
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 115 (Tuesday, June 16, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34467-34471]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-14672]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75143; File No. SR-C2-2015-013]


Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated; 
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change 
Relating to Automated Improvement Mechanism Order Allocations

June 10, 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 June 3, 2015, C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated (the 
``Exchange'' or ``C2'') filed with the Securities and Exchange 
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described 
in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the 
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments 
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.51 relating to the 
functionality of 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 6.51 to provide 
that in instances where an Initiating Participant electronically 
submits an order that it represents as agent (``Agency Order'') into an 
AIM Auction (``Auction''), which the Initiating Participant 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 
there is only one competing Participant at the final Auction price 
level, the Initiating Participant may be allocated up to fifty percent 
(50%) of the size of the order. The Exchange also proposes to add 
language in Rule 6.51 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 6.51 to update 
terminology in the Rule. This is a competitive filing that is 
substantially and materially based on the price improvement auction 
rules of BOX Options Exchange, LLC (``BOX''),\3\ Nasdaq PHLX MKT 
(``PHLX''),\4\ and NYSE MKT LLC (``NYSE MKT'').\5\ Also, the filing is, 
in all material respects, substantially similar to Chicago Board 
Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE'') filing, SR-CBOE-2015-043, 
which was recently filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission 
(the ``Commission'').\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See BOX Rule 7150(h).
    \4\ See PHLX Rule 1080(n).
    \5\ See NYSE MKT Rule 9.71.1NY(c).
    \6\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 74864 (May 4, 
2015), 80 FR 26601 (May 8, 2015) (Notice of Filing and Immediate 
Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Automated 
Improvement Mechanism Order Allocation) (SR-CBOE-2015-043); see also 
CBOE Rule 6.74A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Rule 6.51(b)(3), upon conclusion of an Auction, an 
Initiating Participant will retain certain priority and trade 
allocation privileges for both Agency Orders that the Initiating 
Participant seeks to cross at a single price (``single-price 
submissions'') and Agency Orders that the Initiating Participant \7\ is 
willing to automatically

[[Page 34468]]

match, as principal, the price and size of all Auction responses 
(``auto-match submissions''). Under current Rule 6.51(b)(3)(F), if the 
best competing Auction response price equals the Initiating 
Participant's single-price submission, the Initiating Participant'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 competing Participant matches the Initiating Participant's 
single price submission then the Initiating Participant may be 
allocated up to 50% of the order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Rule 6.51(b)(3)(F) currently contains a typographical error 
in that it provides that if only one Market-Maker matches the 
Initiating Participant's single price submission then the Initiating 
Participant may be allocated up to 50% of the order. Under Rule 
6.51(b)(1)(D), however, responses to RFRs may be submitted by all 
Participant that have subscribed to receive auction messages, not 
only Market-Makers. As described below, this typographical error 
would be changed upon the operability of the instant filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, current Rule 6.51(b)(3)(G) provides that if the 
Initiating Participant selects the auto-match option for the Auction, 
the Initiating Participant 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 
Participant 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 6.51(b)(3)(F), current 
Rule 6.51(b)(3)(G) provides that an Initiating Participant would only 
receive an allocation of up to 40% for orders that are matched at the 
final price level by only one competing Participant when the auto-match 
option is selected for the Agency Order. The Exchange believes this 
result to be inconsistent within the Rules and that Initiating 
Participants that price orders more aggressively using the auto-match 
option should receive allocations at least equal to Participants that 
select the single-price submission option for an Auction.
    Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.51(b)(3)(G) to 
provide that if only one competing Participant is present at the final 
Auction price, then the Initiating Participant may be allocated up to 
50% of the remainder of the Agency Order at the final Auction price 
level. As discussed above, current Rule 6.51(b)(3)(G) provides that an 
Initiating Participant will receive an allocation of up to 40% for 
orders that are matched at the final price level by only one competing 
Participant when the auto-match option is selected by the Initiating 
Participant for the Auction. The Exchange believes this result to be 
inconsistent within the Rules and believes that Initiating Participants 
that price orders more aggressively using the auto-match option should 
receive allocations at least equal to those that select the single-
price submission option. The Exchange also believes proposed rule 
change will more closely align the language in Rule 6.51(b)(3)(G) with 
the language in Rule 6.51(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 6.51(b)(3)(B). Public 
customer orders 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 resting in the book on C2. The minimum increment in the 
option series is $0.01. An Initiating Participant at C2 submits an 
auto-match Agency Order to sell 100 options contracts in the series. 
The Auction begins and, during the auction, one competing Participant 
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 
Participant and the Initiating Participant, 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 resting in the book on C2. The minimum 
increment in the option series is $0.01. An Initiating Participant at 
C2 submits an auto-match Agency Order to sell 100 options contracts in 
the series. The Auction begins and during the Auction, one competing 
Participant (``P1'') submits an Auction response to buy 20 contracts at 
$1.02, a second Participant (``P2'') submits an Action response to buy 
20 contracts at $1.01, and a third Participant (``P3'') submits an 
Auction response to buy 20 contracts at $1.00. The Auction then 
concludes. In this case, P1 and the Initiating Participant would each 
be allocated 20 contracts at $1.02 and P2 and the Initiating 
Participant would each be allocated 20 contracts at $1.01 since the 
Initiating Participant 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 P3 and the Initiating 
Participant, 5 contracts each.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange notes that an unrelated public customer market 
or marketable limit order on the opposite side of the market from 
the Agency Order that is 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 6.51(b)(3)(D). For example, assume that 
the NBBO is $1.00-$1.20. An Initiating Participant 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 
Participant 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 Participant'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 Agency Order involved in 
the Auction at the final Auction price, and that doing so is reasonable 
because of the value that Initiating Participants provide to the 
market. Initiating Participants 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 Participants, 
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 Initiating Participants that 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

[[Page 34469]]

Participants 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, including CBOE.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See, e.g., BOX Rule 7150(h); NYSE MKT Rule 
9.71.1NY(c)(5)(B). See also Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 
74864 (May 4, 2015), 80 FR 26601 (May 8, 2015) (Notice of Filing and 
Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to 
Automated Improvement Mechanism Order Allocation) (SR-CBOE-2015-
043); CBOE Rule 6.74A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to add text to Rules 6.51(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 Participant 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 
Participant) 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 Participant at the single-price 
submission price for single-price submissions or, for auto-match 
submissions, to the Initiating Participant at the auction start price 
as specified under Rule 6.51(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 Participant in excess of the 
up to 40% (50% if there is only one other Market-Marker or 
Participant representing an Agency Order) of the order that the 
Initiating Participant may receive under the Exchange's existing 
Rules pursuant to the provision that the Initiating Participant will 
be allocated the greater of one contract or up to 40% (50% if there 
is only one other Market-Marker or Participant 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 Participant submits a matched Agency Order to sell 5 
contracts at $1.10. The Auction begins and, during the auction, one 
competing Participant (``P1'') submits an Auction response to buy 5 
contracts at $1.10, followed by another Participant (``P2'') submitting 
an Auction response to buy 5 contracts at $1.10. The Auction concludes. 
In this case, under proposed Rule 6.51(b)(3)(F), the Initiating 
Participant would receive an allocation up to 40%, or, in this case, 2 
contracts at $1.10. P1 and P2 would then receive 1 contract each at 
$1.10 according to the pro rata allocation algorithm in place for the 
class with P1, as the first responder, receiving the final 1 contract 
at the final auction price of $1.10.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Rules 6.12(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
Participant submits a matched Agency Order to sell 5 contracts at 
$1.10. The Auction begins and, during the auction, one competing 
Participant (``P1'') submits an Auction response to buy 1 contract at 
$1.10, followed by another Participant (``P2'') submitting an Auction 
response to buy 1 contract at $1.10. The Auction concludes. In this 
case, under proposed Rule 6.51(b)(3)(F), the Initiating Participant 
would receive an allocation up to 40%, or, in this case, 2 contracts at 
$1.10. P1 and P2 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 
6.51(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 Participant at the single-price 
submission price. In this case, the final 1 contract would be allocated 
to the Initiating Participant at $1.10.
    Remaining odd-lots for auto-match submissions would be similarly 
allocated under proposed Rule 6.51(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 Participant at the 
auction start price as specified under Rule 6.51(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 Participant 
submits an auto-matched Agency Order to sell 5 contracts. In this case, 
because no Auction stop price is specified, the Auction would begin at 
the NBBO, or $1.20.\12\ Assume that the Auction begins and, during the 
auction, one competing Participant (``P1'') submits an Auction response 
to buy 1 contracts at $1.18, followed by another Participant (``P2'') 
submitting an Auction response to buy 1 contract at $1.17. The Auction 
concludes. In this case, P2 and the Initiating Participant would each 
receive 1 contract at $1.17 and P1 and the Initiating Participant 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 Participant at the Auction start 
price or, in this case, 1 contract at $1.20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Rule 6.51(b)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the proposed amendments are based on, and 
consistent with, the rules of other competitor exchanges as well as a 
recent filing of CBOE.\13\ The Exchange believes that the value added 
from Initiating Participants guaranteeing execution of Agency Orders at 
a price equal to or better than the NBBO warrants (to the extent that 
the Initiating Participants 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 
Participants 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). See also Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 
74864 (May 4, 2015), 80 FR 26601 (May 8, 2015) (Notice of Filing and 
Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to 
Automated Improvement Mechanism Order Allocation) (SR-CBOE-2015-
043); CBOE Rule 6.74A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange is proposing to add additional 
clarifying language to Rule 6.51. Specifically, the Exchange proposes 
correct a typographical error in the second sentence of Rule 
6.51(b)(3)(F), deleting the term ``Market-Maker'' and replacing it with 
the term ``competing Participant'' to make clear that all Participants 
that subscribe to receive auction messages on the Exchange 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 rule text of Rule 
6.51(b)(1)(D), which provides that ``[r]esponses to RFRs may be 
submitted by Participants.'' The Exchange also proposes to add a comma 
after the word submission in the second sentence of Rule 6.51(b)(3)(F) 
for

[[Page 34470]]

grammatical purposes. The Exchange strives for transparency in its 
Rules and believes these non-substantive changes will provide greater 
clarity for market participants. The Exchange believes that these 
changes are non-controversial as they simply clarify the Exchange's 
already existing AIM rules.
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.\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 changes 
protect investors by fairly distributing the allocation of the AIM 
order between the Initiating Participant and Participants that respond 
to price improvement auctions, and clarifying the Rules with respect to 
the distribution of AIM orders when only there are only two 
counterparties to an 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 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 Participants 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 to Rule 6.51, 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 
Participant 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 Participants 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 Participants 
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:
    (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public 
interest;
    (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and
    (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was 
filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has 
become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \18\ and 
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \19\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6) 
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission 
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at 
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed 
rule change, or such short time as designated by the Commission. The 
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule 
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule 
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or 
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or 
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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-C2-2015-013 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-C2-2015-013. This file 
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help 
the

[[Page 34471]]

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-C2-2015-013 and should be 
submitted on or before July 7, 2015.

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

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

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-14672 Filed 6-15-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


