14424 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 53 / Thursday, March 19, 2015 / Notices 

(June 9, 2005), 70 FR 37496, 37537–8 (June 29, 

2005). 

18The Commission reminds broker-dealers that 

they must examine their procedures for seeking to 

obtain best execution in light of market and 

technology changes and modify those practices if 

necessary to enable their customers to obtain the 

best reasonably available prices. See Order 

Handling Rules Release, supra note 17, at 48323. 

19For example, a marketable agency order that 

would have otherwise executed on MIAX might be 

prevented from reaching MIAX on account of other 

interest from the member that causes it to exceed 

its Allowable Order Rate and, thus, triggers the 

RPM, resulting in the System blocking new orders 

from the member. 

20See supra note 7. 

21For example, the Exchange argues that PRIME 

Orders submitted pursuant to MIAX Rule 515A 

have been guaranteed an execution at the time of 

acceptance into the System and, therefore, should 

not be cancelled when the RPM is engaged, because 

the execution has effectively already occurred. See 

Notice, supra note 4, at 4609. 

22 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 

23 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

proposal, members have unfettered 

discretion to set the Allowable Order 

Rate and Allowable Contract Execution 

Rate for the RPM. While MIAX 

neglected to affirmatively establish 

minimum and maximum permissible 

settings for the RPM in its rule, the 

Commission expects MIAX periodically 

to assess whether the RPM functionality 

is operating in a manner that is 

consistent with the promotion of fair 

and orderly markets. In addition, the 

Commission expects that members will 

consider their best execution obligations 

when establishing the minimum and 

maximum parameters for the RPM.18

For example, an abnormally low 

Allowable Order Rate set over an 

abnormally long specified time period 

should be carefully scrutinized, 

particularly if a member’s order flow to 

MIAX contains agency orders. To the 

extent that the RPM is set to overlysensitive parameters, a member should 

consider the effect of its chosen settings 

on its ability to receive a timely 

execution on marketable agency orders 

that it sends to MIAX in various market 

conditions.19 The Commission cautions 

that brokers considering their best 

execution obligations should be aware 

that the agency orders they represent 

may be rejected on account of the RPM. 

In addition, under the proposal, once 

the RPM is engaged, PRIME Orders, 

PRIME Solicitation Orders, GTC Orders, 

AOC Orders, and OPG Orders will not 

participate in the RPM.20 The 

Commission notes that these are unique 

order types.21 The Commission believes 

that these exceptions appear to be 

reasonably designed to not interfere 

with the operation of the PRIME and 

PRIME Solicitation auctions and also to 

restrict application of the RPM to 

specific types of orders, whose terms 

limit their application to specialized 

purposes for which members may not 

want or need order protection to apply. 

The proposed rule change also 

codifies existing functionality in the 

ARM with respect to the procedures for 

resuming quoting and the nonparticipation of eQuotes. The 

Commission notes that the clarification 

of ARM procedures in Rule 612 could 

eliminate potential confusion for 

members regarding the need to 

affirmatively notify MIAX that the 

member wishes to re-start quoting 

following an ARM event as well as 

internal inconsistency in the rule about 

the inapplicability of ARM to eQuotes. 

IV. Conclusion 

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to 

section 19(b)(2) of the Act,22 that the 

proposed rule change (SR–MIAX–2015– 

03), as modified by Amendment No. 1, 

be, and hereby is, approved. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.23

Brent J. Fields, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2015–06262 Filed 3–18–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

Upon Written Request, Copies Available 

From: Securities and Exchange 

Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 

100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 

20549–2736. 

Extension: Rule 11a1–1(T). 

SEC File No. 270–428, OMB Control No. 

3235–0478. 

Notice is hereby given that pursuant 

to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(‘‘PRA’’) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) has submitted to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(‘‘OMB’’) a request for approval of 

extension of the previously approved 

collection of information provided for in 

Rule 11a1–1(T) (17 CFR 240.11a1–1(T)), 

under the Securities Exchange Act of 

1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) (‘‘Exchange 

Act’’). 

On January 27, 1976, the Commission 

adopted Rule 11a1–1(T), to exempt 

certain transactions of exchange 

members for their own accounts that 

would otherwise be prohibited under 

Section 11(a) of the Exchange Act. The 

rule provides that a member’s 

proprietary order may be executed on 

the exchange of which the trader is a 

member, if, among other things: (1) The 

member discloses that a bid or offer for 

its account is for its account to any 

member with whom such bid or offer is 

placed or to whom it is communicated; 

(2) any such member through whom 

that bid or offer is communicated 

discloses to others participating in 

effecting the order that it is for the 

account of a member; and (3) 

immediately before executing the order, 

a member (other than a specialist in 

such security) presenting any order for 

the account of a member on the 

exchange clearly announces or 

otherwise indicates to the specialist and 

to other members then present that he 

is presenting an order for the account of 

a member. 

Without these requirements, it would 

not be possible for the Commission to 

monitor its mandate under the Exchange 

Act to promote fair and orderly markets 

and ensure that exchange members 

have, as the principal purpose of their 

exchange memberships, the conduct of 

a public securities business. 

There are approximately 663 

respondents that require an aggregate 

total of 19 hours to comply with this 

rule. Each of these approximately 663 

respondents makes an estimated 20 

annual responses, for an aggregate of 

13,260 responses per year. Each 

response takes approximately 5 seconds 

to complete. Thus, the total compliance 

burden per year is 19 hours (13,260 × 5 

seconds/60 seconds per minute/60 

minutes per hour = 19 hours). The 

approximate cost per hour is $323, 

resulting in a total cost of compliance 

for the annual burden of $6,137 (19 

hours @$323). 

Compliance with Rule 11a–1(T) is 

necessary for exchange members to 

make transactions for their own 

accounts under a specific exemption 

from the general prohibition of such 

transactions under Section 11(a) of the 

Exchange Act. Compliance with Rule 

11a–1(T) does not involve the collection 

of confidential information. Rule 11a– 

1(T) does not have a record retention 

requirement per se. However, responses 

made pursuant to Rule 11a–1(T) may be 

subject to the recordkeeping 

requirements of Rules 17a–3 and 17a–4. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

under the PRA unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

The public may view background 

documentation for this information 

collection at the following Web site: 

www.reginfo.gov. Comments should be 

directed to (i) Desk Officer for the 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 53 / Thursday, March 19, 2015 / Notices 14425 

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

3See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74131 

(January 26, 2015), 80 FR 5161 (SR–MIAX–2015– 

04) (‘‘Notice’’). 

4See Letter to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, 

Commission, from Elizabeth King, Secretary and 

General Counsel, New York Stock Exchange, dated 

February 6, 2015 (‘‘NYSE Letter’’) (stating that 

‘‘NYSE Group agrees with . . . and is supportive of 

MIAX’s efforts to make options available as a risk 

management tool for those ETFs listed on an 

equities exchange pursuant to generic listing 

standards without the requirement for a CSSA’’). 

5See MIAX Rule 402(i). 

6See MIAX Rule 402(i)(5)(ii)(A) (renumbered as 

402(i)(E)(2)(ii)(A) as part of the proposed rule 

change). 

7See MIAX Rule 402(i)(5)(ii)(B) (renumbered as 

402(i)(E)(2)(ii)(B) as part of the proposed rule 

change). 

8See MIAX Rule 402(i)(5)(ii)(C) (renumbered as 

402(i)(E)(2)(ii)(C) as part of the proposed rule 

change). 

9See, e.g., NYSE MKT Rule 1000, Commentary 

.03(a)(B); NYSE MKT Rule 1000A, Commentary 

.02(a)(B); NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3), 

Commentary .01(a)(B); NYSE Arca Equities Rule 

8.100, Commentary .01(a)(B); NASDAQ Rule 

5705(a)(3)(A)(ii); NASDAQ Rule 5705(b)(3)(A)(ii); 

BATS Rule 14.11(b)(3)(A)(ii); and BATS Rule 

14.11(c)(3)(A)(ii). See also Securities Exchange Act 

Release Nos. 54739 (November 9, 2006), 71 FR 

66993 (November 17, 2006) (SR-Amex-2006–78); 

55621 (April 12, 2007), 72 FR 19571 (April 18, 

2007) (SR–NYSEArca-2006–86); and 55269 

(February 9, 2007), 72 FR 7490 (February 15, 2007) 

(SR–NASDAQ–2006–050). 

10See Proposed MIAX Rule 402(i)(E)(2)(i). See 

also NYSE MKT Rule 1000, Commentary .03(a)(B); 

NYSE MKT Rule 1000A, Commentary .02(a)(B); 

NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3), Commentary 

.01(a)(B); NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.100, 

Commentary .01(a)(B); NASDAQ Rule 

5705(a)(3)(A)(ii); NASDAQ Rule 5705(b)(3)(A)(ii); 

BATS Rule 14.11(b)(3)(A)(ii); and BATS Rule 

14.11(c)(3)(A)(ii). 

11 Id. 

12See Proposed MIAX Rules 402(i)(E)(2)(ii)(A)– 

(C). 

13See Notice, supra note 3. 

14 15 U.S.C. 78f. 

15Additionally, in approving the proposed rule 

change, the Commission has considered the 

proposed rule’s impact on efficiency, competition, 

and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 

Securities and Exchange Commission, 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget, Room 10102, New Executive 

Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 

or by sending an email to: Shagufta_

Ahmed@omb.eop.gov; and (ii) Pamela 

Dyson, Director/Chief Information 

Officer, Securities and Exchange 

Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 

100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 

20549, or send an email to: PRA_

Mailbox@sec.gov. Comments must be 

submitted to OMB within 30 days of 

this notice. 

Dated: March 13, 2015. 

Brent J. Fields, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2015–06315 Filed 3–18–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–74509; File No. SR–MIAX– 

2015–04] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami 

International Securities Exchange LLC; 

Order Approving a Proposed Rule 

Change To Amend MIAX Rule 402 

March 13, 2015. 

I. Introduction 

On January 16, 2015, Miami 

International Securities Exchange LLC 

(‘‘MIAX’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’), pursuant to section 

19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act 

of 1934 (‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 

thereunder,2 a proposed rule change to 

amend its listing standards under 

Exchange Rule 402 to eliminate a 

requirement that the Exchange obtain a 

comprehensive surveillance sharing 

agreement (‘‘CSSA’’) before listing and 

trading options that overlie certain 

exchange-traded fund shares (‘‘ETFs’’), 

provided such ETFs are listed pursuant 

to generic listing standards on an 

equities exchange for portfolio 

depositary receipts and index fund 

shares based on international or global 

indexes under which a CSSA with a 

foreign market is not required. The 

proposed rule change was published for 

comment in the Federal Register on 

January 30, 2015.3 The Commission 

received one comment letter supporting 

the proposed rule change.4 This order 

approves the proposed rule change. 

II. Description of the Proposal 

The Exchange allows for the listing 

and trading of options on ETFs that 

satisfy certain listing standards.5 These 

rules require, in part, that (i) any nonU.S. component securities of an index 

or portfolio of securities on which the 

ETFs are based that are not subject to 

CSSAs do not in the aggregate represent 

more than 50% of the weight of the 

index or portfolio; 6 (ii) component 

securities of an index or portfolio of 

securities on which the ETFs are based 

for which the primary market is in any 

one country that is not subject to a 

CSSA do not represent 20% or more of 

the weight of the index; 7 and (iii) 

component securities of an index or 

portfolio of securities on which the 

ETFs are based for which the primary 

market is in any two countries that are 

not subject to CSSAs do not represent 

33% or more of the weight of the index.8

The generic listing standards on equities 

exchanges for the listing of portfolio 

depositary receipts and index fund 

shares based on international or global 

indexes do not, however, contain a 

parallel requirement regarding CSSAs.9

The Exchange proposes to amend its 

listing standards to enable the Exchange 

to list and trade options on certain ETFs 

without a CSSA provided that such 

ETFs that underlie options are listed on 

an equities exchange pursuant to the 

generic listing standards for portfolio 

depositary receipts and index fund 

shares based on international or global 

indexes under which a CSSA is not 

required.10 Accordingly, the proposed 

rule change would provide a limited 

exception to the requirement regarding 

CSSAs under the Exchange’s listing 

standards only in circumstances where 

the underlying ETF was listed on an 

equities exchange pursuant to generic 

listing standards for international or 

global indexes that do not require such 

exchange to enter into a CSSA with a 

foreign market.11 The requirement for 

the Exchange to enter into a CSSA with 

a foreign market would continue to 

apply with respect to products that do 

not fit under the proposed exception.12

In addition, options on ETFs that may 

be listed and traded without a CSSA 

under this proposal would be subject to, 

in all other respects, the Exchange’s 

existing listing and trading rules that 

apply to options on ETFs and would be 

captured under the Exchange’s 

surveillance program for options on 

ETFs.13

Finally, the Exchange proposes 

several technical and non-substantive 

changes to the formatting of Rule 402(i), 

including relocating current Rule 

402(i)(5)(ii)(E) to proposed Rule 

402(i)(E)(1)(iii) and the re-numbering of 

current Rule 402(i)(5)(ii) to proposed 

Rule 402(i)(E)(2)(ii). In addition, the 

Exchange proposes making corrections 

to inaccurate citations located in Rule 

403(g)(1) and (2), so that Rule 403(g)(1) 

properly cites to Rule 402(i)(E)(1)(i) 

regarding closed-end ETFs and Rule 

403(g)(2) properly cites to Rule 

402(i)(E)(1)(ii) regarding open-end ETFs. 

III. Discussion and Commission’s 

Findings 

After careful review, the Commission 

finds that the proposed rule change is 

consistent with the requirements of 

section 6 of the Act 14 and the rules and 

regulations thereunder applicable to a 

national securities exchange.15

Specifically, the Commission finds that 

the proposed rule change is consistent 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES