Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change With Respect to the Authority of the Exchange or Nasdaq Options Services LLC (“NOS”) To Cancel Options Orders When a Technical or System Issue Occurs and To Describe the Operation of an Error Account for NOS, 74524-74528 [2012-30169]

Download as PDF 74524 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 241 / Friday, December 14, 2012 / Notices it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission’s Internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/ rules/sro.shtml); or • Send an email to rulecomments@sec.gov. Please include File Number SR–Phlx–2012–134 on the subject line. Paper Comments mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with • 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–Phlx–2012–134. 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 (https://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–Phlx– VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:41 Dec 13, 2012 Jkt 229001 2012–134 and should be submitted on or before January 4, 2013. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.23 Kevin M. O’Neill, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. 2012–30168 Filed 12–13–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011–01–P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34–68394; File No. SR–BX– 2012–073] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change With Respect to the Authority of the Exchange or Nasdaq Options Services LLC (‘‘NOS’’) To Cancel Options Orders When a Technical or System Issue Occurs and To Describe the Operation of an Error Account for NOS December 10, 2012. 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 November 29, 2012, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (the ‘‘Exchange’’ or ‘‘BX’’) 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. I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes a rule change with respect to the authority of the Exchange or Nasdaq Options Services LLC (‘‘NOS’’) to cancel options orders when a technical or system issue occurs and to describe the operation of an error account for NOS. The text of the proposed rule change is available at https://nasdaqomxbx.cchwallstreet.com, at the Exchange’s principal office, and at the Commission’s Public Reference Room. 23 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). U.S.C.78s(b)(1). 2 15 U.S.C. 78a. 3 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 1 15 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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 Exchange 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 these 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 aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Exchange proposes to amend Chapter VI, Section 11, Order Routing, by adding a new paragraph (g) that addresses the authority of the Exchange or NOS to cancel options orders when a technical or systems issue occurs and to describe the operation of an error account for NOS.4 NOS is the approved routing broker of the Exchange, subject to the conditions listed in Chapter VI, Section 11. The Exchange relies on NOS to provide 4 NOS is a facility of the Exchange. Accordingly, under Chapter VI, Section 11, the Exchange is responsible for filing with the Commission rule changes and fees relating to NOS’s functions. In addition, the Exchange is using the phrase ‘‘NOS or the Exchange’’ in this rule filing to reflect the fact that a decision to take action with respect to orders affected by a technical or systems issue may be made in the capacity of NOS or the Exchange depending on where those orders are located at the time of that decision. From time to time, the Exchange may use nonaffiliate third-party broker-dealers to provide outbound routing services (i.e., third-party Routing Brokers). In those cases, orders are submitted to the third-party Routing Broker through NOS, the thirdparty Routing Broker routes the orders to the routing destination in its name, and any executions are submitted for clearance and settlement in the name of NOS so that any resulting positions are delivered to NOS upon settlement. As described above, NOS normally arranges for any resulting securities positions to be delivered to the member that submitted the corresponding order to the Exchange. If error positions (as defined in proposed Chapter VI, Section 11(g)(2)) result in connection with the Exchange’s use of a third-party Routing Broker for outbound routing, and those positions are delivered to NOS through the clearance and settlement process, NOS would be permitted to resolve those positions in accordance with proposed Chapter VI, Section 11(g). If the thirdparty Routing Broker received error positions in connection with its role as a routing broker for the Exchange, and the error positions were not delivered to NOS through the clearance and settlement process, then the third-party Routing Broker would resolve the error positions itself, and NOS would not be permitted to accept the error positions, as set forth in proposed Chapter VI, Section 11(g) (2)(B). E:\FR\FM\14DEN1.SGM 14DEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 241 / Friday, December 14, 2012 / Notices outbound routing services from itself to routing destinations of NOS (‘‘routing destinations’’).5 When NOS routes orders to a routing destination, it does so by sending a corresponding order in its own name to the routing destination. In the normal course, routed orders that are executed at routing destinations are submitted for clearance and settlement in the name of NOS, and NOS arranges for any resulting securities positions to be delivered to the member that submitted the corresponding order to the Exchange. From time to time, however, the Exchange and NOS encounter situations in which it becomes necessary to cancel orders and resolve error positions.6 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with Examples of Circumstances That May Lead to Canceled Orders A technical or systems issue may arise at NOS, a routing destination, or the Exchange that may cause the Exchange or NOS to take steps to cancel orders if the Exchange or NOS determines that such action is necessary to maintain a fair and orderly market. The examples set forth below describe some of the circumstances in which the Exchange or NOS may decide to cancel orders. Example 1. If NOS or a routing destination experiences a technical or systems issue that results in NOS not receiving responses to immediate or cancel (‘‘IOC’’) orders that it sent to the routing destination, and that issue is not resolved in a timely manner, NOS or the Exchange would seek to cancel the routed orders affected by the issue.7 For instance, if NOS experiences a connectivity issue affecting the manner 5 The Exchange has authority to receive inbound routes of options orders by NOS from The NASDAQ Stock Market (‘‘NASDAQ’’) and NASDAQ OMX PHLX. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67256 (June 26, 2012), 77 FR 39277 (July 2, 2012) (SR–BX–2012–030) (Approving the establishment of the BX Options market). 6 The examples described in this filing are not intended to be exclusive. Proposed Chapter VI, Section 11(g) would provide general authority for the Exchange or NOS to cancel orders in order to maintain fair and orderly markets when technical and systems issues are occurring, and Chapter VI, Section 11(g) also would set forth the manner in which error positions may be handled by the Exchange or NOS. The proposed rule change is not limited to addressing order cancellation or error positions resulting only from the specific examples described in this filing. 7 In a normal situation (i.e., one in which a technical or systems issue does not exist), NOS should receive an immediate response to an IOC order from a routing destination, and would pass the resulting fill or cancellation on to the Exchange member. After submitting an order that is routed to a routing destination, if a member sends an instruction to cancel that order, the cancellation is held by the Exchange until a response is received from the routing destination. For instance, if the routing destination executes that order, the execution would be passed on to the member and the cancellation instruction would be disregarded. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:41 Dec 13, 2012 Jkt 229001 in which it sends or receives order messages to or from routing destinations, it may be unable to receive timely execution or cancellation reports from the routing destinations, and NOS or the Exchange may consequently seek to cancel the affected routed orders. Once the decision is made to cancel those routed orders, any cancellation that a member submitted to the Exchange on its initial order during such a situation would be honored.8 Example 2. If the Exchange experiences a systems issue, the Exchange may take steps to cancel all outstanding orders affected by that issue and notify affected members of the cancellations. In those cases, the Exchange would seek to cancel any routed orders related to the members’ initial orders. Examples of Circumstances That May Lead to Error Positions In some instances, the technical or systems issue at NOS, a routing destination, the Exchange, or a nonaffiliate third party Routing Broker may also result in NOS acquiring an error position that it must resolve. The examples set forth below describe some of the circumstances in which error positions may arise. Example A. Error positions may result from routed orders that the Exchange or NOS attempts to cancel but that are executed before the routing destination receives the cancellation message or that are executed because the routing destination is unable to process the cancellation message. Using the situation described in Example 1 above, assume that the Exchange seeks to cancel orders routed to a routing destination because it is not receiving timely execution or cancellation reports from the routing destination. In such a situation, NOS may still receive executions from the routing destination after connectivity is restored, which it would not then allocate to members because of the earlier decision to cancel the affected routed orders. Instead, NOS would post those positions into its error account and resolve the positions in the manner described below. Example B. Error positions may result from an order processing issue at a routing destination. For instance, if a routing destination experienced a systems problem that affects its order processing, it may transmit back a 8 If a member did not submit a cancellation to the Exchange, however, that initial order would remain ‘‘live’’ and thus be eligible for execution or posting on the Exchange, and neither the Exchange nor NOS would treat any execution of that initial order or any subsequent routed order related to that initial order as an error. PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 74525 message purporting to cancel a routed order, but then subsequently submit an execution of that same order (i.e., a locked-in trade) to The Options Clearing Corporation (‘‘OCC’’) for clearance and settlement. In such a situation, the Exchange would not then allocate the execution to the member because of the earlier cancellation message from the routing destination. Instead, NOS would post those positions into its error account and resolve the positions in the manner described below. Example C. Error positions may result if NOS receives an execution report from a routing destination but does not receive clearing instructions for the execution from the routing destination. For instance, assume that a member sends the Exchange an order to buy 100 contracts overlying ABC stock, which causes NOS to send an order to a routing destination that is subsequently executed, cleared, and closed out by that routing destination, and the execution is ultimately communicated back to that member. On the next trading day (T+1), if the routing destination does not provide clearing instructions for that execution, NOS would still be responsible for settling that member’s purchase, but would be left with a short position in its error account.9 NOS would resolve the position in the manner described below. Example D. Error positions may result from a technical or systems issue that causes orders to be executed in the name of NOS that are not related to NOS’s function as the Exchange’s routing broker and are not related to any corresponding orders of members. As a result, NOS would not be able to assign any positions resulting from such an issue to members. Instead, NOS would post those positions into its error account and resolve the positions in the manner described below. Example E. Error positions may result from a technical or systems issue through which the Exchange does not receive sufficient notice that a member that has executed trades on the Exchange has lost the ability to clear trades through OCC. In such a situation, the Exchange would not have valid clearing information, which would prevent the trade from being automatically processed for clearance and settlement on a locked-in basis. Accordingly, NOS would assume that member’s side of the trades so that the counterparties can settle the trades. NOS would post those positions into its 9 To the extent that NOS incurred a loss in covering its short position, it would submit a reimbursement claim to that routing destination. E:\FR\FM\14DEN1.SGM 14DEN1 74526 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 241 / Friday, December 14, 2012 / Notices error account and resolve the positions in the manner described below. Example F. Error positions may result from a technical or systems issue at the Exchange that does not involve routing of orders through NOS. For example, a situation may arise in which a posted quote/order was validly cancelled but the system erroneously matched that quote/order with an order that was seeking to access it. In such a situation, NOS would have to assume the side of the trade opposite the order seeking to access the cancelled quote/order. NOS would post the position in its error account and resolve the position in the manner described below. In the circumstances described above, neither the Exchange nor NOS may learn about an error position until T+1, either: (1) During the clearing process when a routing destination has submitted to OCC a transaction for clearance and settlement for which NOS never received an execution confirmation; or (2) when a routing destination does not recognize a transaction submitted to OCC for clearance and settlement. Moreover, the affected members’ trade may not be nullified absent express authority under Exchange rules.10 Proposed Amendments to Chapter VI, Section 11 The Exchange proposes to amend Chapter VI, Section 11 to add new paragraph (g) to address the cancellation of orders due to technical or systems issues and the use of an error account by NOS. Specifically, under paragraph (g)(1) of the proposed rule, the Exchange or NOS would be expressly authorized to cancel orders as may be necessary to maintain fair and orderly markets if a technical or systems issue occurred at the Exchange, NOS, or a routing destination.11 The Exchange or NOS would be required to provide notice of the cancellation to affected members as soon as practicable. Paragraph (g)(2) of the proposed rule would permit NOS to maintain an error account for the purpose of addressing positions that result from a technical or systems issue at NOS, the Exchange, a routing destination, or a non-affiliate third-party Routing Broker that affects 10 See, e.g., Chapter V, Section 6. a situation may not cause the Exchange to declare self-help against the routing destination pursuant to Chapter XII, Section 2(b)(1). If the Exchange or NOS determines to cancel orders routed to a routing destination under proposed Chapter VI, Section 11(g), but does not declare selfhelp against that routing destination, the Exchange would continue to be subject to the trade-through requirements in the Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Markets Plan and Chapter XII, Section 2 with respect to that routing destination. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 11 Such VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:41 Dec 13, 2012 Jkt 229001 one or more orders (‘‘error positions’’). By definition, an error position would not include any position that results from an order submitted by a member to the Exchange that is executed on the Exchange and automatically processed for clearance and settlement on a locked-in basis. NOS also would not be permitted to accept any positions in its error account from an account of a member and could not permit any member to transfer any positions from the member’s account to NOS’s error account under the proposed rule.12 However, if a technical or systems issue results in the Exchange not having valid clearing instructions for a member to a trade, NOS may assume that member’s side of the trade so that the trade can be processed for clearance and settlement on a locked-in basis.13 Under paragraph (g)(3), in connection with a particular technical or systems issue, NOS or the Exchange would be permitted to either (i) assign all resulting error positions to members, or (ii) have all resulting error positions liquidated, as described below. Any determination to assign or liquidate error positions, as well as any resulting assignments, would be required to be made in a nondiscriminatory fashion. NOS or the Exchange would be required to assign all error positions resulting from a particular technical or systems issue to the applicable members affected by that technical or systems issue if NOS or the Exchange: 12 The purpose of this provision is to clarify that NOS may address error positions under the proposed rule that are caused by a technical or systems issue, but that NOS may not accept from a member positions that are delivered to the member through the clearance and settlement process, even if those positions may have been related to a technical or systems issue at NOS, the Exchange, a routing destination of NOS, or a nonaffiliate third-party Routing Broker. This provision would not apply, however, to situations like the one described in Example C in which NOS incurred a short position to settle a member’s purchase, as the member did not yet have a position in its account as a result of the purchase at the time of NOS’s action (i.e., NOS’s action was necessary for the purchase to settle into the member’s account). Similarly, the provision would not apply to situations like the one described in Example F, where a system issue caused one member to receive an execution for which there was not an available contraparty, in which case action by NOS would be necessary for the position to settle into that member’s account. Moreover, to the extent a member receives locked-in positions in connection with a technical or systems issue, that member may seek to rely on Chapter V, Section 9 if it experiences a loss. That rule references BX Rule 4626, which provides members with the ability to file claims against the Exchange for ‘‘losses directly resulting from the Systems’ actual failure to correctly process an order, Quote/Order, message, or other data, provided the NASDAQ OMX BX Equities Market has acknowledged receipt of the order, Quote/ Order, message, or data.’’ 13 See Example E above. PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 • Determined that it has accurate and sufficient information (including valid clearing information) to assign the positions to all of the applicable members affected by that technical or systems issue; • Determined that it has sufficient time pursuant to normal clearance and settlement deadlines to evaluate the information necessary to assign the positions to all of the applicable members affected by that technical or systems issue; and • Had not determined to cancel all orders affected by that technical or systems issue. For example, a technical or systems issue of limited scope or duration may occur at a routing destination, and the resulting trades may be submitted for clearance and settlement by such routing destination to OCC. If there were a small number of trades, there may be sufficient time to match positions with member orders and avoid using the error account. There may be scenarios, however, where NOS determines that it is unable to assign all error positions resulting from a particular technical or systems issue to all of the affected members, or determines to cancel all affected routed orders. For example, in some cases, the volume of questionable executions and positions resulting from a technical or systems issue might be such that the research necessary to determine which members to assign those executions to could be expected to extend past the normal settlement cycle for such executions. Furthermore, if a routing destination experiences a technical or systems issue after NOS has transmitted IOC orders to it that prevents NOS from receiving responses to those orders, NOS or the Exchange may determine to cancel all routed orders affected by that issue. In such a situation, NOS or the Exchange would not pass on to the members any executions on the routed orders received from the routing destination. The proposed rule also would require NOS to liquidate error positions as soon as practicable.14 In liquidating error positions, NOS would be required to provide complete time and price discretion for the trading to liquidate the error positions to a third-party broker-dealer and could not attempt to exercise any influence or control over 14 If NOS determines in connection with a particular technical or systems issue that some error positions can be assigned to some affected members but other error positions cannot be assigned, NOS would be required under the proposed rule to liquidate all such error positions (including those positions that could be assigned to the affected members). E:\FR\FM\14DEN1.SGM 14DEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 241 / Friday, December 14, 2012 / Notices the timing or methods of trading to liquidate the error positions.15 NOS also would be required to establish and enforce policies and procedures reasonably designed to restrict the flow of confidential and proprietary information between the third-party broker-dealer and NOS/the Exchange associated with the liquidation of the error positions. Under proposed paragraph (g)(4), NOS and the Exchange would be required to make and keep records to document all determinations to treat positions as error positions and all determinations for the assignment of error positions to members or the liquidation of error positions, as well as records associated with the liquidation of error positions through the thirdparty broker-dealer. 2. Statutory Basis mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ‘‘Act’’), in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),17 in particular, in that 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 facilitating transactions in securities, 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, and it is not designed to permit unfair discrimination among customers, brokers, or dealers. The Exchange believes that this proposal is in keeping with those principles because NOS’s or the Exchange’s ability to cancel orders during a technical or systems issue and to maintain an error account facilitates the smooth and efficient operations of the market. Specifically, the Exchange believes that allowing NOS or the Exchange to cancel orders during a technical or systems issue would allow the Exchange to maintain fair and orderly markets. Moreover, the Exchange believes that allowing NOS to assume error positions in an error account and to liquidate those positions, subject to the conditions set forth in the proposed 15 This provision is not intended to preclude NOS from providing the third-party broker with standing instructions with respect to the manner in which it should handle all error account transactions. For example, NOS might instruct the broker to treat all orders as ‘‘not held’’ and to attempt to minimize any market impact on the price of the stock being traded. 16 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 17 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:41 Dec 13, 2012 Jkt 229001 amendments to Chapter VI, Section 11, would be the least disruptive means to correct these errors, except in cases where NOS can assign all such error positions to all affected members of the Exchange. Overall, the proposed amendments are designed to ensure full trade certainty for market participants and to avoid disrupting the clearance and settlement process. The proposed amendments are also designed to provide a consistent methodology for handling error positions in a manner that does not discriminate among members. The proposed amendments are also consistent with Section 6 of the Act insofar as they would require NOS to establish controls to restrict the flow of any confidential information between the third-party broker and NOS/the Exchange associated with the liquidation of error positions. B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others Written comments were neither solicited nor received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 18 and Rule 19b– 4(f)(6) 19 thereunder. BX has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay.20 The Commission believes that waiver of the operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. Such waiver would allow the Exchange, without delay, to implement the 18 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b– 4(f)(6) requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change 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. 20 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6)(iii). 19 17 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 74527 proposed rule change, which is designed to provide a consistent methodology for handling error positions in a manner that does not discriminate among members. The Commission also notes that the proposed rule change is based on, and substantially similar to, BX Equity Rule 4758(d), which the Commission recently approved.21 Accordingly, the Commission designates the proposal operative upon filing.22 At any time within 60 days of the filing of the 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. 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 (https://www.sec.gov/ rules/sro.shtml); or • Send an email to rulecomments@sec.gov. Please include File Number SR–BX–2012–073 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–BX–2012–073. 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 (https://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 21 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67280 (June 27, 2012), 77 FR 39552 (July 3, 2012) (SR–BX– 2012–034). 22 For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the Commission has considered the proposed rule change’s impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). E:\FR\FM\14DEN1.SGM 14DEN1 74528 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 241 / Friday, December 14, 2012 / Notices 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–BX– 2012–073 and should be submitted on or before January 4, 2013. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.23 Kevin M. O’Neill, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. 2012–30169 Filed 12–13–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011–01–P [Release No. 34–68385; File No. SR– NYSEARCA–2012–133] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Amending NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31(h)(7) To Permit PL Select Orders To Interact With Incoming Orders Larger Than the Size of the PL Select Order mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with December 7, 2012. 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 November 27, 2012, 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, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the selfregulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). U.S.C.78s(b)(1). 2 15 U.S.C. 78a. 3 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 1 15 VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:41 Dec 13, 2012 Jkt 229001 II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 23 17 I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31(h)(7) to permit PL Select Orders to interact with incoming orders larger than the size of the PL Select Order. 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. 1. Purpose The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31(h)(7) to permit PL Select Orders to interact with incoming orders larger than the size of the PL Select Order. On September 5, 2012, the Exchange received Commission approval for the PL Select Order type, which is a form of a PL Order that does not interact with an incoming order that: (i) Has an immediate-or-cancel (‘‘IOC’’) time in force condition,4 (ii) is an ISO,5 or (iii) is larger than the size of the PL Select Order.6 The Exchange implemented the new PL Select Order functionality on September 21, 2012.7 Based on the few weeks of experience with the new order type, the Exchange has identified an unintended business consequence in connection with the fact that PL Select Orders do not interact with incoming orders that are larger than the size of the PL Select Order. Specifically, in limited situations, the 4 See NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31(e). NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31(jj). 6 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67785 (Sept. 5, 2012), 77 FR 55888 (Sept. 11, 2012) (SR– NYSEArca–2012–48). 7 See https://www.nyse.com/pdfs/Reminder_ NYSE_Arca_Introduces_New_PL_Select_Order_ Type.pdf. 5 See PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 existence of a PL Select Order may prevent certain incoming opposite side interest from posting to the Arca Book. For example, assume that an ETP Holder has entered a PL Select Order to sell priced at $10.10 for 100 shares. Assume further that the Exchange receives an incoming buy order for 200 shares priced at $10.10, which becomes both the Exchange best bid and the National Best Bid. Because the arriving buy order is larger than the resting PL Select Order, as required by current Rule 7.31(h)(7), the PL Select Order would not execute against the arriving $10.10 buy order. By contrast, a regular PL Order to sell at $10.10 would have executed against the incoming buy order. Because the PL Select Order would not execute in this scenario, it remains undisplayed on the Arca Book. Assume further that there is now an incoming Add Liquidity Only Order (‘‘ALO Order’’) to buy priced at $10.10, which is seeking to add to the existing bid of $10.10 for 200 shares. As required by NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31(nn)(3), because there is a resting sell PL Select Order at that price, the incoming ALO Order would be rejected. In such scenario, both the PL Select Order and the ALO order are operating consistently with the rules, but because of the operation of the rules, an ETP Holder seeking to add liquidity to the Arca Book with an ALO order would be unable to do so, even though there is resting interest posted at the same price. The Exchange believes it is appropriate to allow ALO orders to be entered in such scenario. By removing the requirement that PL Select Orders not interact with larger-sized interest, such ALO interest would not need to be rejected, as required by Rule 7.31(nn), because the PL Select Order would have executed against the larger-sized incoming interest and would no longer be resting on the Book. The Exchange continues to believe that the rationale initially presented for why PL Select Orders should not interact with incoming orders larger in size remains valid. Namely, by not interacting with incoming orders larger in size, the PL Select Order remains on the Arca Book as a mechanism to provide price improvement, rather than be executed in a series of inferior prices as a large incoming order sweeps the Arca Book. However, while the abovedescribed scenario is rare, the Exchange believes that the potential for liquidityposting interest to be rejected outweighs the benefits of having the PL Select Order not interact with incoming orders that are larger in size than the PL Select Order. E:\FR\FM\14DEN1.SGM 14DEN1

Agencies

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 241 (Friday, December 14, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74524-74528]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-30169]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68394; File No. SR-BX-2012-073]


Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of 
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change With Respect 
to the Authority of the Exchange or Nasdaq Options Services LLC 
(``NOS'') To Cancel Options Orders When a Technical or System Issue 
Occurs and To Describe the Operation of an Error Account for NOS

December 10, 2012.
    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 November 29, 2012, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' 
or ``BX'') 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 a rule change with respect to the authority 
of the Exchange or Nasdaq Options Services LLC (``NOS'') to cancel 
options orders when a technical or system issue occurs and to describe 
the operation of an error account for NOS. The text of the proposed 
rule change is available at https://nasdaqomxbx.cchwallstreet.com, at 
the Exchange's principal office, 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 Exchange 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 these 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 aspects of such 
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Chapter VI, Section 11, Order 
Routing, by adding a new paragraph (g) that addresses the authority of 
the Exchange or NOS to cancel options orders when a technical or 
systems issue occurs and to describe the operation of an error account 
for NOS.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ NOS is a facility of the Exchange. Accordingly, under 
Chapter VI, Section 11, the
     Exchange is responsible for filing with the Commission rule 
changes and fees relating to NOS's functions. In addition, the 
Exchange is using the phrase ``NOS or the Exchange'' in this rule 
filing to reflect the fact that a decision to take action with 
respect to orders affected by a technical or systems issue may be 
made in the capacity of NOS or the Exchange depending on where those 
orders are located at the time of that decision.
    From time to time, the Exchange may use non-affiliate third-
party broker-dealers to provide outbound routing services (i.e., 
third-party Routing Brokers). In those cases, orders are submitted 
to the third-party Routing Broker through NOS, the third-party 
Routing Broker routes the orders to the routing destination in its 
name, and any executions are submitted for clearance and settlement 
in the name of NOS so that any resulting positions are delivered to 
NOS upon settlement. As described above, NOS normally arranges for 
any resulting securities positions to be delivered to the member 
that submitted the corresponding order to the Exchange. If error 
positions (as defined in proposed Chapter VI, Section 11(g)(2)) 
result in connection with the Exchange's use of a third-party 
Routing Broker for outbound routing, and those positions are 
delivered to NOS through the clearance and settlement process, NOS 
would be permitted to resolve those positions in accordance with 
proposed Chapter VI, Section 11(g). If the third-party Routing 
Broker received error positions in connection with its role as a 
routing broker for the Exchange, and the error positions were not 
delivered to NOS through the clearance and settlement process, then 
the third-party Routing Broker would resolve the error positions 
itself, and NOS would not be permitted to accept the error 
positions, as set forth in proposed Chapter VI, Section 11(g) 
(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NOS is the approved routing broker of the Exchange, subject to the 
conditions listed in Chapter VI, Section 11. The Exchange relies on NOS 
to provide

[[Page 74525]]

outbound routing services from itself to routing destinations of NOS 
(``routing destinations'').\5\ When NOS routes orders to a routing 
destination, it does so by sending a corresponding order in its own 
name to the routing destination. In the normal course, routed orders 
that are executed at routing destinations are submitted for clearance 
and settlement in the name of NOS, and NOS arranges for any resulting 
securities positions to be delivered to the member that submitted the 
corresponding order to the Exchange. From time to time, however, the 
Exchange and NOS encounter situations in which it becomes necessary to 
cancel orders and resolve error positions.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange has authority to receive inbound routes of 
options orders by NOS from
    The NASDAQ Stock Market (``NASDAQ'') and NASDAQ OMX PHLX. See 
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67256 (June 26, 2012), 77 FR 
39277 (July 2, 2012) (SR-BX-2012-030) (Approving the establishment 
of the BX Options market).
    \6\ The examples described in this filing are not intended to be 
exclusive. Proposed Chapter
    VI, Section 11(g) would provide general authority for the 
Exchange or NOS to cancel orders in order to maintain fair and 
orderly markets when technical and systems issues are occurring, and 
Chapter VI, Section 11(g) also would set forth the manner in which 
error positions may be handled by the Exchange or NOS. The proposed 
rule change is not limited to addressing order cancellation or error 
positions resulting only from the specific examples described in 
this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Examples of Circumstances That May Lead to Canceled Orders
    A technical or systems issue may arise at NOS, a routing 
destination, or the Exchange that may cause the Exchange or NOS to take 
steps to cancel orders if the Exchange or NOS determines that such 
action is necessary to maintain a fair and orderly market. The examples 
set forth below describe some of the circumstances in which the 
Exchange or NOS may decide to cancel orders.
    Example 1. If NOS or a routing destination experiences a technical 
or systems issue that results in NOS not receiving responses to 
immediate or cancel (``IOC'') orders that it sent to the routing 
destination, and that issue is not resolved in a timely manner, NOS or 
the Exchange would seek to cancel the routed orders affected by the 
issue.\7\ For instance, if NOS experiences a connectivity issue 
affecting the manner in which it sends or receives order messages to or 
from routing destinations, it may be unable to receive timely execution 
or cancellation reports from the routing destinations, and NOS or the 
Exchange may consequently seek to cancel the affected routed orders. 
Once the decision is made to cancel those routed orders, any 
cancellation that a member submitted to the Exchange on its initial 
order during such a situation would be honored.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In a normal situation (i.e., one in which a technical or 
systems issue does not exist), NOS should receive an immediate 
response to an IOC order from a routing destination, and would pass 
the resulting fill or cancellation on to the Exchange member. After 
submitting an order that is routed to a routing destination, if a 
member sends an instruction to cancel that order, the cancellation 
is held by the Exchange until a response is received from the 
routing destination. For instance, if the routing destination 
executes that order, the execution would be passed on to the member 
and the cancellation instruction would be disregarded.
    \8\ If a member did not submit a cancellation to the Exchange, 
however, that initial order would remain ``live'' and thus be 
eligible for execution or posting on the Exchange, and neither the 
Exchange nor NOS would treat any execution of that initial order or 
any subsequent routed order related to that initial order as an 
error.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Example 2. If the Exchange experiences a systems issue, the 
Exchange may take steps to cancel all outstanding orders affected by 
that issue and notify affected members of the cancellations. In those 
cases, the Exchange would seek to cancel any routed orders related to 
the members' initial orders.
Examples of Circumstances That May Lead to Error Positions
    In some instances, the technical or systems issue at NOS, a routing 
destination, the Exchange, or a non-affiliate third party Routing 
Broker may also result in NOS acquiring an error position that it must 
resolve. The examples set forth below describe some of the 
circumstances in which error positions may arise.
    Example A. Error positions may result from routed orders that the 
Exchange or NOS attempts to cancel but that are executed before the 
routing destination receives the cancellation message or that are 
executed because the routing destination is unable to process the 
cancellation message. Using the situation described in Example 1 above, 
assume that the Exchange seeks to cancel orders routed to a routing 
destination because it is not receiving timely execution or 
cancellation reports from the routing destination. In such a situation, 
NOS may still receive executions from the routing destination after 
connectivity is restored, which it would not then allocate to members 
because of the earlier decision to cancel the affected routed orders. 
Instead, NOS would post those positions into its error account and 
resolve the positions in the manner described below.
    Example B. Error positions may result from an order processing 
issue at a routing destination. For instance, if a routing destination 
experienced a systems problem that affects its order processing, it may 
transmit back a message purporting to cancel a routed order, but then 
subsequently submit an execution of that same order (i.e., a locked-in 
trade) to The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') for clearance and 
settlement. In such a situation, the Exchange would not then allocate 
the execution to the member because of the earlier cancellation message 
from the routing destination. Instead, NOS would post those positions 
into its error account and resolve the positions in the manner 
described below.
    Example C. Error positions may result if NOS receives an execution 
report from a routing destination but does not receive clearing 
instructions for the execution from the routing destination. For 
instance, assume that a member sends the Exchange an order to buy 100 
contracts overlying ABC stock, which causes NOS to send an order to a 
routing destination that is subsequently executed, cleared, and closed 
out by that routing destination, and the execution is ultimately 
communicated back to that member. On the next trading day (T+1), if the 
routing destination does not provide clearing instructions for that 
execution, NOS would still be responsible for settling that member's 
purchase, but would be left with a short position in its error 
account.\9\ NOS would resolve the position in the manner described 
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ To the extent that NOS incurred a loss in covering its short 
position, it would submit a reimbursement claim to that routing 
destination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Example D. Error positions may result from a technical or systems 
issue that causes orders to be executed in the name of NOS that are not 
related to NOS's function as the Exchange's routing broker and are not 
related to any corresponding orders of members. As a result, NOS would 
not be able to assign any positions resulting from such an issue to 
members. Instead, NOS would post those positions into its error account 
and resolve the positions in the manner described below.
    Example E. Error positions may result from a technical or systems 
issue through which the Exchange does not receive sufficient notice 
that a member that has executed trades on the Exchange has lost the 
ability to clear trades through OCC. In such a situation, the Exchange 
would not have valid clearing information, which would prevent the 
trade from being automatically processed for clearance and settlement 
on a locked-in basis. Accordingly, NOS would assume that member's side 
of the trades so that the counterparties can settle the trades. NOS 
would post those positions into its

[[Page 74526]]

error account and resolve the positions in the manner described below.
    Example F. Error positions may result from a technical or systems 
issue at the Exchange that does not involve routing of orders through 
NOS. For example, a situation may arise in which a posted quote/order 
was validly cancelled but the system erroneously matched that quote/
order with an order that was seeking to access it. In such a situation, 
NOS would have to assume the side of the trade opposite the order 
seeking to access the cancelled quote/order. NOS would post the 
position in its error account and resolve the position in the manner 
described below.
    In the circumstances described above, neither the Exchange nor NOS 
may learn about an error position until T+1, either: (1) During the 
clearing process when a routing destination has submitted to OCC a 
transaction for clearance and settlement for which NOS never received 
an execution confirmation; or (2) when a routing destination does not 
recognize a transaction submitted to OCC for clearance and settlement. 
Moreover, the affected members' trade may not be nullified absent 
express authority under Exchange rules.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See, e.g., Chapter V, Section 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Amendments to Chapter VI, Section 11
    The Exchange proposes to amend Chapter VI, Section 11 to add new 
paragraph (g) to address the cancellation of orders due to technical or 
systems issues and the use of an error account by NOS.
    Specifically, under paragraph (g)(1) of the proposed rule, the 
Exchange or NOS would be expressly authorized to cancel orders as may 
be necessary to maintain fair and orderly markets if a technical or 
systems issue occurred at the Exchange, NOS, or a routing 
destination.\11\ The Exchange or NOS would be required to provide 
notice of the cancellation to affected members as soon as practicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Such a situation may not cause the Exchange to declare 
self-help against the routing destination pursuant to Chapter XII, 
Section 2(b)(1). If the Exchange or NOS determines to cancel orders 
routed to a routing destination under proposed Chapter VI, Section 
11(g), but does not declare self-help against that routing 
destination, the Exchange would continue to be subject to the trade-
through requirements in the Options Order Protection and Locked/
Crossed Markets Plan and Chapter XII, Section 2 with respect to that 
routing destination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (g)(2) of the proposed rule would permit NOS to maintain 
an error account for the purpose of addressing positions that result 
from a technical or systems issue at NOS, the Exchange, a routing 
destination, or a non-affiliate third-party Routing Broker that affects 
one or more orders (``error positions''). By definition, an error 
position would not include any position that results from an order 
submitted by a member to the Exchange that is executed on the Exchange 
and automatically processed for clearance and settlement on a locked-in 
basis. NOS also would not be permitted to accept any positions in its 
error account from an account of a member and could not permit any 
member to transfer any positions from the member's account to NOS's 
error account under the proposed rule.\12\ However, if a technical or 
systems issue results in the Exchange not having valid clearing 
instructions for a member to a trade, NOS may assume that member's side 
of the trade so that the trade can be processed for clearance and 
settlement on a locked-in basis.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The purpose of this provision is to clarify that NOS may 
address error positions under the proposed rule that are caused by a 
technical or systems issue, but that NOS may not accept from a 
member positions that are delivered to the member through the 
clearance and settlement process, even if those positions may have 
been related to a technical or systems issue at NOS, the Exchange, a 
routing destination of NOS, or a non-affiliate third-party Routing 
Broker. This provision would not apply, however, to situations like 
the one described in Example C in which NOS incurred a short 
position to settle a member's purchase, as the member did not yet 
have a position in its account as a result of the purchase at the 
time of NOS's action (i.e., NOS's action was necessary for the 
purchase to settle into the member's account). Similarly, the 
provision would not apply to situations like the one described in 
Example F, where a system issue caused one member to receive an 
execution for which there was not an available contraparty, in which 
case action by NOS would be necessary for the position to settle 
into that member's account. Moreover, to the extent a member 
receives locked-in positions in connection with a technical or 
systems issue, that member may seek to rely on Chapter V, Section 9 
if it experiences a loss. That rule references BX Rule 4626, which 
provides members with the ability to file claims against the 
Exchange for ``losses directly resulting from the Systems' actual 
failure to correctly process an order, Quote/Order, message, or 
other data, provided the NASDAQ OMX BX Equities Market has 
acknowledged receipt of the order, Quote/Order, message, or data.''
    \13\ See Example E above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under paragraph (g)(3), in connection with a particular technical 
or systems issue, NOS or the Exchange would be permitted to either (i) 
assign all resulting error positions to members, or (ii) have all 
resulting error positions liquidated, as described below. Any 
determination to assign or liquidate error positions, as well as any 
resulting assignments, would be required to be made in a 
nondiscriminatory fashion.
    NOS or the Exchange would be required to assign all error positions 
resulting from a particular technical or systems issue to the 
applicable members affected by that technical or systems issue if NOS 
or the Exchange:
     Determined that it has accurate and sufficient information 
(including valid clearing information) to assign the positions to all 
of the applicable members affected by that technical or systems issue;
     Determined that it has sufficient time pursuant to normal 
clearance and settlement deadlines to evaluate the information 
necessary to assign the positions to all of the applicable members 
affected by that technical or systems issue; and
     Had not determined to cancel all orders affected by that 
technical or systems issue.
    For example, a technical or systems issue of limited scope or 
duration may occur at a routing destination, and the resulting trades 
may be submitted for clearance and settlement by such routing 
destination to OCC. If there were a small number of trades, there may 
be sufficient time to match positions with member orders and avoid 
using the error account.
    There may be scenarios, however, where NOS determines that it is 
unable to assign all error positions resulting from a particular 
technical or systems issue to all of the affected members, or 
determines to cancel all affected routed orders. For example, in some 
cases, the volume of questionable executions and positions resulting 
from a technical or systems issue might be such that the research 
necessary to determine which members to assign those executions to 
could be expected to extend past the normal settlement cycle for such 
executions. Furthermore, if a routing destination experiences a 
technical or systems issue after NOS has transmitted IOC orders to it 
that prevents NOS from receiving responses to those orders, NOS or the 
Exchange may determine to cancel all routed orders affected by that 
issue. In such a situation, NOS or the Exchange would not pass on to 
the members any executions on the routed orders received from the 
routing destination.
    The proposed rule also would require NOS to liquidate error 
positions as soon as practicable.\14\ In liquidating error positions, 
NOS would be required to provide complete time and price discretion for 
the trading to liquidate the error positions to a third-party broker-
dealer and could not attempt to exercise any influence or control over

[[Page 74527]]

the timing or methods of trading to liquidate the error positions.\15\ 
NOS also would be required to establish and enforce policies and 
procedures reasonably designed to restrict the flow of confidential and 
proprietary information between the third-party broker-dealer and NOS/
the Exchange associated with the liquidation of the error positions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ If NOS determines in connection with a particular technical 
or systems issue that some error positions can be assigned to some 
affected members but other error positions cannot be assigned, NOS 
would be required under the proposed rule to liquidate all such 
error positions (including those positions that could be assigned to 
the affected members).
    \15\ This provision is not intended to preclude NOS from 
providing the third-party broker with standing instructions with 
respect to the manner in which it should handle all error account 
transactions. For example, NOS might instruct the broker to treat 
all orders as ``not held'' and to attempt to minimize any market 
impact on the price of the stock being traded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under proposed paragraph (g)(4), NOS and the Exchange would be 
required to make and keep records to document all determinations to 
treat positions as error positions and all determinations for the 
assignment of error positions to members or the liquidation of error 
positions, as well as records associated with the liquidation of error 
positions through the third-party broker-dealer.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) \16\ of 
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''), in general, and 
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\17\ in particular, in that 
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 facilitating 
transactions in securities, 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, and it is not 
designed to permit unfair discrimination among customers, brokers, or 
dealers. The Exchange believes that this proposal is in keeping with 
those principles because NOS's or the Exchange's ability to cancel 
orders during a technical or systems issue and to maintain an error 
account facilitates the smooth and efficient operations of the market. 
Specifically, the Exchange believes that allowing NOS or the Exchange 
to cancel orders during a technical or systems issue would allow the 
Exchange to maintain fair and orderly markets. Moreover, the Exchange 
believes that allowing NOS to assume error positions in an error 
account and to liquidate those positions, subject to the conditions set 
forth in the proposed amendments to Chapter VI, Section 11, would be 
the least disruptive means to correct these errors, except in cases 
where NOS can assign all such error positions to all affected members 
of the Exchange. Overall, the proposed amendments are designed to 
ensure full trade certainty for market participants and to avoid 
disrupting the clearance and settlement process. The proposed 
amendments are also designed to provide a consistent methodology for 
handling error positions in a manner that does not discriminate among 
members. The proposed amendments are also consistent with Section 6 of 
the Act insofar as they would require NOS to establish controls to 
restrict the flow of any confidential information between the third-
party broker and NOS/the Exchange associated with the liquidation of 
error positions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will 
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or 
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) 
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public 
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) 
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such 
shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective 
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \18\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) 
\19\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6) 
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission 
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BX has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative 
delay.\20\ The Commission believes that waiver of the operative delay 
is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. 
Such waiver would allow the Exchange, without delay, to implement the 
proposed rule change, which is designed to provide a consistent 
methodology for handling error positions in a manner that does not 
discriminate among members. The Commission also notes that the proposed 
rule change is based on, and substantially similar to, BX Equity Rule 
4758(d), which the Commission recently approved.\21\ Accordingly, the 
Commission designates the proposal operative upon filing.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \21\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67280 (June 27, 
2012), 77 FR 39552 (July 3, 2012) (SR-BX-2012-034).
    \22\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, 
the Commission has considered the proposed rule change's impact on 
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the 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.

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 (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to rule-comments@sec.gov. Please include 
File Number SR-BX-2012-073 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-BX-2012-073. 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 (https://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

[[Page 74528]]

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-BX-2012-073 and should be 
submitted on or before January 4, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-30169 Filed 12-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.