37618 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 154 / Friday, August 11, 2017 / Notices 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

SUMMARY: The Commission is noticing a 

recent Postal Service filing for the 

Commission’s consideration concerning 

negotiated service agreements. This 

notice informs the public of the filing, 

invites public comment, and takes other 

administrative steps. 

DATES: Comments are due: August 15, 

2017 (Comment due date applies to 

CP2017–257; CP2017–258); August 16, 

2017 (Comment due date applies to 

CP2017–259; MC2017–167; CP2017– 

260; MC2017–168; CP2017–261). 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

electronically via the Commission’s 

Filing Online system at http://

www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit 

comments electronically should contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section by 

telephone for advice on filing 

alternatives. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 

202–789–6820. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. Docketed Proceeding(s) 

I. Introduction 

The Commission gives notice that the 

Postal Service filed request(s) for the 

Commission to consider matters related 

to negotiated service agreement(s). The 

request(s) may propose the addition or 

removal of a negotiated service 

agreement from the market dominant or 

the competitive product list, or the 

modification of an existing product 

currently appearing on the market 

dominant or the competitive product 

list. 

Section II identifies the docket 

number(s) associated with each Postal 

Service request, the title of each Postal 

Service request, the request’s acceptance 

date, and the authority cited by the 

Postal Service for each request. For each 

request, the Commission appoints an 

officer of the Commission to represent 

the interests of the general public in the 

proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 

(Public Representative). Section II also 

establishes comment deadline(s) 

pertaining to each request. 

The public portions of the Postal 

Service’s request(s) can be accessed via 

the Commission’s Web site (http://

www.prc.gov). Non-public portions of 

the Postal Service’s request(s), if any, 

can be accessed through compliance 

with the requirements of 39 CFR 

3007.40. 

The Commission invites comments on 

whether the Postal Service’s request(s) 

in the captioned docket(s) are consistent 

with the policies of title 39. For 

request(s) that the Postal Service states 

concern market dominant product(s), 

applicable statutory and regulatory 

requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 

U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 

CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) 

that the Postal Service states concern 

competitive product(s), applicable 

statutory and regulatory requirements 

include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 

39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 

39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment 

deadline(s) for each request appear in 

section II. 

II. Docketed Proceeding(s) 

1. Docket No(s).: CP2017–257; Filing 

Title: Notice of the United States Postal 

Service of Filing a Functionally 

Equivalent Global Plus 1D Negotiated 

Service Agreement and Application for 

Non-Public Treatment of Materials Filed 

Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: 

August 4, 2017; Filing Authority: 39 CFR 

3015.5; Public Representative: 

Christopher C. Mohr; Comments Due: 

August 15, 2017. 

2. Docket No(s).: CP2017–258; Filing 

Title: Notice of the United States Postal 

Service of Filing a Functionally 

Equivalent Global Plus 3 Negotiated 

Service Agreement and Application for 

Non-Public Treatment of Materials Filed 

Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: 

August 4, 2017; Filing Authority: 39 CFR 

3015.5; Public Representative: Jennaca 

D. Upperman; Comments Due: August 

15, 2017. 

3. Docket No(s).: CP2017–259; Filing 

Title: Notice of the United States Postal 

Service of Filing a Functionally 

Equivalent Global Plus 3 Negotiated 

Service Agreement and Application for 

Non-Public Treatment of Materials Filed 

Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: 

August 4, 2017; Filing Authority: 39 CFR 

3015.5; Public Representative: Jennaca 

D. Upperman; Comments Due: August 

16, 2017. 

4. Docket No(s).: MC2017–167 and 

CP2017–260; Filing Title: Request of the 

United States Postal Service to Add 

Priority Mail Contract 339 to 

Competitive Product List and Notice of 

Filing (Under Seal) of Unredacted 

Governors’ Decision, Contract, and 

Supporting Data; Filing Acceptance 

Date: August 4, 2017; Filing Authority: 

39 CFR 3015.5; Public Representative: 

Matthew R. Ashford; Comments Due: 

August 16, 2017. 

5. Docket No(s).: MC2017–168 and 

CP2017–261; Filing Title: Request of the 

United States Postal Service to Add 

Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & 

First-Class Package Service Contract 21 

to Competitive Product List and Notice 

of Filing (Under Seal) of Unredacted 

Governors’ Decision, Contract, and 

Supporting Data; Filing Acceptance 

Date: August 4, 2017; Filing Authority: 

39 CFR 3020.30; Public Representative: 

Matthew R. Ashford; Comments Due: 

August 16, 2017. 

This notice will be published in the 

Federal Register. 

Stacy L. Ruble, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2017–16935 Filed 8–10–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–81324; File No. SR– 

PEARL–2017–33] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX 

PEARL, LLC; Notice of Filing and 

Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed 

Rule Change To Amend MIAX PEARL 

Rules 504, Trading Halts, and 521, 

Nullification and Adjustment of 

Options Transactions Including 

Obvious Errors 

August 7, 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 2, 

2017, MIAX PEARL, LLC (‘‘MIAX 

PEARL’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule 

change as described in Items I and II 

below, which Items have been prepared 

by the Exchange. The Commission is 

publishing this notice to solicit 

comments on the proposed rule change 

from interested persons. 

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Terms of Substance of 

the Proposed Rule Change 

The Exchange proposes to amend 

Exchange Rules 504, Trading Halts, and 

521, Nullification and Adjustment of 

Options Transactions including Obvious 

Errors. 

The text of the proposed rule change 

is available on the Exchange’s Web site 

at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rulefilings/pearl at MIAX PEARL’s principal 

office, and at the Commission’s Public 

Reference Room. 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 154 / Friday, August 11, 2017 / Notices 37619 

3The Exchange’s application for registration as a 

national securities exchange, as approved by the 

Commission, incorporated the changes made 

previously by the other options exchanges. See 

Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79543 

(December 13, 2016), 81 FR 92901 (December 20, 

2016) (the ‘‘Initial Filing’’). 

4See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81084 

(July 6, 2017), 82 FR 32216 (July 12, 2017) (granting 

approval of Bats BZX proposal). 

5See e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 

80040 (February 14, 2017), 82 FR 11248 (February 

21, 2017) (SR–CBOE–2016–088) (granting approval 

of CBOE proposal related to the nullification and 

adjustment of complex orders); 80298 (March 22, 

2017), 82 FR 15393 (March 28, 2017) (SR–C2–2017– 

011) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of 

C2 proposal related to the nullification and 

adjustment of complex orders); 80284 (March 21, 

2017), 82 FR 15251 (March 27, 2017) (SR–MIAX– 

2017–13) (notice of filing and immediate 

effectiveness of MIAX proposal related to the 

nullification and adjustment of complex orders). 

6Though the Exchange and other options 

exchanges considered a streaming feed, it was 

determined that it would be more feasible to 

Continued 

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 

Background 

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 Commission approved 

on July 6, 2017,4 and those that the 

other options exchanges intend to or 

have filed. Finally, the Exchange notes 

that options exchanges that offer 

complex orders on their options 

platforms either already have in place 

rules for handling the adjustment and 

nullification of erroneous complex order 

transactions in place or have filed 

proposals related to such rules, which 

proposals have recently been approved 

by the Commission or filed on an 

immediately effective basis.5

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 Rule 521, 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 

Interpretation and Policy .03 to specify 

how the Exchange will determine 

Theoretical Price when required by subparagraphs (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 

Rule 521 and the NBBO is unavailable 

or deemed unreliable pursuant to Rule 

521(b). The Exchange and other options 

exchanges have selected CBOE Livevol, 

LLC (‘‘Livevol’’) as the TP Provider, as 

described below. As further described 

below, proposed Interpretation and 

Policy .03 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 Interpretation 

and Policy .03, when the Exchange must 

determine Theoretical Price pursuant to 

the sub-paragraphs (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 request and not 

through a streaming data feed.6 This 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
37620 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 154 / Friday, August 11, 2017 / Notices 

develop and implement an on demand service and 

that such a service would satisfy the goals of the 

initiative. 7The 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’’). 8For purposes of the Rule, an Official is an 

Officer of the Exchange or such other employee 

designee of the Exchange that is trained in the 

application of Rule 521. 9See proposed paragraph (b) to Interpretation and 

Policy .03. 10The 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. 

11To 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. 

12 In the context of a Significant Market Event, the 

Exchange may determine, ‘‘in consultation with 

other options exchanges . . . that timely adjustment 

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 

Interpretation and Policy .03. 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.7 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 8 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.9 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.10

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.11

Pursuant to proposed paragraph (c) to 

Interpretation and Policy .03, 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 Rule 

521(e)(4), the Exchange has not 

proposed a specific time by which the 

service must be available in order to be 

considered timely.12 The Exchange 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 154 / Friday, August 11, 2017 / Notices 37621 

is not feasible due to the extraordinary nature of the 

situation.’’ See Rule 521(e)(4). 

13See, e.g., MIAX PEARL Rule 526, which relates 

to index options potentially listed and traded on the 

Exchange and disclaims liability for a reporting 

authority and their affiliates. 

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 Rule 521(e), 

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 

Interpretation and Policy .03 to Rule 521 

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 Interpretation .03. 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.13

In connection with the proposed 

change described above, the Exchange 

proposes to modify Rule 521 to state 

that the Exchange will rely on paragraph 

(b) and Interpretation and Policy .03 

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. 

Result 

• Based on the Exchange’s current 

rules, the Exchange would identify 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
37622 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 154 / Friday, August 11, 2017 / Notices 

14The 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. 

15The 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. 

Market Maker A as a participant to the 

trades at issue and would consider 

Market Maker A’s quotations invalid 

pursuant to Rule 521(b)(2). 

• 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. 

Æ 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. 

Æ 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. 

Æ 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 Rule 

521(b)(2). 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 14

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’’).15

• 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 Rule 521(b)(2). 

• 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. 

Æ 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. 

Æ 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. 

Æ 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. 

• 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 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 154 / Friday, August 11, 2017 / Notices 37623 

16See supra, note 4. 

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

18 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 

19 Id. 

20 Id. 

21See supra, note 13. 

22 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 

23 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 

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 

Rules 504 and 521(f) 

Exchange Rules 504 and 521(f) 

describe the Exchange’s authority to 

declare trading halts in one or more 

options traded on the Exchange. 

Currently, Rule 521(f) and Interpretation 

and Policy .04 to Rule 504 both state 

that the Exchange shall nullify any 

transaction that occurs during a trading 

halt in the affected option on the 

Exchange or, with respect to equity 

options, during a trading halt on the 

primary listing market for the 

underlying security. The Exchange 

proposes to make clear with respect to 

equity options that it 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, 2017.16 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.17 Specifically, the proposal is 

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

Act 18 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 19 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 Rule 521, 

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 20 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 Rule 521. 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 Interpretation and Policy .03 to 

Rule 521 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,21 and is consistent with Section 

6(b)(5) of the Act 22 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 23 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 

or more other options exchanges to 

identify to the Exchange the quotes 

which were submitted by that party and 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
37624 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 154 / Friday, August 11, 2017 / Notices 

24 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 

25 Id. 

26See, e.g., Interpretation and Policy .07 to CBOE 

Rule 6.3. 

27 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8). 

28 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 

29 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. 

published by other options exchanges. 

The Exchange believes these limitations 

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

Act 24 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 the Exchange’s trading 

halt rules, Rule 504 and Rule 521(f), the 

Exchange believes that this proposal is 

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

Act 25 because such proposal clarifies 

the provision by distinguishing between 

a trading halt in an underlying security 

where the security has halted trading 

across the industry (i.e., a regulatory 

halt) 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 this 

distinction is already clear in the rules 

of certain other options exchanges, and 

thus, has been found to be consistent 

with the Act.26

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. The 

Exchange believes the entire proposal is 

consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the 

Act 27 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 of 

erroneous options transactions. The 

Exchange does not believe that the rules 

applicable to such process in [sic] 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 

Written comments were neither 

solicited nor 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 28 and Rule 19b–4(f)(6) 29

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– 

PEARL–2017–33 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–PEARL–2017–33. 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– 

PEARL–2017–33, and should be 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 154 / Friday, August 11, 2017 / Notices 37625 

30 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. 78962 

(September 28, 2016), 81 FR 69240 (October 5, 

2016) (File No. S7–22–16). 

5See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79732 

(January 4, 2017), 82 FR 3042 (January 10, 2017) 

(SR–NYSEArca–2016–145). 

6See 17 CFR 240.15c6–1(a). 

7See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80295 

(March 22, 2017), 82 FR 15564 (March 29, 2017) 

(File No. S7–22–16). 

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

9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 

submitted on or before September 1, 

2017. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.30

Eduardo A. Aleman, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2017–16927 Filed 8–10–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–81325; File No. SR– 

NYSEARCA–2017–82] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE 

Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and 

Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed 

Rule Change in Connection With the 

September 5, 2017 Compliance Date 

for the Shortening of the Standard 

Settlement Cycle From Three Business 

Days After the Trade Date to Two 

Business Days After the Trade Date 

August 7, 2017. 

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 July 26, 

2017, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ‘‘Exchange’’ 

or ‘‘NYSE Arca’’) filed with the 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

(the ‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule 

change as described in Items I and II 

below, which Items have been prepared 

by the self-regulatory 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 in connection 

with the September 5, 2017, compliance 

date for the shortening of the standard 

settlement cycle from three business 

days after the trade date (‘‘T+3’’) to two 

business days after the trade date 

(‘‘T+2’’), to (1) delete NYSE Arca 

Equities Rule 7.4 (Ex-Dividend or ExRight Dates); (2) delete the preamble and 

‘‘T’’ modifier from NYSE Arca Equities 

Rule 7.4T (‘‘Rule 7.4T’’); and (3) 

establish the operative date of Rule 

7.4T. 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 

In connection with the September 5, 

2017, compliance date for shortening of 

the standard settlement cycle from T+3 

to T+2, the Exchange proposes to (1) 

delete NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.4 

(‘‘Rule 7.4’’); (2) delete the preamble and 

‘‘T’’ modifier from Rule 7.4T; and (3) 

establish the operative date of Rule 7.4T 

as September 5, 2017. 

Background 

On September 28, 2016, the Securities 

and Exchange Commission (‘‘SEC’’) 

proposed amendments to Rule 15c6– 

1(a) to shorten the standard settlement 

cycle from T+3 to T+2.4 Following this 

action by the SEC, the Exchange 

adopted a new Rule 7.4 with the 

modifier ‘‘T’’ to reflect a T+2 settlement 

cycle.5 Because the Exchange would not 

implement Rule 7.4T until after the final 

implementation of T+2, the Exchange 

retained the version of Rule 7.4 

reflecting T+3 settlement on its books. 

In order to reduce the potential for 

confusion regarding which version of 

the rule governs, the Exchange added 

explanatory preambles to Rule 7.4 and 

Rule 7.4T. 

In particular, the following preamble 

was added to Rule 7.4: 

This version of Rule 7.4 will remain 

operative until the Exchange files separate 

proposed rule changes as necessary to 

establish the operative date of ‘‘Rule 7.4T. 

Ex-Dividend or Ex-Right Dates,’’ to delete 

this version of Rule 7.4 and preamble, and to 

remove the preamble text from the version of 

Rule 7.4T. In addition to filing the necessary 

proposed rule changes, the Exchange will 

announce via Information Memo the 

operative date of the deletion of this Rule and 

implementation of ‘‘Rule 7.4T. Ex-Dividend 

or Ex-Right Dates.’’ 

The following preamble was added to 

Rule 7.4T: 

The Exchange will file separate proposed 

rule changes to establish the operative date 

of Rule 7.4T, to delete ‘‘Rule 7.4. ExDividend or Ex-Right Dates’’ and the 

preamble text from Rule 7.4, and to remove 

the preamble text from the version of Rule 

7.4T. Until such time, ‘‘Rule 7.4. Ex-Dividend 

or Ex-Right Dates’’ will remain operative. In 

addition to filing the necessary proposed rule 

changes, the Exchange will announce via 

Information Memo the implementation of 

this Rule and the operative date of the 

deletion of ‘‘Rule 7.4. Ex-Dividend or ExRight Dates.’’ 

On March 22, 2017, the SEC adopted 

the proposed amendment to Rule 15c6– 

1(a) under the Act 6 with a compliance 

date of September 5, 2017.7

Proposed Rule Change 

In order to comply with the 

September 5, 2017, transition to T+2 

settlement, the Exchange proposes to: 

• Delete Rule 7.4, including the 

preamble, in its entirety; 

• delete the preamble to Rule 7.4T; 

and 

• delete the ‘‘T’’ modifier in Rule 

7.4T, which distinguished it from Rule 

7.4. 

The Exchange proposes that the 

changes described herein would take 

effect on September 5, 2017, to coincide 

with the transition to T+2. The 

Exchange will announce via Information 

Memo the implementation of Rule 7.4T 

and the operative date of the deletion of 

Rule 7.4. 

2. Statutory Basis 

The Exchange believes that the 

proposed rule change is consistent with 

Section 6(b) of the Act,8 in general, and 

further the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) 

of the Act,9 in particular, because it is 

designed to prevent fraudulent and 

manipulative acts and practices, 

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, to protect 

investors and the public interest. 

In particular, the Exchange believes 

that the proposed changes remove 

impediments to and perfect the 

mechanism of a free and open market by 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES