(7)(C).
Proposed Rule 7.37(b)--Allocation
    Proposed Rule 7.37(b) would set forth how an Aggressing Order would
be allocated against contra-side orders and is based in part on current
Rule 72(c). The Exchange proposes to use Pillar terminology to describe
allocations and proposes the following substantive differences to how
allocations are processed under Rule 72(c):
     Mid-point Liquidity Orders (``MPL'') with a Minimum Trade
Size (``MTS''), which are not currently available on the Exchange,
would be allocated based on MTS size (smallest to largest) and time.
     The Exchange would maintain separate allocation wheels on
each side of the market for displayed and non-displayed orders at each
price. Currently, the Exchange maintains a single allocation wheel for
each security.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Rule 72(c)(viii)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     An allocation to a Floor Broker Participant would be
allocated to orders represented by that Floor Broker on parity.
     If resting orders on one side of the Exchange Book are
repriced such that they become marketable against orders on the other
side of the Exchange Book, they would trade as Aggressing Orders based
on their ranking pursuant to proposed Rule 7.36(c).
     If resting orders on both side of the Exchange Book are
repriced such that they become marketable against each other, e.g., a
crossed PBBO becomes uncrossed and orders priced based on the PBBO are
repriced, the Exchange would determine which order is the Aggressing
Order based on its ranking pursuant to Rule 7.36(c).
     Because there would not be any DMMs assigned to UTP
Securities, the proposed rule would not reference DMM allocations.
    Proposed Rule 7.37(b)(1) would set forth that at each price, an
Aggressing Order would be allocated against contra-side orders as
follows:
     Proposed Rule 7.37(b)(1)(A) would provide that orders
ranked Priority 1--Market Orders would trade first based on time. This
proposed rule is based on the first sentence of Rule 72(c)(i) with non-
substantive differences to use Pillar terminology.
     Proposed Rule 7.37(b)(1)(B) would provide that next, an
order with Setter Priority that has a display price and working price
equal to the BBO would receive 15% of the remaining quantity of the
Aggressing Order, rounded up to the next round lot size or the
remaining displayed quantity of the order with

Setter Priority, whichever is lower. The rule would further provide
that an order with Setter Priority is eligible for allocation under
proposed Rule 7.37(b)(1)(B) if the BBO is no longer the same as the
NBBO. This proposed rule text is based on Rules 72(b)(ii) and
72(c)(iii) with non-substantive differences to use Pillar terminology.
Although the Exchange is using different rule text, the quantity of an
Aggressing Order that would be allocated to an order with Setter
Priority would be the same under both current rules and the proposed
Pillar rule.
     Proposed Rule 7.37(b)(1)(C) would provide that next,
orders ranked Priority 2--Displayed Orders would be allocated on parity
by Participant and that any remaining quantity of an order with Setter
Priority would be eligible to participate in this parity allocation,
consistent with the allocation wheel position of the Participant that
entered the order with Setter Priority. This proposed rule text is
based on Rules 72(c)(i), (iv), (vi), and (ix) with non-substantive
differences to use Pillar terminology.
     Proposed Rule 7.37(b)(1)(D) would provide that next,
orders ranked Priority 3--Non-Display Orders, other than MPL Orders
with an MTS, would be allocated on parity by Participant. This proposed
rule text is based on Rules 72(c)(i), (iv), (vi), and (ix) with non-
substantive differences to use Pillar terminology and a substantive
difference not to include MPL Orders with an MTS in the parity
allocation of resting non-displayed orders.
     Proposed Rule 7.37(b)(1)(E) would provide that MPL Orders
with an MTS would be allocated based on MTS size (smallest to largest)
and time. Because MPL Orders with an MTS would be a new offering on the
Exchange, this proposed rule text is new. With an MTS instruction, an
[sic] member organization is instructing the Exchange that it does not
want an execution of its order if the MTS cannot be met. Accordingly,
an MPL Order with an MTS is willing to be skipped if such instruction
cannot be met. The Exchange proposes to separate MPL Orders with an MTS
from the parity allocation of Priority 3--Non-Display Orders because
with a parity allocation, an MTS instruction would not be guaranteed.
In order to honor the MTS instruction of the resting MPL Order, the
Exchange proposes to allocate these orders after all other Priority 3--
Non-Display Orders have been allocated on parity. The Exchange believes
that this proposed allocation priority would be consistent with the MTS
instruction in that such orders are willing to be skipped in order to
have the MTS met.
    Proposed Rule 7.37(b)(2) would establish the allocation wheel for
parity allocations. The proposed rule would be new for Pillar and would
establish that at each price on each side of the market, the Exchange
would maintain an ``allocation wheel'' of Participants with orders
ranked Priority 2--Display Orders and a separate allocation wheel of
Participants with orders ranked Priority 3--Non-Display Orders. The
rule further describes how the position of an order on an allocation
wheel would be determined, as follows:
     Proposed Rule 7.37(b)(2)(A) would provide that the
Participant that enters the first order in a priority category at a
price would establish the first position on the applicable allocation
wheel for that price. The rule would further provide that if an
allocation wheel no longer has any orders at a price, the next
Participant to enter an order at that price would establish a new
allocation wheel. This proposed rule is based in part on the first
sentence of Rule 72(c)(viii)(A), with both non-substantive differences
to use Pillar terminology and substantive differences because the
Exchange would maintain separate allocation wheels at each price point,
rather than a single allocation wheel for a security. Accordingly, an
allocation wheel at a price point could be re-established throughout
the trading day.
     Proposed Rule 7.37(b)(2)(B) would provide that additional
Participants would be added to an allocation wheel based on time of
entry of the first order entered by a Participant. This proposed rule
is based in part on the second sentence of Rule 72(c)(viii)(A) with
non-substantive differences to use Pillar terminology.
     Proposed Rule 7.37(b)(2)(C) would provide that once a
Participant has established a position on an allocation wheel at a
price, any additional orders from that Participant at the same price
would join that position on an allocation wheel. This proposed rule
uses Pillar terminology to describe current functionality.
     Proposed Rule 7.37(b)(2)(D) would provide that if an order
receives a new working time or is cancelled and replaced at the same
working price, a Participant that entered such order would be moved to
the last position on an allocation wheel if that Participant has no
other orders at that price. This proposed rule is based in part on the
last sentence of Rule 72(c)(viii)(A) with non-substantive differences
to use Pillar terminology.
     Proposed Rule 7.37(b)(2)(E) would provide that a
Participant would be removed from an allocation wheel if (i) all orders
from that Participant at that price are executed or cancelled in full,
(ii) the working price of an order changes and that Participant has no
other orders at that price, or (iii) the priority category of the order
changes and that Participant has no other orders at that price. This
proposed rule would be new functionality associated with the
substantive difference of having separate allocation wheels at each
price point.
     Proposed Rule 7.37(b)(2)(F) would provide that if multiple
orders are assigned new working prices at the same time, the
Participants representing those orders would be added to an allocation
wheel at the new working price in time sequence relative to one
another. This proposed rule would be new functionality associated with
the substantive difference of having separate allocation wheels at each
price point.
    Proposed Rule 7.37(b)(3) would set forth the parity pointer
associated with the allocation wheel. As proposed, if there is more
than one Participant on an allocation wheel, the Exchange would
maintain a ``pointer'' that would identify which Participant would be
next to be evaluated for a parity allocation and that the Participant
with the pointer would be considered the first position. This proposed
rule is based in part on the Parity Example 1 described in Rule
72(c)(viii)(A) and Rule 72(c)(viii)(B), with non-substantive
differences to use Pillar terminology. The rule would further provide
that the Setter Priority allocation described in proposed Rule
7.37(b)(1)(B) would not move the pointer, which is based on the second
sentence of Rule 72(c)(iv) with non-substantive differences to use
Pillar terminology.
    Proposed Rule 7.37(b)(4) would set forth how an Aggressing Order
would be allocated on parity. As proposed, an Aggressing Order would be
allocated by round lots. The Participant with the pointer would be
allocated a round lot and then the pointer would advance to the next
Participant. The pointer would continue to advance on an allocation
wheel until the Aggressing Order is fully allocated or all Participants
in that priority category are exhausted. This proposed rule is based on
Rule 72(c)(viii), sub-paragraphs (A)-(C) of that Rule, and Parity
Examples 1 through 4, with non-substantive differences to use Pillar
terminology. Rather than include examples in the proposed rule, the
Exchange believes that the Pillar terminology streamlines the
description of parity allocations in

a manner that obviates the need for examples, as follows:
     Proposed Rule 7.37(b)(4)(A) would provide that not all
Participants on an allocation wheel would be guaranteed to receive an
allocation. The size of an allocation to a Participant would be based
on which Participant had the pointer at the beginning of the
allocation, the size of the Aggressing Order, the number of
Participants in the allocation, and the size of the orders entered by
Participants. The Exchange believes that this proposed rule makes clear
that while the parity allocation seeks to evenly allocate an Aggressing
Order, an even allocation may not be feasible and would be dependent on
multiple variables.
    For example, if there are three Participants on an allocation
wheel, ``A,'' ``B,'' and ``C,'' each representing 200 shares and ``A''
has the pointer, an Aggressing Order of 450 shares would be allocated
as follows: ``A'' would be allocated 100 shares, ``B'' would be
allocated 100 shares, ``C'' would be allocated 100 shares, ``A'' would
be allocated 100 shares, and ``B'' would be allocated 50 shares. In
this example, an uneven allocation would result because the Aggressing
Order cannot be evenly divided by round lots among the Participants and
the allocation sizes would be dependent on which Participant has the
pointer at the beginning of the allocation. Accordingly, ``A'' would be
allocated a total of 200 shares, ``B'' would be allocated a total of
150 shares, and ``C'' would be allocated a total of 100 shares.
     Proposed Rule 7.37(b)(4)(B) would provide that if the last
Participant to receive an allocation is allocated an odd lot, the
pointer would stay with that Participant. The Exchange proposes that
the pointer would advance only after a round-lot allocation. If the
last allocation is an odd-lot, the pointer would stay with that
Participant. For example, continuing with the example above where ``B''
received an allocation of 150 shares because the last allocation was 50
shares, the pointer would remain with ``B'' for the next allocation at
that price. By contrast, if the last Participant receives a round-lot
allocation of an Aggressing Order, the pointer would advance to the
next Participant for the next allocation at that price.
     Proposed Rule 7.37(b)(4)(C) would provide that if the
Aggressing Order is an odd lot, the Participant with the pointer would
be allocated the full quantity of the order, unless that Participant
does not have an order that could satisfy the Aggressing Order in full,
in which case, the pointer would move to the next Participant on an
allocation wheel. This proposed rule uses Pillar terminology to
describe how an odd-lot sized Aggressing Order would be allocated.
     Proposed Rule 7.37(b)(4)(D) would provide that a
Participant that has an order or orders equaling less than a round lot
would be eligible for a parity allocation up to the size of the
order(s) represented by that Participant. This proposed rule is based
in part on Rule 72(c)(viii)(B) with non-substantive differences to use
Pillar terminology.
    Proposed Rule 7.37(b)(5) would provide that an allocation to the
Book Participant would be allocated to orders that comprise the Book
Participant by working time. This proposed rule is based on the second
sentence of Rule 72(c)(ii) with non-substantive differences to use
Pillar terminology.
    Proposed Rule 7.37(b)(6) would provide that an allocation to a
Floor Broker Participant, which would be defined as a ``Floor Broker
Allocation,'' would be allocated to orders with unique working times
that comprise the Floor Broker Participant, which would be defined as
``Floor Broker Orders,'' on parity. The proposed reference to ``unique
working times'' would refer to orders that have multiple working times.
For example, pursuant to proposed Rule 7.31(d)(1)(B), each time a
Reserve Order is replenished from reserve interest, a new working time
would be assigned to the replenished quantity of the Reserve Order,
while the reserve interest would retain the working time of original
order entry. As a result, the display quantity of a Reserve Order may
be represented by multiple orders with unique working times
representing each replenishment. For purposes of the Floor Broker
Allocation, each quantity with a unique working time would be
considered a separate order.
    As further proposed, the parity allocation within a Floor Broker
Allocation would be processed as described in proposed Rule 7.37(b)(2)-
(4) with the Floor Broker Allocation processed as the ``Aggressing
Order'' and each Floor Broker Order processed as a ``Participant.''
Because a Floor Broker Participant may represent multiple orders, the
Exchange believes that allocating the Floor Broker Allocation on parity
would be consistent with the Exchange's allocation model, which
provides for a parity allocation to Floor brokers. For example, if an
Aggressing Order is allocated 200 shares to Floor Broker Participant
``X,'' which would be the Floor Broker Allocation, and ``X'' represents
three Floor Broker Orders, ``A,'' ``B,'' and ``C'' for 100 shares each
at a price and the parity pointer is on ``B,'' pursuant to proposed
Rule 7.37(b)(6), the Floor Broker Allocation would be allocated 100
shares to ``B'' and 100 shares to ``C'' and ``A'' would not receive an
allocation.
    Proposed Rule 7.37(b)(8) would provide that if resting orders on
one side of the market are repriced and become marketable against
contra-side orders on the Exchange Book, the Exchange would rank the
re-priced orders as described in proposed Rule 7.36(c) and trade them
as Aggressing Orders consistent with their ranking.\22\ This proposed
functionality would be new for Pillar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The Exchange proposes to designated proposed Rule
7.37(b)(7) as ``Reserved.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 7.37(b)(9) would provide that if resting orders on
both sides of the market are repriced and become marketable against one
another, the Exchange would rank the orders on each side of the market
as described in Rule 7.36(c) and trade them as follows:
     The best-ranked order would establish the price at which
the marketable orders will trade, provided that if the marketable
orders include MPL orders, orders would trade at the midpoint of the
PBBO (proposed Rule 7.37(b)(9)(A)).
     The next best-ranked order would trade as the Aggressing
Order with contra-side orders at that price pursuant to proposed Rule
7.37(b)(1) (proposed Rule 7.37(b)(9)(B)).
     When an Aggressing Order is fully executed, the next-best
ranked order would trade as the Aggressing Order with contra-side
orders at that price pursuant to proposed Rule 7.37(b)(1) (proposed
Rule 7.37(b)(9)(C)).
     Orders on both sides of the market would continue to trade
as the Aggressing Order until all marketable orders are executed
(proposed Rule 7.37(b)(9)(D)).
    Because proposed Rule 7.37 would address order execution and
routing, including parity allocations, locking and crossing, and the
Order Protection Rule, the Exchange proposes that Rules 15A, 19, 72(c),
1000, 1001, 1002, and 1004 would not be applicable to trading UTP
Securities on the Pillar trading platform.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Rule 72(d) would also not be applicable to trading UTP
Securities on the Pillar trading platform, accordingly the Exchange
would designate the entirety of Rule 72 as not applicable to trading
UTP Securities on the Pillar trading platform.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule 7.31
    Proposed Rule 7.31 (Orders and Modifiers) would establish the
orders and modifiers that would be available on the Exchange for
trading UTP

Securities on the Pillar trading platform. The Exchange proposes to
offer a subset of the orders and modifiers that are available on NYSE
Arca Equities and NYSE American, with specified substantive
differences, as described below.
     Proposed Rule 7.31(a) would establish the Exchange's
proposed Primary Order Types. The Exchange would offer Market Orders,
which would be described in proposed Rule 7.31(a)(1), and Limit Orders,
which would be described in proposed Rule 7.31(a)(2). These proposed
rules are based on NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31(a)(1) and (2) with one
substantive difference. Because the Exchange would not be conducting
auctions for UTP Securities and because, as described below, with the
exception of Primary Pegged Orders, Limit Orders entered before the
Core Trading Session would be deemed designated for both the Early
Trading Session and the Core Trading Session, the Exchange proposes not
to include the following text in proposed Rule 7.31(a)(2)(B): ``A Limit
Order entered before the Core Trading Session that is designated for
the Core Trading Session only will become subject to Limit Order Price
Protection after the Core Open Auction.'' Instead, the Exchange
proposes to provide that a Limit Order entered before the Core Trading
Session that becomes eligible to trade in the Core Trading Session
would become subject to the Limit Order Price Protection when the Core
Trading Session begins. Accordingly, Primary Pegged Orders entered
before the Core Trading Session begins would not be subject to Limit
Order Price Protection until the Core Trading Session begins.
     Proposed Rule 7.31(b) would establish the proposed time-
in-force modifiers available for UTP Securities on the Pillar trading
platform. The Exchange would offer both Day and Immediate-or-Cancel
(``IOC'') time-in-force modifiers. The rule text is based on NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 7.31(b) and NYSE American Rule 7.31E(b) without any
substantive differences.
     Proposed Rule 7.31(c) would establish the Exchange's
Auction-Only Orders. Because the Exchange would not be conducting
auctions in UTP Securities, the Exchange would route all Auction-Only
Orders in UTP Securities to the primary listing market, as described in
greater detail below in proposed Rule 7.34. To reflect this
functionality, proposed Rule 7.31(c) would provide that an Auction-Only
Order is a Limit or Market Order that is only to be routed pursuant to
Rule 7.34. Proposed Rules 7.31(c)(1)-(4) would define Limit-on-Open
Orders (``LOO Order''), Market-on-Open Order (``MOO Order''), Limit-on-
Close Order (``LOC Order''), and Market-on-Close (``MOC Order''). The
proposed rule text is based on NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31(c)(1)-(4)
and NYSE American Rule 7.31E(c)(1)-(4), with the substantive difference
not to include rule text relating to how Auction-Only Orders would
function during a Trading Halt Auction, as the Exchange would not be
conducting any auctions in UTP Securities. Because the Exchange would
not have defined terms for auctions in the Pillar rules, the Exchange
proposes an additional non-substantive difference to use the term ``an
opening or re-opening auction'' instead of ``the Core Open Auction or a
Trading Halt Auction'' and the term ``a closing auction'' instead of
``the Closing Auction.''
     Proposed Rule 7.31(d) would describe orders with a
conditional or undisplayed price and/or size. Proposed Rule 7.31(d) is
based on NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31(d) and NYSE American Rule
7.31E(d) without any differences.
     Proposed Rule 7.31(d)(1) would establish Reserve Orders,
which would be a Limit Order with a quantity of the size displayed and
with a reserve quantity (``reserve interest'') that is not displayed.
Proposed Rule 7.31(d)(1) and subparagraphs (A)-(C) to that rule are
based on NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31(d)(1) and its sub-paragraphs (A)-
(C) without any substantive differences. As described below, the
Exchange proposes to describe Limit Orders that do not route as ``Limit
Non-Routable Order.''
     Proposed Rule 7.31(d)(2) would establish Limit Non-
Displayed Orders, which would be a Limit Order that is not displayed
and does not route. This proposed rule is based on NYSE Arca Equities
Rule 7.31(d)(2), with one substantive difference: the Exchange would
not be offering the ability for a Limit Non-Displayed Order to be
designated with a Non-Display Remove Modifier and therefore would not
be proposing rule text based on NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31(d)(2)(B).
     Proposed Rule 7.31(d)(3) would establish MPL Orders, which
would be a Limit Order that is not displayed and does not route, with a
working price at the midpoint of the PBBO. Proposed Rule 7.31(d)(3) is
based on NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31(d)(3) and NYSE American Rule
7.31E(d)(3) with one substantive difference: because the Exchange would
not be conducting auctions in UTP Securities, the Exchange does not
propose to include rule text that MPL Orders do not participate in any
auctions. Proposed Rules 7.31(d)(3)(A)-(F), which further describe MPL
Orders, are based on NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31(d)(3)(A)-(F) with two
substantive differences. First, the Exchange would not offer the
optional functionality for an incoming Limit Order to be designated
with a ``No Midpoint Execution'' modifier. Second, the Exchange would
not offer for MPL Orders to be designated with a Non-Display Remove
Modifier. Because the Exchange would not offer the Non-Display Remove
Modifier for MPL Orders, the Exchange is not proposing rule text based
on NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31(d)(3)(G).
     Proposed Rule 7.31(e) would establish orders with
instructions not to route and is based on NYSE Arca Equities Rule
7.31(e) and NYSE American Rule 7.31E(e) without any differences.
     Proposed Rule 7.31(e)(1) would establish the Limit Non-
Routable Order, which is a Limit Order that does not route. Proposed
Rule 7.31(e)(1) and its sub-paragraphs (A)-(B) is based on NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 7.31(e)(1) and its sub-paragraphs (A)-(B) and NYSE
American Rule 7.31E(1) and its sub-paragraphs (A)-(B) without any
substantive differences. Because the Exchange would not offer Non-
Display Remove Modifiers for Limit Non-Routable Orders, the Exchange is
not proposing rule text based on NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31(e)(1)(C).
     Proposed Rule 7.31(e)(2) and sub-paragraphs (B)-(D) would
establish the ALO Order, which is a Limit Non-Routable Order that,
except as specified in the proposed rule, would not remove liquidity
from the Exchange Book. The proposed rule is based on NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 7.31(e)(2) and its sub-paragraphs (B)-(D) with two
substantive differences. First, because the Exchange would not have
auctions in UTP Securities, the Exchange does not propose rule text
based on NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31(e)(2)(A), and would designate
this sub-paragraph as ``Reserved.'' Second, because the Exchange would
not offer the Non-Display Remove Modifier for Limit Non-Routable Orders
or Limit Non-Display Orders, the Exchange does not propose rule text
based on NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31(e)(2)(B)(iv)(b).
     Proposed Rule 7.31(e)(3) and sub-paragraphs (A)-(D) would
establish Intermarket Sweep Orders (``ISO''), which would be a Limit
Order that does not route and meets the requirements of Rule 600(b)(3)
[sic] of Regulation NMS and could be designated IOC or Day. The
proposed rule is based on NYSE Arca Equities rule 7.31(e)(3) and its
sub-

paragraphs (A)-(D) and its sub-paragraphs (A)-(D) [sic] with two
substantive differences. First, because Exchange Floor brokers do not
have the ability to enter orders directly on Away Markets, the Exchange
does not currently offer the ability for Floor brokers to enter
ISOs.\24\ The Exchange similarly proposes that Floor brokers would not
be able to enter ISOs for trading UTP Securities on the Pillar trading
platform and therefore would specify that ISOs are not available to
Floor brokers. Second, because Non-Display Remove Modifiers would not
be available, the Exchange is not proposing rule text based on NYSE
Arca Equities Rule 7.31(e)(3)(D)(iii)(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Rule 70(a)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Because the Exchange would not offer Primary Only Orders
or Cross Orders, the Exchange proposes that Rules 7.31(f) and (g) would
be designated as ``Reserved.''
     Proposed Rule 7.31(h) would establish Pegged Orders, which
would be a Limit Order that does not route with a working price that is
pegged to a dynamic reference price. Proposed Rule 7.31(h) is based on
NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31(h) with one substantive difference.
Consistent with the Exchange's current rules, Pegged Orders would be
available only to Floor brokers.\25\
    Proposed Rule 7.31(h)(2) and sub-paragraphs (A) and (B) would
establish Primary Pegged Orders, which would be a Pegged Order to buy
(sell) with a working price that is pegged to the PBB (PBO), must
include a minimum of one round lot of displayed, and with no offset
allowed. This proposed rule text is based on NYSE Arca Equities Rule
7.31(h)(2) and sub-paragraphs (A) and (B) with one substantive
difference. Because the Exchange would not conduct auctions in UTP
Securities, the Exchange does not propose to include rule text that a
Primary Pegged Order would be eligible to participate in auctions at
the limit price of the order.
    Proposed Rule 7.31(h)(4) and sub-paragraphs (A) and (B) would
establish a Non-Displayed Primary Pegged Order, which would be a Pegged
Order to buy (sell) with a working price that is pegged to the PBB
(PBO), with no offset allowed, that is not displayed. This rule text is
based on NYSE American Rule 7.31E(h)(2), which describes a Primary
Pegged Order that is not displayed. Similar to the rules of NYSE
American, the proposed Non-Displayed Primary Pegged Order would be
rejected on arrival, or cancelled when resting, if there is no PBBO
against which to peg. In addition, Non-Displayed Primary Pegged Orders
would be ranked Priority 3--Non-Display Orders and if the PBBO is
locked or crossed, both an arriving and resting Non-Displayd [sic]
Primary Pegged Order would wait for a PBBO that is not locked or
crossed before the working price is adjusted and the order becomes
eligible to trade.
    Because the Exchange would not offer Market Pegged Order or
Discretionary Pegged Orders, the Exchange proposes that paragraphs
(h)(1) and (h)(3) of proposed Rule 7.31 would be designated as
``Reserved.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Rule 13(f)(1)(A)(i), which describes Pegging Interest
as being available for e-Quotes and d-Quotes, which is functionality
available only to Floor brokers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Proposed Rule 7.31(i)(2) would establish Self Trade
Prevention Modifiers (``STP'') on the Exchange. As proposed, any
incoming order to buy (sell) designated with an STP modifier would be
prevented from trading with a resting order to sell (buy) also
designated with an STP modifier and from the same Client ID, as
designated by the member organization, and the STP modifier on the
incoming order would control the interaction between two orders marked
with STP modifiers. Proposed Rule 7.31(i)(2)(A) would establish STP
Cancel Newest (``STPN'') and proposed Rule 7.31(i)(2)(B) would
establish STP Cancel Oldest (``STPO''). Proposed Rule 7.31(i)(2) and
subparagraphs (A) and (B) are based in part on NYSE Arca Equities Rule
7.31(i)(2) and its sub-paragraphs (A) and (B) and NYSE American Rule
7.31E(i)(2) and its sub-paragraphs (A) and (B), with substantive
differences to specify how STP modifiers would function consistent with
the Exchange's proposed allocation model.
    Specifically, because, as described above, resting orders are
allocated either on parity or time based on the priority category of an
order, the Exchange proposes to specify in proposed Rule 7.31(i)(2)
that the Exchange would evaluate the interaction between two orders
marked with STP modifiers from the same Client ID consistent with the
allocation logic applicable to the priority category of the resting
order. The proposed rule would further provide that if resting orders
in a priority category do not have an STP modifier from the same Client
ID, the incoming order designated with an STP modifier would trade with
resting orders in that priority category before being evaluated for STP
with resting orders in the next priority category.
    For STPN, proposed Rule 7.31(i)(2)(A)(i) would provide that if a
resting order with an STP modifier from the same Client ID is in a
priority category that allocates orders on price-time priority, the
incoming order marked with the STPN modifier would be cancelled back to
the originating member organization and the resting order marked with
one of the STP modifiers would remain on the Exchange Book. This
proposed rule is based on NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31(i)(2)(A) and
NYSE American Rule 7.31E(i)(2)(A), with non-substantive differences to
specify that this order processing would be applicable for orders that
are allocated in price-time priority.
    Proposed Rule 7.31(i)(2)(A)(ii) would be new and would address how
STPN would function for resting orders in a priority category that
allocates orders on parity. As proposed, if a resting order with an STP
modifier from the same Client ID is in a priority category that
allocates orders on parity and would have been considered for an
allocation, none of the resting orders eligible for a parity allocation
in that priority category would receive an allocation and the incoming
order marked with the STPN modifier would be cancelled back.\26\ The
Exchange believes that if a member organization designates an order
with an STPN modifier, that member organization has instructed the
Exchange to cancel the incoming order rather than trade with a resting
order with an STP modifier from the same Client ID. Because in a parity
allocation, resting orders are allocated based on their position on an
allocation wheel, as described above, it would be consistent with the
incoming order's instruction to cancel the incoming order if any of the
resting orders eligible to participate in the parity allocation has an
STP modifier from the same Client ID.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ As described above, if there were resting Market Orders
against which the incoming order was marketable, because Market
Orders are in a different priority category, the incoming order
would trade with the resting Market Orders before being assessed for
STP with resting orders in a parity priority category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For STPO, proposed Rule 7.31(i)(2)(B)(i) would provide that if a
resting order with an STP modifier from the same Client ID is in a
priority category that allocates orders on price-time priority, the
resting order marked with the STP modifier would be cancelled back to
the originating member organization and the incoming order marked with
the STPO modifier would remain on the Exchange Book. This proposed rule
is based on NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31(i)(2)(B) and NYSE American
Rule 7.31E(i)(2)(B), with non-substantive differences to specify that
this order processing would

be applicable for orders that are allocated in price-time priority.
    Proposed Rule 7.31(i)(2)(B)(ii) would be new and would address how
STPO would function for resting orders in a priority category that
allocates orders on parity. As proposed, if a resting order with an STP
modifier from the same Client ID is in a priority category that
allocates orders on parity, all resting orders with the STP modifier
with the same Client ID in that priority category that would have been
considered for an allocation would not be eligible for a parity
allocation and would be cancelled. The rule would further provide that
an incoming order marked with the STPO modifier would be eligible to
trade on parity with orders in that priority category that do not have
a matching STP modifier and that resting orders in that priority
category with an STP modifier from the same Client ID that would not
have been eligible for a parity allocation would remain on the Exchange
Book. The Exchange believes that this proposed processing of STPO would
allow for the incoming order to continue to trade with resting orders
that do not have an STP modifier from the same client ID, while at the
same time processing the instruction that resting orders with an STP
from the same Client ID would be cancelled if there were a potential
for an execution between the two orders.
     Proposed Commentary .01 and .02 to Rule 7.31is based on
Commentary .01 and .02 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31 without any
substantive differences.
    Because proposed Rule 7.31 would govern orders and modifiers,
including orders entered by Floor brokers, the Exchange proposes that
Rules 13 (Orders and Modifiers) and 70 (Execution of Floor broker
interest) would not be applicable to trading UTP Securities on the
Pillar trading platform. In addition, references to Trading Collars in
Rule 1000(c) would not be applicable to trading UTP Securities on the
Pillar Trading platform.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ As described in greater detail above in connection with
proposed Rule 7.37, the Exchange proposes that the entirety of Rule
1000 would not be applicable to trading UTP Securities on the Pillar
trading platform.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule 7.10
    Proposed Rule 7.10 (Clearly Erroneous Executions) would set forth
the Exchange's rules governing clearly erroneous executions. The
proposed rule is based on NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.10 and NYSE
American Rule 7.10E with substantive differences not to refer to a Late
Trading Session or Cross Orders. The Exchange proposes rule text based
on NYSE Arca Equities rather than current Rule 128 (Clearly Erroneous
Executions) because the NYSE Arca Equities and NYSE American version of
the rule uses the same terminology that the Exchange is proposing for
the Pillar trading platform, e.g., references to Early and Core Trading
Sessions. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes that Rule 128 (Clearly
Erroneous Executions) would not be applicable to trading UTP Securities
on the Pillar trading platform.\28\ Because the Exchange would not be
conducting auctions in UTP Securities, proposed Rule 7.10(a) would not
include the last sentence of NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.10(a), which
provides that ``[e]xecutions as a result of a Trading Halt Auction are
not eligible for a request to review as clearly erroneous under
paragraph (b) of this Rule.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ The Exchange proposes that because there is not a prior
version of proposed Rule 7.10, if the Limit Up-Limit Down Plan is
not approved, the prior version of sections (c), (e)(2), (f) and (g)
of Rule 128 would be in effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule 7.11
    Proposed Rule 7.11 (Limit Up-Limit Down Plan and Trading Pauses in
Individual Securities Due to Extraordinary Market Volatility) would
establish how the Exchange would comply with the Regulation NMS Plan to
Address Extraordinary Market Volatility (``LULD Plan'').\29\ The
proposed rule is based on NYSE American Rule 7.11E with the following
substantive differences. First, as proposed, the Exchange would not
offer the optional functionality for a member organization to instruct
the Exchange to cancel a Limit Order that cannot be traded or routed at
prices at or within the Price bands, rather than the default processing
of re-pricing a Limit Order to the Price Bands, as described in
proposed Rule 7.11(a)(5)(B)(i). Accordingly, the Exchange would not
include text relating to this instruction, as described in NYSE
American Rules 7.11E(a)(5)(B)(i), 7.11E(a)(5)(C), or 7.11E(a)(5)(F).
Second, because the Exchange would not be offering orders that include
specific routing instructions, Q Orders, or Limit IOC Cross Orders, the
Exchange would not include text that references these order types, as
described in NYSE American Rule 7.11E(a)(5)(B)(iii), 7.11E(a)(5)(D),
7.11E(a)(5)(E), and 7.11E(a)(6). The Exchange proposes to designate
proposed Rules 7.11(a)(5)(D) and 7.11(a)(5)(E) as ``Reserved.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80455 (April 13,
2017), 81 FR 24908 (April 27, 2016) (File No. 4-631) (Order
approving 12th Amendment to the LULD Plan) [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, because proposed Rule 7.11 would govern trading in UTP
Securities and the Exchange would not conduct auctions for such
securities, the Exchange does not propose rule text from NYSE American
Rule 7.11E(b) that describes how the Exchange would re-open trading in
a security. The Exchange proposes that Rule 7.11(b)(1) would be based
on rule text from NYSE American Rule 7.11E(b)(1).
    Because the proposed rule covers the same subject matter as Rule
80C, the Exchange proposes that Rule 80C would not be applicable to
trading UTP Securities on the Pillar trading platform.
Proposed Rule 7.16
    Proposed Rule 7.16 (Short Sales) would establish requirements
relating to short sales. The proposed rule is based on NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 7.16 and NYSE American Rule 7.16E with two substantive
differences. First, because the proposed rule would not be applicable
to any securities that are listed on the Exchange, the Exchange would
not be evaluating whether the short sale price test restrictions of
Rule 201 of Regulation SHO have been triggered. Accordingly, the
Exchange does not propose rule text based on NYSE Arca Equities Rule
7.16(f)(3) or NYSE American Rule 7.16E(f)(3) and would designate that
sub-paragraph as ``Reserved.'' For similar reasons, the Exchange
proposes not to include rule text based on NYSE Arca Equities Rules
7.16(f)(4)(A) and (B) or NYSE American Rule 7.16E(f)(4)(A) and (B).
    Second, because the Exchange would not be offering Tracking Orders,
Cross Orders, or the Proactive if Locked/Crossed Modifier, the Exchange
does not propose rule text based on NYSE Arca Equities Rule
7.16(f)(5)(D), (G), or (I) or NYSE American Rule 7.16E(f)(5)(D), (G),
or (I). The Exchange proposes to designate proposed Rules 7.16(f)(5)(D)
and (G) as ``Reserved.''
    Because the proposed rule covers the same subject matter as Rule
440B (Short Sales), the Exchange proposes that Rule 440B would not be
applicable to trading UTP Securities on the Pillar trading platform.
Proposed Rule 7.18
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.18 (Halts) to establish how
the Exchange would process orders during a halt in a UTP Security and
when it would halt trading in a UTP Exchange Traded Product.\30\
Proposed Rule

7.18(b) would provide that the Exchange would not conduct a Trading
Halt Auction in a UTP Security and would process new and existing
orders in a UTP Security during a UTP Regulatory Halt \31\ as described
in proposed Rule 7.18(b)(1)-(6). The proposed rule text is based on
NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.18(b) and its sub-paragraphs (1)-(6) and NYSE
American Rule 7.18E(b) and its sub-paragraphs (1)-(6) with one
substantive difference. Because the Exchange would not be offering
``Primary Only'' orders, proposed Rule 7.18(b)(5) would not reference
such order types.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ The term ``UTP Exchange Traded Product'' is defined in Rule
1.1(bbb) to mean an Exchange Traded Product that trades on the
Exchange pursuant to unlisted trading privileges. The terms
``Exchange Traded Product'' and ``UTP Exchange Traded Product'' on
the Exchange have the same meaning as the NYSE Arca Equities terms
``Derivatives Securities Product'' and ``UTP Derivative Securities
Product,'' which are defined in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 1.1(bbb).
The Exchange proposes a non-substantive difference in proposed Rule
7.18 as compared to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.18 to use the
Exchange-defined terms.
    \31\ The term ``UTP Regulatory Halt'' is defined in Rule 1.1(kk)
to mean a trade suspension, halt, or pause called by the UTP Listing
Market in a UTP Security that requires all market centers to halt
trading in that security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.18(d)(1)(A) to specify that
if a UTP Exchange Traded Product begins trading on the Exchange in the
Early Trading Session and subsequently a temporary interruption occurs
in the calculation or wide dissemination of the Intraday Indicative
Value (``IIV'') or the value of the underlying index, as applicable, to
such UTP Exchange Traded Product, by a major market data vendor, the
Exchange may continue to trade the UTP Exchange Traded Product for the
remainder of the Early Trading Session. This proposed rule text is
based on NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.18(d)(1)(A) and NYSE American Rule
7.18E(d)(1)(A) without any substantive differences. The Exchange also
proposes to amend Rule 7.18(d)(1)(B) to change the reference from
``Exchange's Normal Trading Hours'' to the term ``Core Trading
Session,'' which would be defined in proposed Rule 7.34, described
below.
    The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 7.18(a) to change the
cross reference from Rule 80C to Rule 7.11 as proposed Rule 7.11 would
govern how the Exchange would comply with the LULD Plan for trading UTP
Securities.
Proposed Rule 7.34
    Proposed Rule 7.34 would establish trading sessions on the
Exchange. The Exchange proposes that on the Pillar trading platform, it
would have Early and Core Trading Sessions. Accordingly, proposed Rule
7.34 is based in part on NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.34 and NYSE American
Rule 7.34E, with the following substantive differences. First, similar
to NYSE American, the Exchange proposes that the Early Trading Session
would begin at 7:00 a.m. Eastern Time. Similar to NYSE Arca Equities
and NYSE American, the Exchange would begin accepting orders 30 minutes
before the Early Trading Session begins, which means order entry
acceptance would begin at 6:30 a.m. Eastern Time. These differences
would be reflected in proposed Rule 7.34(a)(1).
    Second, proposed Rule 7.34(b) would be new and is not based on NYSE
Arca Equities Rule 7.34(b) or NYSE American Rule 7.34E(b). Rather than
require member organizations to include a designation for which trading
session the order would be in effect, the Exchange proposes to specify
in Rule 7.34(b) and (c) which trading sessions an order would be deemed
designated. Proposed Rule 7.34(b)(1) would provide that unless
otherwise specified in Rule 7.34(c), an order entered before or during
the Early or Core Trading Session would be deemed designated for the
Early Trading Session and the Core Trading Session. Proposed Rule
7.34(b)(2) would provide that an order without a time-in-force
designation would be deemed designated with a day time-in-force
modifier.
    Proposed Rule 7.34(c) would specify which orders would be permitted
in each session. Proposed Rule 7.34(c)(1) would provide that unless
otherwise specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(A)-(C), orders and modifiers
defined in Rule 7.31 would be eligible to participate in the Early
Trading Session. This proposed rule text is based on NYSE Arca Equities
Rule 7.34(c)(1) and NYSE American Rule 7.34E(c)(1) with a substantive
difference not to refer to orders ``designated'' for the Early Trading
Session. In addition, because the Exchange would not be offering a
Retail Liquidity Program, the Exchange would not reference Rule 7.44.
     Proposed Rule 7.34(c)(1)(A) would provide that Pegged
Orders would not be eligible to participate in the Early Trading
Session. This rule text is based in part on NYSE Arca Equities Rule
7.34(c)(1)(A) and NYSE American Rule 7.34E(c)(1)(A) in the [sic] Pegged
Orders would not be eligible to participate in the Early Trading
Session. The Exchange proposes a substantive difference from the NYSE
Arca Equities and NYSE American rules because proposed Rule
7.34(c)(1)(A) would not refer to Market Orders. Market Orders entered
during the Early Trading Session would be addressed in proposed Rule
7.34(c)(1)(C), described below. The proposed rule would further provide
that Non-Displayed Primary Pegged Orders entered before the Core
Trading Session would be rejected and Primary Pegged Orders entered
before the Core Trading Session would be accepted but would not be
eligible to trade until the Core Trading Session begins. This rule text
is based in part on both NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.34(c)(1)(A) and NYSE
American Rule 7.34E(c)(1)(A), but uses terminology consistent with the
Exchange's proposed order types.
     Proposed Rule 7.34(c)(1)(B) would provide that Limit
Orders designated IOC would be rejected if entered before the Early
Trading Session begins. This proposed rule is based on NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 7.34(c)(1)(B) and NYSE American Rule 7.34E(c)(1)(B) with
two substantive differences. First, because the Exchange would not be
conducting auctions, the Exchange proposes to specify that the
rejection period would begin ``before the Early Trading Session
begins'' rather than state ``before the Early Open Auction concludes.''
Second, the Exchange would not refer to Cross Orders, which would not
be offered on the Exchange.
     Proposed Rule 7.34(c)(1)(C) would provide that Market
Orders and Auction-Only Orders in UTP Securities entered before the
Core Trading Session begins would be routed to the primary listing
market on arrival and any order routed directly to the primary listing
market on arrival would be cancelled if that market is not accepting
orders. This proposed rule is based on NYSE Arca Equities Rule
7.34(c)(1)(D) and NYSE American Rule 7.34E(c)(1)(D) with a non-
substantive difference to specify that such orders would be routed
until the Core Trading Session begins.
    Proposed Rule 7.34(c)(2) would provide that unless otherwise
specified in Rule 7.34(c)(2)(A)-(B), all orders and modifiers defined
in Rule 7.31 would be eligible to participate in the Core Trading
Session. This proposed rule text is based on NYSE Arca Equities Rule
7.34(c)(2) and NYSE American Rule 7.34E(c)(2) with a substantive
difference not to refer to orders ``designated'' for the Core Trading
Session. In addition, because the Exchange would not be offering a
Retail Liquidity Program, the Exchange would not reference Rule 7.44.
     Proposed Rule 7.34(c)(2)(A) would provide that Market
Orders in UTP Securities would be routed to the primary listing market
until the first opening print of any size on the primary listing market
or 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time, whichever is earlier. This

proposed rule is based on NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.34(c)(2)(A) and
NYSE American Rule 7.34E(c)(2)(A) with a non-substantive difference to
use the term ``UTP Securities'' instead of referencing orders that
``are not eligible for the Core Open Auction.''
     Proposed Rule 7.34(c)(2)(B) would provide that Auction-
Only Orders in UTP Securities would be accepted and routed directly to
the primary listing market. This proposed rule is based on NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 7.34(c)(2)(B) and NYSE American Rule 7.34E(c)(2)(B) with
a non-substantive difference to use the term ``UTP Securities'' instead
of referencing orders that ``are not eligible for an auction on the
Exchange.''
    Proposed Rule 7.34(d) would establish requirements for member
organizations to provide customer disclosure when accepting orders for
execution in the Early Trading Session. The proposed rule is based on
NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.34(d) and NYSE American Rule 7.34E(d) without
any substantive differences.
    Proposed Rule 7.34(e) would provide that trades on the Exchange
executed and reported outside of the Core Trading Session would be
designated as .T trades. This proposed rule is based on NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 7.34(e) and NYSE American Rule 7.34E(e) without any
substantive differences.
Proposed Rule 7.38
    Proposed Rule 7.38 (Odd and Mixed Lot) would establish requirements
relating to odd lot and mixed lot trading on the Exchange. The proposed
rule is based on NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.38 and NYSE American Rule
7.38E with one substantive difference. Because orders ranked Priority
2--Display Orders, including odd-lot sized orders, are on an allocation
wheel at their display price, the Exchange proposes that if the display
price of an odd-lot order to buy (sell) is above (below) its working
price (i.e., the PBBO, which is the price at which the odd-lot order is
eligible to trade, has crossed the display price of that odd-lot
order), the odd-lot order would be ranked and allocated based on its
display price. In such case, the order would execute at its working
price, but if there is more than one odd-lot order at the different
display price, they would be allocated on parity.
    For example, if at 10.02, the Exchange has an order ``A'' to buy 50
shares ranked Priority 2--Display Orders, and at 10.01, the Exchange
has an order ``B'' to buy 10 shares ranked Priority 2--Display Orders,
an order ``C'' to buy 10 shares ranked Priority 2--Display Orders, and
an order ``D'' to buy 10 shares ranked Priority 2--Display Orders, and
the parity pointer is on order ``C,'' if the Away Market PBO becomes
10.00, which crosses the display price of ``A,'' ``B,'' ``C,'' and
``D,'' those orders would trade at 10.00. If the Exchange were to
receive a Market Order to sell 70 shares, it would trade at 10.00 and
be allocated 50 shares to ``A,'' 10 shares to ``C,'' and 10 shares to
``D.'' ``B'' would not receive an allocation based on its position on
the allocation wheel.
    The Exchange proposes that Rule 61 (Recognized Quotations) would
not be applicable to trading UTP Securities on the Pillar trading
platform.
Proposed Rule 7.46
    Section 5 of Rule 7P would establish requirements relating to the
Plan to Implement a Tick Size Pilot Program. Proposed Rule 7.46 (Tick
Size Pilot Plan) would specify such requirements. The proposed rule is
based on NYSE American Rule 7.46E with the following substantive
differences for proposed Rule 7.46(f). First, because the Exchange
would not offer Market Pegged Orders, the Exchange proposes that
paragraph (f)(3) of the Rule would be designated as ``Reserved.''
Second, the Exchange proposes to set forth the priority of resting
orders both for ranking and for allocation. For Pilot Securities in
Test Group Three, proposed Rule 7.46(f)(5)(A) would govern ranking
instead of proposed Rule 7.36(e), described above, as follows:
     Priority 2--Display Orders. Non-marketable Limit Orders
with a displayed working price would have first priority.
     Protected Quotations of Away Markets. Protected quotations
of Away Markets would have second priority.
     Priority 1--Market Orders. Unexecuted Market Orders would
have third priority.
     Priority 3--Non-Display Orders. Non-marketable Limit
Orders for which the working price is not displayed, including reserve
interest of Reserve Orders, would have fourth priority.
    For Pilot Securities in Test Group Three, proposed Rule
7.46(f)(5)(B) would set forth how an Aggressing Order would be
allocated against contra-side orders, instead of proposed Rule
7.37(b)(1), described above, as follows:
     First, an order with Setter Priority that has a display
price and working price equal to the BBO would receive 15% of the
remaining quantity of the Aggressing Order, rounded up to the next
round lot size or the remaining displayed quantity of the order with
Setter Priority, whichever is lower. An order with Setter Priority
would be eligible for Setter Priority allocation if the BBO is no
longer the same as the NBBO.
     Next, orders ranked Priority 2--Displayed Orders would be
allocated on parity by Participant. The remaining quantity of the order
with Setting Priority would be eligible to participate in this parity
allocation, consistent with the allocation wheel position of the
Participant that entered the order with Setter Priority.
     Next, subject to proposed Rule 7.46(f)(5)(F) (describing
orders with instructions not to route), the Exchange would route the
Aggressing Order to protected quotations of Away Markets.
     Next, orders ranked Priority 1--Market Orders would trade
based on time.
     Next, orders ranked Priority 3--Non-Display Orders, other
than MPL Orders with an MTS, would be allocated on parity by
Participant.
     Next, MPL Orders with an MTS would be allocated based on
MTS size (smallest to largest) and time.
    Third, the Exchange would not include rule text based on NYSE
American Rule 7.46E(f)(G), relating to Limit IOC Cross Orders, which
would not be offered on the Exchange. Finally, proposed Rules
7.46(f)(5)(F)(i)(a) and (b) are based on NYSE Arca Equities Rules
7.46(f)(5)(F)(i)(a) and (b) and not the NYSE American version of the
rule because NYSE American does not offer Day ISO orders.
    The Exchange proposes that Rule 67 (Tick Size Pilot Plan) would not
be applicable to trading UTP Securities on the Pillar trading platform.
Amendments to Rule 103B and 107B
    As described above, the Exchange would not assign UTP Securities to
DMMs. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 103B(I)
(Security Allocation and Reallocation) to specify that UTP Securities
would not be allocated to a DMM unit.
    In addition, because UTP Securities would be eligible to be
assigned to Supplemental Liquidity Providers, the Exchange proposes to
amend Rule 107B (Supplemental Liquidity Providers) to replace the term
``NYSE-listed securities'' with the term ``NYSE-traded securities,''
which would include UTP Securities.
Current Rules That Would Not Be Applicable to Trading UTP Securities on
Pillar
    As described in more detail above, in connection with the proposed
rules to support trading of UTP Securities on the Pillar trading
platform, the Exchange has identified current Exchange rules that would
not be applicable because

they would be superseded by a proposed rule. The Exchange has
identified additional current rules that would not be applicable to
trading on Pillar. These rules do not have a counterpart in the
proposed Pillar rules, described above, but would be obsolete when
trading UTP Securities on Pillar.
    The main category of rules that would not be applicable to trading
on the Pillar trading platform are those rules that are specific to
auctions and Floor-based point-of-sale trading, including requirements
relating to DMMs and Floor brokers. For this reason, the Exchange
proposes that the following Floor-specific rules would not be
applicable to trading on the Pillar trading platform:
     Rule 15 (Pre-Opening Indication and Opening Order
Imbalance Information).
     Rule 74 (Publicity of Bids and Offers).
     Rule 75 (Disputes as to Bids and Offers).
     Rule 76 (`Crossing' Orders).
     Rule 77 (Prohibited Dealings and Activities).
     Rule 79A (Miscellaneous Requirements on Stock Market
Procedures).
     Rule 108 (Limitation on Members' Bids and Offers).
     Rule 111 (Reports of Executions).
     Rule 115A (Orders at Opening).
     Rule 116 (`Stop' Constitutes Guarantee).
     Rule 123A (Miscellaneous Requirements).
     Rule 123B (Exchange Automated Order Routing System).
     Rule 123C (The Closing Procedures).
     Rule 123D (Openings and Halts in Trading).
     Rule 127 (Block Crosses Outside the Prevailing NYSE
Quotation).
    In addition, as noted above, the Exchange would not offer a Retail
Liquidity Program when it trades on the Pillar trading platform.
Proposed rules that are based on NYSE Arca Equities rules that include
a cross reference to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.44 would not include
that rule reference. The Exchange also proposes that Rule 107C would
not be applicable to trading UTP Securities on the Pillar trading
platform.
* * * * *
    As discussed above, because of the technology changes associated
with the migration to the Pillar trading platform, the Exchange will
announce by Trader Update when the Pillar rules for trading UTP
Securities will become operative.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\32\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\33\ in particular, because
it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to, and perfect the
mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange
believes that the proposed rules to support Pillar on the Exchange
would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and
open market because they provide for rules to support the Exchange's
introduction of trading UTP Securities on the Pillar trading platform.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \33\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Generally, the Exchange believes that the proposed rules would
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system because they would support the
Exchange's introduction of trading UTP Securities in a manner that
would use Pillar terminology to describe how the Exchange's current
Floor-based parity allocation model with Setter Priority would operate,
with specified substantive differences from current rules, and
introduce Pillar rules for the Exchange that are based on the rules of
its affiliated markets, NYSE Arca Equities and NYSE American.
    With respect to how UTP Securities would be ranked, displayed,
executed, and routed on Pillar, the Exchange believes that proposed
Rules 7.36(a)-(g) and proposed Rules 7.37(a) and (c)-(g) would remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system because these rules would use Pillar
terminology that is based on the approved rules of NYSE Arca Equities
and NYSE American. The Exchange believes that proposed Rule 7.36(h),
which would establish Setter Priority, would remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system because the proposed rule is based on current Rule 72(a), with
substantive differences designed to encourage the display of
aggressively-priced orders by requiring that an order not only
establish the BBO, but also establish or join the NBBO to be eligible
for Setter Priority. The Exchange similarly believes that proposed Rule
7.37(b), which would use Pillar terminology to describe how an
Aggressing Order would be allocated, would remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system because it is based on current Rule 72(b) and (c). The Exchange
believes that the proposed substantive difference to maintain separate
allocation wheels for displayed and non-displayed orders at each price
would promote just and equitable principles of trade because it would
allow for Exchange member organizations to establish their position on
an allocation wheel at each price point, rather than rely on their
position on a single allocation wheel that would be applicable to
trades at multiple price points.
    The Exchange believes that proposed Rules 7.10, 7.11, 7.16, 7.18,
7.31, 7.34, 7.38, and 7.46 would remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system
because they are based on the rules of NYSE Arca Equities and NYSE
American. The proposed substantive differences to the Exchange's rules
would be because the Exchange would not be offering the full suite of
orders and modifiers available on NYSE Arca Equities and NYSE American.
In addition, the Exchange proposes substantive differences to these
rules consistent with the Exchange's proposed parity allocation model.
The Exchange believes that the proposed substantive differences for
these rules would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system because they would
provide transparency of which orders, modifiers and instructions would
be available on the Exchange when it begins trading UTP Securities on
the Pillar trading platform, and how the Pillar rules would function
with a parity allocation model.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed substantive differences to
Rule 7.34 to offer Early and Core Trading Sessions, but not a Late
Trading Session, would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system because it is
consistent with the Exchange's current hours, described in Rule 51,
that the Exchange is not open for business after 4:00 p.m. Eastern
Time. The Exchange further believes that adding a trading session
before 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time would provide additional time for
Exchange member organizations to trade UTP Securities on the Exchange
consistent with the trading hours of other exchanges,

including NYSE American, which also will begin trading at 7:00 a.m.
Eastern Time.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed amendments to Rules 103B
and 107B would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system because they would
provide transparency that the Exchange would not be assigning UTP
Securities to DMMs and that member organizations would be eligible to
register as a Supplemental Liquidity Providers in UTP Securities. The
Exchange further believes that not assigning DMMs to UTP Securities is
consistent with just and equitable principles of trade because the
Exchange would not be conducting auctions in UTP Securities and
therefore the Exchange would not need DMMs assigned to such securities
to facilitate auctions. Not having DMMs registered in UTP Securities is
also consistent with how NYSE Arca Equities and NYSE American function
on Pillar, in that neither lead market makers (on NYSE Arca Equities)
nor electronic designated market makers (on NYSE American) are assigned
securities not listed on those exchanges. The Exchange further believes
that it would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free
and open market and a national market system for member organizations
to be eligible to register as Supplemental Liquidity Providers in UTP
Securities as this would provide an incentive for displayed liquidity
in UTP Securities.
    The Exchange further believes that it would remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system to specify which current rules would not be applicable to
trading UTP Securities on the Pillar trading platform. The Exchange
believes that the following legend, which would be added to existing
rules, ``This Rule is not applicable to trading UTP Securities on the
Pillar trading platform,'' would promote transparency regarding which
rules would govern trading UTP Securities on the Exchange on Pillar.
The Exchange has proposed to add this legend to rules that would be
superseded by proposed rules or rules that would not be applicable
because they relate to auctions or Floor-based point-of-sale trading.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change is
designed to propose rules to support trading of UTP Securities on the
Exchange's new Pillar trading platform. The Exchange operates in a
highly competitive environment in which its unaffiliated exchange
competitors operate multiple affiliated exchanges that operate under
common rules. By adding the trading of UTP Securities on the Exchange,
the Exchange believes that it will be able to compete on a more level
playing field with its exchange competitors that similarly trade all
NMS Stocks. In addition, by basing certain rules on those of NYSE Arca
Equities and NYSE American, the Exchange will provide its members with
consistency across affiliated exchanges, thereby enabling the Exchange
to compete with unaffiliated exchange competitors that similarly
operate multiple exchanges on the same trading platforms.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or up to 90 days (i) as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or (ii) as to which the self-regulatory
organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be 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-NYSE-2017-36 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2017-36. 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-NYSE-2017-36 and should be
submitted on or before August 30, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-16742 Filed 8-8-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P