Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 7.44-E To Expand and Modify the Exchange's Retail Liquidity Program, 833-836 [2019-00481]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 21 / Thursday, January 31, 2019 / Notices to different firms of being able to send messages into the Exchange’s trading system, and facilitates the Commission’s goal of ensuring that critical market infrastructure has ‘‘levels of capacity, integrity, resiliency, availability, and security adequate to maintain their operational capability and promote the maintenance of fair and orderly markets.’’ 17 B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement on Burden on Competition C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others No written comments were either solicited or received. amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1 III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 18 and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b–4 19 thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule 17 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73639 (November 19, 2014), 79 FR 72251 (December 5, 2014) (File No. S7–01–13) (Regulation SCI Adopting Release). 18 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 19 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f). 20:21 Jan 30, 2019 Jkt 247001 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: • Use the Commission’s internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/ rules/sro.shtml); or • Send an email to rule-comments@ sec.gov. Please include File Number SR– CboeBZX–2018–095 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549–1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR–CboeBZX–2018–095. 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 website (https://www.sec.gov/ rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in the Commission’s Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR–CboeBZX–2018–095 and should be submitted on or before February 21, 2019. PO 00000 Frm 00188 Fmt 4703 For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.20 Eduardo A. Aleman, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. 2019–00474 Filed 1–30–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34–84976; File No. SR– NYSEARCA–2018–77] Electronic Comments The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As explained herein, the proposed rule change is designed to increase transparency around the Exchange’s fees by changing the nomenclature associated with ‘‘per port’’ fees for order entry logical ports to reflect a capacity fee. The Exchange believes that charging logical connectivity fees based on the capacity used by a market participant is procompetitive because it ensures that firms with the largest U.S. equities market share, or that employ trading strategies that result in increased message traffic, continue to pay for the capacity that they request, while smaller firms can connect and trade at a low cost. VerDate Sep<11>2014 change should be approved or disapproved. 833 Sfmt 4703 Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 7.44–E To Expand and Modify the Exchange’s Retail Liquidity Program December 26, 2018. I. Introduction On October 26, 2018, NYSE Arca, Inc. (‘‘NYSE Arca’’ or the ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ‘‘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 Rule 7.44–E to expand the Exchange’s Retail Liquidity Program (‘‘RLP’’) to all securities traded on NYSE Arca and make certain other modifications. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on November 14, 2018.3 On December 10, 2018, the Commission extended to February 12, 2019, the time period in which to approve, disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove, the proposed rule change.4 The Commission received no comments on the proposed rule change. This order institutes proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act 5 to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change. II. Summary of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.44–E, which sets forth the Exchange’s Retail Liquidity Program (the ‘‘Program’’), to: (i) Expand the Program’s availability to all securities traded on the Exchange; (ii) remove 20 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 3 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84547 (November 7, 2018), 83 FR 56890 (‘‘Notice’’). 4 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84772, 83 FR 64381 (December 14, 2018). 5 15 U.S.C. 78(s)(b)(2)(B). 1 15 E:\FR\FM\31JAN1.SGM 31JAN1 834 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 21 / Thursday, January 31, 2019 / Notices unused functionality by eliminating the Type 2—Retail Order and no longer permit Retail Price Improvement Orders (‘‘RPI’’) to be designated as a Mid-Point Liquidity (‘‘MPL’’) Order; 6 and (iii) offer additional functionality to RPI Orders by allowing them to include an optional offset. The Program is intended to attract retail order flow to the Exchange, and allow such order flow to receive potential price improvement.7 The Program is currently limited to trades occurring at prices equal to and greater than $1.00 a share. The program currently operates on a pilot basis and was set to expire on December 31, 2018, but was recently extended to expire on June 30, 2019.8 Under Exchange Rule 7.44–E, a class of market participant called Retail Liquidity Providers (‘‘RLPs’’) 9 and nonRLP member organizations are able to provide potential price improvement to retail investor orders in the form of a non-displayed order that is priced better than the best protected bid or offer (‘‘PBBO’’), called an RPI. When there is an RPI in a particular security priced at least $0.001 better than the PBB or PBO, the Exchange disseminates an indicator, known as the Retail Liquidity Identifier (‘‘RLI’’), that such interest exists. Retail Member Organizations (‘‘RMOs’’) can submit a Retail Order to the Exchange, which interacts, to the extent possible, with available contra-side RPIs and orders with a working price between the PBBO. The segmentation in the Program allows retail order flow to receive potential price improvement as a result of their order flow being deemed more desirable by liquidity providers.10 Expansion of Program’s Scope The Exchange proposes to expand the Program’s availability to all securities traded on the Exchange. As more fully set forth in the Notice, the Exchange proposed that in addition to NYSE Arcalisted securities and UTP Securities, the Program would cover securities listed on the New York Stock Exchange LLC (‘‘NYSE’’), which are currently excluded from the Program would be covered by the Program. The Exchange states that this expansion would make the Program more similar to the retail price 6 Rule 7.31–E(d)(3). Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71176 (December 23, 2013), 78 FR 79524 (December 30, 2013) (SR–NYSEArca–2013–107) (‘‘RLP Approval Order’’). 8 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84773 (December 10, 2018), 83 FR 64419 (December 14, 2018). 9 The Program also allows for RLPs to register with the Exchange. However, any firm can enter RPI orders into the system. 10 RLP Approval Order, 77 FR at 79528. amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1 7 See VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:21 Jan 30, 2019 Jkt 247001 improvement program offered by Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (‘‘BYX’’), that is available to all securities trading on BYX.11 Elimination of Type 2—Retail Orders Also as more fully set forth in the Notice, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.44–E(k) to remove unused functionality by eliminating the Type 2—Retail Order.12 As a result, the Exchange would offer a single category of Retail Orders. The Exchange states that it has not received a Retail Order designated as Type 2 and, therefore, proposes to no longer support this functionality.13 RPI Orders In addition, as more fully set forth in the Notice, the Exchange proposes to remove unused functionality by no longer permitting RPI Orders to be designated as MPL Orders, and also proposes to offer additional functionality to RPI Orders by allowing them to include an optional offset.14 RPIs are non-displayed and only execute against Retail Orders. RPIs are generally entered at a single limit price, rather than being pegged to the PBBO. One exception is that a RPI Order could also be designated as an MPL Order, in which case the order would be pegged to the midpoint of the PBBO and repriced as the PBBO changes. Designation as MPL Orders. The Exchange proposes to remove unused functionality that permits RPI Orders to be designated as MPL Orders. Rule 7.44–E(a)(4)(D) currently states that ‘‘[a]n RPI must be designated as either a Limit Non-Displayed Order or MPL Order, and an order so designated will interact with incoming Retail Orders only and will not interact with either a Type 2—Retail Order Day or Type 2— Retail Order Market that is resting on the NYSE Arca Book.’’ The Exchange notes that to date all RPI Orders have been designated as Non-Displayed Limit Orders, not MPL Orders. As proposed, RPI Orders could no longer be designated as MPL Orders. To effect this change, the Exchange proposes to revise the above-referenced sentence from Rule 7.44–E(a)(4)(D) to provide instead that ‘‘[a]n RPI . . . will interact with incoming Retail Orders only.’’ The remaining text of the current rule is no longer necessary because the reference to Non-Displayed Limit Orders is superfluous as RPI Orders by definition are non-displayed and must 11 See Notice at supra note 3 at 56891. Id. 13 See Id. 14 See id. at 56892. 12 See PO 00000 Frm 00189 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 include a limit price.15 Further, references to Type 2—Retail Orders are unnecessary because they would no longer be offered by the Exchange, as proposed above. Optional Offset Functionality. The Exchange proposes to allow RPIs to include an optional offset. Rule 7.44– E(a)(4) would be amended to include new paragraph (a)(4)(C) 16 that would provide that an RPI may include an optional offset, which may be specified up to three decimals. The working price of an RPI to buy (sell) with an offset would be the lower (higher) of the PBB (PBO) plus (minus) the offset or the limit price of the RPI. An RPI with an offset would not be eligible to trade if the working price is below $1.00. If an RPI to buy (sell) with an offset would have a working price that is more than three decimals, the working price would be truncated to three decimals. RPIs that include an offset would interact with Retail Orders as follows. Assume an RLP enters RPI sell interest with an offset of $0.001 and a limit price of $10.10 while the PBO is $10.11. The RPI could interact with an incoming buy Retail Order at $10.109. If the PBO changes to $10.12, the RPI could interact with an incoming buy Retail Order at $10.119. If, however, the PBO changes again to $10.10, the RPI could not interact with the Retail Order because the price required to deliver the minimum $0.001 price improvement ($10.099) would violate the RLP’s limit price of $10.10. If an RLP otherwise enters an offset greater than the minimum required price improvement and the offset would produce a price that would violate the RLP’s limit price, the offset would be applied only to the extent that it respects the RLP’s limit price. By way of illustration, assume RPI buy interest is entered with an offset of $0.005 and a limit price of $10.112 while the PBB is at $10.11. The RPI could interact with an incoming sell Retail Order at $10.112, because it would produce the required price improvement without violating the RLP’s limit price, but it could not interact above the $10.112 limit price. The Exchange proposes to make a related change to Rule 7.16–E(f)(5)(C) to specify that, like Pegged Orders and MPL Orders, RPIs with an offset would use the National Best Bid (‘‘NBB’’) instead of the PBB as the reference price when a Short Sale Price Test is triggered 15 Under Rule 7.44–E(a). Exchange proposes to renumber the remaining paragraphs under Rule 7.44–E(a)(4) accordingly. 16 The E:\FR\FM\31JAN1.SGM 31JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 21 / Thursday, January 31, 2019 / Notices pursuant to Rule 201 of Regulation SHO.17 amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1 III. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove the Proposed Rule Change and Grounds for Disapproval Under Consideration The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act 18 to determine whether the proposal should be approved or disapproved. Institution of proceedings is appropriate at this time in view of the legal and policy issues raised by the proposal. Institution of disapproval proceedings does not indicate that the Commission has reached any conclusions with respect to any of the issues involved. Rather, as described in greater detail below, the Commission seeks and encourages interested persons to provide additional comment on the proposal. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,19 the Commission is providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under consideration. The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional analysis of the proposed rule change’s consistency with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,20 which requires that the rules of an exchange be designed, among other things, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest, and which prohibits the rules of an exchange from being designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers, and with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, which requires that the rules of an exchange not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.21 The Exchange notes that the Program was intended to create additional price improvement opportunities for retail investors by segmenting retail order flow on the Exchange.22 When the Commission initially approved the Program on a pilot basis, it explained that it would monitor the Program throughout the pilot period for its potential effects on public price discovery and on the broader market 17 17 18 15 CFR 242.201. U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B). 19 Id. 20 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). U.S.C. 78f(b)(8). 22 See Notice, supra note 3 at 56891. 21 15 VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:21 Jan 30, 2019 Jkt 247001 structure.23 The Exchange seeks to modify and expand the Program as the pilot is approaching expiration, prior to providing an analysis of what it considers to be the economic benefits for retail investors and the marketplace flowing from operation of the Program. Under the Commission’s Rules of Practice, the ‘‘burden to demonstrate that a proposed rule change is consistent with the [Act] and the rules and regulations issued thereunder . . . is on the [SRO] that proposed the rule change.’’ 24 The description of a proposed rule change, its purpose and operation, its effect, and a legal analysis of its consistency with applicable requirements must all be sufficiently detailed and specific to support an affirmative Commission finding,25 and any failure of an SRO to provide this information may result in the Commission not having a sufficient basis to make an affirmative finding that a proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the applicable rules and regulations.26 The Commission questions whether the proposal to expand and modify the Program prior to Commission consideration of whether to approve the Program, as it has been operating, on a permanent basis is consistent with the Act, particularly given that the Commission has questioned whether similar programs have achieved their stated goals.27 The Commission believes it is appropriate to institute proceedings to allow for additional consideration and comment on the issues raised herein, any potential response to comments or supplemental information provided by the Exchange, and any additional independent analysis by the Commission. The Commission believes that these issues raise questions as to whether the Exchange has met its burden to demonstrate that the Program, as proposed to be expanded and amended, is consistent with the Act, and specifically, with its requirements that the Program be designed to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and the national market system, protect investors and the public interest, and not be unfairly discriminatory; or 23 See RLP Approval Order, supra note 7. 700(b)(3), Commission Rules of Practice, 17 CFR 201.700(b)(3). 25 See id. 26 See id. 27 See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 84600 (November 15, 2018), 83 FR 58802 (November 21, 2018), 84472 (October 23, 2018), 83 FR 54411 (October 29, 2018), and 84183 (September 18, 2018), 83 FR 48350 (September 24, 2018) (orders instituting proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove Pilot Retail Price Improvement Programs of CboeBYX, Nasdaq BX, and NYSE, respectively). 835 not impose an unnecessary or inappropriate burden on competition.28 IV. Procedure: Request for Written Comments The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is consistent with Sections 6(b)(5) and 6(b)(8), or any other provision of the Exchange Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b–4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.29 Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposal should be approved or disapproved by February 21, 2019. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person’s submission must file that rebuttal by March 7, 2019. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission’s internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/ rules/sro.shtml); or • Send an email to rule-comments@ sec.gov. Please include File Number SR– NYSE ARCA–2018–77 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549–1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR–NYSEARCA–2018–77. The 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 24 Rule PO 00000 Frm 00190 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 28 See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5), and (8). 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act, as amended by the Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Public Law 94–29 (June 4, 1975), grants the Commission flexibility to determine what type of proceeding—either oral or notice and opportunity for written comments—is appropriate for consideration of a particular proposal by a selfregulatory organization. See Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Senate Comm. on Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 30 (1975). 29 Section E:\FR\FM\31JAN1.SGM 31JAN1 836 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 21 / Thursday, January 31, 2019 / Notices post all comments on the Commission’s internet website (https://www.sec.gov/ rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website 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. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make publicly available. All submissions should refer to File Number SR–NYSEARCA–2018–77 and should be submitted on or before February 21, 2019. Rebuttal comments should be submitted by March 7, 2019. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.30 Eduardo A. Aleman, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. 2019–00481 Filed 1–30–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34–84959; File No. SR–MRX– 2018–41] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq MRX, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Penny Pilot Program amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1 December 26, 2018. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on December 21, 2018, Nasdaq MRX, LLC (‘‘MRX’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (‘‘SEC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II 30 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(57) and (58). U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 1 15 VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:21 Jan 30, 2019 Jkt 247001 below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to amend its rules to extend a pilot program to quote and to trade certain options classes in penny increments (‘‘Penny Pilot Program’’ or ‘‘Penny Pilot’’). The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange’s website at https://nasdaqmrx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission’s Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose Under the Penny Pilot Program, the minimum price variation for all participating options classes, except for the Nasdaq–100 Index Tracking Stock (‘‘QQQQ’’), the SPDR S&P 500 Exchange Traded Fund (‘‘SPY’’) and the iShares Russell 2000 Index Fund (‘‘IWM’’), is $0.01 for all quotations in options series that are quoted at less than $3 per contract and $0.05 for all quotations in options series that are quoted at $3 per contract or greater. QQQQ, SPY and IWM are quoted in $0.01 increments for all options series. The Penny Pilot Program is currently scheduled to expire on December 31, 2018.3 The Exchange proposes to extend the Penny Pilot Program through June 30, 2019, and to provide a revised date for adding replacement issues to the Penny Pilot Program. The Exchange proposes that any Penny Pilot Program issues that 3 See Exchange Act Release No. 83534 (June 28, 2018), 83 FR 31213 (July 3, 2018) (SR–MRX–2018– 22). PO 00000 Frm 00191 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 have been delisted may be replaced on the second trading day following January 1, 2019. The replacement issues will be selected based on trading activity for the most recent six month period excluding the month immediately preceding the replacement (i.e., beginning June 1, 2018, and ending November 30, 2018). This filing does not propose any substantive changes to the Penny Pilot Program: All classes currently participating will remain the same and all minimum increments will remain unchanged. The Exchange believes the benefits to public customers and other market participants who will be able to express their true prices to buy and sell options have been demonstrated to outweigh any increase in quote traffic. Lastly, the Exchange proposes a nonsubstantive change in Supplementary Material .01 to Rule 710 to update ‘‘Market Information Circulars’’ to ‘‘Options Trader Alerts’’ to reflect current practice.4 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.5 Specifically, the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,6 because it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. In particular, the proposed rule change, which extends the Penny Pilot Program for an additional six months, will enable public customers and other market participants to express their true prices to buy and sell options to the benefit of all market participants. Furthermore, the Exchange’s proposal to update ‘‘Market Information Circulars’’ to ‘‘Options Trader Alerts’’ in Supplementary Material .01 to Rule 710 will bring greater transparency to the Exchange’s Rulebook to the benefit of all market participants. 4 Today, the Exchange specifies which options trade in the Penny Pilot Program, and in what increments, in Options Trader Alerts distributed to Members. 5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). E:\FR\FM\31JAN1.SGM 31JAN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 21 (Thursday, January 31, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 833-836]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-00481]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84976; File No. SR-NYSEARCA-2018-77]


Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Instituting 
Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed 
Rule Change To Amend Rule 7.44-E To Expand and Modify the Exchange's 
Retail Liquidity Program

December 26, 2018.

I. Introduction

    On October 26, 2018, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the 
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the 
``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 Rule 7.44-E to expand the Exchange's 
Retail Liquidity Program (``RLP'') to all securities traded on NYSE 
Arca and make certain other modifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal 
Register on November 14, 2018.\3\ On December 10, 2018, the Commission 
extended to February 12, 2019, the time period in which to approve, 
disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to approve or 
disapprove, the proposed rule change.\4\ The Commission received no 
comments on the proposed rule change. This order institutes proceedings 
under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \5\ to determine whether to 
approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84547 (November 7, 
2018), 83 FR 56890 (``Notice'').
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84772, 83 FR 64381 
(December 14, 2018).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78(s)(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Summary of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.44-E, which sets forth the 
Exchange's Retail Liquidity Program (the ``Program''), to: (i) Expand 
the Program's availability to all securities traded on the Exchange; 
(ii) remove

[[Page 834]]

unused functionality by eliminating the Type 2--Retail Order and no 
longer permit Retail Price Improvement Orders (``RPI'') to be 
designated as a Mid-Point Liquidity (``MPL'') Order; \6\ and (iii) 
offer additional functionality to RPI Orders by allowing them to 
include an optional offset.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Rule 7.31-E(d)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Program is intended to attract retail order flow to the 
Exchange, and allow such order flow to receive potential price 
improvement.\7\ The Program is currently limited to trades occurring at 
prices equal to and greater than $1.00 a share. The program currently 
operates on a pilot basis and was set to expire on December 31, 2018, 
but was recently extended to expire on June 30, 2019.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71176 (December 23, 
2013), 78 FR 79524 (December 30, 2013) (SR-NYSEArca-2013-107) (``RLP 
Approval Order'').
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84773 (December 10, 
2018), 83 FR 64419 (December 14, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under Exchange Rule 7.44-E, a class of market participant called 
Retail Liquidity Providers (``RLPs'') \9\ and non-RLP member 
organizations are able to provide potential price improvement to retail 
investor orders in the form of a non-displayed order that is priced 
better than the best protected bid or offer (``PBBO''), called an RPI. 
When there is an RPI in a particular security priced at least $0.001 
better than the PBB or PBO, the Exchange disseminates an indicator, 
known as the Retail Liquidity Identifier (``RLI''), that such interest 
exists. Retail Member Organizations (``RMOs'') can submit a Retail 
Order to the Exchange, which interacts, to the extent possible, with 
available contra-side RPIs and orders with a working price between the 
PBBO. The segmentation in the Program allows retail order flow to 
receive potential price improvement as a result of their order flow 
being deemed more desirable by liquidity providers.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Program also allows for RLPs to register with the 
Exchange. However, any firm can enter RPI orders into the system.
    \10\ RLP Approval Order, 77 FR at 79528.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Expansion of Program's Scope

    The Exchange proposes to expand the Program's availability to all 
securities traded on the Exchange. As more fully set forth in the 
Notice, the Exchange proposed that in addition to NYSE Arca-listed 
securities and UTP Securities, the Program would cover securities 
listed on the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''), which are 
currently excluded from the Program would be covered by the Program. 
The Exchange states that this expansion would make the Program more 
similar to the retail price improvement program offered by Cboe BYX 
Exchange, Inc. (``BYX''), that is available to all securities trading 
on BYX.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Notice at supra note 3 at 56891.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elimination of Type 2--Retail Orders

    Also as more fully set forth in the Notice, the Exchange proposes 
to amend Rule 7.44-E(k) to remove unused functionality by eliminating 
the Type 2--Retail Order.\12\ As a result, the Exchange would offer a 
single category of Retail Orders. The Exchange states that it has not 
received a Retail Order designated as Type 2 and, therefore, proposes 
to no longer support this functionality.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Id.
    \13\ See Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

RPI Orders

    In addition, as more fully set forth in the Notice, the Exchange 
proposes to remove unused functionality by no longer permitting RPI 
Orders to be designated as MPL Orders, and also proposes to offer 
additional functionality to RPI Orders by allowing them to include an 
optional offset.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See id. at 56892.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    RPIs are non-displayed and only execute against Retail Orders. RPIs 
are generally entered at a single limit price, rather than being pegged 
to the PBBO. One exception is that a RPI Order could also be designated 
as an MPL Order, in which case the order would be pegged to the 
midpoint of the PBBO and re-priced as the PBBO changes.
    Designation as MPL Orders. The Exchange proposes to remove unused 
functionality that permits RPI Orders to be designated as MPL Orders. 
Rule 7.44-E(a)(4)(D) currently states that ``[a]n RPI must be 
designated as either a Limit Non-Displayed Order or MPL Order, and an 
order so designated will interact with incoming Retail Orders only and 
will not interact with either a Type 2--Retail Order Day or Type 2--
Retail Order Market that is resting on the NYSE Arca Book.'' The 
Exchange notes that to date all RPI Orders have been designated as Non-
Displayed Limit Orders, not MPL Orders.
    As proposed, RPI Orders could no longer be designated as MPL 
Orders. To effect this change, the Exchange proposes to revise the 
above-referenced sentence from Rule 7.44-E(a)(4)(D) to provide instead 
that ``[a]n RPI . . . will interact with incoming Retail Orders only.'' 
The remaining text of the current rule is no longer necessary because 
the reference to Non-Displayed Limit Orders is superfluous as RPI 
Orders by definition are non-displayed and must include a limit 
price.\15\ Further, references to Type 2--Retail Orders are unnecessary 
because they would no longer be offered by the Exchange, as proposed 
above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Under Rule 7.44-E(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Optional Offset Functionality. The Exchange proposes to allow RPIs 
to include an optional offset. Rule 7.44-E(a)(4) would be amended to 
include new paragraph (a)(4)(C) \16\ that would provide that an RPI may 
include an optional offset, which may be specified up to three 
decimals. The working price of an RPI to buy (sell) with an offset 
would be the lower (higher) of the PBB (PBO) plus (minus) the offset or 
the limit price of the RPI. An RPI with an offset would not be eligible 
to trade if the working price is below $1.00. If an RPI to buy (sell) 
with an offset would have a working price that is more than three 
decimals, the working price would be truncated to three decimals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Exchange proposes to renumber the remaining paragraphs 
under Rule 7.44-E(a)(4) accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    RPIs that include an offset would interact with Retail Orders as 
follows. Assume an RLP enters RPI sell interest with an offset of 
$0.001 and a limit price of $10.10 while the PBO is $10.11. The RPI 
could interact with an incoming buy Retail Order at $10.109. If the PBO 
changes to $10.12, the RPI could interact with an incoming buy Retail 
Order at $10.119. If, however, the PBO changes again to $10.10, the RPI 
could not interact with the Retail Order because the price required to 
deliver the minimum $0.001 price improvement ($10.099) would violate 
the RLP's limit price of $10.10.
    If an RLP otherwise enters an offset greater than the minimum 
required price improvement and the offset would produce a price that 
would violate the RLP's limit price, the offset would be applied only 
to the extent that it respects the RLP's limit price. By way of 
illustration, assume RPI buy interest is entered with an offset of 
$0.005 and a limit price of $10.112 while the PBB is at $10.11. The RPI 
could interact with an incoming sell Retail Order at $10.112, because 
it would produce the required price improvement without violating the 
RLP's limit price, but it could not interact above the $10.112 limit 
price.
    The Exchange proposes to make a related change to Rule 7.16-
E(f)(5)(C) to specify that, like Pegged Orders and MPL Orders, RPIs 
with an offset would use the National Best Bid (``NBB'') instead of the 
PBB as the reference price when a Short Sale Price Test is triggered

[[Page 835]]

pursuant to Rule 201 of Regulation SHO.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 17 CFR 242.201.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove the 
Proposed Rule Change and Grounds for Disapproval Under Consideration

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \18\ to determine whether the proposal should be 
approved or disapproved. Institution of proceedings is appropriate at 
this time in view of the legal and policy issues raised by the 
proposal. Institution of disapproval proceedings does not indicate that 
the Commission has reached any conclusions with respect to any of the 
issues involved. Rather, as described in greater detail below, the 
Commission seeks and encourages interested persons to provide 
additional comment on the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,\19\ the Commission is 
providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under consideration. 
The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional 
analysis of the proposed rule change's consistency with Section 6(b)(5) 
of the Act,\20\ which requires that the rules of an exchange be 
designed, among other things, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative 
acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, 
to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open 
market and a national market system and, in general, to protect 
investors and the public interest, and which prohibits the rules of an 
exchange from being designed to permit unfair discrimination between 
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers, and with Section 6(b)(8) of 
the Act, which requires that the rules of an exchange not impose any 
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of 
the purposes of the Act.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Id.
    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the Program was intended to create 
additional price improvement opportunities for retail investors by 
segmenting retail order flow on the Exchange.\22\ When the Commission 
initially approved the Program on a pilot basis, it explained that it 
would monitor the Program throughout the pilot period for its potential 
effects on public price discovery and on the broader market 
structure.\23\ The Exchange seeks to modify and expand the Program as 
the pilot is approaching expiration, prior to providing an analysis of 
what it considers to be the economic benefits for retail investors and 
the marketplace flowing from operation of the Program. Under the 
Commission's Rules of Practice, the ``burden to demonstrate that a 
proposed rule change is consistent with the [Act] and the rules and 
regulations issued thereunder . . . is on the [SRO] that proposed the 
rule change.'' \24\ The description of a proposed rule change, its 
purpose and operation, its effect, and a legal analysis of its 
consistency with applicable requirements must all be sufficiently 
detailed and specific to support an affirmative Commission finding,\25\ 
and any failure of an SRO to provide this information may result in the 
Commission not having a sufficient basis to make an affirmative finding 
that a proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the 
applicable rules and regulations.\26\ The Commission questions whether 
the proposal to expand and modify the Program prior to Commission 
consideration of whether to approve the Program, as it has been 
operating, on a permanent basis is consistent with the Act, 
particularly given that the Commission has questioned whether similar 
programs have achieved their stated goals.\27\ The Commission believes 
it is appropriate to institute proceedings to allow for additional 
consideration and comment on the issues raised herein, any potential 
response to comments or supplemental information provided by the 
Exchange, and any additional independent analysis by the Commission. 
The Commission believes that these issues raise questions as to whether 
the Exchange has met its burden to demonstrate that the Program, as 
proposed to be expanded and amended, is consistent with the Act, and 
specifically, with its requirements that the Program be designed to 
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and the national market 
system, protect investors and the public interest, and not be unfairly 
discriminatory; or not impose an unnecessary or inappropriate burden on 
competition.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Notice, supra note 3 at 56891.
    \23\ See RLP Approval Order, supra note 7.
    \24\ Rule 700(b)(3), Commission Rules of Practice, 17 CFR 
201.700(b)(3).
    \25\ See id.
    \26\ See id.
    \27\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 84600 (November 
15, 2018), 83 FR 58802 (November 21, 2018), 84472 (October 23, 
2018), 83 FR 54411 (October 29, 2018), and 84183 (September 18, 
2018), 83 FR 48350 (September 24, 2018) (orders instituting 
proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove Pilot 
Retail Price Improvement Programs of CboeBYX, Nasdaq BX, and NYSE, 
respectively).
    \28\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5), and (8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Procedure: Request for Written Comments

    The Commission requests that interested persons provide written 
submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the 
issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have 
with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written 
views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is 
consistent with Sections 6(b)(5) and 6(b)(8), or any other provision of 
the Exchange Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder. Although 
there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or 
disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, 
data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 
19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act, as amended by the 
Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Public Law 94-29 (June 4, 1975), 
grants the Commission flexibility to determine what type of 
proceeding--either oral or notice and opportunity for written 
comments--is appropriate for consideration of a particular proposal 
by a self-regulatory organization. See Securities Act Amendments of 
1975, Senate Comm. on Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, S. Rep. No. 
75, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and 
arguments regarding whether the proposal should be approved or 
disapproved by February 21, 2019. Any person who wishes to file a 
rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by 
March 7, 2019.
    Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to rule-comments@sec.gov. Please include 
File Number SR-NYSE ARCA-2018-77 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2018-77. The 
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

[[Page 836]]

post all comments on the Commission's internet website (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent 
amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule 
change that are filed with the Commission, and all written 
communications relating to the proposed rule change between the 
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from 
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be 
available for website 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. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do 
not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment 
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make 
publicly available. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
NYSEARCA-2018-77 and should be submitted on or before February 21, 
2019. Rebuttal comments should be submitted by March 7, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57) and (58).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\30\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-00481 Filed 1-30-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.