81 FR 94454 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 11.8, Order Types, and Rule 11.11, Routing to Away Trading Centers, To Enhance the Exchange's Midpoint Routing Functionality
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 247 (December 23, 2016)
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 247 (December 23, 2016)
| Page Range | 94454-94457 | |
| FR Document | 2016-30942 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 247 (Friday, December 23, 2016)] [Notices] [Pages 94454-94457] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-30942] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-79596; File No. SR-BatsEDGA-2016-34] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 11.8, Order Types, and Rule 11.11, Routing to Away Trading Centers, To Enhance the Exchange's Midpoint Routing Functionality December 19, 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 December 16, 2016, Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``EDGA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule [[Page 94455]] change as described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been 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) thereunder,\4\ 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 Rule 11.8, Order Types, and Rule 11.11, Routing to Away Trading Centers, to enhance the Exchange's midpoint routing functionality. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at www.bats.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 Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.8, Order Types, and Rule 11.11, Routing to Away Trading Centers, to enhance the Exchange's midpoint routing functionality. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.11(g)(13) to adopt a new midpoint routing strategy known as RMPL. The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 11.8(d)(5) to expand the routing strategies that MidPoint Peg Orders may be coupled with to include the Destination Specific routing strategy described under Rule 11.11(g)(14) and the proposed RMPL routing strategy described below. RMPL Routing Strategy The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.11(g)(13) to adopt a new midpoint routing strategy known as RMPL. Currently, the Exchange offers the RMPT routing strategy, which is described under Rule 11.11(g)(13). RMPT is a routing strategy under which a MidPoint Peg Order \5\ checks the System \6\ for available shares and any remaining shares are then sent to destinations on the System routing table \7\ that support midpoint eligible orders. If any shares remain unexecuted after routing, they are posted on the EDGA Book \8\ as a MidPoint Peg Order, unless otherwise instructed by the User.\9\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ In sum, a MidPoint Peg Order is a non-displayed Market Order or Limit Order with an instruction to execute at the midpoint of the NBBO, or, alternatively, pegged to the less aggressive of the midpoint of the NBBO or one minimum price variation inside the same side of the NBBO as the order. See Exchange Rule 11.8(d). \6\ The term ``System'' is defined as ``the electronic communications and trading facility designated by the Board through which securities orders of Users are consolidated for ranking, execution and, when applicable, routing away.'' See Exchange Rule 1.5(cc). \7\ The term ``System routing table'' refers to the proprietary process for determining the specific trading venues to which the System routes orders and the order in which it routes them. See Exchange Rule 11.11(g). While the process for determining the specific trading venues to which orders are routed is proprietary, the Exchange publicly discloses the trading venues associated with each routing strategy via its Web site at http://cdn.batstrading.com/resources/features/bats_exchange_routing-strategies.pdf. \8\ The term ``EDGA Book'' is defined as the ``System's electronic file of orders.'' See Exchange Rule 1.5(d). The Exchange also proposed to capitalize the word ``Book'' within Rule 11.11(g)(13) as the term EDGA Book is a defined term in the Exchange's Rules. \9\ The term ``User'' is defined as ``any Member or Sponsored Participant who is authorized to obtain access to the System pursuant to Rule 11.3.'' See Exchange Rule 1.5(ee). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Exchange now proposes RMPL as an alternative to the RMPT routing strategy for those seeking to route MidPoint Peg Orders to destinations that support midpoint eligible executions that are not included under the current RMPT routing strategy. Like RMPT, RMPL would be a routing strategy under which a MidPoint Peg Order checks the System for available shares and any remaining shares are then sent to destinations on the System routing table that support midpoint eligible orders. If any shares remain unexecuted after routing, they are posted on the EDGA Book as a MidPoint Peg Order, unless otherwise instructed by the User. As it does for RMPT, the Exchange would determine via the System routing table the specific trading venues that support midpoint eligible orders to which the System would route RMPL orders. While RMPL will operate in an identical manner as RMPT, the trading venues that each routing strategy would route to and the order in which it routes them will differ. As is the case for RMPT, the Exchange may alter the trading venues included under RMPL and the order in which they are routed to from time to time in accordance with its System routing table.\10\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\ The Exchange notes that the trading venues to which other of its routing strategies route orders to are also determined in accordance with the System routing table. See e.g., Exchange Rule 11.11(g)(3) (listing a series of routing options whose destinations are determined by the System routing table, like the proposed revisions to Exchange Rule 11.11(g)(13)). See also subparagraphs (1), (2), and (5) of Exchange Rule 11.11(b)(3) (describing routing strategies that route orders to destinations on the System routing table). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Exchange proposes to revise Rule 11.11(g)(13) to describe both the RMPT and proposed RMPL routing strategies. As a result of these revision, the construct of paragraph (g)(13) of Rule 11.11 would be similar to paragraph (g)(3) of Rule 11.11, which also delineates routing strategies that include different sets of destinations as determined by the System routing table. MidPoint Peg Order Routing The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 11.8(d)(5) to expand the routing strategies that MidPoint Peg Orders may be coupled with. Currently, Exchange Rule 11.8(d)(5) states that MidPoint Peg Orders are not eligible for routing pursuant to Rule 11.11 unless routed utilizing the RMPT routing strategy. The Exchange now proposes to amend Rule 11.8(d)(5) to expand the routing strategies that MidPoint Peg Orders may be coupled with to include the Destination Specific routing strategy described under Rule 11.11(g)(14) and the proposed RMPL routing strategy described above. Destination Specific is a routing option under which an order checks the System for available shares and then is sent to an away trading center or centers specified by the User.\11\ As proposed, a User entering a MidPoint Peg Order may select the Destination Specific routing strategy to route such order to a specific trading center or center that supports midpoint executions after being exposed to the EDGA Book. This differs from RMPT and the proposed RMPL routing strategies in that the destinations orders subject to the RMPT and RMPL routing strategies are selected by the Exchange via the System routing table and not the User itself. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \11\ See Rule 11.11(g)(14). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [[Page 94456]] 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \12\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \13\ in particular, in that it is designed 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. The proposed rule change also is designed to support the principles of Section 11A(a)(1) \14\ of the Act in that it seeks to assure fair competition among brokers and dealers and among exchange markets. The proposed rule change promotes just and equitable principles of trade because it would enhance the Exchange's midpoint routing functionality and provide Users with greater flexibility in routing MidPoint Peg Orders to trading venues that support midpoint executions. This would save such Users from developing complicated order routing strategies on their own. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will also accomplish those ends by providing market participants with an additional voluntary routing strategies and options that will enable them to easily access midpoint liquidity available on the Exchange and other trading venues. The Exchange notes that routing through the Exchange is voluntary and those seeking to access midpoint liquidity on other trading venues may do so directly and without the involvement of the Exchange. Therefore, the Exchange believes the proposal removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protects investors and the public interest. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. The Exchange provides routing services in a highly competitive market in which participants may avail themselves of a wide variety of routing options offered by self-regulatory organizations, alternative trading systems, other broker-dealers, market participants' own proprietary routing systems, and service bureaus. System enhancements, such as the changes proposed in this rule filing, do not burden competition, but rather encourage competition because they are designed to attract additional order flow to the Exchange through enhanced midpoint routing functionality. Such changes are intended to offer investors higher quality and better value than services offered by others. Encouraging competitors to provide higher quality and better value is the essence of a well-functioning competitive marketplace. Therefore, the Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change will result in any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. (C) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others No comments were solicited or received 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) by its terms, become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed or such shorter time as the Commission may designate it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \15\ and paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\16\ the Exchange has designated this rule filing as non-controversial. The Exchange has given the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: (1) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (2) for the protection of investors; or (3) 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 CommentsUse the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or Send an email to [email protected]. Please include File Number SR-BatsEDGA-2016-34 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 No. SR-BatsEDGA-2016-34. 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-BatsEDGA-2016-34 and should be submitted on or before January 13, 2017. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.\17\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \17\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [[Page 94457]] Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. 2016-30942 Filed 12-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
![94454 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2016 / Notices
proposed change to introduce a new the proposed accelerated process would components to NSCC’s margin
loss allocation provision for certain off- help reduce systemic risks and promote methodology (i.e., the MRD, Coverage
the-market transactions, it too would the stability of the broader financial Component, and Intraday Backtesting
promote robust risk management at system by mitigating Members’ Charge), which use risk based models
NSCC, as it would help protect NSCC exposure to a counterparty default and parameters to calculate charges, and
from transactions of a defaulted Member earlier in the settlement cycle and by would lower the threshold at which
that were made at prices that differed providing an earlier assurance that NSCC would make an intraday mark-to-
significantly from the prevailing market transactions will settle despite a market margin call. As such, the
price at the time the trade is executed Member default. proposal would help NSCC better
and resulted in a loss to NSCC in At the same time, the three proposed account for and cover its credit
connection with NSCC’s liquidation of additions to NSCC’s margin exposure to Members. In addition, by
the transaction. methodology, the proposed reduction of establishing the proposed margin
Second, the Commission believes that NSCC’s intraday mark-to-margin components and the new intraday mark-
the changes proposed in the Advance threshold, and the proposed loss to-market margin collection threshold,
Notice are consistent with promoting allocation provision for off-the-market the proposal is consistent with using
safety and soundness. As described transactions, as described above, would risk-based models and parameters to set
above, NSCC proposes to accelerate its also help mitigate the systemic risks that margin requirements. Therefore, the
trade guaranty for CNS trades and NSCC presents as a CCP because they Commission believes that the proposal
Balance Order trades from midnight of would improve NSCC’s margining would be consistent with Rule 17Ad–
T+1 to the point of trade validation. abilities and help protect NSCC against 22(b)(2).
This earlier guaranty would promote potential losses from a Member default.
safety and soundness for Members Accordingly, the changes would III. Conclusion
because the counterparty credit risk that therefore promote the stability of the It is therefore noticed, pursuant to
Members currently hold until NSCC’s broader financial system. Section 806(e)(1)(I) of the Payment,
guaranty applies at midnight of T+1 Clearing and Settlement Supervision
B. Consistency With Rule 17Ad–22(b)(1) Act,49 that the Commission does not
would shift to NSCC almost
immediately upon NSCC’s receipt of the Rule 17Ad–22(b)(1) under the object to Advance Notice (SR–NSCC–
trade on T. Because NSCC risk manages Exchange Act requires a CCP, such as 2016–803) and that NSCC is authorized
its guaranteed transactions, NSCC is NSCC, to, among other things, to implement the proposed change as of
able to better ensure that trades settle if ‘‘establish, implement, maintain and the date of this notice or the date of an
a counterparty defaults. enforce written policies and procedures order by the Commission approving the
The above-described proposed reasonably designed to . . . limit its proposed rule change (SR–NSCC–2016–
changes to NSCC’s margin methodology exposures to potential losses from 005) that reflects rule changes that are
(i.e., the addition of the MRD, Coverage defaults by its participants under consistent with this Advance Notice,
Component, and Intraday Backtesting normal market conditions . . . .’’ As whichever is later.
Charge), along with the proposed described above, because the proposed By the Commission.
reduction of NSCC’s intraday mark-to- change would transfer counterparty
Eduardo A. Aleman,
margin threshold, also would promote credit risk to NSCC at an earlier point
Assistant Secretary.
safety and soundness at NSCC because in the settlement cycle, NSCC proposes
[FR Doc. 2016–30935 Filed 12–22–16; 8:45 am]
they would improve NSCC’s ability to to enhance its margin methodology by
adding three new margin components BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
collect margin. Likewise, the proposed
loss allocation provision for off-the- and by lowering the threshold for the
market transactions would promote intraday mark-to-market margin
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
safety and soundness at NSCC by collection. It also proposes to establish
COMMISSION
helping to protect NSCC from losses due a loss allocation provision for off-the-
to transactions of a defaulted Member market transactions. These proposed [Release No. 34–79596; File No. SR–
that were made at prices significantly changes are designed to limit NSCC’s BatsEDGA–2016–34]
different from the prevailing market exposure to potential losses from the
price at the time of the trade. default of a Member by enabling NSCC Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats
Collectively, these proposed changes to collect more margin, better manage EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing
would enable NSCC to manage better when it collects margin, and protect and Immediate Effectiveness of a
the additional risk that would result itself from certain losses of a defaulted Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule
from the proposed accelerated guaranty. Member. Therefore, the Commission 11.8, Order Types, and Rule 11.11,
Third, the Commission believes that believes that the proposal would be Routing to Away Trading Centers, To
the Advance Notice is consistent with consistent with Rule 17Ad–22(b)(1). Enhance the Exchange’s Midpoint
reducing systemic risks and promoting Routing Functionality
the stability of the broader financial C. Consistency With Rule 17Ad–22(b)(2)
December 19, 2016.
system. As described above, by Rule 17Ad–22(b)(2) under the Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
providing a trade guaranty at an earlier Exchange Act requires a CCP, such as Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
point in the settlement cycle, NSCC, to, among other things, ‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2
counterparty credit risk also would ‘‘establish, implement, maintain and notice is hereby given that on December
transfer from Members, which are not enforce written policies and procedures
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
16, 2016, Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc. (the
CCPs, to NSCC, which is a third-party reasonably designed to . . . [u]se ‘‘Exchange’’ or ‘‘EDGA’’) filed with the
CCP that risk-manages its guaranteed margin requirements to limit its credit Securities and Exchange Commission
transactions, at an earlier point in the exposures to participants under normal (‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule
settlement cycle. Because NSCC risk market conditions and use risk-based
manages its guaranteed transactions, models and parameters to set margin 49 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1)(I).
NSCC is able to better ensure that trades requirements . . . .’’ Again, the 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
settle if a counterparty defaults. Thus, proposal would add three new 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:33 Dec 22, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00143 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23DEN1.SGM 23DEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_94701/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2016 / Notices 94457
13D or Schedule 13G is filed by a requested exemption would permit an
Eduardo A. Aleman, respondent only when necessary. All investment adviser to hire and replace
Assistant Secretary. information provided to the certain sub-advisers without
[FR Doc. 2016–30942 Filed 12–22–16; 8:45 am] Commission is public. However, Rules shareholder approval and grant relief
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 0–6 and 24b–2 (17 CFR 240.0–6 and from the Disclosure Requirements as
240.24b–2) under the Exchange Act do they relate to fees paid to the sub-
permit reporting persons to request advisers.1
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE confidential treatment for certain
COMMISSION sensitive information concerning APPLICANTS: Delaware Management
national security, trade secrets, or Business Trust (‘‘DMBT’’), a Delaware
Submission for OMB Review; privileged commercial or financial statutory trust registered under the Act
Comment Request information. as an open-end management investment
Upon Written Request Copies Available An agency may not conduct or company with multiple series, Delaware
From: Securities and Exchange sponsor, and a person is not required to Management Company, a series of
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, respond to, a collection of information DMBT, registered as an investment
100 F Street NE., Washington, DC unless it displays a currently valid adviser under the Investment Advisers
20549–2736. control number. Act of 1940 (the ‘‘Initial Adviser’’ or
The public may view the background ‘‘DMC’’), Optimum Fund Trust,
Extension: documentation for this information Delaware Group Adviser Funds,
Regulations 13D and 13G; Schedules 13D collection at the following Web site,
and 13G, SEC File No. 270–137, OMB
Delaware Group Cash Reserve, Delaware
Control No. 3235–0145. www.reginfo.gov. Comments should be Group Equity Funds I, Delaware Group
directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Equity Funds II, Delaware Group Equity
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant Securities and Exchange Commission, Funds IV, Delaware Group Equity Funds
to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Office of Information and Regulatory V, Delaware Group Foundation Funds,
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities Affairs, Office of Management and Delaware Group Global & International
and Exchange Commission Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Funds, Delaware Group Government
(‘‘Commission’’) has submitted to the Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, Fund, Delaware Group Income Funds,
Office of Management and Budget this or by sending an email to: Shagufta_ Delaware Group Limited-Term
request for extension of the previously Ahmed@omb.eop.gov; and (ii) Pamela Government Funds, Delaware Group
approved collection of information Dyson, Director/Chief Information State Tax-Free Income Trust, Delaware
discussed below. Officer, Securities and Exchange Group Tax-Free Fund, Delaware Pooled
Schedules 13D and 13G (17 CFR
Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, Trust, Delaware VIP Trust, Voyageur
240.13d–101 and 240.13d–102) are filed
100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC Insured Funds, Voyageur Intermediate
pursuant to Sections 13(d) and 13(g) (15
20549 or send an email to: PRA_ Tax Free Funds, Voyageur Mutual
U.S.C. 78m(d) and 78m(g)) of the
Mailbox@sec.gov. Comments must be Funds, Voyageur Mutual Funds II,
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
submitted to OMB within 30 days of Voyageur Mutual Funds III, and
(‘‘Exchange Act’’) and Regulations 13D
this notice. Voyageur Tax Free Funds (each, a
and 13G (17 CFR 240.13d–1—240.13d–
Dated: December 16, 2016. ‘‘Trust’’ and, collectively with DBMT
7) thereunder to report beneficial
Robert W. Errett, and DMC, the ‘‘Applicants’’).
ownership of equity securities registered
under Section 12 (15 U.S.C. 78l) of the Deputy Secretary. FILING DATES: The application was filed
Exchange Act. Regulations 13D and 13G [FR Doc. 2016–30917 Filed 12–22–16; 8:45 am] on December 23, 2015, and amended on
provide investors, and the subject issuer BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
June 8, 2016 and October 25, 2016.
with information about accumulations HEARING OR NOTIFICATION OF HEARING:
of equity securities that may have the An order granting the requested relief
potential to change or influence control SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE will be issued unless the Commission
of the issuer. Schedule 13D and COMMISSION orders a hearing. Interested persons may
Schedule 13G are filed by persons, request a hearing by writing to the
[Investment Company Act Release No.
including small entities, to report their 32395; File No. 812–14595]
Commission’s Secretary and serving
ownership of more than 5% of a class applicants with a copy of the request,
of equity securities registered under Delaware Management Business Trust, personally or by mail. Hearing requests
Section 12. We estimate that Schedule et al.; Notice of Application should be received by the Commission
13D takes approximately 14.5 hours to by 5:30 p.m. on January 13, 2017, and
prepare and is filed by approximately December 19, 2016. should be accompanied by proof of
1,508 filers. We estimate that 25% of the AGENCY: Securities and Exchange service on the applicants, in the form of
14.5 hours (3.625 hours per response) is Commission (‘‘Commission’’).
prepared by the filer for a total annual ACTION: Notice of an application under 1 The requested order would supersede a previous
section 6(c) of the Investment Company order obtained by the Applicants granting relief
reporting burden of 5,467 hours (3.625 solely with respect to Non-Affiliated Sub-Advisers
hours per response × 1,508 responses). Act of 1940 (‘‘Act’’) for an exemption (Delaware Management Business Trust, et al.,
We estimate that Schedule 13G takes from section 15(a) of the Act and rule Investment Company Act Rel. Nos. 27512 (Oct. 10,
approximately 12.4 hours to prepare 18f–2 under the Act, as well as from 2006) (notice) and 27547 (Nov. 7, 2006) (order)
and is filed by approximately 7,079 certain disclosure requirements in rule (‘‘Prior Order’’). If a Subadvised Series has obtained
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
shareholder approval to operate as such with
filers. We estimate that 25% of the 12.4 20a–1 under the Act, Item 19(a)(3) of respect to Non-Affiliated Sub-Advisers only in the
hours (3.10 hours per response) is Form N–1A, Items 22(c)(1)(ii), manner described in this Application and has met
prepared by the filer for a total annual 22(c)(1)(iii), 22(c)(8) and 22(c)(9) of all other terms and conditions of the requested
reporting burden of 21,945 hours (3.10 Schedule 14A under the Securities order, the Subadvised Series may rely on the order
requested in this Application solely with respect to
hours per response × 7,079 responses). Exchange Act of 1934, and Sections 6– Non-Affiliated Sub-Advisers unless and until it
The information provided by 07(2)(a), (b), and (c) of Regulation S–X obtains shareholder approval with respect to
respondents is mandatory. Schedule (‘‘Disclosure Requirements’’). The Wholly-Owned Sub-Advisers.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:33 Dec 22, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00146 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23DEN1.SGM 23DEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_94701/page/4.svg)
Document Created: 2016-12-23 12:29:18
Document Modified: 2016-12-23 12:29:18
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 94454 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR