[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 105 (Monday, June 2, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31353-31356]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12645]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72253; File No. SR-NYSE-2014-26]


Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; 
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change 
Amending NYSE Rule 13 to Introduce a New ``Retail'' Modifier for Orders 
and to Make Related, Administrative Changes to Its Price List

May 27, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of 
1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given 
that, on May 13, 2014, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or 
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission 
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and 
II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory 
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit 
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C.78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance 
of the Proposed Rule Change

    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.

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 NYSE Rule 13 to introduce a new 
``retail'' modifier for orders. The Exchange also proposes to make 
related, administrative changes to its Price List that would not impact 
transaction pricing on the Exchange.
    An order designated with a ``retail'' modifier would be 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 a member organization, 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.\4\ An order with a ``retail'' modifier would be separate 
and distinct from a ``Retail Order'' within the Retail Liquidity 
Program under Rule 107C, despite the characteristics being 
substantially the same.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See paragraph (a) of the proposed ``retail'' modifier text 
under Rule 13, which, except for the non-applicability of the Retail 
Member Organization (``RMO'') aspect, would be the same as the 
definition of ``Retail Order'' for the Retail Liquidity Program 
under Rule 107C(a)(3).
    \5\ The Exchange currently operates the Retail Liquidity Program 
as a pilot program that is designed to attract additional retail 
order flow to the Exchange for NYSE-listed securities while also 
providing the potential for price improvement to such order flow. 
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67347 (July 3, 2012), 77 FR 
40673 (July 10, 2012) (SR-NYSE-2011-55). Retail order flow is 
submitted by an RMO through the Retail Liquidity Program as a 
distinct order type called a ``Retail Order,'' which is defined in 
Rule 107C(a)(3) in the same manner as the requirements under 
paragraph (a) of the proposed ``retail'' modifier text. RMO is 
defined in Rule 107C(a)(2) as a member organization (or a division 
thereof) that has been approved by the Exchange under Rule 107C to 
submit Retail Orders. A Retail Order is an Immediate or Cancel 
Order. See Rule 107C(a)(3). See also Rule 107C(k) for a description 
of the manner in which a member or member organization may designate 
how a Retail Order will interact with available contra-side 
interest. An execution of a ``Retail Order'' is always considered to 
remove liquidity, whether against contra-side interest in the Retail 
Liquidity Program or against the Book. The proposed ``retail'' 
modifier is designed to identify retail order flow that adds 
liquidity to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has separately proposed transaction pricing related to 
orders designated as ``retail'' that add liquidity to the Book.\6\ A 
member organization that wishes to be eligible for such proposed 
pricing would be required to designate its orders as ``retail,'' as 
described herein.\7\ However, a member or member organization that does 
not wish to be eligible for the proposed pricing would be free to 
choose not to designate orders as ``retail.'' Both the proposed 
``retail'' modifier and the existing ``Retail Order'' within the Retail 
Liquidity Program, along with pricing related to each, are designed to 
incentivize the submission of additional retail order flow to a public 
market, like the Exchange. A ``Retail Order'' is eligible for a credit 
for removing existing, price-improved liquidity from the Exchange. In 
contrast, an order designated with the proposed ``retail'' modifier 
would be eligible for a credit for adding liquidity to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71879 (April 4, 
2014), 79 FR 19947 (April 10, 2014) (SR-NYSE-2014-15). Specifically, 
a credit of $0.0030 per share would be available for executions of 
orders designated as ``retail'' that add liquidity on the Book. 
Existing rates in the Price List would apply to executions of Mid-
Point Passive Liquidity (``MPL'') Orders (e.g., $0.0015 per share). 
Similarly, the existing rates in the Price List would apply to 
executions of Non-Displayed Reserve Orders (e.g., $0.0010 per 
share). A Supplemental Liquidity Provider (``SLP'') market maker 
(``SLMM'') could designate orders as ``retail'' and be eligible for 
the proposed new credit. Orders designated as ``retail'' that add 
liquidity would count toward a member's or member organization's 
overall level of providing volume for purposes of other pricing on 
the Exchange that is based on such levels (e.g., the Tier 1, Tier 2 
and Tier 3 Adding Credits).
    \7\ The Price List currently includes references to Rule 107C 
with respect to the pricing applicable to orders designated as 
``retail.'' The Exchange proposes to replace those references with 
references to the proposed ``retail'' modifier under Rule 13. These 
proposed changes would merely be administrative and would not impact 
transaction pricing on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A member organization would be required to designate an order as

[[Page 31354]]

``retail'' in a form and/or manner prescribed by the Exchange.\8\ 
Currently, a member organization may designate an order as ``retail'' 
either by means of a specific tag in the order entry message, as with 
other order modifiers, or alternatively by designating a particular 
member or member organization mnemonic used at the Exchange as a 
``retail mnemonic.'' \9\ To submit a ``retail'' order, a member 
organization must also submit an attestation, in a form prescribed by 
the Exchange, that substantially all orders submitted as ``retail'' 
will qualify as such.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See paragraph (b) of the proposed ``retail'' modifier text 
under Rule 13.
    \9\ This would be similar to the manner in which an Exchange 
Trading Permit (``ETP'') Holder on NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. (``NYSE 
Arca Equities'') may designate orders as ``retail'' outside of the 
NYSE Arca Equities Retail Liquidity Program. See, e.g., Securities 
Exchange Act Release No. 68322 (November 29, 2012), 77 FR 72425 
(December 5, 2012) (SR-NYSEArca-2012-129).
    \10\ See paragraph (c) of the proposed ``retail'' modifier text 
under Rule 13, which would be the same as the attestation 
requirement for the Retail Liquidity Program under Rule 
107C(b)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A member organization must have written policies and procedures 
reasonably designed to assure that it will only designate orders as 
``retail'' if all requirements are met.\11\ Such written policies and 
procedures must require the member organization to (i) exercise due 
diligence before entering a ``retail'' order to assure that entry as a 
``retail'' order is in compliance with the applicable requirements, and 
(ii) monitor whether orders entered as ``retail'' orders meet the 
applicable requirements. If a member organization represents ``retail'' 
orders from another broker-dealer customer, the member organization's 
supervisory procedures must be reasonably designed to assure that the 
orders it receives from such broker-dealer customer that it designates 
as ``retail'' orders meet the definition of a ``retail'' order. The 
member organization must (i) obtain an annual written representation, 
in a form acceptable to the Exchange, from each broker-dealer customer 
that sends it orders to be designated as ``retail'' orders that entry 
of such orders as ``retail'' orders will be in compliance with the 
applicable requirements; and (ii) monitor whether its broker-dealer 
customer's ``retail'' order flow meets the applicable requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See paragraph (d) of the proposed ``retail'' modifier text 
under Rule 13, which would be the same as the policies and 
procedures requirement for the Retail Liquidity Program under Rule 
107C(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If a member organization designates orders submitted to the 
Exchange as ``retail'' orders and the Exchange determines, in its sole 
discretion, that such orders fail to meet any of the applicable 
requirements, the Exchange may disqualify a member organization from 
submitting ``retail'' orders.\12\ This could occur, for example, if a 
member organization (i) designates greater than a de minimis quantity 
of orders to the Exchange as ``retail'' that fail to meet any of the 
applicable requirements, (ii) fails to make the required attestation to 
the Exchange, or (iii) fails to maintain the required policies and 
procedures. The Exchange would determine if and when a member 
organization is disqualified from submitting ``retail'' orders and, 
when disqualification determinations are made, the Exchange would 
provide a written disqualification notice to the member 
organization.\13\ A member organization that is disqualified may (A) 
appeal such disqualification, as provided below, and/or (B) resubmit 
the attestation described above 90 days after the date of the 
disqualification notice from the Exchange.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See paragraph (e)(1) of the proposed ``retail'' modifier 
text under Rule 13, which would be substantially the same as the 
provision for the Retail Liquidity Program under Rule 107C(h)(1).
    \13\ See paragraph (e)(2) of the proposed ``retail'' modifier 
text under Rule 13, which would be substantially the same as the 
provision for the Retail Liquidity Program under Rule 107C(h)(2).
    \14\ See paragraph (e)(3) of the proposed ``retail'' modifier 
text under Rule 13, which would be substantially the same as the 
provision for the Retail Liquidity Program under Rule 107C(h)(3). 
Rule 107C(h)(3) currently refers to ``reapplication,'' which relates 
to the RMO status within the Retail Liquidity Program, but which 
would not be applicable to designating orders as ``retail.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If a member organization disputes the Exchange's decision to 
disqualify it from submitting ``retail'' orders, the member 
organization may request, within five business days after notice of the 
decision is issued by the Exchange, that the ``retail'' order ``Hearing 
Panel'' review the decision to determine if it was correct.\15\ The 
Hearing Panel would consist of the Exchange's Chief Regulatory Officer 
(``CRO''), or a designee of the CRO, and two officers of the Exchange 
designated by the Chief Executive Officer of IntercontinentalExchange 
Group, Inc. (``ICE Group'').\16\ The Hearing Panel would review the 
facts and render a decision within the time frame prescribed by the 
Exchange.\17\ The Hearing Panel may overturn or modify an action taken 
by the Exchange, and a determination by the Hearing Panel would 
constitute final action by the Exchange.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See paragraph (f)(1) of the proposed ``retail'' modifier 
text under Rule 13, which would be substantially the same as the 
provision for the Retail Liquidity Program under Rule 107C(i)(1).
    \16\ See paragraph (f)(2) of the proposed ``retail'' modifier 
text under Rule 13, which would be substantially the same as the 
provision for the Retail Liquidity Program under Rule 107C(i)(2). 
Rule 107C(i)(2) currently refers to the ``Co-Head of U.S. Listings 
and Cash Execution,'' which is a legacy title that predates the 
corporation transaction involving NYSE Euronext (``NYSE Euronext'') 
and IntercontinentalExchange, Inc. (``ICE''). See Securities 
Exchange Act Release No. 70210 (August 15, 2013), 78 FR 51758 
(August 21, 2013) (SR-NYSE-2013-42; SR-NYSEMKT-2013-50; SR-NYSEArca-
2013-62) (Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change Relating 
to a Corporate Transaction in Which NYSE Euronext Will Become a 
Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of IntercontinentalExchange Group, Inc.). 
The Exchange anticipates updating the existing reference in Rule 
107C(i)(2) to the ``Co-Head of U.S. Listings and Cash Execution'' in 
a separate proposed rule change so that it similarly references the 
``Chief Executive Officer of ICE Group,'' as is proposed herein.
    \17\ See paragraph (f)(3) of the proposed ``retail'' modifier 
text under Rule 13, which would be the same as the provision for the 
Retail Liquidity Program under Rule 107C(i)(3).
    \18\ See paragraph (f)(4) of the proposed ``retail'' modifier 
text under Rule 13, which would be the same as the provision for the 
Retail Liquidity Program under Rule 107C(i)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other 
issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that members and 
member organizations 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,\19\ in general, and furthers the 
objectives of Sections6(b)(5) of the Act,\20\ in particular, because it 
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, 
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster 
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, 
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and 
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to, and 
perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open market and a national market 
system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest 
and because it is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between 
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed change is consistent with 
these principles because it would increase competition among execution 
venues and encourage additional liquidity by creating a process, and 
related transaction pricing pursuant to a separate proposal,\21\ that 
would incentivize the submission of additional retail order flow to a 
public market. The Exchange notes that a significant percentage of the 
orders of individual investors are executed over-the-

[[Page 31355]]

counter.\22\ The Exchange believes that it is appropriate to create a 
process to bring additional retail order flow to a public market and 
that such a process would contribute to perfecting the mechanisms of a 
free and open market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See SR-NYSE-2014-15, supra note 6.
    \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 Jo White, Focusing on 
Fundamentals: The Path to Address Equity Market Structure (Speech at 
the Security Traders Association 80th Annual Market Structure 
Conference, Oct. 2, 2013) (available on the Security and Exchange 
Commission (``Commission'') Web site) (``White Speech''); 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) (``Schapiro Speech''). In her speech, Chair 
White noted a steadily increasing percentage of trading that occurs 
in ``dark'' venues, which appear to execute more than half of the 
orders of long-term investors. Similarly, in her speech, only three 
years earlier, Chair 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange understands that Section 6(b)(5) of the Act prohibits 
an exchange from establishing rules that treat market participants in 
an unfairly discriminatory manner. However, Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 
does not prohibit exchange members or other broker-dealers from 
discriminating, so long as their activities are otherwise consistent 
with the federal securities laws. 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. The differentiation proposed herein by the Exchange is not 
designed to permit unfair discrimination, but instead to promote a 
competitive process around retail executions. The Exchange operating a 
process like the one proposed herein on an exchange market would result 
in greater transparency and competitiveness surrounding executions of 
retail flow.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change is designed to 
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices and to promote 
just and equitable principles of trade because it would contribute to 
maintaining or increasing the proportion of retail flow in exchange-
listed securities that are executed on a registered national securities 
exchange (rather than relying on certain available off-exchange 
execution methods). The proposed change also would protect investors 
and the public interest because it would contribute to investors' 
confidence in the fairness of their transactions and because it would 
benefit all investors by deepening the Exchange's liquidity pool, 
supporting the quality of price discovery, promoting market 
transparency and improving investor protection.
    The Exchange also believes that the proposed change would remove 
impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open market 
and a national market system because it would be similar to the manner 
in which The Nasdaq Stock Market, LLC (``NASDAQ'') provides a process 
for ``Designated Retail Orders'' that provide liquidity.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See NASDAQ Rule 7018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Orders designated as ``retail'' would increase the pool of robust 
liquidity available on the Exchange, thereby contributing to the 
quality of the Exchange's market and to the Exchange's status as a 
premier destination for liquidity and order execution. The Exchange 
believes that, because retail flow is likely to reflect long-term 
investment intentions, it promotes price discovery and dampens 
volatility. Accordingly, the presence of retail flow on the Exchange 
has the potential to benefit all market participants. For this reason, 
the Exchange believes that encouraging greater retail participation on 
the Exchange would facilitate transactions in securities while also 
protecting investors and the public interest.
    The Exchange believes that the process for designating orders as 
``retail'' and the requirements surrounding such designations, such as 
attestations and procedures, are consistent with the Act because they 
would reasonably ensure that substantially all of those orders would 
satisfy the applicable requirements. These processes and requirements 
are also consistent with the Act because they are substantially similar 
to those in effect on the Exchange for the Retail Liquidity Program and 
on NYSE Arca Equities related to pricing for certain retail flow.\24\ 
More specifically, the Exchange understands that some members and 
member organizations represent both retail flow as well as other agency 
and riskless principal flow that may not meet the strict requirements 
proposed herein. The Exchange further understands that limitations in 
order management systems and routing networks used by such members and 
member organizations may make it infeasible for them to isolate 100% of 
retail flow from other agency or riskless principal, non-retail flow 
that they would direct to the Exchange. Unable to make the categorical 
attestation required by the Exchange, some members and member 
organizations may not attempt to utilize the proposed new modifier, 
notwithstanding that they have substantial retail flow. The Exchange 
believes that it is consistent with the Act to permit a de minimis 
amount of orders to be designated as ``retail,'' despite not satisfying 
the applicable requirements, because it would allow for enough 
flexibility to accommodate member and member organization system 
limitations while still reasonably ensuring that no more than a de 
minimis amount of orders submitted to the Exchange would not satisfy 
the applicable requirements. This is also consistent with the Act 
because it will reasonably ensure that similarly situated members and 
member organizations that have only slight differences in the 
capability of their systems would be able to equally utilize the 
modifier for orders designated as ``retail.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Price List currently includes references to Rule 107C with 
respect to the pricing applicable to orders designated as ``retail.'' 
The Exchange believes that it is consistent with the Act to replace 
those references with references to the proposed ``retail'' modifier 
under Rule 13 because this would avoid potential confusion between 
orders designated as ``retail'' outside of the Retail Liquidity Program 
and ``Retail Orders'' within the Retail Liquidity Program. This would 
also be consistent with the Act because the proposed new ``retail'' 
modifier could be utilized by all members and member organizations to 
identify retail flow outside of the Retail Liquidity Program and 
thereby differentiate such flow from Retail Orders within the Retail 
Liquidity Program.
    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,\25\ 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

[[Page 31356]]

Exchange believes that the proposed change would increase competition 
among execution venues and encourage additional liquidity. In this 
regard, the Exchange believes that the transparency and competitiveness 
of attracting additional executions on an exchange market would 
encourage competition. The proposed change would also permit the 
Exchange to compete with other markets, including NASDAQ, which 
similarly provides a process for ``Designated Retail Orders'' that 
provide liquidity.\26\ The proposal would also promote competition on 
the Exchange because the ability to designate an order as ``retail'' 
would be available to all members and member organizations that submit 
qualifying orders and satisfy the other related requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \26\ See supra note 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the 
Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the 
proposed rule change.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \27\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\28\ 
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) significantly affect the 
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any 
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to 
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as 
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of 
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become 
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \28\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6) 
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the 
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a 
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least 
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule 
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The 
Commission has waived that requirement for this proposed rule 
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-(f)(6) \29\ normally 
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the 
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\30\ the Commission 
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the 
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked 
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal 
may become operative immediately upon filing. The Commission believes 
that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the 
protection of investors and the public interest because it would allow 
the Exchange immediately to adopt clear and transparent criteria 
concerning the submission of orders that are designated as ``retail'' 
and eligible to receive fee credits under the Exchange's current fee 
schedule. Accordingly, the Commission hereby grants the Exchange's 
request and designates the proposal operative upon filing. \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \30\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \31\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, 
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on 
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of this proposed rule 
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend this 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.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and 
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule 
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of 
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include 
File Number SR-NYSE-2014-26 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-NYSE-2014-26. 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. Copies of the filing will also be 
available for Web site viewing and printing 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-NYSE-2014-26 and should be 
submitted on or before June 23, 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. 2014-12645 Filed 5-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P