Document ID: SEC-2013-1790-0001
Agency: sec
Document Type: Notice
Title: Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: NYSE Arca, Inc.
Posted Date: 2013-10-22T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 204 (Tuesday, October 22, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62923-62926]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24669]

[[Page 62923]]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70677; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2013-103]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing 
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Adding a New Rule 
To Adopt Price Protection Filters for Electronic Complex Orders

October 11, 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 3, 2013, 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 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 the 
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to add a new rule to adopt price protection 
filters for Electronic Complex Orders. 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 
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 6.91-Electronic Complex 
Order Trading by establishing new Commentary .04 [sic] governing price 
protections filters applicable to electronically entered Complex 
Orders.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Exchange Rule 6.62(e) defines a Complex Order as any order 
involving the simultaneous purchase and/or sale of two or more 
different option series in the same underlying security, for the 
same account, in a ratio that is equal to or greater than one-to-
three (.333) and less than or equal to three-to-one (3.00) and for 
the purpose of executing a particular investment strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As defined in NYSE Arca Rule 6.91, which governs Electronic Complex 
Order trading, an ``Electronic Complex Order'' is a Complex Order 
entered into the NYSE Arca System (``System''), which is routed to the 
Complex Matching Engine (``CME'') for possible execution. As set forth 
in Rule 6.91, the CME is the mechanism in which Electronic Complex 
Orders are executed against each other or against individual quotes and 
orders in the Consolidated Book. Electronic Complex Orders that are not 
immediately executed by the CME are routed to the Consolidated Book.
    Electronic Complex Orders are entered into the System at a net 
debit/credit price for the entire strategy. Complex Orders do not 
include specified prices for any single series component (``leg'') of 
the Electronic Complex Order. Bids and offers on Electronic Complex 
Orders may be expressed in any decimal price, and the legs(s) of an 
Electronic Complex Order may be executed in one cent increments 
regardless of the minimum price variation (``MPV'') \5\ otherwise 
applicable to the individual legs of the order. No leg of an Electronic 
Complex Order submitted to the System will be executed at a price 
outside the NYSE Arca best bid/offer for that leg. However, Electronic 
Complex Orders may be executed without consideration of prices for the 
same Electronic Complex Order that might be available on other 
exchanges. Individual leg(s) of an Electronic Complex Order may be 
executed at a price without regard to the National Best Bid or Offer 
(``NBBO'') as disseminated by the Options Price Reporting Authority 
(``OPRA'') for that same leg.\6\ In additional, neither Electronic 
Complex Orders nor the individual legs that comprise an Electronic 
Complex Order are eligible for routing to other exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The minimum price variations (``MPV'') are equivalent to the 
Trading Differentials as prescribed in Rule 6.72(a).
    \6\ OPRA collects and disseminates the best bid, and the best 
offer for all option series as submitted by each options exchange. 
The NBBO represents the consolidated best bid and the best offer for 
each series, as disseminated by OPRA. Pursuant to Rule 6.94(b)(7), 
Complex Trades are exempt from NBBO trade through liability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that while it is appropriate to exempt 
individual leg prices of Electronic Complex Orders from NBBO trade 
through liability, there is still need for some level of price 
protection for Electronic Complex Orders that are entered at a net 
debit/credit price that is greater (less) than the NBBO market for the 
Electronic Complex Order as a whole. The Exchange now proposes to 
enhance the processing of Electronic Complex Order by introducing a 
Price Protection Filter for Electronic Complex Orders (``Filter'') that 
will automatically reject an incoming Electronic Complex Order if the 
net debit/credit limit price of the order is greater (less) than the 
derived net debit/credit NBBO \7\ for the contra-side of the same 
strategy by a set amount as specified by the Exchange (``Specified 
Amount''). Electronic Complex Orders will be subject to the Filter, and 
thus afforded price protection, provided OPRA is disseminating an NBBO 
market for each series component of the Electronic Complex Order at the 
time the order is received by the Exchange. The Exchange believes that 
the proposed price protection filters will prevent the execution of an 
incoming Electronic Complex Orders which is priced so far away from the 
prevailing NBBO market for the contra-side of the same strategy, that 
an execution of such order could cause significant price dislocation in 
the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange will calculate the derived contra-side NBBO for 
an Electronic Complex Order using the prevailing markets for all 
individual legs of the order as disseminated by OPRA at the time the 
order is received by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Specified Amount is applicable to the net debit/credit price of 
the Electronic Complex Order and is not applicable to any single leg of 
the order. The Exchange proposes to specify the following amounts as 
the price protection settings for the Filter.

    .10 for orders where the smallest MPV of any leg of the 
Electronic Complex Order is .01;
    .15 for orders where the smallest MPV of any leg of the 
Electronic Complex Order is .05;
    and .30 for orders where the smallest MPV of any leg of the 
Electronic Complex Order is .10.
    For Electronic Complex Orders that are entered on a 1x1 ratio, 
the Filter will be applied by the Specified Amounts above (.10, .15, 
or .30).
    For Electronic Complex Orders that are entered on an uneven 
ratio (2x3 for example) where the MPV on all legs is the same, the 
Filter will be applied by the Specified Amount multiplied by the 
smallest contract

[[Page 62924]]

size leg of the ratio (.20, .30, or .60 on the 2x3 example).
    For Electronic Complex Orders that are entered on an uneven 
ratio (2x3 for example) where the MPV of the legs are not the same 
(.10 and .05 for example), the Filter will be applied by taking the 
lesser of; the Specified Amount applicable to the smallest leg of 
the Electronic Complex Order and multiplied by the contract size of 
that leg (.60 in this example), or the Specified Amount of the 
largest leg of the Electronic Complex Order multiplied by the 
contract size of that leg (.45 in this example).
    The price protection filter will work as described below.

    Upon receipt by the Exchange of an Electronic Complex Order, the 
Filter will check the net debit/credit price of the order against the 
contra-side derived NBBO for the same strategy at the time of order 
entry to determine whether the order's limit is within the specified 
price. The contra-side NBBO will be derived from the net debit/credit 
market for the same strategy by using the NBBO prices for the 
individual leg markets as disseminated by OPRA that when aggregated 
create a derived NBBO for that same strategy.\8\ The bid/ask of the 
individual leg markets comprising the derived NBBO may be as 
disseminated by one exchange, or comprised of a bid from one exchange 
and an offer from a different exchange. The Filter will always use the 
best bid and offer for each leg of the Electronic Complex Order when 
determining what the derived NBBO is for the same strategy. If the 
incoming Electronic Complex Order is priced at a net debit/credit such 
that an execution could occur on NYSE Arca Options at a price that was 
greater (less) than the derived contra-side NBBO by any amount 
exceeding the Specified Amount for that same strategy, the order would 
be rejected back to the OTP Holder with a reject code explaining the 
reason for the reject. This would hold true even if the proposed 
execution was within the Exchange's BBO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Markets for Electronic Complex Orders that may be available 
in the NYSE Arca Complex Order Book (``COB'') or in a competing 
exchanges complex order book, or spread book, are not disseminated 
by OPRA or included in NBBO calculations and will not be used by the 
Exchange to derive at an NBBO market for an Electronic Complex 
Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By rejecting the aggressively priced Electronic Complex Order, the 
Filter prevents a possible execution from occurring at a price 
significantly worse than the derived contra-side NBBO.

Examples of Price Protection Filter

Example 1
    This example shows how the Filter is applied to an Electronic 
Complex Order priced at a net debit with leg markets having the same 
MPV. Assume the following:

MPV = .05
    Jan 20 calls--NBBO 2.00-2.10
    Jan 25 calls--NBBO 1.05-1.20

    The Exchange receives an incoming Electronic Complex Order to buy 
Jan 20 calls and sell Jan 25 calls, on a 1:1 ratio, priced at a 1.25 
debit. This would imply that the buyer would be willing to pay 1.25 for 
the strategy as a whole without regard to the prices of the individual 
leg markets. Upon receipt, this order would be routed to the CME for 
processing.
    Pursuant to this proposal, before routing the order to the CME the 
Filter will first check the derived contra-side NBBO net debit/credit 
market for the same strategy. In this case the NBBO market for the 
contra side of the same strategy is offered at 1.05 (this price is 
established by selling one Jan 20 for 2.10 and buying one Jan 25 for 
1.05). The Filter will then look at the NBBO price of smallest-priced 
leg of the Electronic Complex Order and apply the appropriate price 
protection amount as described above. Which for this example .15. 
Because the derived contra-side NBBO price of 1.05 is better than the 
limit price of the Electronic Complex Order by .20, which exceeds the 
Filter setting of .15, the System will not route the order to the CME 
for processing but will automatically reject the order back to the 
entering OTP Holder with a reject code explaining the reason for the 
rejection.
Example 2
    This example shows how the Filter is applied to an Electronic 
Complex Order priced at a net debit with leg markets having different 
MPVs.
    Assume the following:

MPV = .10 and .05
    Jan 20 calls--NBBO 5.00-5.30
    Jan 25 calls--NBBO 2.10-2.20

    The Exchange receives an incoming Electronic Complex Order to buy 
Jan 20 calls and sell Jan 25 calls, on a 1:1 ratio, priced at a 3.60 
debit. (This would imply that the buyer would be willing to pay 3.60 
for the strategy as a whole without regard to the prices of the 
individual leg markets). Upon receipt, this order would be routed to 
the CME for processing.
    As proposed, before routing the Electronic Complex Order to the 
CME, the Filter will first check the derived NBBO net debit/credit 
market for the contra side of the same strategy. In this case, the 
contra-side NBBO for the same strategy is offered at 3.20 (this price 
is established by selling one Jan 20 for 5.30 and buying one Jan 25 for 
2.10). The Filter will then look at the NBBO price of smallest priced 
leg of the Electronic Complex Order and apply the appropriate price 
protection amount as described above. Which for this example would be 
.15. Because the derived contra-side NBBO debit price of 3.20 is better 
than the limit price of the Electronic Complex Order by .40, which 
exceeds the Filter setting of .15, the System would automatically 
reject the order back to the entering OTP Holder with a reject code 
explaining the reason for the rejection.
Example 3
    This example shows how the Filter is applied to an Electronic 
Complex Order priced at a net credit with leg markets having the same 
MPV. Assume the following:

MPV = .01
    Jan 20 calls--NBBO 2.03-2.08
    Jan 25 calls--NBBO 1.00-1.01

    The Exchange receives an incoming Electronic Complex Order to sell 
Jan 20 call and buy Jan 25 call, priced at a .90 credit. (This would 
imply that the seller would be willing to receive .90 for the strategy 
as a whole without regard to the individual leg markets). Upon receipt, 
this order would be sent to the CME for processing.
    Pursuant to this proposal however, before routing the Electronic 
Complex Order to the CME the Filter will first check the derived NBBO 
net debit/credit market for the contra side of the same strategy. In 
this case the contra-side NBBO market is priced at 1.02 (this price is 
established by buying one Jan 20 for 2.03 and selling one Jan 25 for 
1.01). The Filter will then look at the NBBO price of smallest priced 
leg of the Electronic Complex Order and apply the appropriate price 
protection amount as described above. Which for this example would be 
.10. Because the derived contra-side NBBO price of 1.02 is better than 
the limit price of the Electronic Complex Order by .12, which exceeds 
the Filter setting of .10, the System would automatically reject the 
order back to the entering OTP Holder with a reject code explaining the 
reason for the rejection.
Example 4
    This example shows how the Filter is applied to an Electronic 
Complex Order priced at a net credit on an uneven ratio with leg 
markets having the same MPV. Assume the following:

MPV = .01
    Jan 20 calls--NBBO 2.03-2.08
    Jan 25 calls--NBBO 1.00-1.02

    The Exchange receives an incoming Electronic Complex Order to sell 
Jan 20 calls and buy Jan 25 calls, on a 2:3 ratio,

[[Page 62925]]

priced at a .75 credit. This would imply that the seller would be 
willing to receive .75 for the strategy as a whole without regard to 
the prices of the individual leg markets.
    As proposed, before routing the Electronic Complex Order to the CME 
the Filter will first check the derived NBBO net debit/credit market 
for contra side of the same strategy. In this case the contra-side NBBO 
market is priced at 1.00 (this price is established by buying two Jan 
20s for 2.03 each and selling three Jan 25s for 1.02 each (4.06 - 3.06 
= 1.00)). The Filter will then look at the NBBO price of smallest-
priced leg of the Electronic Complex Order and apply the appropriate 
price protection amount as described above. Which for this example 
would be .10. However, because this order was entered on a ratio where 
the smallest contract sized leg is greater than one contract, the 
Filter is applied to the aggregate of the small sized leg of the ratio, 
which in this case is .20 (.10 x 2 contracts). Because the derived 
contra-side NBBO price of 1.00 is better than the limit price of the 
Electronic Complex Order by .25, which exceeds the Filter setting of 
.20, the Filter will automatically reject the order back to the 
entering OTP Holder with a reject code explaining the reason for the 
rejection.
Example 5
    This example shows how the Filter is applied to an Electronic 
Complex Order priced at a net credit on an uneven ratio with leg 
markets having a different MPV. Assume the following:

MPV = .10 and .05
    Jan 20 calls--NBBO 4.10-4.20
    Jan 25 calls--NBBO 1.90-2.00

    The Exchange receives an incoming Electronic Complex Order to sell 
Jan 20 calls and buy Jan 25 calls, on a 2:3 ratio, priced at a 1.50 
credit. (This would imply that the seller would be willing to receive 
1.50 for the strategy as a whole without regard to the prices of the 
individual leg markets).
    As proposed, before routing the Electronic Complex Order to the 
CME, the Filter will first check the derived NBBO net debit/credit 
market for the contra side of same strategy. In this case the contra-
side NBBO market is priced at 2.20 (this price is established by buying 
two Jan 20s for 4.10 each and selling three Jan 25s for 2.00 each (8.20 
- 6.00 = 2.20)). The Filter will then look at two scenarios to 
determine what price protection level would apply. First, the Filter 
will look at the NBBO price of the leg of the Electronic Complex Order 
with the smallest contract size (Jan 20 leg) and determine the 
appropriate price protection amount. Which in this example would be 
.30. However, because the minimum contract size on the leg is greater 
than one, the price protection amount is applied to the aggregate 
contract size (2 contracts), which in this case would establish a 
Filter setting of .60 (.30 x 2 contracts). Next, the Filter will look 
at the NBBO price of the leg of the order with the largest contract 
size (Jan 25 leg) and determine the appropriate price protection 
amount, which in this case would be .15. However, because the minimum 
contract size on the leg is greater than one, the price protection 
amount is applied to the aggregate contract size of the leg (3 
contracts), which in this case would establish a Filter setting of .45 
(.15 x 3). The Filter will always apply the more conservative setting, 
which in this case would be .45. Because the derived contra-side NBBO 
price of 2.20 is better than the limit price of the Electronic Complex 
Order by .70, which exceeds the Filter setting of .45, the Filter would 
automatically reject the order back to the entering OTP Holder or OTP 
Firm.
    The Filter is not intended to either offer price protection to bids 
and offers at away markets, or to offer NBBO guaranteed pricing to 
Electronic Complex Orders submitted to NYSE Arca. Rather the proposed 
Filter would offer a level of protection to incoming Electronic Complex 
Orders that are entered at a price so far away from the prevailing 
contra-side NBBO market for the same strategy, that the execution of 
such order could cause price dislocation in the market. Accordingly, 
the Exchange does not propose to reject all orders with a limit price 
greater (less) than the contra-side NBBO, just those that are greater 
(less) by an amount as prescribed by the Exchange. The Exchange 
believes that rejecting such aggressively priced Electronic Complex 
Orders will help to ensure that market participants do not receive an 
execution at a price significantly inferior to the prevailing NBBO.
    The Exchange recognizes that under certain market conditions the 
specified amounts prescribed by the Exchange, and applicable to the 
Filter, may be overly restrictive at times and there could be 
situations where the Exchange may need to temporarily widen the Filter 
settings to accommodate market conditions in a given class. This could 
happen because of, but not limited to, instances of extreme volatility, 
the dissemination of non-firm markets by competing exchanges, or some 
other condition that would lead the Exchange to believe that it would 
not be reasonable to expect that a market participant could receive an 
execution of an Electronic Complex Order at, or close to, the 
prevailing contra-side NBBO market for a given strategy. Therefore, the 
Exchange proposes that in the interest of a fair and orderly market, 
the Filter settings may be temporarily modified by a Trading Official 
to an amount greater than prescribed, on a class-by-class basis. 
Trading Officials are presently authorized to make similar 
determinations regarding such matters as position limits \9\ and quote-
width differentials.\10\ Permitting a Trading Official to temporarily 
modify the price settings in the Filter is consistent with their 
ability to recommend and enforce rules and regulations relating to 
trading, access, order, decorum, health, safety and welfare on the 
Exchange which contributes to the Exchange's obligation to maintain a 
fair and orderly market. If a Trading Official were to temporarily 
modify the Filter settings, the Exchange will contemporaneously 
announce the new settings to all OTP Holders and OTP Firms via Trader 
Update.\11\ Temporary modifications to Filter settings will be 
completed at the Exchange level. OTP Holders and OTP Firms will not 
have to make any adjustments to proprietary systems to accommodate such 
modifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Exchange Rule 6.8.04.
    \10\ See Exchange Rule 6.37(b).
    \11\ Trader Updates are disseminated electronically to all OTP 
Holders and OTP Firms and posted to the Exchange's Web site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The statutory basis for the proposed rule change is Section 6(b)(5) 
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''), in general, and 
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \12\ which requires the 
rules of an exchange to promote just and equitable principles of trade, 
to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open 
market and a national market system and, in general, to protect 
investors and the public interest. The proposed rule change also is 
designed to support the principles of Section 11A(a)(1) \13\ of the Act 
in that it seeks to assure fair competition among brokers and dealers 
and among exchange markets. The Exchange believes that this proposal 
meets these requirements in that the proposed rule assists with the 
maintenance of fair and orderly market by helping to mitigate the 
potential risks associated with the entry of Complex Orders that are 
entered at a price greater than the prevailing contra-side NBBO market 
for the same strategy, potentially

[[Page 62926]]

resulting in executions at prices that are away from the best bid or 
offer, thereby protecting investors from receiving executions at 
inferior prices to what may be available at other market centers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 is proposing a 
market enhancement that provides greater protections from potentially 
erroneous executions and the attendant risks of such executions to 
market participants. Therefore, the Exchange believes that the proposal 
should provide an incentive for market participants to enter executable 
interest in the CME that can help foster price discovery and 
transparency thereby benefiting all market participants. The proposal 
is structured to offer the same enhancement to all market participants, 
regardless of account type, and will not impose a competitive burden on 
any participant. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed 
mechanism will impose a burden on competing options exchanges. Rather, 
the availability of this mechanism may foster more competition. 
Specifically, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly 
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor 
competing venues. When an exchange offers enhanced functionality that 
distinguishes it from the competition and participants find it useful, 
it has been the Exchange's experience that competing exchanges will 
move to adopt similar functionality. Thus, the Exchange believes that 
this type of competition amongst exchanges is beneficial to the market 
place as a whole as it can result in enhanced processes, functionality, 
and technologies.

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

    Because the foregoing 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 for 30 days from the date on which it was 
filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has 
become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) \14\ of the Act and 
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \15\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6) 
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission 
written notice of its 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 the filing of the 
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the 
Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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) \16\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed 
rule change should be approved or disapproved.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-2013-103 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-NYSEArca-2013-103. 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 20549-1090, on official business days between the hours 
of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be 
available for inspection and copying at the principal office 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-
NYSEArca-2013-103, and should be submitted on or before November 12, 
2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-24669 Filed 10-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P