
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 71 (Tuesday, April 14, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20053-20057]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08450]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74678; File No. SR-NYSE-2015-15]


Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange, LLC; 
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 13 and Related 
Rules Governing Order Types and Modifiers

April 8, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of 
1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given 
that on March 24, 2015, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or 
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission 
(``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 
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 13 and related rules governing 
order types and modifiers. 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 the 
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.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 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).
    \5\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, the Exchange submitted a proposed rule change to delete 
rules relating to functionality that was not available.\6\ In addition, 
over the years, when filing rule changes to adopt new functionality, 
the Exchange has used those filings as an opportunity to streamline 
related existing rule text for which functionality has not changed.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71897 (April 8, 
2014), 79 FR 20953 (April 14, 2014) (SR-NYSE-2014-16) (``2014 
Pegging Filing'') (amending rules governing pegging interest to 
conform to functionality that is available at the Exchange).
    \7\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 68302 (Nov. 
27, 2012), 77 FR 71658 (Dec. 3, 2012) (SR-NYSE-2012-65) (amending 
rules governing pegging interest to, among other things, make non-
substantive changes, including moving the rule text from Rule 70.26 
to Rule 13, to make the rule text more focused and streamlined) 
(``2012 Pegging Filing''), and 71175 (Dec. 23, 2013), 78 FR 79534 
(Dec. 30, 2013) (SR-NYSE-2013-21) (approval order for rule proposal 
that, among other things, amended Rule 70 governing Floor broker 
reserve e-quotes that streamlined the rule text without making 
substantive changes) (``2013 Reserve e-Quote Filing'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is filing this proposed rule change to continue with 
its efforts

[[Page 20054]]

to review and clarify its rules governing order types, as appropriate. 
Specifically, the Exchange notes that Rule 13 is currently structured 
alphabetically, and does not include subsection numbering. The Exchange 
proposes to provide additional clarity to Rule 13 by re-grouping and 
re-numbering current rule text and making other non-substantive, 
clarifying changes. The proposed rule changes are not intended to 
reflect changes to functionality but rather to clarify Rule 13 to make 
it easier to navigate.\8\ In addition, the Exchange proposes to amend 
certain rules to remove references to functionality that is no longer 
operative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange notes that its affiliated exchanges, NYSE MKT 
LLC and NYSE Arca, Inc. are proposing similar restructuring of their 
respective order type rules to group order types and modifiers. See 
SR-NYSEMKT-2015-22 and SR-NYSEArca-2015-08.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule 13 Restructure
    The Exchange proposes to re-structure Rule 13 to re-group existing 
order types and modifiers together along functional lines.
    Proposed new subsection (a) of Rule 13 would set forth the 
Exchange's order types that are the foundation for all other order type 
instructions, i.e., the primary order types. The proposed primary order 
types would be:
     Market Orders. Rule text governing Market Orders would be 
moved to new Rule 13(a)(1). The Exchange proposes a non-substantive 
change to replace the reference to ``Display Book'' with a reference to 
``Exchange systems.'' \9\ The Exchange notes that it proposes to 
capitalize the term ``Market Order'' throughout new Rule 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Exchange proposes to replace the term ``Display book'' 
with the term ``Exchange systems'' when use of the term refers to 
the Exchange systems that receive and execute orders. The Exchange 
proposes to replace the term ``Display Book'' with the term 
``Exchange's book'' when use of the term refers to the interest that 
has been entered and ranked in Exchange systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Limit Orders. Rule text governing Limit Orders would be 
moved to new Rule 13(a)(2). The Exchange proposes a non-substantive 
change to capitalize the term ``Limit Order,'' and to shorten the 
definition in a manner that streamlines the rule text without changing 
the meaning of the rule. The Exchange notes that it proposes to 
capitalize the term ``Limit Order'' throughout new Rule 13.
    The Exchange notes that it proposes to delete the definition of 
``Auto Ex Order'' because all orders entered electronically at the 
Exchange are eligible for automatic execution in accordance with Rules 
1000-1004 and therefore the Exchange does not believe that it needs to 
separately define an Auto Ex Order. Rather than maintain a separate 
definition, the Exchange proposes to specify in proposed Rule 13(a) 
that all orders entered electronically at the Exchange are eligible for 
automatic execution consistent with the terms of the order and Rules 
1000-1004. The Exchange notes that Rule 13 currently provides for 
specified instructions for orders that may not execute on arrival, even 
if marketable, e.g., a Limit Order designated ALO, or may only be 
eligible to participate in an auction, accordingly, the terms of the 
order also control whether a marketable order would automatically 
execute upon arrival. The Exchange further proposes to specify that 
interest represented manually by Floor brokers, i.e., orally bid or 
offered at the point of sale on the Trading Floor, is not eligible for 
automatic execution. The Exchange notes that the order types currently 
specified in the definition for auto ex order are already separately 
defined in Rule 13 or Rule 70(a)(ii) (definition of G order).
    Proposed new subsection (b) of Rule 13 would set forth the existing 
Time in Force Modifiers that the Exchange makes available for orders 
entered at the Exchange. The Exchange proposes to: (i) Move rule text 
governing Day Orders to new Rule 13(b)(1), without any substantive 
changes to the rule text; (ii) move rule text governing Good til 
Cancelled Orders to new Rule 13(b)(2), without any substantive changes 
to the rule text; and (iii) move rule text governing Immediate or 
Cancel Orders to new Rule 13(b)(3) without any changes to rule text. 
The Exchange notes that these time-in-force conditions are not separate 
order types, but rather are modifiers to orders. Accordingly, the 
Exchange proposes to re-classify them as modifiers and remove the 
references to the term ``Order.'' In addition, as noted above, the 
Exchange proposes to capitalize the term ``Limit Order'' in Rule 13(b).
    Proposed new subsection (c) of Rule 13 would specify the Exchange's 
existing Auction-Only Orders. In moving the rule text, the Exchange 
proposes the following non-substantive changes: (i) Capitalize the 
terms ``Limit Order,'' ``CO Order,'' and ``Market Order''; (ii) move 
the rule text for CO Orders to new Rule 13(c)(1); (iii) rename a 
``Limit `At the Close' Order'' as a ``Limit-on-Close (LOC) Order'' and 
move the rule text to new Rule 13(c)(2); (iv) rename a ``Limit `On-the-
Open' Order'' as a ``Limit-on-Open (LOO) Order'' and move the rule text 
to new Rule 13(c)(3); (v) rename a ``Market `At-the-Close' Order'' as a 
``Market-on-Close (MOC) Order'' and move the rule text to new Rule 
13(c)(4); and (vi) rename a ``Market `On-the-Open' Order'' as a 
``Market-on-Open (MOO) Order'' and move the rule text to new Rule 
13(c)(5).
    Proposed new subsection (d) of Rule 13 would specify the Exchange's 
existing orders that include instructions not to display all or a 
portion of the order. The order types proposed to be included in this 
new subsection are:
     Mid-point Passive Liquidity (``MPL'') Orders. Existing 
rule text governing MPL Orders would be moved to new Rule 13(d)(1) with 
non-substantive changes to capitalize the term Limit Order, update 
cross references, and refer to ``Add Liquidity Only'' as ALO, since ALO 
is now a separately defined term in new Rule 13(e)(1). The Exchange 
also proposes to clarify the rule text by deleting the term 
``including'' from the phrase ``[a]n MPL Order is not eligible for 
manual executions, including openings, re-openings, and closings,'' 
because MPL Orders would not participate in an opening, re-opening, or 
closing that is effectuated electronically.\10\ The Exchange further 
proposes to make a substantive amendment to the rule text set forth in 
new Rule 13(d)(1)(C) to specify that Exchange systems would reject an 
MPL Order on entry if the Minimum Triggering Volume (``MTV'') is larger 
than the size of the order and would reject a request to partially 
cancel a resting MPL Order if it would result in the MTV being larger 
than the size of the order and make conforming changes to the existing 
rule text. The Exchange would continue to enforce an MTV restriction if 
the unexecuted portion of an MPL Order with an MTV is less than the 
MTV. The Exchange believes that this proposed rule 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.\11\ Finally, the Exchange 
proposes to make a non-substantive change to new Rule 13(d)(1)(E) to 
replace the term ``discretionary trade'' with ``d-Quote,'' because d-
Quotes are the only type of Exchange interest that is eligible to 
include discretionary pricing instructions.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Rule 123C.10 (``Closings may be effectuated manually or 
electronically'') and Rule 123D(1) (``Openings may be effectuated 
manually or electronically'').
    \11\ The Exchange notes that because of technology changes 
associated with rejecting MPL Orders that have an MTV larger than 
the size of the order, the Exchange will announce by Trader Update 
when this element of the proposed rule change will be implemented.
    \12\ See Rule 70.25 (Discretionary Instructions for Bids and 
Offers Represented via Floor Broker Agency Interest Files (e-
QuotesSM)).

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

[[Page 20055]]

     Reserve Orders. Existing rule text governing Reserve 
Orders would be moved to new Rule 13(d)(2) with non-substantive changes 
to capitalize the term ``Limit Order'' and hyphenate the term ``Non-
Displayed.'' The Exchange proposes further non-substantive changes to 
the rule text governing Minimum Display Reserve Orders, which would be 
in new Rule 13(d)(2)(C), to clarify that a Minimum Display Reserve 
Order would participate in both automatic and manual executions. This 
is existing functionality relating to Minimum Display Reserve Orders 
\13\ and the proposed rule text aligns with Rule 70(f)(i) governing 
Floor broker Minimum Display Reserve e-Quotes.\14\ Similarly, the 
Exchange proposes non-substantive changes to the rule text governing 
Non-Displayed Reserve Orders, which would be in new Rule 13(d)(2)(D), 
to clarify that a Non-Displayed Reserve Order would not participate in 
manual executions. This is existing functionality relating to Non-
Displayed Reserve Orders \15\ and the proposed rule text aligns with 
Rule 70(f)(ii) governing Non-Display Reserve eQuotes excluded from the 
DMM.\16\ Finally, in proposed new Rule 13(d)(2)(E), the Exchange 
proposes to clarify that the treatment of reserve interest, which is 
available for execution only after all displayable interest at that 
price point has been executed, is applicable to all Reserve Orders, and 
is not limited to Non-Displayed Reserve Orders.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57688 (April 18, 
2008), 73 FR 22194 at 22197 (April 24, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-30) 
(order approving rule change that, among other things, adopted new 
Reserve Order for which the non-displayed portion of the order is 
eligible to participate in manual executions) (``2008 Reserve Order 
Filing'').
    \14\ See 2013 Reserve e-Quote Filing, supra n. 7.
    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58845 (Oct. 24, 
2008), 73 FR 64379 at 64384 (Oct. 29, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-46) (order 
approving the Exchange's New Market Model, including adopting a Non-
Displayed Reserve Order that would not be eligible to participate in 
manual executions).
    \16\ See 2013 Reserve e-Quote Filing, supra n. 7.
    \17\ See 2008 Reserve Order Filing supra n. 13 at 22196 
(displayable portion of Reserve Order executed together with other 
displayable interest at a price point before executing with reserve 
portion of the order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed new subsection (e) of Rule 13 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:
     Add Liquidity Only (``ALO'') Modifiers. Existing rule text 
governing ALO modifiers would be moved to new Rule 13(e)(1) with non-
substantive changes to capitalize the term ``Limit Order'' and update 
cross-references. Existing rule text that is being moved to new Rule 
13(e)(1)(A) currently provides that Limit Orders designated ALO may 
participate in opens and closes, but that the ALO instructions would be 
ignored. Because Limit Orders designated ALO could also participate in 
re-openings, and the ALO instructions would similarly be ignored, the 
Exchange proposes to clarify new Rule 13(e)(1)(A) to provide that Limit 
Orders designated ALO could participate in openings, re-openings, and 
closings, but that the ALO instructions would be ignored.
     Do Not Ship (``DNS'') Orders. Existing rule text governing 
DNS Orders would be moved to new Rule 13(e)(2) with non-substantive 
changes to capitalize the term ``Limit Order'' and replace the 
reference to ``Display Book'' with a reference to ``Exchange systems.''
     Intermarket Sweep Order. Existing rule text governing ISOs 
would be moved to new Rule 13(e)(3) with non-substantive changes to 
capitalize the term ``Limit Order'', update cross-references, and 
replace the reference to ``Display Book'' with a reference to 
``Exchange's book.''
    Proposed new subsection (f) of Rule 13 would specify the Exchange's 
other existing order instructions and modifiers, including:
     Do Not Reduce (``DNR'') Modifier. Existing rule text 
governing DNR Orders would be moved to new Rule 13(f)(1) with non-
substantive changes to capitalize the terms ``Limit Order'' and ``Stop 
Order.'' In addition, the Exchange believes that because DNR 
instructions would be added to an order, DNR is more appropriately 
referred to as a modifier rather than as an order type.
     Do Not Increase (``DNI'') Modifiers. Existing rule text 
governing DNI Orders would be moved to new Rule 13(f)(2) with non-
substantive changes to capitalize the terms ``Limit Order'' and ``Stop 
Order.'' In addition, the Exchange believes that because DNI 
instructions would be added to an order, DNI is more appropriately 
referred to as a modifier rather than as an order type.
     Pegging Interest. Existing rule text governing Pegging 
Interest and related subsections would be moved to new Rule 13(f)(3) 
with two clarifying changes to the existing rule text. First, because 
Pegging Interest is currently available for e-Quotes and d-Quotes only, 
the Exchange proposes to replace the term ``can'' with the term 
``must'' in new Rule 13(f)(3)(a)(i) to provide that Pegging Interest 
``must be an e-Quote or d-Quote.'' Second, the Exchange proposes to 
delete reference to the term ``Primary Pegging Interest,'' because the 
Exchange has only one form of pegging interest.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See 2014 Pegging Filing, supra n. 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Retail Modifiers. Existing rule text governing Retail 
Modifiers and related subsections would be moved to new Rule 13(f)(4) 
with non-substantive changes to update cross-references.
     Self-Trade Prevention (``STP'') Modifier. Existing rule 
text governing STP Modifiers and related subsections would be moved to 
new Rule 13(f)(5) with non-substantive changes to capitalize the terms 
``Limit Orders,'' ``Market Orders,'' and ``Stop Orders'' and hyphenate 
the term ``Self-Trade Prevention.''
     Sell ``Plus''--Buy ``Minus'' Instructions. Existing rule 
text governing Sell ``Plus''--Buy ``Minus'' Orders would be moved to 
new Rule 13(f)(6) with non-substantive changes to break the rule into 
subsections, capitalize the terms ``Market Order,'' ``Limit Order,'' 
and ``Stop Order,'' and replace the references to Display Book with 
references to Exchange systems. In addition, the Exchange proposes to 
re-classify this as an order instruction rather than as a separate 
order.
     Stop Orders. Existing rule text governing Stop Orders 
would be moved to new Rule 13(f)(7) with non-substantive changes to 
break the rule into subsections, capitalize the term ``Market Order,'' 
and replace references to ``Exchange's automated order routing system'' 
with references to ``Exchange systems.''
    As part of the proposed restructure of Rule 13, the Exchange 
proposes to move existing rule text in Rule 13 governing the definition 
of ``Routing Broker'' to Rule 17(c), without any change to the rule 
text. The Exchange believes that Rule 17 is a more logical location for 
the definition of Routing Broker because Rule 17(c) governs the 
operations of Routing Brokers.
    In addition, the Exchange proposes to delete existing rule text in 
Rule 13 governing Not Held Orders and add rule text relating to not 
held instructions to supplementary material .20 to Rule 13. 
Supplementary material .20 to Rule 13 reflects obligations that members 
have in handling customer orders. Because not held instructions are 
instructions from a customer to a member or member organization 
regarding the handling of an order, and do not relate to instructions 
accepted by Exchange systems for execution, the Exchange believes that 
references to not held instructions are better suited for this existing 
supplementary material.
    Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend supplementary material 
.20 to

[[Page 20056]]

Rule 13 to add that generally, an instruction that an order is ``not 
held'' refers to an unpriced, discretionary order voluntarily 
categorized as such by the customer and with respect to which the 
customer has granted the member or member organization price and time 
discretion. The Exchange believes that this proposed amendment aligns 
the definition of ``not held'' with guidance from the Financial 
Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'') and other markets 
regarding not held instructions.\19\ The Exchange notes that the 
existing Rule 13 text regarding how to mark a Not Held Order, e.g., 
``not held,'' ``disregard tape,'' ``take time,'' etc., are outdated 
references regarding order marking between a customer and a member or 
member organization. All Exchange members and member organizations that 
receive customer orders are subject to Order Audit Trail System 
(``OATS'') obligations, consistent with Rule 7400 Series and FINRA Rule 
7400 Series, which require that order-handling instructions be 
documented in OATS. Among the order-handling instructions that can be 
captured in OATS is whether an order is not held.\20\ The Exchange 
believes that these OATS-related obligations now govern how a member or 
member organization records order-handling instructions from a customer 
and therefore the terms currently set forth in Rule 13 relating to Not 
Held Orders are no longer necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See FINRA Regulatory Notice 11-29, Answer 3 (June 2011) 
(``Generally, a `not held' order is an unpriced, discretionary order 
voluntarily categorized as such by the customer and with respect to 
which the customer has granted the firm price and time 
discretion.''). See also Definition of Market Not Held Order on 
Nasdaq.com Glossary of Stock Market Terms, available at http://www.nasdaq.com/investing/glossary/m/market-not-held-order.
    \20\ See FINRA OATS Frequently Asked Questions--Technical, at 
T21 (``An order submitted by a customer who gives the broker 
discretion as to the price and time of execution is denoted as a 
``Not Held'' order.''), available at http://www.finra.org/Industry/Compliance/MarketTransparency/OATS/FAQ/P085542.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 70.25 governing d-
Quotes to clarify that certain functionality set forth in the Rule is 
no longer available. Specifically, Rule 70.25(c)(ii) 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) and (c)(v). In addition, the Exchange 
proposes to amend Rule 70.25(c)(iv) to clarify that the circumstances 
of when 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.'' The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to Rule 70.25(c) 
will provide clarity and transparency regarding the existing 
functionality relating to d-Quotes at the Exchange.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\21\ in general, and 
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\22\ 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 the proposed restructuring of Rule 13, to 
group existing order types to align by functionality, 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. In addition, the Exchange 
believes that the proposed revisions to Rule 13 promote clarity 
regarding existing functionality that has been approved in prior rule 
filings, but which may not have been codified in rule text.\23\ 
Moreover, the Exchange believes that moving rule text defining a 
Routing Broker to Rule 17 represents a more logical location for such 
definition, thereby making it easier for market participants to 
navigate Exchange rules. Likewise, the Exchange believes the proposed 
changes to ``Not Held Order,'' to move it to supplementary material .20 
to Rule 13 and revise the rule text to conform with guidance from FINRA 
and OATS requirements, would remove impediments to and perfect the 
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by 
applying a uniform definition of not held instructions across multiple 
markets, thereby reducing the potential for confusion regarding the 
meaning of not held instructions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \23\ See supra nn. 13-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further believes that the proposed amendment regarding 
MPL Orders to reject both MPL Orders with an MTV larger than the size 
of the order and instructions to partially cancel an MPL Order that 
would result in an MTV larger than the size of the order would remove 
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and 
national market system in general because it could potentially reduce 
the ability of a member organization from using MPL Orders to bypass 
contra-side interest that may be larger than the size of the MPL Order.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes to Rule 
70.25(c) would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a 
free and open market and national market system in general because it 
assures that the Exchange's rules align with the existing functionality 
available at the Exchange for d-Quotes.

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 re-structure 
Rule 13 and remove rule text that relates to functionality that is no 
longer operative, 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

[[Page 20057]]

    (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 
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-NYSE-2015-15 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-NYSE-2015-15. 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 will also be available 
for inspection and copying at the NYSE's principal office and on its 
Internet Web site at www.nyse.com. 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-NYSE-2015-15 and should be submitted on or before May 5, 
2015.

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

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

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-08450 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


