[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 193 (Thursday, October 4, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60735-60738]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-24457]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-67948; File Nos. SR-NYSEArca-2012-64; SR-ISE-2012-58]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; International
Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing of Amendments No. 1 and
Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Changes as
Modified by Amendments No. 1 To List and Trade Option Contracts
Overlying 10 Shares of Certain Securities
September 28, 2012.
I. Introduction
On June 15, 2012, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca''), and on June 20,
2012, International Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE,'' and together
with NYSE Arca, ``Exchanges''), filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ proposed rule changes to list and trade option contracts
overlying 10 shares of certain securities (``mini options''). The
proposed rule changes were published for comment in the Federal
Register on July 3, 2012.\3\ The Commission initially received two
comment letters on the proposals.\4\ On August 9, 2012, the Commission
extended the time period for Commission action on both proposals to
October 1, 2012.\5\ On September 20, 2012, NYSE Arca filed Amendment
No. 1 to its proposed rule change. Also, on September 20, 2012, ISE
submitted a response letter \6\ and filed Amendment No. 1 to its
proposed rule change.\7\ On September 24, 2012, NYSE Arca submitted a
response letter.\8\ The Commission subsequently received one additional
comment letter \9\ and one additional response letter from each of the
Exchanges.\10\ The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the Exchanges' proposals, as modified by Amendments No. 1,
from interested persons and is approving the Exchanges' proposals, as
modified by Amendments No. 1, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
\2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
\3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 67283 (June 27,
2012), 77 FR 39535 (``NYSE Arca Notice'') and 67284 (June 27, 2012),
77 FR 39545 (``ISE Notice'').
\4\ See letters to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
from Christopher Nagy, President, KOR Trading LLC, dated July 10,
2012 (``KOR Trading Letter'') and Edward T. Tilly, President and
Chief Operating Officer, Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated, dated July 24, 2012 (``CBOE Letter'').
\5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 67631, 77 FR 49044
(August 15, 2012) and 67632, 77 FR 49044 (August 15, 2012).
\6\ See letter to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
from Michael J. Simon, Secretary and General Counsel, ISE, dated
September 20, 2012 (``ISE Response Letter I'').
\7\ In its Amendment No. 1, each Exchange represents that its
current schedule of fees will not apply to the trading of mini
options contracts. Further, each Exchange represents that it will
not commence trading in mini options until it files with the
Commission, as a proposed rule change, specific fees for mini
options.
\8\ See letter to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
from Janet McGinness, EVP & Corporate Secretary, General Counsel,
NYSE Markets, NYSE Euronext, dated September 24, 2012 (``NYSE Arca
Response Letter I'').
\9\ See letter to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
from Anthony D. McCormick, Chief Executive Officer, BOX Options
Exchange LLC (``BOX''), dated September 24, 2012 (``BOX Letter'').
\10\ See letters to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
from Janet McGinness, EVP & Corporate Secretary, General Counsel,
NYSE Markets, NYSE Euronext, dated September 26, 2012 (``NYSE Arca
Response Letter II'') and Katherine Simmons, Deputy General Counsel,
ISE, dated September 26, 2012 (``ISE Response Letter II'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Description of the Proposed Rule Changes
The Exchanges propose to list and trade mini options \11\ on
certain underlying securities--SPDR S&P 500 ETF (``SPY''), Apple Inc.
(``AAPL''), SPDR Gold Trust (``GLD''), Google Inc. (``GOOG''), and
Amazon.com, Inc. (``AMZN'').\12\ According to the Exchanges, these
underlying securities were selected because they are currently trading
at prices greater than $100 and are actively traded.\13\ The Exchanges
also note that the standard option contracts overlying these five
securities are among the most actively traded, with average daily
volume over the previous three calendar months of at least 45,000
contracts, excluding LEAPS and FLEX series.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Mini options contracts would represent a deliverable of 10
shares of an underlying security, whereas standard contracts
represent a deliverable of 100 shares.
\12\ The Exchanges note that any expansion of the mini options
program would require that a subsequent proposed rule change be
submitted to the Commission. See NYSE Arca Notice, supra note 3, at
n.3 and ISE Notice, supra note 3, at n.3.
\13\ See NYSE Arca Notice, supra note 3, at n.3 and ISE Notice,
supra note 3, at n.3.
\14\ See NYSE Arca Notice, supra note 3, at n.3 and ISE Notice,
supra note 3, at n.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchanges propose to designate mini options contracts with
different trading symbols than their corresponding standard
contracts.\15\ In addition, the Exchanges propose that strike prices
for mini options would be set at the same level as full-sized
options.\16\ Bids and offers for mini options would be expressed in
terms of dollars per 1/10th part of the total value of the options
contract.\17\ As expressed in the Exchanges' proposals, the table below
demonstrates the proposed differences between a mini options contract
and a standard contract with a strike price of $125 per share and a bid
or offer of $3.20 per share:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See NYSE Arca Notice, supra note 3, at 39536 and ISE
Notice, supra note 3, at 39546. According to the Exchanges, the
Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') symbology is structured for
contracts that have a deliverable of other than 100 shares to be
designated with a numeric added to the standard trading symbol. See
NYSE Arca Notice, supra note 3, at n.6 and ISE Notice, supra note 3,
at 39546. See also NYSE Arca Response Letter II, supra note 10, at
1.
\16\ See NYSE Arca Rule 6.4, Commentary .14(b) and ISE Rule 504,
Supplementary Material .12(b).
\17\ See NYSE Arca Rule 6.71(c) and ISE Rule 709(c).
[[Page 60736]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Mini
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shares Deliverable Upon 100 shares.......... 10 shares.
Exercise.
Strike Price................ 125................. 125.
Bid/Offer................... 3.20................ 3.20.
Premium Multiplier.......... $100................ $10.
Total Value of Deliverable.. $12,500............. $1,250.
Total Value of Contract..... $320................ $32.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, the Exchanges propose not to permit the listing of
additional mini options series if the underlying security is trading at
$90 or less and to require that the underlying security trade above $90
for five consecutive days before the listing of mini options in an
additional expiration month.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See NYSE Arca Rule 6.4, Commentary .14(c) and ISE Rule 504,
Supplementary Material .12(c). In addition, the Exchanges propose
that, for purposes of determining compliance with position limits,
ten mini options contracts would equal one standard contract. See
NYSE Arca Rule 6.8, Commentary .08 and ISE Rule 412, Supplementary
Material .03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, in their proposals, each of the Exchanges states that
it has analyzed its capacity and represents that it and the Options
Price Reporting Authority have the necessary systems capacity to handle
the potential additional traffic associated with the listing and
trading of mini options contracts.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See NYSE Arca Notice, supra note 3, at 39536 and ISE
Notice, supra note 3, at 39546. Each of the Exchanges also states
that it has discussed the proposed listing and trading of mini
options with the OCC, and the OCC has represented that it is able to
accommodate mini options. See NYSE Arca Notice, supra note 3, at
39536 and ISE Notice, supra note 3, at 39546.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Discussion and Commission Findings
The Commission finds that the proposed rule changes filed by NYSE
Arca and ISE are consistent with the requirements of the Act and the
rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\20\ Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
changes are consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\21\ which
requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities
exchange be 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ In approving these proposed rule changes, the Commission
has considered the proposed rules' impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
\21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission believes that the listing and trading of mini
options on SPY, AAPL, GLD, GOOG, and AMZN could benefit investors by
providing them with additional investment alternatives. The Commission
believes, as noted in the proposals and the KOR Trading Letter, the
listing and trading of mini options would make options overlying high-
priced securities more readily available to investors, thereby
providing investors with a tool to manage risk in high-priced
securities.\22\ In particular, the Exchanges state that mini options
would be more affordable for investors.\23\ In addition, in its comment
letter, KOR Trading states that certain stocks are priced too high for
the average investor to purchase a round lot and investors are
increasingly using odd lots.\24\ It further states that mini options
would allow investors who purchase odd lots to hedge their positions
and that mini options would benefit investors significantly,
particularly small investors.\25\ BOX also states that options
contracts on certain high-priced underlying securities are priced out
of reach for the majority of retail investors.\26\ As such, BOX
expresses support for the creation of mini options that are one-tenth
the size of the current standard-sized options.\27\ In addition, CBOE
expresses support for the objective of providing investors with access
to exchange-traded options overlying high-priced securities that are
smaller in size and, therefore, more readily available as an investing
tool than standard-sized options.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See NYSE Arca Notice, supra note 3, at 39536; ISE Notice,
supra note 3, at 39546; and KOR Trading Letter, supra note 4, at 1.
\23\ See NYSE Arca Notice, supra note 3, at 39536 and ISE
Notice, supra note 3, at 39546.
\24\ See KOR Trading Letter, supra note 4, at 1.
\25\ See id. See also NYSE Arca Notice, supra note 3, at 39536
and ISE Notice, supra note 3, at 39546.
\26\ See BOX Letter, supra note 9, at 1.
\27\ See id.
\28\ See CBOE Letter, supra note 4, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its comment letter, CBOE raises a price protection issue with
respect to the proposals. Specifically, CBOE states that, in connection
with its prior proposal to list and trade both full-value and reduced-
value options on the CBOE S&P 500 BuyWrite Index (``BXM''), Commission
staff had expressed the concern that having two sizes of options on the
same underlying interest created a potential for price protection
issues because of the possibility that trades in the reduced-sized
options might occur at a price inferior to the price available in the
full-sized options, or vice versa.\29\ In addition to CBOE, BOX
suggests in its comment letter that the Exchanges did not discuss in
sufficient detail the issue of either the mini options or the standard
options on the same underlying security potentially ``trading through''
the market of the other.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See id., at 2. CBOE also states its belief that the
Commission staff had similar concerns with respect to a proposal by
the Philadelphia Stock Exchange to trade options on exchange-traded
funds (``ETFs'') and trust issued receipts with a unit of trading of
1,000 shares and NYSE Amex's proposal to trade options on certain
ETFs with a unit of trading of 1,000 shares alongside standard-sized
options on the same underlying ETFs. See id., at 2-3.
\30\ See BOX Letter, supra note 9, at 1. BOX states that all
reasonable measures should be required to ensure that users of
either contract size receive the best price possible based on a
measure of the price per underlying share. See id., at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission notes that price protection would not apply across
standard and mini options contracts on an intramarket basis, as these
are separate products. The Commission recognizes that trading different
options products that overlie the same security or index could disperse
trading interest across the products to some extent. In illiquid or
nascent markets, increased dispersion across products may cause
particular concern, as the markets for the separate products may lack
the critical mass of buyers and sellers to allow such a market to
become established or, once established, to thrive.
In the case of markets for options on SPY, AAPL, GLD, GOOG, and
AMZN, there generally exists a critical mass of willing buyers and
sellers both for the options and for the underlying securities that
mitigate such concerns. The Exchanges propose to limit the listing and
trading of mini options to those five underlying securities because
they are high-priced and highly liquid securities, and the standard
option contracts overlying these securities are among the most
actively-traded options.\31\ Specifically, the Exchanges note in their
proposals that SPY, AAPL, GLD, GOOG, and AMZN were selected
[[Page 60737]]
because these securities are priced greater than $100 and are actively
traded securities, and that the standard option contract exhibits
average daily volume over the previous three calendar months of at
least 45,000 contracts, excluding LEAPS and FLEX series.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See NYSE Arca Notice, supra note 3, at 39535 and ISE
Notice, supra note 3, at 39545. See also NYSE Arca Response Letter
II, supra note 10, at 2.
\32\ See NYSE Arca Notice, supra note 3, at n.3 and ISE Notice,
supra note 3, at n.3. See also NYSE Arca Response Letter II, supra
note 10, at 2. Further, as proposed by both Exchanges, no additional
mini options series may be added if the underlying security is
trading at $90 or less, and the underlying security must trade above
$90 for five consecutive days prior to listing mini options in an
additional expiration month. See NYSE Arca Rule 6.4, Commentary
.14(c) and ISE Rule 504, Supplementary Material .12(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, the Exchanges in their response letters distinguish the
current mini options proposals from the CBOE proposal to trade BXM
options.\33\ The Exchanges state that while the BXM options proposal
would have listed two new options products on the same index prior to
the development of an active liquid market, thus raising potential
concerns regarding creating a bifurcated market without adequate
liquidity in either market, the current proposals restrict the
eligibility of mini options to options that overlie a limited group of
highly liquid and high-priced ETFs and equities.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See NYSE Arca Response Letter I, supra note 8, at 1 and ISE
Response Letter I, supra note 6, at 1.
\34\ See NYSE Arca Response Letter I, supra note 8, at 1 and ISE
Response Letter I, supra note 6, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its comment letter, BOX questions whether arbitrage would ensure
that markets for the mini options and standard options would remain
within a minimal spread away from the price of the underlying equity
share.\35\ BOX states that ensuring that the market prices stay in line
is not possible until the issue of cross-margin is addressed.\36\
Further, BOX states that arbitrage will only occur where the spread
between a transaction in the mini option and a transaction in the
standard option is such that a profit can be achieved.\37\ BOX states
that, absent any determination of the trading fees for mini options as
compared to standard options, one cannot make any conclusions about
potential arbitrage between the two markets.\38\ Also, BOX suggests
that one cannot presume that such arbitrage will be sufficient to
maintain efficient pricing between the two markets.\39\ In their second
response letters, the Exchanges note that the OCC would allow mini
options and standard options on the same underlying security to be
cross-margined.\40\ In addition, each of the Exchanges states that its
current fee schedule will not apply to transactions in mini options,
and that it will not start trading mini options until it has filed a
proposed rule change with the Commission on specific fees for mini
options.\41\ Accordingly, the Exchanges believe that the availability
of mini options contracts is likely to result in more efficient pricing
through arbitrage with standard contracts.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See BOX Letter, supra note 9, at 2.
\36\ See id. BOX states that market participants should have the
ability for full cross-margining at the OCC between mini options and
standard options overlying the same security. See id., at 1. In
addition, BOX states that the proposals should make clear that
market participants are responsible for delivering the same
underlying security for mini options contracts as for standard
contracts. See id. In their second response letters, the Exchanges
clarify that mini options and the corresponding standard options
would overlie the same underlying security. See NYSE Arca Response
Letter II, supra note 10, at 1 (stating its understanding that OCC
instructions upon assignment will be to deliver the same underlying
security to the National Securities Clearing Corporation, regardless
of whether it is a mini option contract or a standard contract) and
ISE Response Letter II, supra note 10, at 1.
\37\ See BOX Letter, supra note 9, at 2.
\38\ See id.
\39\ See id.
\40\ See NYSE Arca Response Letter II, supra note 10, at 1-2 and
ISE Response Letter II, supra note 10, at 1-2.
\41\ See NYSE Arca Response Letter II, supra note 10, at 2 and
ISE Response Letter II, supra note 10, at 2.
\42\ See NYSE Arca Response Letter I, supra note 8, at 1; ISE
Response Letter I, supra note 6, at 1-2; and NYSE Arca Response
Letter II, supra note 10, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission has carefully considered the price protection issue
raised with respect to the current proposals. As discussed above, the
current proposals would apply only to options on SPY, AAPL, GLD, GOOG,
and AMZN, which, along with the underlying securities, are highly
liquid and have well-established trading histories. The Commission
believes that the high trading volume and liquidity in the markets for
the five underlying securities and the standard-sized options overlying
them would mitigate the price protection concern that commenters
noted.\43\ To expand the trading of mini options beyond options on
these five underlying securities, the Exchanges would be required to
file new proposed rule changes with the Commission pursuant to Section
19(b) of the Act and the Commission would, at that time, assess any
market impact of such an expansion.\44\ In addition, the Commission
notes that NYSE Arca and ISE each represented in its Amendment No. 1
that its current fee schedule will not apply to transactions in mini
options, and that it will not start trading mini options until it has
filed a proposed rule change with the Commission on specific fees for
mini options.\45\ However, the Commission expects the Exchanges to
monitor the trading of the products to evaluate whether any issues
develop.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ The Commission has previously approved options products in
standard and reduced values that overlie the same index (e.g., SPX
and XSP). See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 32893 (September
14, 1993), 58 FR 49070 (September 21, 1993) (SR-CBOE-93-12) (order
approving proposed rule change relating to the listing of reduced-
value options on the S&P 500 Index). See also NYSE Arca Response
Letter I, supra note 8, at 2 (referencing the full and mini S&P 500
Index options, the full and mini Nasdaq 100 Index options, and the
full and jumbo Dow Jones Industrial Average options).
\44\ See NYSE Arca Notice, supra note 3, at n.3 and ISE Notice,
supra note 3, at n.3.
\45\ See supra note 7. See also NYSE Arca Response Letter II,
supra note 10, at 2 and ISE Response Letter II, supra note 10, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBOE also states in its comment letter that the Exchanges have
adopted rules pursuant to which they may list standard-sized options
with non-standard expiration dates (e.g., weekly series, quarterly
series, and LEAPS).\46\ CBOE states that because these types of
programs have been adopted by other exchanges as well, it is important
to know whether mini options with non-traditional expiration dates
would be permitted under the proposals.\47\ CBOE also states that, if
for example, the proposals would permit weekly mini options, the
Commission should consider the impact that the potential doubling of
the number of weekly exchange-traded options on the underlying
securities might have on the options trading industry.\48\ In response,
the Exchanges clarify that mini options with non-standard expiration
dates would be permitted under their proposals and in accordance with
their existing rules.\49\ Specifically, as proposed, the Exchanges may
list mini options on SPY, AAPL, GLD, GOOG, and AMZN for all expirations
applicable to 100-share options in each class.\50\ The Exchanges also
represent that they and the Options Price Reporting Authority have the
necessary systems capacity to handle the potential additional traffic
associated with the listing and trading of mini options.\51\ In light
of the Exchanges' representations, the
[[Page 60738]]
Commission believes that it is consistent with the Act to allow the
listing of the proposed mini options for all expirations applicable to
full-sized options in each class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ See CBOE Letter, supra note 4, at 3.
\47\ See id.
\48\ See id.
\49\ See NYSE Arca Response Letter I, supra note 8, at 2 and ISE
Response Letter I, supra note 6, at 2.
\50\ See NYSE Arca Rules 6.3, Commentary .01 and 6.4, Commentary
.14(a) and ISE Rule 504, Supplementary Material .12(a).
\51\ See NYSE Arca Notice, supra note 3, at 39536 and ISE
Notice, supra note 3, at 39546. The Exchanges also represent that
they have discussed the proposed listing and trading of mini options
with the OCC, and the OCC has represented that it is able to
accommodate the proposals. See NYSE Arca Notice, supra note 3, at
39536 and ISE Notice, supra note 3, at 39546.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission believes that other aspects of the proposals are
also consistent with the Act. Specifically, the Commission believes
that, because each mini option would represent a deliverable of 10
shares of an underlying security, as opposed to 100 shares (i.e., the
deliverable for a standard-sized option is ten times the deliverable of
a mini option), the proposed position limit rules for mini options,
which state that ten mini options contracts shall equal one standard
contract, are appropriate and consistent with the Act.\52\ Further, the
Commission believes that the proposed use of different trading symbols
for mini options is consistent with the Act because it should help
investors and other market participants distinguish mini options from
the corresponding standard options.\53\ In addition, the Commission
believes that the proposed treatment of strike prices \54\ and bids and
offers \55\ for mini options is consistent with the Act, as these
amendments should make clear how mini options would be quoted and
traded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ See NYSE Arca Rule 6.8, Commentary .08 and ISE Rule 412,
Supplementary Material .03. The Commission notes that, according to
ISE Rule 412, Supplementary Material .03, positions in mini options
are aggregated with positions in regular-sized options overlying the
same security. Further, according to NYSE Arca Rule 6.8, in
determining compliance with relevant position limits, NYSE Arca
considers: (1) An aggregate long position in any class of options;
(2) an aggregate short position in any class of options; (3) an
aggregate position on the same side of the market in the same
underlying stock, which position shall be ascertained by combining
long call options with short put options and short call options with
long put options; or (4) an aggregate uncovered short position in
any class of options.
\53\ See supra note 15 and accompanying text.
\54\ See NYSE Arca Rule 6.4, Commentary .14(b) and ISE Rule 504,
Supplementary Material .12(b).
\55\ See NYSE Arca Rule 6.71(c) and ISE Rule 709(c). The
Commission also believes that NYSE Arca's proposal to delete
references to ``Exchange-Traded Fund Share'' in NYSE Arca Rule 6.71
is consistent with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As national securities exchanges, each of the Exchanges is
required, under Section 6(b)(1) of the Act,\56\ to enforce compliance
by its members and persons associated with its members with the
provisions of the Act, Commission rules and regulations thereunder, and
its own rules. In this regard, the Commission notes that the Exchanges'
rules that apply to the trading of standard options would apply to mini
options. The Commission also notes that the Exchanges' existing market
maker quoting obligations would apply to mini options.\57\ In addition,
the Commission notes that intermarket trade-through protection would
apply to mini options to the extent that they are traded on more than
one market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
\57\ See NYSE Arca Rule 6.37B and ISE Rule 804.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the Commission finds
good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\58\ for approving
the Exchanges' proposals, as modified by Amendments No. 1, prior to the
30th day after the date of publication of the notices in the Federal
Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Solicitation of Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
changes are 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 [email protected]. Please include
File Numbers SR-NYSEArca-2012-64 and SR-ISE-2012-58 on the subject
line.
Paper Comments
Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Numbers SR-NYSEArca-2012-64 and
SR-ISE-2012-58. These file numbers 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 submissions, all subsequent
amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule
changes that are filed with the Commission, and all written
communications relating to the proposed rule changes 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 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the
filings also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal offices of the Exchanges. 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 Numbers SR-NYSEArca-2012-64 and SR-ISE-2012-58 and
should be submitted on or before October 25, 2012.
V. Conclusion
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\59\ that the proposed rule changes (SR-NYSEArca-2012-64; SR-ISE-
2012-58), as modified by Amendments No. 1, be, and hereby are, approved
on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-24457 Filed 10-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P