37910 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 155 / Monday, August 14, 2017 / Notices 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants 

may not submit paper copies of their 

filings unless they seek an exemption in 

accordance with the procedures 

described below. 

To comply with the procedural 

requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 

days prior to the filing deadline, the 

participant should contact the Office of 

the Secretary by email at 

hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone 

at 301–415–1677, to request (1) a digital 

identification (ID) certificate, which 

allows the participant (or its counsel or 

representative) to digitally sign 

submissions and access the E-Filing 

system for any proceeding in which it 

is participating; and (2) advise the 

Secretary that the participant will be 

submitting a request or other 

adjudicatory document (even in 

instances in which the participant, or its 

counsel or representative, already holds 

an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). 

Based upon this information, the 

Secretary will establish an electronic 

docket for the hearing in this proceeding 

if the Secretary has not already 

established an electronic docket. 

Information about applying for a 

digital ID certificate is available on the 

NRC’s public Web site at http://

www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/ 

getting-started.html. Once a participant 

has obtained a digital ID certificate and 

a docket has been created, the 

participant can then submit 

adjudicatory documents. Submissions 

must be in Portable Document Format 

(PDF). Additional guidance on PDF 

submissions is available on the NRC’s 

public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/ 

site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A 

filing is considered complete at the time 

the document is submitted through the 

NRC’s E-Filing system. To be timely, an 

electronic filing must be submitted to 

the E-Filing system no later than 11:59 

p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. 

Upon receipt of a transmission, the EFiling system time-stamps the document 

and sends the submitter an email notice 

confirming receipt of the document. The 

E-Filing system also distributes an email 

notice that provides access to the 

document to the NRC’s Office of the 

General Counsel and any others who 

have advised the Office of the Secretary 

that they wish to participate in the 

proceeding, so that the filer need not 

serve the document on those 

participants separately. Therefore, 

applicants and other participants (or 

their counsel or representative) must 

apply for and receive a digital ID 

certificate before adjudicatory 

documents are filed so that they can 

obtain access to the documents via the 

E-Filing system. 

A person filing electronically using 

the NRC’s adjudicatory E-Filing system 

may seek assistance by contacting the 

NRC’s Electronic Filing Help Desk 

through the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link located 

on the NRC’s public Web site at http:// 

www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html, by email to 

MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a tollfree call at 1–866–672–7640. The NRC 

Electronic Filing Help Desk is available 

between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m., Eastern 

Time, Monday through Friday, 

excluding government holidays. 

Participants who believe that they 

have a good cause for not submitting 

documents electronically must file an 

exemption request, in accordance with 

10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper 

filing stating why there is good cause for 

not filing electronically and requesting 

authorization to continue to submit 

documents in paper format. Such filings 

must be submitted by: (1) First class 

mail addressed to the Office of the 

Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention: 

Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or 

(2) courier, express mail, or expedited 

delivery service to the Office of the 

Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, 

Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: 

Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. 

Participants filing adjudicatory 

documents in this manner are 

responsible for serving the document on 

all other participants. Filing is 

considered complete by first-class mail 

as of the time of deposit in the mail, or 

by courier, express mail, or expedited 

delivery service upon depositing the 

document with the provider of the 

service. A presiding officer, having 

granted an exemption request from 

using E-Filing, may require a participant 

or party to use E-Filing if the presiding 

officer subsequently determines that the 

reason for granting the exemption from 

use of E-Filing no longer exists. 

Documents submitted in adjudicatory 

proceedings will appear in the NRC’s 

electronic hearing docket which is 

available to the public at https://

adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded 

pursuant to an order of the Commission 

or the presiding officer. If you do not 

have an NRC-issued digital ID certificate 

as described above, click cancel when 

the link requests certificates and you 

will be automatically directed to the 

NRC’s electronic hearing dockets where 

you will be able to access any publicly 

available documents in a particular 

hearing docket. Participants are 

requested not to include personal 

privacy information, such as social 

security numbers, home addresses, or 

personal phone numbers in their filings, 

unless an NRC regulation or other law 

requires submission of such 

information. For example, in some 

instances, individuals provide home 

addresses in order to demonstrate 

proximity to a facility or site. With 

respect to copyrighted works, except for 

limited excerpts that serve the purpose 

of the adjudicatory filings and would 

constitute a Fair Use application, 

participants are requested not to include 

copyrighted materials in their 

submission. 

Detailed information about the license 

renewal process can be found under the 

Nuclear Reactors icon at http://

www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ 

licensing/renewal.html on the NRC’s 

Web site. Copies of the application to 

renew the operating license for RBS are 

available for public inspection at the 

NRC’s PDR, and at http://www.nrc.gov/ 

reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/ 

applications.html, the NRC’s Web site 

while the application is under review. 

The NRC staff has verified that a copy 

of the license renewal application is 

also available to local residents near the 

site at the St. Charles Parish Library— 

East Regional Library, 160 W. Campus 

Drive, Destrehan, Louisiana 70047. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day 

of August, 2017. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Sheldon Stuchell, 

Chief, Projects Management and Guidance 

Branch, Division of License Renewal, Office 

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2017–17125 Filed 8–11–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–81348; File No. SR–BX– 

2017–038] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; 

NASDAQ BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and 

Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed 

Rule Change To Amend Chapter V, 

Section 6, Nullification and Adjustment 

of Options Transactions Including 

Obvious Errors 

August 8, 2017. 

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

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 

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

notice is hereby given that on August 3, 

2017, NASDAQ BX, Inc. (‘‘BX’’ or 

‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the Securities 

and Exchange Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule 

change as described in Items I and II 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 155 / Monday, August 14, 2017 / Notices 37911 

3See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34– 

74916 (May 8, 2015); 80 FR 27733 (May 14, 2015) 

(SR–BX–2015–028) (the ‘‘Initial Filing’’). 

4See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34– 

81084 (July 6, 2017) (granting approval of Bats BZX 

proposal), 82 FR 32216 (July 12, 2017); 82 FR 23684 

(May 23, 2017) (SR–BatsBZX–2017–035) (notice of 

filing of Bats BZX proposal). 

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 

Chapter V, Section 6 of the Exchange’s 

Options Rules (the ‘‘Rules’’), entitled 

‘‘Nullification and Adjustment of 

Options Transactions including Obvious 

Errors.’’ 

While these amendments are effective 

upon filing, the Exchange has 

designated the proposed amendments to 

be operative on a date that is within 

ninety (90) days after the Commission 

approved a similar proposal filed by 

Bats BZX on July 6, 2017. 

The text of the proposed rule change 

is available on the Exchange’s Web site 

at http://nasdaqbx.cchwallstreet.com/, 

at the principal office of the Exchange, 

and at the Commission’s Public 

Reference Room. 

II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

In its filing with the Commission, the 

Exchange included statements 

concerning the purpose of and basis for 

the proposed rule change and discussed 

any comments it received on the 

proposed rule change. The text of these 

statements may be examined at the 

places specified in Item IV below. The 

Exchange has prepared summaries, set 

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

the most significant aspects of such 

statements. 

A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

1. Purpose 

The Exchange and other options 

exchanges recently adopted a new, 

harmonized rule related to the 

adjustment and nullification of 

erroneous options transactions, 

including a specific provision related to 

coordination in connection with largescale events involving erroneous 

options transactions.3 The Exchange 

believes that the changes the options 

exchanges implemented with the new, 

harmonized rule have led to increased 

transparency and finality with respect to 

the adjustment and nullification of 

erroneous options transactions. 

However, as part of the initial initiative, 

the Exchange and other options 

exchanges deferred a few specific 

matters for further discussion. 

Specifically, as described in the Initial 

Filing, the Exchange and all other 

options exchanges have been working to 

further improve the review of 

potentially erroneous transactions as 

well as their subsequent adjustment by 

creating an objective and universal way 

to determine Theoretical Price in the 

event a reliable NBBO is not available. 

Because this initiative required 

additional exchange and industry 

discussion as well as additional time for 

development and implementation, the 

Exchange and the other options 

exchanges determined to proceed with 

the Initial Filing and to undergo a 

secondary initiative to complete any 

additional improvements to the 

applicable rule. In this filing, the 

Exchange proposes to adopt procedures 

that will lead to a more objective and 

uniform way to determine Theoretical 

Price in the event a reliable NBBO is not 

available. In addition to this change, the 

Exchange has proposed two additional 

minor changes to its rules. The 

Exchange’s proposal mirrors that of Bats 

BZX, which the Exchange [sic] 

approved on July 6, 2017,4 and those 

that the other options exchanges intend 

to file. 

Calculation of Theoretical Price Using a 

Third Party Provider 

Under the harmonized rule, when 

reviewing a transaction as potentially 

erroneous, the Exchange needs to first 

determine the ‘‘Theoretical Price’’ of the 

option, i.e., the Exchange’s estimate of 

the correct market price for the option. 

Pursuant to Chapter V, Section 6 of the 

Rules, if the applicable option series is 

traded on at least one other options 

exchange, then the Theoretical Price of 

an option series is the last national best 

bid (‘‘NBB’’) just prior to the trade in 

question with respect to an erroneous 

sell transaction or the last national best 

offer (‘‘NBO’’) just prior to the trade in 

question with respect to an erroneous 

buy transaction unless one of the 

exceptions described below exists. 

Thus, whenever the Exchange has a 

reliable NBB or NBO, as applicable, just 

prior to the transaction, then the 

Exchange uses this NBB or NBO as the 

Theoretical Price. 

The Rule also contains various 

provisions governing specific situations 

where the NBB or NBO is not available 

or may not be reliable. Specifically, the 

Rule specifies situations in which there 

are no quotes or no valid quotes for 

comparison purposes, when the 

national best bid or offer (‘‘NBBO’’) is 

determined to be too wide to be reliable, 

and at the open of trading on each 

trading day. In each of these 

circumstances, in turn, because the NBB 

or NBO is not available or is deemed to 

be unreliable, the Exchange determines 

Theoretical Price. Under the current 

Rule, when determining Theoretical 

Price, Exchange personnel generally 

consult and refer to data such as the 

prices of related series, especially the 

closest strikes in the option in question. 

Exchange personnel may also take into 

account the price of the underlying 

security and the volatility 

characteristics of the option as well as 

historical pricing of the option and/or 

similar options. Although the Rule is 

administered by experienced personnel 

and the Exchange believes the process is 

currently appropriate, the Exchange 

recognizes that it is also subjective and 

could lead to disparate results for a 

transaction that spans multiple options 

exchanges. 

The Exchange proposes to adopt 

Commentary .04 to specify how the 

Exchange will determine Theoretical 

Price when required by sub-paragraphs 

(b)(1)–(3) of the Rule (i.e., at the open, 

when there are no valid quotes or when 

there is a wide quote). In particular, the 

Exchange has been working with other 

options exchanges to identify and select 

a reliable third party vendor (‘‘TP 

Provider’’) that would provide 

Theoretical Price to the Exchange 

whenever one or more transactions is 

under review pursuant to Chapter V, 

Section 6 of the Rules and the NBBO is 

unavailable or deemed unreliable 

pursuant to Chapter V, Section 6(b) of 

the Rules. The Exchange and other 

options exchanges have selected CBOE 

Livevol, LLC (‘‘Livevol’’) as the TP 

Provider, as described below. As further 

described below, proposed Commentary 

.04 would codify the use of the TP 

Provider as well as limited exceptions 

where the Exchange would be able to 

deviate from the Theoretical Price given 

by the TP Provider. 

Pursuant to proposed Commentary 

.04, when the Exchange must determine 

Theoretical Price pursuant to the subparagraphs (b)(1)–(3) of the Rule, the 

Exchange will request Theoretical Price 

from the third party vendor to which the 

Exchange and all other options 

exchanges have subscribed. Thus, as set 

forth in this proposed language, 

Theoretical Price would be provided to 

the Exchange by the TP Provider on 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
37912 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 155 / Monday, August 14, 2017 / Notices 

5Though the Exchange and other options 

exchanges considered a streaming feed, it was 

determined that it would be more feasible to 

develop and implement an on demand service and 

that such a service would satisfy the goals of the 

initiative. 

6The Exchange notes that in 2015, Livevol was 

acquired by CBOE Holdings, Inc., the ultimate 

parent company of the Chicago Board Options 

Exchange (‘‘CBOE’’) and C2 Options Exchange 

(‘‘C2’’). 

7For purposes of the Rule, an Official is an 

Exchange staff member or contract employee 

designated as such by the Chief Regulatory Officer. 

See BX Rules, Chapter V, Sec. 6(a)(3). 

8See proposed paragraph (b) to Commentary .04. 

9The Exchange expects any TP Provider selected 

by the Exchange and other options exchanges to act 

independently in its determination and calculation 

of Theoretical Price. With respect to Livevol 

specifically, the Exchange again notes that Livevol 

is a subsidiary of CBOE Holdings, Inc., which is 

also the ultimate parent company of multiple 

options exchanges. The Exchange expects Livevol 

to calculate Theoretical Price independent of its 

affiliated exchanges in the same way it will 

calculate Theoretical Price independent of nonaffiliated exchanges. 

10To the extent the TP Provider has been 

contacted by an Official of the Exchange, reviews 

the Theoretical Price provided but disagrees that 

there has been any error, then the Exchange would 

be bound to use the Theoretical Price provided by 

the TP Provider. 

request and not through a streaming 

data feed.5 This language also makes 

clear that the Exchange and all other 

options exchanges will use the same TP 

Provider. 

As noted above, the proposed TP 

Provider selected by the Exchange and 

other options exchanges is Livevol. The 

Exchange proposes to codify this 

selection in proposed paragraph (d) to 

Commentary .04. As such, the Exchange 

would file a rule proposal and would 

provide notice to the options industry of 

any proposed change to the TP Provider. 

The Exchange and other options 

exchanges have selected Livevol as the 

proposed TP Provider after diligence 

into various alternatives. Livevol has, 

since 2009, been the options industry 

leader in providing equity and index 

options market data and analytics 

services.6 The Exchange believes that 

Livevol has established itself within the 

options industry as a trusted provider of 

such services and notes that it and all 

other options exchanges already 

subscribe to various Livevol services. In 

connection with this proposal, Livevol 

will develop a new tool based on its 

existing technology and services that 

will supply Theoretical Price to the 

Exchange and other options exchanges 

upon request. The Theoretical Price tool 

will leverage current market data and 

surrounding strikes to assist in a relative 

value pricing approach to generating a 

Theoretical Price. When relative value 

methods are incapable of generating a 

valid Theoretical Price, the Theoretical 

Price tool will utilize historical trade 

and quote data to calculate Theoretical 

Price. 

Because the purpose of the proposal 

is to move away from a subjective 

determination by Exchange personnel 

when the NBBO is unavailable or 

unreliable, the Exchange intends to use 

the Theoretical Price provided by the TP 

Provider in all such circumstances. 

However, the Exchange believes it is 

necessary to retain the ability to contact 

the TP Provider if it believes that the 

Theoretical Price provided is 

fundamentally incorrect and to 

determine the Theoretical Price in the 

limited circumstance of a systems issue 

experienced by the TP Provider, as 

described below. 

As proposed, to the extent an 

Official 7 of the Exchange believes that 

the Theoretical Price provided by the TP 

Provider is fundamentally incorrect and 

cannot be used consistent with the 

maintenance of a fair and orderly 

market, the Official shall contact the TP 

Provider to notify the TP Provider of the 

reason the Official believes such 

Theoretical Price is inaccurate and to 

request a review and correction of the 

calculated Theoretical Price. For 

example, if an Official received from the 

TP Provider a Theoretical Price of $80 

in a series that the Official might expect 

to be instead in the range of $8 to $10 

because of a recent corporate action in 

the underlying, the Official would 

request that the TP Provider review and 

confirm its calculation and determine 

whether it had appropriately accounted 

for the corporate action. In order to 

ensure that other options exchanges that 

may potentially be relying on the same 

Theoretical Price that, in turn, the 

Official believes to be fundamentally 

incorrect, the Exchange also proposes to 

promptly provide notice to other 

options exchanges that the TP Provider 

has been contacted to review and 

correct the calculated Theoretical Price 

at issue and to include a brief 

explanation of the reason for the 

request.8 Although not directly 

addressed by the proposed Rule, the 

Exchange expects that all other options 

exchanges once in receipt of this 

notification would await the 

determination of the TP Provider and 

would use the corrected price as soon as 

it is available. The Exchange further 

notes that it expects the TP Provider to 

cooperate with, but to be independent 

of, the Exchange and other options 

exchanges.9

The Exchange believes that the 

proposed provision to allow an Official 

to contact the TP Provider if he or she 

believes the provided Theoretical Price 

is fundamentally incorrect is necessary, 

particularly because the Exchange and 

other options exchanges will be using 

the new process for the first time. 

Although the exchanges have conducted 

thorough diligence with respect to 

Livevol as the selected TP Provider and 

would do so with any potential 

replacement TP Provider, the Exchange 

is concerned that certain scenarios 

could arise where the Theoretical Price 

generated by the TP Provider does not 

take into account relevant factors and 

would result in an unfair result for 

market participants involved in a 

transaction. The Exchange notes that if 

such situations do indeed arise, to the 

extent practicable the Exchange will 

also work with the TP Provider and 

other options exchanges to improve the 

TP Provider’s calculation of Theoretical 

Price in future situations. For instance, 

if the Exchange determines that a 

particular type of corporate action is not 

being appropriately captured by the TP 

Provider when such provider is 

generating Theoretical Price, while the 

Exchange believes that it needs the 

ability to request a review and 

correction of the Theoretical Price in 

connection with a specific review in 

order to provide a timely decision to 

market participants, the Exchange 

would share information regarding the 

specific situation with the TP Provider 

and other options exchanges in an effort 

to improve the Theoretical Price service 

for future use. The Exchange notes that 

it does not anticipate needing to rely on 

this provision frequently, if at all, but 

believes the provision is necessary 

nonetheless to best prepare for all 

potential circumstances. Further, the 

Theoretical Price used by the Exchange 

in connection with its rulings will 

always be that received from the TP 

Provider and the Exchange has not 

proposed the ability to deviate from 

such price.10

Pursuant to proposed paragraph (c) to 

Commentary .04, an Official of the 

Exchange may determine the 

Theoretical Price if the TP Provider has 

experienced a systems issue that has 

rendered its services unavailable to 

accurately calculate Theoretical Price 

and such issue cannot be corrected in a 

timely manner. The Exchange notes that 

it does not anticipate needing to rely on 

this provision frequently, if at all, but 

believes the provision is necessary 

nonetheless to best prepare for all 

potential circumstances. Further, 

consistent with existing text in Chapter 

V, Section 6(e)(4) of the Rules, the 

Exchange has not proposed a specific 

time by which the service must be 

available in order to be considered 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 155 / Monday, August 14, 2017 / Notices 37913 

11 In the context of a Significant Market Event, the 

Exchange may determine, ‘‘in consultation with 

other options exchanges . . . that timely adjustment 

is not feasible due to the extraordinary nature of the 

situation.’’ See BX Rules, Chapter V, Sec. 6(e)(4). 

12See, e.g., BX Rules, Chapter XIV, Sec. 13, which 

relates to index options potentially listed and 

traded on the Exchange and disclaims liability for 

a reporting authority and their affiliates. 

timely.11 The Exchange expects that it 

would await the TP Provider’s services 

becoming available again so long as the 

Exchange was able to obtain information 

regarding the issue and the TP Provider 

had a reasonable expectation of being 

able to resume normal operations within 

the next several hours based on 

communications with the TP Provider. 

More specifically with respect to 

Livevol, Livevol has business continuity 

and disaster recovery procedures that 

will help to ensure that the Theoretical 

Price tool remains available or, in the 

event of an outage, that service is 

restored in a timely manner. 

The Exchange also notes that if a 

wide-scale event occurred, even if such 

event did not qualify as a ‘‘Significant 

Market Event’’ pursuant to Chapter V, 

Section 6(e) of the Rules, and the TP 

Provider was unavailable or otherwise 

experiencing difficulty, the Exchange 

believes that it and other options 

exchanges would seek to coordinate to 

the extent possible. In particular, the 

Exchange and other options exchanges 

now have a process, administered by the 

Options Clearing Corporation, to invoke 

a discussion amongst all options 

exchanges in the event of any 

widespread or significant market events. 

The Exchange believes that this process 

could be used in the event necessary if 

there were an issue with the TP 

Provider. 

The Exchange also proposes to adopt 

language in paragraph (d) of 

Commentary .04 to Chapter V, Section 

6 of the Rules to disclaim the liability 

of the Exchange and the TP Provider in 

connection with the proposed Rule, the 

TP Provider’s calculation of Theoretical 

Price, and the Exchange’s use of such 

Theoretical Price. Specifically, the 

proposed rule would state that neither 

the Exchange, the TP Provider, nor any 

affiliate of the TP Provider (the TP 

Provider and its affiliates are referred to 

collectively as the ‘‘TP Provider’’), 

makes any warranty, express or implied, 

as to the results to be obtained by any 

person or entity from the use of the TP 

Provider pursuant to Commentary .04. 

The proposed rule would further state 

that the TP Provider does not guarantee 

the accuracy or completeness of the 

calculated Theoretical Price and that the 

TP Provider disclaims all warranties of 

merchantability or fitness for a 

particular purpose or use with respect to 

such Theoretical Price. Finally, the 

proposed Rule would state that neither 

the Exchange nor the TP Provider shall 

have any liability for any damages, 

claims, losses (including any indirect or 

consequential losses), expenses, or 

delays, whether direct or indirect, 

foreseen or unforeseen, suffered by any 

person arising out of any circumstance 

or occurrence relating to the use of such 

Theoretical Price or arising out of any 

errors or delays in calculating such 

Theoretical Price. This proposed 

language is modeled after existing 

language in Exchange Rules regarding 

‘‘reporting authorities’’ that calculate 

indices.12

In connection with the proposed 

change described above, the Exchange 

proposes to modify Chapter V, Section 

6 of the Rules to state that the Exchange 

will rely on paragraph (b) and 

Commentary .04 when determining 

Theoretical Price. 

No Valid Quotes—Market Participant 

Quoting on Multiple Exchanges 

As described above, one of the times 

where the NBB or NBO is deemed to be 

unreliable for purposes of Theoretical 

Price is when there are no quotes or no 

valid quotes for the affected series. In 

addition to when there are no quotes, 

the Exchange does not consider the 

following to be valid quotes: (i) All 

quotes in the applicable option series 

published at a time where the last NBB 

is higher than the last NBO in such 

series (a ‘‘crossed market’’); (ii) quotes 

published by the Exchange that were 

submitted by either party to the 

transaction in question; and (iii) quotes 

published by another options exchange 

against which the Exchange has 

declared self-help. In recognition of 

today’s market structure where certain 

participants actively provide liquidity 

on multiple exchanges simultaneously, 

the Exchange proposes to add an 

additional category of invalid quotes. 

Specifically, in order to avoid a 

situation where a market participant has 

established the market at an erroneous 

price on multiple exchanges, the 

Exchange proposes to consider as 

invalid the quotes in a series published 

by another options exchange if either 

party to the transaction in question 

submitted the quotes in the series 

representing such options exchange’s 

best bid or offer. Thus, similar to being 

able to ignore for purposes of the Rule 

the quotes published by the Exchange if 

submitted by either party to the 

transaction in question, the Exchange 

would be able to ignore for purposes of 

the rule quotations on other options 

exchanges by that same market 

participant. 

In order to continue to apply the Rule 

in a timely and organized fashion, 

however, the Exchange proposes to 

initially limit the scope of this proposed 

provision in two ways. First, because 

the process will take considerable 

coordination with other options 

exchanges to confirm that the quotations 

in question on an away options 

exchange were indeed submitted by a 

party to a transaction on the Exchange, 

the Exchange proposes to limit this 

provision to apply to up to twenty-five 

(25) total options series (i.e., whether 

such series all relate to the same 

underlying security or multiple 

underlying securities). Second, the 

Exchange proposes to require the party 

that believes it established the best bid 

or offer on one or more other options 

exchanges to identify to the Exchange 

the quotes which were submitted by 

such party and published by other 

options exchanges. In other words, as 

proposed, the burden will be on the 

party seeking that the Exchange 

disregard their quotations on other 

options exchanges to identify such 

quotations. In turn, the Exchange will 

verify with such other options 

exchanges that such quotations were 

indeed submitted by such party. 

Below are examples of both the 

current rule and the rule as proposed to 

be amended. 

Example 1—Current Rule, Member 

Erroneously Quotes on One Exchange 

Assumptions 

For purposes of this example, assume 

the following: 

• A Member acting as a Market Maker 

on the Exchange (‘‘Market Maker A’’) is 

quoting in twenty series of options 

underlying security ABCD on the 

Exchange (and only the Exchange). 

• Market Maker A makes an error in 

calculating the market for options on 

ABCD, and publishes quotes in all 

twenty series to buy options at $1.00 

and to sell options at $1.05. 

• In fact, options on ABCD in these 

series are nearly worthless and no other 

market participant is quoting in such 

series. 

• Therefore, the NBBO in the twenty 

series at issue is $1.00 × $1.05 (with the 

Exchange representing the NBBO based 

on Market Maker A’s quotes). 

• Assume Member A immediately 

enters sell orders and executes against 

Market Maker A’s quotes at $1.00. 

• Assume Market Maker A submits to 

the Exchange a timely request for review 

of the trades with Member A as 

potentially erroneous transactions to 

buy. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
37914 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 155 / Monday, August 14, 2017 / Notices 

13The Exchange notes that its proposed rule will 

not impact the proposed handling of a request for 

review where a market participant is quoting only 

on the Exchange, thus, the Exchange has not 

included a separate example for such a fact pattern. 

14The Exchange notes that the proposed rule 

would operate the same if Market Maker A was 

quoting on more than two exchanges. The Exchange 

has limited the example to two exchanges for 

simplicity. 

Result 

• Based on the Exchange’s current 

rules, the Exchange would identify 

Market Maker A as a participant to the 

trades at issue and would consider 

Market Maker A’s quotations invalid 

pursuant to Chapter V, Section 6(b)(2) of 

the Rules. 

• As there were no other valid quotes 

to use as a reference price, the Exchange 

would then determine Theoretical Price. 

• Assume the Exchange determines a 

Theoretical Price of $0.05. 

• The execution price of $1.00 

exceeds the $0.25 minimum amount set 

forth in the Exchange’s table to 

determine whether an obvious error has 

occurred (i.e., $0.05 + $0.25 = $0.30) so 

any execution at or above this price is 

an obvious error. 

• Accordingly, the executions in all 

series would be adjusted by the 

Exchange to executions at $0.20 per 

contract (Theoretical Price of $0.05 plus 

$0.15) to the extent the incoming orders 

submitted by Member A were nonCustomer orders. 

• The executions in all series would 

be nullified to the extent the incoming 

orders submitted by Member A were 

Customer orders. 

Example 2—Current Rule, Member 

Erroneously Quotes on Multiple 

Exchanges 

Assumptions 

For purposes of this example, assume 

the following: 

• A Member acting as a Market Maker 

on the Exchange (‘‘Market Maker A’’) is 

quoting in twenty series of options 

underlying security ABCD on the 

Exchange and on a second exchange 

(‘‘Away Exchange’’). 

• Market Maker A makes an error in 

calculating the market for options on 

ABCD, and publishes quotes on both the 

Exchange and the Away Exchange in all 

twenty series to buy options at $1.00 

and to sell options at $1.05. 

• In fact, options on ABCD in these 

series are nearly worthless and no other 

market participant is quoting in such 

series. 

• Therefore, the NBBO in the twenty 

series at issue is $1.00 × $1.05 (with the 

Exchange and the Away Exchange 

representing the NBBO based on Market 

Maker A’s quotes). 

• Assume Member A immediately 

enters sell orders and executes against 

Market Maker A’s quotes at $1.00. 

• Assume Market Maker A submits to 

the Exchange and to the Away Exchange 

timely requests for review of the trades 

with Member A as potentially erroneous 

transactions to buy. 

Result 

• Based on the Exchange’s current 

rules, the Exchange would identify 

Market Maker A as a participant to the 

trades at issue and would consider 

Market Maker A’s quotations on the 

Exchange invalid pursuant to Chapter V, 

Section 6(b)(2) of the Rules. The 

Exchange, however, would view the 

Away Exchange’s quotations as valid, 

and would thus determine Theoretical 

Price to be $1.05 (i.e., the NBO in the 

case of a potentially erroneous buy 

transaction). 

• The execution price of $1.00 does 

not exceed the $0.25 minimum amount 

set forth in the Exchange’s table to 

determine whether an obvious error has 

occurred (i.e., $1.05 + $0.25 = $1.30) so 

any execution at or above this price is 

an obvious error. 

• The transactions on the Exchange 

would not be nullified or adjusted. 

• As the Exchange and all other 

options exchanges have identical rules 

with respect to the process described 

above, the transactions on the Away 

Exchange would not be nullified or 

adjusted. 

Example 3—Proposed Rule, Member 

Erroneously Quotes on Multiple 

Exchanges 13

Assumptions 

For purposes of this example, assume 

the following: 

• A Member acting as a Market Maker 

on the Exchange (‘‘Market Maker A’’) is 

quoting in twenty series of options 

underlying security ABCD on the 

Exchange and on a second exchange 

(‘‘Away Exchange’’).14

• Market Maker A makes an error in 

calculating the market for options on 

ABCD, and publishes quotes on both the 

Exchange and the Away Exchange in all 

twenty series to buy options at $1.00 

and to sell options at $1.05. 

• In fact, options on ABCD in these 

series are nearly worthless and no other 

market participant is quoting in such 

series. 

• Therefore, the NBBO in the twenty 

series at issue is $1.00 × $1.05 (with the 

Exchange and the Away Exchange 

representing the NBBO based on Market 

Maker A’s quotes). 

• Assume Member A immediately 

enters sell orders and executes against 

Market Maker A’s quotes at $1.00. 

• Assume Market Maker A submits to 

the Exchange and to the Away Exchange 

timely requests for review of the trades 

with Member A as potentially erroneous 

transactions to buy. At the time of 

submitting the requests for review to the 

Exchange and the Away Exchange, 

Market Maker A identifies to the 

Exchange the quotes on the Away 

Exchange as quotes also represented by 

Market Maker A (and to the Away 

Exchange, the quotes on the Exchange 

as quotes also represented by Market 

Maker A). 

Result 

• Based on the proposed rules, the 

Exchange would identify Market Maker 

A as a participant to the trades at issue 

and would consider Market Maker A’s 

quotations on the Exchange invalid 

pursuant to Chapter V, Section 6(b)(2) of 

the Rules. 

• The Exchange and the Away 

Exchange would also coordinate to 

confirm that the quotations identified by 

Market Maker A on the other exchange 

were indeed Market Maker A’s 

quotations. Once confirmed, each of the 

Exchange and the Away Exchange 

would also consider invalid the 

quotations published on the other 

exchange. 

• As there were no other valid quotes 

to use as a reference price, the Exchange 

would then determine Theoretical Price. 

• Assume the Exchange determines a 

Theoretical Price of $0.05. 

• The execution price of $1.00 

exceeds the $0.25 minimum amount set 

forth in the Exchange’s table to 

determine whether an obvious error has 

occurred (i.e., $0.05 + $0.25 = $0.30) so 

any execution at or above this price is 

an obvious error. 

• Accordingly, the executions in all 

series would be adjusted by the 

Exchange to executions at $0.20 per 

contract (Theoretical Price of $0.05 plus 

$0.15) to the extent the incoming orders 

submitted by Member A were nonCustomer orders. 

• The executions in all series would 

be nullified to the extent the incoming 

orders submitted by Member A were 

Customer orders. 

• As the Exchange and all other 

options exchanges would have identical 

rules with respect to the process 

described above, as other options 

exchanges intend to adopt the same rule 

if the proposed rule is approved, the 

transactions on the Away Exchange 

would also be nullified or adjusted as 

set forth above. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 155 / Monday, August 14, 2017 / Notices 37915 

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

16 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 

17 Id. 

18 Id. 

19See supra, note 12. 

20 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 

21 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 

• If this example was instead 

modified such that Market Maker A was 

quoting in 200 series rather than 20, the 

Exchange notes that Market Maker A 

could only request that the Exchange 

consider as invalid their quotations in 

25 of those series on other exchanges. 

As noted above, the Exchange has 

proposed to limit the proposed rule to 

25 series in order to continue to process 

requests for review in a timely and 

organized fashion in order to provide 

certainty to market participants. This is 

due to the amount of coordination that 

will be necessary in such a scenario to 

confirm that the quotations in question 

on an away options exchange were 

indeed submitted by a party to a 

transaction on the Exchange. 

Trading Halts—Clarifying Change to 

Chapter V, Section 6 

Commentary .03 to Chapter V, Section 

6 of the Rules describes the Exchange’s 

authority to declare trading halts in one 

or more options traded on the Exchange. 

The Exchange proposes to modify this 

provision to provide that, with respect 

to equity options, the Exchange shall 

nullify any transaction that occurs 

during a regulatory halt as declared by 

the primary listing market for the 

underlying security. The Exchange 

believes this change is necessary to 

distinguish a declared regulatory halt, 

where the underlying security should 

not be actively trading on any venue, 

from an operational issue on the 

primary listing exchange where the 

security continues to safely trade on 

other trading venues. 

Implementation Date 

The Exchange proposes to delay the 

operative date of this proposal to a date 

within ninety (90) days after the 

Commission approved the Bats BZX 

proposal on July 6, 2017. The Exchange 

will announce the operative date in a 

Regulatory Alert made available to its 

Members. 

2. Statutory Basis 

The Exchange believes that its 

proposal is consistent with the 

requirements of the Act and the rules 

and regulations thereunder that are 

applicable to a national securities 

exchange, and, in particular, with the 

requirements of Section 6(b) of the 

Act.15

Specifically, the proposal is 

consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the 

Act 16 because it would promote just 

and equitable principles of trade, 

remove impediments to, and perfect the 

mechanism of, a free and open market 

and a national market system, and, in 

general, protect investors and the public 

interest. 

As described above, the Exchange and 

other options exchanges are seeking to 

further modify their harmonized rules 

related to the adjustment and 

nullification of erroneous options 

transactions. The Exchange believes that 

the proposal to utilize a TP Provider in 

the event the NBBO is unavailable or 

unreliable will provide greater 

transparency and clarity with respect to 

the adjustment and nullification of 

erroneous options transactions. 

Particularly, the proposed changes seek 

to achieve consistent results for 

participants across U.S. options 

exchanges while maintaining a fair and 

orderly market, protecting investors and 

protecting the public interest. Thus, the 

Exchange believes that the proposal is 

consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the 

Act 17 in that the proposed Rule will 

foster cooperation and coordination 

with persons engaged in regulating and 

facilitating transactions. 

The Exchange again reiterates that it 

has retained the standard of the current 

rule for most reviews of options 

transactions pursuant to Chapter V, 

Section 6 of the Rules, which is to rely 

on the NBBO to determine Theoretical 

Price if such NBBO can reasonably be 

relied upon. The proposal to use a TP 

Provider when the NBBO is unavailable 

or unreliable is consistent with Section 

6(b)(5) of the Act 18 in that the proposed 

Rule will foster cooperation and 

coordination with persons engaged in 

regulating and facilitating transactions 

by further reducing the possibility of 

disparate results between options 

exchanges and increasing the objectivity 

of the application of Chapter V, Section 

6 of the Rules. Further, the Exchange 

believes that the proposed Rule is 

transparent with respect to the limited 

circumstances under which the 

Exchange will request a review and 

correction of Theoretical Price from the 

TP Provider, and has sought to limit 

such circumstances as much as possible. 

The Exchange notes that under the 

current Rule, Exchange personnel are 

required to determine Theoretical Price 

in certain circumstances and yet rarely 

do so because such circumstances have 

already been significantly limited under 

the harmonized rule (for example, 

because the wide quote provision of the 

harmonized rule only applies if the 

quote was narrower and then gapped 

but does not apply if the quote had been 

persistently wide). Thus, the Exchange 

believes it will need to request 

Theoretical Price from the TP Provider 

only in very rare circumstances and in 

turn, the Exchange anticipates that the 

need to contact the TP Provider for 

additional review of the Theoretical 

Price provided by the TP Provider will 

be even rarer. Similarly, the Exchange 

believes it is unlikely that an Exchange 

Official will ever be required to 

determine Theoretical Price, as such 

circumstance would only be in the 

event of a systems issue that has 

rendered the TP Provider’s services 

unavailable and such issue cannot be 

corrected in a timely manner. 

The Exchange also believes its 

proposal to adopt language in paragraph 

(d) of Commentary .04 to Chapter V, 

Section 6 of the Rules to disclaim the 

liability of the Exchange and the TP 

Provider in connection with the 

proposed Rule, the TP Provider’s 

calculation of Theoretical Price, and the 

Exchange’s use of such Theoretical Price 

is consistent with the Act. As noted 

above, this proposed language is 

modeled after existing language in 

Exchange Rules regarding ‘‘reporting 

authorities’’ that calculate indices,19

and is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of 

the Act 20 in that the proposed Rule will 

foster cooperation and coordination 

with persons engaged in regulating and 

facilitating transactions. 

As described above, the Exchange 

proposes a modification to the valid 

quotes provision to also exclude quotes 

in a series published by another options 

exchange if either party to the 

transaction in question submitted the 

orders or quotes in the series 

representing such options exchange’s 

best bid or offer. The Exchange believes 

this proposal is consistent with Section 

6(b)(5) of the Act 21 because the 

application of the rule will foster 

cooperation and coordination with 

persons engaged in regulating and 

facilitating transactions by allowing the 

Exchange to coordinate with other 

options exchanges to determine whether 

a market participant that is party to a 

potentially erroneous transaction on the 

Exchange established the market in an 

option on other options exchanges; to 

the extent this can be established, the 

Exchange believes such participant’s 

quotes should be excluded in the same 

way such quotes are excluded on the 

Exchange. The Exchange also believes it 

is reasonable to limit the scope of this 

provision to twenty-five (25) series and 

to require the party that believes it 

established the best bid or offer on one 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
37916 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 155 / Monday, August 14, 2017 / Notices 

22 Id. 

23 Id. 

24 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8). 

25 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 

26 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b– 

4(f)(6) 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. 27 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

or more other options exchanges to 

identify to the Exchange the quotes 

which were submitted by that party and 

published by other options exchanges. 

The Exchange believes these limitations 

are consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the 

Act 22 because they will ensure that the 

Exchange is able to continue to apply 

the Rule in a timely and organized 

fashion, thus fostering cooperation and 

coordination with persons engaged in 

regulating and facilitating transactions 

and also removing impediments to and 

perfecting the mechanism of a free and 

open market and a national market 

system. 

Finally, with respect to the proposed 

modification to Commentary .03 to 

Chapter V, Section 6, the Exchange 

believes that this proposal is consistent 

with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 23

because it specifically provides for 

nullification where a trading halt exists 

with respect to an underlying security 

across the industry (i.e., a regulatory 

halt) as distinguished from a situation 

where the primary exchange has 

experienced a technical issue but the 

underlying security continues to trade 

on other equities platforms. The 

Exchange notes that a similar provision 

already exists in the rules of certain 

other options exchanges, and thus, has 

been found to be consistent with the 

Act. 

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Burden on Competition 

The Exchange believes the entire 

proposal is consistent with Section 

6(b)(8) of the Act 24 in that it does not 

impose any burden on competition that 

is not necessary or appropriate in 

furtherance of the purposes of the Act 

as explained below. 

Importantly, the Exchange does not 

believe that the proposal will impose a 

burden on intermarket competition but 

rather that it will alleviate any burden 

on competition because it is the result 

of a collaborative effort by all options 

exchanges to further harmonize and 

improve the process related to the 

adjustment and nullification o [sic] 

erroneous options transactions. The 

Exchange does not believe that the rules 

applicable to such process is an area 

where options exchanges should 

compete, but rather, that all options 

exchanges should have consistent rules 

to the extent possible. Particularly 

where a market participant trades on 

several different exchanges and an 

erroneous trade may occur on multiple 

markets nearly simultaneously, the 

Exchange believes that a participant 

should have a consistent experience 

with respect to the nullification or 

adjustment of transactions. To that end, 

the selection and implementation of a 

TP Provider utilized by all options 

exchanges will further reduce the 

possibility that participants with 

potentially erroneous transactions that 

span multiple options exchanges are 

handled differently on such exchanges. 

Similarly, the proposed ability to 

consider quotations invalid on another 

options exchange if ultimately 

originating from a party to a potentially 

erroneous transaction on the Exchange 

represents a proposal intended to 

further foster cooperation by the options 

exchanges with respect to market 

events. The Exchange understands that 

all other options exchanges either have 

or they intend to file proposals that are 

substantially similar to this proposal. 

The Exchange does not believe that 

the proposed rule change imposes a 

burden on intramarket competition 

because the proposed provisions apply 

to all market participants equally. 

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 

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 after the date of 

the filing, or such shorter time as the 

Commission may designate, it has 

become effective pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) 

of the Act 25 and Rule 19b–4(f)(6) 26

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 shall institute proceedings 

to determine whether the proposed rule 

should be approved or disapproved. 

IV. Solicitation of Comments 

Interested persons are invited to 

submit written data, views, and 

arguments concerning the foregoing, 

including whether the proposed rule 

change is consistent with the Act. 

Comments may be submitted by any of 

the following methods: 

Electronic Comments 

• Use the Commission’s Internet 

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

rules/sro.shtml); or 

• Send an email to rule-comments@

sec.gov. Please include File Number SR– 

BX–2017–038 on the subject line. 

Paper Comments 

• Send paper comments in triplicate 

to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities 

and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street 

NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090. 

All submissions should refer to File 

Number SR–BX–2017–038. This file 

number should be included on the 

subject line if email is used. To help the 

Commission process and review your 

comments more efficiently, please use 

only one method. The Commission will 

post all comments on the Commission’s 

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

rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the 

submission, all subsequent 

amendments, all written statements 

with respect to the proposed rule 

change that are filed with the 

Commission, and all written 

communications relating to the 

proposed rule change between the 

Commission and any person, other than 

those that may be withheld from the 

public in accordance with the 

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

available for Web site viewing and 

printing in the Commission’s Public 

Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., 

Washington, DC 20549 on official 

business days between the hours of 

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

filing also will be available for 

inspection and copying at the principal 

office of the Exchange. All comments 

received will be posted without change; 

the Commission does not edit personal 

identifying information from 

submissions. You should submit only 

information that you wish to make 

available publicly. All submissions 

should refer to File Number SR–BX– 

2017–038, and should be submitted on 

or before September 5, 2017. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 155 / Monday, August 14, 2017 / Notices 37917 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

3Exchange Act Release No. 34–81132 (July 12, 

2017), 82 FR 32895 (July 18, 2017) (SR–ICC–2017– 

011) (‘‘Notice’’). 

4 17 CFR 39.11; 17 CFR 39.33; 17 CFR 39.36. 

5The Liquidity Requirements component also 

reflects the changes to ICC’s liquidity thresholds for 

Euro (‘‘EUR’’) denominated products approved by 

the Commission in rule filing ICC–2017–002. See 

Exchange Act Release No. 34–80324 (Mar. 28, 

2017), 82 FR 16244 (Apr. 3, 2017). 

6See Schedule 401 of the ICC Rules. 7 17 CFR 39.33. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.27

Eduardo A. Aleman, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2017–17053 Filed 8–11–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–81347; File No. SR–ICC– 

2017–011] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE 

Clear Credit LLC; Order Granting 

Accelerated Approval of Proposed 

Rule Change Relating to the ICC 

Liquidity Risk Management Framework 

and the ICC Stress Testing Framework 

August 8, 2017. 

I. Introduction 

On June 28, 2017, ICE Clear Credit 

LLC (‘‘ICC’’ or ‘‘ICE Clear Credit’’) filed 

with the Securities and Exchange 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’), pursuant 

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

Exchange Act of 1934 (‘‘Exchange 

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

proposed rule change (SR–ICC–2017– 

011) to revise the ICC Liquidity Risk 

Management Framework and the ICC 

Stress Testing Framework. The 

proposed rule change was published for 

comment in the Federal Register on July 

12, 2017.3 The Commission did not 

receive comments regarding the 

proposed changes. For the reasons 

discussed below, the Commission is 

approving the proposed rule change on 

an accelerated basis. 

II. Description of the Proposed Rule 

Change 

ICC stated that the proposed revisions 

to its Liquidity Risk Management 

Framework and Stress Testing 

Framework are for the purpose of 

revising its liquidity monitoring 

program to enhance compliance with 

U.S. Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission (‘‘CFTC’’) regulations, 

including Regulations 39.11, 39.33, and 

39.36.4 ICC represented that the 

proposed revisions will also facilitate 

the prompt and accurate clearance and 

settlement of securities transactions and 

derivative agreements, contracts, and 

transactions for which it is responsible. 

These revisions would not require any 

changes to the ICC Clearing Rules 

(‘‘Rules’’). 

A. Liquidity Risk Management 

Framework 

ICC proposed to reorganize the format 

of the Liquidity Risk Management 

Framework to consist of three elements: 

Liquidity Risk Management Model; 

Measurement and Monitoring; and 

Governance. The Regulatory 

Requirements element, previously 

included as an element of the 

framework, would be deleted; however, 

the regulatory requirements applicable 

to liquidity risk management would still 

be referenced in the framework. 

1. Liquidity Risk Management Model 

ICC proposed to enhance the 

description of several components of its 

Liquidity Risk Management Model. As 

revised, the Liquidity Risk Management 

Model now includes, but is not limited 

to, the following components: CurrencySpecific Risk Requirements; Acceptable 

Collateral; Liquidity Requirements; 

Collateral Valuation Methodology; 

Investment Strategy; Clearing 

Participant (‘‘CP’’) Deposits as a 

Liquidity Pool, Liquidity Facilities 

(including committed repo facilities and 

committed foreign exchange (‘‘FX’’) 

facilities); and Liquidity Waterfall. 

For the Currency-Specific Risk 

Requirements component, ICC proposed 

to add language to cross reference ICC’s 

current policy of maintaining cash and 

collateral assets posted by CPs (on 

behalf of themselves and/or their 

clients) to meet currency-specific Initial 

Margin (‘‘IM’’) and Guaranty Fund 

(‘‘GF’’) requirements, to ensure ICC has 

sufficient total resources in the required 

currencies of denomination. 

With respect to the Liquidity 

Requirements component,5 ICC 

proposed to add a cross reference to 

ICC’s requirement that each CP 

contribute to the GF a minimum of 20 

million wholly in U.S. Dollars (‘‘USD’’), 

which is not a change but rather a 

restatement of ICC’s current rules.6

Further, ICC proposed revisions to 

extend ICC’s margin risk horizon up to 

6-days in order to account for the risk 

associated with clearing Asia Pacific 

products. This change would apply 

throughout the framework. 

With respect to the Liquidity 

Facilities component, ICC proposed 

revisions to add reference to its 

committed repurchase facility, 

consisting of committed repo lines from 

multiple financial institutions (as 

opposed to committed repurchase 

agreements as before), and its recently 

instituted committed FX facilities for 

converting USD cash to EUR cash. ICC 

also proposed removing reference to FX 

Swaps and Immediate FX Spot 

Transactions because these 

arrangements are not committed and 

therefore are not ‘‘qualifying liquidity 

resources’’ under CFTC Regulation 

39.33, according to ICC.7 ICC also 

proposed removing reference to the 

Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. 

committed line of credit because ICC no 

longer participates in the arrangement. 

In the Liquidity Waterfall component, 

ICC proposed revisions to its definition 

of Available Liquidity Resources 

(‘‘ALR’’) to note that ALR consists of the 

available deposits currently in cash of 

the required currency of denomination 

and the cash equivalent of the available 

deposits in collateral types that ICC can 

convert to cash, in the required currency 

of denomination, using all sources of 

liquidity available to it. For reference, 

the Liquidity Waterfall classifies ALR 

on any given day into four levels. Level 

One includes the House IM and GF cash 

deposits of the defaulting CP. Level Two 

includes GF cash deposits of ICC and 

non-defaulting CPs. Level Three 

includes House IM cash deposits of the 

non-defaulting CPs. Level Four includes 

committed repo facilities and FX 

facilities, as described above in the 

changes to the Liquidity Facilities 

component. 

A few of the Liquidity Risk 

Management Model components would 

remain the same or substantially the 

same. The Acceptable Collateral 

component would remain the same and 

will note that CPs may post IM and GF 

deposits that meet ICC’s acceptable 

collateral criteria as described in ICC’s 

Treasury Operations Policies and 

Procedures and Schedule 401 of the ICC 

Rules. The Investment Strategy 

component would remain substantially 

the same and was proposed to be 

revised to note that, when beneficial, 

ICC diversifies its cash investments 

across multiple depository institutions 

to reduce its liquidity exposure to any 

single depository. The CP Deposits as a 

Liquidity Pool and Collateral Valuation 

Methodology components also would 

remain substantially the same. 

2. Measurement and Monitoring 

With respect to the Measurement and 

Monitoring element of the Liquidity 

Risk Management Framework, ICC 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES