[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 19 (Friday, January 29, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5027-5031]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01691]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-76971; File No. SR-NYSE-2015-46]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Order
Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Disapprove a Proposed
Rule Change To Establish Rules To Comply With the Quoting and Trading
Requirements of the Plan To Implement a Tick Size Pilot Plan Submitted
to the Commission Pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS Under the Act
January 25, 2016.
I. Introduction
On October 9, 2015, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to establish rules to comply with the quoting and
trading requirements of the Plan to Implement a Tick Size Pilot Program
(``Plan'') submitted to the Commission pursuant to Rule 608 of
Regulation NMS under the Act (``Tick Size Pilot''). The proposed rule
change was published for comment in the Federal Register on October 28,
2015.\3\ The Commission has received two comment letters on the
proposal.\4\ On December 3, 2015, the Commission designated a longer
period for Commission action on the proposed rule change, until January
26, 2016.\5\ On January 15, 2016, the Exchange, on behalf of NYSE Arca,
Inc., NYSE MKT LLC, and the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX''),
submitted a letter in response to the comment letters.\6\ This order
institutes proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \7\ to
determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
\2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
\3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76229 (October 22,
2015), 80 FR 66065 (``Notice'').
\4\ See letters from Mary Lou Von Kaenel, Managing Director,
Financial Information Forum, dated November 5, 2015 (``FIF
Letter''); and Theodore R. Lazo, Managing Director and Associate
General Counsel, Securities Industry and Financial Markets
Association, dated December 18, 2015 (``SIFMA Letter'').
\5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76551, 80 FR 76602
(December 9, 2015).
\6\ See letter from Brendon J. Weiss, Co-Head, Government
Affairs, Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. and John K. Kerin, CEO,
Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., dated January 15, 2016 (``Response
Letter''). In the Response Letter, the Exchange also commented on
proposed rule changes submitted by the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'') and BATS Exchange, Inc. (``BATS'') to
implement the quoting and trading requirements of the Tick Size
Pilot. See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 76483 (November 19,
2015), 80 FR 73853 (November 25, 2015) (SR-FINRA-2015-047) and 76552
(December 3, 2015), 80 FR 76591 (December 9, 2015) (SR-BATS-2015-
108) (together the ``FINRA/BATS Proposals'').
\7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change
NYSE proposes to adopt NYSE Rule 67(a), (c), (d), and (e) \8\ to
implement the quoting and trading requirements of the Tick Size Pilot.
Proposed Rule 67(a)(1) contains definitions \9\ of ``Plan,'' \10\
``Pilot Test Groups,'' \11\ ``Trading Center,'' \12\ and ``Retail
Investor Order.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The Exchange has reserved proposed Rule 67(b) for future use
to require compliance by its member organizations with the
collection of data pursuant to the Plan.
\9\ Proposed NYSE Rule 67(a)(1)(E) provides that all capitalized
terms not otherwise defined in proposed NYSE Rule 67 shall have the
meanings set forth in the Tick Size Pilot, Regulation NMS under the
Exchange Act, or Exchange Rules.
\10\ NYSE proposes to define the ``Plan'' as the Tick Size Pilot
plan submitted to the Commission pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation
NMS. See proposed NYSE Rule 67(a)(1)(A).
\11\ NYSE proposes to define ``Pilot Test Groups'' as the three
test groups established under the Plan, consisting of 400 Pilot
Securities each, which satisfy the respective criteria established
under the Plan for each such test group. See proposed NYSE Rule
67(a)(1)(B).
\12\ NYSE proposes to define ``Trading Center'' as having the
same meaning as Rule 600(b)(78) of Regulation NMS and for purposes
of a Trading Center operated by a broker-dealer, means an
independent trading unit, as defined under Rule 200(f) of Regulation
SHO, within such broker-dealer. See proposed NYSE Rule 67(a)(1)(C).
\13\ NYSE proposes to define ``Retail Investor Order'' as an
agency order or riskless principal order that meets the criteria of
FINRA Rule 5320.03 that originates from a natural person and is
submitted to the Exchange by a retail member organization (or a
divisions thereof that has been approved by the Exchange under the
Exchange's retail liquidity program (Rule 107C) to submit Retail
Investor Orders), provided that no change is made to the terms of
the order with respect to the price or side of market and the order
does not originate from a trading algorithm or any other
computerized technology. A Retail Investor Order is an immediate or
cancel orders that operate in accordance with the Exchange's retail
liquidity program as set forth in NYSE Rule 107C. See proposed NYSE
Rule 67(a)(1)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed NYSE Rule 67(a)(2) provides that the Exchange is a
Participant \14\ in the Plan and is subject to the applicable
requirements of the Plan.\15\ Proposed NYSE Rule 67(a)(3) provides that
member organizations shall establish, maintain, and enforce written
policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to comply with the
applicable requirements of the Plan.\16\
[[Page 5028]]
Proposed NYSE Rule 67(a)(4) provides that Exchange systems will not
display, quote, or trade in violation of the applicable quoting and
trading requirements for a Pilot Security specified in the Plan the
NYSE Rule 67, unless such quotation or transaction is specifically
exempted under the Plan.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Unless otherwise noted, capitalized terms not defined in
this order shall have the meanings set forth in the Plan.
\15\ See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(a)(2).
\16\ See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(a)(3).
\17\ See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(a)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed NYSE Rule 67(a)(5) defines the procedure for dealing with
Pilot Securities that drop below $1.00 during the Pilot Period. If the
price of a Pilot Security drops below $1.00 during regular trading but
does not have a Closing Price below $1.00, the Pilot Security will
continue to trade according to the quoting and trading requirements of
its originally assigned Test Group in the Plan. If a Pilot Security has
a Closing Price below $1.00, the Pilot Security would be moved from its
respective Test Group into the Control Group, and would be quoted and
traded at any price increment that is currently permitted by Exchange
rules for the remainder of the Pilot Period.\18\ Proposed NYSE Rule
67(a)(5) further provides that notwithstanding anything to the
contrary, at all times during the Pilot Period, Pilot Securities
(whether in the Control Group or any Pilot Test Group) will continue to
be subject to the requirements contained in Paragraph (b).\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(a)(5).
\19\ The Commission notes that the Exchange has reserved
Paragraph (b) for the data collection contemplated under the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed NYSE Rule 67(c) describes the quoting and trading
requirements of Pilot Securities in Test Group One. Specifically, NYSE
proposes that no member may display, rank, or accept from any person
any displayable or non-displayable bids or offers, orders, or
indications of interest in increments other than $0.05 for Pilot
Securities in Test Group One.\20\ Orders priced to trade at the
midpoint of the national best bid and national best offer (``NBBO'') or
best protected bid and best protected offer (``PBBO'') and orders
entered into the Exchange's Retail Liquidity Program as Retail Price
Improvement Orders may be ranked and accepted in increments of less
than $0.05.\21\ Pilot Securities in Test Group One may continue to
trade at any price increment currently permitted.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(c).
\21\ See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(c).
\22\ See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed NYSE Rule 67(d) describes the quoting and trading
requirements of Pilot Securities in Test Group Two. Specifically, NYSE
proposes that no member may display, rank, or accept from any person
any displayable or non-displayable bids or offers, orders, or
indications of interest in increments other than $0.05 for Pilot
Securities in Test Group Two.\23\ Further, NYSE proposes that absent
any enumerated exceptions, no member organization may execute orders in
any Test Group Two Pilot Security in a price increment other than
$0.05.\24\ Proposed NYSE Rule 67(d)(3) provides for three exceptions
where Test Group Two Pilot Securities could trade in increments of less
than $0.05. First, trading could occur at the midpoint between the NBBO
or the PBBO.\25\ Second, Retail Investor Orders may be provided with
price improvement that is at least $0.005 better than the PBBO.\26\
Finally, Negotiated Trades may trade in increment less than $0.05.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Similar to the exception in Test Group One, orders priced
to trade at the midpoint of the NBBO or PBBO and orders entered into
the Exchange's Retail Liquidity Program as Retail Price Improvement
Orders may be ranked and accepted in increments of less than $0.05.
See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(d).
\24\ Proposed NYSE Rule 67(d)(2) applies to all trades,
including Brokered Cross Trades.
\25\ See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(d)(3)(A).
\26\ See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(d)(3)(B).
\27\ See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(d)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed NYSE Rule 67(e) describes the quoting and trading
requirements of Pilot Securities in Test Group Three. NYSE proposes for
Pilot Securities in Test Group Three no member organization may
display, rank, or accept from any person any displayable or non-
displayable bids or offers, orders, or indications of interest in
increments other than $0.05.\28\ Proposed NYSE Rule 67(e)(2) states
that absent an enumerated exception, no member organization may execute
orders in any Test Group Three Pilot Security in a price increment
other than $0.05.\29\ Proposed NYSE Rule 67(e)(3) provides for the same
three exceptions as in Test Group Two.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Similar to the exceptions in Test Group One and Test Group
Two, orders priced to trade at the midpoint of the NBBO or PBBO and
orders entered into the Exchange's Retail Liquidity Program as
Retail Price Improvement Orders may be ranked and accepted in
increments of less than $0.05. See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(e)(1).
\29\ Proposed NYSE Rule 67(e)(2) applies to all trades,
including Brokered Cross Trades.
\30\ See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(e)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed NYSE Rule 67(e)(4) states the Test Group Three Pilot
Securities will be subject to a Trade-at Prohibition. Proposed NYSE
Rule 67(e)(4)(A) defines ``Trade-At Prohibition'' as the prohibition
against executions by a Trading Center of a sell order for a Pilot
Security at the Price of a Protected Bid or the execution of a buy
order at the price of a Protected Offer during regular trading
hours.\31\ Proposed NYSE Rule 67(e)(4)(B) states that absent any
enumerated exception, no member organization may execute a sell order
for a Pilot Security in Test Group Three at the price of a Protected
Bid or a buy order at the price of a Protected Offer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(e)(4)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed NYSE Rule 67(e)(4)(C) provides that a member organization
may execute a sell order for a Pilot Security in Test Group Three at
the price of a Protected Bid or a buy order for a Pilot Security in
Test Group Three at the price of a Protected Offer under the following
14 circumstances. First, an order may be executed by a Trading Center
within a member organization that has a displayed quotation for the
account of that Trading Center on a principal basis, via either a
processor or an SRO Quotation Feed, at a price equal to the traded-at
Protected Quotation, that was displayed before the order was received,
but only up to the full displayed size of the Trading Center's
previously displayed quote.\32\ In the Notice, NYSE stated that ``[b]y
requiring the displayed quotation to be for the account of `that
Trading Center,' the Trading Center cannot rely on any quotations it
may put up on an agency basis, including a riskless principal basis.''
\33\ NYSE further noted that ``[a] Trading Center that is a broker-
dealer also cannot rely on any quotation that is not a displayed
quotation for its own account, such as a quotation of another broker-
dealer, or customer of such broker-dealer.'' \34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(e)(4)(C)(i).
\33\ See Notice at note 26.
\34\ See Notice at note 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second exception permits the execution of an order that
consists of odd lot orders and odd lot portions of partial round lot
orders that are displayed on the SRO Quotation Feed at the price equal
to the traded-at Protected Quotation, up to the size of the displayed
quotation.\35\ The third exception allows the execution of an order
that is of Block Size \36\ at the time of origin and is not: An
aggregation of non-block orders; broken into orders smaller than Block
Size prior to submitting the order to a Trading Center for execution;
or executed on multiple Trading Centers.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Proposed Supplementary Material .10 to NYSE Rule
67(e)(4)(c)(ii) states that a member would be prohibited from
breaking round lot order or a round lot portion of a partial round
lot into an odd lot order to avoid the restrictions of the proposed
Rule.
\36\ ``Block Size'' is defined in the Plan as an order (1) of at
least 5,000 shares or (2) for a quantity of stock having a market
value of at least $100,000.
\37\ See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(e)(4)(C)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fourth exception permits the execution of a Retail Investor
Order
[[Page 5029]]
executed with at least $0.005 price improvement.\38\ The firth
exception permits the execution of an order when the Trading Center
displaying the Protected Quotation that was traded-at experiences a
failure, material delay, or malfunction of its systems or
equipment.\39\ The sixth exception permits the execution of an order as
part of a transaction that was not a regular way contract.\40\ The
seventh exception permits the execution of an order as part of a
single-priced opening, reopening, or closing transaction on the
Exchange.\41\ The eighth exception permits the execution of an order
when a Protected Bid is priced higher than a Protected Offer in the
Pilot Security.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(e)(4)(C)(iv).
\39\ See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(e)(4)(C)(v).
\40\ See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(e)(4)(C)(vi).
\41\ See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(e)(4)(C)(vii).
\42\ See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(e)(4)(C)(viii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ninth exception permits the execution of an order that is
identified as a Trade-at Intermarket Sweep Order.\43\ The tenth
exception permits the execution of an order by a Trading Center that
simultaneously routed Trade-at Intermarket Sweep Orders to execute
against the full displayed size of the Protected Quotation that was
traded at.\44\ The eleventh exception permits the execution of an order
that is part of a Negotiated Trade.\45\ The twelfth exception permits
the execution of an order when the Trading Center displaying the
Protected Quotation that was traded at had displayed within one second
prior to execution of the transaction that constituted the Trade-at, a
Best Protected Bid or Best Protected Offer, as applicable, for the
Pilot Security with a price that was inferior to the price of the
Trade-at transaction.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(e)(4)(C)(ix).
\44\ See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(e)(4)(C)(x).
\45\ See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(e)(4)(C)(xi).
\46\ See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(e)(4)(C)(xii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The thirteenth exception permits the execution of an order by a
Trading Center, which at the time of order receipt, had guaranteed an
execution at no worse than a specified price (a ``stopped order'')
where: (1) The stopped order was for the account of a customer; (2) the
customer agreed to the specified price on an order-by-order basis; and
(3) the price of the Trade-at transaction was, for a stopped buy order,
equal to the National Best Bid in the Pilot Security at the time of
execution or, for a stopped sell order, equal to the National Best
Offer in the Pilot Security at the time of execution.\47\ Finally, the
last exception permits the execution of an order that is for a
fractional share of a Pilot Security, provided that such fractional
share order was not the result of breaking an order for one or more
whole shares of a Pilot Security into orders for fractional shares or
was not otherwise effected to evade the requirements of the Tick Size
Pilot.\48\ Proposed NYSE Rule 67(D) states that no member organization
shall break an order into smaller orders to evade the requirements of
the Trade-at Prohibition or any provisions of the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(e)(4)(C)(xiii).
\48\ See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(e)(4)(C)(xiv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Summary of Comments and the Exchange's Response
The Commission has received two comment letters on the proposed
rule change and a response from the Exchange. One commenter expressed
concern with the differences between the NYSE proposal and the rules to
comply with the quoting and trading requirements of the Plan proposed
in the FINRA/BATS Proposals,\49\ particularly with respect to the
Trade-at Prohibition.\50\ The commenter noted that the NYSE proposal
would limit a Trading Center from price matching a Protected Quotation
to when the Trading Center is displaying in a principal capacity, while
the FINRA/BATS Proposals are not so restrictive. The commenter stated
its belief that the FINRA/BATS Proposals are more consistent with the
terms of the Plan, and that the Commission should approve it instead.
The commenter further stressed the importance of consistency in the
rules implementing the Plan, and expressed the view that if the
different proposals are approved, compliance by market participants
``would be virtually impossible.'' \51\ This commenter also noted that
there are differences in certain key defined terms, such as ``Retail
Investor Order,'' between the NYSE proposal and the FINRA/BATS
Proposals.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ See supra note 6.
\50\ See SIFMA Letter.
\51\ See SIFMA Letter.
\52\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The other commenter also expressed concern with the proposal's
limitation of the exception to the Trade-at Prohibition discussed above
to principal quotations, and with the certain defined terms, such as
``Retail Investor Order'' and ``Block Size''.\53\ In addition, it
suggested the inclusion of certain other exceptions that align with
those available, through Commission exemption and guidance, in
connection with Rule 611 of Regulation NMS, and raised questions as to
whether the proposal was limited to the exchange-related activities of
NYSE members, or would apply to their off-exchange activities as
well.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ See FIF Letter.
\54\ The commenter stated its belief that the additional
qualifiers will inhibit a Trading Center from facilitating a block
cross trade. See FIF Letter. The commenter also raised other issues
not directly addressed by the Exchange's proposal, such as the
timeline for implementation, additional exceptions for Trade-at
Prohibition, and unanswered questions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its Response Letter, the Exchange expressed the view that its
proposal is consistent with the goals of the Plan, including testing
whether market participants are incentivized to display more liquidity
in a wider tick environment. On the other hand, in the Exchange's
opinion, the FINRA/BATS Proposals would create an incentive for trading
in Test Group Three to migrate to dark venues, which would be
inconsistent with the goals of the Plan. Specifically, the Exchange
expressed the view that the FINRA/BATS Proposals would allow an
alternative trading system (``ATS'') to execute matched trades of any
of its participants at the price of a Traded-at Protected Quotation if
the ATS is displaying, on an agency basis, a quotation of another
participant at the Protected Quotation. Thus, the Exchange reasoned
that the FINRA/BATS Proposals would allow trades by ATS participants at
the price of a Protected Quotation without requiring them to display a
Protected Quotation, but instead ``free-ride'' on the Protected
Quotation of another participant in the ATS that is displayed, on an
agency basis by the ATS. This would, in the opinion of the Exchange,
``eviscerate'' the requirement for dark pools to trade with Protected
Quotations, and be contrary to the Commission's intent for the Trade-At
Prohibition to test whether market participants are incentivized to
display more liquidity in a wider tick environment.
The Exchange confirmed one commenter's understanding with respect
to the Retail Investor Order exception and that the exception would
allow for over-the-counter trading. Additionally, the Exchange stated
that it opposed changing the Block Size exception as the Exchange does
not believe that a trading center should be permitted to facilitate a
block cross that aggregates multiple smaller orders, even if one
component of the block meets the definition of Block Size Order.
IV. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Disapprove SR-NYSE-2015-46 and
Grounds for Disapproval Under Consideration
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section
[[Page 5030]]
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \55\ to determine whether the Exchange's
proposed rule change should be disapproved. Institution of proceedings
is appropriate at this time in view of the legal and policy issues
raised by the proposed rule change as discussed below. Institution of
proceedings does not indicate that the Commission has reached any
conclusions with respect to any of the issues involved. Rather, as
described in greater detail below, the Commission seeks and encourages
interested persons to provide additional comment on the proposed rule
change to inform the Commission's analysis whether to disapprove the
proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,\56\ the Commission is
providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under consideration.
The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional
analysis of, and input from commenters with respect to, the proposed
rule change's consistency with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act and Section
6(b)(8) of the Act. Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \57\ requires that an
exchange's rules be designed, among other things, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and
to protect investors and the public interest, and that they not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers or dealers. Section 6(b)(8) of the Act \58\ requires that rules
of the exchange not impose any burden on competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B). Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act also
provides that proceedings to determine whether to approve or
disapprove a proposed rule change must be concluded within 180 days
of the date of publication of notice of the filing of the proposed
rule change. Id. The time for conclusion of the proceedings may be
extended for up to 60 days if the Commission finds good cause for
such extension and publishes its reasons for so finding. Id.
\57\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
\58\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange's proposal would establish rules for NYSE member
organizations to comply with the quoting and trading requirements of
the Tick Size Pilot. NYSE proposes to adopt a version of the Trade-at
Prohibition that would be more restrictive than required by the Plan,
the applicable provisions of which would permit a Trading Center to
execute an order for a Pilot Security in Test Group Three if that
Trading Center ``is displaying a quotation, via either a processor or
an SRO quotation feed, at a price equal to the traded-at protected
quotation but only up to the trading center's full displayed size.''
\59\ The Exchange's proposal would limit the ability of a Trading
Center to rely on this exception to the Trade-at Prohibition to
situations where it is displaying a quotation as principal, and not
where it is displaying a quotation as agent (including riskless
principal). The Exchange justifies this additional restriction out of
concern that Trading Centers that are ATSs might be used to execute a
``matched trade'' by an ATS participant that itself is not displaying a
Protected Quotation, but instead is relying upon another ATS
participant to do so, thereby creating a ``loophole'' in the Trade-at
Prohibition. However, by precluding any Trading Center from relying on
any quotation displayed as agent, the Exchange's proposal effectively
would preclude all ATSs, which necessarily execute orders as agent,
from executing transactions at the NBBO even if they are displaying a
Protected Quotation. The Exchange has not clearly explained why it
believes a new ATS business model--one that allows priority for
participants executing ``matched trades'' over displayed quotations--is
viable and likely to arise in the context of the Tick Size Pilot.
Further, even if the Exchange were able to offer such an explanation,
it has not clearly explained why there is not a more targeted way to
address this potential loophole in the Trade-at Prohibition than one
which precludes all ATSs, including those operating as traditional
electronic communication networks, or ``ECNs,'' from executing
transactions at the NBBO. The Commission therefore believes that
questions are raised as to whether the proposed rule change is
consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) and Section 6(b)(8)
of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ See Tick Size Plan Section VI.D.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Commission's Solicitation of Comments
The Commission requests written views, data, and arguments with
respect to the concerns identified above as well as other relevant
concerns. Such comments should be submitted by February 19, 2016.
Rebuttal comments should be submitted by March 4, 2016. Although there
do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval
which would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and
arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any
request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). Section 19(b)(2) of the Act grants the
Commission flexibility to determine what type of proceeding--either
oral or notice and opportunity for written comments--is appropriate
for consideration of a particular proposal by a self-regulatory
organization. See Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Senate Comm. on
Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th Cong., 1st
Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the proposed rule change, 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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2015-46 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-2015-46. 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. 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 publicly available. All submissions should refer to File Number
SR-NYSE-2015-46 and should be submitted on or before February 19, 2016.
Rebuttal comments should be submitted by March 4, 2016.
[[Page 5031]]
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-01691 Filed 1-28-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P