
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 89 (Friday, May 8, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26601-26605]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-11058]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74864; File No. SR-CBOE-2015-043]


Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, 
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a 
Proposed Rule Change Relating to Automated Improvement Mechanism Order 
Allocation

May 4, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given 
that on April 23, 2015, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated 
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange 
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described 
in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been

[[Page 26602]]

prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-
controversial'' 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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.74A relating to its Automated 
Improvement Mechanism (``AIM''). The text of the proposed rule change 
is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the 
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its AIM auction Rule 6.74A to 
provide that in instances where an Initiating Trading Permit Holder 
electronically submits an order that it represents as agent (``Agency 
Order'') into an AIM Auction (``Auction''), which the Initiating 
Trading Permit Holder is willing to automatically match (``auto-
match'') as principal, the price and size of all Auction responses up 
to an optional designated limit price and, at the final Auction price 
level, there is only one competing Market-Maker or Trading Permit 
Holder acting as agent for an order resting at the top of the 
Exchange's book opposite the Agency Order, the Initiating Trading 
Permit Holder may be allocated up to fifty percent (50%) of the size of 
the order. The Exchange also proposes to add language in Rule 6.74A to 
more fully describe the manner in which any remaining contracts will be 
allocated at the conclusion of an Auction and make other non-
substantive changes to Rule 6.74A to update terminology in the Rule and 
make fix minor typographical errors in the text. This is a competitive 
filing that is substantially and materially based on the price 
improvement auction rules of BOX Options Exchange, LLC (``BOX''),\5\ 
Nasdaq PHLX MKT (``PHLX''),\6\ and NYSE MKT LLC (``NYSE MKT'').\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See BOX Rule 7150(h).
    \6\ See PHLX Rule 1080(n).
    \7\ See NYSE MKT Rule 9.71.1NY(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Rule 6.74A(b)(3), upon conclusion of an Auction, an 
Initiating Trading Permit Holder will retain certain priority and trade 
allocation privileges for both Agency Orders that the Initiation 
Trading Permit Holder seeks to cross at a single price (``single-price 
submissions'') and Agency Orders that the Initiating Trading Permit 
Holder is willing to automatically match as principal the price and 
size of all Auction responses (``auto-match submissions''). Under 
current Rule 6.74A(b)(3)(F), if the best competing Auction response 
price equals the Initiating Trading Permit Holder's single-price 
submission, the Initiating Trading Permit Holder's single-price 
submission shall be allocated the greater of one contract or a certain 
percentage of the order, which percentage will be determined by the 
Exchange and may not be larger than 40%. However, if only one Market-
Maker matches the Initiating Trading Permit Holder's single price 
submission then the Initiating Trading Permit Holder may be allocated 
up to 50% of the order.
    Similarly, current Rule 6.74A(b)(3)(G) provides that if the 
Initiating Trading Permit Holder selected the auto-match option of the 
Auction, the Initiating Trading Permit Holder shall be allocated its 
full size at each price point until a price point is reached where the 
balance of the order can be fully executed. At such price point, the 
Initiating Trading Permit Holder shall be allocated the greater of one 
contract or a certain percentage of the remainder of the order, which 
percentage will be determined by the Exchange and may not be larger 
than 40%. Notably, unlike the single-price submission rules in Rule 
6.74A(b)(3)(F), current Rule 6.74A(b)(3)(G) provides that an Initiating 
Trading Permit Holder would only receive an allocation of up to 40% for 
orders that are matched at the final price level by only one competing 
Market-Maker with an appointment in the relevant option class or 
Trading Permit Holder acting as agent for an order resting at the top 
of the Exchange's book opposite the Agency Order when the auto-match 
option is selected for the Agency Order. The Exchange believes this 
result to be inconsistent within the Rules and believes that Initiating 
Trading Permit Holders that price orders more aggressively using the 
auto-match option and that the Rules should provide that such 
Initiating Trading Permit Holders receive allocations at least equal to 
those that select a single-price submission option for an Auction.
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.74A(b)(3)(G) to provide that 
if only one competing Market-Maker with an appointment in the relevant 
option class or Trading Permit Holder acting as agent for an order 
resting at the top of the Exchange's book opposite the Agency Order is 
present at the final Auction price, then the Initiating Trading Permit 
Holder may be allocated up to 50% of the remainder of the Agency Order 
at the final Auction price level. As discussed above, current Rule 
6.74A(b)(3)(G) provides that an Initiating Trading Permit Holder will 
receive an allocation of up to 40% for orders that are matched at the 
final price level by only one competing Market-Maker with an allocation 
in the relevant option class or Trading Permit Holder acting as agent 
for an order resting at the top of the Exchange's book opposite the 
Agency Order when the auto-match option is selected by the Initiating 
Trading Permit Holder for the Auction. The Exchange believes this 
result to be inconsistent within the Rules and believes that Initiating 
Trading Permit Holders that price orders more aggressively using the 
auto-match option should receive allocations at least equal to those 
that select a single-price submission option. The Exchange also 
believes proposed rule change will more closely align the language in 
Rule 6.74A(b)(3)(G) with the language in Rule 6.74A(b)(3)(F) and will 
thus, provide additional internal consistency within the Rules by 
harmonizing order allocations of single-price submissions and auto-
match Auction orders in instances where there is only one competing 
order at the final Auction price level. Furthermore, the proposed rule 
change will bring the Exchange's AIM rules in line with the Rules of 
other competitor exchanges with which the Exchange competes for order 
flow.
    The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change would not affect 
the priority of public customer orders under Rule 6.74A(b)(3)(B). 
Public customer orders

[[Page 26603]]

in the book would continue to have priority even in cases in which a 
public customer order is resting in the book at the final Auction 
price. For example, suppose that the national best bid (``NBB'') for a 
particular option is $1.00 and the national best offer (``NBO'') for 
the option is $1.20 and that the NBB is an order to buy 10 contracts at 
CBOE. The minimum increment in the option series is $0.01. An 
Initiating Trading Permit Holder at CBOE submits an auto-match Agency 
Order to sell 100 options contracts in the series. The Auction begins 
and, during the auction, one competing Market-Maker submits an Auction 
response to buy 50 contracts at $1.00. The Auction then concludes. In 
this case, the public customer order resting in the book would have 
priority and be allocated 10 contracts with the remaining 90 contracts 
being allocated 50/50 to the responding Market-Maker and the Initiating 
Trading Permit Holder, 45 contracts each.
    Similarly, a public customer order resting in the book at a final 
Auction price level worse than the best Auction response will also 
retain priority in the book. Accordingly, assume again that the 
national best bid (``NBB'') for a particular option is $1.00 and the 
national best offer (``NBO'') for the option is $1.20 and that the NBB 
is an order to buy 10 contracts at CBOE. The minimum increment in the 
option series is $0.01. An Initiating Trading Permit Holder at CBOE 
submits an auto-match Agency Order to sell 100 options contracts in the 
series. The Auction begins and during the Auction, one competing 
Market-Maker (``MM1'') submits an Auction response to buy 20 contracts 
at $1.02, a second Market-Maker (``MM2'') submits an Action response to 
buy 20 contracts at $1.01, and a third Market-Maker (``MM3'') submits 
an Auction response to buy 20 contracts at $1.00. The Auction then 
concludes. In this case, MM1 and the Initiating Trading Permit Holder 
would each be allocated 20 contracts at $1.02 and MM2 and the 
Initiating Trading Permit Holder would each be allocated 20 contracts 
at $1.01 since the Initiating Trading Permit Holder is willing to match 
the price and size at each improved price level. The remaining 20 
contracts would be allocated 10 to the public customer order resting in 
the book at $1.00 because the public customer would retain priority at 
that price level with the remaining 10 contracts being allocated 50/50 
to MM3 and the Initiating Trading Permit Holder, 5 contracts each.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange notes that an unrelated public customer market 
or marketable limit orders on the opposite side of the market from 
the Agency Order that are received during an Auction will end the 
Auction and trade against the Agency Order at the midpoint of the 
best RFR response and the NBBO on the other side of the market from 
the RFR responses. See Rule 6.74A(b)(3)(D). For example, assume that 
the NBBO is $1.00-$1.20. An Initiating Trading Permit Holder submits 
a matched Agency Order to sell 100 options contracts at in the 
series at $1.10. The Auction begins and during the Auction, one 
competing Market-Maker submits an Auction response to buy 100 
contracts at $1.15. Assume that after the first response is 
received, an unrelated public customer order to buy 100 contracts at 
$1.20 is received. This would conclude the auction early after which 
the public customer order would trade 100 contracts with the Agency 
Order at $1.17 (i.e. the midpoint between the best RFR response 
($1.15) and the NBBO on the other side of the market from the RFR 
responses ($1.20)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that increasing the Initiating Trading Permit 
Holder's allocation priority for auto-match submissions that only have 
one competing order at the final price level fairly distributes the 
order when there are only two counterparties to the Auction involved, 
and that doing so is reasonable because of the value that Initiating 
Trading Permit Holders provide to the market. Initiating Trading Permit 
Holders selecting the auto-match option for Agency Orders guarantee an 
execution at the NBBO or at a better price, and are subject to a 
greater market risk than single-price submissions while the order is 
exposed to other AIM participants. As such, the Exchange believes that 
the value added from Initiating Trading Permit Holders guaranteeing 
execution of Agency Orders at a price equal to or better than the NBBO 
in combination with the additional market risk of initiating auto-match 
submissions warrants an allocation priority of at least the same 
percentage as Trading Permit Holders who submit single-price orders 
into AIM. The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change, 
like other price improvement allocation programs currently offered by 
competitor exchanges, will benefit investors by attracting more order 
flow as well as increasing the frequency that Trading Permit Holders 
initiate Auctions, which may result in greater opportunities for 
customer order price improvement. Moreover, as discussed above, the 
proposed rule change is consistent with the rules of other 
exchanges.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See, e.g., BOX Rule 7150(h); NYSE MKT Rule 
9.71.1NY(c)(5)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to add text to Rules 6.74A(b)(3)(F) and 
(G) to describe the manner in which remaining contracts would be 
allocated at the conclusion of an Auction under the scenarios therein. 
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend paragraphs (F) and (G) to 
provide that (subject to public customer priority), after the 
Initiating Trading Permit Holder has received an allocation of up to 
40% of the Agency Order (or 50% of the Agency Order if there is only 
one other RFR response), contracts shall be allocated among remaining 
quotes, orders, and auction responses (i.e. interests other than the 
Initiating Trading Permit Holder) at the final auction price in 
accordance with the matching algorithm in effect for the subject class. 
If all RFR Responses are filled (i.e. no other interests remain), any 
remaining contracts will be allocated to the Initiating Trading Permit 
Holder at the single-price submission price for single-price 
submissions or, for auto-match submissions, to the Initiating Trading 
Permit Holder at the auction start price as specified under Rule 
6.74A(b)(1)(a). The Exchange believes that this additional language 
would add clarity in the Rules with respect to how remaining odd-lots 
will be allocated at the conclusion of an Auction.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Exchange notes that such remaining contracts are 
currently allocated to the Initiating Trading Permit Holder in 
excess of the up to 40% (50% if there is only one other Market-
Marker or Trading Permit Holder representing an Agency Order) of the 
order that the Initiating Trading Permit Holder may receive under 
the Exchange's existing Rules pursuant to the provision that the 
Initiating Trading Permit Holder will be allocated the greater of 
one contract or up to 40% (50% if there is only one other Market-
Marker or Trading Permit Holder representing an Agency Order) at the 
final Auction price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, suppose that the NBBO for a particular option is 
$1.00-$1.20. The minimum increment for the series is $0.01 and the 
matching algorithm in effect for the option class is pro rata. An 
Initiating Trading Permit Holder submits a matched Agency Order to sell 
5 contracts at $1.10. The Auction begins and, during the auction, one 
competing Market-Maker (``MM1'') submits an Auction response to buy 5 
contracts at $1.10, followed by another Market-Maker (``MM2'') 
submitting an Auction response to buy 5 contracts at $1.10. The Auction 
concludes. In this case, under proposed Rule 6.74A(b)(3)(F), the 
Initiating Trading Permit Holder would receive an allocation up to 40%, 
or, in this case, 2 contracts at $1.10. MM1 and MM2 would then receive 
1 contract each at $1.10 according to the pro rata allocation algorithm 
in place for the class with MM1, as the first responder, receiving the 
final 1 contract at the final auction price of $1.10.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Rules 6.45A(a)(ii) and 6.45B(a)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, suppose that the NBBO for a particular option is $1.00-
$1.20. The minimum increment for the series is $0.01 and the matching 
algorithm in effect for the option class is pro rata. An Initiating 
Trading Permit Holder

[[Page 26604]]

submits a matched Agency Order to sell 5 contracts at $1.10. The 
Auction begins and, during the auction, one competing Market-Maker 
(``MM1'') submits an Auction response to buy 1 contract at $1.10, 
followed by another Market-Maker (``MM2'') submitting an Auction 
response to buy 1 contract at $1.10. The Auction concludes. In this 
case, under proposed Rule 6.74A(b)(3)(F), the Initiating Trading Permit 
Holder would receive an allocation up to 40%, or, in this case, 2 
contracts at $1.10. MM1 and MM2 would then receive 1 contract each at 
$1.10 according to the pro rata allocation algorithm in place for the 
class. With no other RFR responder interest for the Auction, however, 
proposed Rule 6.74A(b)(3)(F) will simply make clear that if all RFR 
Responses are filled (i.e. no other interests remain), any remaining 
contracts will be allocated to the Initiating Trading Permit Holder at 
the single-price submission price. In this case, the final 1 contract 
would be allocated to the Initiating Trading Permit Holder at $1.10.
    Remaining odd-lots for auto-match submissions would be similarly 
allocated under proposed Rule 6.74A(b)(3)(G), except that if all RFR 
Responses are filled (i.e. no other interests remain), any remaining 
contracts will be allocated to the Initiating Trading Permit Holder at 
the auction start price as specified under Rule 6.74A(b)(1)(A). 
Accordingly, suppose that the NBBO for a particular option is $1.00-
$1.20. The minimum increment for the series is $0.01 and the matching 
algorithm in effect for the option class is pro rata. An Initiating 
Trading Permit Holder submits an auto-matched Agency Order to sell 5 
contracts. In this case, because the Auction is for fewer than 50 
contracts, the Auction would begin at one price increment better than 
the NBBO, or $1.19.\12\ Assume that the Auction begins and, during the 
auction, one competing Market-Maker (``MM1'') submits an Auction 
response to buy 1 contracts at $1.18, followed by another Market-Maker 
(``MM2'') submitting an Auction response to buy 1 contract at $1.17. 
The Auction concludes. In this case, MM2 and the Initiating Trading 
Permit Holder would each receive 1 contract at $1.17 and MM1 and the 
Initiating Trading Permit Holder would each receive 1 contract at 
$1.18. Because all RFR Responses would then be filled (i.e. no other 
interests remain), any remaining contracts will be allocated to the 
Initiating Trading Permit Holder at the Auction start price or, in this 
case, 1 contract at $1.19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Rule 6.74A(b)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that these proposed amendments are based on, and 
consistent with, the rules of other competitor exchanges.\13\ The 
Exchange believes that the value added from Initiating Trading Permit 
Holders guaranteeing execution of Agency Orders at a price equal to or 
better than the NBBO warrants (to the extent that the Initiating 
Trading Permit Holder is on the final Auction price), an Auction 
allocation priority of at least the same percentage of the order as any 
competing Auction responses. The Exchange also believes that the 
proposed rule change, like other price improvement allocation programs 
currently offered by competitor exchanges, will benefit investors by 
attracting more order flow as well as increasing the frequency that 
Trading Permit Holders initiate Auctions, which may result in greater 
opportunities for customer order price improvement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See, e.g., NYSE MKT Rule 9.71.1NY(c)(5); PHLX Rule 
1080(n)(ii)(E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange is proposing to add additional 
clarifying language to Rule 6.74A and correct minor typographical 
errors in the Rule. Specifically, the Exchange is seeking to amend Rule 
6.74A(b)(1)(E) to replace the word ``Members'' with ``Trading Permit 
Holders.'' The Exchange no longer has ``members,'' but rather Trading 
Permit Holders. Since its demutualization, the Exchange has attempted 
(and continues to seek to) replace the word ``members'' with Trading 
Permit Holders throughout the Rules for consistency purposes.
    The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 6.74A(b)(3)(F) to make 
clear the parties that may be entitled to receive a 50% portion of the 
remainder of the Agency Order at the final price level of an Auction. 
Current Rule 6.74A(b)(3)(F) provides that if the best Auction response 
price equals the Initiating Trading Permit Holder's single-price 
submission and only one Market-Maker matches the Initiating Trading 
Permit Holder's single price submission, then the Initiating Trading 
Permit Holder may be allocated up to 50% of the order. The Exchange 
proposes to add the word ``competing'' before ``Market-Maker'' in the 
second sentence of Rule 6.74A(b)(3)(F) and add the language ``with an 
appointment in the relevant option class or Trading Permit Holder 
acting as agent for an order resting at the top of the Exchange's book 
opposite the Agency Order'' after ``Market-Maker'' to make clear that 
both Market-Makers with an appointment in the relevant option class and 
Trading Permit Holders acting as agent for an order resting at the top 
of the Exchange's book opposite the Agency Order may respond to 
Auctions and thus, may be present at the final Auction price. The 
Exchange notes that the proposed language is consistent with the 
current Rule and would also be consistent with the proposed changes to 
the auto-match rules in Rule 6.74A(b)(3)(G). The Exchange believes that 
these changes are non-controversial as they simply clarify the 
Exchange's already existing AIM rules. The Exchange strives for 
transparency in its Rules and believes these non-substantive changes 
will provide greater clarity for market participants. Finally, the 
Exchange proposes to add the word ``of'' to Rule 6.74A(b)(3)(G) to fix 
a minor typographical error in the rule text.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with 
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the 
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the 
Act.\14\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change 
is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \15\ 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) \16\ requirement that the rules of 
an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between 
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change 
protects investors and is in the public interest because it fairly 
distributes the allocation of the AIM order between the Initiating 
Trading Permit Holder and the Trading Permit Holder who responded when 
those Trading Permit Holders are the only two counterparties to the 
Auction and/or the number of contracts remaining at the final Auction 
price cannot be evenly distributed at the end of an Auction. The 
Exchange believes

[[Page 26605]]

that the proposed rule changes, like other price improvement programs 
currently offered by competing exchanges, will benefit investors by 
attracting more order flow as well as increasing the frequency that 
Trading Permit Holders submit orders to Auction, which may result in 
greater opportunity for price improvement for customers. Moreover, the 
proposed rule change is consistent with the Rules of other exchanges. 
With respect to the proposed clarifying additions and typographical 
corrections to Rule 6.74A, the Exchange believes that the proposed 
changes will benefit market participants by adding additional 
transparency and clarity to the Rules.

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 proposed changes are 
meant to more fairly distribute the order allocation when there are 
only two counterparties to an Auction auto-match order. The Exchange 
does not believe that this change will discourage any market 
participants from entering into the AIM, as the auto-match option of 
the AIM is more aggressive in terms of risk and therefore, increasing 
the allocation to up to 50% of the remainder for the Initiating Trading 
Permit Holder when there is only one competing order at the final price 
level is a more fair and reasonable allocation mechanism and would 
likely only increase the number of Trading Permit Holders that select 
the auto-match option to initiate Auctions.
    Furthermore, the Exchange notes that the proposed rule change is a 
competitive response to similar provisions in the price improvement 
auction rules of BOX, PHLX and NYSE MKT.\17\ The Exchange believes this 
proposed rule change is necessary to permit fair competition among the 
options exchanges and to establish more uniform price improvement 
auction rules on the various exchanges. The Exchange is also seeking 
the proposed rule change to align the allocation priorities for AIM 
single-price and auto-match submissions for Initiating Trading Permit 
Holders when there is only one competing order at the final price level 
within its rules. As mentioned earlier, auto-match submissions carry 
more risk than single-price submissions and as a result, should be 
given at least the same allocation priority as single-price 
submissions. The Exchange believes this proposed rule change is 
necessary to permit fair competition among the options exchanges and to 
establish more uniform price improvement auction rules on the various 
exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See BOX Rule 7150; NYSE MKT Rule 971.1NY; PHLX Rule 1080.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 written 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 \18\ and 
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \19\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \19\ 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 rule-comments@sec.gov. Please include 
File Number SR-CBOE-2015-043 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-2015-043. 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-2015-043 and should be 
submitted on or before May 29, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-11058 Filed 5-7-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


