80 FR 51642 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, Relating to Rule 6.53C and Complex Orders on the Hybrid System
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 164 (August 25, 2015)
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 164 (August 25, 2015)
| Page Range | 51642-51644 | |
| FR Document | 2015-20935 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 164 (Tuesday, August 25, 2015)] [Notices] [Pages 51642-51644] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-20935] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-75736; File No. SR-CBOE-2015-045] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, Relating to Rule 6.53C and Complex Orders on the Hybrid System August 19, 2015. I. Introduction On May 12, 2015, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Exchange Act'' or ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to modify CBOE Rule 6.53C, Complex Orders on the Hybrid System, regarding eligibility for participation in the Complex Order Book (``COB'') and the Complex Order Auction (``COA''). The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on May 27, 2015.\3\ On June 3, 2015, CBOE filed Amendment No.1 to the proposed rule change.\4\ On July 6, 2015, the Commission extended the time period within which to approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change, to August 25, 2015.\5\ The Commission has received no comments on the proposed rule change. This order institutes proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \6\ to [[Page 51643]] determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4. \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75003 (May 20, 2015), 80 FR 30306 (``Notice''). \4\ Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change amended the statutory basis and burden on competition sections regarding distinguishing between Professional and non-Professional orders for purposes of determining eligibility for COA. \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75359 (July 6, 2015), 80 FR 39821 (July 10, 2015). \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- II. Description of the Proposal The Exchange seeks to modify CBOE Rule 6.53C to allow the Exchange to further distinguish between the complex order origin types that are eligible for the COB and COA.\7\ Currently, under CBOE Rule 6.53C, the Exchange may determine whether orders from non-broker dealer public customers, broker-dealers that are not Market-Makers or specialists on an options exchange, and/or Market-Makers or specialists on an options exchange are eligible for entry into the COB or COA. Under these current COA and COB eligibility parameters, there is no distinction between professional public customers and non-professional public customers. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \7\ The COA is a feature within CBOE's Hybrid System that exposes eligible complex orders for price improvement. In classes where the COA is activated, eligible orders are electronically exposed for an exposure period. At the conclusion of the COA process, the order is then allocated or, to the extent not executed, sent to the COB or routed. See Notice, 80 FR at 15264. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Exchange proposes to modify CBOE Rule 6.53C so that it could determine whether the following two additional types of market participants are eligible for entry into the COB and the COA: (i) Non- broker-dealer public customers that are Voluntary Professional Customers or Professional Customers (herein, ``Professionals'') and (ii) non-broker-dealer public customers that are not Voluntary Professional Customers or Professional Customers. CBOE states that it is proposing this change so that it may prevent orders from Professionals from triggering a COA. According to the Exchange, CBOE participants currently may cancel and replace their complex orders as often as they wish without incurring any cancellation fees. Each order that meets the eligibility requirements detailed in CBOE Rule 6.53C,\8\ including cancellations and replacements, generates a new COA. The Exchange states that few of the complex orders entered by Professional Customers that trigger a COA actually execute in the auction process.\9\ Accordingly, CBOE believes that allowing COA eligibility to be determined by origin code (e.g., by whether the order comes from a Professional), which permits CBOE to prevent orders from Professionals from triggering a COA, will ``eliminate the clutter of unnecessary Professional COA messages, as well as increase the likelihood of executions for public customers.'' \10\ The Exchange further believes that allowing Professionals to participate in the COA can be detrimental to non-professional public customer order flow.\11\ The Exchange also believes that ``removing unnecessary Professional COA messages may encourage more participants to provide auction responses (ultimately increasing the likelihood of executions for public customers . . .) because fewer unnecessary COA messages will most likely increase the proportion of responses that lead to an execution.'' \12\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \8\ A COA-eligible order is a complex order that, as determined by the Exchange on a class-by-class basis, is eligible for COA considering the order's marketability (defined as a number of ticks away from the current market), size, complex order type, and complex order origin type. See Rule 6.53C(d)(1). This proposed rule change would change the term ``complex order origin type'' to ``complex order origin code.'' \9\ For example, in Amendment No. 1, the Exchange notes that orders for Professionals made up 52% of COA auctions but resulted in 0.62% of COA executions in the month of February 2015. The Exchange states that this is a representative example of Professional orders participation and execution rates in the COA. \10\ See Notice, 80 FR at 30307. \11\ See id. \12\ See Amendment No. 1 at 4. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- III. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove SR-CBOE- 2015-045 and Grounds for Disapproval Under Consideration The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \13\ to determine whether the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, should be approved or disapproved. Institution of such proceedings is appropriate at this time in view of the legal and policy issues raised by the proposed rule change, as discussed below. Institution of proceedings does not indicate that the Commission has reached any conclusions with respect to any of the issues involved. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,\14\ the Commission is providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under consideration. The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional analysis of, and comment on, whether the proposed rule change is consistent with: Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\15\ which requires that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed, among other things, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest, and are not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers; and Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\16\ which requires that the rules of a national securities exchange not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B). Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act also provides that proceedings to determine whether to disapprove a proposed rule change must be concluded within 180 days of the date of publication of notice of the filing of the proposed rule change. See id. The time for conclusion of the proceedings may be extended for up to 60 days if the Commission finds good cause for such extension and publishes its reasons for so finding. See id. \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Exchange's proposed rule change would provide the Exchange discretion to determine whether two additional groups of market participants are eligible for entry into the COA and COB: (i) Professionals and (ii) non-broker-dealer public customers that are not Professionals.\17\ The Commission believes that the proposal raises important issues that warrant further public comment and Commission consideration regarding whether the proposal would result in unfair discrimination or would impose an unnecessary and or inappropriate burden on competition to the extent the Exchange exercises its proposed discretion and excludes either of the two categories of market participants discussed above from the COA and COB. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \17\ Under the current Rule, CBOE already may determine that Broker-dealers that are not Market-Makers or specialists on an options exchange and Market-Makers or specialists on an options exchange are not eligible for entry into the COA and COB pursuant to CBOE Rule 6.53C. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In light of these issues and concerns, the Commission believes that questions arise regarding whether the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Sections 6(b)(5) and 6(b)(8) of the Act. As the Commission continues to evaluate the issues presented by the proposal, the Commission solicits comment on whether the proposal is consistent with the Act and whether the Exchange has met its burden in presenting a statutory analysis of how its proposal is consistent with the Act. In particular, the grounds for disapproval under consideration include whether the Exchange's proposal is consistent with Sections 6(b)(5) \18\ and 6(b)(8) \19\ of the Act. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In addition, under the Commission's rules of procedure, a self- regulatory organization that proposes to amend its rules bears the burden of demonstrating [[Page 51644]] that its proposal is consistent with the Act.\20\ In this regard: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \20\ Rule 700(b)(3), 17 CFR 201.700(b)(3). the description of the proposed rule change, its purpose and operation, its effect, and a legal analysis of its consistency with applicable requirements must all be sufficiently detailed and specific to support an affirmative Commission finding. Any failure of the self-regulatory organization to provide the information elicited by Form 19b-4 may result in the Commission not having a sufficient basis to make an affirmative finding that a proposed rule change is consistent with the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to the self-regulatory organization.\21\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \21\ Id. IV. Procedure: Request for Written Comments The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their views, data and arguments with respect to the concerns identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have with the proposed rule change. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is consistent with Sections 6(b)(5) and 6(b)(8) \22\ or any other provision of the Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval which would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4 under the Act,\23\ any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.\24\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5) and (b)(8). \23\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4. \24\ Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, as amended by the Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Public Law 94-29 (June 4, 1975), grants to the Commission flexibility to determine what type of proceeding-- either oral or notice and opportunity for written comments--is appropriate for consideration of a particular proposal by a self- regulatory organization. See Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Senate Comm. on Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 30 (1975). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposal should be approved or disapproved by September 15, 2015. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by September 29, 2015. In light of the concerns raised by the proposed rule change, as discussed above, the Commission invites additional comment on the proposed rule change as the Commission continues its analysis of whether the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5),\25\ Section 6(b)(8),\26\ and all other provision of the Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder. The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency and merit of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposed rule change, in addition to any other comments they may wish to submit about the proposed rule change. In particular, the Commission invites comment on the following: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Would excluding orders submitted by Professionals from entry into the COA or COB adversely affect the ability of Professionals to execute their orders? Why or why not? 2. Do commenters agree with the Exchange that there are an excessive number of Professional COA messages that adversely affect the likelihood of executions for non-broker-dealer public customers that are not Professionals? Would excluding Professionals orders from the COA increase the likelihood of, or otherwise impact, executions for non-broker-dealer public customers that are not Professionals? If so, how? 3. Is the volume of auction messages generated by Professionals disruptive to the auction process? If so, how? 4. Are there other methods that involve less potential for unfair discrimination that could be used to reduce the volume of messages? 5. Do Professionals want their orders to be eligible for entry into the COA or the COB? Why or why not? 6. Although the Exchange states that the proposal is intended to allow the Exchange to prevent Professionals from entry into the COB or COA, the proposed rule change, as drafted, would also allow the Exchange to determine that non-broker-dealer public customers that are not Professionals Customers are not eligible for entry into both the COA and the COB. Do commenters believe that excluding non-broker-dealer public customers that are not Professionals from the COA and COB is consistent with the Act? Is so, why? If not, why not? Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic CommentsUse the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or Send an email to rule-comments@sec.gov. Please include File Number SR-CBOE-2015-045 on the subject line. Paper Comments Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2015-045. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2015-045 and should be submitted by September 15, 2015. Rebuttal comments should be submitted by September 29, 2015. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.\27\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \27\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jill M. Peterson, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. 2015-20935 Filed 8-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
![51642 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 164 / Tuesday, August 25, 2015 / Notices
The Exchange believes that this to determine whether the proposed rule For the Commission, by the Division of
amendment is equitable and not should be approved or disapproved. Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated
unfairly discriminatory because the authority.11
Exchange is uniformly assessing the FIX IV. Solicitation of Comments Jill M. Peterson,
Drop Copy Port Fees on all users that Assistant Secretary.
Interested persons are invited to
wish to subscribe to it. submit written data, views, and [FR Doc. 2015–20932 Filed 8–24–15; 8:45 am]
The Exchange further believes that the arguments concerning the foregoing, BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
proposed FIX Drop Copy Port Fee is including whether the proposed rule
reasonable because it is within the range change is consistent with the Act.
of similar fees charged by other SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
Comments may be submitted by any of COMMISSION
exchanges, and because the FIX Drop the following methods:
Copy Port is offered as an optional [Release No. 34–75736; File No. SR–CBOE–
service for those users who wish to Electronic Comments 2015–045]
subscribe to it.
• Use the Commission’s Internet
B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Self-Regulatory Organizations;
comment form (http://www.sec.gov/
Statement on Burden on Competition Chicago Board Options Exchange,
rules/sro.shtml); or Incorporated; Order Instituting
The Exchange does not believe that • Send an email to rule-comments@ Proceedings To Determine Whether To
the proposed rule change will result in sec.gov. Please include File Number SR– Approve or Disapprove a Proposed
any burden on competition that is not MIAX–2015–52 on the subject line. Rule Change, as Modified by
necessary or appropriate in furtherance Amendment No. 1, Relating to Rule
Paper Comments
of the purposes of the Act, as amended. 6.53C and Complex Orders on the
The proposed fees for services provided • Send paper comments in triplicate Hybrid System
to its Members and others using its to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities August 19, 2015.
facilities will not have an impact on and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street
competition. In fact, MIAX’s proposed NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090. I. Introduction
FIX Drop Copy Port Fee is comparable On May 12, 2015, Chicago Board
to fees charged by other options All submissions should refer to File
Number SR–MIAX–2015–52. This file Options Exchange, Incorporated (the
exchanges for the same or similar ‘‘Exchange’’ or ‘‘CBOE’’) filed with the
services.8 number should be included on the
Securities and Exchange Commission
The FIX Drop Copy Port is offered as subject line if email is used. To help the
(the ‘‘Commission’’), pursuant to
an additional service for users at a price Commission process and review your Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
that is within the range of prices for comments more efficiently, please use Exchange Act of 1934 (the ‘‘Exchange
similar ports offered by other exchanges, only one method. The Commission will Act’’ or ‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4
and therefore the Exchange believes that post all comments on the Commission’s thereunder,2 a proposed rule change to
the price of the port fee does not impose Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ modify CBOE Rule 6.53C, Complex
a burden on competition. rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the Orders on the Hybrid System, regarding
submission, all subsequent eligibility for participation in the
C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s amendments, all written statements Complex Order Book (‘‘COB’’) and the
Statement on Comments on the with respect to the proposed rule Complex Order Auction (‘‘COA’’). The
Proposed Rule Change Received From
change that are filed with the proposed rule change was published for
Members, Participants, or Others
Commission, and all written comment in the Federal Register on
Written comments were neither communications relating to the May 27, 2015.3 On June 3, 2015, CBOE
solicited nor received. proposed rule change between the filed Amendment No.1 to the proposed
Commission and any person, other than rule change.4 On July 6, 2015, the
III. Date of Effectiveness of the Commission extended the time period
those that may be withheld from the
Proposed Rule Change and Timing for within which to approve the proposed
public in accordance with the
Commission Action rule change, disapprove the proposed
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
The foregoing rule change has become available for Web site viewing and rule change, or institute proceedings to
effective pursuant to Section printing in the Commission’s Public determine whether to disapprove the
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 9 and Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., proposed rule change, to August 25,
subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b–4 Washington, DC 20549 on official 2015.5 The Commission has received no
thereunder.10 At any time within 60 business days between the hours of comments on the proposed rule change.
days of the filing of the proposed rule This order institutes proceedings under
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such
change, the Commission summarily may Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act 6 to
filing also will be available for
temporarily suspend such rule change if inspection and copying at the principal 11 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).
it appears to the Commission that such office of the Exchange. All comments 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
action is necessary or appropriate in the received will be posted without change; 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
public interest, for the protection of the Commission does not edit personal 3 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75003
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of identifying information from (May 20, 2015), 80 FR 30306 (‘‘Notice’’).
the purposes of the Act. If the submissions. You should submit only 4 Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change
Commission takes such action, the information that you wish to make
amended the statutory basis and burden on
Commission shall institute proceedings competition sections regarding distinguishing
available publicly. All submissions between Professional and non-Professional orders
should refer to File Number SR–MIAX– for purposes of determining eligibility for COA.
8 See supra note 5. 5 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75359
9 15
2015–52, and should be submitted on or
U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). (July 6, 2015), 80 FR 39821 (July 10, 2015).
10 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(2). before September 15, 2015. 6 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:54 Aug 24, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25AUN1.SGM 25AUN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_51806/page/1.svg)
![51644 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 164 / Tuesday, August 25, 2015 / Notices
that its proposal is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5),25 Section 6(b)(8),26 and Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Act.20 In this regard: all other provision of the Act, or the Washington, DC 20549–1090.
the description of the proposed rule change, rules and regulations thereunder. The
Commission asks that commenters All submissions should refer to File
its purpose and operation, its effect, and a
legal analysis of its consistency with address the sufficiency and merit of the Number SR–CBOE–2015–045. This file
applicable requirements must all be Exchange’s statements in support of the number should be included on the
sufficiently detailed and specific to support proposed rule change, in addition to any subject line if email is used. To help the
an affirmative Commission finding. Any other comments they may wish to Commission process and review your
failure of the self-regulatory organization to comments more efficiently, please use
provide the information elicited by Form
submit about the proposed rule change.
In particular, the Commission invites only one method. The Commission will
19b–4 may result in the Commission not
having a sufficient basis to make an comment on the following: post all comments on the Commission’s
affirmative finding that a proposed rule 1. Would excluding orders submitted Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
change is consistent with the Exchange Act by Professionals from entry into the rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the
and the rules and regulations thereunder that COA or COB adversely affect the ability submission, all subsequent
are applicable to the self-regulatory of Professionals to execute their orders? amendments, all written statements
organization.21 Why or why not? with respect to the proposed rule
2. Do commenters agree with the change that are filed with the
IV. Procedure: Request for Written Exchange that there are an excessive
Comments Commission, and all written
number of Professional COA messages communications relating to the
The Commission requests that that adversely affect the likelihood of proposed rule change between the
interested persons provide written executions for non-broker-dealer public Commission and any person, other than
submissions of their views, data and customers that are not Professionals? those that may be withheld from the
arguments with respect to the concerns Would excluding Professionals orders
identified above, as well as any other public in accordance with the
from the COA increase the likelihood of,
concerns they may have with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
or otherwise impact, executions for non-
proposed rule change. In particular, the available for Web site viewing and
broker-dealer public customers that are
Commission invites the written views of printing in the Commission’s Public
not Professionals? If so, how?
interested persons concerning whether 3. Is the volume of auction messages Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
the proposal is consistent with Sections generated by Professionals disruptive to Washington, DC 20549 on official
6(b)(5) and 6(b)(8) 22 or any other the auction process? If so, how? business days between the hours of
provision of the Act, or the rules and 4. Are there other methods that 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the
regulations thereunder. Although there involve less potential for unfair filing also will be available for
do not appear to be any issues relevant discrimination that could be used to inspection and copying at the principal
to approval or disapproval which would reduce the volume of messages? office of the Exchange. All comments
be facilitated by an oral presentation of 5. Do Professionals want their orders received will be posted without change;
views, data, and arguments, the to be eligible for entry into the COA or the Commission does not edit personal
Commission will consider, pursuant to the COB? Why or why not? identifying information from
Rule 19b–4 under the Act,23 any request 6. Although the Exchange states that submissions. You should submit only
for an opportunity to make an oral the proposal is intended to allow the information that you wish to make
presentation.24 Exchange to prevent Professionals from available publicly. All submissions
Interested persons are invited to entry into the COB or COA, the should refer to File Number SR–CBOE–
submit written data, views, and proposed rule change, as drafted, would 2015–045 and should be submitted by
arguments regarding whether the also allow the Exchange to determine September 15, 2015. Rebuttal comments
proposal should be approved or that non-broker-dealer public customers should be submitted by September 29,
disapproved by September 15, 2015. that are not Professionals Customers are 2015.
Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal not eligible for entry into both the COA
to any other person’s submission must and the COB. Do commenters believe For the Commission, by the Division of
file that rebuttal by September 29, 2015. that excluding non-broker-dealer public Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated
In light of the concerns raised by the customers that are not Professionals authority.27
proposed rule change, as discussed from the COA and COB is consistent Jill M. Peterson,
above, the Commission invites with the Act? Is so, why? If not, why Assistant Secretary.
additional comment on the proposed not? [FR Doc. 2015–20935 Filed 8–24–15; 8:45 am]
rule change as the Commission Comments may be submitted by any
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
continues its analysis of whether the of the following methods:
proposed rule change is consistent with
Electronic Comments
20 Rule 700(b)(3), 17 CFR 201.700(b)(3). • Use the Commission’s Internet
21 Id. comment form (http://www.sec.gov/
22 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5) and (b)(8). rules/sro.shtml); or
23 17 CFR 240.19b–4. • Send an email to rule-comments@
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
24 Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, as amended by the
sec.gov. Please include File Number SR–
Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Public Law
94–29 (June 4, 1975), grants to the Commission CBOE–2015–045 on the subject line.
flexibility to determine what type of proceeding—
either oral or notice and opportunity for written
Paper Comments
comments—is appropriate for consideration of a • Send paper comments in triplicate
particular proposal by a self-regulatory
organization. See Securities Act Amendments of
to Secretary, Securities and Exchange
1975, Senate Comm. on Banking, Housing & Urban
25 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
Affairs, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 30
(1975). 26 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8). 27 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(57).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Aug 24, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\25AUN1.SGM 25AUN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_51806/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2018-02-23 11:02:58
Document Modified: 2018-02-23 11:02:58
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 51642 |
2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR