86162 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 12, 2023 / Notices 

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

3The term ‘‘System’’ means the electronic system 

operated by the Exchange that receives and 

disseminates quotes, executes orders and reports 

transactions. See Options 1, Section 1(a)(49). 

4The terms ‘‘Complex Options Order,’’ ‘‘StockOption Order,’’ and ‘‘Stock-Complex Order’’ refer to 

orders for a Complex Options Strategy, StockOption Strategy, and Stock-Complex Strategy, 

respectively. The term ‘‘Complex Order’’ includes 

Complex Options Orders, Stock-Option Orders, and 

Stock-Complex Orders. See ISE Options 3, Section 

to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground 

Advantage Contract 131 to Competitive 

Product List and Notice of Filing 

Materials Under Seal; Filing Acceptance 

Date: December 6, 2023; Filing 

Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR 

3040.130 through 3040.135, and 39 CFR 

3035.105; Public Representative: 

Christopher C. Mohr; Comments Due: 

December 14, 2023. 

This Notice will be published in the 

Federal Register. 

Erica A. Barker, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2023–27204 Filed 12–11–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–99092; File No. SR–ISE– 

2023–31] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq 

ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing and 

Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed 

Rule Change To Amend Legging 

Orders 

December 6, 2023. 

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 November 

29, 2023, Nasdaq ISE, LLC (‘‘ISE’’ or 

‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the Securities 

and Exchange Commission (‘‘SEC’’ or 

‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule 

change as described in Items I and II 

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 

Options 3, Section 7, Types of Orders 

and Order and Quote Protocols, and 

Options 3, Section 16, Complex Order 

Risk Protection. 

The text of the proposed rule change 

is available on the Exchange’s website at 

https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/ 

rulebook/ise/rules, 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 

The Exchange proposes to amend 

Options 3, Section 7, Types of Orders 

and Order and Quote Protocols, and 

Section 16, Complex Order Risk 

Protections. Each change is described 

below. 

Options 3, Section 7 

The Exchange proposes to expand the 

description of Legging Orders to add 

detail to describe the current System 3

functionality. The proposed 

amendments reflect the way the System 

handles Legging Orders today. The 

Exchange is not amending its current 

System functionality with respect to 

Legging Orders, rather, the proposed 

rule text is intended to add more detail 

to ISE Options 3, Section 7(k) to 

conform the level of detail to Nasdaq 

Phlx LLC (‘‘Phlx’’) Options 3, Sections 

7(b)(10) and 14(f)(iii)(C), which 

describes Phlx’s legging orders, as well 

as The Miami International Securities 

Exchange, LLC (‘‘MIAX’’) Rule 

518(a)(10), which describes derived 

orders. 

Generally, the Exchange proposes to 

amend the phrase ‘‘regular limit order 

book’’ in ISE Options 3, Section 7(k) to 

‘‘single-leg limit order book’’ to conform 

the rule text to the manner in which that 

order book is described in ISE Options 

3, Section 14, Complex Orders. 

Currently, ISE Options 3, Section 7(k) 

provides, 

Legging Orders. A legging order is a limit 

order on the regular limit order book that 

represents one side of a Complex Options 

Order that is to buy or sell an equal quantity 

of two options series resting on the 

Exchange’s Complex Order Book. Legging 

orders are firm orders that are included in the 

Exchange’s displayed best bid or offer. 

(1) A legging order may be automatically 

generated for one leg of a Complex Options 

Order at a price: (i) that matches or improves 

upon the best displayed bid or offer on the 

regular limit order book; and (ii) at which the 

net price can be achieved when the other leg 

is executed against the best displayed bid or 

offer on the regular limit order book. A 

legging order will not be created at a price 

that locks or crosses the best bid or offer of 

another exchange or during a Posting Period 

in progress on the same side in the series, 

pursuant to Options 3, Section 15 regarding 

Acceptable Trade Range. 

(2) A legging order is executed only after 

all other executable orders (including any 

non-displayed size) and quotes at the same 

price are executed in full. When a legging 

order is executed, the other portion of the 

Complex Options Order will be automatically 

executed against the displayed best bid or 

offer on the Exchange. 

(3) A legging order is automatically 

removed from the regular limit order book if: 

(i) the price of the legging order is no longer 

at the displayed best bid or offer on the 

regular limit order book, (ii) execution of the 

legging order would no longer achieve the 

net price of the Complex Options Order 

when the other leg is executed against the 

best displayed bid or offer on the regular 

limit order book, (iii) the Complex Options 

Order is executed in full or in part on the 

Complex Order Book, or (iv) the Complex 

Options Order is cancelled or modified. 

The Exchange proposes to amend the 

first paragraph of ISE Options 3, Section 

7(k) to instead provide, 

A Legging Order is a Limit Order on the 

single-leg limit order book in an individual 

series that represents one leg of a two-legged 

Complex Options Order that is to buy or sell 

an equal quantity of two options series 

resting on the Exchange’s Complex Order 

Book. Legging Orders are firm orders that are 

included in the Exchange’s displayed best 

bid or offer. Legging Orders are not routable 

and have a TIF of Day. 

Generally, the Exchange proposes to 

capitalize the terms ‘‘Legging Order’’ 

and ‘‘Limit Order’’ throughout ISE 

Options 3, Section 7(k). The Exchange 

also proposes to amend the term ‘‘one 

side of a Complex Options Order’’ to 

more specifically state, ‘‘one leg of a 

two-legged Complex Options Order.’’ 

The Exchange also proposes to add a 

new sentence to the end of the 

paragraph which provides, ‘‘Legging 

Orders are not routable and have a TIF 

of Day.’’ Specifying that Legging Orders, 

which are an individual component of 

a Complex Options Order,4 are also not 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 12, 2023 / Notices 86163 

14(a)(5). See also ISE Options 3, Section 14(a)(1)– 

(3). 

5A Limit Order is an order to buy or sell a stated 

number of options contracts at a specified price or 

better. See ISE Options 3, Section 7(b). 

6Today, the time interval is set to one hundred 

milliseconds. 

7Phlx’s rule states, in part, in Options 3, Section 

14(f)(iii)(C) that, ‘‘. . . The System will evaluate the 

CBOOK when a Complex Order enters the CBOOK 

and at a regular time interval, to be determined by 

the Exchange (which interval shall not exceed 1 

second), following a change in the national best bid 

and/or offer (‘NBBO’) or Phlx best bid and/or offer 

(‘PBBO’) in any component of a Complex Order 

eligible to generate Legging Orders, to determine 

whether Legging Orders may be generated. The 

Exchange may determine to limit the number of 

Legging Orders generated on an objective basis and 

may determine to remove existing Legging Orders 

in order to maintain a fair and orderly market in 

times of extreme volatility or uncertainty.’’ 

8See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73545 

(November 6, 2014), 79 FR 67498 (November 13, 

2014) (SR–Phlx–2014–54) (Notice of Filing of 

Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated 

Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified 

by Amendment No. 1, To Add a New Complex 

Order Process Called Legging Orders). 

9See MIAX Rule 518(a)(10)(iv). See also 

Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79072 (October 

7, 2016), 81 FR 71131 (October 14, 2016) (SR– 

MIAX–2016–26) (Order Approving a Proposed Rule 

Change to Adopt New Rules to Govern the Trading 

of Complex Orders). 

routable will add detail to the 

description of the order type and make 

clear the current System handling. 

Similarly, specifying that Legging 

Orders will be Limit Orders 5 with a TIF 

of Day makes clear the way these orders 

are currently handled by the System. 

Legging Orders are not based on 

Member instruction and are intended to 

facilitate more interaction between the 

single-leg order book and the Complex 

Order Book, resulting in increased 

execution opportunities and better 

execution prices for Complex Orders 

and for orders resting on the single-leg 

order book. For this reason, Legging 

Orders do not route and have a TIF of 

Day to permit Members to interact with 

this order type. The Exchange believes 

the amended rule text proposed in the 

first paragraph of ISE Options 3, Section 

7(k) more accurately describes a Legging 

Order and provides Members with 

greater information regarding this order 

type. Phlx’s rules at Options 3, Section 

7(b)(10) similarly describes a Legging 

Order as ‘‘one leg of a two-legged 

Complex Options Order’’ and specifies 

that Phlx’s Legging Orders are not 

routable and have a time-in-force of 

Day. 

The Exchange proposes to add a new 

second paragraph to ISE Options 3, 

Section 7(k) to specifically explain the 

way the System will generate a Legging 

Order. The Exchange proposes to state, 

The System will evaluate whether Legging 

Orders may be generated (1) when a Complex 

Options Order enters the Complex Order 

Book, and (2) after a time interval (to be 

determined by the Exchange, not to exceed 

1 second) when the NBBO or Exchange best 

bid or offer in any component of a Complex 

Options Order changes. The Exchange may 

determine to limit the number of Legging 

Orders generated on an objective basis and 

may determine to remove existing Legging 

Orders in order to maintain a fair and orderly 

market in times of extreme volatility or 

uncertainty. Legging Orders are treated as 

having no Priority Customer capacity on the 

single-leg order book, regardless of being 

generated from Priority Customer Complex 

Options Orders. 

The Exchange proposes to make clear 

that the System will evaluate whether 

Legging Orders may be generated, which 

occurs at the time a Complex Options 

Order enters the Complex Order Book or 

after a time interval (to be determined 

by the Exchange, not to exceed one 

second) 6 when the NBBO or Exchange 

best bid or offer in any component of a 

Complex Options Order changes. The 

Exchange proposes to state that it may 

determine to limit the number of 

Legging Orders generated on an 

objective basis and may determine to 

remove existing Legging Orders, and 

cease the creation of additional Legging 

Orders, to maintain a fair and orderly 

market in times of extreme volatility or 

uncertainty. Phlx has similar rule text in 

Phlx Options 3, Section 14(f)(iii)(C).7

This limitation assists the Exchange in 

managing the number of Legging Orders 

generated to ensure that Legging Orders 

do not negatively impact the Exchange’s 

System capacity and performance so 

that ISE may maintain a fair and orderly 

market in times of extreme volatility or 

uncertainty. Of note, the Exchange does 

not limit the generation of Legging 

Orders on the basis of the entering 

Member or the Member category of the 

order (i.e., Professional or Priority 

Customer). Phlx similarly made this 

representation when it proposed to 

adopt rules related to the generation and 

execution of ‘‘legging orders.’’ 8

Finally, the Exchange proposes to 

provide that Legging Orders are treated 

as having no Priority Customer capacity 

on the single leg order book, regardless 

of being generated from Priority 

Customer Complex Options Orders. A 

Legging Order is handled in the same 

manner as other orders on the single-leg 

order book except as otherwise provided 

in ISE Options 3, Section 7(k), and is 

executed only after all other executable 

orders and quotes at the same price are 

executed in full. When a Legging Order 

is executed, the other component of the 

Complex Order on the Complex Order 

Book will be automatically executed 

against the best bid or offer on the 

Exchange. The Exchange believes that a 

Legging Order, created for the execution 

of a Complex Order, should not be 

afforded priority over resting orders and 

quotes on the single-leg order book, and 

therefore has determined to protect the 

priority on the single-leg order book of 

such resting orders and quotes. MIAX 

similarly executes a derived order only 

after all other executable orders and 

quotes at the same price are executed in 

full.9

The Exchange proposes to amend ISE 

Options 3, Section 7(k)(1) and add the 

title ‘‘Generation of Legging Orders’’ to 

describe the contents of the paragraph. 

The Exchange proposes to amend the 

first sentence which currently states, 

A legging order may be automatically 

generated for one leg of a Complex Options 

Order at a price: (i) that matches or improves 

upon the best displayed bid or offer on the 

regular limit order book; and (ii) at which the 

net price can be achieved when the other leg 

is executed against the best displayed bid or 

offer on the regular limit order book. A 

legging order will not be created at a price 

that locks or crosses the best bid or offer of 

another exchange or during a Posting Period 

in progress on the same side in the series, 

pursuant to Options 3, Section 15 regarding 

Acceptable Trade Range. 

The Exchange proposes to instead 

provide in Options 3, Section 7(k)(1), 

A Legging Order may be automatically 

generated for one or both leg(s) of a Complex 

Options Order resting on top of the Complex 

Order Book at a price: (i) that matches or 

improves upon the best displayed bid or offer 

on the single-leg limit order book; and (ii) at 

which the net price can be achieved when 

the other leg is executed against the best 

displayed bid or offer on the single-leg limit 

order book, excluding other Legging Orders. 

Legging Orders will be generated and 

executed in the minimum increment for that 

options series. 

The Exchange is proposing to add ‘‘or 

both leg(s)’’ to the first sentence of ISE 

Options 3, Section 7(k)(1) to make clear 

a Legging Order may be generated for 

each leg of a two-legged Complex Order. 

The Exchange notes that Legging Orders 

may be generated for each leg of a twolegged options orders with the same 

quantity on both legs. Automatically 

generating Legging Orders, which will 

only be executed after all other 

executable interest at the same price 

(including non-displayed interest) is 

executed in full, will provide additional 

execution opportunities for Complex 

Orders, without negatively impacting 

any investors in the single-leg market. In 

fact, the generation of Legging Orders 

may enhance execution quality for 

investors in the single-leg market by 

improving the price and/or size of the 

ISE BBO and by providing additional 

execution opportunity for resting orders 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
86164 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 12, 2023 / Notices 

10The cBBO is the net best bid or offer comprised 

of the best bids and offers of the individual legs of 

the complex strategy. 

11Furthermore, if a single-leg order arrives to buy 

for 3.90 on Leg C, the B–C strategy trades with the 

4.10 offer of Leg B and the 4.05 Legging Order is 

removed. 

12The last sentence of ISE Options 3, Section 

7(k)(1) states, ‘‘A legging order will not be created 

at a price that locks or crosses the best bid or offer 

of another exchange or during a Posting Period in 

progress on the same side in the series, pursuant to 

Options 3, Section 15 regarding Acceptable Trade 

Range.’’ 

13MIAX Rule 510 specifies the minimum 

increments for options traded on MIAX. 

14 ISE Options 5 is incorporated by reference to 

ISE Options 5. Specifically, ISE Options 5, Section 

2 and 3 apply to ISE. 

15A Complex Options Strategy is the 

simultaneous purchase and/or sale of two or more 

different options series in the same underlying 

security, for the same account, in a ratio that is 

equal to or greater than one-to-three (.333) and less 

than or equal to three-to-one (3.00) and for the 

purpose of executing a particular investment 

strategy. Only those Complex Options Strategies 

with no more than the applicable number of legs, 

as determined by the Exchange on a class-by-class 

basis, are eligible for processing. See ISE Options 

3, Section 14(a)(1). 

16ATR is a risk protection which sets dynamic 

boundaries within which quotes and orders may 

trade. ATR is designed to guard the System from 

experiencing dramatic price swings by preventing 

the immediate execution of quotes and orders 

beyond the thresholds set by this risk protection. 

on the single-leg order book. The 

generation of Legging Orders is fully 

compliant with all regulatory 

requirements. In particular, Legging 

Orders are firm orders that will be 

displayed at the ISE BBO. Also, a 

Legging Order will be automatically 

removed if it is no longer displayable at 

the ISE BBO or if the net price of the 

Complex Order can no longer be 

achieved. Finally, the generation of 

Legging Orders is limited in scope, as 

they may be generated only for Complex 

Options Orders with two legs. 

Additionally, as noted herein, the 

Exchange will closely manage and 

curtail the generation of Legging Orders 

to assure that they do not negatively 

impact system capacity and 

performance. Phlx’s Legging Orders 

differ from ISE’s Legging Orders in that, 

on Phlx, where two legging orders may 

be generated, only one of those can 

execute as part of the execution of a 

particular complex order. 

The addition of ‘‘resting on the top of 

the Complex Order Book’’ in the first 

sentence of ISE Options 3, Section 

7(k)(1) will make clear that the priority 

of orders in the Complex Order Book 

controls with respect to the generation 

of Legging Orders. The addition of this 

language is intended to provide greater 

detail with respect to the generation of 

Legging Order. 

The Exchange proposes to amend the 

second sentence of ISE Options 3, 

Section 7(k)(1) to add ‘‘excluding other 

Legging Orders’’ to the end of the 

sentence to make clear that the price of 

a Legging Order is not considered in the 

BBO for purposes of determining 

whether the net price of a Complex 

Order could be achieved were it to 

generate a Legging Order. Below is an 

example of the manner in which the 

System calculates the net price and 

excludes a Legging Order. 

Example #1 

Assume 

Leg A is quoted 4.20 (100) × 4.25 (100) 

Leg B is quoted 4.00 (100) × 4.10 (100) 

Leg C is quoted 3.80 (100) × 3.90 (100) 

Create A–B strategy, ratio of 1. cBBO 10

for A–B is 0.10 × 0.25 

Create B–C strategy, ratio of 1. cBBO for 

B–C is 0.10 × 0.30 

Generation of Legging Orders: 

Complex Order is entered to Buy A–B 

10 @ 0.20 

System generates Legging Order on leg 

A’s bid @ 4.20 

System generates Legging Order on Leg 

B’s offer @ 4.05 

Complex Order is entered to Buy B–C 10 

@ 0.20 

System generates Legging Order on leg 

B’s bid @ 4.00 

System generates Legging Order on Leg 

C’s offer @ 3.90 

Executions: 

If Complex Order B–C sold leg C @

3.90, it would have to buy leg B for 4.10 

or less to satisfy its net price of 0.20. 

Given that a Legging Order is available 

on Leg B’s offer at 4.05, this Legging 

Order on leg C would have been able to 

generate at 3.85 instead of 3.90 if the 

Legging Order at 4.05 was included in 

the calculation of possible net execution 

price, but since it is not, the Legging 

Order is generated at 3.90 on Leg C’s 

offer instead of 3.85.11

The Exchange is removing the last 

sentence of ISE Options 3, Section 

7(k)(1) 12 because that concept is being 

relocated to proposed new paragraph 

Options 3, Section 7(k)(2) as described 

below. 

Finally, the Exchange proposes to add 

a sentence to ISE Options 3, Section 

7(k)(1) which states, ‘‘Legging Orders 

will be generated and executed in the 

minimum increment for that options 

series.’’ Options 3, Section 3 describes 

the minimum increments for options 

traded on ISE. This rule makes clear that 

the minimum increment rule in ISE 

Options 3, Section 3 is applicable to 

Legging Orders. MIAX Rule 

518(a)(10)(iii) similarly provides that 

ISE’s derived orders will not be created 

at a price increment less than the 

minimum established by Rule 510.13

The Exchange proposes to add 

proposed new paragraph ISE Options 3, 

Section 7(k)(2) with the title ‘‘When 

Legging Orders Will Not Be Generated’’ 

to describe the contents of the 

paragraph. The Exchange proposes to 

state in proposed ISE Options 3, Section 

7(k)(2), 

When Legging Orders Will Not Be 

Generated. A Legging Order will not be 

generated: (i) at a price that locks or crosses 

the best bid or offer of another exchange, (ii) 

if there is a complex auction on either side 

in the Complex Options Strategy, or a singleleg auction on either side in any component 

of the Complex Options Strategy, or a Posting 

Period in progress on the same side in the 

series, pursuant to Options 3, Section 15 

regarding Acceptable Trade Range; (iii) if the 

price of the leg(s) of a Complex Options 

Order is outside of the price limits described 

in Options 3, Section 16(a); (iv) if there is 

already a Legging Order in that options series 

on the same side of the market at the same 

price; or (v) for Complex Orders with 2 

option legs, where both legs are buying or 

both legs are selling and both legs are calls 

or both legs are puts, as described in Options 

3, Section 14(d)(3)(A); or (vi) if the Exchange 

has not opened; or a particular option series 

has not opened or such options series is 

halted. 

This paragraph will describe when 

Legging Orders will not be generated. 

First, a Legging Order will not be 

generated at a price that locks or crosses 

the best bid or offer of another exchange 

as stated in the last sentence of ISE 

Options 3, Section 7(k)(1). This concept 

is consistent with ISE Options 5, 

Sections 2 and 3 which describe order 

protection and locked and crossed 

markets.14

Second, the Exchange proposes to add 

a provision which states that a Legging 

Order will not be generated if there is 

a complex auction on either side in the 

Complex Options Strategy,15 or a singleleg auction on either side in any 

component of the Complex Options 

Strategy, or a Posting Period in progress 

on the same side in the series, pursuant 

to ISE Options 3, Section 15 regarding 

Acceptable Trade Range (‘‘ATR’’).16 The 

last part of this proposed sentence 

concerning ATR was relocated from the 

last sentence of ISE Options 3, Section 

7(k)(1). 

Third, the Exchange proposes to add 

a provision which states that a Legging 

Order will not be generated if the price 

of the leg(s) of a Complex Options Order 

is outside of the price limits described 

in ISE Options 3, Section 16(a). In the 

instance where a Legging Order 

generated is currently outside the price 

parameter (because the ABBO has 

moved), the System will remove the 

Legging Order that was outside the price 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 12, 2023 / Notices 86165 

17Phlx’s rule similarly indicates that a Legging 

Order is subject to certain price parameters by 

stating that a Legging Order will not be generated 

if the price of the Complex Order is outside of the 

relevant ACE Parameter. See Phlx Options 3, 

Section 7(b)(10)(2). The ACE Parameter differs from 

the price limits described in ISE Options 3, Section 

16(a). Phlx’s ACE Parameter defines a price range 

outside of which a Complex Order will not be 

executed. The ACE Parameter is either a percentage 

or number as defined by Phlx and may be set at a 

different percentage or number for Complex Orders 

where one of the components is the underlying 

security. The ACE Parameter price range is based 

on the cNBBO at the time an order would be 

executed. A Complex Order to sell will not be 

executed at a price that is lower than the cNBBO 

bid by more than the ACE Parameter. A Complex 

Order to buy will not be executed at a price that 

is higher than the cNBBO offer by more than the 

ACE Parameter. A Complex Order or a portion of 

a Complex Order that cannot be executed within 

the ACE Parameter pursuant to this rule will be 

placed on the CBOOK. See Phlx Options 3, Section 

16(b)(i). 

18Phlx Options 3, Section 7(b)(10)(2)) states, in 

part, that Legging Order will not be generated if 

there is already a Legging Order in that series on 

the same side of the market at the same price 

(unless it has priority based on the participant type, 

under existing Exchange rules). The phrase ‘‘unless 

it has priority based on the participant type, under 

existing Exchange rules’’ is not being added to ISE’s 

Rule as Options 3, Section 10 which describes 

allocation on the single-leg order book, because as 

stated in proposed ISE Options 3, Section 7(k), 

‘‘Legging Orders are treated as having no Priority 

Customer capacity on the single-leg order book, 

regardless of being generated from Priority 

Customer Complex Options Orders.’’ 

19Phlx Options 3, Section 7(b)(10)(1) states, in 

part, that Legging Orders will not be generated if the 

Exchange or a particular option has not opened, is 

halted or is otherwise not available for trading. ISE 

believes that not opening and a halt are the two 

possible scenarios and therefore Phlx’s rule and 

ISE’s rule are substantively the same in this regard. 

20Phlx Options 3, Section 7(b)(10)(3) states, ‘‘A 

Legging Order is executed only after all other 

executable orders (including any non-displayed 

size) and quotes at the same price are executed in 

full. When a Legging Order is executed, the other 

leg of the Complex Order will be automatically 

executed against the displayed best bid or offer on 

the Exchange and any other Legging Order based on 

that Complex Order will be removed.’’ ISE 

explicitly states ‘‘not executed as part of the 

Complex Options Order’’ where Phlx says ‘‘based 

on that Complex Order.’’ 

limits pursuant to proposed ISE Options 

3, Section 7(k)(2)(iii) and will attempt to 

re-generate a new Legging Order that is 

in the price limits described in ISE 

Options 3, Section 16(a) as proposed in 

ISE Options 3, Section 7(k)(4)(v). Today, 

ISE Options 3, Section 16(a) would 

restrict the execution of a Legging Order 

through price limits for Complex 

Orders. By adding the aforementioned 

rule text in proposed new paragraph 

Options 3, Section 7(k)(2), all 

limitations related to the generation of 

Legging Orders will be memorialized in 

Options 3, Section 7(k).17

Fourth, the Exchange proposes to add 

a provision which states that a Legging 

Order will not be generated if there is 

already a Legging Order in that options 

series on the same side of the market at 

the same price. This provision addresses 

a situation of overlapping Legging 

Orders. Phlx has a similar sentence in 

Phlx Options 3, Section 7(b)(10)(2).18

The addition of this rule text will make 

clear an existing limitation to the 

generation of orders in ISE Options 3, 

Section 7(k). 

Fifth, the Exchange proposes to add a 

provision which states that a Legging 

Order will not be generated for Complex 

Orders with two option legs, where both 

legs are buying or both legs are selling 

and both legs are calls or both legs are 

puts, as described in ISE Options 3, 

Section 14(d)(3)(A). This limitation is 

currently provided for in ISE Options 3, 

Section 14(d)(3)(A) and is being added 

to proposed new paragraph ISE Options 

3, Section 7(k)(2) to provide Members 

with a complete list of when Legging 

Orders will not be generated in Options 

3, Section 7(k). 

Sixth, the Exchange proposes to add 

a provision which states that a Legging 

Order will not be generated if the 

Exchange has not opened; or a 

particular option series has not opened 

or such options series is halted. Since a 

complex strategy must be available for 

trading to generate a Legging Order, the 

failure of an options series that is a 

component of the complex strategy to 

open or a subsequent halt would cause 

Legging Orders not to generate. Phlx has 

a similar rule in Phlx Options 3, Section 

7(b)(10)(1).19

The Exchange proposes to renumber 

current ISE Options 3, Section 7(k)(2) as 

(k)(3) and add the title ‘‘Execution of 

Legging Orders’’ to describe the contents 

of the paragraph. The Exchange 

proposes to state in proposed ISE 

Options 3, Section 7(k)(3) that, 

A Legging Order is executed only after all 

other executable orders (including any nondisplayed size) and quotes at the same price 

are executed in full. When a Legging Order 

is executed, the other leg of the Complex 

Options Order will be automatically executed 

against the displayed best bid or offer on the 

Exchange and any other Legging Order not 

executed as part of the Complex Options 

Order will be removed. Two Legging Orders 

related to the same Complex Options Order 

can be generated, and both can execute as 

part of the execution of a particular Complex 

Options Order. 

The Exchange’s proposal, similar to 

Phlx Options 3, Section 

7(b)(10)(3)describes current System 

handling when a Legging Order is 

executed and subsequently the other leg 

of the Complex Order will be 

automatically executed against the 

displayed best bid or offer on the 

Exchange, and any other Legging Order 

based on that Complex Order will be 

removed. The Exchange proposes to 

replace the word ‘‘portion’’ with ‘‘leg’’ 

to make the rule text more explicit. The 

Exchange proposes to add the phrase 

‘‘and any other Legging order not 

executed as part of the Complex Options 

Order will be removed’’ to the end of 

the second sentence in proposed ISE 

Options 3, Section 7(k)(3). Phlx has a 

substantively similar sentence in 

Options 3, Section 7(b)(10)(3).20 The 

addition of this phrase is intended to 

provide additional information 

regarding the treatment of unexecuted 

Legging Orders in ISE Options 3, 

Section 7(k). By way of example, 

Example #2 

Assume: 

Complex A–B (ratio 1:1) strategy, ratio 

of 1 is created 

MM Quote for leg A 4.20 (100) × 4.50 

(100) 

MM Quote for leg B 4.00 (100) × 4.10 

(100) 

A–B Derived BBO: 0.10 × 0.50 

Complex Order to Buy A–B 10 @n net 

price of 0.45 

System generates a Legging Order on leg 

A’s bid for quantity of 10 @4 4.45 

System generates a Legging Order leg 

B’s offer for quantity of 10 @4 4.05 

Single-leg order to sell 10 @4 4.45 on Leg 

A arrives 

Execution: 

Complex Order A–B Legging Order 

trades 10 with Single leg order on Leg 

A @4 4.45 

Complex Order A–B other leg trades 10 

with MM Quote on Leg B @4 4.00 

Removal of Legging Order: 

Legging Order that was generated for 

quantity of 10 on Leg B @4 4.05 is 

removed from the order book. 

Next, the Exchange proposes to add a 

new sentence to ISE Options 3, Section 

7(k)(3) which states, ‘‘Two Legging 

Orders related to the same Complex 

Options Order can be generated, and 

both can execute as part of the 

execution of a particular Complex 

Options Order.’’ As noted above, two 

Legging Orders related to the same 

Complex Options Order can be 

generated, and both can execute as part 

of the execution of a particular Complex 

Options Order. This behavior differs 

from Phlx where two legging orders may 

be generated, but only one of those can 

execute as part of the execution of a 

particular complex order. The Exchange 

believes that permitting both Legging 

Orders to execute as part of the 

execution of a particular Complex 

Options Order will allow more Complex 

Orders to execute while the price of the 

leg(s) will continue to be bounded by 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
86166 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 12, 2023 / Notices 

21Phlx Options 3, Section 7(b)(10)(4)provides, ‘‘if 

execution of the Legging Order would no longer 

achieve the net price of the Complex Order when 

the other leg is executed against the Exchange’s best 

displayed bid or offer on the regular Limit Order 

book (other than another Legging Order).’’ This 

language is substantively the same as ISE’s 

proposed rule text. 

22Phlx Options 3, Section 7(b)(10)(4)states that 

‘‘A Legging Order is automatically removed from 

the regular order book: . . . (v) if the price of the 

Complex Order is outside the ACE Parameter of 

paragraph (i).’’ As noted above, Phlx and ISE have 

different price parameters. 

23 Id. 

24Phlx Options 3, Section 7(b)(10)(4) states that 

‘‘A Legging Order is automatically removed from 

the regular order book: . . . (vii) if a Legging Order 

the price limits described in ISE 

Options 3, Section 16(a). By way of 

example, 

Example #3 

Assume: 

Complex A–B strategy, ratio of 1 is 

created 

Complex 2A–B strategy, ratio of 2:1 is 

created 

MM Quote for leg A 4.20 (100) × 4.50 

(100) 

MM Quote for leg B 4.00 (100) × 4.10 

(100) 

Complex BBO for A–B is 0.10 × 0.50 

Complex BBO for 2A–B is 4.30 × 5.00 

Leg Generation: 

Complex Order to Buy A–B 10 @0 0.45 

System generates a Legging Order on leg 

A’s bid @4 4.45 

System generates a Legging Order on leg 

B’s offer @4 4.05 

Execution: 

Complex Order to Sell 2A–B 5 @4 4.85 

2A–B Order trades with Legging Order 

on leg A 10 @4 4.45 

2A–B Order trades with the Legging 

Order on leg B 5 @4 4.05 

A–B trades with MM Quote on leg B 5 

@4 4.00 

The Exchange proposes to renumber 

ISE Options 3, Section 7(k)(3) as (k)(4) 

and title the paragraph, ‘‘Removal of 

Generated Legging Orders’’ to describe 

the contents of the paragraph. This 

paragraph describes when a Legging 

Order is automatically removed from 

the single-leg limit order book. The 

Exchange proposes to add a clause to 

the end of proposed ISE Options 3, 

Section 7(k)(4)(i) so that the sentence 

would state, ‘‘A Legging Order is 

automatically removed from the singleleg limit order book if: (i) the price of 

the Legging Order is no longer at the 

displayed best bid or offer on the singleleg limit order book or is at a price that 

locks or crosses the best bid or offer of 

another exchange . . .’’(emphasis 

added). Current ISE Options 3, Section 

7(k)(1) already notes that a Legging 

Order will not be created at a price that 

locks or crosses the best bid or offer of 

another exchange. Adding the same rule 

text to proposed ISE Options 3, Section 

7(k)(4) will make clear that a Legging 

Order that locks or crosses an away 

market would be removed from the limit 

order book. 

The Exchange proposes to add a 

clause to proposed ISE Options 3, 

Section 7(k)(4)(ii) to provide that ‘‘A 

Legging Order is automatically removed 

from the single-leg limit order book 

if. . . (ii) execution of the Legging Order 

would no longer achieve that net price 

of the Complex Options Order when the 

other leg is executed against the best 

displayed bid or offer on the single-leg 

limit order book, excluding other 

Legging Orders’’ (emphasis added). Phlx 

has a similar sentence in Options 3, 

Section 7(b)(10)(4).21 A Legging Order is 

removed if the BBO on the other leg 

worsens such that the Complex Order 

limit price could no longer be achieved 

by trading with the quote, even if it 

could be achieved by trading with a 

Legging Order generated by another 

Complex Order. The Exchange would 

not rely solely on the price of another 

Legging Order when calculating the net 

price of the Complex Options Order for 

purposes of determining at which price 

a Legging Order will execute. In the 

below example this point is illustrated 

in that the Legging Order could not rely 

on the 4.05 offer on Leg B derived from 

the other Legging Order, rather it must 

rely on the 4.10 offer on Leg B derived 

from the quote. 

Example #4 

Assume: 

Leg A is quoted 4.20 (100) × 4.25 (100) 

Leg B is quoted 4.00 (100) × 4.05 (100) 

Leg C is quoted 3.80 (100) × 3.90 (100) 

Create A–B strategy, ratio of 1 with a 

cBBO for A–B is 0.15 × 0.25 

Create B–C strategy, ratio of 1 with a 

cBBO for B–C is 0.10 × 0.30 

Generation of Legging Orders: 

Complex Order is entered to Buy B–C 

(Buy B, Sell C) 10 @0 0.20 

System generates Legging Orders on Leg 

B’s bid @4.00 & Leg C’s offer @3 3.85. 

Complex Order is entered to Buy A–B 

(Buy A, Sell B) 10 @0 0.20 

System generates Legging Orders on Leg 

A’s bid @4 4.20 & Leg B’s offer @4 4.05 

Removal of Legging Order: 

Market Maker updates their quote for 

Leg B with a worsened offer: 4.00 

(100) × 4.10 (100) 

Even though the displayed best offer 

for Leg B did not change in price, it is 

derived from a Legging Order which is 

excluded from the System’s calculations 

in determining whether the net price of 

this Complex Order can be achieved if 

its Legging Order trades. The Legging 

Order at 3.85 on Leg C can no longer 

achieve the Complex Order’s net price 

were it to execute in addition to the 

quote for Leg B. The System will remove 

the Legging Order at 3.85 on Leg C and 

will regenerate a new Legging Order on 

Leg C at 3.90 and this would allow the 

Legging Order to achieve the net price 

of the Complex Order if it trades along 

with the quote on Leg B. 

The Exchange proposes to add a new 

section ‘‘(v)’’ to proposed ISE Options 3, 

Section 7(k)(4) which states, ‘‘A Legging 

Order is automatically removed from 

the single-leg limit order book if. . . (v) 

the price of the leg(s) of a Complex 

Options Order is outside of the price 

limits described in current ISE Options 

3, Section 16(a).’’ This limitation is 

currently described in ISE Options 3, 

Section 16(a) and is being added to this 

order type to complete the list of cases 

where a Legging Order would be 

removed from the order book in Options 

3, Section 7(k). Phlx has similar rule 

text in Options 3, Section 7(b)(10)(4).22

The Exchange proposes to add new 

section ‘‘(vi)’’ to proposed ISE Options 

3, Section 7(k)(4) which states, ‘‘A 

Legging Order is automatically removed 

from the single-leg limit order book if 

. . .(vi) the System receives a complex 

auction on either side in the Complex 

Options Strategy, or the System receives 

a single-leg auction on either side in any 

component of the Complex Options 

Strategy.’’ Phlx has similar language in 

Options 3, Section 7(b)(10)(4).23 As 

noted above, the Exchange believes from 

a System processing and user 

acceptance standpoint, the best practice 

is to remove the System-generated 

Legging Order from the order book 

during the course of the auction, as that 

time is minimal, then the System can 

attempt to re-generate a Legging Order 

once the auction has concluded. 

Finally, the Exchange proposes to add 

new section ‘‘(vii)’’ to proposed ISE 

Options 3, Section 7(k)(4) which states, 

‘‘A Legging Order is automatically 

removed from the single-leg limit order 

book if . . . (vii) a Legging Order is 

generated by a different Complex 

Options Order in the same leg at a better 

price or the same price for a participant 

with a higher price priority.’’ As noted 

in ISE Options 3, Section 7(k)(1), a 

Legging Order may be automatically 

generated at a price that matches or 

improves upon the best displayed bid or 

offer on the single-leg limit order book. 

The System removes the Legging Order 

because it would have been at an 

inferior price. Phlx Options 3, Section 

7(b)(10)(4)has similar language.24


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 12, 2023 / Notices 86167 

is generated by a different Complex Order in the 

same leg at a better price or the same price for a 

participant with a higher price priority. . .’’. While 

Phlx’s Options 3, Section 14 has priority overlays 

for different market participants within its 

allocation model, whereas ISE does not have similar 

priority overlays and the remainder of the language 

is not necessary. 

25 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 

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

27Today, the time interval is set to one hundred 

milliseconds. 

28Phlx’s rule states, in part, in Options 3, Section 

14(f)(iii)(C) that, ‘‘. . .The System will evaluate the 

CBOOK when a Complex Order enters the CBOOK 

and at a regular time interval, to be determined by 

the Exchange (which interval shall not exceed 1 

second), following a change in the national best bid 

and/or offer (‘‘NBBO’’) or Phlx best bid and/or offer 

(‘‘PBBO’’) in any component of a Complex Order 

eligible to generate Legging Orders, to determine 

whether Legging Orders may be generated. The 

Exchange may determine to limit the number of 

Legging Orders generated on an objective basis and 

may determine to remove existing Legging Orders 

in order to maintain a fair and orderly market in 

times of extreme volatility or uncertainty.’’ 

As revised, the rule text proposed in 

ISE Options 3, Section 7(k)(4) is 

intended to cover all circumstances 

where a Legging Order would be 

automatically removed from the singleleg limit order. 

Options 3, Section 16 

The Exchange proposes to amend the 

language in ISE Options 3, Section 16(a) 

related to price limits for Complex 

Orders. As provided in ISE Options 3, 

Section 16(a)the legs of a complex 

strategy may be executed at prices that 

are inferior to the prices available on 

other exchanges trading the same 

options series. Notwithstanding the 

foregoing, the System will not permit 

any leg of a complex strategy to trade 

through the NBBO for the series or any 

stock component by a configurable 

amount calculated as the lesser of (i) an 

absolute amount not to exceed $0.10, 

and (ii) a percentage of the NBBO not 

to exceed 500%, as determined by the 

Exchange on a class, series or 

underlying basis. A Member can also 

include an instruction on a Complex 

Order that each leg of the Complex 

Order is to be executed only at a price 

that is equal to or better than the NBBO 

on the opposite side for the options 

series or any stock component, as 

applicable (‘‘Do-Not-Trade-Through’’ or 

‘‘DNTT’’). The addition of the words 

‘‘on the opposite side’’ is intended to 

make clear the manner in which the 

System will handle a DNTT instruction. 

That is, the System will check that the 

price is equal to or better than the NBBO 

on the opposite side of the options 

series or any stock component. 

2. Statutory Basis 

The Exchange believes that its 

proposal is consistent with section 6(b) 

of the Act,25 in general, and furthers the 

objectives of section 6(b)(5) of the Act,26

in particular, in that it is designed to 

promote just and equitable principles of 

trade and to protect investors and the 

public interest. 

Options 3, Section 7 

The Exchange’s proposal to amend 

ISE Options 3, Section 7(k), Legging 

Orders, is consistent with the Act 

because the proposal expands the 

description of Legging Orders to 

describe in more detail the current 

legging functionality, thereby increasing 

transparency with respect to this order 

type. The proposed amendments reflect 

the way Legging Orders work today. The 

Exchange is not amending its System 

functionality with respect to Legging 

Orders, rather, the proposed rule text is 

intended to be more descriptive and 

conform the level of detail in the order 

type to Phlx Options 3, Section 

7(b)(10)which describes details of Phlx’s 

legging orders and MIAX Rule 

518(a)(10), which describes derived 

orders. 

Specifying that Legging Orders, which 

are an individual component of a 

Complex Options Order, are ‘‘one leg of 

a two-legged Complex Options Order’’ 

and are not routable in the first 

paragraph of ISE Options 3, Section 7(k) 

is consistent with the Act because these 

terms better describe a Legging Order. 

Similarly, specifying that Legging 

Orders will be Limit Orders with a TIF 

of Day makes clear the way these orders 

are handled by the System. Legging 

Orders are not based on Member 

instruction and are intended to facilitate 

more interaction between the single-leg 

order book and the Complex Order 

Book, resulting in increased execution 

opportunities and better execution 

prices for Complex Orders and for 

orders resting on the single-leg order 

book. For this reason, Legging Orders do 

not route and have a TIF of Day to 

permit Members to interact with this 

order type. The Exchange believes the 

amended rule text more accurately 

describes a Legging Order and makes 

clear to Members the behavior of 

Legging Orders. Also, capitalizing the 

terms ‘‘Legging Order’’ and ‘‘Limit 

Order’’ and referring to a ‘‘single-leg’’ 

order book throughout ISE Options 3, 

Section 7(k) conforms terms with those 

of ISE Options 3, Section 14, Complex 

Orders. 

The proposed text in the new second 

paragraph of ISE Options 3, Section 7(k) 

makes clear the current System 

processing for Legging Orders. 

Specifically, the proposed rule text 

makes clear that the System will 

evaluate whether Legging Orders may be 

generated, which occurs at the time a 

Complex Options Order enters the 

Complex Order Book or after a time 

interval (to be determined by the 

Exchange, not to exceed one second) 27

when the NBBO or Exchange best bid or 

offer in any component of a Complex 

Options Order changes. Further, the 

Exchange proposes to state that it may 

determine to limit the number of 

Legging Orders generated on an 

objective basis and may determine to 

remove existing Legging Orders, and 

cease the creation of additional Legging 

Orders, to maintain a fair and orderly 

market in times of extreme volatility or 

uncertainty. Phlx has similar rule text in 

Phlx Options 3, Section 14(f)(iii)(C).28

The proposed limitation is consistent 

with the Act because it assists the 

Exchange in managing the number of 

Legging Orders generated to ensure that 

Legging Orders do not negatively impact 

the Exchange’s System capacity and 

performance so that ISE may maintain a 

fair and orderly market in times of 

extreme volatility or uncertainty. Of 

note, the Exchange does not limit the 

generation of Legging Orders on the 

basis of the entering Member or the 

Member category of the order (i.e., 

Professional or Priority Customer). The 

Exchange proposes to limit the number 

of Legging Orders, remove existing 

Legging Orders, and cease creation of 

additional Legging Orders, in order to 

permit the Exchange to maintain a fair 

and orderly market in times of extreme 

volatility or uncertainty. This discretion 

is consistent with the Act because it 

assists the Exchange in managing the 

number of Legging Orders generated to 

ensure that Legging Orders do not 

negatively impact the Exchange’s 

System capacity and performance. 

The Exchange’s proposal to provide 

that Legging Orders are treated as 

having no Priority Customer capacity on 

the single leg order book, regardless of 

being generated from Priority Customer 

Complex Options Orders is consistent 

with the Act and the protection of 

investor and the public interest. A 

Legging Order is handled in the same 

manner as other orders on the single-leg 

order book except as otherwise provided 

in ISE Options 3, Section 7(k), and is 

executed only after all other executable 

orders and quotes at the same price are 

executed in full. When a Legging Order 

is executed, the other component of the 

Complex Order on the Complex Order 

Book will be automatically executed 

against the best bid or offer on the 

Exchange. The Exchange believes that a 

Legging Order, created for the execution 

of a Complex Order, should not be 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
86168 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 12, 2023 / Notices 

29See MIAX Rule 518(a)(10)(iv). See also 

Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79072 (October 

7, 2016), 81 FR 71131 (October 14, 2016) (SR– 

MIAX–2016–26) (Order Approving a Proposed Rule 

Change to Adopt New Rules to Govern the Trading 

of Complex Orders). 

30MIAX Rule 510 specifies the minimum 

increments for options traded on MIAX. 

31Phlx Options 3, Section 7(b)(1)(2) provides that 

‘‘A Legging Order will not be created . . .‘‘(ii) if 

there is an auction on either side or a Posting Period 

under Options 3, Section 15 regarding Acceptable 

Trade Range on the same side in progress in the 

series.’’ Phlx’s rules describe an auction on either 

side of the Legging Order while ISE’s auction breaks 

down the auction into either a complex auction or 

single-leg auction. Of note, Phlx’s Acceptable Trade 

Range rule has a Posting Period described in 

Options 3, Section 15. ISE does have an Acceptable 

Trade Range rule as well in Options 3, Section 15, 

but that rule differs from Phlx as there is no Posting 

Period. 

32Phlx’s rule similarly indicates that a Legging 

Order is subject to certain price parameters by 

stating that a Legging Order will not be generated 

if the price of the Complex Order is outside of the 

ACE Parameter of paragraph in subparagraph (i) of 

Options 3, Section 14. The ACE Parameter differs 

from the price limits described in ISE Options 3, 

Section 16(a). 

afforded priority over resting orders and 

quotes on the single-leg order book, and 

therefore has determined to protect the 

priority on the single-leg order book of 

such resting orders and quotes. MIAX 

similarly executes a derived order only 

after all other executable orders and 

quotes at the same price are executed in 

full.29

The Exchange’s proposal to amend 

ISE Options 3, Section 7(k)(1) to make 

clear a Legging Order may be generated 

for each leg of a two-legged Complex 

Order is consistent with the Act. 

Legging Orders may be generated for 

each leg of a two-legged options orders 

with the same quantity on both legs. 

Automatically generating Legging 

Orders promotes just and equitable 

principles of trade because these orders 

will only be executed after all other 

executable interest at the same price 

(including non-displayed interest) is 

executed in full. This behavior is 

consistent with the Act because it will 

provide additional execution 

opportunities for Complex Orders, 

without negatively impacting any 

investors in the single-leg market. In 

fact, the generation of Legging Orders 

may enhance execution quality for 

investors in the single-leg market by 

improving the price and/or size of the 

ISE BBO and by providing additional 

execution opportunity for resting orders 

on the single-leg order book. The 

generation of Legging Orders is fully 

compliant with all regulatory 

requirements. In particular, Legging 

Orders are firm orders that will be 

displayed at the ISE BBO. Also, a 

Legging Order will be automatically 

removed if it is no longer displayable at 

the ISE BBO or if the net price of the 

Complex Order can no longer be 

achieved. Finally, the generation of 

Legging Orders is limited in scope, as 

they may be generated only for Complex 

Options Orders with two legs. 

Additionally, as noted herein, the 

Exchange will closely manage and 

curtail the generation of Legging Orders 

to assure that they do not negatively 

impact system capacity and 

performance. Phlx’s Legging Orders 

differ from ISE’s Legging Orders in that, 

on Phlx, two legging orders may be 

generated, but only one of those can 

execute as part of the execution of a 

particular complex order. 

The addition of ‘‘resting on the top of 

the Complex Order Book’’ in the first 

sentence of ISE Options 3, Section 

7(k)(1) is consistent with the Act 

because it is consistent with existing 

Legging Order functionality that 

considers the best price on Phlx’s order 

book. This addition will make clear that 

the priority of orders in the Complex 

Order Book controls with respect to the 

generation of Legging Orders. 

The Exchange’s proposal to amend 

the second sentence of ISE Options 3, 

Section 7(k)(1) to add ‘‘excluding other 

Legging Orders’’ to the end of the 

sentence is consistent with the Act 

because it makes clear that the price of 

a Legging Order is not considered in the 

BBO for purposes of determining 

whether the net price of a Complex 

Order could be achieved were it to 

generate a Legging Order. 

Finally, the Exchange’s proposal to 

add a sentence to ISE Options 3, Section 

7(k)(1) which states, ‘‘Legging Orders 

will be generated and executed in the 

minimum increment for that options 

series’’ is consistent with the Act 

because ISE Options 3, Section 3 

describes the minimum increments for 

options traded on ISE. Adding this rule 

text will make clear that the minimum 

increment rule in Options 3, Section 3 

is applicable to Legging Orders. MIAX 

Rule 518(a)(10)(iii) similarly provides 

that ISE’s derived orders will not be 

created at a price increment less than 

the minimum established by Rule 510.30

Amending proposed new paragraph 

ISE Options 3, Section 7(k)(2) to note 

that a Legging Order will not be 

generated at a price that locks or crosses 

the best bid or offer of another exchange 

is already provided for in the last 

sentence of current Options 3, Section 

7(k)(1). This concept is consistent with 

the Act in that the Exchange will not 

trade through away markets as specified 

in Options 5, Sections 2 and 3 which 

describe order protection and locked 

and crossed markets rules. 

Adding a provision to proposed new 

paragraph ISE Options 3, Section 7(k)(2) 

which states that a Legging Order will 

not be generated if there is a complex 

auction on either side in the Complex 

Options Strategy, or a single-leg auction 

on either side in any component of the 

Complex Options Strategy, or a Posting 

Period in progress on the same side in 

the series, pursuant to Options 3, 

Section 15 regarding ATR is consistent 

with the Act. The Exchange believes 

from a System processing and user 

acceptance standpoint, the best practice 

is to wait for an auction in that options 

series to be complete, or for the ATR 

Posting Period to complete, as that time 

is minimal. Phlx’s legging order rule in 

Options 3, Section 7(b)(10)(2)has the 

same restriction as proposed to be 

added to ISE’s Legging Orders rule.31

Adding a provision to proposed new 

paragraph ISE Options 3, Section 7(k)(2) 

which states that a Legging Order will 

not be generated if the price of the leg(s) 

of a Complex Options Order is outside 

of the price limits described in Options 

3, Section 16(a) is consistent with the 

Act. Today, ISE Options 3, Section 16(a) 

would restrict the generation of a 

Legging Order through price limits for 

Complex Orders, by adding this rule 

text in Options 3, Section 7(k)(2) all 

limitations related to the generation of 

Legging Orders will be memorialized in 

Options 3, Section 7(k).32

Adding a provision to proposed new 

paragraph ISE Options 3, Section 7(k)(2) 

which states that a Legging Order will 

not be generated if there is already a 

Legging Order in that options series on 

the same side of the market at the same 

price is consistent with the Act. This 

provision addresses a situation of 

overlapping Legging Orders and Legging 

Order dependencies in other 

components. Phlx has a similar sentence 

in Phlx Options 3, Section 7(b)(10)(2). 

Of note, the phrase ‘‘unless it has 

priority based on the participant type, 

under existing Exchange rules’’ from 

Phlx Options 3, Section 7(b)(10)(2) is 

not being added to ISE’s Rule as Options 

3, Section 10 which describes allocation 

on the single-leg order book, because as 

stated in proposed ISE Options 3, 

Section 7(k), ‘‘Legging Orders are treated 

as having no Priority Customer capacity 

on the single-leg order book, regardless 

of being generated from Priority 

Customer Complex Options Orders.’’ 

The addition of this rule text will make 

clear an existing limitation to the 

generation of orders in Options 3, 

Section 7(k). 

Adding a provision to proposed new 

paragraph ISE Options 3, Section 7(k)(2) 

which states that a Legging Order will 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 12, 2023 / Notices 86169 

33Phlx Options 3, Section 7(b)(10)(3) states, ‘‘A 

Legging Order is executed only after all other 

executable orders (including any non-displayed 

size) and quotes at the same price are executed in 

full. When a Legging Order is executed, the other 

leg of the Complex Order will be automatically 

executed against the displayed best bid or offer on 

the Exchange and any other Legging Order based on 

that Complex Order will be removed.’’ ISE 

explicitly states ‘‘not executed as part of the 

Complex Options Order’’ where Phlx says ‘‘based 

on that Complex Order.’’ 

not be generated for Complex Orders 

with two option legs, where both legs 

are buying or both legs are selling and 

both legs are calls or both legs are puts, 

as described in Options 3, Section 

14(d)(3)(A) is consistent with the Act. 

This limitation is already provided for 

in current ISE Options 3, section 

14(d)(3)(A) and is being added to 

proposed new paragraph Options 3, 

Section 7(k)(2) to provide Members with 

a complete list of when Legging Orders 

will not be generated in Options 3, 

Section 7(k). 

Adding a provision to proposed new 

paragraph ISE Options 3, Section 7(k)(2) 

which states that a Legging Order will 

not be generated if the Exchange has not 

opened; or a particular option series has 

not opened or such options series is 

halted is consistent with the Act. Since 

a complex strategy must be available for 

trading to generate a Legging Order, the 

failure of an options series that is a 

component of the complex strategy to 

open or a subsequent halt would cause 

Legging Orders not to generate. Phlx has 

a similar rule in Phlx Options 3, Section 

7(b)(10)(1). 

Amending proposed ISE Options 3. 

Section 7(k)(3), similar to Phlx Options 

3, Section 7(b)(10)(3)to describe current 

System handling when a Legging Order 

is executed and subsequently the other 

leg of the Complex Order is 

automatically executed against the 

displayed best bid or offer on the 

Exchange, and, therefore, any other 

Legging Order based on that Complex 

Order is removed is consistent with the 

Act. This example demonstrates that the 

Exchange will execute against the best 

bid or offer on the Exchange and will 

remove Legging Orders. The proposal to 

replace the word ‘‘portion’’ with ‘‘leg’’ 

will make the rule text more explicit. 

Adding the phrase ‘‘and any other 

Legging order not executed as part of the 

Complex Options Order will be 

removed’’ to the end of the second 

sentence in proposed Options 3, Section 

7(k)(3) is consistent with the Act 

because the phrase will provide 

additional information regarding the 

treatment of unexecuted Legging Orders 

in Options 3, Section 7(k). Phlx has a 

substantively similar sentence in 

Options 3, Section 7(b)(10)(3).33

Amending proposed ISE Options 3, 

Section 7(k)(3) to add a new sentence to 

Options 3, Section 7(k)(3) which states, 

‘‘Two Legging Orders related to the 

same Complex Options Order can be 

generated, and both can execute as part 

of the execution of a particular Complex 

Options Order’’ is consistent with the 

Act. As noted above, two Legging 

Orders related to the same Complex 

Options Order can be generated, and 

both can execute as part of the 

execution of a particular Complex 

Options Order. This behavior differs 

from Phlx where two legging orders may 

be generated, but only one of those can 

execute as part of the execution of a 

particular complex order. The Exchange 

believes that permitting both Legging 

Orders to execute as part of the 

execution of a particular Complex 

Options Order will allow more Complex 

Orders to execute while the price of the 

leg(s) will continue to be bounded by 

the price limits described in ISE 

Options 3, Section 16(a). 

Amending proposed ISE Options 3, 

Section 7(k)(4)(i) to state, ‘‘A Legging 

Order is automatically removed from 

the single-leg limit order book if: (i) the 

price of the Legging Order is no longer 

at the displayed best bid or offer on the 

single-leg limit order book or is at a 

price that locks or crosses the best bid 

or offer of another exchange . . .’’ 

(emphasis added) is consistent with the 

Act. Current Options 3, Section 7(k)(2) 

already notes that a Legging Order will 

not be created at a price that locks or 

crosses the best bid or offer of another 

exchange. Adding the same rule text to 

proposed Options 3, Section 7(k)(4) will 

make clear that a Legging Order that 

locks or crosses an away market would 

be removed from the limit order book. 

Amending proposed ISE Options 3, 

Section 7(k)(4)(ii) to add a clause to 

current Options 3, Section 7(k)(3) at (ii) 

to provide that ‘‘A Legging Order is 

automatically removed from the singleleg limit order book if . . . (ii) execution 

of the Legging Order would no longer 

achieve that net price of the Complex 

Options Order when the other leg is 

executed against the best displayed bid 

or offer on the single-leg limit order 

book, excluding other Legging Orders’’ 

(emphasis added) is consistent with the 

Act. A Legging Order is removed if the 

BBO on the other leg worsens such that 

the Complex Order limit price could no 

longer be achieved by trading with the 

quote, even if it could be achieved by 

trading with a Legging Order generated 

by another Complex Order. Phlx has a 

similar sentence in Options 3, Section 

7(b)(10)(4). 

Amending proposed ISE Options 3, 

Section 7(k)(4) to add a new section 

‘‘(v)’’ to this paragraph which states, ‘‘A 

Legging Order is automatically removed 

from the single-leg limit order book if 

. . . (v) the price of the leg(s) of a 

Complex Options Order is outside of the 

price limits described in current 

Options 3, Section 16(a)’’ is consistent 

with the Act. This limitation is 

currently described in ISE Options 3, 

Section 16(a) and is being added to this 

order type to complete the list of cases 

where a Legging Order would be 

removed from the order book in Options 

3, Section 7(k). Phlx has similar rule 

text in Options 3, Section 7(b)(10)(4). 

Amending proposed ISE Options 3, 

Section 7(k)(4) to add a new section 

‘‘(vi)’’ to this paragraph which states, ‘‘A 

Legging Order is automatically removed 

from the single-leg limit order book if 

. . . (vi) the System receives a complex 

auction on either side in the Complex 

Options Strategy, or the System receives 

a single-leg auction on either side in any 

component of the Complex Options 

Strategy’’ is consistent with the Act. As 

noted above, the Exchange believes from 

a System processing and user 

acceptance standpoint, the best practice 

is to remove the System-generated 

Legging Order from the order book 

during the course of the auction, as that 

time is minimal, then the System can 

attempt to re-generate a Legging Order 

once the auction has concluded. Phlx 

has similar language in Options 3, 

Section 7(b)(10)(4). 

Amending proposed ISE Options 3, 

Section 7(k)(4) to add a new section 

‘‘(vii)’’ to this paragraph which states, 

‘‘A Legging Order is automatically 

removed from the single-leg limit order 

book if . . . (vii) a Legging Order is 

generated by a different Complex 

Options Order in the same leg at a better 

price or the same price for a participant 

with a higher price priority.’’ As noted 

in proposed Options 3, Section 7(k)(1), 

a Legging Order may be automatically 

generated at a price that matches or 

improves upon the best displayed bid or 

offer on the single-leg limit order book. 

The System removes the Legging Order 

because it would have been at an 

inferior price. Phlx Options 3, Section 

7(b)(10)(4) has similar language. 

Options 3, Section 16 

The Exchange’s proposal to amend 

the language in ISE Options 3, Section 

16(a) related to price limits for Complex 

Orders is consistent with the Act and 

protects investors and the general public 

by ensuring that the DNTT instruction 

causes a Complex Order is to be 

executed only at a price that is equal to 

or better than the NBBO on the opposite 

side for the options series or any stock 

component. The proposed rule text 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
86170 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 12, 2023 / Notices 

34See Phlx Options 3, Section 14(f)(iii)(C). 

35 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). 36 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). 37 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). 38 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b– 

4(f)(6)(iii) requires a self-regulatory organization to 

give the Commission written notice of its intent to 

file the proposed rule change, along with a brief 

description and text of the proposed rule change, 

at least five business days prior to the date of filing 

of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time 

as designated by the Commission. The Exchange 

has satisfied this requirement. 

39 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). 40 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6)(iii). 41For purposes only of waiving the 30-day 

operative delay, the Commission has also 

considered the proposed rule’s impact on 

efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 

15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 

makes transparent the manner in which 

the System is currently handling the 

DNTT instruction. 

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Burden on Competition 

The Exchange does not believe that 

the proposed rule change will impose 

any burden on competition not 

necessary or appropriate in furtherance 

of the purposes of the Act. 

Options 3, Section 7 

The Exchange’s proposal to amend 

ISE Options 3, Section 7(k), Legging 

Orders, does not impose an intra-market 

burden on competition because all 

market participants may interact with 

Legging Orders on the single-leg order 

book. The Exchange’s proposal to 

amend ISE Options 3, Section 7(k), 

Legging Orders, does not impose an 

inter-market burden on competition 

because other options exchanges may 

offer Legging Orders with similar 

functionality. Enhancing the description 

of the Legging Orders functionality will 

allow ISE to compete effectively with 

other options exchanges that offer 

similar functionality. 

The Exchange’s proposal to limit the 

number of Legging Orders and the 

ability to remove existing Legging 

Orders does not impose an intra-market 

burden on competition because the 

functionality will permit the Exchange 

to maintain a fair and orderly market in 

times of extreme volatility or 

uncertainty. Further, the Exchange does 

not limit the generation of Legging 

Orders on the basis of the entering 

Member or the Member category of the 

order (i.e., Professional or Priority 

Customer). The Exchange’s proposal to 

limit the number of Legging Orders and 

the ability to remove existing Legging 

Orders does not impose an inter-market 

burden on competition because this 

discretion is consistent with the 

treatment of Legging Orders on other 

options exchanges.34

Options 3, Section 16 

The Exchange’s proposal to amend 

the language in ISE Options 3, Section 

16(a) related to price limits for Complex 

Orders to specify that a Complex Order 

must be executed at a price that is equal 

to or better than the NBBO on the 

opposite side for the options series or 

any stock component does not impose 

an intra-market burden on competition 

because the System applies this price 

check to all Members executing 

Complex Orders in the same manner. 

The Exchange’s proposal to amend the 

language in ISE Options 3, Section 16(a) 

does not impose an inter-market burden 

on competition because any options 

exchange could offer similar 

functionality. 

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. 

III. Date of Effectiveness of the 

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for 

Commission Action 

The Exchange has filed the proposed 

rule change pursuant to section 

19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 35 and Rule 

19b–4(f)(6) thereunder.36 Because the 

foregoing proposed rule change does 

not: (i) significantly affect the protection 

of investors or the public interest; (ii) 

impose any significant burden on 

competition; and (iii) become operative 

for 30 days from the date on which it 

was filed, or such shorter time as the 

Commission may designate, it has 

become effective pursuant to section 

19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 37 and 

subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b–4 

thereunder.38

A proposed rule change filed 

pursuant to Rule 19b–4(f)(6) under the 

Act 39 normally does not become 

operative for 30 days after the date of its 

filing. However, Rule 19b–4(f)(6)(iii) 40

permits the Commission to designate a 

shorter time if such action is consistent 

with the protection of investors and the 

public interest. The Exchange has 

requested that the Commission waive 

the 30-day operative delay so that the 

Exchange may immediately update its 

rules to provide greater detail with 

respect to the generation, execution, and 

removal of Legging Orders. The 

Commission believes that the proposed 

rule change presents no novel issues 

and that waiver of the 30-day operative 

delay is consistent with the protection 

of investors and the public interest. 

Accordingly, the Commission hereby 

waives the operative delay and 

designates the proposed rule change 

operative upon filing.41

At any time within 60 days of the 

filing of the proposed rule change, the 

Commission summarily may 

temporarily suspend such rule change if 

it appears to the Commission that such 

action is necessary or appropriate in the 

public interest, for the protection of 

investors, or otherwise in furtherance of 

the purposes of the Act. If the 

Commission takes such action, the 

Commission shall institute proceedings 

to determine whether the proposed rule 

should be approved or disapproved. 

IV. Solicitation of Comments 

Interested persons are invited to 

submit written data, views and 

arguments concerning the foregoing, 

including whether the proposed rule 

change is consistent with the Act. 

Comments may be submitted by any of 

the following methods: 

Electronic Comments 

• Use the Commission’s internet 

comment form (https://www.sec.gov/ 

rules/sro.shtml); or 

• Send an email to rule-comments@

sec.gov. Please include file number SR– 

ISE–2023–31 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–ISE–2023–31. 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 

a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also 

will be available for inspection and 

copying at the principal office of the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 12, 2023 / Notices 86171 

42 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12), (59). 

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

3See Exchange Rule 1.5(p). 

4The base rebate for executions of Added 

Displayed Volume is referred to by the Exchange on 

the Fee Schedule under the existing description 

‘‘Added displayed volume’’ with a Fee Code of ‘‘B’’, 

‘‘D’’ or ‘‘J’’, as applicable, on execution reports. 

5As set forth on the Fee Schedule, ‘‘ADAV’’ 

means the average daily added volume calculated 

as the number of shares added per day, which is 

calculated on a monthly basis. 

6As set forth on the Fee Schedule, ‘‘TCV’’ means 

total consolidated volume calculated as the volume 

reported by all exchanges and trade reporting 

facilities to a consolidated transaction reporting 

plan for the month for which the fees apply. 

7As set forth on the Fee Schedule, ‘‘Step Up 

Displayed ADAV’’ means Displayed ADAV in the 

relevant baseline month subtracted from current 

Displayed ADAV. 

8The proposed pricing for Liquidity Provision 

Tier 5 is referred to by the Exchange on the Fee 

Schedule under the existing description ‘‘Added 

displayed volume, Liquidity Provision Tier 5’’ with 

a Fee Code of ‘‘B5’’, ‘‘D5’’ or ‘‘J5’’, as applicable, to 

be provided by the Exchange on the monthly 

invoices provided to Members. 

9 15 U.S.C. 78f. 

10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5). 

Exchange. Do not include personal 

identifiable information in submissions; 

you should submit only information 

that you wish to make available 

publicly. We may redact in part or 

withhold entirely from publication 

submitted material that is obscene or 

subject to copyright protection. All 

submissions should refer to file number 

SR–ISE–2023–31 and should be 

submitted on or before January 2, 2024. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.42

Sherry R. Haywood, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2023–27163 Filed 12–11–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–99100; File No. SR–MEMX– 

2023–32] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; MEMX 

LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate 

Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule 

Change To Amend the Exchange’s Fee 

Schedule 

December 6, 2023. 

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 

‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2

notice is hereby given that, on 

November 30, 2023, MEMX LLC 

(‘‘MEMX’’ or the ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with 

the Securities and Exchange 

Commission (the ‘‘Commission’’) the 

proposed rule change as described in 

Items I, II and III below, which Items 

have been prepared by the 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 is filing with the 

Commission a proposed rule change to 

amend the Exchange’s fee schedule 

applicable to Members 3 (the ‘‘Fee 

Schedule’’) pursuant to Exchange Rules 

15.1(a) and (c). The Exchange proposes 

to implement the changes to the Fee 

Schedule pursuant to this proposal on 

December 1, 2023. The text of the 

proposed rule change is provided in 

Exhibit 5. 

II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and the 

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 the 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

1. Purpose 

The purpose of the proposed rule 

change is to amend the Fee Schedule to 

remove an expired criteria under 

Liquidity Provision Tier 5. 

The Exchange currently provides a 

base rebate of $0.0015 per share for 

executions of orders in securities priced 

at or above $1.00 per share that add 

displayed liquidity to the Exchange 

(such orders, ‘‘Added Displayed 

Volume’’).4 The Exchange also currently 

offers Liquidity Provision Tiers 1–5 

under which a Member may receive an 

enhanced rebate for executions of 

Added Displayed Volume by achieving 

the corresponding required volume 

criteria for each such tier. With respect 

to Liquidity Provision Tier 5, the 

Exchange currently provides an 

enhanced rebate of $0.0025 per share for 

executions of Added Displayed Volume 

for Members that qualify for such tier by 

achieving: (1) an ADAV 5 that is equal to 

or greater than 0.06% of the TCV; 6 or 

(2) a Displayed ADAV that is equal to 

or greater than 0.007% of the TCV and 

a Step-Up Displayed ADAV 7 from May 

2023 that is equal to or greater than 50% 

of the Member’s May 2023 Displayed 

ADAV of the TCV.8 Additionally, the 

Fee Schedule indicates that criteria (2) 

of Liquidity Provision Tier 5 will expire 

no later than November 30, 2023. Now, 

given the expiration of criteria (2) of 

Liquidity Provision Tier 5, it is 

necessary to modify the Fee Schedule to 

delete this criteria (2) as well as the note 

under the Liquidity Provision Tiers 

pricing table that indicates its 

expiration, as both are no longer 

applicable and otherwise obsolete. The 

Exchange is not proposing to make any 

changes to this or any other Liquidity 

Provision Tier, and as such, Liquidity 

Provision Tier 5 will now consist solely 

of the previously existing criteria (1). 

2. Statutory Basis 

The Exchange believes that the 

proposed rule change is consistent with 

the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,9

in general, and with Sections 6(b)(4) and 

6(b)(5) of the Act,10 in particular, in that 

it provides for the equitable allocation 

of reasonable dues, fees and other 

charges among its Members and other 

persons using its facilities and is not 

designed to permit unfair 

discrimination between customers, 

issuers, brokers, or dealers. 

The Exchange believes that the 

proposed change to modify Liquidity 

Provision Tier 5 to remove the expired 

criteria (2) criteria [sic] is reasonable 

because there was an expiration date 

associated with this criteria that has 

now passed. As such, this criteria is no 

longer available under this tier, and 

should not remain on the Fee Schedule. 

The Exchange believes that the 

enhanced rebate for executions of 

Added Displayed Volume provided 

under Liquidity Provision Tier 5, which 

the Exchange is not proposing to change 

with this proposal, remains 

commensurate with the required criteria 

under such tier, as modified, and is 

reasonably related to the market quality 

benefits that such tier is designed to 

achieve. The Exchange also believes the 

enhanced rebate for executions of 

Added Displayed Volume provided 

under Liquidity Provision Tier 5 

remains equitable and not unfairly 

discriminatory, as such enhanced rebate 

will continue to apply equally to all 

qualifying Members. 

For the reasons discussed above, the 

Exchange submits that the proposal 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1