[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 206 (Thursday, October 24, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63551-63555]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24916]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-70717; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2013-81]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 975NY
October 18, 2013.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on October 7, 2013, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
MKT'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
\2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
\3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 975NY to specify that options
transactions that involve Obvious Error or Catastrophic Error will (1)
if the parties to the transaction are not Customers, be automatically
adjusted by the Exchange, unless the parties agree to their own
adjustments or to bust the transactions; or (2) if at least one of the
parties to the transaction determined to be a Catastrophic Error is a
Customer, be adjusted if the adjustment price would be within the
Customer's limit price; otherwise, the transaction will be busted by
the Exchange, unless the Customer accepts the Exchange's adjustment
price or the parties to the transaction agree to an adjustment price.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
[[Page 63552]]
Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room, and on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov.
II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.
A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change
1. Purpose
The Exchange is proposing to amend Rules 975NY(a)(3)(A)-(B),
(d)(1), and (d)(3)(B), add a [sic] new paragraphs (d)(3)(D) and
(d)(3)(F), re-designate previous (d)(3)(D) as (d)(3)(C) and make
revisions to that paragraph, and re-designate previous (d)(3)(C) as
(d)(3)(E) and make revisions to that paragraph. Current Rule 975NY
adjusts the price of or busts transactions with respect to which there
are Obvious or Catastrophic Errors, as those terms are defined in the
rule. Whether an Obvious Error transaction is automatically adjusted or
automatically busted depends on whether both parties to the transaction
are Market Makers.\4\ Specifically, if each party to an Obvious Error
transaction is a Market Maker, the Exchange adjusts the transaction to
a price determined in accordance with current Rule 975NY(a)(3)(A)(i)-
(ii), unless the parties agree to adjust the transaction to a different
price or to bust the trade within 10 minutes of being notified of the
Obvious Error by the Exchange. Under current Rule 975NY(a)(3)(B), if at
least one party to the Obvious Error is not a Market Maker, the
Exchange busts the trade, unless both parties agree to an adjustment
price for the transaction within 30 minutes of being notified by the
Exchange of the Obvious Error.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ For the purposes of Rule 975NY, the term ``Market Maker''
means an ATP Holder acting as a Market Maker on the Exchange
pursuant to Rule 920NY. See Rule 975NY, Commentary .05.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under current Rule 975NY(d)(3)(B), a Catastrophic Error Review
Panel (the ``Panel''), upon notification from a Market Maker or an ATP
Holder, determines if a Catastrophic Error has occurred. If so, the
Panel instructs the Exchange to adjust the execution price(s) of the
transaction(s) as set out in Rule 975NY(d)(3)(D), unless the parties
agree to adjust the transaction to a different price. The remedies
available to the parties to a Catastrophic Error under current Rule
975NY transaction [sic] do not depend on their status as Market Makers
or non-Market Makers. Rather, if the Panel determines that a
Catastrophic Error has occurred, the parties to the transaction,
irrespective of their status, are obligated to take a price adjustment;
the rule does not provide for busting a trade. The Panel's
determination on Catastrophic Error constitutes final Exchange action
on the issue.
In summary, under the current rule, the Exchange nullifies Obvious
Error transactions unless all parties to the trade are Market Makers,
in which case the Exchange adjusts the price of the transaction. With
respect to Catastrophic Errors, the Exchange currently adjusts all
transactions even if they involve non-Market Makers. The Exchange notes
that while market professionals generally would prefer that all
transactions be adjusted rather than nullified, there is an equally
valid opposing view because adjustments can result in Customer orders
being adjusted to prices that may be greater (less) than their limit
order price, potentially by a large amount, which Customers would not
expect.
To better balance the expectations of both market professionals and
Customers, the Exchange is proposing to amend Rules 975NY(a)(3)(A)-(B),
(d)(1), and (d)(3)(B), add a [sic] new paragraphs (d)(3)(D) and
(d)(3)(F), re-designate previous (d)(3)(D) as (d)(3)(C) and make
revisions to that paragraph, and re-designate previous (d)(3)(C) as
(d)(3)(E) and make revisions to that paragraph. The Exchange is
amending Rule 975NY to (1) provide that whether an Obvious Error or
Catastrophic Error transaction is automatically adjusted or
automatically busted depends on whether at least one of the parties to
the transaction is a ``Customer,'' as that term is defined in Rule
900.2NY(18),\5\ rather than a Market Maker; (2) generally conform the
remedies available for both Obvious Error and Catastrophic Error
transactions; (3) adjust the Theoretical Prices and the minimum amounts
away from those Theoretical Prices at which transactions are deemed to
be Catastrophic Errors; and (4) provide that a Trading Official,\6\
rather than the Panel, will determine if a Catastrophic Error has
occurred, subject to an appeal to the Panel, which would be renamed the
CER Panel to distinguish it from the Obvious Error Panel (``OE
Panel'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Rule 900.2NY(18) defines ``Customer'' as ``an individual or
organization that is not a Broker/Dealer; when not capitalized,
`customer' refers to any individual or organization whose order is
being represented, including a Broker/Dealer.''
\6\ Rule 900.2NY(83) [sic] defines ``Trading Official'' as ``an
Exchange employee or officer, who is designated by the Chief
Executive Officer, or its designee or by the Chief Regulatory
Officer or its designee. Any Exchange employee or officer designated
as a Trading Official will from time to time as provided in these
rules have the ability to recommend and enforce rules and
regulations relating to trading access, order, decorum, safety and
welfare on the Exchange.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If no party to an Obvious Error transaction is a Customer, the
Exchange will adjust the execution price of the transaction as set out
in the proposed amendments to Rule 975NY(a)(3)(A). Alternatively, the
parties to the transaction could agree to adjust the transaction to a
different price or to bust the trade within 10 minutes of being
notified of the Obvious Error by the Exchange. This amendment is
consistent with current Rule 975NY(a)(3)(A), but rather than apply to
transactions that involve only Market Makers, it applies more broadly
to transactions that do not involve Customers.
If at least one party to an Obvious Error transaction is a
Customer, the Exchange will bust the trade under the proposed
amendments to Rule 975NY(a)(3)(B), unless the parties agree to an
adjustment price for the transaction within 30 minutes of being
notified of the Obvious Error by the Exchange, consistent with how
Obvious Errors involving Customers are handled today. The Exchange
believes that this approach provides a means of addressing an Obvious
Error trade that involves Customers while allowing trades involving
non-Customers or market professionals to stand, albeit at adjusted
prices. These adjusted prices potentially could be through the non-
Customers' limit order price (in other words, the adjusted price could
be higher than the limit price if it is a buy and lower than the limit
price if it is a sell order). This approach, moreover, is consistent
with that taken by the International Securities Exchange (``ISE'') in
its Rule 720.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Exchange Act Release No. 69467 (Apr. 26, 2013), 78 FR
25777, 25778 (May 2, 2013) (SR-ISE-2013-15).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange is also amending the procedures for addressing
transactions involving Catastrophic Errors. Consistent with the
proposed amendments to the Obvious Error provisions, if no party to a
Catastrophic
[[Page 63553]]
Error transaction is a Customer, the Exchange will adjust the execution
price of the transaction as set out in the proposed amendments to Rule
975NY(d)(3)(B) and new paragraph (d)(3)(C). Alternatively, the parties
to the transaction can agree to adjust the transaction to a different
price or to bust the trade within 10 minutes of being notified of the
Catastrophic Error by the Exchange. If at least one party to a
Catastrophic Error transaction is a Customer, the Exchange will adjust
the trade under the proposed amendments to Rule 975NY(d)(3)(B), and
such trades will be adjusted in accordance with new paragraph
(d)(3)(C). If the adjustment price will violate the Customer's limit
price, the Customer will have 30 minutes from the time the Exchange
notifies the Customer of the adjusted price to accept it; otherwise,
the Exchange will bust the trade. Notwithstanding the foregoing, both
parties may agree to an adjustment price for the transaction within 30
minutes of being notified of the Catastrophic Error by the Exchange. As
with Obvious Error transactions, the Exchange's approach to
Catastrophic Errors as described above is generally consistent with
ISE's approach in ISE Rule 720. In addition the Exchanges [sic]
proposal to adjust, rather than bust, the trade when such adjustment
price is within the Customer's limit price is consistent with the
manner in which NASDAQ OMX PHLX (``PHLX'') handles Customer trades that
involve a Catastrophic Error.\8\ The Exchange believes such treatment
is reasonable because the adjustment price will still be within the
Customer's expectations for the price of the trade--the limit price set
by the Customer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See NASDAQ PHLX Rule 1092(f)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange also is proposing to amend the minimum amounts away
from the Theoretical Prices at which transactions will be deemed to
have been executed in Catastrophic Error and the adjustment amount by
which Theoretical Prices will be adjusted to determine execution
prices. The revised Theoretical Prices, minimum amounts, and adjustment
amounts will be set out in amended Rule 975NY(d)(1) and (d)(3)(E) so
that the threshold for determining whether a Catastrophic Error has
occurred will also be the same amount used to adjust any trades deemed
to be Catastrophic Errors. The Theoretical Price category of ``Above
$10 to $50'' will change to ``Above $10 to $20,'' and a new category of
``Above $20 to $50'' will be added. Moreover, the minimum amount away
from the Theoretical Prices at which transactions will be deemed to
have been executed in Catastrophic Error and the corresponding
adjustment amounts will increase at Theoretical Prices above $50 as
compared to the minimum amounts set out in current Rule 975NY. This is
consistent with the approach that the Chicago Board Options Exchange
takes in its CBOE Rule 6.25(d)(4).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59981 (May 27,
2009), 74 FR 26447 (June 2, 2009) (SR-CBOE-2009-024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange is also proposing to amend Rule 975NY(d)(3)(B) and add
new paragraph (d)(3)(D) to provide that a Trading Official, rather than
the Panel, will determine if a Catastrophic Error has occurred, subject
to an appeal to the Panel, which will be renamed the CER Panel to
distinguish it from the Obvious Error Panel (``OE Panel''). The ISE
similarly uses its exchange personnel to determine if a Catastrophic
Error has occurred.\10\ If a party disagrees with the Trading
Official's Catastrophic Error determination with respect to a
transaction, the party can appeal that determination to the CER Panel
within 30 minutes of receiving notification of the determination. As
noted above, all determinations by the CER Panel constitute final
Exchange action on the matter at issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ ISE Rule 720; see 78 FR at 25778.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to existing Rule 975NY(d)(3)(B), if upon review a CER
Panel determines that a Catastrophic Error has not occurred, the ATP
Holder requesting the review is subject to a charge of $5,000. Pursuant
to this proposal, there will be no fee assessed if an ATP Holder
requests that the Exchange review a transaction and make a
determination as to whether a Catastrophic Error occurred. However, if
an ATP Holder appeals the determination made by the Trading Official to
a CER Panel and the CER Panel confirms the determination made by the
Trading Official, a $5,000 fee will apply. The Exchange is proposing to
move existing text regarding the $5,000 fee from subsection (d)(3)(B)
to proposed subsection (d)(3)(F) to make clear when the fee applies.
Assessing the $5,000 only in the event of an appeal to the CER Panel,
but not for initial determinations made by the Trading Official, is
consistent with the application of a similar $5,000 fee by ISE.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See ISE Rule 720(d)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, in order to make the definition of Professional Customer
found in Rule 900.2NY(18A) consistent with the proposed treatment of
Professional Customers, the Exchange is amending the text to indicate
that Professional Customers are to be treated the same as broker-
dealers for purposes of Rule 975NY.
2. Statutory Basis
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\12\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5),\13\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
\13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In particular, regarding Obvious Errors, the Exchange believes the
proposed rule change relating to busting trades involving Customers and
adjusting trade prices if none of the parties is a Customer will help
market participants better manage risk associated with potential
erroneous trades. In addition, regarding Catastrophic Errors, the
Exchange believes that the proposal provides a fair process that will
ensure that Customers are not forced to accept a trade that was
executed in violation of the Customer's limit order price.
The automatic remedies applicable to Obvious or Catastrophic Error
transactions involving only non-Customers differ from those applicable
to such transactions involving at least one party that is a Customer,
but the Exchange does not believe that the proposal is unfairly
discriminatory. As discussed above, an Obvious or Catastrophic Error
transaction involving only non-Customer parties is subject to an
automatic price adjustment in accordance with terms set out in Rule
975NY, unless the parties agree to a different price adjustment or to
bust the transaction within the applicable timeframe. Obvious or
Catastrophic Error Transactions involving at least one party that is a
Customer, by contrast, are subject to being adjusted automatically only
if the adjustment price is within the Customer's limit price.
Otherwise, the transaction is busted, unless the Customer accepts an
adjustment price from the Exchange, or the parties to the transaction
agree to adjust the price of the trade within the applicable timeframe,
which is longer than the applicable timeframe for non-Customer
transactions. The different treatment accorded Customers versus non-
Customers recognizes that Customers are not necessarily immersed in the
day-to-day trading of the markets, are less likely to be watching
trading activity in a particular option throughout the day,
[[Page 63554]]
and may have limited funds in their trading accounts. Automatically
busting a Customer trade involving a Catastrophic Error to protect the
Customer's limit order price, while giving the Customer a longer period
of time than a non-Customer to choose a different remedy, i.e., price
adjustment, is not unfairly discriminatory because it is reasonable and
fair to provide Customers, who are typically less sophisticated in
trading matters than non-Customers, with additional options to protect
themselves against the consequences of Catastrophic Errors.
The Exchange acknowledges that the proposal contains some
uncertainty regarding whether a trade will be adjusted or busted,
depending on whether one of the parties is a Customer, because a party
would not know, when entering into the trade, whether the other party
is a Customer. The Exchange believes that the proposal nevertheless
promotes just and equitable principles of trade and protects investors
and the public interest, because it eliminates a more serious
uncertainty in the rule's operation today, which is price uncertainty.
Today, a Customer's order can be adjusted to a significantly different
price in the case of a Catastrophic Error, which is potentially more
impactful than the possibility of busting the trade.
Furthermore, there is uncertainty in the current Obvious Error
portion of Rule 975NY that market participants have dealt with for a
number of years. Specifically, Rule 975NY(a)(3)(A) provides that if it
is determined that an Obvious Error has occurred where each party to
the transaction is a Market Maker on the Exchange, the execution price
of the transaction will be adjusted by the Exchange (in accordance with
subsection (i) and (ii) of the rule), unless both parties agree to
adjust to a different price or to nullify the transaction within 10
minutes of being notified by the Exchange of the Obvious Error.
Additionally, Rule 975NY(a)(3)(B) provides that if it is determined
that an Obvious Error has occurred where at least one party to the
transaction to the Obvious Error is not an Exchange Market Maker, the
trade will be busted by the Exchange, unless both parties agree to
adjust the price of the transaction within 30 minutes of being notified
by the Exchange of the Obvious Error. Therefore, a Market Maker who
prefers price adjustments over busting a trade cannot guarantee that
outcome because, if he trades with a non-Market Maker, a resulting
Obvious Error would only be adjusted if the party on the other side of
the trade agrees to an adjustment. This uncertainty has been embedded
in the rule and accepted by market participants. The Exchange believes
that this proposal, despite the uncertainty based on whether a Customer
is involved in a trade, is nevertheless consistent with the Act because
the ability to nullify a Customer's trade involving an Obvious or a
Catastrophic Error should prevent the price uncertainty that mandatory
adjustment with respect Catastrophic Error creates under the current
rule. The Exchange believes that the benefits afforded to Customers by
knowing with certainty what the adjustment price of a Catastrophic
Error will be, and being able to nullify the trade if they choose to do
so, far outweighs any uncertainty that might arise by not knowing
whether a Customer was involved as the contra-side on a given trade. A
[sic] The Exchange believes that affording Customers this heightened
degree of certainty which [sic] should promote just and equitable
principles of trade and protect investors and the public interest.
The Exchange has also weighed carefully the need to assure that one
market participant is not permitted to receive a windfall at the
expense of another market participant that made an Obvious or a
Catastrophic error against the need to assure that market participants
are not simply being given an opportunity to reconsider poor trading
decisions.
Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
relating to a Trading Official making the determination of whether a
Catastrophic Error has occurred will promote just and equitable
principles of trade because the Exchange believes such determinations
will be made in a more timely manner than is the case today. As the
determinations will likely be more timely, the proposed change will
reduce the length of time before participants gain certainty as to the
outcome of Catastrophic Error review. The Exchange's Obvious and
Catastrophic Error rule and the procedures that carry out the rule have
consistently been based on specific and objective criteria. The
Exchange believes this proposed rule change furthers that principle by
adopting objective guidelines for the determination of which trades may
be busted or adjusted and for the determination of whether or not a
trade is deemed to be a Catastrophic Error.
In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes to the
pricing tables used in determining theoretical and adjustment values
for transactions subject to Catastrophic Error reviews will remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market
because the proposed changes will conform the theoretical and
adjustment values applicable to Catastrophic Errors on other market
venues.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Supra Footnote No. 11 [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the Exchange believes that moving existing text regarding
the $5,000 fee, as described above, will promote just and equitable
principles of trade because the amendment will make clear when the fee
is applicable. The amendment will clarify that the $5,000 fee will not
be applicable when the Trading Official makes the initial determination
as to whether a Catastrophic Error occurred, but will be applicable if,
upon appeal, the CER Panel confirms the determinations made by the
Trading Official. Further, the Exchange believes that the amendment
will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market because the amendment will conform the Exchange's application of
the $5,000 fee to similar fees on other market venues. The Exchange
also believes that assessing such a fee ensures the proper balance
between allowing ATP Holders to seek review of determinations made by
the Exchange and recovering the costs associated with requiring an
additional layer of review by the CER Panel.
B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change will not impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is
intended to help market participants better manage the risk associated
with erroneous options trades, and therefore, does not impose any
burden on competition. Moreover, the Exchange believes the proposed
rule change will enhance competition by conforming the Exchange's rules
governing Obvious and Catastrophic Errors more closely to those of
other exchanges. The treatment of Customers differently from non-
Customers under the proposed rule amendments may result in market
participants choosing to route orders to the Exchange, and therefore,
attract order flow to the Exchange, rather than a competing exchange.
[[Page 63555]]
C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.
III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \15\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\16\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \17\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
\16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's 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. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
\17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
\18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \19\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\20\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
\20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \21\ to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2013-81 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-NYSEMKT-2013-81. 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 Section, 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 the filing will also be available
for inspection and copying at the NYSE's principal office and on its
Internet Web site at www.nyse.com. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2013-81 and should be submitted on or before
November 14, 2013.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-24916 Filed 10-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P