[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 182 (Tuesday, September 20, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64521-64534]
[FR Doc No: 2016-22538]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78839; File No. SR-CBOE-2016-053]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Price Protection Mechanisms and Risk Controls

September 14, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on September 1, 2016, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III 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\ 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 enhance current and adopt new price
protection mechanisms and risk controls for orders and quotes.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx),
at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's
Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange has in place various price check mechanisms and risk
controls that are designed to prevent incoming orders and quotes from
automatically executing at potentially erroneous prices or to assist
Trading Permit Holders (``TPHs'') with managing their risk.\3\ These
mechanisms and controls are designed to help maintain a fair and
orderly market by mitigating potential risks associated with orders
trading at prices that are extreme and potentially erroneous, or in
extremely large and potentially erroneous volumes, that may be harmful
to market participants. The Exchange proposes to

amend Rules 6.12(a)(3), 6.13(b)(v), 6.14 and 8.18 to add new, as well
as enhance current, price protection mechanisms and risk controls to
further prevent potentially harmful and disruptive trading.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See, e.g., Rule 6.12(a)(3) through (5) (limit order price
parameters), 6.13(b)(v) (market-width and drill through price check
parameters), 6.14 (price protections), 6.53C, Interpretation and
Policy .08 (price check parameters for complex orders), and 8.18
(Quote Risk Monitor Mechanism (``QRM'')).
    \4\ The proposed rule change makes conforming changes to other
rules, as further discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Limit Order Price Parameter for Simple Orders
    The proposed rule change amends the limit order price parameter for
simple orders in Rule 6.12(a)(3). This price parameter currently states
simple limit orders will route directly from an order entry firm to an
order management terminal (``OMT'') designated by the order entry firm
when initially routed to the Exchange if:
     Prior to the opening of a series (including before a
series is opened following a halt), the order is to buy (sell) at more
than an acceptable tick distance (``ATD'') above (below) the Exchange's
previous day's close; however, this does not apply to CBOE or away
market-makers; or
     once a series has opened, the order is to buy (sell) at
more than an acceptable tick distance above (below) the disseminated
Exchange offer (bid).
    The proposed rule change states the System rejects back to a TPH an
order to buy (sell) at more than an acceptable tick distance above
(below) if:
     Prior to the opening of a series (including during any
pre-opening period and opening rotation), (1) the last disseminated
national best offer (``NBO'') (national best bid (``NBB'')), if a
series is open on another exchange(s), or (2) the Exchange's previous
day's closing price, if a series is not yet open on any other exchange;
if the NBBO is locked, crossed or unavailable; \5\ or if there is no
NBO (NBB) and the previous day's closing price is greater (less) than
or equal to the NBB (NBO). However, this does not apply to orders of
CBOE or away market-makers; if there is no NBO (NBB) and the Exchange's
previous day's closing price is less (greater) than the NBB (NBO); or
if there is no NBBO and no Exchange previous day's closing price;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ If the NBBO (or BBO) is not currently being disseminated,
the NBBO (or BBO) will be considered ``unavailable.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     intraday, the last disseminated NBO (NBB), or the
Exchange's best offer (bid) if the NBBO is locked, crossed or
unavailable. However, this does not apply if there is no NBBO and no
Exchange best bid or offer (``BBO''); or
     during a trading halt (including during any pre-opening
period or opening rotation prior to re-opening following the halt), the
last disseminated NBO (NBB). However, this does not apply to a buy
(sell) order if the NBBO is locked, crossed or unavailable or if there
is no NBO (NBB).
    Prior to a series opening on CBOE, the series may already be open
on another exchange(s), in which case that exchange(s) would be
disseminating an NBBO. The NBBO would more accurately reflect the then-
current market, rather than the previous day's closing price, and thus
the Exchange believes it would be a better measure to use for purposes
of determining the reasonability of the prices of orders. If the series
is not yet open on any other exchange, the System will continue to use
the Exchange's previous day's closing price as the comparison figure.
Additionally, the System will use the Exchange's previous day's closing
price if the NBBO is locked, crossed or unavailable (and thus
unreliable) or if there is no NBO (NBB) and the Exchange's previous
day's closing price is greater (less) than or equal to the NBB (NBO).
The check will continue to not apply to orders of CBOE or away market-
makers, and will also not apply to orders entered when there is no NBO
(NBB) and the Exchange's previous day's closing price is less (greater)
than the NBB (NBO) or if there is no NBBO and no Exchange previous
day's closing price (for example, if the order is in a newly listed
series) (and thus no reliable measure against which to compare the
price of the order to determine its reasonability). Prior to the
opening of a series, and the NBBO is unavailable, the previous day's
closing price is the most relevant pricing information to determine the
price at which an investor may want to buy or sell within a series, and
the Exchange believes it is a reasonable substitute for the NBB or NBO
when not available. With respect to the proposed provisions regarding
the applicability of the check when there is no NBO (NBB) against which
the price of the buy (sell) order can be compared to determine price
reasonability, the Exchange believes using the previous day's closing
price is appropriate if that price is greater (less) than or equal to
the NBB (NBO) because it does not cross the disseminated NBB (NBO). On
the contrary, if that price is less (greater) than the NBB (NBO), and
thus would cross the disseminated NBB (NBO), the Exchange believes that
closing price is too far away from what an NBO (NBB) would be if an
offer (bid) quote or sell (buy) order were to be entered and
essentially creates a crossed, unreliable market.
    Once a series has opened on CBOE, this check will compare the price
of a buy (sell) order to the last disseminated NBO (NBB) rather than
the Exchange best offer (bid). The NBBO would more accurately reflect
the then-current market, rather than the Exchange BBO, and thus the
Exchange believes it would be a better measure to use for purposes of
determining the reasonability of the prices of orders. The System will
continue to use the Exchange BBO if the NBBO is locked, crossed or
unavailable (and thus unreliable). This check will not apply intraday
if there is no NBBO and no BBO (and thus no reliable measure against
which to compare the price of the order to determine its
reasonability).
    With respect to orders entered during a trading halt (including
during any pre-opening period or opening rotation prior to re-opening
following a halt), the proposed rule change states the System will use
the last disseminated NBO (NBB) rather than the Exchange's previous
day's closing price (as the current rule states). If a halt occurs
during the trading day, the NBO (NBB) would more accurately reflect the
then-current market rather than the previous day's closing price, which
would be stale by that time. This check will not apply to orders if the
NBBO is locked, crossed or unavailable (and thus unreliable) or if
there is no NBO (NBB) (and thus no reliable measure against which to
compare the price of the order to determine its reasonability).
    The rule currently states the Exchange determines the ATD on a
series-by-series \6\ and premium basis and will be no less than five
minimum increment ticks. The proposed rule change amends the minimum
ATD to be two minimum increment ticks rather than five. The Exchange
believes it may be appropriate to set the ATD for certain classes
(depending on the minimum increment and premium) or during different
trading sessions (as further discussed below) to be fewer than five to
ensure that the ATD price is not so far away from the market price and
thus this price check is effective given the market model or market
conditions.\7\ Additionally, because market conditions during pre-
opening periods, trading

rotations, and trading halts,\8\ are different than those present
during regular trading hours, the proposed rule change provides the
Exchange with flexibility to apply a different ATD during those times
(which the Exchange may want to be less than the current minimum of
five). The Exchange believes it is appropriate to have the ability to
apply a different ATD during the pre-open period or opening rotation so
the check does not impact the Exchange's ability to open an option or
determination of the opening price. The Exchange may also want to apply
a different ATD during a halt, as pricing during those times may be
volatile and inaccurate.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The proposed rule change amends this to be class-by-class
rather than series-by-series. The Exchange generally sets parameters
on a class-by-class basis; however, pursuant to Rule 8.14,
Interpretation and Policy .01, if the Exchange authorizes a group of
series of a class to trade on the Hybrid Trading System and the
remaining groups of series of a class to trade on the Hybrid 3.0
Trading System, the Exchange will establish trading parameters on a
group basis rather than class basis.
    \7\ The Exchange notes Rule 6.13(b)(v) sets the minimum ATD at
two minimum increments for the drill through protection.
    \8\ Pursuant to Rule 6.1A(i), the Exchange may make a
determination for Extended Trading Hours different from that made
for Regular Trading Hours to the extent the rules allow the Exchange
to make a determination, including on a class-by-class basis. Thus,
the Exchange may set a different ATD for classes trading during
Extended Trading Hours than the ATD set for those classes during
Regular Trading Hours.
    \9\ Note Rule 6.12, Interpretation and Policy .01 permits a
senior official on the Exchange Help Desk or two Floor Officials to
grant intra-day relief by widening or inactivating one or more of
the applicable ATD parameters settings in the interest of a fair and
orderly market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change deletes the Exchange's flexibility to not
apply this price parameter to immediate-or-cancel orders, as the
Exchange believes these orders are also at risk of execution at extreme
and potentially erroneous prices and thus will benefit from
applicability of these checks. The proposed rule change states this
price parameter will not apply to orders routed from a PAR workstation
or OMT. Orders routed from a PAR workstation or OMT are subject to
manual handling, so the PAR or OMT operator will have evaluated the
price of an order based on then-existing market conditions prior to
submitting the order for electronic execution, and thus there is
minimal risk of execution at an erroneous price.
    The proposed rule change also states this price parameter does not
apply to orders with a stop contingency. By definition, the stop
contingency \10\ is triggered for a buy order if there is a last sale
or bid at or above the stop price and for a sell order if there is a
last sale or offer at or below the stop price. As a result, buy orders
with a stop contingency are generally submitted at a triggering price
that is above the NBO, and sell orders with a stop contingency are
generally submitted at a triggering price that is below the NBB.
Because these orders are expected to be priced outside the NBBO, the
Exchange will not apply this check to not interfere with the
application of the stop contingency.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Rule 6.53.
    \11\ The proposed rule change also makes nonsubstantive changes
to Rule 6.12, including deletion of an extraneous period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Drill Through Price Check Parameter
    The proposed rule change amends the drill through price check
parameter in Rule 6.13(b)(v). Currently, the System will not
automatically execute a marketable order if the execution would follow
an initial partial execution on the Exchange and would be at a
subsequent price not within an ATD from the initial execution
(determined by the Exchange on a series-by-series and premium basis for
market orders and/or marketable limit orders \12\). An ATD may be no
less than two minimum increment ticks. If an execution is suspended
because executing the remaining unexecuted portion of an order would
exceed the drill through ATD, then such unexecuted portion will be
exposed pursuant to the Hybrid Agency Liaison (``HAL'') process in Rule
6.14A using the ATD as the exposure price. If a quantity remains at the
conclusion of the HAL process or if the order has already been subject
to the HAL process of if the order is not eligible for HAL, the
remaining unexecuted quantity will route via the order handling system
pursuant to Rule 6.12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Pursuant to the rule filing proposing this language, the
intent of this provision is to allow the Exchange to determine to
apply the drill through price check parameter, as well as the
market-width price check parameter, to market orders and/or
marketable limit orders. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-
63191 (October 27, 2010), 75 FR 67411 (November 2, 2010) (SR-CBOE-
2010-094) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of proposed
rule change related to the Hybrid automatic execution feature,
including a change to allow CBOE to determine ``to apply these price
check parameters to market and/or marketable limit orders'').
Currently, the Exchange applies the market-width check to market
orders and the drill through check to market and marketable limit
orders. The proposed rule change merely removes this flexibility
from the Rules and codifies the current practice (which is permitted
under the current Rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to the proposed rule change, the drill through protection
functions in a similar manner. The proposed rule change clarifies how
the System handles orders that were not exposed prior to trading up to
the drill through price and orders that traded up to the drill through
price following exposure. Specifically, under the proposed rule change,
if a buy (sell) order not yet exposed via HAL partially executes, and
the System determines the unexecuted portion would execute at a
subsequent price higher (lower) than the price that is an ATD above
(below) the NBO (NBB) (the ``drill through price''), the System will
not automatically execute that portion and will expose \13\ that
portion via HAL at the better of the NBBO and the drill through price
(if eligible for HAL). The Exchange will determine the ATD on a class
and premium basis (which may be no less than two minimum increment
ticks),\14\ which the Exchange will announce via Regulatory Circular.
If a buy (sell) order is exposed via HAL (other than pursuant to the
previous sentence) or the Solicitation Auction Mechanism (``SAL'') \15\
and, following the exposure period pursuant to Rule 6.14A or 6.13A,
respectively, the System determines the order (or any unexecuted
portion) would execute at a price higher (lower) than the drill through
price, the System will not automatically execute the order (or
unexecuted portion).\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The current HAL exposure period is 20 milliseconds.
    \14\ The proposed rule change amends this to be class-by-class
rather than series-by-series. The Exchange generally sets parameters
on a class-by-class basis; however, pursuant to Rule 8.14,
Interpretation and Policy .01, if the Exchange authorizes a group of
series of a class to trade on the Hybrid Trading System and the
remaining groups of series of a class to trade on the Hybrid 3.0
Trading System, the Exchange will establish trading parameters on a
group basis rather than class basis.
    \15\ The proposed rule change expands this to include SAL, a
similar price improvement auction the Exchange may activate in
classes in which it did not activate HAL. In classes in which SAL is
activated, an order eligible for SAL will be exposed immediately and
would not partially execute prior to being exposed via SAL. For this
reason, SAL is not included in proposed Rule 6.13(v)(B)(I).
    \16\ The proposed rule change makes corresponding changes to
Rules 6.13A and 6.14A to clarify orders (or portions) that do not
execute following the applicable exposure process are subject to the
drill through price check parameter in proposed Rule 6.13(b)(v)(B).
The proposed rule change also amends Rule 6.14A to provide orders
(or any unexecuted portions) may initiate a HAL at the better of the
drill through price and NBBO and make nonsubstantive changes,
including deletion of an extra space and use of plain English.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposed rule change, rather than route via the order
handling system, these orders (or unexecuted portions) will rest in the
book (based on the time at which they enter the book for priority
purposes) for a time period in milliseconds (which the Exchange will
determine and announce via Regulatory Circular and will not exceed
three seconds) \17\ with a price equal to the drill through price.\18\
This time period will provide an additional opportunity for execution
for these orders (or unexecuted portions) at a

price that does not appear to be erroneous. If the order (or any
unexecuted portion) does not execute during that time period, the
System cancels it. Buy (sell) orders (or any unexecuted portion) not
eligible for HAL or SAL will continue to not automatically execute at a
subsequent price higher (lower) than the drill through price and will
route it via the order handling system pursuant to Rule 6.12 (except
orders (or any unexecuted portions) that by their terms cancel if they
do not execute immediately (such as immediate-or-cancel, fill-or-kill,
intermarket sweep, and market-maker trade prevention orders) will be
cancelled). To avoid any confusion, the proposed rule change also
clarifies this drill through check does not apply to executions of
orders following exposure via HAL at the open pursuant to Rule 6.2B,
Interpretation and Policy .03, which instead are subject to a separate
drill through protection set forth in that rule.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The Exchange intends to initially set this time period at
two seconds.
    \18\ Any order (or unexecuted portion) that by its terms cancels
if it does not execute immediately (including immediate-or-cancel,
fill-or-kill, intermarket sweep, and market-maker trade prevention
orders) will be cancelled rather than rest in the book for this time
period in accordance with the definition of those order types.
    \19\ The proposed rule change amends the market width price
check parameter in Rule 6.13(b)(v) (proposed Rule 6.13(b)(v)(A)) to
be determined on a class-by-class basis rather than series-by-
series. The Exchange generally sets parameters on a class-by-class
basis; however, pursuant to Rule 8.14, Interpretation and Policy
.01, if the Exchange authorizes a group of series of a class to
trade on the Hybrid Trading System and the remaining groups of
series of a class to trade on the Hybrid 3.0 Trading System, the
Exchange will establish trading parameters on a group basis rather
than class basis. The proposed rule change makes additional
nonsubstantive changes to Rule 6.13(b)(v), including separation of
the provisions regarding the market-width price check parameter from
those regarding the drill through price check parameter and use of
plain English. The proposed rule change also amends Rule 6.2B,
Interpretation and Policy .03 to update the cross-reference to the
drill through price check parameter and indicate the Exchange will
determine the ATD for the opening drill through protection on a
class-by-class rather than series-by-series basis consistent with
the proposed rule change described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following examples illustrate the new functionality to briefly
rest orders in the book in connection with the drill through price
check parameter:
Example #1
    Suppose CBOE's market for a series in a class with a 0.05 minimum
increment is 0.90-1.00, represented by a quote for 10 contracts on each
side (the quote offer is Quote A). The following sell orders or quote
offers also rest in the series: 10 contracts at 1.05 (Order A), 10
contracts at 1.10 (Quote B), 10 contracts at 1.15 (Order B), and 100
contracts at 1.20 (Order C). The market for away exchanges is 0.80-
1.25. The Exchange's drill through amount for the class is three ticks
(or 0.15), and the drill through resting time period is two seconds.
The System receives an incoming order to buy 100 at 1.30, which
executes against resting orders and quotes as follows: 10 against Quote
A at 1.00, 10 against Order A at 1.05, 10 against Quote B at 1.10, and
10 against Order B at 1.15. The System will not automatically execute
the remaining 60 contracts from the incoming order against Order C,
because 1.20 is more than 0.15 away from the initial execution price of
1.00 and thus exceeds the drill through price check. The 60 unexecuted
contracts are then exposed pursuant to HAL at 1.15 (which is the drill
through price, and better than the NBO). No responses to trade against
the remaining 60 contracts are entered during the auction, so the 60
contracts remain unexecuted. These contracts then rest in the book for
two seconds at a price of 1.15. No incoming orders are entered during
that time period to trade against the remaining 60 contracts, so the
System cancels that remaining portion of the original incoming order.
Example #2
    Suppose CBOE's market for a series in a class with a 0.05 minimum
increment is 0.90-1.00, represented by a quote for 10 contracts on each
side (the quote offer is Quote A). The following sell orders or quote
offers also rest in the series: 10 contracts at 1.05 (Order A), 10
contracts at 1.10 (Quote B), 10 contracts at 1.15 (Order B), and 100
contracts at 1.20 (Order C). The market for away exchanges is 0.80-
1.10, with 5 contracts available on each side. The Exchange's drill
through amount for the class is three ticks (or 0.15), and the drill
through resting time period is two seconds. The System receives an
incoming order to buy 100 at 1.30, which executes against resting
orders and quotes as follows: 10 against Quote A at 1.00, 10 against
Order A at 1.05, and 10 against Quote B at 1.10. The System will not
automatically execute the remaining 70 contracts from the incoming
order against Orders B and C, because CBOE no longer has size available
at the NBBO. The 70 unexecuted contracts are then exposed pursuant to
HAL at 1.10 (which is the NBO). No responses to trade against the
remaining 70 contracts are entered during the auction, so 5 contracts
route away to trade at 1.10 against the 5 contracts available at an
away exchange. The best offer from an away exchange then changes to
1.25. Of the remaining 65 unexecuted contracts from the incoming order,
10 trade against Order B at 1.15. The System will not automatically
execute the remaining 55 contracts from the incoming order against
Order C, because 1.20 is more than 0.15 away from the initial execution
price of 1.00 and thus exceeds the drill through price check. These
contracts will not be exposed pursuant to HAL again, and instead will
rest in the book for two seconds at a price of 1.15. An incoming order
to buy 20 at 1.15 is entered after one second, which trades against 20
of the 55 resting contracts. No other incoming orders are entered
during that time period to trade against the remaining 35 contracts, so
the System cancels that remaining portion of the original incoming
order.
TPH-Designated Risk Settings
    The proposed rule change amends Rule 6.14 to authorize the Exchange
to share any TPH-designated risk settings in the system with a Clearing
TPH that clears Exchange transactions on behalf of the TPH. Rule
6.20(a) states unless otherwise provided in the Rules, no one but a
TPH, an Order Book Official designated by the Exchange pursuant to Rule
7.3, or PAR Official designated by the Exchange pursuant to Rule 7.12
may make any transaction on the Exchange. All Exchange transactions
must be submitted for clearance to the Options Clearing Corporation
(the ``Clearing Corporation'') and are subject to the Clearing
Corporation's rules. For each Exchange transaction in which it
participates, a TPH must immediately give up the name of the Clearing
TPH through which the Exchange transaction will be cleared.\20\ Every
Clearing TPH is responsible for the clearance of the Exchange
transactions of such Clearing TPH and each TPH that gives up such
Clearing TPH's name pursuant to a letter of authorization, letter of
guarantee or authorization given by such Clearing TPH to such TPH,
which authorization must be submitted to the Exchange.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Rule 6.21.
    \21\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, while not all TPHs are Clearing TPHs, all TPHs require a
Clearing TPH's consent to clear Exchange transactions on their behalf
in order to conduct business on the Exchange. The letter of
authorization or guarantee, or other authorization, describes the
relationship between the TPH and Clearing TPH and provides the Exchange
with notice of which Clearing TPHs have relationships with which TPHs.
The Clearing TPH that guarantees the TPH's Exchange transactions has a
financial interest in understanding the risk tolerance of the TPH. This
proposed rule change would provide the Exchange with authority to
provide Clearing TPHs directly with information that may otherwise be
available to such Clearing TPHs by

virtue of their relationship with respective TPHs.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The Exchange will share a TPH's risk settings with its
Clearing TPH(s) upon request from the Clearing TPH(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The risk settings that the Exchange may share with Clearing TPHs
include, but are not limited to, settings under Rule 8.18 (related to
QRM, as further described below), and will include settings under
proposed Rule 6.14(d) (related to order entry and execution rate
checks, as described below) and (e) (related to maximum contract size,
as described below). To the extent the Exchange proposes additional
rules providing for TPH-designated risk settings other than those in
current rules and this rule filing, the Exchange will be able to share
those settings with Clearing TPHs under this proposed change as
well.\23\ Other options exchange [sic] have similar rules permitting
them to share member-designated risk settings with other members that
clear transactions on the member's behalf.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The proposed rule change also makes nonsubstantive changes
to Rule 6.14, including adding risk controls to the name of the rule
and an introductory sentence that the System's acceptance and
execution of orders and quotes are subject to the price protection
mechanisms and risk controls in Rule 6.14 and other rules.
    \24\ See, e.g., Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC
(``MIAX'') Rule 500; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX'') Chapter VI,
Section 20; NYSE Arca, Inc. (``Arca'') Rule 6.2A(a); NYSE MKT LLC
(``MKT'') Rule 902.1NY(a); and NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``PHLX'') Rule
1016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Put Strike Price/Call Underlying Value Checks
    The proposed rule change amends the put strike price and call
underlying value checks in Rule 6.14(a). Pursuant to these checks, the
System rejects back to the TPH a quote or buy limit order for (1) a put
if the price of the quote bid or order is greater than or equal to the
strike price of the option, or (2) a call if the price of the quote bid
or order is greater than or equal to the consolidated last sale price
of the underlying security, with respect to equity and exchange-traded
fund options, or the last disseminated value of the underlying index,
with respect to index options. The proposed rule change extends this
check to apply to market orders (or any remaining size after partial
execution).
    With respect to put options, a TPH seeks to buy an option that
could be exercised into the right to sell the underlying. The value of
a put can never exceed the strike price of the option, even if the
underlying goes to zero. For example, one put for stock ABC with a
strike price of $50 gives the holder the right to sell 100 shares of
ABC for $50, no more or less. Therefore, it would be illogical to pay
more than $50 for the right to sell shares of ABC, regardless of the
price of ABC. Under this check, the Exchange deems any put bid or buy
limit order with a price that equals or exceeds the strike price of the
option to be erroneous and rejects it, and the Exchange believes it
would be appropriate to similarly reject a market order (or remaining
size after partial execution) that would execute at that erroneous
price.
    With respect to call options, a TPH seeks to buy an option that
could be exercised into the right to buy the underlying. The Exchange
does not believe a derivative product that conveys the right to buy the
underlying should ever be priced higher than the prevailing value of
the underlying itself. In that case, a market participant could
purchase the underlying at the prevailing value rather than pay a
larger amount for the call. Accordingly, under this check, the Exchange
rejects bids or buy limit orders for call options with prices that are
equal to or in excess of the value of the underlying. As an example,
suppose a TPH submits an order to buy an ABC call for $11 when the last
sale price for stock ABC is $10. The System rejects this order. The
Exchange believes it would be appropriate to similarly reject a market
order (or remaining size after partial execution) that would execute at
that erroneous price.
    The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 6.14(a) to provide the
Exchange will not (as opposed to have the discretion not to) apply the
call check to a class during Extended Trading Hours. The Exchange
currently does not apply the check during that trading session and is
only deleting its ability to apply the check during that trading
session, which it does not expect to do.\25\ Additionally, the proposed
rule change states the put and call checks will not apply to market
orders that execute during the opening process as set forth in Rule
6.2B to avoid impacting the determination of the opening price.
Separate price protections apply during the opening process, including
the drill through protection in Rule 6.2B.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Note the current rule states the check does not apply if
market data for the underlying is unavailable. If the value of the
underlying is not currently being disseminated, market data for the
underlying will be considered ``unavailable.''
    \26\ The Exchange also makes a nonsubstantive change to Rule
6.14(a) so the language reads ``greater than or equal to'' rather
than ``equal to or greater than,'' which is the standard phrase.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote Inverting NBBO Check
    The proposed rule change amends Rule 6.14(b) regarding the quote
inverting NBBO check. Pursuant to this check, if CBOE is at the NBO
(NBB), the System rejects a quote back to a Market-Maker if the quote
bid (offer) crosses the NBO (NBB) by more than a number of ticks
specified by the Exchange. If CBOE is not at the NBO (NBB), the System
rejects a quote back to a Market-Maker if the quote bid (offer) locks
or crosses the NBO (NBB).\27\ If the NBBO is unavailable, locked or
crossed, then this check compares the quote to the BBO (if available).
The rule is currently silent on what happens if the BBO is also
unavailable. Therefore, the proposed rule change clarifies the System
does not apply this check to incoming quotes when the BBO is also
unavailable, as there is no then-current price to use as a comparison
to determine the reasonability of the quote. The proposed rule change
also clarifies this is true when a series is open for trading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ The System also cancels any resting quote of the Market-
Maker in the same series.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change further clarifies the times when this
check applies. Current Rule 6.14(b)(ii) provides the Exchange may not
apply the check during the pre-opening, a trading rotation, or trading
halt. Proposed Rule 6.14(b)(ii) states prior to the opening of a series
(including during any pre-opening period and opening rotation), the
System does not apply this check to incoming quotes if the series is
not open on another exchange. This is consistent with flexibility in
the current rule permitting the Exchange to apply (or not apply) the
check prior to the open. The Exchange believes without inputs of
pricing from other exchanges, it is appropriate to not apply the check
if a series is not yet open on another exchange to avoid rejecting
quotes that may be consistent with market pricing not yet available in
the System. Proposed Rule 6.14(b)(iii) deletes the Exchange's
flexibility to apply the quote inverting NBBO check during a trading
halt. The Exchange currently does not apply the check to quotes entered
during these times and does not expect to do so. The proposed rule
change moves the provision permitting a senior official at the
Exchange's Help Desk to determine not to apply this check in the
interest of maintaining a fair and orderly market to proposed Rule
6.14(b)(iv).
Execution of Quotes That Lock or Cross NBBO
    The proposed rule change amends the provision related to the
execution of quotes that lock or cross the NBBO in

current Rule 6.14(b)(iii). As this is a separate limitation on
execution than the quote inverting NBBO check in Rule 6.14(b),\28\ the
proposed rule change moves this limitation to proposed Rule 6.14(c)
(and makes other nonsubstantive changes to the numbering and lettering
within that paragraph, as well as adding a name to the paragraph). The
rule currently states if the System accepts a quote that locks or
crosses the NBBO, the System executes the quote bid (offer) against
quotes and orders in the book at a price(s) that is the same or better
than the best price disseminated by an away exchange(s) up to the size
available on the Exchange and either (1) cancels any remaining size of
the quote, if the price of the quote locks or crosses the price
disseminated by the away exchange(s), or (2) books any remaining size
of the quote, if the price of the quote does not lock or cross the
price of the away exchange(s); provided, if a quote inverts another
quote, it is subject to Rule 6.45A(d)(ii) or 6.45B(d)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ The quote inverting NBBO check rejects quotes back to a
Market-Maker if the quote bid (offer) crosses the NBO (NBB) by more
than a specified number of ticks. The limitation on execution of
quote that lock or cross the NBBO describes how the System will
handle quotes that lock or cross the NBBO (but not by more than the
specified number of ticks and thus are accepted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rules 6.45A(d)(ii) and 6.45B(d)(ii) state the System will not
disseminate an internally crossed market, and if a Market-Maker submits
a quote that would invert an existing quote, the System will change the
incoming quote so it locks the existing quote. The Exchange then
disseminates the locked market, and both quotes will be deemed firm.
When the market locks, a counting period will begin during which
Market-Makers whose quotes are locked may eliminate the locked quote
(provided a Market-Maker will be obligated to execute orders eligible
for automatic execution at its disseminated quote). If at the end of
the counting period the quotes remain locked, the locked quotes will
automatically execute against each other in accordance with the
applicable allocation algorithm.
    Under current Rule 6.14(b)(iii) (which is being moved to proposed
paragraph (c)), an incoming quote that locks or crosses the NBBO would
execute against quotes that are at the same best price disseminated by
an away exchange up to the size available on the Exchange. However, if
the only available size on the Exchange at that best price is a Market-
Maker quote, any counting period under the quote lock rule would cause
the Exchange to disseminate a quote that locks that of an away exchange
(which should be avoided pursuant to Rule 6.82 and the Options Linkage
Plan). To prevent this, the proposed rule change states if the Exchange
has established a counting period for a class pursuant to Rule
6.45A(d)(i) or 6.45B(d)(i), then notwithstanding Rule 6.45A(d) or
6.45B(d), if CBOE (represented by a Market-Maker quote offer (bid)) and
an away exchange(s) are each at the NBO (NBB), the System rejects an
incoming Market-Maker quote bid (offer) (or unexecuted portion after
the quote trades against any resting orders in the Book at the NBO
(NBB)) that locks or crosses resting Market-Maker quote offer (bid) at
the NBO (NBB).\29\ For example, suppose the NBBO is 1.00-1.20 and the
BBO is 0.95-1.20 in equity class ABC. The 1.20 offer on CBOE consists
of a Market-Maker quote. Suppose the counting period in Rule
6.45A(d)(i) is set at one second. If another Market-Maker submits a
quote bid for 1.20, rather than lock with the resting Market-Maker
quote offer of 1.20 pursuant to the quote lock provision, the incoming
quote bid will be rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Rules 6.45A(d)(ii) and 6.45B(d)(ii) continue to apply to
inverted quotes in other circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Incoming bid (offer) quotes that lock or cross the NBO (NBB) if
CBOE alone is at the NBO (NBB) and no Market-Maker quote represents the
NBO (NBB), if an away exchange alone is at the NBO (NBB), or if there
is no counting period will continue to be handled as described in
current Rule 6.14(b)(iii) (proposed paragraph (c)) (the System executes
the quote bid (offer) against quotes and orders in the book at prices
that are the same or better than the best price disseminated by an away
exchange(s) up to the size available on CBOE (which amount is none if
CBOE is not at the NBO (NBB)), and cancels the remaining size).
    In addition, the current rule is silent regarding the applicability
of this limitation on execution to quotes when the NBBO is locked,
crossed or unavailable. The purpose of this provision is to prevent
trade-throughs and displays of locked and crossed markets in accordance
with the Options Linkage Plan. However, when the NBBO is locked or
crossed, it is unreliable for comparison purposes. Additionally, if
there is no NBBO available, then there is no measure against which the
System can compare the price of an incoming quote. Therefore, the
proposed rule change states if the NBBO is locked, crossed or
unavailable, the System does not apply this check to incoming quotes.
The linkage rules similarly provide exceptions to the prohibitions on
trade-throughs and crossed markets when there is a crossed market or
systems or equipment malfunctions.\30\ The proposed rule change adds a
senior official at the Exchange's Help Desk may determine not to apply
this check in the interest of maintaining a fair and orderly
market.\31\ The Exchange may believe it is appropriate to disable this
check in response to a market event or market volatility to avoid
inadvertently cancelling quotes not erroneously priced but rather
priced to reflect potentially rapidly changing prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Rules 6.81 and 6.82.
    \31\ Pursuant to Exchange procedures, any decision to not apply
the quote inverting NBBO check, as well as the reason for the
decision, will be documented, retained, and periodically reviewed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Order Entry, Execution and Price Parameter Rate Checks
    The proposed rule change adopts order entry, execution and price
parameter rate checks in proposed Rule 6.14(d). Currently, QRM
(described below) provides Market-Makers with functionality to help
manage their risk by limiting the number of quotes they may execute in
a specified period of time (based on several parameters). The proposed
order entry and execution rate checks will provide similar risk-
management functionality for orders. These order risk protections are
designed to aid TPHs in their risk management by supplementing current
and proposed price reasonability checks with activity-based order
protections that protect against entering too many orders, executing
too many contracts, and having too many orders rejected because of
price protection parameters in a short time, based on parameters
entered by TPHs.
    Specifically, the proposed rule change states each TPH must provide
to the Exchange parameters for an acronym or, if the TPH requests, a
login,\32\ for each of the following rate checks. The System will count
each of the following over rolling time intervals, which the Exchange
will set and announce via Regulatory Circular:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ A TPH firm may have multiple acronyms. For each Trading
Permit a TPH purchases, it receives up to three log-ins (the TPH may
elect to use fewer than the three). Additionally, a TPH may purchase
additional bandwidth packets, each of which comes with three log-
ins. The TPH determines which log-ins will be used under which
acronym. While not required, TPH firms, for example, may use one
acronym, or log-in, for its proprietary business and another for its
customer agency business (if the firm conducts both). Additionally,
TPH firms sometimes use different log-ins for different customers.
Allowing TPHs to set parameters for these protection mechanisms will
allow TPHs to minimize the possibility of these mechanisms from
affecting multiple businesses, if they choose to set up acronyms and
log-ins in a manner that keeps these business separate.

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

    (1) The total number of orders (of all order types) and auction
responses entered and accepted by the System (``orders entered'');
    (2) the total number of contracts (from orders and auction
responses) executed on the System, which does not count executed
contracts from orders submitted from a PAR workstation or an OMT or
stock contracts executed as part of stock-option orders (``contracts
executed'');
    (3) the total number of orders the System books or routes via
the order handling system \33\ pursuant to the drill through price
check parameter (as amended by this proposed rule change) in
proposed Rule 6.13(b)(v)(B) (``drill through events''); and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ As discussed above, orders (or unexecuted portions) that by
their terms cancel if they do not execute immediately will be
cancelled rather than rest in the book for a period of time (as
proposed in this filing) pursuant to the drill through price check
parameter is [sic] triggered. Because these orders will not book or
route pursuant to the drill through price check parameter, these
orders will not be included in the count for the drill through event
check.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (4) the total number of orders the System cancels or routes via
the order handling system pursuant to the limit order price
parameter in Rule 6.12(a)(3) through (5) (``price reasonability
events'').

    When the System determines the orders entered, contracts executed,
drill through order [sic] events or price reasonability events within
the applicable time interval exceeds a TPH's parameter, the System (1)
rejects all subsequent incoming orders and quotes, (2) cancels all
resting quotes (if the acronym or login is for a Market-Maker), and (3)
for the orders entered and contracts executed checks, if the TPH
requests (i.e., this part of the proposed functionality is optional),
cancels resting orders (either all orders, orders with time-in-force of
day, or orders entered on that trading day) for the acronym or login,
as applicable.
    The System will not accept new orders or quotes from a restricted
acronym or login, as applicable, until the Exchange receives the TPH's
manual notification (in a form and manner determined by the Exchange,
which will be announced by Regulatory Circular) to reactivate its
ability to send orders and quotes for the acronym or login. While an
acronym or login is restricted, a TPH may continue to interact with any
resting orders (i.e., orders not cancelled pursuant to this protection)
entered prior to its acronym or login becoming restricted, including
receiving trade execution reports and canceling resting orders.
    While these order entry and execution rate checks are mandatory for
all TPHs, the Exchange is not proposing to establish minimum or maximum
values for the parameters described in (1) through (4) above. The
Exchange believes this approach will give TPHs the flexibility needed
to appropriately tailor these checks to their respective risk
management needs. In this regard, the Exchange notes each TPH is in the
best position to determine risk settings appropriate for its firm based
on its trading activity and business needs. The Exchange will set the
values of the time intervals \34\; however, the Exchange believes the
amount of flexibility provided to TPHs by having no minimum or maximum
values, or default values, for the parameters, as well as by permitting
the parameters to be set at the acronym or login level, sufficiently
allows TPHs to adjust their parameter inputs to these intervals in
accordance with their business models and risk management needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ The Exchange expects the initial time intervals for all
these checks to be set at one and five minutes. The time intervals
set by the Exchange will apply to all TPHs, who will not be able to
change these time intervals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes these proposed order entry and execution rate
checks will assist TPHs in better managing their risk when trading on
CBOE. In particular, the proposed rule change provides functionality
that allows TPHs to set risk management thresholds for the number of
orders entered or contracts executed on the Exchange during a specified
period. This is similar to how other options exchanges have implemented
activity-based risk management protections, and the Exchange believes
this functionality will likewise benefit TPHs.\35\ Additionally,
similar to QRM, which includes a parameter for the maximum number of
QRM incidents that will trigger cancellation of their orders and quotes
once reached, the proposed rule change includes parameters for a
maximum number of orders that book or route pursuant to the drill
through check and cancel or route pursuant to the limit order price
check. This could occur, for example, if a system issue is causing many
orders to be submitted at prices that are too far away from the market
and likely erroneous; this protection will help prevent execution of
these erroneous orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See, e.g., International Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE'')
Rule 714(d) and MIAX Rule 519A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The below examples illustrate how these order entry and execution
rate checks will work:
Example #1--Order Entry Rate Check
    A TPH designates an allowable orders entered rate of 9 orders/1
minute for acronym ABC.\36\ The TPH enters three orders for acronym
ABC, then enters nine additional orders one minute and thirty seconds
later (for the same acronym). Because the orders entered did not exceed
the TPH's designated rate for acronym ABC within one minute (the second
batch of orders was entered more than one minute after the first batch
of orders), acronym ABC is not restricted from submitting additional
orders. Thirty seconds later, the TPH enters one additional order for
acronym ABC. Entry of this order triggers the rate check because the
TPH entered 10 orders in less than one minute for acronym ABC. At this
time, acronym ABC becomes restricted,\37\ and the System will reject
all orders (and quotes, if acronym ABC is a Market-Maker), cancel any
resting quotes (if acronym ABC is a Market-Maker), and cancel resting
orders (if the TPH opted to enable that functionality). The TPH must
contact the Exchange to resume trading for acronym ABC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ As noted above, the Exchange intends to initially set
intervals of one minute and five minutes, so the TPH would have a
separate entry rate for the five-minute interval, which would be
measured in the same manner demonstrated by these examples. This is
true for each of the rate checks in proposed Rule 6.14(e).
    \37\ Note the System accepts the tenth order entered, as the
check is not triggered until the orders entered exceeds the TPH's
designated rate during a one-minute interval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Example #2--Contracts Executed Rate Check
    A TPH designates an allowable contracts executed rate of 999
contracts/1 minute for acronym DEF. The TPH enters an order to buy 600
contracts for acronym DEF, which immediately executes against a resting
quote offer. One minute and 15 seconds after that execution, the TPH
enters an order to sell 500 contracts for acronym DEF, which
immediately executes against a resting quote bid. Because the two
executions did not exceed the TPH's designated rate for acronym DEF
within one minute (the second execution occurred more than one minute
after the first execution), acronym DEF is not restricted from
submitting additional orders. Forty-five seconds after the second
execution, the TPH enters an order to buy 500 contracts for acronym
DEF, which immediately executes against a resting sell order. Execution
of this third order triggers the rate check because the TPH executed
1,000 contracts in less than one minute for acronym DEF. At this time,
acronym DEF becomes restricted,\38\ and the System will reject all
orders (and quotes, if acronym DEF is a Market-Maker), cancel any
resting quotes (if

acronym DEF is a Market-Maker), and cancel resting orders (if the TPH
opted to enable that functionality). The TPH must contact the Exchange
to resume trading for acronym DEF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Note the System executes this third order, as the check is
not triggered until the contracts executed exceeds the TPH's
designated rate during a one-minute interval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Example #3--Drill Through Event Rate Check
    A TPH designates an allowable drill through event rate of 1 event/1
minute for acronym GHI. The ATD for the class, whose minimum increment
is 0.05, is 0.10 (i.e., two minimum increments). The market for the XYZ
Dec 50 call is 1.00--1.20, represented by an order for 100 contracts on
each side. There are also resting orders to buy 100 at 0.90 and buy 100
at 0.80. The TPH enters a market order to sell 300 contracts for
acronym GHI. One hundred contracts from the order execute against the
resting order to buy 100 at 1.00 and 100 more contracts from the order
execute against the resting order to buy 100 at 0.90. The System
cancels the remaining 100 contracts of the order after resting in the
book at 0.90 for a period of time (pursuant to the drill through
protection, as proposed to be changed). Thirty seconds later, the
market for the XYZ Jan 40 call is 2.00-2.20, represented by an order
for 100 contracts on each side. There are also resting orders to sell
100 at 2.25, sell 100 at 2.30, and sell 100 at 2.40. The TPH enters a
market order to buy 500 contracts for acronym GHI. One hundred
contracts from the order execute against the resting order to sell 100
at 2.20, 100 more contracts from the order execute against the resting
order to sell 100 at 2.25, and 100 more contracts from the order
execute against the resting order to sell 100 at 2.30. One hundred of
the remaining contracts executes at 2.30 while resting in the book for
a period of time, and the System cancels the remaining 100 contracts
(pursuant to the drill through protection, as proposed to be changed).
This is the second instance in less than one minute of the remaining
portion of an order for acronym GHI being cancelled due to the drill
through protection. At this time, acronym GHI becomes restricted, and
the System will reject all orders (and quotes, if acronym GHI is a
Market-Maker), and cancel any resting quotes (if acronym GHI is a
Market-Maker). The TPH must contact the Exchange to resume trading for
acronym GHI.
Example #4--Price Reasonability Event Rate Check
    A TPH designates an allowable price reasonability event rate of 1
event/1 minute for acronym JKL. The ATD for the class, whose minimum
increment is 0.05, is 0.10 (i.e., two minimum increments). The market
for the XYZ Dec 50 call is 1.00-1.20. The TPH enters a limit order to
sell at 0.85 for acronym JKL. The System rejects the order because it
is more than 0.10 below the NBB (pursuant to the limit order price
parameter, as proposed to be changed). Thirty seconds later, the market
for the XYZ Jan 40 call is 2.00-2.20. The TPH enters a limit order to
buy at 2.40 for acronym JKL. The System rejects the order because it is
more than 0.10 above the NBO (pursuant to the limit order price
parameter, as proposed to be changed). This is the second instance in
less than one minute of an order for acronym JKL being rejected due to
the limit order price parameter. At this time, acronym JKL becomes
restricted, and the System will reject all orders (and quotes, if
acronym JKL is a Market-Maker), and cancel any resting quotes (if
acronym JKL is a Market-Maker). The TPH must contact the Exchange to
resume trading for acronym JKL.
Maximum Contract Size
    The proposed rule change adds a maximum contract size risk control.
Specifically, proposed Rule 6.14(e) states the System will reject a
TPH's incoming order or quote (including both sides of a two-sided
quote) if its size exceeds the TPH's designated maximum contract size
parameter. Each TPH must provide a maximum contract size for each of
simple orders, complex orders, and quotes applicable to an acronym or,
if the TPH requests, a login.\39\ The Exchange believes the amount of
flexibility provided to TPHs by having no maximum for the contract size
parameter, as well as by permitting the parameters to be set at the
acronym or login level, sufficiently allows TPH to adjust their
parameter inputs to these intervals in accordance with their business
models and risk management needs. The Exchange believes this proposed
risk control will help prevent executions of orders with size that may
be potentially erroneous and mitigate risk associated with such
executions. This is similar to how other options exchanges have
implemented maximum contract size protections, and the Exchange
believes this functionality will likewise benefit TPHs.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ For purposes of determining the contract size of an
incoming order or quote, the proposed rule states the contract size
of a complex order will equal the contract size of the largest
option leg of the order (i.e., if the order is a stock-option order,
this check will not apply to the stock leg of the order).
    \40\ See, e.g., MIAX Rule 519(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If a TPH enters an order or quote to replace a resting order or
update a resting quote, respectively, and the System rejects the
incoming order or quote because it exceeds the applicable maximum
contract size, the System will also cancel the resting order or any
resting quote in the same series. The Exchange believes it is
appropriate to reject or cancel the resting order or quote because, by
submitting a replacement order or quote update because it exceeds the
TPH's maximum contract size, the TPH is implicitly instructing the
Exchange to cancel the resting order or quote, respectively. Thus, even
if the system rejects the replacement order or quote update, the TPH's
implicit instruction to cancel the resting order or quote remains valid
nonetheless. Additionally, with respect to quotes, the Exchange
believes it is appropriate to reject or cancel, as applicable, both
sides of a quote (whether submitted as a two-sided quote or resting,
respectively) because Market-Makers generally submit two-sided quotes,
as their trading strategies and risk profiles are based on the spreads
of their quotes. Rejecting and cancelling, as applicable, quotes on
both sides of the series is consistent with this practice. The Exchange
believes cancellation of resting quotes and orders, and rejection of
both sides of a two-sided quote, operate as additional safeguards that
cause TPHs to re-evaluate orders and quotes before attempting to submit
new orders or quotes.
    To the extent a TPH submits a pair of orders to the Automated
Improvement Mechanism (``AIM''),\41\ the Solicitation Auction mechanism
(``SAM''),\42\ or as a qualified cross-contingent order (``QCC
order''),\43\ this proposed check will apply to both orders in the
pair. If the System rejects either order in the pair, then the system
will also cancel the paired order. It is the intent of these paired
orders to execute against each other (with respect to AIM and SAM
orders) or as a single transaction (with respect to QCC orders). Thus,
the Exchange believes it is appropriate to reject both orders if one
does not satisfy the maximum contract size check to be consistent with
the intent of the submitting TPH. Notwithstanding the foregoing, with
respect to A:AIR \44\ orders, if the System rejects the agency order
pursuant to the maximum contract size check, then the System will also
reject the contra-side order. However, if

the System rejects the contra-side order pursuant to this check, the
System will accept the agency order (assuming it satisfies the check).
The purpose of the A:AIR contingency provides the opportunity for the
agency order (which is a customer of the submitting TPH) to execute
despite not entering an AIM auction pursuant to which the order may
execute against a facilitation or solicitation order of the TPH. The
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with that
contingency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See Rule 6.74A for a description of the AIM auction
process.
    \42\ See Rule 6.74B for a description of the SAM auction
process.
    \43\ See Rule 6.53(u) for a definition of QCC orders.
    \44\ See Rule 6.74A, Interpretation and Policy .09 for a
description of the A:AIR functionality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kill Switch
    The Exchange proposes to adopt a kill switch in proposed Rule
6.14(f). The kill switch will be an optional tool allowing a TPH to
send a message to the System to, or contact the Exchange Help Desk to
request that the Exchange, cancel all its resting quotes (if the
acronym or login is for a Market-Maker), resting orders (either all
orders, orders with time-in-force of day, or orders entered on that
trading day), or both for an acronym or login. The System will send a
TPH an automated message when the Exchange has processed a kill switch
request for any acronym or login.
    Once a TPH initiates the kill switch for an acronym or login, the
System rejects all subsequent incoming orders and quotes for the
acronym or login, as applicable. The System will not accept new orders
or quotes from a restricted acronym or login until the Exchange
receives the TPH's manual notification (in a form and manner determined
by the Exchange, which will be announced by Regulatory Circular) to
reactivate its ability to send orders and quotes for the acronym or
login. While an acronym or login is restricted, a TPH may continue to
interact with any resting orders (i.e., orders not cancelled pursuant
to the kill switch) entered prior to its acronym or login becoming
restricted, including receiving trade execution reports and canceling
resting orders. The proposed kill switch will provide TPHs with a
powerful risk management tool for immediate control of their order and
quote activity. It will offer TPHs a means to control their exposure
through an interface not dependent on the integrity of their own
systems, should they experience any type of system failure. This is
similar to how other options exchanges have implemented kill switches,
and the Exchange believes this functionality will likewise benefit
TPHs.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See, e.g., BOX Options Exchange LLC (``BOX'') Rule 7280 and
PHLX Rule 1019(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

QRM Mechanism
    The proposed rule change amends the QRM mechanism in Rule 8.18. QRM
is functionality that automatically cancels a Market-Maker's quotes
when certain parameter settings are triggered. Specifically, a Market-
Maker may establish a (1) maximum number of contracts, (2) a maximum
cumulative percentage of the original quoted size of each side of each
series, and (3) the maximum number of series for which either side of
the quote is fully traded that may trade within a rolling time period
in milliseconds also established by the Market-Maker. When these
parameters are exceeded within the time interval, the System cancels
the Market-Maker's quotes in the class and other classes with the same
underlying on the same trading platform. Additionally, Rule 8.18 allows
Market-Makers or TPH organizations to specify a maximum number of QRM
incidents on an Exchange-wide basis. If the Market-Maker or TPH
organization exceeds this number of incidents within a specified time
interval, the System will cancel all of the Market-Maker's or TPH
organization's quotes and resting orders in all classes and prevent it
from sending additional quotes or orders to the Exchange until it
reactivates this ability.
    This functionality allows Market-Makers to provide liquidity across
potentially hundreds of options series without being at risk of
executing the full cumulative size of all these quotes before being
given adequate opportunity to adjust their quotes. Use of this
functionality has been voluntary for Market-Makers under the rules.
From a technical perspective, Market-Makers currently do not need to
enter any values into the applicable fields, and thus effectively can
choose not to use these tools. The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 8.18
to make it mandatory for Market-Makers to enter values for each
parameter for all classes in which it enters quotes. The purpose of the
proposed rule change is to prevent Market-Makers from inadvertently
entering quotes without risk-management parameters. The Exchange notes
all Market-Makers currently have settings for these parameters.
However, it is possible that a Market-Maker could inadvertently enter
quotes without populating one or more of the parameters, resulting in
the Market-Maker being exposed to much more risk than it intended. The
proposed rule change will prevent this from occurring.
    While entering values for the QRM parameters will be mandatory to
prevent inadvertent exposure to risk, the Exchange notes Market-Makers
who prefer to use their own risk-management systems can enter values
that assure the Exchange parameters will not be triggered.\46\
Accordingly, the proposed rule change provides Market-Makers with
flexibility to use their own risk management tools. The Exchange notes
other exchanges make similar functionality mandatory for all Market-
Makers.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ For example, a Market-Maker could set the value for the
total number of contracts executed in a class at a level exceeding
the total number of contracts it actually quotes in the class.
    \47\ See, e.g., ISE Rule 804(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Order of Application of Risk Controls/Price Protections
    Upon approval of this rule filing, the Exchange will have various
risk controls and price protection mechanisms in place applicable to
quotes and orders. The following lists the ``order'' in which the
System will apply these controls and mechanisms to incoming quotes and
orders:
Incoming Quotes
     Maximum contract size (proposed Rule 6.14(e));
     put/call check (current Rule 6.14(a), as proposed to be
amended by this rule filing);
     execution of quotes that lock or cross the NBBO (current
Rule 6.14(b)(iii), proposed to be moved to proposed Rule 6.14(c) in
this rule filing); and
     quote inverting NBBO (current Rule 6.14(b), as proposed to
be amended by this rule filing).
    Note QRM may be triggered after a quote executes.
Incoming Simple Limit Orders
     Maximum contract size (proposed Rule 6.14(e));
     put/call check (current Rule 6.14(a), as proposed to be
amended by this rule filing) \48\; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ If a limit order is an order marked to cancel and replace a
resting limit order, the maximum contract size check applies after
the put/call check. Generally, cancel and replace orders do not
modify the size of a resting order, which the System would have
already determined did not exceed the TPH's maximum contract size
parameter. Therefore, the Exchange believed it was reasonable to
apply a price reasonability check to these orders first, as that is
the order information likely being changed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     limit order price parameter (current Rule 6.12(a)(3), as
proposed to be amended by this rule filing).
    Note the order entry, execution and price parameter rate checks in
proposed Rule 6.14(d) and the drill through price check parameter in
current Rule 6.13(b)(v) (as proposed to be amended by and moved to
proposed Rule

6.13(b)(v)(B) in this rule filing) may be triggered after a limit order
executes.
Incoming Simple Market Orders
     Maximum contract size (proposed Rule 6.14(e));
     market-width price check parameter (current Rule
6.13(b)(v), as proposed to be amended (nonsubstantively) by this rule
filing and moved to proposed Rule 6.13(b)(v)(A)); and
     put/call check (current Rule 6.14(a), as proposed to be
amended by this rule filing).\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ The pricing checks always apply after the maximum size
check for market orders, because they apply at the time the System
determines at what price these orders will execute, unlike limit
orders entered with an execution price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Incoming Complex Orders
     Maximum contract size (proposed Rule 6.14(e));
     limit order price parameter (current Rule 6.12(a)(4) and
(5));
     debit/credit check (current Rule 6.53C, Interpretation and
Policy .08(c)) or buy-buy (sell-sell) strategy parameter (current Rule
6.53C, Interpretation and Policy .08(d)), as applicable;
     maximum value acceptable price range check (current Rule
6.53C, Interpretation and Policy .08(g));
     market width parameter (current Rule 6.53C, Interpretation
and Policy .08(a));
     credit-to-debit parameter (current Rule 6.53C,
Interpretation and Policy .08(b));
     percentage distance parameter (current Rule 6.53C,
Interpretation and Policy .08(e)); and
     stock-option derived net market parameter (current Rule
6.53C, Interpretation and Policy .08(f)).
    Note the order entry, execution and price parameter rate checks in
proposed Rule 6.14(d) and the drill through price check parameter in
current Rule 6.13(b)(v) (as proposed to be amended by and moved to
proposed Rule 6.13(b)(v)(B) in this rule filing) may be triggered after
a market order executes.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\50\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change
is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \51\ requirements that the rules
of an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts
and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, 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.
Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \52\ requirement that the rules of
an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \51\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \52\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the proposed price protection mechanisms and risk
controls will protect investors and the public interest and maintain
fair and orderly markets by mitigating potential risks associated with
market participants entering orders and quotes at unintended prices or
sizes, and risks associated with orders and quotes trading at prices
that are extreme and potentially erroneous, which may likely have
resulted from human or operational error.
    The Exchange believes amending the limit order price parameter for
simple orders (current Rule 6.12(a)(3)) to use the NBBO (rather than
the Exchange previous day's closing price or BBO) when available
perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system because it would more accurately reflect the then-current
market. Thus, the Exchange believes it would be a better measure to use
for purposes of determining the reasonability of the prices of orders
and more accurately prevent executions of limit orders at erroneous
prices, which ultimately protects investors. Continued use of the
Exchange's previous day's closing price or BBO, as applicable, when no
NBBO is available or the NBBO is not reliable will still provide
continued price protection for orders during those times. The Exchange
believes those prices would be the most relevant pricing information to
determine the price at which an investor may want to buy or sell within
a series, and the Exchange believes it is a reasonable substitute when
no NBBO is available. The Exchange believes it is appropriate to have
flexibility to determine to apply a different ATD to orders entered
during the pre-opening, a trading rotation, or a trading halt to
reflect different market conditions during those times. Additionally,
the Exchange believes it is appropriate to not apply this price check
to orders routed from a PAR workstation or OMT, as those orders were
subject to manual handling by a PAR or OMT operator who will have
evaluated the price of an order based on then-existing market condition
prior to submitted it for electronic execution, thus minimizing risk of
an erroneous execution. Additionally, the Exchange believes it is
appropriate to not apply the check to orders with a stop contingency,
because the prices that trigger execution of orders with a stop
condition are intended to be outside the NBBO, and nonapplicability of
this check is consistent with that condition. Therefore, the Exchange
believes it is unnecessary to apply this check to stop-limit orders.
This flexibility and non-applicability, as applicable, will further
assist the Exchange with its efforts to maintain a fair and orderly
market, which will ultimately protect investors. Application of the
drill through check to market and marketable limit orders (and of the
market width check only to market orders) is consistent with the
current Rule and applicability of those checks; the proposed rule
change merely deletes the Exchange's flexibility to apply each check to
market orders, marketable limit orders, or both.
    The proposed rule change to the drill through price check parameter
(current Rule 6.13(b)(v), and proposed Rule 6.13(b)(v)(B)) will benefit
investors, as it more clearly describes how the System handles orders
that were and were not previously exposed prior to trading at the drill
through price. Additionally, the proposed rule change adds
functionality to the drill through price check parameter to rest orders
(or any remaining unexecuted portions) in the book for a brief time
period (not to exceed three seconds) with a price equal to the drill
through price promotes just and equitable principles of trade and
benefits investors by providing an additional opportunity for execution
at a price that does not appear to be erroneous prior to their
cancellation while continuing to protect them against execution at
erroneous prices. Excluding orders that by their terms cancel if they
do not immediately execute from this proposed change is consistent with
the terms of those orders. In addition, the proposed rule change to
apply the drill through protection to orders eligible for SAL will
prevent erroneous executions of more orders, which assists the Exchange
in its efforts to maintain a fair and orderly market. The proposed rule
change also clarifies an order will HAL at the better of the drill
through price [sic] to ensure an order will not be exposed at a price
worse than the NBBO (this is consistent

with the current HAL rule, which exposes orders at the NBBO).
    The proposed rule change to permit the Exchange to share TPH-
designated risk settings with Clearing TPHs that clear transactions on
the TPH's behalf (proposed introductory paragraph to Rule 6.14) will
permit Clearing TPHs who have a financial interest in the risk settings
of TPHs with whom they have entered into a letter of authorization,
letter of guarantee, or authorization given by such Clearing TPHs to
such TPH to better monitor and manage the potential risks assumed by
Clearing TPHs. Because such Clearing TPHs bear the risk associated with
Exchange transactions of that TPH, it is appropriate for the Clearing
TPHs to have knowledge of what risk settings the TPH may apply within
the System. This knowledge will provide Clearing TPHs with greater
control and flexibility in managing their own risk tolerance and
exposure and aiding Clearing TPHs in complying with the Act.
Additionally, to the extent a Clearing TPH might reasonably require a
TPH to provide access to its risk settings as a prerequisite to
continuing to clear trades on such TPH's behalf, the Exchange's
proposed rule change to share those risk settings directly with a
Clearing TPH reduces the administrative burden on the TPH and ensures
that Clearing TPHs are receiving information that is up to date and
conforms to settings active in the System. The Exchange also notes the
proposed rule change is consistent with rules of other exchanges.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ See, e.g., MIAX Rule 500; BX Chapter VI, Section 20; NYSE
Arca Rule 6.2A(a); NYSE MKT Rule 902.1NY(a); and PHLX Rule 1016.`
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change to expand the applicability of the put
strike price and call underlying value check to market orders (current
Rule 6.14(a)) will further assist the Exchange's efforts to maintain a
fair and orderly market by mitigating the potential risks associated
with additional orders trading at prices that exceed a corresponding
benchmark (which may result in executions at prices that are
potentially erroneous). The Exchange believes it is appropriate and
consistent with the current rule to no longer have flexibility to
determine to not apply the call check to orders entered during Extended
Trading Hours, as the check currently does not apply during that
trading session and does not expect to do so. Similarly, the Exchange
believes it promotes fair and orderly markets to not apply these checks
to market orders executed during an opening rotation to avoid impacting
the determination of the opening price (the Exchange notes separate
price protections apply to orders during the opening process).
    The proposed rule change to the quote inverting NBBO check (current
Rule 6.14(b)) benefits investors by clarifying the System does not
apply those checks to orders entered when there is no NBBO (or BBO with
respect to the quote inverting NBBO check) available, as there is no
reliable benchmark during those times against which the System can
compare quote prices. This will remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market because these checks would not
apply to quotes during times when there is no reliable price benchmark,
and thus the check would not erroneously reject otherwise acceptable
quotes, which may be disruptive to Market-Makers that provide necessary
liquidity to the Exchange. The proposed rule change to delete the
Exchange's flexibility regarding when to apply the quote inverting NBBO
check and instead state in the Rules it will not apply prior to a
series opening if the series is not open on another exchange, and it
will not apply during a trading halt is appropriate and consistent with
the current rule. The Exchange currently does not apply the check to
quotes entered during a halt and does not expect to do so. With respect
to quotes entered in series prior to the opening, the Exchange believes
it is appropriate to not apply the check if a series is not yet open on
another exchange to avoid rejecting quotes that may be consistent with
market pricing not yet available in the System.
    The proposed changes to the execution of quotes that lock or cross
the NBBO (current Rule 6.14(b)(iii) and proposed Rule 6.14(c)) to
reject incoming quotes when a Market-Maker quote represents the BBO
(and the Exchange has established a counting period pursuant to its
quote lock functionality), which is also the NBBO (along with an away
exchange), is consistent with the Options Linkage Plan and related
rules, as it will prevent dissemination of a quote that locks or
crosses an away market. The proposed rule change to allow the Exchange
not to apply the execution of quotes that lock or cross the NBBO check
in the interest of maintaining a fair and orderly market will allow the
Exchange to disable this check in response to a market event or market
volatility to avoid inadvertently cancelling quotes not erroneously
priced but rather priced to reflect potentially rapidly changing
prices, which will assist with the maintenance of a fair and orderly
market.
    The Exchange believes the proposed order entry, execution and price
parameter rate checks (proposed Rule 6.14(d)) will assist with the
maintenance of a fair and orderly market by establishing new activity
based risk protections for orders. The Exchange currently offers QRM, a
risk protection mechanism for Market-Maker quotes, which the Exchange
believes has been successful in reducing Market-Maker risk, and now
proposes to adopt risk protections for orders that would allow other
TPHs to similarly manage their exposure to excessive risk. In
particular, the proposed rule change implements four new risk
protections based on order entry and execution rates as well as rates
of orders that trigger the drill through or price reasonability
parameters. The Exchange believes these new protections would enable
TPHs to better manage their risk when trading on the Exchange by
limiting their risk exposure when systems or other issues result in
orders being entered or executed, as well as executed at extreme
prices, at rates that exceed predefined thresholds. In today's market,
the Exchange believes robust risk management is becoming increasingly
more important for all TPHs. The proposed rule change would provide an
additional layer or risk protection for TPHs. In particular, these rate
checks are designed to reduce risk associated with system errors or
market events that may cause TPHs to send a large number of orders,
receive multiple, automatic executions, or execute a large number of
orders at extreme and potentially erroneous prices, before they can
adjust their exposure in the market. The proposed order entry and
execution rate checks are similar to risk management functionality
provided by other options exchanges.\54\ While the order entry and
contracts executed rate checks apply to all TPHs, it is optional for
TPHs to have resting orders (or certain subcategories of resting
orders) cancelled when a rate check is triggered and an acronym or
login becomes restricted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ See, e.g., ISE Rule 714(d) and MIAX Rule 519A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed maximum contract size risk control (proposed Rule
6.14(e)) is designed to help TPHs avoid potential submission of
erroneously sized orders on the Exchange. Similar to functionality
intended to protect against orders and quotes executing at unintended
prices, this proposed functionality will assist in the maintenance of a
fair and orderly market and protect investors by rejecting orders and
quotes that are ``too large'' to prevent executions at

unintended sizes and mitigate risks associated with such executions
that are potentially erroneous. The Exchange believes the additional
risk control feature to reject or cancel the resting or quote when an
incoming replacement order or quote update is rejected pursuant to this
proposed risk control is appropriate because, by submitting a
replacement order or quote update, the TPH is implicitly instructing
the Exchange to cancel the resting order or quote, respectively.
Additionally, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to reject or
cancel, as applicable, both sides of a quote because Market-Makers
generally submit two-sided quotes, as their trading strategies and risk
profiles are based on spreads of their quotes, and rejecting and
cancelling, as applicable, both sides of a quote is consistent with
this practice. The Exchange believes cancellation of resting quotes and
orders, and rejection of both sides of a quote, operate as additional
safeguards that cause TPHs to re-evaluate orders and quotes before
attempting to submit new orders or quotes. This will further protect
against erroneous trades, which protects investors. The Exchange also
believes the proposed rule change regarding how the proposed check will
apply to AIM, SAM and QCC orders is reasonable, as the proposed rule
change is consistent with the contingencies attached to those types of
orders.
    With respect to the proposed order entry, execution and price
parameter rate checks and maximum contract size check (as well as the
existing QRM functionality), the Exchange believes it is appropriate to
not have minimum or maximum values, or default values, for the
parameters, to provide sufficient flexibility to TPHs to adjust their
parameter inputs in accordance with their business and risk management
needs. The Exchange believes price protection mechanisms benefits its
market and the options industry as a whole, however, ultimately these
mechanisms primarily protect TPHs against erroneous executions of their
orders and quotes. CBOE appreciates the parameter settings determine
whether these protections will be meaningful. Based on discussions with
TPHs regarding its current and proposed package of risk controls and
price protection mechanisms, the Exchange understands TPHs support the
implementation of price protection mechanisms such as these and expects
TPHs to input settings that are meaningful so they can take full
advantage of the benefits these mechanisms are intended to provide.
    The proposed kill switch (proposed Rule 6.14(f)) is an optional
tool offered to all TPHs. The Exchange represents the proposed kill
switch will operate consistently with the firm quote obligations of a
broker-dealer pursuant to Rule 602 of Regulation NMS and the
functionality is not mandatory. Specifically, any interest executable
against a TPH's quotes and orders received by the Exchange prior to the
time the kill switch is processed by the Exchange will automatically
execute at the price up to the TPH's size. The kill switch message will
be accepted by the System in the order of receipt in the queue and will
be processed in that order so that interest already in the System will
be processed prior to the kill switch message. A Market-Maker's
utilization of the kill switch, and subsequent removal of its quotes,
does not diminish or relieve the Market-Maker of its obligation to
provide continuous two-sided quotes. Market-Makers will continue to be
required to provide continuous two-sided quotes on a daily basis, and a
Market-Maker's utilization of the kill switch will not prohibit the
Exchange from taking disciplinary action against the Market-Maker for
failing to meet the continuing quoting obligation each trading day. All
TPHs may determine whether a kill switch cancels resting quotes,
resting orders (or certain subcategories of resting orders), or both.
The Exchange also notes the proposed rule change is consistent with
rules of other exchanges.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ See, e.g., BOX Rule 7280 (b) and PHLX Rule 1019(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes requiring Market-Makers to enter values into
the risk parameters of the QRM mechanism (current Rule 8.18) will not
be unreasonably burdensome, as all Market-Makers currently utilize the
functionality. Additionally, the proposed rule change will assist
Market-Makers in reducing their risk of inadvertently entering quotes
without populating the risk parameters. Reducing this risk will enable
Market-Makers to enter quotations with larger size, which in turn will
benefit investors through increased liquidity for the execution of
their orders. Such increased liquidity benefits investors because they
receive better prices and because it lowers volatility in the options
market.
    While entering values for the QRM parameters will be mandatory to
prevent inadvertent exposure to risk, the Exchange notes Market-Makers
who prefer to use their own risk-management systems can enter values
that assure the Exchange parameters will not be triggered. Accordingly,
the proposed rule change provides Market-Makers with flexibility to use
their own risk management tools. The Exchange notes other exchanges
make similar functionality mandatory for all Market-Makers.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ See, e.g., ISE Rule 804(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The individual firm benefits of enhanced risk protections flow
downstream to counterparties both at the Exchange and at other options
exchanges, which increases systemic protections as well. The Exchange
believes these risk protections will allow TPHs to enter orders and
quotes with reduced fear of inadvertent exposure to excessive risk,
which will benefit investors through increased liquidity for the
execution of their orders, thereby protecting investors and the public
interest. Without adequate risk management tools, such as those
proposed in this filing, TPHs could reduce the amount of order flow and
liquidity they provide. Such actions may undermine the quality of the
markets available to customers and other market participants.
Accordingly, the proposed rule change is designed to encourage TPHs to
submit additional order flow and liquidity to the Exchange, thereby
removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanisms of a free and
open market and a national market system and, in general, protecting
investors and the public interest. In addition, providing TPHs with
more tools for managing risk will facilitate transactions in securities
because, as noted above, TPHs will have more confidence protections are
in place that reduce the risks from potential system errors and market
events. As a result, the new functionality as the potential to promote
just and equitable principles of trade.
    The Exchange notes TPHs must be mindful of their obligations to
seek best execution of orders handled on an agency basis. Decisions to
use the optional functionality described in this filing (i.e.,
cancellation of orders when an acronym or log-in becomes restricted
after exceeding the orders entered or contracts executed rate,
cancellation of orders upon initiation of a kill switch), and decisions
on values of parameters (i.e., parameters for the orders entered,
contracts executed and price parameter rate check, maximum contract
size check), must be made consistent with this duty.

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

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not

necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The
proposed rule change adds price protection mechanisms and risk controls
for orders and quotes of all Trading Permit Holders submitted to CBOE
to help further prevent potentially erroneous executions, which
benefits all market participants. These mechanisms and controls apply
to orders of all TPHs, and quotes of all Market-Makers, in the same
manner. The proposed rule changes related to the quote inverting NBBO
check, the execution of quotes that lock or cross the NBBO check, and
QRM apply only to Market-Makers because only Market-Makers may submit
quotes under the Rules, and because similar protections applicable to
orders are in place or also proposed in this rule filing. Additionally,
the Exchange believes these types of protection for Market-Makers are
appropriate given their unique role in the market and may encourage
Market-Makers to quote tighter and deeper markets, which will increase
liquidity and enhance competition, given the additional protection
these price checks will provide. The Exchange believes the proposed
rule change would provide market participants with additional
protection from risks related to erroneous executions. Certain of the
proposed protections are similar to those available on other
exchanges.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ See, e.g., ISE Rule 714(d) and MIAX Rule 519A (order entry
and execution rate checks); and MIAX Rule 519(b) (order contract
size).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the proposed rule change makes entry of parameters into the
QRM mechanism mandatory, the Exchange notes all Market-Makers currently
avail themselves of this mechanism today. Additionally, the Exchange
believes the use of QRM will prevent the inadvertent entry of quotes
without risk-management parameters. Market-Makers who prefer to use
their own risk-management systems can enter out-of-range values so the
Exchange-provided parameters will not be triggered and can function as
back-up protection. While entering values for the QRM parameters will
be mandatory to prevent inadvertent exposure to risk, the Exchange
notes Market-Makers who prefer to use their own risk-management systems
can enter values that assure the Exchange parameters will not be
triggered. Accordingly, the proposed rule change provides Market-Makers
with flexibility to use their own risk management tools. The Exchange
notes other exchanges make similar functionality mandatory for all
Market-Makers.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ See, e.g., ISE Rule 804(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the proposed kill switch functionality, all TPHs
may avail themselves of the kill switch, which functionality is
optional. The proposed rule change is intended to protect TPHs in the
event they experience a systems issue or unusual or unexpected market
activity that would require them to withdraw from the market to protect
investors. The ability to control risk at either the acronym or login
level will permit a TPH to protect itself from inadvertent exposure to
excessive risk at each level. Reducing such risk will enable TPHs to
enter quotes and orders with protection against inadvertent exposure to
excessive risk, which in turn will benefit investors through increased
liquidity for the execution of their orders. Such increased liquidity
benefits investors because they may receive better prices and because
it may lower volatility in the options market. Additionally, the
proposed kill switch functionality is similar to that available on
other exchanges.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ See, e.g., BOX Rule 7280(b) and PHLX Rule 1019(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change to permit the Exchange to share TPH-
designated risk settings with Clearing TPHs that clear transaction on
behalf of the TPH is not designed to address any competitive issues and
does not pose any undue burden on non-Clearing TPHs because, unlike
Clearing TPHs, non-Clearing TPHs do not guarantee the execution of
transactions on the Exchange. The proposed rule change applies the same
to all TPHs and Clearing TPHs. Any TPH that does not wish to have the
Exchange share designated risk settings with its Clearing TPHs could
avoid this by becoming a clearing member of the Clearing Corporation.
The Exchange notes other exchanges' rules permit sharing of these
settings with clearing members.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ See, e.g., MIAX Rule 500; BOX Chapter VI, Section 20; NYSE
Arca Rule 6.2A(a); NYSE MKT Rule 901.1NY(a); and PHLX Rule 1016
(sharing TPH-designated risk settings).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The individual firm benefits of enhanced risk protections flow
downstream to counterparties both at the Exchange and at other options
exchanges, which increases systemic protections as well. The Exchange
believes these risk protections will allow TPHs to enter orders and
quotes with reduced fear of inadvertent exposure to excessive risk,
which will benefit investors through increased liquidity for the
execution of their orders. Without adequate risk management tools, such
as those proposed in this filing, TPHs could reduce the amount of order
flow and liquidity they provide. Such actions may undermine the quality
of the markets available to customers and other market participants.
Accordingly, the proposed rule change is designed to encourage TPHs to
submit additional order flow and liquidity to the Exchange, which may
ultimately promote competition. In addition, providing TPHs with more
tools for managing risk will facilitate transactions in securities
because, as noted above, TPHs will have more confidence protections are
in place that reduce the risks from potential system errors and market
events.
    Based on discussions with TPHs regarding its current and proposed
package of risk controls and price protection mechanisms, the Exchange
understands TPHs support the implementation of price protection
mechanisms such as these and expects TPHs to input settings that are
meaningful so they can take full advantage of the benefits these
mechanisms are intended to provide.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:
    A. By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be 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-CBOE-2016-053 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2016-053. 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-CBOE-2016-053, and should be
submitted on or before October 11, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-22538 Filed 9-19-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P