
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 71 (Tuesday, April 14, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20049-20053]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08449]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74677; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2015-23]


Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT, LLC; Notice of Filing of 
Proposed Rule Change Adopting a Principles-Based Approach To Prohibit 
the Misuse of Material Nonpublic Information by Specialists and e-
Specialists by Deleting Rule 927.3NY and Section (f) of Rule 927.5NY

April 8, 2015.
    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 March 26, 2015, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE 
MKT'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the 
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, 
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory 
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit 
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to adopt a principles-based approach to 
prohibit the misuse of material nonpublic information by Specialists 
and e-Specialists by deleting Rule 927.3NY and section (f) of Rule 
927.5NY. 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 adopt a principles-based approach to 
prohibit the misuse of material nonpublic information by Specialists 
and e-Specialists by deleting Rule 927.3NY and section (f) of Rule 
927.5NY. In so doing, the Exchange would harmonize its rules governing 
Specialists, e-Specialists and Market Makers relating to protecting 
against the misuse of material, non-public information. The Exchange 
believes that Rules 927.3NY and 927.5NY(f) are no longer necessary 
because all ATP Holders, including Specialists and e-Specialists, are 
subject to the Exchange's general principles-based requirements 
governing the protection against the misuse of material, non-public 
information, pursuant to Exchange Rules, Part 1--General Rules, Rule 3 
(General Prohibitions and Duty to Report), section (j) (``Rule 3(j)''), 
which obviates the need for separately-prescribed requirements for a 
subset of market participants on the Exchange.
Background
    The Exchange has three classes of registered market makers. 
Pursuant to Rule 920NY(a), a Market Maker is an ATP holder that is 
registered with the Exchange for the purpose of submitting quotes 
electronically and making transactions as a dealer-specialist verbally 
on the Trading Floor, through the System from the Trading Floor, or 
remotely from off the Trading Floor. As the rule further provides, a 
Market Maker can be either a Remote Market Maker, a Floor Market Maker, 
a Specialist, or an e-Specialist. All Market Makers are subject to the 
requirements of Rule 925NY and 925.1NY, which set forth the obligations 
of Market Makers, particularly relating to quoting.

[[Page 20050]]

    Rule 927NY(c) specifies the obligations of Specialists, which, in 
addition to the Market Maker obligations of Rule 925NY, must also honor 
guaranteed markets. Rules 927.4NY and 927.5NY specify the obligations 
of e-Specialists, which is a form of Specialist that operates remotely 
only. The quoting obligations of all Market Makers, including 
Specialists/e-Specialists, are set forth in Rule 925.1NY. That rule 
sets forth the main difference between Market Makers and Specialists/e-
Specialists, namely that Specialists/e-Specialists have a heightened 
quoting obligation as compared to Market Makers.\4\ In addition to a 
heightened quoting obligation, pursuant to Rule 964NY, Specialists/e-
Specialists that are participants in the Specialist Pool are eligible 
to receive a guaranteed participation of incoming bids and offers.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Compare Rule 925.1NY(b) (``Specialists must provide 
continuous two-sided quotations throughout the trading day in its 
appointed issues [sic] 90% of the time the Exchange is open for 
trading in each issue.'') with Rule 925.1NY(c) (``A Market Maker 
must provide continuous two-sided quotations throughout the trading 
day in its appointed issues for 60% of the time the Exchange is open 
for trading in each issue.'')
    \5\ See Rule 964NY(b)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Importantly, whether operating on the Trading Floor or remotely, 
all Market Makers, including Specialists/e-Specialists, have access to 
the same information in the Consolidated Book that is available to all 
other market participants. Moreover, none of the Exchange's Market 
Makers, including Specialists/e-Specialists, have agency obligations to 
the Exchange's Consolidated Book. As such, the distinctions between 
Market Makers and Specialists/e-Specialists are the quoting 
requirements set forth in Rule 925.1NY and allocation guarantee for the 
Specialist Pool set forth in Rule 964NY.
    Notwithstanding that Market Makers, Specialists, and e-Specialists 
have access to the same Exchange trading information as all other 
market participants on the Exchange, the Exchange has distinct, 
prescriptive rules governing how Specialists and e-Specialists may 
operate. Rule 927.3NY prohibits ATP Holders affiliated with a 
Specialist from purchasing or selling any option to which the 
Specialist is appointed, except to reduce or liquidate positions after 
appropriate identification and floor official approval of the 
transaction. The rule further provides an exemption from the 
prohibition for affiliated firms that implement specified Exchange-
approved procedures to restrict the flow of material, non-public 
information. Rules 927.3NY(e)-(j) outline the ``Exemption Guidelines'' 
with which an affiliated firm must comply to obtain an exemption from 
the restriction in Rule 927.3NY. These specified ``Exemption 
Guidelines'' are meant to ensure that a Specialist will not have access 
to material, non-public information possessed by its affiliated ATP 
Holder, and that a firm will not misuse its affiliated Specialist's 
material, non-public information. The Exchange notes that the current 
rule is based on requirements from when specialists on the American 
Stock Exchange had agency obligations to the Exchange's book.
    Rule 927.5NY(f) requires e-Specialists to maintain information 
barriers that are reasonably designed to prevent the misuse of 
material, non-public information with any affiliates that may conduct a 
brokerage business in option classes allocated to the e-Specialist or 
act as specialist or Market Maker in any security underlying options 
allocated to the e-Specialist (but does not require prior Exchange 
approval and does not set forth proscribed ``Exemption Guidelines'').
Proposed Rule Change
    The Exchange believes that the particularized guidelines in Rule 
927.3NY and 927.5NY(f) for Specialists and e-Specialists, respectively, 
are no longer necessary and proposes to delete them. Rather, the 
Exchange believes that Rule 3(j) governing the misuse of material, non-
public information provides for an appropriate, principles-based 
approach to prevent the market abuses Rules 927.3NY and 927.5(f) are 
designed to address. Specifically, Rule 3(j) requires every Exchange 
member to establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and 
procedures reasonably designed to prevent the misuse of material, non-
public information by such member or associated persons. For purposes 
of this requirement, the misuse of material, non-public information 
includes, but is not limited to, the following:
    (a) Trading in any securities issued by a corporation, or in any 
related securities or related options or other derivative securities, 
while in possession of material, non-public information concerning that 
issuer;
    (b) trading in a security or related options or other derivative 
securities, while in possession of material, non-public information 
concerning imminent transactions in the security or related securities; 
or
    (c) disclosing to another person or entity any material, non-public 
information involving a corporation whose shares are publicly traded or 
an imminent transaction in an underlying security or related securities 
for the purpose of facilitating the possible misuse of such material, 
non-public information.
    Because Specialists and e-Specialists are already subject to the 
requirements of Rule 3(j), the Exchange does not believe that it is 
necessary to separately require specific limitations on dealings 
between Specialists/e-Specialists and their affiliates. Deleting Rule 
927.3NY and 927.5NY(f) and requirements for specific procedures would 
provide Specialists/e-Specialists and ATP Holders with the flexibility 
to adapt their policies and procedures as appropriate to reflect 
changes to their business model, business activities, or the securities 
market in a manner similar to how Market Makers on the Exchange 
currently operate and consistent with Rule 3(j).
    As noted above, Exchange Specialists and e-Specialists are 
distinguished under Exchange rules from other types of Market Makers 
only to the extent that Specialists and e-Specialists have heightened 
obligations and allocation guarantees. However, none of these 
heightened obligations provides [sic] different or greater access to 
nonpublic information than any other market participant on the 
Exchange.\6\ Specifically, whether on the Trading Floor or remotely, 
neither Specialists nor e-Specialists on the Exchange have access to 
trading information provided by the Exchange, either at, or prior to, 
the point of execution, that is not made available to all other market 
participants on the Exchange in a similar manner. Further, as noted 
above, Specialists/e-Specialists on the Exchange do not have any agency 
responsibilities for orders in the Consolidated Book. Accordingly, 
because Specialists, e-Specialists and Market Makers do not have any 
trading advantages at the Exchange due to their market role, the 
Exchange believes that they should be subject to the same rules 
regarding the protection against the misuse of material non-public 
information, which in this case, is existing Rule 3(j).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Rules 927NY(c) and 927.5NY.
    \7\ The Exchange notes that by deleting Rule 927.3NY, the 
Exchange would no longer require specific information barriers for 
Specialists or require pre-approval of any information barriers that 
a Specialist would erect for purposes of protecting against the 
misuse of material non-public information. However, as is the case 
today with Market Makers, information barriers of new entrants, 
including new Specialists, would be subject to review as part of a 
new firm application. Moreover, the policies and procedures of 
Specialists and e-Specialists, including those relating to 
information barriers, would be subject to review by FINRA, on behalf 
of the Exchange, pursuant to a Regulatory Services Agreement.

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

[[Page 20051]]

    The Exchange notes that its proposed approach to use a principles-
based approach to protecting against the misuse of material non-public 
information for all of its registered market makers is consistent with 
recent approved rule changes for NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. (``NYSE 
Arca''), BATS Exchange, Inc.'s (``BATS''), and New York Stock Exchange 
LLC (``NYSE'') rules governing cash equity market makers on those 
respective exchanges.\8\ Except for prescribed rules relating to floor-
based designated market makers on the NYSE, who have access to 
specified non-public trading information, each of these exchanges have 
moved to a principles-based approach to protecting against the misuse 
of material non-public information. In connection with approving those 
rule changes, the Commission found that eliminating prescriptive 
information barrier requirements should not reduce the effectiveness of 
exchange rules requiring its members to establish and maintain systems 
to supervise the activities of its members, including written 
procedures reasonably designed to ensure compliance with applicable 
federal securities law and regulations, and with the rules of the 
applicable exchange.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 60604 (Sept. 2, 
2009), 76 FR 46272 (Sept. 8, 2009) (SR-NYSEArca-2009-78) (Order 
approving elimination of NYSE Arca rule that required market makers 
to establish and maintain specifically prescribed information 
barriers, including discussion of NYSE Arca and Nasdaq rules) 
(``Arca Approval Order''); 61574 (Feb. 23, 2010), 75 FR 9455 (Mar. 
2, 2010) (SR-BATS-2010-003) (Order approving amendments to BATS Rule 
5.5 to move to a principles-based approach to protecting against the 
misuse of material, non-public information, and noting that the 
proposed change is consistent with the approaches of NYSE Arca and 
Nasdaq) (``BATS Approval Order''); and 72534 (July 3, 2014), 79 FR 
39440 (July 10, 2014), SR-NYSE-2014-12) (Order approving amendments 
to NYSE Rule 98 governing designated market makers to move to a 
principles-based approach to prohibit the misuse of material non-
public information) (``NYSE Approval Order'').
    \9\ See, e.g., BATS Approval Order, supra note 8 at 9458.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comparable to members of cash equity markets, the Exchange believes 
that a principles-based rule applicable to members of options markets 
would be equally effective in protecting against the misuse of material 
non-public information. Indeed, Exchange Rule 3(j) is currently 
applicable to Exchange Market Makers other than Specialists and e-
Specialists and already requires all ATP Holders to have policies and 
procedures reasonably designed to protect against the misuse of 
material nonpublic information, which is similar to the respective NYSE 
Arca Equities, BATS and NYSE rules governing cash equity market makers. 
The Exchange believes Rule 3(j) provides appropriate protection against 
the misuse of material nonpublic information by Specialists and e-
Specialists on the Exchange and there is no longer a need for 
prescriptive information barrier requirements in Rules 927.3NY and 
927.5NY(f).
    The Exchange notes that even with this proposed rule change, 
pursuant to Rule 3(j), a Specialist or e-Specialist would still be 
obligated to ensure that its policies and procedures reflect the 
current state of its business and continue to be reasonably designed to 
achieve compliance with applicable federal securities law and 
regulations, and with applicable Exchange rules, including being 
reasonably designed to protect against the misuse of material, non-
public information. While information barriers would not specifically 
be required under the proposal, Rule 3(j) already requires that an ATP 
Holder consider its business model or business activities in 
structuring its policies and procedures, which may dictate that an 
information barrier or a functional separation be part of the 
appropriate set of policies and procedures that would be reasonably 
designed to achieve compliance with applicable securities law and 
regulations, and with applicable Exchange rules.
    The Exchange further notes that under Rule 3(j), an ATP Holder 
would be able [sic] structure its firm to provide for its options 
Specialists, e-Specialists, or Market Makers, as applicable, to be 
structured with its equities and customer-facing businesses, provided 
that any such structuring would be done in a manner reasonably designed 
to protect against the misuse of material, non-public information. For 
example, pursuant to Rule 3(j), a Specialist on the Exchange could be 
in the same independent trading unit, as defined in Rule 200(f) of 
Regulation SHO,\10\ as an equities market maker and other trading desks 
within the firm, including options trading desks, so that the firm 
could share post-trade information to better manage its risk across 
related securities. The Exchange believes it is appropriate, and 
consistent with Rule 3(j) and Section 15(g) of the Act \11\ for a firm 
to share options position and related hedging position information 
(e.g., equities, futures, and foreign currency) within a firm to better 
manage risk on a firm-wide basis. The Exchange notes, however, that if 
so structured, a firm would need to have appropriate policies and 
procedures, including information barriers as applicable, to protect 
against the misuse of material non-public information, and specifically 
customer information, consistent with Rule 3(j).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR part 242.200(f).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78o(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed reliance on the principles-
based Rule 3(j) would ensure that an ATP Holder that operates a 
Specialist or e-Specialist would be required to protect against the 
misuse of any material non-public information. As noted above, Rule 
3(j) already requires that firms refrain from trading while in 
possession of material non-public information concerning imminent 
transactions in the security or related product. The Exchange believes 
that moving to a principles-based approach rather than prescribing how 
and when to wall off a Specialist or e-Specialist from the rest of the 
firm would provide ATP Holders operating Specialists or e-Specialists 
with appropriate tools to better manage risk across a firm, including 
integrating options positions with other positions of the firm or, as 
applicable, by the respective independent trading unit. Specifically, 
the Exchange believes that it is appropriate for risk management 
purposes for a member operating a Specialist or e-Specialist to be able 
to consider both options Specialist/e-Specialist traded positions for 
purposes of calculating net positions consistent with Rule 200 of 
Regulation SHO, calculating intra-day net capital positions, and 
managing risk both generally as well as in compliance with Rule 15c3-5 
under the Act (the ``Market Access Rule'').\12\ The Exchange notes that 
any risk management operations would need to operate consistent with 
the requirement to protect against the misuse of material non-public 
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR part 240.15c3-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further notes that if Specialists or e-Specialists are 
integrated with other market making operations, they would be subject 
to existing rules that prohibit ATP Holders from disadvantaging their 
customers or other market participants by improperly capitalizing on a 
member organization's access to the receipt of material, non-public 
information. As such, a member organization that integrates its 
Specialist/e-Specialist operations together with equity market making 
would need to protect customer information consistent with existing 
obligations to protect such information. The Exchange has rules 
prohibiting members from disadvantaging their customers or other market 
participants by improperly capitalizing on the

[[Page 20052]]

members' [sic] access to or receipt of material, non-public 
information. For example, Rule 320 requires members to establish, 
maintain, enforce, and keep current a system of compliance and 
supervisory controls, reasonably designed to achieve compliance with 
applicable securities laws and Exchange rules. Additionally, Rule 
995NY(c) prevents an ATP Holder or person associated with an ATP 
Holder, who has knowledge of an originating order, a solicited order, 
or a facilitation order, to enter, based on such knowledge, an order to 
buy or sell an option on the underlying securities of any option that 
is the subject of the order, an order to buy or sell the security 
underlying any option that is the subject of the order, or any order to 
buy or sell any related instrument unless certain circumstances are 
met.
    The Exchange proposes to make a conforming amendment to remove the 
section referencing Rule 927.3NY in Rule 927.6NY.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 
6(b) of the Act \13\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 
6(b)(5) of the Act \14\ in particular, in that it is designed to 
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just 
and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect 
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, 
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would remove 
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market by 
adopting a principles-based approach to permit an ATP Holder operating 
a Specialist or e-Specialist to maintain and enforce policies and 
procedures to, among other things, prohibit the misuse of material non-
public information and eliminating restrictions on how an ATP Holder 
structures it Specialist or e-Specialist operations. The Exchange notes 
that the proposed rule change is based on an approved rule of the 
Exchange to which Specialists and e-Specialists are already subject--
Rule 3(j)--and harmonizes the rules governing Specialists, e-
Specialists, and Market Makers. Moreover, ATP Holders operating 
Specialists and e-Specialists would continue to be subject to federal 
and Exchange requirements for protecting material non-public order 
information.\15\ The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change 
would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and 
open market because it would harmonize the Exchange's approach to 
protecting against the misuse of material nonpublic information and no 
longer subject Specialists/e-Specialists to prescriptive requirements. 
The Exchange does not believes that the existing prescriptive 
requirements applicable to Specialists/e-Specialists are narrowly 
tailored to their respective roles because neither market participant 
has access to Exchange trading information in a manner different from 
any other market participant on the Exchange and they do not have 
agency responsibilities to the Consolidated Book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See 15 U.S.C. 78o(g) and Rule 3(j).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further believes the proposal is designed to prevent 
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices and to promote just and 
equitable principles of trade because existing rules make clear to 
Specialists, e-Specialists and ATP Holders the type of conduct that is 
prohibited by the Exchange. While the proposal eliminates prescriptive 
requirements relating to the misuse of material non-public information, 
Specialists, e-Specialists and ATP Holders would remain subject to 
existing Exchange rules requiring them to establish and maintain 
systems to supervise their activities, and to create, implement, and 
maintain written procedures that are reasonably designed to comply with 
applicable securities laws and Exchange rules, including the 
prohibition on the misuse of material, nonpublic information.
    The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change would still 
require that ATP Holders operating Specialists and e-Specialists 
maintain and enforce policies and procedures reasonably designed to 
ensure compliance with applicable federal securities laws and 
regulations and with Exchange rules. Even though there would no longer 
be pre-approval of Specialist information barriers, any Specialist/e-
Specialist written policies and procedures would continue to be subject 
to oversight by the Exchange and therefore the elimination of 
prescribed restrictions should not reduce the effectiveness of the 
Exchange rules to protect against the misuse of material non-public 
information. Rather, ATP Holders will be able to utilize a flexible, 
principles-based approach to modify their policies and procedures as 
appropriate to reflect changes to their business model, business 
activities, or to the securities market itself. Moreover, while 
specified information barriers may no longer be required, an ATP 
Holder's business model or business activities may dictate that an 
information barrier or functional separation be part of the appropriate 
set of policies and procedures that would be reasonably designed to 
achieve compliance with applicable securities laws and regulations, and 
with applicable Exchange rules. The Exchange therefore believes that 
the proposed rule change will maintain the existing protection of 
investors and the public interest that is currently applicable to 
Specialists and e-Specialists, while at the same time removing 
impediments to and perfecting a free and open market by moving to a 
principles-based approach to protect against the misuse of material 
non-public information.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will 
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in 
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the Exchange 
believes that the proposal will enhance competition by allowing 
Specialists, e-Specialists and Market Makers to comply with applicable 
Exchange rules in a manner best suited to their business models, 
business activities, and the securities markets, thus reducing 
regulatory burdens while still ensuring compliance with applicable 
securities laws and regulations and Exchange rules. The Exchange 
believes that the proposal will foster a fair and orderly marketplace 
without being overly burdensome upon Specialists and e-Specialists.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the 
Federal Register or up to 90 days (i) as the Commission may designate 
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its 
reasons for so finding or (ii) as to which the self-regulatory 
organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or

[[Page 20053]]

    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule 
change should be disapproved.

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-NYSEMKT-2015-23 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, 
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., 
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2015-23. 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 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-NYSEMKT-2015-23 and should be submitted on or before May 
5, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-08449 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


