81 FR 83301 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change Related to the Payment of a Credit by Execution Access, LLC Based on Volume Thresholds Met on the NASDAQ Options Market
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 224 (November 21, 2016)
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 224 (November 21, 2016)
| Page Range | 83301-83303 | |
| FR Document | 2016-27897 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 224 (Monday, November 21, 2016)] [Notices] [Pages 83301-83303] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-27897] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-79317; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2016-121] Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change Related to the Payment of a Credit by Execution Access, LLC Based on Volume Thresholds Met on the NASDAQ Options Market November 15, 2016. I. Introduction On August 29, 2016, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change related to the payment of a credit by Execution Access, LLC (``EA'') that would be based on volume thresholds met on the NASDAQ Options Market LLC (``NOM''). The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on September 8, 2016.\3\ On October 19, 2016, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\4\ the Commission designated a longer period within which to approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change.\5\ To date, the Commission has received no comment letters on the proposal. This order institutes proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \6\ to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4. \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78749 (September 1, 2016), 81 FR 62212 (``Notice''). \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79118, 81 FR 73186 (October 24, 2016). The Commission designated December 7, 2016 as the date by which the Commission shall either approve or disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove, the proposed rule change. \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- II. Summary of the Proposed Rule Change Under the proposal, EA \7\ would offer a credit to its clients who are also NOM Participants (``dual access clients''),\8\ provided they qualify for one of the two highest Market Access and Routing Subsidy (``MARS'') Payment tiers available on NOM. According to the Exchange, NOM Participants that have System Eligibility \9\ and have executed the requisite number of Eligible [[Page 83302]] Contracts \10\ in a month are paid MARS rebates based on average daily volume (``ADV'') in the month.\11\ If a NOM Participant meets these requirements, the Exchange pays a MARS Payment on all executed Eligible Contracts that add liquidity and that are routed to NOM through the NOM Participant's System.\12\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \7\ According to the Exchange, EA is a broker-dealer that operates a fully electronic central limit order book known as eSpeed, and it facilitates the matching of client orders in U.S. Treasury securities. See Notice, supra note 3, at 62212 n.3. \8\ As proposed, the dual access client may be an affiliate entity of the NOM Participant. See id. at 62212. Affiliates would include other legal entities under common control. See id. at 62212 n.4. \9\ At the time the Exchange initially submitted this proposal, to qualify for MARS, a Participant's routing system (``System'') was required to: (1) Enable the electronic routing of orders to all of the U.S. options exchanges, including NOM; (2) provide current consolidated market data from the U.S. options exchanges; and (3) be capable of interfacing with NOM's API to access current NOM match engine functionality. Further, the Participant's System needed to cause NOM to be one of the top three default destination exchanges for individually executed marketable orders if NOM is at the national best bid or offer (``NBBO''), regardless of size or time, but allow any user to manually override NOM as a default destination on an order-by-order basis. Any NOM Participant was permitted to avail itself of this arrangement, provided that its order routing functionality incorporates the features described above and satisfies NOM that it appears to be robust and reliable. The Participant remained solely responsible for implementing and operating its System. See id. at 62213 n.6. The Commission notes that the Exchange recently modified MARS, including the System Eligibility requirements. See NOM Rules at Chapter XV, Section 2(6). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79251 (November 7, 2016), 81 FR 79536 (November 14, 2016) (SR-NASDAQ-2016-149) (``MARS Amendment'') (modifying the MARS System Eligibility requirements to provide that ``the Participant's System would also need to cause NOM to be the one of the top three default destination exchanges for (a) individually executed marketable orders if NOM is at the [NBBO], regardless of size or time or (b) orders that establish a new NBBO on NOM's Order Book, but allow any user to manually override NOM as a default destination on an order-by-order basis'') (emphasis added). \10\ MARS Eligible Contracts include electronic Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker, Broker-Dealer, or Joint Back Office orders that add liquidity, excluding Mini Options. See NOM Rules at Chapter XV, Section 2(6); see also Notice, supra note 3, at 62213 n.7. \11\ At the time the Exchange initially submitted this proposal, the Exchange had three tiers of MARS Payments: $0.07 for ADV of 2,500 Eligible Contracts; $0.09 for ADV of 5,000 Eligible Contracts (``Payment Tier 2''); and $0.11 for ADV of 10,000 Eligible Contracts (``Payment Tier 3''). See Notice, supra note 3, at 62213. The Commission notes that, as a result of recent modifications to MARS, the Exchange now has four tiers of MARS Payments, as well as different MARS Payments for penny pilot options and non-penny pilot options. See NOM Rules at Chapter XV, Section 2(6); see also MARS Amendment, supra note 9. \12\ See NOM Rules at Chapter XV, Section 2(6); see also Notice, supra note 3, at 62213. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Under the proposal, if a dual access client qualifies for NOM's MARS Payment Tier 2 in a given month, EA would credit the dual access client (or the dual access client's affiliate, if applicable) $22,000 on its EA bill for the corresponding month.\13\ If a dual access client qualifies for NOM's MARS Payment Tier 3 in a given month, EA would credit the dual access client (or the dual access client's affiliate, if applicable) $40,000 on its EA bill for the corresponding month.\14\ This credit would be paid by EA, would not be transferable, and would offset transaction fees on EA.\15\ According to the Exchange, the purpose of this proposal is to lower prices to transact U.S. Treasury securities on EA in response to competitive forces in the Treasury markets, and to increase trading on NOM.\16\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \13\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 62213. \14\ See id. \15\ See id. at 62213 n.8. \16\ See id. at 62212-13. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- III. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove SR- NASDAQ-2016-121 and Grounds for Disapproval Under Consideration The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \17\ to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved. Institution of proceedings does not indicate that the Commission has reached any conclusions with respect to any of the issues involved. Rather, as described below, the Commission seeks and encourages interested persons to provide comments on the proposed rule change. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,\18\ the Commission is providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under consideration. As discussed above, under the proposal, EA would provide credits to dual access clients who meet certain volume thresholds on NOM. The Act requires that exchange rules provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable fees among members, issuers, and other persons using its facilities; that exchange rules not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers; and that exchange rules do not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Commission intends to assess whether the Exchange's proposal is consistent with these and other requirements of the Act. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \18\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Commission believes it is appropriate to institute disapproval proceedings at this time in view of the legal and policy issues raised by the proposal. The sections of the Act applicable to the proposed rule change include:Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\19\ which requires that the rules of a national securities exchange ``provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities.'' --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\20\ which requires that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed to, among other things, ``remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest'' and not be ``designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.'' --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\21\ which requires that the rules of a national securities exchange ``not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate'' in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IV. Procedure: Request for Written Comments The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have with the proposal. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.\22\ Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposal should be approved or disapproved by December 12, 2016. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by December 27, 2016. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \22\ Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, as amended by the Securities Acts Amendments of 1975, Public Law 94-29 (June 4, 1975), grants the Commission flexibility to determine what type of proceeding--either oral or notice and opportunity for written comments--is appropriate for consideration of a particular proposal by a self-regulatory organization. See Securities Acts Amendments of 1975, Senate Comm. on Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 30 (1975). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is consistent with Sections 6(b)(4), 6(b)(5), 6(b)(8), or any other provision of the Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder. The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency and merit of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, in addition to any other comments they may wish to submit about the proposed rule change. In particular, the Commission seeks comment on the following: 1. Do commenters agree with the Exchange's belief that the proposal: (a) Provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and issuer and other persons using its facilities; (b) is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers; and (c) will not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act? Why or why not? 2. What are commenters' views on the impact that the proposal would have on the current market structure? Please explain. 3. What are commenters' views on the likely effect of the proposal on competition? Specifically, what are commenters' views on the likely effect on the fees, volume, and quality of trading on NOM, EA, and the platforms that compete with NOM or EA for volume? In providing an answer, please consider any effect on the structure and process of competition, including number of competitors and/or any exit [[Page 83303]] from the market that might arise from the proposal. 4. What are commenters' views on how the proposal would affect NOM Participants and EA clients? Would the ``dual access'' requirement affect the number NOM Participants or EA clients? 5. What are commenters' views on the impact of the proposal on NOM Participants who would meet the required MARS thresholds but are not dual access clients and thus would not be able to benefit from the credit on EA? 6. What are commenters' views on the impact of the proposal on EA clients who are not NOM Participants and thus would not be eligible for the credits? 7. What are commenters' views on how EA would likely recoup the cost of the proposed credit? 8. What are commenters' views on whether the proposal would affect competitors to NOM and EA or clients of such competitors? Specifically, what are commenters' views on the impact of the proposal on exchanges that do not have affiliated broker-dealers/Alternative Trading Systems that transact securities not listed on a national securities exchange-- e.g., U.S. Treasury securities? Would the proposal lead to a decline in number of clients, or client volume for competitors? 9. What are commenters' views on how the proposal would impact the incentives for existing exchanges or new entities to create multiple trading venues or broker-dealers/Alternative Trading Systems under one group? 10. What are commenters' views on the impact the proposal would have, if any, on the trading of options orders across multiple options exchanges? Please explain. What are commenters' views on the impact the proposal would have, if any, on the best execution of investor orders, including the implicit costs of executing their orders (such as spreads and price impact)? Please explain. Commenters are requested to provide empirical data and other factual support for their views. 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-2016-121 on the subject line. Paper Comments Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2016-121. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing 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-2016-121 and should be submitted on or before December 12, 2016. Rebuttal comments should be submitted by December 27, 2016. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.\23\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brent J. Fields, Secretary. [FR Doc. 2016-27897 Filed 11-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 224 / Monday, November 21, 2016 / Notices 83301
subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b–4 24 Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., rule change, disapprove the proposed
thereunder, because it establishes a due, Washington, DC 20549 on official rule change, or institute proceedings to
fee, or other charge imposed by the business days between the hours of determine whether to disapprove the
Exchange. 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the proposed rule change.5 To date, the
At any time within 60 days of the filing also will be available for Commission has received no comment
filing of such proposed rule change, the inspection and copying at the principal letters on the proposal. This order
Commission summarily may office of the Exchange. All comments institutes proceedings under Section
temporarily suspend such rule change if received will be posted without change; 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act 6 to determine
it appears to the Commission that such the Commission does not edit personal whether to approve or disapprove the
action is necessary or appropriate in the identifying information from proposed rule change.
public interest, for the protection of submissions. You should submit only II. Summary of the Proposed Rule
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of information that you wish to make Change
the purposes of the Act. If the available publicly. All submissions
Commission takes such action, the should refer to File Number SR–NYSE– Under the proposal, EA 7 would offer
Commission shall institute proceedings 2016–74 and should be submitted on or a credit to its clients who are also NOM
under Section 19(b)(2)(B) 25 of the Act to before December 12, 2016. Participants (‘‘dual access clients’’),8
determine whether the proposed rule provided they qualify for one of the two
For the Commission, by the Division of highest Market Access and Routing
change should be approved or Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated
disapproved. authority.26
Subsidy (‘‘MARS’’) Payment tiers
available on NOM. According to the
IV. Solicitation of Comments Brent J. Fields,
Exchange, NOM Participants that have
Secretary. System Eligibility 9 and have executed
Interested persons are invited to
[FR Doc. 2016–27893 Filed 11–18–16; 8:45 am] the requisite number of Eligible
submit written data, views, and
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
arguments concerning the foregoing,
5 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79118,
including whether the proposed rule
81 FR 73186 (October 24, 2016). The Commission
change is consistent with the Act.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE designated December 7, 2016 as the date by which
Comments may be submitted by any of the Commission shall either approve or disapprove,
COMMISSION
the following methods: or institute proceedings to determine whether to
[Release No. 34–79317; File No. SR– disapprove, the proposed rule change.
Electronic Comments NASDAQ–2016–121] 6 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
• Use the Commission’s Internet 7 According to the Exchange, EA is a broker-
Self-Regulatory Organizations; The dealer that operates a fully electronic central limit
comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ order book known as eSpeed, and it facilitates the
rules/sro.shtml); or Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Order matching of client orders in U.S. Treasury
• Send an email to rule- Instituting Proceedings To Determine securities. See Notice, supra note 3, at 62212 n.3.
comments@sec.gov. Please include File Whether To Approve or Disapprove a 8 As proposed, the dual access client may be an
Number SR–NYSE–2016–74 on the Proposed Rule Change Related to the affiliate entity of the NOM Participant. See id. at
Payment of a Credit by Execution 62212. Affiliates would include other legal entities
subject line. under common control. See id. at 62212 n.4.
Access, LLC Based on Volume 9 At the time the Exchange initially submitted this
Paper Comments Thresholds Met on the NASDAQ proposal, to qualify for MARS, a Participant’s
• Send paper comments in triplicate Options Market routing system (‘‘System’’) was required to: (1)
to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities Enable the electronic routing of orders to all of the
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street November 15, 2016. U.S. options exchanges, including NOM; (2)
provide current consolidated market data from the
NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090. I. Introduction U.S. options exchanges; and (3) be capable of
All submissions should refer to File interfacing with NOM’s API to access current NOM
On August 29, 2016, The Nasdaq match engine functionality. Further, the
Number SR–NYSE–2016–74. This file
Stock Market LLC (‘‘Nasdaq’’ or Participant’s System needed to cause NOM to be
number should be included on the
‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the Securities one of the top three default destination exchanges
subject line if e-mail is used. To help the for individually executed marketable orders if NOM
and Exchange Commission
Commission process and review your is at the national best bid or offer (‘‘NBBO’’),
(‘‘Commission’’), pursuant to Section regardless of size or time, but allow any user to
comments more efficiently, please use
19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act manually override NOM as a default destination on
only one method. The Commission will
of 1934 (‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 an order-by-order basis. Any NOM Participant was
post all comments on the Commission’s permitted to avail itself of this arrangement,
thereunder,2 a proposed rule change
Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ provided that its order routing functionality
related to the payment of a credit by incorporates the features described above and
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the
Execution Access, LLC (‘‘EA’’) that satisfies NOM that it appears to be robust and
submission, all subsequent
would be based on volume thresholds reliable. The Participant remained solely
amendments, all written statements responsible for implementing and operating its
met on the NASDAQ Options Market
with respect to the proposed rule System. See id. at 62213 n.6. The Commission notes
LLC (‘‘NOM’’). The proposed rule that the Exchange recently modified MARS,
change that are filed with the
change was published for comment in including the System Eligibility requirements. See
Commission, and all written
the Federal Register on September 8, NOM Rules at Chapter XV, Section 2(6). See also
communications relating to the Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79251
2016.3 On October 19, 2016, pursuant to
proposed rule change between the (November 7, 2016), 81 FR 79536 (November 14,
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,4 the
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Commission and any person, other than 2016) (SR–NASDAQ–2016–149) (‘‘MARS
Commission designated a longer period Amendment’’) (modifying the MARS System
those that may be withheld from the
within which to approve the proposed Eligibility requirements to provide that ‘‘the
public in accordance with the Participant’s System would also need to cause NOM
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be 26 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).
to be the one of the top three default destination
available for Web site viewing and 1 15
exchanges for (a) individually executed marketable
U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). orders if NOM is at the [NBBO], regardless of size
printing in the Commission’s Public 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.
or time or (b) orders that establish a new NBBO on
3 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78749
NOM’s Order Book, but allow any user to manually
24 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(2). (September 1, 2016), 81 FR 62212 (‘‘Notice’’). override NOM as a default destination on an order-
25 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B). 4 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). by-order basis’’) (emphasis added).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Nov 18, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21NON1.SGM 21NON1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_83525/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 224 / Monday, November 21, 2016 / Notices 83303
from the market that might arise from Commission, 100 F Street NE., SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
the proposal. Washington, DC 20549–1090. COMMISSION
4. What are commenters’ views on
All submissions should refer to File [Release No. 34–79316; File No. SR–NYSE–
how the proposal would affect NOM 2016–45]
Participants and EA clients? Would the Number SR–NASDAQ–2016–121. This
‘‘dual access’’ requirement affect the file number should be included on the
Self-Regulatory Organizations; New
number NOM Participants or EA subject line if email is used. To help the
York Stock Exchange LLC; Order
clients? Commission process and review your
Instituting Proceedings To Determine
5. What are commenters’ views on the comments more efficiently, please use Whether To Approve or Disapprove a
impact of the proposal on NOM only one method. The Commission will Proposed Change, as Modified by
Participants who would meet the post all comments on the Commission’s Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, Amending
required MARS thresholds but are not Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ the Co-Location Services Offered by
dual access clients and thus would not rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the the Exchange To Add Certain Access
be able to benefit from the credit on EA? submission, all subsequent and Connectivity Fees
6. What are commenters’ views on the amendments, all written statements
with respect to the proposed rule November 15, 2016.
impact of the proposal on EA clients
who are not NOM Participants and thus change that are filed with the I. Introduction
would not be eligible for the credits? Commission, and all written On July 29, 2016, the New York Stock
7. What are commenters’ views on communications relating to the Exchange LLC (‘‘NYSE’’ or the
how EA would likely recoup the cost of proposed rule change between the ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the Securities
the proposed credit? Commission and any person, other than and Exchange Commission
8. What are commenters’ views on those that may be withheld from the (‘‘Commission’’), pursuant to Section
whether the proposal would affect public in accordance with the 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act
competitors to NOM and EA or clients provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be of 1934 (‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4
of such competitors? Specifically, what available for Web site viewing and thereunder,2 a proposed rule change (1)
are commenters’ views on the impact of printing in the Commission’s Public to provide additional information
the proposal on exchanges that do not Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., regarding access to various trading and
have affiliated broker-dealers/ Washington, DC 20549, on official execution services; connectivity to
Alternative Trading Systems that business days between the hours of market data feeds and testing and
transact securities not listed on a 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the certification feeds; connectivity to Third
national securities exchange—e.g., U.S. filing also will be available for Party Systems; and connectivity to
Treasury securities? Would the proposal DTCC provided to Users using data
inspection and copying at the principal
lead to a decline in number of clients, center local area networks; and (2) to
office of the Exchange. All comments
or client volume for competitors? establish fees relating to a User’s access
received will be posted without change;
9. What are commenters’ views on to various trading and execution
how the proposal would impact the the Commission does not edit personal
services; connectivity to market data
incentives for existing exchanges or new identifying information from
feeds and testing and certification feeds;
entities to create multiple trading submissions. You should submit only connectivity to DTCC; and other
venues or broker-dealers/Alternative information that you wish to make services. The proposed rule change was
Trading Systems under one group? available publicly. All submissions published for comment in the Federal
10. What are commenters’ views on should refer to File Number SR– Register on August 17, 2016.3 The
the impact the proposal would have, if NASDAQ–2016–121 and should be Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the
any, on the trading of options orders submitted on or before December 12, proposed rule change on August 16,
across multiple options exchanges? 2016. Rebuttal comments should be 2016.4 Amendment No. 1 was published
Please explain. What are commenters’ submitted by December 27, 2016. for comment in the Federal Register on
views on the impact the proposal would For the Commission, by the Division of September 26, 2016.5 The Commission
have, if any, on the best execution of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated received one comment in response to
investor orders, including the implicit authority.23 the proposed rule change, as modified
costs of executing their orders (such as Brent J. Fields,
spreads and price impact)? Please 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
explain. Secretary. 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.
Commenters are requested to provide [FR Doc. 2016–27897 Filed 11–18–16; 8:45 am] 3 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34–
78556 (August 11, 2016), 81 FR 54877 (‘‘Original
empirical data and other factual support BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
Notice’’).
for their views. 4 Amendment No. 1 (i) Amended the third party
Comments may be submitted by any data feed MSCI from 20 Gigabite (‘‘Gb’’) to 25 Gb
of the following methods: and amended the price from $2,000 to $1,200; (ii)
clarified the costs associated with providing a
Electronic Comments greater amount of bandwidth for Premium NYSE
Data Products for a particular market as compared
• Use the Commission’s Internet to the bandwidth requirements for the Included
comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ Data Products for that same market; (iii) provided
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
rules/sro.shtml); or further details on Premium NYSE Data Products,
including their composition, product release dates,
• Send an email to rule-comments@ and further detail on the reasonableness of their
sec.gov. Please include File Number SR– applicable fees; (iv) added an explanation for the
NASDAQ–2016–121 on the subject line. varying fee differences for the same Gb usage for
third party data feeds, DTCC, and Virtual Control
Paper Comments Circuit.
5 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34–
• Send paper comments in triplicate 78887 (September 20, 2016), 81 FR 66095.
to Secretary, Securities and Exchange 23 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(57). (‘‘Notice’’)
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Nov 18, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21NON1.SGM 21NON1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_83525/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2018-02-14 08:34:11
Document Modified: 2018-02-14 08:34:11
| 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 83301 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR