81 FR 22344 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Nasdaq Rule 7039

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 73 (April 15, 2016)

Page Range		22344-22347
FR Document		2016-08643
Federal Register, Volume 81 Issue 73 (Friday, April 15, 2016)
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 73 (Friday, April 15, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22344-22347]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08643]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77578; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2016-048]


Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; 
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To 
Amend Nasdaq Rule 7039

April 11, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that 
on March 31, 2016, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or the 
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission 
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') a proposed rule change as described in 
Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared by the 
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments 
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance 
of the Proposed Rule Change

    Nasdaq is proposing changes to amend Nasdaq Rule 7039 (NASDAQ Last 
Sale and NASDAQ Last Sale Plus Data Feeds).
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at 
nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at Nasdaq's principal office, and at the 
Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and 
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq included statements 
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and 
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The 
text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in 
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in 
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such 
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and 
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Nasdaq Rule 7039 (NASDAQ Last Sale 
and NASDAQ Last Sale Plus Data Feeds). Nasdaq offers two proprietary 
data feeds containing real-time last sale information for trades 
executed on Nasdaq or reported to the Nasdaq/FINRA Trade Reporting 
Facility. These include the ``NASDAQ Last Sale for NASDAQ,'' \3\ which 
contains all transaction reports for Nasdaq-listed stocks and ``NASDAQ 
Last Sale for NYSE/NYSE MKT,'' \4\ which contains all such transaction 
reports for NYSE- and NYSE MKT-listed stocks (collectively, the 
``Nasdaq Last Sale Data Feeds'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Nasdaq Rule 7039(a)(1).
    \4\ See Nasdaq Rule 7039(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, Nasdaq proposes to amend Nasdaq Rule 7039(b) to 
reduce the monthly fee from $50,000 to $41,500 for each distributor of 
Nasdaq Last Sale Data Feeds. The new lower fee is designed to 
incentivize distributors to subscribe to the Nasdaq Last Sale Data 
Feeds. This fee is exclusive of the $1,500 monthly fee that all 
distributors of a Nasdaq Last Sale Data Feed must also pay and that is 
set forth under Nasdaq Rule 7039(c).
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 
6(b) of the Act,\5\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections 
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\6\ in particular, in that it provides 
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges 
among members and issuers and other persons using its facilities which 
the Exchange operates or controls, and is not designed to permit unfair 
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their 
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining 
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation 
NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market 
model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in 
determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current 
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in 
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most 
important to investors and listed companies.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-51808 (June 9, 2005) 
(``Regulation NMS Adopting Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Likewise, in NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission \8\ 
(``NetCoalition'') the D.C. Circuit upheld the Commission's use of a 
market-based

[[Page 22345]]

approach in evaluating the fairness of market data fees against a 
challenge claiming that Congress mandated a cost-based approach.\9\ As 
the court emphasized, the Commission ``intended in Regulation NMS that 
`market forces, rather than regulatory requirements' play a role in 
determining the market data . . . to be made available to investors and 
at what cost.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
    \9\ Id. at 534-535.
    \10\ Id. at 537.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, ``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is 
`fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, '[i]n the U.S. national market 
system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that 
act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of 
where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to 
take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange 
possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of 
order flow from broker dealers'. . . .'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id. at 539 (quoting ArcaBook Order, 73 FR at 74782-74783).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that amending Nasdaq Rule 7039(b) to reduce 
the monthly maximum fee from $50,000 to $41,500 for each distributor of 
Nasdaq Last Sale Data Feeds (exclusive of the $1,500 monthly fee 
applicable to all distributors of a Nasdaq Last Sale Data Feed under 
Nasdaq Rule 7039(c)) is reasonable because Nasdaq believes it will 
incentivize more distributors to subscribe to the Nasdaq Last Sale Data 
Feeds.
    The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule fee change is an 
equitable allocation and is not unfairly discriminatory because the 
Exchange will apply the new lower fee uniformly across all distributors 
of Nasdaq Last Sale Data Feeds

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will 
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or 
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. 
Notwithstanding its determination that the Commission may rely upon 
competition to establish fair and equitably allocated fees for market 
data, the NetCoalition court found that the Commission had not, in that 
case, compiled a record that adequately supported its conclusion that 
the market for the data at issue in the case was competitive. Nasdaq 
believes that a record may readily be established to demonstrate the 
competitive nature of the market in question.
    There is intense competition between trading platforms that provide 
transaction execution and routing services and proprietary data 
products. Transaction execution and proprietary data products are 
complementary in that market data is both an input and a byproduct of 
the execution service. In fact, market data and trade execution are a 
paradigmatic example of joint products with joint costs. Data products 
are valuable to many end Subscribers only insofar as they provide 
information that end Subscribers expect will assist them or their 
customers in making trading decisions.
    The costs of producing market data include not only the costs of 
the data distribution infrastructure, but also the costs of designing, 
maintaining, and operating the exchange's transaction execution 
platform and the cost of regulating the exchange to ensure its fair 
operation and maintain investor confidence. The total return that a 
trading platform earns reflects the revenues it receives from both 
products and the joint costs it incurs.
    Moreover, an exchange's customers view the costs of transaction 
executions and of data as a unified cost of doing business with the 
exchange. A broker-dealer (``BD'') will direct orders to a particular 
exchange only if the expected revenues from executing trades on the 
exchange exceed net transaction execution costs and the cost of data 
that the BD chooses to buy to support its trading decisions (or those 
of its customers). The choice of data products is, in turn, a product 
of the value of the products in making profitable trading decisions. If 
the cost of the product exceeds its expected value, the BD will choose 
not to buy it. Moreover, as a BD chooses to direct fewer orders to a 
particular exchange, the value of the product to that BD decreases, for 
two reasons. First, the product will contain less information, because 
executions of the BD's orders will not be reflected in it. Second, and 
perhaps more important, the product will be less valuable to that BD 
because it does not provide information about the venue to which it is 
directing its orders. Data from the competing venue to which the BD is 
directing orders will become correspondingly more valuable.
    Thus, an increase in the fees charged for either transactions or 
data has the potential to impair revenues from both products. ``No one 
disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce'.'' \12\ However, 
the existence of fierce competition for order flow implies a high 
degree of price sensitivity on the part of BDs with order flow, since 
they may readily reduce costs by directing orders toward the lowest-
cost trading venues. A BD that shifted its order flow from one platform 
to another in response to order execution price differentials would 
both reduce the value of that platform's market data and reduce its own 
need to consume data from the disfavored platform. Similarly, if a 
platform increases its market data fees, the change will affect the 
overall cost of doing business with the platform, and affected BDs will 
assess whether they can lower their trading costs by directing orders 
elsewhere and thereby lessening the need for the more expensive data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Analyzing the cost of market data distribution in isolation from 
the cost of all of the inputs supporting the creation of market data 
will inevitably underestimate the cost of the data. Thus, because it is 
impossible to create data without a fast, technologically robust, and 
well-regulated execution system, system costs and regulatory costs 
affect the price of market data. It would be equally misleading, 
however, to attribute all of the exchange's costs to the market data 
portion of an exchange's joint product. Rather, all of the exchange's 
costs are incurred for the unified purposes of attracting order flow, 
executing and/or routing orders, and generating and selling data about 
market activity. The total return that an exchange earns reflects the 
revenues it receives from the joint products and the total costs of the 
joint products.
    Competition among trading platforms can be expected to constrain 
the aggregate return each platform earns from the sale of its joint 
products, but different platforms may choose from a range of possible, 
and equally reasonable, pricing strategies as the means of recovering 
total costs. Nasdaq pays rebates to attract orders, charges relatively 
low prices for market information and charges relatively high prices 
for accessing posted liquidity. Other platforms may choose a strategy 
of paying lower liquidity rebates to attract orders, setting relatively 
low prices for accessing posted liquidity, and setting relatively high 
prices for market information. Still others may provide most data free 
of charge and rely exclusively on transaction fees to recover their 
costs. Finally, some platforms may incentivize use by providing 
opportunities for equity ownership, which may allow them to charge 
lower direct fees for executions and data.
    In this environment, there is no economic basis for regulating 
maximum prices for one of the joint products in an

[[Page 22346]]

industry in which suppliers face competitive constraints with regard to 
the joint offering. Such regulation is unnecessary because an 
``excessive'' price for one of the joint products will ultimately have 
to be reflected in lower prices for other products sold by the firm, or 
otherwise the firm will experience a loss in the volume of its sales 
that will be adverse to its overall profitability. In other words, an 
increase in the price of data will ultimately have to be accompanied by 
a decrease in the cost of executions, or the volume of both data and 
executions will fall.
    The level of competition and contestability in the market is 
evident in the numerous alternative venues that compete for order flow, 
including eleven SRO markets, as well as internalizing BDs and various 
forms of alternative trading systems (``ATSs''), including dark pools 
and electronic communication networks (``ECNs''). Each SRO market 
competes to produce transaction reports via trade executions, and two 
FINRA-regulated TRFs compete to attract internalized transaction 
reports. It is common for BDs to further and exploit this competition 
by sending their order flow and transaction reports to multiple 
markets, rather than providing them all to a single market. Competitive 
markets for order flow, executions, and transaction reports provide 
pricing discipline for the inputs of proprietary data products.
    The large number of SROs, TRFs, BDs, and ATSs that currently 
produce proprietary data or are currently capable of producing it 
provides further pricing discipline for proprietary data products. Each 
SRO, TRF, ATS, and BD is currently permitted to produce proprietary 
data products, and many currently do or have announced plans to do so, 
including NASDAQ, NYSE, NYSE MKT, NYSE Arca, and BATS/Direct Edge.
    Any ATS or BD can combine with any other ATS, BD, or multiple ATSs 
or BDs to produce joint proprietary data products. Additionally, order 
routers and market data vendors can facilitate single or multiple BDs' 
production of proprietary data products. The potential sources of 
proprietary products are virtually limitless. Notably, the potential 
sources of data include the BDs that submit trade reports to TRFs and 
that have the ability to consolidate and distribute their data without 
the involvement of FINRA or an exchange-operated TRF.
    The fact that proprietary data from ATSs, BDs, and vendors can by-
pass SROs is significant in two respects. First, non-SROs can compete 
directly with SROs for the production and sale of proprietary data 
products, as BATS and NYSE Arca did before registering as exchanges by 
publishing proprietary book data on the internet. Second, because a 
single order or transaction report can appear in a core data product, 
an SRO proprietary product, and/or a non-SRO proprietary product, the 
data available in proprietary products is exponentially greater than 
the actual number of orders and transaction reports that exist in the 
marketplace.
    In addition to the competition and price discipline described 
above, the market for proprietary data products is also highly 
contestable because market entry is rapid, inexpensive, and profitable. 
The history of electronic trading is replete with examples of entrants 
that swiftly grew into some of the largest electronic trading platforms 
and proprietary data producers: Archipelago, Bloomberg Tradebook, 
Island, RediBook, Attain, TracECN, BATS Trading and BATS/Direct Edge. A 
proliferation of dark pools and other ATSs operate profitably with 
fragmentary shares of consolidated market volume.
    Regulation NMS, by deregulating the market for proprietary data, 
has increased the contestability of that market. While BDs have 
previously published their proprietary data individually, Regulation 
NMS encourages market data vendors and BDs to produce proprietary 
products cooperatively in a manner never before possible. Multiple 
market data vendors already have the capability to aggregate data and 
disseminate it on a profitable scale, including Bloomberg and Thomson 
Reuters. In Europe, Cinnober aggregates and disseminates data from over 
40 brokers and multilateral trading facilities.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See http://www.cinnober.com/boat-trade-reporting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the case of TRFs, the rapid entry of several exchanges into this 
space in 2006-2007 following the development and Commission approval of 
the TRF structure demonstrates the contestability of this aspect of the 
market.\14\ Given the demand for trade reporting services that is 
itself a by-product of the fierce competition for transaction 
executions--characterized notably by a proliferation of ATSs and BDs 
offering internalization--any supra-competitive increase in the fees 
associated with trade reporting or TRF data would shift trade report 
volumes from one of the existing TRFs to the other \15\ and create 
incentives for other TRF operators to enter the space. Alternatively, 
because BDs reporting to TRFs are themselves free to consolidate the 
market data that they report, the market for over-the-counter data 
itself, separate and apart from the markets for execution and trade 
reporting services--is fully contestable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The low cost exit of two TRFs from the market is also 
evidence of a contestable market, because new entrants are reluctant 
to enter a market where exit may involve substantial shut-down 
costs.
    \15\ It should be noted that the FINRA/NYSE TRF has, in recent 
weeks, received reports for almost 10% of all over-the-counter 
volume in NMS stocks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, consolidated data provides two additional measures of 
pricing discipline for proprietary data products that are a subset of 
the consolidated data stream. First, the consolidated data is widely 
available in real-time at $1 per month for non-professional users. 
Second, consolidated data is also available at no cost with a 15- or 
20-minute delay. Because consolidated data contains marketwide 
information, it effectively places a cap on the fees assessed for 
proprietary data (such as last sale data) that is simply a subset of 
the consolidated data. The mere availability of low-cost or free 
consolidated data provides a powerful form of pricing discipline for 
proprietary data products that contain data elements that are a subset 
of the consolidated data, by highlighting the optional nature of 
proprietary products.
    In this instance, the Exchange believes that amending Nasdaq Rule 
7039(b) to reduce the monthly maximum fee from $50,000 to $41,500 for 
each distributor of Nasdaq Last Sale Data Feeds (exclusive of the 
$1,500 monthly fee that all distributors of a Nasdaq Last Sale Data 
Feed must also pay and that is set forth under Nasdaq Rule 7039(c)) 
does not impose a burden on competition and may increase competition 
through making this a more affordable option for distributors. 
Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed change 
will impair the ability of members or competing order execution venues 
to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed 
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for 
Commission Action

    The foregoing change has become effective pursuant to Section 
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\16\ At any time within 60 days of the 
filing of the

[[Page 22347]]

proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend 
such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is 
necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of 
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and 
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule 
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of 
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include 
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2016-048 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, 
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., 
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2016-048. This 
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To 
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, 
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on 
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all 
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are 
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to 
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other 
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the 
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and 
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., 
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available 
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All 
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does 
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should 
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All 
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2016-048, and should 
be submitted on or before May 6, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-08643 Filed 4-14-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2016 / Notices 22347

proposed rule change, the Commission NASDAQ–2016–048, and should be received 109 comment letters in
summarily may temporarily suspend submitted on or before May 6, 2016. response to the proposal.5 On January
such rule change if it appears to the For the Commission, by the Division of 13, 2016, FINRA responded to the
Commission that such action is Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated comments and filed Amendment No. 1
necessary or appropriate in the public authority.17 to the proposal.6 On January 14, 2016,
interest, for the protection of investors, Robert W. Errett, the Commission issued an order
or otherwise in furtherance of the Deputy Secretary. instituting proceedings pursuant to
purposes of the Act. Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act 7
[FR Doc. 2016–08643 Filed 4–14–16; 8:45 am]
to determine whether to approve or
IV. Solicitation of Comments BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
disapprove the proposed rule change, as
Interested persons are invited to modified by Amendment No. 1. The
submit written data, views, and SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE Order Instituting Proceedings was
arguments concerning the foregoing, COMMISSION published in the Federal Register on
including whether the proposed rule January 21, 2016.8 The Commission
change is consistent with the Act. [Release No. 34–77579; File No. SR–FINRA– received 23 comment letters in response
Comments may be submitted by any of 2015–036] to the Order Instituting Proceedings.9
the following methods:
Self-Regulatory Organizations; 5 See Exchange Act Release No. 76908 (Jan. 14,
Electronic Comments Financial Industry Regulatory 2016), 81 FR 3532 (Jan. 21, 2016) (Order Instituting
• Use the Commission’s Internet Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or
Amendment No. 2 and Designation of Disapprove Proposed Rule Change to Amend
comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ FINRA Rule 4210 (Margin Requirements), to
rules/sro.shtml); or a Longer Period for Commission Establish Margin Requirements for the TBA Market,
Action on Proceedings To Determine as Modified by Partial Amendment No. 1) (‘‘Order
• Send an email to rule-comments@ Instituting Proceedings’’).
Whether To Approve or Disapprove a
sec.gov. Please include File Number SR– 6 See Amendment No. 1, dated January 13, 2016
Proposed Rule Change To Amend
NASDAQ–2016–048 on the subject line. (‘‘Amendment No. 1’’). FINRA’s responses to
FINRA Rule 4210 (Margin comments received and proposed amendments are
Paper Comments Requirements) To Establish Margin included in Amendment No. 1.
Requirements for the TBA Market, as 7 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B) (if the Commission does
• Send paper comments in triplicate not approve or disapprove a proposed rule change
Modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2
to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities under Section 19(b)(2)(A) of the Exchange Act—i.e.,
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street April 11, 2016. within 90 days of publication of notice of the filing
NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090. of the proposed rule change in the Federal
I. Introduction Register—the Commission shall institute
All submissions should refer to File proceedings to determine whether to approve or
Number SR–NASDAQ–2016–048. This On October 6, 2015, Financial disapprove the proposed rule change).
file number should be included on the Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. 8 See supra note 5.

subject line if email is used. To help the (‘‘FINRA’’) filed with the Securities and 9 See Letters from Matrix Applications, LLC,

Exchange Commission (‘‘Commission’’), dated February 9, 2016 (‘‘Matrix 2 Letter’’); Tari
Commission process and review your Flannery, M&T Realty Capital Corporation, dated
comments more efficiently, please use pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the February 9, 2016 (‘‘M&T 2 Realty Letter’’); Holly
only one method. The Commission will Securities Exchange Act of 1934 MacDonald-Korth, JW Korth & Company, dated
(‘‘Exchange Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 February 9, 2016 (‘‘Korth Letter’’); Chris Melton,
post all comments on the Commission’s Coastal Securities, dated February 10, 2016
Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ thereunder,2 a proposed rule change to (‘‘Coastal 2 Letter’’); Rodrigo Lopez, NorthMarq
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the amend FINRA Rule 4210 (Margin Capital Finance, L.L.C., dated February 10, 2016
submission, all subsequent Requirements) to establish margin (‘‘NorthMarq 2 Letter’’); Steve Wendel, CBRE, Inc.,
requirements for covered agency dated February 11, 2016 (‘‘CBRE 2 Letter’’); Tony
amendments, all written statements Love, Forest City Capital Corporation, dated
with respect to the proposed rule transactions, also referred to, for February 11, 2016 (‘‘Forest City 3 Letter’’); Robert
change that are filed with the purposes of this proposed rule change Kirkwood, Lancaster Pollard Mortgage Company,
Commission, and all written as the To Be Announced (‘‘TBA’’) dated February 11, 2016 (‘‘Lancaster Pollard 2
market. Letter’’); Mike Nicholas, Bond Dealers of America,
communications relating to the dated February 11, 2016 (‘‘BDA 2 Letter’’); Blake
proposed rule change between the The proposed rule change was Lanford, Walker & Dunlop, LLC, dated February 11,
Commission and any person, other than published for comment in the Federal 2016 (‘‘W&D 2 Letter’’); Allen Riggs, Vining Sparks
those that may be withheld from the Register on October 20, 2015.3 On IBG, LP, dated February 11, 2016 (‘‘Vining Sparks
November 10, 2015, FINRA extended Letter’’); John Gidman, Association of Institutional
public in accordance with the Investors, dated February 11, 2016 (‘‘AII 2 Letter’’);
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be the time period in which the Christopher B. Killian, Securities Industry and
available for Web site viewing and Commission must approve the proposed Financial Markets Association, dated February 11,
printing in the Commission’s Public rule change, disapprove the proposed 2016 (‘‘SIFMA 2 Letter’’); Roderick D. Owens,
rule change, or institute proceedings to Committee on Healthcare Financing, dated
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., February 10, 2016 (‘‘CHF 2 Letter’’); Bruce
Washington, DC 20549, on official determine whether to approve or Sandweiss, Gershman Mortgage, dated February 11,
business days between the hours of disapprove the proposed rule change to 2016 (‘‘Gershman 3 Letter’’); Timothy W. Cameron
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such January 15, 2016.4 The Commission and Laura Martin, Securities Industry and Financial
Markets Association, Asset Management Group,
filing also will be available for 17 17 dated February 11, 2016 (‘‘SIFMA AMG 2 Letter’’);
CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).
inspection and copying at the principal
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

1 15
Mike McRobers, Prudential Mortgage Capital
U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). Company, dated February 11, 2016 (‘‘Prudential 2
office of the Exchange. All comments 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.
Letter’’); James M. Cain, Sutherland Asbill &
received will be posted without change; 3 See Exchange Act Release No. 76148 (Oct. 14,
Brennan LLP (on behalf of Federal Home Loan
the Commission does not edit personal 2015), 80 FR 63603 (Oct. 20, 2015) (File No. SR– Banks), dated February 11, 2016 (‘‘Sutherland 2
identifying information from FINRA–2015–036) (‘‘Notice’’). Letter’’); Carl B. Wilkerson, American Council of
4 See Extension No. 1, dated November 10, 2015. Life Insurers, dated February 11, 2016 (‘‘ACLI 2
submissions. You should submit only
FINRA’s extension of time for Commission action. Letter’’); David H. Stevens, Mortgage Bankers
information that you wish to make The extension is available at, http://www.finra.org/ Association, dated February 11, 2016 (‘‘MBA 2
available publicly. All submissions sites/default/files/rule_filing_file/SR-FINRA-2015- Letter’’); U.S. Senator Tom Cotton, dated February
should refer to File Number SR– 036-extension-1.pdf>. Continued

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Apr 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00140 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\15APN1.SGM 15APN1
Document Created: 2016-04-15 00:54:42
Document Modified: 2016-04-15 00:54:42
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		81 FR 22344