Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2017 / Notices 42375 

1Applicants request relief with respect to any 

existing or future series of the Trust or any other 

registered open-end management company that: (a) 

Is advised by the Initial Adviser, or any person 

controlling, controlled by or under common control 

with the Initial Adviser or its successors (each, an 

‘‘Adviser’’); (b) uses the manager of managers 

structure described in the application; and (c) 

complies with the terms and conditions of the 

application (any such series, a ‘‘Fund’’ and 

collectively, the ‘‘Funds’’). For purposes of the 

requested order, ‘‘successor’’ is limited to an entity 

that results from a reorganization into another 

jurisdiction or a change in the type of business 

organization. 

2The Initial Adviser already has hired a 

subadviser for the Measured Risk Strategy Fund in 

compliance with section 15(a) of the Act. 

3The requested relief will not extend to any 

subadviser that is an affiliated person, as defined in 

section 2(a)(3) of the Act, of the Trust, a Fund, or 

the Adviser, other than solely by reason of serving 

as a Subadviser to one or more of the Funds, or as 

an adviser or subadviser to any series of the Trust 

other than the Funds (‘‘Affiliated Subadviser’’). 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

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

4 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). 

ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities 

and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street 

NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090. 

Applicants: Jennifer Farrell, Secretary, 

Northern Lights Fund Trust IV, 80 

Arkay Drive, Suite 110, Hauppauge, NY 

11788. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Courtney S. Thornton, Senior Counsel, 

at (202) 551–6812, or Robert H. Shapiro, 

Branch Chief, at (202) 551–6821 

(Division of Investment Management, 

Chief Counsel’s Office). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

following is a summary of the 

application. The complete application 

may be obtained via the Commission’s 

Web site by searching for the file 

number, or an applicant using the 

Company name box, at http://

www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or by 

calling (202) 551–8090. 

Summary of the Application 

1. The Adviser will serve as the 

investment adviser to the Funds 

pursuant to an investment advisory 

agreement with the Trust (the ‘‘Advisory 

Agreement’’).1 The Adviser will provide 

each Fund with overall investment 

management services and will 

continuously review, supervise and 

administer each Fund’s investment 

program, subject to the supervision of, 

and policies established by, each Fund’s 

board of trustees (‘‘Board’’). The 

Advisory Agreement permits the 

Adviser, subject to the approval of the 

Board, to delegate to one or more 

subadvisers (each, a ‘‘Subadviser’’ and 

collectively, the ‘‘Subadvisers’’) the 

responsibility to provide the day-to-day 

portfolio investment management of 

each Fund, subject to the supervision 

and direction of the Adviser.2 The 

primary responsibility for managing the 

Funds will remain vested in the 

Adviser. The Adviser will hire, 

evaluate, allocate assets to and oversee 

the Subadvisers, including determining 

whether a Subadviser should be 

terminated, at all times subject to the 

authority of the Board. 

2. Applicants request an exemption to 

permit the Adviser, subject to Board 

approval, to hire certain Subadvisers 

pursuant to subadvisory agreements and 

materially amend existing subadvisory 

agreements without obtaining the 

shareholder approval required under 

section 15(a) of the Act and rule 18f–2 

under the Act.3 Applicants also seek an 

exemption from the Disclosure 

Requirements to permit a Fund to 

disclose (as both a dollar amount and a 

percentage of the Fund’s net assets): (a) 

The aggregate fees paid to the Adviser 

and any Affiliated Subadviser; and (b) 

the aggregate fees paid to Subadvisers 

other than Affiliated Subadvisers. For 

any Fund that employs an Affiliated 

Subadviser, the Fund will provide 

separate disclosure of any fees paid to 

the Affiliated Subadviser. 

3. Applicants agree that any order 

granting the requested relief will be 

subject to the terms and conditions 

stated in the application. Such terms 

and conditions provide for, among other 

safeguards, appropriate disclosure to 

Fund shareholders and notification 

about subadvisory changes and 

enhanced Board oversight to protect the 

interests of the Funds’ shareholders. 

4. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that 

the Commission may exempt any 

person, security, or transaction or any 

class or classes of persons, securities, or 

transactions from any provisions of the 

Act, or any rule thereunder, if such 

relief is necessary or appropriate in the 

public interest and consistent with the 

protection of investors and purposes 

fairly intended by the policy and 

provisions of the Act. Applicants 

believe that the requested relief meets 

this standard because, as further 

explained in the application, the 

Advisory Agreements will remain 

subject to shareholder approval while 

the role of the Subadvisers is 

substantially similar to that of 

individual portfolio managers, so that 

requiring shareholder approval of 

subadvisory agreements would impose 

unnecessary delays and expenses on the 

Funds. Applicants believe that the 

requested relief from the Disclosure 

Requirements meets this standard 

because it will improve the Adviser’s 

ability to negotiate fees paid to the 

Subadvisers that are more advantageous 

for the Funds. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Investment Management, under delegated 

authority. 

Eduardo A. Aleman, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2017–18929 Filed 9–6–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–81516; File No. SR–CBOE– 

2017–058] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; 

Chicago Board Options Exchange, 

Incorporated; Notice of Filing and 

Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed 

Rule Change To Amend Rule 6.25, 

Nullification and Adjustment of 

Options Transactions Including 

Obvious Errors 

August 31, 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 

29, 2017, Chicago Board Options 

Exchange, Incorporated (the ‘‘Exchange’’ 

or ‘‘CBOE’’) filed with the Securities 

and Exchange Commission (the 

‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule 

change as described in Items I and II 

below, which Items have been prepared 

by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the 

proposal as a ‘‘non-controversial’’ 

proposed rule change pursuant to 

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

Rule 19b–4(f)(6) thereunder.4 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 purpose of this filing is to amend 

Rule 6.25, Nullification and Adjustment 

of Options Transactions including 

Obvious Errors. The text of the proposed 

rule change is attached as Exhibit 5 

(sic). 

The text of the proposed rule change 

is also available on the Exchange’s Web 

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

CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at 

the Exchange’s Office of the Secretary, 

and at the Commission’s Public 

Reference Room. 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

42376 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2017 / Notices 

5See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 74556 

(March 20, 2015), 80 FR 16031 (March 26, 2015) 

(SR–BATS–2014–067); 81084 (July 6, 2017), 82 FR 

32216 (July 12, 2017) (SR–BatsBZX–2017–35); See 

also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73884 

(December 18, 2014), 79 FR 77557 (December 24, 

2014) (the ‘‘Initial Filing’’). 

6Though 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. 

7The Exchange notes that in 2015, Livevol was 

acquired by CBOE Holdings, Inc., the ultimate 

parent company of the Exchange and C2 Options 

Exchange (‘‘C2’’). 

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.5 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, the Exchange 

proposes to amend the no valid quotes 

provision. 

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 6.25, 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 .08 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 6.25 and the NBBO is unavailable 

or deemed unreliable pursuant to Rule 

6.25(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 .08 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 .08, 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 

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 .08. 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 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2017 / Notices 42377 

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 6.25. 

9See proposed paragraph (b) to Interpretation and 

Policy .08. 

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 the Exchange 

and multiple other 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 non-affiliated 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 

is not feasible due to the extraordinary nature of the 

situation.’’ See Rule 6.25(e)(4). 

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 .08, 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 

6.25(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 

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 6.25(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 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

42378 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2017 / Notices 

13See, e.g., Rule 24.14, which relates to index 

options potentially listed and traded on the 

Exchange and disclaims liability for a reporting 

authority and their affiliates; see also, e.g., Rule 

29.10, which relates to certain types of Credit 

Options potentially listed and traded on the 

Exchange and disclaim liability for the Exchange, 

a reporting authority and any agent of the Exchange. 

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 .08 to Rule 

6.25 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 and 

Policy .08. 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 6.25 to state 

that the Exchange will rely on paragraph 

(b), and Interpretation and Policy .08 

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, Trading 

Permit Holder (‘‘TPH’’) Erroneously 

Quotes on One Exchange 

Assumptions 

For purposes of this example, assume 

the following: 

• A TPH 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 TPH 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 TPH 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 invalid 

pursuant to Rule 6.25(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 TPH A were non-Customer 

orders. 

Æ The executions in all series would 

be nullified to the extent the incoming 

orders submitted by TPH A were 

Customer orders. 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2017 / Notices 42379 

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. 

Example 2—Current Rule, TPH 

Erroneously Quotes on Multiple 

Exchanges 

Assumptions 

For purposes of this example, assume 

the following: 

• A TPH 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 TPH 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 TPH 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 

6.25(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, TPH 

Erroneously Quotes on Multiple 

Exchanges 14

Assumptions 

For purposes of this example, assume 

the following: 

• A TPH 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 TPH 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 TPH 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 6.25(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 TPH A were non-Customer 

orders. 

Æ The executions in all series would 

be nullified to the extent the incoming 

orders submitted by TPH 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 

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. 

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 Circular 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 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

42380 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2017 / Notices 

16 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8). 

and regulations thereunder that are 

applicable to a national securities 

exchange, and, in particular, with the 

requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act. 

Specifically, the proposal is consistent 

with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 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 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 6.25, 

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 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 6.25. 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 .08 to 

Rule 6.25 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, and is consistent with Section 

6(b)(5) of the Act 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 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 

published by other options exchanges. 

The Exchange believes these limitations 

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

Act 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. 

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Burden on Competition 

The Exchange believes the proposal is 

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

Act 16 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 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 intend to 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2017 / Notices 42381 

17 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). 

18 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. 19 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

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 

The Exchange neither solicited nor 

received comments on the proposed 

rule change. 

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 from the date on 

which it was filed, or such shorter time 

as the Commission may designate, it has 

become effective pursuant to Section 

19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 17 and 

subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b–4 

thereunder.18

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: (i) Necessary or appropriate in 

the public interest; (ii) for the protection 

of investors; or (iii) 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– 

CBOE–2017–058 on the subject line. 

Paper Comments 

• Send paper comments in triplicate 

to Secretary, Securities and Exchange 

Commission, 100 F Street NE., 

Washington, DC 20549–1090. 

All submissions should refer to File 

Number SR–CBOE–2017–058. 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–CBOE– 

2017–058, and should be submitted on 

or before September 28, 2017. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.19

Eduardo A. Aleman, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2017–18939 Filed 9–6–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Investment Company Act Release No. 

32805; File No. 812–14754] 

American Century International Bond 

Funds, et al. 

August 31, 2017. 

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

Notice of an application for an order 

under section 12(d)(1)(J) of the 

Investment Company Act of 1940 (the 

‘‘Act’’) for an exemption from sections 

12(d)(1)(A), (B), and (C) of the Act and 

under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act 

for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) 

and (2) of the Act. The requested order 

would permit certain registered openend investment companies to acquire 

shares of certain registered open-end 

investment companies, registered 

closed-end investment companies, 

business development companies, as 

defined in section 2(a)(48) of the Act 

(‘‘BDCs’’) and registered unit investment 

trusts (collectively, ‘‘Underlying 

Funds’’) that are within and outside the 

same group of investment companies as 

the acquiring investment companies, in 

excess of the limits in section 12(d)(1) 

of the Act. 

Applicants: American Century 

International Bond Funds (‘‘ACIBF’’), a 

Massachusetts business trust, and 

American Century Strategic Asset 

Allocations, Inc. (‘‘ACSAA’’), a 

Maryland corporation, each registered 

under the Act as an open-end 

management investment company with 

multiple series (each series, a ‘‘Fund’’ 

and collectively, the ‘‘Funds’’); 

American Century Investment 

Management, Inc. (‘‘ACIM’’ or the 

‘‘Advisor’’), a Delaware Corporation 

registered as an investment adviser 

under the Investment Advisers Act of 

1940; and American Century Investment 

Services, Inc., a Missouri corporation, 

registered as a broker-dealer under the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

(‘‘Exchange Act’’). 

Filing Dates: The application was 

filed on March 7, 2017, and amended on 

August 4, 2017. 

Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An 

order granting the requested relief will 

be issued unless the Commission orders 

a hearing. Interested persons may 

request a hearing by writing to the 

Commission’s Secretary and serving 

applicants with a copy of the request, 

personally or by mail. Hearing requests 

should be received by the Commission 

by 5:30 p.m. on September 25, 2017 and 

should be accompanied by proof of 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES