Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Revise the Rules Regarding the Exchange's Options Regulatory Fee, 37946-37949 [2017-17046]

Download as PDF 37946 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 155 / Monday, August 14, 2017 / Notices information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR–DTC– 2017–014, SR–FICC–2017–017, or SR– NSCC–2017–013 and should be submitted on or before September 5, 2017. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.19 Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. 2017–17043 Filed 8–11–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011–01–P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Revise the Rules Regarding the Exchange’s Options Regulatory Fee August 8, 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 July 26, 2017, NASDAQ BX, Inc. (‘‘BX’’ 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. DATES: sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to revise BX Rules at Chapter XV, Section 5 to: (i) Make adjustments to the amount of its Options Regulatory Fee (‘‘ORF’’); and (ii) more closely reflect the manner in which BX assesses and collects its ORF. While the changes proposed herein are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated the amendments [sic] become operative on August 1, 2017. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange’s Web site at https://nasdaqbx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission’s Public Reference Room. CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 1 15 VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:45 Aug 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 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 [Release No. 34–81341; File No. SR–BX– 2017–032] 19 17 II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose BX initially filed to establish its ORF in 2016.3 The Exchange has amended its ORF several times since the inception of this fee.4 At this time, the Exchange proposes to: (i) Amend the amount of its ORF; and (ii) revise BX Rules at Chapter XV, Section 5 to more closely reflect the manner in which BX assesses and collects its ORF. The Exchange supports a common approach for the assessment and collection of ORF among the various options exchanges that assess such a fee. Furthermore, the Exchange supports guidance from the Commission regarding regulatory cost structures to ensure equal knowledge and treatment among options markets assessing ORF. Proposal 1—Amend the Amount of the ORF The Exchange assesses an ORF of $0.0004 per contract side. The Exchange proposes to increase the ORF from $0.0004 per contract side to $0.0005 per contract side as of August 1, 2017 to account for a reduction in market volume. The Exchange’s proposed change to the ORF should balance the Exchange’s regulatory cost [sic] against the anticipated revenue. The Exchange regularly reviews its ORF to ensure that the ORF, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed regulatory costs. The Exchange believes this adjustment will permit the Exchange to cover a material portion of 3 See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 77053 (February 4, 3016), 81 FR 7163 (February 10, 2016) (SR–BX–2016–007); (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating To Adopt an Options Regulatory Fee). 4 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78361 (July 19, 2016), 81 FR 48485 (July 25, 2016) (SR– BX–2016–043). PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 its regulatory costs, while not exceeding regulatory costs. The Exchange notified its Participants of this ORF adjustment thirty (30) calendar days prior to the proposed operative date.5 Proposal 2—Reflect the Manner in Which BX Assesses and Collects its ORF Currently, BX assesses its ORF for each Customer option transaction that is either: (1) Executed by a Participant on BX; or (2) cleared by a BX Participant at The Options Clearing Corporation (‘‘OCC’’) in the Customer range,6 even if the transaction was executed by a nonmember of BX, regardless of the exchange on which the transaction occurs.7 If the OCC clearing member is a BX Participant, ORF is assessed and collected on all cleared Customer contracts (after adjustment for CMTA 8); and (2) if the OCC clearing member is not a BX Participant, ORF is collected only on the cleared Customer contracts executed at BX, taking into account any CMTA instructions which may result in collecting the ORF from a non-member. By way of example, if Broker A, a BX Participant, routes a Customer order to CBOE and the transaction executes on CBOE and clears in Broker A’s OCC Clearing account, ORF will be collected by BX from Broker A’s clearing account at OCC via direct debit. While this transaction was executed on a market other than BX, it was cleared by a BX Participant in the Participant’s OCC clearing account in the Customer range, therefore there is a regulatory nexus between BX and the transaction. If Broker A was not a BX Participant, then no ORF should be assessed and collected because there is no nexus; the transaction did not execute on BX nor was it cleared by a BX Participant. In the case where a Participant both executes a transaction and clears the transaction, the ORF is assessed to and collected from the Participant only once. In the case where a Participant executes a transaction and a different Participant clears the transaction, the ORF is assessed to and collected from the Participant who clears the transaction and not the Participant who executes the transaction. In the case 5 See Options Trader Alert #2017–54. Rules require each member to record the appropriate account origin code on all orders at the time of entry in order to allow the Exchange to properly prioritize and route orders and assess transaction fees pursuant to the Rules of the Exchange and report resulting transactions to OCC. 7 The Exchange uses reports from OCC to determine the identity of the executing clearing firm and ultimate clearing firm. 8 CMTA or Clearing Member Trade Assignment is a form of ‘‘give-up’’ whereby the position will be assigned to a specific clearing firm at OCC. 6 Exchange E:\FR\FM\14AUN1.SGM 14AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 155 / Monday, August 14, 2017 / Notices where a non-member executes a transaction at an away market and a Participant clears the transaction, the ORF is assessed to and collected from the Participant who clears the transaction. In the case where a Participant executes a transaction on BX and a non-member clears the transaction, the ORF is assessed to the Participant that executed the transaction and collected from the non-member who cleared the transaction. In the case where a Participant executes a transaction at an away market and a non-member clears the transaction, the ORF is not assessed to the Participant who executed the transaction or collected from the non-member who cleared the transaction because the Exchange does not have access to the data to make absolutely certain that ORF should apply. Further, the data does not allow the Exchange to identify the Participant executing the trade at an away market. sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES ORF Revenue and Monitoring of ORF The Exchange monitors the amount of revenue collected from the ORF to ensure that it, in combination with other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed regulatory costs. In determining whether an expense is considered a regulatory cost, the Exchange reviews all costs and makes determinations if there is a nexus between the expense and a regulatory function. For example, a cost related to BX’s equity platform, would not be considered an expense that is compared to ORF revenue. An options surveillance employee’s cost, however would be an expense that is compared to ORF revenue. The Exchange notes that fines collected by the Exchange in connection with a disciplinary manner offset ORF. The ORF is designed to recover a material portion of the costs to the Exchange of the supervision and regulation of its Participants, including performing routine surveillances, investigations, examinations, financial monitoring, and 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, will cover a material portion, but not all, of the Exchange’s regulatory costs. 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 regulatory costs. If the Exchange determines regulatory revenues exceed regulatory costs, the Exchange will adjust the ORF by VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:45 Aug 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 submitting a fee change filing to the Commission. Finally, the Exchange notes that it is amending its rule text at Chapter XV, Section 5 to remove certain rule text and include new text to make clear the manner in which ORF is assessed and collected on BX. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 9 in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act 10 in particular, in that it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among members and issuers and other persons using its facility and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. The Exchange believes the proposed clarifications in the Fee Schedule to the ORF further the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act and are equitable and reasonable since they expressly describe the Exchange’s existing practices regarding the manner in which the Exchange assesses and collects its ORF. Proposal 1—Amend the Amount of the ORF The Exchange believes that increasing the ORF from $0.0004 per contract side to $0.0005 per contract side as of August 1, 2017 is reasonable because the Exchange’s collection of ORF needs to be balanced against the amount of regulatory cost collected [sic] by the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed adjustments noted herein will serve to balance the Exchange’s regulatory cost against the anticipated regulatory revenue. The Exchange regularly reviews its ORF to ensure that the ORF, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed regulatory costs. The Exchange believes that increasing the ORF from $0.0004 per contract side to $0.0005 per contract side as of August 1, 2017 is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because this modest increase will serve to balance the Exchange’s regulatory revenue against the anticipated regulatory costs. The ORF seeks to recover the costs of supervising and regulating members, including performing routine surveillances, investigations, examinations, financial monitoring, and policy, rulemaking, interpretive, and enforcement activities. Moreover, the Exchange believes the ORF ensures fairness by assessing fees to those 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5). 10 15 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 37947 Participants 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. Participant proprietary transactions) of its regulatory program. The ORF is designed to recover a material portion of the costs of supervising and regulating Participants’ Customer options business including performing routine surveillances, investigations, examinations, financial monitoring, and policy, rulemaking, interpretive, and enforcement activities. The Exchange will 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 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 proposed amount of the fee is reasonable. Proposal 2—Reflect the Manner in Which BX Assesses and Collects Its ORF 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 Participants and their associated persons under the Act and the rules of the Exchange and to surveil for other manipulative conduct by market participants (including nonmembers) 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. The Exchange, because it lacks access to E:\FR\FM\14AUN1.SGM 14AUN1 37948 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 155 / Monday, August 14, 2017 / Notices sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 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 Participant’s 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 Participant clearing firms in certain instances 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’’) 11 system in order to surveil a Participant’s activities across markets.12 The Exchange believes that assessing the ORF to each Exchange member for options transactions cleared by OCC in the Customer range where the execution occurs on another exchange and is cleared by a BX member is an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities. The ORF is collected by OCC on behalf of BX from Exchange clearing members for all Customer transactions they clear or from non-members for all Customer transactions they clear that were executed on BX. The Exchange believes that this collection practice is reasonable and appropriate because higher fees are assessed to those members that require more Exchange regulatory services based on the amount of Customer options business they conduct. Regulating Customer trading activity is more labor intensive and requires 11 COATS effectively enhances intermarket options surveillance by enabling the options exchanges to reconstruct the market promptly to effectively surveil certain rules. 12 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’’), 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 markets on which security futures are traded and markets on which any security underlying security futures are traded to detect manipulation and insider trading. See Section 6(h)(3)(I) of the Act. 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. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:45 Aug 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 greater expenditure of human and technical resources than regulating nonCustomer trading activity. Surveillance, regulation and examination of nonCustomer trading activity generally 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 anticipated to be typically higher than the costs associated with administering the non-Customer component of its regulatory program. The Exchange proposes assessing higher fees to those members that will require more Exchange regulatory services based on the amount of Customer options business they conduct. Additionally, the dues and fees paid by members go into the general funds of the Exchange, a portion of which is used to help pay the costs of regulation. The Exchange has in place a regulatory structure to surveil, conduct examinations and monitor the marketplace for violations of Exchange Rules. The ORF assists the Exchange to fund the cost of this regulation of the marketplace. 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. C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others No written comments were either solicited or 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 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: (i) Necessary or appropriate in 13 15 PO 00000 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). Frm 00110 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) 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. 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 (https://www.sec.gov/ rules/sro.shtml); or • Send an email to rule-comments@ sec.gov. Please include File No. SR–BX– 2017–032 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–BX–2017–032. 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 (https://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–BX–2017– 032, and should be submitted on or before September 5, 2017. E:\FR\FM\14AUN1.SGM 14AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 155 / Monday, August 14, 2017 / Notices For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.14 Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. 2017–17046 Filed 8–11–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011–01–P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34–81352; File No. SR–Phlx– 2017–66] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 1092, Nullification and Adjustment of Options Transactions Including Obvious Errors August 8, 2017. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on August 3, 2017, NASDAQ PHLX LLC (‘‘Phlx’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1092, Nullification and Adjustment of Options Transactions including Obvious Errors. While these amendments are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated the proposed amendments to be operative on a date that is within ninety (90) days after the Commission approved a similar proposal filed by Bats BZX on July 6, 2017. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange’s Web site at https://nasdaqphlx.cchwallstreet. com/, at the principal office of the Exchange, 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 14 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 16:45 Aug 11, 2017 A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Exchange and other options exchanges recently adopted a new, harmonized rule related to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions, including a specific provision related to coordination in connection with largescale events involving erroneous options transactions.3 The Exchange believes that the changes the options exchanges implemented with the new, harmonized rule have led to increased transparency and finality with respect to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions. However, as part of the initial initiative, the Exchange and other options exchanges deferred a few specific matters for further discussion. Specifically, as described in the Initial Filing, the Exchange and all other options exchanges have been working to further improve the review of potentially erroneous transactions as well as their subsequent adjustment by creating an objective and universal way to determine Theoretical Price in the event a reliable NBBO is not available. Because this initiative required additional exchange and industry discussion as well as additional time for development and implementation, the Exchange and the other options exchanges determined to proceed with the Initial Filing and to undergo a secondary initiative to complete any additional improvements to the applicable rule. In this filing, the Exchange proposes to adopt procedures that will lead to a more objective and uniform way to determine Theoretical Price in the event a reliable NBBO is not available. In addition to this change, the Exchange has proposed two additional minor changes to its rules. The Exchange’s proposal mirrors that of Bats BZX, which the Commission approved 3 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34– 74919 (May 8, 2015); 80 FR 27766 (May 14, 2015) (SR–PHLX–2015–43) (the ‘‘Initial Filing’’). 1 15 VerDate Sep<11>2014 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. Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 37949 on July 6, 2017,4 and those that the other options exchanges intend to file. Calculation of Theoretical Price Using a Third Party Provider Under the harmonized rule, when reviewing a transaction as potentially erroneous, the Exchange needs to first determine the ‘‘Theoretical Price’’ of the option, i.e., the Exchange’s estimate of the correct market price for the option. Pursuant to Rule 1092, if the applicable option series is traded on at least one other options exchange, then the Theoretical Price of an option series is the last national best bid (‘‘NBB’’) just prior to the trade in question with respect to an erroneous sell transaction or the last national best offer (‘‘NBO’’) just prior to the trade in question with respect to an erroneous buy transaction unless one of the exceptions described below exists. Thus, whenever the Exchange has a reliable NBB or NBO, as applicable, just prior to the transaction, then the Exchange uses this NBB or NBO as the Theoretical Price. The Rule also contains various provisions governing specific situations where the NBB or NBO is not available or may not be reliable. Specifically, the Rule specifies situations in which there are no quotes or no valid quotes for comparison purposes, when the national best bid or offer (‘‘NBBO’’) is determined to be too wide to be reliable, and at the open of trading on each trading day. In each of these circumstances, in turn, because the NBB or NBO is not available or is deemed to be unreliable, the Exchange determines Theoretical Price. Under the current Rule, when determining Theoretical Price, Exchange personnel generally consult and refer to data such as the prices of related series, especially the closest strikes in the option in question. Exchange personnel may also take into account the price of the underlying security and the volatility characteristics of the option as well as historical pricing of the option and/or similar options. Although the Rule is administered by experienced personnel and the Exchange believes the process is currently appropriate, the Exchange recognizes that it is also subjective and could lead to disparate results for a transaction that spans multiple options exchanges. The Exchange proposes to adopt Commentary .05 to specify how the Exchange will determine Theoretical Price when required by sub-paragraphs 4 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34– 81084 (July 6, 2017) (granting approval of Bats BZX proposal), 82 FR 32216 (July 12, 2017); 82 FR 23684 (May 23, 2017) (SR–BatsBZX–2017–035) (notice of filing of Bats BZX proposal). E:\FR\FM\14AUN1.SGM 14AUN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 155 (Monday, August 14, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37946-37949]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17046]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81341; File No. SR-BX-2017-032]


Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing 
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Revise the Rules 
Regarding the Exchange's Options Regulatory Fee

DATES: August 8, 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 July 26, 2017, NASDAQ BX, Inc. (``BX'' 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 proposes to revise BX Rules at Chapter XV, Section 5 
to: (i) Make adjustments to the amount of its Options Regulatory Fee 
(``ORF''); and (ii) more closely reflect the manner in which BX 
assesses and collects its ORF.
    While the changes proposed herein are effective upon filing, the 
Exchange has designated the amendments [sic] become operative on August 
1, 2017.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's 
Web site at https://nasdaqbx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal office 
of the Exchange, 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
    BX initially filed to establish its ORF in 2016.\3\ The Exchange 
has amended its ORF several times since the inception of this fee.\4\ 
At this time, the Exchange proposes to: (i) Amend the amount of its 
ORF; and (ii) revise BX Rules at Chapter XV, Section 5 to more closely 
reflect the manner in which BX assesses and collects its ORF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 77053 (February 4, 
3016), 81 FR 7163 (February 10, 2016) (SR-BX-2016-007); (Notice of 
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating 
To Adopt an Options Regulatory Fee).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78361 (July 19, 
2016), 81 FR 48485 (July 25, 2016) (SR-BX-2016-043).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange supports a common approach for the assessment and 
collection of ORF among the various options exchanges that assess such 
a fee. Furthermore, the Exchange supports guidance from the Commission 
regarding regulatory cost structures to ensure equal knowledge and 
treatment among options markets assessing ORF.
Proposal 1--Amend the Amount of the ORF
    The Exchange assesses an ORF of $0.0004 per contract side. The 
Exchange proposes to increase the ORF from $0.0004 per contract side to 
$0.0005 per contract side as of August 1, 2017 to account for a 
reduction in market volume. The Exchange's proposed change to the ORF 
should balance the Exchange's regulatory cost [sic] against the 
anticipated revenue. The Exchange regularly reviews its ORF to ensure 
that the ORF, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, 
does not exceed regulatory costs. The Exchange believes this adjustment 
will permit the Exchange to cover a material portion of its regulatory 
costs, while not exceeding regulatory costs.
    The Exchange notified its Participants of this ORF adjustment 
thirty (30) calendar days prior to the proposed operative date.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Options Trader Alert #2017-54.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal 2--Reflect the Manner in Which BX Assesses and Collects its 
ORF
    Currently, BX assesses its ORF for each Customer option transaction 
that is either: (1) Executed by a Participant on BX; or (2) cleared by 
a BX Participant at The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') in the 
Customer range,\6\ even if the transaction was executed by a non-member 
of BX, regardless of the exchange on which the transaction occurs.\7\ 
If the OCC clearing member is a BX Participant, ORF is assessed and 
collected on all cleared Customer contracts (after adjustment for CMTA 
\8\); and (2) if the OCC clearing member is not a BX Participant, ORF 
is collected only on the cleared Customer contracts executed at BX, 
taking into account any CMTA instructions which may result in 
collecting the ORF from a non-member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Exchange Rules require each member to record the appropriate 
account origin code on all orders at the time of entry in order to 
allow the Exchange to properly prioritize and route orders and 
assess transaction fees pursuant to the Rules of the Exchange and 
report resulting transactions to OCC.
    \7\ The Exchange uses reports from OCC to determine the identity 
of the executing clearing firm and ultimate clearing firm.
    \8\ CMTA or Clearing Member Trade Assignment is a form of 
``give-up'' whereby the position will be assigned to a specific 
clearing firm at OCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By way of example, if Broker A, a BX Participant, routes a Customer 
order to CBOE and the transaction executes on CBOE and clears in Broker 
A's OCC Clearing account, ORF will be collected by BX from Broker A's 
clearing account at OCC via direct debit. While this transaction was 
executed on a market other than BX, it was cleared by a BX Participant 
in the Participant's OCC clearing account in the Customer range, 
therefore there is a regulatory nexus between BX and the transaction. 
If Broker A was not a BX Participant, then no ORF should be assessed 
and collected because there is no nexus; the transaction did not 
execute on BX nor was it cleared by a BX Participant.
    In the case where a Participant both executes a transaction and 
clears the transaction, the ORF is assessed to and collected from the 
Participant only once. In the case where a Participant executes a 
transaction and a different Participant clears the transaction, the ORF 
is assessed to and collected from the Participant who clears the 
transaction and not the Participant who executes the transaction. In 
the case

[[Page 37947]]

where a non-member executes a transaction at an away market and a 
Participant clears the transaction, the ORF is assessed to and 
collected from the Participant who clears the transaction. In the case 
where a Participant executes a transaction on BX and a non-member 
clears the transaction, the ORF is assessed to the Participant that 
executed the transaction and collected from the non-member who cleared 
the transaction. In the case where a Participant executes a transaction 
at an away market and a non-member clears the transaction, the ORF is 
not assessed to the Participant who executed the transaction or 
collected from the non-member who cleared the transaction because the 
Exchange does not have access to the data to make absolutely certain 
that ORF should apply. Further, the data does not allow the Exchange to 
identify the Participant executing the trade at an away market.
ORF Revenue and Monitoring of ORF
    The Exchange monitors the amount of revenue collected from the ORF 
to ensure that it, in combination with other regulatory fees and fines, 
does not exceed regulatory costs. In determining whether an expense is 
considered a regulatory cost, the Exchange reviews all costs and makes 
determinations if there is a nexus between the expense and a regulatory 
function. For example, a cost related to BX's equity platform, would 
not be considered an expense that is compared to ORF revenue. An 
options surveillance employee's cost, however would be an expense that 
is compared to ORF revenue. The Exchange notes that fines collected by 
the Exchange in connection with a disciplinary manner offset ORF.
    The ORF is designed to recover a material portion of the costs to 
the Exchange of the supervision and regulation of its Participants, 
including performing routine surveillances, investigations, 
examinations, financial monitoring, and 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, will cover a 
material portion, but not all, of the Exchange's regulatory costs. 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 regulatory costs. If the Exchange 
determines regulatory revenues exceed regulatory costs, the Exchange 
will adjust the ORF by submitting a fee change filing to the 
Commission.
    Finally, the Exchange notes that it is amending its rule text at 
Chapter XV, Section 5 to remove certain rule text and include new text 
to make clear the manner in which ORF is assessed and collected on BX.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 
6(b) of the Act \9\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections 
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act \10\ in particular, in that it provides 
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges 
among members and issuers and other persons using its facility and is 
not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, 
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed clarifications in the Fee 
Schedule to the ORF further the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the 
Act and are equitable and reasonable since they expressly describe the 
Exchange's existing practices regarding the manner in which the 
Exchange assesses and collects its ORF.
Proposal 1--Amend the Amount of the ORF
    The Exchange believes that increasing the ORF from $0.0004 per 
contract side to $0.0005 per contract side as of August 1, 2017 is 
reasonable because the Exchange's collection of ORF needs to be 
balanced against the amount of regulatory cost collected [sic] by the 
Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed adjustments noted 
herein will serve to balance the Exchange's regulatory cost against the 
anticipated regulatory revenue. The Exchange regularly reviews its ORF 
to ensure that the ORF, in combination with its other regulatory fees 
and fines, does not exceed regulatory costs.
    The Exchange believes that increasing the ORF from $0.0004 per 
contract side to $0.0005 per contract side as of August 1, 2017 is 
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because this modest increase 
will serve to balance the Exchange's regulatory revenue against the 
anticipated regulatory costs. The ORF seeks to recover the costs of 
supervising and regulating members, including performing routine 
surveillances, investigations, examinations, financial monitoring, and 
policy, rulemaking, interpretive, and enforcement activities. Moreover, 
the Exchange believes the ORF ensures fairness by assessing fees to 
those Participants 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. 
Participant proprietary transactions) of its regulatory program.
    The ORF is designed to recover a material portion of the costs of 
supervising and regulating Participants' Customer options business 
including performing routine surveillances, investigations, 
examinations, financial monitoring, and policy, rulemaking, 
interpretive, and enforcement activities. The Exchange will 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 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 proposed amount of the fee is reasonable.
Proposal 2--Reflect the Manner in Which BX Assesses and Collects Its 
ORF
    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 Participants 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. The Exchange, because it 
lacks access to

[[Page 37948]]

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 Participant's 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 Participant clearing firms in certain instances 
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'') \11\ system 
in order to surveil a Participant's activities across markets.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ COATS effectively enhances intermarket options surveillance 
by enabling the options exchanges to reconstruct the market promptly 
to effectively surveil certain rules.
    \12\ 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''), 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 markets on 
which security futures are traded and markets on which any security 
underlying security futures are traded to detect manipulation and 
insider trading. See Section 6(h)(3)(I) of the Act. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that assessing the ORF to each Exchange 
member for options transactions cleared by OCC in the Customer range 
where the execution occurs on another exchange and is cleared by a BX 
member is an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other 
charges among its members and issuers and other persons using its 
facilities. The ORF is collected by OCC on behalf of BX from Exchange 
clearing members for all Customer transactions they clear or from non-
members for all Customer transactions they clear that were executed on 
BX. The Exchange believes that this collection practice is reasonable 
and appropriate because higher fees are assessed to those members that 
require more Exchange regulatory services based on the amount of 
Customer options business they conduct.
    Regulating Customer trading activity is more labor intensive and 
requires greater expenditure of human and technical resources than 
regulating non-Customer trading activity. Surveillance, regulation and 
examination of non-Customer trading activity generally 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 anticipated to be typically higher than the 
costs associated with administering the non-Customer component of its 
regulatory program. The Exchange proposes assessing higher fees to 
those members that will require more Exchange regulatory services based 
on the amount of Customer options business they conduct. Additionally, 
the dues and fees paid by members go into the general funds of the 
Exchange, a portion of which is used to help pay the costs of 
regulation. The Exchange has in place a regulatory structure to 
surveil, conduct examinations and monitor the marketplace for 
violations of Exchange Rules. The ORF assists the Exchange to fund the 
cost of this regulation of the marketplace.

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.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed 
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: (i) 
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the 
protection of investors; or (iii) 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.

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 (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to rule-comments@sec.gov. Please include 
File No. SR-BX-2017-032 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-BX-2017-032. 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 (https://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-BX-2017-032, and should be 
submitted on or before September 5, 2017.


[[Page 37949]]


    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-17046 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.