[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 23 (Monday, February 4, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7844-7848]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02302]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-68760; File No. SR-ISE-2013-05]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change To Amend Certain Market Maker Fees
January 29, 2013.
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 January 17, 2013, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(the ``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission the proposed rule change, as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which items have been prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
\2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change
The ISE proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.ise.com), at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.
II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the
most significant aspects 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 currently assesses per contract transaction fees and
provides rebates to market participants that add or remove liquidity
from the Exchange (``maker/taker fees and rebates'') in a number of
options classes (the ``Select Symbols'').\3\ The Exchange's maker/taker
fees and rebates are applicable to regular and complex orders executed
in the Select Symbols. The Exchange also currently assesses maker/taker
fees and rebates for complex orders in symbols that are in the Penny
Pilot program but are not a Select Symbol (``Non-Select Penny Pilot
Symbols'') \4\ and for complex orders in all symbols that are not in
the Penny Pilot Program (``Non-Penny Pilot Symbols'').\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Options classes subject to maker/taker fees and rebates are
identified by their ticker symbol on the Exchange's Schedule of
Fees.
\4\ See Exchange Act Release Nos. 65724 (November 10, 2011), 76
FR 71413 (November 17, 2011) (SR-ISE-2011-72); and 66961 (May 10,
2012), 77 FR 28914 (May 16, 2012) (SR-ISE-2012-38).
\5\ See Exchange Act Release Nos. 66084 (January 3, 2012), 77 FR
1103 (January 9, 2012) (SR-ISE-2011-84); 66392 (February 14, 2012),
77 FR 10016 (February 21, 2012) (SR-ISE-2012-06); 66961 (May 10,
2012), 77 FR 28914 (May 16, 2012) (SR-ISE-2012-38); and 67400 (July
11, 2012), 77 FR 42036 (July 17, 2012) (SR-ISE-2012-63).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The purpose of this proposed rule change is to increase the
discount for Market Makers \6\ when they trade against Priority
Customer \7\ orders that are preferenced to them to $0.05 per contract
from the fee charged to Market Makers who trade against Priority
Customer orders that are not preferenced to them. This discount is
currently set at $0.02 per contract and is applicable when Market
Makers add or remove liquidity in the Select Symbols (excluding SPY),
in SPY, in the Non-Select Penny Pilot Symbols and in the Non-Penny
Pilot Symbols from the complex order book.\8\ Accordingly, Market
Makers that add or remove liquidity from the complex order book by
trading against Priority Customer complex orders that are preferenced
to them will be charged: (i) $0.34 per contract in the Select Symbols
(including SPY) and in the Non-Select Penny Pilot Symbols; and (ii)
$0.77 per contract in the Non-Penny Pilot Symbols.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The term ``Market Makers'' refers to ``Competitive Market
Makers'' and ``Primary Market Makers'' collectively. See ISE Rule
100(a)(25).
\7\ A Priority Customer is defined in ISE Rule 100(a)(37A) as a
person or entity that is not a broker/dealer in securities, and does
not place more than 390 orders in listed options per day on average
during a calendar month for its own beneficial account(s).
\8\ The current $0.02 per contract discount also applies to a
group of symbols in which Market Makers can enter quotes in the
complex order book (``Complex Quoting Symbols''). The discount
applicable to the Complex Quoting Symbols is found on the Exchange's
Schedule of Fees. See Section II. Complex Order Fees and Rebates,
footnote 4. This proposed rule change also applies to the Complex
Quoting Symbols.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 7845]]
The Exchange notes that NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. (``PHLX'') currently
has a $0.05 per contract differential between the fee it charges market
makers for complex orders in certain symbols and the fee it charges
directed (i.e., preferenced) market makers for the same
transactions.\9\ With this proposed rule change, ISE seeks to adopt the
$0.05 differential currently in place at PHLX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Section I, Rebates and Fees for Adding and Removing
Liquidity in Select Symbols, Part B. Complex Order at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com/NASDAQOMXPHLXTools/PlatformViewer.asp?selectednode=chp%5F1%5F4&manual=%2Fnasdaqomxphlx%2Fphlx%2Fphlx%2Drulesbrd%2F. see also Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 68202 (November 9, 2012), 77 FR 68856 (November 16, 2012) (the
``PHLX Approval Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange notes that the fee differential currently between
Market Makers and preferenced Market Makers on ISE is $0.02 per
contract where a preferenced Market Maker is assessed the lower fee.
The Exchange is now proposing to increase the differential from $0.02
per contract to $0.05 per contract for complex order transactions to
reflect the increased costs that are incurred by such Market Makers
that enter into order flow arrangements at a cost and without the
benefit of a guaranteed allocation.\10\ The Exchange believes that in
order to attract Priority Customer complex orders in an intensely
competitive environment it must continue to adjust its fees and
rebates, which ultimately benefit all market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The Exchange notes that under ISE Rule 722(b)(3), the
Exchange has the ability to provide Market Makers with a guaranteed
allocation and the Exchange may do so by designating on a class
basis where such guaranteed allocations would apply. The Exchange,
however, has not designated any class as such. In the event the
Exchange designates certain classes to provide Market Makers the
benefit of a guaranteed allocation in those classes, the discount
proposed in this filing will not apply to those preferenced Market
Makers in those classes of options designated by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Market Makers may be categorized as preferenced Market Makers when
such Market Makers execute against a Priority Customer order
preferenced to them for execution by an order flow provider. For
example, Market Maker ABCD is assessed the preferenced Market Maker fee
for trading against a Priority Customer order preferenced to it for
execution by an order flow provider. Market Maker ABCD is not assessed
the discounted preferenced Market Maker fee for executing a Priority
Customer order that is not preferenced to Market Maker ABCD, but rather
is assessed the full Market Maker fee.
The Exchange notes that all Market Makers have the ability to
incentivize an order flow provider to preference an order if they
desire to enter into, for example, a payment for order flow arrangement
with an order flow provider. While all market participants enjoy the
benefits of the liquidity that such order flow brings to the market,
not all market participants incur the additional expense of paying an
order flow provider for such order flow. The Exchange believes that
this additional expense should be considered in assessing fees to
Market Makers that attract such order flow to the Exchange for the
benefit of all market participants.
The Exchange proposes to implement this proposed rule change on a
pilot basis set to expire one (1) year from the date the proposed fees
become operative. In support of this proposed rule change, the Exchange
agrees to submit to the Commission on a monthly basis during the pilot
period certain summary data as the Commission may request regarding
this proposed fee change and make this data publicly available. The
data would include information with respect to rates of order
interaction of Priority Customer complex orders and rates of price
improvement, and an analysis of the effect of the fee differential upon
inter-market and intra-market competition. In addition, the Exchange
also agrees to submit data, and make it publicly available, on (1) the
rate of interaction with preferenced Priority Customer complex orders
by both preferenced Market Makers and non-preferenced Market Makers,
(2) the rates of price improvement for preferenced Priority Customer
complex orders that received price improvement by both preferenced
Market Makers and non-preferenced Market Makers, and (3) the percentage
of preferenced and non-preferenced Priority Customer complex orders
that received price improvement, and the average price improvement for
such orders, for the six months prior to the time that this proposed
fee became operative (i.e., July 2012 through December 2012) to allow
the Commission to analyze the impact of the proposed fee change.
The Exchange represents that the proposed fee change will apply
only to equity options that are able to be listed and traded on more
than one options exchange. There will be no discount for Singly Listed
Symbols and FX Options Symbols.\11\ The Exchange further represents
that, prior to and at the time of a complex order transaction, Market
Makers, including preferenced Market Makers, are unaware of the
identity of the contra-party to the transaction and moreover, ISE Rule
400 titled ``Just and Equitable Principles of Trade'' is intended to
prohibit coordinated actions between preferenced Market Makers and
order flow providers, and that the Exchange proactively conducts
surveillance for, and enforces against, such violations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Singly Listed Symbols and FX Options Symbols are identified
by their ticker symbol on the Exchange's Schedule of Fees. The
Exchange is not providing this fee discount to Singly Listed Symbols
and FX Options Symbols because these symbols are traded only on ISE
and therefore, the Exchange does not need to provide an incentive to
attract order flow in them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange also proposes to make one non-substantive amendment to
the Exchange's Schedule of Fees. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to
remove footnote 7 under Section I, Regular Order Fees and Rebates, as
that footnote is no longer applicable. Footnote 7 was previously
applicable to Special Non-Select Penny Pilot Symbols (``SNS Symbols''),
a group of symbols that were a part of Section I of the Schedule of
Fees. The Exchange recently removed the SNS Symbols from the Schedule
of Fees in its entirety and moved them into the Select Symbols
category.\12\ The Exchange inadvertently failed to remove footnote 7
when it filed to remove the SNS Symbols and proposes to do so now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68240 (November 15,
2012), 77 FR 69905 (November 21, 2012) (SR-ISE-2012-88).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange is not proposing any other changes in this filing.
2. Statutory Basis
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Schedule of
Fees is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act
of 1934 (the ``Act'') \13\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \14\ in particular, in that it is an
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among
Exchange members and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
\14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory to assess lower fees to preferenced market
makers that add or remove liquidity from the complex order book by
trading against Priority Customer orders that are preferenced to them
in the Select Symbols (excluding SPY), in SPY, in the Non-Select Penny
Pilot Symbols and in the Non-Penny Pilot Symbols, than the fee charged
to Market Makers because of the requisite quoting obligations
applicable to preferenced Market Makers. Preferenced Market Makers have
heightened and burdensome quoting obligations to the market which do
not apply to the non-
[[Page 7846]]
preferenced Market Makers or to other market participants and therefore
are assessed a lower fee when they transact with a Priority Customer
complex order that was preferenced to them for execution.\15\ Firm
Proprietary/Broker-Dealer, Non-ISE Market Maker \16\ and Professional
Customer \17\ orders are currently assessed a higher fee than Market
Makers while Priority Customers are not assessed a fee for removing
liquidity from the complex order book, as is the case on competing
exchanges.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Preferenced market makers are required to continuously
quote at least 90% of the series of an options class, whereas non-
preferenced market makers are required to quote only 60% of the
series of an options class. See ISE Rule 804(e).
\16\ A Non-ISE Market Maker, or Far Away Market Maker
(``FARMM''), is a market maker as defined in Section 3(a)(38) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, registered in the same options
class on another options exchange.
\17\ A Professional Customer is a person who is not a broker/
dealer and is not a Priority Customer.
\18\ Firm Proprietary/Broker-Dealer, Non-ISE Market Maker and
Professional Customer orders are currently charged $0.40 per
contract for removing liquidity in the Select Symbols (excluding
SPY) and in the Non-Select Penny Pilot Symbols, $0.41 per contract
for removing liquidity in SPY and $0.84 per contract for removing
liquidity in the Non-Penny Pilot Symbols whereas Market Maker orders
are currently charged $0.39 per contract for removing liquidity in
the Select Symbols (excluding SPY), in the Non-Select Penny Pilot
Symbols and in SPY and $0.82 per contract for removing liquidity in
the Non-Penny Pilot Symbols. see also PHLX Pricing Schedule at
http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com/NASDAQOMXPHLXTools/PlatformViewer.asp?selectednode=chp%5F1%5F4&manual=%2Fnasdaqomxphlx%2Fphlx%2Fphlx%2Drulesbrd%2F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which
market participants can easily and readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive. ISE and the other options exchanges are engaged in an
intense competition on price (and other dimensions of competition) to
attract order flow from order flow providers. Accordingly, the fees
assessed by the Exchange must remain competitive with fees charged by
other venues and therefore must continue to be reasonable and equitably
allocated to those members that opt to send orders to the Exchange
rather than to a competing venue.
In the PHLX Approval Order, the Commission employed a two part test
to evaluate whether PHLX's proposal to adopt a $0.05 per contract
differential was consistent with the Act. First, the Commission
examined whether the exchange making the proposal was subject to
significant competitive forces in setting the terms of its proposal.
The Commission noted that if the exchange making the proposal was
subject to significant competitive forces in setting the terms of its
proposal, the Commission will approve the proposal unless it determines
that there is a substantial countervailing basis to find that the terms
nevertheless fail to meet an applicable requirement of the Act or the
rules thereunder.
With respect to the first part of the analysis, ISE notes that it
is subject to significant competitive forces in setting the terms of
any fee proposals, including this proposed fee change. The Commission
has previously found that there is significant competition for order
flow in the options markets.\19\ There currently are eleven registered
national securities exchanges that trade listed options. Competition in
the options market is evidenced by data PHLX provided in support of its
filing to adopt a $0.05 differential, noting that market share, based
on contract volume, among the options exchanges, as of 2012, ranged
from approximately less than 1% to 22% for equity options.\20\ Further,
six of the eleven options exchanges have rules that provide for the
trading of complex orders.\21\ Further, data regarding market share
among the options exchanges for complex orders also shows that there is
significant competition for order flow. For example, for June 1, 2012,
the market share for complex orders ranged from 3.39% for NYSE Arca,
which had 74,486 complex order trades, to 43.79% for ISE, which had
961,040 complex order trades.\22\ Moreover, the volume for complex
orders has been increasing over the past few years.\23\ Additionally,
the proposed fees will apply only to equity options that are able to be
listed and traded on more than one options exchange, and are therefore
subject to competition among the markets for order flow.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61317 (January 8,
2010), 75 FR 2915 (January 19, 2010) (SR-ISE-2009-103) (finding that
the exchange was subject to significant competitive forces in
setting the terms of its proposal, including fees, and noting that
``the Exchange has a compelling need to attract order flow to
maintain its share of trading volume, imposing pressure on the
Exchange to act reasonably in establishing fees for these data
offerings'').
\20\ See Letter from Joan C. Conley, Senior Vice President and
Corporate Secretary, NASDAQ OMX, dated July 26, 2012 (``PHLX
Letter'').
\21\ See C2 Rule 6.13; CBOE Rules 6.42, 6.45, 6.53C; PHLX Rule
1080; NYSE Arca Rules 6.62(e), 6.91; NYSE MKT Rules 900.3NY(e),
963NY, 980NY.
\22\ See PHLX Supporting Data, at http://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-phlx-2012-27/phlx201227-2.pdf.
\23\ See Complex Orders Surge, Traders Magazine, March 2012
(noting increase in use of customer orders by customers at one
broker-dealer in 2011); see also BATS February 2012 Options Market
Update, at http://www.batstrading.com/resources/fee_schedule/2012/BATS-February-2012-USMarket-Update.pdf (noting that more volume is
being done through complex strategies, and that volume in the
complex order book has increased).
\24\ There will be no discount for Singly Listed Symbols and FX
Options Symbols because these symbols are traded only on ISE and
therefore they are not subject to competition for order flow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to second part of the analysis, the Exchange does not
believe that there is a substantial countervailing basis to find that
the proposed rule change fails to meet the requirements of the Act or
the rules thereunder. The Exchange notes that the fees for adding or
removing liquidity as proposed distinguish between preferenced Market
Makers and non-preferenced Market Makers, and would provide the
preferenced Market Makers a lower fee than non-preferenced Market
Makers when the preferenced Market Maker interacts with order flow that
has been preferenced to them. The Exchange notes in part that
preferenced Market Makers that execute against order flow in the
complex order book that has been preferenced to them do not have a
guaranteed allocation,\25\ unlike in the leg market, and that the
reduced fee for preferenced Market Makers is an attempt to confer an
additional benefit on preferenced Market Makers for the value they
provide in bringing order flow to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See supra note 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange further notes that increased order flow provides
better execution quality on the Exchange because customers enjoy
greater price transparency and executions at lower prices, and that
Market Makers to whom order flow is preferenced still must compete with
other Exchange participants to interact with that order flow to receive
the benefits of such arrangements. This increased order flow, and
corresponding greater execution quality, benefits all market
participants.
The Commission has previously approved as consistent with the Act
rules of exchanges that provide preferenced Market Makers a guaranteed
allocation when they interact with preferenced order flow, based upon
their status as preferenced market makers.\26\ Likewise, preferenced
Market Makers on ISE would be charged a lower fee when they interact
with order flow preferenced to them, based on their status as
preferenced Market Makers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51759 (May 27,
2005), 70 FR 32860 (June 6, 2005) (Order Approving SR-PHLX-2004-91).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When approving the proposals that provided a guaranteed allocation
to preferenced market makers, the Commission found that the guaranteed
allocation for preferenced market makers would not affect the
incentives
[[Page 7847]]
of the trading crowd to compete aggressively for orders based on
price.\27\ The Exchange believes that the potential impact of a
guaranteed allocation on competition may be distinguished from the
potential impact of the reduced transaction fee on competition.
Specifically, the guaranteed allocation does not provide preferenced
market makers an explicit subsidy--in the form of lesser per contract
fees--over other market makers that are competing to execute against
the same order flow. Rather, the guaranteed allocation scheme allocates
portions of orders to other market makers who are at the same price as
the preferenced market maker, thus protecting the incentive of other
market makers to compete with preferenced market makers on price. In
contrast, assessing a lesser transaction fee on preferenced market
makers than other market makers when the preferenced market makers
interact with order flow preferenced to them may allow preferenced
market makers to execute against complex orders at more aggressive
prices than other market makers, which may reduce the incentive and
ability of such other market makers to compete with preferenced market
makers on price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange has considered the potential impact of the fees for
adding and removing liquidity on preferenced Market Makers and the
$0.05 fee differential on competition between preferenced Market Makers
and other Market Makers that are competing to execute against the same
order flow. In the PHLX Approval Order, the Commission noted that for
the two months during which the PHLX $0.05 price differential was in
effect, there was no statistically significant adverse impact on the
competitiveness of the PHLX market for directed (i.e., preferenced)
customer complex orders. Given that the Exchange is proposing to
implement the same $0.05 cent differential for preferenced Priority
Customer complex orders, the Exchange believes there will not be any
statistical significant adverse impact of the proposed fee differential
on the competitiveness of the ISE market for preferenced Priority
Customer complex orders, or the extent of price improvement for
preferenced Priority Customer complex orders on the ISE. Nevertheless,
like PHLX, ISE is proposing to adopt the $0.05 discount for preferenced
Priority Customer complex orders on a pilot basis and will provide data
to the Commission to further evaluate whether there is any adverse
impact.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ For purposes of studying the competitive impact of the
proposed fee change, ISE agrees to provide data on the rate of
interaction with preferenced Priority Customer complex orders by
both preferenced Market Makers and non-preferenced Market Makers.
This data will cover the six months prior to the time the proposed
fee was in effect. For the same time period, ISE also agrees to
provide data on rates of price improvement for preferenced Priority
Customer complex orders that received price improvement by both
preferenced Market Makers and non-preferenced Market Makers. For the
same time period, ISE also agrees to provide data on the percentage
of preferenced and non-preferenced Priority Customer complex orders
that received price improvement, and the average price improvement
for such orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition
ISE 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 Exchange believes this
proposal, which seeks to adopt a fee discount applicable to Market
Makers for executing orders that are preferenced to them, will enhance
competition because the Exchange is seeking to adopt a fee discount
that is already in place at one other exchange. The Exchange believes
that the proposed rule change will promote competition, as it is
designed to allow ISE to better compete for order flow and allow Market
Makers to execute more of their transactions on the Exchange and
therefore, improve the Exchange's competitive position. ISE also does
not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on
competition among market participants on ISE that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because, as noted
above, preferenced Market Makers have heightened and burdensome quoting
obligations to the market that non-preferenced Market Makers or other
market participants do not have and therefore preferenced Market Makers
may be assessed a lower fee when they transact with Priority Customer
complex orders that are preferenced to them for execution.
C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.
III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \29\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\30\ because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by ISE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
\30\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
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-ISE-2013-05 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 Number SR-ISE-2013-05. 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
[[Page 7848]]
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, 20549-1090, on official business days between the hours
of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal offices 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-ISE-
2013-05, and should be submitted on or before February 25, 2013.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-02302 Filed 2-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P