[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 137 (Wednesday, July 17, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34230-34241]
[FR Doc No: 2019-15135]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-86353; File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2019-039]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Add
Stock-Option Order Functionality and Complex Qualified Contingent Cross
(``QCC'') Order With Stock Functionality, and To Make Other Changes to
its Rules

July 11, 2019.
    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 June 27, 2019, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGX'') 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
Exchange filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``EDGX'') proposes to
add stock-option order functionality and complex qualified contingent
cross (``QCC'') order with stock functionality, and to make other
changes to its Rules. The text of the proposed rule change is provided
in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/options/regulation/rule_filings/edgx/), 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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    In 2016, the Exchange's parent company, Cboe Global Markets, Inc.
(``Cboe Global''), which is the parent company of Cboe Exchange, Inc.
(``Cboe Options'') and Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (``C2''), acquired the
Exchange, Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. (``EDGA''), Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.
(``BZX or BZX Options''), and Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (``BYX'' and,
together with C2, Cboe Options, the Exchange, EDGA, and BZX, the ``Cboe
Affiliated Exchanges''). The Cboe Affiliated Exchanges are working to
align certain system functionality, retaining only intended differences
between the Cboe Affiliated Exchanges, in the context of a technology
migration. Cboe Options intends to migrate its technology to the same
trading platform used by the Exchange, C2, and BZX Options in the
fourth quarter of 2019. The proposal set forth below is intended to add
certain functionality to the Exchange's System that is available on
Cboe Options in order to ultimately provide a consistent technology
offering for market participants who interact with the Cboe Affiliated
Exchanges. Although the Exchange intentionally offers certain features
that differ from those offered by its affiliates and will continue to
do so, the Exchange believes that offering similar functionality to the
extent practicable will reduce potential confusion for Users.
    The Exchange proposes to adopt stock-option order functionality.\5\
Stock-option orders facilitate the execution of the stock component of
qualified contingent trades (``QCTs''). The proposed rule change
defines a stock-option order as the purchase or sale of a stated number
of units of an underlying stock or a security convertible into the
underlying stock (``convertible security'') coupled with the purchase
or sale of an option contract(s) \6\ on the opposite side of the market
representing either (1) the same number of units of the underlying
stock or convertible security or (2) the number of units of the
underlying stock necessary to create a delta neutral position, but in
no case in a ratio greater than eight-to-one (8.00), where the ratio
represents the total number of units of the underlying stock or
convertible security in the option leg(s) to the total number of units
of the underlying stock or convertible security in the stock leg. Only
those stock-option orders in the classes designated by the Exchange \7\
with no more than the applicable number of legs are eligible for
processing.\8\ Stock-option orders execute in the same manner as other
complex orders, except as otherwise provided in Rule 21.20 as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See proposed Rule 21.20(b).
    \6\ This proposed definition permits stock-option orders to have
one or more option leg [sic], all of which will be handled in the
same manner.
    \7\ Pursuant to Rule 16.3, the Exchange announces all
determinations it makes pursuant to the Rules via specifications,
Notices, or Regulatory Circulars with appropriate advanced notice,
which will be posted on the Exchange's website, or as otherwise
provided in the Rules; electronic message; or other communication
method as provided in the Rules. All determinations the Exchange
makes pursuant to Rule 21.20 will be made in accordance with Rule
16.3.
    \8\ See proposed Rule 21.20(b). This definition is virtually
identical to the Cboe Options definition, except the proposed
definition does not provide the Exchange with flexibility to lower
the permissible ratio of stock-option orders like the Cboe Options
definition, as the Exchange does not believe it needs this
flexibility. See Cboe Options Rule 6.53C(a)(1). The proposed
definition is also substantially the same as the definition of
stock-option order of other options exchanges. See, e.g., Miami
International Securities Exchange, LLC (``MIAX'') Rule 518(a)(5);
and NASDAQ ISE, LLC (``ISE'') Options 3, Section 14(a)(2) and (3).
The definition is also consistent with the definition of a Complex
Trade in the linkage rules in Rule 27.1(a)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, to execute a QCT, a User would need to submit an option
order to the Exchange and separately submit the stock order to a stock
execution venue.\9\ The option order represents one component of a QCT
and must be paired

with a stock order. When a User enters the option component of a QCT,
the User is responsible for executing the associated stock component of
the QCT within a reasonable period of time after the option order is
executed. The Exchange conducts surveillance of Users to ensure that
Users execute the stock component of a QCT at or near the same time as
the options component. While the Exchange does not specify how the User
should go about executing the stock component of the trade, this
process is often manual and is therefore a compliance risk for Users if
they do not execute the stock component within a reasonable time period
of execution of the options component. Thus, the Exchange is proposing
to offer stock-option order functionality, pursuant to which the
Exchange will automatically communicate the stock component of a QCT to
a designated broker-dealer for execution in connection with the
execution of the option order on the Exchange. Use of stock-option
order functionality will be voluntary, and Users may continue to
execute components of a QCT in the manner they do today (as described
above).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Exchange currently permits the submission of qualified
contingent cross (``QCC'') orders with stock, which is a specific
type of stock-option order. See current Rule 21.20(c)(7) (proposed
Rule 21.20(l)(3)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to proposed Rule 21.20, Interpretation and Policy .03, a
User may only submit a stock-option order (including a QCC with Stock
Order) if it complies with the QCT exemption from Rule 611(a) of
Regulation NMS (``QCT exemption'').\10\ A User submitting a stock-
option order represents that it complies with the QCT exemption. To
submit a stock-option order to the Exchange for execution, a User must
enter into a brokerage agreement with one or more broker-dealers that
are not affiliated with the Exchange, which broker-dealer(s) the
Exchange has identified as having connectivity to electronically
communicate the stock components of stock-option orders to stock
trading venues.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Rule 21.1(d)(10)(A) for the definition of a qualified
contingent trade. A ``qualified contingent trade'' is a transaction
consisting of two or more component orders, executed as agent or
principal, where: (1) At least one component is an NMS stock, as
defined in Rule 600 of Regulation NMS under the Exchange Act; (2)
all components are effected with a product or price contingency that
either has been agreed to by all the respective counterparties or
arranged for by a broker-dealer as principal or agent; (3) the
execution of one component is contingent upon the execution of all
other components at or near the same time; (4) the specific
relationship between the component orders (e.g., the spread between
the prices of the component orders) is determined by the time the
contingent order is placed; (5) the component orders bear a
derivative relationship to one another, represent different classes
of shares of the same issuer, or involve the securities of
participants in mergers or with intentions to merge that have been
announced or cancelled; and (6) the transaction is fully hedged
(without regard to any prior existing position) as a result of other
components of the contingent trade. Other options exchanges impose
the same requirement. See, e.g., Cboe Options Rule 6.53C,
Interpretation and Policy .06(a); MIAX Rule 518, Interpretation and
Policy .01(a); and ISE Options 3, Section 14, Supplemental Material
.07.
    \11\ Other options exchanges impose a similar requirement. See
Cboe Options Rule 6.53C, Interpretation and Policy .06(a); see also
MIAX Rule 518, Interpretation and Policy .01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed subparagraph (l)(1) states when a User submits to the
System a stock-option order, it must designate a specific broker-dealer
with which it has entered into a brokerage agreement pursuant to
proposed Interpretation and Policy .03 (the ``designated broker-
dealer'') to which the Exchange will electronically communicate the
stock component of the stock-option order on behalf of the User.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ As is the case with all orders submitted to the Exchange, a
User must also designate a Clearing Member that is a Designated
Give-Up pursuant to Rule 21.12 on a stock-option order submitted to
the Exchange for processing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 21.20(l)(2) describes how stock-option orders will
execute. A stock-option order may execute against other stock-option
orders (or COA Responses, if applicable), but may not execute against
orders in the Simple Book.\13\ A stock-option order may only execute if
the price complies with proposed Rule 21.20(f)(2)(B).\14\ If a stock-
option order can execute upon entry or following a COA, or if it can
execute following evaluation while resting in the COB pursuant to Rule
21.20(i), the System executes the option component (which may consist
of one or more option legs) of a stock-option order against the option
component of other stock-option orders resting in the COB or COA
responses (in time priority) (which is consistent with how other
complex orders execute against each other pursuant to proposed
subparagraphs (d)(5)(ii) and (e)(2)), as applicable. However, the
Exchange does not immediately send the User a trade execution report
for this option execution.\15\ Because the User submitted a stock-
option order to execute as a package, the Exchange waits to send a
trade execution report to the User until after it has determined
whether all components of the stock-option order have executed, as
described below. After the option component is executed, the Exchange
will then automatically communicate the stock component to the
designated broker-dealer for execution, as further described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See proposed Rule 21.20(g)(5) and (l)(2) (the Exchange does
not list stock for trading, and therefore, the stock leg would not
be able to Leg). A stock-option order may only execute if the stock
leg is executable at the price(s) necessary to achieve the desired
net price. See proposed Rule 21.20(f)(2)(B).
    \14\ See current Rule 21.20(c)(1)(B) and (C) (proposed Rule
21.20(f)(2)). The System will not execute a complex order pursuant
to Rule 21.20 at a net price (i) that would cause any component of
the complex strategy to be executed at a price of zero; (ii) worse
than the SBBO or equal to the SBBO when there is a Priority Customer
Order at the SBBO; (iii) that would cause any component of the
complex strategy to be executed at a price worse than the individual
component prices on the Simple Book; (iv) worse than the price that
would be available if the complex order Legged into the Simple Book;
or (v) that would cause any component of the complex strategy to be
executed at a price ahead of a Priority Customer Order on the Simple
Book without improving the BBO of at least one component of the
complex strategy. The proposed rule change amends the definitions of
SBBO and SNBBO to provide that the NBBO of the stock component of a
stock-option order is used to calculate the SBBO and SNBBO for a
stock-option order. See proposed Rule 21.20(a); see also Cboe
Options Rule 1.1 (definitions of national spread market (equivalent
to SNBBO) and exchange spread market (equivalent to SBBO)).
    \15\ Even though the Exchange does not send the User an
execution report immediately following execution of the option
component, the Exchange disseminates the trade at that time pursuant
to the OPRA Plan and creates a record to be sent to the Clearing
Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the System receives an execution report for the stock component
of a stock-option order from the designated broker-dealer, the Exchange
sends the User the trade execution report for the stock-option order,
including execution information for both the stock and option
components. However, if the System receives a report from the
designated broker-dealer that the stock component of the stock-option
order cannot execute,\16\ the Exchange nullifies the option component
trade and notifies the User of the reason for the nullification.\17\ If
a stock-option order is not marketable, it rests in the COB (if
eligible to rest), subject to a User's instructions. The proposed rule
change prevents execution of the option component of a QCT where the
stock component has not been successfully executed, just as the
proposed rule change prevents execution of the stock component of a QCT
where the option component has not been successfully executed by
cancelling the stock component if the option component cannot execute.
This proposed execution process is the same process the Exchange
currently uses to execute QCC with Stock Orders, which are a type of
stock-option order (and thus the

Exchange merely expands this process to all stock-option orders, as all
stock-option orders must satisfy the same QCT Exemption).\18\ This
proposed process is also similar to that of other options
exchanges.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ For example, if the stock execution venue to which the
designated broker-dealer routed the stock component is experiencing
system issues, the stock component may not be able to execute.
Additionally, the Exchange understands certain stock execution
venues apply risk controls to the stock components of QCTs, which
may prevent execution of the stock components at certain prices.
    \17\ The Exchange will nullify the option component trade in the
same manner as it currently nullifies any other trades (when
nullification is permitted under the Rules). See Rule 20.6.
    \18\ See current Rule 21.20(c)(7) (proposed Rule 21.20(l)(3)).
    \19\ See, e.g., Cboe Options Rule 6.53C, Interpretation and
Policy .06(a), which states a stock-option order will not be
executed unless the stock leg is executable at the price(s)
necessary to achieve the desired net price; see also ISE Options 3,
Section14, Supplementary Material .02 (which states a ``trade'' of a
stock-option order or stock-complex order will be automatically
cancelled if market conditions prevent the execution of the stock or
option leg(s) at the prices necessary to achieve the agreed upon net
price); and MIAX Rule 518, Interpretation and Policy .01(b)
(pursuant to which the stock components will attempt execution prior
to the option components, but ultimately require both the stock and
option components to execute). The proposed rule change ensures the
option can trade before the stock can trade, rather than potentially
execute [sic] stock component and not execute [sic] option
component, which creates compliance risk for Users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, whenever a stock trading venue nullifies the stock leg
of a QCT or whenever the stock leg cannot execute, the Exchange will
nullify the option leg upon request of one of the parties to the
transaction or on an Exchange Official's own motion in accordance with
the Rules.\20\ To qualify as a QCT, the execution of one component is
contingent upon the execution of all other components at or near the
same time.\21\ Given this requirement, if the stock component does not
execute at or near the same time as the option component, it is
reasonable to expect a User that submitted a stock-option order to
request such nullification.\22\ If the stock component does not
execute, rather than require the User that submitted the stock-option
order to contact the Exchange to request the nullification of the
option component execution pursuant to Rule 20.6, Interpretation and
Policy .04(c), the proposed rule eliminates this requirement for the
submitting User to make such a request. Instead, the proposed rule
change provides that the Exchange will automatically nullify the option
transaction if the stock component does not execute. The Exchange
believes such nullification without a request from the User is
consistent with the definition of a QCT order. The proposed rule change
merely automates an otherwise manual process for Users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Rule 20.6, Interpretation and Policy .04(c).
    \21\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54389 (August 31,
2006), 71 FR 52829, 52831 (September 7, 2006) (Order Granting an
Exemption for Qualified Contingent Trades from Rule 611(a) of
Regulation NMS Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) (``QCT
Exemption Order''), which requires the execution of one component of
the QCT to be contingent upon the execution of all other components
at or near the same time to qualify for the exemption. In its
Exemption Request, the Securities Industry Association stated that
for contingent trades, the execution of one order is contingent upon
the execution of the other order. SIA further stated that, by
breaking up one or more components of a contingent trade and
requiring that such components be separately executed, one or more
parties may trade ``out of hedge.'' See Letter to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Commission, from Andrew Madoff, SIA Trading Committee,
SIA, dated June 21, 2006 (``SIA Exemption Request''), at 3.
    \22\ See QCT Exemption Order at 52831. In the SIA Exemption
Request, the SIA indicated parties to a contingent transaction are
focused on the spread or ratio between the transaction prices for
each of the component instruments, rather than on the absolute price
of any single component instrument. The SIA also noted the economics
of a contingent trade are based on the relationship between the
prices of the security and related derivative or security. See SIA
Exemption Request at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange believes this automatic nullification
will reduce any compliance risk for the User associated with execution
of a stock-option order and lack of execution of a stock order at or
near the same time.\23\ The Exchange conducts surveillance to ensure a
User executes the stock component of a QCT, which will also apply to
QCC with Stock Orders, if the option component executed. As a result,
if the stock component does not execute when initially submitted to a
stock trading venue by the designated broker-dealer, a User may be
subject to compliance risk if it does not execute the stock component
within a reasonable time period of the execution of the option
component. The proposed rule change reduces this compliance risk for
Users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ In the SIA Exemption Request, the SIA stated that parties
to a contingent trade will not execute one side of the trade without
the other component or components being executed in full (or in
ratio) and at the specified spread or ratio. See SIA Exemption
Request at 2. While a broker-dealer could re-submit the stock
component to a stock trading venue or execution after it initially
fails to execute, there is a compliance risk that the time at which
the stock component executes is not close enough to the time at
which the option component executed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If a stock-option order can execute, the System executes the buy
(sell) stock leg of a stock-option order pursuant to Rule 21.20 up to a
buffer amount above (below) the NBO (NBB), which amount the Exchange
determines.\24\ The Exchange believes that Users may be willing to
trade a stock-option order with the stock leg at a price outside of the
NBBO (which is permissible pursuant to the QCT exemption) of the stock
leg in order to achieve the desired net price. However, the buffer may
prevent execution with a stock price ``too far'' away from the market
price, which may be inconsistent with then-current market conditions.
This may ultimately prevent execution at potentially erroneous prices.
This is similar to the Exchange's current fat finger protection (which
will not permit a complex order to be more than a specified amount
outside of the SNBBO, which will include the NBBO of the stock leg, as
described above),\25\ except it also applies a buffer to the individual
stock leg as opposed to the net price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See proposed Rule 21.20(f)(2)(B).
    \25\ See supra note 15. Additionally, stock exchanges provide
similar protections for execution prices of stock orders. See, e.g.,
NASDAQ Stock Market Rule 4757(c) (which prevents stock limit orders
from being accepted at prices outside of pre-set standard limits,
which is based on the NBBO).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The option component of a stock-option order executes in accordance
with same priority principles as any other option order. For a stock-
option order with one option leg, the option leg may not trade at a
price worse than the individual component price on the Simple Book or
at the same price as a Priority Customer Order on the Simple Book. For
a stock-option order with more than one option leg, the option legs
must trade at prices consistent with priority applicable to a complex
order with all option legs.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See proposed Rule 21.20(f)(2)(B). The System does not
execute a complex order pursuant to this Rule 21.20 at a net price
(i) that would cause any component of the complex strategy to be
executed at a price of zero; (ii) worse than the SBBO or equal to
the SBBO when there is a Priority Customer Order at the SBBO, except
AON complex orders may only execute at prices better than the SBBO;
(iii) that would cause any component of the complex strategy to be
executed at a price worse than the individual component prices on
the Simple Book; (iv) worse than the price that would be available
if the complex order Legged into the Simple Book; or (v) that would
cause any component of the complex strategy to be executed at a
price ahead of a Priority Customer Order on the Simple Book without
improving the BBO of at least one component of the complex strategy.
See proposed Rule 21.20(f)(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 21.20(f)(1) states that Users may express bids and
offers for a stock-option order (including a QCC with Stock Order, as
discussed below) in any decimal price the Exchange determines. The
option leg(s) of a stock-option order may be executed in $0.01
increments, regardless of the minimum increments otherwise applicable
to the option leg(s), and the stock leg of a stock-option order may be
executed in any decimal price permitted in the equity market.\27\
Smaller minimum increments are appropriate for stock-option orders as
the stock component can trade at finer decimal increments permitted by
the equity market. Furthermore, the Exchange notes that even with the
flexibility provided in the proposed rule, the individual options

and stock legs must trade at increments allowed by the Commission in
the options and equities markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Other options exchanges have the same minimum increment
requirements for stock-option orders. See Cboe Options Rule
6.53C(c)(ii); and ISE Options 3, Section 14(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change moves the provision regarding the
execution of QCC with Stock Orders from current Rule 21.20(c)(7) to
proposed Rule 21.20(l)(3). The proposed rule change amends this
provision to provide that the QCC portion of a QCC with Stock Order may
consist of a QCC Order (with one option leg) or a Complex QCC Order
(with multiple option legs).\28\ A QCC with Stock Order with multiple
option legs will execute in the same manner as a QCC with Stock Order
with one option leg. The option component of a Complex QCC with Stock
Order (i.e., a Complex QCC Order) will be subject to the same execution
requirements as a Complex QCC Order, including the requirement that no
option leg executes at a price of zero or at the same price as a
Priority Customer Order in the Simple Book, that each option leg must
execute at a price at or between the NBBO for the applicable series,
and the execution price is better than the price of an [sic] complex
order resting in the COB (unless the Complex QCC Order is a Priority
Customer Order and the resting complex order is a non-Priority Customer
Order, in which case the execution price may be the same as or better
than the price of the resting complex order).\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Rule 21.1(d)(10) (which describes QCC and Complex QCC
Orders). Other options exchanges have similar Complex QCC with Stock
order functionality. See, e.g., Cboe Options Rule 6.53C,
Interpretation and Policy .06(g)(1)(A) (which provides a QCC with
Stock Order may have multiple option components); and ISE Options 3,
Section 12(f) (which describes complex QCC with stock orders). In
addition to the other changes to the QCC with Stock rule provisions
described below, the proposed rule change makes nonsubstantive
changes, including changes to consolidate provisions that apply to
all stock-option orders in Rule 21.20, update paragraph numbering
and lettering, conform cross-references, and adds certain clarifying
language.
    \29\ See Rule 21.1(d)(10). The proposed rule change deletes the
reference to current Rule 21.20(c)(1)(C), as that rule provides no
component may execute at a price of zero or ahead of a Priority
Customer Order on the Simple Book without improving the BBO of at
least one component of the complex strategy. This second requirement
is not necessary, because each leg of a Complex QCC must improve the
price of a Priority Customer Order in any leg (and may not be worse
than the NBBO of any leg), and the proposed rule change adds the
requirement that no component may execute at a price of zero to
proposed Rule 21.1(d)(10)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change also updates an inadvertent cross-
reference to Rule 21.8 regarding the execution of the option component
of a QCC Order, as the option component of a QCC Order (including a
Complex QCC Order) will automatically execute upon entry pursuant to
Rule 21.1(d)(10) if the conditions are satisfied. The proposed rule
change deletes current Rule 21.20(c)(7)(A)(ii) regarding the need to
give up a Clearing Member in accordance with Rule 21.12, as all orders
submitted to the Exchange (including QCC Orders) must designate a give
up in accordance with Rule 21.12, making this requirement redundant.
Additionally, as noted above, the proposed rule change adopts Rule
21.20, Interpretation .03, which requires a User that submits a stock-
option order to designate a specific broker-dealer to which the stock
components will be communicated when entering a stock-option order.
Because a QCC with Stock Order is a type of a stock-option order,
proposed Rule 21.20 will apply to QCC with Stock Orders (including
Complex QCC with Stock Orders), and thus the Exchange proposes to
delete current Rule 21.20(c)(7)(A)(iii), as it is redundant.
    The proposed rule change also adds subparagraph (l)(4), which
provides that if a User submits to the System a stock-option order with
a stock leg to sell, the User must market the stock leg ``long,''
``short,'' or ``short exempt'' in compliance with Regulation SHO under
the Exchange Act. Additionally, the Exchange will only execute the
stock leg of a stock-option order at a price permissible under
Regulation SHO. If a stock-option order cannot execute, the System
calculates the SBBO or SNBBO with a price for the stock leg that would
be permissible under Regulation SHO, and posts the stock-option order
on the COB at that price (if eligible to rest), subject to a User's
instructions.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Specifically, Rule 201 of Regulation SHO provides that when
the short sale price test is triggered for an NMS stock, a trading
center (such as the Exchange) must comply with Rule 201. Other
options exchanges have similar marking requirements. See Cboe
Options Rule 6.53C, Interpretation and Policy .06(e) (which requires
marking in accordance with Regulation SHO); see also MIAX Rule 518,
Interpretation and Policy .01(b) (which requires marking and
execution price in accordance with Regulation SHO); and ISE Options
3, Section 14, Supplementary Material .13 (which requires marking in
accordance with Regulation SHO).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, proposed subparagraph (j)(3) provides that the Exchange
will only execute the stock leg of a stock-option order at a price
permissible under the Limit Up-Limit Down Plan. If a stock-option order
cannot execute, the System calculates the SBBO or SNBBO with a price
for the stock leg that would be permissible under that Plan, and posts
the stock-option order on the COB at that price (if eligible to rest),
subject to a User's instructions.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Other options exchanges have similar restrictions on stock
leg execution prices. See Cboe Options Rule 6.53C, Interpretation
and Policy .06(f); see also MIAX Rule 518, Interpretation and Policy
.01(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Current Rule 21.20, Interpretations and Policies .04 and .06
describes price protection mechanisms and risk controls applicable to
complex orders. The proposed rule change moves these to Rule 21.17(b)
to consolidate all price protection mechanisms and risk controls
available on the Exchange into a single place within the Rules.\32\ The
price protection mechanisms and risk controls will apply to stock-
option orders (or the options components of stock-option orders, as
applicable) submitted to the Exchange. The proposed rule change adds
the buy-write/married put check, which will be a price protection
mechanism applicable specifically to stock-option orders.\33\ If the
Exchange applies the buy-write/married put check to a class, the System
cancels or rejects a stock-option order to buy the stock leg and sell a
call (buy a put) for the option leg with a price that is more than the
strike price of the call (put) plus (minus) a buffer amount (which the
Exchange determines on a class-by-class basis).\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ The proposed rule change makes corresponding changes to the
introductory language and the paragraph lettering in Rule 21.17
(including moving current price protections related to simple orders
into proposed paragraph (a)) and makes corresponding changes to
cross-references. The proposed rule change also adds to the maximum
value acceptable price range check that it applies to auction
responses, as other price protections do. Auction responses may
execute in the same manner as orders, and thus application of this
check to auction responses may prevent execution of an auction
response at a potentially erroneous price. The proposed rule change
makes no other substantive changes to the complex order price
protections, and only makes nonsubstantive changes to make the
language plain English, to simplify the rule provisions, and to
conform the language to the corresponding C2 rules. See C2 Rule
6.14(b).
    \33\ See proposed Rule 21.17(b)(9).
    \34\ The proposed buy-write/married put price check is similar
to the parity price protection in MIAX Rule 518, Interpretation and
Policy .01(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change also amends the debit/credit price
reasonability check in proposed Rule 21.17(b)(3)(B) to provide how that
check will apply to stock-option orders. If the stock component of a
stock-option order is to buy, the stock-option order is a debit, and if
the stock component of a stock-option order is to sell, the stock-
option order is a credit. Pursuant to the current debit/credit price
reasonability check, if all pairs and loners are a debit (credit) (and
a buy (sell) stock leg would always be a loner and thus a debit
(credit), ultimately, whether the stock leg is a buy or sell would
dictate whether a stock-option order is a debit or credit. Therefore,
the Exchange believes this is a reasonable handling of

stock-option orders designed to help mitigate potential risks
associated with stock-option orders trading at prices that are
potentially erroneous. Additionally, the proposed rule change deletes
the exception for complex orders with European-style exercise. The
Exchange no longer believes this exception is necessary and will expand
this check to index options with all exercise styles.
    The proposed rule change adds detail to the complex order drill-
through protection in proposed Rule 21.17(b)(6), to provide that if the
SBBO changes while an order rests on the COB at the drill-through price
prior to the end of the specified time period, if the complex order
cannot Leg, and the new SBO (SBB) crosses the drill-through price, the
System changes the displayed price of the buy (sell) complex order to
the new SBO (SBB) minus (plus) $0.01, and the order is not cancelled at
the end of the time period. This proposed change codifies current
functionality, and merely permits an order to remain on the COB since
the Exchange's market reflects interest to trade (but the order is not
currently executable due to Legging Restrictions) that was not there
was not at the beginning of the time period. This provides complex
orders with additional execution opportunities prior to cancellation.
    The proposed rule change makes various changes to Rule 21.20
regarding complex orders to simplify the Rule, make certain
clarifications, codify certain functionality in the Rule, delete
redundant provisions, re-organize the Rule, and conform the rule text
to the corresponding C2 rule regarding complex orders.\35\ The proposed
rule change moves the provision stating that trading of complex orders
is subject to all other Rules applicable to the trading of orders,
unless otherwise provided in Rule 21.10 from current paragraph (c) to
the introduction of Rule 21.20. The proposed rule change alphabetizes
the defined terms in Rule 21.20(a), makes nonsubstantive changes to
definitions to conform the rule language to that of corresponding
definitions in C2 Rule 6.13, and removes the paragraph lettering.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See C2 Rule 6.13. The proposed rule change also modifies a
corresponding cross-reference in Rule 21.1(d)(10)(E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change amends the definition of ``BBO'' to mean
the best bid or offer disseminated by the Exchange. The term BBO
generally refers to the prices of quotes the Exchange sends to OPRA.
While the bids and offers of most orders on the Simple Book are sent to
OPRA, certain ones (such as the bids and offers of AON orders, which
are not displayed on the Simple Book) \36\ are not disseminated. The
proposed rule change updates the term BBO to accurately reflect that it
represents displayed, disseminated interest.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See Rule 21.1(d)(4).
    \37\ This proposed definition of BBO is identical to C2's
definition of BBO. See C2 Rule 1.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change amends the definition of ``complex order''
to provide that it is an order involving the concurrent purchase and/or
sale of two or more different series in the same class. This merely
accounts for the fact that a complex order may be in an index class
(for which there is an underlying index) as well as an equity option
class (for which there is an underlying security).\38\ The proposed
rule change also deletes the Exchange's flexibility to designate in
which classes complex orders may be entered and that the Exchange will
determine the permissible number of legs on a class-by-class basis.
Currently, the Exchange makes complex order functionality available in
all classes that trade on the Exchange and has the same limit on the
number of legs that may be submitted for a complex order in all
classes. The proposed rule change codifies in proposed paragraph (b)
that complex orders are available in all classes listed for trading on
the Exchange, which is consistent with this current definition of
complex order, as well as current paragraph (b), which permits the
Exchange to determine when complex orders are available for use on the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ This is consistent with the definition of complex order in
C2 Rule 1.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change adds to paragraph (b) that Users may
designate complex orders as Attributable or Non-Attributable. These
order instructions are defined in Rule 21.1(c) and are currently
available for complex orders. The proposed rule change codifies in the
Rules that these order instructions are available for complex orders.
This provides Users with additional functionality and flexibility with
respect to complex order entry that they currently have for simple
orders. The proposed rule change is the same as the C2 rule, which
similarly permits Users to designate complex orders as Attributable or
Non-Attributable.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See C2 Rule 6.13(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change moves the provision regarding the Exchange
determining which Capacities \40\ are eligible for entry onto the COB
from current paragraph (c) to proposed paragraph (b), which includes
all other information regarding the Exchange's authority to limit the
availability of certain orders with respect to complex order
functionality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ The Exchange notes the term ``Capacity'' refers to origin
code. The Exchange is submitting a separate rule filing to add the
definition of Capacity, as well as the different Capacities
available on the Exchange. This is the term currently used in C2
Rules when referring to origin code. See, e.g., C2 Rule 6.13(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change moves the provisions regarding COA
eligibility from current subparagraph (d)(1) and Interpretation and
Policy .02 to the definition of a COA-eligible order in current
paragraph (b)(2) (proposed paragraph (b)) so that all terms regarding
COA eligibility of a complex order are included in the same place
within the rule. The proposed rule change clarifies in the definition
of complex only order in current subparagraph (b)(1) (proposed
paragraph (b)) that complex [sic] orders may not leg into the Simple
Book (which is consistent with the definition that currently states
these orders will only check against the COB).\41\ This is also
consistent with the definition of COA-Eligible and Do-Not-COA Order in
the C2 Rules.\42\ The proposed rule change makes no substantive changes
to what orders will and will not initiate a COA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ The Commission notes that proposed paragraph (b) provides
that complex only orders may not leg into the Simple Book (emphasis
added).
    \42\ See C2 Rule 6.13(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change clarifies in current subparagraph (b)(3)
(proposed paragraph (b)) that if a complex order would execute against
a complex order in the COB with an MTP Modifier with the same Unique
Identifier, the System handles the complex orders with an MTP Modifier
as described in Rule 21.1(g). This is consistent with current
functionality and adds detail to the Rules of how the System handles
these orders. This is also consistent with the definition of Complex
Orders with MTP Modifiers in the C2 Rules.\43\ The proposed rule change
makes no substantive changes to how the System handles complex orders
with MTP Modifiers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See C2 Rule 6.13(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change alphabetizes the types of complex orders
available on the Exchange in paragraph (b). The changes described
above, which do not modify any existing functionality and merely add
detail and clarity to the Rules. The proposed rule makes additional
nonsubstantive changes to these definitions, including to make them
plain English, to reorganize certain provisions, to simplify the
language, update paragraph lettering and numbering and cross-
references, and to

conform them to other portions of the rule and to the corresponding C2
rule.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See C2 Rule 6.13(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change moves the provisions regarding minimum
increments and trade prices for complex orders from current paragraph
(c) (which is primarily about the COB Opening Process) to proposed
paragraph (f)(1) and (2), respectively. The proposed rule change makes
no substantive changes to these provisions, and makes nonsubstantive
changes, including to make them plain English, to reorganize certain
provisions, to simplify the language, update paragraph lettering and
numbering and cross-references, and to conform them to other portions
of the rule and to the corresponding C2 rule.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See C2 Rule 6.13(f). The Exchange notes C2 has no Priority
Customer overlay, and thus has different execution price
requirements regarding components of complex orders with respect to
the Simple Book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change consolidates all provisions regarding the
COB Opening Process into proposed paragraph (c). Current subparagraph
(c)(2)(A) becomes the introductory sentence for paragraph (c). The
provisions regarding when Users may submit complex orders for
participation in the COB Opening Process, as well as when the Exchange
disseminates messages with information regarding the opening process,
move from current subparagraph (c)(2)(A) to proposed subparagraph
(c)(1). Current subparagraph (c)(2)(B) states the COB Opening Process
will commence when all legs of the complex strategy are open on the
Simple Book. However, pursuant to proposed subparagraph (c)(2), the
System initiates the COB Opening Process for a complex strategy after a
number of seconds (determined by the Exchange) after all legs of the
strategy in the Simple Book are open for trading.\46\ The delay
provides time for the market prices to stabilize before trading may
begin.\47\ This is consistent with current functionality as set forth
in the technical specifications for the COB opening process available
on the Exchange's website.\48\ The Exchange believes this is a more
accurate description of the time when the COB opens.\49\ The rule
provisions regarding how the Exchange determines the COB Opening Price,
how the Exchange transitions to Regular Trading, and what happens if
there are no matching complex orders or no valid COB Opening Price move
from current subparagraphs (c)(2)(C) through (D) to proposed
subparagraphs (c)(2)(A) through (C). The proposed rule change makes no
substantive changes to how the COB opening process occurs, and makes
nonsubstantive changes, including to make them plain English, to
reorganize certain provisions, to simplify the language, update
paragraph lettering and numbering and cross-references, and to conform
them to other portions of the rule and to the corresponding C2
rule.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See proposed Rule 21.20(c)(2).
    \47\ The Exchange notes it applies a similar delay after
occurrence of the opening rotation trigger for the simple market
opening auction process. See Rule 21.7(d)(1).
    \48\ See http://cdn.cboe.com/resources/membership/US_Options_Opening_Process.pdf.
    \49\ This is also the same as the COB opening process for C2.
See C2 Rule 6.13(c)(2).
    \50\ See C2 Rule 6.13(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change moves the provisions in current
subparagraph (c)(2)(E) regarding prices for complex strategy executions
to proposed paragraph (f)(2) (along with the provisions in current
(c)(1)(B) and (C) as discussed above) and (3) so that all provisions
regarding prices at which complex orders may execute in any manner are
included in a single place within Rule 21.20. The proposed rule change
makes no substantive changes to the prices at which complex orders may
execute, and makes nonsubstantive changes, including to make them plain
English, to reorganize certain provisions, to simplify the language,
update paragraph lettering and numbering and cross-references, and to
conform them to other portions of the rule and to the corresponding C2
rule.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ See C2 Rule 6.13(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change moves the provision regarding incoming
complex orders with prices that do not satisfy the pricing requirements
described in the previous paragraph from current subparagraph (c)(2)(E)
to proposed subparagraph (d)(5) and (e), to include all provisions
regarding System handling of complex orders that are unable to execute
(either following a COA or upon submission to the COB, respectively) in
a single place with in Rule 21.20. The proposed rule change makes no
substantive changes to this provision.
    The proposed rule change moves provisions regarding restrictions on
the Legging \52\ of complex orders into the Simple Book from current
paragraph (c)(2)(F) to proposed paragraph (g). The proposed rule change
makes no substantive changes to the Legging restrictions on complex
orders, and makes nonsubstantive changes, including to make them plain
English, to reorganize certain provisions, to simplify the language,
update paragraph lettering and numbering and cross-references, and to
conform them to other portions of the rule and to the corresponding C2
rule.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ The proposed rule change also adds to Rule 21.20(a) a
defined term for Legging, which is defined in proposed paragraph (g)
as a complex order executing against orders an quotes in the Simple
Book if it can execute in full or in a permissible ratio and if it
has [sic] more than a maximum number of legs (which the Exchange
determines on a class-by-class basis and may two, three, or four).
This is consistent with current Rule 21.20(c)(1)(F) and merely adds
a defined term. The Commission notes that such execution occurs if
the complex order has no more than a maximum number of legs
(emphasis added).
    \53\ See C2 Rule 6.13(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change moves and combines the provisions
regarding initial and continual evaluation of complex orders from
current subparagraphs (c)(1)(G) and (c)(5) to proposed paragraph (i) so
that all provisions regarding evaluation of complex orders are included
in a single place and in a simple manner within Rule 21.20. The
proposed rule change makes no substantive changes to the evaluation
process, and makes nonsubstantive changes to these provisions,
including to make them plain English, to reorganize certain provisions,
to simplify the language and delete redundant language, update
paragraph lettering and numbering and cross-references, and to conform
them to other portions of the rule and to the corresponding C2
rule.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ See C2 Rule 6.13(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change moves the provisions in subparagraph
(c)(4)(A) and (B) regarding the repricing of complex orders on the COB
in certain situations and the handling of Post Only complex orders that
lock or cross a resting complex order in the COB or the then-current
opposite side SBBO to proposed subparagraph (h)(1). The proposed rule
change modifies the reference to applicable price protections in
current subparagraph (c)(4)(B) to the drill-through protection in
proposed subparagraph (h)(1), as this is the only applicable price
protection in the context of this Rule. The proposed rule change moves
current subparagraph (c)(4)(C) to proposed subparagraph (h)(2). The
proposed rule change deletes the remainder of current subparagraph
(c)(4) regarding the managed interest process, as the provisions in
that subparagraph are covered in various other parts of Rule 21.20
(currently and as proposed), including proposed paragraphs (d) through
(h),\55\ making

these provisions of the managed interest process redundant. The
proposed rule change makes no substantive changes to the evaluation
process, and makes nonsubstantive changes to these provisions,
including to make them plain English, to reorganize certain provisions,
to simplify the language and delete redundant language, update
paragraph lettering and numbering and cross-references, and to conform
them to other portions of the rule and to the corresponding C2
rule.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ For example, the first portion of current subparagraph
(c)(5)(A) describes the System evaluation of an order and whether it
is COA-eligible, can execute against the COB or Leg into the Simple
Book. As discussed above, this is described in proposed paragraph
(g). Additionally, current subparagraph (c)(5)(A) describes pricing
requirements for complex orders, which are included in paragraph
(f), as described above. Current subparagraph (c)(5)(C) regarding
whether an order is determined to be COA-eligible (and thus
initiates a COA) is included in proposed subparagraph (d)(1) and
paragraph (e).
    \56\ See C2 Rule 6.13(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change deletes current subparagraph (c)(4)(A), as
proposed subparagraph (f)(2)(A) includes a provision that requires a
complex order to execute at a price at least equal to the SBBO (i.e.,
the bids and offers established in the marketplace that are no better
than the bids or offers comprising the complex order price) or better
than the SBBO when there is a Priority Customer Order at the SBBO,\57\
and thus this provision is redundant. The proposed rule change moves
the provision in current subparagraph (c)(4)(B) to proposed paragraph
(e), which describes the allocation and priority in which a complex
order may execute against other interest. The proposed rule change does
not change the priority order in which, or the prices at which, complex
orders currently execute. The proposed rule change makes nonsubstantive
changes to these provisions, including to make them plain English, to
reorganize certain provisions, to simplify the language and delete
redundant language, update paragraph lettering and numbering and cross-
references, and to conform them to other portions of the rule and to
the corresponding C2 rules.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ Proposed paragraph (e) clarifies that a complex order must
execute against any Priority Customer orders in the Simple Book at
the same price, which is consistent with the current Rule that a
complex order must improve the SBBO if there is a Priority Customer
order at the BBO of any component.
    \58\ See C2 Rule 6.13(e) and (f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change moves the description of how a non-COA-
eligible order will be handled from current subparagraph (c)(5)(D) to
proposed paragraph (e). The proposed rule change deletes current
subparagraph (c)(5)(D)(i), as the definitions of times-in-force that
are not allowed to rest in the COB (for example, an immediate-or-cancel
order is defined as being cancelled if it does not execute upon entry)
include that fact, making this provision redundant. The proposed rule
change makes no substantive changes to how the System handles non-COA-
eligible orders. The proposed rule change makes nonsubstantive changes
to these provisions, including to make them plain English, to
reorganize certain provisions, to simplify the language and delete
redundant language, update paragraph lettering and numbering and cross-
references, and to conform them to other portions of the rule and to
the corresponding C2 rule.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ See C2 Rule 6.13(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change deletes current subparagraph (c)(6)(A)
regarding complex market orders that may initiate a COA, because the
definition of COA-eligible in proposed paragraph (b) permits market
orders to be designated as COA-eligible (there is no prohibition on a
User from designating a market order as COA-eligible), and because
proposed subparagraph (d)(1) describes the auction price that will be
used for a COA-eligible market order. Therefore, this provision is
redundant. The proposed rule change deletes current subparagraph
(c)(6)(B) regarding complex market orders that do not initiate a COA,
because those will be handled in the same manner as any do-not-COA
order pursuant to proposed paragraph (e), making this provision
redundant. The proposed rule change makes no substantive changes to how
the System handles complex market orders. The proposed rule change
makes nonsubstantive changes to these provisions, including to make
them plain English, to reorganize certain provisions, to simplify the
language and delete redundant language, update paragraph lettering and
numbering and cross-references, and to conform them to other portions
of the rule and to the corresponding C2 rule.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ See C2 Rule 6.13(b), (d), and (e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change clarifies in proposed subparagraph (d)(1)
that the COA price for a complex order may be the drill-through price
if the order is subject to the drill-through protection in Rule
21.17(b). This is consistent with current functionality and the drill-
through protection, which ensures that a complex order will not execute
at a price too far away from the SNBBO. The current Rule states the
price of a COA is subject to applicable price protections. However, the
only applicable one is the drill-through protection, so the Exchange
believes the proposed rule change provides additional specificity
consistent with the current Rule.
    The proposed rule change moves the provisions regarding when a COA
may terminate early from current subparagraph (d)(5)(C) to proposed
subparagraph (d)(3) so that all provisions regarding the length of time
for which a COA lasts are included in the same place within Rule 21.20.
The proposed rule change clarifies in subparagraph (d)(4)(B) that the
System aggregates the size of COA Responses submitted at the same price
for an EFID, and caps the size of the aggregated COA Responses at the
size of the COA-eligible order. Current subparagraph (d)(4) permits
multiple COA Responses from the same Member. The proposed rule change
is consistent with current System entry requirements for COA Responses,
and the proposed rule change merely adds this detail to the Rules. The
System aggregates the size of COA Responses submitted at the same price
for an EFID, and caps the size of the aggregated COA Responses at the
size of the COA-eligible order. This provision prevents Users from
taking advantage of a pro-rata allocation by submitting responses
larger than the COA-eligible order to obtain a larger allocation from
that order. The proposed rule change in subparagraph (d)(4)(C) that
provides that a modification of a COA Response to decrease its size
will not result in loss of priority, as that is consistent with current
the current Rule and System functionality.\61\ The Exchange believes
decreasing the size of a COA Response (similar to decrementation of an
order or quote after partial execution), should not impact priority, as
such a modification would potentially decrease the allocation to that
response. The proposed rule change clarifies that COA Responses may
only execute against the COA-eligible order for the COA to which a User
submitted the COA Response, which is consistent with the current rules
that require COA Responses to include a COA auction ID for the COA to
which the User is submitting the COA Responses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ See current subparagraph (d)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change states that unexecuted COA Responses are
cancelled at the conclusion of the COA rather than immediately if they
are not executable based on the price of the COA. The Exchange believes
this proposed change will ensure that all Users participating in COAs
have the same information regarding COAs if the Exchange determines to
not include the price of a COA on the COA notification message pursuant
to proposed subparagraph (d)(1). If the Exchange determines to not
include the price of a

COA on the COA notification message pursuant to proposed subparagraph
(d)(1), rejection of unmarketable COA Responses may provide the
submitting User with the ability to determine the COA price, which was
not available to other Users.
    The proposed rule change deletes current subparagraph (d)(6)
regarding COA pricing, as it is redundant of the rule provisions in
proposed (f)(2). The proposed rule change moves the provision from
current subparagraph (d)(7) regarding the allocation of COA-eligible
orders to proposed subparagraph (d)(5).
    The proposed rule change adds detail to the current rule provisions
regarding COAs, as well as codifies current functionality and
consolidates all provisions regarding COAs within a single paragraph in
Rule 21.20 (including moving rule provision regarding concurrent COAs
from current Interpretation and Policy .02 to proposed subparagraph
(d)(2)). The proposed rule change makes no changes to how COAs occur or
how the System allocates orders at the conclusion of a COA. The
proposed rule change makes nonsubstantive changes to the COA provisions
in paragraph (d), including to make them plain English, to reorganize
certain provisions, to simplify the language and delete redundant
language, update paragraph lettering and numbering and cross-
references, and to conform them to other portions of the rule and to
the corresponding C2 rule.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ See C2 Rule 6.13(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change adds proposed subparagraph (h)(3), which
states if there is a zero NBO for any leg, the System replaces the zero
with a price $0.01 above NBB to calculate the SNBBO, and complex orders
with any buy legs do not Leg into the Simple Book. If there is a zero
NBB, the System replaces the zero with a price of $0.01, and complex
orders with any sell legs do not Leg into the Simple Book. If there is
a zero NBB and zero NBO, the System replaces the zero NBB with a price
of $0.01 and replaces the zero NBO with a price of $0.02, and complex
orders do not Leg into the Simple Book. The SBBO and SNBBO may not be
calculated if the NBB or NBO is zero (as noted above, if the best bid
or offer on the Exchange is not available, the System uses the NBB or
NBO when calculating the SBBO). As discussed above, permissible
execution prices are based on the SBBO. If the SBBO is not available,
the System cannot determine permissible posting or execution pricing
for a complex order (which are based on the SBBO), which could reduce
execution opportunities for complex orders. If the System were to use
the zero bid or offer when calculating the SBBO, it may also result in
executions at erroneous prices (since there is no market indication for
the price at which the leg should execute). For example, if a complex
order has a buy leg in a series with no offer, there is no order in the
leg markets against which this leg component could execute. This is
consistent with current System functionality, and the proposed rule
change is codifying this detail in the Rules. This is also consistent
with the current Rule 21.20(c)(1)(C) and proposed Rule 21.20(f)(2) that
states complex order executions are not permitted if the price of a leg
would be zero. Additionally, this is similar to the proposed rule
change described above to improve the posting price of a complex order
by $0.01 if it would otherwise lock the SBBO. The proposed rule change
is a reasonable process to ensure complex orders receive execution
opportunities, even if there is no interest in the leg markets.
Additionally, a User may always cancel a complex order if the User does
not wish to have its order rest in the COB at that price. This proposed
rule change is also identical to the corresponding C2 Rule.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ See C2 Rule 6.13(h)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change moves provisions regarding how the System
handles complex orders during trading halt from Interpretation and
Policy .05 to proposed paragraph (k). The proposed rule change makes no
substantive changes to how the System handles complex orders during a
trading halt, and makes nonsubstantive changes to these provisions,
including to make them plain English, to reorganize certain provisions,
to simplify the language and delete redundant language, update
paragraph lettering and numbering and cross-references, and to conform
them to other portions of the rule and to the corresponding C2
rule.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ See C2 Rule 6.13(k).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change makes no substantive changes to the rules
regarding how complex orders execute, including rules related to
priority. Complex orders will continue to trade in the same manner as
they do today. The proposed rule change makes nonsubstantive changes to
these provisions, including to make the rule text plain English,
reorganize the Rule, simplify the language and delete redundant
provisions, update paragraph lettering and numbering and cross-
references, and conform to the corresponding C2 rule.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ See C2 Rule 6.13(d) and (e). Note C2 has different priority
provisions, as it does not have Priority Customer priority and
instead prioritizes all orders and quotes on the Simple Book (and
allocates them pursuant to the applicable allocation algorithm
pursuant to C2 Rule 6.12) ahead of all complex orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Throughout Rule 21.20, the proposed rule change replaces references
to Members with Users. An Options Member means a firm or organization
that is registered with the Exchange pursuant to Chapter XVII of the
Rules for purposes of participating in options trading on EDGX Options
as an ``Options Order Entry Firm'' or ``Options Market Maker.'' \66\ A
User is any Options Member or Sponsored Participant who is authorized
to obtain access to the System pursuant to Rule 11.3.\67\ While the
Exchange currently has no Sponsored Participants, a Sponsored
Participant would have the ability to submit complex orders. Therefore,
the term ``User'' in the context of Rule 21.20 is more appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ See Rule 16.1.
    \67\ See Rule 16.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change amends Rule 21.1(d)(10) to delete the
cross-reference to Rule 21.20(c)(1)(C), which the Exchange proposes to
move as described above, and replaces it to state that no option leg
may execute at a price of zero. The Rule currently provides that no
option leg may execute at the same price as a Priority Customer Order
in the Simple Book, which makes the other provision of Rule
21.20(c)(1)(C) unnecessary to reference. This proposed change makes no
change to the functionality of Complex QCC Orders.
    The proposed rule change deletes provisions that state the Exchange
will make certain determinations and announcements via Regulatory
Circular.\68\ Pursuant to Rule 16.3, the Exchange announces all
determinations it makes pursuant to the Rules via specifications,
Notices, or Regulatory Circulars with appropriate advanced notice,
which will be posted on the Exchange's website, or as otherwise
provided in the Rules; electronic message; or other communication
method as provided in the Rules. All determinations the Exchange makes
pursuant to Rule 21.20 will be made in accordance with Rule 16.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ See Rules 21.17 (in the introductory paragraph and proposed
paragraph (b)) and 21.20 (various provisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change makes additional nonsubstantive changes
throughout Rule 21.20, including to make them plain English, to
reorganize certain provisions and consolidate

related provisions within a single portion of the Rule, to simplify the
language and delete redundant language, update paragraph lettering and
numbering and cross-references, and to conform them to other portions
of the rule and to the corresponding C2 rule.\69\ The proposed rule
change makes no changes to the allocation or priority of complex
orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ See C2 Rule 6.13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\70\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \71\ 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) \72\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \71\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \72\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change benefits investors and promote just and
equitable principles of trade because it provides investors with
greater opportunities to manage risk through trading of additional
types of complex orders. The proposed stock-option order and Complex
QCC with Stock Order functionality are each optional for Users and will
help them facilitate execution of components of a QCT. Currently, if a
User wanted to execute a QCT, it could do so by entering the options
components on the Exchange and separately executing the stock component
of the QCT on another venue. Users will have the option to continue do
this, or build their own technology to electronically communicate the
stock component of any QCT to a broker-dealer for execution. However,
the addition of stock-option order and Complex QCC with Stock Order
functionality will provide Users with an optional, alternative means to
execute the stock component of their QCTs.
    The Exchange believes these proposed order types will reduce Users'
compliance burden because it [sic] allows for the automatic submission
of the stock component of a QCT in connection with the execution of the
options component(s) as a stock-option order on the Exchange. The
proposed functionality also provides benefits to the Exchange by
establishing an audit trail for the execution all option components of
a QCT with [sic] a reasonable period of time of each other, and of the
stock component of a QCT within a reasonable period of time after the
execution of the option components. The proposed rule change further
reduces Users' compliance risk by providing that the Exchange will, in
addition to cancelling the stock component if the option component
cannot execute, nullify any option component execution when the stock
component does not execute without a request from the User.
Nullification of the option trade is consistent with the requirement
that a User must execute the stock component of a QCT within a
reasonable period of time after executing the option component on the
Exchange. The proposed rule change simply eliminates the requirement
that one party to the transaction request nullification of the option
component trade before the Exchange nullifies the option trade, because
such nullification is consistent with the definition of QCT. The
proposed rule change merely automates a process that Users can manually
do today. As noted above, to qualify as a QCT, the execution of one
component is contingent upon the execution of all other components at
or near the same time.\73\ Since the purpose of stock-option orders is
for all components to trade at or near the same time, if the stock
component does not execute at or near the same time as the option
component(s), it is reasonable to expect a User that submitted one of
these orders to request such nullification to avoid any compliance risk
associated with execution of the option components of these orders and
lack of execution of a stock order at or near the same time.\74\ This
proposed execution process is the same process the Exchange currently
uses to execute QCC with Stock Orders, which are a type of stock-option
order (and thus the Exchange merely expands this process to all stock-
option orders, as all stock-option orders must satisfy the same QCT
Exemption).\75\ This proposed process is also similar to that of other
options exchanges.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ See supra notes 10 and 18.
    \74\ See supra note 12.
    \75\ See current Rule 21.20(c)(7) (proposed Rule 21.20(l)(3)).
    \76\ See supra note 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange conducts surveillance to ensure a User executes the
stock component of a QCT, which will also apply to all of the proposed
functionality, if the option component executed. As a result, if the
stock component does not execute when initially submitted to a stock
trading venue by the designated broker-dealer, a User may be subject to
compliance risk if it does not execute the stock component within a
reasonable time period of the execution of the option component. The
proposed rule change reduces this compliance risk for Users. The
Exchange therefore believes the proposed rule change removes
impediments to and perfects the mechanisms of a free and open market
and a national market system, and in general, protects investors and
the public interest.
    The Exchange believes the proposed stock leg execution buffer,
debit/credit reasonability check amendment, and buy-write/married put
check for stock-option orders (in addition to the other existing price
protection mechanisms applicable to complex orders that will apply to
stock-option orders) will protect investors and the public interest and
maintain fair and orderly markets by mitigating potential risks
associated with market participants entering orders at clearly
unintended prices and orders trading at prices that are extreme and
potentially erroneous, which may likely have resulted from human or
operational error. The Exchange believes these proposed price
protection mechanisms will remove impediments to and perfects the
mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system,
because they are similar to price protection mechanisms available on
other exchanges. The proposed buy-write/married put price check is
similar to the parity price protection in MIAX Rule 518, Interpretation
and Policy .01(g). The proposed application of the debit/credit price
reasonability check to stock-option orders is similar to Cboe Options
Rule 6.53C, Interpretation and Policy .08(c). The proposed stock leg
buffer is similar to the Exchange's current fat finger protection
(which will not permit a complex order to be more than a specified
amount outside of the SNBBO, which will include the NBBO of the stock
leg, as described above), except it also applies a buffer to the

individual stock leg as opposed to the net price. Additionally, stock
exchanges provide similar protections for execution prices of stock
orders.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ See, e.g., NASDAQ Stock Market Rule 4757(c) (which prevents
stock limit orders from being accepted at prices outside of pre-set
standard limits, which is based on the NBBO).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change to require Users to mark stock-option
orders as required by Regulation SHO, and to execute stock-option
orders at prices permitted by Regulation SHO (a Regulation adopted
pursuant to the Act) and the Limit Up-Limit Down Plan (Regulation NMS
Plan adopted pursuant to the Act), promote just and equitable
principles of trade, as they are intended to ensure the Exchange will
execute stock-option orders in accordance with these regulations, which
are intended to reduce the negative impacts of sudden, unanticipated
price movements in NMS stocks and protect investors.
    The proposed rule change would also provide Users with access to
stock-option order functionality and Complex QCC with Stock order
functionality that is generally available on options exchanges,
including Cboe Affiliated Exchanges, which may result in the more
efficient execution of QCTs and provide Users with additional
flexibility and increased functionality on the Exchange's System.\78\
Additionally, the proposed functionality is consistent with the QCT
exemption previously approved by the Commission.\79\ The Exchange
believes this consistency will promote a fair and orderly national
options market system. The proposed rule change does not propose to
implement new or unique functionality that has not been previously
filed with the Commission or is not available on Cboe Affiliated
Exchanges (or other options exchanges).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ See, e.g., Cboe Options Rule 6.53C and Interpretation and
Policy .06; MIAX Rule 518; and ISE Options 3, Section 14 (stock-
option order functionality); and Cboe Options Rule 6.53C,
Interpretation and Policy .06(g); and ISE Options 3, Section 12(f)
(Complex QCC with Stock functionality).
    \79\ See QCT Exemption Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change to codify the delay for a complex strategy
to open after the legs have opened will benefit investors, as it will
provide time for the market prices to stabilize before trading may
begin in complex strategies.\80\ This is consistent with current
functionality as set forth in the technical specifications for the COB
opening process available on the Exchange's website.\81\ The Exchange
believes this is a more accurate description of the time when the COB
opens, and this additional transparency will benefit investors.
Additionally, another options exchange has the same delay for its COB
opening process.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ The Exchange notes it applies a similar delay after
occurrence of the opening rotation trigger for the simple market
opening auction process. See Rule 21.7(d)(1).
    \81\ See http://cdn.cboe.com/resources/membership/US_Options_Opening_Process.pdf.
    \82\ See C2 Rule 6.13(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change to codify current functionality in the
drill-through complex order protection will benefit investors, as it
provides additional transparency in the Rules. Additionally, the
proposed rule change provides complex orders with additional execution
opportunities rather than cancels them when market prices reflect
interest to trade at the price, but the order is not currently
executable due to Legging Restrictions. Additionally, this
functionality is the same as the drill-through complex order protection
of another options exchange.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ See C2 Rule 6.14(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change to codify current functionality regarding
how the System determines possible execution prices for complex orders
if the NBB or NBO of any component leg is zero will benefit investors,
because it is a reasonable process provide complex orders with
execution opportunities, even if there is no interest in the leg
markets in a manner consistent with the pricing requirements of complex
orders. A User may always cancel a complex order if the User does not
wish to have its order rest in the COB at a price determined as set
forth in the proposed rule change. Additionally, another options
exchange offers the same functionality.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ See C2 Rule 6.13(h)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change to permit Users to designate complex
orders as Attributable or Non-Attributable will benefit investors, as
it codifies current functionality and thus provides investors with
transparency in the Rules. These instructions merely apply to
information that is displayed for the orders (in the discretion of the
User), and have no impact on the execution of complex orders. The
Exchange believes this provides Users with greater control and
flexibility over the manner in which they may submit complex orders,
and provides them with functionality that is currently available for
simple orders. Additionally, another options exchange offers investors
the ability to designate complex orders as Attributable or Non-
Attributable.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ See C2 Rule 6.13(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change is generally intended to align system
functionality currently offered by the Exchange with Cboe Options
functionality in order to provide a consistent technology offering for
the Cboe Affiliated Exchanges. A consistent technology offering, in
turn, will simplify the technology implementation, changes, and
maintenance by Users of the Exchange that are also participants on Cboe
Affiliated Exchanges. When Cboe Options migrates to the same technology
as that of the Exchange and other Cboe Affiliated Exchanges, Users of
the Exchange and other Cboe Affiliated Exchanges will have access to
similar functionality on all Cboe Affiliated Exchanges. Differences
remain to the extent necessary to conform to the Exchange's current
rules, retain intended differences based on the Exchange's market
model, or make other nonsubstantive changes to simplify, clarify,
eliminate duplicative language, or make the rule provisions plain
English. As such, the proposed rule change would foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities and would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of
a free and open market and a national market system.
    To the extent a proposed rule change is based on an existing Cboe
Affiliated Exchange rule, the language of Exchange Rules and Cboe
Affiliated Exchange rules may differ to [sic] extent necessary to
conform with existing Exchange rule text or to account for details or
descriptions included in the Exchange's Rules but not in the applicable
EDGX rule. Where possible, the Exchange has substantively mirrored Cboe
Affiliated Exchange rules, because consistent rules will simplify the
regulatory requirements and increase the understanding of the
Exchange's operations for participants on other Cboe Affiliated
Exchanges that are also EDGX Users. The proposed rule change would
provide greater harmonization between the rules of the Cboe Affiliated
Exchanges, resulting in greater uniformity and less burdensome and more
efficient regulatory compliance. As such, the proposed rule change
would foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in
facilitating transactions in securities and would remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system.
    The Exchange also believes that the proposed amendments will
contribute to the protection of investors and the public interest by
making the

Exchange's rules easier to understand. Where necessary, the Exchange
has proposed language consistent with the Exchange's operations on EDGX
technology, even if there are specific details not contained in the
current structure of EDGX rules. The Exchange believes it is consistent
with the Act to maintain its current structure and such detail, rather
than removing such details simply to conform to the structure or format
of EDGX rules, again because the Exchange believes this will increase
the understanding of the Exchange's operations for all Users of the
Exchange.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not
believe the proposed stock-option order or Complex QCC with Stock Order
functionality will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is
not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Stock-option orders and Complex QCC with Stock orders facilitate Users'
compliance with the requirements associated with executing QCTs, and
are not designed to impose any unnecessary burden on competition. These
proposed order types will be available to all Users on a voluntary
basis, and Users are not required to use either order type when
executing QCTs. The proposed rule change has no impact on Users that
elect to execute QCTs without using the proposed functionality. Those
Users may continue to execute QCTs in the same manner as they do today
by entering an option order on the Exchange and separately executing
the stock component of the QCT another venue. A User can also build its
own technology to electronically communicate the stock component of any
QCT to a broker-dealer for execution.
    For Users that elect to use proposed functionality to execute QCTs,
the proposed rule change reduces those Users' compliance burdens to
satisfy their obligation to execute all of the components of a QCT at
or near the same time, as this functionality provides an automated
means for satisfying this obligation. The proposed functionality will
be available to all Users either [sic] through a User's electronic
connection to the Exchange.
    The Exchange does not believe stock-option orders or Complex QCC
with Stock Order functionality will impose any burden on intermarket
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act, because it is consistent with the QCT exemption
previously approved by the Commission.\86\ Additionally, the proposed
functionality is similar to functionality offered by other options
exchanges.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ See QCT Exemption Order.
    \87\ See Cboe Options Rule 6.53C; ISE Options 3, Sections 12(f)
and 14, and Supplementary Material .02 and .07; and MIAX Rule 518.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange does not believe the proposed stock leg execution
buffer, debit/credit reasonability check amendment, and buy-write/
married put check for stock-option orders will impose any burden on
intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. These proposed price protection
mechanisms will apply to stock-option orders of all Users in the same
manner. The Exchange does not believe these price protection mechanisms
will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary
or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, because they
are similar to price protection mechanisms available on other
exchanges.\88\ These price protection mechanisms are intended to
prevent executions of stock-option orders at potentially erroneous
prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ See MIAX Rule 518, Interpretation and Policy .01(g) (buy-
write/married put check); Cboe Options Rule 6.53C, Interpretation
and Policy .08(c) (debit/credit price reasonability check to stock-
option orders); and NASDAQ Stock Market Rule 4757(c) (which prevents
stock limit orders from being accepted at prices outside of pre-set
standard limits, which is based on the NBBO).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change to permit
Users to designate complex orders as Attributable or Non-Attributable
will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary
or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, because this
proposed rule change codifies existing functionality. These
designations will be available to all Users, and use of these
designations will be voluntary. The Exchange does not believe the
proposed rule change to permit Users to designate complex orders as
Attributable or Non-Attributable will impose any burden on intermarket
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act, because another Exchange makes these designations
available for complex orders.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ See C2 Rule 6.13(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange does not believe the proposed changes to the complex
order drill-through, the pricing of orders when the NBBO in a leg of a
complex strategy is zero, and to the COB Opening Process (to delay the
opening of a complex strategy for a time period after the legs open)
will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary
or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, because these
changes codify existing functionality. They apply in the same manner
complex orders of all Users in the same manner. The Exchange does not
believe these proposed rules changes will impose any burden on
intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, because they are the same as
the rules of another options exchange.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ See C2 Rules 6.13(c)(2) (COB Opening Process) and (h)(3)
(pricing of orders when the NBBO in a leg of a complex strategy is
zero); and 6.14(b)(6)(A) (complex order drill-through).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed nonsubstantive changes to the Rules will have no
impact on competition, as they do not modify any functionality. Rather,
these proposed changes add clarity and transparency to the Rules and
conform rule language with the corresponding rules of a Cboe Affiliated
Exchange.

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
    A. Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest;
    B. impose any significant burden on competition; and
    C. become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was
filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has
become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \91\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \92\ thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed
rule

change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \92\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-CboeEDGX-2019-039 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-CboeEDGX-2019-039. 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 website (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 website 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. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2019-039 and should be
submitted on or before August 7, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-15135 Filed 7-16-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P