9770 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 36 / Tuesday, February 24, 2015 / Notices 

12 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 

13 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

14 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

3See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73593 

(Nov. 14, 2014), 79 FR 69153 (‘‘Notice’’). 

4The Exchange also submitted a copy of the 

amendment to the public comment file. See Letter 

from Sudhir Bhattacharyya, Vice President, New 

York Stock Exchange, to Kevin M. O’Neill, Deputy 

Secretary, Commission (Nov. 14, 2014). 

5 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 

6See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73913, 

79 FR 78531 (Dec. 30, 2014). The Commission 

designated February 18, 2015, as the date by which 

it should approve, disapprove, or institute 

proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the 

proposed rule change. 

7 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B). 

BGM Affiliated Exchanges and an 

enhanced ability of the BGM Affiliated 

Exchanges to fairly and efficiently 

regulate members, which will further 

enhance competition. 

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Comments on the 

Proposed Rule Change Received From 

Members, Participants or Others 

The Exchange has neither solicited 

nor received written comments on 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 12 and paragraph 

of Rule 19b–4(f)(6) thereunder.13

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. 

IV. Solicitation of Comments 

Interested persons are invited to 

submit written data, views and 

arguments concerning the foregoing, 

including whether the proposal 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 rule-comments@

sec.gov. Please include File No. SR– 

BYX–2015–10 on the subject line. 

Paper Comments 

• Send paper comments in triplicate 

to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities 

and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street 

NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090. 

All submissions should refer to File No. 

SR–BYX–2015–10. 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 such 

filing will also 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 No. SR–BYX–2015– 

10 and should be submitted on or before 

March 17, 2015. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.14

Brent J. Fields, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2015–03669 Filed 2–23–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–74298; File No. SR– 

NYSEMKT–2014–95] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE 

MKT LLC; Order Instituting 

Proceedings to Determine Whether to 

Approve or Disapprove a Proposed 

Rule Change, as Modified by Partial 

Amendment No. 1 and Partial 

Amendment No. 2, Amending Rule 

13—Equities and Related Rules 

Governing Order Types and Modifiers 

February 18, 2015. 

I. Introduction 

On October 31, 2014, NYSE MKT LLC 

(‘‘NYSE MKT’’ 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 amend Exchange Rule 13— 

Equities and other related Exchange 

rules governing order types and order 

modifiers. The proposed rule change 

was published in the Federal Register 

on November 20, 2014.3 On November 

14, 2014, the Exchange submitted 

Partial Amendment No. 1 to the 

Commission.4 On December 22, 2014, 

the Exchange submitted Partial 

Amendment No. 2 to the Commission. 

On December 22, 2014, pursuant to 

section 19(b)(2) of the Act,5 the 

Commission designated a longer period 

within which to approve the proposed 

rule change, disapprove the proposed 

rule change, or institute proceedings to 

determine whether to disapprove the 

proposed rule change.6 The Commission 

has received no other comment on the 

proposal. This order institutes 

proceedings under section 19(b)(2)(B) of 

the Act 7 to determine whether to 

approve or disapprove the proposal. 

II. Description of the Proposal 

The Exchange proposes to amend 

Exchange Rule 13—Equities by regrouping and re-numbering existing 

order types and order modifiers. The 

Exchange also proposes to make 

changes to certain order types and order 

modifiers. In addition, the Exchange 

proposes to amend certain rules to 

remove references to functionality that 

is no longer operative. Under the 

proposal, Rule 13—Equities would be 

reorganized into six categories: (a) 

Primary order types; (b) time in force 

modifiers; (c) auction-only orders; (d) 

orders with instructions not to display 

all or a portion of the order; (e) orders 

with instructions not to route; and (f) 

additional orders and modifiers. 

A. Primary Order Types 

Proposed section (a) of Rule 13— 

Equities would set forth two primary 

order types—Market Orders and Limit 

Orders—and specify which orders are 

eligible for automatic executions. The 

Exchange proposes to delete the current 

definition of ‘‘Auto Ex Order’’ and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 36 / Tuesday, February 24, 2015 / Notices 9771 

8The Exchange proposes to replace the term 

‘‘Display Book’’ with ‘‘Exchange systems’’ when the 

term refers to Exchange systems that receive and 

execute orders and with ‘‘Exchange book’’ when the 

term refers to the interest that has been entered and 

ranked in Exchange systems, as applicable 

throughout the proposed rule text. See Partial 

Amendment No. 1. 

9Throughout the proposed rule text, the 

Exchange proposes to capitalize terms, including, 

but not limited to, Limit Order and Market Order. 

10The Exchange also proposes to make nonsubstantive changes to Rule 501—Equities to use 

the term MOO/LOO Orders and MOC/LOC Orders. 

Further, the Exchange proposes to delete the 

reference to Good ‘til Cross (‘‘GTX’’) order in Rule 

501—Equities, which the Exchange no longer uses. 

11See Partial Amendment No. 2 (deleting 

inadvertent text referring to high-priced securities). 

12See Partial Amendment No. 1 (changing rule 

text to clarify that only d-Quotes or e-Quotes may 

use pegging interest). 

13See Partial Amendment No. 2 (adding ALO 

modifier text in current rule text that the Exchange 

states that it inadvertently omitted). 

proposes that all orders entered 

electronically will be eligible for 

automatic executions. Interest 

represented manually by a floor broker, 

however, would not be eligible for 

automatic execution. 

The Exchange is not changing the 

definition of ‘‘Market Order’’ and would 

replace the current term ‘‘Display Book’’ 

with the proposed term ‘‘Exchange 

systems.’’ 8 For Limit Orders, the 

Exchange’s rules currently define 

marketable Limit Order. The Exchange 

proposes to add a definition for Limit 

Order as an order to buy or sell a stated 

amount of a security at a specified price 

or better. The marketable Limit Order 

definition would remain unchanged. 

B. Time in Force Modifiers 

Proposed section (b) of Rule 13— 

Equities would set forth the Time in 

Force modifiers for orders: (1) Day; (2) 

Good til Cancelled (‘‘GTC’’) or Open; 

and (3) Immediate or Cancel (‘‘IOC’’). 

For Day modifiers, the Exchange 

proposes to allow only Limit Orders to 

be designated as Day orders. Currently, 

any order could be designated as a Day 

order. For the GTC or Open modifier, 

the Exchange is proposing to allow only 

Limit Orders to be designated with the 

GTC or Open modifier. Currently, any 

order could be a GTC or Open order. 

Further, the Exchange currently allows 

a GTC order that is designated ‘‘Off 

Hours eligible’’ to be executed through 

the Off-Hours Trading Facility. The 

Exchange is proposing that GTC orders 

be ineligible to be executed in any OffHours Trading Facility. 

With respect to IOC modifiers, the 

Exchange currently has three different 

modifiers: Regulation NMS-compliant 

IOC; Exchange IOC; and IOC–MTS 

(minimum trade size). The Exchange is 

making non-substantive changes to the 

Regulation NMS-compliant IOC order 

modifier.9 The Exchange is also 

proposing to rename the Exchange IOC 

order modifier as the NYSE IOC order 

and to make other non-substantive 

changes. For the IOC–MTS order 

modifier, the Exchange is proposing to 

make non-substantive changes. 

C. Auction-Only Orders 

Proposed section (c) of Rule 13— 

Equities would set forth five AuctionOnly Orders: (1) Closing Offset (‘‘CO’’) 

Orders; (2) Limit-on-Close (‘‘LOC’’) 

Orders; (3) Limit-on-Open (‘‘LOO’’) 

Orders; (4) Market-on Close (‘‘MOC’’) 

Orders; and (5) Market-on-Open 

(‘‘MOO’’) Orders.10 The Exchange is 

proposing to make non-substantive 

changes to these definitions. 

D. Non-Displayable Orders (All or a 

Portion) 

Proposed section (d) of Rule 13— 

Equities contains orders that are 

partially or fully undisplayed. There are 

two types of non-displayable orders: 

Mid-Point Passive Liquidity (‘‘MPL’’) 

Orders and Reserve Orders. The 

Exchange proposes to amend the MPL 

order modifier with a minimum 

triggering volume (‘‘MTV’’) and to make 

other, non-substantive changes. 

Specifically, Exchange systems would 

reject an MPL Order on entry if the MTV 

is larger than the size of the MPL Order, 

and Exchange systems would reject a 

request to partially cancel a resting MPL 

Order if it would result in the MTV 

being larger than the remaining size of 

the order. The Exchange believes that 

this proposed change would prevent an 

entering firm from causing an MPL 

Order to have an MTV that is larger than 

the order, thereby bypassing contra-side 

interest that is larger than the size of the 

MPL Order. 

With respect to Reserve Orders, the 

Exchange proposes to make nonsubstantive changes to the definition. 

The Exchange proposes to add new rule 

text to state that a Minimum Display 

Reserve Order, which is an order that 

has a portion of the interest displayed 

when the order is or becomes the 

Exchange best bid or offer (‘‘BBO’’) and 

a portion not displayed, would 

participate in both automatic and 

manual executions. The Exchange also 

proposes to add new rule text to state 

that a Non-Displayed Reserve Order, 

which is an order that is not displayed, 

would not participate in manual 

executions. The Exchange believes that 

these changes would reflect how the 

orders currently operate on the 

Exchange. Moreover, the Exchange 

proposes to change the circumstances in 

which the reserve interest of a Reserve 

Order would be available for execution. 

Currently, the Exchange’s rule text 

specifies that reserve interest of a NonDisplayed Reserve Order is available for 

execution only after all displayed 

interest at the price has been executed. 

The Exchange proposes to amend the 

rule text to specify that reserve interest 

of all Reserve Orders is available for 

execution only after all displayed 

interest at the price has been executed. 

E. Do Not Route Orders 

Proposed section (e) of Rule 13— 

Equities would set forth order modifiers 

and order types that would not be 

routed: (1) The Add Liquidity Only 

(‘‘ALO’’) modifier; (2) Do Not Ship 

(‘‘DNS’’) orders; and (3) Intermarket 

Sweep orders (‘‘ISO’’). For the ALO 

modifier, the Exchange proposes to 

make non-substantive changes and to 

update a cross-reference. The Exchange 

also proposes to add new rule text to 

specify that limit orders with the ALO 

modifier may participate in re-openings. 

Current Exchange rule text states that a 

Limit Order with the ALO modifier may 

participate in the Exchange’s open or 

close. The Exchange is also proposing to 

make non-substantive changes to the 

DNS order and ISO definitions.11

F. Other Modifiers 

Proposed section (f) of Rule 13— 

Equities would include the Exchange’s 

other order instructions and modifiers: 

(1) Do Not Reduce (‘‘DNR’’) modifier; (2) 

Do Not Increase (‘‘DNI’’) modifier; (3) 

pegging interest; (4) Retail modifier; (5) 

Self-Trade Prevention (‘‘STP’’) modifier; 

(6) Sell ‘‘Plus’’—Buy ‘‘Minus’’ 

instruction; and (7) Stop order. The 

Exchange proposes to make nonsubstantive changes to the DNR and DNI 

modifiers. 

With respect to pegging interest, the 

Exchange proposes to specify that 

pegging interest must be an e-Quote or 

d-Quote 12 and proposes to add new rule 

text to define ‘‘next available best-priced 

interest.’’ 13 Currently, if the protected 

best bid or offer (‘‘PBBO’’) is not within 

the specified price range of the pegging 

interest, the pegging interest will 

instead peg to the next available bestpriced interest that is within the 

specified priced. For example, if the 

pegging interest to buy has a limit price 

of $10.25, but the Exchange PBB is at 

$10.30, the pegging interest would not 

peg to the Exchange PBB because that 

price is higher than what the limit price 

of the pegging interest. Instead, under 

the current Exchange rule, the pegging 

interest would peg to the ‘‘next available 

best-priced interest,’’ but the term ‘‘next 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
9772 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 36 / Tuesday, February 24, 2015 / Notices 

14The Commission notes that this proposed new 

definition is based on current Supplemental 

Material .10 to Exchange Rule 13—Equities, which 

defines ‘‘best-priced sell interest’’ and ‘‘best-priced 

buy interest.’’ These two definitions were adopted 

in connection with the ALO order and Day ISO 

order, both displayable orders, to allow for the 

Exchange to re-price such orders in the event of a 

locked or crossed market. See Securities Exchange 

Act Release No. 73333 (Oct. 9, 2014), 79 FR 62223 

(Oct. 16, 2014). 

15See Exchange Rule 107C(a)(4)—Equities. The 

Exchange has not stated whether this change to the 

rule reflects a new order-type functionality or 

whether it reflects an existing functionality that was 

not previously explicit in the Exchange’s rules. 

16See Notice, supra note 3, at n.18, 79 FR at 

69156, n.18. 17 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B). 

18 Id. Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act also provides 

that proceedings to determine whether to 

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. See 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. 

See id. 

19 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 

20See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54577 

(Oct. 6, 2006), 71 FR 60208 (Oct. 12, 2006) 

(approving the New York Stock Exchange Inc.’s 

proposal to allow pegging instructions for Floor 

Broker Agency Interest Files (e-quotes)). In the 

notice to that filing, the Exchange stated, ‘‘In the 

Hybrid Market, a Floor broker needs to be 

represented in the BBO in order to participate in 

automatic executions. The e-Quotes provide Floor 

brokers with the mechanism to be part of the quote. 

However, in a more automated environment, the 

BBO may change rapidly and the e-Quoting process, 

as it currently exists, may not be sufficient to enable 

available best-priced interest’’ is not 

defined. The Exchange now proposes to 

define ‘‘next available best-priced 

interest’’ as (1) in the case of buy orders, 

the highest priced buy interest within 

the specified price range of pegging 

interest to buy, including displayable 

bids, Non-Display Reserve Orders, NonDisplay Reserve e-Quotes, odd-lot sized 

interest, and protected bids on away 

markets, but not including nondisplayed interest that is priced based 

on the PBBO, and (2) in the case of sell 

orders, the lowest priced sell interest 

within the specified price range of 

pegging interest to sell, including 

displayable offers, Non-Display Reserve 

Orders, Non-Display Reserve e-Quotes, 

odd-lot sized interest, and protected 

offers on away markets, but including 

non-displayed interest that is priced 

based on the PBBO.14

According to the Exchange, this 

proposed addition to the definition of 

pegging interest is necessary since 

pegging interest would not peg to either 

MPL Orders or Retail Price 

Improvement (‘‘RPI’’) Orders.15 The 

Exchange notes that this would be 

applicable regardless of whether an 

MPL Order or RPI Order is marketable 

and provided the following example in 

the filing. 

For example, assume the best protected bid 

(‘‘PBB’’) is $10.00, the Exchange has pegging 

interest to buy at $9.99, an MPL Order priced 

at $9.98 and a Non-Displayed Reserve Order 

to buy priced at $9.97. Because the PBB is 

outside the specified price range of the 

pegging interest to buy, it would peg to the 

next available best-priced interest, which in 

this scenario would be the Non-Displayed 

Reserve Order to buy priced at $9.97. The 

pegging interest to buy would not peg to the 

MPL Order to buy priced at $9.98.16

The Exchange proposes to update 

cross-references to the Retail modifier 

and make non-substantive changes to 

the STP modifier and the Sell ‘‘Plus’’— 

Buy ‘‘Minus’’ instruction. With respect 

to Stop orders, the Exchange proposes to 

make non-substantive changes and to 

replace the term ‘‘Exchange’s automated 

order routing system’’ with ‘‘Exchange 

systems.’’ 

G. Other Proposed Changes 

The Exchange proposes to move the 

definition of ‘‘Routing Broker’’ to Rule 

17(c)—Equities. The Exchange also 

proposes to amend the definition of Not 

Held orders and relocate that definition 

to Supplementary Material .20 to Rule 

13—Equities. The Exchange proposes 

that a Not Held order would refer to an 

unpriced, discretionary order that has 

been voluntarily categorized as such by 

the customer and as to which the 

customer has granted the member or 

member organization price and time 

discretion. 

The Exchange also proposes to amend 

Rule 70.25—Equities governing dQuotes to clarify that certain 

functionality set forth in the Rule is no 

longer available. Specifically, Rule 

70.25(c)(ii)—Equities currently provides 

that a Floor broker may designate a 

maximum size of contra-side volume 

with which it is willing to trade using 

discretionary pricing instructions. 

Because this functionality is not 

available, the Exchange proposes to 

delete references to the maximum 

discretionary size parameter from Rules 

70.25(c)(ii)—Equities and (c)(v)— 

Equities. 

In addition, the Exchange proposes to 

amend Rule 70.25(c)(iv)—Equities to 

clarify that the circumstances under 

which the Exchange would consider 

interest displayed by other market 

centers at the price at which a d-Quote 

may trade are not limited to determining 

when a d-Quote’s minimum or 

maximum size range is met. 

Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to 

delete the clause ‘‘when determining if 

the d-Quote’s minimum and/or 

maximum size range is met.’’ 

III. Proceedings To Determine Whether 

To Approve or Disapprove SR– 

NYSEMKT–2014–95 and Grounds for 

Disapproval Under Consideration 

The Commission is instituting 

proceedings pursuant to section 

19(b)(2)(B) of the Act 17 to determine 

whether the proposed rule change 

should be approved or disapproved. 

Institution of such 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 encourages interested 

persons to provide additional comment 

on the proposed rule change. 

Pursuant to section 19(b)(2)(B) of the 

Act,18 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 

consistency of the proposed rule change 

with section 6(b)(5) of the Act, which 

require that the rules of a national 

securities exchange be designed, among 

other things, to prevent fraudulent and 

manipulative acts and practices, to 

promote just and equitable principles of 

trade, to remove impediments to and 

perfect the mechanism of a free and 

open market and a national market 

system, and, in general, to protect 

investors and the public interest, and 

that those rules not be designed to 

permit unfair discrimination between 

customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.19

In particular, the Commission seeks 

comment on, and will consider, whether 

the Exchange’s proposal is consistent 

with section 6(b)(5) of the Act to the 

extent that the proposed amendments to 

Rule 13—Equities would permit a 

sophisticated market participant to enter 

a pegging order with a limit price that 

is set outside the PBBO in an attempt to 

reveal hidden interest on the book and 

then adjust its trading strategies to the 

detriment of the hidden order. The 

Commission notes that market 

participants may submit hidden orders 

for a variety of reasons, including to 

avoid disclosing to the overall market 

that they have interest in trading a 

particular security. When pegging 

interest was approved by the 

Commission, the Exchange explained 

that this order type was intended to 

permit floor brokers to be represented at 

the Exchange’s BBO in a rapidly 

changing market.20 The Exchange has 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 36 / Tuesday, February 24, 2015 / Notices 9773 

Floor brokers to stay with a quickly changing 

quote.’’ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 

61081 (Dec. 1, 2009), 74 FR 64105 (Dec. 7, 2009) 

(approving the predecessor Exchange’s proposal to 

update d-Quote functionality and provide for eQuotes to peg to the National Best Bid or Offer). The 

Commission further notes that the Exchange’s rules 

are based on the rules of the New York Stock 

Exchange, Inc. 

21Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, as amended by the 

Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Public Law 

94–29 (June 4, 1975), 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). 

22 Id. 

23See text accompanying note 16, supra. 

24See, supra, note 20 and accompanying text. 

25The Commission notes that, while ALO orders 

or Day ISO orders on the Exchange can be re-priced 

in a manner that reveals the existence of hidden 

orders, ALO orders or Day ISO orders are displayed 

and would tighten the quoted spread. The 

Commission approved the ALO order and the Day 

ISO order re-pricing mechanism on the basis that 

their re-pricing mechanism would contribute to 

public price discovery, an objective consistent with 

the requirements of the Act. See Securities 

Exchange Act Release No. 73333 (Oct. 9, 2014), 79 

FR 62223 (Oct. 16, 2014) (approving the Exchange’s 

proposal to make the Add Liquidity Only modifier 

available for Limit Orders and to make the Day 

Time-In-Force condition and Add Liquidity Only 

modifier available for Intermarket Sweep Orders). 

26 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(57). 

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

not offered any explanation as to why 

permitting its pegging orders to peg to 

hidden interest is, on balance, good for 

its members or the quality of its market 

or why it is otherwise consistent with 

section 6(b)(5) of the Act. Similarly, the 

Exchange’s filing does not explain why 

this use of an order type would be 

available to floor brokers or to those 

who submit orders through a floor 

broker, but would not otherwise be 

available to other exchange members. 

IV. Procedure: Request for Written 

Comments 

The Commission requests that 

interested persons provide written 

submissions of their views, data, and 

arguments with respect to the concerns 

identified above, as well as any other 

concerns they may have with the 

proposed rule change. 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.21 Interested persons are 

invited to submit written data, views, 

and arguments regarding whether the 

proposal should be approved or 

disapproved by March 17, 2015. Any 

person who wishes to file a rebuttal to 

any other person’s submission must file 

that rebuttal by March 31, 2015. 

The Commission invites the written 

views of interested persons concerning 

whether the proposal is consistent with 

section 6(b)(5) of the Act,22 any other 

provision of the Act, or the rules and 

regulations thereunder. The 

Commission asks that commenters 

address the sufficiency and merit of the 

Exchange’s statements in support of the 

proposed rule change, in addition to any 

other comments they may wish to 

submit about the proposed rule change. 

In particular, the Commission seeks 

comment on the following: 

1. As described above, the Exchange 

proposes to add a new definition for ‘‘next 

available best-priced interest’’ in connection 

with pegging interest. As shown in the 

Exchange’s example, discussed above,23 the 

proposal would, when pegging interest is 

entered with a limit price outside the PBBO, 

allow pegging interest to peg to a NonDisplay Reserve Order or Non-Display 

Reserve e-Quote that is not at the top of the 

Exchange’s book. Therefore, the functionality 

would allow the member entering pegging 

interest with a limit price to potentially 

detect the presence of a hidden order outside 

the PBBO, if there are no other displayable 

orders at that price point. Given that, as 

noted above,24 pegging interest was 

instituted originally to facilitate the ability of 

manual Floor brokers to maintain orders at 

the best displayed prices, do commenters 

believe that allowing pegging interest to 

potentially operate in this manner is 

beneficial, or detrimental, to Exchange 

members or the quality of the Exchange’s 

market? 25

2. Do commenters believe that the 

Exchange’s proposal sufficiently describes 

the characteristics, functionality, priority, 

and execution pricing of each of its order 

types and modifiers? If not, which aspects of 

the Exchange’s order types and modifiers 

remain ambiguous or undescribed? Please be 

specific. 

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 rule-comments@

sec.gov. Please include File Number SR– 

NYSEMKT–2014–95 on the subject line. 

Paper Comments 

• Send paper comments in triplicate 

to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities 

and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street 

NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090. 

All submissions should refer to File 

Number SR–NYSEMKT–2014–95. 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 such 

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– 

NYSEMKT–2014–95 and should be 

submitted on or before March 17, 2015. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.26

Brent J. Fields, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2015–03678 Filed 2–23–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–74289; File No. SR–FINRA– 

2015–003] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; 

Financial Industry Regulatory 

Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a 

Proposed Rule Change To Amend the 

Codes of Arbitration Procedure To 

Increase the Late Cancellation Fee 

February 18, 2015. 

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

(‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2

notice is hereby given that on February 

5, 2015, Financial Industry Regulatory 

Authority, Inc. (‘‘FINRA’’) filed with the 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

(‘‘SEC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) the proposed 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES