
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 247 (Tuesday, December 24, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77739-77743]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-30589]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71122; File No. SR-NYSE-2013-81]


Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; 
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to 
Offer Partial Cabinets and Cabinet Upgrades as Part of its Co-location 
Services and to Amend its Price List to Reflect the New Services

December 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 December 12, 2013, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' 
or the ``Exchange'') 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 offer partial cabinets and cabinet 
upgrades as part of its co-location services and to amend its Price 
List to reflect the new services. The Exchange proposes to implement 
the fee change effective December 16, 2013. The text of the proposed 
rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at 
the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public 
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to offer partial cabinets and cabinet 
upgrades as part of its co-location services and to amend its Price 
List to reflect the new services.\4\ The Exchange proposes to implement 
the fee change effective December 16, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') 
initially approved the Exchange's co-location services in Securities 
Exchange Act Release No. 62960 (September 21, 2010), 75 FR 59310 
(September 27, 2010) (SR-NYSE-2010-56) (the ``Original Co-location 
Approval''). The Exchange operates a data center in Mahwah, New 
Jersey (the ``data center'') from which it provides co-location 
services to Users. The Exchange's co-location services allow Users 
to rent space in the data center so they may locate their electronic 
servers in close physical proximity to the Exchange's trading and 
execution system. See id. at 59310.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Partial Cabinets
    A User is able to request a physical cabinet to house its servers 
and other equipment in the data center.\5\ Currently, a User only has 
the option of receiving an entire cabinet that is dedicated solely to 
that User (``dedicated cabinet''). The Exchange proposes to expand its 
co-location services to offer a partial cabinet alternative (``partial 
cabinet''). Partial cabinets would be made available in increments of 
eight-rack units of space.\6\ The Exchange would allocate each eight-
rack unit up to two kilowatts (``kWs'') of power.\7\ Consistent with 
existing pricing for dedicated cabinets, the Exchange would charge 
Users an

[[Page 77740]]

initial fee and a monthly recurring fee for partial cabinets. The 
initial fee would be $2,500 per eight-rack unit. The monthly recurring 
fee would be $1,500 for one kW of allocated power and $2,700 for two 
kWs of allocated power.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For purposes of the Exchange's co-location services, the 
term ``User'' includes (i) member organizations, as that term is 
defined in NYSE Rule 2(b); (ii) Sponsored Participants, as that term 
is defined in NYSE Rule 123B.30(a)(ii)(B); and (iii) non-member 
organization broker-dealers and vendors that request to receive co-
location services directly from the Exchange. See, e.g., Securities 
Exchange Act Release No. 65973 (December 15, 2011), 76 FR 79232 
(December 21, 2011) (SR-NYSE-2011-53). As specified in the Price 
List, a User that incurs co-location fees for a particular co-
location service pursuant thereto would not be subject to co-
location fees for the same co-location service charged by the 
Exchange's affiliates NYSE MKT LLC and NYSE Arca, Inc. See 
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70206 (August 15, 2013), 78 FR 
51765 (August 21, 2013) (SR-NYSE-2013-59).
    \6\ A full cabinet includes enough space for approximately four 
separate eight-rack units. The Exchange would submit a separate 
proposed rule change if it decided to change the manner in which 
space is allocated within a partial cabinet (e.g., six-rack units 
instead of eight-rack units).
    \7\ The Exchange would submit a separate proposed rule change if 
it decided to change the manner in which power is allocated to 
partial cabinets (e.g., more than two kWs of power allocated per 
eight-rack unit).
    \8\ The second kW would therefore cost $1,200. Power allocated 
to a User of a partial cabinet would be considered separate from 
power allocated to the same User if it also has dedicated cabinets 
in the data center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing this partial cabinet alternative in order 
to assist Users that do not need a dedicated cabinet in the data 
center, such as those Users with minimal power or cabinet space 
demands, including those Users for which the costs attendant with a 
dedicated cabinet are too burdensome. However, Users that do require a 
dedicated cabinet could continue to request them.\9\ This proposed 
alternative would not impact current pricing for dedicated cabinets. 
The Exchange would amend the existing table in the Price List to 
reflect the pricing options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For purposes of comparison, if a User ordered a single 
eight-rack unit in a partial cabinet with two kWs of power 
allocation, such User would be charged $2,500 in initial cabinet 
fees (compared to $5,000 for a dedicated cabinet) and $2,700 in 
recurring monthly fees (compared to $4,800 for a dedicated cabinet 
with the minimum power allocation of four kWs) for total charges of 
$34,900 within the first year (compared to $62,600 for a dedicated 
cabinet). A partial cabinet would therefore be a more economical 
option. If a User ordered two separate eight-rack units in a partial 
cabinet with two kWs of power allocation each (four kWs total), such 
User would be charged $5,000 in initial cabinet fees (identical to 
the $5,000 for a dedicated cabinet) and $5,400 in recurring monthly 
fees (compared to $4,800 for a dedicated cabinet with the minimum 
power allocation of four kWs) for total charges of $69,800 within 
the first year (compared to $62,600 for a dedicated cabinet). A 
dedicated cabinet would therefore be a more economical option. Based 
on the proposed pricing, the Exchange believes that the partial 
cabinet option would be selected by Users with power demands of 
three kWs or less. If a User's power demands are four kWs or greater 
it would likely choose the dedicated cabinet option. Accordingly, if 
a User ordered two separate eight-rack units in a partial cabinet 
with two kWs of power allocation for one of the units and one kW of 
power allocation for the other unit (three kWs total), such User 
would be charged $5,000 in initial cabinet fees (identical to the 
$5,000 for a dedicated cabinet) and $4,200 in recurring monthly fees 
(compared to $4,800 for a dedicated cabinet with the minimum power 
allocation of four kWs) for total charges of $55,400 within the 
first year (compared to $62,600 for a dedicated cabinet). A fourth 
incremental kW would add an additional $14,400 in cost (i.e., $1,200 
x 12), at which point a dedicated cabinet would be a more economical 
option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Users that have several cabinets within the data center that wish 
to enhance privacy around their cabinets are able to purchase cages. 
Because more than one User could be using a partial cabinet, partial 
cabinets could not be located in a User's cage.
Initial Install Services Fee
    In conjunction with the proposed offering of partial cabinets, the 
Exchange also proposes to charge a lower Initial Install Services fee 
for a partial cabinet. The proposed fee would be lower because the 
services required of the Exchange for the installation of an eight-rack 
unit in a partial cabinet would be less than the services required for 
the installation of a dedicated cabinet. The current Initial Install 
Services fee is $800 per dedicated cabinet, which includes initial 
racking of equipment in the dedicated cabinet and provision of up to 10 
cables and four hours of labor. The Exchange proposes to charge a $400 
Initial Install Services fee for an eight-rack unit in a partial 
cabinet, which would include initial racking of equipment and provision 
of up to five cables and two hours of labor.
Cabinet Upgrades
    The Exchange makes dedicated cabinets available with standard power 
allocation of either four or eight kWs.\10\ However, Users that require 
additional power allocation may prefer to maintain their hardware 
within a particular dedicated cabinet rather than add an additional 
dedicated cabinet. Specifically, Users may develop their hardware 
infrastructure within a particular dedicated cabinet in such a way 
that, if expansion of such hardware is needed, it can be accomplished 
within the space constraints of that particular dedicated cabinet. If 
this type of User requires additional power allocation, it would likely 
want to so modify its existing cabinet rather than taking an additional 
dedicated cabinet due to the expense of re-developing its 
infrastructure within such additional dedicated cabinet. A $5,000 
initial dedicated cabinet fee would also apply if the User received an 
additional dedicated cabinet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ A User is generally able to determine an approximate amount 
of power that it will typically consume in its dedicated cabinet. A 
User would request either a four or eight kW dedicated cabinet based 
on its anticipated peak power consumption. A User's typical power 
consumption would be expected to be less than this anticipated peak 
power consumption, but could also rise above this anticipated peak 
power consumption during certain times of the day or certain periods 
of the month when equipment in the cabinet consumes additional 
power.
    The Exchange allocates power in circuits with ``baseline'' 
capacity of either four or eight kWs. A circuit could trip when 
power consumption exceeds capacity. To avoid this, the Exchange 
allocates ``buffer'' capacity in addition to the baseline capacity. 
When combined, this ``total'' allocation is approximately 80% of the 
amount of power consumption that would trip a circuit. The ``total'' 
power capacity allocated to a four kW dedicated cabinet is slightly 
more than five kWs. The ``total'' power capacity allocated to an 
eight kW dedicated cabinet is between 10 and 11 kWs. The Exchange 
charges Users for the full baseline amount of power allocated to 
dedicated cabinets (i.e., either four or eight kWs) regardless of 
whether such allocated power is consumed and, if any of the buffer 
is used, for that power consumption as well on a per kW basis. For 
example, if a User consumes its four kWs of baseline allocation and 
a fraction of an additional kW, the Exchange would charge the User 
for five kWs total.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to offer a new ``Cabinet Upgrade'' 
alternative and related fee in order to accommodate requests for 
additional power allocation beyond the typical amount that the Exchange 
allocates per dedicated cabinet, at which point the Exchange must 
upgrade the cabinet's power capacity. These Cabinet Upgrades typically 
entail overhauling wiring, circuitry and hardware for the dedicated 
cabinet so that it can handle the increased power. Cabinet Upgrades 
require additional Exchange resources beyond those covered under the 
initial dedicated cabinet fee or the Initial Install Services fee, 
including with respect to labor and equipment.
    The Exchange proposes to charge a one-time Cabinet Upgrade fee of 
$9,200 when a User requests additional power allocation for its 
dedicated cabinet such that the Exchange must upgrade the dedicated 
cabinet's capacity. A Cabinet Upgrade would be required when power 
allocation demands exceed 11 kWs.\11\ However, in order to incentivize 
Users to upgrade their dedicated cabinets, the Exchange proposes that 
the Cabinet Upgrade fee would be $4,600 for a User that submits a 
written order for a Cabinet Upgrade by January 31, 2014, provided that 
the Cabinet Upgrade becomes fully operational by March 31, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ A dedicated cabinet could be upgraded to accommodate a 
total allocation of up to approximately 20 kWs of power, after which 
a User would require an additional dedicated cabinet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

General
    As is the case with all Exchange co-location arrangements, (i) 
neither a User nor any of the User's customers would be permitted to 
submit orders directly to the Exchange unless such User or customer is 
a member organization, a Sponsored Participant or an agent thereof 
(e.g., a service bureau providing order entry services); (ii) use of 
the co-location services proposed herein would be completely voluntary 
and available to all Users on a non-discriminatory basis; \12\ and 
(iii) a User would only

[[Page 77741]]

incur one charge for the particular co-location service described 
herein, regardless of whether the User connects only to the Exchange or 
to the Exchange and one or both of its affiliates.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ As is currently the case, Users that receive co-location 
services from the Exchange will not receive any means of access to 
the Exchange's trading and execution systems that is separate from, 
or superior to, that of other Users. In this regard, all orders sent 
to the Exchange enter the Exchange's trading and execution systems 
through the same order gateway, regardless of whether the sender is 
co-located in the data center or not. In addition, co-located Users 
do not receive any market data or data service product that is not 
available to all Users, although Users that receive co-location 
services normally would expect reduced latencies in sending orders 
to, and receiving market data from, the Exchange.
    \13\ See SR-NYSE-2013-59, supra note 5 at 51766. The Exchange's 
affiliates have also submitted the same proposed rule change to 
provide for partial cabinets, Cabinet Upgrades and related fees. See 
SR-NYSEMKT-2013-103 and SR-NYSEArca-2013-143.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other 
issues relating to co-location services and/or related fees, and the 
Exchange is not aware of any problems that Users 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,\14\ in general, and furthers the 
objectives of Sections 6(b)(5) of the Act,\15\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposal is not designed to permit 
unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. 
First, the proposed partial cabinets would make an alternative 
available to Users that do not need a dedicated cabinet in the data 
center, such as those Users with minimal power or cabinet space 
demands, including those Users for which the costs attendant with a 
dedicated cabinet are too burdensome. However, Users that do require a 
dedicated cabinet could continue to request them. Second, the proposed 
Cabinet Upgrades would make an alternative available to Users that have 
already invested in hardware infrastructure within a particular 
dedicated cabinet and that require additional power allocation, but do 
not want an additional dedicated cabinet due to the expense of re-
developing infrastructure within such additional dedicated cabinet. The 
Exchange believes that the proposal would remove impediments to, and 
perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open market and a national market 
system and, in general, protect investors and the public interest 
because it would provide Users with additional choices with respect to 
the optimal size of their cabinets and the number of cabinets they 
utilize, which could therefore lead to cost savings that Users may 
choose to pass on to their customers.
    The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is 
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\16\ in particular, because 
it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and 
other charges among its members, issuers and other persons using its 
facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between customers, 
issuers, brokers or dealers. Overall, the Exchange believes that the 
proposed change is consistent with the Act because the Exchange offers 
the co-location services described herein (i.e., the proposed partial 
cabinets and Cabinet Upgrades) as a convenience to Users, but in doing 
so will incur certain costs, including costs related to the data center 
facility, hardware and equipment and costs related to personnel 
required for initial installation and ongoing monitoring, support and 
maintenance of such services. Additionally, the proposed fees relate to 
the level of services provided by the Exchange and, in turn, received 
by the User.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed pricing for partial 
cabinets is reasonable because a partial cabinet would be a more 
economical option for certain Users that require only limited power or 
limited cabinet space, as compared to pricing for a dedicated cabinet, 
whereas a dedicated cabinet would be a more economical option for 
certain Users that have higher power or space demands.\17\ The proposed 
pricing for partial cabinets and the Cabinet Upgrade fee is also 
reasonable because it would allow Users to select options that are 
better suited for their needs (e.g., a dedicated cabinet compared to a 
partial cabinet and a Cabinet Upgrade compared to an additional 
dedicated cabinet).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See, e.g., supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed pricing for partial cabinets is also reasonable 
because it is comparable to pricing for ``shared cabinet space'' 
available to users of co-location facilities of The NASDAQ Stock Market 
LLC (``NASDAQ'').\18\ Specifically, NASDAQ charges $600 for 500 watts 
(``Ws'') of power allocation in shared cabinet space. If a NASDAQ co-
location user were to request up to two kWs of allocated power in 
shared cabinet space it would be charged $2,400 per month (one kW is 
equal to 1,000 Ws and two kWs is therefore equal to 2,000 Ws), which is 
comparable to the proposed $2,700 monthly recurring charge for the same 
power allocation in an eight-rack unit in a partial cabinet in the data 
center. However, the Exchange understands that each unit of NASDAQ 
shared cabinet space is smaller in space than the partial cabinets 
proposed by the Exchange (e.g., four-rack units on NASDAQ compared to 
eight-rack units in the Exchange's data center).\19\ The Exchange also 
believes that the proposed Initial Install Services fee for a partial 
cabinet is reasonable because it is 50% of the dedicated cabinet 
Initial Install Services fee and likewise provides for 50% of the 
resources (i.e., two hours of labor instead of four hours and five 
cables instead of 10 cables) associated with the dedicated cabinet 
Initial Install Services fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See NASDAQ Rule 7034.
    \19\ NASDAQ's initial fee for shared cabinet space is charged on 
an hourly basis and is therefore difficult to compare to the 
proposed initial fee for partial cabinets in the Exchange's data 
center, which is fixed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the Cabinet Upgrade fee is 
reasonable because it would function similar to the NASDAQ charges for 
comparable services. In particular, NASDAQ charges a premium initial 
installation fee of $7,000 for a ``Super High Density Cabinet'' 
(between 10 kWs and 17.3 kWs) compared to $3,500 for other types of 
cabinets with less power.\20\ The Exchange charges only one flat rate 
for its initial cabinet fees ($5,000), regardless of the amount of 
power allocation. NASDAQ also charges an additional $7,000 for a Super 
High Density Cabinet Kit in relation to the additional customized 
equipment required to adequately cool a Super High Density Cabinet.\21\ 
The Exchange understands that NASDAQ therefore charges at least $10,500 
in additional initial costs for a Super High Density Cabinet compared 
to other cabinets (compared to the proposed $9,200 Cabinet Upgrade 
fee). The Exchange also believes that the proposed Cabinet Upgrade fee 
is reasonable because it would permit the Exchange to recover

[[Page 77742]]

its expenses related to Cabinet Upgrades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See supra note 18.
    \21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed 50% reduced Cabinet Upgrade fee for a User that 
submits a written order for a Cabinet Upgrade by January 31, 2014, 
provided that the Cabinet Upgrade becomes fully operational by March 
31, 2014, is reasonable because it would provide an incentive for Users 
to upgrade the capacity of their dedicated cabinets.
    As with fees for existing co-location services, the fees proposed 
herein would be charged only to those Users that voluntarily select the 
related services, which would be available to all Users. The Exchange 
therefore believes that the proposed change is equitable and not 
unfairly discriminatory because it would result in fees being charged 
only to Users that voluntarily select to receive the corresponding 
services and because those services would be available to all Users. 
Furthermore, the Exchange believes that the services and fees proposed 
herein are not unfairly discriminatory and are equitably allocated 
because, in addition to the services being completely voluntary, they 
are available to all Users on an equal basis (i.e., the same products 
and services are available to all Users).
    For the reasons above, the proposed change would not unfairly 
discriminate between or among market participants that are otherwise 
capable of satisfying any applicable co-location fees, requirements, 
terms and conditions established from time to time by the Exchange.
    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,\22\ 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 because any market participants that are otherwise 
capable of satisfying any applicable co-location fees, requirements, 
terms and conditions established from time to time by the Exchange 
could have access to the co-location services provided in the data 
center. This is also true because, in addition to the services being 
completely voluntary, they are available to all Users on an equal basis 
(i.e., the same range of products and services are available to all 
Users).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed partial cabinet and Cabinet 
Upgrade alternatives would not impose any burden on competition that is 
not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act 
because they would enhance competition by making additional choices in 
services available to Users and thereby satisfy User demand for partial 
cabinets and for dedicated cabinets with increased power capacity. The 
proposed change would also enhance competition because it would help 
Users meet the growing needs of their business operations. Moreover, 
the Exchange believes that the proposed change would enhance 
competition between competing marketplaces by enabling the Exchange to 
provide services to Users that are similar to services available on 
other markets. In this regard, the Exchange notes that NASDAQ also 
makes a shared cabinet space option and a ``Super High Density 
Cabinet'' option available to users of its co-location facilities.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See supra note 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly 
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor 
competing venues if, for example, they deem fee levels at a particular 
venue to be excessive or if they determine that another venue's 
products and services are more competitive than on the Exchange. In 
such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider 
adjusting, the services it offers as well as any corresponding fees and 
credits to remain competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons 
described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change 
reflects this competitive environment.

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 \24\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\25\ 
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (1) Significantly 
affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (2) impose 
any significant burden on competition; and (3) by its terms does not 
become operative for 30 days after the date of this filing, 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 
\26\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \25\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \27\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) 
requires a self-regulatory organization to provide the Commission 
with 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 filing of the 
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the 
Commission. The Exchange has met this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \28\ normally 
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the 
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b4(f)(6)(iii),\29\ 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 Exchange requested 
waiver of the 30-day operative delay in order to immediately implement 
the proposed rule change so that Users may experience the benefits of 
such proposed change as soon as possible. The Exchange stated that the 
proposal would merely make smaller increments of a standard, dedicated 
cabinet available on a voluntary basis to Users that do not require a 
full, dedicated cabinet. Users that do require full, dedicated cabinets 
could continue to request them. The Exchange also stated that the 
proposal would provide greater flexibility to Users that prefer to 
increase power allocation in a particular dedicated cabinet rather than 
incurring the cost of maintaining an additional dedicated cabinet. The 
Exchange further represented that it operates in a highly competitive 
market in which several competing exchanges already offer similar co-
location services. For the above reasons, the Commission believes 
waiver of the operative delay is appropriate and hereby grants the 
Exchange's request and designates the proposal operative upon 
filing.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \29\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \30\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, 
the Commission has also 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 such proposed rule 
change, the

[[Page 77743]]

Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it 
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate 
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise 
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such 
action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 
19(b)(2)(B) \31\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed rule 
change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to rule-comments@sec.gov. Please include 
File Number SR-NYSE-2013-81 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-NYSE-2013-81. This file 
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help 
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, 
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on 
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all 
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are 
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to 
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other 
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the 
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and 
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., 
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the 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-NYSE-2013-81 and should be 
submitted on or before January 14, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\32\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[FR Doc. 2013-30589 Filed 12-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


