[Federal Register: June 23, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 120)]
[Notices]
[Page 35864-35865]
[DOCID:fr23jn10-139]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62287; File No. SR-CBOE-2010-053]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change To Establish the Appointment Cost for Options on the iPath
S&P 500 VIX Short-Term Futures Index ETN (VXX)

June 11, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on May 27, 2010, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial''
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    CBOE proposes to amend Rule 8.3 to establish the appointment cost
for options on the iPath S&P 500 VIX Short-Term Futures Index ETN
(``VXX''). The text of the rule proposal is available on the Exchange's
Web site (http://www.cboe.org/legal), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, on the Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this rule change is to the establish the appointment
cost for options on the iPath S&P 500 VIX Short-Term Futures Index ETN
(``VXX'') before trading commences in that option class on May 28,
2010. CBOE proposes to amend Rule 8.3(c)(i) to specifically reference
VXX options as a Tier AA option class with an appointment cost of .10.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations under the Act applicable to a
national securities exchange and, in particular, the requirements of
Section 6(b) of the Act. Specifically, the Exchange believes the
proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) Act \5\
requirements that the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule does not (i) significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose
any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, provided that the self-regulatory
organization has given the Commission written notice of its intent to
file the proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the
date of filing of the proposed rule change or such shorter time as
designated by the Commission, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \6\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). The Commission is waiving the five
day prefiling requirement.
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) of the Act,\8\ the proposal does not become
operative for 30 days after the date of its filing, or such shorter
time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection
of investors and the public

interest. The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-
day operative date, to enable the Exchange to utilize the proposed
appointment cost for VXX options before the commencement of trading in
that option class. The Commission believes that it is consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest to waive the 30-day
operative delay. For these reasons, the Commission designates the
proposal to be operative upon filing.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Id.
    \9\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay of
this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's
impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2010-053 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2010-053. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
am and 3 pm. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the CBOE. 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-CBOE-2010-053 and should be
submitted on or before July 14, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-15127 Filed 6-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 78 (Tuesday, April 23, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 16850]
[FR Doc No: 2019-08114]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1126-000.
    Applicants: Cameron Interstate Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Annual Report of Transportation Imbalances and Cash-
out Activity of Cameron Interstate Pipeline, LLC.
    Filed Date: 4/15/19.
    Accession Number: 20190415-5296.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/29/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1127-000.
    Applicants: Cameron Interstate Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Annual Report of Operational Imbalances and Cash-out
Activity of Cameron Interstate Pipeline, LLC.
    Filed Date: 4/15/19.
    Accession Number: 20190415-5297.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/29/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1128-000.
    Applicants: Cameron Interstate Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Annual Report of Penalty Revenues of Cameron
Interstate Pipeline, LLC.
    Filed Date: 4/15/19.
    Accession Number: 20190415-5298.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/29/19.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 17, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-08114 Filed 4-22-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 27, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45099-45103]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20626]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81672; File No. SR-NYSEAMER-2017-17]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending
Rule 7.31E Relating to the Minimum Trade Size Modifier for Additional
Order Types and Expanding the Minimum Trade Size Modifier for Existing
Order Types

September 21, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that on September 11, 2017, NYSE American LLC (``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
American'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II 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 to amend Rule 7.31E relating to the Minimum
Trade
    Size modifier.
    The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.31E relating to the Minimum
Trade Size (``MTS'') modifier. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to
make the MTS modifier available for Non-Displayed Primary Pegged Orders
\4\ and Discretionary Pegged Orders. In addition, the Exchange proposes
to provide additional optionality for ETP Holders using the MTS
modifier with Midpoint Liquidity (``MPL'') Orders, Non-Displayed
Primary Pegged Orders, and Discretionary Pegged Orders. As proposed,
ETP Holders could choose how such orders would trade on arrival to
trade either with (i) orders that in the aggregate meet the MTS
(current functionality), or (ii) individual orders that each meet the
MTS (proposed functionality).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange proposes a non-substantive amendment to rename
``Primary Pegged Orders'' as ``Non-Displayed Primary Pegged Orders''
in Rule 7.31E(h)(2). The Exchange believes that this proposed
amendment provides transparency regarding whether Primary Pegged
Orders on the Exchange are displayed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MTS modifier is currently available for Limit IOC Orders,\5\
MPL Orders,\6\ and Tracking Orders.\7\ As such, the MTS modifier is
currently available only for orders that are not displayed and do not
route. On arrival, both Limit IOC Orders and MPL Orders with an MTS
modifier will trade against contra-side orders in the Exchange Book
that in the aggregate, meet the MTS.\8\ Once resting, MPL Orders and
Tracking Orders with an MTS modifier function similarly: If a contra-
side order does not meet the MTS, the incoming order will not trade
with and may trade through the resting order with the MTS modifier. In
addition, both MPL Orders and Tracking Orders with an MTS modifier will
be cancelled if such orders are traded in part or reduced in size and
the remaining quantity is less than the MTS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Rule 7.31E(b)(2)(A) (``A Limit IOC Order to buy (sell)
may be designated with a minimum trade size (``MTS''), which will
trade against sell (buy) orders in the Exchange Book that in the
aggregate, meets its MTS. On entry, a Limit IOC Order with an MTS
must have a minimum of one round lot and will be rejected on arrival
if the MTS is larger than the size of the Limit IOC Order. A Limit
IOC Order with an MTS that cannot be immediately traded at its
minimum size will be cancelled in its entirety.'')
    \6\ See Rule 7.31E(d)(3)(D) (``An MPL Order may be designated
with an MTS of a minimum of one round lot and will be rejected on
arrival if the MTS is larger than the size of the MPL Order. On
arrival, an MPL Order to buy (sell) with an MTS will trade with sell
(buy) orders in the Exchange Book that in the aggregate, meets its
MTS. If the sell (buy) orders do not meet the MTS, the MPL Order to
buy (sell) will not trade on arrival and will be ranked in the
Exchange Book. Once resting, an MPL Order to buy (sell) with an MTS
will trade with an order to sell (buy) that meets the MTS and is
priced at or below (above) the midpoint of the PBBO. If an order
does not meet an MPL Order's MTS, the order will not trade with and
may trade through such MPL Order. If an MPL Order with an MTS is
traded in part or reduced in size and the remaining quantity of the
order is less than the MTS, the MPL Order will be cancelled.'')
    \7\ See Rule 7.31E(d)(4)(C) (``A Tracking Order may be
designated with an MTS of one round lot or more. If an incoming
order cannot meet the MTS, a Tracking Order with a later working
time will trade ahead of the Tracking Order designated with an MTS
with an earlier working time. If a Tracking Order with an MTS is
traded in part or reduced in size and the remaining quantity is less
than the MTS, the Tracking Order will be cancelled.'')
    \8\ Tracking Orders, including Tracking Orders with an MTS
modifier, are passive orders that do not trade on arrival.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend its rules to make MTS modifier
functionality available for additional non-displayed orders that do not
route, i.e., Non-Displayed Primary Pegged Orders and Discretionary
Pegged Orders. The Exchange also proposes to add an option that an
order with an MTS modifier would trade on entry only with individual
orders that each meet the MTS. These proposed changes are based on the
rules of Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'') and Investors Exchange
LLC (``IEX''), which both offer minimum trade size functionality for
orders that are not displayed and that do not route, including pegging
orders and for IEX, its Discretionary Peg Order.\9\ Both exchanges also
offer the option for orders with a minimum trade size to trade on entry
only with individual orders that each meet the MTS of the incoming
order.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Nasdaq Rule 4703(e) (Nasdaq's ``Minimum Quantity Order''
may not be displayed and will be rejected if it includes an
instruction to route) and IEX Rule 11.190(b)(11)(A) (IEX's ``Minimum
Quantity Order'' or ``MQTY'' is a non-displayed, non-routable order
that may be a pegged order, which includes IEX's ``Primary Peg
Order'' and ``Discretionary Peg Order'').
    \10\ See Nasdaq Rule 4703(e) (Nasdaq's ``Minimum Quantity''
order attribute allows for a Nasdaq participant to specify one of
two alternatives to how a Minimum Quantity Order would be processed
at the time of entry, one of which is that ``the minimum quantity
condition must be satisfied by execution against one or more orders,
each of which must have a size that satisfies the minimum quantity
condition'') and IEX Rule 11.190(b)(11)(G)(iii)(B) (On arrival,
IEX's ``Minimum Execution Size with All-or-None Remaining''
qualifier for IEX's MQTY executes against each willing resting order
in priority, provided that each individual execution size meets its
effective minimum quantity.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To effect this proposed rule change, the Exchange proposes to move
all references to MTS modifiers in Rule 7.31E to proposed Rule
7.31E(i)(3), as a new additional order instruction and modifier to be
referred to as the ``Minimum Trade Size (`MTS') Modifier.'' As
proposed, Rule 7.31E(i)(3) would provide that a Limit IOC Order, MPL
Order, Tracking Order, Non-Displayed Primary Pegged Order, or
Discretionary Pegged Order may be designated with an MTS Modifier.
Because this proposed rule text would specify which orders would be
eligible for the MTS Modifier, the Exchange proposes to delete existing
rule text specifying which orders are and are not eligible for an
MTS.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Exchange proposes to delete references to MTS in Rules
7.31E(b)(2)(A), 7.31E(b)(2)(B), 7.31E(d)(3)(D), 7.31E(d)(4)(C),
7.31E(e)(3)(B), and 7.46E(f)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 7.31E(i)(3)(A) would provide that an MTS must be a
minimum of a round lot and that an order with an MTS Modifier would be
rejected if the MTS is less than a round lot or if the MTS is larger
than the size of the order. This proposed rule text is based on the
next-to-last sentence of Rule 7.31E(b)(2)(A) and the first sentence of
7.31E(d)(3)(D), and in part on the first sentence of Rule
7.31E(d)(4)(C), with non-substantive differences to use common
terminology when applying this requirement to all of the order types
eligible for an MTS Modifier.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Nasdaq also requires that its Minimum Quantity Order also
have a size of at least a round lot. See Nasdaq Rule 4703(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 7.31E(i)(3)(B) would provide that an ETP Holder must
specify one of the following instructions with respect to how an order
with an MTS Modifier would trade at the time of entry. This proposed
text is new and reflects the Exchange's proposal to add an alternative
to how an order with an MTS Modifier would trade on entry. Proposed
Rule 7.31E(i)(3)(B)(i) would describe the existing functionality as one
of the instructions that would be available to ETP Holders. The
proposed rule would provide that an order to buy (sell) with an MTS
Modifier would trade with sell (buy) orders in the Exchange Book that
in the aggregate meet such order's MTS. This proposed rule text is
based on the third sentence of Rule 7.31E(b)(2)(A) and the second
sentence of Rule 7.31E(d)(3)(D) with non-substantive differences to use
common terminology when applying this requirement to all of the order
types eligible for an MTS Modifier.
    Proposed Rule 7.31E(i)(3)(B)(ii) would describe the new instruction
that on entry, an order to buy (sell) with an MTS Modifier could trade
with individual sell (buy) order(s) in the Exchange Book that each
meets such order's MTS. Because the Exchange is not proposing to change
how an MTS Modifier would function for Limit IOC Orders, the Exchange
further proposes

to provide that this instruction would not be available for Limit IOC
Orders. As discussed above, the addition of this instruction for how
orders with an MTS Modifier would trade on entry is based on the rules
of Nasdaq and IEX.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See supra note 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 7.31E(i)(3)(C) would provide that an order with an
MTS Modifier that is designated Day and cannot be satisfied on arrival
would not trade and would be ranked in the Exchange Book. This proposed
rule text is based on the third sentence of Rule 7.31E(d)(3)(D) with
non-substantive differences to reference orders designated Day so that
this proposed rule text would also be applicable to Non-Displayed
Primary Pegged Orders and Discretionary Pegged Orders, which are also
designated Day.
    Proposed Rule 7.31E(i)(3)(D) would provide that an order with an
MTS Modifier that is designated IOC and cannot be immediately satisfied
would be cancelled in its entirety. This proposed rule text is based on
the last sentence of Rule 7.31E(b)(2)(A), with non-substantive
differences to specify that this functionality would be applicable to
any orders designated IOC that have an MTS Modifier, i.e., Limit IOC
Orders and MPL-IOC Orders.
    Proposed Rule 7.31E(i)(3)(E) would provide that a resting order to
buy (sell) with an MTS Modifier would trade with individual sell (buy)
order(s) that each meets the MTS. This proposed rule text is based on
the fourth sentence of Rule 7.31E(d)(3)(D) with a non-substantive
difference to use the same terminology as proposed Rule
7.31E(i)(3)(B)(ii) because a resting order with an MTS Modifier only
trades if contra-side individual orders each meets such order's MTS.
The Exchange proposes non-substantive differences to use common
terminology when applying this requirement to all of the order types
eligible for an MTS Modifier.
    Proposed Rules 7.31E(i)(3)(E)(i)-(iii) would set forth additional
requirements for how a resting order with an MTS Modifier would trade.
Proposed Rule 7.31E(i)(3)(E)(i) would provide that if a sell (buy)
order does not meet the MTS of the resting order to buy (sell) with an
MTS Modifier, that sell (buy) order would not trade with and may trade
through such order with an MTS Modifier. This proposed rule text is
based on the fifth sentence of Rule 7.31E(d)(3)(D) and the second
sentence of Rule 7.31E(d)(4)(C) with non-substantive differences to use
common terminology when applying this requirement to all of the order
types eligible for an MTS Modifier.
    Proposed Rule 7.31E(i)(3)(E)(ii) would provide that if a resting
sell (buy) order did not meet the MTS of a same-priced resting order to
buy (sell) with an MTS Modifier, a subsequently arriving sell (buy)
order that meets the MTS would trade ahead of the resting sell (buy)
order. This proposed rule text is based on the second sentence of Rule
7.31E(d)(4)(C) with non-substantive differences to use common
terminology when applying this requirement to all of the order types
eligible for an MTS Modifier.
    Proposed Rule 7.31E(i)(3)(E)(iii) would provide that a resting
order to buy (sell) with an MTS Modifier would not be eligible to trade
if sell (buy) order(s) ranked Priority 2--Display Orders are displayed
on the Exchange Book at a price lower (higher) than the working price
of such MTS Order. This proposed rule is new and is designed to ensure
that a non-displayed order with an MTS Modifier that is resting on the
Exchange Book would not trade at a price that crosses the price of a
displayed contra-side order.
    For example, if the PBBO \14\ is $10.10 x $10.14 and there is a
resting MPL Order to buy with an MTS Modifier for 100 shares that has a
working price of $10.12 (``Order A''), a later-arriving Limit Order to
sell ranked Priority 2--Display Orders for 50 shares priced at $10.11
(``Order B'') would not be eligible to trade with Order A because it
does not meet Order A's MTS. However, because it is odd-lot sized,
Order B would not change the PBBO and therefore the working price of
Order A would not change, but Order B would be displayed on the
Exchange's proprietary data feeds at $10.11. In such case, to eliminate
the potential for the Exchange to have an execution of Order A at a
higher price than Order B, Order A would not be eligible to trade until
such time that Order B no longer internally crosses Order A's working
price. Order A and Order B would no longer be internally crossed if,
for example, Order B is cancelled or executed or if the PBBO moves such
that the working price of Order A no longer internally crosses the
display price of Order B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ PBBO is defined in Rule 1.1E(dd) as the Best Protected Bid
and the Best Protected Offer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a related matter, the Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 7.46E
(Tick Size Pilot Plan) to establish how the Exchange would process
orders with an MTS Modifier for Pilot Securities in Test Group Three.
Proposed Rule 7.46E(f)(5)(I) would provide that for such securities, a
resting order to buy (sell) with an MTS Modifier would not be eligible
to trade if sell (buy) order(s) ranked Priority 2--Display Orders are
displayed on the Exchange Book at a price equal to or lower (higher)
than the working price of such MTS Order. The Exchange proposes this
difference for Pilot Securities in Test Group Three of the Tick Size
Pilot Plan to ensure that a non-displayed order does not trade ahead of
a same-price contra-side displayed order.
    For example, if the PBBO is $10.10 x $10.20 and there is a resting
MPL Order to buy with an MTS Modifier for 100 shares that has a working
price of $10.15 (``Order A''), a later-arriving Limit Order to sell
ranked Priority 2--Display Orders for 50 shares priced at $10.15
(``Order B'') would not be eligible to trade with Order A because it
does not meet Order A's MTS, would not change the PBBO, and, pursuant
to proposed Rule 7.31E(i)(3)(E)(ii), would rest on the Exchange Book
internally locking the price of Order A. To avoid a violation of the
Tick Size Pilot Plan for Pilot Securities in Test Group Three, Order A
would not be eligible to trade if Order B is displayed at Order A's
working price until such time that the displayed order no longer
internally locks Order A's working price. Order A and Order B would no
longer be internally locked if, for example, Order B is cancelled or
executed or if the PBBO moves such that the working price of Order A no
longer internally locks the display price of Order B.
    Proposed Rule 7.31E(i)(3)(F) would provide that a resting order
with an MTS Modifier would be cancelled if it is traded in part or
reduced in size and the remaining quantity is less than such order's
MTS. This proposed rule text is based on the last sentence of Rule
7.31E(d)(3)(D) and the last sentence of Rule 7.31E(d)(4)(C) with non-
substantive differences to use common terminology when applying this
requirement to all of the order types eligible for an MTS Modifier.
    Because of the technology changes associated with this proposed
rule change, the Exchange will announce the implementation date of this
proposed rule change by Trader Update. The Exchange anticipates that
the implementation date will be in the fourth quarter of 2017.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\15\ in general, and
furthers the

objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\16\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposal to expand the availability
of the Exchange's existing MTS Modifier to additional non-displayed,
non-routable orders, e.g., Non-Displayed Primary Pegged Orders and
Discretionary Pegged Orders, would remove impediments to, and perfect
the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest, because
the proposed rule change is based on similar minimum trade size
functionality on Nasdaq and IEX, which exchanges similarly make minimum
trade size functionality available to non-displayed, non-routable
orders, including pegging orders, and for IEX, its Discretionary Peg
Order.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposal would remove impediments
to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national
market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest because it would provide ETP Holders with the option for
orders with a minimum trade size to trade on entry only with individual
orders that each meets the MTS of the incoming order, thereby providing
ETP Holders with more control in how such orders could execute. As
such, the proposed rule change is based on similar options available
for users of minimum trade size functionality on Nasdaq and IEX.\18\
The Exchange further believes that this proposed option would remove
impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market
and a national market system because it would allow ETP Holders to
provide an instruction that an order with an MTS Modifier would not
trade with orders that are smaller in size that the MTS for such order,
thereby providing ETP Holders with more control over when an order with
an MTS Modifier may be executed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See supra note 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposal regarding when a resting
order with an MTS would be eligible to trade would remove impediments
to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national
market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest, because the proposed rule change would ensure that a non-
displayed order does not trade at a price that crosses the price of
interest that is displayed on the Exchange, or for Tick Size Pilot
Securities in Group Three, so that a non-displayed order would not
trade at the same price as contra-side displayed interest in violation
of the Tick Size Pilot Plan. This proposed rule change would therefore
promote just and equitable principles of trade by ensuring that
displayed interest does not get traded through by a non-displayed
order.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed amendment to
rename the ``Primary Pegged Order'' as the ``Non-Displayed Primary
Pegged Order'' would remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism
of, a free and open market and a national market system and, in
general, to protect investors and the public interest because it would
promote transparency in Exchange rules regarding whether Primary Pegged
Orders on the Exchange are displayed.

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 Exchange believes that
the proposed rule change is designed to address competition by making
available on the Exchange functionality that is already available on
Nasdaq and IEX. The Exchange therefore believes that the proposed rule
change would promote competition by providing market participants with
an additional venue to which to route non-displayed, non-routable
orders with an MTS Modifier.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \19\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \21\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \22\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that
the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange
stated that implementing the MTS modifier functionality as soon as
possible would provide ETP Holders with greater control over when an
order with an MTS modifier may be executed. The Exchange also stated
that waiver of the 30-day operative delay would allow it to implement
the proposed rule change when the technology supporting the change
becomes available, which the Exchange anticipates to be less than 30
days after the date of this filing. The Commission notes that the
proposed functionality is already available on other national
securities exchanges. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day
operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the operative
delay and designates the proposal operative upon filing.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \22\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \23\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule

change should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2017-17 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-NYSEAMER-2017-17. 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-NYSEAMER-2017-17 and should
be submitted on or before October 18, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-20626 Filed 9-26-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P