Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq MRX, LLC; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Amend Various Rules in Connection With a System Migration to Nasdaq INET Technology, 35557-35562 [2017-15994]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 145 / Monday, July 31, 2017 / Notices
10. Abstract: NRC Form 5 is used to
record and report the results of
individual monitoring for occupational
radiation exposure during a monitoring
period (one calendar year) to ensure
regulatory compliance with annual
radiation dose limits specified in 10
CFR 20.1201.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day
of July, 2017.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
David Cullison,
NRC Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief
Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2017–16035 Filed 7–28–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
[Release No. 34–81201; File No. SR–
NYSEArca-2017–06]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE
Arca, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a
Longer Period for Commission Action
on Proceedings To Determine Whether
To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed
Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment No. 2, Relating to the
Listing and Trading of Shares of the
Bitcoin Investment Trust Under NYSE
Arca Equities Rule 8.201
sradovich on DSKBCFCHB2PROD with NOTICES
July 25, 2017.
On January 25, 2017, NYSE Arca, Inc.
(‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission
(‘‘Commission’’), pursuant to Section
19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4
thereunder,2 a proposed rule change to
list and trade shares of the Bitcoin
Investment Trust under NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 8.201. The proposed rule
change was published for comment in
the Federal Register on February 9,
2017.3
On March 22, 2017, pursuant to
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,4 the
Commission designated a longer period
within which to approve the proposed
rule change, disapprove the proposed
rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether to approve or
disapprove the proposed rule change.5
On April 6, 2017, the Exchange filed
Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule
change. On April 27, 2017, the
Commission published notice of
Amendment No. 1 and instituted
1 15
U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
CFR 240.19b–4.
3 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79955
(Feb. 3, 2017), 82 FR 10086 (Feb. 9, 2017).
4 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
5 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80297
(Mar. 22, 2017), 82 FR 15408 (Mar. 28, 2017).
2 17
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Jul 28, 2017
Jkt 241001
proceedings to determine whether to
approve or disapprove the proposed
rule change, as modified by Amendment
No. 1.6 On May 11, 2017, the Exchange
filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed
rule change, and on May 25, 2017, the
Commission published notice of
Amendment No. 2.7 The Commission
has received fourteen comment letters
on the proposed rule change.8
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act 9 provides
that, after initiating disapproval
proceedings, the Commission shall issue
an order approving or disapproving the
proposed rule change not later than 180
days after the date of publication of
notice of filing of the proposed rule
change. The Commission may extend
the period for issuing an order
approving or disapproving the proposed
rule change by not more than 60 days
if the Commission determines that a
longer period is appropriate and
publishes the reasons for such
determination. The proposed rule
change was published for notice and
comment in the Federal Register on
February 9, 2017. August 8, 2017 is 180
days from that date, and October 7, 2017
is 240 days from that date.
The Commission finds it appropriate
to designate a longer period within
which to issue an order approving or
disapproving the proposed rule change
so that it has sufficient time to consider
this proposed rule change. Accordingly,
the Commission, pursuant to Section
19(b)(2) of the Act,10 designates October
7, 2017 as the date by which the
Commission shall either approve or
disapprove the proposed rule change
(File No. SR–NYSEArca–2017–06).
For the Commission, by the Division of
Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated
authority.11
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017–15992 Filed 7–28–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
6 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80502
(Apr. 21, 2017), 82 FR 19398 (Apr. 27, 2017).
Specifically, the Commission instituted proceedings
to allow for additional analysis of the proposed rule
change’s consistency with Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act, which requires, among other things, that the
rules of a national securities exchange be ‘‘designed
to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles
of trade,’’ and ‘‘to protect investors and the public
interest.’’ See id. at 19411–12.
7 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80729
(May 19, 2017), 82 FR 24185 (May 25, 2017).
8 All comments on the proposed rule change are
available on the Commission’s Web site at: https://
www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysearca-2017-06/
nysearca201706.htm.
9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
10 Id.
11 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(57).
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
35557
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
[Release No. 34–81204; File No. SR–MRX–
2017–02]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq
MRX, LLC; Order Approving Proposed
Rule Change To Amend Various Rules
in Connection With a System Migration
to Nasdaq INET Technology
July 25, 2017.
I. Introduction
On May 17, 2017, the Nasdaq MRX,
LLC (‘‘MRX’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with
the Securities and Exchange
Commission (‘‘Commission’’), pursuant
to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (‘‘Act’’),1 and
Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2 a proposed rule
change to amend various Exchange rules
in connection with a system migration
to Nasdaq, Inc. (‘‘Nasdaq’’) supported
technology. The proposed rule change
was published for comment in the
Federal Register on June 5, 2017.3 On
July 14, 2017, the Commission
designated a longer period for
Commission action on the proposed rule
change, until September 3, 2017.4 The
Commission received no comment
letters on the proposed rule change.
This order approves the proposed rule
change.
II. Discussion and Commission
Findings
After careful review, the Commission
finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the requirements of the
Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange.5 In particular, the
Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,6 which requires,
among other things, that the rules of a
national securities exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of
trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged 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
1 15
U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
CFR 240.19b–4.
3 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80815
(May 30, 2017), 82 FR 25827 (‘‘Notice’’).
4 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81151
(July 14, 2017, 82 FR 33527 (July 20, 2017).
5 In approving this proposed rule change, the
Commission has considered the proposed rule’s
impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
2 17
E:\FR\FM\31JYN1.SGM
31JYN1
35558
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 145 / Monday, July 31, 2017 / Notices
general, to protect investors and the
public interest. As noted above, the
Commission received no comment
letters regarding the proposed rule
change.
The Exchange proposes to amend
various Exchange rules to reflect the
MRX system migration to a Nasdaq
INET technology.7 In connection this
system migration, as discussed below,
the Exchange intends to adopt certain
trading functionality currently utilized
on Nasdaq Exchanges.8
A. Trading Halts
sradovich on DSKBCFCHB2PROD with NOTICES
1. Cancellation of Quotes
The Exchange proposes to amend
MRX Rule 702 (Trading Halts) to
conform the treatment of orders and
quotes on the Exchange to Phlx Rule
1047(f). Specifically, the Exchange
proposes to amend Rule 702(a)(2) to
provide that during a halt the Exchange
will maintain existing orders on the
book but not existing quotes. Pursuant
to the revision, during the halt, the
Exchange will accept orders and quotes
and, for such orders and quotes, process
cancels and modifications. Currently,
the Exchange maintains existing orders
and quotes during a trading halt. With
respect to cancels and modifications
during a trading halt, the Exchange
represents that the current process on
MRX will not change under the
proposed rule change.9
The Exchange represents that its
proposal to maintain existing orders on
7 INET is utilized across Nasdaq’s markets,
including The NASDAQ Options Market LLC
(‘‘NOM’’), NASDAQ PHLX LLC (‘‘Phlx’’), and
NASDAQ BX, Inc. (collectively, the ‘‘Nasdaq
Exchanges’’). See Notice, supra note 3, at 25827.
The Commission also recently approved Nasdaq
ISE, LLC’s (formerly International Securities
Exchange, LLC) (‘‘ISE’’) and Nasdaq GEMX, LLC’s
(formerly ISE Gemini, LLC) migrations to INET. See
Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 80225 (March
13, 2017), 82 FR 14243 (March 17, 2017) (SR–ISE–
2017–02); 80432 (April 11, 2017), 82 FR 18191
(April 17, 2017) (SR–ISE–2017–03); 80011
(February 10, 2017), 82 FR 10927 (February 16,
2017) (SR–ISEGemini–2016–17); 80014 (February
10, 2017), 82 FR 10952 (February 16, 2017) (SR–
ISEGemini–2016–18).
8 See Notice, supra note 3, at 25827. The
Exchange anticipates that it will begin
implementation of the proposed rule changes in the
third quarter of 2017. See id. According to the
Exchange, the system migration will be on a symbol
by symbol basis. The Exchange will issue an alert
to members in the form of an Options Trader Alert
to provide notification of the symbols that will
migrate and the relevant dates. See id. The
Exchange has also separately filed a companion
proposed rule change to amend the Exchange’s
opening process in connection with the system
migration to INET technology. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 80937 (June 15, 2017), 82
FR 28113 (June 20, 2017) (SR–MRX–2017–01). The
Exchange proposes to replace its current opening
process at Rule 701 with Phlx’s opening process.
See Phlx Rule 1017.
9 See Notice, supra note 3, at 25827.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Jul 28, 2017
Jkt 241001
the book but not existing quotes during
a halt would provide market
participants with clarity as to the
manner in which interests will be
handled by the system.10 The Exchange
believes that, during a trading halt, the
market may move and create risk to
market participants with respect to
resting interests.11
The Commission believes that that
cancelling existing quotes during a
trading halt would provide market
participants the opportunity to update
potentially stale quotes. Further, the
Commission notes that the Exchange
will process cancels and modifications
for orders as well as quotes received
during a halt. Finally, the Commission
further notes that the proposed
treatment of quotes during a halt is
consistent with existing Phlx Rule
1047(f).
2. Limit Up-Limit Down
The Exchange proposes to replace
existing MRX Rule 703A (Trading
During Limit Up-Limit Down States in
Underlying Securities) with proposed
MRX Rule 702(d).12 Specifically,
proposed MRX Rule 702(d) will provide
that during a Limit State and Straddle
State in the underlying NMS stock 13 the
Exchange will not open an affected
option.14 However, provided the
Exchange has opened an affected option
for trading, the Exchange will: (i) Reject
Market Orders 15 and notify members of
the reason for such rejection; 16 (ii)
continue to process Market Orders
exposed at the NBBO, pursuant to
Supplementary Material .02 to ISE Rule
1901, pending in the system, and cancel
such Market Order if at the end of the
exposure period the affected underlying
is in a Limit or Straddle State; 17 and
Notice, supra note 3, at 25834.
id.
12 The Exchange represents that proposed MRX
Rule 702(d) is similar to Phlx Rule 1047(d). See
Notice, supra note 3, at 25828.
13 Proposed MRX Rule 702(d) states that
capitalized terms used in Rule 702(d) will have the
same meaning as provided for in the Plan to
Address Extraordinary Market Volatility Pursuant
to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS, as it may be
amended from time to time.
14 See proposed MRX Rule 702(d)(1). The
Exchange states that its rules do not currently
address the opening rotation in the event that the
underlying NMS stock is open but has entered into
a Limit or Straddle State. See Notice, supra note 3,
at 25828.
15 For the definition of the term ‘‘Market Orders,’’
see MRX Rule 715(a).
16 See proposed MRX Rule 702(d)(2).
17 See proposed MRX Rule 702(d)(2). If the
affected underlying is no longer in a Limit or
Straddle State after the exposure period, the Market
Order will be processed with normal handling. See
id. The Exchange currently cancels Market Orders
pending in the system upon initiation of a Limit or
Straddle State. See Notice, supra note 3, at 25828.
PO 00000
10 See
11 See
Frm 00052
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
(iii) elect Stop Orders if the condition as
provided in MRX Rule 715(d) is met,
and, because such orders become
Market Orders, cancel them back and
notify members of the reason for such
rejection.18 Moreover, when the security
underlying an option class is in a Limit
State or Straddle State, the Exchange
will suspend the maximum quotation
spread requirements for market maker
quotes in MRX Rule 803(b)(4) and the
continuous quotation requirements in
MRX Rule 804(e).19 Additionally, the
Exchange will not consider the time
periods associated with Limit States and
Straddle States when evaluating
whether a market maker has complied
with its continuous quotation
requirements in MRX Rule 804(e).20
The Commission believes that the
proposed Rule 702(d) would provide
certainty to market participants
regarding the manner in which Limit or
Straddle States would impact the
opening process as well as Market
Orders and Stop Orders. The
Commission believes that the rejection
of Market Orders (including elected
Stop Orders) is reasonably designed to
potentially prevent executions of unpriced orders during times of significant
volatility.21 The Commission also notes
that processing rather than cancelling
existing Market Orders is reasonable
because these Market Orders are only
pending in the system if they are
exposed at the NBBO pursuant to
Supplementary Material .02 to ISE Rule
1901 and would, in any case, be
cancelled if at the end of the exposure
period the affected underlying is still in
a Limit or Straddle State.22 Further, the
Commission believes that it is
reasonable to permit the election of Stop
Orders that are pending in the system
during a Limit or Straddle State, since,
upon election, the orders would be
cancelled back to the members.23 Lastly,
the Commission notes that proposed
MRX Rule 702(d)(4) is substantively
identical to existing MRX Rule 703A(c),
which is being deleted.
18 See proposed MRX Rule 702(d)(3). MRX
currently does not elect Stop Orders that are
pending in the system during a Limit or Straddle
State. Under the proposal, the Exchange will elect
Stop Orders that are pending in the system during
a Limit or Straddle State, if conditions for such
election are met; however, because such orders
become Market Orders, they will be cancelled back
to the member with a reason for such rejection. See
Notice, supra note 3, at 25828.
19 See proposed MRX Rule 702(d)(4).
20 See id.
21 See Notice, supra note 3, at 25834.
22 See Notice, supra note 3, at 25835.
23 See id.
E:\FR\FM\31JYN1.SGM
31JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 145 / Monday, July 31, 2017 / Notices
3. Auction Handling During a Trading
Halt
The Exchange proposes to amend
certain rules to account for the impact
of a trading halt on the Exchange’s
auction mechanisms. First, the
Exchange proposes to amend MRX Rule
723 (Price Improvement Mechanism for
Crossing Transactions) regarding the
manner in which a trading halt will
impact an order entered into the Price
Improvement Mechanism (‘‘PIM’’).
Today, if a trading halt is initiated after
an order is entered into the PIM, the
Exchange terminates such auction and
eligible interest is executed.24 The
Exchange proposes to amend the current
process by terminating the auction and
not executing eligible interest when a
trading halt occurs.25 Similarly, the
Exchange also proposes to amend to
MRX Rule 716 (Block Trades) to state
that, if a trading halt is initiated after an
order is entered into the Block Order
Mechanism, Facilitation Mechanism, or
Solicited Order Mechanism, the
Exchange will automatically terminate
such auction without execution.26
The Exchange believes that its
proposal to terminate the PIM auction,
Block Order Mechanism, Facilitation
Mechanism, and Solicited Order
Mechanism and not execute eligible
interest when a trading halt occurs will
provide certainty to participants
regarding how their interest will be
handled.27 The Exchange believes that,
during a trading halt, the market may
move and create risk to market
participants with respect to resting
interest.28 The Commission believes
that the proposed rule is consistent with
the Act and provides transparency and
clarity regarding the handling of these
orders during a trading halt.
B. Market Order Spread Protection
The Exchange proposes to amend
MRX Rule 711 (Acceptance of Quotes
and Orders) by adopting a new
mandatory risk protection entitled
Market Order Spread Protection which
will apply to Market Orders.29 Pursuant
to proposed MRX Rule 711(c), if the
NBBO is wider than a preset threshold
24 See
Notice, supra note 3, at 25829.
proposed MRX Rule 723(d)(5).
26 See proposed subsections (c)(3), (d)(3)(iv), and
(e)(2)(iv) of MRX Rule 716. The Exchange
represents that this proposed amendment
represents the current process on MRX and is
generally consistent with Phlx Rule 1047(c). See
Notice, supra note 3, at 25829.
27 See Notice, supra note 3, at 25835.
28 See id.
29 The Exchange states that this mandatory feature
is currently offered on NOM to protect Market
Orders from being executed in very wide markets.
See Notice, supra note 3, at 25829. See also NOM
Rules at Chapter VI, Section 6(c).
sradovich on DSKBCFCHB2PROD with NOTICES
25 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Jul 28, 2017
Jkt 241001
at the time a Market Order is received
by the Exchange, the Exchange will
reject the order. The Exchange will
notify members of the threshold with a
notice, and, thereafter, will notify
members of any subsequent changes to
the threshold.30 The Exchange
represents that the Market Order Spread
Protection will be the same for all
options traded on the Exchange and is
applicable to all members that submit
Market Orders.31
The Exchange believes, and the
Commission concurs, that the proposed
Market Order Spread Protection would
help mitigate risks associated with
trading errors and help reduce the
number of executions at dislocated
prices.32 The Commission also notes
that the protection is similar to a
mandatory feature currently offered on
NOM.33
C. Acceptable Trade Range
Today, MRX offers a Price Level
Protection that places a limit on the
number of price levels at which an
incoming order or quote to sell (buy)
would be executed automatically when
there are no bids (offers) from other
exchanges at any price for the options
series.34 The Exchange proposes to
replace the current Price Level
Protection with Phlx’s Acceptable Trade
Range.35 The Exchange states that the
proposed Acceptable Trade Range is a
mechanism designed to prevent the
system from experiencing dramatic
price swings by preventing the market
from moving beyond set thresholds.36
The system will calculate an Acceptable
Trade Range to limit the range of prices
at which an order or quote will be
allowed to execute.37 Upon receipt of a
30 See Notice, supra note 3, at 25829. The
Exchange proposes to initially set the threshold to
$5, similar to the threshold set on NOM. See id. The
Exchange states that NOM set the differential at $5
to match the maximum bid/ask differential
permitted for quotes on that exchange. See id. MRX
also uses a similar $5 differential. See id.
31 See Notice, supra note 3, at 25829.
32 See Notice, supra note 3, at 25835.
33 See NOM Rules at Chapter VI, Section 6(c).
34 See Notice, supra note 3, at 25829; MRX Rule
714(b)(1).
35 See Phlx Rule 1080(p). Unlike Phlx, MRX does
not offer a general continuous re-pricing
mechanism. See id. Accordingly, the Exchange
states that the proposed Acceptable Trade Range
will not include the posting period functionality
available today on Phlx. See Notice, supra note 3,
at 25830, n.15. The Exchange will not post interest
that exceeds the outer limit of the Acceptable Trade
Range; rather the interest will be cancelled. See
Notice, supra note 3, at 25830. Orders that do not
exceed the outer limit of the Acceptable Trade
Range will post to the order book and will reside
on the order book at such price until they are either
executed in full or cancelled by the member. See
id.
36 See Notice, supra note 3, at 25830.
37 See proposed MRX Rule 714(b)(1)(i).
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
35559
new order or quote, the Acceptable
Trade Range is calculated by taking the
reference price, plus or minus a value to
be determined by the Exchange, where
the reference price is the National Best
Bid (‘‘NBB’’) for sell orders/quotes and
the National Best Offer (‘‘NBO’’) for buy
orders/quotes. Accordingly, the
Acceptable Trade Range is: the reference
price ¥ (x) for sell orders/quotes; and
the reference price + (x) for buy
orders.38 If an order or quote reaches the
outer limit of the Acceptable Trade
Range (the ‘‘Threshold Price’’) without
being fully executed, then any
unexecuted balance will be cancelled.39
The Acceptable Trade Range will not be
available for All-or-None Orders.40
The Exchange represents that it will
set the Acceptable Trade Range at levels
to ensure that it is triggered
infrequently.41 While the Acceptable
Trade Range settings will be tied to the
option premium, other factors will be
considered when determining the exact
settings.42 For example, the Exchange
states that acceptable ranges may change
if market-wide volatility is high or if
overall market liquidity is low based on
historical trends.43 To ensure a wellfunctioning market, the Exchange
believes that different market conditions
may require adjustments to the
threshold amounts from time to time.44
Further, while the Acceptable Trade
Range settings will generally be the
same across all options traded on the
Exchange, MRX proposes to set them
separately based on characteristics of
the underlying security.45 For example,
the Exchange has generally observed
that options subject to the Penny Pilot
program quote with tighter spreads than
options not subject to the Penny Pilot.
Accordingly, the Exchange will set
Acceptable Trade Ranges for three
categories of options: (1) Penny Pilot
Options trading in one cent increments
for options trading at less than $3.00
and increments of five cents for options
trading at $3.00 or more; (2) Penny Pilot
38 The Exchange states that the Acceptable Trade
Range settings are tied to the option premium. See
Notice, supra note 3, at 25830, n.16. A table
consisting of several steps based on the premium
of an option will be displayed on the Exchange Web
site and used to determine how far the market for
a given option will be allowed to move. See Notice,
supra note 3, at 25831. Updates to the table would
be announced via an Exchange alert, generally the
prior day. See id.
39 See proposed MRX Rule 714(b)(1)(ii).
40 See proposed MRX Rule 714(b)(1)(ii). Today,
MRX’s Price Level Protection rule is also not
available for All-or-None Orders. See Notice, supra
note 3, at 25830, n.17.
41 See Notice, supra note 3, at 25830.
42 See Notice, supra note 3, at 25831.
43 See id.
44 See id.
45 See id.
E:\FR\FM\31JYN1.SGM
31JYN1
35560
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 145 / Monday, July 31, 2017 / Notices
Options trading in one-cent increments
for all prices; and (3) Non-Penny Pilot
Options.46
The Exchange represents that the
Acceptable Trade Range should prevent
the system from experiencing dramatic
price swings by preventing the market
from moving beyond set thresholds.47
The Commission believes that the
Acceptable Trade Range is reasonably
designed to prevent executions of orders
and quotes at prices that are
significantly worse than the NBBO at
the time of an order’s submission and
may reduce the potential negative
impacts of unanticipated volatility in
individual options. Further, the
Commission notes that the proposed
Acceptable Trade Range is similar to an
existing mechanism on Phlx.48
D. PMM Order Handling and Opening
Obligations
The Exchange proposes to eliminate
the Primary Market Maker (‘‘PMM’’)
order handling and opening obligations
in MRX Rule 803(c).49 As described
above, with the migration of MRX to the
Nasdaq INET architecture, the Exchange
is adopting the Acceptable Trade Range
and opening rotation functionality
currently offered on NOM and Phlx,
which do not contain similar
requirements for the PMMs as in MRX
Rule 803(c).
The Exchange represents that PMMs’
current obligations are no longer
necessary due to the introduction of the
Acceptable Trade Range and proposed
changes to the Exchange’s opening
process.50 The Exchange states that its
proposal to conform the Exchange’s
opening process to Phlx Rule 1017 will
result in an opening initiated by the
receipt of an appropriate number of
valid width quotes by the PMM or
Competitive Market Maker, instead of
an opening process initiated by a
46 See
proposed MRX Rule 714(b)(1)(iii).
Notice, supra note 3, at 25835.
48 See Notice, supra note 3, at 25829; Phlx Rule
1080(p).
49 MRX Rule 803(c) provides that, in addition to
the obligations contained in Rule 803 for market
makers generally, for options classes to which a
market maker is the appointed PMM, the PMM
shall have the responsibility to: (1) As soon as
practical, address Priority Customer Orders that are
not automatically executed pursuant to Rule
714(b)(1) in a manner consistent with its obligations
under Rule 803(b) by either (i) executing all or a
portion of the order at a price that at least matches
the NBBO and that improves upon the Exchange’s
best bid (in the case of a sell order) or the
Exchange’s best offer (in the case of a buy order);
or (ii) releasing all or a portion of the order for
execution against bids and offers on the Exchange;
and (2) initiate trading in each series pursuant to
Rule 701 (Trading Rotations).
50 See Notice, supra note 3, at 25832. See also
supra note 8.
sradovich on DSKBCFCHB2PROD with NOTICES
47 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Jul 28, 2017
Jkt 241001
PMM.51 Similarly, the Exchange
believes the proposed Acceptable Trade
Range functionality will continue to
provide order protection to members
without imposing any PMM
obligations.52 The Exchange further
represents that NOM and Phlx do not
impose similar PMM order handling
and opening obligations.53 Accordingly,
the Commission believes that these
changes are consistent with the Act.
E. Back-Up PMM
The Exchange proposes to amend
Supplementary Material .03 to MRX
Rule 803 to eliminate Back-Up PMMs.
Today, any MRX member that is
approved to act in the capacity of a
PMM or an ‘‘Alternative Primary Market
Maker’’ may voluntarily act as a BackUp PMM in an options series in which
it is quoting as a Competitive Market
Maker (‘‘CMM’’).54 With the technology
migration, the Exchange believes that a
Back-Up PMM is no longer necessary
because under INET the Exchange will
not utilize the order handling
obligations present on the Exchange
today.55 The Exchange further
represents that the proposed new
opening process obviates the
importance of such a role because it
would no longer rely on a market maker
to initiate the opening process.56
Accordingly, the Commission believes
that these changes are consistent with
the Act.
F. Market Maker Speed Bump
The Exchange proposes to amend
MRX Rule 804 (Market Maker
Quotations) to establish default
parameters for certain risk functionality.
The Exchange currently offers a risk
protection mechanism for market maker
quotes that removes a member’s quotes
in an options class if a specified number
of curtailment events occur during a set
time period (‘‘Market Maker Speed
Bump’’).57 In addition, the Exchange
offers a market-wide risk protection that
removes a market maker’s quotes across
all classes if a number of curtailment
events occur (‘‘Market-Wide Speed
Bump’’).58 MRX Rule 804(g) currently
requires that market makers set
curtailment parameters for both the
51 See Notice, supra note 3, at 25831–32. See also
supra note 8.
52 See Notice, supra note 3, at 25832. The
Exchange states that Phlx does not currently have
similar roles for a Specialist on its market. See id.
53 See Notice, supra note 3, at 25831.
54 See MRX Rule 803, Supplementary Material
.03.
55 See Notice, supra note 3, at 25832.
56 See Notice, supra note 3, at 25832. See also
supra note 8.
57 See MRX Rule 804(g)(1).
58 See MRX Rule 804(g)(2).
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Market Maker Speed Bump and the
Market-Wide Speed Bump. Today, if a
market maker does not set these
parameters, for each Market Maker
Speed Bump and the Market-Wide
Speed Bump, the system rejects their
quotes.59 With the technology
migration, the Exchange proposes to
provide default curtailment parameters,
which will be determined by the
Exchange and announced to members.60
The Commission believes that this
change is consistent with the Act and
notes that, although the Exchange will
establish default curtailment settings,
market makers will have discretion to
set different curtailment settings
appropriate for their trading and risk
tolerance.
G. Anti-Internalization
The Exchange proposes to amend
Supplementary Material .03 to MRX
Rule 804 (Market Maker Quotations) to
adopt an anti-internalization rule.
Today, MRX’s functionality prevents
Immediate-or-Cancel orders entered by a
market maker from trading with the
market maker’s own quote.61 The
Exchange proposes to replace this selftrade protection with antiinternalization functionality currently
offered on Phlx.62 The Exchange
proposes to provide that quotes and
orders entered by market makers using
the same member identifier will not be
executed against quotes and orders
entered on the opposite side of the
market by the same market maker using
the same member identifier. In such a
case, the system will cancel the resting
quote or order back to the entering party
prior to execution. The proposed antiinternalization functionality will not
apply in any auction. The Exchange
states that this proposed functionality
does not modify the duty of best
execution owed to public customer
orders.63
The Exchange represents that the
proposal is designed to assist market
makers in reducing trading costs from
unwanted executions potentially
resulting from the interaction of
executable interest from the same firm
performing the same market making
function.64 The Commission believes
that the proposed rule is reasonably
designed to prevent the unwanted
execution of quotes and orders entered
59 See
Notice, supra note 3, at 25832.
id.
61 See id.
62 See Phlx Rule 1080(p)(2).
63 See Notice, supra note 3, at 25833.
64 See Notice, supra note 3, at 25833, n.33.
60 See
E:\FR\FM\31JYN1.SGM
31JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 145 / Monday, July 31, 2017 / Notices
by market makers using the same
member identifier.
H. Minimum Execution Quantity Orders
The Exchange proposes to amend
MRX Rule 715 (Types of Orders) to
remove minimum quantity orders in
subpart (q).65 The Exchange states that
members have not adopted this feature,
and therefore proposes to remove this
order type.66 Furthermore, the Exchange
proposes to remove two references to
minimum quantity orders in
Supplementary Material .02 to MRX
Rule 713 and in Supplementary
Material .04 to MRX Rule 717.
The Exchange states that removing the
minimum quantity order type would
simplify functionality available on the
Exchange and reduce the complexity of
its order types.67 The Exchange further
represents that members have not
adopted this feature.68 Accordingly, the
Commission believes it is appropriate
for the Exchange to remove references to
the minimum quantity order type.
sradovich on DSKBCFCHB2PROD with NOTICES
I. Cancel and Replace Orders
The Exchange proposes to amend
Supplementary Material .02 to MRX
Rule 715 (Types of Orders) to
memorialize how the Exchange system
will handle cancel and replace orders in
connection with the Exchange’s
technology migration to INET.69
Currently, Exchange members can send
a Cancel and Replace Order in one
message, which allows the replacement
order to retain the time priority of the
cancelled order, subject to certain
exceptions.70 However, currently the
Exchange does not apply price or other
reasonability checks to the replacement
order for all Cancel and Replace
Orders.71 For example, the Exchange
notes that currently, a Cancel and
Replace Order which reduced the size of
an original order from 600 to 300
65 A Minimum Quantity Order is an order that is
initially available for partial execution only for a
specified number of contracts or greater. A member
may specify whether any subsequent executions of
the order must also be for the specified number of
contracts or greater, or if the balance may be
executed as a regular order. If all executions are to
be for the specified number of contracts or greater
and the balance of the order after one or more
partial execution(s) is less than the minimum, such
balance is treated as all-or-none. See MRX Rule
715(q).
66 See Notice, supra note 3, at 25833.
67 See Notice, supra note 3, at 25836.
68 See Notice, supra note 3, at 25833.
69 See id.
70 See id. The Exchange notes that, instead of
sending a Cancel and Replace Order, a Member can
separately send a cancellation message and a new
order, for which the Exchange would apply price
or other reasonability checks, but the new order
would not retain the priority of the original order.
See id. This behavior will not change. See id.
71 See Notice, supra note 3, at 25833.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Jul 28, 2017
Jkt 241001
contracts would not be subject to price
or other reasonability checks.72
The Exchange now proposes to define
the Cancel and Replace Order to ensure
that price and other reasonability checks
are applied to Cancel and Replace
Orders.73 The Exchange proposes to
define a Cancel and Replace Order as a
single message for the immediate
cancellation of a previously received
order and the replacement of that order
with a new order. If the previously
placed order is already partially filled or
in its entirety, the replacement order is
automatically canceled or reduced by
the number of contracts that were
executed. Additionally, the replacement
order will retain the priority of the
cancelled order, if the order posts to the
order book, provided the price is not
amended, size is not increased, or in the
case of Reserve Orders, size is not
changed. However, if the replacement
portion of a Cancel and Replace Order
does not satisfy the system’s price or
other reasonability checks the existing
order will be cancelled and not
replaced.74
The Exchange represents that
conducting price or other reasonability
checks for all Cancel and Replace
Orders will validate orders against
current market conditions prior to
proceeding with the request to modify
the order.75 The Exchange further
believes that memorializing Cancel and
Replace Order handling will add
transparency to the Exchange’s rules
and reduce the potential for investor
confusion.76
The Commission notes that other
exchanges with a similar order type
permit an order to retain priority if only
the size of the order is decremented.77
Accordingly, the Commission believes it
is appropriate for the Exchange to define
Cancel and Replace Orders in the
manner proposed.
J. All-Or-None Orders
The Exchange proposes to amend
MRX Rule 715(c) to provide that All-Orid.
proposed MRX Rule 715, Supplementary
Material .02.
74 Price and reasonability checks that would be
applied include MRX Rule 710 (Minimum Trading
Increments), MRX Rule 711(c) (proposed Market
Order Spread Protection) and MRX Rule 714(b)(2)
(Limit Order Price Protection). See Notice, supra
note 3 at 25833, n.40. The Exchange also notes that,
as for other orders, the Exchange may cancel an
order because it does not satisfy a format or other
requirement specified in the Exchange’s rules and
specifications. See id.
75 See Notice, supra note 3 at 25836.
76 See id.
77 See id.; see Phlx Rule 1080(b)(i)(A).
PO 00000
72 See
73 See
Frm 00055
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
35561
None Orders78 may only be entered into
the Exchange’s system with a time-inforce designation of Immediate-OrCancel.79 Currently, the Exchange
allows users to submit All-Or-None
Orders with any time-in-force
designation. As proposed, an All-OrNone Order would be required to be
submitted as an Immediate-Or-Cancel
Order and thus will either execute in its
entirety or be cancelled. Because All-OrNone Orders will either be executed or
cancelled, the Exchange also proposes
to remove language stating that All-OrNone Orders can be maintained in the
system in Supplementary Material .02 to
MRX Rule 713 and to delete
Supplementary Material .04 to Rule 717,
which concerns the exposure of nonmarketable All-Or-None Orders.80
The Exchange states that this change
would remove uncertainty with respect
to the manner in which All-Or-None
Orders would be handled in the order
book, because the All-Or-None Order
would be canceled if it cannot be
immediately executed in its entirety.81
Accordingly, the Commission believes it
is appropriate for the Exchange to
require that All-Or-None Orders be
entered with a time-in-force designation
of Immediate-Or-Cancel.
K. Delay of Implementation of Directed
Orders
Currently, MRX rules provide for the
use of Directed Orders.82 The Exchange
proposes to amend MRX Rule 811
(Directed Orders) to note that this
functionality will not be available as of
a certain date in the third quarter of
2017 to be announced in a notice. The
Exchange represents that it will
recommence the Directed Orders
functionality on MRX within one year
from the date of the filing of the
proposed rule change. Otherwise, the
Exchange will file a rule proposal with
the Commission to remove these rules.
The Exchange represents that it
proposes to delay the implementation of
the Directed Order functionality on
MRX to provide the Exchange
additional time to rebuild the required
technology on the new platform.83 The
Exchange further represents that
members have been given adequate
notice of the implementation dates and
78 An All-Or-None Order is a limit or market
order that is to be executed in its entirety or not
at all. See MRX Rule 715(c).
79 An Immediate-Or-Cancel Order is a limit order
that is to be executed in whole or in part upon
receipt, and any portion not so executed is to be
treated as cancelled. See MRX Rule 715(b)(3).
80 See Notice, supra note 3, at 25834.
81 See Notice, supra note 3, at 25837.
82 See MRX Rule 811.
83 See Notice, supra note 3, at 25836.
E:\FR\FM\31JYN1.SGM
31JYN1
35562
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 145 / Monday, July 31, 2017 / Notices
that the Exchange will provide further
notifications to members to ensure
clarity about the delay of
implementation of these
functionalities.84 The Commission
believes that the proposed rule change
helps ensure clarity about the delay of
implementation of this functionality.
For these reasons, the Commission
believes that the proposed rule change
is consistent with the Act.
IV. Conclusion
It is Therefore Ordered, pursuant to
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,85 that the
proposed rule change (SR–MRX–2017–
02) be, and hereby is, approved.
For the Commission, by the Division of
Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated
authority.86
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017–15994 Filed 7–28–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
These amendments represent the
Twenty-Eighth Substantive Amendment
to the CTA Plan and the Twentieth
Amendment to the CQ Plan
(‘‘Amendments’’). The Amendments
seek to amend the Plans in order to
reflect changes to the names and
addresses of certain Participants, as set
forth in Section III(a) of the Plans.
Pursuant to Rule 608(b)(3)(ii) under
Regulation NMS,5 the Participants
designate the Amendments as
concerned solely with the
administration of the Plans and as
‘‘Ministerial Amendments’’ under both
Section IV(b) of the CTA Plan and
Section IV(c) of the CQ Plan. As a result,
the Amendments were effective upon
filing and were submitted by the
Chairman of the Plan’s Operating
Committee. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit
comments from interested persons on
the proposed Amendments.
I. Rule 608(a)
[Release No. 34–81199; File No. SR–CTA/
CQ–2017–03]
Consolidated Tape Association; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness
of the Twenty-Eight Substantive
Amendment to the Second
Restatement of the CTA Plan and the
Twentieth Amendment to the Restated
CQ Plan
July 25, 2017.
Pursuant to Section 11A of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 608 thereunder,2
notice is hereby given that on June 30,
2017, the Consolidated Tape
Association (‘‘CTA’’) Plan participants
(‘‘Participants’’) 3 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission
(‘‘Commission’’) a proposal to amend
the Second Restatement of the CTA Plan
and the Restated Consolidated
Quotation (‘‘CQ’’) Plan (‘‘Plans’’).4
id.
U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
86 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).
1 15 U.S.C. 78k–1.
2 17 CFR 242.608.
3 The Participants are: Bats BYX Exchange, Inc.,
BATS BZX Exchange, Inc., Bats EDGA Exchange,
Inc., Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc., Chicago Board
Options Exchange, Inc., Chicago Stock Exchange,
Inc., Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.,
International Securities Exchange, LLC, Investors’
Exchange LLC, NASDAQ BX, Inc., NASDAQ PHLX,
Inc., NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, New York Stock
Exchange LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc., NYSE MKT LLC,
and NYSE National, Inc.
4 See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 10787
(May 10, 1974), 39 FR 17799 (May 20, 1974)
(declaring the CTA Plan effective); 15009 (July 28,
The Amendments effectuate changes
that certain Participants have made to
their names and addresses, as set forth
in Section III(a) of the Plans.
B. Governing or Constituent Documents
Not applicable.
C. Implementation of the Amendments
Because the Amendments constitute
‘‘Ministerial Amendments’’ under both
Section IV(b) of the CTA Plan and
Section IV(c) under the CQ Plan, the
Chairman of the Plan’s Operating
Committee may submit the
Amendments to the Commission on
behalf of the Participants in the Plans.
Because the Participants have
designated the Amendments as
concerned solely with the
administration of the Plans, the
Amendments become effective upon
filing with the Commission.
D. Development and Implementation
Phases
Not applicable.
84 See
sradovich on DSKBCFCHB2PROD with NOTICES
85 15
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Jul 28, 2017
Jkt 241001
The Participants assert that the
Amendments do not impose any burden
on competition because they merely
effectuate a change in the names and
addresses of certain Participants. For the
same reasons, the Participants do not
believe that the Amendments introduce
terms that are unreasonably
discriminatory for purposes of Section
11A(c)(1)(D) of the Exchange Act.
F. Written Understanding or Agreements
Relating to Interpretation of, or
Participation in, Plan
Not applicable.
G. Approval by Sponsors in Accordance
With Plan
See Item I.C. above.
H. Description of Operation of Facility
Contemplated by the Proposed
Amendments
Not applicable.
A. Purpose of the Amendments
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
E. Analysis of Impact on Competition
I. Terms and Conditions of Access
Not applicable.
J. Method of Determination and
Imposition, and Amount of, Fees and
Charges
Not applicable.
K. Method and Frequency of Processor
Evaluation
Not applicable.
L. Dispute Resolution
Not applicable.
II. Rule 601(a)
A. Equity Securities for Which
Transaction Reports Shall be Required
by the Plan
Not applicable.
B. Reporting Requirements
Not applicable.
C. Manner of Collecting, Processing,
Sequencing, Making Available and
Disseminating Last Sale Information
Not applicable.
1978), 43 FR 34851 (August 7, 1978) (temporarily
authorizing the CQ Plan); and 16518 (January 22,
1980), 45 FR 6521 (January 28, 1980) (permanently
authorizing the CQ Plan). The most recent
restatement of both Plans was in 1995. The CTA
Plan, pursuant to which markets collect and
disseminate last sale price information for nonNASDAQ listed securities, is a ‘‘transaction
reporting plan’’ under Rule 601 under the Act, 17
CFR 242.601, and a ‘‘national market system plan’’
under Rule 608 under the Act, 17 CFR 242.608. The
CQ Plan, pursuant to which markets collect and
disseminate bid/ask quotation information for listed
securities, is a ‘‘national market system plan’’ under
Rule 608 under the Act, 17 CFR 242.608.
5 17 CFR 242.608(b)(3)(ii).
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
D. Manner of Consolidation
Not applicable.
E. Standards and Methods Ensuring
Promptness, Accuracy and
Completeness of Transaction Reports
Not applicable.
F. Rules and Procedures Addressed to
Fraudulent or Manipulative
Dissemination
Not applicable.
E:\FR\FM\31JYN1.SGM
31JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 145 (Monday, July 31, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35557-35562]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-81204; File No. SR-MRX-2017-02]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq MRX, LLC; Order Approving
Proposed Rule Change To Amend Various Rules in Connection With a System
Migration to Nasdaq INET Technology
July 25, 2017.
I. Introduction
On May 17, 2017, the Nasdaq MRX, LLC (``MRX'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to
amend various Exchange rules in connection with a system migration to
Nasdaq, Inc. (``Nasdaq'') supported technology. The proposed rule
change was published for comment in the Federal Register on June 5,
2017.\3\ On July 14, 2017, the Commission designated a longer period
for Commission action on the proposed rule change, until September 3,
2017.\4\ The Commission received no comment letters on the proposed
rule change. This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
\2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
\3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80815 (May 30,
2017), 82 FR 25827 (``Notice'').
\4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81151 (July 14,
2017, 82 FR 33527 (July 20, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Discussion and Commission Findings
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\5\
In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\6\ which requires, among
other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged 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
[[Page 35558]]
general, to protect investors and the public interest. As noted above,
the Commission received no comment letters regarding the proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
\6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange proposes to amend various Exchange rules to reflect
the MRX system migration to a Nasdaq INET technology.\7\ In connection
this system migration, as discussed below, the Exchange intends to
adopt certain trading functionality currently utilized on Nasdaq
Exchanges.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ INET is utilized across Nasdaq's markets, including The
NASDAQ Options Market LLC (``NOM''), NASDAQ PHLX LLC (``Phlx''), and
NASDAQ BX, Inc. (collectively, the ``Nasdaq Exchanges''). See
Notice, supra note 3, at 25827. The Commission also recently
approved Nasdaq ISE, LLC's (formerly International Securities
Exchange, LLC) (``ISE'') and Nasdaq GEMX, LLC's (formerly ISE
Gemini, LLC) migrations to INET. See Securities Exchange Act Release
Nos. 80225 (March 13, 2017), 82 FR 14243 (March 17, 2017) (SR-ISE-
2017-02); 80432 (April 11, 2017), 82 FR 18191 (April 17, 2017) (SR-
ISE-2017-03); 80011 (February 10, 2017), 82 FR 10927 (February 16,
2017) (SR-ISEGemini-2016-17); 80014 (February 10, 2017), 82 FR 10952
(February 16, 2017) (SR-ISEGemini-2016-18).
\8\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 25827. The Exchange anticipates
that it will begin implementation of the proposed rule changes in
the third quarter of 2017. See id. According to the Exchange, the
system migration will be on a symbol by symbol basis. The Exchange
will issue an alert to members in the form of an Options Trader
Alert to provide notification of the symbols that will migrate and
the relevant dates. See id. The Exchange has also separately filed a
companion proposed rule change to amend the Exchange's opening
process in connection with the system migration to INET technology.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80937 (June 15, 2017), 82 FR
28113 (June 20, 2017) (SR-MRX-2017-01). The Exchange proposes to
replace its current opening process at Rule 701 with Phlx's opening
process. See Phlx Rule 1017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Trading Halts
1. Cancellation of Quotes
The Exchange proposes to amend MRX Rule 702 (Trading Halts) to
conform the treatment of orders and quotes on the Exchange to Phlx Rule
1047(f). Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 702(a)(2) to
provide that during a halt the Exchange will maintain existing orders
on the book but not existing quotes. Pursuant to the revision, during
the halt, the Exchange will accept orders and quotes and, for such
orders and quotes, process cancels and modifications. Currently, the
Exchange maintains existing orders and quotes during a trading halt.
With respect to cancels and modifications during a trading halt, the
Exchange represents that the current process on MRX will not change
under the proposed rule change.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 25827.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange represents that its proposal to maintain existing
orders on the book but not existing quotes during a halt would provide
market participants with clarity as to the manner in which interests
will be handled by the system.\10\ The Exchange believes that, during a
trading halt, the market may move and create risk to market
participants with respect to resting interests.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 25834.
\11\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission believes that that cancelling existing quotes during
a trading halt would provide market participants the opportunity to
update potentially stale quotes. Further, the Commission notes that the
Exchange will process cancels and modifications for orders as well as
quotes received during a halt. Finally, the Commission further notes
that the proposed treatment of quotes during a halt is consistent with
existing Phlx Rule 1047(f).
2. Limit Up-Limit Down
The Exchange proposes to replace existing MRX Rule 703A (Trading
During Limit Up-Limit Down States in Underlying Securities) with
proposed MRX Rule 702(d).\12\ Specifically, proposed MRX Rule 702(d)
will provide that during a Limit State and Straddle State in the
underlying NMS stock \13\ the Exchange will not open an affected
option.\14\ However, provided the Exchange has opened an affected
option for trading, the Exchange will: (i) Reject Market Orders \15\
and notify members of the reason for such rejection; \16\ (ii) continue
to process Market Orders exposed at the NBBO, pursuant to Supplementary
Material .02 to ISE Rule 1901, pending in the system, and cancel such
Market Order if at the end of the exposure period the affected
underlying is in a Limit or Straddle State; \17\ and (iii) elect Stop
Orders if the condition as provided in MRX Rule 715(d) is met, and,
because such orders become Market Orders, cancel them back and notify
members of the reason for such rejection.\18\ Moreover, when the
security underlying an option class is in a Limit State or Straddle
State, the Exchange will suspend the maximum quotation spread
requirements for market maker quotes in MRX Rule 803(b)(4) and the
continuous quotation requirements in MRX Rule 804(e).\19\ Additionally,
the Exchange will not consider the time periods associated with Limit
States and Straddle States when evaluating whether a market maker has
complied with its continuous quotation requirements in MRX Rule
804(e).\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The Exchange represents that proposed MRX Rule 702(d) is
similar to Phlx Rule 1047(d). See Notice, supra note 3, at 25828.
\13\ Proposed MRX Rule 702(d) states that capitalized terms used
in Rule 702(d) will have the same meaning as provided for in the
Plan to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility Pursuant to Rule 608
of Regulation NMS, as it may be amended from time to time.
\14\ See proposed MRX Rule 702(d)(1). The Exchange states that
its rules do not currently address the opening rotation in the event
that the underlying NMS stock is open but has entered into a Limit
or Straddle State. See Notice, supra note 3, at 25828.
\15\ For the definition of the term ``Market Orders,'' see MRX
Rule 715(a).
\16\ See proposed MRX Rule 702(d)(2).
\17\ See proposed MRX Rule 702(d)(2). If the affected underlying
is no longer in a Limit or Straddle State after the exposure period,
the Market Order will be processed with normal handling. See id. The
Exchange currently cancels Market Orders pending in the system upon
initiation of a Limit or Straddle State. See Notice, supra note 3,
at 25828.
\18\ See proposed MRX Rule 702(d)(3). MRX currently does not
elect Stop Orders that are pending in the system during a Limit or
Straddle State. Under the proposal, the Exchange will elect Stop
Orders that are pending in the system during a Limit or Straddle
State, if conditions for such election are met; however, because
such orders become Market Orders, they will be cancelled back to the
member with a reason for such rejection. See Notice, supra note 3,
at 25828.
\19\ See proposed MRX Rule 702(d)(4).
\20\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission believes that the proposed Rule 702(d) would provide
certainty to market participants regarding the manner in which Limit or
Straddle States would impact the opening process as well as Market
Orders and Stop Orders. The Commission believes that the rejection of
Market Orders (including elected Stop Orders) is reasonably designed to
potentially prevent executions of un-priced orders during times of
significant volatility.\21\ The Commission also notes that processing
rather than cancelling existing Market Orders is reasonable because
these Market Orders are only pending in the system if they are exposed
at the NBBO pursuant to Supplementary Material .02 to ISE Rule 1901 and
would, in any case, be cancelled if at the end of the exposure period
the affected underlying is still in a Limit or Straddle State.\22\
Further, the Commission believes that it is reasonable to permit the
election of Stop Orders that are pending in the system during a Limit
or Straddle State, since, upon election, the orders would be cancelled
back to the members.\23\ Lastly, the Commission notes that proposed MRX
Rule 702(d)(4) is substantively identical to existing MRX Rule 703A(c),
which is being deleted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 25834.
\22\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 25835.
\23\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 35559]]
3. Auction Handling During a Trading Halt
The Exchange proposes to amend certain rules to account for the
impact of a trading halt on the Exchange's auction mechanisms. First,
the Exchange proposes to amend MRX Rule 723 (Price Improvement
Mechanism for Crossing Transactions) regarding the manner in which a
trading halt will impact an order entered into the Price Improvement
Mechanism (``PIM''). Today, if a trading halt is initiated after an
order is entered into the PIM, the Exchange terminates such auction and
eligible interest is executed.\24\ The Exchange proposes to amend the
current process by terminating the auction and not executing eligible
interest when a trading halt occurs.\25\ Similarly, the Exchange also
proposes to amend to MRX Rule 716 (Block Trades) to state that, if a
trading halt is initiated after an order is entered into the Block
Order Mechanism, Facilitation Mechanism, or Solicited Order Mechanism,
the Exchange will automatically terminate such auction without
execution.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 25829.
\25\ See proposed MRX Rule 723(d)(5).
\26\ See proposed subsections (c)(3), (d)(3)(iv), and (e)(2)(iv)
of MRX Rule 716. The Exchange represents that this proposed
amendment represents the current process on MRX and is generally
consistent with Phlx Rule 1047(c). See Notice, supra note 3, at
25829.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange believes that its proposal to terminate the PIM
auction, Block Order Mechanism, Facilitation Mechanism, and Solicited
Order Mechanism and not execute eligible interest when a trading halt
occurs will provide certainty to participants regarding how their
interest will be handled.\27\ The Exchange believes that, during a
trading halt, the market may move and create risk to market
participants with respect to resting interest.\28\ The Commission
believes that the proposed rule is consistent with the Act and provides
transparency and clarity regarding the handling of these orders during
a trading halt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 25835.
\28\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Market Order Spread Protection
The Exchange proposes to amend MRX Rule 711 (Acceptance of Quotes
and Orders) by adopting a new mandatory risk protection entitled Market
Order Spread Protection which will apply to Market Orders.\29\ Pursuant
to proposed MRX Rule 711(c), if the NBBO is wider than a preset
threshold at the time a Market Order is received by the Exchange, the
Exchange will reject the order. The Exchange will notify members of the
threshold with a notice, and, thereafter, will notify members of any
subsequent changes to the threshold.\30\ The Exchange represents that
the Market Order Spread Protection will be the same for all options
traded on the Exchange and is applicable to all members that submit
Market Orders.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ The Exchange states that this mandatory feature is
currently offered on NOM to protect Market Orders from being
executed in very wide markets. See Notice, supra note 3, at 25829.
See also NOM Rules at Chapter VI, Section 6(c).
\30\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 25829. The Exchange proposes
to initially set the threshold to $5, similar to the threshold set
on NOM. See id. The Exchange states that NOM set the differential at
$5 to match the maximum bid/ask differential permitted for quotes on
that exchange. See id. MRX also uses a similar $5 differential. See
id.
\31\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 25829.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange believes, and the Commission concurs, that the
proposed Market Order Spread Protection would help mitigate risks
associated with trading errors and help reduce the number of executions
at dislocated prices.\32\ The Commission also notes that the protection
is similar to a mandatory feature currently offered on NOM.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 25835.
\33\ See NOM Rules at Chapter VI, Section 6(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Acceptable Trade Range
Today, MRX offers a Price Level Protection that places a limit on
the number of price levels at which an incoming order or quote to sell
(buy) would be executed automatically when there are no bids (offers)
from other exchanges at any price for the options series.\34\ The
Exchange proposes to replace the current Price Level Protection with
Phlx's Acceptable Trade Range.\35\ The Exchange states that the
proposed Acceptable Trade Range is a mechanism designed to prevent the
system from experiencing dramatic price swings by preventing the market
from moving beyond set thresholds.\36\ The system will calculate an
Acceptable Trade Range to limit the range of prices at which an order
or quote will be allowed to execute.\37\ Upon receipt of a new order or
quote, the Acceptable Trade Range is calculated by taking the reference
price, plus or minus a value to be determined by the Exchange, where
the reference price is the National Best Bid (``NBB'') for sell orders/
quotes and the National Best Offer (``NBO'') for buy orders/quotes.
Accordingly, the Acceptable Trade Range is: the reference price - (x)
for sell orders/quotes; and the reference price + (x) for buy
orders.\38\ If an order or quote reaches the outer limit of the
Acceptable Trade Range (the ``Threshold Price'') without being fully
executed, then any unexecuted balance will be cancelled.\39\ The
Acceptable Trade Range will not be available for All-or-None
Orders.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 25829; MRX Rule 714(b)(1).
\35\ See Phlx Rule 1080(p). Unlike Phlx, MRX does not offer a
general continuous re-pricing mechanism. See id. Accordingly, the
Exchange states that the proposed Acceptable Trade Range will not
include the posting period functionality available today on Phlx.
See Notice, supra note 3, at 25830, n.15. The Exchange will not post
interest that exceeds the outer limit of the Acceptable Trade Range;
rather the interest will be cancelled. See Notice, supra note 3, at
25830. Orders that do not exceed the outer limit of the Acceptable
Trade Range will post to the order book and will reside on the order
book at such price until they are either executed in full or
cancelled by the member. See id.
\36\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 25830.
\37\ See proposed MRX Rule 714(b)(1)(i).
\38\ The Exchange states that the Acceptable Trade Range
settings are tied to the option premium. See Notice, supra note 3,
at 25830, n.16. A table consisting of several steps based on the
premium of an option will be displayed on the Exchange Web site and
used to determine how far the market for a given option will be
allowed to move. See Notice, supra note 3, at 25831. Updates to the
table would be announced via an Exchange alert, generally the prior
day. See id.
\39\ See proposed MRX Rule 714(b)(1)(ii).
\40\ See proposed MRX Rule 714(b)(1)(ii). Today, MRX's Price
Level Protection rule is also not available for All-or-None Orders.
See Notice, supra note 3, at 25830, n.17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange represents that it will set the Acceptable Trade Range
at levels to ensure that it is triggered infrequently.\41\ While the
Acceptable Trade Range settings will be tied to the option premium,
other factors will be considered when determining the exact
settings.\42\ For example, the Exchange states that acceptable ranges
may change if market-wide volatility is high or if overall market
liquidity is low based on historical trends.\43\ To ensure a well-
functioning market, the Exchange believes that different market
conditions may require adjustments to the threshold amounts from time
to time.\44\ Further, while the Acceptable Trade Range settings will
generally be the same across all options traded on the Exchange, MRX
proposes to set them separately based on characteristics of the
underlying security.\45\ For example, the Exchange has generally
observed that options subject to the Penny Pilot program quote with
tighter spreads than options not subject to the Penny Pilot.
Accordingly, the Exchange will set Acceptable Trade Ranges for three
categories of options: (1) Penny Pilot Options trading in one cent
increments for options trading at less than $3.00 and increments of
five cents for options trading at $3.00 or more; (2) Penny Pilot
[[Page 35560]]
Options trading in one-cent increments for all prices; and (3) Non-
Penny Pilot Options.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 25830.
\42\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 25831.
\43\ See id.
\44\ See id.
\45\ See id.
\46\ See proposed MRX Rule 714(b)(1)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange represents that the Acceptable Trade Range should
prevent the system from experiencing dramatic price swings by
preventing the market from moving beyond set thresholds.\47\ The
Commission believes that the Acceptable Trade Range is reasonably
designed to prevent executions of orders and quotes at prices that are
significantly worse than the NBBO at the time of an order's submission
and may reduce the potential negative impacts of unanticipated
volatility in individual options. Further, the Commission notes that
the proposed Acceptable Trade Range is similar to an existing mechanism
on Phlx.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 25835.
\48\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 25829; Phlx Rule 1080(p).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. PMM Order Handling and Opening Obligations
The Exchange proposes to eliminate the Primary Market Maker
(``PMM'') order handling and opening obligations in MRX Rule
803(c).\49\ As described above, with the migration of MRX to the Nasdaq
INET architecture, the Exchange is adopting the Acceptable Trade Range
and opening rotation functionality currently offered on NOM and Phlx,
which do not contain similar requirements for the PMMs as in MRX Rule
803(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ MRX Rule 803(c) provides that, in addition to the
obligations contained in Rule 803 for market makers generally, for
options classes to which a market maker is the appointed PMM, the
PMM shall have the responsibility to: (1) As soon as practical,
address Priority Customer Orders that are not automatically executed
pursuant to Rule 714(b)(1) in a manner consistent with its
obligations under Rule 803(b) by either (i) executing all or a
portion of the order at a price that at least matches the NBBO and
that improves upon the Exchange's best bid (in the case of a sell
order) or the Exchange's best offer (in the case of a buy order); or
(ii) releasing all or a portion of the order for execution against
bids and offers on the Exchange; and (2) initiate trading in each
series pursuant to Rule 701 (Trading Rotations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange represents that PMMs' current obligations are no
longer necessary due to the introduction of the Acceptable Trade Range
and proposed changes to the Exchange's opening process.\50\ The
Exchange states that its proposal to conform the Exchange's opening
process to Phlx Rule 1017 will result in an opening initiated by the
receipt of an appropriate number of valid width quotes by the PMM or
Competitive Market Maker, instead of an opening process initiated by a
PMM.\51\ Similarly, the Exchange believes the proposed Acceptable Trade
Range functionality will continue to provide order protection to
members without imposing any PMM obligations.\52\ The Exchange further
represents that NOM and Phlx do not impose similar PMM order handling
and opening obligations.\53\ Accordingly, the Commission believes that
these changes are consistent with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 25832. See also supra note 8.
\51\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 25831-32. See also supra note
8.
\52\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 25832. The Exchange states
that Phlx does not currently have similar roles for a Specialist on
its market. See id.
\53\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 25831.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Back-Up PMM
The Exchange proposes to amend Supplementary Material .03 to MRX
Rule 803 to eliminate Back-Up PMMs. Today, any MRX member that is
approved to act in the capacity of a PMM or an ``Alternative Primary
Market Maker'' may voluntarily act as a Back-Up PMM in an options
series in which it is quoting as a Competitive Market Maker
(``CMM'').\54\ With the technology migration, the Exchange believes
that a Back-Up PMM is no longer necessary because under INET the
Exchange will not utilize the order handling obligations present on the
Exchange today.\55\ The Exchange further represents that the proposed
new opening process obviates the importance of such a role because it
would no longer rely on a market maker to initiate the opening
process.\56\ Accordingly, the Commission believes that these changes
are consistent with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ See MRX Rule 803, Supplementary Material .03.
\55\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 25832.
\56\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 25832. See also supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Market Maker Speed Bump
The Exchange proposes to amend MRX Rule 804 (Market Maker
Quotations) to establish default parameters for certain risk
functionality. The Exchange currently offers a risk protection
mechanism for market maker quotes that removes a member's quotes in an
options class if a specified number of curtailment events occur during
a set time period (``Market Maker Speed Bump'').\57\ In addition, the
Exchange offers a market-wide risk protection that removes a market
maker's quotes across all classes if a number of curtailment events
occur (``Market-Wide Speed Bump'').\58\ MRX Rule 804(g) currently
requires that market makers set curtailment parameters for both the
Market Maker Speed Bump and the Market-Wide Speed Bump. Today, if a
market maker does not set these parameters, for each Market Maker Speed
Bump and the Market-Wide Speed Bump, the system rejects their
quotes.\59\ With the technology migration, the Exchange proposes to
provide default curtailment parameters, which will be determined by the
Exchange and announced to members.\60\ The Commission believes that
this change is consistent with the Act and notes that, although the
Exchange will establish default curtailment settings, market makers
will have discretion to set different curtailment settings appropriate
for their trading and risk tolerance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ See MRX Rule 804(g)(1).
\58\ See MRX Rule 804(g)(2).
\59\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 25832.
\60\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Anti-Internalization
The Exchange proposes to amend Supplementary Material .03 to MRX
Rule 804 (Market Maker Quotations) to adopt an anti-internalization
rule. Today, MRX's functionality prevents Immediate-or-Cancel orders
entered by a market maker from trading with the market maker's own
quote.\61\ The Exchange proposes to replace this self-trade protection
with anti-internalization functionality currently offered on Phlx.\62\
The Exchange proposes to provide that quotes and orders entered by
market makers using the same member identifier will not be executed
against quotes and orders entered on the opposite side of the market by
the same market maker using the same member identifier. In such a case,
the system will cancel the resting quote or order back to the entering
party prior to execution. The proposed anti-internalization
functionality will not apply in any auction. The Exchange states that
this proposed functionality does not modify the duty of best execution
owed to public customer orders.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ See id.
\62\ See Phlx Rule 1080(p)(2).
\63\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 25833.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange represents that the proposal is designed to assist
market makers in reducing trading costs from unwanted executions
potentially resulting from the interaction of executable interest from
the same firm performing the same market making function.\64\ The
Commission believes that the proposed rule is reasonably designed to
prevent the unwanted execution of quotes and orders entered
[[Page 35561]]
by market makers using the same member identifier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 25833, n.33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Minimum Execution Quantity Orders
The Exchange proposes to amend MRX Rule 715 (Types of Orders) to
remove minimum quantity orders in subpart (q).\65\ The Exchange states
that members have not adopted this feature, and therefore proposes to
remove this order type.\66\ Furthermore, the Exchange proposes to
remove two references to minimum quantity orders in Supplementary
Material .02 to MRX Rule 713 and in Supplementary Material .04 to MRX
Rule 717.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ A Minimum Quantity Order is an order that is initially
available for partial execution only for a specified number of
contracts or greater. A member may specify whether any subsequent
executions of the order must also be for the specified number of
contracts or greater, or if the balance may be executed as a regular
order. If all executions are to be for the specified number of
contracts or greater and the balance of the order after one or more
partial execution(s) is less than the minimum, such balance is
treated as all-or-none. See MRX Rule 715(q).
\66\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 25833.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange states that removing the minimum quantity order type
would simplify functionality available on the Exchange and reduce the
complexity of its order types.\67\ The Exchange further represents that
members have not adopted this feature.\68\ Accordingly, the Commission
believes it is appropriate for the Exchange to remove references to the
minimum quantity order type.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 25836.
\68\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 25833.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Cancel and Replace Orders
The Exchange proposes to amend Supplementary Material .02 to MRX
Rule 715 (Types of Orders) to memorialize how the Exchange system will
handle cancel and replace orders in connection with the Exchange's
technology migration to INET.\69\ Currently, Exchange members can send
a Cancel and Replace Order in one message, which allows the replacement
order to retain the time priority of the cancelled order, subject to
certain exceptions.\70\ However, currently the Exchange does not apply
price or other reasonability checks to the replacement order for all
Cancel and Replace Orders.\71\ For example, the Exchange notes that
currently, a Cancel and Replace Order which reduced the size of an
original order from 600 to 300 contracts would not be subject to price
or other reasonability checks.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ See id.
\70\ See id. The Exchange notes that, instead of sending a
Cancel and Replace Order, a Member can separately send a
cancellation message and a new order, for which the Exchange would
apply price or other reasonability checks, but the new order would
not retain the priority of the original order. See id. This behavior
will not change. See id.
\71\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 25833.
\72\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange now proposes to define the Cancel and Replace Order to
ensure that price and other reasonability checks are applied to Cancel
and Replace Orders.\73\ The Exchange proposes to define a Cancel and
Replace Order as a single message for the immediate cancellation of a
previously received order and the replacement of that order with a new
order. If the previously placed order is already partially filled or in
its entirety, the replacement order is automatically canceled or
reduced by the number of contracts that were executed. Additionally,
the replacement order will retain the priority of the cancelled order,
if the order posts to the order book, provided the price is not
amended, size is not increased, or in the case of Reserve Orders, size
is not changed. However, if the replacement portion of a Cancel and
Replace Order does not satisfy the system's price or other
reasonability checks the existing order will be cancelled and not
replaced.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ See proposed MRX Rule 715, Supplementary Material .02.
\74\ Price and reasonability checks that would be applied
include MRX Rule 710 (Minimum Trading Increments), MRX Rule 711(c)
(proposed Market Order Spread Protection) and MRX Rule 714(b)(2)
(Limit Order Price Protection). See Notice, supra note 3 at 25833,
n.40. The Exchange also notes that, as for other orders, the
Exchange may cancel an order because it does not satisfy a format or
other requirement specified in the Exchange's rules and
specifications. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange represents that conducting price or other
reasonability checks for all Cancel and Replace Orders will validate
orders against current market conditions prior to proceeding with the
request to modify the order.\75\ The Exchange further believes that
memorializing Cancel and Replace Order handling will add transparency
to the Exchange's rules and reduce the potential for investor
confusion.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ See Notice, supra note 3 at 25836.
\76\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission notes that other exchanges with a similar order type
permit an order to retain priority if only the size of the order is
decremented.\77\ Accordingly, the Commission believes it is appropriate
for the Exchange to define Cancel and Replace Orders in the manner
proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ See id.; see Phlx Rule 1080(b)(i)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. All-Or-None Orders
The Exchange proposes to amend MRX Rule 715(c) to provide that All-
Or-None Orders\78\ may only be entered into the Exchange's system with
a time-in-force designation of Immediate-Or-Cancel.\79\ Currently, the
Exchange allows users to submit All-Or-None Orders with any time-in-
force designation. As proposed, an All-Or-None Order would be required
to be submitted as an Immediate-Or-Cancel Order and thus will either
execute in its entirety or be cancelled. Because All-Or-None Orders
will either be executed or cancelled, the Exchange also proposes to
remove language stating that All-Or-None Orders can be maintained in
the system in Supplementary Material .02 to MRX Rule 713 and to delete
Supplementary Material .04 to Rule 717, which concerns the exposure of
non-marketable All-Or-None Orders.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ An All-Or-None Order is a limit or market order that is to
be executed in its entirety or not at all. See MRX Rule 715(c).
\79\ An Immediate-Or-Cancel Order is a limit order that is to be
executed in whole or in part upon receipt, and any portion not so
executed is to be treated as cancelled. See MRX Rule 715(b)(3).
\80\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 25834.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange states that this change would remove uncertainty with
respect to the manner in which All-Or-None Orders would be handled in
the order book, because the All-Or-None Order would be canceled if it
cannot be immediately executed in its entirety.\81\ Accordingly, the
Commission believes it is appropriate for the Exchange to require that
All-Or-None Orders be entered with a time-in-force designation of
Immediate-Or-Cancel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 25837.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
K. Delay of Implementation of Directed Orders
Currently, MRX rules provide for the use of Directed Orders.\82\
The Exchange proposes to amend MRX Rule 811 (Directed Orders) to note
that this functionality will not be available as of a certain date in
the third quarter of 2017 to be announced in a notice. The Exchange
represents that it will recommence the Directed Orders functionality on
MRX within one year from the date of the filing of the proposed rule
change. Otherwise, the Exchange will file a rule proposal with the
Commission to remove these rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ See MRX Rule 811.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange represents that it proposes to delay the
implementation of the Directed Order functionality on MRX to provide
the Exchange additional time to rebuild the required technology on the
new platform.\83\ The Exchange further represents that members have
been given adequate notice of the implementation dates and
[[Page 35562]]
that the Exchange will provide further notifications to members to
ensure clarity about the delay of implementation of these
functionalities.\84\ The Commission believes that the proposed rule
change helps ensure clarity about the delay of implementation of this
functionality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 25836.
\84\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these reasons, the Commission believes that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act.
IV. Conclusion
It is Therefore Ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\85\ that the proposed rule change (SR-MRX-2017-02) be, and hereby
is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-15994 Filed 7-28-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
