Document ID: SEC-2014-1087-0001
Agency: sec
Document Type: Notice
Title: Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed RuleChanges: NYSE MKT, LLC
Posted Date: 2014-07-01T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 126 (Tuesday, July 1, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37380-37384]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15354]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72469; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2014-52]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and 
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the NYSE Amex 
Options Fee Schedule by Adopting Fees and Rebates for a New Electronic 
Crossing Mechanism Called the CUBE Auction

June 25, 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 June 12, 2014, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE 
MKT'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission 
(``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\ 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 Amex Options Fee Schedule 
(``Fee Schedule'') by adopting fees and rebates for a new electronic 
crossing mechanism called the CUBE Auction. 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 the 
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 adopt fees and 
rebates for ATP Holders who participate in an electronic crossing 
mechanism known as a Customer Best Execution Auction (``CUBE Auction'' 
or ``Auction'') pursuant to Rule 971.1NY.\4\ The Exchange anticipates 
that the CUBE Auction mechanism will be implemented in June 2014 \5\ 
and therefore proposes to add the CUBE Auction fees and rebates to the 
Fee Schedule effective with this filing so that such fees and rebates 
will be in place once the CUBE Auction mechanism is implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72025 (April 25, 
2014) (SR-NYSEMKT-2014-17) (Order approving adoption of new Rule 
971.1NY).
    \5\ The Exchange will not implement the CUBE Auction mechanism 
until the proposed rule changes to Rule 971.1NY set forth in SR-
NYSEMKT-2014-51 are operative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CUBE Auction allows an ATP Holder to guarantee the execution of 
a limit order it represents as agent on behalf of a public customer, 
broker dealer, or any other entity via the CUBE Auction. This agency 
order is referred to as the CUBE Order.\6\ The ATP Holder that submits 
the CUBE Order (the ``Initiating Participant'') agrees to guarantee the 
execution of the CUBE Order by submitting a contra-side order (``Contra 
Order'') representing principal interest or interest it has solicited 
to trade with the CUBE Order.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Rule 971.1NY(a).
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the Contra Order would guarantee the CUBE Order an 
execution, the purpose of the Auction is to provide the opportunity for 
price improvement for the CUBE Order as well as the opportunity for 
other market participants to interact with the CUBE Order. Accordingly, 
the Exchange will notify market participants when an Auction is 
occurring so that they may have an opportunity to participate.
    Once initiated, a CUBE Auction is announced via a broadcast 
message, known as a Request For Response (``RFR'').\8\ Any ATP Holder 
may respond to the RFR, either as principal or on an agency basis, 
provided that such response is properly marked specifying price, size, 
and side of the market (``RFR Response'') and is submitted during the 
Response Time Interval. RFR Responses include GTX Orders, which are 
non-displayed orders with a time-in-force condition for the Response 
Time Interval of the CUBE Auction, as well as any other quote or order 
on the opposite side of the market in the same series as the CUBE Order 
that is not marked GTX, is received during the Response Time Interval, 
and is eligible to participate within the range of permissible 
executions specified for that Auction.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Rule 971.1NY(c)(2)(A).
    \9\ See Rule 971.1NY(c)(2)(C).
    \10\ As Exchange noted in its recent filing related to the CUBE 
Auction (see SR-NYSEMKT-2014-51), the Exchange intends to issue 
guidance advising ATP Holders that Contra Orders for the account of 
a Customer may not be entered into a CUBE Auction, which guidance is 
consistent with how other markets operate electronic auction 
mechanisms. See id., n. 9. As such, the Contra Order Fee will only 
apply to Non-Customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, there are three ways to participate in a CUBE 
Auction: (i) As an agency order, which is known as the CUBE Order; (ii) 
As the order guaranteeing the execution of the CUBE Order, which is 
known as the Contra Order; and (iii) any other interest that is 
eligible to participate in the Auction, which is known as an RFR 
Response. The Exchange is proposing to charge for participation in the 
CUBE Auction based on the following schedule of fees:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Rate per contract
                                                     standard options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CUBE Order Fee Customer--both Penny Pilot and                      $0.00
 Non-Penny Pilot...............................
CUBE Order Fee Non-Customer--both Penny Pilot                       0.20
 and Non-Penny Pilot...........................
Contra Order Fee--both Penny Pilot and Non-                         0.05
 Penny Pilot \10\..............................
RFR Response Fee Customer--both Penny Pilot and                     0.00
 Non-Penny Pilot...............................
RFR Response Fee Non-Customer--Penny Pilot.....                     0.55
RFR Response Fee Non-Customer--Non-Penny Pilot.                     0.90
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 37381]]

    The Exchange is also proposing to adopt rebates to be paid to 
Initiating Participants for each CUBE Order contract that does not 
trade with the Contra Order. The proposed rebates are shown below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  CUBE Auction rebates--paid to the initiating
  participant on each CUBE order contract that     Per contract rebate
      does not trade with the Contra order           standard options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CUBE Auction Rebate--Penny Pilot...............                    $0.40
CUBE Auction Rebate--Non--Penny Pilot..........                     0.80
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the CUBE Auction is an entirely new mechanism designed to 
compete with existing functionality on other exchanges,\11\ the 
Exchange is seeking to attract new business to the Exchange. As such, 
the Exchange does not believe that execution volume attributable to the 
CUBE Auction should be included within the existing NYSE Amex Options 
Market Maker volume tiers or fee caps, within the MAC Subsidy, or 
within the existing OFP Electronic ADV Tiers, which were established in 
acknowledgement of volumes that the Exchange could not attract absent 
the ability to offer an electronic crossing mechanism. As such, the 
Exchange proposes to amend the appropriate sections of the Fee Schedule 
and their associated endnotes, specifically endnotes 5 and 17, to 
exclude any volumes attributable to the CUBE Auction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See BOX Options Exchange LLC (``BOX Options Exchange'') 
Rule 7150, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE'') 
Rule 6.74A, International Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE'') Rule 
723, and NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'') Rule 1080(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, the Exchange is proposing to add text to existing endnote 9 
on marketing charges to clarify that CUBE Order executions will not 
result in the collection of marketing charges
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent 
with the provisions of Section 6(b) \12\ of the Act, in general, and 
Section 6(b)(4) and (5) \13\ of the Act, in particular, in that it is 
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, 
fees, and other charges among its members and other persons using its 
facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between customers, 
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed fees for CUBE Orders executed in 
the CUBE Auction where Customers are charged $0.00 per contract and 
non-Customers are charged $0.20 per standard option contract are 
reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory for the following 
reasons. First, allowing Customers to trade for free while charging 
non-Customers has long been viewed as reasonable, equitable and not 
unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange notes that this pricing 
differentiation between Customers and non-Customers is evidenced in 
multiple places within the existing fee schedule of the Exchange, such 
as for fees applicable to Qualified Contingent Cross (``QCC) 
Orders.\14\ Further, the Exchange notes that charging the agency side 
of a crossing order a different rate based on capacity (i.e., Customer 
vs. non-Customer) is also common among other exchanges that offer 
similar electronic crossing mechanisms. For example, the ISE, in Select 
and Non-Select Symbols, charges Priority Customer Crossing Orders $0.00 
per contract while charging non-Priority Customer Crossing Orders $0.20 
per contract.\15\ Additionally, BOX Options Exchange charges Customer 
PIP Orders $0.00 per contract while charging Professional Customer and 
Broker Dealer PIP Orders $0.37 per contract and Market Maker PIP Orders 
a variable rate based on volume from $0.13 to $0.35 per contract.\16\ 
Accordingly, the proposed CUBE Order fees for both Customers and non-
Customers are within the range of fees charged to Customers and non-
Customers on other exchanges for executions within similar electronic 
crossing mechanisms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See the fee schedule for NYSE Amex Options located here: 
https://globalderivatives.nyx.com/sites/globalderivatives.nyx.com/files/nyse_amex_options_fee_schedule_for_6-2-14.pdf, which 
charges Customers who participate in a QCC trade $0.00 and non-
Customers $0.20 per contract.
    \15\ See the ISE fee schedule dated May 1, 2014 located here: 
http://www.ise.com/assets/documents/OptionsExchange/legal/fee/ISE_fee_schedule.pdf. Note that in Non-Select Symbols, Market Makers 
are charged a slightly higher rate for Crossing Orders of $0.22 per 
contract.
    \16\ See BOX Options Exchange fee schedule dated March 2014 
located here: http://boxexchange.com/assets/BOX_Fee_Schedule.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the Exchange believes the proposed fees for Contra 
Orders executed in the CUBE Auction where non-Customers are charged 
$0.05 per standard option contract are reasonable, equitable and not 
unfairly discriminatory for the following reasons. The Exchange notes 
that charging the contra side of a crossing order that guarantees the 
execution of the agency order is common among other exchanges that 
offer similar electronic crossing mechanisms and the rate proposed by 
the Exchange is comparable to the charged by other exchanges. For 
example, ISE charges non-Priority Customer Crossing Orders $0.20; \17\ 
the CBOE charges Non-Customer AIM Contra Orders $0.05 per contract and 
CBOE Market Makers a variable rate between $0.03 and $0.23 based on 
volume, plus marketing charges of $0.25 in Penny issues and $0.65 in 
non-Penny issues if they are contra to a Customer order.\18\ 
Accordingly, the Exchange's proposed Contra Order fees for non-
Customers are within the range of fees charged to non-Customers on 
other exchanges for executions within similar electronic crossing 
mechanisms.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Supra n. 15.
    \18\ See CBOE fee schedule dated June 3, 2014 located here: 
http://www.cboe.com/publish/feeschedule/CBOEFeeSchedule.pdf.
    \19\ See supra n. 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Likewise, the Exchange believes the proposed fees for RFR Responses 
executed in a CUBE Auction where Customers are charged $0.00 per 
contract and non-Customers are charged $0.55 per standard option 
contract in Penny Pilot issues and $0.90 per standard option contract 
in non-Penny Pilot issues are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly 
discriminatory for the following reasons. First, allowing Customers to 
trade for free while charging non-Customers has long been viewed as 
reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange 
notes that this pricing differentiation between Customers and non-
Customers is evidenced in multiple places within the existing fee 
schedule of the Exchange, such as for fees applicable to QCC 
Orders.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Supra n. 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange notes that charging a participant who 
responds to an auction a different rate based on capacity (i.e., 
Customer vs. non-Customer) is also common among other exchanges that 
offer similar electronic crossing mechanisms. For example, BOX Options 
Exchange charges Customers who respond to an auction with Improvement 
Orders $0.50 per contract for Penny issues and Customer Improvement 
Orders in non-Penny issues are charged $0.90 per contract. At

[[Page 37382]]

the same time, the BOX Options Exchange charges Professional Customers 
and Broker Dealers who respond to an auction $0.72 per contract in 
Penny issues and $1.12 per contract in non-Penny issues, while charging 
BOX Market Makers who respond either $0.65 in Penny issues or $1.05 in 
non-Penny issues.\21\ Additionally, CBOE charges participants who 
interact with their electronic crossing mechanism for price improvement 
regular electronic rates. For example, Customers are charged $0.00, 
CBOE Clearing Trading Permit Holder Proprietary trades are charged 
$0.35 per contract, CBOE Market Makers pay a variable rate based on 
volume from $0.03 to $0.23 plus marketing charges of $0.25 in Penny 
issues and $0.65 in non-Penny issues if they interact with a Customer 
order in the mechanism, Broker Dealers are charged $0.45 and $0.60 for 
trading in Penny and non-Penny issues respectively, and finally 
Professional Customers are charged $0.30.\22\ Accordingly, the proposed 
RFR Response fees for both Customers and non-Customers are within the 
range of fees charged to Customers and non-Customers on other exchanges 
for executions within similar electronic crossing mechanisms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Supra n. 16. The BOX fee schedule has several parts that 
must be taken collectively to arrive at the all in cost of 
responding to an auction. For example, a Customer who responds to an 
auction with an Improvement Order will pay $0.50 per contract in 
Penny issues. The $0.50 fee represents the Improvement Order fee of 
$0.15 from Section I of the fee schedule, plus the $0.35 fee to add 
liquidity in Penny issues quoted with an MPV of $0.01 from Section 
II of the schedule.
    \22\ Supra n. 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed rebates paid to Initiating 
Participants--$0.40 for Penny Pilot issues and $0.80 for non-Penny 
Pilot issues for each CUBE Order contract that does not trade with the 
Contra Order in a CUBE Auction are reasonable, equitable and not 
unfairly discriminatory for the following reasons. First, the Exchange 
notes that paying the participant who submits orders into an electronic 
crossing mechanism a rebate is not new or novel. For example, the ISE 
pays a PIM Break Up Rebate of $0.35 per contract in Select Symbols for 
contracts submitted to a PIM that do not trade with their contra order. 
Additionally, ISE pays a volume-based rebate for volumes executed in an 
electronic crossing mechanism--including PIM--that ranges from $0.00 to 
$0.11 per contract. This translates to a maximum rebate per contract of 
$0.46.\23\ Similarly, BOX Options Exchange pays a per contract credit 
to PIP Orders of $0.35 for Penny Issues with a $0.01 MPV and $0.65 for 
issues that trade with a MPV greater than $0.01. Additionally, BOX 
Options Exchange has a rebate for all PIP and orders of less than 250 
contracts that is payable to the PIP Order which ranges from $0.00 to 
$0.17 per contract based on PIP volume submitted to the exchange. This 
translates to a maximum rebate of $0.82.\24\ Accordingly, the proposed 
CUBE Auction rebates for Penny issues and non-Penny issues to be paid 
to Initiating Participants for each CUBE Order contract that don't 
trade with the Contra Order are within the range of rebates paid on 
other exchanges for executions within similar electronic crossing 
mechanisms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Supra n. 15.
    \24\ Supra n. 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that excluding CUBE Auction volumes from 
specified fee caps, volume tiers, volume thresholds and rebate 
programs, including: (i) The $350,000 per month NYSE Amex Options 
Market Maker cap and the associated 50,000 contract ADV threshold and 
the 3,500,000 contract monthly volume threshold; (ii) the MAC Subsidy; 
and (iii) the OFP Electronic ADV Tiers, is reasonable, equitable and 
not unfairly discriminatory for the following reasons. First, the 
Exchange notes that the specified fee caps, volume thresholds, tiers or 
rebates were established prior to the introduction of the CUBE Auction 
electronic crossing mechanism. With the CUBE Auction, the Exchange 
proposes to target new volume to the Exchange to compete with 
electronic crossing mechanisms available on other exchanges. Any volume 
that would be executed as part of the CUBE Auction was not factored 
into the creation of the Exchange's previously existing fee caps, 
volume thresholds, tiers, or rebates. As such, the Exchange believes it 
is reasonable to exclude volumes that will result from the CUBE Auction 
from the previously established fee caps, volume thresholds, tiers or 
rebates because market participants would not be using the new CUBE 
Auction mechanism in order to meet the respective fee caps, volume 
thresholds, tiers or rebates. Further, such exclusion of volumes 
resulting from the CUBE Auction from the fee caps, volume thresholds, 
tiers or rebates established before the implementation of the CUBE 
Auction is also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as it applies 
to all participants uniformly.
    The Exchange believes that specifying that CUBE Order executions 
are not subject to marketing charges is reasonable, equitable and not 
unfairly discriminatory for the following reasons. First, the Exchange 
notes that the CUBE Auction is an electronic crossing mechanism, 
similar to the QCC Order type, with the exception that CUBE Auctions 
are designed to offer the opportunity for price improvement. The 
Exchange does not currently collect marketing charges from NYSE Amex 
Options Market Makers that trade contra to a Customer order as part of 
a QCC trade. Because the Exchange is seeking to encourage all 
participants, including NYSE Amex Options Market Makers, to respond to 
CUBE Auction RFR messages, the Exchange believes that collecting 
marketing charges from NYSE Amex Options Market Makers may discourage 
such participation. By encouraging as many participants as possible to 
respond, the Exchange believes that it will lead to greater 
opportunities for price improvement for all CUBE Orders, not just those 
entered on behalf of Customers. For these reasons, the Exchange 
believes that excluding CUBE Orders from the marketing charges program 
is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed fees and rebates for 
participation in the CUBE Auction are not going to have an impact on 
intra-market competition based on the total cost for participants to 
transact as respondents to the Auction as compared to the cost for 
participants to engage in non-Auction electronic transactions on the 
Exchange. As noted above (and discussed further below), the Exchange 
believes that the proposed pricing for the CUBE Auction is comparable 
to that of other exchanges offering similar electronic crossing 
mechanisms, and the Exchange believes that, based on experience with 
electronic price improvement crossing mechanisms on other markets, 
market participants understand that the price-improving benefits 
offered by the Auction justify and offset the transaction costs 
associated with Auction.
    For example, NYSE Amex Options Market Makers who trade fewer than 
50,000 contracts ADV are currently charged $0.20 per contract. Further, 
when NYSE Amex Options Market Makers trade electronically against a 
Customer order they are also potentially subject to incurring Marketing 
Charges of either $0.25 or $0.65 per contract for Penny and non-Penny 
Pilot issues for a total charge of either $0.45 or $0.85 per contract. 
Within the Auction, the same NYSE Amex Options Market Maker would be 
charged either $0.55 or $0.90 per contract for Penny and non-Penny 
Pilot issues. The Exchange does not believe this differential--between 
non-Auction transactions and Auction

[[Page 37383]]

transactions--will cause participants to refrain from responding to 
Auctions. The Exchange notes that there is a difference in the risk to 
a participant between quoting as a Market Maker and in responding to an 
Auction. In the former, a Market Maker may be at risk in hundreds of 
thousands of series in which they may be obligated to provide firm 
quotes, any of which may result in a trade at any time.\25\ By way of 
comparison, when responding to an Auction, the Market Maker--or any ATP 
Holder for that matter--has a greater certainty of execution that has a 
maximum execution size, based on the number of contracts in the 
Auction, and a defined time for execution, which will occur within a 
maximum of 750 milliseconds. By contrast, a Market Maker has no way of 
knowing when any one of the quotes they have in the market place might 
trade. Given this reality, the Exchange expects to see robust 
competition within the Auction, despite the apparent difference in non-
Auction versus Auction pricing. The Exchange has primarily focused on 
Market Makers in this discussion as Market Makers are the largest 
source of liquidity on the Exchange and the Exchange believes that 
Market Makers would be most likely to submit RFR Responses to a CUBE 
Auction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Rules 925NY and 925.1NY.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated above, the Exchange also notes that differentials between 
non-auction and auction pricing exist on other exchanges that offer 
comparable electronic crossing mechanisms. For example, on the ISE, 
Market Maker Plus participants can earn a rebate of between $0.20 and 
$0.25 per contract as a ``maker'' of liquidity where they post quotes 
that subsequently get traded against. That same participant who 
responds to a ``Crossing Order'' will pay $0.45 per contract. Thus, the 
difference between non-auction and auction transaction pricing can be 
as high as $0.70 per contract (calculated as the difference between 
earning a $0.25 credit and paying a Response Fee For Crossing Orders of 
$0.45), compared to the $0.10 price differential per contract proposed 
for NYSE Amex Options Market Makers, as discussed above.\26\ Given 
these facts, the Exchange believes that the differential between non-
Auction and Auction pricing will not prove to be a burden on 
competition within the Exchange and the cost of participating in the 
Auction is such that there will be robust competition for all size 
orders within the Auction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Supra n. 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed fees and rebates for 
participation in the CUBE Auction are reasonable because they are 
designed to attract new volume to the Exchange, which will benefit all 
participants by offering greater price discovery, increased 
transparency, and an increased opportunity to trade on the Exchange. 
Further, as the relative level of the fees and/or rebates are 
consistent with the range of similar fees and rebates throughout the 
industry, the Exchange believes such fees and rebates are also 
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory.
    The Exchange also believes that fees and rebates for participation 
in the CUBE Auction are reasonable because they are designed to enhance 
the competitiveness of the Exchange, particularly with respect to those 
exchanges that offer their own electronic crossing mechanism.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Supra n. 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange 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 that 
the proposed change will enhance the competiveness of the Exchange 
relative to other exchanges that offer their own electronic crossing 
mechanism.\28\ 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. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually 
review, and consider adjusting, its fees and credits to remain 
competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described above, the 
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this 
competitive environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to 
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \29\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 
19b-4 \30\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other 
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \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 under 
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \31\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed 
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 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 No. SR-NYSEMKT-2014-52 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-NYSEMKT-2014-52. This 
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To 
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, 
please use only one method.
    The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet 
Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the 
submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with 
respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, 
and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change 
between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be 
withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 
552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the 
Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 
20549, on official business days between the hours of

[[Page 37384]]

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-NYSEMKT-2014-
52, and should be submitted on or before July 22, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-15354 Filed 6-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P