Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend BOX Rule 7170 (Nullification and Adjustment of Options Transactions) To Add IM-7170-4, 14589-14594 [2017-05497]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 53 / Tuesday, March 21, 2017 / Notices For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.25 Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. 2017–05499 Filed 3–20–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 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 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34–80247; File No. SR–BOX– 2017–08] Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend BOX Rule 7170 (Nullification and Adjustment of Options Transactions) To Add IM–7170–4 March 15, 2017. 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 March 3, 2017, BOX Options Exchange LLC (the ‘‘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 change from interested persons. mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to amend BOX Rule 7170 (Nullification and Adjustment of Options Transactions) to add IM–7170–4. 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 http:// 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 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:47 Mar 20, 2017 Jkt 241001 The Exchange proposes to amend BOX Rule 7170 (Nullification and Adjustment of Options Transactions) to add IM–7170–4. This is filing is based on a proposal recently submitted by Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (‘‘CBOE’’) and approved by the Commission.3 Last year, the Exchange and other options exchanges adopted a new, harmonized rule related to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions, including a specific provision related to coordination in connection with largescale events involving erroneous options transactions.4 The Exchange believes that the changes the options exchanges implemented with the new, harmonized rule have led to increased transparency and finality with respect to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions. However, as part of the initial initiative, the Exchange and other options exchanges deferred a few specific matters for further discussion. Specifically, the options exchanges have been working together to identify ways to improve the process related to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions as it relates to complex orders 5 and stockoption orders. The goal of the process that the options exchanges have undertaken is to further harmonize rules related to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions. As described below, the Exchange believes that the changes the options exchanges and BOX have agreed to propose will provide transparency and finality with respect to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous complex order and stockoption order transactions. Particularly, the proposed changes seek to achieve consistent results for participants across U.S. options exchanges while maintaining a fair and orderly market, protecting investors and protecting the public interest. 3 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80040 (February 14, 2017), 82 FR 11248 (February 21, 2017) (Order Approving SR–CBOE–2016–088). 4 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74911 (May 8, 2015), 80 FR 27717 (May 14, 2015) (SR– BOX–2015–18) (the ‘‘Initial Filing’’). 5 See Rule 7240(a)(5) (defining complex orders). PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 14589 The Proposed Rule is the culmination of this coordinated effort and reflects discussions by the options exchanges whereby the exchanges that offer complex orders and/or stock-option orders will universally adopt new provisions that the options exchanges collectively believe will improve the handling of erroneous options transactions that result from the execution of complex orders and stockoption orders.6 The Exchange believes that the Proposed Rule supports an approach consistent with long-standing principles in the options industry under which the general policy is to adjust rather than nullify transactions. The Exchange acknowledges that adjustment of transactions is contrary to the operation of analogous rules applicable to the equities markets, where erroneous transactions are typically nullified rather than adjusted and where there is no distinction between the types of market participants involved in a transaction. For the reasons set forth below, the Exchange believes that the distinctions in market structure between equities and options markets continue to support these distinctions between the rules for handling obvious errors in the equities and options markets. Various general structural differences between the options and equities markets point toward the need for a different balancing of risks for options market participants and are reflected in this proposal. Option pricing is formulaic and is tied to the price of the underlying stock, the volatility of the underlying security and other factors. Because options market participants can generally create new open interest in response to trading demand, as new open interest is created, correlated trades in the underlying or related series are generally also executed to hedge a market participant’s risk. This pairing of open interest with hedging interest differentiates the options market specifically (and the derivatives markets broadly) from the cash equities markets. In turn, the Exchange believes that the hedging transactions engaged in by market participants necessitates protection of transactions through adjustments rather than nullifications when possible and otherwise appropriate. The options markets are also quote driven markets dependent on liquidity providers to an even greater extent than equities markets. In contrast to the approximately 7,000 different securities 6 The Exchange notes that it does not offer stockoption orders and will not adopt the CBOE provisions around stock-option orders. E:\FR\FM\21MRN1.SGM 21MRN1 14590 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 53 / Tuesday, March 21, 2017 / Notices mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES traded in the U.S. equities markets each day, there are more than 500,000 unique, regularly quoted option series. Given this breadth in options series the options markets are more dependent on liquidity providers than equities markets; such liquidity is provided most commonly by registered market makers but also by other professional traders. With the number of instruments in which registered market makers must quote and the risk attendant with quoting so many products simultaneously, the Exchange believes that those liquidity providers should be afforded a greater level of protection. In particular, the Exchange believes that liquidity providers should be allowed protection of their trades given the fact that they typically engage in hedging activity to protect them from significant financial risk to encourage continued liquidity provision and maintenance of the quote-driven options markets. In addition to the factors described above, there are other fundamental differences between options and equities markets which lend themselves to different treatment of different classes of participants that are reflected in this proposal. For example, there is no trade reporting facility in the options markets. Thus, all transactions must occur on an options exchange. This leads to significantly greater retail customer participation directly on exchanges than in the equities markets, where a significant amount of retail customer participation never reaches the Exchange but is instead executed in offexchange venues such as alternative trading systems, broker-dealer market making desks and internalizers. In turn, because of such direct retail customer participation, the exchanges have taken steps to afford those retail customers— generally Priority Customers—more favorable treatment in some circumstances. Complex Orders As more fully described below, the Proposed Rule applies much of the Current Rule to Complex Orders.7 The Proposed Rule deviates from the Current Rule only to account for the unique qualities of Complex Orders. The Proposed Rule reflects the fact that Complex Orders can execute against other Complex Orders or can execute against individual simple orders in the leg markets. When a Complex Order executes against the leg markets there may be different counterparties on each 7 In order for a Complex Order to qualify as an obvious or catastrophic error at least one of the legs must itself qualify as an obvious or catastrophic error under the Current Rule. See Proposed IM– 7170–4 (a)–(b). VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:47 Mar 20, 2017 Jkt 241001 leg of the Complex Order, and not every leg will necessarily be executed at an erroneous price. First, proposed IM–7170–4(a) governs the review of Complex Orders that are executed against individual legs (as opposed to a Complex Order that executes against another Complex Order).8 Proposed IM–7170–4(a) provides: If a Complex Order executes against individual legs and at least one of the legs qualifies as an Obvious or Catastrophic Error under this Rule 7170, then the leg(s) that is an Obvious or Catastrophic Error will be adjusted in accordance with paragraphs (c)(4)(A) or (d)(3), respectively, regardless of whether one of the parties is a Customer. However, any Customer order subject to this paragraph (a) will be nullified if the adjustment would result in an execution price higher (for buy transactions) or lower (for sell transactions) than the Customer’s limit price on the Complex Order or individual leg(s). If any leg of a Complex Order is nullified, the entire transaction is nullified. As previously noted, at least one of the legs of the Complex Order must qualify as an obvious or catastrophic error under the Current Rule in order for the Complex Order to receive obvious or catastrophic error relief. Thus, when the Exchange is notified (within the timeframes set forth in paragraph (c)(2) or (d)(2)) of a Complex Order that is a possible obvious error or catastrophic error, the Exchange will first review the individual legs of the Complex Order to determine if one or more legs qualify as an obvious or catastrophic error.9 If no leg qualifies as an obvious or catastrophic error, the transaction stands—no adjustment and no nullification. Reviewing the legs to determine whether one or more legs qualify as an obvious or catastrophic error requires the Exchange to follow the Current Rule. In accordance with paragraphs (c)(1) and (d)(1) of the Current Rule, the Exchange compares the execution price of each individual leg to the Theoretical Price of each leg (as determined by 8 The leg market consists of quotes and/or orders in single options series. A Complex Order may be received by the Exchange electronically, and the legs of the Complex Order may have different counterparties. For example, Market-Maker 1 may be quoting in ABC calls and Market-Maker 2 may be quoting in ABC puts. A Complex Order to buy the ABC calls and puts may execute against the quotes of Market-Maker 1 and Market-Maker 2. 9 Because a Complex Order can execute against the leg market, the Exchange may also be notified of a possible obvious or catastrophic error by a counterparty that received an execution in an individual options series. If upon review of a potential obvious error the Exchange determines an individual options series was executed against the leg of a Complex Order, proposed IM–7170–4 will govern. PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 paragraph (b) of the Current Rule). If the execution price of an individual leg is higher or lower than the Theoretical Price for the series by an amount equal to at least the amount shown in the obvious error table in paragraph (c)(1) of the Current rule or the catastrophic error table in paragraph (d)(1) of the Current Rule, the individual leg qualifies as an obvious or catastrophic error, and the Exchange will take steps to adjust or nullify the transaction.10 To illustrate, consider a Customer submits a Complex Order to the Exchange consisting of leg 1 and leg 2— Leg 1 is to buy 100 ABC calls and leg 2 is to sell 100 ABC puts. Also, consider that Market-Maker 1 is quoting the ABC calls $1.00–1.20 and Market-Maker 2 is quoting the ABC puts $2.00–2.20. If the Complex Order executes against the quotes of Market-Makers 1 and 2, the Customer buys the ABC calls for $1.20 and sells the ABC puts for $2.00. As with the obvious/catastrophic error reviews for simple orders, the execution price of leg 1 is compared to the Theoretical Price 11 of Leg 1 in order to determine if Leg 1 is an obvious error under paragraph (c)(1) of the Current Rule or a catastrophic error under paragraph (d)(1) of the Current Rule. The same goes for Leg 2. The execution price of Leg 2 is compared to the Theoretical Price of Leg 2. If it is determined that one or both of the legs are an obvious or catastrophic error, then the leg (or legs) that is an obvious or catastrophic error will be adjusted in accordance with paragraphs (c)(4)(A) or (d)(3) of the Current Rule, regardless of whether one of the parties is a Customer.12 Although a single-legged execution that is deemed to be an obvious error under the Current Rule is nullified whenever a Customer is involved in the transaction, the Exchange believes adjusting execution prices is generally better for the marketplace than nullifying executions because liquidity providers often execute hedging transactions to offset options positions. When an options transaction is nullified the hedging position can adversely affect the liquidity provider. With regards to Complex Orders that execute against individual legs, the additional rationale 10 Only the execution price on the leg (or legs) that qualifies as an obvious or catastrophic error pursuant to any portion of Proposed IM–7170–4 will be adjusted. The execution price of a leg (or legs) that does not qualify as an obvious or catastrophic error will not be adjusted. 11 See Rule 7170(b) (defining the manner in which Theoretical Price is determined). 12 See Rule 7170(a)(1) (defining Customer for purposes of Rule 7170 as not including a brokerdealer, Professional Customer, or Voluntary Professional Customer). E:\FR\FM\21MRN1.SGM 21MRN1 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 53 / Tuesday, March 21, 2017 / Notices for adjusting erroneous execution prices when possible is the fact that the counterparty on a leg that is not executed at an obvious or catastrophic error price cannot look at the execution price to determine whether the execution may later be nullified (as opposed to the counterparty on singlelegged order that is executed at an obvious error or catastrophic error price). Paragraph (c)(4)(A) of the Current Rule mandates that if it is determined that an obvious error has occurred, the execution price of the transaction will be adjusted pursuant to the table set forth in (c)(4)(A). Although for simple orders paragraph (c)(4)(A) is only applicable when no party to the transaction is a Customer, for the purposes of Complex Orders paragraph (a) of IM–7170–4 will supersede that limitation; therefore, if it is determined that a leg (or legs) of a Complex Order is an obvious error, the leg (or legs) will be adjusted pursuant to (c)(4)(A), regardless of whether a party to the transaction is a Customer. The Size Adjustment Modifier defined in subparagraph (a)(4) will similarly apply (regardless of whether a Customer is on the transaction) by virtue of the application of paragraph (c)(4)(A).13 The Exchange notes that adjusting all market participants is not unique or novel. When the Exchange determines that a simple order execution is a Catastrophic Error pursuant to the Current Rule, paragraph (d)(3) already provides for adjusting the execution price for all market participants, including Customers. Furthermore, as with the Current Rule, Proposed IM–7170–4(a) provides protection for Customer orders, stating that where at least one party to a Complex Order transaction is a Customer, the transaction will be nullified if adjustment would result in an execution price higher (for buy transactions) or lower (for sell transactions) than the Customer’s limit price on the Complex Order or individual leg(s). For example, assume Customer enters a Complex Order to buy leg 1 and leg 2. • Assume the NBBO for leg 1 is $0.20–1.00 and the NBBO for leg 2 is $0.50–1.00 and that these have been the NBBOs since the market opened. • A split-second prior to the execution of the Complex Order a Customer enters a simple order to sell the leg 1 options series at $1.30, and the 13 See Rule 7170(c)(4)(A) (stating that any nonCustomer Obvious Error exceeding 50 contracts will be subject to the Size Adjustment Modifier defined in sub-paragraph (a)(4)). VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:47 Mar 20, 2017 Jkt 241001 simple order enters the Exchange’s book so that the BBO is $.20–$1.30. The limit price on the simple order is $1.30. • The Complex Order executes leg 1 against the Exchange’s best offer of $1.30 and leg 2 at $1.00 for a net execution price of $2.30. • However, leg 1 executed on a wide quote (the NBBO for leg 1 was $0.20– 1.00 at the time of execution, which is wider than $0.75).14 Leg 2 was not executed on a wide quote (the market for leg 2 was $0.50–1.00); thus, leg 2 execution price stands. • The Exchange determines that the Theoretical Price for leg 1 is $1.00, which was the best offer prior to the execution. Leg 1 qualifies as an obvious error because the difference between the Theoretical Price ($1.00) and the execution price ($1.30) is larger than $0.25.15 • According to Proposed IM–7170– 4(a) Customers will also be adjusted in accordance with Rule 7170(c)(4)(A), which for a buy transaction under $3.00 calls for the Theoretical Price to by adjusted by adding $0.15 16 to the Theoretical Price of $1.00. Thus, adjust execution price for leg 1 would be $1.15. • However, adjusting the execution price of leg 1 to $1.15 violates the limit price of the Customer’s sell order on the simple order book for leg 1, which was $1.30. • Thus, the entire Complex Order transaction will be nullified 17 because the limit price of a Customer’s sell order would be violated by the adjustment.18 As the above example demonstrates, incoming Complex Orders may execute against resting simple orders in the leg market. If a Complex Order leg is deemed to be an obvious error, adjusting the execution price of the leg may violate the limit price of the resting order, which will result in nullification if the resting order is for a Customer. In contrast, IM–7170–2 provides that if an adjustment would result in an execution price that is higher than an erroneous buy transaction or lower than an erroneous sell transaction the execution will not be adjusted or nullified.19 If the adjustment of a Complex Order would violate the Complex Order Customer’s 14 See Rule 7170(b)(3). Rule (c)(1). 16 See Rule 7170(c)(4)(A). 17 If any leg of a Complex Order is nullified, the entire transaction is nullified. See Proposed IM– 7170–4(a). 18 The simple order in this example is not an erroneous sell transaction because the execution price was not erroneously low. See Rule 7170(a)(2). 19 See IM–7170–2. 15 See PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 14591 limit price, the transaction will be nullified. As previously noted, paragraph (d)(3) of the Current Rule already mandates that if it is determined that a catastrophic error has occurred, the execution price of the transaction will be adjusted pursuant to the table set forth in (d)(3). For purposes of Complex Orders under Proposed IM–7170–4(a), if one of the legs of a Complex Order is determined to be a Catastrophic Error under paragraph (d)(3), all market participants will be adjusted in accordance with the table set forth in (d)(3). Again, however, where at least one party to a Complex Order transaction is a Customer, the transaction will be nullified if adjustment would result in an execution price higher (for buy transactions) or lower (for sell transactions) than the Customer’s limit price on the Complex Order or individual leg(s). Again, if any leg of a Complex Order is nullified, the entire transaction is nullified. Other than honoring the limit prices established for Customer orders, the Exchange has proposed to treat Customers and non-Customers the same in the context of the Complex Orders that trade against the leg market. When Complex Orders trade against the leg market, it is possible that at least some of the legs will execute at prices that would not be deemed obvious or catastrophic errors, which gives the counterparty in such situations no indication that the execution will later by adjusted or nullified. The Exchange believes that treating Customers and non-Customers the same in this context will provide additional certainty to nonCustomers (especially Market-Makers) with respect to their potential exposure and hedging activities, including comfort that even if a transaction is later adjusted, such transaction will not be fully nullified. However, as noted above, under the Proposed Rule where at least one party to the transaction is a Customer, the trade will be nullified if the adjustment would result in an execution price higher (for buy transactions) or lower (for sell transactions) than the Customer’s limit price on the Complex Order or individual leg(s). The Exchange has retained the protection of a Customer’s limit price in order to avoid a situation where the adjustment could be to a price that a Customer would not have expected, and market professionals such as non-Customers would be better prepared to recover in such situations. Therefore, adjustment for nonCustomers is more appropriate. Second, proposed IM–7170–4(b) governs the review of Complex Orders E:\FR\FM\21MRN1.SGM 21MRN1 14592 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 53 / Tuesday, March 21, 2017 / Notices that are executed against other Complex Orders. Proposed IM–7170–4(b) provides: mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES If a Complex Order executes against another Complex Order and at least one of the legs qualifies as an Obvious Error under paragraph (c)(1) or a Catastrophic Error under paragraph (d)(1), then the leg(s) that is an Obvious or Catastrophic Error will be adjusted or busted in accordance with paragraph (c)(4) or (d)(3), respectively, so long as either: (i) The width of the National Spread Market for the Complex Order strategy just prior to the erroneous transaction was equal to or greater than the amount set forth in the wide quote table of paragraph (b)(3) or (ii) the net execution price of the Complex Order is higher (lower) than the offer (bid) of the National Spread Market for the Complex Order strategy just prior to the erroneous transaction by an amount equal to at least the amount shown in the table in paragraph (c)(1). If any leg of a Complex Order is nullified, the entire transaction is nullified. For purposes of Rule 7170, the National Spread Market for a Complex Order strategy is determined by the National Best Bid/Offer of the individual legs of the strategy. As described above in relation to Proposed IM–7170–4(a), the first step is for the Exchange to review (upon receipt of a timely notification in accordance with paragraphs (c)(2) or (d)(2) of the Current Rule) the individual legs to determine whether a leg or legs qualifies as an obvious or catastrophic error. If no leg qualifies as an obvious or catastrophic error, the transaction stands—no adjustment and no nullification. Unlike Proposed IM–7170–4(a), the Exchange is also proposing to compare the net execution price of the entire Complex Order package to the National Spread Market (‘‘NSM’’) for the Complex Order strategy.20 Complex Orders are exempt from the order protection rules of the options exchanges.21 Thus, depending on the manner in which the systems of an options exchange are calibrated, a Complex Order can execute without regard to the prices offered in the Complex Order books or the leg markets of other options exchanges. In certain situations, reviewing the execution prices of the legs in a vacuum would make the leg appear to be an obvious or catastrophic error, even though the net execution price on the Complex Order is not an erroneous price. For example, assume the Exchange receives a 20 NSM is the derived net market for a Complex Order package. For example, if the NBBO of Leg 1 is $1.00–2.00 and the NBBO of Leg 2 is $5.00–7.00, then the NSM for a Complex Order to buy Leg 1 and buy Leg 2 is $6.00–9.00. 21 See Rule 15010(b)(7). All options exchanges have the same order protection rule. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:47 Mar 20, 2017 Jkt 241001 Complex Order to buy ABC calls and sell ABC puts. • If the BBO for the ABC calls is $5.50–7.50 and the BBO for ABC puts is $3.00–4.50, then the Exchange’s spread market is $1.00–4.50.22 • If the NBBO for the ABC calls is $6.00–6.50 and the NBBO for the ABC puts is $3.50–4.00, then the NSM is $2.00–3.00. • If the Customer buys the calls at $7.50 and sells the puts at $4.00, the Complex Order Customer receives a net execution price of $3.00 (debit), which is the expected net execution price as indicated by the NSM offer of $3.00. If the exchange were to solely focus on the $7.50 execution price of the ABC calls or the $4.00 execution price of the ABC puts, the execution would qualify as an obvious or catastrophic error because the execution price on the legs was outside the NBBO, even though the net execution price is accurate. Thus, the additional review of the NSM to determine if the Complex Order was executed at a truly erroneous price is necessary. The same concern is not present when a Complex Order executes against the leg market under IM–7170– 4(a) because the Exchange is modifying its system in order to ensure the leg will execute at or within the NBBO of the leg markets.23 In order to incorporate NSM, IM– 7170–4(b) provides that if the Exchange determines that a leg or legs does qualify as on obvious or catastrophic error, the leg or legs will be adjusted or busted in accordance with paragraph (c)(4) or (d)(3) of the Current Rule, so long as either: (i) The width of the NSM for the Complex Order strategy just prior to the erroneous transaction was equal to or greater than the amount set forth in the wide quote table of paragraph (b)(3) of the Current Rule or (ii) the net execution price of the Complex Order is higher (lower) than the offer (bid) of the NSM for the Complex Order strategy just prior to the erroneous transaction by an amount equal to at least the amount shown in the table in paragraph (c)(1) of the Current Rule. 22 The Complex Order is to buy ABC calls and sell ABC puts. The Exchange’s best offer for ABC puts is $7.50 and Exchange’s best bid for is $3.00. If the Customer were to buy the Complex Order strategy, the Customer would receive a debit of $4.50 (buy ABC calls for $7.50 minus selling ABC puts for $3.00). If the Customer were to sell the Complex Order strategy the Customer would receive a credit of $1.00 (selling the ABC calls for $5.50 minus buying the ABC puts for $4.50). Thus, the Exchange’s spread market is $1.00–4.50. 23 The proposed rule change to modify Exchange systems to ensure the legs of a Complex Order will execute against legs in the simple order market within the NBBO of the simple order market will be in a separate filing. PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 For example, assume an individual leg or legs qualifies as an obvious or catastrophic error and the width of the NSM of the Complex Order strategy just prior to the erroneous transaction is $6.00–9.00. The Complex Order will qualify to be adjusted or busted in accordance with paragraph (c)(4) of the Current Rule because the wide quote table of paragraph (b)(3) of the Current Rule indicates that the minimum amount is $1.50 for a bid price between $5.00 to $10.00. If the NSM were instead $6.00–7.00 the Complex Order strategy would not qualify to be adjusted or busted pursuant to .07(b)(i) because the width of the NSM is $1.00, which is less than the required $1.50. However, the execution may still qualify to be adjusted or busted in accordance with paragraph (c)(4) or (d)(3) of the Current Rule pursuant to IM–7170–4(b)(ii). Focusing on the NSM in this manner will ensure that the obvious/ catastrophic error review process focuses on the net execution price instead of the execution prices of the individual legs, which may have execution prices outside of the NBBO of the leg markets. Again, assume an individual leg or legs qualifies as an obvious or catastrophic error as described above. If the NSM is $6.00–7.00 (not a wide quote pursuant to the wide quote table in paragraph (b)(3) of the Current Rule) but the execution price of the entire Complex Order package (i.e., the net execution price) is higher (lower) than the offer (bid) of the NSM for the Complex Order strategy just prior to the erroneous transaction by an amount equal to at least the amount in the table in paragraph (c)(1) of the Current Rule, then the Complex Order qualifies to be adjusted or busted in accordance with paragraph (c)(4) or (d)(3) of the Current Rule. For example, if the NSM for the Complex Order strategy just prior to the erroneous transaction is $6.00–7.00 and the net execution price of the Complex Order transaction is $7.75, the Complex Order qualifies to be adjusted or busted in accordance with paragraph (c)(4) of the Current Rule because the execution price of $7.75 is more than $0.50 (i.e., the minimum amount according to the table in paragraph (c)(1) when the price is above $5.00 but less than $10.01) from the NSM offer of $7.00. Focusing on the NSM in this manner will ensure that the obvious/catastrophic error review process focuses on the net execution price instead of the execution prices of the individual legs, which may have execution prices outside of the NBBO of the leg markets. Although the Exchange believes adjusting execution prices is generally E:\FR\FM\21MRN1.SGM 21MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 53 / Tuesday, March 21, 2017 / Notices better for the marketplace than nullifying executions because liquidity providers often execute hedging transactions to offset options positions, the Exchange recognizes that Complex Orders executing against other Complex Orders is similar to simple orders executing against other simple orders because both parties are able to review the execution price to determine whether the transaction may have been executed at an erroneous price. Thus, for purposes of Complex Orders that meet the requirements of IM–7170–4(b), the Exchange proposes to apply the Current Rule and adjust or bust obvious errors in accordance with paragraph (c)(4) (as opposed to applying paragraph (c)(4)(A) as is the case under IM–7170– 4(a)) and catastrophic errors in accordance with (d)(3). Therefore, for purposes of Complex Orders under Proposed IM–7170–4(b), if one of the legs is determined to be an obvious error under paragraph (c)(1), all Customer transactions will be nullified, unless a Participant submits 200 or more Customer transactions for review in accordance with (c)(4)(C).24 For purposes of Complex Orders under Proposed IM–7170–4(b), if one of the legs is determined to be a catastrophic error under paragraph (d)(3) and all of the other requirements of IM–7170–4(b) are met, all market participants will be adjusted in accordance with the table set forth in (d)(3). Again, however, pursuant to paragraph (d)(3) where at least one party to a Complex Order transaction is a Customer, the transaction will be nullified if adjustment would result in an execution price higher (for buy transactions) or lower (for sell transactions) than the Customer’s limit price on the Complex Order or individual leg(s). Also, if any leg of a Complex Order is nullified, the entire transaction is nullified. mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES Implementation Date In order to ensure that the other options exchanges are able to adopt rules consistent with this proposal and to coordinate effectiveness of such harmonized rules, the Exchange proposed to delay the effectiveness of this proposal to April 17, 2017. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ‘‘Act’’),25 in general, and Section 6(b)(5) 24 Rule 7170(c)(4)(C) also requires the orders resulting in 200 or more Customer transactions to have been submitted during the course of 2 minutes or less. 25 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:47 Mar 20, 2017 Jkt 241001 of the Act,26 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. As described above, the Exchange and other options exchanges are seeking to adopt harmonized rules related to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions. The Exchange believes that the Proposed Rule will provide greater transparency and clarity with respect to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions. Particularly, the proposed changes seek to achieve consistent results for participants across U.S. options exchanges while maintaining a fair and orderly market, protecting investors and protecting the public interest. Based on the foregoing, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 27 in that the Proposed Rule will foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating and facilitating transactions. The Exchange believes the various provisions allowing or dictating adjustment rather than nullification of a trade are necessary given the benefits of adjusting a trade price rather than nullifying the trade completely. Because options trades are used to hedge, or are hedged by, transactions in other markets, including securities and futures, many Participants, and their customers, would rather adjust prices of executions rather than nullify the transactions and, thus, lose a hedge altogether. As such, the Exchange believes it is in the best interest of investors to allow for price adjustments as well as nullifications. The Exchange does not believe that the proposal is unfairly discriminatory, even though it differentiates in many places between Customers and nonCustomers. As with the Current Rule, Customers are treated differently, often affording them preferential treatment. This treatment is appropriate in light of the fact that Customers are not necessarily immersed in the day-to-day trading of the markets, are less likely to be watching trading activity in a particular option throughout the day, and may have limited funds in their 26 15 27 15 PO 00000 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). Frm 00093 Fmt 4703 trading accounts. At the same time, the Exchange reiterates that in the U.S. options markets generally there is significant retail customer participation that occurs directly on (and only on) options exchanges such as the Exchange. Accordingly, differentiating among market participants with respect to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions is not unfairly discriminatory because it is reasonable and fair to provide Customers with additional protections as compared to non-Customers. The Exchange believes that its proposal to adopt the ability to adjust a Customer’s execution price when a Complex Order is deemed to be an Obvious or Catastrophic Error is consistent with the Act. A Complex Order that executes against individual leg markets may receive an execution price on an individual leg that is not an Obvious or Catastrophic error but another leg of the transaction is an Obvious or Catastrophic Error. In such situations where the Complex Order is executing against at least one individual or firm that is not aware of the fact that they have executed against a Complex Order or that the Complex Order has been executed at an erroneous price, the Exchange believes it is more appropriate to adjust execution prices if possible because the derivative transactions are often hedged with other securities. Allowing adjustments instead of nullifying transactions in these limited situations will help to ensure that market participants are not left with a hedge that has no position to hedge against. B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In this regard and as indicated above, the Exchange notes that the proposed rule change is substantially similar to a filing submitted by CBOE that was recently approved by the Commission.28 The Exchange believes the proposal will not impose a burden on intermarket competition but will rather alleviate any burden on competition because it is the result of a collaborative effort by all options exchanges to harmonize and improve the process related to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions. The Exchange does not believe that the rules applicable to such process is an area where options exchanges should 28 See Sfmt 4703 14593 E:\FR\FM\21MRN1.SGM supra, note 3. 21MRN1 14594 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 53 / Tuesday, March 21, 2017 / Notices compete, but rather, that all options exchanges should have consistent rules to the extent possible. Particularly where a market participant trades on several different exchanges and an erroneous trade may occur on multiple markets nearly simultaneously, the Exchange believes that a participant should have a consistent experience with respect to the nullification or adjustment of transactions. The Exchange understands that all other options exchanges that trade complex orders and/or stock-option orders intend to file proposals that are substantially similar to this proposal. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes a burden on intramarket competition because the provisions apply to all market participants equally within each participant category (i.e., Customers and non-Customers). With respect to competition between Customer and non-Customer market participants, the Exchange believes that the Proposed Rule acknowledges competing concerns and tries to strike the appropriate balance between such concerns. For instance, the Exchange believes that protection of Customers is important due to their direct participation in the options markets as well as the fact that they are not, by definition, market professionals. At the same time, the Exchange believes due to the quotedriven nature of the options markets, the importance of liquidity provision in such markets and the risk that liquidity providers bear when quoting a large breadth of products that are derivative of underlying securities, that the protection of liquidity providers and the practice of adjusting transactions rather than nullifying them is of critical importance. As described above, the Exchange will apply specific and objective criteria to determine whether an erroneous transaction has occurred and, if so, how to adjust or nullify a transaction. mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:47 Mar 20, 2017 Jkt 241001 which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 29 and Rule 19b–4(f)(6) thereunder.30 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 shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule 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 • Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR–BOX–2017–08. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission’s Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written 29 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b–4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and the 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. 30 17 Fmt 4703 [FR Doc. 2017–05497 Filed 3–20–17; 8:45 am] SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD [Docket No. EP 290 (Sub-No. 5) (2017–2)] Quarterly Rail Cost Adjustment Factor Surface Transportation Board. Approval of rail cost adjustment AGENCY: Paper Comments Frm 00094 For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.31 Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary. BILLING CODE 8011–01–P • Use the Commission’s Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ rules/sro.shtml); or • Send an email to rulecomments@sec.gov. Please include File Number SR–BOX–2017–08 on the subject line. PO 00000 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 such 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–BOX– 2017–08, and should be submitted on or before April 11, 2017. Sfmt 4703 ACTION: factor. The Board approves the second quarter 2017 Rail Cost Adjustment Factor (RCAF) and cost index filed by the Association of American Railroads. The second quarter 2017 RCAF (Unadjusted) is 0.904. The second quarter 2017 RCAF (Adjusted) is 0.377. The second quarter 2017 RCAF– 5 is 0.358. DATES: Effective Date: April 1, 2017. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pedro Ramirez, (202) 245–0333. Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) for the hearing impaired (800) 877–8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Additional information is contained in the Board’s decision, which is available on our Web site, http://www.stb.gov. Copies of the decision may be purchased by contacting the Office of Public Assistance, Governmental Affairs, and Compliance at (202) 245– 0238. Assistance for the hearing SUMMARY: 31 17 E:\FR\FM\21MRN1.SGM CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 21MRN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 53 (Tuesday, March 21, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14589-14594]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-05497]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80247; File No. SR-BOX-2017-08]


Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice 
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To 
Amend BOX Rule 7170 (Nullification and Adjustment of Options 
Transactions) To Add IM-7170-4

March 15, 2017.
    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 March 3, 2017, BOX Options Exchange LLC (the ``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 
change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend BOX Rule 7170 (Nullification and 
Adjustment of Options Transactions) to add IM-7170-4. 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 http://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 Exchange proposes to amend BOX Rule 7170 (Nullification and 
Adjustment of Options Transactions) to add IM-7170-4. This is filing is 
based on a proposal recently submitted by Chicago Board Options 
Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE'') and approved by the Commission.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80040 (February 14, 
2017), 82 FR 11248 (February 21, 2017) (Order Approving SR-CBOE-
2016-088).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Last year, the Exchange and other options exchanges adopted a new, 
harmonized rule related to the adjustment and nullification of 
erroneous options transactions, including a specific provision related 
to coordination in connection with large-scale events involving 
erroneous options transactions.\4\ The Exchange believes that the 
changes the options exchanges implemented with the new, harmonized rule 
have led to increased transparency and finality with respect to the 
adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions. 
However, as part of the initial initiative, the Exchange and other 
options exchanges deferred a few specific matters for further 
discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74911 (May 8, 2015), 
80 FR 27717 (May 14, 2015) (SR-BOX-2015-18) (the ``Initial 
Filing'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the options exchanges have been working together to 
identify ways to improve the process related to the adjustment and 
nullification of erroneous options transactions as it relates to 
complex orders \5\ and stock-option orders. The goal of the process 
that the options exchanges have undertaken is to further harmonize 
rules related to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options 
transactions. As described below, the Exchange believes that the 
changes the options exchanges and BOX have agreed to propose will 
provide transparency and finality with respect to the adjustment and 
nullification of erroneous complex order and stock-option order 
transactions. Particularly, the proposed changes seek to achieve 
consistent results for participants across U.S. options exchanges while 
maintaining a fair and orderly market, protecting investors and 
protecting the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Rule 7240(a)(5) (defining complex orders).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Proposed Rule is the culmination of this coordinated effort and 
reflects discussions by the options exchanges whereby the exchanges 
that offer complex orders and/or stock-option orders will universally 
adopt new provisions that the options exchanges collectively believe 
will improve the handling of erroneous options transactions that result 
from the execution of complex orders and stock-option orders.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Exchange notes that it does not offer stock-option 
orders and will not adopt the CBOE provisions around stock-option 
orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the Proposed Rule supports an approach 
consistent with long-standing principles in the options industry under 
which the general policy is to adjust rather than nullify transactions. 
The Exchange acknowledges that adjustment of transactions is contrary 
to the operation of analogous rules applicable to the equities markets, 
where erroneous transactions are typically nullified rather than 
adjusted and where there is no distinction between the types of market 
participants involved in a transaction. For the reasons set forth 
below, the Exchange believes that the distinctions in market structure 
between equities and options markets continue to support these 
distinctions between the rules for handling obvious errors in the 
equities and options markets.
    Various general structural differences between the options and 
equities markets point toward the need for a different balancing of 
risks for options market participants and are reflected in this 
proposal. Option pricing is formulaic and is tied to the price of the 
underlying stock, the volatility of the underlying security and other 
factors. Because options market participants can generally create new 
open interest in response to trading demand, as new open interest is 
created, correlated trades in the underlying or related series are 
generally also executed to hedge a market participant's risk. This 
pairing of open interest with hedging interest differentiates the 
options market specifically (and the derivatives markets broadly) from 
the cash equities markets. In turn, the Exchange believes that the 
hedging transactions engaged in by market participants necessitates 
protection of transactions through adjustments rather than 
nullifications when possible and otherwise appropriate.
    The options markets are also quote driven markets dependent on 
liquidity providers to an even greater extent than equities markets. In 
contrast to the approximately 7,000 different securities

[[Page 14590]]

traded in the U.S. equities markets each day, there are more than 
500,000 unique, regularly quoted option series. Given this breadth in 
options series the options markets are more dependent on liquidity 
providers than equities markets; such liquidity is provided most 
commonly by registered market makers but also by other professional 
traders. With the number of instruments in which registered market 
makers must quote and the risk attendant with quoting so many products 
simultaneously, the Exchange believes that those liquidity providers 
should be afforded a greater level of protection. In particular, the 
Exchange believes that liquidity providers should be allowed protection 
of their trades given the fact that they typically engage in hedging 
activity to protect them from significant financial risk to encourage 
continued liquidity provision and maintenance of the quote-driven 
options markets.
    In addition to the factors described above, there are other 
fundamental differences between options and equities markets which lend 
themselves to different treatment of different classes of participants 
that are reflected in this proposal. For example, there is no trade 
reporting facility in the options markets. Thus, all transactions must 
occur on an options exchange. This leads to significantly greater 
retail customer participation directly on exchanges than in the 
equities markets, where a significant amount of retail customer 
participation never reaches the Exchange but is instead executed in 
off-exchange venues such as alternative trading systems, broker-dealer 
market making desks and internalizers. In turn, because of such direct 
retail customer participation, the exchanges have taken steps to afford 
those retail customers--generally Priority Customers--more favorable 
treatment in some circumstances.
Complex Orders
    As more fully described below, the Proposed Rule applies much of 
the Current Rule to Complex Orders.\7\ The Proposed Rule deviates from 
the Current Rule only to account for the unique qualities of Complex 
Orders. The Proposed Rule reflects the fact that Complex Orders can 
execute against other Complex Orders or can execute against individual 
simple orders in the leg markets. When a Complex Order executes against 
the leg markets there may be different counterparties on each leg of 
the Complex Order, and not every leg will necessarily be executed at an 
erroneous price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In order for a Complex Order to qualify as an obvious or 
catastrophic error at least one of the legs must itself qualify as 
an obvious or catastrophic error under the Current Rule. See 
Proposed IM-7170-4 (a)-(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, proposed IM-7170-4(a) governs the review of Complex Orders 
that are executed against individual legs (as opposed to a Complex 
Order that executes against another Complex Order).\8\ Proposed IM-
7170-4(a) provides:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The leg market consists of quotes and/or orders in single 
options series. A Complex Order may be received by the Exchange 
electronically, and the legs of the Complex Order may have different 
counterparties. For example, Market-Maker 1 may be quoting in ABC 
calls and Market-Maker 2 may be quoting in ABC puts. A Complex Order 
to buy the ABC calls and puts may execute against the quotes of 
Market-Maker 1 and Market-Maker 2.

    If a Complex Order executes against individual legs and at least 
one of the legs qualifies as an Obvious or Catastrophic Error under 
this Rule 7170, then the leg(s) that is an Obvious or Catastrophic 
Error will be adjusted in accordance with paragraphs (c)(4)(A) or 
(d)(3), respectively, regardless of whether one of the parties is a 
Customer. However, any Customer order subject to this paragraph (a) 
will be nullified if the adjustment would result in an execution 
price higher (for buy transactions) or lower (for sell transactions) 
than the Customer's limit price on the Complex Order or individual 
leg(s). If any leg of a Complex Order is nullified, the entire 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
transaction is nullified.

    As previously noted, at least one of the legs of the Complex Order 
must qualify as an obvious or catastrophic error under the Current Rule 
in order for the Complex Order to receive obvious or catastrophic error 
relief. Thus, when the Exchange is notified (within the timeframes set 
forth in paragraph (c)(2) or (d)(2)) of a Complex Order that is a 
possible obvious error or catastrophic error, the Exchange will first 
review the individual legs of the Complex Order to determine if one or 
more legs qualify as an obvious or catastrophic error.\9\ If no leg 
qualifies as an obvious or catastrophic error, the transaction stands--
no adjustment and no nullification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Because a Complex Order can execute against the leg market, 
the Exchange may also be notified of a possible obvious or 
catastrophic error by a counterparty that received an execution in 
an individual options series. If upon review of a potential obvious 
error the Exchange determines an individual options series was 
executed against the leg of a Complex Order, proposed IM-7170-4 will 
govern.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Reviewing the legs to determine whether one or more legs qualify as 
an obvious or catastrophic error requires the Exchange to follow the 
Current Rule. In accordance with paragraphs (c)(1) and (d)(1) of the 
Current Rule, the Exchange compares the execution price of each 
individual leg to the Theoretical Price of each leg (as determined by 
paragraph (b) of the Current Rule). If the execution price of an 
individual leg is higher or lower than the Theoretical Price for the 
series by an amount equal to at least the amount shown in the obvious 
error table in paragraph (c)(1) of the Current rule or the catastrophic 
error table in paragraph (d)(1) of the Current Rule, the individual leg 
qualifies as an obvious or catastrophic error, and the Exchange will 
take steps to adjust or nullify the transaction.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Only the execution price on the leg (or legs) that 
qualifies as an obvious or catastrophic error pursuant to any 
portion of Proposed IM-7170-4 will be adjusted. The execution price 
of a leg (or legs) that does not qualify as an obvious or 
catastrophic error will not be adjusted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To illustrate, consider a Customer submits a Complex Order to the 
Exchange consisting of leg 1 and leg 2--Leg 1 is to buy 100 ABC calls 
and leg 2 is to sell 100 ABC puts. Also, consider that Market-Maker 1 
is quoting the ABC calls $1.00-1.20 and Market-Maker 2 is quoting the 
ABC puts $2.00-2.20. If the Complex Order executes against the quotes 
of Market-Makers 1 and 2, the Customer buys the ABC calls for $1.20 and 
sells the ABC puts for $2.00. As with the obvious/catastrophic error 
reviews for simple orders, the execution price of leg 1 is compared to 
the Theoretical Price \11\ of Leg 1 in order to determine if Leg 1 is 
an obvious error under paragraph (c)(1) of the Current Rule or a 
catastrophic error under paragraph (d)(1) of the Current Rule. The same 
goes for Leg 2. The execution price of Leg 2 is compared to the 
Theoretical Price of Leg 2. If it is determined that one or both of the 
legs are an obvious or catastrophic error, then the leg (or legs) that 
is an obvious or catastrophic error will be adjusted in accordance with 
paragraphs (c)(4)(A) or (d)(3) of the Current Rule, regardless of 
whether one of the parties is a Customer.\12\ Although a single-legged 
execution that is deemed to be an obvious error under the Current Rule 
is nullified whenever a Customer is involved in the transaction, the 
Exchange believes adjusting execution prices is generally better for 
the marketplace than nullifying executions because liquidity providers 
often execute hedging transactions to offset options positions. When an 
options transaction is nullified the hedging position can adversely 
affect the liquidity provider. With regards to Complex Orders that 
execute against individual legs, the additional rationale

[[Page 14591]]

for adjusting erroneous execution prices when possible is the fact that 
the counterparty on a leg that is not executed at an obvious or 
catastrophic error price cannot look at the execution price to 
determine whether the execution may later be nullified (as opposed to 
the counterparty on single-legged order that is executed at an obvious 
error or catastrophic error price).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Rule 7170(b) (defining the manner in which Theoretical 
Price is determined).
    \12\ See Rule 7170(a)(1) (defining Customer for purposes of Rule 
7170 as not including a broker-dealer, Professional Customer, or 
Voluntary Professional Customer).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (c)(4)(A) of the Current Rule mandates that if it is 
determined that an obvious error has occurred, the execution price of 
the transaction will be adjusted pursuant to the table set forth in 
(c)(4)(A). Although for simple orders paragraph (c)(4)(A) is only 
applicable when no party to the transaction is a Customer, for the 
purposes of Complex Orders paragraph (a) of IM-7170-4 will supersede 
that limitation; therefore, if it is determined that a leg (or legs) of 
a Complex Order is an obvious error, the leg (or legs) will be adjusted 
pursuant to (c)(4)(A), regardless of whether a party to the transaction 
is a Customer. The Size Adjustment Modifier defined in subparagraph 
(a)(4) will similarly apply (regardless of whether a Customer is on the 
transaction) by virtue of the application of paragraph (c)(4)(A).\13\ 
The Exchange notes that adjusting all market participants is not unique 
or novel. When the Exchange determines that a simple order execution is 
a Catastrophic Error pursuant to the Current Rule, paragraph (d)(3) 
already provides for adjusting the execution price for all market 
participants, including Customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Rule 7170(c)(4)(A) (stating that any non-Customer 
Obvious Error exceeding 50 contracts will be subject to the Size 
Adjustment Modifier defined in sub-paragraph (a)(4)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, as with the Current Rule, Proposed IM-7170-4(a) 
provides protection for Customer orders, stating that where at least 
one party to a Complex Order transaction is a Customer, the transaction 
will be nullified if adjustment would result in an execution price 
higher (for buy transactions) or lower (for sell transactions) than the 
Customer's limit price on the Complex Order or individual leg(s). For 
example, assume Customer enters a Complex Order to buy leg 1 and leg 2.
     Assume the NBBO for leg 1 is $0.20-1.00 and the NBBO for 
leg 2 is $0.50-1.00 and that these have been the NBBOs since the market 
opened.
     A split-second prior to the execution of the Complex Order 
a Customer enters a simple order to sell the leg 1 options series at 
$1.30, and the simple order enters the Exchange's book so that the BBO 
is $.20-$1.30. The limit price on the simple order is $1.30.
     The Complex Order executes leg 1 against the Exchange's 
best offer of $1.30 and leg 2 at $1.00 for a net execution price of 
$2.30.
     However, leg 1 executed on a wide quote (the NBBO for leg 
1 was $0.20-1.00 at the time of execution, which is wider than 
$0.75).\14\ Leg 2 was not executed on a wide quote (the market for leg 
2 was $0.50-1.00); thus, leg 2 execution price stands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Rule 7170(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The Exchange determines that the Theoretical Price for leg 
1 is $1.00, which was the best offer prior to the execution. Leg 1 
qualifies as an obvious error because the difference between the 
Theoretical Price ($1.00) and the execution price ($1.30) is larger 
than $0.25.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Rule (c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     According to Proposed IM-7170-4(a) Customers will also be 
adjusted in accordance with Rule 7170(c)(4)(A), which for a buy 
transaction under $3.00 calls for the Theoretical Price to by adjusted 
by adding $0.15 \16\ to the Theoretical Price of $1.00. Thus, adjust 
execution price for leg 1 would be $1.15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Rule 7170(c)(4)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     However, adjusting the execution price of leg 1 to $1.15 
violates the limit price of the Customer's sell order on the simple 
order book for leg 1, which was $1.30.
     Thus, the entire Complex Order transaction will be 
nullified \17\ because the limit price of a Customer's sell order would 
be violated by the adjustment.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ If any leg of a Complex Order is nullified, the entire 
transaction is nullified. See Proposed IM-7170-4(a).
    \18\ The simple order in this example is not an erroneous sell 
transaction because the execution price was not erroneously low. See 
Rule 7170(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the above example demonstrates, incoming Complex Orders may 
execute against resting simple orders in the leg market. If a Complex 
Order leg is deemed to be an obvious error, adjusting the execution 
price of the leg may violate the limit price of the resting order, 
which will result in nullification if the resting order is for a 
Customer. In contrast, IM-7170-2 provides that if an adjustment would 
result in an execution price that is higher than an erroneous buy 
transaction or lower than an erroneous sell transaction the execution 
will not be adjusted or nullified.\19\ If the adjustment of a Complex 
Order would violate the Complex Order Customer's limit price, the 
transaction will be nullified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See IM-7170-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As previously noted, paragraph (d)(3) of the Current Rule already 
mandates that if it is determined that a catastrophic error has 
occurred, the execution price of the transaction will be adjusted 
pursuant to the table set forth in (d)(3). For purposes of Complex 
Orders under Proposed IM-7170-4(a), if one of the legs of a Complex 
Order is determined to be a Catastrophic Error under paragraph (d)(3), 
all market participants will be adjusted in accordance with the table 
set forth in (d)(3). Again, however, where at least one party to a 
Complex Order transaction is a Customer, the transaction will be 
nullified if adjustment would result in an execution price higher (for 
buy transactions) or lower (for sell transactions) than the Customer's 
limit price on the Complex Order or individual leg(s). Again, if any 
leg of a Complex Order is nullified, the entire transaction is 
nullified.
    Other than honoring the limit prices established for Customer 
orders, the Exchange has proposed to treat Customers and non-Customers 
the same in the context of the Complex Orders that trade against the 
leg market. When Complex Orders trade against the leg market, it is 
possible that at least some of the legs will execute at prices that 
would not be deemed obvious or catastrophic errors, which gives the 
counterparty in such situations no indication that the execution will 
later by adjusted or nullified. The Exchange believes that treating 
Customers and non-Customers the same in this context will provide 
additional certainty to non-Customers (especially Market-Makers) with 
respect to their potential exposure and hedging activities, including 
comfort that even if a transaction is later adjusted, such transaction 
will not be fully nullified. However, as noted above, under the 
Proposed Rule where at least one party to the transaction is a 
Customer, the trade will be nullified if the adjustment would result in 
an execution price higher (for buy transactions) or lower (for sell 
transactions) than the Customer's limit price on the Complex Order or 
individual leg(s). The Exchange has retained the protection of a 
Customer's limit price in order to avoid a situation where the 
adjustment could be to a price that a Customer would not have expected, 
and market professionals such as non-Customers would be better prepared 
to recover in such situations. Therefore, adjustment for non-Customers 
is more appropriate.
    Second, proposed IM-7170-4(b) governs the review of Complex Orders

[[Page 14592]]

that are executed against other Complex Orders. Proposed IM-7170-4(b) 
provides:

    If a Complex Order executes against another Complex Order and at 
least one of the legs qualifies as an Obvious Error under paragraph 
(c)(1) or a Catastrophic Error under paragraph (d)(1), then the 
leg(s) that is an Obvious or Catastrophic Error will be adjusted or 
busted in accordance with paragraph (c)(4) or (d)(3), respectively, 
so long as either: (i) The width of the National Spread Market for 
the Complex Order strategy just prior to the erroneous transaction 
was equal to or greater than the amount set forth in the wide quote 
table of paragraph (b)(3) or (ii) the net execution price of the 
Complex Order is higher (lower) than the offer (bid) of the National 
Spread Market for the Complex Order strategy just prior to the 
erroneous transaction by an amount equal to at least the amount 
shown in the table in paragraph (c)(1). If any leg of a Complex 
Order is nullified, the entire transaction is nullified. For 
purposes of Rule 7170, the National Spread Market for a Complex 
Order strategy is determined by the National Best Bid/Offer of the 
individual legs of the strategy.

As described above in relation to Proposed IM-7170-4(a), the first step 
is for the Exchange to review (upon receipt of a timely notification in 
accordance with paragraphs (c)(2) or (d)(2) of the Current Rule) the 
individual legs to determine whether a leg or legs qualifies as an 
obvious or catastrophic error. If no leg qualifies as an obvious or 
catastrophic error, the transaction stands--no adjustment and no 
nullification.
    Unlike Proposed IM-7170-4(a), the Exchange is also proposing to 
compare the net execution price of the entire Complex Order package to 
the National Spread Market (``NSM'') for the Complex Order 
strategy.\20\ Complex Orders are exempt from the order protection rules 
of the options exchanges.\21\ Thus, depending on the manner in which 
the systems of an options exchange are calibrated, a Complex Order can 
execute without regard to the prices offered in the Complex Order books 
or the leg markets of other options exchanges. In certain situations, 
reviewing the execution prices of the legs in a vacuum would make the 
leg appear to be an obvious or catastrophic error, even though the net 
execution price on the Complex Order is not an erroneous price. For 
example, assume the Exchange receives a Complex Order to buy ABC calls 
and sell ABC puts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ NSM is the derived net market for a Complex Order package. 
For example, if the NBBO of Leg 1 is $1.00-2.00 and the NBBO of Leg 
2 is $5.00-7.00, then the NSM for a Complex Order to buy Leg 1 and 
buy Leg 2 is $6.00-9.00.
    \21\ See Rule 15010(b)(7). All options exchanges have the same 
order protection rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     If the BBO for the ABC calls is $5.50-7.50 and the BBO for 
ABC puts is $3.00-4.50, then the Exchange's spread market is $1.00-
4.50.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The Complex Order is to buy ABC calls and sell ABC puts. 
The Exchange's best offer for ABC puts is $7.50 and Exchange's best 
bid for is $3.00. If the Customer were to buy the Complex Order 
strategy, the Customer would receive a debit of $4.50 (buy ABC calls 
for $7.50 minus selling ABC puts for $3.00). If the Customer were to 
sell the Complex Order strategy the Customer would receive a credit 
of $1.00 (selling the ABC calls for $5.50 minus buying the ABC puts 
for $4.50). Thus, the Exchange's spread market is $1.00-4.50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     If the NBBO for the ABC calls is $6.00-6.50 and the NBBO 
for the ABC puts is $3.50-4.00, then the NSM is $2.00-3.00.
     If the Customer buys the calls at $7.50 and sells the puts 
at $4.00, the Complex Order Customer receives a net execution price of 
$3.00 (debit), which is the expected net execution price as indicated 
by the NSM offer of $3.00.
    If the exchange were to solely focus on the $7.50 execution price 
of the ABC calls or the $4.00 execution price of the ABC puts, the 
execution would qualify as an obvious or catastrophic error because the 
execution price on the legs was outside the NBBO, even though the net 
execution price is accurate. Thus, the additional review of the NSM to 
determine if the Complex Order was executed at a truly erroneous price 
is necessary. The same concern is not present when a Complex Order 
executes against the leg market under IM-7170-4(a) because the Exchange 
is modifying its system in order to ensure the leg will execute at or 
within the NBBO of the leg markets.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The proposed rule change to modify Exchange systems to 
ensure the legs of a Complex Order will execute against legs in the 
simple order market within the NBBO of the simple order market will 
be in a separate filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to incorporate NSM, IM-7170-4(b) provides that if the 
Exchange determines that a leg or legs does qualify as on obvious or 
catastrophic error, the leg or legs will be adjusted or busted in 
accordance with paragraph (c)(4) or (d)(3) of the Current Rule, so long 
as either: (i) The width of the NSM for the Complex Order strategy just 
prior to the erroneous transaction was equal to or greater than the 
amount set forth in the wide quote table of paragraph (b)(3) of the 
Current Rule or (ii) the net execution price of the Complex Order is 
higher (lower) than the offer (bid) of the NSM for the Complex Order 
strategy just prior to the erroneous transaction by an amount equal to 
at least the amount shown in the table in paragraph (c)(1) of the 
Current Rule.
    For example, assume an individual leg or legs qualifies as an 
obvious or catastrophic error and the width of the NSM of the Complex 
Order strategy just prior to the erroneous transaction is $6.00-9.00. 
The Complex Order will qualify to be adjusted or busted in accordance 
with paragraph (c)(4) of the Current Rule because the wide quote table 
of paragraph (b)(3) of the Current Rule indicates that the minimum 
amount is $1.50 for a bid price between $5.00 to $10.00. If the NSM 
were instead $6.00-7.00 the Complex Order strategy would not qualify to 
be adjusted or busted pursuant to .07(b)(i) because the width of the 
NSM is $1.00, which is less than the required $1.50. However, the 
execution may still qualify to be adjusted or busted in accordance with 
paragraph (c)(4) or (d)(3) of the Current Rule pursuant to IM-7170-
4(b)(ii). Focusing on the NSM in this manner will ensure that the 
obvious/catastrophic error review process focuses on the net execution 
price instead of the execution prices of the individual legs, which may 
have execution prices outside of the NBBO of the leg markets.
    Again, assume an individual leg or legs qualifies as an obvious or 
catastrophic error as described above. If the NSM is $6.00-7.00 (not a 
wide quote pursuant to the wide quote table in paragraph (b)(3) of the 
Current Rule) but the execution price of the entire Complex Order 
package (i.e., the net execution price) is higher (lower) than the 
offer (bid) of the NSM for the Complex Order strategy just prior to the 
erroneous transaction by an amount equal to at least the amount in the 
table in paragraph (c)(1) of the Current Rule, then the Complex Order 
qualifies to be adjusted or busted in accordance with paragraph (c)(4) 
or (d)(3) of the Current Rule. For example, if the NSM for the Complex 
Order strategy just prior to the erroneous transaction is $6.00-7.00 
and the net execution price of the Complex Order transaction is $7.75, 
the Complex Order qualifies to be adjusted or busted in accordance with 
paragraph (c)(4) of the Current Rule because the execution price of 
$7.75 is more than $0.50 (i.e., the minimum amount according to the 
table in paragraph (c)(1) when the price is above $5.00 but less than 
$10.01) from the NSM offer of $7.00. Focusing on the NSM in this manner 
will ensure that the obvious/catastrophic error review process focuses 
on the net execution price instead of the execution prices of the 
individual legs, which may have execution prices outside of the NBBO of 
the leg markets.
    Although the Exchange believes adjusting execution prices is 
generally

[[Page 14593]]

better for the marketplace than nullifying executions because liquidity 
providers often execute hedging transactions to offset options 
positions, the Exchange recognizes that Complex Orders executing 
against other Complex Orders is similar to simple orders executing 
against other simple orders because both parties are able to review the 
execution price to determine whether the transaction may have been 
executed at an erroneous price. Thus, for purposes of Complex Orders 
that meet the requirements of IM-7170-4(b), the Exchange proposes to 
apply the Current Rule and adjust or bust obvious errors in accordance 
with paragraph (c)(4) (as opposed to applying paragraph (c)(4)(A) as is 
the case under IM-7170-4(a)) and catastrophic errors in accordance with 
(d)(3).
    Therefore, for purposes of Complex Orders under Proposed IM-7170-
4(b), if one of the legs is determined to be an obvious error under 
paragraph (c)(1), all Customer transactions will be nullified, unless a 
Participant submits 200 or more Customer transactions for review in 
accordance with (c)(4)(C).\24\ For purposes of Complex Orders under 
Proposed IM-7170-4(b), if one of the legs is determined to be a 
catastrophic error under paragraph (d)(3) and all of the other 
requirements of IM-7170-4(b) are met, all market participants will be 
adjusted in accordance with the table set forth in (d)(3). Again, 
however, pursuant to paragraph (d)(3) where at least one party to a 
Complex Order transaction is a Customer, the transaction will be 
nullified if adjustment would result in an execution price higher (for 
buy transactions) or lower (for sell transactions) than the Customer's 
limit price on the Complex Order or individual leg(s). Also, if any leg 
of a Complex Order is nullified, the entire transaction is nullified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Rule 7170(c)(4)(C) also requires the orders resulting in 
200 or more Customer transactions to have been submitted during the 
course of 2 minutes or less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation Date
    In order to ensure that the other options exchanges are able to 
adopt rules consistent with this proposal and to coordinate 
effectiveness of such harmonized rules, the Exchange proposed to delay 
the effectiveness of this proposal to April 17, 2017.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the 
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 
(the ``Act''),\25\ in general, and Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\26\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, the Exchange and other options exchanges are 
seeking to adopt harmonized rules related to the adjustment and 
nullification of erroneous options transactions. The Exchange believes 
that the Proposed Rule will provide greater transparency and clarity 
with respect to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options 
transactions. Particularly, the proposed changes seek to achieve 
consistent results for participants across U.S. options exchanges while 
maintaining a fair and orderly market, protecting investors and 
protecting the public interest. Based on the foregoing, the Exchange 
believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the 
Act \27\ in that the Proposed Rule will foster cooperation and 
coordination with persons engaged in regulating and facilitating 
transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the various provisions allowing or dictating 
adjustment rather than nullification of a trade are necessary given the 
benefits of adjusting a trade price rather than nullifying the trade 
completely. Because options trades are used to hedge, or are hedged by, 
transactions in other markets, including securities and futures, many 
Participants, and their customers, would rather adjust prices of 
executions rather than nullify the transactions and, thus, lose a hedge 
altogether. As such, the Exchange believes it is in the best interest 
of investors to allow for price adjustments as well as nullifications.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposal is unfairly 
discriminatory, even though it differentiates in many places between 
Customers and non-Customers. As with the Current Rule, Customers are 
treated differently, often affording them preferential treatment. This 
treatment is appropriate in light of the fact that Customers are not 
necessarily immersed in the day-to-day trading of the markets, are less 
likely to be watching trading activity in a particular option 
throughout the day, and may have limited funds in their trading 
accounts. At the same time, the Exchange reiterates that in the U.S. 
options markets generally there is significant retail customer 
participation that occurs directly on (and only on) options exchanges 
such as the Exchange. Accordingly, differentiating among market 
participants with respect to the adjustment and nullification of 
erroneous options transactions is not unfairly discriminatory because 
it is reasonable and fair to provide Customers with additional 
protections as compared to non-Customers.
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to adopt the ability to 
adjust a Customer's execution price when a Complex Order is deemed to 
be an Obvious or Catastrophic Error is consistent with the Act. A 
Complex Order that executes against individual leg markets may receive 
an execution price on an individual leg that is not an Obvious or 
Catastrophic error but another leg of the transaction is an Obvious or 
Catastrophic Error. In such situations where the Complex Order is 
executing against at least one individual or firm that is not aware of 
the fact that they have executed against a Complex Order or that the 
Complex Order has been executed at an erroneous price, the Exchange 
believes it is more appropriate to adjust execution prices if possible 
because the derivative transactions are often hedged with other 
securities. Allowing adjustments instead of nullifying transactions in 
these limited situations will help to ensure that market participants 
are not left with a hedge that has no position to hedge against.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will 
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in 
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In this regard and as indicated 
above, the Exchange notes that the proposed rule change is 
substantially similar to a filing submitted by CBOE that was recently 
approved by the Commission.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See supra, note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposal will not impose a burden on 
intermarket competition but will rather alleviate any burden on 
competition because it is the result of a collaborative effort by all 
options exchanges to harmonize and improve the process related to the 
adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions. The 
Exchange does not believe that the rules applicable to such process is 
an area where options exchanges should

[[Page 14594]]

compete, but rather, that all options exchanges should have consistent 
rules to the extent possible. Particularly where a market participant 
trades on several different exchanges and an erroneous trade may occur 
on multiple markets nearly simultaneously, the Exchange believes that a 
participant should have a consistent experience with respect to the 
nullification or adjustment of transactions. The Exchange understands 
that all other options exchanges that trade complex orders and/or 
stock-option orders intend to file proposals that are substantially 
similar to this proposal.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes 
a burden on intramarket competition because the provisions apply to all 
market participants equally within each participant category (i.e., 
Customers and non-Customers). With respect to competition between 
Customer and non-Customer market participants, the Exchange believes 
that the Proposed Rule acknowledges competing concerns and tries to 
strike the appropriate balance between such concerns. For instance, the 
Exchange believes that protection of Customers is important due to 
their direct participation in the options markets as well as the fact 
that they are not, by definition, market professionals. At the same 
time, the Exchange believes due to the quote-driven nature of the 
options markets, the importance of liquidity provision in such markets 
and the risk that liquidity providers bear when quoting a large breadth 
of products that are derivative of underlying securities, that the 
protection of liquidity providers and the practice of adjusting 
transactions rather than nullifying them is of critical importance. As 
described above, the Exchange will apply specific and objective 
criteria to determine whether an erroneous transaction has occurred 
and, if so, how to adjust or nullify a transaction.

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the 
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect 
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any 
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the 
Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors 
and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective 
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \29\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) 
thereunder.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \30\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written 
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a 
brief description and the 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 shall institute proceedings to 
determine whether the proposed rule 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 (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to rule-comments@sec.gov. Please include 
File Number SR-BOX-2017-08 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2017-08. This file 
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help 
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, 
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on 
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all 
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are 
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to 
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other 
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the 
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and 
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., 
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of 
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such 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-BOX-2017-08, and should be 
submitted on or before April 11, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-05497 Filed 3-20-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P