80 FR 45252 - Consolidated Tape Association; Order Approving the Twenty Second Substantive Amendment to the Second Restatement of the CTA Plan and Sixteenth Substantive Amendment to the Restated CQ Plan
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 145 (July 29, 2015)
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 145 (July 29, 2015)
| Page Range | 45252-45254 | |
| FR Document | 2015-18392 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 145 (Wednesday, July 29, 2015)] [Notices] [Pages 45252-45254] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-18392] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-75504; File No. SR-CTA/CQ-2015-01] Consolidated Tape Association; Order Approving the Twenty Second Substantive Amendment to the Second Restatement of the CTA Plan and Sixteenth Substantive Amendment to the Restated CQ Plan July 22, 2015. I. Introduction On April 27, 2015, the Consolidated Tape Association (``CTA'') Plan and Consolidated Quotation (``CQ'') Plan participants (collectively the ``Participants'') \1\ filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') pursuant to Section 11A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\2\ and Rule 608 thereunder,\3\ a proposal to amend the Second Restatement of the CTA Plan and Restated CQ Plan (collectively, the ``Plans'').\4\The proposals represent the 22nd Substantive Amendment to the CTA Plan and 16th Substantive Amendment to the CQ Plan (collectively ``the Amendments''), and reflect changes unanimously adopted by the Participants. The Amendments would require the Participants to include timestamps in the trade-report and bid-and-offer information that they report to the Plans' processor. The proposed Amendments were published for comment in the Federal Register on [[Page 45253]] May 14, 2015.\5\ The Commission received one comment letter in response to the Notice.\6\ On July 17, 2015, the Participants to the Plan responded to the comment letter.\7\ This order approves the proposed Amendments to the Plans. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The Participants are: BATS Exchange, Inc. (``BATS''), BATS-Y Exchange, Inc. (``BATS-Y''), Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc. (``CBOE''), EDGA Exchange, Inc. (``EDGA''), EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX''), Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA''), International Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE''), NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``Nasdaq BX''), NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. (``Nasdaq PSX''), Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq''), National Stock Exchange (``NSX''), New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''), NYSE MKT LLC (``NYSE MKT''), and NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca''). \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1. \3\ 17 CFR 242.608. \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 10787 (May 10, 1974), 39 FR 17799 (May 20, 1974) (declaring the CTA Plan effective); 15009 (July 28, 1978), 43 FR 34851 (August 7, 1978) (temporarily authorizing the CQ Plan); and 16518 (January 22, 1980), 45 FR 6521 (January 28, 1980) (permanently authorizing the CQ Plan). The most recent restatement of both Plans was in 1995. The CTA Plan, pursuant to which markets collect and disseminate last sale price information for non-NASDAQ listed securities, is a ``transaction reporting plan'' under Rule 601 under the Act, 17 CFR 242.601, and a ``national market system plan'' under Rule 608 under the Act, 17 CFR 242.608. The CQ Plan, pursuant to which markets collect and disseminate bid/ask quotation information for listed securities, is a ``national market system plan'' under Rule 608 under the Act, 17 CFR 242.608. \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74909 (May 8, 2015), 80 FR 27764 (``Notice''). \6\ See Letter from Theodore R. Lazo, Managing Director and Associate Director, SIFMA, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated June 5, 2015 (``SIFMA Letter'') commenting on this proposal as well as the parallel amendment to the UTP Plan. \7\ See Letter from Emily Kasparov, Chairman, CTA Plan Operating Committee to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated July 17, 2015 (``Response Letter''). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- II. Description of the Proposal Currently, Section VI(c) of the CTA Plan requires transaction reports that the Participants submit to the Processor to include the stock symbol, the number of shares, and the price of the transaction. Section VI(a) of the CQ Plan provides that each bid and offer that a Participant reports to the Processor under the CQ Plan must include the bid or offer's quotation size or aggregate quotation size. The Amendments propose to require Participants to include in reports to the Processor the time of the trade or the quotation. In the case of a Participant that is a national securities exchange, the time of the transaction or quotation is to be reported in microseconds as identified in the Participant's matching engine publication timestamp. In the case of FINRA, the time of a transaction will be the time of execution that a FINRA member reports to a FINRA trade reporting facility and the time of a bid or offer will be the quotation publication timestamp that the bidding or offering member reports to the FINRA quotation facility, all in accordance with FINRA rules.\8\ In addition, if a FINRA trade reporting facility or quotation facility provides a proprietary feed of trades or quotes reported by the facility to the Processor, then the FINRA facility must also furnish the Processor with the time of the transmission as published on the facility's proprietary feed. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \8\ If a FINRA member reports to it in seconds or milliseconds, FINRA must convert the times to microseconds and must furnish the Processor the reports in microseconds. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- III. Summary of Comment Letter and Participants' Response The Commission received one comment letter on the proposed Amendments and a response to that comment letter from the Participants. The commenter supports the proposed Amendments, but suggested clarifications to certain aspects of the Amendments. First, in order to ensure that sourcing and reporting of timestamp data would be consistent across exchanges, the commenter recommended that the Amendments provide a clearer definition of ``matching engine publication timestamp.'' \9\ The commenter stated that the term ``matching engine publication timestamp'' is not defined in the Plans or in the proposal, and is not a commonly understood term.\10\ The commenter suggested that the transaction time to be reported to the Securities Information Processors (``SIPs'') should be the timestamp applied when the trade is executed in the exchange's matching engine, and the quotation time should be the timestamp applied when the quotation is added to the exchange's order book.\11\ The commenter further stated that the timestamp reported by the exchange should reflect the actual underlying matching engine event, and not any internal processing that may occur at the exchange before submission to the SIPs.\12\ In response to the comment that the ``matching engine publication timestamps'' be more clearly defined, the Participants stated that the purpose of the Amendments is to respond to the Commission's request to provide information allowing market participants to compare proprietary data feed latency to consolidated data feed latency.\13\ The Participants noted that they devoted considerable effort and resources to expedite this timestamp initiative at Chair White's request. The Participants use the proposed term of ``matching engine publication timestamps'' to connote the timestamp published by each Participant's matching engine. The Participants believe that the proposal will provide transparency that will enable market participants to compare the latency between the proprietary data feed and the consolidated data feed, which the Participants believe the industry will find most useful.\14\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \9\ See SIFMA Letter at 3. \10\ Id. \11\ Id. \12\ Id. \13\ See Response Letter at 2-3. \14\ See Response Letter 3-4. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Next, the commenter stated that the proposed Amendments should provide clarity on the timestamp information that FINRA would be required to provide to the SIPs.\15\ As proposed, any FINRA proprietary data feed of trades or quotes reported by the FINRA trade reporting facility (``TRF'') to the SIPs would be required to furnish the SIPs with the time of the transmission as published on the proprietary feeds. The commenter suggested that the Amendments should require the FINRA TRF or quotation facility to provide to the SIPs the timestamp when the trade or quote was processed by the FINRA facility regardless of whether the facility offers a proprietary feed.\16\ In response, the Participants stated that additional timestamps for non-proprietary FINRA feeds would not provide meaningful information to market participants because they would not enable a market participant to compare the time that a Participant transmits information via a proprietary feed to the time the SIP transmits the same information.\17\ Additionally, the Participants stated that FINRA TRFs or quotation facilities should not include intermediate processing timestamps because such additional timestamps go beyond the scope of the Amendments' objectives and that requiring these additions would be costly and time consuming.\18\ The Participants noted that additional timestamps would delay the rollout of the timestamp initiative considerably, impose a significant cost on the industry, require specialized equipment, add significant bandwidth requirements, and result in an array of timestamps that would likely lead to confusion within the industry.\19\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \15\ See SIFMA Letter at 1, 3. \16\ See SIFMA Letter at 3. \17\ See Response Letter at 3. \18\ See Response Letter at 3-4. \19\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Additionally, the commenter believes that the SIPs should be responsible for market-wide determinations of whether a trade is reported out of sequence and not last sale eligible.\20\ The commenter suggested that the SIPs should make market-wide determinations if transactions are out of sequence by comparing the incoming transaction's execution time against the execution time of the most recent transaction that was last sale eligible and published. The Participants stated that the Participants have historically determined last sale elgibility and out of sequence reporting pursuant to their own rules \21\ and believe that such determinations should continue to be made by the Participants consistent with their respective rules.\22\ [[Page 45254]] In addition, the Participants noted that this suggestion is outside the scope of the Amendments.\23\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \20\ See SIFMA Letter at 3. \21\ See Response Letter at 4. \22\ The commenter also called for change in the governance structure of NMS plans which it states is ineffective and opaque, suggesting that governing bodies of NMS plans should include representatives from broker-dealers, asset managers, and the public, with each of these groups having voting power on the plans' operating committees. See SIFMA Letter at 4. The Participants noted that the Plans held numerous meetings to fashion the timestamp tools including meetings among the Participants and Plan subcommittees, Commission staff, and also involved consultation with industry representatives from the Plan's Advisory Committees. See Response Letter at 2. \23\ See Response Letter at 4. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IV. Discussion and Commission Findings After careful review and consideration of the proposed Amendments, the comment letter, and the Response Letter, the Commission finds that the proposed Amendments to the Plans are consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder,\24\ and, in particular, Section 11A(a)(1) of the Act \25\ and Rule 608 thereunder \26\ in that they are necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a national market system. While supporting the timestamp Amendments, the commenter raised three issues regarding the proposal-- the need to define the term ``matching engine publication timestamp'' more clearly, the need for additional timestamps, and a preference that the SIPs determine whether a trade is reported out of sequence and not last sale eligible. The commenter also believes that there is a need to reform SIP governance. The Participants responded to the commenter's concerns, as discussed above, indicating why they believe that the proposal adequately addresses the issue it was meant to address-- providing additional information so that interested persons will be able to measure the latency between the consolidated data feeds and industry proprietary data feeds. The Participants stated that including additional timestamps would delay implementation of the proposal, add costs, and could be confusing. The Participants also indicated that they continue to believe they should decide, consistent with their rules, whether trades are reported out of sequence and not last sale eligible. The Commission agrees with the Participants' response to the issues raised by the comment letter. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \24\ The Commission has considered the proposed amendment's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1). \26\ 17 CFR 240.608. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The proposal is consistent with Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act,\27\ which sets forth Congress' finding that it is in the public interest and appropriate for the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets to assure the availability to brokers, dealers, and investors of information with respect to quotations and transactions in securities. These goals are furthered by the proposed changes requiring that Participants add timestamps to their trade and quotation reports as this will add transparency regarding the latencies between the CTA and CQ Plans' consolidated data feeds and industry proprietary feeds. Users of the consolidated feeds will be better able to monitor the latency of those feeds and to assess whether such feeds meet their trading and other requirements. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1)(C)(iii). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- V. Conclusion It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 11A of the Act,\28\ and the rules thereunder, that the proposed Amendments to the CTA Plan and CQ Plan (File No. SR-CTA/CQ-2015-01) are approved. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.\29\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \29\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(27). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Robert W. Errett, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. 2015-18392 Filed 7-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
![45252 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Notices
order routing practices, NASDAQ • Send an email to rule-comments@ SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
believes that the degree to which fee sec.gov. Please include File Number SR– COMMISSION
changes in this market may impose any NASDAQ–2015–084 on the subject line.
burden on competition is extremely [Release No. 34–75504; File No. SR–CTA/
limited. In this instance, NASDAQ is Paper Comments CQ–2015–01]
proposing to enhance the NBBO • Send paper comments in triplicate
Program with an additional and higher Consolidated Tape Association; Order
to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Approving the Twenty Second
rebate opportunity in Tape A securities
Commission, 100 F Street NE., Substantive Amendment to the Second
in return for market improving
Washington, DC 20549–1090. Restatement of the CTA Plan and
participation. Consequently, the
proposed changes do not impose a All submissions should refer to File Sixteenth Substantive Amendment to
burden on competition because the Number SR–NASDAQ–2015–084. This the Restated CQ Plan
proposed rebate, and incentive file number should be included on the July 22, 2015.
programs generally, are reflective of the subject line if email is used. To help the
need for exchanges to offer financial Commission process and review your I. Introduction
incentives to attract order flow and to comments more efficiently, please use On April 27, 2015, the Consolidated
let such financial incentives evolve in only one method. The Commission will Tape Association (‘‘CTA’’) Plan and
response to competition. Accordingly, post all comments on the Commission’s Consolidated Quotation (‘‘CQ’’) Plan
while the Exchange does not believe Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ participants (collectively the
that the proposed change will result in rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the ‘‘Participants’’) 1 filed with the
any burden on competition, if the submission, all subsequent Securities and Exchange Commission
change proposed herein are unattractive (‘‘SEC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) pursuant to
amendments, all written statements
to market participants it is likely that Section 11A of the Securities Exchange
with respect to the proposed rule
NASDAQ will lose market share as a Act of 1934 (‘‘Act’’),2 and Rule 608
change that are filed with the
result. thereunder,3 a proposal to amend the
Commission, and all written
C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s communications relating to the Second Restatement of the CTA Plan
Statement on Comments on the and Restated CQ Plan (collectively, the
proposed rule change between the
Proposed Rule Change Received From ‘‘Plans’’).4The proposals represent the
Commission and any person, other than
Members, Participants, or Others 22nd Substantive Amendment to the
those that may be withheld from the
CTA Plan and 16th Substantive
No written comments were either public in accordance with the Amendment to the CQ Plan (collectively
solicited or received. provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be ‘‘the Amendments’’), and reflect
available for Web site viewing and changes unanimously adopted by the
III. Date of Effectiveness of the printing in the Commission’s Public
Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Participants. The Amendments would
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., require the Participants to include
Commission Action
Washington, DC 20549 on official timestamps in the trade-report and bid-
The foregoing rule change has become business days between the hours of and-offer information that they report to
effective pursuant to Section 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such the Plans’ processor. The proposed
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.10 filing also will be available for Amendments were published for
At any time within 60 days of the inspection and copying at the principal comment in the Federal Register on
filing of the proposed rule change, the offices of the Exchange. All comments
Commission summarily may received will be posted without change; 1 The Participants are: BATS Exchange, Inc.
temporarily suspend such rule change if the Commission does not edit personal (‘‘BATS’’), BATS–Y Exchange, Inc. (‘‘BATS–Y’’),
it appears to the Commission that such Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc. (‘‘CBOE’’),
identifying information from EDGA Exchange, Inc. (‘‘EDGA’’), EDGX Exchange,
action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in submissions. You should submit only Inc. (‘‘EDGX’’), Financial Industry Regulatory
the public interest; (ii) for the protection information that you wish to make Authority, Inc. (‘‘FINRA’’), International Securities
of investors; or (iii) otherwise in available publicly. All submissions Exchange, LLC (‘‘ISE’’), NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. (‘‘Nasdaq BX’’), NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc.
should refer o File Number SR– (‘‘Nasdaq PSX’’), Nasdaq Stock Market LLC
If the Commission takes such action, the NASDAQ–2015–084, and should be (‘‘Nasdaq’’), National Stock Exchange (‘‘NSX’’), New
Commission shall institute proceedings York Stock Exchange LLC (‘‘NYSE’’), NYSE MKT
submitted on or before August 19, 2015.
to determine whether the proposed rule LLC (‘‘NYSE MKT’’), and NYSE Arca, Inc. (‘‘NYSE
should be approved or disapproved. For the Commission, by the Division of Arca’’).
2 15 U.S.C. 78k–1.
Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated
IV. Solicitation of Comments authority.11 3 17 CFR 242.608.
4 See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 10787
Interested persons are invited to Robert W. Errett, (May 10, 1974), 39 FR 17799 (May 20, 1974)
submit written data, views, and Deputy Secretary. (declaring the CTA Plan effective); 15009 (July 28,
arguments concerning the foregoing, [FR Doc. 2015–18539 Filed 7–28–15; 8:45 am] 1978), 43 FR 34851 (August 7, 1978) (temporarily
including whether the proposed rule authorizing the CQ Plan); and 16518 (January 22,
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 1980), 45 FR 6521 (January 28, 1980) (permanently
change is consistent with the Act. authorizing the CQ Plan). The most recent
Comments may be submitted by any of restatement of both Plans was in 1995. The CTA
the following methods: Plan, pursuant to which markets collect and
disseminate last sale price information for non-
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Electronic Comments NASDAQ listed securities, is a ‘‘transaction
reporting plan’’ under Rule 601 under the Act, 17
• Use the Commission’s Internet CFR 242.601, and a ‘‘national market system plan’’
comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ under Rule 608 under the Act, 17 CFR 242.608. The
rules/sro.shtml); or CQ Plan, pursuant to which markets collect and
disseminate bid/ask quotation information for listed
securities, is a ‘‘national market system plan’’ under
1015 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 11 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). Rule 608 under the Act, 17 CFR 242.608.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:33 Jul 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\29JYN1.SGM 29JYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_45397/page/1.svg)
![45254 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Notices
In addition, the Participants noted that appropriate for the protection of SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
this suggestion is outside the scope of investors and the maintenance of fair COMMISSION
the Amendments.23 and orderly markets to assure the [Release No. 34–75505; File No. S7–24–89]
IV. Discussion and Commission availability to brokers, dealers, and
Findings investors of information with respect to Joint Industry Plan; Order Approving
quotations and transactions in Amendment No. 35 to the Joint Self-
After careful review and
securities. These goals are furthered by Regulatory Organization Plan
consideration of the proposed
the proposed changes requiring that Governing the Collection,
Amendments, the comment letter, and
Participants add timestamps to their Consolidation and Dissemination of
the Response Letter, the Commission
trade and quotation reports as this will Quotation and Transaction Information
finds that the proposed Amendments to
add transparency regarding the latencies for Nasdaq-Listed Securities Traded on
the Plans are consistent with the
between the CTA and CQ Plans’ Exchanges on an Unlisted Trading
requirements of the Act and the rules
consolidated data feeds and industry Privileges Basis Submitted by the
and regulations thereunder,24 and, in
proprietary feeds. Users of the BATS Exchange, Inc., BATS Y-
particular, Section 11A(a)(1) of the
consolidated feeds will be better able to Exchange, Inc., Chicago Board
Act 25 and Rule 608 thereunder 26 in that
monitor the latency of those feeds and Options Exchange, Incorporated,
they are necessary or appropriate in the
Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., EDGA
public interest, for the protection of to assess whether such feeds meet their
Exchange, Inc., EDGX Exchange, Inc.,
investors and the maintenance of fair trading and other requirements.
Financial Industry Regulatory
and orderly markets, to remove
V. Conclusion Authority, Inc., International Securities
impediments to, and perfect the
Exchange LLC, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.,
mechanisms of, a national market It is therefore ordered, pursuant to NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, Nasdaq
system. While supporting the timestamp Section 11A of the Act,28 and the rules Stock Market LLC, National Stock
Amendments, the commenter raised
thereunder, that the proposed Exchange, Inc., New York Stock
three issues regarding the proposal—the
Amendments to the CTA Plan and CQ Exchange LLC, NYSE MKT LLC, and
need to define the term ‘‘matching
Plan (File No. SR–CTA/CQ–2015–01) NYSE Arca, Inc.
engine publication timestamp’’ more
clearly, the need for additional are approved.
July 22, 2015.
timestamps, and a preference that the For the Commission, by the Division of
SIPs determine whether a trade is Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated I. Introduction
reported out of sequence and not last authority.29 On April 27, 2015, the operating
sale eligible. The commenter also Robert W. Errett, committee (‘‘Operating Committee’’ or
believes that there is a need to reform Deputy Secretary.
‘‘Committee’’) 1 of the Joint Self-
SIP governance. The Participants Regulatory Organization Plan Governing
[FR Doc. 2015–18392 Filed 7–28–15; 8:45 am]
responded to the commenter’s concerns, the Collection, Consolidation, and
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P Dissemination of Quotation and
as discussed above, indicating why they
believe that the proposal adequately Transaction Information for Nasdaq-
addresses the issue it was meant to Listed Securities Traded on Exchanges
address—providing additional on an Unlisted Trading Privileges Basis
information so that interested persons (‘‘Nasdaq/UTP Plan’’ or ‘‘Plan’’) filed
will be able to measure the latency with the Securities and Exchange
between the consolidated data feeds and Commission (‘‘Commission’’) pursuant
industry proprietary data feeds. The to Section 11A of the Securities
Participants stated that including Exchange Act of 1934 (‘‘Act’’),2 and
additional timestamps would delay Rule 608 thereunder,3 a proposal to
implementation of the proposal, add amend the Nasdaq/UTP Plan.4 The
costs, and could be confusing. The
Participants also indicated that they 1 The Plan Participants (collectively the
continue to believe they should decide, ‘‘Participants’’) are the: BATS Exchange, Inc.; BATS
Y-Exchange, Inc.; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
consistent with their rules, whether Incorporated; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.; EDGA
trades are reported out of sequence and Exchange, Inc.; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Financial
not last sale eligible. The Commission Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (‘‘FINRA’’);
agrees with the Participants’ response to International Securities Exchange LLC; NASDAQ
OMX BX, Inc.; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Nasdaq
the issues raised by the comment letter. Stock Market LLC; National Stock Exchange, Inc.;
The proposal is consistent with New York Stock Exchange LLC; NYSE MKT LLC;
Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act,27 and NYSE Arca, Inc.
which sets forth Congress’ finding that 2 15 U.S.C. 78k–1.
3 17 CFR 240.608.
it is in the public interest and
4 The Plan governs the collection, processing, and
dissemination on a consolidated basis of quotation
including meetings among the Participants and Plan information and transaction reports in Eligible
subcommittees, Commission staff, and also Securities for each of its Participants. This
involved consultation with industry representatives consolidated information informs investors of the
from the Plan’s Advisory Committees. See Response current quotation and recent trade prices of Nasdaq
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Letter at 2.
23 See Response Letter at 4.
securities. It enables investors to ascertain from one
data source the current prices in all the markets
24 The Commission has considered the proposed
trading Nasdaq securities. The Plan serves as the
amendment’s impact on efficiency, competition, required transaction reporting plan for its
and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). Participants, which is a prerequisite for their
25 15 U.S.C. 78k–1(a)(1).
trading Eligible Securities. See Securities Exchange
26 17 CFR 240.608. 28 15 U.S.C. 78k–1. Act Release No. 55647 (April 19, 2007) 72 FR 20891
27 15 U.S.C. 78k–1(a)(1)(C)(iii). 29 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(27). (April 26, 2007).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:33 Jul 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\29JYN1.SGM 29JYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_45397/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2015-12-15 13:05:30
Document Modified: 2015-12-15 13:05:30
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 45252 |
2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR