[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 245 (Wednesday, December 21, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79254-79258]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32586]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-65964; File Nos. SR-EDGA-2011-29; SR-EDGX-2011-28]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGA Exchange, Inc.; EDGX
Exchange, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Changes, as Modified by
Amendments No. 1, Relating to Amendments to EDGA and EDGX Rules
Regarding the Registration and Obligations of Market Makers
December 15, 2011.
I. Introduction
On August 30, 2011, EDGA Exchange, Inc. and EDGX Exchange, Inc.
(``EDGA'' and ``EDGX,'' or ``Exchanges'') 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\ proposed rule changes relating to amendments to EDGA and
EDGX rules regarding the registration and obligations of market
makers.\3\ The proposed rule changes were published for comment in the
Federal Register on September 16, 2011.\4\ On December 14, 2011, the
Exchanges each filed an Amendment No. 1 to their respective proposed
rule changes (``Amendments No. 1'').\5\ The Commission received no
comment letters regarding the proposals. This order approves the
proposed rule changes, as modified by the Amendments No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
\2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
\3\ The proposed rule changes, and the rules affected by them,
in the EDGA and EDGX rulebooks are identical, so all proposed
changes and references to any rule apply to both of the Exchanges.
\4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65315 (September 12,
2011), 76 FR 57772 (September 16, 2011) (SR-EDGX-2011-28);
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65316 (September 12, 2011), 76
FR 57787 (September 16, 2011) (SR-EDGA-2011-29) (``Notices'').
\5\ Amendments No. 1 amended the proposed rule changes to delete
proposed Rule 11.21(e), which would have allowed the Exchanges, upon
the request of a Market Maker, to enter, refresh, cancel and re-
enter, under specified circumstances, two-sided quotations on behalf
of the market maker at prices within a Designated Percentage
(defined below) away from the then-current NBBO. The filings were
previously noticed by the Commission for public comment in their
entirety. Amendments No. 1 removed an optional automated quotation
functionality, a change that does not alter the substance of the
remainder of the proposals. For these reasons, the amendments are
not subject to notice and comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Description of the Proposals
The Exchanges propose to amend Chapter XI of their rulebooks to add
new rules regarding the registration and
[[Page 79255]]
obligations of market makers. The Exchanges also propose to amend Rule
14.1, entitled ``Unlisted Trading Privileges,'' to restrict trading
activities of Market Makers, and impose a series of reporting and
record-keeping requirements on them. Lastly, the Exchanges propose to
amend Rule 8.15, Interpretation .01, to expand the list of violations
eligible for disposition under the Exchanges' Minor Rule Violation
Plans (``MRVP'').
A. Registration of Market Makers
The Exchanges propose to give Members the option to register as
Market Makers, which would require them to submit applications in the
form prescribed by the Exchanges. The Exchanges would review the
applications by considering several factors, including the capital,
operations, personnel, technical resources, and disciplinary history of
the applicant. The Exchanges would require each Market Maker to have
and maintain the minimum net capital of at least the amount required by
Rule 15c3-1 under the Act.\6\ An applicant's registration as a Market
Maker would become effective upon receipt by the Member of the notice
of approval of registration from one of the Exchanges. The Exchanges
would designate registered Market Makers as dealers for all purposes
under the Act, and the rules and regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 17 CFR 240.15c3-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchanges could suspend or terminate the registration of a
Market Maker if the Exchange(s) determine(s) that the Market Maker:
Substantially or continually fails to engage in dealings in accordance
with Exchange Rules, fails to meet the minimum net capital conditions,
fails to maintain fair and orderly markets, or does not have at least
one registered Market Maker Authorized Trader (``MMAT'') qualified \7\
to perform market making activities.\8\ Any Market Maker could also
withdraw its registration, subject to any minimum prior notice period
or other conditions on withdrawal and re-registration the Exchange(s)
deem(s) appropriate to maintain fair and orderly markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ A MMAT whose registration is suspended would not be deemed
qualified.
\8\ A Market Maker could appeal a suspension or termination
pursuant to the procedures in Chapter X of the Exchanges' rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Registration of MMATs
The Exchanges propose to require that each registered Market Maker
have at least one registered MMAT, which would require Market Makers to
submit applications in the form prescribed by the Exchanges. MMATs
could be officers, partners, employees, or other associated persons of
Market Makers. However, to be eligible for registration as a MMAT, a
person must successfully complete the training and other programs
required by the Exchanges and the General Securities Representative
Examination (i.e., Series 7) or equivalent foreign examination module
approved by the Exchanges. The Exchanges would require Market Makers to
ensure that their MMATs are properly qualified to perform market making
activities, and the Exchanges could grant a person conditional
registration as a MMAT as appropriate in the interests of maintaining a
fair and orderly market. Once registered, MMATs could enter orders only
for the account of the Market Maker for which they are registered.
In addition, the Exchanges could suspend or terminate the
registration of a MMAT if the Exchange(s) determine(s) that the MMAT
has caused the Market Maker to fail to comply with the federal
securities laws, and the rules and regulations thereunder, or the rules
of the Exchange(s), or if the MMAT fails to perform his or her
responsibilities properly or fails to maintain fair and orderly
markets.\9\ If a MMAT is suspended, the Market Maker could not allow
the MMAT to submit orders. A Market Maker could also withdraw the
registration of a MMAT by submitting to the Exchange(s) a written
request on a form prescribed by the Exchange(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ A MMAT could appeal a suspension or termination pursuant to
the procedures in Chapter X of the Exchanges' rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Registration of Market Makers in a Security
The Exchanges propose to require Market Makers to register in the
securities for which they would make markets. A Market Maker could
register in a newly authorized security or in a security already
admitted to dealings on the Exchange(s) by filing a security
registration form with the Exchange(s). Registration in the security
would become effective on the same day that the Exchange(s) approve(s)
the registration, unless otherwise provided by the Exchange(s). In
considering the approval of the registration of the Market Maker in a
security, the Exchange(s) could consider the financial resources
available to the Market Maker, the Market Maker's experience and past
performance in making markets, the Market Maker's operational
capability, the maintenance and enhancement of competition among Market
Makers in each security in which they are registered, the existence of
satisfactory clearing arrangements for the Market Maker's transactions,
and the character of the market for the security. The Exchange(s) could
suspend or terminate the registration of a Market Maker in any security
whenever the Exchange(s) determine(s) that the Market Maker has not met
one or more of its obligations, including a failure to maintain fair
and orderly markets.\10\ A Market Maker also could voluntarily
terminate its registration in a security by providing the Exchange(s)
with a written notice of such termination, subject to any minimum prior
notice period or other conditions on termination and re-registration
the Exchange(s) deem(s) appropriate.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ A Market Maker could appeal a suspension or termination
pursuant to the procedures in Chapter X of the Exchanges' rulebooks.
\11\ A Market Maker that fails to give advanced written notice
of termination to the Exchange(s) may be subject to formal
disciplinary action pursuant to Chapter VIII of the Exchanges'
rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Market Maker Obligations
The Exchanges propose to establish market maker obligations. In
general, Market Makers would have to engage in a course of dealings for
their own accounts to assist in the maintenance, insofar as reasonably
practicable, of fair and orderly markets on the Exchanges. The
responsibilities of a Market Maker would include, without limitation:
Remaining in good standing with the Exchange(s) and in compliance with
all applicable rules of the Exchange(s); informing the Exchange(s) of
any material change in its financial or operational condition or
personnel; \12\ maintaining a current list of MMATs and providing any
updates to such list to the Exchange(s) upon any change in MMATs; and
clearing and settling transactions through the facilities of a
registered clearing agency.\13\ Market Makers would be responsible for
the acts and omissions of their MMATs. If the Exchanges were to find
any substantial or continued failure by a Market Maker to engage in a
course of dealing as specified, such Market Maker
[[Page 79256]]
would be subject to disciplinary action, or suspension or revocation of
its registration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The Exchanges propose to include an interpretation that
would remind Market Makers that, in connection with the obligation
to ``inform the Exchange of any material change in financial or
operational condition,'' the Market Makers would also be obligated
to submit to the Exchange(s) a copy of a notice sent to the
Commission pursuant to Rule 17a-11 under the Act. 17 CFR 240.17a-11.
The notice to the Exchanges would have to be sent concurrently with
the notice sent to the Commission. See proposed Rule 11.21,
Interpretation .01.
\13\ Market Makers could satisfy the clearance and settlement
requirement by direct participation, use of direct clearing
services, or by entering into a correspondent clearing arrangement
with another Member that clears trades through such agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchanges also propose to require that Market Makers maintain
continuous, two-sided quotations within a designated percentage of the
National Best Bid (``NBB'') and National Best Offer (``NBO'')
(collectively, ``NBBO'') (or, if there is no NBB or NBO, the last
reported sale). The Exchanges represent that these Market Maker
quotation requirements would be intended to eliminate trade executions
against Market Maker quotations priced far away from the inside market,
commonly known as ``stub quotes.'' \14\ The Exchanges further represent
that the quotation obligations also would be intended to augment and
work in relation to the single stock circuit breakers already in place
on a pilot basis for stocks in the S&P 500[reg] Index and
the Russell 1000[reg] Index, as well as a pilot list of
Exchange Traded Products (the ``Original Circuit Breaker
Securities'').\15\ Permissible quotes would be determined by the
individual character of the security, the time of day in which the
quote is entered, and other factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Notices, supra note 4: 76 FR 57772 at 57774; 76 FR
57787 at 57788.
\15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For issues subject to an individual stock trading pause under the
applicable rules of a primary listing market, a permissible quote (also
known as ``Designated Percentage'') would be as follows: (i) A Market
Maker's quotes in the Original Circuit Breaker Securities shall not be
more than 8% away from the NBBO; (ii) a Market Maker's quotes in NMS
securities (as defined in Rule 600 of Regulation NMS) \16\ that are not
Original Circuit Breaker Securities with a price equal to or greater
than $1 shall not be more than 28% away from the NBBO; and (iii) a
Market Maker's quotes in NMS securities that are not Original Circuit
Breaker Securities with a price less than $1 shall not be more than 30%
away from the NBBO. For times during Regular Trading Hours \17\ when
stock pause triggers are not in effect under the rules of the primary
listing market (e.g., before 9:45 a.m. and after 3:35 p.m. Eastern
Time), the Designated Percentage shall be 20% for Original Circuit
Breaker Securities, 28% for all NMS securities that are not Original
Circuit Breaker Securities with a price equal to or greater than $1,
and 30% for all NMS securities that are not Original Circuit Breaker
Securities with a price less than $1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 17 CFR 242.600.
\17\ See Rule 1.5(y) (as proposed to be re-lettered) (defining
Regular Trading Hours as 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. Eastern Time).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once a compliant quote is entered, it could rest without adjustment
until such time as it moves to within 9.5% away from the NBBO for
Original Circuit Breaker Securities, 29.5% away from the NBBO for NMS
securities that are not Original Circuit Breaker Securities with a
price equal to or greater than $1, and 31.5% away from the NBBO for all
NMS securities that are not Original Circuit Breaker Securities with a
price less than $1 (``Defined Limit''), whereupon the Market Maker
would have to immediately adjust its quote to at least the permissible
default level of 8%, 28%, or 30%, respectively, away from the then-
current NBBO (or last reported sale, as applicable).
The Exchanges note that scenarios may occur in which pricing at the
commencement of a trading day, or at the re-opening of trading in a
security that has been halted, suspended, or paused, is significantly
different from pricing for the security at the close of the previous
trading day or immediately prior to the halt, suspension, or pause,
respectively.\18\ The Exchanges represent that these pricing
differentials could be the result of corporate actions that occur after
the close of the previous trading day or the market's absorption of
material information during the halt, suspension, or pause.\19\ Based
on this concern, the Exchanges believe that Market Makers should not be
subject to the pricing obligations proposed herein when the last sale
of the previous trading day, or immediately prior to a halt, is the
only available reference price.\20\ The Exchanges therefore propose
that, for NMS stocks, a Market Maker would have to adhere to the
pricing obligations established by this Rule during Regular Trading
Hours, provided, however, that such pricing obligations: (i) Would not
commence during any trading day until after the first regular way
transaction on the primary listing market in the security, as reported
by the responsible single plan processor, and (ii) would be suspended
during a trading halt, suspension, or pause, and would not re-commence
until after the first regular way transaction on the primary listing
market in the security following such halt, suspension, or pause, as
reported by the responsible single plan processor. Nothing would
preclude a Market Maker from voluntarily quoting at price levels that
are closer to the NBBO than required under the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See Notices, supra note 4: 76 FR 57772 at 57774; 76 FR
57787 at 57789.
\19\ Id.
\20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Unlisted Trading Privileges
The Exchanges propose to impose restrictions on each Market Maker
on the Exchange(s) (``Restricted Market Maker'') in a derivative
securities product (``UTP Derivative Security'') that derives its value
from one or more currencies or commodities, or from a derivative
overlying one or more currencies or commodities, or is based on a
basket or index comprised of currencies or commodities (collectively,
``Reference Assets''). Specifically, the Exchanges would prohibit a
Restricted Market Maker in a UTP Derivative Security on the Exchange(s)
from acting or registering as a market maker on any other exchange in
any Reference Asset of that UTP Derivative Security, or any derivative
instrument based on a Reference Asset of that UTP Derivative Security
(collectively, with Reference Assets, ``Related Instruments'').
Further, the Exchanges would require a Restricted Market Maker to file
and keep current with the Exchange(s) (in a manner prescribed by the
Exchange(s)) a list identifying any accounts (``Related Instrument
Trading Accounts'') for which Related Instruments are traded: (1) In
which the Restricted Market Maker holds an interest; (2) over which it
has investment discretion; or (3) in which it shares in the profits
and/or losses. In addition, the Exchanges would prohibit a Restricted
Market Maker from having an interest in, exercising investment
discretion over, or sharing in the profits and/or losses of a Related
Instrument Trading Account which has not been reported to the
Exchanges. In addition to the existing obligations under the Exchanges'
rules regarding the production of books and records, the Exchanges
would require a Restricted Market Maker, upon request by the
Exchange(s), to make available any books, records, or other information
pertaining to any Related Instrument Trading Account or to the account
of any registered or non-registered employee affiliated with the
Restricted Market Maker in which Related Instruments are traded.
Lastly, the Exchanges would require that a Restricted Market Maker not
use any material, non-public information in connection with trading a
Related Instrument.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ The Exchanges propose to re-number current Rule 14.1(c)(5)
and to replace the term ``components of the index or portfolio on
which the UTP Derivative Security is based'' in Rule 14.6(c)(6) with
``Related Instruments.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 79257]]
F. MRVPs
The Exchanges propose to add the continuous, two-sided quotation
obligation to the list of rules which would be appropriate for
disposition under the Exchanges' MRVPs, which would allow the Exchanges
to impose a $100 fine for each violation. The Exchanges have
represented that, by promptly imposing a meaningful financial penalty
for such violations, the MRVPs focus on correcting conduct before it
gives rise to more serious enforcement action, provide a reasonable
means of addressing rule violations that do not necessarily rise to the
level of requiring formal disciplinary proceedings, and offer greater
flexibility in handling certain violations.\22\ The Exchanges further
stated that a provision that would allow the Exchanges to sanction
violators under the MRVPs would not minimize the importance of
compliance with the continuous, two-sided quotation obligation, and
that the violation of any rule is a serious matter; the addition of a
sanction under the MRVPs would be an additional method for disciplining
violators.\23\ The Exchanges represented that they would continue to
conduct surveillance with due diligence and make determinations, on a
case-by-case basis, whether a violation of the continuous, two-sided
quotation obligation should be subject to formal disciplinary
proceedings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See Notices, supra note 4: 76 FR 57772 at 57775; 76 FR
57787 at 57790.
\23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Discussion
After careful review of the proposals, the Commission finds that
the proposed rule changes are consistent with the requirements of the
Act, and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange.\24\ In particular, the Commission finds that the
proposals are consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\25\ which
requires, among other things, that the rules of an exchange be designed
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ In approving these proposed rule changes, the Commission
has considered the proposed rules' impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
\25\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission finds that the Exchanges' proposals to establish
procedures for the registration, withdrawal, suspension, and
termination of Market Makers and MMATs; the registration of Market
Makers in a security; and Market Maker obligations are consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.\26\ The proposed rules would benefit all
Exchange participants because Market Makers would assist in the
maintenance of fair and orderly markets, provide additional liquidity
to the Exchanges, and assist in preventing excess volatility. The
Commission finds that the Exchanges' rules provide objective processes
by which a Member could become a Market Maker, an individual could
become an MMAT, and a Market Maker could register in a security. The
proposed rules also provide for appropriate oversight by the Exchanges
to monitor for continued compliance by Market Makers and MMATs with the
terms of those provisions. The Commission also notes that these
proposals, including the Market Maker obligations, are similar to rules
of other exchanges.\27\ As a result, the Commission believes that these
aspects of the proposals are consistent with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Id.
\27\ See, e.g., BATS Exchange, Inc. (``BATS'') Rules 11.5-.8;
National Stock Exchange, Inc. (``NSX'') Rules 11.5-.8; see also
Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 54391 (August 31, 2006), 71 FR
52836 (September 7, 2006) (SR-NSX-2006-08) (approving proposed rules
for the registration of market makers, obligations of market maker
authorized traders, the registration of market makers in a security,
and obligations of market makers), 58644 (September 25, 2008), 73 FR
57172 (October 1, 2008) (SR-BATS-2008-005) (noticing the immediate
effectiveness of proposed rules for the registration and obligations
of market makers based on NSX's rules).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission also finds that the provisions of the proposed rule
changes that implement the continuous, two-sided quotation obligation
are consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.\28\ The proposed rules
promote uniformity across markets concerning minimum market maker
quotation requirements as this aspect of the proposals is similar to
rules of other self-regulatory organizations.\29\ In addition to
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\30\ the Commission finds that the
continuous, two-sided quoting obligations are consistent with Section
11A(a)(1) of the Act \31\ in that they seek to assure fair competition
among brokers and dealers and among exchange markets. By requiring
Market Makers to maintain quotes that are priced within a specified
percentage of the NBBO, the proposed rules should help assure that
quotations submitted by Market Makers to the Exchanges, and displayed
to market participants, bear some relationship to the prevailing market
price. This may reduce the risk that trades will occur at irrational
prices and should promote fair and orderly markets and the protection
of investors.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
\29\ See, e.g., BATS Rule 11.8(d); NSX Rule 11.8(a)(1); see also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63255 (November 5, 2010), 75 FR
69484 (November 12, 2010) (approving proposed rule changes,
implementing enhanced market maker quotation standards, by BATS,
NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated,
The Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc., The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, NSX, New York Stock
Exchange LLC, NYSE Amex LLC, and NYSE Arca, Inc.).
\30\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
\31\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1).
\32\ The Commission notes, consistent with prior guidance under
Regulation SHO (See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50103 (July
28, 2004), 69 FR 48008, 48015 (Aug. 6, 2004) and Release No. 58775
(Oct. 14, 2008), 73 FR 61690, 61698-99 (Oct. 17, 2008)), that a
market maker's compliance with the percentage quoting requirements
contained in these proposals, i.e., maintaining a quote that is 8%
away from the NBBO for stocks in the S&P 500, Russell 1000, and for
select ETPs, would not constitute bona fide market making for
purposes of claiming the applicable exceptions to the requirements
of Regulation SHO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission finds that the Exchanges' proposed restrictions on
the trading activities of Market Makers in UTP Derivative Securities,
and the imposition of reporting and record-keeping requirements on
Market Makers who trade UTP Derivative Securities are consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.\33\ These proposals are closely modeled on
similar rules of other exchanges, which the Commission has previously
approved, and do not raise any novel issues.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
\34\ See, e.g., BATS Rule 14.1; NASDAQ OMX Phlx LLC (``Phlx'')
Rule 803(o); NSX Rule 15.9; see also Securities Exchange Act Release
Nos. 57806 (May 9, 2008), 73 FR 28541 (May 16, 2008) (SR-Phlx-2008-
34) (approving consolidation into a single rule of certain
requirements for products traded on the Philadelphia Stock Exchange,
Inc. (n/k/a Phlx) pursuant to unlisted trading privileges); 58623
(September 23, 2008), 73 FR 57169 (October 1, 2008) (SR-BATS-2008-
004) (noticing immediate effectiveness of consolidation into a
single rule of certain requirements for products traded on BATS
pursuant to unlisted trading privileges consolidation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission also finds that the Exchanges' proposals to include
a Market Maker's obligation to maintain a continuous, two-sided
quotation in any security in which it is registered in their MRVPs is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\35\ and Sections 6(b)(1)
and 6(b)(6) of the Act,\36\ which require that the rules of an exchange
enforce compliance with, and provide appropriate discipline for,
violations of Commission and exchange rules. The Commission believes
that the proposed changes to the MRVPs should strengthen the Exchanges'
abilities to carry out their oversight and
[[Page 79258]]
enforcement responsibilities as SROs by promptly imposing a financial
penalty in cases where full disciplinary proceedings are unsuitable in
view of the minor nature of the particular violation. The Commission
also notes that these proposed changes are closely modeled on the rules
of other exchanges, which have been previously approved by the
Commission.\37\ Furthermore, the Commission believes that, because Rule
8.15 provides procedural rights to a person fined under the MRVP to
contest the fine and permits a hearing on the matter, the proposed
changes provide a fair procedure for the disciplining of Members and
persons associated with Members, consistent with Sections 6(b)(7) and
6(d)(1) of the Act.\38\ Therefore, the Commission finds that the
proposals are consistent with the public interest, the protection of
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as
required by Rule 19d-1(c)(2) under the Act,\39\ which governs minor
rule violation plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
\36\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1), (6).
\37\ See BATS Rule 8.15, Interpretation .01; NSX Rule 8.15,
Interpretation .01.
\38\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(7), (d)(1).
\39\ 17 CFR 240.19d-1(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In approving these proposals, the Commission in no way minimizes
the importance of compliance with the Exchanges' rules and all other
rules subject to the imposition of fines under the MRVPs. The
Commission believes that the violation of any SRO's rules, as well as
Commission rules, is a serious matter. However, the MRVPs provide a
reasonable means of addressing rule violations that do not rise to the
level of requiring formal disciplinary proceedings, while providing
greater flexibility in handling certain violations. The Commission
expects that the Exchanges will continue to conduct surveillance with
due diligence and make determinations based on their findings, on a
case-by-case basis, whether a fine of more or less than the recommended
amount is appropriate for a violation under the MRVPs or whether a
violation requires formal disciplinary action under the Exchanges'
rules.
Finally, the Commission finds that the Exchanges' addition of
definitions, re-lettering and re-numbering of rules, and replacement of
certain text in Rule 14.1(c)(6) are technical in nature and consistent
with the Act accordingly.
IV. Conclusion
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\40\ that the proposed rule changes (SR-EDGA-2011-29 and SR-EDGX-
2011-28), as amended by Amendments No. 1, be, and hereby are, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
\41\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\41\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-32586 Filed 12-20-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P