WTO Dispute Settlement Proceeding Regarding China-Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty Measures on Broiler Products From the United States-Recourse by the United States to Article 21.5 of the DSU, 49354-49355 [2016-17757]

Download as PDF 49354 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 27, 2016 / Notices OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE [Dispute No. WTO/DS427] WTO Dispute Settlement Proceeding Regarding China—Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty Measures on Broiler Products From the United States—Recourse by the United States to Article 21.5 of the DSU Office of the United States Trade Representative. ACTION: Notice; request for comments. AGENCY: The Office of the United States Trade Representative (‘‘USTR’’) is providing notice that on May 27, 2016, the United States requested the establishment of a dispute settlement panel under the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization with the People’s Republic of China (‘‘China’’) concerning China’s continuing imposition of anti-dumping and countervailing duties on chicken broiler products from the United States. That request may be found at www.wto.org in a document designated as WT/DS427/11. USTR invites written comments from the public concerning the issues raised in this dispute. DATES: Although USTR will accept any comments received during the course of the dispute settlement proceedings, comments should be submitted on or before August 15, 2016, to be assured of timely consideration by USTR. ADDRESSES: Public comments should be submitted electronically to www.regulations.gov, docket number USTR–2016–0008. If you are unable to provide submissions at www.regulations.gov, please contact Sandy McKinzy at (202) 395–9483 to arrange for an alternative method of transmission. If (as explained below) the comment contains confidential information, then the comment should be submitted by fax only to Sandy McKinzy at (202) 395– 3640. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mayur R. Patel, Associate General Counsel, or Nathaniel J. Halvorson, Assistant General Counsel, Office of the United States Trade Representative, 600 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20508, (202) 395–3150. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 127(b)(1) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (‘‘URAA’’) (19 U.S.C. 3537(b)(1)) requires that notice and opportunity for comment be provided after the United States submits or receives a request for the establishment of a World Trade Organization (‘‘WTO’’) dispute settlement panel. Pursuant to sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:01 Jul 26, 2016 Jkt 238001 this provision, USTR is providing notice that the United States has requested a panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the WTO Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (‘‘DSU’’). Major Issues Raised by the United States On September 25, 2013, the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (‘‘DSB’’) adopted its recommendations and rulings in the dispute China—AntiDumping and Countervailing Duty Measures on Broiler Products from the United States (DS427) (‘‘China—Broiler Products’’). The DSB found that China imposed antidumping and countervailing duties on U.S. exports of chicken broiler products in a manner that breached China’s obligations under the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (‘‘AD Agreement’’), the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (‘‘SCM Agreement’’), and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (‘‘GATT 1994’’). The DSB recommended that China bring its measures into conformity with its obligations under these Agreements. On October 22, 2013, China announced its intention to implement the DSB recommendations and rulings in this dispute and stated that it would need a reasonable period of time (‘‘RPT’’) in which to do so. On December 19, 2013, China and the United States informed the DSB that they had reached agreement that the RPT for China to implement the DSB recommendations and rulings shall be 9 months and 14 days from the adoption of the Panel Report, expiring on July 9, 2014. China’s Ministry of Commerce (‘‘MOFCOM’’) subsequently issued a redetermination that continues the imposition of antidumping and countervailing duties on imports of chicken broiler products from the United States. The redetermination, which is set forth in MOFCOM’s Announcement No. 44 [2014], including its annexes, states that it came into force as of July 9, 2014. The United States considers that China has failed to bring its measures into conformity with the covered agreements. As there is ‘‘disagreement as to the existence or consistency with a covered agreement of measures taken to comply with the recommendations and rulings’’ of the DSB, the United States is seeking recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU. Specifically, the United States considers that China’s measures continuing to impose antidumping and countervailing duties on chicken broiler PO 00000 Frm 00147 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 products from the United States, as set forth by MOFCOM in Announcement No. 44 [2014], Announcement No. 56 [2013], Announcement No. 52 [2010], Announcement No. 51 [2010], Announcement No. 26 [2010], Announcement No. 8 [2010], and the annexes to the foregoing documents are inconsistent with Articles 1, 2.2, 2.2.1.1, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 6.1, 6.4, 6.5, 6.8, 6.9, 9.4, 12.2, 12.2.2, and Annex II of the AD Agreement; Articles 10, 12.1, 12.3, 12.4, 12.8, 15.1, 15.2, 15.4, 15.5, 22.3, and 22.5 of the SCM Agreement; and Article VI of the GATT 1994. Pursuant to an understanding on procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU, the United States requested consultations with China on May 17, 2016. That request may be found at www.wto.org contained in a document designated as WT/DS427/10. The United States and China held consultations on May 24, 2016, but the consultations did not resolve the matter. Public Comment: Requirements for Submissions Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning the issues raised in this dispute. Persons may submit public comments electronically to www.regulations.gov docket number USTR–2016–0008. If you are unable to provide submissions at www.regulations.gov, please contact Sandy McKinzy at (202) 395–9483 to arrange for an alternative method of transmission. To submit comments via www.regulations.gov, enter docket number USTR–2016–0008 on the home page and click ‘‘search.’’ The site will provide a search-results page listing all documents associated with this docket. Find a reference to this notice by selecting ‘‘Notice’’ under ‘‘Document Type’’ on the left side of the searchresults page, and click on the link entitled ‘‘Comment Now!’’ (For further information on using the www.regulations.gov Web site, please consult the resources provided on the Web site by clicking on ‘‘How to Use Regulations.gov Site’’ on the bottom of the page.) The www.regulations.gov site provides the option of providing comments by filling in a ‘‘Type Comments’’ field, or by attaching a document using an ‘‘Upload File’’ field. It is expected that most comments will be provided in an attached document. If a document is attached, it is sufficient to type ‘‘See attached’’ in the ‘‘Type Comments’’ field. A person requesting that information contained in a comment that he/she submitted be treated as confidential business E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM 27JYN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 27, 2016 / Notices information must certify that such information is business confidential and would not customarily be released to the public by the submitter. Confidential business information must be clearly designated as such and the submission must be marked ‘‘BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL’’ at the top and bottom of the cover page and each succeeding page. Any comment containing business confidential information must be submitted by fax to Sandy McKinzy at (202) 395–3640. A non-confidential summary of the confidential information must be submitted to www.regulations.gov. The nonconfidential summary will be placed in the docket and open to public inspection. USTR may determine that information or advice contained in a comment submitted, other than business confidential information, is confidential in accordance with section 135(g)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2155(g)(2)). If the submitter believes that information or advice may qualify as such, the submitter— (1) Must clearly so designate the information or advice; (2) Must clearly mark the material as ‘‘SUBMITTED IN CONFIDENCE’’at the top and bottom of the cover page and each succeeding page; and (3) Must provide a non-confidential summary of the information or advice. Any comment containing confidential information must be submitted by fax. A non-confidential summary of the confidential information must be submitted to www.regulations.gov. The non-confidential summary will be placed in the docket and open to public inspection. Pursuant to section 127(e) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3537(e)), USTR will maintain a docket on this dispute settlement proceeding accessible to the public at www.regulations.gov, docket number USTR–2016–0008. The public file will include nonconfidential comments received by USTR from the public with respect to the dispute, which may be viewed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. The following documents will be made available to the public at www.ustr.gov: the U.S. submissions and any nonconfidential summaries or submissions received from other participants in the dispute. The report of the panel in this proceeding, and, if applicable, the report of the Appellate Body, will be VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:01 Jul 26, 2016 Jkt 238001 available on the Web site of the WTO, at www.wto.org. Annelies Winborne, Deputy Assistant United States Trade Representative for Monitoring and Enforcement, Office of the United States Trade Representative. [FR Doc. 2016–17757 Filed 7–26–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3290–F6–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration EUROCAE WG–99 PLENARY #8/RTCA SC–234 Plenary #5—Calling Notice ‘‘Portable Electronic Devices (PEDs)’’ Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: EUROCAE WG–99 PLENARY #8/RTCA SC–234 Plenary #5—Calling Notice ‘‘Portable Electronic Devices (PEDs)’’. AGENCY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of EUROCAE WG–99 PLENARY #8/RTCA SC–234 Plenary #5—Calling Notice ‘‘Portable Electronic Devices (PEDs)’’. DATES: The meeting will be held August 23–25, 2016, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Tuesday–Wednesday, 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Thursday. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at: RTCA, Inc., 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 450, Washington, DC 20036. Individuals wishing for WebEx/Audio information should contact the person listed in the SUMMARY: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karan Hofmann at khofmann@rtca.org or (202) 330–0680, Anna von Groote at anna.vongroote@eurocae.net or +33 1 40 92 79 26 or The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833– 9339, fax at (202) 833–9434, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92– 463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of the EUROCAE WG–99 PLENARY #8/RTCA SC–234 Plenary #5—Calling Notice ‘‘Portable Electronic Devices (PEDs)’’. The agenda will include the following: Tuesday, August 23, 2016—9:00 a.m.– 5:00 p.m. Opening Plenary: 1. Welcome and Administrative Remarks 2. Introductions PO 00000 Frm 00148 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 49355 3. Agenda Review 4. Approval of the Minutes from April 2016 Meeting 5. Real Case Document Validation Report 6. Status of FRAC/Open Consultation of DO–XYZ/ED–130A a. Comments status and resolution summary b. Main outstanding issues requiring committee assessment for resolution 7. Status of FRAC/Open Consultation for DO–307A/ED–239 a. Comments status and resolution summary b. Main outstanding issues requiring committee assessment for resolution 8. Interim Adjournment Wednesday, August 24, 2016—9:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m. Task Group Sessions Thursday, August 25, 2016—9:00 a.m.– 12:00 p.m. Closing Plenary 1. Task Group Reports a. Comments status and resolution summary b. Confirm action plant to close last outstanding comments 2. Approval of DO–XYZ/ED–130A documents for submission to RTCA PMC and EUROCAE Council for publication 3. Approval of DO–307A/DO–239 documents for submission to RTCA PMC and EUROCAE Council for publication 4. Any other Business 5. Adjourn Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may present a written statement to the committee at any time. Issued in Washington, DC, on July 20, 2016. Mohannad Dawoud, Management & Program Analyst, Partnership Contracts Branch, ANG–A17 NextGen, Procurement Services Division, Federal Aviation Administration. [FR Doc. 2016–17759 Filed 7–26–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–13–P E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM 27JYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 144 (Wednesday, July 27, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49354-49355]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17757]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78391; File No. SR-NSX-2016-05]


Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Stock Exchange, Inc.; 
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change 
To Amend Exchange Rule 11.26 To Implement the Quoting and Trading 
Provisions of the Regulation NMS Plan To Implement a Tick Size Pilot 
Program

July 21, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 
(the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given 
that on July 11, 2016, National Stock Exchange, Inc. (``NSX'' or the 
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission 
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change, as described in 
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially 
prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has designated this proposal as 
a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule change pursuant to Section 
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \4\ thereunder, 
which renders it effective upon filing with the Commission. 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\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend Exchange Rule 11.26 to 
implement the quoting and trading provisions of the Regulation NMS Plan 
to Implement a Tick Size Pilot Program (the ``Plan'').\5\ The proposed 
rule change is substantially similar to proposed rule changes recently 
approved or published by the Commission by New York Stock Exchange LLC 
to adopt NYSE Rules 67(a) and 67(c)-(e), which also implemented the 
quoting and trading provisions of the Plan.\6\ Therefore, the Exchange 
has designated this proposal as ``non-controversial'' and provided the 
Commission with the notice required by Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) under the 
Act.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76229 (October 22, 
2015), 80 FR 66065 (October 28, 2015) (SR-NYSE-2015-46), as amended 
by Partial Amendments No. 1 and No. 2 to the Quoting & Trading Rules 
Proposal. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77703 (April 25, 
2016), 81 FR 25725 (April 29, 2016) (SR-NYSE-2015-46).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's 
Web site at www.nsx.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 Exchange 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 these 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
    The Exchange proposes to establish rules to require its ETP Holders 
\8\ to comply with the requirements of the Plan,\9\ which is designed 
to study and assess the impact of increment conventions on the 
liquidity and trading of the common stocks of small capitalization 
companies. The Exchange proposes changes to its rules for a two-year 
pilot period that coincides with the pilot period for the Plan, which 
is

[[Page 49349]]

currently scheduled as a two-year pilot to begin on October 3, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Rule 1.5E(1) defines the term ``ETP'' as an Equity Trading 
Permit issued by the Exchange for effecting approved securities 
transactions on the Exchange's trading facilities.
    \9\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 74892 (May 6, 
2015), 80 FR 27513 (May 13, 2015) (File No. 4-657) (``Plan Approval 
Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    On August 25, 2014, NYSE Group, Inc., on behalf of Bats BZX 
Exchange, Inc. (f/k/a BATS Exchange, Inc.), Bats BYX Exchange, Inc. (f/
k/a BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.), Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., EDGA 
Exchange, Inc., EDGX Exchange, Inc., Financial Industry Regulatory 
Authority, Inc. (``FINRA''), NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, 
the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, New York Stock Exchange LLC, the NYSE MKT, 
LLC (``NYSE MKT''), and NYSE Arca, Inc. (collectively 
``Participants''), filed the Plan with the Commission, pursuant to 
Section 11A of the Act \10\ and Rule 608 of Regulation NMS 
thereunder.\11\ The Participants filed the Plan to comply with an order 
issued by the Commission on June 24, 2014 (the ``June 2014 
Order'').\12\ The Plan \13\ was published for comment in the Federal 
Register on November 7, 2014,\14\ and approved by the Commission, as 
modified, on May 6, 2015.\15\ On November 6, 2015, the Commission 
granted the Participants an exemption from implementing the Plan until 
October 3, 2016.\16\ On March 6, 2016, the Commission noticed an 
amendment to the Plan adding NSX as a Participant.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \11\ See Letter from Brendon J. Weiss, Vice President, 
Intercontinental Exchange, Inc., to Secretary, Commission, dated 
August 25, 2014.
    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72460 (June 24, 
2014), 79 FR 36840 (June 30, 2014).
    \13\ Unless otherwise specified, capitalized terms used in this 
rule filing are based on the defined terms of the Plan.
    \14\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 73511 (November 
3, 2014), 79 FR 66423 (November 7, 2015) (File No. 4-657) (Plan 
Filing).
    \15\ See Plan Approval Order, note 9, supra.
    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76382 (November 6, 
2015), 80 FR 70284 (November 13, 2015) (File No. 4-657) (Order 
Granting Exemption From Compliance With the National Market System 
Plan To Implement a Tick Size Pilot Program).
    \17\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77277 (March 3, 
2016), 81 FR 12162 (March 8, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Plan is designed to allow the Commission, market participants, 
and the public to study and assess the impact of increment conventions 
on the liquidity and trading of the common stocks of small 
capitalization companies. The Commission plans to use the Plan to 
assess whether wider tick sizes enhance the market quality of Pilot 
Securities for the benefit of issuers and investors. Each Participant 
is required to comply with, and to enforce compliance by its members, 
as applicable, with the provisions of the Plan.
    The Plan will include stocks of companies with $3 billion or less 
in market capitalization, an average daily trading volume of one 
million shares or less, and a volume weighted average price of at least 
$2.00 for every trading day. The Plan will consist of a control group 
of approximately 1,400 Pilot Securities and three test groups with 400 
Pilot Securities in each, selected by a stratified sampling.\18\ During 
the pilot, Pilot Securities in the control group will be quoted at the 
current tick size increment of $0.01 per share and will trade at the 
currently permitted increments. Pilot Securities in the first test 
group (``Test Group One'') will be quoted in $0.05 minimum increments 
but will continue to trade at any price increment that is currently 
permitted.\19\ Pilot Securities in the second test group (``Test Group 
Two'') will be quoted in $0.05 minimum increments and will trade at 
$0.05 minimum increments subject to a midpoint exception, a retail 
investor exception, and a negotiated trade exception.\20\ Pilot 
Securities in the third test group (``Test Group Three'') will be 
subject to the same terms as Test Group Two and also will be subject to 
the ``Trade-at'' requirement to prevent price matching by a person not 
displaying at a price of a Trading Center's ``Best Protected Bid'' or 
``Best Protected Offer,'' unless an enumerated exception applies.\21\ 
In addition to the exceptions provided under Test Group Two, an 
exception for Block Size orders and exceptions that closely resemble 
those under Rule 611 of Regulation NMS \22\ will apply to the Trade-at 
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Section V of the Plan for identification of Pilot 
Securities, including criteria for selection and grouping.
    \19\ See Section VI(B) of the Plan. Pilot Securities in Test 
Group One will be subject to a midpoint exception and a retail 
investor exception.
    \20\ See Section VI(C) of the Plan.
    \21\ See Section VI(D) of the Plan.
    \22\ 17 CFR 242.611.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Plan also contains requirements for the collection and 
transmission of data to the Commission and the public. A variety of 
data generated during the Plan will be released publicly on an 
aggregated basis to assist in analyzing the impact of wider tick sizes 
on smaller capitalization stocks.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Section VII of the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendments to Rule 11.26
    The Plan requires the Exchange to establish, maintain, and enforce 
written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to comply 
with applicable quoting and trading requirements specified in the 
Plan.\24\ Accordingly, the Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 11.26 to 
require its ETP Holders to comply with the quoting and trading 
provisions of the Plan. The proposed Rule is also designed to ensure 
the Exchange's compliance with the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The Exchange was also required by the Plan to develop 
appropriate policies and procedures that provide for data collection 
and reporting to the Commission of data described in Appendixes B 
and C of the Plan. NSX has adopted Rule 11.26(b), Compliance with 
Data Collection Requirements, to implement those requirements. See 
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77483 (March 31, 2016), 81 FR 
20040 (April 6, 2016) (SR-NSX-2016-01).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed paragraph (a)(1) of Rule 11.26 would establish the 
following defined terms:
     ``Plan'' means the Tick Size Pilot Plan submitted to the 
Commission pursuant to Rule 608(a)(3) of Regulation NMS under the Act;
     ``Pilot Test Groups'' means the three test groups 
established under the Plan, consisting of 400 Pilot Securities each, 
which satisfy the respective criteria established by the Plan for each 
such test group.
     ``Trade-at Intermarket Sweep Order'' \25\ would mean a 
limit order for a Pilot Security that meets the following requirements:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ The Plan defines a Trade-at Intermarket Sweep Order 
(``ISO'') as a limit order for a Pilot Security that, when routed to 
a Trading Center, is identified as an ISO and, simultaneous with the 
routing of the limit order identified as an ISO, one or more 
additional limit orders, as necessary, are routed to execute against 
the full displayed size of any protected bid (in the case of a limit 
order to sell) or the full displayed size of any protected offer (in 
the case of a limit order to buy) for the Pilot Security with a 
price that is equal to the limit price of the limit order identified 
as an ISO. These additional routed orders also must be marked as 
ISOs. See Plan, Section I(MM).
    The Plan allows (i) an order that is identified as an ISO to be 
executed at the price of a Protected Quotation (see Plan, Section 
VI(D)(8) and proposed Rule 11.26(c)(3)(D)(iii)j.; and (ii) an order 
to execute at the price of a Protected Quotation that ``is executed 
by a trading center that simultaneously routed Trade-at ISO to 
execute against the full displayed size of the Protected Quotation 
that was traded at.'' See Plan, Section VI(D)(9) and proposed Rule 
11.26(c)(3)(D)(iii)i. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to clarify 
the use of an ISO in connection with the Trade-at requirement by 
adopting, as part of proposed Rule 11.26(a)(1), a comprehensive 
definition of ``Trade-at ISO.'' As set forth in the Plan and as 
noted above, the definition of a Trade-at ISO used in the Plan does 
not distinguish ISOs that are compliant with Rule 611 or Regulation 
NMS from ISOs that are compliant with Trade-at. The Exchange 
therefore proposes the separate definition of Trade-at ISO contained 
in proposed Rule 11.26(a). The Exchange believes that this proposed 
definition will further clarify to recipients of ISOs in Test Group 
Three securities whether the ISO satisfies the requirements of Rule 
611 of Regulation NMS or Trade-at.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     When routed to a Trading Center, the limit order is 
identified as a Trade-at Intermarket Sweep Order; and
     Simultaneously with the routing of the limit order 
identified as a Trade-at

[[Page 49350]]

Intermarket Sweep Order, one or more additional limit orders, as 
necessary, are routed to execute against the full size of any protected 
bid, in the case of a limit order to sell, or the full displayed size 
of any protected offer, in the case of a limit order to buy, for the 
Pilot Security with a price that is better than or equal to the limit 
price of the limit order identified as a Trade-at Intermarket Sweep 
Order. These additional routed orders also must be marked as Trade-at 
Intermarket Sweep Orders.
    Paragraph (a)(1)(E) of Rule 11.26 would provide that all 
capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this rule shall have the 
meanings set forth in the Plan, Regulation NMS under the Act, or 
Exchange rules, as applicable.
    Proposed Paragraph (a)(2) would state that the Exchange is a 
Participant in, and subject to the applicable requirements of, the 
Plan; proposed Paragraph (a)(3) would require ETP Holders to establish, 
maintain and enforce written policies and procedures that are 
reasonably designed to comply with the applicable requirements of the 
Plan, which would allow the Exchange to enforce compliance by its ETP 
Holders with the provisions of the Plan, as required pursuant to 
Section II(B) of the Plan.
    In addition, Paragraph (a)(4) would provide that the NSX's trading 
system (the ``System'') \26\ would not display, quote or trade in 
violation of the applicable quoting and trading requirements for a 
Pilot Security specified in the Plan and this proposed rule, unless 
such quotation or transaction is specifically exempted under the 
Plan.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Rule 1.5S(4) defines the term ``System'' as `` . . . the 
electronic securities communications and trading facility designated 
by the Board through which the orders of Users are consolidated for 
ranking and execution.
    \27\ The Exchange is evaluating its internal policies and 
procedures to ensure its compliance with the Plan. Violations of the 
Plan by ETP Holders will be addressed through the Exchange's current 
ruleset and its disciplinary process. See Chapter VIII of the 
Exchange's rule book and Rule 3.2, Violations Prohibited.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to add Rule 11.26(a)(5) to provide for 
the treatment of Pilot Securities that drop below a $1.00 value during 
the Pilot Period.\28\ The Exchange proposes that if the price of a 
Pilot Security drops below $1.00 during regular trading on any given 
business day, such Pilot Security would continue to be subject to the 
Plan and the requirements described below that necessitate ETP Holders 
to comply with the specific quoting and trading obligations for each 
respective Pilot Test Group under the Plan, and would continue to trade 
in accordance with the proposed rules below as if the price of the 
Pilot Security had not dropped below $1.00.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ New York Stock Exchange LLC, on behalf of the Participants, 
submitted a letter to Commission requesting exemption from certain 
provisions of the Plan related to quoting and trading. See letter 
from Elizabeth K. King, NYSE, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, 
Commission, dated October 14, 2015 (the ``October Exemption 
Request''). FINRA, also on behalf of the Plan Participants, 
submitted a separate letter to Commission requesting additional 
exemptions from certain provisions of the Plan related to quoting 
and trading. See letter from Marcia E. Asquith, Senior Vice 
President and Corporate Secretary, FINRA, to Robert W. Errett, 
Deputy Secretary, Commission, dated February 23, 2016 (the 
``February Exemption Request,'' and together with the October 
Exemption Request, the ``Exemption Request Letters''). The 
Commission, pursuant to its authority under Rule 608(e) of 
Regulation NMS, granted New York Stock Exchange LLC a limited 
exemption from the requirement to comply with certain provisions of 
the Plan as specified in the Exemption Request Letters and noted 
herein. See letter from David Shillman, Associate Director, Division 
of Trading and Markets, Commission to Sherry Sandler, Associate 
General Counsel, New York Stock Exchange LLC, dated April 25, 2016 
(the ``Exemption Letter''). The Exchange is seeking the same 
exemptions as requested in the Exemption Request Letters, including 
without limitation, an exemption relating to proposed Rule 
11.26(a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, if the Closing Price of a Pilot Security on any given 
business day is below $1.00, such Pilot Security would be moved out of 
its respective Pilot Test Group into the control group (which consists 
of Pilot Securities not placed into a Pilot Test Group), and may then 
be quoted and traded at any price increment that is currently permitted 
by Exchange rules for the remainder of the Pilot Period. 
Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, the Exchange 
proposes that, at all times during the Pilot Period, Pilot Securities 
(whether in the control group or any Pilot Test Group) would continue 
to be subject to the data collection rules, which are enumerated in 
Rule 11.26(b).
    The Exchange proposes Rules 11.26(c)(1) through (3), which would 
require ETP Holders to comply with the specific quoting and trading 
obligations for each Pilot Test Group under the Plan. With regard to 
Pilot Securities in Test Group One, proposed 11.26(c)(1) would provide 
that no ETP Holder 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. However, orders priced to 
trade at the midpoint of the National Best Bid and National Best Offer 
(``NBBO'') or Best Protected Bid and Best Protect Offer (``PBBO'') and 
orders entered in a Participant-operated retail liquidity program may 
be ranked and accepted in increments of less than $0.05.\29\ Pilot 
Securities in Test Group One may continue to trade at any price 
increment that is currently permitted by permitted by applicable 
Participant, SEC and Exchange Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Section VI.(B) of the the Plan provides that orders for 
Test Group One securities entered into a Participant-operated retail 
liquidity program may also be ranked and accepted in increments of 
less than $0.05. NSX does not currently operate a retail liquidity 
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to Pilot Securities in Test Group Two, proposed Rule 
11.26(c)(2) would provide that such Pilot Securities would be subject 
to all of the same quoting requirements as described above for Pilot 
Securities in Test Group One, along with the applicable quoting 
exceptions. In addition, proposed Rule 11.26(c)(2)(B) would provide 
that, absent one of the listed exceptions in proposed Rule 
11.26(c)(2)(C) enumerated below, no ETP Holder may execute orders in 
any Pilot Security in Test Group Two in price increments other than 
$0.05. The $0.05 trading increment would apply to all trades, including 
Brokered Cross Trades.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Section I.(G) of the Plan defines a ``Brokered Cross 
Trade'' as a trade that a broker-dealer that is a member of a 
Participant executes directly by matching simultaneous buy and sell 
orders for a Pilot Security. The Exchange notes that it does not 
currently offer the functionality to execute Brokered Cross Trades 
on NSX's trading system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (c)(2)(C) would set forth further requirements for Pilot 
Securities in Test Group Two. Specifically, ETP Holders trading Pilot 
Securities in Test Group Two would be allowed to trade in increments 
less than $0.05 under the following circumstances: \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Section VI.(C)(2) of the Plan provides that Retail Investor 
Orders, as defined in Section I (DD) of the Plan, may trade in 
increments less than $0.05 where such an order is provided with 
price improvement that is at least $0.005 better than the best 
protected bid or best protected offer. Section I. (EE) defines a 
``retail liquidity providing order'' as an order entered into a 
Participant-operated retail liquidity program to execute against 
Retail Investor Orders. As noted in note 29, supra, NSX does not 
currently operate a retail liquidity program and therefore Section 
VI.(C)(2) of the Plan does not apply with respect to the quoting and 
trading of Test Group Two Pilot Securities on NSX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (i) Trading may occur at the midpoint between the NBBO or PBBO;
    (ii) Retail Investor Orders may be provided with price improvement 
that is at least $0.005 better than the PBBO;
    (ii) Negotiated Trades may trade in increments less than $0.05; and
    (iii) Execution of a customer order to comply with Rule 12.6 
following the execution of a proprietary trade by the member 
organization at an increment other than $0.05, where such proprietary 
trade was permissible pursuant to an exception under the Plan.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ NSX Rule 12.6, Customer Priority, generally prohibits an 
ETP Holder from buying or selling, or initiating the purchase or 
sale of any security traded on the Exchange for its own account or 
for any account in which the ETP Holder or any associated person of 
the ETP Holder is directly or indirectly interested while it holds, 
or has knowledge of, an unexecuted market order for a customer in 
that security. With respect to limit orders, such an execution of an 
order for the account of the ETP Holder or an associated person is 
prohibited if it is at the same price or a better price than the 
customer order, Rule 12.6(d) contains an exception to these 
requirements for purposes of facilitating the execution of a 
customer order on a riskless principal basis.

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

[[Page 49351]]

    Paragraph (c)(3)(A)-(c)(3)(C) would set forth the requirements for 
Pilot Securities in Test Group Three. ETP Holders quoting or trading 
such Pilot Securities would be subject to all of the same quoting and 
trading requirements as described above for Pilot Securities in Test 
Group Two, including the quoting and trading exceptions applicable to 
Test Group Two Pilot Securities. In addition, proposed Paragraph 
(c)(3)(D) would provide for an additional prohibition on Pilot 
Securities in Test Group Three referred to as the ``Trade-at 
Prohibition.'' \33\ Paragraph (c)(3)(D)(ii) would provide that, absent 
one of the listed exceptions in proposed Rule 11.26(c)(3)(D)(iii) 
enumerated below, no ETP Holder may execute a sell order for a Pilot 
Security in Test Group Three at the price of a Protected Bid or execute 
a buy order for a Pilot Security in Test Group Three at the price of a 
Protected Offer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Proposed Rule 11.26(c)(3)(D)(i) would define the ``Trade-at 
Prohibition'' to mean 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 for a Pilot Security 
at the price of a Protected Offer during regular trading hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 11.26(c)(3)(D)(iii) would allow ETP Holders to 
execute a sell order for a Pilot Security in Test Group Three at the 
price of a Protected Bid or execute a buy order for a Pilot Security in 
Test Group Three at the price of a Protected Offer if any of the 
following circumstances exist: \34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Section VI.(D)(3) of the Plan provides that an order in a 
Test Group 3 stock may execute at the trade-at price if the order is 
a Retail Investor Order and is executed with at least $0.005 price 
improvement. NSX currently does not offer a Retail Investor Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    a. The order is executed as agent or riskless principal by an 
independent trading unit, as defined under Rule 200(f) of Regulation 
SHO,\35\ of a Trading Center within a member organization that has a 
displayed quotation as agent or riskless principal, 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,\36\ but only up to the full displayed size of that 
independent trading unit's previously displayed quote; \37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ The Exchange is proposing that, for proposed Rules 
11.26(c)(3)(D)(iii)a.-b., a Trading Center operated by a broker-
dealer would mean an independent trading unit, as defined under Rule 
200(f) of Regulation SHO, within such broker-dealer. See 17 CFR 
242.200.
    Independent trading unit aggregation is available if traders in 
an aggregation unit pursue only the particular trading objective(s) 
or strategy(s) of that aggregation unit and do not coordinate that 
strategy with any other aggregation unit. Therefore, a Trading 
Center cannot rely on quotations displayed by that broker dealer 
from a different independent trading unit. As an example, an agency 
desk of a broker-dealer cannot rely on the quotation of a 
proprietary desk in a separate independent trading unit at that same 
broker-dealer.
    \36\ The Exchange is proposing to adopt this limitation to 
ensure that a Trading Center does not display a quotation after the 
time of order receipt solely for the purpose of trading at the price 
of a protected quotation without routing to that protected 
quotation.
    \37\ This proposed exception to Trade-at would allow a Trading 
Center to execute an order at the Protected Quotation in the same 
capacity in which it has displayed a quotation at a price equal to 
the Protected Quotation and up to the displayed size of such 
displayed quotation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. The order is executed by an independent trading unit, as defined 
under Rule 200(f) of Regulation SHO, of a Trading Center within an ETP 
Holder's organization that has a displayed quotation for the account of 
that Trading Center on a principal (excluding riskless principal \38\) 
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 that 
independent unit's previously displayed quote; \39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ As described above, proposed Rule 11.26(c)(3)(D)(iii)a. 
would establish the circumstances in which a Trading Center 
displaying an order as riskless principal would be permitted to 
Trade-at the Protected Quotation. Accordingly, proposed Rule 
11.26(c)(3)(D)(iii)b. would exclude such circumstances.
    \39\ The display exceptions to Trade-at set forth in proposed 
Rules 11.26(c)(3)(D)(iii)a. and b. would not permit a broker-dealer 
to trade on the basis of interest it is not responsible for 
displaying. In particular, a broker-dealer that matches orders in 
the over-the-counter market shall be deemed to have ``executed'' 
such orders as a Trading Center for purposes of proposed Rule 11.26. 
Accordingly, if a broker-dealer is not displaying a quotation at a 
price equal to the Protected Quotation, it could not submit matched 
trades to an alternative trading center (``ATS'') that was 
displaying on an agency basis the quotation of another ATS 
subscriber. However, a broker-dealer that is displaying, as 
principal, via either a processor or an SRO Quotation Feed, a buy 
order at the protected bid, could internalize a customer sell order 
up to its displayed size. The display exceptions would not permit a 
non-displayed Trading Center to submit matched trades to an ATS that 
was displaying on an agency basis the quotation of another ATS 
subscriber and confirmed that a broker-dealer would not be permitted 
to trade on the basis of interest that it is not responsible for 
displaying.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    c. The order is of Block Size \40\ at the time of origin and may 
not be:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A. an aggregation of non-block orders; or
    B. broken into orders smaller than Block Size prior to submitting 
the order to a Trading Center for execution.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ If a Block Size order or portion of such Block Size order 
is routed from one Trading Center to another Trading Center in 
compliance with Rule 611 of Regulation NMS, the Block Size order 
would retain the Trade-at exemption provided under proposed Rule 
11.26(c)(3)(D)(iii)c. For example, if an exchange has a Protected 
Bid of 3,000 shares, with 2,000 shares in reserve, and receives a 
5,000 share order to sell, the exchange would be able to execute the 
entire 5,000 share order without having to route to an away market 
at any other Protected Bid at the same price. If, however, that 
exchange only has 1,000 shares in reserve, the entire order would 
not be able to be executed on that exchange, and the exchange would 
only be able to execute 3,000 shares and route the rest to away 
markets at other Protected Bids at the same price, before executing 
the 1,000 shares in reserve. The same analysis would hold true at 
the next price point, if the size of the incoming order would exceed 
all available shares at the first price, and the remaining shares to 
be executed would be 5,000 shares or more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    d. The order is a Retail Investor Order executed with at least 
$0.005 price improvement;
    e. The order is executed when the Trading Center displaying the 
Protected Quotation that was traded at was experiencing a failure, 
material delay, or malfunction of its systems or equipment;
    f. The order is executed as part of a transaction that was not a 
``regular way'' contract;
    g. The order is executed as part of a single-priced opening, 
reopening, or closing transaction on the Exchange;
    h. The order is executed when a Protected Bid was priced higher 
than a Protected Offer in the Pilot Security in Test Group Three;
    i. The order is identified as a Trade-at Intermarket Sweep Order; 
\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ The Exchange has defined a Trade-at ISO in proposed Rule 
11.26(a)(1)(D); this exception refers to the ISO that is received by 
a Trading Center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    j. The order is executed by a Trading Center that simultaneously 
routed Trade-at Intermarket Sweep Orders or Intermarket Sweep Orders as 
defined in Rule 600(b)(3) of Regulation NMS under the Act \43\ to 
execute against the full

[[Page 49352]]

displayed size of the Protected Quotation that was traded at; \44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 17 CFR 242.600(b)(30). The Exchange notes that it is 
permitting the use of Trade-at ISOs and ISOs, either alone or 
combined, to allow for ease of implementation of the Trade-at 
provisions by using existing routing processes to the extent 
possible. An ETP Holder sending a TAISO represents that it 
simultaneously routed orders to execute against all Protected 
Quotations priced better than or equal to the Trade-At price, while 
an ETP Holder sending an order marked as ISO only represents that it 
simultaneously routed orders to execute against all Protected 
Quotations at prices superior to the Trade-At price. ETP Holders 
that route orders marked ISO instead of Trade-at ISO for a test 
Group Three stock must satisfy all at-priced protected quotations 
and not just those at superior prices.
    \44\ In connection with the definition of a Trade-at ISO 
proposed in Rule 11.26(a)(1)(D), this exception refers to the 
Trading Center that routed the ISO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    k. The order is executed as part of a Negotiated Trade;
    l. The order is executed when the Trading Center displaying the 
Protected Quotation that was traded at had displayed, within one second 
prior to execution of the transaction that constituted the Trade-at, a 
Best Protected Bid or Best Protected Offer, as applicable, for the 
Pilot Security in Test Group Three with a price that was inferior to 
the price of the Trade-at transaction;
    m. The order is executed by a Trading Center which, at the time of 
order receipt, the Trading Center had guaranteed an execution at no 
worse than a specified price (a ``stopped order''), where:
    A. The stopped order was for the account of a customer;
    B. The customer agreed to the specified price on an order-by-order 
basis; and
    C. The price of the Trade-at transaction was, for a stopped buy 
order, equal to or less than the National Best Bid in the Pilot 
Security in Test Group Three at the time of execution or, for a stopped 
sell order, equal to or greater than the National Best Offer in the 
Pilot Security in Test Group Three at the time of execution, as long as 
such order is priced at an acceptable increment; \45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ The stopped order exemption in Rule 611 of Regulation NMS 
applies where ``[t]he price of the trade-through transaction was, 
for a stopped buy order, lower than the national best bid in the NMS 
stock at the time of execution or, for a stopped sell order, higher 
than the national best offer in the NMS stock at the time of 
execution.'' See 17 CFR 242.611(b)(9). The Trade-at stopped order 
exception applies where ``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'' See Plan, Section VI(D)(12).
    To illustrate the application of the stopped order exemption as 
it currently operates under Rule 611 of Regulation NMS and as it is 
currently proposed for Trade-at, assume the National Best Bid is 
$10.00 and another protected quote is at $9.95. Under Rule 611 of 
Regulation NMS, a stopped order to buy can be filled at $9.95 and 
the firm does not have to send an ISO to access the protected quote 
at $10.00 since the price of the stopped order must be lower than 
the National Best Bid. For the stopped order to also be executed at 
$9.95 and satisfy the Trade-at requirements, the Trade-at exception 
would have to be revised to allow an order to execute at the price 
of a protected quote which, in this case, could be $9.95.
    Based on the fact that a stopped order would be treated 
differently under the Rule 611 of Regulation NMS exception than 
under the Trade-at exception in the Plan, the Exchange believes that 
it is appropriate to amend the Trade-at stopped order exception in 
the Plan to ensure that the application of this exception would 
produce a consistent result under both Regulation NMS and the Plan. 
Therefore, the Exchange proposes in this proposed 
11.26(c)(3)(D)(iii)m. to allow a transaction to satisfy the Trade-at 
requirement if the stopped order price, for a stopped buy order, is 
equal to or less than the National Best Bid, and for a stopped sell 
order, is equal to or greater than the National Best Offer, as long 
as such order is priced at an acceptable increment. The Commission 
granted New York Stock Exchange LLC an exemption from Rule 608(c) 
related to this provision. See the Exemption Letter, note 28, supra. 
The Exchange is seeking the same exemptions as requested in the 
Exemption Request Letters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    n. The order is for a fractional share of a Pilot Security in Test 
Group Three, provided that such fractional share order was not the 
result of breaking an order for one or more whole shares of a Pilot 
Security in Test Group Three into orders for fractional shares or was 
not otherwise effected to evade the requirements of the Trade-at 
Prohibition or any other provisions of the Plan; or
    o. The order is to correct a bona fide error, which is recorded by 
the Trading Center in its error account.\46\ A bona fide error is 
defined as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ The exceptions to the Trade-at requirement set forth in the 
Plan and in the Exchange's proposed Rule 11.26(c)(3)(D)(iii) are, in 
part, based on the exceptions to the trade-through requirement set 
forth in Rule 611 of Regulation NMS, including exceptions for an 
order that is executed as part of a transaction that was not a 
``regular way'' contract, and an order that is executed as part of a 
single-priced opening, reopening, or closing transaction by the 
Trading Center See 17 CFR 242.611(b)(2) and (b)(3). Following the 
adoption of Rule 611 of Regulation NMS and its exceptions, the 
Commission issued exemptive relief that created exceptions from Rule 
611 of Regulation NMS for certain error correction transactions. See 
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55884 (June 8, 2007), 72 FR 
32926 (June 14, 2007); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55883 
(June 8, 2007), 72 FR 32927 (June 14, 2007). The Exchange has 
determined that it is appropriate to incorporate this additional 
exception to the Trade-at Prohibition, as this exception is equally 
applicable in the Trade-at context.
    Accordingly, the Exchange is proposing to exempt certain 
transactions to correct bona fide errors in the execution of 
customer orders from the Trade-at Prohibition, subject to the 
conditions set forth by the SEC's order exempting these transactions 
from Rule 611 of Regulation NMS. The Commission granted New York 
Stock Exchange LLC an exemption from Rule 608(c) related to this 
provision. See the Exemption Letter, note 28, supra. The Exchange is 
seeking the same exemptions as requested in the Exemption Request 
Letters.
    As with the corresponding exception under Rule 611 of Regulation 
NMS, the bona fide error would have to be evidenced by objective 
facts and circumstances, the Trading Center would have to maintain 
documentation of such facts and circumstances and record the 
transaction in its error account. To avail itself of the exemption, 
the Trading Center would be required to establish, maintain, and 
enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to 
address the occurrence of errors and, in the event of an error, the 
use and terms of a transaction to correct the error in compliance 
with this exemption. Finally, the Trading Center would have to 
regularly surveil to ascertain the effectiveness of its policies and 
procedures to address errors and transactions to correct errors and 
take prompt action to remedy deficiencies in such policies and 
procedures. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55884 (June 8, 
2007), 72 FR 32926 (June 14, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A. The inaccurate conveyance or execution of any term of an order 
including, but not limited to, price, number of shares or other unit of 
trading; identification of the security; identification of the account 
for which securities are purchased or sold; lost or otherwise misplaced 
order tickets; short sales that were instead sold long or vice versa; 
or the execution of an order on the wrong side of a market;
    B. The unauthorized or unintended purchase, sale, or allocation of 
securities, or the failure to follow specific client instructions;
    C. The incorrect entry of data into relevant systems, including 
reliance on incorrect cash positions, withdrawals, or securities 
positions reflected in an account; or
    D. A delay, outage, or failure of a communication system used to 
transmit market data prices or to facilitate the delivery or execution 
of an order.
    Finally, Proposed Rule 11.26(c)(3)(D)(iv) would prevent member 
organizations from breaking an order into smaller orders or otherwise 
effecting or executing an order to evade the requirements of the Trade-
at Prohibition or any other provisions of the Plan.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 
6(b) of the Act,\47\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 
6(b)(5) of the Act,\48\ in particular, in that it is designed to 
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just 
and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect 
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, 
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The 
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the 
Act because it ensures that the Exchange and its member organizations 
would be in compliance with a Plan approved by the Commission pursuant 
to an order issued by the Commission in reliance on Section 11A of the 
Act.\49\ Such approved Plan gives the Exchange authority to establish, 
maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures that are 
reasonably designed to comply with applicable quoting and trading 
requirements specified in the Plan. The Exchange believes that the 
proposed rule change is consistent with the

[[Page 49353]]

authority granted to it by the Plan to establish specifications and 
procedures for the implementation and operation of the Plan that are 
consistent with the provisions of the Plan. Likewise, the Exchange 
believes that the proposed rule change provides interpretations of the 
Plan that are consistent with the Act, in general, and furthers the 
objectives of the Act, in particular.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \48\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \49\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the Exchange is a Participant under the Plan and 
subject, itself, to the provisions of the Plan. The proposed rule 
change ensures that the Exchange's systems would not display or execute 
trading interests outside the requirements specified in such Plan. The 
proposal would also help allow market participants to continue to trade 
NMS Stocks within quoting and trading requirements that are in 
compliance with the Plan, with certainty on how certain orders and 
trading interests would be treated. This, in turn, will help encourage 
market participants to continue to provide liquidity in the 
marketplace.
    Because the Plan supports further examination and analysis on the 
impact of tick sizes on the trading and liquidity of the securities of 
small capitalization companies, and the Commission believes that 
altering tick sizes could result in significant market-wide benefits 
and improvements to liquidity and capital formation, adopting rules 
that enforce compliance by its member organizations with the provisions 
of the Plan would help promote liquidity in the marketplace and perfect 
the mechanism of a free and open market and national market system.

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 changes are 
being made to establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and 
procedures that are reasonably designed to comply with the trading and 
quoting requirements specified in the Plan, of which other equities 
exchanges are also Participants. Other competing national securities 
exchanges are subject to the same trading and quoting requirements 
specified in the Plan. Therefore, the proposed changes would not impose 
any burden on competition, while providing certainty of treatment and 
execution of trading interests on the Exchange to market participants 
in NMS Stocks that are acting in compliance with the requirements 
specified in the Plan.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed 
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the 
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for 
Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
    A. significantly affect the protection of investors or the public 
interest;
    B. impose any significant burden on competition; and
    C. become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was 
filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate,

it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) \50\ of the 
Exchange Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\51\ Because the proposed 
rule is designed to conform the Exchange's rules to a Commission rule, 
the proposal qualifies for immediate effectiveness as a ``non-
controversial'' rule change under paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ 15 U.S.C. 78(s)(b)(3)(A).
    \51\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \52\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). See Securities Exchange Act Release 
No. 58092 (July 3, 2008), 73 FR 40144 (July 11, 2008) (``Commission 
Guidance and Amendment to the Rule Relating to Organization and 
Program Management Concerning Proposed Rule Changes by Self-
Regulatory Organizations'') (the ``Streamlining Release''). As set 
forth in the Streamlining Release, Rule 19b-4(f)(6) permits a 
proposed rule change to become immediately effective to the extent 
such proposal is a proposed rule change to implement provisions of 
an approved national market system plan or a Commission rule. Id. at 
40148.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule 
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule 
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) 
necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the 
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the 
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the 
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the 
proposed rule should be approved or 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-NSX-2016-05 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-NSX-2016-05. 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-NSX-2016-05, and should be 
submitted on or before August 17, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-17677 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P

[[Page 49354]]

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE
[Dispute No. WTO/DS427]


WTO Dispute Settlement Proceeding Regarding China--Anti-Dumping 
and Countervailing Duty Measures on Broiler Products From the United 
States--Recourse by the United States to Article 21.5 of the DSU

AGENCY: Office of the United States Trade Representative.

ACTION: Notice; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Office of the United States Trade Representative 
(``USTR'') is providing notice that on May 27, 2016, the United States 
requested the establishment of a dispute settlement panel under the 
Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization with the 
People's Republic of China (``China'') concerning China's continuing 
imposition of anti-dumping and countervailing duties on chicken broiler 
products from the United States. That request may be found at 
www.wto.org in a document designated as WT/DS427/11. USTR invites 
written comments from the public concerning the issues raised in this 
dispute.

DATES: Although USTR will accept any comments received during the 
course of the dispute settlement proceedings, comments should be 
submitted on or before August 15, 2016, to be assured of timely 
consideration by USTR.

ADDRESSES: Public comments should be submitted electronically to 
www.regulations.gov, docket number USTR-2016-0008.
    If you are unable to provide submissions at www.regulations.gov, 
please contact Sandy McKinzy at (202) 395-9483 to arrange for an 
alternative method of transmission. If (as explained below) the comment 
contains confidential information, then the comment should be submitted 
by fax only to Sandy McKinzy at (202) 395-3640.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mayur R. Patel, Associate General 
Counsel, or Nathaniel J. Halvorson, Assistant General Counsel, Office 
of the United States Trade Representative, 600 17th Street NW., 
Washington, DC 20508, (202) 395-3150.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 127(b)(1) of the Uruguay Round 
Agreements Act (``URAA'') (19 U.S.C. 3537(b)(1)) requires that notice 
and opportunity for comment be provided after the United States submits 
or receives a request for the establishment of a World Trade 
Organization (``WTO'') dispute settlement panel. Pursuant to this 
provision, USTR is providing notice that the United States has 
requested a panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the WTO Understanding on 
Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (``DSU'').

Major Issues Raised by the United States

    On September 25, 2013, the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (``DSB'') 
adopted its recommendations and rulings in the dispute China--Anti-
Dumping and Countervailing Duty Measures on Broiler Products from the 
United States (DS427) (``China--Broiler Products''). The DSB found that 
China imposed antidumping and countervailing duties on U.S. exports of 
chicken broiler products in a manner that breached China's obligations 
under the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (``AD Agreement''), the Agreement 
on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (``SCM Agreement''), and the 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (``GATT 1994''). The DSB 
recommended that China bring its measures into conformity with its 
obligations under these Agreements.
    On October 22, 2013, China announced its intention to implement the 
DSB recommendations and rulings in this dispute and stated that it 
would need a reasonable period of time (``RPT'') in which to do so. On 
December 19, 2013, China and the United States informed the DSB that 
they had reached agreement that the RPT for China to implement the DSB 
recommendations and rulings shall be 9 months and 14 days from the 
adoption of the Panel Report, expiring on July 9, 2014. China's 
Ministry of Commerce (``MOFCOM'') subsequently issued a redetermination 
that continues the imposition of antidumping and countervailing duties 
on imports of chicken broiler products from the United States. The 
redetermination, which is set forth in MOFCOM's Announcement No. 44 
[2014], including its annexes, states that it came into force as of 
July 9, 2014.
    The United States considers that China has failed to bring its 
measures into conformity with the covered agreements. As there is 
``disagreement as to the existence or consistency with a covered 
agreement of measures taken to comply with the recommendations and 
rulings'' of the DSB, the United States is seeking recourse to Article 
21.5 of the DSU. Specifically, the United States considers that China's 
measures continuing to impose antidumping and countervailing duties on 
chicken broiler products from the United States, as set forth by MOFCOM 
in Announcement No. 44 [2014], Announcement No. 56 [2013], Announcement 
No. 52 [2010], Announcement No. 51 [2010], Announcement No. 26 [2010], 
Announcement No. 8 [2010], and the annexes to the foregoing documents 
are inconsistent with Articles 1, 2.2, 2.2.1.1, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 
6.1, 6.4, 6.5, 6.8, 6.9, 9.4, 12.2, 12.2.2, and Annex II of the AD 
Agreement; Articles 10, 12.1, 12.3, 12.4, 12.8, 15.1, 15.2, 15.4, 15.5, 
22.3, and 22.5 of the SCM Agreement; and Article VI of the GATT 1994.
    Pursuant to an understanding on procedures under Articles 21 and 22 
of the DSU, the United States requested consultations with China on May 
17, 2016. That request may be found at www.wto.org contained in a 
document designated as WT/DS427/10. The United States and China held 
consultations on May 24, 2016, but the consultations did not resolve 
the matter.

Public Comment: Requirements for Submissions

    Interested persons are invited to submit written comments 
concerning the issues raised in this dispute. Persons may submit public 
comments electronically to www.regulations.gov docket number USTR-2016-
0008. If you are unable to provide submissions at www.regulations.gov, 
please contact Sandy McKinzy at (202) 395-9483 to arrange for an 
alternative method of transmission.
    To submit comments via www.regulations.gov, enter docket number 
USTR-2016-0008 on the home page and click ``search.'' The site will 
provide a search-results page listing all documents associated with 
this docket. Find a reference to this notice by selecting ``Notice'' 
under ``Document Type'' on the left side of the search-results page, 
and click on the link entitled ``Comment Now!'' (For further 
information on using the www.regulations.gov Web site, please consult 
the resources provided on the Web site by clicking on ``How to Use 
Regulations.gov Site'' on the bottom of the page.)
    The www.regulations.gov site provides the option of providing 
comments by filling in a ``Type Comments'' field, or by attaching a 
document using an ``Upload File'' field. It is expected that most 
comments will be provided in an attached document. If a document is 
attached, it is sufficient to type ``See attached'' in the ``Type 
Comments'' field. A person requesting that information contained in a 
comment that he/she submitted be treated as confidential business

[[Page 49355]]

information must certify that such information is business confidential 
and would not customarily be released to the public by the submitter. 
Confidential business information must be clearly designated as such 
and the submission must be marked ``BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL'' at the top 
and bottom of the cover page and each succeeding page. Any comment 
containing business confidential information must be submitted by fax 
to Sandy McKinzy at (202) 395-3640. A non-confidential summary of the 
confidential information must be submitted to www.regulations.gov. The 
non-confidential summary will be placed in the docket and open to 
public inspection.
    USTR may determine that information or advice contained in a 
comment submitted, other than business confidential information, is 
confidential in accordance with section 135(g)(2) of the Trade Act of 
1974 (19 U.S.C. 2155(g)(2)). If the submitter believes that information 
or advice may qualify as such, the submitter--
    (1) Must clearly so designate the information or advice;
    (2) Must clearly mark the material as ``SUBMITTED IN CONFIDENCE''at 
the top and bottom of the cover page and each succeeding page; and
    (3) Must provide a non-confidential summary of the information or 
advice.
    Any comment containing confidential information must be submitted 
by fax. A non-confidential summary of the confidential information must 
be submitted to www.regulations.gov. The non-confidential summary will 
be placed in the docket and open to public inspection.
    Pursuant to section 127(e) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 
U.S.C. 3537(e)), USTR will maintain a docket on this dispute settlement 
proceeding accessible to the public at www.regulations.gov, docket 
number USTR-2016-0008.
    The public file will include non-confidential comments received by 
USTR from the public with respect to the dispute, which may be viewed 
on the www.regulations.gov Web site. The following documents will be 
made available to the public at www.ustr.gov: the U.S. submissions and 
any non-confidential summaries or submissions received from other 
participants in the dispute. The report of the panel in this 
proceeding, and, if applicable, the report of the Appellate Body, will 
be available on the Web site of the WTO, at www.wto.org.

Annelies Winborne,
Deputy Assistant United States Trade Representative for Monitoring and 
Enforcement, Office of the United States Trade Representative.
[FR Doc. 2016-17757 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3290-F6-PDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION