Document ID: SEC-2014-0446-0001
Agency: sec
Document Type: Notice
Title: Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: NYSE Arca, Inc.
Posted Date: 2014-03-19T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 53 (Wednesday, March 19, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15376-15380]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05988]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71722; File No. SR-NYSEARCA-2014-22]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing 
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the NYSE 
Arca Equities Schedule of Fees and Charges for Exchange Services To 
Establish Pricing for the Retail Liquidity Program and Make Certain 
Changes Relating to Open Orders

March 13, 2014.
    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 February 28, 2014, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or 
``NYSE Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the 
``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

[[Page 15377]]

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 the NYSE Arca Equities Schedule of 
Fees and Charges for Exchange Services (``Fee Schedule'') to (i) 
establish pricing for the Retail Liquidity Program and (ii) make 
certain changes relating to open orders. The Exchange proposes to 
implement the fee change effective March 1, 2014. The text of the 
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at 
www.nyse.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 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 proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to (i) establish 
pricing for the Retail Liquidity Program and (ii) make certain changes 
relating to open orders. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee 
change effective March 1, 2014.
Retail Liquidity Program
    The Retail Liquidity Program has been approved by the Commission to 
operate for one year as a pilot program.\4\ The Retail Liquidity 
Program is designed to attract additional retail order flow to the 
Exchange for NYSE Arca-listed securities and securities traded pursuant 
to unlisted trading privileges (``UTP Securities''), excluding 
securities listed on New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''), while also 
providing the potential for price improvement to such order flow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71176 (December 23, 
2013), 78 FR 79524 (December 30, 2013) (SR-NYSEArca-2013-107).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two new classes of market participants were created under the 
Retail Liquidity Program: (1) Retail Member Organizations 
(``RMOs''),\5\ which are eligible to submit certain retail order flow 
(``Retail Orders'') \6\ to the Exchange, and (2) Retail Liquidity 
Providers (``RLPs''),\7\ which are required to provide potential price 
improvement for RMO Retail Orders in the form of non-displayed interest 
(``Retail Price Improvement Orders'' or ``RPIs'') that is better than 
the best protected bid (``PBB'') or the best protected offer (``PBO'') 
(together, the ``PBBO'').\8\ ETP Holders other than RLPs are also 
permitted, but not required, to submit RPIs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``RMO'' is defined in Rule 7.44(a)(2) as an ETP Holder that 
is approved by the Exchange to submit Retail Orders.
    \6\ ``Retail Order'' is defined in Rule 7.44(a)(3) as an agency 
order or a riskless principal order that meets the criteria of 
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'') Rule 
5320.03 that originates from a natural person and is submitted to 
the Exchange by an RMO, provided that no change is made to the terms 
of the order with respect to price or side of market and the order 
does not originate from a trading algorithm or any other 
computerized methodology. As described further below, designation of 
an order as a Retail Order of an RMO for purposes of the Retail 
Liquidity Program is separate from the designation of an order as a 
Retail Order for purposes of existing pricing tiers in the Fee 
Schedule. For that reason, the remainder of this proposal will refer 
to Retail Orders of RMOs within the Retail Liquidity Program as 
``RMO Retail Orders'' and to other Retail Orders outside of the 
Retail Liquidity Program just as ``Retail Orders.''
    \7\ ``RLP'' is defined in Rule 7.44(a)(1) as an ETP Holder that 
is approved by the Exchange to act as such and that is required to 
submit Retail Price Improvement Orders in accordance with Rule 7.44.
    \8\ ``RPI'' is defined in Rule 7.44(a)(4) and consists of non-
displayed interest in NYSE Arca-listed securities and UTP Securities 
that is priced better than the PBB or PBO, as such terms are defined 
in Regulation NMS Rule 600(b)(57), by at least $0.001 and that is 
identified as such. The PBB is the best-priced protected bid and the 
PBO is the best-priced protected offer. Generally, the PBB and PBO 
and the national best bid (``NBB'') and national best offer 
(``NBO''), respectively, will be the same. However, a market center 
is not required to route to the NBB or NBO if that market center is 
subject to an exception under Regulation NMS Rule 611(b)(1) or if 
such NBB or NBO is otherwise not available for an automatic 
execution. In such case, the PBB or PBO would be the best-priced 
protected bid or offer to which a market center must route interest 
pursuant to Regulation NMS Rule 611. See Rule 7.44(a)(4) for 
additional details regarding RPIs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An RMO submitting an RMO Retail Order could designate several ways 
for the RMO Retail Order to interact with available contra-side 
interest.\9\ Such contra-side interest could be against RPIs or against 
other non-displayed liquidity and displayable odd lot interest priced 
better than the PBBO (``other price-improving interest''), all of which 
the Exchange would consider within the Retail Liquidity Program.\10\ If 
the RMO Retail Order has not completely executed against such interest 
within the Retail Liquidity Program, the RMO Retail Order could 
alternatively execute outside of the Retail Liquidity Program against 
contra-side interest on the NYSE Arca Book or on an away market after 
routing, if so designated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Rule 7.44(k) for a description of the various RMO Retail 
Order designations.
    \10\ While such other price-improving interest would not be 
considered a new order type, executions of such other price-
improving interest against RMO Retail Orders would be considered 
part of the Retail Liquidity Program for purposes of differentiating 
between such interest and other available contra-side interest in 
Exchange systems (e.g., interest on the NYSE Arca Book) or on an 
away market after routing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In proposing the Retail Liquidity Program, the Exchange stated that 
it would submit a separate proposal to amend its Fee Schedule in 
connection with the Retail Liquidity Program.\11\ Accordingly, the 
Exchange proposes to adopt the following pricing: \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See supra note 4 at 79525, n. 8.
    \12\ Participation in the Retail Liquidity Program is optional 
and, accordingly, the pricing proposed herein would not apply to an 
ETP Holder that does not choose to participate. Because the Retail 
Liquidity Program has been approved to operate as a one-year pilot 
program, the Exchange anticipates that it will periodically review 
this pricing to seek to ensure that it contributes to the goal of 
the Retail Liquidity Program, which is designed to attract 
additional retail order flow to the Exchange for NYSE Arca-listed 
securities and UTP Securities while also providing the potential for 
price improvement to such order flow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     RPIs of RLPs would be free if executed against RMO Retail 
Orders;
     RPIs of non-RLPs would be free if executed against RMO 
Retail Orders; \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Exchange originally anticipated that RLPs could receive 
special execution fees for executing RPIs against RMO Retail Orders, 
as compared to non-RLPs, in exchange for satisfying certain 
specified quoting obligations. See supra note 4 at 79525. These 
quoting obligations would not apply until the first day of the third 
consecutive calendar month after the ETP Holder begins operation as 
an RLP. See Rule 7.44(f)(3); supra note 4 at 79527. Therefore, at 
this time, the Exchange is proposing that the same pricing would 
apply to RLPs and non-RLPs for executions of RPIs. The Exchange may 
consider applying different pricing to RLP and non-RLP executions of 
RPIs at a later date, but such change in pricing would be the 
subject of a separate, subsequent proposal submitted by the Exchange 
to the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Other price-improving interest would receive applicable 
Tiered or Basic Rates in the Fee Schedule if executed against RMO 
Retail Orders; and
     RMO Retail Orders would receive a credit of $0.0005 per 
share if executed against RPIs of RLPs and non-RLPs or against other 
price-improving interest.
    The proposed credit of $0.0005 per share for RMO Retail Orders 
would only apply to RMO Retail Orders if executed within the Retail 
Liquidity Program (i.e.,

[[Page 15378]]

against RPIs of RLPs and non-RLPs or against other price-improving 
interest). An RMO Retail Order that executes outside of the Retail 
Liquidity Program would be considered just a Retail Order (not an 
``RMO'' Retail Order) and receive pricing applicable to Tiered or Basic 
Rates in the Fee Schedule.\14\ In this regard, the Fee Schedule 
currently includes a Retail Order Tier and a Retail Order Cross-Asset 
Tier (together, the ``Retail Order Tiers''), which are separate and 
distinct from the Retail Liquidity Program and provide for 
incrementally higher credits for ETP Holders that satisfy certain 
qualification thresholds related to executions of Retail Orders.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ As is currently the case, applicable charges would be based 
on an ETP Holder's qualifying levels, and if an ETP Holder qualifies 
for more than one tier in the Fee Schedule, the Exchange would apply 
the most favorable rate available under such tiers.
    \15\ The Retail Order Tier provides for a credit of $0.0033 per 
share of Retail Orders that provide liquidity to the NYSE Arca Book 
for an ETP Holder that executes an average daily volume (``ADV'') of 
Retail Orders during the month that is 0.20% or more of U.S. 
consolidated ADV (``CADV''). The Retail Order Cross-Asset Tier 
provides for a credit of $0.0034 per share of Retail Orders that 
provide liquidity to the NYSE Arca Book for an ETP Holder that 
executes an ADV of Retail Orders during the month that is 0.30% or 
more of U.S. CADV and that is affiliated with an NYSE Arca Options 
Trading Permit (``OTP'') Holder or OTP Firm that provides an ADV of 
electronic posted Customer executions in Penny Pilot issues on NYSE 
Arca Options (excluding mini options) of at least 0.50% of total 
Customer equity and exchange-traded fund option ADV as reported by 
The Options Clearing Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Designation of an order as a Retail Order for purposes of the 
Retail Order Tiers is separate from the designation of an order as an 
RMO Retail Order for purposes of the Retail Liquidity Program, despite 
the characteristics of Retail Orders and RMO Retail Orders being 
identical (i.e., they must all satisfy the definition of Retail Order 
in Rule 7.44(a)(3)).\16\ Executions of RMO Retail Orders against RPIs 
or against other price-improving interest within the Retail Liquidity 
Program would count toward the qualification thresholds of the Retail 
Order Tiers, but would not be eligible for the corresponding credits 
available under the Retail Order Tiers.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ An ETP Holder may designate an order as a Retail Order for 
purposes of the Retail Order Tiers either (1) by designating certain 
order entry ports at the Exchange as ``Retail Order Ports'' and 
attesting, in a form and/or manner prescribed by the Exchange, that 
all orders submitted to the Exchange via such Retail Order Ports are 
Retail Orders; or (2) by means of a specific tag in the order entry 
message. See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68322 
(November 29, 2012), 77 FR 72425 (December 5, 2012) (SR-NYSEArca-
2012-129). The Exchange proposes non-substantive changes to (1) 
replace the description of Retail Order in the Fee Schedule with 
cross-references to Rule 7.44(a)(3), and (2) change a reference in 
the Retail Order Cross-Asset Tier description from CADV to ADV.
    \17\ The credits under the Retail Order Tiers apply only to 
orders that provide liquidity. An RMO Retail Order that executes 
against an RPI or other price-improving interest within the Retail 
Liquidity Program would always be considered to remove liquidity 
(e.g., the RPI or other price-improving interest would provide 
liquidity and the RMO Retail Order would remove liquidity). In 
contrast, Retail Orders outside of the Retail Liquidity Program 
could either provide or remove liquidity, depending on the 
circumstances. As described in note 14 above, the Retail Order Tier 
credits apply only to executions of Retails Orders that provide 
liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An ETP Holder would remain able to designate an order as a Retail 
Order for purposes of the Retail Order Tiers without designating the 
order as an RMO Retail Order for purposes of the Retail Liquidity 
Program. The result would be that the Retail Order would not be 
eligible to execute against RPIs or receive the $0.0005 credit proposed 
herein. An ETP Holder could also designate an order as an RMO Retail 
Order for purposes of the Retail Liquidity Program and as a Retail 
Order for purposes of the Retail Order Tiers, in which case the 
Exchange would consider the order to be an RMO Retail Order within the 
Retail Liquidity Program for any executions against RPIs or other 
price-improving interest and then just a Retail Order for purposes of 
the Retail Order Tiers for any executions outside of the Retail 
Liquidity Program against liquidity on the NYSE Arca Book.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ While unlikely, an ETP Holder could also designate an order 
as an RMO Retail Order for purposes of the Retail Liquidity Program 
but not as a Retail Order for purposes of the Retail Order Tiers. 
The result would be that executions of the RMO Retail Order against 
RPIs or other price-improving interest within the Retail Liquidity 
Program would count toward the qualification thresholds of the 
Retail Order Tiers. However, any subsequent executions of the order 
against the NYSE Arca Book would not be considered Retail Order 
executions and would therefore neither count toward the 
qualification thresholds of the Retail Order Tiers nor be eligible 
for the Retail Order Tier credits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Open Orders
    The Exchange proposes to amend footnote 10 in the Fee Schedule, 
which relates to Market Maker fees and credits, to eliminate the 
restriction that credits will not be applied to open orders (e.g., 
``Good Till Cancelled'' or ``GTC'' Orders) executed after the trading 
date on which they were entered. The Exchange is eliminating the 
restriction to encourage more orders to be submitted and enhance 
liquidity on the Exchange.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The Exchange recently made a similar change to non-Market 
Maker pricing. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71214 
(December 31, 2013), 79 FR 873 (January 7, 2014) (SR-NYSEArca-2013-
146).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other 
issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that ETP Holders 
would have in complying with the proposed change.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent 
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\20\ in general, and furthers the 
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\21\ in 
particular, because it provides for the equitable allocation of 
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and 
other persons using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate 
between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that a significant percentage of the orders of 
individual investors are executed over-the-counter.\22\ While the 
Exchange believes that markets and price discovery optimally function 
through the interactions of diverse flow types, it also believes that 
growth in internalization has required differentiation of retail order 
flow from other order flow types.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Concept Release on Equity Market Structure, Securities 
Exchange Act Release No. 61358 (January 14, 2010), 75 FR 3594 
(January 21, 2010) (``Concept Release'') (noting that dark pools and 
internalizing broker-dealers executed approximately 25.4% of share 
volume in September 2009). See also Mary L. Schapiro, Strengthening 
Our Equity Market Structure (Speech at the Economic Club of New 
York, Sept. 7, 2010) (available on the Commission's Web site). In 
her speech, Chairman Schapiro noted that nearly 30 percent of volume 
in U.S.-listed equities was executed in venues that do not display 
their liquidity or make it generally available to the public and the 
percentage was increasing nearly every month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Overall, the Exchange believes that the proposed change is 
reasonable because it would establish pricing designed to increase 
competition among execution venues, encourage additional liquidity and 
offer the potential for price improvement to retail investors. The 
Exchange believes that the $0.0005 credit proposed for RMO Retail Order 
executions against RPIs or other price-improving interest is reasonable 
because it would create a financial incentive to bring additional 
retail order flow to a public market. This rate is also reasonable 
because it is the same rate that applies to RMO Retail Orders under the 
NYSE Retail Liquidity Program.\23\ The Exchange also believes that not

[[Page 15379]]

charging RLPs and non-RLPs for their executions of RPIs against RMO 
Retail Orders is reasonable because it could contribute to robust 
amounts of price-improved, RPI liquidity being available for 
interaction with the RMO Retail Orders and could therefore result in 
greater price improvement for RMO Retail Orders. The Exchange also 
believes that applying Tiered or Basic rates to executions of other 
price-improving interest against RMO Retail Orders is reasonable 
because such other price-improving interest would be included within 
the Retail Liquidity Program for potential interaction with RMO Retail 
Orders, but without being so designated by ETP Holders, and because 
Tiered or Basic rates are the rates that would otherwise apply to such 
other price-improving interest absent their interaction with RMO Retail 
Orders. The Exchange also believes that it is reasonable to apply 
Tiered or Basic rates to RMO Retail Orders that execute outside of the 
Retail Liquidity Program as just Retail Orders (i.e., against the NYSE 
Arca Book or routed away from the Exchange and executed on another 
market) because these are the rates that would otherwise apply to such 
orders absent their designation as an RMO Retail Order within the 
Retail Liquidity Program (i.e., just as a Retail Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Rule 7.44 is based on NYSE Rule 107C, which governs NYSE's 
``Retail Liquidity Program.'' The NYSE Retail Liquidity Program was 
approved by the Commission and commenced operations on August 1, 
2012. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67347 (July 3, 2012), 
77 FR 40673 (July 10, 2012) (SR-NYSE-2011-55; SR-NYSEAmex-2011-84).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The pricing proposed herein is equitable and, like the Retail 
Liquidity Program itself, is not designed to permit unfair 
discrimination, but instead to promote a competitive process around 
retail executions such that retail investors would receive better 
prices than they currently do through bilateral internalization 
arrangements. The Exchange also believes that it is equitable and not 
unfairly discriminatory for orders designated as RMO Retail Orders 
within the Retail Liquidity Program to count toward determining 
qualifications for the Retail Order Tiers because the characteristics 
of RMO Retail Orders and other Retail Orders are the same. This is also 
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because these existing 
pricing tiers would remain available to all ETP Holders, including 
those ETP Holders that choose to designate an order as an RMO Retail 
Order for purposes of the Retail Liquidity Program and as a Retail 
Order for purposes of the Retail Order Tiers.
    The proposed pricing could result in an RPI receiving a rate (i.e., 
free) that is inferior to the rate received by other price-improving 
interest (e.g., a $0.0015 per share credit under Basic Rates for a Mid-
Point Passive Liquidity Order that provides liquidity to the NYSE Arca 
Book), even when both execute against an RMO Retail Order. The Exchange 
believes that this is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because 
RPIs would only execute against RMO Retail Orders, whereas other price-
improving interest could execute against RMO Retail Orders or other 
marketable interest, including non-retail liquidity.\24\ In this 
regard, and as previously recognized by the Commission, ``markets 
generally distinguish between individual retail investors, whose orders 
are considered desirable by liquidity providers because such retail 
investors are presumed on average to be less informed about short-term 
price movements, and professional traders, whose orders are presumed on 
average to be more informed.'' \25\ The Exchange has sought to balance 
this view in setting the pricing of RPIs compared to other price-
improving interest, recognizing that the ability to limit interaction 
only to RMO Retail Orders could be a potential benefit applicable only 
to RPIs. This is also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because 
the use of RPIs by RLPs and non-RLPs is voluntary. ETP Holders that 
perceive that the potential advantages of interacting with RMO Retail 
Orders outweigh the potential costs (i.e., providing price improvement 
and potential inferior pricing as compared to other price-improving 
interest) may choose to utilize RPIs, but those that do not are free to 
forgo involvement in the Retail Liquidity Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ This is also similar to the manner in which the NASDAQ 
Stock Market, LLC (``NASDAQ'') applies pricing for its ``Retail 
Price Improvement Program.'' See NASDAQ Rule 7018(g).
    \25\ See SR-NYSE-2011-55, supra note 23 at 40679-80 (citing the 
Concept Release).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that eliminating the restriction on open 
orders in footnote 10 in the Fee Schedule and making credits available 
to open orders that execute after the day that they are entered is 
reasonable because it may encourage more open orders to be submitted, 
which may enhance liquidity on the Exchange. The Exchange believes that 
the proposed change to footnote 10 in the Fee Schedule is equitable and 
not unfairly discriminatory because all ETP Holders would have the 
opportunity to earn credits for open orders that do not execute on the 
day entered.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant 
competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement 
regarding the burden on competition.
    For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is 
consistent with the Act.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\26\ the Exchange 
believes that the proposed rule change would not impose any burden on 
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the 
purposes of the Act. Instead, the Exchange believes that the proposed 
rule change would increase competition among execution venues, 
encourage additional liquidity, and offer the potential for price 
improvement to retail investors. In this regard, the Exchange believes 
that the transparency and competitiveness of operating a program such 
as the Retail Liquidity Program on an exchange market, and the pricing 
related thereto, would encourage competition and result in better 
prices for retail investors. The Exchange believes that the proposed 
change to footnote 10 in the Fee Schedule would not impose a burden on 
competition but rather will create an incentive to submit open orders 
to the Exchange, thereby promoting competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly 
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor 
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be 
excessive or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more 
favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust 
its fees and rebates to remain competitive with other exchanges and 
with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from 
compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. 
Because competitors are free to modify their own fees and credits in 
response, and because market participants may readily adjust their 
order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which 
fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is 
extremely limited. As a result of all of these considerations, the 
Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the 
ability of member organizations or competing order execution venues to 
maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.

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.

[[Page 15380]]

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to 
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \27\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 
19b-4 \28\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other 
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \28\ 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 under 
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \29\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed 
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 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 rule-comments@sec.gov. Please include 
File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2014-22 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities 
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2014-22. 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-NYSEARCA-2014-22 and should be submitted on or before 
April 9, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-05988 Filed 3-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P