82 FR 55130 - Consolidated Tape Association; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of the Twenty-Second Charges Amendment to the Second Restatement of the CTA Plan and the Thirteenth Charges Amendment to the Restated CQ Plan

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 222 (November 20, 2017)

Page Range		55130-55137
FR Document		2017-25027

Federal Register, Volume 82 Issue 222 (Monday, November 20, 2017)

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 222 (Monday, November 20, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55130-55137]
From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2017-25027]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82071; File No. SR-CTA/CQ-2017-04]

Consolidated Tape Association; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of the Twenty-Second Charges Amendment to the Second
Restatement of the CTA Plan and the Thirteenth Charges Amendment to the
Restated CQ Plan

November 14, 2017.
Pursuant to Section 11A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 608 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on October 19, 2017, the Consolidated Tape Association (``CTA'') Plan
participants (``Participants'') \3\ filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposal to amend the Second
Restatement of the CTA Plan and the Restated CQ Plan (``Plans''). The
amendment represents the twenty-second Charges Amendment to the CTA
Plan and the thirteenth Charges Amendment to the CQ Plan
(``Amendments''). The Amendments seek to amend the Plans' fee schedule
as well as the Non-Display Use Policy to clarify the applicability of
the non-display fee, the device fee, and the access fee. The
Participants believe that some vendors are mischaracterizing their
customers' usage and creating artificial loopholes to avoid the Non-
Display Use and access fees pursuant to amendments filed in October
2014 (``2014 Fee Amendments'') \4\ in an attempt to obtain an advantage
over other vendors. The Participants believe that the distinction
between the device fees, the Non-Display Use fees, and the access fee
was set forth in the 2014 Fee Amendments, and many vendors are fully
complying with that distinction. The Participants state that some
vendors appear to be ignoring the import of the 2014 Fee Amendments in
order to gain an advantage over other vendors, allowing them to profit
from new or existing customers by offering them lower fees than such
customers could obtain from vendors who apply the 2014 Fee Amendments
correctly. The Participants state that the proposed amendment is
designed to close this loophole by removing any perceived ambiguity in
the 2014 Fee Amendments.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
\2\ 17 CFR 242.608.
\3\ The Participants are: Bats BYX Exchange, Inc.; Bats BZX
Exchange, Inc.; Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.;
Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Chicago Stock
Exchange, Inc.; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.;
Investors Exchange LLC; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Nasdaq
PHLX LLC; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
NYSE Arca, Inc.; NYSE American LLC; NYSE National, Inc.
\4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73278 (October 1,
2014), 79 FR 60536 (October 7, 2014) (``2014 Fee Amendments'').
\5\ The Participants would apply this proposed amendment
prospectively to meet any concerns that the existing policy was
insufficiently clear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Participants previously submitted an amendment to clarify the
application of the Non-Display Use Policy.\6\ That amendment elicited
comment letters, some opposing and some supporting the amendment.\7\
The Participants believed

[[Page 55131]]

that the opposing comments either misunderstood or misconstrued the
purpose and application of that amendment. In order to provide
additional explanation of the reasons behind and the impact of the
clarification of the Non-Display Policy, the Participants withdrew that
amendment and are now submitting this amendment in its place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80300 (Mar. 23,
2017), 82 FR 15404 (Mar. 28, 2017).
\7\ See Letter from David Craig, President, Thomson Reuters,
dated April 21, 2017 (``Thomson Reuters Letter''); Letter from
Anonymous, dated April 20, 2017; Letter from Jay Froscheiser, VP,
DTN/Schneider Electric, dated April 19, 2017; Letter from Melissa
MacGregor, Managing Director and Associated General Counsel, SIFMA,
dated April 18, 2017 (``SIFMA Letter''); Letter from Greg Babyak,
Head of Global Regulatory and Policy Group, Bloomberg, dated April
18, 2017 (``Bloomberg Letter''); Letter from Brad Ward, dated April
17, 2017; Letter from Marcus Mitchell, dated April 17, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In order to correct misinformation regarding the applicability of
the Non-Display Use and access fees, the Participants believe that it
is important to clarify that Non-Professional Users \8\ are not subject
to Non-Display Use, access, or device fees, regardless of the type of
data product they receive. Rather, as provided for on the Fee
Schedules, the only charge applicable to Non-Professional Users is the
$1.00 monthly charge and this charge is applicable to any use of the
data by a Non-Professional User. While a vendor may make available to a
Non-Professional User a data product that could result in Non-Display
Use or access fees being assessed against a Professional Subscriber, if
the subscriber is a Non-Professional User, that Non-Professional User
still would only be subject to the $1.00 monthly charge for such
use.\9\ Therefore, the Participants believe this proposed amendment
will have no effect on the fees paid by Non-Professional Users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ As defined in Exhibit B to the Agreement for Market Data
Display Services, a Non-Professional User is ``any natural person
who receives market data solely for his/her personal, non-business
use and who is not a `Securities Professional,' '' meaning that the
person is not (1) registered or qualified with the SEC, the CFTC,
any state securities agency, any securities exchange/association, or
any commodities/futures contract market/association, (2) engaged in
the functions of an investment advisor as those are described in
Section 202(a)(11) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, or (3)
employed by a bank or other organization exempt from registration
under Federal or state securities laws to perform functions that
would require them to be so registered or qualified if they were to
perform such functions for an organization not so exempt. The CTA's
Non-Professional Subscriber Policy can be found at https://www.ctaplan.com/policy.
\9\ The Administrator will update its reporting process to
ensure that Non-Professional Users would continue to be subject to
only the $1.00 monthly charge regardless of use or data delivery
method to such customer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pursuant to Rule 608(b)(3) under Regulation NMS,\10\ the
Participants designate the amendment as establishing or changing a fee
or other charge collected on their behalf in connection with access to,
or use of, the facilities contemplated by the Plans. As a result, the
amendment becomes effective upon filing with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ 17 CFR 242.608(b)(3)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments from
interested persons on the proposed Amendments. Set forth in Sections I
and II is the statement of the purpose and summary of the Amendments,
along with the information required by Rules 608(a) and 601(a) under
the Act, prepared and submitted by the Participants to the Commission.

I. Rule 608(a)

A. Purpose of the Amendments

1. Background
The 2014 Fee Amendments
The Participants amended the Plans' fee schedules in October 2014
to establish fees for Non-Display Uses of data and reduce the device
fees assessed on Professional Subscribers.\11\ The 2014 Fee Amendments
responded to long-term changes in data-usage trends. In formulating the
2014 Fee Amendments, the Participants studied the optimum allocation of
fees among market data users and consulted with industry
representatives that sit on the Plans' Advisory Committee and with
other industry participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 2014 Fee Amendments realigned the Plans' fees more closely with
the ways in which data recipients consume market data. To reflect the
changes in consumption of market data, the Participants reduced the
rates that Professional Subscribers paid for each of their display
devices while establishing fees for non-display consumption of data,
referred to as Non-Display Use.
For example, among other fee reductions, the Professional
Subscriber fee was reduced for individuals and firms having only one or
two devices, with a ten percent decrease in the fees charged to these
subscribers. The other tiered device rates for Professional Subscribers
also were reduced. The monthly device fees currently range from $19 to
$45 for Network A and is $23 for Network B. Additionally, in the 2014
Fee Amendments, the Participants retained the monthly $1.00 Non-
Professional User fee as a cost-effective rate for retail investors.
The 2014 Fee Amendments created Non-Display Use fees in recognition
of the increasingly large amounts of data being made available and the
significant value vendors and their subscribers could derive from using
data received in a non-display manner. Non-Display Use was defined in
the 2014 Fee Amendments as any use accessing, processing, or consuming
real-time Network A or Network B quotation information or last sale
price information for a purpose other than in support of a data
recipient's display or further internal or external redistribution.
The 2014 Fee Amendments provided a non-exhaustive list of examples
of Non-Display Use,\12\ including:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ Non-Display Use does not apply to the creation and use of
derived data. Derived data is generally understood by the industry
to consist of pricing data or other information that is created in
whole or in part from consolidated quotation or last sale price
information, but which cannot be reverse engineered to recreate such
information or be used to create other data that is recognizable as
a reasonable substitute for such information. For instance, using
consolidated quotation information or last sale price information to
value portfolios or create indexes would not be considered Non-
Display Use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Trading in any asset class;
Automated order or quote generation and/or order pegging;
Price referencing for algorithmic trading;
Price referencing for smart order routing;
Operations control programs;
Investment analysis;
Order verification;
Surveillance programs;
Risk management;
Compliance; and
Portfolio Valuation.
The Participants established three categories of Non-Display Use of
market data:
Category 1 applies when a data recipient makes Non-Display
Use of real-time market data on its own behalf.
Category 2 applies when a data recipient makes Non-Display
Use of real-time market data on behalf of its customers.
Category 3 applies when a data recipient makes non-display
uses of real-time market data for the purpose of internally matching
buy and sell orders within an organization.
The Non-Display Use Fee is $2,000 per category for Network A and
$1,000 per category for Network B. Data recipients can be charged for
each of the three categories of Non-Display Use they utilize.
Importantly though, if a data recipient makes Non-Display Use of real-
time market data on behalf of its customers (a Category 2 use), its
customers are not charged the Category 2 Non-Display Use fee or the
access fee. Instead, the data recipient (who in this example could be a
broker-dealer using

[[Page 55132]]

the data for smart order-routing) is charged the Category 2 Non-Display
Use fee once and is charged the access fee once, but its customers are
not charged either fee for the Non-Display Use by the broker-dealer on
their behalf. Category 3 is the only Non-Display Use fee that can be
charged multiple times; that possibility arises only if a subscriber
operates more than a single ATS, exchange, or ECN, and the fee is
charged once per ATS, exchange, or ECN.
Access Fees
CTA currently charges an access fee to any subscriber with access
to data feeds. This fee is charged based on the receipt of data, rather
than how the data is used. If a subscriber is receiving a data feed,
i.e., information transmitted in a format that is not controlled or can
be manipulated and integrated into their own systems, that subscriber
is subject to access fees. Access fees are therefore distinct from the
separate charges on the Fee Schedule that are based on how the data is
used, including device fees and Non-Display Use fees.
Mischaracterization of Usage by Certain Vendors
Following the 2014 Fee Amendments, the Participants became aware
that certain vendors were characterizing the usage of their customers
as subject to solely the device fees despite the fact that the vendors
were not delivering the data in a controlled format. Rather, the data
was being delivered in a format that enabled their customers to
integrate the data into their own systems and software for Non-Display
Use. The Participants understand that certain vendors use this
characterization to offer their customers the ability to avoid the non-
display and access charges due under the Plan to the detriment of other
vendors who properly characterized how they delivered the data as being
subject to access fees and their customers' usage as being subject to
the Non-Display Use fees. The Participants believe that this
characterization is clearly contrary to the language and purpose of the
2014 Fee Amendments.
It is important, therefore, to understand the different types of
data products that can be provided by a vendor, generally falling into
two categories.
The first category consists of data distributed in a form that only
enables it to be visibly displayed on a device such that the data
recipient can only see the consolidated quotation and last sale
information without being able to integrate the data into the
recipient's own systems and software; the proposed amendment will have
no effect on what users of this type of product pay. The device fee
contemplates that once that data has been visibly displayed via a
graphical user interface, it can be exported via a data delivery
exchange to a format such as Excel for further display use. For
example, for a Professional Subscriber, use of Bloomberg's Excel add-in
features, would be subject to the existing device fee, currently set at
a maximum of $45 per unit, and would not be considered Non-Display Use.
As described above, this category would not subject a subscriber to any
access fees.
The second category consists of data being provided to a subscriber
in a format that enables the subscriber to incorporate the data into
the data recipient's systems and software. This type of subscriber is
essentially doing through a vendor what it could do if the subscriber
accessed data directly from CTA: The vendor is functionally acting as a
pipe through which the data is delivered to the subscriber. This type
of delivery of data is subject to access fees, and, depending upon
usage, non-display fees.
The Participants are concerned that certain vendors are providing
subscribers with a level of access to market data that allows the
subscriber to use the market data for Non-Display purposes, yet those
vendors are not reporting that delivery of data as a data feed.\13\ The
Participants understand that vendors failing to properly report are
taking advantage of understandings of use that pre-dated the 2014 Fee
Amendments by continuing to report that their customers were subject
only to the lower device fees rather than as data feeds applicable to
Non-Display Use and access fees that others were paying in accordance
with the existing fee schedule. In other words, those vendors are not
applying the 2014 Fee Amendments, but rather continuing to report what
constitutes a data feed delivery and non-display use as a device use
only. This misinterpretation of the 2014 Fee Amendments has not only
upset the balance struck by the Participants in the 2014 Fee Amendments
between who should be subject to the device fees versus the Non-Display
Use fees, it has also upset the competitive balance among vendors. The
Participants are filing this proposed amendment in order to
definitively remove any ambiguity with regards to the applicability of
the Non-Display Use and access fees to eliminate this imbalance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ The CTA Network Administrator requires all customers and
vendors that wish to receive market data via an uncontrolled data
feed to complete an Exhibit A, available here: https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/ctaplan/notifications/trader-update/Exhibit%20A%20-%20CTA%20-%20Internal%20and%20External%20Distribution.pdf. Among
other information, vendors that redistribute data must report data
feeds provided to subscribers. Any subscriber that makes a non-
display use of CTA or CQ data must then complete a Non-Display Use
of CTA/CQ Market Data--Customer Declaration, which is available
here: https://www.ctaplan.com/publicdocs/ctaplan/notifications/trader-update/CTA%20Non%20Display%20Declaration%20Form.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In connection with the previously submitted amendment regarding
Non-Display Use, certain commenters raised concerns about a potential
increase in the price of a particular data product being offered in the
marketplace, the Bloomberg Server Application Program Interface product
(``Bloomberg SAPI''). Bloomberg argued that those using the Bloomberg
SAPI should not be subject to the Non-Display Use and access fees
because the output of the server-based application is displayed to
users whose device or user ID has been entitled by Bloomberg.\14\ But
Bloomberg's focus solely on how the data might be disseminated by some
SAPI users is misplaced and exemplifies the issue that the Participants
are attempting to resolve with this proposed amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ See Bloomberg Letter at 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As described above, the access fee is charged to those data
recipients who obtain data in a manner that enables the recipient to
integrate that data into their own systems or software, regardless of
whether and how the recipient chooses to use that data. And the Non-
Display Use fee is applicable whenever data is used in a manner that
does not make the data visibly available to a data recipient on a
device. This is exactly what Bloomberg concedes the Bloomberg SAPI
permits when Bloomberg states that the Bloomberg SAPI allows customers
to run server-based applications on market data. For example, when
Bloomberg first reported use of the Bloomberg SAPI service to the
Network Administrator, Bloomberg represented that ``[s]ubscribers to
Bloomberg's API service typically use the application for the following
purposes: Pricing engines, portfolio valuations, order management
programs, risk compliance engines, and program trading applications.''
Prior to 2014, such use was subject to device fees but only because
Non-Display Use fees did not exist. However, consistent with the 2014
Fee Amendments, any such use constitutes Non-Display Use according to
the definitions that went into effect in 2014 and should be subject to
the Non-Display Use and access fees; the

[[Page 55133]]

provision of such data via the Bloomberg SAPI does not obviate that
fact. Use of encryption or entitlements are not designed to restrict
such use because they only control access to the data, not use of the
data, and it is the latter that determines whether Non-Display Use and
access fees apply.
SIFMA, in its letter commenting on the previous proposed amendment,
also focused on the applicability of the Non-Display Use and access
fees on Bloomberg's SAPI. But SIFMA mischaracterized the Bloomberg SAPI
as ``the quintessential display product.'' \15\ While Bloomberg has a
display product, i.e., Bloomberg Terminal, the functionality made
available by the Bloomberg SAPI is not at its core a display product.
The ability to integrate consolidated quotation and last sale
information into a data recipient's ``server-based applications''
clearly demonstrates the incongruence between SIFMA's description and
the Bloomberg SAPI data product's overall functionality. Customers that
choose to subscribe to both the Bloomberg Terminal and the Bloomberg
SAPI presumably are doing so because they are using the data for
purposes other than just display of the data. Indeed, the Participants
understand that is why Bloomberg charges its subscribers substantial
amounts for the Bloomberg SAPI over and above the amounts Bloomberg
charges for use of one its terminals alone. If in fact a customer only
needs the display features, which would include use of Excel add-in
features, such a customer would not need the Bloomberg SAPI. The
customer could end its use of the Bloomberg SAPI and then would not be
subject to Non-Display Use or access fees. For the avoidance of doubt,
a hypothetical Bloomberg customer that only used Bloomberg Terminals
and not the Bloomberg SAPI would not be affected in any way by the
proposed amendment. Bloomberg itself implicitly conceded this: Although
it rents out more than 300,000 terminals, it claimed the previous
proposed amendment would impact only ``hundreds'' of its customers.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ See SIFMA Letter at 2.
\16\ Compare Bloomberg Web site touting 325,000 global terminal
subscribers, https://www.bloomberg.com/company/bloomberg-facts/ with
Bloomberg Letter at 1 (claiming that ``hundreds'' of customers would
be affected).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Proposed Amendments to Plans' Fee Schedules

1. Amended Definition of Non-Display Use
To distinguish between the two categories of use of data, the
Participants are proposing to amend the definition of ``Non-Display
Use'' in footnote eight of the Plans' fee schedules to explicitly state
that any use of data that does not make data visibly available to a
data recipient on a device is a Non-Display Use. The Participants are
proposing to make a parallel amendment to footnote two of the Plans'
fee schedules to state that the device fee will only be applicable
where the data is visibly available to the data recipient; any other
data use on a device will be considered Non-Display Use.
In the 2014 Fee Amendments, the Participants recognized the
relative values of non-display versus display data usage. With the
proliferation of automated and algorithmic trading, non-display uses
consume large amounts of data and perform a wide variety of functions.
The black boxes and application programming interfaces utilized by
these firms process data far more quickly, and as a result, the
relative value between non-display and display data usage is
pronounced. The disparity in value between non-display and display data
usage led the Participants to decrease the Professional Subscriber
device charges in the October 2014 Non-Display Filing while
establishing the Non-Display Use fees. However, if a vendor distributes
data for Non-Display Use but reports that its subscribers are subject
only to device fees, such interpretation would disrupt the balance
struck by the Participants in lowering the device fees while
establishing the Non-Display Use fees.
The Participants believe that amending the fee schedule will create
a clear understanding of when the Non-Display Use fee is applicable.
The Participants believe that the proposed amendment is consistent with
the 2014 Fee Amendments and therefore would clarify the change made by
the 2014 Fee Amendments.
To notify data recipients of the amended definition, the
Participants will be updating the CTA Market Data Non-Display Use
Policy. The CTA Market Data Non-Display Use Policy describes the
applicability of the Non-Display Use fee to specific uses of real-time
Network A and Network B last sale information and quotation
information. The CTA Market Data Non-Display Use Policy currently
reflects the applicability of the Non-Display Use fee as established by
the 2014 Fee Amendments. The Participants are amending this policy to
include the updated definition of Non-Display Use as reflected in the
Plans' amended fee schedules. The CTA Market Data Non-Display Use
Policy is also being updated to specify that Redistributors that
provide market data to their customers and/or data recipients for Non-
Display Use of the data must submit an access request to the
Administrator, and must require that the customers and data recipients
of such market data complete an Exhibit A for the data use request.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ Exhibit A can be found on the Plans' Web site at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/ctaplan/notifications/trader-update/Exhibit%20A%20-%20CTA%20-%20Internal%20and%20External%20Distribution.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Participants are also amending footnote two and footnote eight
of the Plans' fee schedules to make clear that the Participants reserve
the right to make the sole determination as to whether a data
recipient's use is subject to the Non-Display Use fee or the device fee
and, if subject to the Non-Display Use fee, the category of such Non-
Display Use, consistent with the 2014 Fee Amendments and this
amendment.
2. Amended Definition of Access Fee
To further clarify that the applicable fees that would be assessed
are based on how data is used, the Participants are proposing to amend
footnote ten of the Plans' fee schedules to clarify when the access fee
is applicable. The access fees for Network A range from $750 to $1,750
and for Network B range from $400 to $1,250. The Participants are not
proposing to modify the current access fees. Instead, the Participants
are proposing to amend footnote 10 in the Plans' fee schedules to
provide the access fee would be applicable if: (1) The data recipient
uses the data for non-display; or (2) the data recipient receives the
data in such a manner that the data can be manipulated and disseminated
to one or more devices, display or otherwise, regardless of encryption
or instructions from the redistribution vendor regarding who has
authorized access to the data. In other words, if a subscriber has
access to the data in a manner that enables that subscriber to engage
in Non-Display Use of the data, the subscriber should be subject to the
access fee. This amendment would make clear that the fees are based on
the level of functionality made available by the vendor rather than any
particular method of transmission that could potentially be modified to
avoid the access fees. The Participants believe that this proposed
amendment is consistent

[[Page 55134]]

with how access fees are currently charged and would remove any
ambiguity for subscribers.
For example, if a subscriber is receiving a stream of consolidated
quotation and last sale information from a vendor, and that stream of
data can then be used by the subscriber as an input into its own
systems and software, then the subscriber will be subject to the access
fee because it is able to make Non-Display Uses of the data.
Additionally, if a subscriber is able to access a vendor's servers,
choose what data to download onto its own system, and then incorporate
that data into the subscriber's system and software, then the
subscriber will be subject to the access fee. If, however, a subscriber
is accessing a platform provided by a third-party where the data is
being incorporated into and manipulated by the third-party's software,
then the subscriber accessing that platform will not be subject to the
access fee; instead, the third-party software provider will be subject
to the access fee.
This proposed amendment is designed to make the applicability of
the access fee depend upon the functionality made available by a vendor
rather than get into a technical discussion of whether a form of
transmission constitutes a ``data feed'' per se. In essence, if the
data is delivered in a format that allows for non-display use, then
such data delivery is tantamount to a data feed because it is a
delivery format that is not controlled either in the entitlements or
how the data is displayed. This approach to defining the applicability
of the access fee will ensure that vendors that are providing the same
level of functionality to their subscribers are not permitted to charge
differing fees. As a result, the Participants believe that the revised
definition will place all vendors on an equal footing so as to maintain
a balanced, fair, and equitable competitive landscape.
3. Limited Scope of Proposed Amendment
So as to avoid any misplaced concern, the Participants reiterate
that the Non-Display Use and access fees are not applicable to a Non-
Professional User, and therefore the proposed amendments are not
applicable to Non-Professional Users. As previously stated, the 2014
Fee Amendments established fees for Non-Display Uses of data and
reduced the device fees assessed on Professional Subscribers.
Therefore, regardless of whether a Non-Professional User is receiving a
data product that could be subject to the Non-Display Use and access
fees, a Non- Professional User's vendor would only be charged $1.00 for
the data product being made available to a Non-Professional User.\18\
While the Participants cannot control the pricing charged by vendors
for usage of the vendors' data products, such Non-Professional User's
fees would not change in any way as a result of this proposed
amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ Unlike Professional Subscribers, Non-Professional Users are
not directly billed by the Network Administrator, but instead the
vendors providing the quotation and last sale information to Non-
Professional Users are billed for any usage. The fee schedule states
as much in connection with the Non-Professional User fee. None of
the other fees contain this reference to charging vendors for use by
Non-Professional Users because such users are not charged those
fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further, it is important to note the distinction between the fees
charged to a brokerage platform that receives data and uses it for
multiple purposes (including providing displays to its customers)
versus the fees charged to display-only users who simply access that
platform to view the data. Although it is true that the firms providing
these types of platforms could be charged Non-Display Use and access
fees because of their receipt and use of data for multiple purposes,
that does not mean that the customers of such a platform would be
charged the same fees. If a customer has access to uncontrolled data on
a platform, then the firm running the platform would be charged an
access fee. Additionally, if the platform made Non-Display Use of that
data, then the firm would also be charged a Non-Display Use fee, and if
the use was on behalf of both itself and its customers, it would be
charged a Category 1 and a Category 2 Non-Display Use fee.
However, customers accessing that display platform only to view the
data would not be charged either the Non-Display Use fee or the access
fee. As such, even if the platform had 500 users, the firm providing
the platform would be charged only once for its Non-Display Use on
behalf of its customers, but the customers would not be individually
assessed the Non-Display Use or access fees. Instead, a Professional
Subscriber would be charged at most $45 per unit for accessing the
firm's platform.

B. Governing or Constituent Documents

Not applicable.

C. Implementation of the Amendments

Pursuant to Rule 608(b)(3)(i) under Regulation NMS, the
Participants have designated the proposed clarification as establishing
or changing fees and are submitting the amendment for immediate
effectiveness.

D. Development and Implementation Phases

See Item C above.

E. Analysis of Impact on Competition

The amendments proposed herein do not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'').
Additionally, the Participants do not believe that the proposed
amendments introduce terms that are unreasonably discriminatory for the
purposes of Section 11A(c)(1)(D) of the Act. The Participants have
submitted this amendment to simply clarify the applicability of the
Non-Display Use and access fees established in the 2014 Fee Amendments.
As explained in the 2014 Fee Amendments, the Non-Display Use fees
were established in response to the proliferation of the use of data
for dark pools and other non-display trading applications. In
conjunction with the establishment of Non-Display Use fees, the
Participants reduced the rates for Professional Subscriber display
devices in hopes of fostering the widespread availability of real-time
market data. At the same time, the Non-Display Use fees allowed those
who make Non-Display Uses of data to make appropriate contributions to
the costs of collecting, processing, and redistributing the data. The
clarification proposed herein maintains the balance struck by the
Participants in reducing the device fee while establishing the Non-
Display Use fees.
Additionally, the Participants believe that the amendment will have
a positive effect on competition because the amendment will ensure that
all vendors are classifying their customer's usage in the same manner.
Following the 2014 Fee Amendments, the Participants believe that
certain vendors have been mischaracterizing the usage of their
customers as being subject solely to the device fees despite the fact
that the data was being delivered in an uncontrolled form that enabled
their customers to integrate the data into their own systems and
software for Non-Display Use. This mischaracterization led to certain
vendors offering their customers lower fees, to the detriment of other
vendors who properly characterized their customers' usage as subject to
the Non-Display Use and access fees. By eliminating the ambiguity in
the Plans' fee schedules, the Participants believe that all vendors
will be subjected to and subject their customers to similar fees for
similar uses of data.

[[Page 55135]]

Without detailed information from vendors,\19\ the Participants are
unable to calculate the actual number of subscribers that are going to
be affected by the proposed amendment; however, due to the limited
application of the Non-Display Use and access fees, the Participants
believe that the change will not be widespread. First, the proposed
amendment would have no effect on Non-Professional Users regardless of
the type of data product the Non-Professional User was receiving; such
users would only be charged $1.00 for use of market data. Second, the
Participants believe that some users might be receiving a data product
in a format that provides a level of access to data that they do not
need based on how they are using the data. If a subscriber were not
making Non-Display Uses of market data, then such subscriber would not
need the enhanced service and could switch to a display-only data
product that would be subject to the lower device fees. Because the
subscriber was not making Non-Display Uses of the market data, the
switch would cause the subscriber to be in exactly the same position as
it is today--it would be able to continue using the market data in the
same manner as it previously viewed it while paying only the device
fee. Finally, the Participants believe that only a small number of
vendors are not correctly reporting their customers' usage of data, and
this proposed amendment is intended to close an unintended loophole
that certain vendors are exploiting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ As previously mentioned though, Bloomberg, in its comment
letter on the previously filed amendment, stated that although it
rents out more than 300,000 terminals, it only claimed the proposed
amendment would impact ``hundreds'' of its customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In connection with the previously proposed amendment, Bloomberg
claimed that the proposal was an unfair burden on competition because
Bloomberg is ``asked to disclose all of its customers to the Exchange,
including the specific method by which they consume data.'' Bloomberg
claimed that such a request is to obtain ``confidential information
under the guise of the SRO cloak,'' implying that this information will
be used to market exchanges' proprietary data products.\20\ As
described above, however, this data is already required by the
administrator as a necessary part of its administrative functions to be
able to audit fees billed to data users, and is not being requested by
an individual exchange for its own benefit. As it always has been the
case, other than non-professional subscribers, the administrator
directly bills customers of vendors that have been reported by a vendor
as a professional device user or using the data for non-display
purposes. As a result, the information being requested is necessary to
carry out the administrator function. Direct billing, and therefore the
need for this information, long predates even the 2014 Fee Amendments.
It is unclear why Bloomberg and other commenters believe that the
proposed amendment has anything to do with this longstanding (and
heretofore unchallenged) requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ Bloomberg Letter at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Moreover, the administrator is subject to information barriers
which prevent it from disclosing confidential customer information with
the exchange's business units.

F. Written Understanding or Agreements Relating to Interpretation of,
or Participation in, Plan

As previously stated, the Participants have amended the CTA Market
Data Non-Display Use Policy to implement the proposed Amendments. A
copy of the changes to the Non-Display Use Policy is attached to the
Amendment.

G. Approval by Sponsors in Accordance With Plan

Section XII (b)(iii) of the CTA Plan provides that ``[a]ny addition
of any charge to . . . the charges set forth in Exhibit E . . . shall
be effected by an amendment to this CTA Plan . . . that is approved by
affirmative vote of not less than two-thirds of all of the then voting
members of CTA. Any such amendment shall be executed on behalf of each
Participant that appointed a voting member of CTA who approves such
amendment and shall be filed with the SEC.'' Further, Section
IX(b)(iii) of the CQ Plan provides that ``additions, deletions, or
modifications to any charges under this CQ Plan shall be effected by an
amendment . . . that is approved by affirmative vote of two-thirds of
all the members of the Operating Committee.''
The Participants have executed this Amendment and represent not
less than two-thirds of all of the parties to the Plan. That satisfies
the Plans' Participant-approval requirements.

H. Description of Operation of Facility Contemplated by the Proposed
Amendments

Not applicable.

I. Terms and Conditions of Access

Not applicable.

J. Method of Determination and Imposition, and Amount of, Fees and
Charges

1. In General
The Participants took a number of factors into account in deciding
to propose the amendments contained herein. First, the administrator
works closely with vendors and customers to assess and analyze the
different methods by which vendors make data available to their
customers. The Participants have determined that certain vendors are
providing non-display functionality via their market data products but
nevertheless are reporting that their customers are only subject to the
lower display device charges based on a skewed reading of the Non-
Display Use and access fees.
Significantly, the Participants discussed their findings with the
Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee includes a representative of
a broker-dealer with a substantial retail investor customer base, a
broker-dealer with a substantial institutional investor customer base,
an alternative trading system, a data vendor, and an investor. It also
includes other industry representatives having deep market data
experience. The Advisory Committee members attended and participated in
meetings of the Participants in which the proposed amendment was
discussed in length. During these meetings, no Advisory Committee
member voiced an opposition to the proposed amendment, and some were
quite vocal in their support of the need to level the competitive
imbalance that currently exists as a result of the misinterpretation by
certain vendors of the Non-Display and access fees.
2. The Proposed Amendment Will Have No Impact on Most Individual
Investors
Non-Professional Users (i.e., individual investors) will not be
impacted by the proposed amendment. As described above, Non-
Professional Users are not subject to Non-Display Use, access, or
device fees, regardless of the type of data product they receive.
Rather, as provided for on the Fee Schedules, the only charge
applicable to Non-Professional Users is the $1.00 monthly charge and
this charge is applicable to any use of the data by a Non-Professional
User. Therefore, this proposed amendment will have no effect on the
fees paid by Non-Professional Users.
3. Vendor Fees
Fees imposed by data vendors (which the Commission does not
regulate), rather than the fees imposed under the

[[Page 55136]]

national market system plans account for a significant majority of the
global market data fees incurred by the financial industry. Market data
vendors may significantly mark-up national market system fees or
incorporate that data into the vendors' own market data products. The
fees the market data vendors charge are not regulated and there is
limited transparency into how their rates are applied. In any event the
vendors' fees do not result in any additional revenues for the
Participants; the vendors alone profit from them.
4. The Proposed Amendment Resolves the Inequitable Application of Non-
Display Use and Access Fees as a Result of the Misinterpretation
The Participants believe that the proposed amendment is fair and
reasonable and provides for an equitable allocation of dues, fees, and
other charges among vendors, data recipients and other persons. This
proposed amendment is not motivated by a plan to increase fees or
revenues, but rather to ensure that the 2014 Fee Amendments are applied
correctly and consistently by all vendors. In a perfect world, this
proposed amendment would not result in any changes to revenue because
data recipients are already be subject to the 2014 Fee Amendments and
they should be reporting usage correctly. However, as the Bloomberg
Letter exposes, there is at least one vendor (Bloomberg) that has not
been accurately reporting its Bloomberg SAPI product.
For the reasons discussed below, the Participants cannot conduct a
precise analysis of what changes to revenue would accrue if this
amendment were to go into effect. Indeed, to date, the administrator
cannot project whether this proposed amendment would result in any
revenue changes because it is not known whether, and how many, vendors
are not accurately reporting usage. The Participants are therefore
unable to forecast what revenue increase, if any, may result from the
proposed amendment, because only those vendors utilizing a
misinterpretation of the 2014 Fee Amendments have the information
necessary to enable the Participants to calculate the effects of
closing the perceived loophole.
Nevertheless, the Participants have done a general analysis, as
described below, based upon the comments received on the prior
proposal. Specifically, as demonstrated by the Bloomberg comment, we
know that at least one vendor is not reporting correctly and it has
refused to provide information to the administrator. However, Bloomberg
acknowledges in its letter that if it correctly applied the 2014 Fee
Amendments, ``hundreds'' of its customers would be affected.
Because Bloomberg has refused to provide any information, the
Participants have no way of knowing whether 200 customers or 999
customers would be impacted, or somewhere in between. In addition, some
of these customers may only need to receive the data in a display
format and therefore not be impacted at all. Regardless of the actual
number of Bloomberg customers, there would not be a one-to-one
correlation between the number of customers receiving CTA/CQ data over
the Bloomberg SAPI and the number of additional access fees and Non-
Display Use fees that would be charged if Bloomberg correctly reported
its customers' usage. Specifically, Bloomberg is likely currently
reporting those ``hundreds'' of data recipients as Professional Device
Users, which means the customer that Bloomberg is referring to is in
fact a person as opposed to a firm. A customer firm of Bloomberg may
subscribe multiple times to the Bloomberg SAPI feed for its individual
users. In that case, because access fees and Non-Display Use fees are
charged once at a firm level, that Bloomberg customer firm would likely
be subject to a single access fee and Non-Display Use fee for multiple
Bloomberg SAPI connections. Moreover, a Bloomberg firm customer that
subscribes to the Bloomberg SAPI may already be paying an access fee
and Non-Display Use fees, in which case, correctly reporting the
Bloomberg SAPI as a data feed would not result in any additional fees
to such customer. Additionally, the Participants believe that many data
users that are currently taking high-priced vendor products such as
Bloomberg's SAPI, providing what is for those users unnecessary
functionality, may switch to other products so as to avoid having to
pay any additional charges they may face once the non-display
functionality is accurately reported. Any such switch will reduce any
potential revenue increase resulting from the clarification. In sum,
although the Participants are aware of certain vendors inaccurately
reporting data usage, they do not believe that there has been a
widespread misinterpretation of the 2014 Fee Amendments. Accordingly,
the Participants generally do not believe that this proposed amendment
would result in a material increase in revenue.
More importantly, however, the Participants are concerned about the
possible consequences of failing to close this perceived loophole. In
particular, the level of access provided by the misreported products is
roughly equivalent to that provided by the products offered by vendors
reporting accurately. Yet, those vendor's customers are not paying what
other vendor's customers pay for the similar services. In order to
maintain the competitive balance, it is likely that, absent the
clarification, the market vendors that are now accurately reporting may
feel compelled to take advantage of this perceived loophole to reduce
their competitors' untoward advantage, and, if they do so, this may
reduce the market data revenue pool available to the Participants. The
failure to close this perceived loophole therefore could result in
substantial disruptions to the market data funding mechanism.

K. Method and Frequency of Processor Evaluation

Not applicable.

L. Dispute Resolution

Not applicable.

II. Rule 601(a)

A. Equity Securities for Which Transaction Reports Shall Be Required by
the Plan

Not applicable.

B. Reporting Requirements

Not applicable.

C. Manner of Collecting, Processing, Sequencing, Making Available and
Disseminating Last Sale Information

Not applicable.

D. Manner of Consolidation

Not applicable.

E. Standards and Methods Ensuring Promptness, Accuracy and Completeness
of Transaction Reports

Not applicable

F. Rules and Procedures Addressed to Fraudulent or Manipulative
Dissemination

Not applicable.

G. Terms of Access to Transaction Reports

Not applicable.

H. Identification of Marketplace of Execution

Not applicable.

III. Solicitation of Comments

The Commission seeks comment on the Amendments. In particular, the
Commission seeks comment on, among other things: (1) Whether the impact
of the 2014 CTA/CQ Fee Amendments on

[[Page 55137]]

market data users has been consistent with the representations of the
Participants; (2) the number of market data users that would be
impacted by these Amendments; (3) the impact these Amendments would
have on, for example, the fees paid by market data users; and (4)
whether the Amendments would have a disproportionally greater impact on
certain segments of users (e.g., small and midsize trading firms).
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed
Amendments are 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-CTA/CQ-2017-04 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-CTA/CQ-2017-04. 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 Amendments that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the
Amendments 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 on official business days between
the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the Amendments also
will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of
the CTA.
All comments received will be posted without change. Persons
submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit
personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CTA/CQ-2017-04 and should be
submitted on or before December 11, 2017.

By the Commission.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-25027 Filed 11-17-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2017 / Notices 55131

that the opposing comments either establishing or changing a fee or other value vendors and their subscribers
misunderstood or misconstrued the charge collected on their behalf in could derive from using data received in
purpose and application of that connection with access to, or use of, the a non-display manner. Non-Display Use
amendment. In order to provide facilities contemplated by the Plans. As was defined in the 2014 Fee
additional explanation of the reasons a result, the amendment becomes Amendments as any use accessing,
behind and the impact of the effective upon filing with the processing, or consuming real-time
clarification of the Non-Display Policy, Commission. Network A or Network B quotation
the Participants withdrew that The Commission is publishing this information or last sale price
amendment and are now submitting this notice to solicit comments from information for a purpose other than in
amendment in its place. interested persons on the proposed support of a data recipient’s display or
In order to correct misinformation Amendments. Set forth in Sections I and further internal or external
regarding the applicability of the Non- II is the statement of the purpose and redistribution.
Display Use and access fees, the summary of the Amendments, along The 2014 Fee Amendments provided
Participants believe that it is important with the information required by Rules a non-exhaustive list of examples of
to clarify that Non-Professional Users 8 608(a) and 601(a) under the Act, Non-Display Use,12 including:
are not subject to Non-Display Use, prepared and submitted by the • Trading in any asset class;
access, or device fees, regardless of the Participants to the Commission. • Automated order or quote
type of data product they receive. generation and/or order pegging;
Rather, as provided for on the Fee I. Rule 608(a) • Price referencing for algorithmic
Schedules, the only charge applicable to A. Purpose of the Amendments trading;
Non-Professional Users is the $1.00 • Price referencing for smart order
monthly charge and this charge is 1. Background routing;
applicable to any use of the data by a The 2014 Fee Amendments • Operations control programs;
Non-Professional User. While a vendor • Investment analysis;
The Participants amended the Plans’
may make available to a Non- • Order verification;
fee schedules in October 2014 to
Professional User a data product that • Surveillance programs;
establish fees for Non-Display Uses of
could result in Non-Display Use or • Risk management;
data and reduce the device fees assessed
access fees being assessed against a • Compliance; and
on Professional Subscribers.11 The 2014
Professional Subscriber, if the • Portfolio Valuation.
subscriber is a Non-Professional User, Fee Amendments responded to long- The Participants established three
that Non-Professional User still would term changes in data-usage trends. In categories of Non-Display Use of market
only be subject to the $1.00 monthly formulating the 2014 Fee Amendments, data:
charge for such use.9 Therefore, the the Participants studied the optimum • Category 1 applies when a data
Participants believe this proposed allocation of fees among market data recipient makes Non-Display Use of
amendment will have no effect on the users and consulted with industry real-time market data on its own behalf.
fees paid by Non-Professional Users. representatives that sit on the Plans’ • Category 2 applies when a data
Pursuant to Rule 608(b)(3) under Advisory Committee and with other recipient makes Non-Display Use of
Regulation NMS,10 the Participants industry participants. real-time market data on behalf of its
designate the amendment as The 2014 Fee Amendments realigned customers.
the Plans’ fees more closely with the • Category 3 applies when a data
April 20, 2017; Letter from Jay Froscheiser, VP, ways in which data recipients consume recipient makes non-display uses of
DTN/Schneider Electric, dated April 19, 2017; market data. To reflect the changes in real-time market data for the purpose of
Letter from Melissa MacGregor, Managing Director consumption of market data, the
and Associated General Counsel, SIFMA, dated internally matching buy and sell orders
April 18, 2017 (‘‘SIFMA Letter’’); Letter from Greg Participants reduced the rates that within an organization.
Babyak, Head of Global Regulatory and Policy Professional Subscribers paid for each of The Non-Display Use Fee is $2,000
Group, Bloomberg, dated April 18, 2017 their display devices while establishing
(‘‘Bloomberg Letter’’); Letter from Brad Ward, dated per category for Network A and $1,000
April 17, 2017; Letter from Marcus Mitchell, dated
fees for non-display consumption of per category for Network B. Data
April 17, 2017. data, referred to as Non-Display Use. recipients can be charged for each of the
8 As defined in Exhibit B to the Agreement for For example, among other fee three categories of Non-Display Use they
Market Data Display Services, a Non-Professional reductions, the Professional Subscriber
User is ‘‘any natural person who receives market utilize. Importantly though, if a data
data solely for his/her personal, non-business use
fee was reduced for individuals and recipient makes Non-Display Use of
and who is not a ‘Securities Professional,’ ’’ firms having only one or two devices, real-time market data on behalf of its
meaning that the person is not (1) registered or with a ten percent decrease in the fees customers (a Category 2 use), its
qualified with the SEC, the CFTC, any state charged to these subscribers. The other
securities agency, any securities exchange/ customers are not charged the Category
association, or any commodities/futures contract tiered device rates for Professional 2 Non-Display Use fee or the access fee.
market/association, (2) engaged in the functions of Subscribers also were reduced. The Instead, the data recipient (who in this
an investment advisor as those are described in monthly device fees currently range
Section 202(a)(11) of the Investment Advisers Act example could be a broker-dealer using
of 1940, or (3) employed by a bank or other
from $19 to $45 for Network A and is
organization exempt from registration under $23 for Network B. Additionally, in the 12 Non-Display Use does not apply to the creation
Federal or state securities laws to perform functions 2014 Fee Amendments, the Participants and use of derived data. Derived data is generally
that would require them to be so registered or retained the monthly $1.00 Non- understood by the industry to consist of pricing
qualified if they were to perform such functions for data or other information that is created in whole
Professional User fee as a cost-effective
nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with NOTICES

an organization not so exempt. The CTA’s Non- or in part from consolidated quotation or last sale
Professional Subscriber Policy can be found at rate for retail investors. price information, but which cannot be reverse
https://www.ctaplan.com/policy. The 2014 Fee Amendments created engineered to recreate such information or be used
9 The Administrator will update its reporting
Non-Display Use fees in recognition of to create other data that is recognizable as a
process to ensure that Non-Professional Users reasonable substitute for such information. For
would continue to be subject to only the $1.00
the increasingly large amounts of data
instance, using consolidated quotation information
monthly charge regardless of use or data delivery being made available and the significant or last sale price information to value portfolios or
method to such customer. create indexes would not be considered Non-
10 17 CFR 242.608(b)(3)(i). 11 See supra note 4. Display Use.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:15 Nov 17, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20NON1.SGM 20NON1

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2017 / Notices 55137

market data users has been consistent and should be submitted on or before proposes to modify the text of the fee
with the representations of the December 11, 2017. schedule of the Plan to conform the text
Participants; (2) the number of market By the Commission. of the Plan to what was described in
data users that would be impacted by Brent J. Fields, both the transmittal letter for the Thirty-
these Amendments; (3) the impact these Secretary.
Third Amendment to the Plan and the
Amendments would have on, for Commission’s public notice of the filing
[FR Doc. 2017–25027 Filed 11–17–17; 8:45 am]
example, the fees paid by market data of the Thirty-Third Amendment to the
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
users; and (4) whether the Amendments Plan.6
would have a disproportionally greater The original filing and notice
impact on certain segments of users SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE included the following language
(e.g., small and midsize trading firms). COMMISSION designed to direct Participants to look to
Interested persons are invited to submit the regular fee schedule: ‘‘but the data
written data, views, and arguments [Release No. 34–82072; File No. S7–24–89] may be fee liable under the regular fee
concerning the foregoing, including schedule.’’ 7 Due to what the
whether the proposed Amendments are Joint Industry Plan; Notice of Filing Participants state was an inadvertent
consistent with the Act. Comments may and Immediate Effectiveness of the omission, the language described in the
be submitted by any of the following Fortieth Amendment to the Joint Self-
transmittal letter and included in the
methods: Regulatory Organization Plan
public notice of the filing was omitted
Governing the Collection,
Electronic Comments from the text of the Plan.8 The
Consolidation and Dissemination of
Participants propose to amend the Plan
• Use the Commission’s Internet Quotation and Transaction Information
language to state that the Non-Display
comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ for Nasdaq-Listed Securities Traded on
fees do not apply when data is used to
rules/sro.shtml); or Exchanges on an Unlisted Trading
create derived data and the derived data
• Send an email to rule-comments@ Privileges Basis
is used for the purposes of solely
sec.gov. Please include File Number SR– November 14, 2017. displaying the derived data, and also to
CTA/CQ–2017–04 on the subject line. Pursuant to Section 11A of the conform the Plan language to the
Paper Comments Securities Exchange Act of 1934 original filing and notice directing
(‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 608 thereunder,2 subscribers to separate provisions of the
• Send paper comments in triplicate notice is hereby given that on October Plan that still apply.9 Thus, the
to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities 19, 2017, the Participants 3 in the Joint following conforming language would
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street Self-Regulatory Organization Plan be added: ‘‘but the data may be fee
NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090. Governing the Collection, Consolidation liable under the regular fee schedule.’’ 10
All submissions should refer to File and Dissemination of Quotation and No comments were received on this
Number SR–CTA/CQ–2017–04. This file Transaction Information for Nasdaq- topic when the Thirty-Third
number should be included on the Listed Securities Traded on Exchanges Amendment was noticed.
subject line if email is used. To help the on an Unlisted Trading Privileges Basis Pursuant to Rule 608(b)(3)(i) under
Commission process and review your (‘‘NASDAQ/UTP Plan’’ or ‘‘Plan’’) filed Regulation NMS,11 the Participants
comments more efficiently, please use with the Securities and Exchange designate the Amendment as
only one method. The Commission will Commission (‘‘Commission’’) a proposal establishing or changing a fee or other
post all comments on the Commission’s to amend the NASDAQ/UTP Plan.4 The charge collected on behalf of the
Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ amendment is the 40th Amendment to Participants in connection with access
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the the NASDAQ/UTP Plan to, or use of, any facility contemplated
submission, all subsequent (‘‘Amendment’’).5 The Amendment by the Nasdaq/UTP Plan and are
amendments, all written statements submitting the amendment for
1 15 U.S.C. 78k–1.
with respect to the Amendments that immediate effectiveness.
2 17 CFR 242.608.
are filed with the Commission, and all 3 The Participants are: Bats BYX Exchange, Inc.;
The Commission is publishing this
written communications relating to the Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Bats EDGA Exchange, notice to solicit comments from
Amendments between the Commission Inc.; Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Chicago Board interested persons on the Amendment.
and any person, other than those that Options Exchange, Incorporated; Chicago Stock Set forth in Sections I and II is the
may be withheld from the public in Exchange, Inc.; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Investors Exchange LLC; Nasdaq
statement of the purpose and summary
accordance with the provisions of 5 BX, Inc.; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; The of the Amendments, along with the
U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; New York Stock information required by Rules 608(a)
site viewing and printing in the Exchange LLC; NYSE Arca, Inc.; NYSE American and 601(a) under the Act, prepared and
LLC; and NYSE National, Inc. (collectively, the
Commission’s Public Reference Room ‘‘Participants’’).
submitted by the Participants to the
on official business days between the 4 The Plan governs the collection, processing, and Commission.
hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. dissemination on a consolidated basis of quotation
Copies of the Amendments also will be information and transaction reports in Eligible 6 See, e.g., Transmittal Letter at 1, 3; Securities

available for inspection and copying at Securities for each of its Participants. This Exchange Act Release No. 73279 (October 1, 2014),
consolidated information informs investors of the 79 FR 60522, (October 7, 2014) (‘‘October 2014 Non-
the principal office of the CTA. current quotation and recent trade prices of Nasdaq Display Filing’’).
All comments received will be posted securities. It enables investors to ascertain from one 7 See October 2014 Non-Display Filing, 79 FR at
without change. Persons submitting data source the current prices in all the markets
nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with NOTICES

60525.
trading Nasdaq securities. The Plan serves as the
comments are cautioned that we do not required transaction reporting plan for its
8 See Transmittal Letter at 1, 3.

redact or edit personal identifying Participants, which is a prerequisite for their 9 See Transmittal Letter at 3.

information from comment submissions. trading Eligible Securities. See Securities Exchange 10 See Addendum 1 to the Thirty-Third

You should submit only information Act Release No. 55647 (April 19, 2007), 72 FR Amendment to the Plan. The Addendum is marked
20891 (April 26, 2007). to show the changes to the text of the Plan that the
that you wish to make available 5 See Letter from Emily Kasparov to Brent J. Participants proposed in the Thirty-Third
publicly. All submissions should refer Fields, dated October 18, 2017 (‘‘Transmittal Amendment.
to File Number SR–CTA/CQ–2017–04 Letter’’). 11 17 CFR 242.608(b)(3)(i).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:15 Nov 17, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20NON1.SGM 20NON1

Document Created: 2018-10-25 10:42:32
Document Modified: 2018-10-25 10:42:32

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		82 FR 55130