82 FR 27096 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX PEARL, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the MIAX PEARL Fee Schedule To Establish an Options Regulatory Fee (“ORF”)

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 112 (June 13, 2017)

Page Range		27096-27099
FR Document		2017-12153
Federal Register, Volume 82 Issue 112 (Tuesday, June 13, 2017)
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 112 (Tuesday, June 13, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27096-27099]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12153]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80875; File No. SR-PEARL-2017-26]


Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX PEARL, LLC; Notice of Filing 
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the MIAX 
PEARL Fee Schedule To Establish an Options Regulatory Fee (``ORF'')

June 7, 2017.
    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 May 26, 2017, MIAX PEARL, LLC (``MIAX PEARL'' or ``Exchange'') filed 
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a 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 PEARL Fee 
Schedule (the ``Fee Schedule'') by establishing an Options Regulatory 
Fee (``ORF'').
    The Exchange initially filed the proposal on February 3, 2017 (SR-
PEARL-2017-09).\3\ That initial filing was withdrawn and replaced with 
a second filing on March 30, 2017 (SR-PEARL-2017-15).\4\ That second 
filing was withdrawn and replaced with a third filing on May 26, 2017 
(SR-PEARL-2017-26).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80035 (February 14, 
2017), 82 FR 11272 (February 21, 2017)(SR-PEARL-2017-09).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80423 (April 10, 
2017), 82 FR 18045 (April 14, 2017)(SR-PEARL-2017-15). The 
replacement filings did not increase or decrease the amount of the 
ORF, but rather clarified the application of the ORF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's 
Web site at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings/pearl, 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 the 
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    Currently, the Exchange charges an ORF in the amount of $0.0010 per 
contract side. The proposed rule change does not change the amount of 
the ORF, but instead modifies the rule text to clarify how the ORF is 
assessed and collected. The per-contract ORF will continue to be 
assessed by MIAX PEARL to each MIAX PEARL Member for all options 
transactions, including Mini Options, cleared or ultimately cleared by 
the Member which are cleared by the Options Clearing Corporation 
(``OCC'') in the ``customer'' range, regardless of the exchange on 
which the transaction occurs. The ORF will be collected by OCC on 
behalf of MIAX PEARL from either (1) a Member that was the ultimate 
clearing firm for the transaction or (2) a non-Member that was the 
ultimate clearing firm where a Member was the executing clearing firm 
for the transaction. The Exchange uses reports from OCC to determine 
the identity of the executing clearing firm and ultimate clearing firm.
    To illustrate how the ORF is assessed and collected, the Exchange 
provides the following set of examples. If the transaction is executed 
on the Exchange and the ORF is assessed, if there is no change to the 
clearing account of the original transaction, then the ORF is collected 
from the Member that is the executing clearing firm for the 
transaction. (The Exchange notes that, for purposes of the Fee 
Schedule, when there is no change to the clearing account of the 
original transaction, the executing clearing firm is deemed to be the 
ultimate clearing firm.) If there is a change to the clearing account 
of the original transaction (i.e., the executing clearing firm ``gives-
up'' or ``CMTAs'' the transaction to another clearing firm), then the 
ORF is collected from the

[[Page 27097]]

clearing firm that ultimately clears the transaction--the ultimate 
clearing firm. The ultimate clearing firm may be either a Member or 
non-Member of the Exchange. If the transaction is executed on an away 
exchange and the ORF is assessed, then the ORF is collected from the 
ultimate clearing firm for the transaction. Again, the ultimate 
clearing firm may be either a Member or non-Member of the Exchange. The 
Exchange notes, however, that when the transaction is executed on an 
away exchange, the Exchange does not assess the ORF when neither the 
executing clearing firm nor the ultimate clearing firm is a Member 
(even if a Member is ``given-up'' or ``CMTAed'' and then such Member 
subsequently ``gives-up'' or ``CMTAs'' the transaction to another non-
Member via a CMTA reversal). Finally, the Exchange will not assess the 
ORF on outbound linkage trades, whether executed at the Exchange or an 
away exchange. ``Linkage trades'' are tagged in the Exchange's system, 
so the Exchange can readily tell them apart from other trades. A 
customer order routed to another exchange results in two customer 
trades, one from the originating exchange and one from the recipient 
exchange. Charging ORF on both trades could result in double-billing of 
ORF for a single customer order, thus the Exchange will not assess ORF 
on outbound linkage trades in a linkage scenario. This assessment 
practice is identical to the assessment practice currently utilized by 
the Exchange's affiliate, Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC 
(``MIAX Options'').
    As a practical matter, when a transaction that is subject to the 
ORF is not executed on the Exchange, the Exchange lacks the information 
necessary to identify the order entering member for that transaction. 
There are countless order entering market participants, and each day 
such participants can and often do drop their connection to one market 
center and establish themselves as participants on another. For these 
reasons, it is not possible for the Exchange to identify, and thus 
assess fees such as an ORF, on order entering participants on away 
markets on a given trading day.
    Clearing members, however, are distinguished from order entering 
participants because they remain identified to the Exchange on 
information the Exchange receives from OCC regardless of the identity 
of the order entering participant, their location, and the market 
center on which they execute transactions. Therefore, the Exchange 
believes it is more efficient for the operation of the Exchange and for 
the marketplace as a whole to collect the ORF from clearing members.
    As discussed below, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to 
charge the ORF only to transactions that clear as customer at the OCC. 
The Exchange believes that its broad regulatory responsibilities with 
respect to a Member's' activities supports applying the ORF to 
transactions cleared but not executed by a Member. The Exchange's 
regulatory responsibilities are the same regardless of whether a Member 
enters a transaction or clears a transaction executed on its behalf. 
The Exchange regularly reviews all such activities, including 
performing surveillance for position limit violations, manipulation, 
front-running, contrary exercise advice violations and insider trading. 
These activities span across multiple exchanges.
    The ORF is designed to recover a material portion of the costs to 
the Exchange of the supervision and regulation of Members' customer 
options business, including performing routine surveillances and 
investigations, as well as policy, rulemaking, interpretive and 
enforcement activities. The Exchange believes that revenue generated 
from the ORF, when combined with all of the Exchange's other regulatory 
fees and fines, will cover a material portion, but not all, of the 
Exchange's regulatory costs. The Exchange notes that its regulatory 
responsibilities with respect to Member compliance with options sales 
practice rules have been allocated to the Financial Industry Regulatory 
Authority (``FINRA'') under a 17d-2 Agreement. The ORF is not designed 
to cover the cost of options sales practice regulation.
    The Exchange will continue to monitor the amount of revenue 
collected from the ORF to ensure that it, in combination with its other 
regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed the Exchange's total 
regulatory costs. The Exchange expects to monitor MIAX PEARL regulatory 
costs and revenues at a minimum on a semi-annual basis. If the Exchange 
determines regulatory revenues exceed or are insufficient to cover a 
material portion of its regulatory costs, the Exchange will adjust the 
ORF by submitting a fee change filing to the Commission. Going forward, 
the Exchange will notify Members of adjustments to the ORF via 
regulatory circular at least 30 days prior to the effective date of the 
change.
    The Exchange believes it is reasonable and appropriate for the 
Exchange to charge the ORF for options transactions regardless of the 
exchange on which the transactions occur. The Exchange has a statutory 
obligation to enforce compliance by Members and their associated 
persons under the Act and the rules of the Exchange and to surveil for 
other manipulative conduct by market participants (including non-
Members) trading on the Exchange. The Exchange cannot effectively 
surveil for such conduct without looking at and evaluating activity 
across all options markets. Many of the Exchange's market surveillance 
programs require the Exchange to look at and evaluate activity across 
all options markets, such as surveillance for position limit 
violations, manipulation, front-running and contrary exercise advice 
violations/expiring exercise declarations. While much of this activity 
relates to the execution of orders, the ORF is assessed on and 
collected from clearing firms. The Exchange, because it lacks access to 
information on the identity of the entering firm for executions that 
occur on away markets, believes it is appropriate to assess the ORF on 
its Members' clearing activity, based on information the Exchange 
receives from OCC, including for away market activity. Among other 
reasons, doing so better and more accurately captures activity that 
occurs away from the Exchange over which the Exchange has a degree of 
regulatory responsibility. In so doing, the Exchange believes that 
assessing ORF on Member clearing firms equitably distributes the 
collection of ORF in a fair and reasonable manner. Also, the Exchange 
and the other options exchanges are required to populate a consolidated 
options audit trail (``COATS'') \5\ system in order to surveil a 
Member's activities across markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ COATS effectively enhances intermarket options surveillance 
by enabling the options exchanges to reconstruct the market promptly 
to effectively surveil certain rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to its own surveillance programs, the Exchange works 
with other SROs and exchanges on intermarket surveillance related 
issues. Through its participation in the Intermarket Surveillance Group 
(``ISG''),\6\ the Exchange shares information and coordinates inquiries 
and investigations with other exchanges designed to address potential 
intermarket manipulation and trading abuses. The Exchange's 
participation in ISG helps it to satisfy the requirement that it has 
coordinated surveillance with

[[Page 27098]]

markets on which security futures are traded and markets on which any 
security underlying security futures are traded to detect manipulation 
and insider trading.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ISG is an industry organization formed in 1983 to coordinate 
intermarket surveillance among the SROs by co-operatively sharing 
regulatory information pursuant to a written agreement between the 
parties. The goal of the ISG's information sharing is to coordinate 
regulatory efforts to address potential intermarket trading abuses 
and manipulations.
    \7\ See Section 6(h)(3)(I) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that charging the ORF across markets will 
avoid having Members direct their trades to other markets in order to 
avoid the fee and to thereby avoid paying for their fair share for 
regulation. If the ORF did not apply to activity across markets then a 
Member would send their orders to the least cost, least regulated 
exchange. Other exchanges do impose a similar fee on their member's 
activity, including the activity of those members on MIAX PEARL.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Similar regulatory fees have been instituted by PHLX (See 
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61133 (December 9, 2009), 74 FR 
66715 (December 16, 2009) (SR-Phlx-2009-100)); ISE (See Securities 
Exchange Act Release No. 61154 (December 11, 2009), 74 FR 67278 
(December 18, 2009) (SR-ISE-2009-105)); and ISE Gemini (See 
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70200 (August 14, 2013) 78 FR 
51242 (August 20, 2013) (SR-Topaz-2013-01)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that there is established precedent for an SRO 
charging a fee across markets, namely, FINRAs Trading Activity Fee \9\ 
and the NYSE Amex, NYSE Arca, CBOE, PHLX, ISE, ISE Gemini and BOX ORF. 
While the Exchange does not have all the same regulatory 
responsibilities as FINRA, the Exchange believes that, like other 
exchanges that have adopted an ORF, its broad regulatory 
responsibilities with respect to a Member's activities, irrespective of 
where their transactions take place, supports a regulatory fee 
applicable to transactions on other markets. Unlike FINRA's Trading 
Activity Fee, the ORF would apply only to a Member's customer options 
transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47946 (May 30, 
2003), 68 FR 34021 (June 6, 2003) (SR-NASD-2002-148).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange proposes to specify in the Fee Schedule 
that the Exchange may only increase or decrease the ORF semi-annually, 
and any such fee change will be effective on the first business day of 
February or August. In addition to submitting a proposed rule change to 
the Commission as required by the Act to increase or decrease the ORF, 
the Exchange will notify participants via a Regulatory Circular of any 
anticipated change in the amount of the fee at least 30 calendar days 
prior to the effective date of the change. The Exchange believes that 
by providing guidance on the timing of any changes to the ORF, the 
Exchange would make it easier for participants to ensure their systems 
are configured to properly account for the ORF.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its fee schedule 
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \10\ in general, and 
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \11\ in 
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, 
fees, and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons 
using its facilities. The Exchange also believes the proposal furthers 
the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \12\ in that it is 
designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove 
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and 
a national market system, and, in general to protect investors and the 
public interest and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination 
between customers, issuers, brokers and dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the ORF is equitable and not unfairly 
discriminatory because it is objectively allocated to Members in that 
it is charged to all Members on all their transactions that clear as 
customer at the OCC. Moreover, the Exchange believes the ORF ensures 
fairness by assessing fees to those Members that are directly based on 
the amount of customer options business they conduct. Regulating 
customer trading activity is much more labor intensive and requires 
greater expenditure of human and technical resources than regulating 
non-customer trading activity, which tends to be more automated and 
less labor-intensive. As a result, the costs associated with 
administering the customer component of the Exchange's overall 
regulatory program are materially higher than the costs associated with 
administering the non-customer component (e.g., Member proprietary 
transactions) of its regulatory program.
    The ORF is designed to recover a material portion of the costs of 
supervising and regulating Members' customer options business including 
performing routine surveillances, investigations, examinations, 
financial monitoring, and policy, rulemaking, interpretive, and 
enforcement activities. The Exchange will monitor, on at least a semi-
annual basis the amount of revenue collected from the ORF to ensure 
that it, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does 
not exceed the Exchange's total regulatory costs. The Exchange has 
designed the ORF to generate revenues that, when combined with all of 
the Exchange's other regulatory fees, will be less than or equal to the 
Exchange's regulatory costs, which is consistent with the Commission's 
view that regulatory fees be used for regulatory purposes and not to 
support the Exchange's business side. In this regard, the Exchange 
believes that the initial level of the fee is reasonable.
    The Exchange believes that the proposal to limit changes to the ORF 
to twice a year on specific dates with advance notice is reasonable 
because it will give participants certainty on the timing of changes, 
if any, and better enable them to properly account for ORF charges 
among their customers. The Exchange believes that the proposed change 
is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply in 
the same manner to all Members that are subject to the ORF and provide 
them with additional advance notice of changes to that fee.
    The Exchange believes that the proposal to collect the ORF from 
non-Members when such non-Members ultimately clear the transaction 
(that is, when the non-Member is the ``ultimate clearing firm'' for a 
transaction in which a Member was assessed the ORF) is an equitable 
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its 
members and issuers and other persons using its facilities. The 
Exchange notes that there is a material distinction between 
``assessing'' the ORF and ``collecting'' the ORF. The ORF is only 
assessed to a Member with respect to a particular transaction in which 
it is either the executing clearing firm or ultimate clearing firm. The 
Exchange does not assess the ORF to non-Members. Once, however, the ORF 
is assessed to a Member for a particular transaction, the ORF may be 
collected from the Member or a non-Member, depending on how the 
transaction is cleared at OCC. If there was no change to the clearing 
account of the original transaction, the ORF would be collected from 
the Member. If there was a change to the clearing account of the 
original transaction and a non-Member becomes the ultimate clearing 
firm for that transaction, then the ORF will be collected from that 
non-Member. The Exchange believes that this collection practice is 
reasonable and appropriate, and was originally instituted for the 
benefit of clearing firms that desired to have the ORF be collected 
from the clearing firm that ultimately clears the transaction.

[[Page 27099]]

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 not necessary or appropriate in 
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The ORF is not intended to have 
any impact on competition. Rather, it is designed to enable the 
Exchange to recover a material portion of the Exchange's cost related 
to its regulatory activities. The Exchange is obligated to ensure that 
the amount of regulatory revenue collected from the ORF, in combination 
with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed regulatory 
costs. Unilateral action by MIAX PEARL in establishing fees for 
services provided to its Members and others using its facilities will 
not have an impact on competition. As a new entrant in the already 
highly competitive environment for equity options trading, MIAX PEARL 
does not have the market power necessary to set prices for services 
that are unreasonable or unfairly discriminatory in violation of the 
Act. MIAX PEARL's proposed ORF, as described herein, are comparable to 
fees charged by other options exchanges for the same or similar 
services. The proposal to limit the changes to the ORF to twice a year 
on specific dates with advance notice is not intended to address a 
competitive issue but rather to provide Members with better notice of 
any change that the Exchange may make to the ORF.

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,\13\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \14\ 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 shall institute proceedings to determine whether 
the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and 
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule 
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of 
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include 
File No. SR- PEARL-2017-26 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 No. SR-PEARL-2017-26. 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 No. SR-PEARL-2017-26, and should 
be submitted on or before July 5, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-12153 Filed 6-12-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
27096 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 13, 2017 / Notices

of investors; or (iii) otherwise in For the Commission, by the Division of II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated Statement of the Purpose of, and
If the Commission takes such action, the authority.12 Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule
Commission shall institute proceedings Eduardo A. Aleman, Change
to determine whether the proposed rule Assistant Secretary.
In its filing with the Commission, the
should be approved or disapproved. [FR Doc. 2017–12152 Filed 6–12–17; 8:45 am]
Exchange included statements
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P concerning the purpose of and basis for
IV. Solicitation of Comments
the proposed rule change and discussed
Interested persons are invited to any comments it received on the
submit written data, views, and SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE proposed rule change. The text of these
arguments concerning the foregoing, COMMISSION statements may be examined at the
including whether the proposed rule [Release No. 34–80875; File No. SR– places specified in Item IV below. The
change is consistent with the Act. PEARL–2017–26] Exchange has prepared summaries, set
Comments may be submitted by any of forth in sections A, B, and C below, of
the following methods: Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX the most significant aspects of such
PEARL, LLC; Notice of Filing and statements.
Electronic Comments
Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed
• Use the Commission’s Internet Rule Change To Amend the MIAX A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ PEARL Fee Schedule To Establish an Statement of the Purpose of, and the
rules/sro.shtml); or Options Regulatory Fee (‘‘ORF’’) Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule
• Send an email to rule-comments@ Change
June 7, 2017.
sec.gov. Please include File Number SR– 1. Purpose
ISE–2017–51 on the subject line. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Currently, the Exchange charges an
Paper Comments (‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2 ORF in the amount of $0.0010 per
• Send paper comments in triplicate notice is hereby given that on May 26, contract side. The proposed rule change
to Secretary, Securities and Exchange 2017, MIAX PEARL, LLC (‘‘MIAX does not change the amount of the ORF,
Commission, 100 F Street NE., PEARL’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the but instead modifies the rule text to
Washington, DC 20549–1090. Securities and Exchange Commission clarify how the ORF is assessed and
(‘‘Commission’’) a proposed rule change collected. The per-contract ORF will
All submissions should refer to File as described in Items I, II, and III below, continue to be assessed by MIAX
Number SR–ISE–2017–51. This file which Items have been prepared by the PEARL to each MIAX PEARL Member
number should be included on the Exchange. The Commission is for all options transactions, including
subject line if email is used. To help the publishing this notice to solicit Mini Options, cleared or ultimately
Commission process and review your comments on the proposed rule change cleared by the Member which are
comments more efficiently, please use from interested persons. cleared by the Options Clearing
only one method. The Commission will Corporation (‘‘OCC’’) in the ‘‘customer’’
post all comments on the Commission’s I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
range, regardless of the exchange on
Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ Statement of the Terms of Substance of
which the transaction occurs. The ORF
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the the Proposed Rule Change
will be collected by OCC on behalf of
submission, all subsequent The Exchange is filing a proposal to MIAX PEARL from either (1) a Member
amendments, all written statements amend the MIAX PEARL Fee Schedule that was the ultimate clearing firm for
with respect to the proposed rule (the ‘‘Fee Schedule’’) by establishing an the transaction or (2) a non-Member that
change that are filed with the Options Regulatory Fee (‘‘ORF’’). was the ultimate clearing firm where a
Commission, and all written The Exchange initially filed the Member was the executing clearing firm
communications relating to the proposal on February 3, 2017 (SR– for the transaction. The Exchange uses
proposed rule change between the PEARL–2017–09).3 That initial filing reports from OCC to determine the
Commission and any person, other than was withdrawn and replaced with a identity of the executing clearing firm
those that may be withheld from the second filing on March 30, 2017 (SR– and ultimate clearing firm.
public in accordance with the PEARL–2017–15).4 That second filing To illustrate how the ORF is assessed
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be was withdrawn and replaced with a and collected, the Exchange provides
available for Web site viewing and third filing on May 26, 2017 (SR– the following set of examples. If the
printing in the Commission’s Public PEARL–2017–26). transaction is executed on the Exchange
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., The text of the proposed rule change and the ORF is assessed, if there is no
Washington, DC 20549, on official is available on the Exchange’s Web site change to the clearing account of the
business days between the hours of at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule- original transaction, then the ORF is
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filings/pearl, at MIAX’s principal office, collected from the Member that is the
filing also will be available for and at the Commission’s Public executing clearing firm for the
inspection and copying at the principal Reference Room. transaction. (The Exchange notes that,
office of the Exchange. All comments for purposes of the Fee Schedule, when
12 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).
received will be posted without change; there is no change to the clearing
1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
the Commission does not edit personal account of the original transaction, the
nlaroche on DSK30NT082PROD with NOTICES

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.
identifying information from 3 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80035 executing clearing firm is deemed to be
submissions. You should submit only (February 14, 2017), 82 FR 11272 (February 21, the ultimate clearing firm.) If there is a
information that you wish to make 2017)(SR–PEARL–2017–09). change to the clearing account of the
available publicly. All submissions 4 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80423
original transaction (i.e., the executing
should refer to File Number SR–ISE– (April 10, 2017), 82 FR 18045 (April 14, 2017)(SR–
PEARL–2017–15). The replacement filings did not
clearing firm ‘‘gives-up’’ or ‘‘CMTAs’’
2017–51 and should be submitted on or increase or decrease the amount of the ORF, but the transaction to another clearing firm),
before July 5, 2017. rather clarified the application of the ORF. then the ORF is collected from the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:58 Jun 12, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13JNN1.SGM 13JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 13, 2017 / Notices 27097

clearing firm that ultimately clears the Exchange and for the marketplace as a statutory obligation to enforce
transaction—the ultimate clearing firm. whole to collect the ORF from clearing compliance by Members and their
The ultimate clearing firm may be either members. associated persons under the Act and
a Member or non-Member of the As discussed below, the Exchange the rules of the Exchange and to surveil
Exchange. If the transaction is executed believes it is appropriate to charge the for other manipulative conduct by
on an away exchange and the ORF is ORF only to transactions that clear as market participants (including non-
assessed, then the ORF is collected from customer at the OCC. The Exchange Members) trading on the Exchange. The
the ultimate clearing firm for the believes that its broad regulatory Exchange cannot effectively surveil for
transaction. Again, the ultimate clearing responsibilities with respect to a such conduct without looking at and
firm may be either a Member or non- Member’s’ activities supports applying evaluating activity across all options
Member of the Exchange. The Exchange the ORF to transactions cleared but not markets. Many of the Exchange’s market
notes, however, that when the executed by a Member. The Exchange’s surveillance programs require the
transaction is executed on an away regulatory responsibilities are the same Exchange to look at and evaluate
exchange, the Exchange does not assess regardless of whether a Member enters activity across all options markets, such
the ORF when neither the executing a transaction or clears a transaction as surveillance for position limit
clearing firm nor the ultimate clearing executed on its behalf. The Exchange violations, manipulation, front-running
firm is a Member (even if a Member is regularly reviews all such activities, and contrary exercise advice violations/
‘‘given-up’’ or ‘‘CMTAed’’ and then including performing surveillance for expiring exercise declarations. While
such Member subsequently ‘‘gives-up’’ position limit violations, manipulation, much of this activity relates to the
or ‘‘CMTAs’’ the transaction to another front-running, contrary exercise advice execution of orders, the ORF is assessed
non-Member via a CMTA reversal). violations and insider trading. These on and collected from clearing firms.
Finally, the Exchange will not assess the activities span across multiple The Exchange, because it lacks access to
ORF on outbound linkage trades, exchanges. information on the identity of the
whether executed at the Exchange or an The ORF is designed to recover a entering firm for executions that occur
away exchange. ‘‘Linkage trades’’ are material portion of the costs to the on away markets, believes it is
tagged in the Exchange’s system, so the Exchange of the supervision and appropriate to assess the ORF on its
Exchange can readily tell them apart regulation of Members’ customer Members’ clearing activity, based on
from other trades. A customer order options business, including performing information the Exchange receives from
routed to another exchange results in routine surveillances and investigations, OCC, including for away market
two customer trades, one from the as well as policy, rulemaking, activity. Among other reasons, doing so
originating exchange and one from the interpretive and enforcement activities. better and more accurately captures
recipient exchange. Charging ORF on The Exchange believes that revenue activity that occurs away from the
both trades could result in double- generated from the ORF, when Exchange over which the Exchange has
billing of ORF for a single customer combined with all of the Exchange’s a degree of regulatory responsibility. In
order, thus the Exchange will not assess other regulatory fees and fines, will so doing, the Exchange believes that
ORF on outbound linkage trades in a cover a material portion, but not all, of assessing ORF on Member clearing firms
linkage scenario. This assessment the Exchange’s regulatory costs. The equitably distributes the collection of
practice is identical to the assessment Exchange notes that its regulatory ORF in a fair and reasonable manner.
practice currently utilized by the responsibilities with respect to Member Also, the Exchange and the other
Exchange’s affiliate, Miami International compliance with options sales practice options exchanges are required to
Securities Exchange, LLC (‘‘MIAX rules have been allocated to the populate a consolidated options audit
Options’’). Financial Industry Regulatory Authority trail (‘‘COATS’’) 5 system in order to
As a practical matter, when a (‘‘FINRA’’) under a 17d–2 Agreement. surveil a Member’s activities across
transaction that is subject to the ORF is The ORF is not designed to cover the markets.
not executed on the Exchange, the cost of options sales practice regulation. In addition to its own surveillance
Exchange lacks the information The Exchange will continue to programs, the Exchange works with
necessary to identify the order entering monitor the amount of revenue other SROs and exchanges on
member for that transaction. There are collected from the ORF to ensure that it, intermarket surveillance related issues.
countless order entering market in combination with its other regulatory Through its participation in the
participants, and each day such fees and fines, does not exceed the Intermarket Surveillance Group
participants can and often do drop their Exchange’s total regulatory costs. The (‘‘ISG’’),6 the Exchange shares
connection to one market center and Exchange expects to monitor MIAX information and coordinates inquiries
establish themselves as participants on PEARL regulatory costs and revenues at and investigations with other exchanges
another. For these reasons, it is not a minimum on a semi-annual basis. If designed to address potential
possible for the Exchange to identify, the Exchange determines regulatory intermarket manipulation and trading
and thus assess fees such as an ORF, on revenues exceed or are insufficient to abuses. The Exchange’s participation in
order entering participants on away cover a material portion of its regulatory ISG helps it to satisfy the requirement
markets on a given trading day. costs, the Exchange will adjust the ORF that it has coordinated surveillance with
Clearing members, however, are by submitting a fee change filing to the
distinguished from order entering Commission. Going forward, the 5 COATS effectively enhances intermarket

participants because they remain Exchange will notify Members of options surveillance by enabling the options
exchanges to reconstruct the market promptly to
identified to the Exchange on adjustments to the ORF via regulatory
nlaroche on DSK30NT082PROD with NOTICES

effectively surveil certain rules.
information the Exchange receives from circular at least 30 days prior to the 6 ISG is an industry organization formed in 1983
OCC regardless of the identity of the effective date of the change. to coordinate intermarket surveillance among the
order entering participant, their The Exchange believes it is reasonable SROs by co-operatively sharing regulatory
location, and the market center on and appropriate for the Exchange to information pursuant to a written agreement
between the parties. The goal of the ISG’s
which they execute transactions. charge the ORF for options transactions information sharing is to coordinate regulatory
Therefore, the Exchange believes it is regardless of the exchange on which the efforts to address potential intermarket trading
more efficient for the operation of the transactions occur. The Exchange has a abuses and manipulations.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:58 Jun 12, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13JNN1.SGM 13JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 13, 2017 / Notices 27099

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s whether the proposed rule should be For the Commission, by the Division of
Statement on Burden on Competition approved or disapproved. Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated
authority.15
The Exchange does not believe that IV. Solicitation of Comments Eduardo A. Aleman,
the proposed rule change will impose Assistant Secretary.
any burden on competition not Interested persons are invited to
[FR Doc. 2017–12153 Filed 6–12–17; 8:45 am]
necessary or appropriate in furtherance submit written data, views, and
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
of the purposes of the Act. The ORF is arguments concerning the foregoing,
not intended to have any impact on including whether the proposed rule
competition. Rather, it is designed to change is consistent with the Act.
Comments may be submitted by any of SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
enable the Exchange to recover a
material portion of the Exchange’s cost the following methods: [Disaster Declaration #15155 and #15156;
related to its regulatory activities. The OKLAHOMA Disaster #OK–00114]
Electronic Comments
Exchange is obligated to ensure that the
Administrative Declaration of a
amount of regulatory revenue collected • Use the Commission’s Internet Disaster for the State of Oklahoma
from the ORF, in combination with its comment form (http://www.sec.gov/
other regulatory fees and fines, does not rules/sro.shtml); or AGENCY: U.S. Small Business
exceed regulatory costs. Unilateral Administration.
action by MIAX PEARL in establishing • Send an email to rule-comments@
sec.gov. Please include File No. SR- ACTION: Notice.
fees for services provided to its
Members and others using its facilities PEARL–2017–26 on the subject line.
SUMMARY: This is a notice of an
will not have an impact on competition. Paper Comments Administrative declaration of a disaster
As a new entrant in the already highly for the State of Oklahoma dated 06/06/
competitive environment for equity • Send paper comments in triplicate 2017.
options trading, MIAX PEARL does not to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Incident: Tornadoes, Straight-line
have the market power necessary to set Commission, 100 F Street NE., Winds, Flooding and Severe Storms.
prices for services that are unreasonable Washington, DC 20549–1090. Incident Period: 05/16/2017 through
or unfairly discriminatory in violation 05/19/2017.
of the Act. MIAX PEARL’s proposed All submissions should refer to File No.
SR–PEARL–2017–26. This file number DATES: Effective 06/06/2017.
ORF, as described herein, are Physical Loan Application Deadline
comparable to fees charged by other should be included on the subject line
if email is used. To help the Date: 08/07/2017.
options exchanges for the same or Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan
similar services. The proposal to limit Commission process and review your
Application Deadline Date: 03/06/2018.
the changes to the ORF to twice a year comments more efficiently, please use
only one method. The Commission will ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan
on specific dates with advance notice is
post all comments on the Commission’s applications to: U.S. Small Business
not intended to address a competitive
Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ Administration, Processing and
issue but rather to provide Members
Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport
with better notice of any change that the rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
Exchange may make to the ORF. submission, all subsequent
amendments, all written statements FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A.
C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance,
Statement on Comments on the with respect to the proposed rule
change that are filed with the U.S. Small Business Administration,
Proposed Rule Change Received From 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050,
Members, Participants, or Others Commission, and all written
Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205–6734.
communications relating to the
Written comments were neither proposed rule change between the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is
solicited nor received. Commission and any person, other than hereby given that as a result of the
those that may be withheld from the Administrator’s disaster declaration,
III. Date of Effectiveness of the applications for disaster loans may be
Proposed Rule Change and Timing for public in accordance with the
filed at the address listed above or other
Commission Action provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
locally announced locations.
available for Web site viewing and The following areas have been
The foregoing rule change has become printing in the Commission’s Public determined to be adversely affected by
effective pursuant to Section Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., the disaster:
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,13 and Rule Washington, DC 20549, on official
19b–4(f)(2) 14 thereunder. At any time Primary Counties: Beckham
business days between the hours of
within 60 days of the filing of the Contiguous Counties:
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the Oklahoma: Custer, Greer, Harmon,
proposed rule change, the Commission filing also will be available for
summarily may temporarily suspend Kiowa, Roger Mills, Washita
inspection and copying at the principal Texas: Collingsworth, Wheeler
such rule change if it appears to the office of the Exchange. All comments
Commission that such action is The Interest Rates are:
received will be posted without change;
necessary or appropriate in the public the Commission does not edit personal
interest, for the protection of investors, Percent
identifying information from
nlaroche on DSK30NT082PROD with NOTICES

or otherwise in furtherance of the submissions. You should For Physical Damage:
purposes of the Act. If the Commission Homeowners with Credit Avail-
takes such action, the Commission shall submit only information that you
able Elsewhere ...................... 3.875
institute proceedings to determine wish to make available publicly. All Homeowners without Credit
submissions should refer to File No. Available Elsewhere .............. 1.938
13 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). SR–PEARL–2017–26, and should be
14 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(2). submitted on or before July 5, 2017. 15 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:58 Jun 12, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13JNN1.SGM 13JNN1
Document Created: 2017-06-13 00:21:45
Document Modified: 2017-06-13 00:21:45
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		82 FR 27096