13940 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 

9See NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC Pricing 

Schedule, Section II; NYSE Amex Options Fee 

Schedule, p. 6; Chicago Board Options Exchange, 

Incorporated, Fee Schedule, p. 1. See also Securities 

Exchange Act Release No. 68556 (January 2, 2013), 

78 FR 1293 (January 8, 2013) (SR–BX–2012–074). 10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 11 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

that also assess different transaction fees 

for non-Penny Pilot options classes as 

compared to Penny Pilot options 

classes. The Exchange believes that 

establishing different pricing for nonPenny Pilot options and Penny Pilot 

options is reasonable, equitable, and not 

unfairly discriminatory because Penny 

Pilot options are more liquid options as 

compared to non-Penny Pilot options. 

Additionally, other competing options 

exchanges differentiate pricing in the 

similar manner today.9

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 proposal 

is similar to the transaction fees found 

on other options exchanges; therefore, 

the Exchange believes the proposal is 

consistent with robust competition by 

increasing the intermarket competition 

for order flow from market participants. 

The proposal more closely aligns the 

fees for Public Customers that is not a 

Priority Customer and Firms to those of 

non-MIAX Market Makers and nonMember Broker-dealers. To the extent 

that there is additional competitive 

burden on non-member market 

participants, the Exchange believes that 

this is appropriate because charging 

non-members higher transaction fees is 

a common practice amongst exchanges 

and Members are subject to other fees 

and dues associated with their 

membership to the Exchange that do not 

apply to non-members. To the extent 

that there is additional competitive 

burden on market participants that are 

Public Customer not Priority Customers 

or Firms, the Exchange believes that this 

is appropriate because the proposal 

should incent Members to direct 

additional order flow to the Exchange 

and thus provide additional liquidity 

that enhances the quality of its markets 

and increases the volume of contracts 

traded here. To the extent that this 

purpose is achieved, all the Exchange’s 

market participants should benefit from 

the improved market liquidity. 

Enhanced market quality and increased 

transaction volume that results from the 

anticipated increase in order flow 

directed to the Exchange will benefit all 

market participants and improve 

competition on the Exchange. The 

Exchange notes that it operates in a 

highly competitive market in which 

market participants can readily favor 

competing venues if they deem fee 

levels at a particular venue to be 

excessive. In such an environment, the 

Exchange must continually adjust its 

fees to remain competitive with other 

exchanges and to attract order flow. The 

Exchange believes that the proposal 

reflects this competitive environment. 

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.10 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. 

IV. Solicitation of Comments 

Interested persons are invited to 

submit written data, views and 

arguments concerning the foregoing, 

including whether the proposed rule 

change is consistent with the Act. 

Comments may be submitted by any of 

the following methods: 

Electronic Comments 

• Use the Commission’s Internet 

comment form (http://www.sec.gov/

rules/sro.shtml); or 

• Send an email to rule-comments@

sec.gov. Please include File Number SR– 

MIAX–2015–16 on the subject line. 

Paper Comments 

• Send paper comments in triplicate 

to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities 

and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street 

NE., Washington, DC 20549. 

All submissions should refer to File 

Number SR–MIAX–2015–16. This file 

number should be included on the 

subject line if email is used. To help the 

Commission process and review your 

comments more efficiently, please use 

only one method. The Commission will 

post all comments on the Commission’s 

Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/

rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the 

submission, all subsequent 

amendments, all written statements 

with respect to the proposed rule 

change that are filed with the 

Commission, and all written 

communications relating to the 

proposed rule change between the 

Commission and any person, other than 

those that may be withheld from the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be 

available for Web site viewing and 

printing in the Commission’s Public 

Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., 

Washington, DC 20549, on official 

business days between the hours of 

10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such 

filing also will be available for 

inspection and copying at the principal 

office of the Exchange. All comments 

received will be posted without change; 

the Commission does not edit personal 

identifying information from 

submissions. You should submit only 

information that you wish to make 

available publicly. All submissions 

should refer to File Number SR–MIAX– 

2015–16 and should be submitted on or 

before April 7, 2015. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.11

Brent J. Fields, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2015–06009 Filed 3–16–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–74482; File No. SR–FINRA– 

2014–050] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; 

Financial Industry Regulatory 

Authority, Inc; Notice of Filing of 

Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting 

Accelerated Approval of a Proposed 

Rule Change, as Amended, To Require 

a Member To Identify Transactions 

With a Non-Member Affiliate and To 

Change How FINRA Disseminates a 

Subset of Such Transactions 

March 11, 2015 

I. Introduction 

On November 21, 2014, the Financial 

Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. 

(‘‘FINRA’’) filed with the Securities and 

Exchange Commission (‘‘Commission’’), 

pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 13941 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

3See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73762 

(December 5, 2015), 79 FR 73670 (December 11, 

2015) (‘‘Notice of Original Proposal’’). 

4See Letters to the Commission from Sean C. 

Davy, Managing Director, Securities Industry and 

Financial Markets Association, dated December 23, 

2014 (‘‘SIFMA Letter’’) and Kyle C. Wooten, Deputy 

Director—Compliance and Regulatory, Thomson 

Reuters, dated January 2, 2015 (‘‘Thomson Reuters 

Letter’’). 

5See FINRA Response to Comments, dated 

February 24, 2015 (‘‘FINRA Response Letter’’). The 

FINRA Response Letter is included in the public 

comment file for SR–FINRA–2014–050. 

6FINRA Rule 6730(c)(6) provides that each 

TRACE trade report shall contain the contra-party’s 

identifier. 7The proposed rule change would define ‘‘nonmember affiliate’’ in Rule 6710 as a non-member 

entity that controls, is controlled by, or is under 

common control with a member. For the purposes 

of this definition, ‘‘control,’’ along with any 

derivative thereof, means legal, beneficial, or 

equitable ownership, directly or indirectly, of 25 

percent or more of the capital stock (or other 

ownership interest, if not a corporation) of any 

entity ordinarily having voting rights. The term 

‘‘common control’’ means the same natural person 

or entity controls two or more entities. 

8FINRA’s Response Letter indicated that a 

member may conduct a periodic assessment of its 

affiliate relationships to determine whether a 

relationship qualifies for non-member affiliate 

identification requirements. See FINRA Response 

Letter at 5. 9The proposal would not change the way that a 

member reports a trade with an affiliate that also 

is a member; the reporting member would continue 

to identify the contra-party by MPID. 

10 In FINRA’s Response Letter, it clarified that, 

when a member and a non-member affiliate enter 

into a transaction in a TRACE-eligible security and 

do not initially include the Suppression Indicator, 

but meet the Suppression Criteria during the day, 

the member would not be required to correct the 

trade report to include the Suppression Indicator. 

However, if the Suppression Indicator is included 

but ultimately the transaction does not meet the 

Suppression Criteria, the member must correct the 

prior trade report and remove the Suppression 

Indicator. See FINRA Response Letter at 4–5. 

11See FINRA Response Letter at 5. 

12See supra note 4. 

13See SIFMA Letter at 1. 

14See Thomson Reuters Letter at 3. 

(‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2 a 

proposed rule change to amend the 

FINRA Rule 6700 Series (Trade 

Reporting and Compliance Engine 

(TRACE)): (1) To add a new contra-party 

type to be used in TRACE reports to 

identify a transaction with a nonmember affiliate, and (2) to require a 

firm to identify when a transaction with 

a non-member affiliate meets specified 

conditions, so that FINRA can suppress 

dissemination of such trade. The 

proposed rule change was published for 

comment in the Federal Register on 

December 11, 2014, and the comment 

period expired on January 2, 2015.3 The 

Commission received two comments on 

the proposal.4

On January 14, 2015, FINRA granted 

the Commission an extension of time to 

act on the proposal until March 11, 

2015. On February 24, 2015, FINRA 

filed Amendment No. 1 with the 

Commission to respond to the comment 

letters and to propose modifications and 

clarifications to its proposal.5 The 

Commission is publishing this notice 

and order to solicit comments on 

Amendment No. 1 and to approve the 

proposed rule change, as modified by 

Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated 

basis. 

II. Description of the Proposal 

FINRA has proposed to amend the 

TRACE rules 6700 Series: (1) To add a 

new contra-party type to be used in 

TRACE reports to identify a transaction 

with a non-member affiliate, and (2) to 

require a firm to identify when a 

transaction with a non-member affiliate 

meets specified conditions, so that 

FINRA can suppress dissemination of 

such trade. 

FINRA Rule 6730 (Transaction 

Reporting) sets forth the requirements 

applicable to members for reporting 

transactions in TRACE-Eligible 

Securities. Rule 6730(c) (Transaction 

Information To Be Reported) describes 

the items of information that must be 

included in a TRACE trade report. 

Among other things, a member must 

identify the other side (i.e., contra-party 

or counterparty) for each transaction.6

Where the contra-party is a member, the 

reporting member must provide the 

contra-party’s designated Market 

Participant ID (‘‘MPID’’) in the trade 

report. All other contra-parties 

(including non-member affiliates) can be 

identified only as a ‘‘customer’’ when 

reporting the transaction to TRACE. 

FINRA has proposed to amend Rule 

6730 to introduce a new contra-party 

type to identify a non-member affiliate 

of the member reporting the trade, and 

to disseminate publicly this contra-party 

identifier.7 Currently, when a member 

engages in a transaction with a nonmember affiliate, that transaction is 

reported by the member as a trade with 

a customer.8 Thus, the proposal would 

provide FINRA and market participants 

with additional identifying information 

regarding the contra-party in the case of 

a member trade with a non-member 

affiliate.9

FINRA also proposed to require 

members to identify a narrow subset of 

transactions with non-member affiliates. 

Specifically, a member would need to 

apply a ‘‘Suppression Indicator’’ to a 

transaction between itself and a nonmember affiliate where: (1) Each party is 

trading for its own account, and (2) the 

transaction with the non-member 

affiliate occurs within the same day, at 

the same price, and in the same security 

as a transaction engaged in by the 

member with a different counterparty 

(‘‘Suppression Criteria’’). Identification 

of these transactions by members would 

enable FINRA to suppress the 

transactions from dissemination on the 

tape, as FINRA believes that these 

transactions are not economically 

distinct from the disseminated 

transaction between the member and the 

other contra-party to the trade. 

FINRA would suppress dissemination 

only where a member purchases or sells 

a security and then, within the same 

trading day, engages in a back-to-back 

trade with its non-member affiliate in 

the same security at the same price.10

Because the transaction between the 

member and its non-member affiliate 

represents a change in beneficial 

ownership between different legal 

entities, it is a reportable transaction 

and is publicly disseminated under the 

current rule. 

Implementation Schedule 

FINRA stated in the Notice of Original 

Proposal that it would announce the 

implementation date of the proposed 

rule change in a Regulatory Notice to be 

published no later than 60 days 

following Commission approval, and 

that the implementation date would be 

no later than 90 days following 

publication of the Regulatory Notice 

announcing Commission approval. 

In Amendment No. 1, FINRA revised 

its implementation schedule in response 

to commenters’ concerns. FINRA stated 

that it would announce the 

implementation date in a Regulatory 

Notice to be published no later than 120 

days following Commission approval, 

and the implementation date would be 

no sooner than 120 days, and no later 

than 270 days, following publication of 

the Regulatory Notice.11

III. Summary of Comments, FINRA’s 

Response, and Proposed Modifications 

and Clarifications in Amendment No. 1 

As noted above, the Commission 

received two comment letters 

concerning the proposal.12 Although 

both commenters were generally 

supportive of FINRA’s goal to improve 

the quality of information reported to 

and disseminated by TRACE, one 

commenter supported the proposed 

requirement to identify and suppress 

back-to-back trades done with a nonmember affiliate on the same day for the 

same price and in the same security 13

while the other opposed it.14

The supporting comment letter 

acknowledged that continued 

dissemination of transactions that meet 

the Suppression Criteria would be 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

13942 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 

15See SIFMA Letter at 2. 16See id. 17See id. 18See Thomson Reuters Letter at 3. 19See id. 20See SIFMA Letter at 1 (requesting an 

implementation period of four to five months). 21See Thomson Reuters Letter at 2 (requesting an 

implementation period of ‘‘not less than six 

months. . .’’). 22See Thomson Reuters Letter at 2. 23 Id. 24See supra note 5. 25FINRA Response Letter at note 7. 

26See FINRA Response Letter at 4–5 (stating that 

‘‘where a member does not append the non-member 

affiliate—principal transaction indicator to a trade 

report reflecting a transaction with a non-member 

affiliate that ultimately proved to have been the 

initial leg of a same day, same price trade with 

another contra-party, the member would not be 

required to correct the prior trade report solely for 

the purpose of appending the indicator so long as 

the member did not reasonably expect (at the time 

of the initial trade report) to engage in a subsequent 

same day, same price transaction in the same 

security with another contra-party’’). 

27See FINRA Response Letter at 5. 

28See id. 

29 In approving this proposed rule change, the 

Commission has considered the proposed rule 

change’s impact on efficiency, competition, and 

capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 30 15 U.S.C. 78o–3(b)(6). 

undesirable, but asked that FINRA 

permit members to check for affiliate 

status at specific or periodic points in 

time, because the level of ownership 

interest in an affiliate is subject to 

change over time.15 This commenter 

requested that FINRA better align and 

coordinate reporting changes both 

internally and with the MSRB. 

Coordination was requested to reduce 

the burden on updating technology and 

compliance processes by packaging 

potential changes together, thereby 

alleviating multiple changes at different 

times in the same year.16 This same 

commenter requested that FINRA and 

the MSRB work more closely to 

coordinate and use similar approaches 

and methodologies for trade reporting 

that would lower costs of 

implementation and maintenance.17

The other commenter was opposed to 

the proposal’s requirement to identify 

and suppress back-to-back trades done 

with a non-member affiliate.18 This 

commenter believed that the effort and 

cost to implement the change would be 

unduly burdensome.19

Both commenters requested an 

extension in the implementation 

timeline of four 20 to six 21 months for 

technological implementation. One 

commenter requested the additional 

time to provide sufficient time for 

implementation and to be less 

disruptive to the technology budgets, 

plans, and priorities for 2015.22 The 

commenter stated that the proposed 

timeframe was ‘‘too aggressive’’ and 

would ‘‘add to what already is a 

collective strain on industry technology 

and compliance resources and subject 

matter expertise.’’ 23

FINRA’s Response 

In response to these comments 

concerning the implementation and 

application of the proposed rule change, 

FINRA filed Amendment No. 1.24

FINRA extended the time period for 

implementation, as described above, 

and provided guidance on classifying an 

entity as a non-member affiliate. FINRA 

also reaffirmed that it would ‘‘continue 

to coordinate with other regulators, 

where practicable.’’ 25

In addition, FINRA agreed that there 

are instances where including the 

Suppression Indicator would cause 

operational difficulties. Therefore, 

FINRA clarified that, when a member 

and a non-member affiliate enter into a 

transaction in a TRACE-Eligible 

Security and do not initially include the 

Suppression Indicator but meet the 

Suppression Criteria during the day, the 

member would not be required to 

correct the trade report to include the 

Suppression Indicator.26 However, if the 

Suppression Indicator is included but 

ultimately the transaction does not meet 

the Suppression Criteria, the member 

must correct the prior trade report and 

remove the Suppression Indicator.27

FINRA indicated that a member may 

conduct a periodic assessment of its 

affiliate relationships to determine 

whether a relationship qualifies for nonmember affiliate identification 

requirements. The member may conduct 

a periodic assessment, no less than 

annually, unless the member has 

undergone an organizational or 

operational restructuring that would 

likely impact its prior identification of 

non-member affiliate relationships.28

IV. Solicitation of Comments 

Interested persons are invited to 

submit written data, views, and 

arguments concerning the foregoing, 

including whether the proposed rule 

change is consistent with the Act. 

Comments may be submitted by any of 

the following methods: 

Electronic Comments 

• Use the Commission’s Internet 

comment form (http://www.sec.gov/

rules/sro.shtml); or 

• Send an email to rule-comments@

sec.gov. Please include File Number SR– 

FINRA–2014–050 on the subject line. 

Paper Comments 

• Send paper comments in triplicate 

to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities 

and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street 

NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090. 

All submissions should refer to File 

Number SR–FINRA–2014–050. 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 will also be available for 

inspection and copying at the principal 

office of FINRA. 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 

publicly available. All submissions 

should refer to File Number SR–FINRA– 

2014–050 and should be submitted on 

or before April 7, 2015. 

V. Commission Findings 

After carefully considering the 

proposed rule change, the comments 

submitted, and FINRA’s response to the 

comments and Amendment No. 1, the 

Commission finds that the proposed 

rule change, as modified by Amendment 

No. 1, is consistent with the 

requirements of the Act and the rules 

and regulations thereunder applicable to 

a national securities association.29 In 

particular, the Commission finds that 

the proposed rule change, as modified 

by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with 

Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,30 which 

requires, among other things, that 

FINRA rules be designed to prevent 

fraudulent and manipulative acts and 

practices, to promote just and equitable 

principles of trade, and, in general, to 

protect investors and the public interest. 

The proposal requires a reporting 

member to include a new ‘‘non-member 

affiliate’’ identifier in the reports of a 

transaction in a TRACE-Eligible 

Security, and to identify a narrow subset 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 13943 

31 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 

32 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 

33 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

3NOM is a facility of NASDAQ. References in 

this proposal to Chapter and Series refer to NOM 

rules, unless otherwise indicated. 

4The term ‘‘Professional’’ means any person or 

entity that (i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, 

and (ii) places more than 390 orders in listed 

options per day on average during a calendar month 

for its own beneficial account(s) pursuant to 

Chapter I, Section 1(a)(48). All Professional orders 

shall be appropriately marked by Participants. The 

Exchange initially established Professional pricing 

in order to ‘‘. . . bring additional revenue to the 

Exchange.’’ See Securities Exchange Act Release 

No. 64494 (May 13, 2011), 76 FR 29014 (May 19, 

2011) (SR–NASDAQ–2011–066). In this filing, the 

Exchange addressed the perceived favorable pricing 

of Professionals who were assessed fees and paid 

rebates like a Customer prior to the filing; and noted 

that a Professional, unlike a retail Customer, has 

access to sophisticated trading systems that contain 

functionality not available to retail Customers. 

5The term ‘‘Firm’’ applies to any transaction that 

is identified by a member or member organization 

for clearing in the Firm range at The Options 

Clearing Corporation (‘‘OCC’’). 

6The term ‘‘NOM Market Maker’’ means a 

Participant that has registered as a Market Maker on 

NOM pursuant to Chapter VII, Section 2, and must 

also remain in good standing pursuant to Chapter 

VII, Section 4. In order to receive NOM Market 

Maker pricing in all securities, the Participant must 

be registered as a NOM Market Maker in at least one 

security. See Chapter XV. ‘‘Participant’’ means a 

firm, or organization that is registered with the 

Exchange pursuant to Chapter II of these Rules for 

purposes of participating in options trading on 

NOM as a ‘‘Nasdaq Options Order Entry Firm’’ or 

‘‘Nasdaq Options Market Maker’’. See Chapter I, 

Section (a)(40). 

7The term ‘‘Non-NOM Market Maker’’ is a 

registered market maker on another options 

exchange that is not a NOM Market Maker. A NonNOM Market Maker must append the proper NonNOM Market Maker designation to orders routed to 

NOM. 

8The term ‘‘Broker-Dealer’’ applies to any 

transaction which is not subject to any of the other 

transaction fees applicable within a particular 

category. 

9The Penny Pilot was established in March 2008 

and was last extended in 2014. See Securities 

Exchange Act Release Nos. 57579 (March 28, 2008), 

73 FR 18587 (April 4, 2008) (SR–NASDAQ–2008– 

026) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness 

establishing Penny Pilot); and 73686 (November 25, 

2014), 79 FR 71477 (December 2, 2014) (SR– 

NASDAQ–2014–115) (notice of filing and 

immediate effectiveness extending the Penny Pilot 

through June 30, 2015). All Penny Pilot Options 

listed on the Exchange can be found at http://

www.nasdaqtrader.com/Micro.aspx?id=phlx. 

of such transactions that meet the 

Suppression Criteria. FINRA stated that 

this additional information would 

facilitate a more effective surveillance 

program and improve post-trade 

transparency. The Commission believes 

that these new requirements are 

reasonably designed to carry out these 

objectives and are therefore consistent 

with the Act. Furthermore, the 

Commission does not believe that 

commenters raised any issue that would 

preclude approval of this proposal, and 

that FINRA reasonably responded to the 

comments in Amendment No. 1. 

VI. Accelerated Approval 

The Commission finds good cause, 

pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the 

Act,31 for approving the proposed rule 

change, as modified by Amendment No. 

1 thereto, prior to the 30th day after 

publication of Amendment No. 1 in the 

Federal Register. Amendment No. 1 

responds to the specific issue regarding 

the implementation timeframe raised by 

both comment letters. Furthermore, 

Amendment No. 1 clarifies when the 

Suppression Indicator should be 

included as well as when to determine 

non-member affiliate status. The 

Commission notes that the rest of the 

proposed rule change is not being 

amended and was subject to a full 

notice-and-comment period. These 

revisions add clarity to the proposal and 

do not raise any novel regulatory 

concerns. Accordingly, the Commission 

finds that good cause exists to approve 

the proposal, as modified by 

Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated 

basis. 

VII. Conclusion 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED 

pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act 32

that the proposed rule change (SR– 

FINRA–2014–050), as modified by 

Amendment No. 1, be and hereby is 

approved on an accelerated basis. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.33

Brent J. Fields, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2015–06012 Filed 3–16–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–74475; File No. SR– 

NASDAQ–2015–019] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The 

NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of 

Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of 

Proposed Rule Change Relating to 

Penny Pilot Options 

March 11, 2015. 

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

(‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2

notice is hereby given that on February 

27, 2015, The NASDAQ Stock Market 

LLC (‘‘NASDAQ’’ 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 NASDAQ. 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 

NASDAQ proposes to modify Chapter 

XV, entitled ‘‘Options Pricing,’’ at 

Section 2 governing pricing for 

NASDAQ members using the NASDAQ 

Options Market (‘‘NOM’’),3 NASDAQ’s 

facility for executing and routing 

standardized equity and index options. 

Specifically, NOM proposes to amend 

certain Fees for Removing Liquidity. 

While the changes proposed herein 

are effective upon filing, the Exchange 

has designated that the amendments be 

operative on March 2, 2015. 

The text of the proposed rule change 

is available on the Exchange’s Web site 

at http://

www.nasdaq.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 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

1. Purpose 

NASDAQ proposes to modify Chapter 

XV, entitled ‘‘Options Pricing,’’ at 

Section 2(1) governing the fees assessed 

for option orders entered into NOM. 

Specifically, the Exchange proposes to 

increase the Professional,4 Firm,5 NOM 

Market Maker,6 Non-NOM Market 

Maker,7 and Broker-Dealer 8 Penny Pilot 

Options 9 Fees for Removing Liquidity. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES