Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 19 / Friday, January 29, 2016 / Notices 5027 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

3See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76229 

(October 22, 2015), 80 FR 66065 (‘‘Notice’’). 

4See 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’’). 

5See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76551, 

80 FR 76602 (December 9, 2015). 

6See 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). 

8The 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. 

9Proposed 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. 

10NYSE 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). 

11NYSE 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). 

12NYSE 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 brokerdealer. See proposed NYSE Rule 67(a)(1)(C). 

13NYSE 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). 

14Unless otherwise noted, capitalized terms not 

defined in this order shall have the meanings set 

forth in the Plan. 

15See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(a)(2). 

16See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(a)(3). 

NEON update from the Chair of the ad 

hoc task force on NEON Performance 

and Plans 

Open committee reports 

NSB Chair’s closing remarks 

Meeting Adjourns: 1:30 p.m. 

Kyscha Slater-Williams, 

Program Specialist, National Science Board. 

[FR Doc. 2016–01757 Filed 1–27–16; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–P 

POSTAL SERVICE 

Temporary Emergency Committee of 

the Board of Governors; Sunshine Act 

Meeting 

DATES AND TIMES: Tuesday, February 9, 

2016, at 12:00 noon. 

PLACE: via Teleconference. 

STATUS: Closed. 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Tuesday, February 9, 2016, at 12:00 

Noon 

1. Strategic Issues. 

2. Financial Matters. 

3. Pricing. 

4. Personnel Matters and Compensation 

Issues. 

5. Executive Session—Discussion of 

prior agenda items and Board 

governance. 

GENERAL COUNSEL CERTIFICATION: The 

General Counsel of the United States 

Postal Service has certified that the 

meeting may be closed under the 

Government in the Sunshine Act. 

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Requests for information about the 

meeting should be addressed to the 

Secretary of the Board, Julie S. Moore, 

at 202–268–4800. 

Julie S. Moore, 

Secretary, Board of Governors. 

[FR Doc. 2016–01776 Filed 1–27–16; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P 

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. 

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

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


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
5028 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 19 / Friday, January 29, 2016 / Notices 

17See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(a)(4). 

18See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(a)(5). 

19The Commission notes that the Exchange has 

reserved Paragraph (b) for the data collection 

contemplated under the Plan. 

20See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(c). 

21See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(c). 

22See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(c). 

23Similar 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). 

24Proposed NYSE Rule 67(d)(2) applies to all 

trades, including Brokered Cross Trades. 

25See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(d)(3)(A). 

26See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(d)(3)(B). 

27See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(d)(3)(C). 

28Similar 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). 

29Proposed NYSE Rule 67(e)(2) applies to all 

trades, including Brokered Cross Trades. 

30See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(e)(3). 

31See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(e)(4)(A). 32See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(e)(4)(C)(i). 33See Notice at note 26. 34See Notice at note 26. 35Proposed 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. 

37See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(e)(4)(C)(iii). 

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

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

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 nondisplayable 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

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 nondisplayable 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

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

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. 

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

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

The fourth exception permits the 

execution of a Retail Investor Order 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 19 / Friday, January 29, 2016 / Notices 5029 

38See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(e)(4)(C)(iv). 39See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(e)(4)(C)(v). 40See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(e)(4)(C)(vi). 41See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(e)(4)(C)(vii). 42See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(e)(4)(C)(viii). 

43See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(e)(4)(C)(ix). 

44See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(e)(4)(C)(x). 

45See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(e)(4)(C)(xi). 

46See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(e)(4)(C)(xii). 

47See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(e)(4)(C)(xiii). 

48See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(e)(4)(C)(xiv). 

49See supra note 6. 

50See SIFMA Letter. 

51See SIFMA Letter. 

52 Id. 

53See FIF Letter. 

54The 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. 

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

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 Tradeat, 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

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. 

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

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 exchangerelated activities of NYSE members, or 

would apply to their off-exchange 

activities as well.54

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 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
5030 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 19 / Friday, January 29, 2016 / Notices 

55 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 

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. 

57See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 

58See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8). 

59See Tick Size Plan Section VI.D.1. 

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 selfregulatory organization. See Securities Act 

Amendments of 1975, Senate Comm. on Banking, 

Housing & Urban Affairs, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th 

Cong., 1st Sess. 30 (1975). 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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

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 rule-comments@

sec.gov. 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. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 19 / Friday, January 29, 2016 / Notices 5031 

61 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(57). 

1CMR is wholly owned by Progressive Rail Inc. 

2CMR was granted authority to lease and operate 

the rail line in Central Midland Railway—Lease & 

Operation Exemption—Union Pacific Railroad, FD 

34308 (STB served Jan. 27, 2003). 

3CMR filed a confidential, complete version of 

the Agreement with its notice of exemption to be 

kept confidential by the Board under 49 CFR 

1104.14(a) without need for the filing of an 

accompanying motion for protective order under 49 

CFR 1104.14(b). 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.61

Robert W. Errett, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2016–01691 Filed 1–28–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

[Public Notice: 9427] 

Culturally Significant Objects Imported 

for Exhibition Determinations: 

‘‘Daubigny, Monet, Van Gogh: 

Impressions of Landscape’’ Exhibition 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the 

following determinations: Pursuant to 

the authority vested in me by the Act of 

October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 

2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 

27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and 

Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 

2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et 

seq.), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of 

October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority 

No. 236–3 of August 28, 2000 (and, as 

appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 

257–1 of December 11, 2015), I hereby 

determine that the objects to be 

included in the exhibition ‘‘Daubigny, 

Monet, Van Gogh: Impressions of 

Landscape,’’ imported from abroad for 

temporary exhibition within the United 

States, are of cultural significance. The 

objects are imported pursuant to loan 

agreements with the foreign owners or 

custodians. I also determine that the 

exhibition or display of the exhibit 

objects at the Taft Museum of Art, 

Cincinnati, Ohio, from on or about 

February 19, 2016, until on or about 

May 29, 2016, and at possible additional 

exhibitions or venues yet to be 

determined, is in the national interest. 

I have ordered that Public Notice of 

these Determinations be published in 

the Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information, including a list of 

the imported objects, contact the Office 

of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs 

in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. 

Department of State (telephone: 202– 

632–6471; email: section2459@

state.gov). The mailing address is U.S. 

Department of State, L/PD, SA–5, Suite 

5H03, Washington, DC 20522–0505. 

Dated: January 20, 2016. 

Mark Taplin, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Bureau 

of Educational and Cultural Affairs, 

Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 2016–01764 Filed 1–28–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–05–P 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

[Public Notice: 9426] 

Culturally Significant Objects Imported 

for Exhibition Determinations: 

‘‘Unfinished: Thoughts Left Visible’’ 

Exhibition 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the 

following determinations: Pursuant to 

the authority vested in me by the Act of 

October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 

2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 

27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and 

Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 

2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et 

seq.), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of 

October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority 

No. 236–3 of August 28, 2000 (and, as 

appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 

257–1 of December 11, 2015), I hereby 

determine that the objects to be 

included in the exhibition ‘‘Unfinished: 

Thoughts Left Visible,’’ imported from 

abroad for temporary exhibition within 

the United States, are of cultural 

significance. The objects are imported 

pursuant to loan agreements with the 

foreign owners or custodians. I also 

determine that the exhibition or display 

of the exhibit objects at The 

Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 

New York, from on or about March 18, 

2016, until on or about September 4, 

2016, and at possible additional 

exhibitions or venues yet to be 

determined, is in the national interest. 

I have ordered that Public Notice of 

these Determinations be published in 

the Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information, including a list of 

the imported objects, contact the Office 

of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs 

in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. 

Department of State (telephone: 202– 

632–6471; email: section2459@

state.gov). The mailing address is U.S. 

Department of State, L/PD, SA–5, Suite 

5H03, Washington, DC 20522–0505. 

Dated: January 21, 2016. 

Mark Taplin, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Bureau 

of Educational and Cultural Affairs, 

Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 2016–01766 Filed 1–28–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–05–P 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD 

[Docket No. FD 35989] 

Central Midland Railway Company— 

Renewal of Lease Exemption with 

Interchange Commitment—Union 

Pacific Railroad Company Lackland 

Sub-Division 

Central Midland Railway Company 

(CMR),1 a Class III rail carrier, has filed 

a verified notice of exemption under 49 

CFR 1150.41 to continue to lease from 

Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP), 

and to operate, approximately 8.65 

miles of rail line and related industrial 

tracks, known as the Lackland SubDivision, from milepost 10.35 at Rock 

Island Junction to milepost 19.0 west of 

Vigus in St. Louis County, Mo.2

In the verified notice, CMR states that 

CMR and UP have executed a Lease 

Agreement 3 (Agreement) which served 

to renew an agreement the parties had 

previously entered into in January 2003. 

According to CMR, the Agreement has 

an initial 10-year term that may be 

extended by CMR for an additional 10- 

year period. As required under 49 CFR 

1150.43(h)(1), CMR has disclosed in its 

verified notice that the Agreement 

contains an interchange commitment 

that reduces the annual rent due to UP 

depending on the percentage of rail 

traffic originating or terminating on the 

line that is interchanged with UP via the 

Terminal Railroad Association of St. 

Louis at St. Louis. CMR has provided 

additional information regarding the 

interchange commitment, as required by 

49 CFR 1150.43(h). CMR states that it 

will continue to be the operator of the 

line. 

CMR certifies that the projected 

annual revenues as a result of the 

proposed transaction will not result in 

CMR’s becoming a Class II or Class I rail 

carrier and will not exceed $5 million. 

CMR intends to consummate the 

transaction on or shortly after February 

14, 2016, the effective date of the 

exemption (30 days after the verified 

notice of exemption was filed). If the 

verified notice contains false or 

misleading information, the exemption 

is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the 

exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) 

may be filed at any time. The filing of 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES