Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 45 / Monday, March 9, 2015 / Notices 12537 

9 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

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

2 15 U.S.C. 78a. 

3 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

4See Mary Jo White, Chair, Securities and 

Exchange Commission, Speech at the Sandler, 

O’Neill & Partners, L.P. Global Exchange and 

Brokerage Conference (June 5, 2014) (available at 

www.sec.gov/News/Speech/Detail/Speech/

1370542004312#.U5HI-fmwJiw). 

5See Letter from James Burns, Deputy Director, 

Division of Trading and Markets, Securities and 

Exchange Commission, to Jeffrey C. Sprecher, Chief 

Executive Officer, Intercontinental Exchange, Inc., 

dated June 20, 2014. 

6See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71331 

(Jan. 16, 2014), 79 FR 3907 (Jan. 23, 2014) (SR– 

NYSEArca–2013–92) (Approval order) (‘‘2013 

Review Filing’’). 

7See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72942 

(Aug. 28, 2014), 79 FR 52784 (Sept. 4, 2014) (SR– 

NYSEArca–2014–75) (Approval order) (‘‘2013 

Deletion Filing’’). 

8The Exchange notes that its affiliated exchanges, 

New York Stock Exchange LLC (‘‘NYSE’’) and 

NYSE MKT LLC are proposing similar restructuring 

of their respective order type rules to group order 

types and modifiers. See SR–NYSE–2014–59 and 

SR–NYSEMKT–2014–95. 

submissions. You should submit only 

information that you wish to make 

available publicly. All submissions 

should refer to File No. SR–ISE Gemini2015–04 and should be submitted by 

March 30, 2015.9

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority. 

Brent J. Fields, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2015–05292 Filed 3–6–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–74415; File No. SR– 

NYSEArca–2015–08] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE 

Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed 

Rule Change To Eliminate Additional 

Order Type Combinations and Delete 

Related Rule Text and To Restructure 

the Remaining Rule Text in NYSE Arca 

Equities Rule 7.31 

March 3, 2015. 

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

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 

‘‘Act’’) 2 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,3

notice is hereby given that, on February 

19, 2015, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the 

‘‘Exchange’’ or ‘‘NYSE Arca’’) filed with 

the Securities and Exchange 

Commission (‘‘SEC’’ or the 

‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule 

change as described in Items I, II, and 

III below, which Items have been 

prepared by the self-regulatory 

organization. The Commission is 

publishing this notice to solicit 

comment on the proposed rule change 

from interested persons. 

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Terms of Substance of 

the Proposed Rule Change 

The Exchange proposes to eliminate 

additional order type combinations and 

delete related rule text and to 

restructure the remaining rule text in 

NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31. The text 

of 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 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

1. Purpose 

On June 5, 2014, in a speech entitled 

‘‘Enhancing Our Market Equity 

Structure,’’ Mary Jo White, Chair of the 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

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

the equity exchanges to conduct a 

comprehensive review of their order 

types and how they operate in practice, 

and as part of this review, consider 

appropriate rule changes to help clarify 

the nature of their order types.4

Subsequent to the Chair’s speech, the 

SEC’s Division of Trading and Markets 

requested that the equity exchanges 

complete their reviews and submit any 

proposed rule changes by November 1, 

2014.5

The Exchange notes that it 

continually assesses its rules governing 

order types and undertook on its own 

initiative a review of its rules related to 

order functionality to assure that its 

various order types, which have been 

adopted and amended over the years, 

accurately describe the functionality 

associated with those order types, and 

more specifically, how different order 

types may interact. As a result of that 

review, in 2013, the Exchange submitted 

a proposed rule change, which the 

Commission approved, to update its 

rules relating to order types and 

modifiers.6 The 2013 Review Filing did 

not add any new functionality but 

instead enhanced and clarified 

descriptions of the order type and 

modifier functionality on the Exchange. 

More recently, as part of its ongoing 

review to streamline its rules and 

reduce complexity among its order type 

offerings, the Exchange filed a proposed 

rule change, which the Commission 

approved, to eliminate specified order 

types, modifiers, and related 

references.7

The Exchange is filing this proposed 

rule change to continue its efforts to 

review and clarify its rules governing 

order types. First, the Exchange has 

identified additional order types and 

functionality to eliminate and proposes 

to delete related rule text in NYSE Arca 

Equities Rule 7.31 (‘‘Rule 7.31’’), as 

described in more detail below. 

Second, the Exchange is proposing 

certain non-substantive and clarifying 

changes to its rules. As Rule 7.31 has 

been amended through the years, 

additional order types and modifiers 

have been added as new subsections to 

what was the end of the rule text at any 

given time. Accordingly, the rule text 

describes the Exchange’s order types 

and modifiers in the order in which 

those order types and modifiers were 

added. In addition, when rule text has 

been deleted and replaced with 

references to ‘‘Reserved,’’ the 

subsections have not been renumbered. 

The Exchange proposes to provide 

additional clarity to Rule 7.31 by regrouping and re-numbering current rule 

text, removing references to ‘‘reserved’’ 

subsections, and making other nonsubstantive, clarifying changes. In this 

regard, the proposed rule changes are 

not intended to reflect changes to 

functionality but rather to clarify Rule 

7.31 to make it easier to navigate.8

Proposed Elimination of Additional 

Orders and Modifiers 

As part of its review, the Exchange 

has identified the following additional 

order types and functionality to 

eliminate: 

• All-or-None (‘‘AON’’) Orders: An 

AON Order is a limit order that is to be 

executed in its entirety or not at all. A 

limit order marked AON does not trade 

through a Protected Quotation. AONs 

are defined as a type of Working Order, 

currently set forth in Rule 7.31(h)(1). To 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

12538 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 45 / Monday, March 9, 2015 / Notices 

9The Exchange also proposes non-substantive 

changes to Rule 7.37 to delete references to 

‘‘reserved’’ and re-number the rule text accordingly. 

Current Rule 7.37(b)(2)(A)(ii), as amended, would 

be renumbered to Rule 7.37(b)(1)(A). 

10 In the 2013 Deletion Filing, the Exchange 

amended the definition of IOC to specify that it is 

only available for Limit Orders. See 2013 Deletion 

Filing, supra n. 7. 

effectuate the proposed elimination of 

AON Orders, the Exchange proposes not 

to include current Rule 7.31(h)(1) in the 

rule restructuring, described below. The 

Exchange proposes to make conforming 

changes to Rules 7.36(a)(2)(C) and 

current Rule 7.37(b)(2)(A)(ii) to reflect 

the elimination of AON.9

• Primary Sweep Orders (‘‘PSO’’): A 

PSO is a Primary Only Order (defined 

in Rule 7.31(x)) that first sweeps the 

Exchange’s book before routing to the 

primary market. PSOs may only be day 

or IOC, and may not be designated as 

GTC or an ISO. PSOs are currently set 

forth in Rule 7.31(kk). To effectuate the 

proposed elimination, the Exchange 

proposes not to include current Rule 

7.31(kk) in the rule restructuring, 

described below. 

In addition, the Exchange has 

identified additional order type 

functionality combinations that would 

no longer be accepted: 

• Reserve Orders designated IOC: 

Rule 7.31(h)(3) governing Reserve 

Orders currently provides that Reserve 

Orders must be in round lots and cannot 

be combined with an order type that 

could never be displayed. The Exchange 

proposes to further specify that Reserve 

Orders may not be designated with an 

Immediate or Cancel (‘‘IOC’’) time-inforce modifier, which would be stated 

in new Rule 7.31(d)(2) governing 

Reserve Orders. 

• Inside Limit Orders designated IOC: 

Inside Limit Orders, which are currently 

defined in Rule 7.31(d), are limit orders 

that, if routed away, are routed to the 

market participant with the best 

displayed price. If there is an unfilled 

portion of such an order, it will not be 

routed to the next best price level until 

all quotes at the current best bid or offer 

are exhausted. The Exchange proposes 

to specify that Inside Limit Orders may 

not be designated IOC because the 

Exchange believes that the IOC time-inforce modifier is inconsistent with the 

purpose of an Inside Limit Order, which 

is to wait for each price point to be 

cleared before being executed or routed 

to additional price points. This change 

would be included in new Rule 

7.31(a)(3). 

• PNP Blind Orders: Rule 7.31(mm) 

currently specifies that a PNP Blind 

order may be combined with an Add 

Liquidity Only (‘‘ALO’’) Order. The 

Exchange proposes to amend the rule 

text governing PNP Blind to provide 

that a PNP Blind order that is combined 

with an ALO modifier may not also be 

designated Reserve. This change would 

be included in new Rule 7.31(e)(4). 

The Exchange believes that by 

eliminating the above-described order 

types and functionality, the Exchange 

would further streamline its rules and 

reduce complexity among the order 

types offered at the Exchange. 

Because of technology changes 

associated with eliminating the abovedescribed order types and functionality, 

the Exchange will announce by Trader 

Update the implementation date of 

these proposed changes. 

Proposed Rule 7.31 Restructure 

The Exchange proposes to re-structure 

Rule 7.31 to re-group existing order 

types and modifiers together along 

functional lines. 

Proposed new subsection (a) of Rule 

7.31 would set forth the Exchange’s 

order types that are the foundation for 

all other order type instructions, i.e., the 

primary order types. All orders entered 

at the Exchange must be designated 

with an identifier associated with a 

primary order type, together with such 

other technical specifications as may be 

applicable for a specific order or 

modifier combination. The Exchange, 

therefore, believes that clearly 

identifying the primary order types in 

Exchange rules would provide 

transparency for ETP Holders of how to 

designate orders entered at the 

Exchange. The proposed primary order 

types would be: 

• Market Orders. Current Rule 7.31(a) 

describing Market Orders and related 

subsections would be moved to new 

Rule 7.31(a)(1). In moving the rule text 

currently set forth in Rule 7.31(a)(3)(A), 

the Exchange proposes non-substantive 

revisions to delete the phrase ‘‘unless 

marked IOC’’ because Market Orders 

cannot be designated IOC10 and to 

capitalize the terms ‘‘Market Order’’. In 

addition, the Exchange proposes a 

clarifying change to the second sentence 

of current Rule 7.31(a), which currently 

provides that Market Orders shall be 

rejected if there is no bid or offer. 

Because such rejection is based on 

whether there is a contra-side bid or 

offer (i.e., a Market Order to sell is 

rejected if there is no bid), the Exchange 

proposes to clarify this sentence in new 

Rule 7.31(a)(1) to provide that ‘‘Market 

Orders are rejected if there is no contraside bid or offer.’’ 

• Limit Orders. Current Rule 7.31(b) 

describing Limit Orders and related 

subsections would be moved to new 

Rule 7.31(a)(2). The Exchange proposes 

a non-substantive change to capitalize 

the term ‘‘Limit Order’’ in new Rule 

7.31(a)(2) and make conforming changes 

to references to ‘‘limit order’’ in the 

remainder of Rule 7.31, as specified 

below. In addition, the Exchange 

proposes a clarifying change to the 

second sentence of current Rule 7.31(b), 

which currently provides that a 

marketable limit order is a limit order to 

buy (sell) at or above (below) the PBBO 

for the security. Because marketability is 

based on the contra-side PBBO (i.e., a 

Limit Order to buy is marketable against 

the PBO), the Exchange proposes to 

clarify this sentence in new Rule 

7.31(a)(2) to provide that: ‘‘A 

‘marketable’ Limit Order is a Limit 

Order to buy (sell) at or above (below) 

the contra-side PBBO for the security.’’ 

• Inside Limit Orders. Current Rule 

7.31(d) describing Inside Limit Orders 

would be moved to new Rule 7.31(a)(3). 

The Exchange proposes clarifying 

amendments to new Rule 7.31(a)(3) to 

replace references to ‘‘best displayed 

price’’ with references to ‘‘contra-side 

NBBO.’’ As set forth in Rule 7.37, Inside 

Limit Orders are priced based on the 

NBBO. Accordingly, the Exchange 

believes that referencing the NBBO in 

new Rule 7.31(a)(3) would eliminate the 

need for a market participant to review 

two rules, Rules 7.31 and 7.37, to 

determine that the term ‘‘best displayed 

price’’ refers to the NBBO. The 

Exchange also proposes to add new text 

to Rule 7.31(a)(3) to clarify that after an 

Inside Limit Order has been routed to a 

contra-side NBBO, the Exchange 

displays the Inside Limit Order at that 

now-exhausted contra-side NBBO price 

while the Exchange waits for an 

updated NBBO to be displayed. As 

provided for in the current rule, once a 

new contra-side NBBO is displayed, the 

Exchange will route to that single price 

point and continue such assessment at 

each new contra-side NBBO until the 

order is filled or no longer marketable. 

In addition, to effect the abovedescribed proposal to provide that 

Inside Limit Orders may not be 

designated IOC, the Exchange proposes 

to add to new Rule 7.31(a)(3)(D) that an 

Inside Limit Order may not be 

designated as IOC. Because an Inside 

Limit Order may still be designated as 

NOW, which is a distinct time-in-force 

modifier from IOC, the Exchange also 

proposes to add to new Rule 

7.31(a)(3)(D) that an Inside Limit Order 

may be designated as NOW. The 

Exchange further proposes nonsubstantive changes to the rule text 

governing Inside Limit Orders to 

separate the existing text into submstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 45 / Monday, March 9, 2015 / Notices 12539 

11See 2013 Review Filing, supra n. 6. 

12See 2013 Deletion Filing, supra n. 7. 

sections, which the Exchange believes 

would make the rule text easier to 

navigate. 

Proposed new subsection (b) of Rule 

7.31 would set forth the Time in Force 

Modifiers that the Exchange makes 

available for orders entered at the 

Exchange. In the 2013 Review Filing, 

the Exchange grouped its existing timein-force modifiers together in current 

Rule 7.31(c).11 As proposed, Rule 

7.31(c) would be redesignated as Rule 

7.31(b), without changing the rule text. 

In addition, the Exchange proposes to 

move the rule text governing NOW 

Orders, currently in Rule 7.31(v), to new 

Rule 7.31(b)(5). The Exchange believes 

that ‘‘NOW Orders’’ are appropriately 

included with the time-in-force 

modifiers because a NOW Order 

designation provides for an immediate 

execution of an order in whole or in part 

on the Exchange with the unexecuted 

portion routed to away markets 

consistent with Rule 7.37(d), and the 

portion not so executed cancelled. The 

Exchange also believes that the ‘‘NOW’’ 

designation is more appropriately 

described as a modifier rather than as an 

order, and therefore proposes to re-name 

it as a ‘‘NOW Modifier’’ and make 

conforming changes in other Exchange 

rules. In addition, the Exchange notes 

that it routes orders designated NOW to 

all available quotes in the routing 

determination, consistent with Rule 

7.37(d)(2). The Exchange therefore 

proposes to delete the references in the 

rule text to NOW recipients and replace 

such references with rule text that 

specifies that orders with a NOW 

modifier would be routed to all 

available quotations in the routing 

determination, including Protected 

Quotations. 

Proposed new subsection (c) of Rule 

7.31 would specify the Exchange’s 

existing Auction-Only Orders, which 

the Exchange last revised in the 2013 

Deletion Filing.12 The Exchange 

proposes non-substantive changes to the 

definitions of Limit-on-Open Orders, 

Market-on-Open Orders, Limit-on-Close 

Orders, and Market-on-Close Orders, 

which would be defined in proposed 

Rule 7.31(c)(1)–(4), respectively. The 

Exchange further proposes to delete rule 

text in proposed Rules 7.31(c)(1), (c)(2), 

(c)(3), and (c)(4), as duplicative of the 

general definition of Auction Only 

Orders in proposed new Rule 7.31(c). 

The Exchange further proposes to add to 

Rule 7.31(c) existing rule text from these 

subsections, as modified, that the 

Exchange would reject any AuctionOnly Orders in securities that are not 

eligible for an auction on the Exchange 

or if an auction is suspended pursuant 

to Rule 7.35(g). 

Proposed new subsection (d) of Rule 

7.31 would specify the Exchange’s 

Working Orders, which are currently 

defined in Rule 7.31(h). As noted above, 

the Exchange proposes to eliminate 

AON Orders. Accordingly, [sic] 

• Discretionary Orders. Current Rule 

7.31(h)(2) would be moved to new Rule 

7.31(d)(1) without any substantive 

changes to the rule text (the Exchange 

would capitalize the term ‘‘Limit 

Order’’). 

• Reserve Orders. Current Rule 

7.31(h)(3) would be moved to new Rule 

7.31(d)(2) and the Exchange proposes 

non-substantive changes to capitalize 

the term ‘‘Limit Order’’ and delete a 

duplicative use of the word ‘‘Order.’’ To 

effect the change described above that 

Reserve Orders may not be designated 

IOC, the Exchange proposes to add to 

new Rule 7.31(d)(2) that Reserve Orders 

may not be designated IOC. The 

Exchange also proposes to clarify that 

the existing requirement that Reserve 

Orders be in round lots applies to the 

displayed quantity of the Reserve Order. 

• Passive Liquidity Orders. Current 

Rule 7.31(h)(4) would be moved to new 

Rule 7.31(d)(3). The Exchange notes that 

Rule 7.31(h)(4) currently provides that 

‘‘[a] Passive Liquidity Order must be 

designated as an Inside Limit Order.’’ 

This requirement refers to the identifier 

associated with entering Passive 

Liquidity Orders at the Exchange. The 

description of how Passive Liquidity 

Orders operate is in current Rule 

7.31(h)(4), and proposed new Rule 

7.31(d)(3). As noted above, the 

Exchange now proposes to separately 

define the Exchange’s primary order 

types. In connection with this proposal, 

the Exchange proposes to reorganize the 

description of Passive Liquidity Orders 

to delete the separate phrase ‘‘[a] 

Passive Liquidity Order must be 

designated as an Inside Limit Order’’ 

and replace the term ‘‘order’’ in the first 

sentence of the rule with a reference to 

‘‘Inside Limit Order.’’ The Exchange 

also proposes to clarify that a Passive 

Liquidity Order does not route. 

• Mid-Point Passive Liquidity 

(‘‘MPL’’) Orders. Current Rule 7.31(h)(5) 

would be moved to new Rule 7.31(d)(4). 

The Exchange proposes to make nonsubstantive changes to the rule text to 

make it easier to read, including adding 

new subsections and deleting obsolete 

rule text and capitalizing the term 

‘‘Limit Order.’’ The Exchange also 

proposes to specify that the primary 

order type for an MPL Order is a Limit 

Order rather than a Passive Liquidity 

Order because an MPL Order does not 

use the Inside Limit Order primary 

order type (and related technical 

identifier). Because a Passive Liquidity 

Order is by definition an undisplayed 

order, and because the Exchange is 

proposing to delete reference to Passive 

Liquidity Order as part of the MPL 

Order definition, the Exchange proposes 

to specify that MPL Orders are 

undisplayed. This proposed addition to 

the definition of MPL Orders is nonsubstantive because Passive Liquidity 

Orders are undisplayed orders and, 

thus, the current description of MPL 

Orders as Passive Liquidity Orders 

incorporates the undisplayed 

functionality of MPL Orders. 

The Exchange also proposes to 

include new text that explicitly states 

that an incoming order marketable 

against a resting MPL Order with 

minimum execution size specifications 

will not execute against such MPL 

Order unless it meets the minimum size 

restrictions and, instead, will trade 

through such MPL Order. The Exchange 

believes this additional rule language 

would provide clarity and transparency 

that when an MPL Order also includes 

a minimum execution size, it may be 

traded through by incoming marketable 

orders that do not satisfy the minimum 

execution size condition. 

• MPL–IOC Order. Current Rule 

7.31(h)(6) would be moved to new Rule 

7.31(d)(5) without any substantive 

changes to the rule text. 

Proposed new subsection (e) of Rule 

7.31 would specify the Exchange’s 

existing order types that, by definition, 

do not route. The order types proposed 

to be included in this new subsection 

are: 

• ALO Order. Current Rule 7.31(nn) 

would be moved to new Rule 7.31(e)(1). 

The current rule provides that an ALO 

must be designated as either a PNP or 

MPL and the Exchange proposes to 

clarify that the reference to PNP 

includes PNP Blind orders. This 

proposed change does not alter any 

existing functionality associated with 

ALO because PNP Blind orders are by 

definition PNP Orders. The Exchange 

further notes that all functionality 

associated with PNP Orders, including 

the ability to be designated ISO, are 

applicable to PNP Orders that are 

designated ALO. 

• Intermarket Sweep Order. Current 

Rule 7.31(jj) would be moved to new 

Rule 7.31(e)(2) without any substantive 

changes to the rule text (the Exchange 

would capitalize the term ‘‘Limit 

Order’’). 

• PNP Order (Post No Preference). 

Current Rule 7.31(w) would be moved 

to new Rule 7.31(e)(3). Because PNP 

Orders cannot be combined with Inside 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

12540 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 45 / Monday, March 9, 2015 / Notices 

13The Exchange revised its Cross Order 

functionality in the 2013 Deletion Filing. See 2013 

Deletion Filing, supra n. 7. 

Limit Orders, the Exchange proposes to 

delete the following rule text: ‘‘A PNP 

Inside Limit Order shall not lock or 

cross Manual Quotations’’ when moving 

the rule text to new Rule 7.31(e)(3). The 

Exchange proposes a non-substantive 

change to the rule text to capitalize the 

term ‘‘Limit Order.’’ 

• PNP Blind. Current Rule 7.31(mm) 

would be moved to new Rule 7.31(e)(4) 

without any substantive changes to the 

rule text (the Exchange would capitalize 

the term ‘‘PNP Order’’). As discussed 

above, the Exchange proposes to 

provide in new Rule 7.31(e)(4) that a 

PNP Blind order combined with ALO 

may not be designated as a Reserve 

Order. 

• Cross Order. Because Cross Orders 

do not route, the Exchange proposes to 

move current Rule 7.31(s) to new Rule 

7.31(e)(5) without any changes to the 

rule text.13

• Tracking Order. Current Rule 7.31(f) 

would be moved to new Rule 7.31(e)(6). 

The Exchange proposes to make the 

following clarifying changes to the rule 

text. First, the Exchange is proposing to 

clarify that a Tracking Order is eligible 

to execute against a contra-side order 

equal to or less than the size of a 

Tracking Order and to specify that that 

the size requirement relates to 

comparing the incoming contra-side 

order to the size of a resting Tracking 

Order, not Tracking Orders in the 

aggregate. Second, because Tracking 

Orders execute at the price of the sameside NBBO, provided such price is equal 

to or better than the price of the 

Tracking Order, the Exchange proposes 

to clarify in new Rule 7.31(e)(6) that a 

Tracking Order will execute at the price 

of the same-side NBBO provided that 

such price shall not trade through a 

Protected Quotation or the price of the 

Tracking Order. 

Proposed new subsection (f) of Rule 

7.31 would specify the Exchange’s 

existing order types that by definition, 

include specified routing instructions. 

As noted above, the Exchange proposes 

to delete Primary Sweep Orders. 

Accordingly, new subsection (f) would 

not include Primary Sweep Orders. The 

order types proposed to be included in 

this new subsection are: 

• Primary Only Order (‘‘PO Order’’). 

Current Rule 7.31(x) would be moved to 

new Rule 7.31(f)(1) without any 

substantive changes to the rule text (the 

Exchange would capitalize the terms 

‘‘Limit Order’’ and ‘‘Market Order’’). 

• Primary Until 9:45 Order. Current 

Rule 7.31(oo) would be moved to new 

Rule 7.31(f)(2) without any substantive 

changes to the rule text (the Exchange 

would capitalize the term ‘‘Limit 

Order’’). 

• Primary After 3:55 Order. Current 

Rule 7.31(pp) would be moved to new 

Rule 7.31(f)(3) without any substantive 

changes to the rule text (the Exchange 

would capitalize the term ‘‘Limit 

Order’’). 

Proposed new subsection (g) of Rule 

7.31 would include the Exchange’s 

other existing order instructions and 

modifiers, including: 

• Pegged Order. Current Rule 7.31(cc) 

would be moved to new Rule 7.31(g)(1) 

without any substantive changes to the 

rule text (the Exchange would capitalize 

the term ‘‘Limit Order’’). 

• Proactive if Locked Modifier. 

Current Rule 7.31(hh) would be moved 

to new Rule 7.31(g)(2) without any 

substantive changes to the rule text (the 

Exchange would capitalize the term 

‘‘Limit Order’’). 

• Do Not Reduce Modifier. Current 

Rule 7.31(n) would be moved to new 

Rule 7.31(g)(3) without any substantive 

changes to the rule text (the Exchange 

would capitalize the term ‘‘Limit 

Order’’). 

• Do Not Increase Modifier. Current 

Rule 7.31(o) would be moved to new 

Rule 7.31(g)(4) without any substantive 

changes to the rule text (the Exchange 

would capitalize the term ‘‘Limit 

Order’’). 

• Self Trade Prevention Modifier 

(‘‘STP’’). Current Rule 7.31(qq) would be 

moved to new Rule 7.31(g)(5) without 

any substantive changes. 

Finally, proposed new subsection (h) 

of Rule 7.31 would describe Q Orders, 

an existing order type available for 

Exchange Market Makers, which are 

currently defined in Rule 7.31(k). In 

moving the rule text, the Exchange 

proposes to delete the subsections 

marked ‘‘reserved’’ and renumber the 

remaining subsections accordingly. The 

Exchange also proposes to clarify in 

new Rule 7.31(h)(3) that Q Orders do 

not route. 

Additional Proposed Amendments 

To reflect the changes proposed to 

Rule 7.31, the Exchange proposes to 

make conforming, non-substantive 

changes to Rules 7.35, 7.36, and 7.37, as 

follows: 

• Amend Rule 7.35 to capitalize the 

terms ‘‘Market Order’’ and ‘‘Limit 

Order,’’ replace the term ‘‘Limited 

Priced Order’’ with the term ‘‘Limit 

Order,’’ and use the terms ‘‘LOC Order’’ 

and ‘‘MOC Order’’ instead of ‘‘Limit-onClose Order’’ and ‘‘Market-on-Close 

Order.’’ In Rule 7.35(e), the Exchange 

proposes to delete the reference to a 

Closing Auction for NYSE-listed 

securities subject to a sub-penny trading 

condition under NYSE Rule 123D, as 

that condition no longer exists on 

NYSE. In addition, because the 

Exchange does not run a Market Order 

Auction in Nasdaq-listed securities 

(other than of Derivative Securities 

Products as defined in Rule 

7.34(a)(4)(A), and as specified in Rule 

7.35(c)), the Exchange proposes to 

delete all references to Nasdaq-Listed 

securities and related rule text in Rules 

7.35(c)(1)(B), (c)(2)(B), and (c)(3)(B). 

Similarly, because the Exchange only 

runs a Trading Halt Auction in 

securities that are listed on the 

Exchange, the Exchange proposes to 

delete references to how Trading Halt 

Auctions operate for securities other 

than those listed on the Exchange, and 

as currently described in Rules 

7.35(f)(1)(A) and (B), (f)(4)(A), and 

(f)(4)(B), and re-number existing Rule 

7.36(f)(4)(C) as Rule 7.36(f)(4); 

• Amend Rule 7.36 to capitalize the 

term ‘‘Limit Order’’; and Amend Rule 

7.37 to capitalize the term ‘‘Reserve 

Order,’’ use the term ‘‘ISO’’ instead of 

‘‘Intermarket Sweep Order,’’ replace the 

term ‘‘Limited Price Order’’ with the 

term ‘‘Limit Order,’’ remove references 

to the term ‘‘Reserved’’ from current 

Rule 7.37(a) and (b) and re-number the 

subsections of the rule accordingly, and 

update the cross-reference to the rule 

cite for Passive Liquidity Orders in new 

Rule 7.37(a)(1). 

The Exchange also proposes to amend 

Rule 7.36 to clarify how the Exchange 

treats non-marketable odd-lot orders 

that are priced better than the bestpriced round lot interest at the 

Exchange for purposes of determining 

the best ranked displayed order(s) on 

the Exchange. Specifically, when 

disseminating the Exchange’s best 

ranked displayed orders to either the 

Consolidated Quotation System (for 

Tape A and B securities) or the UTP 

Plan (for Tape C securities) (together, 

the ‘‘public data feeds’’), the Exchange 

aggregates non-marketable odd-lot 

interest at multiple price points and if 

they equal a round lot or more, displays 

the aggregated odd-lot orders in a round 

lot quantity at the least aggressive price 

at which such odd-lot sized orders can 

be aggregated to equal at least a round 

lot. For example, if the Exchange has a 

bid of 100 shares at 10.00, 50 shares at 

10.01 and 60 shares at 10.02, the 

Exchange’s best bid published to the 

public data feeds would be 100 shares 

at 10.01. Similarly, if the Exchange has 

an offer of 100 shares at 10.05, 50 shares 

at 10.04, and 60 shares at 10.03, the 

Exchange’s best offer published to the 

public data feeds would be 100 shares 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 45 / Monday, March 9, 2015 / Notices 12541 

14E.g., In 2011, the Exchange amended Rule 

7.31(h)(5) to lower the minimum order entry size 

to one share for MPL Orders. See Securities 

Exchange Act Release No. 64523 (May 19, 2011), 76 

FR 30417 (May 24, 2011) (SR–NYSEArca-2011–29) 

(Notice of filing of proposed rule change amending 

Rule 7.31(h)(5) to reduce the minimum order entry 

size of MPL Orders from 100 shares to one share). 

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

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

at 10.04. To reflect this clarification, the 

Exchange proposes to amend Rule 

7.36(c) to provide that if non-marketable 

odd-lot sized orders at different price 

points equal at least a round lot, such 

odd-lot sized orders would be displayed 

as the best ranked displayed orders to 

sell (buy) at the least aggressive price at 

which such odd-lot sized orders can be 

aggregated to equal at least a round lot. 

Finally, the Exchange proposes to 

amend Rule 7.38(a)(1) regarding Odd 

Lots to specify the order types that may 

not be entered as odd lots. Currently, 

Rule 7.38(a)(1) provides that odd lot 

orders may not be Working Orders, 

Tracking Orders, etc. However, to reflect 

certain amendments to Rule 7.31, which 

were not incorporated in Rule 7.38,14

and to provide more specificity, the 

Exchange proposes to clarify Rule 

7.38(a)(1) to provide that the following 

orders may not be entered as odd lots: 

Reserve Orders, MPL–IOC Orders, 

Tracking Orders, and Q Orders. The 

Exchange also proposes a nonsubstantive change to Rule 7.38(a)(2) to 

remove an extraneous period at the end 

of the sentence. 

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. Specifically, the 

Exchange believes that eliminating AON 

and PSO Orders, as well as reducing 

specified order type combinations, 

would remove impediments to and 

perfect the mechanism of a free and 

open market by simplifying 

functionality and complexity of its order 

types. The Exchange believes that 

eliminating these order types would be 

consistent with the public interest and 

the protection of investors because 

investors will not be harmed and in fact 

would benefit from the removal of 

complex functionality. The Exchange 

further believes that removing crossreferences to AON in Rules 7.36 and 

7.37 would remove impediments to and 

perfect the mechanism of a free and 

open market because it would reduce 

potential confusion that may result from 

having such cross references in the 

Exchange’s rulebook. Removing such 

obsolete cross references would also 

further the goal of transparency and add 

clarity to the Exchange’s rules. 

The Exchange further believes that the 

proposed restructuring of Rule 7.31, to 

group existing order types to align by 

functionality, delete subsections marked 

‘‘reserved’’, and clarify rule text also 

would remove impediments to and 

perfect the mechanism of a free and 

open market by ensuring that members, 

regulators, and the public can more 

easily navigate the Exchange’s rulebook 

and better understand the order types 

available for trading on the Exchange. 

The Exchange believes that the related, 

proposed conforming changes to Rules 

7.35, 7.36, 7.37 and 7.38 similarly 

would remove impediments to and 

perfect the mechanism of a free and 

open market by assuring consistency of 

terms used in the Exchange’s rulebook. 

The Exchange also believes that the 

proposed amendment to Rule 7.38 to 

specify which orders may not be odd 

lots provides more specificity to the 

Exchange’s rulebook, thereby similarly 

promoting transparency and thus 

removing impediments and perfecting 

the mechanism of a free and open 

market. 

Finally, the Exchange believes that 

the proposed amendment to Rule 7.36 to 

specify how the Exchange aggregates 

non-marketable odd-lot sized orders at 

multiple price points that equal a round 

lot for purposes of determining the 

Exchange’s best ranked displayed 

order(s) would remove impediments to 

and perfect the mechanism of a free and 

open market and a national market 

system because it provides greater 

specificity regarding how the Exchange 

determines its best bid or offer for 

display on the public data feeds. The 

Exchange further believes that it would 

remove impediments to and perfect the 

mechanism of a free and open market 

and a national market system to 

aggregate such non-marketable odd-lot 

orders because pursuant to Rule 7.38(b), 

odd-lot orders are ranked and executed 

in the same manner as round lot orders, 

and therefore, incoming marketable 

contra-side orders would execute 

against resting non-marketable odd-lot 

orders that represent the best price on 

the Exchange. Because arriving 

marketable contra-side orders execute in 

price-time priority against resting oddlot orders priced better than resting 

round-lot orders, the Exchange believes 

that it is appropriate to display such 

odd-lot interest on the public data feeds 

as the Exchange’s best bid or offer if in 

the aggregate, they equal a round lot or 

more. The Exchange further believes 

that aggregating such odd-lot orders at 

the least aggressive price point from 

among those odd-lot orders would 

remove impediments to and perfect the 

mechanism of a free and open market 

because it represents the lowest possible 

execution price (for incoming sell 

orders) or highest possible execution 

price (for incoming buy orders). The 

Exchange notes that the incoming 

marketable interest would receive price 

improvement when executing against 

any odd-lot orders priced better than the 

aggregated displayed price. 

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Burden on Competition 

The Exchange does not believe that 

the proposed rule change will impose 

any burden on competition that is not 

necessary or appropriate in furtherance 

of the purposes of the Act. The 

proposed change is not designed to 

address any competitive issue but rather 

would remove complex functionality 

and re-structure Rule 7.31 and make 

conforming changes to related Exchange 

rules, thereby reducing confusion and 

making the Exchange’s rules easier to 

navigate. 

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Comments on the 

Proposed Rule Change Received From 

Members, Participants, or Others 

No written comments were solicited 

or received with respect to the proposed 

rule change. 

III. Date of Effectiveness of the 

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for 

Commission Action 

Within 45 days of the date of 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register or up to 90 days (i) as the 

Commission may designate if it finds 

such longer period to be appropriate 

and publishes its reasons for so finding 

or (ii) as to which the self-regulatory 

organization consents, the Commission 

will: 

(A) by order approve or disapprove 

the proposed rule change, or 

(B) institute proceedings to determine 

whether the proposed rule change 

should be disapproved. 

IV. Solicitation of Comments 

Interested persons are invited to 

submit written data, views, and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

12542 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 45 / Monday, March 9, 2015 / Notices 

17 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

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 rule-comments@

sec.gov. Please include File Number SR– 

NYSEArca–2015–08 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–NYSEArca–2015–08. This 

file number should be included on the 

subject line if email is used. To help the 

Commission process and review your 

comments more efficiently, please use 

only one method. The Commission will 

post all comments on the Commission’s 

Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/

rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the 

submission, all subsequent 

amendments, all written statements 

with respect to the proposed rule 

change that are filed with the 

Commission, and all written 

communications relating to the 

proposed rule change between the 

Commission and any person, other than 

those that may be withheld from the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be 

available for Web site viewing and 

printing in the Commission’s Public 

Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., 

Washington, DC 20549, on official 

business days between the hours of 

10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the 

filing also will be available for 

inspection and copying at the principal 

office of the Exchange. All comments 

received will be posted without change; 

the Commission does not edit personal 

identifying information from 

submissions. You should submit only 

information that you wish to make 

available publicly. All submissions 

should refer to File Number SR– 

NYSEArca–2015–08 and should be 

submitted on or before March 30, 2015. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.17

Brent J. Fields, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2015–05291 Filed 3–6–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 

[License No. 03/03–0236] 

Legg Mason SBIC Mezzanine Fund, 

L.P.; Notice Seeking Exemption Under 

Section 312 of the Small Business 

Investment Act, Conflicts of Interest 

Notice is hereby given that Legg 

Mason SBIC Mezzanine Fund, L.P., 

2330 W. Joppa Road, Suite 320, 

Lutherville, MD 21093, a Federal 

Licensee under the Small Business 

Investment Act of 1958, as amended 

(the ‘‘Act’’), in connection with the 

financing of a small concern, has sought 

an exemption under Section 312 of the 

Act and Section 107.730, Financings 

which Constitute Conflicts of Interest of 

the Small Business Administration 

(‘‘SBA’’) Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 

107.730). Legg Mason SBIC Mezzanine 

Fund, L.P. has provided equity 

financing to Die Cast Holdings, Inc., 

3400 Wentworth Drive SW., Wyoming, 

MI 49509. The proceeds were used to 

recapitalize the company. 

The financing is brought within the 

purview of § 107.730(a)(1) of the 

Regulations because an individual that 

was an employee of Legg Mason SBIC 

Mezzanine Fund, L.P.’s investment 

advisor at the time of the financing 

became an officer of Die Cast Holdings, 

Inc. within the six month period 

following the financing, and therefore 

this transaction is considered financing 

an Associate requiring SBA prior 

written exemption. 

Notice is hereby given that any 

interested person may submit written 

comments on the transaction within 

fifteen days of the date of this 

publication to the Associate 

Administrator for the Office of 

Investment and Innovation, U.S. Small 

Business Administration, 409 Third 

Street SW., Washington, DC 20416. 

Dated: February 25, 2015. 

Javier E. Saade, 

Associate Administrator for Office of 

Investment and Innovation. 

[FR Doc. 2015–05321 Filed 3–6–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025–01–P 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

[Docket No: SSA–2015–0008] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Proposed Request 

The Social Security Administration 

(SSA) publishes a list of information 

collection packages requiring clearance 

by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) in compliance with 

Public Law 104–13, the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, effective October 

1, 1995. This notice includes revisions 

and an extension of OMB-approved 

information collections. 

SSA is soliciting comments on the 

accuracy of the agency’s burden 

estimate; the need for the information; 

its practical utility; ways to enhance its 

quality, utility, and clarity; and ways to 

minimize burden on respondents, 

including the use of automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology. Mail, email, or 

fax your comments and 

recommendations on the information 

collection(s) to the OMB Desk Officer 

and SSA Reports Clearance Officer at 

the following addresses or fax numbers. 

(OMB) 

Office of Management and Budget, 

Attn: Desk Officer for SSA, Fax: 202– 

395–6974, Email address: OIRA_

Submission@omb.eop.gov. 

(SSA) 

Social Security Administration, 

OLCA, Attn: Reports Clearance Director, 

3100 West High Rise, 6401 Security 

Blvd., Baltimore, MD 21235, Fax: 410– 

966–2830, Email address: 

OR.Reports.Clearance@ssa.gov. 

Or you may submit your comments 

online through www.regulations.gov, 

referencing Docket ID Number [SSA– 

2015–0008]. 

The information collections below are 

pending at SSA. SSA will submit them 

to OMB within 60 days from the date of 

this notice. To be sure we consider your 

comments, we must receive them no 

later than May 8, 2015. Individuals can 

obtain copies of the collection 

instruments by writing to the above 

email address. 

1. Application for Parent’s Insurance 

Benefits—20 CFR 404.370–404.374, and 

404.601–404.603—0960–0012. Section 

202(h) of the Social Security Act 

establishes the conditions of eligibility a 

claimant must meet to receive monthly 

benefits as a parent of a deceased 

worker. SSA uses information from 

Form SSA–7–F6 to determine if the 

claimant meets the eligibility and 

application criteria. The respondents are 

applicants for, and recipients of, Social 

Security Old Age, Survivors, and 

Disability Insurance (OASDI). 

Type of Request: Revision of an OMBapproved information collection. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES