Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule To Amend CBOE's Rules To Enhance the Independence and Integrity of the Regulatory Functions of the Exchange, 4779-4783 [2014-01655]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 19 / Wednesday, January 29, 2014 / Notices
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
router subject to substantially similar
limitations and conditions.89
Specifically, the BATS Exchanges
proposed that DE Route, operating as a
facility of the DE Exchanges, provide
routing services from each of the DE
Exchanges to each BATS Exchange,
subject to the following conditions and
limitations set forth in the proposed
Rule 2.12 of each BATS Exchange: 90
• Each BATS Exchange would enter
into (1) a plan pursuant to Rule 17d-2
under the Exchange Act with a nonaffiliated SRO to relieve each BATS
Exchange of regulatory responsibilities
for DE Route with respect to rules that
are common rules between each BATS
Exchange and the non-affiliated SRO,
and (2) a regulatory services contract
with a non-affiliated SRO to perform
regulatory responsibilities for DE Route
for unique rule of each BATS Exchange.
• The regulatory services contract
would require the BATS Exchanges to
provide the non-affiliated SRO with
information, in an easily accessible
manner, regarding all exception reports,
alerts, complaints, trading errors,
cancellations, investigations, and
enforcement matters (collectively
‘‘Exceptions’’) in which DE Route is
identified as a participant that has
potentially violated the rules of the
BATS Exchanges or Commission rules,
and would require that the nonaffiliated SRO provide a report, at least
quarterly, to the BATS Exchanges
quantifying all Exceptions in which DE
Route is identified as a participant that
has potentially violated the rules of the
BATS Exchanges or the Commission.
• Each BATS Exchange, on behalf of
the holding company indirectly owning
the BATS Exchanges and DE Route,
would establish and maintain
procedures and internal controls
reasonably designed to ensure that DE
Route does not develop or implement
changes to its system on the basis of
non-public information regarding
planned changes to each BATS
Exchange’s systems, obtained as a result
of its affiliation with the BATS
Exchanges, until such information is
available generally to similarly situated
users of the BATS Exchanges in
connection with the provision of
inbound order routing to the BATS
Exchanges.
• Each BATS Exchange may furnish
to DE Route the same information on the
89 See Notices, supra note 5, at 75616–17 and
75595.
90 See Rule 2.12 of each of the BATS Exchanges;
see also supra note 5, at 75616–17 and 75595.
Additionally, Rule 2.12(b) will require that DE
Route operates as an outbound router on behalf of
each of the DE Exchanges in accordance with the
rules of each DE Exchange.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:05 Jan 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
same terms that the BATS Exchanges
make available in the normal course of
business to any other user.
Although the Commission continues
to be concerned about potential unfair
competition and conflicts of interest
between an exchange’s self-regulatory
obligations and its commercial interest
when the exchange is affiliated with one
of its members, for the reasons
discussed below, the Commission
believes that it is consistent with the
Act to permit DE Route to be affiliated
with the BATS Exchanges and to
provide inbound routing to the BATS
Exchanges, subject to the conditions
described above.
The BATS Exchanges have proposed
four conditions applicable to DE Route’s
inbound routing activities, which are
enumerated above. The Commission
believes that these conditions mitigate
its concerns about potential conflicts of
interest and unfair competitive
advantage. In particular, the
Commission believes that a nonaffiliated SRO oversight of DE Route,91
combined with the non-affiliated SRO’s
monitoring of DE Route’s compliance
with the equity trading rules and
quarterly reporting to each BATS
Exchange, will help to protect the
independence of each BATS Exchange’s
regulatory responsibilities with respect
to DE Route. The Commission also
believes that the requirement that each
BATS Exchange establish and maintain
procedures and internal controls
reasonably designed to ensure that DE
Route does not develop or implement
changes to its system based on nonpublic information obtained as a result
of its affiliation with the BATS
Exchanges, until such information is
available generally to similarly situated
members of the BATS Exchanges, is
reasonably designed to ensure that DE
Route cannot misuse any information
advantage it may have because of its
affiliation with the BATS Exchanges.
Further, the Commission notes that
the proposed conditions for the
operation of DE Route as an affiliated
inbound router on behalf of each BATS
Exchange are consistent with conditions
the Commission has approved for other
exchanges.92 The Commission therefore
91 The oversight will be accomplished through the
Rule 17d-2 agreement and the regulatory contract.
92 See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos.
62716 (August 13, 2010), 75 FR 51295 (August 19,
2010) (order approving the exchange registration of
BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.); 61698 (March 12, 2010),
75 FR 13151 (March 18, 2010) (order approving the
exchange registration of the DE Exchanges); and
65456 (September 30, 2011), 76 FR 62118 (October
6, 2011) (order approving a proposal by NYSE Arca,
Inc. (‘‘NYSE Arca’’) to make permanent the pilot
program that permits NYSE Arca to accept inbound
orders routed by its affiliated broker-dealer).
PO 00000
Frm 00125
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
4779
finds the proposed operation of DE
Route as an affiliated inbound router of
the BATS Exchanges is consistent with
the Act.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the
Commission finds that the proposed
rule changes are consistent with the Act
and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange.
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act 93 that the
proposed rule changes (SR–BATS–
2013–059 and SR–BYX–2013–039) are
approved.
For the Commission, by the Division of
Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated
authority.94
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014–01659 Filed 1–28–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
[Release No. 34–71371; File No. SR–CBOE–
2014–001]
Self-Regulatory Organizations;
Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule To Amend CBOE’s Rules To
Enhance the Independence and
Integrity of the Regulatory Functions
of the Exchange
January 23, 2014.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2
notice is hereby given that on January
10, 2014, the Chicago Board Options
Exchange, Incorporated (the ‘‘Exchange’’
or ‘‘CBOE’’) 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 Exchange. The Exchange filed the
proposal as a ‘‘non-controversial’’
proposed rule change pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 3 and
Rule 19b–4(f)(6) thereunder.4 The
Commission is publishing this notice to
They are also consistent with the conditions and
limitations on inbound routing to the Exchange by
its affiliate BATS Trading. See supra note 88 and
accompanying text.
93 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
94 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).
1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.
3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
4 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6).
E:\FR\FM\29JAN1.SGM
29JAN1
4780
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 19 / Wednesday, January 29, 2014 / Notices
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
CBOE proposes to amend its rules to
enhance the independence and integrity
of the regulatory functions of the
Exchange. The text of the proposed rule
change is available on the Exchange’s
Web site (https://www.cboe.com/
AboutCBOE/
CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at
the Exchange’s Office of the Secretary,
and at the Commission.
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
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
1. Purpose
The Exchange proposes to amend
certain rules to enhance the
independence and integrity of the
regulatory functions of the Exchange.
Specifically, the Exchange seeks to
amend Rule 2.1 (Committees of the
Exchange), Rule 4.4 (Gratuities), Rule
17.2 (Complaint and Investigation), Rule
17.3 (Expedited Proceeding), Rule 17.4
(Charges), Rule 17.8 (Offers of
Settlement) and Rule 17.50 (Imposition
of Fines for Minor Rule Violations).
First, the Exchange proposes to
amend Rule 2.1 (Committees of the
Exchange). Rule 2.1 currently provides
that the Chief Executive Officer (‘‘CEO’’)
shall appoint the chairman, vicechairman and members of the Exchange
Committees, as well as fill vacancies
and remove members of the Exchange
Committees. The Exchange proposes to
adopt an exception to that rule.
Particularly, the Exchange proposes to
provide that the Nominating and
Governance Committee, with the
approval of the Board, shall appoint the
chairman, vice-chairman and members
of the Business Conduct Committee
(‘‘BCC’’), as well as fill vacancies in the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:05 Jan 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
BCC and that the Board shall have the
ability to remove any member of the
BCC, at any time, with or without cause.
The Nominating and Governance
Committee is comprised of at least five
(5) Directors and is a standing
committee of CBOE’s Board of Directors.
The BCC is an Exchange Committee
charged with handling disciplinary
matters that arise from Exchange
business. The BCC additionally reviews
recommendations by the Exchange’s
Regulatory staff and authorizes the
issuance of formal charges arising out of
the matters investigated or examined by
the Regulatory Services Division. Given
the BCC’s responsibilities, the Exchange
believes that authority relating to the
composition of the BCC should rest with
the Nominating and Governance
Committee, rather than the CEO.
Additionally, the Exchange believes that
the power to remove members of the
BCC should rest with the Board, rather
than the CEO. This transfer of authority
enhances the independence of the
regulatory functions of the Exchange.
Next, the Exchange seeks to amend
Rule 4.4 (Gratuities). Rule 4.4 provides
that a Trading Permit Holder (‘‘TPH’’)
may not give any compensation or
gratuity in any one year in excess of
$50.00 to any employee of the Exchange
or in excess of $100.00 to any employee
of any other TPH or of any non-TPH
broker, dealer, bank or institution,
without the prior consent of the
employer and of the Exchange.
Additionally, the Exchange’s Conflict of
Interest Policy (‘‘Policy’’) currently
prohibits Regulatory Services Division
and Office of Enforcement employees
from accepting any gift of more than
nominal monetary value (e.g., a coffee
mug) from any TPH or associated person
of a TPH. In unique circumstances, the
Policy provides that an exception may
be granted by the Division Head or, for
the Division Head, by the President. The
Exchange is proposing to amend Rule
4.4 to provide that a TPH may not give
any compensation or gratuity of any
monetary value to any Regulatory
Services Division or Office of
Enforcement employee.5 The Exchange
does not believe that its Regulatory
Services Division or Office of
Enforcement employees should be
permitted to receive gifts or gratuities of
even a nominal value from TPHs or
their associated persons, in light of the
responsibility of these Exchange
employees for regulatory matters
5 The Exchange intends to make conforming
changes to its Policy upon the effectiveness of this
proposed rule change.
PO 00000
Frm 00126
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
involving TPHs and their associated
persons.
The Exchange also proposes to amend
Rule 17.2 (Complaint and Investigation)
to eliminate the authority of the
President, other Exchange officials
designated by the President, the Board,
or the BCC to order an investigation of
possible violations within the
disciplinary jurisdiction of the
Exchange and provide instead that only
the Exchange’s Regulatory staff, and any
successor thereto, in its sole discretion
shall determine whether to investigate
or examine possible violations within
the disciplinary jurisdiction of the
Exchange. The Exchange believes
providing Regulatory staff sole
discretion as to what matters to
investigate or examine further supports
and provides for the autonomy and
independence of the Exchanges’
regulatory functions as well as helps to
ensure that all decisions regarding
resolution of any examination,
investigation, or prosecution shall be
made without regard to the actual or
perceived business interests of the
Exchange or any of TPHs. The Exchange
notes that the Board, President, and
BCC, along with other Exchange
employees and Trading Permit Holders,
will continue to have the ability to
submit oral or written complaints
alleging possible violations within the
disciplinary jurisdiction of the
Exchange. The Exchange additionally
notes that the proposed rule change
conforms its rules to its current practice.
The Exchange also proposes to clarify
that Regulatory staff has the sole
discretion to determine whether to
request that the BCC authorize the
issuance of a statement of charges
pursuant to Rule 17.4 (Charges), which
will add transparency to the rules
regarding Regulatory staff’s role and
responsibilities.
The Exchange also seeks to amend
Rule 17.2 to provide that the Regulatory
staff shall have the sole discretion to
determine whether to request that the
BCC authorize the issuance of a
statement of charges pursuant to Rule
17.4 In those instances where an
investigation results in the Regulatory
staff finding that there are reasonable
grounds to believe that a violation has
been committed and a formal regulatory
action (i.e., Statement of Charges) is
warranted, Regulatory staff will submit
a written report of its investigation to
the BCC.6 Additionally, the Exchange
6 Pursuant to CBOE Rule 17.10, the Regulatory
Oversight and Compliance Committee will review
any decision not to authorize the issuance of
statements of charges that were recommended by
Regulatory staff, and refer such matters to the Board
of Directors for further review, as appropriate. The
E:\FR\FM\29JAN1.SGM
29JAN1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 19 / Wednesday, January 29, 2014 / Notices
proposes to provide in those instances
where an investigation results in the
Regulatory staff finding that there are
reasonable grounds to believe that a
violation has been committed, but nonformal regulatory action (i.e., a Letter of
Information, a Letter of Caution or a
Staff Interview) is warranted in lieu of
the issuance of a statement of charges,
the Regulatory staff will have the power
and authority in its sole discretion to
impose such non-formal regulatory
action without the submission of a
written report of its investigation to the
BCC. Further, the Exchange proposes to
provide that in the event the Regulatory
staff finds in its sole discretion that
there are not reasonable grounds to
believe that a violation has been
committed, the Regulatory staff will
close the investigation (i.e., File Without
Action) without the submission of a
written report of its investigation to the
BCC. The Exchange believes that this
proposed rule change further supports
and provides for the autonomy and
independence of the Exchanges’
regulatory functions as well as makes
explicit in the rules the roles and
responsibilities of Regulatory staff.
Finally, the Exchange proposes to add
Interpretation and Policy .05 to Rule
17.2 to make clear that references to
‘‘Regulatory staff’’ in Chapter XVII,
mean the Exchange’s employees in the
Regulatory Services Division.
In addition, the Exchange seeks to
make explicit in the Rules the roles and
responsibilities of certain Exchange
staff. First, the Exchange proposes to
replace references to ‘‘Exchange’’ with
‘‘Regulatory staff’’ in Interpretation and
Policies .01, .03, and .04 of Rule 17.2 to
make clear that those references are to
Regulatory staff, in particular. The
Exchange also seeks to make similar
clarifications in Rule 17.3 (Expedited
Proceeding), Rule 17.4 (Charges), Rule
17.8 (Offers of Settlement), and Rule
17.10 (Review). Particularly, Rule 17.3
governs expedited proceedings, Rule
17.4 governs if and how statement of
charges is to be issued, Rule 17.8
governs Offers of Settlement, and Rule
17.10 governs the review by the Board
of Directors of decisions related to the
disciplinary process. Each of the
aforementioned rules sets forth the
respective duties and responsibilities of
‘‘staff’’ as it relates to either expedited
proceedings, statement of charges and
offers of settlement. The Exchange
believes however, that the term ‘‘staff’’
is vague and does not provide clarity as
Board of Directors may order review of such
decisions, and may affirm, reverse or modify, in
whole or in part, the decision of the BCC not to
authorize the issuance of statement of charges.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:05 Jan 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
to which staff has certain roles and
authorities under these rules, which
historically, has been the Regulatory
staff. Accordingly, the Exchange wishes
to make it explicitly clear that the
‘‘staff’’ referred to in these rules is the
Exchange’s Regulatory staff, which will
provide additional clarity and reduce
confusion. The Exchange notes this is a
clarifying, non-substantive change. The
Exchange also proposes to amend Rule
17.10(d) to correct the reference to the
Regulatory Oversight and Compliance
Committee.
Finally, the Exchange also proposes to
amend Rule 17.50 (Imposition of Fines
for Minor Rule Violations). Rule 17.50
provides that in lieu of commencing a
disciplinary proceeding pursuant to
Rule 17.2, the Exchange may, in certain
instances, impose a fine on a TPH or
associated person of a TPH with respect
to certain rule violations. More
specifically, subparagraph (c) of Rule
17.50 provides that any person against
whom a fine is imposed pursuant to
certain subsections of Rule 17.50 (e.g.,
violation of position and exercise limit
rules or Locked or Crossed Market
violations) may contest the Exchange’s
determination by filing a written answer
and have the matter become subject to
the review of the BCC. Additionally, the
filing may request a hearing, if desired,
which would be subject to Rule 17.6,
which rule governs hearings before the
BCC. Rule 17.50(c) also provides that for
violations of trading conduct and
decorum policies in particular, a person
may only contest the determination to
the BCC if the fine exceeds $2,500.
Pursuant to subparagraph (d) of Rule
17.50, if the fine for violations of trading
conduct and decorum policies does not
exceed $2,500, the individual may still
contest the Exchange’s determination,
but the matter would become subject to
the review of the Appeals Committee,
rather than the BCC and, if requested,
any hearing would consequently be
subject to the hearing procedures set
forth in Chapter 19 (Hearings and
Review). Similarly, fines imposed for
failure to submit trade data on trade
date, regardless of the amount, may be
contested but will also become subject
to the review of the Appeals Committee,
instead of the BCC. Moreover,
Interpretation and Policy .04 provides
that the BCC may consolidate into one
hearing the review of (i) a fine imposed
for violations of trade conduct and
decorum policies that exceeds $2,500
and (i) a fine imposed for violations of
trade conduct and decorum policies that
does not exceed $2,500, so long as the
alleged violations involve the same or
related transaction or occurrence and
PO 00000
Frm 00127
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
4781
the review is not based on written
submissions. The Exchange proposes to
eliminate the distinction between the
type of violations set forth in Rule 17.50
by eliminating subparagraph (d) of Rule
17.50 in its entirety and provide instead
that all violations set forth in paragraph
(g) of Rule 17.50 may be contested to the
BCC and, if requested, subject to the
hearing procedures of Rule 17.6. Given
the BCC’s role and responsibilities
noted above, the Exchange believes that
the BCC is the appropriate committee to
review and/or hear contests to fines
imposed due to non-compliance with
certain Exchange rules. Particularly, the
Exchange believes the BCC should
review and/or hear all contests to fines
imposed pursuant to section (g) of Rule
17.50 in its entirety, including
violations for trade conduct and
decorum policies and failure to submit
trade data on trade date. The proposed
change also provides consistency and
certainty as to how all contests to fines
imposed pursuant to section (g) are
handled.
Lastly, the Exchange proposes to
delete language in subparagraph (c)(3) of
Rule 17.50. More specifically, Rule
17.50(c)(3) currently provides that
among others, any member of the Board
may require a review by the Board of
any determination made by the BCC
under this rule. The Exchange proposes
to eliminate the language ‘‘any member
of’’ to provide that an individual Board
member cannot alone require a review,
but rather the request for a review must
be a Board action. The Exchange
believes that it is appropriate for the
Board to determine whether to request
review of a determination of the BCC
under Rule 17.50, as opposed to an
individual Board member, and notes
that such change is consistent with Rule
17.10 relating to the Board’s authority to
review decisions by the BCC made
pursuant to Rules 17.7 and 17.9.
2. Statutory Basis
The Exchange believes the proposed
rule changes are consistent with the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
‘‘Act’’) and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to the Exchange
and, in particular, the requirements of
Section 6(b) of the Act.7 Specifically,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule
changes are consistent with the Section
6(b)(5) 8 requirements that the rules of
an exchange be 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
7 15
8 15
E:\FR\FM\29JAN1.SGM
U.S.C. 78f(b).
U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
29JAN1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
4782
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 19 / Wednesday, January 29, 2014 / Notices
in regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to,
and 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. The
Exchange also believes the proposed
rule changes are consistent with the
Section 6(b)(7) 9 requirements that the
rules of an exchange provide a fair
procedure for the disciplining of
members and persons associated with
members, the denial of membership to
any person seeking membership therein,
the barring of any person from becoming
associated with a member thereof, and
the prohibition or limitation by the
exchange of any person with respect to
access to services offered by the
exchange or a member thereof.
In particular, the Exchange believes
that the elimination of: (i) the CEO’s
authority relating to the composition of
the BCC and (ii) the President, (or
Exchange Official designated by the
President), the Board, and BCC’s
authority to order the investigation of a
possible violation within the
disciplinary jurisdiction of the
Exchange aligns the CBOE Rules with
the Exchange’s current practices and
provides for further separation of those
responsible for the business activities of
the Exchange from the decision-making
structure over the regulatory process.
This separation enhances the
Exchange’s disciplinary and regulatory
process by furthering the independence
of its regulatory process and reducing a
potential conflict of interest, as well as
an appearance of inappropriate
influence, thereby ensuring an effective
and fair disciplinary process and
promoting just and equitable principles
of trade and protecting investors and the
public interest investors and public
interest.
Additionally, the Exchange believes
the proposed rule change to Rule 4.4
further enhances the independence of
the Regulatory Services Division and
Office of Enforcement and eliminates a
potential conflict of interest, as well as
an appearance of influence, thereby
promoting an effective and fair
disciplinary process and enhancing the
protection of investors and the public
interest.
The Exchange also believes that
clarifying the CBOE Rules to explicitly
state that Regulatory staff has sole
discretion as to what matters to
investigate or examine further supports
and provides for the autonomy and
independence of the Exchanges’
9 15
U.S.C. 78f(b)(7).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:05 Jan 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
regulatory functions as well as helps to
ensure that all decisions regarding
resolution of any examination,
investigation, or prosecution shall be
made without regard to the actual or
perceived business interests of the
Exchange or any of TPHs, thereby
enhancing the protection of investors
and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes that providing
Regulatory staff sole discretion to (i)
impose non-formal regulatory action
without the submission of a written
report of its investigation to the BCC in
those instances where an investigation
results in the Regulatory staff finding
that there are reasonable grounds to
believe that a violation has been
committed or (ii) close an investigation
without submission of a written report
of its investigation to the BCC where
Regulatory staff finds that there are not
reasonable grounds to believe that a
violation has been committed, further
supports and provides for the autonomy
and independence of the Exchanges’
regulatory functions as well as makes
explicit in the rules the roles and
responsibilities of Regulatory staff.
The Exchange also believes that
replacing vague references to
‘‘Exchange’’ and ‘‘Staff’’ with
‘‘Regulatory staff,’’ in Chapter 17 makes
it explicitly clear which staff has certain
roles and responsibilities delegated
under these rules, thereby eliminating
potential confusion. Finally, the
Exchange believes that given the BCC’s
charged role and responsibilities, the
BCC is the appropriate committee to
review and/or hear contests to fines
imposed pursuant to section (g) of Rule
17.50 in its entirety, including
violations for trade conduct and
decorum policies and failure to submit
trade data on trade date. The Exchange
believes this proposed rule change also
provides consistency as to how contests
to fines imposed pursuant to section (g)
of Rule 17.50 are handled.
B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement on Burden on Competition
CBOE does not believe that the
proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act. The
Exchange does not believe that the
proposed rule change will impose any
burden on intramarket competition
because it applies to all TPHs. The
Exchange does not believe the proposed
rule changes will impose any burden on
intermarket competition as it will
merely enhance the independence of its
regulatory decision-making and
eliminate gratuities from TPHs to
employees of the Regulatory Services
PO 00000
Frm 00128
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Division or Office of Enforcement that
might appear to undermine that
independence.
C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement on Comments on the
Proposed Rule Change Received From
Members, Participants or Others
No written comments were solicited
or received with respect to the proposed
rule change.
III. Date of Effectiveness of the
Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action
The Exchange has filed the proposed
rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 10 and Rule
19b–4(f)(6) thereunder.11 Because the
foregoing proposed rule change does
not: (1) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public
interest; (2) impose any significant
burden on competition; and (3) become
operative for 30 days from the date on
which it was filed, or such shorter time
as the Commission may designate, it has
become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the
Act 12 and Rule 19b–4(f)(6) 13
thereunder. 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. If the
Commission takes such action, the
Commission will institute proceedings
to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be approved or
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 (https://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml ); or
10 15
U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6)
12 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
13 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b–
4(f)(6)(iii) requires the Exchange to give the
Commission written notice of the Exchange’s intent
to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief
description and text of the proposed rule change,
at least five business days prior to the date of filing
of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time
as designated by the Commission. The Exchange
has satisfied this requirement.
11 17
E:\FR\FM\29JAN1.SGM
29JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 19 / Wednesday, January 29, 2014 / Notices
• Send an email to rule-comments@
sec.gov. Please include File Number SR–
CBOE–2014–001 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–CBOE–2014–001. 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 CBOE. 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–CBOE–
2014–001 and should be submitted on
or before February 19, 2014.
For the Commission, by the Division of
Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated
authority.14
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014–01655 Filed 1–28–14; 8:45 am]
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
[Release No. 34–71374; File No. SR–BOX–
2014–05]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX
Options Exchange LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of
a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
the BOX Rules To Remove the BOXTop Order
January 23, 2014.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2
notice is hereby given that on January
14, 2014, BOX Options Exchange LLC
(‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission
(‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule
change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared
by the self-regulatory organization. The
Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule
from interested persons.
I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement of the Terms of Substance of
the Proposed Rule Change
The Exchange proposes to amend the
BOX Rules to remove the BOX-Top
Order. The text of the proposed rule
change is available from the principal
office of the Exchange, at the
Commission’s Public Reference Room
and also on the Exchange’s Internet Web
site at https://boxexchange.com.
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 these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below.
The self-regulatory organization 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 purpose of this proposed rule
change is to amend the BOX rules to
remove the BOX-Top Order. A BOX-Top
Order is currently defined as an order
1 15
14 17
CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:05 Jan 28, 2014
2 17
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
CFR 240.19b–4.
Frm 00129
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
4783
entered into the BOX Book which is
executed at the best price available in
the market for the total quantity
available from any contra bid (offer).3
Any residual volume left after part of a
BOX-Top Order has been executed is
automatically converted to a limit order
at the price at which the original BOXTop Order was executed, except when
a BOX-Top Order executes against a
Legging Order at a penny increment in
a series traded in a larger increment. In
this instance, the remaining BOX–TOP
Order quantity will be priced, ranked
and displayed on the BOX Book at the
nearest increment tick permitted for the
series (rounded up (down) in the case of
a sell (buy) order).
BOX-Top Orders were originally
introduced at the launch of the
Exchange in 2004 to fulfill a market
need.4 Specifically, the Exchange
created BOX-Top Orders because the
Exchange did not offer Market Orders
when it launched.5 However, shortly
after the Exchange launched,
Participants expressed their preference
for Market Orders instead of BOX-Top
Orders. Due to these requests the
Exchange decided to offer Market
Orders as well.6 Once the Exchange
began offering Market Orders the
popularity of BOX-Top Orders
drastically decreased due to the
preference by Participants for Market
Orders; as a result, the BOX-Top Order
is rarely used by Participants today. The
Exchange has spoken with Participants
who currently use BOX-Top Orders and
has verified that removing this order
type will have no impact on their ability
to trade on the Exchange. Consequently,
the Exchange believes that the
continued presence of the BOX-Top
Order as an order type offered by the
Exchange no longer serves a business
purpose and could lead to investor
confusion.
The Exchange notes that while very
similar, BOX-Top Orders are not
identical to Market Orders. After
execution, the residual volume of a
BOX-Top Order is automatically
converted to a limit order at the price
at which the BOX-Top Order was
executed.7 With a Market Order the
residual volume is executed at the next
best price available for the total quantity
3 See
BOX Rule 7110(c)(2).
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49068
(January 13, 2004), 69 FR 2775 (January 20, 2004)
(Order Approving SR–BSE–2002–15).
5 Id.
6 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51821
(June 10, 2005), 70 FR 35143 (June 16, 2005) (Order
Approving SR–BSE–2004–51).
7 Except when the BOX-Top Order executes a
Legging Order at a penny increment in a series
trader [sic] in a larger increment.
4 See
E:\FR\FM\29JAN1.SGM
29JAN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 19 (Wednesday, January 29, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4779-4783]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-01655]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-71371; File No. SR-CBOE-2014-001]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule To Amend CBOE's Rules To Enhance the Independence and Integrity of
the Regulatory Functions of the Exchange
January 23, 2014.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on January 10, 2014, the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') 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 Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-
controversial'' proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ The
Commission is publishing this notice to
[[Page 4780]]
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
\2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
\3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
\4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change
CBOE proposes to amend its rules to enhance the independence and
integrity of the regulatory functions of the Exchange. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (https://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's
Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission.
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
1. Purpose
The Exchange proposes to amend certain rules to enhance the
independence and integrity of the regulatory functions of the Exchange.
Specifically, the Exchange seeks to amend Rule 2.1 (Committees of the
Exchange), Rule 4.4 (Gratuities), Rule 17.2 (Complaint and
Investigation), Rule 17.3 (Expedited Proceeding), Rule 17.4 (Charges),
Rule 17.8 (Offers of Settlement) and Rule 17.50 (Imposition of Fines
for Minor Rule Violations).
First, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 2.1 (Committees of the
Exchange). Rule 2.1 currently provides that the Chief Executive Officer
(``CEO'') shall appoint the chairman, vice-chairman and members of the
Exchange Committees, as well as fill vacancies and remove members of
the Exchange Committees. The Exchange proposes to adopt an exception to
that rule. Particularly, the Exchange proposes to provide that the
Nominating and Governance Committee, with the approval of the Board,
shall appoint the chairman, vice-chairman and members of the Business
Conduct Committee (``BCC''), as well as fill vacancies in the BCC and
that the Board shall have the ability to remove any member of the BCC,
at any time, with or without cause. The Nominating and Governance
Committee is comprised of at least five (5) Directors and is a standing
committee of CBOE's Board of Directors. The BCC is an Exchange
Committee charged with handling disciplinary matters that arise from
Exchange business. The BCC additionally reviews recommendations by the
Exchange's Regulatory staff and authorizes the issuance of formal
charges arising out of the matters investigated or examined by the
Regulatory Services Division. Given the BCC's responsibilities, the
Exchange believes that authority relating to the composition of the BCC
should rest with the Nominating and Governance Committee, rather than
the CEO. Additionally, the Exchange believes that the power to remove
members of the BCC should rest with the Board, rather than the CEO.
This transfer of authority enhances the independence of the regulatory
functions of the Exchange.
Next, the Exchange seeks to amend Rule 4.4 (Gratuities). Rule 4.4
provides that a Trading Permit Holder (``TPH'') may not give any
compensation or gratuity in any one year in excess of $50.00 to any
employee of the Exchange or in excess of $100.00 to any employee of any
other TPH or of any non-TPH broker, dealer, bank or institution,
without the prior consent of the employer and of the Exchange.
Additionally, the Exchange's Conflict of Interest Policy (``Policy'')
currently prohibits Regulatory Services Division and Office of
Enforcement employees from accepting any gift of more than nominal
monetary value (e.g., a coffee mug) from any TPH or associated person
of a TPH. In unique circumstances, the Policy provides that an
exception may be granted by the Division Head or, for the Division
Head, by the President. The Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 4.4 to
provide that a TPH may not give any compensation or gratuity of any
monetary value to any Regulatory Services Division or Office of
Enforcement employee.\5\ The Exchange does not believe that its
Regulatory Services Division or Office of Enforcement employees should
be permitted to receive gifts or gratuities of even a nominal value
from TPHs or their associated persons, in light of the responsibility
of these Exchange employees for regulatory matters involving TPHs and
their associated persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The Exchange intends to make conforming changes to its
Policy upon the effectiveness of this proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 17.2 (Complaint and
Investigation) to eliminate the authority of the President, other
Exchange officials designated by the President, the Board, or the BCC
to order an investigation of possible violations within the
disciplinary jurisdiction of the Exchange and provide instead that only
the Exchange's Regulatory staff, and any successor thereto, in its sole
discretion shall determine whether to investigate or examine possible
violations within the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Exchange. The
Exchange believes providing Regulatory staff sole discretion as to what
matters to investigate or examine further supports and provides for the
autonomy and independence of the Exchanges' regulatory functions as
well as helps to ensure that all decisions regarding resolution of any
examination, investigation, or prosecution shall be made without regard
to the actual or perceived business interests of the Exchange or any of
TPHs. The Exchange notes that the Board, President, and BCC, along with
other Exchange employees and Trading Permit Holders, will continue to
have the ability to submit oral or written complaints alleging possible
violations within the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Exchange. The
Exchange additionally notes that the proposed rule change conforms its
rules to its current practice. The Exchange also proposes to clarify
that Regulatory staff has the sole discretion to determine whether to
request that the BCC authorize the issuance of a statement of charges
pursuant to Rule 17.4 (Charges), which will add transparency to the
rules regarding Regulatory staff's role and responsibilities.
The Exchange also seeks to amend Rule 17.2 to provide that the
Regulatory staff shall have the sole discretion to determine whether to
request that the BCC authorize the issuance of a statement of charges
pursuant to Rule 17.4 In those instances where an investigation results
in the Regulatory staff finding that there are reasonable grounds to
believe that a violation has been committed and a formal regulatory
action (i.e., Statement of Charges) is warranted, Regulatory staff will
submit a written report of its investigation to the BCC.\6\
Additionally, the Exchange
[[Page 4781]]
proposes to provide in those instances where an investigation results
in the Regulatory staff finding that there are reasonable grounds to
believe that a violation has been committed, but non-formal regulatory
action (i.e., a Letter of Information, a Letter of Caution or a Staff
Interview) is warranted in lieu of the issuance of a statement of
charges, the Regulatory staff will have the power and authority in its
sole discretion to impose such non-formal regulatory action without the
submission of a written report of its investigation to the BCC.
Further, the Exchange proposes to provide that in the event the
Regulatory staff finds in its sole discretion that there are not
reasonable grounds to believe that a violation has been committed, the
Regulatory staff will close the investigation (i.e., File Without
Action) without the submission of a written report of its investigation
to the BCC. The Exchange believes that this proposed rule change
further supports and provides for the autonomy and independence of the
Exchanges' regulatory functions as well as makes explicit in the rules
the roles and responsibilities of Regulatory staff. Finally, the
Exchange proposes to add Interpretation and Policy .05 to Rule 17.2 to
make clear that references to ``Regulatory staff'' in Chapter XVII,
mean the Exchange's employees in the Regulatory Services Division.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Pursuant to CBOE Rule 17.10, the Regulatory Oversight and
Compliance Committee will review any decision not to authorize the
issuance of statements of charges that were recommended by
Regulatory staff, and refer such matters to the Board of Directors
for further review, as appropriate. The Board of Directors may order
review of such decisions, and may affirm, reverse or modify, in
whole or in part, the decision of the BCC not to authorize the
issuance of statement of charges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the Exchange seeks to make explicit in the Rules the
roles and responsibilities of certain Exchange staff. First, the
Exchange proposes to replace references to ``Exchange'' with
``Regulatory staff'' in Interpretation and Policies .01, .03, and .04
of Rule 17.2 to make clear that those references are to Regulatory
staff, in particular. The Exchange also seeks to make similar
clarifications in Rule 17.3 (Expedited Proceeding), Rule 17.4
(Charges), Rule 17.8 (Offers of Settlement), and Rule 17.10 (Review).
Particularly, Rule 17.3 governs expedited proceedings, Rule 17.4
governs if and how statement of charges is to be issued, Rule 17.8
governs Offers of Settlement, and Rule 17.10 governs the review by the
Board of Directors of decisions related to the disciplinary process.
Each of the aforementioned rules sets forth the respective duties and
responsibilities of ``staff'' as it relates to either expedited
proceedings, statement of charges and offers of settlement. The
Exchange believes however, that the term ``staff'' is vague and does
not provide clarity as to which staff has certain roles and authorities
under these rules, which historically, has been the Regulatory staff.
Accordingly, the Exchange wishes to make it explicitly clear that the
``staff'' referred to in these rules is the Exchange's Regulatory
staff, which will provide additional clarity and reduce confusion. The
Exchange notes this is a clarifying, non-substantive change. The
Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 17.10(d) to correct the reference
to the Regulatory Oversight and Compliance Committee.
Finally, the Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 17.50 (Imposition
of Fines for Minor Rule Violations). Rule 17.50 provides that in lieu
of commencing a disciplinary proceeding pursuant to Rule 17.2, the
Exchange may, in certain instances, impose a fine on a TPH or
associated person of a TPH with respect to certain rule violations.
More specifically, subparagraph (c) of Rule 17.50 provides that any
person against whom a fine is imposed pursuant to certain subsections
of Rule 17.50 (e.g., violation of position and exercise limit rules or
Locked or Crossed Market violations) may contest the Exchange's
determination by filing a written answer and have the matter become
subject to the review of the BCC. Additionally, the filing may request
a hearing, if desired, which would be subject to Rule 17.6, which rule
governs hearings before the BCC. Rule 17.50(c) also provides that for
violations of trading conduct and decorum policies in particular, a
person may only contest the determination to the BCC if the fine
exceeds $2,500. Pursuant to subparagraph (d) of Rule 17.50, if the fine
for violations of trading conduct and decorum policies does not exceed
$2,500, the individual may still contest the Exchange's determination,
but the matter would become subject to the review of the Appeals
Committee, rather than the BCC and, if requested, any hearing would
consequently be subject to the hearing procedures set forth in Chapter
19 (Hearings and Review). Similarly, fines imposed for failure to
submit trade data on trade date, regardless of the amount, may be
contested but will also become subject to the review of the Appeals
Committee, instead of the BCC. Moreover, Interpretation and Policy .04
provides that the BCC may consolidate into one hearing the review of
(i) a fine imposed for violations of trade conduct and decorum policies
that exceeds $2,500 and (i) a fine imposed for violations of trade
conduct and decorum policies that does not exceed $2,500, so long as
the alleged violations involve the same or related transaction or
occurrence and the review is not based on written submissions. The
Exchange proposes to eliminate the distinction between the type of
violations set forth in Rule 17.50 by eliminating subparagraph (d) of
Rule 17.50 in its entirety and provide instead that all violations set
forth in paragraph (g) of Rule 17.50 may be contested to the BCC and,
if requested, subject to the hearing procedures of Rule 17.6. Given the
BCC's role and responsibilities noted above, the Exchange believes that
the BCC is the appropriate committee to review and/or hear contests to
fines imposed due to non-compliance with certain Exchange rules.
Particularly, the Exchange believes the BCC should review and/or hear
all contests to fines imposed pursuant to section (g) of Rule 17.50 in
its entirety, including violations for trade conduct and decorum
policies and failure to submit trade data on trade date. The proposed
change also provides consistency and certainty as to how all contests
to fines imposed pursuant to section (g) are handled.
Lastly, the Exchange proposes to delete language in subparagraph
(c)(3) of Rule 17.50. More specifically, Rule 17.50(c)(3) currently
provides that among others, any member of the Board may require a
review by the Board of any determination made by the BCC under this
rule. The Exchange proposes to eliminate the language ``any member of''
to provide that an individual Board member cannot alone require a
review, but rather the request for a review must be a Board action. The
Exchange believes that it is appropriate for the Board to determine
whether to request review of a determination of the BCC under Rule
17.50, as opposed to an individual Board member, and notes that such
change is consistent with Rule 17.10 relating to the Board's authority
to review decisions by the BCC made pursuant to Rules 17.7 and 17.9.
2. Statutory Basis
The Exchange believes the proposed rule changes are consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\7\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule changes are consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \8\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
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
[[Page 4782]]
in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect
to, and 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. The Exchange also believes the proposed rule changes are
consistent with the Section 6(b)(7) \9\ requirements that the rules of
an exchange provide a fair procedure for the disciplining of members
and persons associated with members, the denial of membership to any
person seeking membership therein, the barring of any person from
becoming associated with a member thereof, and the prohibition or
limitation by the exchange of any person with respect to access to
services offered by the exchange or a member thereof.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
\8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
\9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In particular, the Exchange believes that the elimination of: (i)
the CEO's authority relating to the composition of the BCC and (ii) the
President, (or Exchange Official designated by the President), the
Board, and BCC's authority to order the investigation of a possible
violation within the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Exchange aligns
the CBOE Rules with the Exchange's current practices and provides for
further separation of those responsible for the business activities of
the Exchange from the decision-making structure over the regulatory
process. This separation enhances the Exchange's disciplinary and
regulatory process by furthering the independence of its regulatory
process and reducing a potential conflict of interest, as well as an
appearance of inappropriate influence, thereby ensuring an effective
and fair disciplinary process and promoting just and equitable
principles of trade and protecting investors and the public interest
investors and public interest.
Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change to
Rule 4.4 further enhances the independence of the Regulatory Services
Division and Office of Enforcement and eliminates a potential conflict
of interest, as well as an appearance of influence, thereby promoting
an effective and fair disciplinary process and enhancing the protection
of investors and the public interest.
The Exchange also believes that clarifying the CBOE Rules to
explicitly state that Regulatory staff has sole discretion as to what
matters to investigate or examine further supports and provides for the
autonomy and independence of the Exchanges' regulatory functions as
well as helps to ensure that all decisions regarding resolution of any
examination, investigation, or prosecution shall be made without regard
to the actual or perceived business interests of the Exchange or any of
TPHs, thereby enhancing the protection of investors and the public
interest. Additionally, the Exchange believes that providing Regulatory
staff sole discretion to (i) impose non-formal regulatory action
without the submission of a written report of its investigation to the
BCC in those instances where an investigation results in the Regulatory
staff finding that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a
violation has been committed or (ii) close an investigation without
submission of a written report of its investigation to the BCC where
Regulatory staff finds that there are not reasonable grounds to believe
that a violation has been committed, further supports and provides for
the autonomy and independence of the Exchanges' regulatory functions as
well as makes explicit in the rules the roles and responsibilities of
Regulatory staff.
The Exchange also believes that replacing vague references to
``Exchange'' and ``Staff'' with ``Regulatory staff,'' in Chapter 17
makes it explicitly clear which staff has certain roles and
responsibilities delegated under these rules, thereby eliminating
potential confusion. Finally, the Exchange believes that given the
BCC's charged role and responsibilities, the BCC is the appropriate
committee to review and/or hear contests to fines imposed pursuant to
section (g) of Rule 17.50 in its entirety, including violations for
trade conduct and decorum policies and failure to submit trade data on
trade date. The Exchange believes this proposed rule change also
provides consistency as to how contests to fines imposed pursuant to
section (g) of Rule 17.50 are handled.
B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition
CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe
that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket
competition because it applies to all TPHs. The Exchange does not
believe the proposed rule changes will impose any burden on intermarket
competition as it will merely enhance the independence of its
regulatory decision-making and eliminate gratuities from TPHs to
employees of the Regulatory Services Division or Office of Enforcement
that might appear to undermine that independence.
C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.
III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\11\
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (1) Significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (2) impose
any significant burden on competition; and (3) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, it has become effective
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
\11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) \13\ thereunder. 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. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission will
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change
should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
\13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 4783]]
Send an email to rule-comments@sec.gov. Please
include File Number SR-CBOE-2014-001 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-CBOE-2014-001. 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 CBOE. 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-CBOE-2014-001 and should be submitted on
or before February 19, 2014.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-01655 Filed 1-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P