[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 206 (Thursday, October 24, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63555-63559]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24917]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70718; File No. SR-NYSEARCA-2013-104]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending NYSE Arca
Options Rule 6.87

October 18, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on October 7, 2013, NYSE 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 Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Options Rule 6.87 to
specify that options transactions that involve Obvious Error or
Catastrophic Error will (1) if the parties to the transaction are not
Customers, be automatically adjusted by the Exchange at increments
specified in the rule, unless the parties agree to their own
adjustments or to bust the transactions; or (2) if at least one of the
parties to the transaction determined to be a Catastrophic Error is a
Customer, be adjusted if the adjustment price would be within the
Customer's limit price; otherwise, the transaction will be busted by
the Exchange, unless the Customer accepts the Exchange's adjustment
price or the parties to the transaction agree to an adjustment price.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web
site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, at the
Commission's Public Reference

Room, and on the Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to amend Rules 6.87(a)(3)(A)-(B), (d)(1),
and (d)(3)(B), add a [sic] new paragraphs (d)(3)(D) and (d)(3)(F), re-
designate previous (d)(3)(D) as (d)(3)(C) and make revisions to that
paragraph, and re-designate previous (d)(3)(C) as (d)(3)(E) and make
revisions to that paragraph. Current Rule 6.87 adjusts the price of or
busts transactions with respect to which there are Obvious or
Catastrophic Errors, as those terms are defined in the rule. Whether an
Obvious Error transaction is automatically adjusted or automatically
busted depends on whether both parties to the transaction are Market
Makers.\4\ Specifically, if each party to an Obvious Error transaction
is a Market Maker, the Exchange adjusts the transaction to a price
determined in accordance with current Rule 6.87(a)(3)(A)(i)-(ii),
unless the parties agree to adjust the transaction to a different price
or to bust the trade within 10 minutes of being notified of the Obvious
Error by the Exchange. Under current Rule 6.87(a)(3)(B), if at least
one party to the Obvious Error is not a Market Maker, the Exchange
busts the trade, unless both parties agree to an adjustment price for
the transaction within 30 minutes of being notified by the Exchange of
the Obvious Error.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For the purposes of Rule 6.87, the term ``Market Maker''
means an OTP Holder acting as a Market Maker on the Exchange
pursuant to Rule 6.32. See Rule 6.87, Commentary .05.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under current Rule 6.87(d)(3)(B), a Catastrophic Error Review Panel
(the ``Panel''), upon notification from a Market Maker or an OTP
Holder, determines if a Catastrophic Error has occurred. If so, the
Panel instructs the Exchange to adjust the execution price(s) of the
transaction(s) as set out in Rule 6.87(d)(3)(D), unless the parties
agree to adjust the transaction to a different price. The remedies
available to the parties to a Catastrophic Error under current Rule
6.87 transaction [sic] do not depend on their status as Market Makers
or non-Market Makers. Rather, if the Panel determines that a
Catastrophic Error has occurred, the parties to the transaction,
irrespective of their status, are obligated to take a price adjustment;
the rule does not provide for busting a trade. The Panel's
determination on Catastrophic Error constitutes final Exchange action
on the issue.
    In summary, under the current rule, the Exchange nullifies Obvious
Error transactions unless all parties to the trade are Market Makers,
in which case the Exchange adjusts the price of the transaction. With
respect to Catastrophic Errors, the Exchange currently adjusts all
transactions even if they involve non-Market Makers. The Exchange notes
that while market professionals generally would prefer that all
transactions be adjusted rather than nullified, there is an equally
valid opposing view because adjustments can result in Customer orders
being adjusted to prices that may be greater (less) than their limit
order price, potentially by a large amount, which Customers would not
expect.
    To better balance the expectations of both market professionals and
Customers, the Exchange is proposing to amend Rules 6.87(a)(3)(A)-(B),
(d)(1), and (d)(3)(B), add a [sic] new paragraphs (d)(3)(D) and
(d)(3)(F), re-designate previous (d)(3)(D) as (d)(3)(C) and make
revisions to that paragraph, and re-designate previous (d)(3)(C) as
(d)(3)(E) and make revisions to that paragraph. The Exchange is
amending Rule 6.87 to (1) provide that whether an Obvious Error or
Catastrophic Error transaction is automatically adjusted or
automatically busted depends on whether at least one of the parties to
the transaction is a ``Customer,'' as that term is defined in Rule
6.1(a)(29),\5\ rather than a Market Maker; (2) generally conform the
remedies available for both Obvious Error and Catastrophic Error
transactions; (3) adjust the Theoretical Prices and the minimum amounts
away from those Theoretical Prices at which transactions are deemed to
be Catastrophic Errors; and (4) provide that a Trading Official,\6\
rather than the Panel, will determine if a Catastrophic Error has
occurred, subject to an appeal to the Panel, which would be renamed the
CER Panel to distinguish it from the Obvious Error Panel (``OE
Panel'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Rule 6.1(a)(29) defines ``Customer'' in the same manner as
the term is defined in paragraph (c)(6) of Rule 15c3-1 under the
Act. The Exchange does not currently distinguish Customers from
Professional Customers.
    \6\ Rule 6.1(b)(34) defines ``Trading Official'' as ``an
Exchange employee or officer, who is designated by the Chief
Executive Officer, or its designee or by the Chief Regulatory
Officer or its designee. Any Exchange employee or officer designated
as a Trading Official will from time to time as provided in these
rules have the ability to recommend and enforce rules and
regulations relating to trading access, order, decorum, safety and
welfare on the Exchange.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If no party to an Obvious Error transaction is a Customer, the
Exchange will adjust the execution price of the transaction as set out
in the proposed amendments to Rule 6.87(a)(3)(A). Alternatively, the
parties to the transaction could agree to adjust the transaction to a
different price or to bust the trade within 10 minutes of being
notified of the Obvious Error by the Exchange. This amendment is
consistent with current Rule 6.87(a)(3)(A), but rather than apply to
transactions that involve only Market Makers, it applies more broadly
to transactions that do not involve Customers.
    If at least one party to an Obvious Error transaction is a
Customer, the Exchange will bust the trade under the proposed
amendments to Rule 6.87(a)(3)(B), unless the parties agree to an
adjustment price for the transaction within 30 minutes of being
notified of the Obvious Error by the Exchange, consistent with how
Obvious Errors involving Customers are handled today. The Exchange
believes that this approach provides a means of addressing an Obvious
Error trade that involves Customers while allowing trades involving
non-Customers or market professionals to stand, albeit at adjusted
prices. These adjusted prices potentially could be through the non-
Customers' limit order price (in other words, the adjusted price could
be higher than the limit price if it is a buy and lower than the limit
price if it is a sell order). This approach, moreover, is consistent
with that taken by the International Securities Exchange (``ISE'') in
its Rule 720.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Exchange Act Release No. 69467 (Apr. 26, 2013), 78 FR
25777, 25778 (May 2, 2013) (SR-ISE-2013-15).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is also amending the procedures for addressing
transactions involving Catastrophic Errors. Consistent with the
proposed amendments to the Obvious Error provisions, if no party to a
Catastrophic Error transaction is a Customer, the Exchange will adjust
the execution price

of the transaction as set out in the proposed amendments to Rule
6.87(d)(3)(B) and new paragraph (d)(3)(C). Alternatively, the parties
to the transaction can agree to adjust the transaction to a different
price or to bust the trade within 10 minutes of being notified of the
Catastrophic Error by the Exchange. If at least one party to a
Catastrophic Error transaction is a Customer, the Exchange will adjust
the trade under the proposed amendments to Rule 6.87(d)(3)(B), and such
trades will be adjusted in accordance with new paragraph (d)(3)(C). If
the adjustment price will violate the Customer's limit price, the
Customer will have 30 minutes from the time the Exchange notifies the
Customer of the adjusted price to accept it; otherwise, the Exchange
will bust the trade. Notwithstanding the foregoing, both parties may
agree to an adjustment price for the transaction within 30 minutes of
being notified of the Catastrophic Error by the Exchange. As with
Obvious Error transactions, the Exchange's approach to Catastrophic
Errors as described above is generally consistent with ISE's approach
in ISE Rule 720. In addition, the Exchange's proposal to adjust, rather
than bust, a trade when such adjustment price is within the Customer's
limit price is consistent with the manner in which NASDAQ OMX PHLX
(``PHLX'') handles Customer trades that involve a Catastrophic
Error.\8\ The Exchange believes such treatment is reasonable because
the adjustment price will still be within the Customer's expectations
for the price of the trade--the limit price set by the Customer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See NASDAQ PHLX Rule 1092(f)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also is proposing to amend the minimum amounts away
from the Theoretical Prices at which transactions will be deemed to
have been executed in Catastrophic Error and the adjustment amount by
which Theoretical Prices will be adjusted to determine execution
prices. The revised Theoretical Prices, minimum amounts, and adjustment
amounts will be set out in amended Rule 6.87(d)(1) and (d)(3)(E) so
that the threshold for determining whether a Catastrophic Error has
occurred will also be the same amount used to adjust any trades deemed
to be Catastrophic Errors. The Theoretical Price category of ``Above
$10 to $50'' will change to ``Above $10 to $20,'' and a new category of
``Above $20 to $50'' will be added. Moreover, the minimum amount away
from the Theoretical Prices at which transactions will be deemed to
have been executed in Catastrophic Error and the corresponding
adjustment amounts will increase at Theoretical Prices above $50 as
compared to the minimum amounts set out in current Rule 6.87. This is
consistent with the approach that the Chicago Board Options Exchange
takes in its CBOE Rule 6.25(d)(4).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59981 (May 27,
2009), 74 FR 26447 (June 2, 2009) (SR-CBOE-2009-024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is also proposing to amend Rule 6.87(d)(3)(B) and add
new paragraph (d)(3)(D) to provide that a Trading Official, rather than
the Panel, will determine if a Catastrophic Error has occurred, subject
to an appeal to the Panel, which will be renamed the CER Panel to
distinguish it from the Obvious Error Panel (``OE Panel''). The ISE
similarly uses its exchange personnel to determine if a Catastrophic
Error has occurred.\10\ If a party disagrees with the Trading
Official's Catastrophic Error determination with respect to a
transaction, the party can appeal that determination to the CER Panel
within 30 minutes of receiving notification of the determination. As
noted above, all determinations by the CER Panel constitute final
Exchange action on the matter at issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ ISE Rule 720(c)(2); see 78 FR at 25778.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to existing Rule 6.87(d)(3)(B), if upon review a CER Panel
determines that a Catastrophic Error has not occurred, the OTP Holder
requesting the review is subject to a charge of $5,000. Pursuant to
this proposal, there will be no fee assessed if an OTP Holder requests
that the Exchange review a transaction and make a determination as to
whether a Catastrophic Error occurred. However, if an OTP Holder
appeals the determination made by the Trading Official to a CER Panel
and the CER Panel confirms the determination made by the Trading
Official, a $5,000 fee will apply. The Exchange is proposing to move
existing text regarding the $5,000 fee from subsection (d)(3)(B) to
proposed subsection (d)(3)(F) to make clear when the fee applies.
Assessing the $5,000 only in the event of an appeal to the CER Panel,
but not for initial determinations made by the Trading Official, is
consistent with the application of a similar $5,000 fee by ISE.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See ISE Rule 720(d)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\12\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5),\13\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In particular, regarding Obvious Errors, the Exchange believes the
proposed rule change relating to busting trades involving Customers and
adjusting trade prices if none of the parties is a Customer will help
market participants better manage risk associated with potential
erroneous trades. In addition, regarding Catastrophic Errors, the
Exchange believes that the proposal provides a fair process that will
ensure that Customers are not forced to accept a trade that was
executed in violation of the Customer's limit order price.
    The automatic remedies applicable to Obvious or Catastrophic Error
transactions involving only non-Customers differ from those applicable
to such transactions involving at least one party that is a Customer,
but the Exchange does not believe that the proposal is unfairly
discriminatory. As discussed above, an Obvious or Catastrophic Error
transaction involving only non-Customer parties is subject to an
automatic price adjustment in accordance with terms set out in Rule
6.87, unless the parties agree to a different price adjustment or to
bust the transaction within the applicable timeframe. Obvious or
Catastrophic Error Transactions involving at least one party that is a
Customer, by contrast, are subject to being adjusted automatically only
if the adjustment price is within the Customer's limit price.
Otherwise, the transaction is busted, unless the Customer accepts an
adjustment price from the Exchange, or the parties to the transaction
agree to adjust the price of the trade within the applicable timeframe,
which is longer than the applicable timeframe for non-Customer
transactions. The different treatment accorded Customers versus non-
Customers recognizes that Customers are not necessarily immersed in the
day-to-day trading of the markets, are less likely to be watching
trading activity in a particular option throughout the day, and may
have limited funds in their trading accounts. Automatically busting a
Customer trade involving a Catastrophic Error to protect the Customer's
limit order price, while giving the Customer a longer period of time
than a non-Customer to choose a different remedy, i.e., price
adjustment, is not unfairly discriminatory because it is reasonable and
fair to provide Customers, who are typically less sophisticated in
trading matters than non-Customers, with additional options

to protect themselves against the consequences of Catastrophic errors.
    The Exchange acknowledges that the proposal contains some
uncertainty regarding whether a trade will be adjusted or busted,
depending on whether one of the parties is a Customer, because a party
would not know, when entering into the trade, whether the other party
is a Customer. The Exchange believes that the proposal nevertheless
promotes just and equitable principles of trade and protects investors
and the public interest, because it eliminates a more serious
uncertainty in the rule's operation today, which is price uncertainty.
Today, a Customer's order can be adjusted to a significantly different
price in the case of a Catastrophic Error, which is potentially more
impactful than the possibility of busting the trade.
    Furthermore, there is uncertainty in the current Obvious Error
portion of Rule 6.87 that market participants have dealt with for a
number of years. Specifically, Rule 6.87(a)(3)(A) provides that if it
is determined that an Obvious Error has occurred where each party to
the transaction is a Market Maker on the Exchange, the execution price
of the transaction will be adjusted by the Exchange (in accordance with
subsection (i) and (ii) of the rule), unless both parties agree to
adjust to a different price or to nullify the transaction within 10
minutes of being notified by the Exchange of the Obvious Error.
Additionally, Rule 6.87(a)(3)(B) provides that if it is determined that
an Obvious Error has occurred where at least one party to the
transaction to the Obvious Error is not an Exchange Market Maker, the
trade will be busted by the Exchange, unless both parties agree to
adjust the price of the transaction within 30 minutes of being notified
by the Exchange of the Obvious Error. Therefore, a Market Maker who
prefers price adjustments over busting a trade cannot guarantee that
outcome because, if he trades with a non-Market Maker, a resulting
Obvious Error would only be adjusted if the party on the other side of
the trade agrees to an adjustment. This uncertainty has been embedded
in the rule and accepted by market participants. The Exchange believes
that this proposal, despite the uncertainty based on whether a Customer
is involved in a trade, is nevertheless consistent with the Act because
the ability to nullify a Customer's trade involving an Obvious or a
Catastrophic Error should prevent the price uncertainty that mandatory
adjustment with respect Catastrophic Error creates under the current
rule. The Exchange believes that the benefits afforded to Customers by
knowing with certainty what the adjustment price of a Catastrophic
Error will be, and being able to nullify the trade if they choose to do
so, far outweighs any uncertainty that might arise by not knowing
whether a Customer was involved as the contra-side on a given trade.
The Exchange believes that affording Customers this heightened degree
of certainty should promote just and equitable principles of trade and
protect investors and the public interest.
    The Exchange has also weighed carefully the need to assure that one
market participant is not permitted to receive a windfall at the
expense of another market participant that made an Obvious or a
Catastrophic Error against the need to assure that market participants
are not simply being given an opportunity to reconsider poor trading
decisions.
    Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
relating to a Trading Official making the determination of whether a
Catastrophic Error has occurred will promote just and equitable
principles of trade because the Exchange believes such determinations
will be made in a more timely manner than is the case today. As the
determinations will likely be more timely, the proposed change will
reduce the length of time before participants gain certainty as to the
outcome of a Catastrophic Error review. Further, this change will help
ensure consistency between Obvious Error and Catastrophic Error
procedures whereby initial determinations are made by the Exchange and
any appeal of a determination goes before either an Obvious Error or
Catastrophic Error Review Panel. The Exchange's Obvious and
Catastrophic Error rule and the procedures that carry out the rule have
consistently been based on specific and objective criteria. The
Exchange believes this proposed rule change furthers that principle by
adopting objective guidelines for the determination of which trades may
be busted or adjusted and for the determination of whether or not a
trade is deemed to be a Catastrophic Error.
    In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes to the
pricing tables used in determining theoretical and adjustment values
for transactions subject to Catastrophic Error reviews will remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market
because the proposed changes will conform the theoretical and
adjustment values applicable to Catastrophic Errors on other market
venues.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Supra Footnote No. 10 [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange believes that moving existing text regarding
the $5,000 fee, as described above, will promote just and equitable
principles of trade because the amendment will make clear when the fee
is applicable. The amendment will clarify that the $5,000 fee will not
be applicable when the Trading Official makes the initial determination
as to whether a Catastrophic Error occurred, but will be applicable if,
upon appeal, the CER Panel confirms the determinations made by the
Trading Official. Further, the Exchange believes that the amendment
will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market because the amendment will conform the Exchange's application of
the $5,000 fee to similar fees on other market venues. The Exchange
also believes that assessing such a fee ensures the proper balance
between allowing OTP Holders to seek review of determinations made by
the Exchange and recovering the costs associated with requiring an
additional layer of review by the CER Panel.

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

    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change will not impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is
intended to help market participants better manage the risk associated
with erroneous options trades, and therefore, does not impose any
burden on competition. Moreover, the Exchange believes the proposed
rule change will enhance competition by conforming the Exchange's rules
governing Obvious and Catastrophic Errors more closely to those of
other exchanges. The treatment of Customers differently from non-
Customers under the proposed rule amendments may result in market
participants choosing to route orders to the Exchange, and therefore,
attract order flow to the Exchange, rather than a competing exchange.

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

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

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \15\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\16\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \17\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \19\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\20\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \21\ to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2013-104 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-2013-104. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street
NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090, on official business days between the
hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be
available for inspection and copying at the NYSE's principal office and
on its Internet Web site at www.nyse.com. All comments received will be
posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2013-104 and should be
submitted on or before November 14, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-24917 Filed 10-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: May 18, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 95)]
[Notices]
[Page 27774]
[DOCID:fr18my10-57]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP10-424-000]

Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC; Notice of Request
Under Blanket Authorization

May 11, 2010.
    Take notice that on May 6, 2010, Natural Gas Pipeline Company of
America LLC (Natural), 3250 Lacey Road, Suite 700, Downers Grove,
Illinois 60515, filed in Docket No. CP10-424-000, a prior notice
request pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.208 of the Commission's
regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA). Natural seeks
authorization to acquire from Cheniere Creole Trail Pipeline, L.P.,
formerly Cheneiere Sabine Pass Pipeline, L.P. (Creole Trail)
approximately 1,316 feet of 16-inch diameter pipeline which is part of
a lateral connecting Creole Trail's facilities transporting gas from
its Sabine Pass LNG Terminal to Natural's pipeline facilities, all in
Cameron Parish, Louisiana. On April 29, 2010, Creole Trail filed a
separate prior notice request, in Docket No. CP10-256-000, for
authorization to abandon the subject facilities under its blanket
certificate authority. The cost of the facilities to be acquired by
Natural is approximately $363,000. Natural proposes to acquire the
facilities under its blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-402-
000, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file
with the Commission and open to public inspection.
    The filing may be viewed on the Web at http://www.ferc.gov using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, contact FERC at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-
free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this application may be directed to Bruce
H. Newsome, Vice President, Regulatory Products and Services, Natural
Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC, 3250 Lacey Road, 7th Floor,
Downers Grove, Illinois 60515-7918, or via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Any person or the Commission's Staff may, within 60 days after the
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to
intervene or notice of intervention and, pursuant to section 157.205 of
the Commission's Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) a protest
to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed, the
proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day
after the time allowed for protest. If a protest is filed and not
withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest,
the instant request shall be treated as an application for
authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link. Persons unable
to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the
protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-11794 Filed 5-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P