69958 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 226 / Monday, November 24, 2014 / Notices 

5 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 

6 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(31). 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

The Commission is extending the 45- 

day time period for Commission action 

on the proposed rule change. The 

Commission finds that it is appropriate 

to designate a longer period within 

which to take action on the proposed 

rule change so that it has sufficient time 

to consider the proposed rule change. 

The proposed rule change would, 

among other things, provide new 

optional functionality for minimum 

quantity orders. 

Accordingly, pursuant to Section 

19(b)(2) of the Act 5 and for the reasons 

stated above, the Commission 

designates January 4, 2015, as the date 

by which the Commission should either 

approve or disapprove, or institute 

proceedings to determine whether to 

disapprove, the proposed rulechange. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.6

Kevin M. O’Neill, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2014–27699 Filed 11–21–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–73628; File No. SR–CBOE– 

2014–085] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; 

Chicago Board Options Exchange, 

Incorporated; Notice of Filing and 

Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed 

Rule Change Relating to Professional 

Orders 

November 18, 2014. 

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

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 

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

notice is hereby given that on November 

10, 2014, Chicago Board Options 

Exchange, Incorporated (the ‘‘Exchange’’ 

or ‘‘CBOE’’) filed with the Securities 

and Exchange Commission (the 

‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule 

change as described in Items I, 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 proposes to amend the 

definition of ‘‘Professional’’ in Rule 

1.1(ggg) and adopt Interpretation and 

Policy .01 to Rule 1.1(ggg) concerning 

the definition of an ‘‘order’’ for purposes 

of Rule 1.1(ggg). The text of the 

proposed rule change is provided below 

and in Exhibit 1. 

(additions are italicized; deletions are 

[bracketed]) 

* * * * * 

Chicago Board Options Exchange, 

Incorporated Rules 

* * * * * 

CHAPTER I 

Definitions 

¶ 2001 Definitions 

RULE 1.1 When used in these Rules, 

unless the context otherwise requires: 

(a) Any term defined in the Bylaws 

and not otherwise defined in this 

Chapter shall have the meaning 

assigned to such term in the Bylaws. 

(b)–(fff) 

Professional 

(ggg) The term ‘‘Professional’’ means 

any person or entity that (i) is not a 

broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) 

places more than 390 orders in listed 

options per day on average during a 

calendar month for its own beneficial 

account(s). A Professional will be 

treated in the same manner as a broker 

or dealer in securities for purposes of 

Rules 6.2A, 6.2B, 6.8C, 6.9, 6.13A, 

6.13B, 6.25, 6.45, 6.45A (except for 

Interpretation and Policy .02), 6.45B 

(except for Interpretation and Policy 

.02), 6.53C(c)(ii), 6.53C(d)(v), 

subparagraphs (b) and (c) under 

Interpretation and Policy .06 to Rule 

6.53C, 6.74 (except Professional orders 

may be considered public customer 

orders subject to facilitation under 

paragraphs (b) and (d)), 6.74A, 6.74B, 

8.13, 8.15B, 8.87, 24.19, 43.1, 44.4, 

44.14. The Professional designation is 

not available in Hybrid 3.0 classes. All 

Professional orders shall be marked 

with the appropriate origin code as 

determined by the Exchange. 

. . . Interpretations And Policies 

.01 For purposes of this Rule 1.1(ggg), 

an order which is placed for the 

beneficial account(s) of a person or 

entity that is not a broker or dealer in 

securities that is broken into multiple 

parts by a broker or dealer or by an 

algorithm housed at a broker or dealer 

or by an algorithm licensed from a 

broker or dealer, but which is housed 

with the customer in order to achieve a 

specific execution strategy including, for 

example, a basket trade, program trade, 

portfolio trade, basis trade, or 

benchmark hedge, constitutes a single 

order and shall be counted as one order. 

* * * * * 

The text of the proposed rule change 

is also available on the Exchange’s Web 

site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/

CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at 

the Exchange’s Office of the Secretary, 

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 its 

definition of ‘‘Professional’’ to clarify 

how orders are computed under Rule 

1.1(ggg). Specifically, the Exchange 

proposes to adopt Interpretation and 

Policy .01 to Rule 1.1(ggg) to its 

definition of ‘‘Professional’’ in Rule 

1.1(ggg) to provide that for purposes of 

Rule 1.1(ggg), an order which is placed 

for the beneficial account(s) of a person 

or entity that is not a broker or dealer 

in securities that is broken into multiple 

parts by a broker or dealer or by an 

algorithm housed at a broker or dealer 

or by an algorithm licensed from a 

broker or dealer, but which is housed 

with the customer in order to achieve a 

specific execution strategy including, 

for example, a basket trade, program 

trade, portfolio trade, basis trade, or 

benchmark hedge, constitutes a single 

order and shall be counted as one order. 

The Exchange also proposes to add a 

provision to Rule 1.1(ggg), which would 

provide that all Professional orders shall 

be marked with the appropriate origin 

code as determined by the Exchange. 

The Exchange believes that the 

proposed rule changes will add clarity 

and transparency to its current rules, 

which is in the interests of all market 

participants. The purpose of this rule 

filing is to codify the details of the 

Exchange’s existing policies within the 

Rules. The Exchange is continuously 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 226 / Monday, November 24, 2014 / Notices 69959 

3See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34– 

61198 (December 17, 2009), 74 FR 248 (December 

29, 2009) (Order Granting Approval of the Proposed 

Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, 

Related to Professional Orders) (SR–CBOE–2009– 

078). 

4See id. 

5See id. 

6See Rule 1.1(ggg). 

7Under Rule 1.1(ggg), ‘‘Professionals’’ are treated 

in the same manner as a broker or dealer in 

securities for purposes of Rules 6.2A (Rapid 

Opening System), 6.2B (Hybrid Opening System), 

6.8C (Prohibition Against Members Functioning as 

Market-Makers), 6.9 (Solicited Transactions), 6.13A 

(Simple Auction Liaison), 6.13B (Penny Price 

Improvement), 6.45 (Priority of bids and Offers— 

Allocation of Trades), 6.45A (Priority and 

Allocation of Equity Option Trades on the CBOE 

Hybrid System) (except that Professional orders 

may be considered public customer orders, and 

therefore not be subject to the exposure 

requirements for solicited broker-dealer orders, 

under Interpretation and Policy .02), 6.45B (Priority 

and Allocation of Trades in Index Options and 

Options on ETFs on the CBOE Hybrid System) 

(except that Professional orders may be considered 

public customer orders, and therefore not be subject 

to the exposure requirements for solicited brokerdealer orders, under Interpretation and Policy .02), 

6.53C(c)(ii) and (d)(v) and 6.53C.06(b) and (c) 

(Complex Orders on the Hybrid System), 6.74 

(Crossing Orders) (except that Professional orders 

may be considered public customer orders subject 

to facilitation under paragraphs (b) and (d)), 6.74A 

(Automated Improvement Mechanism) (except 

Professional orders may be considered customer 

Agency Orders or solicited orders eligible for 

customer-to-customer immediate crosses under 

Interpretation and Policy .09), 6.74B (Solicitation 

Auction Mechanism), 8.13 (Preferred Market-Maker 

Program), 8.15B (Participation Entitlement of 

LMMs), 8.87 (Participation Entitlement of DPMs 

and e-DPMs), 24.19 (Multi-Class Broad-Based Index 

Option Spread Orders), 43.1 (Matching Algorithm/ 

Priority), 44.4 (Obligations of SBT Market-Makers), 

and 44.14 (SBT DPM Obligations). See Securities 

and Exchange Act Release No. 34–61198 (December 

17, 2009), 74 FR 68880 (December 29, 2009) (Order 

Granting Approval of the Proposed Rule Change, as 

Modified by Amendment No. 1, Related to 

Professional Orders) (SR–CBOE–2009–078). 

8See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 

34–61198 (December 17, 2009), 74 FR 68880 

(December 29, 2009) (Order Granting Approval of 

the Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by 

Amendment No. 1, Related to Professional Orders) 

(SR–CBOE–2009–078). 9See, e.g.; Securities and Exchange Act Release 

No. 34–62724 (August 16, 2010), 75 FR 51509 

(August 20, 2010) (Notice of Filing of a Proposed 

Rule Change by the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC To 

Adopt a Definition of Professional and Require That 

All Professional Orders Be Appropriately Marked) 

SR–NASDAQ–2010–099;Securities and Exchange 

Act Release No. 34–65500 (October 6, 2011), 76 FR 

63686 (October 13, 2011) (Notice of Filing and 

Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change 

To Adopt a Definition of Professional and Require 

That All Professional Orders Be Appropriately 

Marked) SR–BATS–2011–041. 

10See CBOE RG09–148 (Professional Orders). 

11See ISE Regulatory Information Circular 2009– 

179 (Priority Customer Orders and Professional 

Orders (FAQ)). 

12 Id. 

13See ISE Regulatory Information Circular 2014– 

007 (Priority Customer Orders and Professional 

Orders (FAQ)). 

evaluating clarifying additions to the 

Rules, particularly with respect to order 

handling. The Exchange believes that 

the proposed rule change and adoption 

of proposed Interpretation and Policy 

.01 to Rule 1.1(ggg) is consistent with 

this effort. 

Background 

Under the Exchange’s Rules, ‘‘public 

customers’’ are granted certain 

marketplace advantages over noncustomers. In particular, public 

customer orders receive priority over 

non-customer orders and Market-Maker 

quotes at the same price. Subject to 

certain exceptions, public customer 

orders also do not incur transaction 

charges. These marketplace advantages 

are intended to promote various 

business and regulatory objectives 

including, but not limited to the 

Exchange’s goals of providing 

competitive pricing and attracting retail 

order flow. 

Prior to 2009, the Exchange 

designated all orders as either customer 

orders or non-customer orders based on 

whether an order was placed for the 

account of a registered securities broker 

or dealer. In general, order priority and 

transaction fees were determined solely 

on this distinguishing criterion. As 

investors’ access to technology and 

information increased, however, the 

Exchange’s distinction between public 

customers and non-customers became 

less effective in promoting the intended 

purpose of the Rules. As the Exchange 

noted at the time, it did not believe that 

the definitions of public customer and 

non-customer properly distinguished 

between the kind of non-professional 

retail investors that the order priority 

rules and transaction fees exceptions 

were intended to benefit.3 Furthermore, 

the Exchange believed that 

distinguishing solely between registered 

broker-dealers and non-broker-dealers 

with respect to these advantages was no 

longer appropriate in the marketplace 

because some non-broker-dealer 

individuals and entities have access to 

information and technology that enables 

them to trade listed options in the same 

manner as a broker or dealer in 

securities.4 The Exchange therefore did 

not believe that it was consistent with 

fair competition for these professional 

account holders to continue to receive 

the same marketplace advantages that 

retail investors have over broker-dealers 

trading on the Exchange.5 Accordingly, 

in 2009, the Exchange adopted a 

definition of ‘‘Professional’’ under Rule 

1.1(ggg) to further distinguish different 

types of orders placed on the Exchange.6

Under Rule 1.1(ggg), a person or 

entity that is not a securities broker or 

dealer that places more than 390 listed 

options orders per day on average 

during a calendar month for its own 

beneficial account(s) is considered a 

‘‘Professional.’’ Furthermore, under 

Rule 1.1(ggg), a person or entity that is 

not a securities broker or dealer that 

places more than 390 listed options 

orders per day on average during a 

calendar month for its own beneficial 

account(s) is considered a 

‘‘Professional’’ and treated in the same 

manner as a broker or dealer in 

securities with respect to order priority 

and transaction fees.7 In general, 

‘‘Professionals’’ are treated as brokerdealers with respect to priority of order 

and transaction fees under the current 

Rules of the Exchange. Rule 1.1(ggg) is 

based on and substantially similar to 

International Securities Exchange 

(‘‘ISE’’) Rule 100(a)(31A) as well as 

NASDAQ OMX BX Chapter I, Section 

I(a)(49), BATS Exchange Rule 

16.1(a)(45), NASDAQ OMX Phlx Rule 

1000(b)(14), BOX Options Exchange 

Rule 100(a)(50), and NYSE Amex 

Exchange Rule 900.2NY(18A).8 Notably, 

several of these exchanges cited uniform 

application of Professional Order rules 

and discouraging regulatory arbitrage as 

primary reasons for adopting a 

Professional Order rule.9

Upon adopting Rule 1.1(ggg), the 

Exchange issued a Regulatory Circular, 

interpreting Rule 1.1(ggg).10 With 

respect the counting of single original 

orders that are then broken up into 

multiple orders to achieve a specific 

execution strategy, the Exchange 

followed ISE’s interpretation of its Rule 

100(a)(31A).11 Under ISE Rule 

100(a)(31A), if a customer places a 

‘‘parent’’ order that is then broken up by 

an executing firm into multiple ‘‘child’’ 

orders to achieve a specific execution 

strategy, the original order is counted as 

one order for professional order 

purposes.12 ISE recently clarified this 

interpretation further, providing that 

original orders that are placed on behalf 

of the beneficial account of a nonbroker-dealer, which are then broken up 

by a broker-dealer (or pursuant to an 

algorithm licensed from a broker-dealer) 

in order to achieve a specific execution 

strategy, such original orders will be 

counted as one order for professional 

order purposes.13 In order to clarify the 

Rules and ensure uniformity with 

Professional Order rules in place 

throughout the industry, the Exchange 

is proposing to codify this interpretation 

in the Rules. 

Proposal 

The Exchange proposes to adopt 

Interpretation .01 to Rule 1.1(ggg) to 

clarify the Rules and help ensure 

uniform compliance. Specifically, the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
69960 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 226 / Monday, November 24, 2014 / Notices 

14See ISE Regulatory Information Circular 2014– 

007 (Priority Customer Orders and Professional 

Orders (FAQ)). 

15Although a change in a parent order’s terms, 

price, or size would cause the order to be 

considered an additional order under the Rules, 

changes to child orders, which are initiated to keep 

an overall execution strategy in place, would not 

cause a parent order to refresh or result in multiple 

orders. 

16 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 

17 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 

18 Id. 

19 Id. 

20 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 

21 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). 

Exchange proposes to codify its current 

practice of counting ‘‘parent’’ orders, 

placed on a single ticket for the 

beneficial account(s) of a person or 

entity that is not a broker or dealer in 

securities and which are broken into 

multiple parts by a broker or dealer or 

by an algorithm housed at a broker or 

dealer or by an algorithm licensed from 

a broker or dealer, but which is housed 

with the customer in order to achieve a 

specific execution strategy as one order 

for Professional Order purposes. The 

Exchange believes that the proposed 

rule will add transparency to and 

completeness to the Rules, which is in 

the best interests of all market 

participants. 

The Exchange notes that the proposed 

rule is in-line with current Exchange 

practices and interpretations of nearly 

identical rules of other exchanges.14 The 

Exchange believes that disparate rules 

with respect to Professional order 

designation, and lack of uniform 

application of such rules, do not 

promote the best regulation and may, in 

fact, encourage regulatory arbitrage. The 

Exchange believes that the risk of 

regulatory arbitrage is heightened in an 

environment where similar rules are 

interpreted differently amongst different 

exchanges and there is a lack of 

uniformity in marking Professional 

Orders when routing such orders away. 

The Exchange also proposes to amend 

Rule 1.1(ggg) to provide that all 

Professional orders shall be marked 

with the appropriate origin code as 

determined by the Exchange in order to 

bring the Exchange’s rules in-line with 

the Professional Order rules of other 

exchanges. The Exchange believes that 

it is necessary to have uniform 

interpretations of Professional Order 

designations throughout the industry. 

The Exchange also believes that 

counting basket trades, program trades, 

portfolio trades, basis trades, and 

benchmark hedges placed for the 

beneficial account(s) of a person or 

entity that is not a broker or dealer in 

securities and which are broken into 

multiple parts by a broker or dealer or 

by an algorithm housed at a broker or 

dealer or by an algorithm licensed from 

a broker or dealer, but which is housed 

with the customer as one order for 

Professional Order purposes is in-line 

with the purpose of its Professional 

customer rule and serves the best 

interests of investors. The types of 

trades cited above are often used by 

money managers, pension fund 

managers, and others to gain exposure 

to a particular set of securities at exactly 

the same time on behalf of retail 

customers and investors. These 

strategies are singular strategies, placed 

on a single ticket, that are used to avoid 

front-running and maintain privacy on 

behalf of customers. These trades are 

essentially one trade from a strategic 

standpoint in that all the terms of the 

trade are entered at one point in time on 

a single ticket.15 Accordingly, the 

Exchange believes that such trades 

should be treated as one trade for 

Professional order purposes. 

2. Statutory Basis 

The Exchange believes the proposed 

rule change is consistent with the Act 

and the rules and regulations 

thereunder applicable to the Exchange 

and, in particular, the requirements of 

Section 6(b) of the Act.16 Specifically, 

the Exchange believes the proposed rule 

change is consistent with the Section 

6(b)(5) 17 requirements that the rules of 

an exchange be designed to prevent 

fraudulent and manipulative acts and 

practices, to promote just and equitable 

principles of trade, to foster cooperation 

and coordination with persons engaged 

in regulating, clearing, settling, 

processing information with respect to, 

and facilitating transactions in 

securities, to remove impediments to 

and perfect the mechanism of a free and 

open market and a national market 

system, and, in general, to protect 

investors and the public interest. 

Additionally, the Exchange believes the 

proposed rule change is consistent with 

the Section 6(b)(5) 18 requirement that 

the rules of an exchange not be designed 

to permit unfair discrimination between 

customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. 

In particular, the Exchange believes 

that the proposed rules is consistent 

with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 19 with 

respect to removal of impediments to, 

and perfection of the mechanism of, a 

free and open market and national 

market system. The Exchange believes 

that disparate rules regarding 

Professional order designations, and a 

lack of uniform application of such 

rules, do not promote the best regulation 

and may, in fact, encourage regulatory 

arbitrage. Accordingly, the Exchange 

believes that disparate application of 

similar Professional Order rules is 

inconsistent with the goals of a national 

market system. The Exchange believes 

that it is therefore prudent and 

necessary to have a Professional 

designation rule that is in-line with the 

rules of other exchanges. The Exchange 

believes that the disparate application of 

Professional Order designations would 

result in the different treatment of 

similar orders, thwarting the principles 

underlying order protection rules and 

the national market system. The 

Exchange believes that an alternative 

interpretation of Rule 1.1(ggg) would 

result in the disparate treatment retail 

investors who the Rules are designed to 

grant priority and who might otherwise 

be treated as Professionals under the 

Rules. As such, the Exchange believes 

that the proposed rule changes are 

consistent with the Act. 

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 that is not 

necessary or appropriate in furtherance 

of the purposes of the Act. Rather, the 

Exchange believes that the proposed 

rule will promote both intramarket and 

intermarket competition by allowing 

retail investors to take advantage of the 

priority rules that are intended to 

benefit them and placing all investors 

on equal footing as a result of uniform 

rules amongst the various exchanges. 

The Exchange believes that disparate 

rules with respect to Professional order 

designation, and lack of uniform 

application of such rules, do not 

promote the best regulation and may, in 

fact, encourage regulatory arbitrage. The 

Exchange believes that regulatory 

arbitrage contravenes the notion of fair 

competition and is not in the best 

interests of investors. 

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Comments on the 

Proposed Rule Change Received from 

Members, Participants or Others 

The Exchange neither solicited nor 

received written comments on the 

proposed rule changes submitted in this 

filing. 

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 20 and Rule 

19b–4(f)(6) thereunder.21 Because the 

foregoing proposed rule change does 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 226 / Monday, November 24, 2014 / Notices 69961 

22 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 

23 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b– 

4(f)(6)(iii) requires the Exchange to give the 

Commission written notice of the Exchange’s intent 

to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief 

description and text of the proposed rule change, 

at least five business days prior to the date of filing 

of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time 

as designated by the Commission. The Exchange 

has satisfied this requirement. 

24 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

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

2 15 U.S.C. 78a. 

3 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

4See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72020 

(September 9, 2014), 79 FR 55040 (September 15, 

2014) (SR–NYSEMKT–2014–72) (‘‘2014 Filing’’). 

not: (1) significantly affect the 

protection of investors or the public 

interest; (2) impose any significant 

burden on competition; and (3) become 

operative for 30 days from the date on 

which it was filed, or such shorter time 

as the Commission may designate, it has 

become effective pursuant to Section 

19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 22 and Rule 19b– 

4(f)(6) 23 thereunder. At any time within 

60 days of the filing of the proposed rule 

change, the Commission summarily may 

temporarily suspend such rule change if 

it appears to the Commission that such 

action is necessary or appropriate in the 

public interest, for the protection of 

investors, or otherwise in furtherance of 

the purposes of the Act. If the 

Commission takes such action, the 

Commission will institute proceedings 

to determine whether the proposed rule 

change should be approved or 

disapproved. 

IV. Solicitation of Comments 

Interested persons are invited to 

submit written data, views, and 

arguments concerning the foregoing, 

including whether the proposed rule 

change is consistent with the Act. 

Comments may be submitted by any of 

the following methods: 

Electronic Comments 

• Use the Commission’s Internet 

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

rules/sro.shtml); or 

• Send an email to rule-comments@

sec.gov. Please include File Number SR– 

CBOE–2014–085 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–CBOE–2014–085. This file 

number should be included on the 

subject line if email is used. To help the 

Commission process and review your 

comments more efficiently, please use 

only one method. The Commission will 

post all comments on the Commission’s 

Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/

rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the 

submission, all subsequent 

amendments, all written statements 

with respect to the proposed rule 

change that are filed with the 

Commission, and all written 

communications relating to the 

proposed rule change between the 

Commission and any person, other than 

those that may be withheld from the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be 

available for Web site viewing and 

printing in the Commission’s Public 

Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., 

Washington, DC 20549, on official 

business days between the hours of 

10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of 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; 

the Commission does not edit personal 

identifying information from 

submissions. You should submit only 

information that you wish to make 

available publicly. All submissions 

should refer to File Number SR–CBOE– 

2014–085 and should be submitted on 

or before December 15, 2014. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.24

Kevin M. O’Neill, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2014–27706 Filed 11–21–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–73620; File No. SR– 

NYSEMKT–2014–96] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE 

MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and 

Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed 

Rule Change to the NYSE MKT LLC 

Equities Proprietary Market Data Fee 

Schedule (‘‘Market Data Fee 

Schedule’’) Regarding Non-Display 

Use Fees 

November 18, 2014. 

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

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 

‘‘Act’’) 2 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,3

notice is hereby given that on November 

7, 2014, NYSE MKT LLC (the 

‘‘Exchange’’ or ‘‘NYSE MKT’’) 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 selfregulatory organization. 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 Change to the 

NYSE MKT LLC Equities Proprietary 

Market Data Fee Schedule (‘‘Market 

Data Fee Schedule’’) regarding nondisplay use fees. 

The text of the proposed rule change 

is available on the Exchange’s Web site 

at www.nyse.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 

self-regulatory organization included 

statements concerning the purpose of, 

and basis for, the proposed rule change 

and discussed any comments it received 

on the proposed rule change. The text 

of those statements may be examined at 

the places specified in Item IV below. 

The Exchange has prepared summaries, 

set forth in sections A, B, and C below, 

of the most significant parts of such 

statements. 

A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and the 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

1. Purpose 

The Exchange proposes a change to 

the Market Data Fee Schedule regarding 

non-display use fees for NYSE MKT 

OpenBook, NYSE MKT Trades, NYSE 

MKT BBO and NYSE MKT Order 

Imbalances, the market data products to 

which non-display use fees apply. 

Specifically, with respect to the three 

categories of, and fees applicable to, 

market data recipients for non-display 

use, the Exchange proposes to describe 

the three categories in the Market Data 

Fee Schedule. 

In September 2014, the Exchange 

revised the fees for non-display use of 

NYSE MKT OpenBook, NYSE MKT 

Trades, and NYSE MKT BBO and added 

fees for non-display use of NYSE MKT 

Order Imbalances.4 In the 2014 Filing, 

the Exchange proposed certain changes 

to the categories of, and fees applicable 

to, data recipients for non-display use. 

As set forth in the 2014 Filing: (i) 

Category 1 Fees apply when a data 

recipient’s non-display use of real-time 

market data is on its own behalf as 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES