80 FR 45254 - Joint Industry Plan; Order Approving Amendment No. 35 to the Joint Self-Regulatory Organization Plan Governing the Collection, Consolidation and Dissemination of Quotation and Transaction Information for Nasdaq-Listed Securities Traded on Exchanges on an Unlisted Trading Privileges Basis Submitted by the BATS Exchange, Inc., BATS Y-Exchange, Inc., Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated, Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., EDGA Exchange, Inc., EDGX Exchange, Inc., Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., International Securities Exchange LLC, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, National Stock Exchange, Inc., New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE MKT LLC, and NYSE Arca, Inc.

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 145 (July 29, 2015)

Page Range		45254-45256
FR Document		2015-18393
Federal Register, Volume 80 Issue 145 (Wednesday, July 29, 2015)
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 145 (Wednesday, July 29, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45254-45256]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2015-18393]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75505; File No. S7-24-89]


Joint Industry Plan; Order Approving Amendment No. 35 to the 
Joint Self-Regulatory Organization Plan Governing the Collection, 
Consolidation and Dissemination of Quotation and Transaction 
Information for Nasdaq-Listed Securities Traded on Exchanges on an 
Unlisted Trading Privileges Basis Submitted by the BATS Exchange, Inc., 
BATS Y-Exchange, Inc., Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated, 
Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., EDGA Exchange, Inc., EDGX Exchange, Inc., 
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., International Securities 
Exchange LLC, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, Nasdaq Stock 
Market LLC, National Stock Exchange, Inc., New York Stock Exchange LLC, 
NYSE MKT LLC, and NYSE Arca, Inc.

July 22, 2015.

I. Introduction

    On April 27, 2015, the operating committee (``Operating Committee'' 
or ``Committee'') \1\ of the Joint Self-Regulatory Organization Plan 
Governing the Collection, Consolidation, and Dissemination of Quotation 
and Transaction Information for Nasdaq-Listed Securities Traded on 
Exchanges on an Unlisted Trading Privileges Basis (``Nasdaq/UTP Plan'' 
or ``Plan'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission 
(``Commission'') pursuant to Section 11A of the Securities Exchange Act 
of 1934 (``Act''),\2\ and Rule 608 thereunder,\3\ a proposal to amend 
the Nasdaq/UTP Plan.\4\ The

[[Page 45255]]

proposal represents the 35th Amendment to the Plan (the ``Amendment''), 
and reflects changes unanimously adopted by the Participants. The 
Amendment requires the Participants to include timestamps in the trade-
report and bid-and-offer information that they report to the Plan's 
processor. The proposed Amendment was published for comment in the 
Federal Register on 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 Amendment to the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Plan Participants (collectively the ``Participants'') 
are the: BATS Exchange, Inc.; BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.; Chicago Board 
Options Exchange, Incorporated; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.; EDGA 
Exchange, Inc.; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Financial Industry Regulatory 
Authority, Inc. (``FINRA''); International Securities Exchange LLC; 
NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; 
National Stock Exchange, Inc.; New York Stock Exchange LLC; NYSE MKT 
LLC; and NYSE Arca, Inc.
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.608.
    \4\ The Plan governs the collection, processing, and 
dissemination on a consolidated basis of quotation information and 
transaction reports in Eligible Securities for each of its 
Participants. This consolidated information informs investors of the 
current quotation and recent trade prices of Nasdaq securities. It 
enables investors to ascertain from one data source the current 
prices in all the markets trading Nasdaq securities. The Plan serves 
as the required transaction reporting plan for its Participants, 
which is a prerequisite for their trading Eligible Securities. See 
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55647 (April 19, 2007) 72 FR 
20891 (April 26, 2007).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74910 (May 8, 2015), 
80 FR 27713 (``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 CTA and CQ Plans.
    \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 VIII of the UTP Plan (Transmission of 
Information to Processor by Participants) requires transaction reports 
that the Participants to submit to the Processor to include (1) the 
identification of the security, (2) the price bid and offered, together 
with size, (3) the FINRA Participant along with the FINRA Participant's 
market participant identification or Participant from which the 
quotation emanates, (4) identification of quotations that are not firm, 
and (5) through appropriate codes and messages, withdrawals and similar 
matters.
    Section VIII also requires each Participant to promptly collect and 
transmit to the Processor trade reports executed in its market that 
include (1) identification of the security, (2) the number of shares in 
the transaction, (3) the price at which the shares were purchased or 
sold, (4) the buy/sell/cross indicator, (5) the market of execution, 
and (6) through appropriate codes and messages, late or out-of-sequence 
trades, corrections and similar matters.
    The Amendment proposes to require Participants to include in 
quotation information and trade 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 
Amendment and a response to that comment letter from the Participants. 
The commenter supports the proposed Amendment, but suggested 
clarifications to certain aspects of the Amendment.
    First, in order to ensure that sourcing and reporting of timestamp 
data would be consistent across exchanges, the commenter recommended 
that the Amendment 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 Amendment 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 Amendment 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 Amendment 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 Amendment's 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.

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

[[Page 45256]]

    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 eligibility 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\ 
In addition, the Participants noted that this suggestion is outside the 
scope of the Amendment.\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 Amendment, 
the comment letter, and the Response Letter, the Commission finds that 
the proposed Amendment to the Plan is 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 Nasdaq/UTP Plan's 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\ 
the rules thereunder, that the proposed Amendment to Nasdaq/UTP Plan 
(File No. S7-24-89) is 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. 2015-18393 Filed 7-28-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
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
45256 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Notices

Additionally, the commenter believes reported out of sequence and not last SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
that the SIPs should be responsible for sale eligible. The commenter also COMMISSION
market-wide determinations of whether believes that there is a need to reform
a trade is reported out of sequence and SIP governance. The Participants [Release No. 34–75509; File No. SR–MIAX–
not last sale eligible.20 The commenter responded to the commenter’s concerns, 2015–47]
suggested that the SIPs should make as discussed above, indicating why they
market-wide determinations if believe that the proposal adequately Self-Regulatory Organizations: Miami
transactions are out of sequence by addresses the issue it was meant to International Securities Exchange LLC;
comparing the incoming transaction’s address—providing additional Notice of Filing and Immediate
execution time against the execution information so that interested persons Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule
time of the most recent transaction that will be able to measure the latency Change To Amend Exchange Rule 612
was last sale eligible and published. The between the consolidated data feeds and Regarding the Reset on Quote
Participants stated that the Participants Functionality Included in the MIAX
industry proprietary data feeds. The
have historically determined last sale Aggregate Risk Manager
Participants stated that including
eligibility and out of sequence reporting
pursuant to their own rules 21 and additional timestamps would delay
July 23, 2015.
believe that such determinations should implementation of the proposal, add
costs, and could be confusing. The Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
continue to be made by the Participants
Participants also indicated that they Securities Exchange Act of 1934
consistent with their respective rules.22
continue to believe they should decide, (‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2
In addition, the Participants noted that
this suggestion is outside the scope of consistent with their rules, whether notice is hereby given that on July 13,
the Amendment.23 trades are reported out of sequence and 2015, Miami International Securities
not last sale eligible. The Commission Exchange LLC (‘‘MIAX’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’)
IV. Discussion and Commission agrees with the Participants’ response to filed with the Securities and Exchange
Findings the issues raised by the comment letter. Commission (‘‘Commission’’) the
After careful review and proposed rule change as described in
The proposal is consistent with Items I, II, and III below, which Items
consideration of the proposed Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act,27
Amendment, the comment letter, and have been prepared by the Exchange.
which sets forth Congress’ finding that The Commission is publishing this
the Response Letter, the Commission
it is in the public interest and notice to solicit comments on the
finds that the proposed Amendment to
appropriate for the protection of proposed rule change from interested
the Plan is consistent with the
investors and the maintenance of fair persons.
requirements of the Act and the rules
and regulations thereunder,24 and, in and orderly markets to assure the
availability to brokers, dealers, and I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
particular, Section 11A(a)(1) of the
investors of information with respect to Statement of the Terms of Substance of
Act 25 and Rule 608 thereunder 26 in that
quotations and transactions in the Proposed Rule Change
they are necessary or appropriate in the
public interest, for the protection of securities. These goals are furthered by
The Exchange is filing a proposal to
investors and the maintenance of fair the proposed changes requiring that
amend Exchange Rule 612 concerning
and orderly markets, to remove Participants add timestamps to their the Reset on Quote functionality
impediments to, and perfect the trade and quotation reports as this will included in the MIAX Aggregate Risk
mechanisms of, a national market add transparency regarding the latencies Manager.
system. While supporting the timestamp between the Nasdaq/UTP Plan’s
Amendments, the commenter raised consolidated data feeds and industry The text of the proposed rule change
three issues regarding the proposal—the proprietary feeds. Users of the is available on the Exchange’s Web site
need to define the term ‘‘matching consolidated feeds will be better able to at http://www.miaxoptions.com/filter/
engine publication timestamp’’ more monitor the latency of those feeds and wotitle/rule_filing, at MIAX’s principal
clearly, the need for additional office, and at the Commission’s Public
to assess whether such feeds meet their
timestamps, and a preference that the Reference Room.
trading and other requirements.
SIPs determine whether a trade is II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
V. Conclusion
20 See
Statement of the Purpose of, and
SIFMA Letter at 3.
21 See It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule
Response Letter at 4.
22 The commenter also called for change in the Section 11A of the Act,28 the rules Change
governance structure of NMS plans which it states thereunder, that the proposed
is ineffective and opaque, suggesting that governing In its filing with the Commission, the
Amendment to Nasdaq/UTP Plan (File
bodies of NMS plans should include representatives Exchange included statements
from broker-dealers, asset managers, and the public, No. S7–24–89) is approved.
concerning the purpose of and basis for
with each of these groups having voting power on For the Commission, by the Division of
the plans’ operating committees. See SIFMA Letter
the proposed rule change and discussed
at 4. The Participants noted that the Plans held Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated any comments it received on the
numerous meetings to fashion the timestamp tools authority.29 proposed rule change. The text of these
including meetings among the Participants and Plan Robert W. Errett, statements may be examined at the
subcommittees, Commission staff, and also
involved consultation with industry representatives Deputy Secretary. places specified in Item IV below. The
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

from the Plan’s Advisory Committees. See Response [FR Doc. 2015–18393 Filed 7–28–15; 8:45 am] Exchange has prepared summaries, set
Letter at 2. forth in sections A, B, and C below, of
23 See Response Letter at 4. BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
24 The Commission has considered the proposed
the most significant aspects of such
Amendment’s impact on efficiency, competition,
statements.
27 15 U.S.C. 78k–1(a)(1)(C)(iii).
and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
25 15 U.S.C. 78k–1(a)(1). 28 15 U.S.C. 78k–1. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
26 17 CFR 240.608. 29 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(27). 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:33 Jul 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\29JYN1.SGM 29JYN1
Document Created: 2015-12-15 13:05:50
Document Modified: 2015-12-15 13:05:50
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 45254