Document ID: SEC-2016-1945-0001
Agency: sec
Document Type: Notice
Title: Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: NYSE Arca, Inc.
Posted Date: 2016-11-07T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 215 (Monday, November 7, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78233-78238]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26796]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79214; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2016-139]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing 
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Commentary 
.05 to Rule 6.91

November 1, 2016.
    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 October 25, 2016, 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 Exchange. The Commission 
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule 
change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance 
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend Commentary .05 to Rule 
6.91(Electronic Complex Order Trading) to enhance the price protection 
filters applicable to electronically entered Complex Orders. The 
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at 
www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the 
Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and 
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization 
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the 
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the 
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at 
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared 
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most 
significant parts of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the 
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to amend Commentary .05 to Rule 6.91 to 
enhance the Exchange's price protection filters applicable to 
electronically entered Complex Orders,\4\ including by clarifying how 
the functionality operates and expanding its application, as described 
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Rule 6.62(e) defines a Complex Order as any order involving 
the simultaneous purchase and/or sale of two or more different 
option series in the same underlying security, for the same account, 
in a ratio that is equal to or greater than one-to-three (.333) and 
less than or equal to three-to-one (3.00) and for the purpose of 
executing particular investment strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clarifying the Description of the Filter
    Commentary .05 to Rule 6.91 currently sets forth the Price 
Protection Filter (the ``Filter'') applicable to each incoming 
``Electronic Complex Order'' (or ``ECO'').\5\ The Filter automatically 
rejects incoming ECOs with a price that deviates from the current 
market by the Specified Amount,\6\ which varies depending on the 
smallest MPV of any leg in the ECO.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Per Rule 6.91, an ECO is a Complex Order that has been 
entered into the NYSE Arca System (``System'') and routed to the 
Complex Matching Engine (``CME'') for possible execution. The CME is 
the mechanism in which ECOs are executed against each other or 
against individual quotes and orders in the Consolidated Book. ECOs 
that are not immediately executed by the CME are ranked in the 
Consolidated Book. See Rule 6.91(a).
    \6\ The Specified Amount is defined as: (i) .10 for orders where 
the smallest Minimum Price Variation (``MPV'') of any leg of the 
Electronic Complex Order is .01; (ii) .15 for orders where the 
smallest MPV of any leg of the Electronic Complex Order is .05; and 
.30 for orders where the smallest MPV of any leg of the Electronic 
Complex Order is .10. See Commentary .05 to Rule 6.91.
    \7\ See Commentary .05 to Rule 6.91(a). The Exchange notes that 
each ECO is entered into the System at a net debit (credit) price 
for the entire strategy and does not include specified prices for 
any single series component (``leg'') of the ECO. See also 
Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 70677 (October 11, 2013), 78 
FR 62923 (October 22, 2013) (SR-NYSEArca--2013-103) (Notice of 
filing, which describes the operation of the Filter) (herein 
referred to as the ``Original Release'').

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 78234]]

    First, the Exchange proposes to modify its description of how the 
Filter operates to make it easier for market participants to 
understand. Commentary .05 to Rule 6.91 currently describes the Filter 
as rejecting an ECO if ``the net debit/credit limit price of the order 
is greater (less) than the derived net debit/credit NBBO for the 
contra-side of that same strategy by an amount specified by the 
Exchange (`Specified Amount').'' The Exchange proposes to replace 
references to the ``derived contra-side net debit/credit NBBO'' with 
the ``contra-side Complex NBBO,'' as the Exchange has defined Complex 
NBBO since implementing the Filter.\8\ This proposed modification would 
not affect the operation of the rule. Rather, the Exchange believes 
this change would reduce redundancy and add internal consistency to 
Exchange rules. Further, regarding the description of how the Filter 
operates, the Exchange proposes to provide that the Filter would reject 
an ECO back to the submitting OTP Holder if the sum of the following 
would be less than zero ($0.00):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See 6.1A(11)(b) (defining Complex NBBO as ``the NBBO for a 
given complex order strategy as derived from the national best bid 
and national best offer for each individual component series of a 
Complex Order''). See also Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 
73267 (September 30, 2014), 79 FR 60223 (October 6, 2014) (SR-
NYSEArca-2014-108) (Notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of 
proposed rule change to codify the term Complex NBBO).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (i) The net debit (credit) limit price of the order,
    (ii) the contra-side Complex NBBO for that same Complex Order, and
    (iii) the Specified Amount.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See proposed Commentary .05(a) to Rule 6.91. The Exchange 
also proposes to relocate the word ``be'' in the first sentence of 
this paragraph to engender the active, as opposed to passive, voice. 
See id. (providing, in part, that ``[a]n incoming [ECO] received 
during Core Trading Hours will be automatically rejected back to the 
submitting OTP Holder'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed modification does not alter how the Filter is applied. 
The Filter would continue to help prevent the execution of 
aggressively-priced ECOs (i.e., priced so far away from the prevailing 
contra-side NBBO market for the same strategy) that could cause 
significant price dislocation in the market. The Exchange would 
continue to apply the Filter to help ensure that market participants do 
not receive an execution at a price significantly inferior to the 
contra-side NBBO. However, the proposed modification would add 
specificity and more clearly convey the operation of the Filter. The 
Exchange believes this proposed change would add clarity and 
transparency to the rule text and enable market participants to better 
understand the operation of the Filter, and the calculation that the 
Exchange applies to incoming ECOs without altering the operation of the 
Filter.
    Second, the Exchange proposes to modify its explanation of how the 
Specified Amount may be adjusted based on the characteristics of the 
ECO. Currently, paragraphs (b)-(d) of Commentary .05 describe how the 
Filter ``will be applied by'' the Specified Amount, which Specified 
Amount is multiplied by the component of the leg ratio that the leg of 
the order represents.\10\ The result is that the Specified Amount may 
change depending on the product of multiplying it by the component of 
the ECO ratio that the leg of the order represents, although the rule 
text does not explicitly state this fact.\11\ The Exchange proposes to 
modify the rule text to make clear that the Specified Amount may be 
adjusted, which, in turn may affect how the Filter ``will be applied.'' 
As with the proposed modification to the description of how the Filter 
operates, this modification further clarifies (but does not alter) the 
operation of the Filter. The Filter would continue to prevent the 
execution of aggressively-priced ECOs that may cause significant price 
dislocation in the market. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to add 
new paragraph (b) to Commentary .05 to provide that ``[t]he Specified 
Amount may be adjusted based on the ratios and the MPVs of the legs of 
the [ECO].'' \12\ The Exchange then proposes to renumber current 
paragraphs (b)-(d) of Commentary .05 to be sub-points (i)-(iii) to new 
paragraph (b) and to clarify in each sub-point how the Specified Amount 
will be adjusted.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Commentary .05(b)-(d) to Rule 6.91.
    \11\ See id. See also supra note 7, Original Release 78 FR at 
62924 (providing examples of how the Filter operates depending upon 
the leg ratio of the ECO).
    \12\ See proposed Commentary .05(b) to Rule 6.91.
    \13\ Consistent with this proposed change, the Exchange also 
proposes to redesignate paragraphs (e) and (f) of Commentary .05 to 
be paragraphs (c) and (d), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Current paragraph (b) to Commentary .05 provides that for ECOs 
``that are entered on a 1x1 ratio, the Price Protection Filter will be 
applied by the Specified Amount (.10, .15, or .30),'' which, as noted 
above, means the Filter would be multiplied by the Specified Amount. In 
ECOs with a 1x1 ratio, the product of this multiplication would always 
result in .10, .15, or .30. Thus, the Exchange proposes to clarify this 
paragraph to provide that for ECOs ``that are entered on a 1x1 ratio, 
the Specified Amount is not adjusted (.10, .15, or .30).'' \14\ The 
Exchange believes this proposed modification makes clear that the 
Specified Amount remains unadjusted for ECOs entered on a 1x1 ratio, 
which is consistent with the current rule text, but not explicitly 
stated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See proposed Commentary .05(b)(i) to Rule 6.91.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, current paragraph (c) to Commentary .05 provides that 
for ECOs ``that are entered on an uneven ratio (2x3 for example) where 
the MPV on all legs is the same, the Price Protection Filter will be 
applied by the Specified Amount multiplied by the smallest contract 
size leg of the ratio (.20, .30, or .60 on a 2x3 for example)''.\15\ 
Rather than state that ``the Filter will be applied by the Specified 
Amount multiplied by the smallest contract size leg of the ratio,'' the 
Exchange proposes to clarify how the Specified Amount is adjusted, 
which is a more straightforward construction that the Exchange believes 
is easier to comprehend. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to clarify 
that for ECOs that are entered on an uneven ratio (2x3 for example) 
where the MPV on all legs is the same, ``the Specified Amount is 
adjusted by multiplying the component of the ratio represented by the 
smallest leg of the order by the Specified Amount (i.e., .20 is the 
adjusted Specified Amount for a 2x3 Electronic Complex Order with an 
MPV of .01 on both legs because .20 (2 x.10) is less than .30 (3 x.10) 
for example).'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Commentary .05(c) to Rule 6.91.
    \16\ See proposed Commentary .05(b)(ii) to Rule 6.91.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, current paragraph (d) to Commentary .05 provides that for 
ECOs ``that are entered on an uneven ratio where the MPV of the legs 
are not the same (2x3 ratio with a .10 MPV and .05 MPV for example), 
the Price Protection Filter will be applied by taking the lesser of; 
the Specified Amount applicable to the smallest size leg of the 
Electronic Complex Order multiplied by the contract size of that leg 
(.60 in this example), or the Specified Amount of the largest size leg 
of the Electronic Complex Order multiplied by the contract size of that 
leg (.45 in this example).'' \17\ Utilizing the same calculation set 
forth in proposed paragraph (b)(ii) to Commentary .05, the Exchange 
likewise proposes to clarify

[[Page 78235]]

how the Specified Amount is adjusted for ECOs that are entered on an 
uneven ratio where the MPV of the legs is not the same (a two-legged 
order with a 2x3 ratio where the first leg has a .10 MPV and the second 
leg has a .05 MPV for example). As proposed, ``the Specified Amount is 
equal to the smallest amount calculated by multiplying, for each leg of 
the order, the Specified Amount for the leg of the order by the 
component of the ratio represented by that leg of the order (i.e., .45 
is the adjusted Specified Amount in this example because .45 (3 x .15) 
is less than .60 (2 x.30).'' \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Commentary .05(c) to Rule 6.91.
    \18\ See proposed paragraph (b)(iii) of Commentary .05 to Rule 
6.91.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that proposed paragraph (b) and sub-
paragraphs (i)-(iii) clarify that the Specified Amount is adjusted 
based on the characteristics of the ECO, which is consistent with the 
current rule text but not stated explicitly. The Exchange believes this 
change, in turn, further clarifies (but does not alter) the operation 
of the Filter making it easier for market participants to understand.
    To illustrate that the proposed modifications do not alter the 
operation of the Filter, the Exchange has applied the description of 
the Filter to the examples that the Exchange relied upon when the [sic] 
it introduced the Filter in 2013.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See supra note 7, Original Release, 78 FR at 62924-25 
(setting froth [sic] five examples to illustrate the operation of 
the Filter).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Example #1: Proposed Rule 6.91(a),(b)
Jan 20 calls--NBBO 2.00-2.10
Jan 25 calls--NBBO 1.05-1.20

    The Exchange receives an incoming ECO to buy Jan 20 calls and sell 
Jan 25 calls on a 1x1 ratio, with a net debit price of 1.25. All legs 
have an MPV of .05. In this case the contra-side Complex NBBO is 
offered at a net credit of 1.05 (this price is established by selling 
one Jan 20 for 2.10 and buying one Jan 25 for 1.05).
    The ECO would be automatically rejected if the sum of the following 
is less than zero ($0.00):
    (i) The net debit limit price of the order, in this case -1.25;
    (ii) the contra-side Complex NBBO for that same Complex Order, in 
this case a net credit of 1.05;
    (iii) and Specified Amount, in this case .15, as all legs have an 
MPV of .05.
    The Filter would reject the ECO in this example back to the 
entering ATP holder because the sum is less than zero (-1.25 + 1.05 + 
.15 = -.05).\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Per the Original Release, the ECO in this example was 
rejected by the Filter because the ``contra-side [Complex] NBBO of 
1.05 is better than the limit price of the [ECO] by .20, which 
exceeds the Filter setting of .15.'' See supra, note 7, Original 
Release, 78 FR at 62923.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Example #2: Proposed Rule 6.91(a),(b)(i)
Jan 20 calls--NBBO 5.00-5.30
Jan 25 calls--NBBO 2.10-2.20

    The Exchange receives an incoming ECO to buy Jan 20 calls and sell 
Jan 25 calls on a 1x1 ratio, with a net debit price of 3.60. The leg 
markets have different MPVs-.05. and .10. In this case, the contra-side 
Complex NBBO is offered at a net credit of 3.20 (this price is 
established by selling one Jan 20 for 5.30 and buying one Jan 25 for 
2.10).
    The ECO would be automatically rejected if the sum of the following 
is less than zero ($0.00):
    (i) The net debit limit price of the order, in this case -3.60;
    (ii) the contra-side Complex NBBO for that same Complex Order, in 
this case a net credit of 3.20;
    (iii) and Specified Amount, in this case .15 (i.e., because the 
smallest MPV of any leg of the 1x1 ECO is .05; the other leg of the ECO 
has a larger MPV of .10).
    The Exchange notes that, in this example, where the ECO is on a 1x1 
ratio and the first leg has a .05 MPV and the second leg has a .10 MPV, 
the Specified Amount would be determined by the smallest MPV of any leg 
of the ECO. Thus, because the smallest MPV of this ECO is .05, the 
Specified Amount is .15 (as opposed to a Specified Amount of .30, which 
would be the Specified Amount if the smallest MPV of any leg of an ECO 
is .10). The Filter would reject the ECO in this example back to the 
entering ATP holder because the sum is less than zero (-3.60 + 3.20 + 
.15 = -.25).\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Per the Original Release, the ECO in this example was 
rejected by the Filter because the ``contra-side [Complex] NBBO of 
1.05 is better than the limit price of the [ECO] by .40, which 
exceeds the Filter setting of .15.'' See supra, note 7, Original 
Release, 78 FR at 62923.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Example #3: Proposed Rule 6.91(a),(b)(i)
Jan 20 calls--NBBO 2.03-2.08
Jan 25 calls--NBBO 1.00-1.01

    The Exchange receives an incoming Electronic Complex Order to sell 
Jan 20 calls and buy Jan 25 calls on a 1 x 1 ratio, with a net credit 
price of .90. All legs have the same MPV of .01: In this case the 
contra-side Complex NBBO market is priced at a net debit of 1.02 (this 
price is established by buying one Jan 20 for 2.03 and selling one Jan 
25 for 1.01).
    The ECO would be automatically rejected if the sum of the following 
is less than zero ($0.00):
    (i) The net credit limit price of the order, in this case .90;
    (ii) the contra-side Complex NBBO for that same Complex Order, in 
this case a net debit of -1.02;
    (iii) and Specified Amount, in this case .10, because all legs have 
an MPV of .01.
    The Filter would reject the ECO in this example back to the 
entering ATP holder because the sum is less than zero (.90 + (-1.02) + 
.10= -.02).\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Per the Original Release, the ECO in this example was 
rejected by the Filter because the ``contra-side [Complex] NBBO of 
1.02 is better than the limit price of the [ECO] by .12, which 
exceeds the Filter setting of .10.'' See supra, note 7, Original 
Release, 78 FR at 62923.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Example #4: Proposed Rule 6.91(a),(b)(ii)
Jan 20 calls--NBBO 2.03-2.08
Jan 25 calls--NBBO 1.00-1.02

    The Exchange receives an incoming ECO to sell Jan 20 calls and buy 
Jan 25 calls, on a 2 x 3 ratio, with a net credit price of .75. All 
legs have the same MPV of .01. In this case the contra-side Complex 
NBBO market is priced at a net debit of 1.00 (this price is established 
by buying two Jan 20s for 2.03 each and selling three Jan 25s for 1.02 
each (4.06 - 3.06 = 1.00)).
    The ECO would be automatically rejected if the sum of the following 
is less than zero ($0.00):
    (i) The net credit limit price of the order, in this case .75;
    (ii) the contra-side Complex NBBO for that same Complex Order, in 
this case a net debit of -1.00;
    (iii) and Specified Amount, in this case .20 (i.e., .10 (as the MPV 
of both legs is .01) x 2 (the component of the ratio represented by the 
smallest leg of the order) = .20).
    The Exchange notes that, in this example, where the ECO is on a 2x3 
ratio and the MPVs on all legs is the same, the Specified Amount is 
adjusted by multiplying the component of the ratio represented by the 
smallest leg of the order by the Specified Amount (i.e., .20 in this 
example where the MPV on both legs is .01 because .20 (2 x .10) is less 
than .30 (3 x .10).
    The Filter would reject the ECO in this example back to the 
entering ATP holder because the sum is less than zero (.75 + (-1.00) + 
.20 = -.05).\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Per the Original Release, the ECO in this example was 
rejected by the Filter because the ``contra-side [Complex] NBBO of 
1.00 is better than the limit price of the [ECO] by .25, which 
exceeds the Filter setting of .20.'' See supra, note 7, Original 
Release, 78 FR at 62923.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Example #5: Proposed Rule 6.91(a), (b)(iii)
Jan 20 calls--NBBO 4.10-4.20
Jan 25 calls--NBBO 1.90-2.00

    The Exchange receives an incoming ECO to sell Jan 20 calls and buy 
Jan 25

[[Page 78236]]

calls, on a 2 x 3 ratio, with a net credit price of 1.50. The leg 
markets have different MPVs--.05. and .10, respectively. In this case 
the contra-side Complex NBBO market is priced at a net debit of 2.20 
(this price is established by buying two Jan 20s for 4.10 each and 
selling three Jan 25s for 2.00 each (8.20 - 6.00 = 2.20)).
    The ECO would be automatically rejected if the sum of the following 
is less than zero ($0.00):
    (i) The net credit limit price of the order, in this case 1.50;
    (ii) the contra-side Complex NBBO for that same Complex Order, in 
this case a net debit of -2.20;
    (iii) and Specified Amount, in this case .45 (i.e.,.45 is equal to 
the smallest amount calculated by multiplying, for each leg of the 
order, the Specified Amount for the leg of the order by the component 
of the ratio represented by that leg of the order, which yields either 
.60 (2 x .30 = .60) or .45 (3 x .15 = .45)).
    The Exchange notes that, in this example, where the ECO is on a 2 x 
3 ratio and the MPV of the legs is not the same, the Specified Amount 
is equal to the smallest amount calculated by multiplying, for each leg 
of the order, the Specified Amount for the leg of the order by the 
component of the ratio represented by that leg of the order (i.e., .45 
is the adjusted Specified Amount in this example because .45 (3 x .15) 
is less than .60 (2 x .30).
    The Filer would reject this order back to the entering ATP holder 
because the sum is less than zero (1.50 + (-2.20 + .45 = -.25).\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Per the Original Release, the ECO in this example was 
rejected by the Filter because the ``contra-side [Complex] NBBO of 
2.20 is better than the limit price of the [ECO] by .70, which 
exceeds the Filter setting of .45.'' See supra, note 7, Original 
Release, 78 FR at 62924.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Example #6: Proposed 6.91(a), (b) \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ The Exchange notes that Example #6 is new to this filing 
and was not included in the Original Release, as the Original 
Release did not include an example of an ECO that was not rejected 
by the Filter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jan 20 calls--NBBO 2.00-2.10
Jan 25 calls--NBBO 1.05-1.20

    The Exchange receives an incoming ECO to buy Jan 20 calls and sell 
Jan 25 calls on a 1 x 1 ratio, with a net debit price of 1.19. All legs 
have an MPV of .05. In this case the contra-side Complex NBBO is 
offered at a net credit of 1.05 (this price is established by selling 
one Jan 20 for 2.10 and buying one Jan 25 for 1.05).
    The ECO would be automatically rejected if the sum of the following 
is less than zero ($0.00):
    (i) The net debit limit price of the order, in this case -1.19;
    (ii) the contra-side Complex NBBO for that same Complex Order, in 
this case a net credit of 1.05;
    (iii) and Specified Amount, in this case .15, as all legs have an 
MPV of .05.
    The Filter would not reject the ECO in this example because the sum 
is zero or greater (-1.19 + 1.05 + .15 = .01).\26\ The ECO would be 
sent to the CME for processing and potential execution.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Per the Original Release, the ECO in this example was 
rejected by the Filter because the ``contra-side [Complex] NBBO of 
1.05 is better than the limit price of the [ECO] by .20, which 
exceeds the Filter setting of .15.'' See supra, note 7, Original 
Release, 78 FR at 62923.
    \27\ See supra, note 5 (citing Rule 980NY(a) regarding 
processing of incoming ECOs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Extending the Operation of the Filter
    The Exchange also proposes to modify paragraph (a) of Commentary 
.05 to Rule 6.91 to expand the application of the Filter to ECOs 
received prior to the opening of trading or during a trading halt. The 
current Filter is applied only to those ECOs entered during Core 
Trading Hours.\28\ As proposed, for each ECO received pre-open or 
during a trading halt, the Exchange would apply the Filter at the time 
all the individual component option series open or reopen, provided 
there is an NBBO market disseminated by OPRA for all individual 
component option series of the ECO. In this regard, the Exchange 
proposes to modify paragraph (e) of Commentary .05 of the Rule to 
remove reference to ``incoming'' and ``at the time the order is 
received by the Exchange,'' to signify that the Filter is being applied 
to ECOs received outside of Core Trading Hours.\29\ Further, because 
ECOs received pre-open or during a halt cannot immediately execute, 
these ECOs would be placed in the Consolidated Book until the series 
opens or resumes trading, at which time the Filter would be applied 
before the ECO is eligible to trade.\30\ Any ECOs that deviate from the 
current market by too great an amount, as set forth in the rule, would 
be canceled, as opposed to being immediately rejected upon receipt (as 
are ECOs received during Core Trading Hours).\31\ The reason such ECOs 
would be cancelled (and not rejected) is because the CME would accept 
these orders and, once accepted but not immediately executed, they 
would be placed on the Consolidated Book until the individual component 
option series open or reopen.\32\ The CME would not reject an ECO that 
it had previously accepted, and therefore such ECOs would be cancelled 
instead. The order sender would be notified of the cancellation. The 
proposed enhancement to the Filter is designed to provide the same 
level of protection to market participants who enter ECOs before the 
open or during a trading halt as is currently provided to ECOs received 
during Core Trading Hours. As proposed, the enhanced Filter would 
further assist the Exchange in preventing the execution of ECOs priced 
so far away from the prevailing contra-side NBBO market for the same 
strategy that the execution of such order could cause significant price 
dislocation in the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Rule 6.1A (a)(3) defines Core Trading Hours as the regular 
trading hours for business set forth in the rules of the primary 
markets underlying those option classes listed on the Exchange. An 
order received prior to the opening of trading would be outside of 
Core Trading Hours. Rule 6.65 describes halts and suspensions of 
trading, which may occur during Core Trading Hours.
    \29\ See also proposed Commentary .05(e) to Rule 6.91. For 
internal consistency, the Exchange also proposes to refer to 
``individual component option series'' in the proposed paragraph. 
See id.
    \30\ See, e.g., Rule 6.91(a) (``[ECOs] that are not immediately 
executed by the CME are routed to the Consolidated Book'').
    \31\ See proposed Commentary .05(a) to Rule 6.91.
    \32\ See supra note 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additional Conforming Changes
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to make several conforming changes 
to Rule 6.91 (a)(2)(i)(B) (Execution of Complex Orders at the Open), 
which are consistent with the proposal to incorporate the defined term 
Complex NBBO in proposed Commentary .05(a). First, the Exchange 
proposes to delete as duplicative the definition of the Complex NBBO 
that appears in Rule 6.91 (a)(2)(i)(B), as the term is now a defined in 
Rule 6.1A(11)(b).\33\ The Exchange also proposes to delete as 
extraneous the word ``derived,'' which precedes references to ``Complex 
NBBO.'' \34\ The Exchange notes that Rule 6.91(a)(2)(i)(B) was updated 
to include the concept of the Complex NBBO before the Exchange codified 
this definition and the proposed changes would therefore streamline the 
rule text and remove redundancy from Exchange rules.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Specifically, the Exchange proposes to delete the following 
text from Rule 6.91(c)(2)(i)(B)[sic]: ``The derived Complex NBBO is 
calculated by using best prices for the individual leg markets 
comprising the Electronic Complex Order as disseminated by OPRA that 
when aggregated create a derived Complex NBBO for that same strategy 
The Exchange believes these changes would add clarity, transparency 
and internal consistency to Exchange rules.''
    \34\ See proposed Rule 6.91(a)(2)(i)(B).
    \35\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 72085 (May 2, 
2014) 79 FR 26482 (May 8, 2014) (SR-NYSEArca-2014-53) (Notice of 
filing and immediate effectiveness of proposed rule change to adopt 
rules governing an opening auction process for ECOs, including 
reference to the ``Complex NBBO'').

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 78237]]

Implementation
    The Exchange will announce by Trader Update the implementation date 
of the proposed rule change to expand the application of the Filter to 
ECOs received prior to the opening of trading or during a trading halt.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 
6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\36\ in 
general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\37\ 
in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and 
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable 
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism 
of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in 
general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \37\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that this proposed rule change would allow 
the Filter to continue to assist with the maintenance of fair and 
orderly market by helping to mitigate the risks associated with the 
execution of ECOs priced away from the current market by the Specified 
Amount, which protects investors from receiving potentially erroneous 
executions. In addition, the proposed modifications would add 
specificity and more clearly convey the operation of the Filter, which 
added clarity and transparency would enable market participants to 
better understand the operation of the Filter. Specifically, the 
proposal to modify existing rule text to more clearly state how the 
Filter is applied and to consistently incorporate the defined term 
``Complex NBBO'' would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism 
of a free and open market and protect investors and the public interest 
because such changes would reduce redundancy and add clarity, 
transparency and internal consistency to Exchange rules.
    Further, the Exchange believes the proposal to make explicit that 
the Specified Amount is adjusted based on the characteristics of the 
ECO, which is consistent with the current rule text, would further 
clarify (without altering) the operation of the Filter making it easier 
for market participants to understand, which would protect investors 
and the public interest.
    The proposal to extend the application of the Filter beyond ECOs 
entered during Core Trading Hours is designed to help maintain a fair 
and orderly market by providing market participants entering ECOs with 
additional protection from anomalous executions. Because the proposed 
Filter would apply to all ECOs, not just those entered during Core 
Trading Hours (absent a trading halt), the proposal would enhance the 
protection offered by the Filter and aid in mitigating the potential 
risks associated with the execution of any ECOs that are priced a 
Specified Amount away from the prevailing contra-side market. The 
proposed rule change would therefore remove impediments to and perfect 
the mechanism of a free and open market and national market system by 
ensuring that an existing price protection would be applicable to all 
ECOs, regardless of when they are entered.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would 
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate 
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
    The Exchange is proposing to enhance an existing price protection 
Filter to provide greater protections from potentially erroneous 
executions and potentially reduce the attendant risks of such 
executions to market participants. Therefore, the Exchange believes 
that the proposal should provide an incentive for market participants 
to enter executable interest in the CME that can help foster price 
discovery and transparency thereby benefiting all market participants. 
The proposal is structured to offer the same enhancement to all market 
participants, regardless of account type, and will not impose a 
competitive burden on any participant.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed enhancement would 
impose a burden on competing options exchanges. Rather, the 
availability of this enhanced Filter may foster more competition. 
Specifically, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly 
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor 
competing venues. When an exchange offers enhanced functionality that 
distinguishes it from the competition and participants find it useful, 
it has been the Exchange's experience that competing exchanges will 
move to adopt similar functionality. Thus, the Exchange believes that 
this type of competition amongst exchanges is beneficial to the market 
place as a whole as it can result in enhanced processes, functionality, 
and technologies.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed 
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the 
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for 
Commission Action

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \38\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\39\ 
Because the 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 prior to 
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as 
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of 
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become 
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \39\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) 
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the 
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a 
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least 
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule 
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The 
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \40\ normally 
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the 
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\41\ the Commission 
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the 
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked 
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal 
may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange believes 
that waiver of the operative delay would be consistent with the 
protection of investors and the public interest because it would enable 
the Exchange to enhance an existing price protection Filter. Although 
the Exchange would cancel, as opposed to reject, an ECO received pre-
open or during a halt that was deemed too aggressively priced by the 
Filter, the Exchange does not believe this operational distinction 
would prevent waiver of the operative delay. Rather, the Exchange 
believes that the proposed change would allow for the expansion of the 
Filter so that it would

[[Page 78238]]

apply to ECOs submitted prior to the open of trading or during a 
trading halt when the individual component option series open or 
reopen. Thus, the Exchange believes that waiver of the operative delay 
would protect investors by enabling the Exchange to provide greater 
protections from potentially erroneous executions and potentially 
reduce the attendant risks of such executions to market participants. 
In addition, the Exchange could implement, without delay, the proposed 
clarifications to add transparency regarding how the Filter operates, 
including how the Specified Amount may be adjusted based on the 
characteristics of the ECO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \41\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is 
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. 
The Commission notes that the proposal will extend the existing price 
protection Filter, which currently applies only to ECOs received during 
Core Trading Hours, to ECOs received during the pre-open or during a 
trading halt. As noted above, the Filter is designed to protect 
investors from receiving anomalous or potentially erroneous executions. 
The proposal also provides for consistent use of defined terms in the 
Exchange's rules and clarifies the operation of the Filter, including 
the calculation of the Specified Amount, without altering the operation 
of the Filter. Accordingly, the Commission finds that waiving the 30-
day operative delay is consistent with investors and the public 
interest and designates the proposal operative upon filing.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, 
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on 
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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 under 
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \43\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed 
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-NYSEArca-2016-139 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-NYSEArca-2016-139. This 
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To 
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, 
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on 
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all 
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are 
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to 
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other 
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the 
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and 
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., 
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of 
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available 
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All 
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does 
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should 
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All 
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2016-139 and should 
be submitted on or before November 28, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-26796 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P