80 FR 26306 - Self-Regulatory Organizations: Miami International Securities Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fee Schedule
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 88 (May 7, 2015)
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 88 (May 7, 2015)
| Page Range | 26306-26310 | |
| FR Document | 2015-10957 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 88 (Thursday, May 7, 2015)] [Notices] [Pages 26306-26310] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-10957] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-74857; File No. SR-MIAX-2015-32] Self-Regulatory Organizations: Miami International Securities Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fee Schedule May 1, 2015. Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that on April 28, 2015, Miami International Securities Exchange LLC (``MIAX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Options Fee Schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at http://www.miaxoptions.com/filter/wotitle/rule_filing, at MIAX's principal office, 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 Fee Schedule to establish monthly fees for Internal Distributors and External Distributors of MIAX Order Feed [[Page 26307]] (``MOR'') data product. The proposed fees are similar to those of another options exchange.\3\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ See NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC Pricing Schedule, section IX. The Exchange notes that while the proposed fees for Distributors is similar to the distributor fees for PHLX Orders; the Exchange does not at this time propose to establish the additional $1 per month for Non-Professional Subscribers and the $40 per month for Professional Subscribers that PHLX charges for PHLX Orders. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- MOR provides real-time information to enable users to keep track of the simple order book for all symbols listed on MIAX.\4\ MOR provides real-time data including the limit price, origin, and size of each order for the entire order book to its users. It is a compilation of data for orders residing on the Exchange's order book for options traded on the Exchange that the Exchange provides through a real-time data feed. The Exchange updates the information upon receipt of each order or change in status to any order resting on the book (e.g., routing, trading, or cancelling of the order). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74759 (April 17, 2015), 80 FR 22749 (April 23, 2015) (SR-MIAX-2015-28). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Exchange proposes to establish monthly fees to Distributors of the MOR market data product that receive a feed of data either directly from MIAX or indirectly through another entity and then distributes it either internally (within that entity) or externally (outside that entity). The monthly Distributor Fee charged depends on whether the Distributor is an ``Internal Distributor'' \5\ or an ``External Distributor''.\6\ The Exchange notes that all Distributors are required to execute a MIAX Distributor Agreement. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to assess Internal Distributors of MOR $3,000 per month and External Distributors of MOR from $3,500 per month. Market Data Fees for MOR will be reduced for new Distributors for the first month during which they subscribe to MOR, based on the number of trading days that have been held during the month prior to the date on which they subscribe. Such new Distributors will be assessed a pro-rata percentage of the fees described above, which is the percentage of the number of trading days remaining in the affected calendar month as of the date on which they begin to receive the MOR feed, divided by the total number of trading days in the affected calendar month. The proposed fees for the MOR data feed are in the range of similar fees found on another exchange.\7\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ An Internal Distributor is an organization that subscribes to the Exchange for the use of MOR, and is permitted by agreement with the Exchange to provide MOR data to internal users (i.e., users within their own organization). \6\ An External Distributor is an organization that subscribes to the Exchange for the use of MOR, and is permitted by agreement with the Exchange to provide MOR data to both internal users and to external users (i.e., users outside of their own organization). \7\ See NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC Pricing Schedule, Section IX. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In addition, the Exchange notes that it is making non-substantive technical changes to the Fee Schedule to consolidate the market data fees in one section and to make corresponding changes to the outline numbering. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its fee schedule is consistent with section 6(b) of the Act \8\ in general, and furthers the objectives of section 6(b)(4) of the Act \9\ in particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees and other charges among Exchange members. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Exchange believes the proposed fees are a reasonable allocation of its costs and expenses among its Members and other persons using its facilities since it is recovering not only the costs of the data distribution infrastructure, but also the costs of designing, maintaining, and operating the exchange's transaction execution platform and the cost of regulating the exchange to ensure its fair operation and maintain investor confidence. Access to the Exchange is provided on fair and non-discriminatory terms. The proposed fees for MOR are reasonable since they are in the range of similar fees charged by another exchange.\10\ The Exchange believes the proposed fees are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the fee level results in a reasonable and equitable allocation of fees amongst External Distributors and Internal Distributors for similar services. Moreover, the decision as to whether or not to subscribe to MOR is entirely optional to all parties. Potential subscribers are not required to purchase the MOR market data feed, and the Exchange is not required to make the MOR market data feeds available. Subscribers can discontinue their use at any time and for any reason, including due to their assessment of the reasonableness of fees charged. The allocation of fees among subscribers is fair and reasonable because, if the market deems the proposed fees to be unfair or inequitable, firms can diminish or discontinue their use of this data. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\ See supra note 3. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted self-regulatory organizations and broker-dealers increased authority and flexibility to offer new and unique market data to the public. It was believed that this authority would expand the amount of data available to consumers, and also spur innovation and competition for the provision of market data: [E]fficiency is promoted when broker-dealers who do not need the data beyond the prices, sizes, market center identifications of the NBBO and consolidated last sale information are not required to receive (and pay for) such data [sic] when broker-dealers may choose to receive (and pay for) additional market data based on their own internal analysis of the need for such data.\11\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \11\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005). By removing ``unnecessary regulatory restrictions'' on the ability of exchanges to sell their own data, Regulation NMS advanced the goals of the Act and the principles reflected in its legislative history. If the free market should determine whether proprietary data is sold to broker-dealers at all, it follows that the price at which such data is sold should be set by the market as well. In July, 2010, Congress adopted H.R. 4173, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (``Dodd-Frank Act''), which amended section 19 of the Act. Among other things, section 916 of the Dodd-Frank Act amended paragraph (A) of section 19(b)(3) of the Act by inserting the phrase ``on any person, whether or not the person is a member of the self-regulatory organization'' after ``due, fee or other charge imposed by the self-regulatory organization.'' As a result, all SRO rule proposals establishing or changing dues, fees or other charges are immediately effective upon filing regardless of whether such dues, fees or other charges are imposed on members of the SRO, non-members, or both. Section 916 further amended paragraph (C) of section 19(b)(3) of the Act to read, in pertinent part, ``At any time within the 60-day period beginning on the date of filing of such a proposed rule change in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (1) [of Section 19(b)], the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the change in the rules of the self-regulatory organization made thereby, 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 this title. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under paragraph (2)(B) [of Section 19(b)] to determine [[Page 26308]] whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.'' The Exchange believes that these amendments to section 19 of the Act reflect Congress's intent to allow the Commission to rely upon the forces of competition to ensure that fees for market data are reasonable and equitably allocated. Although section 19(b) had formerly authorized immediate effectiveness for a ``due, fee or other charge imposed by the self-regulatory organization,'' the Commission adopted a policy and subsequently a rule stating that fees for data and other products available to persons that are not members of the self- regulatory organization must be approved by the Commission after first being published for comment. At the time, the Commission supported the adoption of the policy and the rule by pointing out that unlike members, whose representation in self-regulatory organization governance was mandated by the Act, non-members should be given the opportunity to comment on fees before being required to pay them, and that the Commission should specifically approve all such fees. The Exchange believes that the amendment to section 19 reflects Congress's conclusion that the evolution of self-regulatory organization governance and competitive market structure have rendered the Commission's prior policy on non-member fees obsolete. Specifically, many exchanges have evolved from member-owned, not-for-profit corporations into for-profit, investor-owned corporations (or subsidiaries of investor-owned corporations). Accordingly, exchanges no longer have narrow incentives to manage their affairs for the exclusive benefit of their members, but rather have incentives to maximize the appeal of their products to all customers, whether members or non- members, so as to broaden distribution and grow revenues. Moreover, the Exchange believes that the change also reflects an endorsement of the Commission's determinations that reliance on competitive markets is an appropriate means to ensure equitable and reasonable prices. Simply put, the change reflects a presumption that all fee changes should be permitted to take effect immediately, since the level of all fees are constrained by competitive forces. The Exchange therefore believes that the fees for MOR are properly assessed on non-member Distributors. The decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in NetCoalition v. SEC, No. 09-1042 (D.C. Cir. 2010), although reviewing a Commission decision made prior to the effective date of the Dodd-Frank Act, upheld the Commission's reliance upon competitive markets to set reasonable and equitably allocated fees for market data: In fact, the legislative history indicates that the Congress intended that the market system `evolve through the interplay of competitive forces as unnecessary regulatory restrictions are removed' and that the SEC wield its regulatory power `in those situations where competition may not be sufficient,' such as in the creation of a `consolidated transactional reporting system.' \12\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \12\ NetCoalition, at 15 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 94-229, at 92 (1975), as reprinted in 1975 U.S.C.C.A.N. 321, 323). The court's conclusions about Congressional intent are therefore reinforced by the Dodd-Frank Act amendments, which create a presumption that exchange fees, including market data fees, may take effect immediately, without prior Commission approval, and that the Commission should take action to suspend a fee change and institute a proceeding to determine whether the fee change should be approved or disapproved only where the Commission has concerns that the change may not be consistent with the Act. B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Notwithstanding its determination that the Commission may rely upon competition to establish fair and equitably allocated fees for market data, the NetCoalition Court found that the Commission had not, in that case, compiled a record that adequately supported its conclusion that the market for the data at issue in the case was competitive. The Exchange believes that a record may readily be established to demonstrate the competitive nature of the market in question. There is intense competition between trading platforms that provide transaction execution and routing services and proprietary data products. Transaction execution and proprietary data products are complementary in that market data is both an input and a byproduct of the execution service. In fact, market data and trade execution are a representative example of joint products with joint costs. The decision whether and on which platform to post an order will depend on the attributes of the platform where the order can be posted, including the execution fees, data quality and price and distribution of its data products. Without the prospect of a taking order seeing and reacting to a posted order on a particular platform, the posting of the order would accomplish little. Without trade executions, exchange data products cannot exist. Data products are valuable to many end subscribers only insofar as they provide information that end subscribers expect will assist them or their customers in making trading decisions. The costs of producing market data include not only the costs of the data distribution infrastructure, but also the costs of designing, maintaining, and operating the exchange's transaction execution platform and the cost of regulating the exchange to ensure its fair operation and maintain investor confidence. The total return that a trading platform earns reflects the revenues it receives from both products and the joint costs it incurs. Moreover, an exchange's customers view the costs of transaction executions and of data as a unified cost of doing business with the exchange. A broker-dealer will direct orders to a particular exchange only if the expected revenues from executing trades on the exchange exceed net transaction execution costs and the cost of data that the broker-dealer chooses to buy to support its trading decisions (or those of its customers). The choice of data products is, in turn, a product of the value of the products in making profitable trading decisions. If the cost of the product exceeds its expected value, the broker-dealer will choose not to buy it. Moreover, as a broker-dealer chooses to direct fewer orders to a particular exchange, the value of the product to the broker-dealer decreases, for two reasons. First, the product will contain less information, because executions of the broker-dealer's orders will not be reflected in it. Second, and perhaps more important, the product will be less valuable to that broker-dealer because it does not provide information about the venue to which it is directing its orders. Data from the competing venue to which the broker-dealer is directing orders will become correspondingly more valuable. Thus, a super-competitive increase in the fees charged for either transactions or data has the potential to impair revenues from both products. ``No one disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce'.'' \13\ However, the existence of fierce competition for order flow [[Page 26309]] implies a high degree of price sensitivity on the part of broker- dealers with order flow, since they may readily reduce costs by directing orders toward the lowest-cost trading venues. A broker-dealer that shifted its order flow from one platform to another in response to order execution price differentials would both reduce the value of that platform's market data and reduce its own need to consume data from the disfavored platform. Similarly, if a platform increases its market data fees, the change will affect the overall cost of doing business with the platform, and affected broker-dealers will assess whether they can lower their trading costs by directing orders elsewhere and thereby lessening the need for the more expensive data. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \13\ NetCoalition at 24. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Analyzing the cost of market data distribution in isolation from the cost of all of the inputs supporting the creation of market data will inevitably underestimate the cost of the data. Thus, because it is impossible to create data without a fast, technologically robust, and well-regulated execution system, system costs and regulatory costs affect the price of market data. It would be equally misleading, however, to attribute all of the exchange's costs to the market data portion of an exchange's joint product. Rather, all of the exchange's costs are incurred for the unified purposes of attracting order flow, executing and/or routing orders, and generating and selling data about market activity. The total return that an exchange earns reflects the revenues it receives from the joint products and the total costs of the joint products. Competition among trading platforms can be expected to constrain the aggregate return each platform earns from the sale of its joint products, but different platforms may choose from a range of possible, and equally reasonable, pricing strategies as the means of recovering total costs. For example, some platforms may choose to pay rebates to attract orders, charge relatively low prices for market information (or provide information free of charge) and charge relatively high prices for accessing posted liquidity. Other platforms may choose a strategy of paying lower rebates (or no rebates) to attract orders, setting relatively high prices for market information, and setting relatively low prices for accessing posted liquidity. In this environment, there is no economic basis for regulating maximum prices for one of the joint products in an industry in which suppliers face competitive constraints with regard to the joint offering. This would be akin to strictly regulating the price that an automobile manufacturer can charge for car sound systems despite the existence of a highly competitive market for cars and the availability of aftermarket alternatives to the manufacturer-supplied system. The market for market data products is competitive and inherently contestable because there is fierce competition for the inputs necessary to the creation of proprietary data and strict pricing discipline for the proprietary products themselves. Numerous exchanges compete with each other for listings, trades, and market data itself, providing virtually limitless opportunities for entrepreneurs who wish to produce and distribute their own market data. This proprietary data is produced by each individual exchange, as well as other entities, in a vigorously competitive market. Broker-dealers currently have numerous alternative venues for their order flow, including eleven existing options markets. Each SRO market competes to produce transaction reports via trade executions. Competitive markets for order flow, executions, and transaction reports provide pricing discipline for the inputs of proprietary data products. The large number of SROs that currently produce proprietary data or are currently capable of producing it provides further pricing discipline for proprietary data products. Each SRO is currently permitted to produce proprietary data products, and many in addition to MIAX currently do, including NASDAQ, CBOE, ISE, NYSE Amex, and NYSEArca. Additionally, order routers and market data vendors can facilitate single or multiple broker-dealers' production of proprietary data products. The potential sources of proprietary products are virtually limitless. Market data vendors provide another form of price discipline for proprietary data products because they control the primary means of access to end subscribers. Vendors impose price restraints based upon their business models. For example, vendors such as Bloomberg and Thomson Reuters that assess a surcharge on data they sell may refuse to offer proprietary products that end subscribers will not purchase in sufficient numbers. Internet portals, such as Google, impose a discipline by providing only data that will enable them to attract ``eyeballs'' that contribute to their advertising revenue. Retail broker-dealers, such as Schwab and Fidelity, offer their customers proprietary data only if it promotes trading and generates sufficient commission revenue. Although the business models may differ, these vendors' pricing discipline is the same: They can simply refuse to purchase any proprietary data product that fails to provide sufficient value. The Exchange and other producers of proprietary data products must understand and respond to these varying business models and pricing disciplines in order to market proprietary data products successfully. In addition to the competition and price discipline described above, the market for proprietary data products is also highly contestable because market entry is rapid, inexpensive, and profitable. The history of electronic trading is replete with examples of entrants that swiftly grew into some of the largest electronic trading platforms and proprietary data producers: Archipelago, BATS Trading and Direct Edge. Regulation NMS, by deregulating the market for proprietary data, has increased the contestability of that market. While broker-dealers have previously published their proprietary data individually, Regulation NMS encourages market data vendors and broker-dealers to produce proprietary products cooperatively in a manner never before possible. Multiple market data vendors already have the capability to aggregate data and disseminate it on a profitable scale, including Bloomberg, and Thomson Reuters. The Court in NetCoalition concluded that the Commission had failed to demonstrate that the market for market data was competitive based on the reasoning of the Commission's NetCoalition order because, in the Court's view, the Commission had not adequately demonstrated that the proprietary data at issue in the case is used to attract order flow. The Exchange believes, however, that evidence not then before the court clearly demonstrates that availability of data attracts order flow. Due to competition among platforms, the Exchange intends to improve its platform data offerings on a continuing basis, and to respond promptly to customers' data needs. The intensity of competition for proprietary information is significant and the Exchange believes that this proposal itself clearly evidences such competition. The Exchange is offering MOR in order to keep pace with changes in the industry and evolving customer needs. It is entirely optional and is geared towards attracting new Member Applicants and customers. MIAX competitors continue to create new market data products and innovative pricing in this space. The Exchange expects to see firms challenge its pricing on the basis of the Exchange's explicit fees being higher than the zero-priced fees from other competitors such as BATS. In all cases, the Exchange [[Page 26310]] expects firms to make decisions on how much and what types of data to consume on the basis of the total cost of interacting with MIAX or other exchanges. Of course, the explicit data fees are only one factor in a total platform analysis. Some competitors have lower transactions fees and higher data fees, and others are vice versa. The market for this proprietary information is highly competitive and continually evolves as products develop and change. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others Written comments were neither solicited nor received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\14\ 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 shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 CommentsUse the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or Send an email to [email protected]. Please include File Number SR-MIAX-2015-32 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-MIAX-2015-32. 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 such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal offices 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-MIAX-2015-32, and should be submitted on or before May 28, 2015. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.\15\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brent J. Fields, Secretary. [FR Doc. 2015-10957 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
![26306 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 88 / Thursday, May 7, 2015 / Notices
that is designed to provide objective change is consistent with the Act. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
criteria for MMs of different sizes and Comments may be submitted by any of COMMISSION
business models to be assessed a the following methods:
[Release No. 34–74857; File No. SR–MIAX–
Trading Permit Fee that best matches 2015–32]
their quoting activity on the Exchange Electronic Comments
yet still be in the range of comparable • Use the Commission’s Internet Self-Regulatory Organizations: Miami
fees on other exchanges. The Exchange comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ International Securities Exchange LLC;
believes that the proposal will increase rules/sro.shtml); or Notice of Filing and Immediate
competition amongst MMs of different Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule
sizes and business models by • Send an email to rule-comments@
Change To Amend Its Fee Schedule
encouraging MMs to be assigned and sec.gov. Please include File Number SR–
quote in option classes with lower total MIAX–2015–31 on the subject line. May 1, 2015.
national average daily volume. The Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the
Paper Comments Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Exchange notes that it operates in a
highly competitive market in which • Send paper comments in triplicate (‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2
market participants can readily favor to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities notice is hereby given that on April 28,
competing venues if they deem fee and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street 2015, Miami International Securities
levels at a particular venue to be NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090. Exchange LLC (‘‘MIAX’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’)
excessive. In such an environment, the filed with the Securities and Exchange
Exchange must continually adjust its All submissions should refer to File Commission (‘‘SEC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’)
fees to remain competitive with other Number SR–MIAX–2015–31. This file the proposed rule change as described
exchanges and to attract order flow to number should be included on the in Items I, II, and III below, which Items
the Exchange. The Exchange believes subject line if email is used. To help the have been prepared by the Exchange.
that the proposal reflects this Commission process and review your The Commission is publishing this
competitive environment because it comments more efficiently, please use notice to solicit comments on the
modify the Exchange’s fees in a manner only one method. The Commission will proposed rule change from interested
that continues to encourage market post all comments on the Commission’s persons.
participants to register as Market Makers Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
on the Exchange, to provide liquidity, rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the Statement of the Terms of Substance of
and to attract order flow. To the extent submission, all subsequent the Proposed Rule Change
that this purpose is achieved, all the amendments, all written statements
The Exchange is filing a proposal to
Exchange’s market participants should with respect to the proposed rule
amend the MIAX Options Fee Schedule.
benefit from the improved market change that are filed with the The text of the proposed rule change
liquidity. Commission, and all written is available on the Exchange’s Web site
C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s communications relating to the at http://www.miaxoptions.com/filter/
Statement on Comments on the proposed rule change between the wotitle/rule_filing, at MIAX’s principal
Proposed Rule Change Received From Commission and any person, other than office, and at the Commission’s Public
Members, Participants, or Others those that may be withheld from the Reference Room.
public in accordance with the
Written comments were neither provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
solicited nor received. available for Web site viewing and Statement of the Purpose of, and
III. Date of Effectiveness of the printing in the Commission’s Public Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule
Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Change
Commission Action Washington, DC 20549, on official In its filing with the Commission, the
business days between the hours of Exchange included statements
The foregoing rule change has become
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the concerning the purpose of and basis for
effective pursuant to section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.11 At any time filing will also be available for the proposed rule change and discussed
within 60 days of the filing of the inspection and copying at the principal any comments it received on the
proposed rule change, the Commission office of the Exchange. All comments proposed rule change. The text of these
summarily may temporarily suspend received will be posted without change; statements may be examined at the
such rule change if it appears to the the Commission does not edit personal places specified in Item IV below. The
Commission that such action is identifying information from Exchange has prepared summaries, set
necessary or appropriate in the public submissions. You should submit only forth in sections A, B, and C below, of
interest, for the protection of investors, information that you wish to make the most significant aspects of such
or otherwise in furtherance of the available publicly. All submissions statements.
purposes of the Act. If the Commission should refer to File Number SR–MIAX–
A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
takes such action, the Commission shall 2015–31 and should be submitted on or Statement of the Purpose of, and
institute proceedings to determine before May 28, 2015. Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule
whether the proposed rule should be For the Commission, by the Division of Change
approved or disapproved. Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated
1. Purpose
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
authority.12
IV. Solicitation of Comments The Exchange proposes to amend its
Brent J. Fields,
Interested persons are invited to Fee Schedule to establish monthly fees
Secretary.
submit written data, views, and for Internal Distributors and External
arguments concerning the foregoing, [FR Doc. 2015–10952 Filed 5–6–15; 8:45 am]
Distributors of MIAX Order Feed
including whether the proposed rule BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
11 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 12 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:07 May 06, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07MYN1.SGM 07MYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_26394/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 88 / Thursday, May 7, 2015 / Notices 26307
(‘‘MOR’’) data product. The proposed by the total number of trading days in organizations and broker-dealers
fees are similar to those of another the affected calendar month. The increased authority and flexibility to
options exchange.3 proposed fees for the MOR data feed are offer new and unique market data to the
MOR provides real-time information in the range of similar fees found on public. It was believed that this
to enable users to keep track of the another exchange.7 authority would expand the amount of
simple order book for all symbols listed In addition, the Exchange notes that it data available to consumers, and also
on MIAX.4 MOR provides real-time data is making non-substantive technical spur innovation and competition for the
including the limit price, origin, and changes to the Fee Schedule to provision of market data:
size of each order for the entire order consolidate the market data fees in one [E]fficiency is promoted when broker-
book to its users. It is a compilation of section and to make corresponding dealers who do not need the data beyond the
data for orders residing on the changes to the outline numbering. prices, sizes, market center identifications of
Exchange’s order book for options the NBBO and consolidated last sale
traded on the Exchange that the 2. Statutory Basis information are not required to receive (and
Exchange provides through a real-time The Exchange believes that its pay for) such data [sic] when broker-dealers
data feed. The Exchange updates the proposal to amend its fee schedule is may choose to receive (and pay for)
information upon receipt of each order consistent with section 6(b) of the Act 8 additional market data based on their own
or change in status to any order resting in general, and furthers the objectives of internal analysis of the need for such data.11
on the book (e.g., routing, trading, or section 6(b)(4) of the Act 9 in particular, By removing ‘‘unnecessary regulatory
cancelling of the order). in that it is an equitable allocation of restrictions’’ on the ability of exchanges
The Exchange proposes to establish reasonable fees and other charges among to sell their own data, Regulation NMS
monthly fees to Distributors of the MOR Exchange members. advanced the goals of the Act and the
market data product that receive a feed The Exchange believes the proposed principles reflected in its legislative
of data either directly from MIAX or fees are a reasonable allocation of its history. If the free market should
indirectly through another entity and costs and expenses among its Members determine whether proprietary data is
then distributes it either internally and other persons using its facilities sold to broker-dealers at all, it follows
(within that entity) or externally since it is recovering not only the costs that the price at which such data is sold
(outside that entity). The monthly of the data distribution infrastructure, should be set by the market as well.
Distributor Fee charged depends on but also the costs of designing,
whether the Distributor is an ‘‘Internal In July, 2010, Congress adopted H.R.
maintaining, and operating the
Distributor’’ 5 or an ‘‘External 4173, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street
exchange’s transaction execution
Distributor’’.6 The Exchange notes that Reform and Consumer Protection Act of
platform and the cost of regulating the
all Distributors are required to execute 2010 (‘‘Dodd-Frank Act’’), which
exchange to ensure its fair operation and
a MIAX Distributor Agreement. amended section 19 of the Act. Among
maintain investor confidence. Access to
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to other things, section 916 of the Dodd-
the Exchange is provided on fair and
assess Internal Distributors of MOR Frank Act amended paragraph (A) of
non-discriminatory terms. The proposed
$3,000 per month and External section 19(b)(3) of the Act by inserting
fees for MOR are reasonable since they
Distributors of MOR from $3,500 per the phrase ‘‘on any person, whether or
are in the range of similar fees charged
month. Market Data Fees for MOR will not the person is a member of the self-
by another exchange.10 The Exchange
be reduced for new Distributors for the regulatory organization’’ after ‘‘due, fee
believes the proposed fees are equitable
first month during which they subscribe or other charge imposed by the self-
and not unfairly discriminatory because
to MOR, based on the number of trading regulatory organization.’’ As a result, all
the fee level results in a reasonable and
days that have been held during the SRO rule proposals establishing or
equitable allocation of fees amongst
month prior to the date on which they changing dues, fees or other charges are
External Distributors and Internal
subscribe. Such new Distributors will be immediately effective upon filing
Distributors for similar services.
assessed a pro-rata percentage of the regardless of whether such dues, fees or
Moreover, the decision as to whether or
fees described above, which is the other charges are imposed on members
not to subscribe to MOR is entirely
percentage of the number of trading of the SRO, non-members, or both.
optional to all parties. Potential
days remaining in the affected calendar Section 916 further amended paragraph
subscribers are not required to purchase
month as of the date on which they (C) of section 19(b)(3) of the Act to read,
the MOR market data feed, and the
begin to receive the MOR feed, divided in pertinent part, ‘‘At any time within
Exchange is not required to make the
the 60-day period beginning on the date
MOR market data feeds available.
3 See NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC Pricing of filing of such a proposed rule change
Schedule, section IX. The Exchange notes that Subscribers can discontinue their use at
in accordance with the provisions of
while the proposed fees for Distributors is similar any time and for any reason, including
paragraph (1) [of Section 19(b)], the
to the distributor fees for PHLX Orders; the due to their assessment of the
Exchange does not at this time propose to establish Commission summarily may
reasonableness of fees charged. The
the additional $1 per month for Non-Professional temporarily suspend the change in the
Subscribers and the $40 per month for Professional allocation of fees among subscribers is
rules of the self-regulatory organization
Subscribers that PHLX charges for PHLX Orders. fair and reasonable because, if the
made thereby, if it appears to the
4 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74759
market deems the proposed fees to be
(April 17, 2015), 80 FR 22749 (April 23, 2015) (SR– Commission that such action is
unfair or inequitable, firms can
MIAX–2015–28). necessary or appropriate in the public
diminish or discontinue their use of this
5 An Internal Distributor is an organization that
interest, for the protection of investors,
subscribes to the Exchange for the use of MOR, and data.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
or otherwise in furtherance of the
is permitted by agreement with the Exchange to In adopting Regulation NMS, the
provide MOR data to internal users (i.e., users purposes of this title. If the Commission
Commission granted self-regulatory
within their own organization). takes such action, the Commission shall
6 An External Distributor is an organization that
7 See NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC Pricing institute proceedings under paragraph
subscribes to the Exchange for the use of MOR, and (2)(B) [of Section 19(b)] to determine
is permitted by agreement with the Exchange to Schedule, Section IX.
8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
provide MOR data to both internal users and to
9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). 11 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808
external users (i.e., users outside of their own
organization). 10 See supra note 3. (June 9, 2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:07 May 06, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07MYN1.SGM 07MYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_26394/page/2.svg)
![26310 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 88 / Thursday, May 7, 2015 / Notices
expects firms to make decisions on how Commission process and review your 2015, the Municipal Securities
much and what types of data to comments more efficiently, please use Rulemaking Board (the ‘‘MSRB’’ or
consume on the basis of the total cost of only one method. The Commission will ‘‘Board’’) filed with the Securities and
interacting with MIAX or other post all comments on the Commission’s Exchange Commission (the ‘‘SEC’’ or
exchanges. Of course, the explicit data Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ ‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule
fees are only one factor in a total rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the change as described in Items I and II
platform analysis. Some competitors submission, all subsequent below, which Items have been prepared
have lower transactions fees and higher amendments, all written statements by the MSRB. The Commission is
data fees, and others are vice versa. The with respect to the proposed rule publishing this notice to solicit
market for this proprietary information change that are filed with the
comments on the proposed rule change
is highly competitive and continually Commission, and all written
from interested persons.
evolves as products develop and communications relating to the
change. proposed rule change between the I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Commission and any person, other than Statement of the Terms of Substance of
C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s those that may be withheld from the
Statement on Comments on the the Proposed Rule Change
public in accordance with the
Proposed Rule Change Received From provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be The MSRB filed with the Commission
Members, Participants, or Others available for Web site viewing and the specifications for the selection of
Written comments were neither printing in the Commission’s Public examination questions (‘‘selection
solicited nor received. Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., specifications’’) and content outline for
Washington, DC 20549 on official the Municipal Advisor Representative
III. Date of Effectiveness of the
business days between the hours of Qualification Examination (‘‘Series 50
Proposed Rule Change and Timing for 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such
Commission Action examination’’) (the ‘‘proposed rule
filing also will be available for change’’).3 The MSRB is not proposing
The foregoing rule change has become inspection and copying at the principal in this filing any textual changes to its
effective pursuant to section offices of the Exchange. All comments rules.
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.14 At any time received will be posted without change;
within 60 days of the filing of the the Commission does not edit personal The text of the proposed rule change
proposed rule change, the Commission identifying information from is available on the MSRB’s Web site at
summarily may temporarily suspend submissions. You should submit only www.msrb.org/Rules-and-
such rule change if it appears to the information that you wish to make Interpretations/SEC-Filings/2015-
Commission that such action is available publicly. All submissions Filings.aspx, at the MSRB’s principal
necessary or appropriate in the public should refer to File Number SR–MIAX– office, and at the Commission’s Public
interest, for the protection of investors, 2015–32, and should be submitted on or Reference Room.
or otherwise in furtherance of the before May 28, 2015.
purposes of the Act. If the Commission II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
For the Commission, by the Division of Statement of the Purpose of, and
takes such action, the Commission shall Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated
institute proceedings to determine authority.15 Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule
whether the proposed rule should be Brent J. Fields, Change
approved or disapproved. Secretary. In its filing with the Commission, the
IV. Solicitation of Comments [FR Doc. 2015–10957 Filed 5–6–15; 8:45 am] MSRB included statements concerning
Interested persons are invited to BILLING CODE 8011–01–P the purpose of and basis for the
submit written data, views, and proposed rule change and discussed any
arguments concerning the foregoing, comments it received on the proposed
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
including whether the proposed rule rule change. The text of these statements
COMMISSION
change is consistent with the Act. may be examined at the places specified
Comments may be submitted by any of [Release No. 34–74858; File No. SR–MSRB– in Item IV below. The MSRB has
the following methods: 2015–04] prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most
Electronic Comments Self-Regulatory Organizations;
Municipal Securities Rulemaking significant aspects of such statements.
• Use the Commission’s Internet
comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ Board; Notice of Filing and Immediate
rules/sro.shtml); or Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule
• Send an email to rule-comments@ Change Consisting of the
sec.gov. Please include File Number SR– Specifications for the Selection of 3 The MSRB is also proposing the question bank
MIAX–2015–32 on the subject line. Examination Questions and Content for the Series 50, but based upon instructions from
Outline for the Municipal Advisor the Commission staff, the MSRB is submitting SR–
Paper Comments Representative Qualification MSRB–2015–04 for immediate effectiveness
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act and
• Send paper comments in triplicate Examination
Rule 19b–4(f)(6) thereunder, and is not filing the
to Secretary, Securities and Exchange May 1, 2015. question bank for Commission review. See letter to
Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Diane G. Klinke, General Counsel, MSRB, from
Washington, DC 20549–1090. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Belinda Blaine, Associate Director, Division of
All submissions should refer to File Market Regulation, SEC, dated July 24, 2000,
‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2 attached as Exhibit 3b. The question bank is
Number SR–MIAX–2015–32. This file notice is hereby given that on April 22, available for Commission review. The selection
number should be included on the specifications for the Series 50 examination, Exhibit
subject line if email is used. To help the 15 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 3c, have been omitted and filed separately with the
1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). Commission for confidential treatment pursuant to
14 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. Rule 24b–2 of the Securities Exchange Act.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:07 May 06, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07MYN1.SGM 07MYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_26394/page/5.svg)
Document Created: 2015-12-16 07:50:43
Document Modified: 2015-12-16 07:50:43
| 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 26306 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR