[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 117 (Friday, June 17, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39557-39558]
[FR Doc No: 2016-14165]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 31078; Amdt. No. 3697]

Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums
and Obstacle Departure Procedures (ODPs) for operations at certain
airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption
of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the
National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational
facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements.
These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the
navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under
instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES: This rule is effective June 17, 2016. The compliance date for
each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the
amendatory provisions.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of June 17, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:

For Examination

    1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC, 20590-
0001.
    2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the
affected airport is located;
    3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South
MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030, or go to: www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

Availability

    All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free
of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at nfdc.faa.gov to
register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP
copies may be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic Organization Service
Area in which the affected airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedure
Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Divisions,
Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma
City, OK. 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125)
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing,
amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS.
The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated
Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form
documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5
U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part Sec.  97.20. The
applicable FAA forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A,
and 8260-15B when required by an entry on 8260-15A.
    The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex
nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the
Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use
the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead
refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of
aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by
reference are realized and publication of the complete description of
each SIAP, Takeoff

Minimums and ODP listed on FAA form documents is unnecessary. This
amendment provides the affected CFR sections and specifies the types of
SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates.
This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the
procedure, and the amendment number.

Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

    The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section.
    The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff
Minimums and/or ODPS as identified in the amendatory language for part
97 of this final rule.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of
each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as Amended in the
transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments
may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center
(FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate
flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
    The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff
Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less
than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an
effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
    Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this
amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for
Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and
Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the
conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of
the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs, andsafety in air commerce, I find that notice and
public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary
to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d),
good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR part 97

    Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference,
Navigation (air).

    Issued in Washington, DC on May 20, 2016.
John S. Duncan,
Director, Flight Standards Service.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by
establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure
Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113,
40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

0
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:

Effective 23 June 2016

Kokomo, IN, Kokomo Muni, ILS OF LOC RWY 23, Amdt 10B
Kokomo, IN, Kokomo Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Amdt 1
Kokomo, IN, Kokomo Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 14, Orig-B
Kokomo, IN, Kokomo Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Amdt 1B
Kokomo, IN, Kokomo Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Orig-B
Kokomo, IN, Kokomo Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1
Park Rapids, MN, Park Rapids Muni-Konshok Field, ILS OR LOC RWY 31,
Amdt 1D
Park Rapids, MN, Park Rapids Muni-Konshok Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 13,
Orig-B
Park Rapids, MN, Park Rapids Muni-Konshok Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 31,
Orig-B
Park Rapids, MN, Park Rapids Muni-Konshok Field, Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle DP, Amdt 1
Park Rapids, MN, Park Rapids Muni-Konshok Field, VOR RWY 13, Amdt 9B
Picayune, MS, Picayune Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 2
Picayune, MS, Picayune Muni, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 18, Orig
Picayune, MS, Picayune Muni, RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 18, Amdt 2
Picayune, MS, Picayune Muni, VOR-A, Amdt 1
Sallisaw, OK, Sallisaw Muni, NDB-A, Amdt 2, CANCELED
Fond Du Lac, WI, Fond Du Lac County, LOC RWY 36, Amdt 1
Fond Du Lac, WI, Fond Du Lac County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Orig
Fond Du Lac, WI, Fond Du Lac County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 1
Fond Du Lac, WI, Fond Du Lac County, VOR RWY 18, Amdt 7

Effective 21 July 2016

Kiana, AK, Bob Baker Memorial, RNAV (GPS) RWY 6, Orig-C
Unalaska, AK, Unalaska, GPS-E, Orig, CANCELED
Unalaska, AK, Unalaska, NDB-A, Amdt 3
Unalaska, AK, Unalaska, RNAV (GPS)-B, Orig
Leadville, CO, Lake County, LOZUL THREE Graphic DP
Sandpoint, ID, Sandpoint, LOC-A, Amdt 2
Sandpoint, ID, Sandpoint, RNAV (GPS)-B, Amdt 1
Sandpoint, ID, Sandpoint, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1
Fryeburg, ME, Eastern Slopes Rgnl, NDB RWY 32, Orig, CANCELED
Fryeburg, ME, Eastern Slopes Rgnl, NDB-B, Amdt 2, CANCELED
Winnemucca, NV, Winnemucca Muni, VOR RWY 14, Orig-B
New York, NY, John F Kennedy Intl, RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 13R, Orig, CANCELED
Rochester, NY, Greater Rochester Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 22, Amdt 8B
Rochester, NY, Greater Rochester Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 28, Amdt 32
Waverly, TN, Humphreys County, VOR/DME OR GPS-A, Amdt 2C, CANCELED
Delta, UT, Delta Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig-A
Jackson, WY, Jackson Hole, GEYSER FIVE Graphic DP

[FR Doc. 2016-14165 Filed 6-16-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on June 10, 2003

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN – DOCKETS OST-2003-15253

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applications of    US Airways, Inc.  filed May 22, 2003,  for:

XX  Exemption for two years under 49 U.S.C. §40109 to provide the
following service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between the terminal point Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and the terminal
point Cozumel, Mexico.

Applicant rep:   Joel S. Burton<PHONE_NUMBER>    DOT Analyst:  Linda L.
Lundell<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted (subject to conditions, see below)

The action above was effective when taken:  June 10, 2003,  through
June 10, 2005  .

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

                               Office of International Aviation

XX  Authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreement between
the United States and Mexico.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

XX  Holder’s certificates of public convenience and necessity

XX  Standard Exemption Conditions (attached)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------Conditions:  The U.S.-Mexico transborder exemption authority
granted to US Airways in the captioned docket is subject to the dormancy
notice requirements set forth in condition 7 of Appendix A of Order
88-10-2.   Consistent with our standard practice, the dormancy notice
period will begin on December 1, 2003, US Airways’ proposed startup
date for services in the Philadelphia-Cozumel market.

________________________________________________________________________
_________________

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department’s regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the application was consistent with the public
interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
 To the extent not granted, we denied all requests in the referenced
Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted in this
Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov/reports_aviation.aspAPPENDIX

U.S. CARRIER

Standard Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6)  Comply with the applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration Regulations and with all applicable U.S. Government
requirements concerning security;1 and

(7)  Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations
of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the
United States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

													6/2003

____________________________

1 To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, the holder should, before commencing any new
service (including charter flights) to or from a foreign airport,
contact its Principal Security Inspector (PSI) to advise the PSI of its
plans and to find out whether the Transportation Security Administration
has determined that security is adequate to allow such airport(s) to be
served.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 179 (Monday, September 18, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43578-43584]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19710]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81580; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2017-101]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 6.87-
O and Rule 6.65-O

September 12, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on September 1, 2017, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.87-O (Nullification and
Adjustment of Options Transactions including Obvious Errors) and Rule
6.65-O 953NY [sic] (Trading Halts and Suspensions). 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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to amend Rule 6.87-O, relating to the
adjustment and nullification of erroneous transactions, and Rule 6.65-
O, regarding trading halts and suspensions. The Exchange's proposal is
based on that of Bats BZX (``BATS''), which the Commission approved on
July 6, 2017, and those that the other options exchanges intend to
file.\4\
Background
    The Exchange and other options exchanges adopted a harmonized rule
related to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options
transactions, including a specific provision related to coordination in
connection with large-scale events involving erroneous options
transactions.\5\ The Exchange believes that the changes the options
exchanges implemented with the harmonized rule have led to increased
transparency and finality with respect to the adjustment and
nullification of erroneous options transactions. As part of the initial
initiative, however, the Exchange and other options exchanges deferred
a few specific matters for further discussion.\6\ 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 an effort to complete any additional improvements
to the applicable rule. In this filing, the Exchange proposes to adopt
procedures that will lead to a more objective and uniform way to
determine Theoretical Price in the event a reliable NBBO is not
available. In addition to this change, the Exchange has proposed
additional minor changes to its rules.
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 6.87
(referred to herein simply as Rules 6.87), 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, 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 identifies 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 because the NBB or NBO is not available or is
deemed to be unreliable, the Exchange determines the 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 new Commentary .06 to specify how the
Exchange will determine Theoretical Price when required by sub-
paragraphs (b)(1)-(3) of the Rule (i.e., at the open, when there are no
valid quotes or when there is a wide quote). In particular, the
Exchange has been working with other options exchanges to identify and
select a reliable third party vendor (``TP Provider'') that would
provide the Theoretical Price to the Exchange whenever one or more
transactions is under review pursuant to Rule 6.87 and the NBBO is
unavailable or deemed unreliable pursuant to Rule 6.87(b). The Exchange
and other options exchanges have selected CBOE Livevol, LLC
(``Livevol'') as the TP Provider, as described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 81084 (July 6,
2017), 82 FR 32216 (July 12, 2017) (``BATS Approval Order''); 80709
(May 17, 2017), 82 FR 23684 (May 23, 2017) (``Notice of BATS
Filing'') (SR-BatsBZX-2017-35). See also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 81348 (August 8, 2017), 82 FR 37910 (August 14, 2017),
(SR-BX-2017-038) (immediately effective filing based on BATS
Approval Order).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74921 (May 8, 2015),
80 FR 27747 (May 14, 2015) (SR-NYSEArca-2015-41) (the ``Imitial
Filing'').
    \6\ For example, the Exchange, along with other options
exchanges that offer complex orders on their options platforms,
recently filed proposals related to rules for handling the
adjustment and nullification of erroneous complex order
transactions, which proposals were approved by the Commission or
filed on an immediately effective basis. See Securities Exchange Act
Release Nos. 80040 (February 14, 2017), 82 FR 11248 (February 21,
2017) (granting approval of CBOE proposal related to the
nullification and adjustment of complex orders) (SR-CBOE-2016-088);
80496 (April 20, 2017), 82 FR 19282 (April 26, 2017) (notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness of Exchange proposal related to
the nullification and adjustment of complex orders) (SR-NYSEArca-
2017-42).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to proposed Commentary .06, when the Exchange must
determine Theoretical Price pursuant to the sub-paragraphs (b)(1)-(3)
of the Rule, the Exchange will request the 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.\7\ This
proposed language would also make 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 establish this selection
in proposed paragraph (d) to Commentary .06. 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.\8\ The Exchange believes
that Livevol has established itself within the options industry as a
trusted provider of such services and notes that it and all other
options exchanges already subscribe to various Livevol services. In
connection with this proposal, Livevol will develop a new tool based on
its existing technology and services that will supply Theoretical Price
to the Exchange and other options exchanges upon request. The
Theoretical Price tool will leverage current market data and
surrounding strikes to assist in a relative value pricing approach to
generating a Theoretical Price. When relative value methods are
incapable of generating a valid Theoretical Price, the Theoretical
Price tool will utilize historical trade and quote data to calculate
Theoretical Price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Though 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.
    \8\ The Exchange notes that in 2015, Livevol was acquired by
CBOE Holdings, Inc., the ultimate parent company of the Chicago
Board Options Exchange (``CBOE'') and C2 Options Exchange (``C2'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 \9\ 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 the Official
believes to be 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.\10\ 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.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For 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 6.87.
    \10\ See proposed paragraph (b) to Commentary .06.
    \11\ The Exchange expects any TP Provider selected by the
Exchange and other options exchanges to act independently in its
determination and calculation of Theoretical Price. With respect to
Livevol specifically, the Exchange again notes that Livevol is a
subsidiary of CBOE Holdings, Inc., which is also the ultimate parent
company of multiple options exchanges. The Exchange expects Livevol
to calculate Theoretical Price independent of its affiliated
exchanges in the same way it will calculate Theoretical Price
independent of non-affiliated exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposal to allow an Exchange
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.\12\ 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 would 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ To 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to proposed paragraph (c) to Commentary .06, 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 6.87(e)(4), the Exchange has not proposed a specific time by which
the service must be available in order to be considered timely.\13\ 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 6.87(e), and the TP
Provider was unavailable or otherwise experiencing difficulty, the
Exchange believes that it and other options exchanges would seek to
coordinate to the extent possible. In particular, the Exchange and
other options exchanges now have a process, administered by the Options
Clearing Corporation, to invoke a discussion amongst all options
exchanges in the event of any widespread or significant market events.
The Exchange believes that this process could be used if there were an
issue with the TP Provider.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 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 6.87(e)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes language in paragraph (d) of Commentary
.06 to Rule 6.87 to disclaim the liability of the Exchange and the TP
Provider in connection with the proposed rule, the TP Provider's
calculation of Theoretical Price, and the Exchange's use of such
Theoretical Price. Specifically, the proposed rule would state that
neither the Exchange, the TP Provider, nor any affiliate of the TP
Provider (the TP Provider and its affiliates are referred to
collectively as the ``TP Provider''), makes any warranty, express or
implied, as to the results to be obtained by any person or entity from
the use of the TP Provider pursuant to Commentary .06. 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.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See, e.g., Rule 5.22 (Disclaimers), which relates to index
options potentially listed and traded on the Exchange and disclaims
liability for a reporting authority and their affiliates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In connection with the proposed change described above, the
Exchange proposes to modify Rule 6.87 to state that the Exchange will
rely on paragraph (b) and Commentary .06 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 a
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 in new paragraph (C) to Rule
6.87(b)(2).\15\ 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.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ In connection with proposed change, the Exchange proposes
to re-format Rule 6.87(b)(2) to include sub-paragraphs (A)-(D),
inclusive of the new rule in proposed Rule 6.87(b)(2)(C).
    \16\ The Exchange notes that the proposed text of 6.87(b)(2)(C)
differs slightly from BATS Rule 20.6(b)(2)(C), even though the
substance of the propsed rule is the same. The Exchange believes its
proposed rule text is easier to comprehend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Below are examples of both the current rule and the rule as
proposed to be amended.
Example 1--Current Rule, Member Erroneously Quotes on One Exchange
Assumptions
    For purposes of this example, assume the following:
     A Member acting as a Market Maker on the Exchange
(``Market Maker A'') is quoting in twenty series of options underlying
security ABCD on the Exchange (and only the Exchange).
     Market Maker A makes an error in calculating the market
for options on ABCD, and publishes quotes in all twenty series to buy
options at $1.00 and to sell options at $1.05.
     In fact, options on ABCD in these series are nearly
worthless and no other market participant is quoting in such series.
     Therefore, the NBBO in the twenty series at issue is $1.00
x $1.05 (with the Exchange representing the NBBO based on Market Maker
A's quotes).
     Assume Member A immediately enters sell orders and
executes against Market Maker A's quotes at $1.00.
     Assume Market Maker A submits to the Exchange a timely
request for review of the trades with Member A as potentially erroneous
transactions to buy.
Result
     Based on the Exchange's current rules, the Exchange would
identify Market Maker A as a participant to the trades at issue and
would consider Market Maker A's quotations invalid pursuant to Rule
6.87(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.
    [cir] 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.
    [cir] Accordingly, the executions in all series would be adjusted
by the Exchange to executions at $0.20 per contract (Theoretical Price
of $0.05 plus $0.15) to the extent the incoming orders submitted by
Member A were non-Customer orders.
    [cir] The executions in all series would be nullified to the extent
the incoming orders submitted by Member A were Customer orders.
Example 2--Current Rule, Member Erroneously Quotes on Multiple
Exchanges
Assumptions
    For purposes of this example, assume the following:
     A Member acting as a Market Maker on the Exchange
(``Market Maker A'') is quoting in twenty series of options underlying
security ABCD on the Exchange and on a second exchange (``Away
Exchange'').
     Market Maker A makes an error in calculating the market
for options on ABCD, and publishes quotes on both the Exchange and the
Away Exchange in all twenty series to buy options at $1.00 and to sell
options at $1.05.
     In fact, options on ABCD in these series are nearly
worthless and no other market participant is quoting in such series.
     Therefore, the NBBO in the twenty series at issue is $1.00
x $1.05 (with the Exchange and the Away Exchange representing the NBBO
based on Market Maker A's quotes).
     Assume Member A immediately enters sell orders and
executes against Market Maker A's quotes at $1.00.
     Assume Market Maker A submits to the Exchange and to the
Away Exchange timely requests for review of the trades with Member A as
potentially erroneous transactions to buy.
Result
     Based on the Exchange's current rules, the Exchange would
identify Market Maker A as a participant to the trades at issue and
would consider Market Maker A's quotations on the Exchange invalid
pursuant to Rule 6.87(b)(2). The Exchange, however, would view the Away
Exchange's quotations as valid, and would thus determine Theoretical
Price to be $1.05 (i.e., the NBO in the case of a potentially erroneous
buy transaction).
     The execution price of $1.00 does not exceed the $0.25
minimum amount set forth in the Exchange's table to determine whether
an obvious error has occurred (i.e., $1.05 + $0.25 = $1.30) so any
execution at or above this price is an obvious error.
     The transactions on the Exchange would not be nullified or
adjusted.
     As the Exchange and all other options exchanges have
identical rules with respect to the process described above, the
transactions on the Away Exchange would not be nullified or adjusted.

Example 3--Proposed Rule, Member Erroneously Quotes on Multiple
Exchanges \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assumptions
     For purposes of this example, assume the following:
     A Member acting as a Market Maker on the Exchange
(``Market Maker A'') is quoting in twenty series of options underlying
security ABCD on the Exchange and on a second exchange (``Away
Exchange'').\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The Exchange notes that the proposed rule would operate the
same if Market Maker A was quoting on more than two exchanges. The
Exchange has limited the example to two exchanges for simplicity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Market Maker A 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
x $1.05 (with the Exchange and the Away Exchange representing the NBBO
based on Market Maker A's quotes).
     Assume Member A immediately enters sell orders and
executes against Market Maker A's quotes at $1.00.
     Assume Market Maker A submits to the Exchange and to the
Away Exchange timely requests for review of the trades with Member A as
potentially erroneous transactions to buy. At the time of submitting
the requests for review to the Exchange and the Away Exchange, Market
Maker A identifies to the Exchange the quotes on the Away Exchange as
quotes also represented by Market Maker A (and to the Away Exchange,
the quotes on the Exchange as quotes also represented by Market Maker
A).
Result
     Based on the proposed rules, the Exchange would identify
Market Maker A as a participant to the trades at issue and would
consider Market Maker A's quotations on the Exchange invalid pursuant
to Rule 6.87(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.
    [cir] 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.
    [cir] Accordingly, the executions in all series would be adjusted
by the Exchange to executions at $0.20 per contract (Theoretical Price
of $0.05 plus $0.15) to the extent the incoming orders submitted by
Member A were non-Customer orders.
    [cir] The executions in all series would be nullified to the extent
the incoming orders submitted by Member A were Customer orders.
     As the Exchange and all other options exchanges would have
identical rules with respect to the process described above, as other
options exchanges intend to adopt the same rule if the proposed rule is
approved, the transactions on the Away Exchange would also be nullified
or adjusted as set forth above.
     If this example was instead modified such that Market
Maker A was quoting in 200 series rather than 20, the Exchange notes
that Market Maker A could only request that the Exchange consider as
invalid their quotations in 25 of those series on other exchanges. As
noted above, the Exchange has proposed to limit the proposed rule to 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.
Obvious Error Panel, Appeals--Clean-Up change
    Rule 6.87(k)(1)(B) describes the procedure for appealing decisions
relating to obvious errors. The current rule provides, in relevant
part, that a ``request for review on appeal must be made via facsimile
or email within thirty (30) minutes after the party making the appeal
is given notification of the initial determination being appealed.''
The Exchange proposes to modify this rule to remove reference to
``facsimile,'' and allow that requests for appeal may only be made via
email. The Exchanges believes this proposed change would update the
rule to reflect current technology and add transparency to the rule
text.
Trading Halts and Suspensions--Clarifying Change to Rule 6.65-O
    Rule 6.65-O describes the Exchange's authority to declare trading
halts in one or more options traded on the Exchange (referred herein
simply to as Rule 6.65). Currently, Commentary .04 to Rule 6.65 states
that the Exchange shall nullify any transaction that occurs during a
trading halt in the affected option on the Exchange. The Exchange
proposes to add rule text providing that, with respect to equity
options (including options overlaying Exchange Traded Funds (``ETFs''),
that it shall nullify any transaction that occurs during a regulatory
halt as declared by the primary listing market for the underlying
security. Current Commentary .03 to Rule 6.65 defines a Regulatory Halt
as one ``initiated by a regulatory authority in the primary market.''
The Exchange believes this change is necessary to distinguish a
declared regulatory halt, where the underlying security should not be
actively trading on any venue, from an operational issue on the primary
listing exchange where the security may continue to trade on other
trading venues. This proposed change would likewise be consistent with
the rule of other options exchanges.\19\
Implementation
    The Exchange will announce the operative date by Trader Update. The
Exchange proposes to delay the operative date of this proposal to a
date within ninety (90) days after the BATS Approval Order, dated July
6, 2017. The Exchange will announce the operative date in a Trader
Update.
2. Statutory Basis
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\20\ in
general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\21\
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 \22\ in that the proposed rule will foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating and
facilitating transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange again reiterates that it has retained the standard of
the current rule for most reviews of options transactions pursuant to
Rule 6.87, 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 \23\ 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 6.87. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes its proposal to adopt language in
paragraph (d) of Commentary .06 to Rule 6.87 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,\24\ and is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \25\ in
that the proposed rule will foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in regulating and facilitating transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See supra note 14.
    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 \26\ 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 \27\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Id.
    \27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed change to Rule 6.87(k)(1)(B), to remove reference to
sending requests for appeal via facsimile, would remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system because the proposed change would update the rule to
reflect current technology. This proposed change would also protect
investors and the general public because it would add transparency to
the rule text.
    Finally, with respect to the proposed modification to the
Exchange's trading halt rule, Rule 6.65, the Exchange believes that
this proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \28\
because it specifically provides for nullification where a trading halt
exists with respect to an underlying security across the industry
(i.e., a regulatory halt) as distinguished from a situation where the
primary exchange has experienced a technical issue but the underlying
security continues to trade on other equities platforms. The Exchange
notes that a similar provision already exists in the rules of certain
other options exchanges, and thus, has been found to be consistent with
the Act.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Id.
    \29\ See, e.g., BATs Approval Order, supra note 4;
Interpretation and Policy .07 to CBOE Rule 6.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section (b)(8) of the Act \30\ in that is does not impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act as explained below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 either have or intend to file proposals
that are substantially similar to this proposal.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes
a burden on intramarket competition because the proposed provisions
apply to all market participants equally.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to 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 \31\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \32\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2017-101 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-2017-101. 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-NYSEArca-2017-101, and
should be submitted on or before October 10, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-19710 Filed 9-15-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P