82 FR 59753 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 to a Proposed Rule Change To Establish the Fees for Industry Members Related to the National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 240 (December 15, 2017)
Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 240 (December 15, 2017)
| Page Range | 59753-59778 | |
| FR Document | 2017-27001 |
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 240 (Friday, December 15, 2017)] [Notices] [Pages 59753-59778] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2017-27001] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-82276; File No. SR-BatsEDGX-2017-22] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 to a Proposed Rule Change To Establish the Fees for Industry Members Related to the National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail December 11, 2017. On May 23, 2017, Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc., n/k/a Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc., (``Exchange'' or ``SRO'') 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 to adopt a fee schedule to establish the fees for Industry Members related to the National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail (``CAT NMS Plan''). The proposed rule change was published in the Federal Register for comment on June 6, 2017.\3\ The Commission received seven comment letters on the proposed rule change,\4\ and a response to comments from the Participants.\5\ On June 30, 2017, the Commission temporarily suspended and initiated proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.\6\ The Commission thereafter received seven comment letters,\7\ and a response to comments from the Participants.\8\ On November 3, 2017, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change, as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.\9\ On November 9, 2017, the Commission extended the time period within which to approve the proposed rule change or disapprove the proposed rule change to January 14, 2018.\10\ The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments from interested persons on Amendment No. 1.\11\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4. \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80821 (May 31, 2017), 82 FR 26177 (June 6, 2017) (``Original Proposal''). \4\ Since the CAT NMS Plan Participants' proposed rule changes to adopt fees to be charged to Industry Members to fund the consolidated audit trail are substantively identical, the Commission is considering all comments received on the proposed rule changes regardless of the comment file to which they were submitted. See text accompanying notes 13-16 infra, for a list of the CAT NMS Plan Participants. See Letter from Theodore R. Lazo, Managing Director and Associate General Counsel, Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission (dated June 6, 2017), available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-batsbzx-2017-38/batsbzx201738-1788188-153228.pdf; Letter from Patricia L. Cerny and Steven O'Malley, Compliance Consultants, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission (dated June 12, 2017), available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-cboe-2017-040/cboe2017040-1799253-153675.pdf; Letter from Daniel Zinn, General Counsel, OTC Markets Group Inc., to Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary, Commission (dated June 13, 2017), available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-finra-2017-011/finra2017011-1801717-153703.pdf; Letter from Joanna Mallers, Secretary, FIA Principal Traders Group, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission (dated June 22, 2017), available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-cboe-2017-040/cboe2017040-1819670-154195.pdf; Letter from Stuart J. Kaswell, Executive Vice President and Managing Director, General Counsel, Managed Funds Association, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission (dated June 23, 2017), available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-finra-2017-011/finra2017011-1822454-154283.pdf; and Letter from Suzanne H. Shatto, Investor, to Commission (dated June 27, 2017), available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-batsedgx-2017-22/batsedgx201722-154443.pdf. The Commission also received a comment letter which is not pertinent to these proposed rule changes. See Letter from Christina Crouch, Smart Ltd., to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission (dated June 5, 2017), available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-batsbzx-2017-38/batsbzx201738-1785545-153152.htm. \5\ See Letter from CAT NMS Plan Participants to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission (dated June 29, 2017), available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-batsbyx-2017-11/batsbyx201711-1832632-154584.pdf. \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81067 (June 30, 2017), 82 FR 31656 (July 7, 2017). \7\ See Letter from W. Hardy Callcott, Partner, Sidley Austin LLP, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission (dated July 27, 2017), available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-batsbyx-2017-11/batsbyx201711-2148338-157737.pdf; Letter from Kevin Coleman, General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer, Belvedere Trading LLC, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission (dated July 28, 2017), available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-batsbyx-2017-11/batsbyx201711-2148360-157740.pdf; Letter from Joanna Mallers, Secretary, FIA Principal Traders Group, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission (dated July 28, 2017), available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-batsbyx-2017-11/batsbyx201711-2151228-157745.pdf; Letter from Theodore R. Lazo, Managing Director and Associate General Counsel, https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-batsbyx-2017-11/batsbyx201711-2150977-157744.pdf; Letter from Stuart J. Kaswell, Executive Vice President and Managing Director, General Counsel, Managed Funds Association, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission (dated July 28, 2017), available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-batsbyx-2017-11/batsbyx201711-2150818-157743.pdf; Letter from John Kinahan, Chief Executive Officer, Group One Trading, L.P., to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission (dated August 10, 2017), available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-finra-2017-011/finra2017011-2214568-160619.pdf; Letter from Joseph Molluso, Executive Vice President and CFO, Virtu Financial, to Brent J. Fields, Commission (dated August 18, 2017), available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-finra-2017-011/finra2017011-2238648-160830.pdf. \8\ See Letter from Michael Simon, Chair, CAT NMS Plan Operating Committee, to Brent J. Fields, Commission, Secretary (dated November 2, 2017), available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-batsbyx-2017-11/batsbyx201711-2674608-161412.pdf. \9\ Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change replaces and supersedes the Original Proposal in its entirety. \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82049 (November 9, 2017), 82 FR 53549 (November 16, 2017). \11\ The Commission notes that on December 7, 2017, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change. Amendment No. 2 is a partial amendment to the proposed rule change, as amended by Amendment No. 1. Amendment No. 2 proposes to change the parenthetical regarding the OTC Equity Securities discount in paragraph (b)(2) of the proposed fee schedule from ``with a discount for Equity ATSs exclusively trading OTC Equity Securities based on the average shares per trade ratio between NMS Stocks and OTC Equity Securities'' to ``with a discount for OTC Equity Securities market share of Equity ATSs trading OTC Equity Securities based on the average shares per trade ratio between NMS Stocks and OTC Equity Securities.'' See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82277 (December 11, 2017). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposed rule change SR-BatsEDGX-2017-22 (the ``Original Proposal''), pursuant to which SRO proposed to amend fees for its Equities Platform (``Cboe EDGX U.S. Equities Fee Schedule'') and to amend fees for its Options Platform (``Cboe EDGX Options Fee Schedule'') to establish the fees for Industry Members related to the National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail (the ``CAT NMS Plan'' or ``Plan'').\12\ SRO files this proposed rule change (the ``Amendment'') to amend the Original Proposal. This Amendment replaces the Original Proposal in its entirety, and also describes the changes from the Original Proposal. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \12\ Unless otherwise specified, capitalized terms used in this fee filing are defined as set forth herein, the CAT Compliance Rule Series, in the CAT NMS Plan, or the Original Proposal. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's website at www.markets.cboe.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for [[Page 59754]] the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements. (A) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose BOX Options Exchange LLC, Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc., Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc., Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc., Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc., Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc., Cboe Exchange, Inc.,\13\ Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA''), Investors' Exchange LLC, Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC, MIAX PEARL, LLC, NASDAQ BX, Inc., Nasdaq GEMX, LLC, Nasdaq ISE, LLC, Nasdaq MRX, LLC,\14\ NASDAQ PHLX LLC, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE American LLC,\15\ NYSE Arca, Inc. and NYSE National, Inc.\16\ (collectively, the ``Participants'') filed with the Commission, pursuant to Section 11A of the Exchange Act \17\ and Rule 608 of Regulation NMS thereunder,\18\ the CAT NMS Plan.\19\ The Participants filed the Plan to comply with Rule 613 of Regulation NMS under the Exchange Act. The Plan was published for comment in the Federal Register on May 17, 2016,\20\ and approved by the Commission, as modified, on November 15, 2016.\21\ The Plan is designed to create, implement and maintain a consolidated audit trail (``CAT'') that would capture customer and order event information for orders in NMS Securities and OTC Equity Securities, across all markets, from the time of order inception through routing, cancellation, modification, or execution in a single consolidated data source. The Plan accomplishes this by creating CAT NMS, LLC (the ``Company''), of which each Participant is a member, to operate the CAT.\22\ Under the CAT NMS Plan, the Operating Committee of the Company (``Operating Committee'') has discretion to establish funding for the Company to operate the CAT, including establishing fees that the Participants will pay, and establishing fees for Industry Members that will be implemented by the Participants (``CAT Fees'').\23\ The Participants are required to file with the SEC under Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act any such CAT Fees applicable to Industry Members that the Operating Committee approves.\24\ Accordingly, SRO submitted the Original Proposal to propose the Consolidated Audit Trail Funding Fees, which would require Industry Members that are SRO members to pay the CAT Fees determined by the Operating Committee. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \13\ Note that Bats BYX Exchange, Inc., Bats BZX Exchange, Inc., Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc., Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc., LLC, C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated, and Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated, have been renamed Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc., Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc., Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc., Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc., Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc., Cboe Exchange, Inc., respectively. \14\ ISE Gemini, LLC, ISE Mercury, LLC and International Securities Exchange, LLC have been renamed Nasdaq GEMX, LLC, Nasdaq MRX, LLC, and Nasdaq ISE, LLC, respectively. See Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 80248 (Mar. 15, 2017), 82 FR 14547 (Mar. 21, 2017); Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 80326 (Mar. 29, 2017), 82 FR 16460 (Apr. 4, 2017); and Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 80325 (Mar. 29, 2017), 82 FR 16445 (Apr. 4, 2017). \15\ NYSE MKT LLC has been renamed NYSE American LLC. See Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 80283 (Mar. 21. 2017), 82 FR 15244 (Mar. 27, 2017). \16\ National Stock Exchange, Inc. has been renamed NYSE National, Inc. See Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 79902 (Jan. 30, 2017), 82 FR 9258 (Feb. 3, 2017). \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1. \18\ 17 CFR 242.608. \19\ See Letter from the Participants to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated September 30, 2014; and Letter from Participants to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated February 27, 2015. On December 24, 2015, the Participants submitted an amendment to the CAT NMS Plan. See Letter from Participants to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated December 23, 2015. \20\ Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 77724 (Apr. 27, 2016), 81 FR 30614 (May 17, 2016). \21\ Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 79318 (Nov. 15, 2016), 81 FR 84696 (Nov. 23, 2016) (``Approval Order''). \22\ The Plan also serves as the limited liability company agreement for the Company. \23\ Section 11.1(b) of the CAT NMS Plan. \24\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Commission published the Original Proposal for public comment in the Federal Register on June 6, 2017,\25\ and received comments in response to the Original Proposal or similar fee filings by other Participants.\26\ On June 30, 2017, the Commission suspended, and instituted proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove, the Original Proposal.\27\ The Commission received seven comment letters in response to those proceedings.\28\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \25\ Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 80821 (May 31, 2017), 82 FR 26177 (June 6, 2017) (SR-BatsEDGX-2017-22). \26\ For a summary of comments, see generally Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 81067 (June 30, 2017), 82 FR 31656 (July 7, 2017) (``Suspension Order''). \27\ Suspension Order. \28\ See Letter from Stuart J. Kaswell, Executive Vice President, Managing Director and General Counsel, Managed Funds Association, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, SEC (July 28, 2017) (``MFA Letter''); Letter from Theodore R. Lazo, Managing Director and Associate General Counsel, SIFMA, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, SEC (July 28, 2017) (``SIFMA Letter''); Joanna Mallers, Secretary, FIA Principal Traders Group, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, SEC (July 28, 2017) (``FIA Principal Traders Group Letter''); Letter from Kevin Coleman, General Counsel & Chief Compliance Officer, Belvedere Trading LLC, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, SEC (July 28, 2017) (``Belvedere Letter''); Letter from W. Hardy Callcott, Sidley Austin LLP, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, SEC (July 27, 2017) (``Sidley Letter''); Letter from John Kinahan, Chief Executive Officer, Group One Trading, L.P., to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, SEC (Aug. 10, 2017) (``Group One Letter''); and Letter from Joseph Molluso, Executive Vice President, Virtu Financial, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, SEC (Aug. 18, 2017) (``Virtu Financial Letter''). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In response to the comments on the Original Proposal, the Operating Committee determined to make the following changes to the funding model: (1) Adds two additional CAT Fee tiers for Equity Execution Venues; (2) discounts the market share of Execution Venue ATSs exclusively trading OTC Equity Securities as well as the market share of the FINRA over-the-counter reporting facility (``ORF'') by the average shares per trade ratio between NMS Stocks and OTC Equity Securities (calculated as 0.17% based on available data from the second quarter of 2017) when calculating the market share of Execution Venue ATS exclusively trading OTC Equity Securities and FINRA; (3) discounts the Options Market Maker quotes by the trade to quote ratio for options (calculated as 0.01% based on available data for June 2016 through June 2017) when calculating message traffic for Options Market Makers; (4) discounts equity market maker quotes by the trade to quote ratio for equities (calculated as 5.43% based on available data for June 2016 through June 2017) when calculating message traffic for equity market makers; (5) decreases the number of tiers for Industry Members (other than the Execution Venue ATSs) from nine to seven; (6) changes the allocation of CAT costs between Equity Execution Venues and Options Execution Venues from 75%/25% to 67%/33%; (7) adjusts tier percentages and recovery allocations for Equity Execution Venues, Options Execution Venues and Industry Members (other than Execution Venue ATSs); (8) focuses the comparability of CAT Fees on the individual entity level, rather than primarily on the comparability of affiliated entities; (9) commences invoicing of CAT Reporters as promptly as possible following the latest of the operative date of the Consolidated Audit Trail Funding Fees for each of the Participants and the operative date of the CAT NMS Plan amendment [[Page 59755]] adopting CAT Fees for Participants; and (10) requires the proposed fees to automatically expire two years from the operative date of the CAT NMS Plan amendment adopting CAT Fees for Participants. As discussed in detail below, SRO proposes to amend the Original Proposal to reflect these changes. (1) Executive Summary The following provides an executive summary of the CAT funding model approved by the Operating Committee, as well as Industry Members' rights and obligations related to the payment of CAT Fees calculated pursuant to the CAT funding model, as amended by this Amendment. A detailed description of the CAT funding model and the CAT Fees, as amended by this Amendment, as well as the changes made to the Original Proposal follows this executive summary. (A) CAT Funding ModelCAT Costs. The CAT funding model is designed to establish CAT-specific fees to collectively recover the costs of building and operating the CAT from all CAT Reporters, including Industry Members and Participants. The overall CAT costs used in calculating the CAT Fees in this fee filing are comprised of Plan Processor CAT costs and non-Plan Processor CAT costs incurred, and estimated to be incurred, from November 21, 2016 through November 21, 2017. Although the CAT costs from November 21, 2016 through November 21, 2017 were used in calculating the CAT Fees, the CAT Fees set forth in this fee filing would be in effect until the automatic sunset date, as discussed below. (See Section 3(a)(2)(E) below) Bifurcated Funding Model. The CAT NMS Plan requires a bifurcated funding model, where costs associated with building and operating the CAT would be borne by (1) Participants and Industry Members that are Execution Venues for Eligible Securities through fixed tier fees based on market share, and (2) Industry Members (other than alternative trading systems (``ATSs'') that execute transactions in Eligible Securities (``Execution Venue ATSs'')) through fixed tier fees based on message traffic for Eligible Securities. (See Section 3(a)(2) below) Industry Member Fees. Each Industry Member (other than Execution Venue ATSs) will be placed into one of seven tiers of fixed fees, based on ``message traffic'' in Eligible Securities for a defined period (as discussed below). Prior to the start of CAT reporting, ``message traffic'' will be comprised of historical equity and equity options orders, cancels, quotes and executions provided by each exchange and FINRA over the previous three months. After an Industry Member begins reporting to the CAT, ``message traffic'' will be calculated based on the Industry Member's Reportable Events reported to the CAT. Industry Members with lower levels of message traffic will pay a lower fee and Industry Members with higher levels of message traffic will pay a higher fee. To avoid disincentives to quoting behavior, Options Market Maker and equity market maker quotes will be discounted when calculating message traffic. (See Section 3(a)(2)(B) below) Execution Venue Fees. Each Equity Execution Venue will be placed in one of four tiers of fixed fees based on market share, and each Options Execution Venue will be placed in one of two tiers of fixed fees based on market share. Equity Execution Venue market share will be determined by calculating each Equity Execution Venue's proportion of the total volume of NMS Stock and OTC Equity shares reported by all Equity Execution Venues during the relevant time period. For purposes of calculating market share, the market share of Execution Venue ATSs exclusively trading OTC Equity Securities as well as the market share of the FINRA ORF will be discounted. Similarly, market share for Options Execution Venues will be determined by calculating each Options Execution Venue's proportion of the total volume of Listed Options contracts reported by all Options Execution Venues during the relevant time period. Equity Execution Venues with a larger market share will pay a larger CAT Fee than Equity Execution Venues with a smaller market share. Similarly, Options Execution Venues with a larger market share will pay a larger CAT Fee than Options Execution Venues with a smaller market share. (See Section 3(a)(2)(C) below) Cost Allocation. For the reasons discussed below, in designing the model, the Operating Committee determined that 75 percent of total costs recovered would be allocated to Industry Members (other than Execution Venue ATSs) and 25 percent would be allocated to Execution Venues. In addition, the Operating Committee determined to allocate 67 percent of Execution Venue costs recovered to Equity Execution Venues and 33 percent to Options Execution Venues. (See Section 3(a)(2)(D) below) Comparability of Fees. The CAT funding model charges CAT Reporters with the most CAT-related activity (measured by market share and/or message traffic, as applicable) comparable CAT Fees. (See Section 3(a)(2)(F) below) (B) CAT Fees for Industry Members Fee Schedule. The quarterly CAT Fees for each tier for Industry Members are set forth in the two fee schedules in the Consolidated Audit Trail Funding Fees, one for Equity ATSs and one for Industry Members other than Equity ATSs. (See Section 3(a)(3)(B) below) Quarterly Invoices. Industry Members will be billed quarterly for CAT Fees, with the invoices payable within 30 days. The quarterly invoices will identify within which tier the Industry Member falls. (See Section 3(a)(3)(C) below) Centralized Payment. Each Industry Member will receive from the Company one invoice for its applicable CAT Fees, not separate invoices from each Participant of which it is a member. Each Industry Member will pay its CAT Fees to the Company via the centralized system for the collection of CAT Fees established by the Operating Committee. (See Section 3(a)(3)(C) below) Billing Commencement. Industry Members will begin to receive invoices for CAT Fees as promptly as possible following the latest of the operative date of the Consolidated Audit Trail Funding Fees for each of the Participants and the operative date of the Plan amendment adopting CAT Fees for Participants. (See Section 3(a)(2)(G) below) Sunset Provision. The Consolidated Audit Trail Funding Fees will sunset automatically two years from the operative date of the CAT NMS Plan amendment adopting CAT Fees for Participants. (See Section 3(a)(2)(J) below) (2) Description of the CAT Funding Model Article XI of the CAT NMS Plan requires the Operating Committee to approve the operating budget, including projected costs of developing and operating the CAT for the upcoming year. In addition to a budget, Article XI of the CAT NMS Plan provides that the Operating Committee has discretion to establish funding for the Company, consistent with a bifurcated funding model, where costs associated with building and operating the Central Repository would be borne by (1) Participants and Industry Members that are Execution Venues through fixed tier fees based on market share, and (2) Industry Members (other than Execution Venue ATSs) through fixed tier fees based on message traffic. In its order approving the CAT NMS Plan, the Commission determined that the [[Page 59756]] proposed funding model was ``reasonable'' \29\ and ``reflects a reasonable exercise of the Participants' funding authority to recover the Participants' costs related to the CAT.'' \30\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \29\ Approval Order at 84796. \30\ Id. at 84794. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- More specifically, the Commission stated in approving the CAT NMS Plan that ``[t]he Commission believes that the proposed funding model is reasonably designed to allocate the costs of the CAT between the Participants and Industry Members.'' \31\ The Commission further noted the following: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \31\ Id. at 84795. The Commission believes that the proposed funding model reflects a reasonable exercise of the Participants' funding authority to recover the Participants' costs related to the CAT. The CAT is a regulatory facility jointly owned by the Participants and . . . the Exchange Act specifically permits the Participants to charge their members fees to fund their self-regulatory obligations. The Commission further believes that the proposed funding model is designed to impose fees reasonably related to the Participants' self-regulatory obligations because the fees would be directly associated with the costs of establishing and maintaining the CAT, and not unrelated SRO services.\32\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \32\ Id. at 84794. Accordingly, the funding model approved by the Operating Committee imposes fees on both Participants and Industry Members. As discussed in Appendix C of the CAT NMS Plan, in developing and approving the approved funding model, the Operating Committee considered the advantages and disadvantages of a variety of alternative funding and cost allocation models before selecting the proposed model.\33\ After analyzing the various alternatives, the Operating Committee determined that the proposed tiered, fixed fee funding model provides a variety of advantages in comparison to the alternatives. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \33\ Section B.7, Appendix C of the CAT NMS Plan, Approval Order at 85006. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In particular, the fixed fee model, as opposed to a variable fee model, provides transparency, ease of calculation, ease of billing and other administrative functions, and predictability of a fixed fee. Such factors are crucial to estimating a reliable revenue stream for the Company and for permitting CAT Reporters to reasonably predict their payment obligations for budgeting purposes. Additionally, a strictly variable or metered funding model based on message volume would be far more likely to affect market behavior and place an inappropriate burden on competition. In addition, reviews from varying time periods of current broker- dealer order and trading data submitted under existing reporting requirements showed a wide range in activity among broker-dealers, with a number of broker-dealers submitting fewer than 1,000 orders per month and other broker-dealers submitting millions and even billions of orders in the same period. Accordingly, the CAT NMS Plan includes a tiered approach to fees. The tiered approach helps ensure that fees are equitably allocated among similarly situated CAT Reporters and furthers the goal of lessening the impact on smaller firms.\34\ In addition, in choosing a tiered fee structure, the Operating Committee concluded that the variety of benefits offered by a tiered fee structure, discussed above, outweighed the fact that CAT Reporters in any particular tier would pay different rates per message traffic order event or per market share (e.g., an Industry Member with the largest amount of message traffic in one tier would pay a smaller amount per order event than an Industry Member in the same tier with the least amount of message traffic). Such variation is the natural result of a tiered fee structure.\35\ The Operating Committee considered several approaches to developing a tiered model, including defining fee tiers based on such factors as size of firm, message traffic or trading dollar volume. After analyzing the alternatives, it was concluded that the tiering should be based on message traffic which will reflect the relative impact of CAT Reporters on the CAT System. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \34\ Section B.7, Appendix C of the CAT NMS Plan, Approval Order at 85006. \35\ Moreover, as the SEC noted in approving the CAT NMS Plan, ``[t]he Participants also have offered a reasonable basis for establishing a funding model based on broad tiers, in that it may be easier to implement.'' Approval Order at 84796. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Accordingly, the CAT NMS Plan contemplates that costs will be allocated across the CAT Reporters on a tiered basis in order to allocate higher costs to those CAT Reporters that contribute more to the costs of creating, implementing and maintaining the CAT and lower costs to those that contribute less.\36\ The fees to be assessed at each tier are calculated so as to recoup a proportion of costs appropriate to the message traffic or market share (as applicable) from CAT Reporters in each tier. Therefore, Industry Members generating the most message traffic will be in the higher tiers, and will be charged a higher fee. Industry Members with lower levels of message traffic will be in lower tiers and will be assessed a smaller fee for the CAT.\37\ Correspondingly, Execution Venues with the highest market shares will be in the top tier, and will be charged higher fees. Execution Venues with the lowest market shares will be in the lowest tier and will be assessed smaller fees for the CAT.\38\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \36\ Approval Order at 85005. \37\ Id. \38\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The CAT NMS Plan states that Industry Members (other than Execution Venue ATSs) will be charged based on message traffic, and that Execution Venues will be charged based on market share.\39\ While there are multiple factors that contribute to the cost of building, maintaining and using the CAT, processing and storage of incoming message traffic is one of the most significant cost drivers for the CAT.\40\ Thus, the CAT NMS Plan provides that the fees payable by Industry Members (other than Execution Venue ATSs) will be based on the message traffic generated by such Industry Member.\41\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \39\ Section 11.3(a) and (b) of the CAT NMS Plan. \40\ Section B.7, Appendix C of the CAT NMS Plan, Approval Order at 85005. \41\ Section 11.3(b) of the CAT NMS Plan. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In contrast to Industry Members, which determine the degree to which they produce message traffic that constitute CAT Reportable Events, the CAT Reportable Events of the Execution Venues are largely derivative of quotations and orders received from Industry Members that they are required to display. The business model for Execution Venues (other than FINRA), however, is focused on executions in their markets. As a result, the Operating Committee believes that it is more equitable to charge Execution Venues based on their market share rather than their message traffic. Focusing on message traffic would make it more difficult to draw distinctions between large and small Execution Venues and, in particular, between large and small options exchanges. For instance, the Operating Committee analyzed the message traffic of Execution Venues and Industry Members for the period of April 2017 to June 2017 and placed all CAT Reporters into a nine-tier framework (i.e., a single tier may include both Execution Venues and Industry Members). The Operating Committee's analysis found that the majority of exchanges (15 total) were grouped in Tiers 1 and 2. Moreover, virtually all of the options exchanges were in Tiers 1 and 2.\42\ Given the resulting concentration of options [[Page 59757]] exchanges in Tiers 1 and 2 under this approach, the analysis shows that a funding model for Execution Venues based on message traffic would make it more difficult to distinguish between large and small options exchanges, as compared to the proposed fee approach that bases fees for Execution Venues on market share. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \42\ The Operating Committee notes that this analysis did not place MIAX PEARL in Tier 1 or Tier 2 since the exchange commenced trading on February 6, 2017. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The CAT NMS Plan's funding model also is structured to avoid a ``reduction in market quality.'' \43\ The tiered, fixed fee funding model is designed to limit the disincentives to providing liquidity to the market. For example, the Operating Committee expects that a firm that has a large volume of quotes would likely be categorized in one of the upper tiers, and would not be assessed a fee for this traffic directly as they would under a more directly metered model. In contrast, strictly variable or metered funding models based on message volume are far more likely to affect market behavior. In approving the CAT NMS Plan, the SEC stated that ``[t]he Participants also offered a reasonable basis for establishing a funding model based on broad tiers, in that it may be . . . less likely to have an incremental deterrent effect on liquidity provision.'' \44\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \43\ Section 11.2(e) of the CAT NMS Plan. \44\ Approval Order at 84796. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The funding model also is structured to avoid a reduction market quality because it discounts Options Market Maker and equity market maker quotes when calculating message traffic for Options Market Makers and equity market makers, respectively. As discussed in more detail below, the Operating Committee determined to discount the Options Market Maker quotes by the trade to quote ratio for options when calculating message traffic for Options Market Makers. Similarly, to avoid disincentives to quoting behavior on the equities side as well, the Operating Committee determined to discount equity market maker quotes by the trade to quote ratio for equities when calculating message traffic for equity market makers. The proposed discounts recognize the value of the market makers' quoting activity to the market as a whole. The CAT NMS Plan is further structured to avoid potential conflicts raised by the Operating Committee determining fees applicable to its own members--the Participants. First, the Company will operate on a ``break-even'' basis, with fees imposed to cover costs and an appropriate reserve. Any surpluses will be treated as an operational reserve to offset future fees and will not be distributed to the Participants as profits.\45\ To ensure that the Participants' operation of the CAT will not contribute to the funding of their other operations, Section 11.1(c) of the CAT NMS Plan specifically states that ``[a]ny surplus of the Company's revenues over its expenses shall be treated as an operational reserve to offset future fees.'' In addition, as set forth in Article VIII of the CAT NMS Plan, the Company ``intends to operate in a manner such that it qualifies as a `business league' within the meaning of Section 501(c)(6) of the [Internal Revenue] Code.'' To qualify as a business league, an organization must ``not [be] organized for profit and no part of the net earnings of [the organization can] inure[ ] to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual.'' \46\ As the SEC stated when approving the CAT NMS Plan, ``the Commission believes that the Company's application for Section 501(c)(6) business league status addresses issues raised by commenters about the Plan's proposed allocation of profit and loss by mitigating concerns that the Company's earnings could be used to benefit individual Participants.'' \47\ The Internal Revenue Service recently has determined that the Company is exempt from federal income tax under Section 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \45\ Id. at 84792. \46\ 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(6). \47\ Approval Order at 84793. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The funding model also is structured to take into account distinctions in the securities trading operations of Participants and Industry Members. For example, the Operating Committee designed the model to address the different trading characteristics in the OTC Equity Securities market. Specifically, the Operating Committee proposes to discount the market share of Execution Venue ATSs exclusively trading OTC Equity Securities as well as the market share of the FINRA ORF by the average shares per trade ratio between NMS Stocks and OTC Equity Securities to adjust for the greater number of shares being traded in the OTC Equity Securities market, which is generally a function of a lower per share price for OTC Equity Securities when compared to NMS Stocks. In addition, the Operating Committee also proposes to discount Options Market Maker and equity market maker message traffic in recognition of their role in the securities markets. Furthermore, the funding model creates separate tiers for Equity and Options Execution Venues due to the different trading characteristics of those markets. Finally, by adopting a CAT-specific fee, the Operating Committee will be fully transparent regarding the costs of the CAT. Charging a general regulatory fee, which would be used to cover CAT costs as well as other regulatory costs, would be less transparent than the selected approach of charging a fee designated to cover CAT costs only. A full description of the funding model is set forth below. This description includes the framework for the funding model as set forth in the CAT NMS Plan, as well as the details as to how the funding model will be applied in practice, including the number of fee tiers and the applicable fees for each tier. The complete funding model is described below, including those fees that are to be paid by the Participants. The proposed Consolidated Audit Trail Funding Fees, however, do not apply to the Participants; the proposed Consolidated Audit Trail Funding Fees only apply to Industry Members. The CAT Fees for Participants will be imposed separately by the Operating Committee pursuant to the CAT NMS Plan. (A) Funding Principles Section 11.2 of the CAT NMS Plan sets forth the principles that the Operating Committee applied in establishing the funding for the Company. The Operating Committee has considered these funding principles as well as the other funding requirements set forth in the CAT NMS Plan and in Rule 613 in developing the proposed funding model. The following are the funding principles in Section 11.2 of the CAT NMS Plan: To create transparent, predictable revenue streams for the Company that are aligned with the anticipated costs to build, operate and administer the CAT and other costs of the Company; To establish an allocation of the Company's related costs among Participants and Industry Members that is consistent with the Exchange Act, taking into account the timeline for implementation of the CAT and distinctions in the securities trading operations of Participants and Industry Members and their relative impact upon the Company's resources and operations; To establish a tiered fee structure in which the fees charged to: (i) CAT Reporters that are Execution Venues, including ATSs, are based upon the level of market share; (ii) Industry Members' non-ATS activities are based upon message traffic; (iii) the CAT Reporters with the most CAT-related activity (measured by market share and/or message traffic, as applicable) are [[Page 59758]] generally comparable (where, for these comparability purposes, the tiered fee structure takes into consideration affiliations between or among CAT Reporters, whether Execution Venue and/or Industry Members); To provide for ease of billing and other administrative functions; To avoid any disincentives such as placing an inappropriate burden on competition and a reduction in market quality; and To build financial stability to support the Company as a going concern. (B) Industry Member Tiering Under Section 11.3(b) of the CAT NMS Plan, the Operating Committee is required to establish fixed fees to be payable by Industry Members, based on message traffic generated by such Industry Member, with the Operating Committee establishing at least five and no more than nine tiers. The CAT NMS Plan clarifies that the fixed fees payable by Industry Members pursuant to Section 11.3(b) shall, in addition to any other applicable message traffic, include message traffic generated by: (i) An ATS that does not execute orders that is sponsored by such Industry Member; and (ii) routing orders to and from any ATS sponsored by such Industry Member. In addition, the Industry Member fees will apply to Industry Members that act as routing broker-dealers for exchanges. The Industry Member fees will not be applicable, however, to an ATS that qualifies as an Execution Venue, as discussed in more detail in the section on Execution Venue tiering. In accordance with Section 11.3(b), the Operating Committee approved a tiered fee structure for Industry Members (other than Execution Venue ATSs) as described in this section. In determining the tiers, the Operating Committee considered the funding principles set forth in Section 11.2 of the CAT NMS Plan, seeking to create funding tiers that take into account the relative impact on CAT System resources of different Industry Members, and that establish comparable fees among the CAT Reporters with the most Reportable Events. The Operating Committee has determined that establishing seven tiers results in an allocation of fees that distinguishes between Industry Members with differing levels of message traffic. Thus, each such Industry Member will be placed into one of seven tiers of fixed fees, based on ``message traffic'' for a defined period (as discussed below). A seven tier structure was selected to provide a wide range of levels for tiering Industry Members such that Industry Members submitting significantly less message traffic to the CAT would be adequately differentiated from Industry Members submitting substantially more message traffic. The Operating Committee considered historical message traffic from multiple time periods, generated by Industry Members across all exchanges and as submitted to FINRA's Order Audit Trail System (``OATS''), and considered the distribution of firms with similar levels of message traffic, grouping together firms with similar levels of message traffic. Based on this, the Operating Committee determined that seven tiers would group firms with similar levels of message traffic, charging those firms with higher impact on the CAT more, while lowering the burden on Industry Members that have less CAT-related activity. Furthermore, the selection of seven tiers establishes comparable fees among the largest CAT Reporters. Each Industry Member (other than Execution Venue ATSs) will be ranked by message traffic and tiered by predefined Industry Member percentages (the ``Industry Member Percentages''). The Operating Committee determined to use predefined percentages rather than fixed volume thresholds to ensure that the total CAT Fees collected recover the expected CAT costs regardless of changes in the total level of message traffic. To determine the fixed percentage of Industry Members in each tier, the Operating Committee analyzed historical message traffic generated by Industry Members across all exchanges and as submitted to OATS, and considered the distribution of firms with similar levels of message traffic, grouping together firms with similar levels of message traffic. Based on this, the Operating Committee identified seven tiers that would group firms with similar levels of message traffic. The percentage of costs recovered by each Industry Member tier will be determined by predefined percentage allocations (the ``Industry Member Recovery Allocation''). In determining the fixed percentage allocation of costs recovered for each tier, the Operating Committee considered the impact of CAT Reporter message traffic on the CAT System as well as the distribution of total message volume across Industry Members while seeking to maintain comparable fees among the largest CAT Reporters. Accordingly, following the determination of the percentage of Industry Members in each tier, the Operating Committee identified the percentage of total market volume for each tier based on the historical message traffic upon which Industry Members had been initially ranked. Taking this into account along with the resulting percentage of total recovery, the percentage allocation of costs recovered for each tier were assigned, allocating higher percentages of recovery to tiers with higher levels of message traffic while avoiding any inappropriate burden on competition. Furthermore, by using percentages of Industry Members and costs recovered per tier, the Operating Committee sought to include elasticity within the funding model, allowing the funding model to respond to changes in either the total number of Industry Members or the total level of message traffic. The following chart illustrates the breakdown of seven Industry Member tiers across the monthly average of total equity and equity options orders, cancels, quotes and executions in the second quarter of 2017 as well as message traffic thresholds between the largest of Industry Member message traffic gaps. The Operating Committee referenced similar distribution illustrations to determine the appropriate division of Industry Member percentages in each tier by considering the grouping of firms with similar levels of message traffic and seeking to identify relative breakpoints in the message traffic between such groupings. In reviewing the chart and its corresponding table, note that while these distribution illustrations were referenced to help differentiate between Industry Member tiers, the proposed funding model is driven by fixed percentages of Industry Members across tiers to account for fluctuating levels of message traffic over time. This approach also provides financial stability for the CAT by ensuring that the funding model will recover the required amounts regardless of changes in the number of Industry Members or the amount of message traffic. Actual messages in any tier will vary based on the actual traffic in a given measurement period, as well as the number of firms included in the measurement period. The Industry Member Percentages and Industry Member Recovery Allocation for each tier will remain fixed with each Industry Member's tier to be reassigned periodically, as described below in Section 3(a)(2)(I). [[Page 59759]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15DE17.019 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Approximate message traffic per Industry Member tier Industry Member (Q2 2017) (orders, quotes, cancels and executions) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tier 1.............................. >10,000,000,000 Tier 2.............................. 1,000,000,000-10,000,000,000 Tier 3.............................. 100,000,000-1,000,000,000 Tier 4.............................. 1,000,000-100,000,000 Tier 5.............................. 100,000-1,000,000 Tier 6.............................. 10,000-100,000 Tier 7.............................. <10,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Based on the above analysis, the Operating Committee approved the following Industry Member Percentages and Industry Member Recovery Allocations: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Percentage of Percentage of Industry Percentage of Industry Member tier Industry Member total recovery Members Recovery ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tier 1.......................................................... 0.900 12.00 9.00 Tier 2.......................................................... 2.150 20.50 15.38 Tier 3.......................................................... 2.800 18.50 13.88 Tier 4.......................................................... 7.750 32.00 24.00 Tier 5.......................................................... 8.300 10.00 7.50 Tier 6.......................................................... 18.800 6.00 4.50 Tier 7.......................................................... 59.300 1.00 0.75 ----------------------------------------------- Total....................................................... 100 100 75 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the purposes of creating these tiers based on message traffic, the Operating Committee determined to define the term ``message traffic'' separately for the period before the commencement of CAT reporting and for the period after the start of CAT reporting. The different definition for message traffic is necessary as there will be no Reportable Events as defined in the Plan, prior to the commencement of CAT reporting. Accordingly, prior to the start of CAT reporting, ``message traffic'' will be comprised of historical equity and equity options orders, cancels, quotes and executions provided by each exchange and FINRA over the previous three months. Prior to the start of CAT reporting, orders would be comprised of the total number of equity and equity options orders received and originated by a member of an exchange or FINRA over the previous three-month period, including principal orders, cancel/replace orders, market maker orders originated by a member of an exchange, and reserve (iceberg) orders as well as executions originated by a member of FINRA, and excluding order rejects, system-modified orders, order routes and implied orders.\48\ In addition, prior to the start of CAT reporting, cancels would be comprised of the total number of equity and equity option cancels received and originated by a member of an exchange or FINRA over a three-month period, excluding order [[Page 59760]] modifications (e.g., order updates, order splits, partial cancels) and multiple cancels of a complex order. Furthermore, prior to the start of CAT reporting, quotes would be comprised of information readily available to the exchanges and FINRA, such as the total number of historical equity and equity options quotes received and originated by a member of an exchange or FINRA over the prior three-month period. Additionally, prior to the start of CAT reporting, executions would be comprised of the total number of equity and equity option executions received or originated by a member of an exchange or FINRA over a three-month period. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \48\ Consequently, firms that do not have ``message traffic'' reported to an exchange or OATS before they are reporting to the CAT would not be subject to a fee until they begin to report information to CAT. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- After an Industry Member begins reporting to the CAT, ``message traffic'' will be calculated based on the Industry Member's Reportable Events reported to the CAT as will be defined in the Technical Specifications.\49\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \49\ If an Industry Member (other than an Execution Venue ATS) has no orders, cancels, quotes and executions prior to the commencement of CAT Reporting, or no Reportable Events after CAT reporting commences, then the Industry Member would not have a CAT Fee obligation. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quotes of Options Market Makers and equity market makers will be included in the calculation of total message traffic for those market makers for purposes of tiering under the CAT funding model both prior to CAT reporting and once CAT reporting commences.\50\ To address potential concerns regarding burdens on competition or market quality of including quotes in the calculation of message traffic, however, the Operating Committee determined to discount the Options Market Maker quotes by the trade to quote ratio for options when calculating message traffic for Options Market Makers. Based on available data for June 2016 through June 2017, the trade to quote ratio for options is 0.01%. Similarly, to avoid disincentives to quoting behavior on the equities side, the Operating Committee determined to discount equity market maker quotes by the trade to quote ratio for equities. Based on available data for June 2016 through June 2017, the trade to quote ratio for equities is 5.43%.\51\ The trade to quote ratio for options and the trade to quote ratio for equities will be calculated every three months when tiers are recalculated (as discussed below). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \50\ The SEC approved exemptive relief permitting Options Market Maker quotes to be reported to the Central Repository by the relevant Options Exchange in lieu of requiring that such reporting be done by both the Options Exchange and the Options Market Maker, as required by Rule 613 of Regulation NMS. See Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 77265 (Mar. 1, 2017, 81 FR 11856 (Mar. 7, 2016). This exemption applies to Options Market Maker quotes for CAT reporting purposes only. Therefore, notwithstanding the reporting exemption provided for Options Market Maker quotes, Options Market Maker quotes will be included in the calculation of total message traffic for Options Market Makers for purposes of tiering under the CAT funding model both prior to CAT reporting and once CAT reporting commences. \51\ The trade to quote ratios were calculated based on the inverse of the average of the monthly equity SIP and OPRA quote to trade ratios from June 2016-June 2017 that were compiled by the Financial Information Forum using data from NASDAQ and SIAC. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Operating Committee has determined to calculate fee tiers every three months, on a calendar quarter basis, based on message traffic from the prior three months. Based on its analysis of historical data, the Operating Committee believes that calculating tiers based on three months of data will provide the best balance between reflecting changes in activity by Industry Members while still providing predictability in the tiering for Industry Members. Because fee tiers will be calculated based on message traffic from the prior three months, the Operating Committee will begin calculating message traffic based on an Industry Member's Reportable Events reported to the CAT once the Industry Member has been reporting to the CAT for three months. Prior to that, fee tiers will be calculated as discussed above with regard to the period prior to CAT reporting. (C) Execution Venue Tiering Under Section 11.3(a) of the CAT NMS Plan, the Operating Committee is required to establish fixed fees payable by Execution Venues. Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan defines an Execution Venue as ``a Participant or an alternative trading system (``ATS'') (as defined in Rule 300 of Regulation ATS) that operates pursuant to Rule 301 of Regulation ATS (excluding any such ATS that does not execute orders).'' \52\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \52\ Although FINRA does not operate an execution venue, because it is a Participant, it is considered an ``Execution Venue'' under the Plan for purposes of determining fees. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Operating Committee determined that ATSs should be included within the definition of Execution Venue. The Operating Committee believes that it is appropriate to treat ATSs as Execution Venues under the proposed funding model since ATSs have business models that are similar to those of exchanges, and ATSs also compete with exchanges. Given the differences between Execution Venues that trade NMS Stocks and/or OTC Equity Securities and Execution Venues that trade Listed Options, Section 11.3(a) addresses Execution Venues that trade NMS Stocks and/or OTC Equity Securities separately from Execution Venues that trade Listed Options. Equity and Options Execution Venues are treated separately for two reasons. First, the differing quoting behavior of Equity and Options Execution Venues makes comparison of activity between such Execution Venues difficult. Second, Execution Venue tiers are calculated based on market share of share volume, and it is therefore difficult to compare market share between asset classes (i.e., equity shares versus options contracts). Discussed below is how the funding model treats the two types of Execution Venues. (I) NMS Stocks and OTC Equity Securities Section 11.3(a)(i) of the CAT NMS Plan states that each Execution Venue that (i) executes transactions or, (ii) in the case of a national securities association, has trades reported by its members to its trade reporting facility or facilities for reporting transactions effected otherwise than on an exchange, in NMS Stocks or OTC Equity Securities will pay a fixed fee depending on the market share of that Execution Venue in NMS Stocks and OTC Equity Securities, with the Operating Committee establishing at least two and not more than five tiers of fixed fees, based on an Execution Venue's NMS Stocks and OTC Equity Securities market share. For these purposes, market share for Execution Venues that execute transactions will be calculated by share volume, and market share for a national securities association that has trades reported by its members to its trade reporting facility or facilities for reporting transactions effected otherwise than on an exchange in NMS Stocks or OTC Equity Securities will be calculated based on share volume of trades reported, provided, however, that the share volume reported to such national securities association by an Execution Venue shall not be included in the calculation of such national security association's market share. In accordance with Section 11.3(a)(i) of the CAT NMS Plan, the Operating Committee approved a tiered fee structure for Equity Execution Venues and Option Execution Venues. In determining the Equity Execution Venue Tiers, the Operating Committee considered the funding principles set forth in Section 11.2 of the CAT NMS Plan, seeking to create funding tiers that take into account the relative impact on system resources of different Equity Execution Venues, and that establish comparable fees among the CAT Reporters with the most Reportable Events. Each Equity Execution Venue will be placed into one of four tiers of [[Page 59761]] fixed fees, based on the Execution Venue's NMS Stocks and OTC Equity Securities market share. In choosing four tiers, the Operating Committee performed an analysis similar to that discussed above with regard to the non-Execution Venue Industry Members to determine the number of tiers for Equity Execution Venues. The Operating Committee determined to establish four tiers for Equity Execution Venues, rather than a larger number of tiers as established for non-Execution Venue Industry Members, because the four tiers were sufficient to distinguish between the smaller number of Equity Execution Venues based on market share. Furthermore, the selection of four tiers serves to help establish comparability among the largest CAT Reporters. Each Equity Execution Venue will be ranked by market share and tiered by predefined Execution Venue percentages, (the ``Equity Execution Venue Percentages''). In determining the fixed percentage of Equity Execution Venues in each tier, the Operating Committee reviewed historical market share of share volume for Execution Venues. Equity Execution Venue market shares of share volume were sourced from market statistics made publicly-available by Bats Global Markets, Inc. (``Bats''). ATS market shares of share volume was sourced from market statistics made publicly-available by FINRA. FINRA trade reporting facility (``TRF'') and ORF market share of share volume was sourced from market statistics made publicly available by FINRA. Based on data from FINRA and otcmarkets.com, ATSs accounted for 39.12% of the share volume across the TRFs and ORFs during the recent tiering period. A 39.12/60.88 split was applied to the ATS and non-ATS breakdown of FINRA market share, with FINRA tiered based only on the non-ATS portion of its market share of share volume. The Operating Committee determined to discount the market share of Execution Venue ATSs exclusively trading OTC Equity Securities as well as the market share of the FINRA ORF in recognition of the different trading characteristics of the OTC Equity Securities market as compared to the market in NMS Stocks. Many OTC Equity Securities are priced at less than one dollar--and a significant number at less than one penny-- per share and low-priced shares tend to trade in larger quantities. Accordingly, a disproportionately large number of shares are involved in transactions involving OTC Equity Securities versus NMS Stocks. Because the proposed fee tiers are based on market share calculated by share volume, Execution Venue ATSs exclusively trading OTC Equity Securities and FINRA would likely be subject to higher tiers than their operations may warrant. To address this potential concern, the Operating Committee determined to discount the market share of Execution Venue ATSs exclusively trading OTC Equity Securities and the market share of the FINRA ORF by multiplying such market share by the average shares per trade ratio between NMS Stocks and OTC Equity Securities in order to adjust for the greater number of shares being traded in the OTC Equity Securities market. Based on available data for the second quarter of 2017, the average shares per trade ratio between NMS Stocks and OTC Equity Securities is 0.17%.\53\ The average shares per trade ratio between NMS Stocks and OTC Equity Securities will be recalculated every three months when tiers are recalculated. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \53\ The average shares per trade ratio for both NMS Stocks and OTC Equity Securities from the second quarter of 2017 was calculated using publicly available market volume data from Bats and OTC Markets Group, and the totals were divided to determine the average number of shares per trade between NMS Stocks and OTC Equity Securities. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Based on this, the Operating Committee considered the distribution of Execution Venues, and grouped together Execution Venues with similar levels of market share. The percentage of costs recovered by each Equity Execution Venue tier will be determined by predefined percentage allocations (the ``Equity Execution Venue Recovery Allocation''). In determining the fixed percentage allocation of costs to be recovered from each tier, the Operating Committee considered the impact of CAT Reporter market share activity on the CAT System as well as the distribution of total market volume across Equity Execution Venues while seeking to maintain comparable fees among the largest CAT Reporters. Accordingly, following the determination of the percentage of Execution Venues in each tier, the Operating Committee identified the percentage of total market volume for each tier based on the historical market share upon which Execution Venues had been initially ranked. Taking this into account along with the resulting percentage of total recovery, the percentage allocation of cost recovery for each tier were assigned, allocating higher percentages of recovery to the tier with a higher level of market share while avoiding any inappropriate burden on competition. Furthermore, by using percentages of Equity Execution Venues and cost recovery per tier, the Operating Committee sought to include elasticity within the funding model, allowing the funding model to respond to changes in either the total number of Equity Execution Venues or changes in market share. Based on this analysis, the Operating Committee approved the following Equity Execution Venue Percentages and Recovery Allocations: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Percentage of Equity Percentage of Percentage of Equity Execution Venue tier Execution Execution total recovery Venues Venue Recovery ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tier 1.......................................................... 25.00 33.25 8.31 Tier 2.......................................................... 42.00 25.73 6.43 Tier 3.......................................................... 23.00 8.00 2.00 Tier 4.......................................................... 10.00 0.02 0.01 ----------------------------------------------- Total....................................................... 100 67 16.75 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (II) Listed Options Section 11.3(a)(ii) of the CAT NMS Plan states that each Execution Venue that executes transactions in Listed Options will pay a fixed fee depending on the Listed Options market share of that Execution Venue, with the Operating Committee establishing at least two and no more than five tiers of fixed fees, based on an Execution Venue's Listed Options market share. [[Page 59762]] For these purposes, market share will be calculated by contract volume. In accordance with Section 11.3(a)(ii) of the CAT NMS Plan, the Operating Committee approved a tiered fee structure for Options Execution Venues. In determining the tiers, the Operating Committee considered the funding principles set forth in Section 11.2 of the CAT NMS Plan, seeking to create funding tiers that take into account the relative impact on system resources of different Options Execution Venues, and that establish comparable fees among the CAT Reporters with the most Reportable Events. Each Options Execution Venue will be placed into one of two tiers of fixed fees, based on the Execution Venue's Listed Options market share. In choosing two tiers, the Operating Committee performed an analysis similar to that discussed above with regard to Industry Members (other than Execution Venue ATSs) to determine the number of tiers for Options Execution Venues. The Operating Committee determined to establish two tiers for Options Execution Venues, rather than a larger number, because the two tiers were sufficient to distinguish between the smaller number of Options Execution Venues based on market share. Furthermore, due to the smaller number of Options Execution Venues, the incorporation of additional Options Execution Venue tiers would result in significantly higher fees for Tier 1 Options Execution Venues and reduce comparability between Execution Venues and Industry Members. Furthermore, the selection of two tiers served to establish comparable fees among the largest CAT Reporters. Each Options Execution Venue will be ranked by market share and tiered by predefined Execution Venue percentages, (the ``Options Execution Venue Percentages''). To determine the fixed percentage of Options Execution Venues in each tier, the Operating Committee analyzed the historical and publicly available market share of Options Execution Venues to group Options Execution Venues with similar market shares across the tiers. Options Execution Venue market share of share volume were sourced from market statistics made publicly-available by Bats. The process for developing the Options Execution Venue Percentages was the same as discussed above with regard to Equity Execution Venues. The percentage of costs to be recovered from each Options Execution Venue tier will be determined by predefined percentage allocations (the ``Options Execution Venue Recovery Allocation''). In determining the fixed percentage allocation of cost recovery for each tier, the Operating Committee considered the impact of CAT Reporter market share activity on the CAT System as well as the distribution of total market volume across Options Execution Venues while seeking to maintain comparable fees among the largest CAT Reporters. Furthermore, by using percentages of Options Execution Venues and cost recovery per tier, the Operating Committee sought to include elasticity within the funding model, allowing the funding model to respond to changes in either the total number of Options Execution Venues or changes in market share. The process for developing the Options Execution Venue Recovery Allocation was the same as discussed above with regard to Equity Execution Venues. Based on this analysis, the Operating Committee approved the following Options Execution Venue Percentages and Recovery Allocations: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Percentage of Options Percentage of Percentage of Options Execution Venue tier Execution Execution total recovery Venues Venue Recovery ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tier 1.......................................................... 75.00 28.25 7.06 Tier 2.......................................................... 25.00 4.75 1.19 ----------------------------------------------- Total....................................................... 100 33 8.25 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (III) Market Share/Tier Assignments The Operating Committee determined that, prior to the start of CAT reporting, market share for Execution Venues would be sourced from publicly-available market data. Options and equity volumes for Participants will be sourced from market data made publicly available by Bats while Execution Venue ATS volumes will be sourced from market data made publicly available by FINRA and OTC Markets. Set forth in the Appendix are two charts, one listing the current Equity Execution Venues, each with its rank and tier, and one listing the current Options Execution Venues, each with its rank and tier. After the commencement of CAT reporting, market share for Execution Venues will be sourced from data reported to the CAT. Equity Execution Venue market share will be determined by calculating each Equity Execution Venue's proportion of the total volume of NMS Stock and OTC Equity shares reported by all Equity Execution Venues during the relevant time period (with the discounting of market share of Execution Venue ATSs exclusively trading OTC Equity Securities, as described above). Similarly, market share for Options Execution Venues will be determined by calculating each Options Execution Venue's proportion of the total volume of Listed Options contracts reported by all Options Execution Venues during the relevant time period. The Operating Committee has determined to calculate fee tiers for Execution Venues every three months based on market share from the prior three months. Based on its analysis of historical data, the Operating Committee believes calculating tiers based on three months of data will provide the best balance between reflecting changes in activity by Execution Venues while still providing predictability in the tiering for Execution Venues. (D) Allocation of Costs In addition to the funding principles discussed above, including comparability of fees, Section 11.1(c) of the CAT NMS Plan also requires expenses to be fairly and reasonably shared among the Participants and Industry Members. Accordingly, in developing the proposed fee schedules pursuant to the funding model, the Operating Committee calculated how the CAT costs would be allocated between Industry Members and Execution Venues, and how the portion of CAT costs allocated to Execution Venues would be allocated between Equity Execution Venues and Options Execution Venues. These determinations are described below. [[Page 59763]] (I) Allocation Between Industry Members and Execution Venues In determining the cost allocation between Industry Members (other than Execution Venue ATSs) and Execution Venues, the Operating Committee analyzed a range of possible splits for revenue recovery from such Industry Members and Execution Venues, including 80%/20%, 75%/25%, 70%/30% and 65%/35% allocations. Based on this analysis, the Operating Committee determined that 75 percent of total costs recovered would be allocated to Industry Members (other than Execution Venue ATSs) and 25 percent would be allocated to Execution Venues. The Operating Committee determined that this 75%/25% division maintained the greatest level of comparability across the funding model. For example, the cost allocation establishes fees for the largest Industry Members (i.e., those Industry Members in Tiers 1) that are comparable to the largest Equity Execution Venues and Options Execution Venues (i.e., those Execution Venues in Tier 1). Furthermore, the allocation of total CAT cost recovery recognizes the difference in the number of CAT Reporters that are Industry Members versus CAT Reporters that are Execution Venues. Specifically, the cost allocation takes into consideration that there are approximately 23 times more Industry Members expected to report to the CAT than Execution Venues (e.g., an estimated 1541 Industry Members versus 67 Execution Venues as of June 2017). (II) Allocation Between Equity Execution Venues and Options Execution Venues The Operating Committee also analyzed how the portion of CAT costs allocated to Execution Venues would be allocated between Equity Execution Venues and Options Execution Venues. In considering this allocation of costs, the Operating Committee analyzed a range of alternative splits for revenue recovered between Equity and Options Execution Venues, including a 70%/30%, 67%/33%, 65%/35%, 50%/50% and 25%/75% split. Based on this analysis, the Operating Committee determined to allocate 67 percent of Execution Venue costs recovered to Equity Execution Venues and 33 percent to Options Execution Venues. The Operating Committee determined that a 67%/33% allocation between Equity and Options Execution Venues maintained the greatest level of fee equitability and comparability based on the current number of Equity and Options Execution Venues. For example, the allocation establishes fees for the larger Equity Execution Venues that are comparable to the larger Options Execution Venues. Specifically, Tier 1 Equity Execution Venues would pay a quarterly fee of $81,047 and Tier 1 Options Execution Venues would pay a quarterly fee of $81,379. In addition to fee comparability between Equity Execution Venues and Options Execution Venues, the allocation also establishes equitability between larger (Tier 1) and smaller (Tier 2) Execution Venues based upon the level of market share. Furthermore, the allocation is intended to reflect the relative levels of current equity and options order events. (E) Fee Levels The Operating Committee determined to establish a CAT-specific fee to collectively recover the costs of building and operating the CAT. Accordingly, under the funding model, the sum of the CAT Fees is designed to recover the total cost of the CAT. The Operating Committee has determined overall CAT costs to be comprised of Plan Processor costs and non-Plan Processor costs, which are estimated to be $50,700,000 in total for the year beginning November 21, 2016.\54\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \54\ It is anticipated that CAT-related costs incurred prior to November 21, 2016 will be addressed via a separate filing. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Plan Processor costs relate to costs incurred and to be incurred through November 21, 2017 by the Plan Processor and consist of the Plan Processor's current estimates of average yearly ongoing costs, including development costs, which total $37,500,000. This amount is based upon the fees due to the Plan Processor pursuant to the Company's agreement with the Plan Processor. The non-Plan Processor estimated costs incurred and to be incurred by the Company through November 21, 2017 consist of three categories of costs. The first category of such costs are third party support costs, which include legal fees, consulting fees and audit fees from November 21, 2016 until the date of filing as well as estimated third party support costs for the rest of the year. These amount to an estimated $5,200,000. The second category of non-Plan Processor costs are estimated cyber-insurance costs for the year. Based on discussions with potential cyber-insurance providers, assuming $2-5 million cyber- insurance premium on $100 million coverage, the Company has estimated $3,000,000 for the annual cost. The final cost figures will be determined following receipt of final underwriter quotes. The third category of non-Plan Processor costs is the CAT operational reserve, which is comprised of three months of ongoing Plan Processor costs ($9,375,000), third party support costs ($1,300,000) and cyber- insurance costs ($750,000). The Operating Committee aims to accumulate the necessary funds to establish the three-month operating reserve for the Company through the CAT Fees charged to CAT Reporters for the year. On an ongoing basis, the Operating Committee will account for any potential need to replenish the operating reserve or other changes to total cost during its annual budgeting process. The following table summarizes the Plan Processor and non-Plan Processor cost components which comprise the total estimated CAT costs of $50,700,000 for the covered period. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Cost category Cost component Amount ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Plan Processor................. Operational Costs...... $37,500,000 Non-Plan Processor............. Third Party Support 5,200,000 Costs. Operational Reserve.... \55\ 5,000,000 Cyber-insurance Costs.. 3,000,000 --------------- Estimated Total............ ....................... 50,700,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Based on these estimated costs and the calculations for the funding model described above, the Operating Committee determined to impose the following fees: \56\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \55\ This $5,000,000 represents the gradual accumulation of the funds for a target operating reserve of $11,425,000. \56\ Note that all monthly, quarterly and annual CAT Fees have been rounded to the nearest dollar. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [[Page 59764]] For Industry Members (other than Execution Venue ATSs): ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Percentage of Tier Industry Quarterly CAT Members Fee ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1....................................... 0.900 $81,483 2....................................... 2.150 59,055 3....................................... 2.800 40,899 4....................................... 7.750 25,566 5....................................... 8.300 7,428 6....................................... 18.800 1,968 7....................................... 59.300 105 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Execution Venues for NMS Stocks and OTC Equity Securities: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Percentage of Equity Quarterly CAT Tier Execution Fee Venues ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1....................................... 25.00 $81,048 2....................................... 42.00 37,062 3....................................... 23.00 21,126 4....................................... 10.00 129 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Execution Venues for Listed Options: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Percentage of Options Quarterly CAT Tier Execution Fee Venues ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1....................................... 75.00 $81,381 2....................................... 25.00 37,629 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Operating Committee has calculated the schedule of effective fees for Industry Members (other than Execution Venue ATSs) and Execution Venues in the following manner. Note that the calculation of CAT Fees assumes 52 Equity Execution Venues, 15 Options Execution Venues and 1,541 Industry Members (other than Execution Venue ATSs) as of June 2017. Calculation of Annual Tier Fees for Industry Members (``IM'') ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Percentage of Percentage of Industry Percentage of Industry Member tier Industry Member Total recovery Members Recovery ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tier 1.......................................................... 0.900 12.00 9.00 Tier 2.......................................................... 2.150 20.50 15.38 Tier 3.......................................................... 2.800 18.50 13.88 Tier 4.......................................................... 7.750 32.00 24.00 Tier 5.......................................................... 8.300 10.00 7.50 Tier 6.......................................................... 18.800 6.00 4.50 Tier 7.......................................................... 59.300 1.00 0.75 ----------------------------------------------- Total....................................................... 100 100 75 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Estimated number of Industry Member tier Industry Members ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tier 1.................................................. 14 Tier 2.................................................. 33 Tier 3.................................................. 43 Tier 4.................................................. 119 Tier 5.................................................. 128 Tier 6.................................................. 290 Tier 7.................................................. 914 --------------- Total............................................... 1,541 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [[Page 59765]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15DE17.020 Calculation of Annual Tier Fees for Equity Execution Venues (``EV'') ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Percentage of Equity Percentage of Percentage of Equity Execution Venue tier Execution Execution Total recovery Venues Venue Recovery ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tier 1.......................................................... 25.00 33.25 8.31 Tier 2.......................................................... 42.00 25.73 6.43 Tier 3.......................................................... 23.00 8.00 2.00 Tier 4.......................................................... 10.00 49.00 0.01 ----------------------------------------------- Total....................................................... 100 67 16.75 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Estimated number of Equity Execution Venue tier Equity Execution Venues ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tier 1.................................................. 13 Tier 2.................................................. 22 Tier 3.................................................. 12 Tier 4.................................................. 5 --------------- Total............................................... 52 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [[Page 59766]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15DE17.021 Calculation of Annual Tier Fees for Options Execution Venues (``EV'') ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Percentage of Options Percentage of Percentage of Options Execution Venue tier Execution Execution Total recovery Venues Venue Recovery ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tier 1.......................................................... 75.00 28.25 7.06 Tier 2.......................................................... 25.00 4.75 1.19 ----------------------------------------------- Total....................................................... 100 33 8.25 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Estimated number of Options Execution Venue tier Options Execution Venues ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tier 1.................................................. 11 Tier 2.................................................. 4 --------------- Total............................................... 15 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15DE17.022 Traceability of Total CAT Fees ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Estimated Type Industry Member tier number of CAT Fees paid Total recovery members annually ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Industry Members.................... Tier 1.................... 14 $325,932 $4,563,048 Tier 2.................... 33 236,220 7,795,260 Tier 3.................... 43 163,596 7,034,628 Tier 4.................... 119 102,264 12,169,416 Tier 5.................... 128 29,712 3,803,136 Tier 6.................... 290 7,872 2,282,880 [[Page 59767]] Tier 7.................... 914 420 383,880 ----------------------------------------------- Total........................... 1,541 .............. 38,032,248 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Equity Execution Venues............. Tier 1.................... 13 324,192 4,214,496 Tier 2.................... 22 148,248 3,261,456 Tier 3.................... 12 84,504 1,014,048 Tier 4.................... 5 516 2,580 ----------------------------------------------- Total........................... 52 .............. 8,492,580 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Options Execution Venues............ Tier 1.................... 11 325,524 3,580,764 Tier 2.................... 4 150,516 602,064 ----------------------------------------------- Total........................... 15 .............. 4,182,828 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total....................... .............. .............. 50,700,000 ----------------------------------------------- Excess \57\................. .............. .............. 7,656 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (F) Comparability of Fees --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \57\ The amount in excess of the total CAT costs will contribute to the gradual accumulation of the target operating reserve of $11.425 million. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The funding principles require a funding model in which the fees charged to the CAT Reporters with the most CAT-related activity (measured by market share and/or message traffic, as applicable) are generally comparable (where, for these comparability purposes, the tiered fee structure takes into consideration affiliations between or among CAT Reporters, whether Execution Venue and/or Industry Members). Accordingly, in creating the model, the Operating Committee sought to establish comparable fees for the top tier of Industry Members (other than Execution Venue ATSs), Equity Execution Venues and Options Execution Venues. Specifically, each Tier 1 CAT Reporter would be required to pay a quarterly fee of approximately $81,000. (G) Billing Onset Under Section 11.1(c) of the CAT NMS Plan, to fund the development and implementation of the CAT, the Company shall time the imposition and collection of all fees on Participants and Industry Members in a manner reasonably related to the timing when the Company expects to incur such development and implementation costs. The Company is currently incurring such development and implementation costs and will continue to do so prior to the commencement of CAT reporting and thereafter. In accordance with the CAT NMS Plan, all CAT Reporters, including both Industry Members and Execution Venues (including Participants), will be invoiced as promptly as possible following the latest of the operative date of the Consolidated Audit Trail Funding Fees for each of the Participants and the operative date of the Plan amendment adopting CAT Fees for Participants. (H) Changes to Fee Levels and Tiers Section 11.3(d) of the CAT NMS Plan states that ``[t]he Operating Committee shall review such fee schedule on at least an annual basis and shall make any changes to such fee schedule that it deems appropriate. The Operating Committee is authorized to review such fee schedule on a more regular basis, but shall not make any changes on more than a semi-annual basis unless, pursuant to a Supermajority Vote, the Operating Committee concludes that such change is necessary for the adequate funding of the Company.'' With such reviews, the Operating Committee will review the distribution of Industry Members and Execution Venues across tiers, and make any updates to the percentage of CAT Reporters allocated to each tier as may be necessary. In addition, the reviews will evaluate the estimated ongoing CAT costs and the level of the operating reserve. To the extent that the total CAT costs decrease, the fees would be adjusted downward, and to the extent that the total CAT costs increase, the fees would be adjusted upward.\58\ Furthermore, any surplus of the Company's revenues over its expenses is to be included within the operational reserve to offset future fees. The limitations on more frequent changes to the fee, however, are intended to provide budgeting certainty for the CAT Reporters and the Company.\59\ To the extent that the Operating Committee approves changes to the number of tiers in the funding model or the fees assigned to each tier, then the Operating Committee will file such changes with the SEC pursuant to Rule 608 of the Exchange Act, and the Participants will file such changes with the SEC pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, and any such changes will become effective in accordance with the requirements of those provisions. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \58\ The CAT Fees are designed to recover the costs associated with the CAT. Accordingly, CAT Fees would not be affected by increases or decreases in other non-CAT expenses incurred by the Participants, such as any changes in costs related to the retirement of existing regulatory systems, such as OATS. \59\ Section B.7, Appendix C of the CAT NMS Plan, Approval Order at 85006. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (I) Initial and Periodic Tier Reassignments The Operating Committee has determined to calculate fee tiers every three months based on market share or message traffic, as applicable, from the prior three months. For the initial tier assignments, the Company will calculate the relevant tier for each CAT Reporter using the three months of data prior to the commencement date. As with the initial tier assignment, for the tri-monthly reassignments, the Company will calculate the relevant tier using the three months of data prior to the relevant tri-monthly date. Any movement of CAT Reporters between tiers will not change the criteria for each [[Page 59768]] tier or the fee amount corresponding to each tier. In performing the tri-monthly reassignments, the assignment of CAT Reporters in each assigned tier is relative. Therefore, a CAT Reporter's assigned tier will depend, not only on its own message traffic or market share, but also on the message traffic/market share across all CAT Reporters. For example, the percentage of Industry Members (other than Execution Venue ATSs) in each tier is relative such that such Industry Member's assigned tier will depend on message traffic generated across all CAT Reporters as well as the total number of CAT Reporters. The Operating Committee will inform CAT Reporters of their assigned tier every three months following the periodic tiering process, as the funding model will compare an individual CAT Reporter's activity to that of other CAT Reporters in the marketplace. The following demonstrates a tier reassignment. In accordance with the funding model, the top 75% of Options Execution Venues in market share are categorized as Tier 1 while the bottom 25% of Options Execution Venues in market share are categorized as Tier 2. In the sample scenario below, Options Execution Venue L is initially categorized as a Tier 2 Options Execution Venue in Period A due to its market share. When market share is recalculated for Period B, the market share of Execution Venue L increases, and it is therefore subsequently reranked and reassigned to Tier 1 in Period B. Correspondingly, Options Execution Venue K, initially a Tier 1 Options Execution Venue in Period A, is reassigned to Tier 2 in Period B due to decreases in its market share. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Period A Period B -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Market share Market share Options Execution Venue rank Tier Options Execution Venue rank Tier -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Options Execution Venue A...................... 1 1 Options Execution Venue A............. 1 1 Options Execution Venue B...................... 2 1 Options Execution Venue B............. 2 1 Options Execution Venue C...................... 3 1 Options Execution Venue C............. 3 1 Options Execution Venue D...................... 4 1 Options Execution Venue D............. 4 1 Options Execution Venue E...................... 5 1 Options Execution Venue E............. 5 1 Options Execution Venue F...................... 6 1 Options Execution Venue F............. 6 1 Options Execution Venue G...................... 7 1 Options Execution Venue I............. 7 1 Options Execution Venue H...................... 8 1 Options Execution Venue H............. 8 1 Options Execution Venue I...................... 9 1 Options Execution Venue G............. 9 1 Options Execution Venue J...................... 10 1 Options Execution Venue J............. 10 1 Options Execution Venue K...................... 11 1 Options Execution Venue L............. 11 1 Options Execution Venue L...................... 12 2 Options Execution Venue K............. 12 2 Options Execution Venue M...................... 13 2 Options Execution Venue N............. 13 2 Options Execution Venue N...................... 14 2 Options Execution Venue M............. 14 2 Options Execution Venue O...................... 15 2 Options Execution Venue O............. 15 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For each periodic tier reassignment, the Operating Committee will review the new tier assignments, particularly those assignments for CAT Reporters that shift from the lowest tier to a higher tier. This review is intended to evaluate whether potential changes to the market or CAT Reporters (e.g., dissolution of a large CAT Reporter) adversely affect the tier reassignments. (J) Sunset Provision The Operating Committee developed the proposed funding model by analyzing currently available historical data. Such historical data, however, is not as comprehensive as data that will be submitted to the CAT. Accordingly, the Operating Committee believes that it will be appropriate to revisit the funding model once CAT Reporters have actual experience with the funding model. Accordingly, the Operating Committee determined to include an automatic sunsetting provision for the proposed fees. Specifically, the Operating Committee determined that the CAT Fees should automatically expire two years after the operative date of the CAT NMS Plan amendment adopting CAT Fees for Participants. The Operating Committee intends to monitor the operation of the funding model during this two year period and to evaluate its effectiveness during that period. Such a process will inform the Operating Committee's approach to funding the CAT after the two year period. (3) Proposed CAT Fee Schedule SRO proposes the Consolidated Audit Trail Funding Fees to impose the CAT Fees determined by the Operating Committee on SRO's members. The proposed fee schedule has four sections, covering definitions, the fee schedule for CAT Fees, the timing and manner of payments, and the automatic sunsetting of the CAT Fees. Each of these sections is discussed in detail below. (A) Definitions Paragraph (a) of the proposed fee schedule sets forth the definitions for the proposed fee schedule. Paragraph (a)(1) states that, for purposes of the Consolidated Audit Trail Funding Fees, the terms ``CAT'', ``CAT NMS Plan,'' ``Industry Member,'' ``NMS Stock,'' ``OTC Equity Security'', ``Options Market Maker'', and ``Participant'' are defined as set forth in Rule 4.5 (Consolidated Audit Trail-- Definitions). The proposed fee schedule imposes different fees on Equity ATSs and Industry Members that are not Equity ATSs. Accordingly, the proposed fee schedule defines the term ``Equity ATS.'' First, paragraph (a)(2) defines an ``ATS'' to mean an alternative trading system as defined in Rule 300(a) of Regulation ATS under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, that operates pursuant to Rule 301 of Regulation ATS. This is the same definition of an ATS as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan in the definition of an ``Execution Venue.'' Then, paragraph (a)(4) defines an ``Equity ATS'' as an ATS that executes transactions in NMS Stocks and/or OTC Equity Securities. Paragraph (a)(3) of the proposed fee schedule defines the term ``CAT Fee'' to mean the Consolidated Audit Trail Funding Fee(s) to be paid by Industry Members as set forth in paragraph (b) in the proposed fee schedule. Finally, Paragraph (a)(6) defines an ``Execution Venue'' as a Participant or an ATS (excluding any such ATS that does not execute orders). This definition is the same substantive definition as set [[Page 59769]] forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan. Paragraph (a)(5) defines an ``Equity Execution Venue'' as an Execution Venue that trades NMS Stocks and/or OTC Equity Securities. (B) Fee Schedule SRO proposes to impose the CAT Fees applicable to its Industry Members through paragraph (b) of the proposed fee schedule. Paragraph (b)(1) of the proposed fee schedule sets forth the CAT Fees applicable to Industry Members other than Equity ATSs. Specifically, paragraph (b)(1) states that the Company will assign each Industry Member (other than an Equity ATS) to a fee tier once every quarter, where such tier assignment is calculated by ranking each Industry Member based on its total message traffic (with discounts for equity market maker quotes and Options Market Maker quotes based on the trade to quote ratio for equities and options, respectively) for the three months prior to the quarterly tier calculation day and assigning each Industry Member to a tier based on that ranking and predefined Industry Member percentages. The Industry Members with the highest total quarterly message traffic will be ranked in Tier 1, and the Industry Members with lowest quarterly message traffic will be ranked in Tier 7. Each quarter, each Industry Member (other than an Equity ATS) shall pay the following CAT Fee corresponding to the tier assigned by the Company for such Industry Member for that quarter: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Percentage of Tier Industry Quarterly CAT Members Fee ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1....................................... 0.900 $81,483 2....................................... 2.150 59,055 3....................................... 2.800 40,899 4....................................... 7.750 25,566 5....................................... 8.300 7,428 6....................................... 18.800 1,968 7....................................... 59.300 105 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Paragraph (b)(2) of the proposed fee schedule sets forth the CAT Fees applicable to Equity ATSs.\60\ These are the same fees that Participants that trade NMS Stocks and/or OTC Equity Securities will pay. Specifically, paragraph (b)(2) states that the Company will assign each Equity ATS to a fee tier once every quarter, where such tier assignment is calculated by ranking each Equity Execution Venue based on its total market share of NMS Stocks and OTC Equity Securities (with a discount for Equity ATSs exclusively trading OTC Equity Securities based on the average shares per trade ratio between NMS Stocks and OTC Equity Securities) for the three months prior to the quarterly tier calculation day and assigning each Equity ATS to a tier based on that ranking and predefined Equity Execution Venue percentages. The Equity ATSs with the higher total quarterly market share will be ranked in Tier 1, and the Equity ATSs with the lowest quarterly market share will be ranked in Tier 4. Specifically, paragraph (b)(2) states that, each quarter, each Equity ATS shall pay the following CAT Fee corresponding to the tier assigned by the Company for such Equity ATS for that quarter: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \60\ Note that no fee schedule is provided for Execution Venue ATSs that execute transactions in Listed Options, as no such Execution Venue ATSs currently exist due to trading restrictions related to Listed Options. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Percentage of Equity Quarterly CAT Tier Execution Fee Venues ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1....................................... 25.00 $81,048 2....................................... 42.00 37,062 3....................................... 23.00 21,126 4....................................... 10.00 129 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ (C) Timing and Manner of Payment Section 11.4 of the CAT NMS Plan states that the Operating Committee shall establish a system for the collection of fees authorized under the CAT NMS Plan. The Operating Committee may include such collection responsibility as a function of the Plan Processor or another administrator. To implement the payment process to be adopted by the Operating Committee, paragraph (c)(1) of the proposed fee schedule states that the Company will provide each Industry Member with one invoice each quarter for its CAT Fees as determined pursuant to paragraph (b) of the proposed fee schedule, regardless of whether the Industry Member is a member of multiple self-regulatory organizations. Paragraph (c)(1) further states that each Industry Member will pay its CAT Fees to the Company via the centralized system for the collection of CAT Fees established by the Company in the manner prescribed by the Company. SRO will provide Industry Members with details regarding the manner of payment of CAT Fees by Regulatory Circular. All CAT fees will be billed and collected centrally through the Company via the Plan Processor. Although each Participant will adopt its own fee schedule regarding CAT Fees, no CAT Fees or portion thereof will be collected by the individual Participants. Each Industry Member will receive from the Company one invoice for its applicable CAT fees, not separate invoices from each Participant of which it is a member. The Industry Members will pay the CAT Fees to the Company via the centralized system for the collection of CAT fees established by the Company.\61\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \61\ Section 11.4 of the CAT NMS Plan. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 11.4 of the CAT NMS Plan also states that Participants shall require each Industry Member to pay all applicable authorized CAT Fees within thirty days after receipt of an invoice or other notice indicating payment is due (unless a longer payment period is otherwise indicated). Section 11.4 further states that, if an Industry Member fails to pay any such fee when due, such Industry Member shall pay interest on the outstanding balance from such due date until such fee is paid at a per annum rate equal to the lesser of: (i) The Prime Rate plus 300 basis points; or (ii) the maximum rate permitted by applicable law. Therefore, in accordance with Section 11.4 of the CAT NMS Plan, SRO proposed to adopt paragraph (c)(2) of the proposed fee schedule. Paragraph (c)(2) of the proposed fee schedule states that each Industry Member shall pay CAT Fees within thirty days after receipt of an invoice or other notice indicating payment is due (unless a longer payment period is otherwise indicated). If an Industry Member fails to pay any such fee when due, such Industry Member shall pay interest on the outstanding balance from such due date until such fee is paid at a per annum rate equal to the lesser of: (i) the Prime Rate plus 300 basis points; or (ii) the maximum rate permitted by applicable law. (D) Sunset Provision The Operating Committee has determined to require that the CAT Fees automatically sunset two years from the operative date of the CAT NMS Plan amendment adopting CAT Fees for Participants. Accordingly, SRO proposes paragraph (d) of the fee schedule, which states that ``[t]hese Consolidated Audit Trailing Funding Fees will automatically expire two years after the operative date of the amendment of the CAT NMS Plan that adopts CAT fees for the Participants.'' (4) Changes to Prior CAT Fee Plan Amendment The proposed funding model set forth in this Amendment is a revised version of the Original Proposal. The Commission received a number of comment letters in response to the [[Page 59770]] Original Proposal.\62\ The SEC suspended the Original Proposal and instituted proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove it.\63\ Pursuant to those proceedings, additional comment letters were submitted regarding the proposed funding model.\64\ In developing this Amendment, the Operating Committee carefully considered these comments and made a number of changes to the Original Proposal to address these comments where appropriate. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \62\ For a description of the comments submitted in response to the Original Proposal, see Suspension Order. \63\ Suspension Order. \64\ See MFA Letter; SIFMA Letter; FIA Principal Traders Group Letter; Belvedere Letter; Sidley Letter; Group One Letter; and Virtu Financial Letter. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This Amendment makes the following changes to the Original Proposal: (1) Adds two additional CAT Fee tiers for Equity Execution Venues; (2) discounts the market share of Execution Venue ATSs exclusively trading OTC Equity Securities as well as the market share of the FINRA ORF by the average shares per trade ratio between NMS Stocks and OTC Equity Securities (calculated as 0.17% based on available data from the second quarter of 2017) when calculating the market share of Execution Venue ATSs exclusively trading OTC Equity Securities and FINRA; (3) discounts the Options Market Maker quotes by the trade to quote ratio for options (calculated as 0.01% based on available data for June 2016 through June 2017) when calculating message traffic for Options Market Makers; (4) discounts equity market maker quotes by the trade to quote ratio for equities (calculated as 5.43% based on available data for June 2016 through June 2017) when calculating message traffic for equity market makers; (5) decreases the number of tiers for Industry Members (other than the Execution Venue ATSs) from nine to seven; (6) changes the allocation of CAT costs between Equity Execution Venues and Options Execution Venues from 75%/ 25% to 67%/33%; (7) adjusts tier percentages and recovery allocations for Equity Execution Venues, Options Execution Venues and Industry Members (other than Execution Venue ATSs); (8) focuses the comparability of CAT Fees on the individual entity level, rather than primarily on the comparability of affiliated entities; (9) commences invoicing of CAT Reporters as promptly as possible following the latest of the operative date of the Consolidated Audit Trail Funding Fees for each of the Participants and the operative date of the CAT NMS Plan amendment adopting CAT Fees for Participants; and (10) requires the proposed fees to automatically expire two years from the operative date of the CAT NMS Plan amendment adopting CAT Fees for the Participants. (A) Equity Execution Venues (i) Small Equity Execution Venues In the Original Proposal, the Operating Committee proposed to establish two fee tiers for Equity Execution Venues. The Commission and commenters raised the concern that, by establishing only two tiers, smaller Equity Execution Venues (e.g., those Equity ATSs representing less than 1% of NMS market share) would be placed in the same fee tier as larger Equity Execution Venues, thereby imposing an undue or inappropriate burden on competition.\65\ To address this concern, the Operating Committee proposes to add two additional tiers for Equity Execution Venues, a third tier for smaller Equity Execution Venues and a fourth tier for the smallest Equity Execution Venues. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \65\ See Suspension Order at 31664; SIFMA Letter at 3. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Specifically, the Original Proposal had two tiers of Equity Execution Venues. Tier 1 required the largest Equity Execution Venues to pay a quarterly fee of $63,375. Based on available data, these largest Equity Execution Venues were those that had equity market share of share volume greater than or equal to 1%.\66\ Tier 2 required the remaining smaller Equity Execution Venues to pay a quarterly fee of $38,820. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \66\ Note that while these equity market share thresholds were referenced as data points to help differentiate between Equity Execution Venue tiers, the proposed funding model is directly driven not by market share thresholds, but rather by fixed percentages of Equity Execution Venues across tiers to account for fluctuating levels of market share across time. Actual market share in any tier will vary based on the actual market activity in a given measurement period, as well as the number of Equity Execution Venues included in the measurement period. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- To address concerns about the potential for the $38,820 quarterly fee to impose an undue burden on smaller Equity Execution Venues, the Operating Committee determined to move to a four tier structure for Equity Execution Venues. Tier 1 would continue to include the largest Equity Execution Venues by share volume (that is, based on currently available data, those with market share of equity share volume greater than or equal to one percent), and these Equity Execution Venues would be required to pay a quarterly fee of $81,048. The Operating Committee determined to divide the original Tier 2 into three tiers. The new Tier 2 Equity Execution Venues, which would include the next largest Equity Execution Venues by equity share volume, would be required to pay a quarterly fee of $37,062. The new Tier 3 Equity Execution Venues would be required to pay a quarterly fee of $21,126. The new Tier 4 Equity Execution Venues, which would include the smallest Equity Execution Venues by share volume, would be required to pay a quarterly fee of $129. In developing the proposed four tier structure, the Operating Committee considered keeping the existing two tiers, as well as shifting to three, four or five Equity Execution Venue tiers (the maximum number of tiers permitted under the Plan), to address the concerns regarding small Equity Execution Venues. For each of the two, three, four and five tier alternatives, the Operating Committee considered the assignment of various percentages of Equity Execution Venues to each tier as well as various percentage of Equity Execution Venue recovery allocations for each alternative. As discussed below in more detail, each of these options was considered in the context of the full model, as changes in each variable in the model affect other variables in the model when allocating the total CAT costs among CAT Reporters. The Operating Committee determined that the four tier alternative addressed the spectrum of different Equity Execution Venues. The Operating Committee determined that neither a two tier structure nor a three tier structure sufficiently accounted for the range of market shares of smaller Equity Execution Venues. The Operating Committee also determined that, given the limited number of Equity Execution Venues, that a fifth tier was unnecessary to address the range of market shares of the Equity Execution Venues. By increasing the number of tiers for Equity Execution Venues and reducing the proposed CAT Fees for the smaller Equity Execution Venues, the Operating Committee believes that the proposed fees for Equity Execution Venues would not impose an undue or inappropriate burden on competition under Section 6 or Section 15A of the Exchange Act. Moreover, the Operating Committee believes that the proposed fees appropriately take into account the distinctions in the securities trading operations of different Equity Execution Venues, as required under the funding principles of the CAT NMS Plan.\67\ The larger number of tiers more closely tracks the variety of sizes of equity share [[Page 59771]] volume of Equity Execution Venues. In addition, the reduction in the fees for the smaller Equity Execution Venues recognizes the potential burden of larger fees on smaller entities. In particular, the very small quarterly fee of $129 for Tier 4 Equity Execution Venues reflects the fact that certain Equity Execution Venues have a very small share volume due to their typically more focused business models. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \67\ Section 11.2(b) of the CAT NMS Plan. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Accordingly, with this Amendment, SRO proposes to amend paragraph (b)(2) of the proposed fee schedule to add the two additional tiers for Equity Execution Venues, to establish the percentages and fees for Tiers 3 and 4 as described, and to revise the percentages and fees for Tiers 1 and 2 as described. (ii) Execution Venues for OTC Equity Securities In the Original Proposal, the Operating Committee proposed to group Execution Venues for OTC Equity Securities and Execution Venues for NMS Stocks in the same tier structure. The Commission and commenters raised concerns as to whether this determination to place Execution Venues for OTC Equity Securities in the same tier structure as Execution Venues for NMS Stocks would result in an undue or inappropriate burden on competition, recognizing that the application of share volume may lead to different outcomes as applied to OTC Equity Securities and NMS Stocks.\68\ To address this concern, the Operating Committee proposes to discount the market share of Execution Venue ATSs exclusively trading OTC Equity Securities as well as the market share of the FINRA ORF by the average shares per trade ratio between NMS Stocks and OTC Equity Securities (0.17% for the second quarter of 2017) in order to adjust for the greater number of shares being traded in the OTC Equity Securities market, which is generally a function of a lower per share price for OTC Equity Securities when compared to NMS Stocks. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \68\ See Suspension Order at 31664-5. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As commenters noted, many OTC Equity Securities are priced at less than one dollar--and a significant number at less than one penny--and low-priced shares tend to trade in larger quantities. Accordingly, a disproportionately large number of shares are involved in transactions involving OTC Equity Securities versus NMS Stocks, which has the effect of overstating an Execution Venue's true market share when the Execution Venue is involved in the trading of OTC Equity Securities. Because the proposed fee tiers are based on market share calculated by share volume, Execution Venue ATSs trading OTC Equity Securities and FINRA may be subject to higher tiers than their operations may warrant.\69\ The Operating Committee proposes to address this concern in two ways. First, the Operating Committee proposes to increase the number of Equity Execution Venue tiers, as discussed above. Second, the Operating Committee determined to discount the market share of Execution Venue ATSs exclusively trading OTC Equity Securities as well as the market share of the FINRA ORF when calculating their tier placement. Because the disparity in share volume between Execution Venues trading in OTC Equity Securities and NMS Stocks is based on the different number of shares per trade for OTC Equity Securities and NMS Stocks, the Operating Committee believes that discounting the share volume of such Execution Venue ATSs as well as the market share of the FINRA ORF would address the difference in shares per trade for OTC Equity Securities and NMS Stocks. Specifically, the Operating Committee proposes to impose a discount based on the objective measure of the average shares per trade ratio between NMS Stocks and OTC Equity Securities. Based on available data from the second quarter of 2017, the average shares per trade ratio between NMS Stocks and OTC Equity Securities is 0.17%. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \69\ Suspension Order at 31664-5. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The practical effect of applying such a discount for trading in OTC Equity Securities is to shift Execution Venue ATSs exclusively trading OTC Equity Securities to tiers for smaller Execution Venues and with lower fees. For example, under the Original Proposal, one Execution Venue ATS exclusively trading OTC Equity Securities was placed in the first CAT Fee tier, which had a quarterly fee of $63,375. With the imposition of the proposed tier changes and the discount, this ATS would be ranked in Tier 3 and would owe a quarterly fee of $21,126. In developing the proposed discount for Equity Execution Venue ATSs exclusively trading OTC Equity Securities and FINRA, the Operating Committee evaluated different alternatives to address the concerns related to OTC Equity Securities, including creating a separate tier structure for Execution Venues trading OTC Equity Securities (like the separate tier for Options Execution Venues) as well as the proposed discounting method for Execution Venue ATSs exclusively trading OTC Equity Securities and FINRA. For these alternatives, the Operating Committee considered how each alternative would affect the recovery allocations. In addition, each of these options was considered in the context of the full model, as changes in each variable in the model affect other variables in the model when allocating the total CAT costs among CAT Reporters. The Operating Committee did not adopt a separate tier structure for Equity Execution Venues trading OTC Equity Securities as they determined that the proposed discount approach appropriately addresses the concern. The Operating Committee determined to adopt the proposed discount because it directly relates to the concern regarding the trading patterns and operations in the OTC Equity Securities markets, and is an objective discounting method. By increasing the number of tiers for Equity Execution Venues and imposing a discount on the market share of share volume calculation for trading in OTC Equity Securities, the Operating Committee believes that the proposed fees for Equity Execution Venues would not impose an undue or inappropriate burden on competition under Section 6 or Section 15A of the Exchange Act. Moreover, the Operating Committee believes that the proposed fees appropriately take into account the distinctions in the securities trading operations of different Equity Execution Venues, as required under the funding principles of the CAT NMS Plan.\70\ As discussed above, the larger number of tiers more closely tracks the variety of sizes of equity share volume of Equity Execution Venues. In addition, the proposed discount recognizes the different types of trading operations at Equity Execution Venues trading OTC Equity Securities versus those trading NMS Stocks, thereby more closing matching the relative revenue generation by Equity Execution Venues trading OTC Equity Securities to their CAT Fees. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \70\ Section 11.2(b) of the CAT NMS Plan. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Accordingly, with this Amendment, SRO proposes to amend paragraph (b)(2) of the proposed fee schedule to indicate that the market share for Equity ATSs exclusively trading OTC Equity Securities as well as the market share of the FINRA ORF would be discounted. In addition, as discussed above, to address concerns related to smaller ATSs, including those that exclusively trade OTC Equity Securities, SRO proposes to amend paragraph (b)(2) of the proposed fee schedule to add two additional tiers for Equity Execution Venues, to establish the percentages and fees for [[Page 59772]] Tiers 3 and 4 as described, and to revise the percentages and fees for Tiers 1 and 2 as described. (B) Market Makers In the Original Proposal, the Operating Committee proposed to include both Options Market Maker quotes and equities market maker quotes in the calculation of total message traffic for such market makers for purposes of tiering for Industry Members (other than Execution Venue ATSs). The Commission and commenters raised questions as to whether the proposed treatment of Options Market Maker quotes may result in an undue or inappropriate burden on competition or may lead to a reduction in market quality.\71\ To address this concern, the Operating Committee determined to discount the Options Market Maker quotes by the trade to quote ratio for options when calculating message traffic for Options Market Makers. Similarly, to avoid disincentives to quoting behavior on the equities side as well, the Operating Committee determined to discount equity market maker quotes by the trade to quote ratio for equities when calculating message traffic for equities market makers. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \71\ See Suspension Order at 31663-4; SIFMA Letter at 4-6; FIA Principal Traders Group Letter at 3; Sidley Letter at 2-6; Group One Letter at 2-6; and Belvedere Letter at 2. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the Original Proposal, market maker quotes were treated the same as other message traffic for purposes of tiering for Industry Members (other than Execution Venue ATSs). Commenters noted, however, that charging Industry Members on the basis of message traffic will impact market makers disproportionately because of their continuous quoting obligations. Moreover, in the context of options market makers, message traffic would include bids and offers for every listed options strikes and series, which are not an issue for equities.\72\ The Operating Committee proposes to address this concern in two ways. First, the Operating Committee proposes to discount Options Market Maker quotes when calculating the Options Market Makers' tier placement. Specifically, the Operating Committee proposes to impose a discount based on the objective measure of the trade to quote ratio for options. Based on available data from June 2016 through June 2017, the trade to quote ratio for options is 0.01%. Second, the Operating Committee proposes to discount equities market maker quotes when calculating the equities market makers' tier placement. Specifically, the Operating Committee proposes to impose a discount based on the objective measure of the trade to quote ratio for equities. Based on available data for June 2016 through June 2017, this trade to quote ratio for equities is 5.43%. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \72\ Suspension Order at 31664. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The practical effect of applying such discounts for quoting activity is to shift market makers' calculated message traffic lower, leading to the potential shift to tiers for lower message traffic and reduced fees. Such an approach would move sixteen Industry Member CAT Reporters that are market makers to a lower tier than in the Original Proposal. For example, under the Original Proposal, Broker-Dealer Firm ABC was placed in the first CAT Fee tier, which had a quarterly fee of $101,004. With the imposition of the proposed tier changes and the discount, Broker-Dealer Firm ABC, an options market maker, would be ranked in Tier 3 and would owe a quarterly fee of $40,899. In developing the proposed market maker discounts, the Operating Committee considered various discounts for Options Market Makers and equity market makers, including discounts of 50%, 25%, 0.00002%, as well as the 5.43% for option market makers and 0.01% for equity market makers. Each of these options were considered in the context of the full model, as changes in each variable in the model affect other variables in the model when allocating the total CAT costs among CAT Reporters. The Operating Committee determined to adopt the proposed discount because it directly relates to the concern regarding the quoting requirement, is an objective discounting method, and has the desired potential to shift market makers to lower fee tiers. By imposing a discount on Options Market Makers and equities market makers' quoting traffic for the calculation of message traffic, the Operating Committee believes that the proposed fees for market makers would not impose an undue or inappropriate burden on competition under Section 6 or Section 15A of the Exchange Act. Moreover, the Operating Committee believes that the proposed fees appropriately take into account the distinctions in the securities trading operations of different Industry Members, and avoid disincentives, such as a reduction in market quality, as required under the funding principles of the CAT NMS Plan.\73\ The proposed discounts recognize the different types of trading operations presented by Options Market Makers and equities market makers, as well as the value of the market makers' quoting activity to the market as a whole. Accordingly, the Operating Committee believes that the proposed discounts will not impact the ability of small Options Market Makers or equities market makers to provide liquidity. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \73\ Section 11.2(b) of the CAT NMS Plan. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Accordingly, with this Amendment, SRO proposes to amend paragraph (b)(1) of the proposed fee schedule to indicate that the message traffic related to equity market maker quotes and Options Market Maker quotes would be discounted. In addition, SRO proposes to define the term ``Options Market Maker'' in paragraph (a)(1) of the proposed fee schedule. (C) Comparability/Allocation of Costs Under the Original Proposal, 75% of CAT costs were allocated to Industry Members (other than Execution Venue ATSs) and 25% of CAT costs were allocated to Execution Venues. This cost allocation sought to maintain the greatest level of comparability across the funding model, where comparability considered affiliations among or between CAT Reporters. The Commission and commenters expressed concerns regarding whether the proposed 75%/25% allocation of CAT costs is consistent with the Plan's funding principles and the Exchange Act, including whether the allocation places a burden on competition or reduces market quality. The Commission and commenters also questioned whether the approach of accounting for affiliations among CAT Reporters in setting CAT Fees disadvantages non-affiliated CAT Reporters or otherwise burdens competition in the market for trading services.\74\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \74\ See Suspension Order at 31662-3; SIFMA Letter at 3; Sidley Letter at 6-7; Group One Letter at 2; and Belvedere Letter at 2. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In response to these concerns, the Operating Committee determined to revise the proposed funding model to focus the comparability of CAT Fees on the individual entity level, rather than primarily on the comparability of affiliated entities. In light of the interconnected nature of the various aspects of the funding model, the Operating Committee determined to revise various aspects of the model to enhance comparability at the individual entity level. Specifically, to achieve such comparability, the Operating Committee determined to (1) decrease the number of tiers for Industry Members (other than Execution Venue [[Page 59773]] ATSs) from nine to seven; (2) change the allocation of CAT costs between Equity Execution Venues and Options Execution Venues from 75%/ 25% to 67%/33%; and (3) adjust tier percentages and recovery allocations for Equity Execution Venues, Options Execution Venues and Industry Members (other than Execution Venue ATSs). With these changes, the proposed funding model provides fee comparability for the largest individual entities, with the largest Industry Members (other than Execution Venue ATSs), Equity Execution Venues and Options Execution Venues each paying a CAT Fee of approximately $81,000 each quarter. (i) Number of Industry Member Tiers In the Original Proposal, the proposed funding model had nine tiers for Industry Members (other than Execution Venue ATSs). The Operating Committee determined that reducing the number of tiers from nine tiers to seven tiers (and adjusting the predefined Industry Member Percentages as well) continues to provide a fair allocation of fees among Industry Members and appropriately distinguishes between Industry Members with differing levels of message traffic. In reaching this conclusion, the Operating Committee considered historical message traffic generated by Industry Members across all exchanges and as submitted to FINRA's OATS, and considered the distribution of firms with similar levels of message traffic, grouping together firms with similar levels of message traffic. Based on this, the Operating Committee determined that seven tiers would group firms with similar levels of message traffic, while also achieving greater comparability in the model for the individual CAT Reporters with the greatest market share or message traffic. In developing the proposed seven tier structure, the Operating Committee considered remaining at nine tiers, as well as reducing the number of tiers down to seven when considering how to address the concerns raised regarding comparability. For each of the alternatives, the Operating Committee considered the assignment of various percentages of Industry Members to each tier as well as various percentages of Industry Member recovery allocations for each alternative. Each of these options was considered in the context of its effects on the full funding model, as changes in each variable in the model affect other variables in the model when allocating the total CAT costs among CAT Reporters. The Operating Committee determined that the seven tier alternative provided the most fee comparability at the individual entity level for the largest CAT Reporters, while both providing logical breaks in tiering for Industry Members with different levels of message traffic and a sufficient number of tiers to provide for the full spectrum of different levels of message traffic for all Industry Members. (ii) Allocation of CAT Costs Between Equity and Options Execution Venues The Operating Committee also determined to adjust the allocation of CAT costs between Equity Execution Venues and Options Execution Venues to enhance comparability at the individual entity level. In the Original Proposal, 75% of Execution Venue CAT costs were allocated to Equity Execution Venues, and 25% of Execution Venue CAT costs were allocated to Options Execution Venues. To achieve the goal of increased comparability at the individual entity level, the Operating Committee analyzed a range of alternative splits for revenue recovery between Equity and Options Execution Venues, along with other changes in the proposed funding model. Based on this analysis, the Operating Committee determined to allocate 67 percent of Execution Venue costs recovered to Equity Execution Venues and 33 percent to Options Execution Venues. The Operating Committee determined that a 67/33 allocation between Equity and Options Execution Venues enhances the level of fee comparability for the largest CAT Reporters. Specifically, the largest Equity and Options Execution Venues would pay a quarterly CAT Fee of approximately $81,000. In developing the proposed allocation of CAT costs between Equity and Options Execution Venues, the Operating Committee considered various different options for such allocation, including keeping the original 75%/25% allocation, as well as shifting to a 70%/30%, 67%/33%, or 57.75%/42.25% allocation. For each of the alternatives, the Operating Committee considered the effect each allocation would have on the assignment of various percentages of Equity Execution Venues to each tier as well as various percentages of Equity Execution Venue recovery allocations for each alternative. Moreover, each of these options was considered in the context of the full model, as changes in each variable in the model affect other variables in the model when allocating the total CAT costs among CAT Reporters. The Operating Committee determined that the 67%/33% allocation between Equity and Options Execution Venues provided the greatest level of fee comparability at the individual entity level for the largest CAT Reporters, while still providing for appropriate fee levels across all tiers for all CAT Reporters. (iii) Allocation of Costs Between Execution Venues and Industry Members The Operating Committee determined to allocate 25% of CAT costs to Execution Venues and 75% to Industry Members (other than Execution Venue ATSs), as it had in the Original Proposal. The Operating Committee determined that this 75%/25% allocation, along with the other changes proposed above, led to the most comparable fees for the largest Equity Execution Venues, Options Execution Venues and Industry Members (other than Execution Venue ATSs). The largest Equity Execution Venues, Options Execution Venues and Industry Members (other than Execution Venue ATSs) would each pay a quarterly CAT Fee of approximately $81,000. As a preliminary matter, the Operating Committee determined that it is appropriate to allocate most of the costs to create, implement and maintain the CAT to Industry Members for several reasons. First, there are many more broker-dealers expected to report to the CAT than Participants (i.e., 1,541 broker-dealer CAT Reporters versus 22 Participants). Second, since most of the costs to process CAT reportable data is generated by Industry Members, Industry Members could be expected to contribute toward such costs. Finally, as noted by the SEC, the CAT ``substantially enhance[s] the ability of the SROs and the Commission to oversee today's securities markets,'' \75\ thereby benefitting all market participants. After making this determination, the Operating Committee analyzed several different cost allocations, as discussed further below, and determined that an allocation where 75% of the CAT costs should be borne by the Industry Members (other than Execution Venue ATSs) and 25% should be paid by Execution Venues was most appropriate and led to the greatest comparability of CAT Fees for the largest CAT Reporters. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \75\ Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 67457 (Jul 18, 2012), 77 FR 45722, 45726 (Aug. 1, 2012) (``Rule 613 Adopting Release''). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In developing the proposed allocation of CAT costs between Execution Venues and Industry Members (other than Execution Venue ATSs), the Operating Committee considered various different options for such allocation, including keeping the original 75%/25% [[Page 59774]] allocation, as well as shifting to an 80%/20%, 70%/30%, or 65%/35% allocation. Each of these options was considered in the context of the full model, including the effect on each of the changes discussed above, as changes in each variable in the model affect other variables in the model when allocating the total CAT costs among CAT Reporters. In particular, for each of the alternatives, the Operating Committee considered the effect each allocation had on the assignment of various percentages of Equity Execution Venues, Options Execution Venues and Industry Members (other than Execution Venue ATSs) to each relevant tier as well as various percentages of recovery allocations for each tier. The Operating Committee determined that the 75%/25% allocation between Execution Venues and Industry Members (other than Execution Venue ATSs) provided the greatest level of fee comparability at the individual entity level for the largest CAT Reporters, while still providing for appropriate fee levels across all tiers for all CAT Reporters. (iv) Affiliations The funding principles set forth in Section 11.2 of the Plan require that the fees charged to CAT Reporters with the most CAT- related activity (measured by market share and/or message traffic, as applicable) are generally comparable (where, for these comparability purposes, the tiered fee structure takes into consideration affiliations between or among CAT Reporters, whether Execution Venue and/or Industry Members). The proposed funding model satisfies this requirement. As discussed above, under the proposed funding model, the largest Equity Execution Venues, Options Execution Venues, and Industry Members (other than Execution Venue ATSs) pay approximately the same fee. Moreover, the Operating Committee believes that the proposed funding model takes into consideration affiliations between or among CAT Reporters as complexes with multiple CAT Reporters will pay the appropriate fee based on the proposed fee schedule for each of the CAT Reporters in the complex. For example, a complex with a Tier 1 Equity Execution Venue and Tier 2 Industry Member will a pay the same as another complex with a Tier 1 Equity Execution Venue and Tier 2 Industry Member. (v) Fee Schedule Changes Accordingly, with this Amendment, SRO proposes to amend paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of the proposed fee schedule to reflect the changes discussed in this section. Specifically, SRO proposes to amend paragraph (b)(1) and (2) of the proposed fee schedule to update the number of tiers, and the fees and percentages assigned to each tier to reflect the described changes. (D) Market Share/Message Traffic In the Original Proposal, the Operating Committee proposed to charge Execution Venues based on market share and Industry Members (other than Execution Venue ATSs) based on message traffic. Commenters questioned the use of the two different metrics for calculating CAT Fees.\76\ The Operating Committee continues to believe that the proposed use of market share and message traffic satisfies the requirements of the Exchange Act and the funding principles set forth in the CAT NMS Plan. Accordingly, the proposed funding model continues to charge Execution Venues based on market share and Industry Members (other than Execution Venue ATSs) based on message traffic. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \76\ Suspension Order at 31663; FIA Principal Traders Group Letter at 2. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In drafting the Plan and the Original Proposal, the Operating Committee expressed the view that the correlation between message traffic and size does not apply to Execution Venues, which they described as producing similar amounts of message traffic regardless of size. The Operating Committee believed that charging Execution Venues based on message traffic would result in both large and small Execution Venues paying comparable fees, which would be inequitable, so the Operating Committee determined that it would be more appropriate to treat Execution Venues differently from Industry Members in the funding model. Upon a more detailed analysis of available data, however, the Operating Committee noted that Execution Venues have varying levels of message traffic. Nevertheless, the Operating Committee continues to believe that a bifurcated funding model--where Industry Members (other than Execution Venue ATSs) are charged fees based on message traffic and Execution Venues are charged based on market share--complies with the Plan and meets the standards of the Exchange Act for the reasons set forth below. Charging Industry Members based on message traffic is the most equitable means for establishing fees for Industry Members (other than Execution Venue ATSs). This approach will assess fees to Industry Members that create larger volumes of message traffic that are relatively higher than those fees charged to Industry Members that create smaller volumes of message traffic. Since message traffic, along with fixed costs of the Plan Processor, is a key component of the costs of operating the CAT, message traffic is an appropriate criterion for placing Industry Members in a particular fee tier. The Operating Committee also believes that it is appropriate to charge Execution Venues CAT Fees based on their market share. In contrast to Industry Members (other than Execution Venue ATSs), which determine the degree to which they produce the message traffic that constitutes CAT Reportable Events, the CAT Reportable Events of Execution Venues are largely derivative of quotations and orders received from Industry Members that the Execution Venues are required to display. The business model for Execution Venues, however, is focused on executions in their markets. As a result, the Operating Committee believes that it is more equitable to charge Execution Venues based on their market share rather than their message traffic. Similarly, focusing on message traffic would make it more difficult to draw distinctions between large and small exchanges, including options exchanges in particular. For instance, the Operating Committee analyzed the message traffic of Execution Venues and Industry Members for the period of April 2017 to June 2017 and placed all CAT Reporters into a nine-tier framework (i.e., a single tier may include both Execution Venues and Industry Members). The Operating Committee's analysis found that the majority of exchanges (15 total) were grouped in Tiers 1 and 2. Moreover, virtually all of the options exchanges were in Tiers 1 and 2.\77\ Given the concentration of options exchanges in Tiers 1 and 2, the Operating Committee believes that using a funding model based purely on message traffic would make it more difficult to distinguish between large and small options exchanges, as compared to the proposed bifurcated fee approach. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \77\ The Participants note that this analysis did not place MIAX PEARL in Tier 1 or Tier 2 since the exchange commenced trading on February 6, 2017. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In addition, the Operating Committee also believes that it is appropriate to treat ATSs as Execution Venues under the proposed funding model since ATSs have business models that are similar to those of exchanges, and ATSs also compete with exchanges. For these reasons, the Operating Committee believes that charging Execution Venues based on market share is more appropriate and equitable than charging [[Page 59775]] Execution Venues based on message traffic. (E) Time Limit In the Original Proposal, the Operating Committee did not impose any time limit on the application of the proposed CAT Fees. As discussed above, the Operating Committee developed the proposed funding model by analyzing currently available historical data. Such historical data, however, is not as comprehensive as data that will be submitted to the CAT. Accordingly, the Operating Committee believes that it will be appropriate to revisit the funding model once CAT Reporters have actual experience with the funding model. Accordingly, the Operating Committee proposes to include a sunsetting provision in the proposed fee model. The proposed CAT Fees will sunset two years after the operative date of the CAT NMS Plan amendment adopting CAT Fees for Participants. Specifically, SRO proposes to add paragraph (d) of the proposed fee schedule to include this sunsetting provision. Such a provision will provide the Operating Committee and other market participants with the opportunity to reevaluate the performance of the proposed funding model. (F) Tier Structure/Decreasing Cost per Unit In the Original Proposal, the Operating Committee determined to use a tiered fee structure. The Commission and commenters questioned whether the decreasing cost per additional unit (of message traffic in the case of Industry Members, or of share volume in the case of Execution Venues) in the proposed fee schedules burdens competition by disadvantaging small Industry Members and Execution Venues and/or by creating barriers to entry in the market for trading services and/or the market for broker-dealer services.\78\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \78\ Suspension Order at 31667. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Operating Committee does not believe that decreasing cost per additional unit in the proposed fee schedules places an unfair competitive burden on Small Industry Members and Execution Venues. While the cost per unit of message traffic or share volume necessarily will decrease as volume increases in any tiered fee model using fixed fee percentages and, as a result, Small Industry Members and small Execution Venues may pay a larger fee per message or share, this comment fails to take account of the substantial differences in the absolute fees paid by Small Industry Members and small Execution Venues as opposed to large Industry Members and large Execution Venues. For example, under the fee proposals, Tier 7 Industry Members would pay a quarterly fee of $105, while Tier 1 Industry Members would pay a quarterly fee of $81,483. Similarly, a Tier 4 Equity Execution Venue would pay a quarterly fee of $129, while a Tier 1 Equity Execution Venue would pay a quarterly fee of $81,048. Thus, Small Industry Members and small Execution Venues are not disadvantaged in terms of the total fees that they actually pay. In contrast to a tiered model using fixed fee percentages, the Operating Committee believes that strictly variable or metered funding models based on message traffic or share volume would be more likely to affect market behavior and may present administrative challenges (e.g., the costs to calculate and monitor fees may exceed the fees charged to the smallest CAT Reporters). (G) Other Alternatives Considered In addition to the various funding model alternatives discussed above regarding discounts, number of tiers and allocation percentages, the Operating Committee also discussed other possible funding models. For example, the Operating Committee considered allocating the total CAT costs equally among each of the Participants, and then permitting each Participant to charge its own members as it deems appropriate.\79\ The Operating Committee determined that such an approach raised a variety of issues, including the likely inconsistency of the ensuing charges, potential for lack of transparency, and the impracticality of multiple SROs submitting invoices for CAT charges. The Operating Committee therefore determined that the proposed funding model was preferable to this alternative. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \79\ See FIA Principal Traders Group Letter at 2; Belvedere Letter at 4. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (H) Industry Member Input Commenters expressed concern regarding the level of Industry Member input into the development of the proposed funding model, and certain commenters have recommended a greater role in the governance of the CAT.\80\ The Participants previously addressed this concern in its letters responding to comments on the Plan and the CAT Fees.\81\ As discussed in those letters, the Participants discussed the funding model with the Development Advisory Group (``DAG''), the advisory group formed to assist in the development of the Plan, during its original development.\82\ Moreover, Industry Members currently have a voice in the affairs of the Operating Committee and operation of the CAT generally through the Advisory Committee established pursuant to Rule 613(b)(7) and Section 4.13 of the Plan. The Advisory Committee attends all meetings of the Operating Committee, as well as meetings of various subcommittees and working groups, and provides valuable and critical input for the Participants' and Operating Committee's consideration. The Operating Committee continues to believe that that Industry Members have an appropriate voice regarding the funding of the Company. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \80\ See Suspension Order at 31662; MFA Letter at 1-2. \81\ Letter from Participants to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, SEC (Sept. 23, 2016) (``Plan Response Letter''); Letter from CAT NMS Plan Participants to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, SEC (June 29, 2017) (``Fee Rule Response Letter''). \82\ Fee Rule Response Letter at 2; Plan Response Letter at 18. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (I) Conflicts of Interest Commenters also raised concerns regarding Participant conflicts of interest in setting the CAT Fees.\83\ The Participants previously responded to this concern in both the Plan Response Letter and the Fee Rule Response Letter.\84\ As discussed in those letters, the Plan, as approved by the SEC, adopts various measures to protect against the potential conflicts issues raised by the Participants' fee-setting authority. Such measures include the operation of the Company as a not for profit business league and on a break-even basis, and the requirement that the Participants file all CAT Fees under Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act. The Operating Committee continues to believe that these measures adequately protect against concerns regarding conflicts of interest in setting fees, and that additional measures, such as an independent third party to evaluate an appropriate CAT Fee, are unnecessary. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \83\ See Suspension Order at 31662; FIA Principal Traders Group at 3. \84\ See Plan Response Letter at 16, 17; Fee Rule Response Letter at 10-12. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (J) Fee Transparency Commenters also argued that they could not adequately assess whether the CAT Fees were fair and equitable because the Operating Committee has not provided details as to what the Participants are receiving in return for the CAT Fees.\85\ The Operating Committee provided a detailed [[Page 59776]] discussion of the proposed funding model in the Plan, including the expenses to be covered by the CAT Fees. In addition, the agreement between the Company and the Plan Processor sets forth a comprehensive set of services to be provided to the Company with regard to the CAT. Such services include, without limitation: user support services (e.g., a help desk); tools to allow each CAT Reporter to monitor and correct their submissions; a comprehensive compliance program to monitor CAT Reporters' adherence to Rule 613; publication of detailed Technical Specifications for Industry Members and Participants; performing data linkage functions; creating comprehensive data security and confidentiality safeguards; creating query functionality for regulatory users (i.e., the Participants, and the SEC and SEC staff); and performing billing and collection functions. The Operating Committee further notes that the services provided by the Plan Processor and the costs related thereto were subject to a bidding process. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \85\ See FIA Principal Traders Group at 3; SIFMA Letter at 3. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (K) Funding Authority Commenters also questioned the authority of the Operating Committee to impose CAT Fees on Industry Members.\86\ The Participants previously responded to this same comment in the Plan Response Letter and the Fee Rule Response Letter.\87\ As the Participants previously noted, SEC Rule 613 specifically contemplates broker-dealers contributing to the funding of the CAT. In addition, as noted by the SEC, the CAT ``substantially enhance[s] the ability of the SROs and the Commission to oversee today's securities markets,'' \88\ thereby benefitting all market participants. Therefore, the Operating Committing continues to believe that it is equitable for both Participants and Industry Members to contribute to funding the cost of the CAT. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \86\ See Suspension Order at 31661-2; SIFMA Letter at 2. \87\ See Plan Response Letter at 9-10; Fee Rule Response Letter at 3-4. \88\ Rule 613 Adopting Release at 45726. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Statutory Basis SRO believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\89\ which require, among other things, that the SRO rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest, and not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers and dealer, and Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\90\ which requires that SRO rules provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among members and issuers and other persons using its facilities. As discussed above, the SEC approved the bifurcated, tiered, fixed fee funding model in the CAT NMS Plan, finding it was reasonable and that it equitably allocated fees among Participants and Industry Members. SRO believes that the proposed tiered fees adopted pursuant to the funding model approved by the SEC in the CAT NMS Plan are reasonable, equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \89\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). \90\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- SRO believes that this proposal is consistent with the Act because it implements, interprets or clarifies the provisions of the Plan, and is designed to assist SRO and its Industry Members in meeting regulatory obligations pursuant to the Plan. In approving the Plan, the SEC noted that the Plan ``is necessary and appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of a national market system, or is otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.'' \91\ To the extent that this proposal implements, interprets or clarifies the Plan and applies specific requirements to Industry Members, SRO believes that this proposal furthers the objectives of the Plan, as identified by the SEC, and is therefore consistent with the Act. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \91\ Approval Order at 84697. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- SRO believes that the proposed tiered fees are reasonable. First, the total CAT Fees to be collected would be directly associated with the costs of establishing and maintaining the CAT, where such costs include Plan Processor costs and costs related to insurance, third party services and the operational reserve. The CAT Fees would not cover Participant services unrelated to the CAT. In addition, any surplus CAT Fees cannot be distributed to the individual Participants; such surpluses must be used as a reserve to offset future fees. Given the direct relationship between the fees and the CAT costs, SRO believes that the total level of the CAT Fees is reasonable. In addition, SRO believes that the proposed CAT Fees are reasonably designed to allocate the total costs of the CAT equitably between and among the Participants and Industry Members, and are therefore not unfairly discriminatory. As discussed in detail above, the proposed tiered fees impose comparable fees on similarly situated CAT Reporters. For example, those with a larger impact on the CAT (measured via message traffic or market share) pay higher fees, whereas CAT Reporters with a smaller impact pay lower fees. Correspondingly, the tiered structure lessens the impact on smaller CAT Reporters by imposing smaller fees on those CAT Reporters with less market share or message traffic. In addition, the fee structure takes into consideration distinctions in securities trading operations of CAT Reporters, including ATSs trading OTC Equity Securities, and equity and options market makers. Moreover, SRO believes that the division of the total CAT costs between Industry Members and Execution Venues, and the division of the Execution Venue portion of total costs between Equity and Options Execution Venues, is reasonably designed to allocate CAT costs among CAT Reporters. The 75%/25% division between Industry Members (other than Execution Venue ATSs) and Execution Venues maintains the greatest level of comparability across the funding model. For example, the cost allocation establishes fees for the largest Industry Members (i.e., those Industry Members in Tiers 1) that are comparable to the largest Equity Execution Venues and Options Execution Venues (i.e., those Execution Venues in Tier 1). Furthermore, the allocation of total CAT cost recovery recognizes the difference in the number of CAT Reporters that are Industry Members (other than Execution Venue ATSs) versus CAT Reporters that are Execution Venues. Similarly, the 67%/33% allocation between Equity and Options Execution Venues also helps to provide fee comparability for the largest CAT Reporters. Finally, SRO believes that the proposed fees are reasonable because they would provide ease of calculation, ease of billing and other administrative functions, and predictability of a fixed fee. Such factors are crucial to estimating a reliable revenue stream for the Company and for permitting CAT Reporters to reasonably predict their payment obligations for budgeting purposes. (B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition Section 6(b)(8) of the Act \92\ require that SRO rules not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate. SRO does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance [[Page 59777]] of the purposes of the Act. SRO notes that the proposed rule change implements provisions of the CAT NMS Plan approved by the Commission, and is designed to assist SRO in meeting its regulatory obligations pursuant to the Plan. Similarly, all national securities exchanges and FINRA are proposing this proposed fee schedule to implement the requirements of the CAT NMS Plan. Therefore, this is not a competitive fee filing and, therefore, it does not raise competition issues between and among the exchanges and FINRA. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \92\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Moreover, as previously described, SRO believes that the proposed rule change fairly and equitably allocates costs among CAT Reporters. In particular, the proposed fee schedule is structured to impose comparable fees on similarly situated CAT Reporters, and lessen the impact on smaller CAT Reporters. CAT Reporters with similar levels of CAT activity will pay similar fees. For example, Industry Members (other than Execution Venue ATSs) with higher levels of message traffic will pay higher fees, and those with lower levels of message traffic will pay lower fees. Similarly, Execution Venue ATSs and other Execution Venues with larger market share will pay higher fees, and those with lower levels of market share will pay lower fees. Therefore, given that there is generally a relationship between message traffic and/or market share to the CAT Reporter's size, smaller CAT Reporters generally pay less than larger CAT Reporters. Accordingly, SRO does not believe that the CAT Fees would have a disproportionate effect on smaller or larger CAT Reporters. In addition, ATSs and exchanges will pay the same fees based on market share. Therefore, SRO does not believe that the fees will impose any burden on the competition between ATSs and exchanges. Accordingly, SRO believes that the proposed fees will minimize the potential for adverse effects on competition between CAT Reporters in the market. Furthermore, the tiered, fixed fee funding model limits the disincentives to providing liquidity to the market. Therefore, the proposed fees are structured to limit burdens on competitive quoting and other liquidity provision in the market. In addition, the Operating Committee believes that the proposed changes to the Original Proposal, as discussed above in detail, address certain competitive concerns raised by commenters, including concerns related to, among other things, smaller ATSs, ATSs trading OTC Equity Securities, market making quoting and fee comparability. As discussed above, the Operating Committee believes that the proposals address the competitive concerns raised by commenters. (C) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others SRO has set forth responses to comments received regarding the Original Proposal in Section 3(a)(4) above. III. Solicitation of Comments on Amendment No. 1 Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether Amendment No. 1 is consistent with the Act. In particular, the Commission seeks comment on the following: Allocation of Costs (1) Commenters' views as to whether the allocation of CAT costs is consistent with the funding principle expressed in the CAT NMS Plan that requires the Operating Committee to ``avoid any disincentives such as placing an inappropriate burden on competition and a reduction in market quality.'' \93\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \93\ Section 11.2(e) of the CAT NMS Plan. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (2) Commenters' views as to whether the allocation of 25% of CAT costs to the Execution Venues (including all the Participants) and 75% to Industry Members, will incentivize or disincentivize the Participants to effectively and efficiently manage the CAT costs incurred by the Participants since they will only bear 25% of such costs. (3) Commenters' views on the determination to allocate 75% of all costs incurred by the Participants from November 21, 2016 to November 21, 2017 to Industry Members (other than Execution Venue ATSs), when such costs are development and build costs and when Industry Member reporting is scheduled to commence a year later, including views on whether such ``fees, costs and expenses . . . [are] fairly and reasonably shared among the Participants and Industry Members'' in accordance with the CAT NMS Plan.\94\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \94\ Section 11.1(c) of the CAT NMS Plan. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (4) Commenters' views on whether an analysis of the ratio of the expected Industry Member-reported CAT messages to the expected SRO- reported CAT messages should be the basis for determining the allocation of costs between Industry Members and Execution Venues.\95\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \95\ The Notice for the CAT NMS Plan did not provide a comprehensive count of audit trail message traffic from different regulatory data sources, but the Commission did estimate the ratio of all SRO audit trail messages to OATS audit trail messages to be 1.9431. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77724 (April 27, 2016), 81 FR 30613, 30721 n.919 and accompanying text (May 17, 2016). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (5) Any additional data analysis on the allocation of CAT costs, including any existing supporting evidence. Comparability (6) Commenters' views on the shift in the standard used to assess the comparability of CAT Fees, with the emphasis now on comparability of individual entities instead of affiliated entities, including views as to whether this shift is consistent with the funding principle expressed in the CAT NMS Plan that requires the Operating Committee to establish a fee structure in which the fees charged to ``CAT Reporters with the most CAT-related activity (measured by market share and/or message traffic, as applicable) are generally comparable (where, for these comparability purposes, the tiered fee structure takes into consideration affiliations between or among CAT Reporters, whether Execution Venues and/or Industry Members).'' \96\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \96\ Section 11.2(c) of the CAT NMS Plan. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (7) Commenters' views as to whether the reduction in the number of tiers for Industry Members (other than Execution Venue ATSs) from nine to seven, the revised allocation of CAT costs between Equity Execution Venues and Options Execution Venues from a 75%/25% split to a 67%/33% split, and the adjustment of all tier percentages and recovery allocations achieves comparability across individual entities, and whether these changes should have resulted in a change to the allocation of 75% of total CAT costs to Industry Members (other than Execution Venue ATSs) and 25% of such costs to Execution Venues. Discounts (8) Commenters' views as to whether the discounts for options market-makers, equities market-makers, and Equity ATSs trading OTC Equity Securities are clear, reasonable, and consistent with the funding principle expressed in the CAT NMS Plan that requires the Operating Committee to ``avoid any disincentives such as placing an inappropriate burden on competition and a reduction in market quality,'' \97\ including views as to whether the discounts for market- makers limit any potential disincentives to act as a market-maker and/ or to provide liquidity due to CAT fees. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \97\ Section 11.2(e) of the CAT NMS Plan. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [[Page 59778]] Calculation of Costs and Imposition of CAT Fees (9) Commenters' views as to whether the amendment provides sufficient information regarding the amount of costs incurred from November 21, 2016 to November 21, 2017, particularly, how those costs were calculated, how those costs relate to the proposed CAT Fees, and how costs incurred after November 21, 2017 will be assessed upon Industry Members and Execution Venues; (10) Commenters' views as to whether the timing of the imposition and collection of CAT Fees on Execution Venues and Industry Members is reasonably related to the timing of when the Company expects to incur such development and implementation costs.\98\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \98\ Section 11.1(c) of the CAT NMS Plan. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (11) Commenters' views on dividing CAT costs equally among each of the Participants, and then each Participant charging its own members as it deems appropriate, taking into consideration the possibility of inconsistency in charges, the potential for lack of transparency, and the impracticality of multiple SROs submitting invoices for CAT charges. Burden on Competition and Barriers to Entry (12) Commenters' views as to whether the allocation of 75% of CAT costs to Industry Members (other than Execution Venue ATSs) imposes any burdens on competition to Industry Members, including views on what baseline competitive landscape the Commission should consider when analyzing the proposed allocation of CAT costs. (13) Commenters' views on the burdens on competition, including the relevant markets and services and the impact of such burdens on the baseline competitive landscape in those relevant markets and services. (14) Commenters' views on any potential burdens imposed by the fees on competition between and among CAT Reporters, including views on which baseline markets and services the fees could have competitive effects on and whether the fees are designed to minimize such effects. (15) Commenters' general views on the impact of the proposed fees on economies of scale and barriers to entry. (16) Commenters' views on the baseline economies of scale and barriers to entry for Industry Members and Execution Venues and the relevant markets and services over which these economies of scale and barriers to entry exist. (17) Commenters' views as to whether a tiered fee structure necessarily results in less active tiers paying more per unit than those in more active tiers, thus creating economies of scale, with supporting information if possible. (18) Commenters' views as to how the level of the fees for the least active tiers would or would not affect barriers to entry. (19) Commenters' views on whether the difference between the cost per unit (messages or market share) in less active tiers compared to the cost per unit in more active tiers creates regulatory economies of scale that favor larger competitors and, if so: (a) How those economies of scale compare to operational economies of scale; and (b) Whether those economies of scale reduce or increase the current advantages enjoyed by larger competitors or otherwise alter the competitive landscape. (20) Commenters' views on whether the fees could affect competition between and among national securities exchanges and FINRA, in light of the fact that implementation of the fees does not require the unanimous consent of all such entities, and, specifically: (a) Whether any of the national securities exchanges or FINRA are disadvantaged by the fees; and (b) If so, whether any such disadvantages would be of a magnitude that would alter the competitive landscape. (21) Commenters' views on any potential burden imposed by the fees on competitive quoting and other liquidity provision in the market, including, specifically: (a) Commenters' views on the kinds of disincentives that discourage liquidity provision and/or disincentives that the Commission should consider in its analysis; (b) Commenters' views as to whether the fees could disincentivize the provision of liquidity; and (c) Commenters' views as to whether the fees limit any disincentives to provide liquidity. (22) Commenters' views as to whether the amendment adequately responds to and/or addresses comments received on related filings. 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-BatsEDGX-2017-22 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-BatsEDGX-2017-22. 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 website (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 website 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. 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-BatsEDGX-2017-22, and should be submitted on or before January 5, 2018. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.\99\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \99\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Robert W. Errett, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. 2017-27001 Filed 12-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 240 / Friday, December 15, 2017 / Notices 59753
Number SR-BatsBZX–2017–38, and from the Participants.5 On June 30, change, as described in Items I and II
should be submitted on or before 2017, the Commission temporarily below, which Items have been prepared
January 5, 2018. suspended and initiated proceedings to by the Exchange.9 On November 9,
For the Commission, by the Division of determine whether to approve or 2017, the Commission extended the
Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated disapprove the proposed rule change.6 time period within which to approve
authority.99 The Commission thereafter received the proposed rule change or disapprove
Robert W. Errett, seven comment letters,7 and a response the proposed rule change to January 14,
Deputy Secretary. to comments from the Participants.8 On 2018.10 The Commission is publishing
November 3, 2017, the Exchange filed this notice to solicit comments from
[FR Doc. 2017–27003 Filed 12–14–17; 8:45 am]
Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule interested persons on Amendment No.
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
1.11
Commission (dated June 13, 2017), available at:
https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-finra-2017-011/ I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE finra2017011-1801717-153703.pdf; Letter from Statement of the Terms of Substance of
COMMISSION Joanna Mallers, Secretary, FIA Principal Traders the Proposed Rule Change
Group, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission
[Release No. 34–82276; File No. SR– (dated June 22, 2017), available at: https:// The Exchange proposed rule change
BatsEDGX–2017–22] www.sec.gov/comments/sr-cboe-2017-040/ SR–BatsEDGX–2017–22 (the ‘‘Original
cboe2017040-1819670-154195.pdf; Letter from
Stuart J. Kaswell, Executive Vice President and
Proposal’’), pursuant to which SRO
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Managing Director, General Counsel, Managed proposed to amend fees for its Equities
EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing Funds Association, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Platform (‘‘Cboe EDGX U.S. Equities Fee
of Amendment No. 1 to a Proposed Commission (dated June 23, 2017), available at: Schedule’’) and to amend fees for its
Rule Change To Establish the Fees for https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-finra-2017-011/
finra2017011-1822454-154283.pdf; and Letter from
Options Platform (‘‘Cboe EDGX Options
Industry Members Related to the Suzanne H. Shatto, Investor, to Commission (dated Fee Schedule’’) to establish the fees for
National Market System Plan June 27, 2017), available at: https://www.sec.gov/ Industry Members related to the
Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail comments/sr-batsedgx-2017-22/batsedgx201722- National Market System Plan Governing
154443.pdf. The Commission also received a
comment letter which is not pertinent to these the Consolidated Audit Trail (the ‘‘CAT
December 11, 2017.
proposed rule changes. See Letter from Christina NMS Plan’’ or ‘‘Plan’’).12 SRO files this
On May 23, 2017, Bats EDGX Crouch, Smart Ltd., to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, proposed rule change (the
Exchange, Inc., n/k/a Cboe EDGX Commission (dated June 5, 2017), available at: ‘‘Amendment’’) to amend the Original
Exchange, Inc., (‘‘Exchange’’ or ‘‘SRO’’) https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-batsbzx-2017-38/
batsbzx201738-1785545-153152.htm. Proposal. This Amendment replaces the
filed with the Securities and Exchange 5 See Letter from CAT NMS Plan Participants to Original Proposal in its entirety, and
Commission (‘‘Commission’’), pursuant Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission (dated June also describes the changes from the
to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities 29, 2017), available at: https://www.sec.gov/ Original Proposal.
Exchange Act of 1934 (‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule comments/sr-batsbyx-2017-11/batsbyx201711- The text of the proposed rule change
1832632-154584.pdf.
19b–4 thereunder,2 a proposed rule 6 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81067 is available at the Exchange’s website at
change to adopt a fee schedule to (June 30, 2017), 82 FR 31656 (July 7, 2017). www.markets.cboe.com, at the principal
establish the fees for Industry Members 7 See Letter from W. Hardy Callcott, Partner, office of the Exchange, and at the
related to the National Market System Sidley Austin LLP, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission’s Public Reference Room.
Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Commission (dated July 27, 2017), available at:
Trail (‘‘CAT NMS Plan’’). The proposed https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-batsbyx-2017-11/ II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
batsbyx201711-2148338-157737.pdf; Letter from Statement of the Purpose of, and
rule change was published in the Kevin Coleman, General Counsel and Chief
Federal Register for comment on June 6, Compliance Officer, Belvedere Trading LLC, to
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule
Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission (dated July Change
2017.3 The Commission received seven
28, 2017), available at: https://www.sec.gov/ In its filing with the Commission, the
comment letters on the proposed rule comments/sr-batsbyx-2017-11/batsbyx201711-
change,4 and a response to comments 2148360-157740.pdf; Letter from Joanna Mallers, Exchange included statements
Secretary, FIA Principal Traders Group, to Brent J. concerning the purpose of and basis for
99 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). Fields, Secretary, Commission (dated July 28, 2017),
1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr- 9 Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change
2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.
batsbyx-2017-11/batsbyx201711-2151228- replaces and supersedes the Original Proposal in its
157745.pdf; Letter from Theodore R. Lazo, entirety.
3 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80821
Managing Director and Associate General Counsel, 10 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82049
(May 31, 2017), 82 FR 26177 (June 6, 2017) https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-batsbyx-2017-11/
(‘‘Original Proposal’’). batsbyx201711-2150977-157744.pdf; Letter from (November 9, 2017), 82 FR 53549 (November 16,
4 Since the CAT NMS Plan Participants’ proposed
Stuart J. Kaswell, Executive Vice President and 2017).
11 The Commission notes that on December 7,
rule changes to adopt fees to be charged to Industry Managing Director, General Counsel, Managed
Members to fund the consolidated audit trail are Funds Association, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, 2017, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 2 to the
substantively identical, the Commission is Commission (dated July 28, 2017), available at: proposed rule change. Amendment No. 2 is a partial
considering all comments received on the proposed https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-batsbyx-2017-11/ amendment to the proposed rule change, as
rule changes regardless of the comment file to batsbyx201711-2150818-157743.pdf; Letter from amended by Amendment No. 1. Amendment No. 2
which they were submitted. See text accompanying John Kinahan, Chief Executive Officer, Group One proposes to change the parenthetical regarding the
notes 13–16 infra, for a list of the CAT NMS Plan Trading, L.P., to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, OTC Equity Securities discount in paragraph (b)(2)
Participants. See Letter from Theodore R. Lazo, Commission (dated August 10, 2017), available at: of the proposed fee schedule from ‘‘with a discount
Managing Director and Associate General Counsel, https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-finra-2017-011/ for Equity ATSs exclusively trading OTC Equity
Securities Industry and Financial Markets finra2017011-2214568-160619.pdf; Letter from Securities based on the average shares per trade
Association, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Joseph Molluso, Executive Vice President and CFO, ratio between NMS Stocks and OTC Equity
Commission (dated June 6, 2017), available at: Virtu Financial, to Brent J. Fields, Commission Securities’’ to ‘‘with a discount for OTC Equity
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-batsbzx-2017-38/ (dated August 18, 2017), available at: https:// Securities market share of Equity ATSs trading OTC
batsbzx201738-1788188-153228.pdf; Letter from www.sec.gov/comments/sr-finra-2017-011/ Equity Securities based on the average shares per
Patricia L. Cerny and Steven O’Malley, Compliance finra2017011-2238648-160830.pdf. trade ratio between NMS Stocks and OTC Equity
Consultants, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, 8 See Letter from Michael Simon, Chair, CAT Securities.’’ See Securities Exchange Act Release
Commission (dated June 12, 2017), available at: NMS Plan Operating Committee, to Brent J. Fields, No. 82277 (December 11, 2017).
https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-cboe-2017-040/ Commission, Secretary (dated November 2, 2017), 12 Unless otherwise specified, capitalized terms
cboe2017040-1799253-153675.pdf; Letter from available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr- used in this fee filing are defined as set forth herein,
Daniel Zinn, General Counsel, OTC Markets Group batsbyx-2017-11/batsbyx201711-2674608- the CAT Compliance Rule Series, in the CAT NMS
Inc., to Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary, 161412.pdf. Plan, or the Original Proposal.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 23:42 Dec 14, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00179 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\15DEN1.SGM 15DEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_59993/page/1.svg)
![59756 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 240 / Friday, December 15, 2017 / Notices
proposed funding model was In addition, reviews from varying smaller fee for the CAT.37
‘‘reasonable’’ 29 and ‘‘reflects a time periods of current broker-dealer Correspondingly, Execution Venues
reasonable exercise of the Participants’ order and trading data submitted under with the highest market shares will be
funding authority to recover the existing reporting requirements showed in the top tier, and will be charged
Participants’ costs related to the a wide range in activity among broker- higher fees. Execution Venues with the
CAT.’’ 30 dealers, with a number of broker-dealers lowest market shares will be in the
More specifically, the Commission submitting fewer than 1,000 orders per lowest tier and will be assessed smaller
stated in approving the CAT NMS Plan month and other broker-dealers fees for the CAT.38
that ‘‘[t]he Commission believes that the submitting millions and even billions of The CAT NMS Plan states that
proposed funding model is reasonably orders in the same period. Accordingly, Industry Members (other than Execution
designed to allocate the costs of the CAT the CAT NMS Plan includes a tiered Venue ATSs) will be charged based on
between the Participants and Industry approach to fees. The tiered approach message traffic, and that Execution
Members.’’ 31 The Commission further helps ensure that fees are equitably Venues will be charged based on market
noted the following: allocated among similarly situated CAT share.39 While there are multiple factors
The Commission believes that the Reporters and furthers the goal of that contribute to the cost of building,
proposed funding model reflects a reasonable lessening the impact on smaller firms.34 maintaining and using the CAT,
exercise of the Participants’ funding In addition, in choosing a tiered fee processing and storage of incoming
authority to recover the Participants’ costs structure, the Operating Committee message traffic is one of the most
related to the CAT. The CAT is a regulatory concluded that the variety of benefits significant cost drivers for the CAT.40
facility jointly owned by the Participants and Thus, the CAT NMS Plan provides that
. . . the Exchange Act specifically permits offered by a tiered fee structure,
discussed above, outweighed the fact the fees payable by Industry Members
the Participants to charge their members fees
to fund their self-regulatory obligations. The that CAT Reporters in any particular tier (other than Execution Venue ATSs) will
Commission further believes that the would pay different rates per message be based on the message traffic
proposed funding model is designed to traffic order event or per market share generated by such Industry Member.41
impose fees reasonably related to the (e.g., an Industry Member with the In contrast to Industry Members,
Participants’ self-regulatory obligations largest amount of message traffic in one which determine the degree to which
because the fees would be directly associated they produce message traffic that
with the costs of establishing and
tier would pay a smaller amount per
order event than an Industry Member in constitute CAT Reportable Events, the
maintaining the CAT, and not unrelated SRO CAT Reportable Events of the Execution
services.32 the same tier with the least amount of
message traffic). Such variation is the Venues are largely derivative of
Accordingly, the funding model quotations and orders received from
natural result of a tiered fee structure.35
approved by the Operating Committee Industry Members that they are required
The Operating Committee considered
imposes fees on both Participants and to display. The business model for
several approaches to developing a
Industry Members. Execution Venues (other than FINRA),
As discussed in Appendix C of the tiered model, including defining fee
tiers based on such factors as size of however, is focused on executions in
CAT NMS Plan, in developing and their markets. As a result, the Operating
approving the approved funding model, firm, message traffic or trading dollar
volume. After analyzing the alternatives, Committee believes that it is more
the Operating Committee considered the equitable to charge Execution Venues
advantages and disadvantages of a it was concluded that the tiering should
be based on message traffic which will based on their market share rather than
variety of alternative funding and cost their message traffic.
allocation models before selecting the reflect the relative impact of CAT
Focusing on message traffic would
proposed model.33 After analyzing the Reporters on the CAT System.
make it more difficult to draw
various alternatives, the Operating Accordingly, the CAT NMS Plan distinctions between large and small
Committee determined that the contemplates that costs will be allocated Execution Venues and, in particular,
proposed tiered, fixed fee funding across the CAT Reporters on a tiered between large and small options
model provides a variety of advantages basis in order to allocate higher costs to exchanges. For instance, the Operating
in comparison to the alternatives. those CAT Reporters that contribute Committee analyzed the message traffic
In particular, the fixed fee model, as more to the costs of creating, of Execution Venues and Industry
opposed to a variable fee model, implementing and maintaining the CAT Members for the period of April 2017 to
provides transparency, ease of and lower costs to those that contribute June 2017 and placed all CAT Reporters
calculation, ease of billing and other less.36 The fees to be assessed at each into a nine-tier framework (i.e., a single
administrative functions, and tier are calculated so as to recoup a tier may include both Execution Venues
predictability of a fixed fee. Such factors proportion of costs appropriate to the and Industry Members). The Operating
are crucial to estimating a reliable message traffic or market share (as Committee’s analysis found that the
revenue stream for the Company and for applicable) from CAT Reporters in each majority of exchanges (15 total) were
permitting CAT Reporters to reasonably tier. Therefore, Industry Members grouped in Tiers 1 and 2. Moreover,
predict their payment obligations for generating the most message traffic will virtually all of the options exchanges
budgeting purposes. Additionally, a be in the higher tiers, and will be were in Tiers 1 and 2.42 Given the
strictly variable or metered funding charged a higher fee. Industry Members resulting concentration of options
model based on message volume would with lower levels of message traffic will
be far more likely to affect market be in lower tiers and will be assessed a 37 Id.
behavior and place an inappropriate
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
38 Id.
burden on competition. 34 Section B.7, Appendix C of the CAT NMS Plan, 39 Section 11.3(a) and (b) of the CAT NMS Plan.
Approval Order at 85006. 40 Section B.7, Appendix C of the CAT NMS Plan,
29 Approval Order at 84796. 35 Moreover, as the SEC noted in approving the Approval Order at 85005.
30 Id.at 84794. CAT NMS Plan, ‘‘[t]he Participants also have 41 Section 11.3(b) of the CAT NMS Plan.
31 Id. at 84795. offered a reasonable basis for establishing a funding 42 The Operating Committee notes that this
32 Id. at 84794. model based on broad tiers, in that it may be easier analysis did not place MIAX PEARL in Tier 1 or
33 Section B.7, Appendix C of the CAT NMS Plan, to implement.’’ Approval Order at 84796. Tier 2 since the exchange commenced trading on
Approval Order at 85006. 36 Approval Order at 85005. February 6, 2017.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 23:42 Dec 14, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00182 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\15DEN1.SGM 15DEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_59993/page/4.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 240 / Friday, December 15, 2017 / Notices 59757
exchanges in Tiers 1 and 2 under this Participants as profits.45 To ensure that Finally, by adopting a CAT-specific
approach, the analysis shows that a the Participants’ operation of the CAT fee, the Operating Committee will be
funding model for Execution Venues will not contribute to the funding of fully transparent regarding the costs of
based on message traffic would make it their other operations, Section 11.1(c) of the CAT. Charging a general regulatory
more difficult to distinguish between the CAT NMS Plan specifically states fee, which would be used to cover CAT
large and small options exchanges, as that ‘‘[a]ny surplus of the Company’s costs as well as other regulatory costs,
compared to the proposed fee approach revenues over its expenses shall be would be less transparent than the
that bases fees for Execution Venues on treated as an operational reserve to selected approach of charging a fee
market share. offset future fees.’’ In addition, as set designated to cover CAT costs only.
The CAT NMS Plan’s funding model forth in Article VIII of the CAT NMS A full description of the funding
also is structured to avoid a ‘‘reduction Plan, the Company ‘‘intends to operate model is set forth below. This
in market quality.’’ 43 The tiered, fixed in a manner such that it qualifies as a description includes the framework for
fee funding model is designed to limit ‘business league’ within the meaning of the funding model as set forth in the
the disincentives to providing liquidity Section 501(c)(6) of the [Internal CAT NMS Plan, as well as the details as
to the market. For example, the Revenue] Code.’’ To qualify as a to how the funding model will be
Operating Committee expects that a firm business league, an organization must applied in practice, including the
that has a large volume of quotes would ‘‘not [be] organized for profit and no number of fee tiers and the applicable
likely be categorized in one of the upper part of the net earnings of [the fees for each tier. The complete funding
tiers, and would not be assessed a fee organization can] inure[ ] to the benefit model is described below, including
for this traffic directly as they would of any private shareholder or those fees that are to be paid by the
under a more directly metered model. In individual.’’ 46 As the SEC stated when Participants. The proposed
contrast, strictly variable or metered approving the CAT NMS Plan, ‘‘the Consolidated Audit Trail Funding Fees,
funding models based on message Commission believes that the however, do not apply to the
volume are far more likely to affect Company’s application for Section Participants; the proposed Consolidated
market behavior. In approving the CAT 501(c)(6) business league status Audit Trail Funding Fees only apply to
NMS Plan, the SEC stated that ‘‘[t]he addresses issues raised by commenters Industry Members. The CAT Fees for
Participants also offered a reasonable about the Plan’s proposed allocation of Participants will be imposed separately
basis for establishing a funding model profit and loss by mitigating concerns by the Operating Committee pursuant to
based on broad tiers, in that it may be that the Company’s earnings could be the CAT NMS Plan.
. . . less likely to have an incremental used to benefit individual (A) Funding Principles
deterrent effect on liquidity Participants.’’ 47 The Internal Revenue
provision.’’ 44 Service recently has determined that the Section 11.2 of the CAT NMS Plan
The funding model also is structured Company is exempt from federal income sets forth the principles that the
to avoid a reduction market quality tax under Section 501(c)(6) of the Operating Committee applied in
because it discounts Options Market Internal Revenue Code. establishing the funding for the
Maker and equity market maker quotes The funding model also is structured Company. The Operating Committee has
when calculating message traffic for to take into account distinctions in the considered these funding principles as
Options Market Makers and equity securities trading operations of well as the other funding requirements
market makers, respectively. As Participants and Industry Members. For set forth in the CAT NMS Plan and in
discussed in more detail below, the example, the Operating Committee Rule 613 in developing the proposed
Operating Committee determined to designed the model to address the funding model. The following are the
discount the Options Market Maker different trading characteristics in the funding principles in Section 11.2 of the
quotes by the trade to quote ratio for OTC Equity Securities market. CAT NMS Plan:
options when calculating message traffic Specifically, the Operating Committee • To create transparent, predictable
for Options Market Makers. Similarly, to proposes to discount the market share of revenue streams for the Company that
avoid disincentives to quoting behavior Execution Venue ATSs exclusively are aligned with the anticipated costs to
on the equities side as well, the trading OTC Equity Securities as well as build, operate and administer the CAT
Operating Committee determined to the market share of the FINRA ORF by and other costs of the Company;
discount equity market maker quotes by the average shares per trade ratio • To establish an allocation of the
the trade to quote ratio for equities between NMS Stocks and OTC Equity Company’s related costs among
when calculating message traffic for Securities to adjust for the greater Participants and Industry Members that
equity market makers. The proposed number of shares being traded in the is consistent with the Exchange Act,
discounts recognize the value of the OTC Equity Securities market, which is taking into account the timeline for
market makers’ quoting activity to the generally a function of a lower per share implementation of the CAT and
market as a whole. price for OTC Equity Securities when distinctions in the securities trading
The CAT NMS Plan is further compared to NMS Stocks. In addition, operations of Participants and Industry
structured to avoid potential conflicts the Operating Committee also proposes Members and their relative impact upon
raised by the Operating Committee to discount Options Market Maker and the Company’s resources and
determining fees applicable to its own equity market maker message traffic in operations;
members—the Participants. First, the recognition of their role in the securities • To establish a tiered fee structure in
Company will operate on a ‘‘break- markets. Furthermore, the funding which the fees charged to: (i) CAT
Reporters that are Execution Venues,
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
even’’ basis, with fees imposed to cover model creates separate tiers for Equity
costs and an appropriate reserve. Any and Options Execution Venues due to including ATSs, are based upon the
surpluses will be treated as an the different trading characteristics of level of market share; (ii) Industry
operational reserve to offset future fees those markets. Members’ non-ATS activities are based
and will not be distributed to the upon message traffic; (iii) the CAT
45 Id.
at 84792. Reporters with the most CAT-related
43 Section
11.2(e) of the CAT NMS Plan. 46 26U.S.C. 501(c)(6). activity (measured by market share and/
44 Approval Order at 84796. 47 Approval Order at 84793. or message traffic, as applicable) are
VerDate Sep<11>2014 23:42 Dec 14, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00183 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\15DEN1.SGM 15DEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_59993/page/5.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 240 / Friday, December 15, 2017 / Notices 59767
TRACEABILITY OF TOTAL CAT FEES—Continued
Estimated CAT
Industry Total
Type number of Fees paid
Member tier recovery
members annually
Tier 7 ............. 914 420 383,880
Total .......................................................................................................... 1,541 ........................ 38,032,248
Equity Execution Venues ................................................................................ Tier 1 ............. 13 324,192 4,214,496
Tier 2 ............. 22 148,248 3,261,456
Tier 3 ............. 12 84,504 1,014,048
Tier 4 ............. 5 516 2,580
Total .......................................................................................................... 52 ........................ 8,492,580
Options Execution Venues .............................................................................. Tier 1 ............. 11 325,524 3,580,764
Tier 2 ............. 4 150,516 602,064
Total .......................................................................................................... 15 ........................ 4,182,828
Total .................................................................................................. ........................ ........................ 50,700,000
Excess 57 ........................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 7,656
(F) Comparability of Fees Execution Venues (including Furthermore, any surplus of the
The funding principles require a Participants), will be invoiced as Company’s revenues over its expenses is
funding model in which the fees promptly as possible following the latest to be included within the operational
charged to the CAT Reporters with the of the operative date of the Consolidated reserve to offset future fees. The
most CAT-related activity (measured by Audit Trail Funding Fees for each of the limitations on more frequent changes to
Participants and the operative date of the fee, however, are intended to
market share and/or message traffic, as
the Plan amendment adopting CAT Fees provide budgeting certainty for the CAT
applicable) are generally comparable
for Participants. Reporters and the Company.59 To the
(where, for these comparability
extent that the Operating Committee
purposes, the tiered fee structure takes (H) Changes to Fee Levels and Tiers approves changes to the number of tiers
into consideration affiliations between
in the funding model or the fees
or among CAT Reporters, whether Section 11.3(d) of the CAT NMS Plan
assigned to each tier, then the Operating
Execution Venue and/or Industry states that ‘‘[t]he Operating Committee Committee will file such changes with
Members). Accordingly, in creating the shall review such fee schedule on at the SEC pursuant to Rule 608 of the
model, the Operating Committee sought least an annual basis and shall make any Exchange Act, and the Participants will
to establish comparable fees for the top changes to such fee schedule that it file such changes with the SEC pursuant
tier of Industry Members (other than deems appropriate. The Operating to Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act and
Execution Venue ATSs), Equity Committee is authorized to review such Rule 19b–4 thereunder, and any such
Execution Venues and Options fee schedule on a more regular basis, but changes will become effective in
Execution Venues. Specifically, each shall not make any changes on more accordance with the requirements of
Tier 1 CAT Reporter would be required than a semi-annual basis unless, those provisions.
to pay a quarterly fee of approximately pursuant to a Supermajority Vote, the
$81,000. Operating Committee concludes that (I) Initial and Periodic Tier
such change is necessary for the Reassignments
(G) Billing Onset
adequate funding of the Company.’’ The Operating Committee has
Under Section 11.1(c) of the CAT With such reviews, the Operating determined to calculate fee tiers every
NMS Plan, to fund the development and Committee will review the distribution three months based on market share or
implementation of the CAT, the of Industry Members and Execution message traffic, as applicable, from the
Company shall time the imposition and Venues across tiers, and make any prior three months. For the initial tier
collection of all fees on Participants and updates to the percentage of CAT assignments, the Company will
Industry Members in a manner Reporters allocated to each tier as may calculate the relevant tier for each CAT
reasonably related to the timing when be necessary. In addition, the reviews Reporter using the three months of data
the Company expects to incur such will evaluate the estimated ongoing prior to the commencement date. As
development and implementation costs. CAT costs and the level of the operating with the initial tier assignment, for the
The Company is currently incurring reserve. To the extent that the total CAT tri-monthly reassignments, the
such development and implementation costs decrease, the fees would be Company will calculate the relevant tier
costs and will continue to do so prior adjusted downward, and to the extent using the three months of data prior to
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
to the commencement of CAT reporting that the total CAT costs increase, the the relevant tri-monthly date. Any
and thereafter. In accordance with the fees would be adjusted upward.58 movement of CAT Reporters between
CAT NMS Plan, all CAT Reporters, tiers will not change the criteria for each
including both Industry Members and 58 The CAT Fees are designed to recover the costs
associated with the CAT. Accordingly, CAT Fees to the retirement of existing regulatory systems,
57 The amount in excess of the total CAT costs would not be affected by increases or decreases in such as OATS.
will contribute to the gradual accumulation of the other non-CAT expenses incurred by the 59 Section B.7, Appendix C of the CAT NMS Plan,
target operating reserve of $11.425 million. Participants, such as any changes in costs related Approval Order at 85006.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 23:42 Dec 14, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00193 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\15DEN1.SGM 15DEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_59993/page/15.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 240 / Friday, December 15, 2017 / Notices 59769
forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS for Equity ATSs exclusively trading invoices from each Participant of which
Plan. Paragraph (a)(5) defines an OTC Equity Securities based on the it is a member. The Industry Members
‘‘Equity Execution Venue’’ as an average shares per trade ratio between will pay the CAT Fees to the Company
Execution Venue that trades NMS NMS Stocks and OTC Equity Securities) via the centralized system for the
Stocks and/or OTC Equity Securities. for the three months prior to the collection of CAT fees established by
(B) Fee Schedule quarterly tier calculation day and the Company.61
assigning each Equity ATS to a tier
SRO proposes to impose the CAT Fees Section 11.4 of the CAT NMS Plan
based on that ranking and predefined
applicable to its Industry Members also states that Participants shall require
Equity Execution Venue percentages.
through paragraph (b) of the proposed each Industry Member to pay all
The Equity ATSs with the higher total
fee schedule. Paragraph (b)(1) of the applicable authorized CAT Fees within
quarterly market share will be ranked in
proposed fee schedule sets forth the Tier 1, and the Equity ATSs with the thirty days after receipt of an invoice or
CAT Fees applicable to Industry lowest quarterly market share will be other notice indicating payment is due
Members other than Equity ATSs. ranked in Tier 4. Specifically, paragraph (unless a longer payment period is
Specifically, paragraph (b)(1) states that (b)(2) states that, each quarter, each otherwise indicated). Section 11.4
the Company will assign each Industry Equity ATS shall pay the following CAT further states that, if an Industry
Member (other than an Equity ATS) to Fee corresponding to the tier assigned Member fails to pay any such fee when
a fee tier once every quarter, where such by the Company for such Equity ATS for due, such Industry Member shall pay
tier assignment is calculated by ranking that quarter: interest on the outstanding balance from
each Industry Member based on its total such due date until such fee is paid at
message traffic (with discounts for Percentage a per annum rate equal to the lesser of:
equity market maker quotes and Options Tier of Equity Quarterly (i) The Prime Rate plus 300 basis points;
Market Maker quotes based on the trade Execution CAT Fee or (ii) the maximum rate permitted by
to quote ratio for equities and options, Venues
applicable law. Therefore, in accordance
respectively) for the three months prior 1 ................ 25.00 $81,048 with Section 11.4 of the CAT NMS Plan,
to the quarterly tier calculation day and 2 ................ 42.00 37,062 SRO proposed to adopt paragraph (c)(2)
assigning each Industry Member to a tier 3 ................ 23.00 21,126 of the proposed fee schedule. Paragraph
based on that ranking and predefined 4 ................ 10.00 129 (c)(2) of the proposed fee schedule states
Industry Member percentages. The that each Industry Member shall pay
Industry Members with the highest total (C) Timing and Manner of Payment CAT Fees within thirty days after
quarterly message traffic will be ranked receipt of an invoice or other notice
Section 11.4 of the CAT NMS Plan
in Tier 1, and the Industry Members indicating payment is due (unless a
states that the Operating Committee
with lowest quarterly message traffic longer payment period is otherwise
shall establish a system for the
will be ranked in Tier 7. Each quarter, indicated). If an Industry Member fails
collection of fees authorized under the
each Industry Member (other than an to pay any such fee when due, such
CAT NMS Plan. The Operating
Equity ATS) shall pay the following Industry Member shall pay interest on
Committee may include such collection
CAT Fee corresponding to the tier the outstanding balance from such due
responsibility as a function of the Plan
assigned by the Company for such date until such fee is paid at a per
Processor or another administrator. To
Industry Member for that quarter: annum rate equal to the lesser of: (i) the
implement the payment process to be
Percentage adopted by the Operating Committee, Prime Rate plus 300 basis points; or (ii)
Quarterly paragraph (c)(1) of the proposed fee the maximum rate permitted by
Tier of Industry CAT Fee
Members schedule states that the Company will applicable law.
provide each Industry Member with one
1 ................ 0.900 $81,483 invoice each quarter for its CAT Fees as (D) Sunset Provision
2 ................ 2.150 59,055
3 ................ 2.800 40,899
determined pursuant to paragraph (b) of The Operating Committee has
4 ................ 7.750 25,566 the proposed fee schedule, regardless of determined to require that the CAT Fees
5 ................ 8.300 7,428 whether the Industry Member is a automatically sunset two years from the
6 ................ 18.800 1,968 member of multiple self-regulatory operative date of the CAT NMS Plan
7 ................ 59.300 105 organizations. Paragraph (c)(1) further amendment adopting CAT Fees for
states that each Industry Member will Participants. Accordingly, SRO
Paragraph (b)(2) of the proposed fee pay its CAT Fees to the Company via
schedule sets forth the CAT Fees proposes paragraph (d) of the fee
the centralized system for the collection schedule, which states that ‘‘[t]hese
applicable to Equity ATSs.60 These are of CAT Fees established by the
the same fees that Participants that trade Consolidated Audit Trailing Funding
Company in the manner prescribed by
NMS Stocks and/or OTC Equity Fees will automatically expire two years
the Company. SRO will provide
Securities will pay. Specifically, after the operative date of the
Industry Members with details
paragraph (b)(2) states that the Company amendment of the CAT NMS Plan that
regarding the manner of payment of
will assign each Equity ATS to a fee tier adopts CAT fees for the Participants.’’
CAT Fees by Regulatory Circular.
once every quarter, where such tier All CAT fees will be billed and (4) Changes to Prior CAT Fee Plan
assignment is calculated by ranking collected centrally through the Amendment
each Equity Execution Venue based on Company via the Plan Processor.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
its total market share of NMS Stocks and Although each Participant will adopt its The proposed funding model set forth
OTC Equity Securities (with a discount own fee schedule regarding CAT Fees, in this Amendment is a revised version
no CAT Fees or portion thereof will be of the Original Proposal. The
60 Note that no fee schedule is provided for
collected by the individual Participants. Commission received a number of
Execution Venue ATSs that execute transactions in comment letters in response to the
Listed Options, as no such Execution Venue ATSs
Each Industry Member will receive from
currently exist due to trading restrictions related to the Company one invoice for its
Listed Options. applicable CAT fees, not separate 61 Section 11.4 of the CAT NMS Plan.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 23:42 Dec 14, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00195 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\15DEN1.SGM 15DEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_59993/page/17.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 240 / Friday, December 15, 2017 / Notices 59773
ATSs) from nine to seven; (2) change the comparability at the individual entity level of fee comparability at the
allocation of CAT costs between Equity level for the largest CAT Reporters, individual entity level for the largest
Execution Venues and Options while both providing logical breaks in CAT Reporters, while still providing for
Execution Venues from 75%/25% to tiering for Industry Members with appropriate fee levels across all tiers for
67%/33%; and (3) adjust tier different levels of message traffic and a all CAT Reporters.
percentages and recovery allocations for sufficient number of tiers to provide for
(iii) Allocation of Costs Between
Equity Execution Venues, Options the full spectrum of different levels of
Execution Venues and Industry message traffic for all Industry Execution Venues and Industry
Members (other than Execution Venue Members. Members
ATSs). With these changes, the The Operating Committee determined
(ii) Allocation of CAT Costs Between to allocate 25% of CAT costs to
proposed funding model provides fee
Equity and Options Execution Venues Execution Venues and 75% to Industry
comparability for the largest individual
entities, with the largest Industry The Operating Committee also Members (other than Execution Venue
Members (other than Execution Venue determined to adjust the allocation of ATSs), as it had in the Original
ATSs), Equity Execution Venues and CAT costs between Equity Execution Proposal. The Operating Committee
Options Execution Venues each paying Venues and Options Execution Venues determined that this 75%/25%
a CAT Fee of approximately $81,000 to enhance comparability at the allocation, along with the other changes
each quarter. individual entity level. In the Original proposed above, led to the most
Proposal, 75% of Execution Venue CAT comparable fees for the largest Equity
(i) Number of Industry Member Tiers costs were allocated to Equity Execution Execution Venues, Options Execution
In the Original Proposal, the proposed Venues, and 25% of Execution Venue Venues and Industry Members (other
funding model had nine tiers for CAT costs were allocated to Options than Execution Venue ATSs). The
Industry Members (other than Execution Execution Venues. To achieve the goal largest Equity Execution Venues,
Venue ATSs). The Operating Committee of increased comparability at the Options Execution Venues and Industry
determined that reducing the number of individual entity level, the Operating Members (other than Execution Venue
tiers from nine tiers to seven tiers (and Committee analyzed a range of ATSs) would each pay a quarterly CAT
adjusting the predefined Industry alternative splits for revenue recovery Fee of approximately $81,000.
Member Percentages as well) continues between Equity and Options Execution As a preliminary matter, the
to provide a fair allocation of fees Venues, along with other changes in the Operating Committee determined that it
among Industry Members and proposed funding model. Based on this is appropriate to allocate most of the
appropriately distinguishes between analysis, the Operating Committee costs to create, implement and maintain
Industry Members with differing levels determined to allocate 67 percent of the CAT to Industry Members for
of message traffic. In reaching this Execution Venue costs recovered to several reasons. First, there are many
conclusion, the Operating Committee Equity Execution Venues and 33 percent more broker-dealers expected to report
considered historical message traffic to Options Execution Venues. The to the CAT than Participants (i.e., 1,541
generated by Industry Members across Operating Committee determined that a broker-dealer CAT Reporters versus 22
all exchanges and as submitted to 67/33 allocation between Equity and Participants). Second, since most of the
FINRA’s OATS, and considered the Options Execution Venues enhances the costs to process CAT reportable data is
distribution of firms with similar levels level of fee comparability for the largest generated by Industry Members,
of message traffic, grouping together CAT Reporters. Specifically, the largest Industry Members could be expected to
firms with similar levels of message Equity and Options Execution Venues contribute toward such costs. Finally, as
traffic. Based on this, the Operating would pay a quarterly CAT Fee of noted by the SEC, the CAT
Committee determined that seven tiers approximately $81,000. ‘‘substantially enhance[s] the ability of
would group firms with similar levels of In developing the proposed allocation the SROs and the Commission to
message traffic, while also achieving of CAT costs between Equity and oversee today’s securities markets,’’ 75
greater comparability in the model for Options Execution Venues, the thereby benefitting all market
the individual CAT Reporters with the Operating Committee considered participants. After making this
greatest market share or message traffic. various different options for such determination, the Operating Committee
In developing the proposed seven tier allocation, including keeping the
analyzed several different cost
structure, the Operating Committee original 75%/25% allocation, as well as
allocations, as discussed further below,
considered remaining at nine tiers, as shifting to a 70%/30%, 67%/33%, or
and determined that an allocation where
well as reducing the number of tiers 57.75%/42.25% allocation. For each of
75% of the CAT costs should be borne
down to seven when considering how to the alternatives, the Operating
by the Industry Members (other than
address the concerns raised regarding Committee considered the effect each
Execution Venue ATSs) and 25%
comparability. For each of the allocation would have on the
should be paid by Execution Venues
alternatives, the Operating Committee assignment of various percentages of
was most appropriate and led to the
considered the assignment of various Equity Execution Venues to each tier as
greatest comparability of CAT Fees for
percentages of Industry Members to well as various percentages of Equity
the largest CAT Reporters.
each tier as well as various percentages Execution Venue recovery allocations
In developing the proposed allocation
of Industry Member recovery allocations for each alternative. Moreover, each of
of CAT costs between Execution Venues
for each alternative. Each of these these options was considered in the
and Industry Members (other than
options was considered in the context of context of the full model, as changes in
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Execution Venue ATSs), the Operating
its effects on the full funding model, as each variable in the model affect other
Committee considered various different
changes in each variable in the model variables in the model when allocating
options for such allocation, including
affect other variables in the model when the total CAT costs among CAT
keeping the original 75%/25%
allocating the total CAT costs among Reporters. The Operating Committee
CAT Reporters. The Operating determined that the 67%/33% 75 Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 67457 (Jul 18,
Committee determined that the seven allocation between Equity and Options 2012), 77 FR 45722, 45726 (Aug. 1, 2012) (‘‘Rule
tier alternative provided the most fee Execution Venues provided the greatest 613 Adopting Release’’).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 23:42 Dec 14, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00199 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\15DEN1.SGM 15DEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_59993/page/21.svg)
![59776 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 240 / Friday, December 15, 2017 / Notices
discussion of the proposed funding issuers, brokers and dealer, and Section comparable fees on similarly situated
model in the Plan, including the 6(b)(4) of the Act,90 which requires that CAT Reporters. For example, those with
expenses to be covered by the CAT Fees. SRO rules provide for the equitable a larger impact on the CAT (measured
In addition, the agreement between the allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and via message traffic or market share) pay
Company and the Plan Processor sets other charges among members and higher fees, whereas CAT Reporters
forth a comprehensive set of services to issuers and other persons using its with a smaller impact pay lower fees.
be provided to the Company with regard facilities. As discussed above, the SEC Correspondingly, the tiered structure
to the CAT. Such services include, approved the bifurcated, tiered, fixed lessens the impact on smaller CAT
without limitation: user support fee funding model in the CAT NMS Reporters by imposing smaller fees on
services (e.g., a help desk); tools to Plan, finding it was reasonable and that those CAT Reporters with less market
allow each CAT Reporter to monitor and it equitably allocated fees among share or message traffic. In addition, the
correct their submissions; a Participants and Industry Members. fee structure takes into consideration
comprehensive compliance program to SRO believes that the proposed tiered distinctions in securities trading
monitor CAT Reporters’ adherence to fees adopted pursuant to the funding operations of CAT Reporters, including
Rule 613; publication of detailed model approved by the SEC in the CAT ATSs trading OTC Equity Securities,
Technical Specifications for Industry NMS Plan are reasonable, equitably and equity and options market makers.
Members and Participants; performing allocated and not unfairly Moreover, SRO believes that the
data linkage functions; creating discriminatory. division of the total CAT costs between
comprehensive data security and SRO believes that this proposal is Industry Members and Execution
confidentiality safeguards; creating consistent with the Act because it Venues, and the division of the
query functionality for regulatory users implements, interprets or clarifies the Execution Venue portion of total costs
(i.e., the Participants, and the SEC and provisions of the Plan, and is designed between Equity and Options Execution
SEC staff); and performing billing and to assist SRO and its Industry Members Venues, is reasonably designed to
collection functions. The Operating in meeting regulatory obligations allocate CAT costs among CAT
Committee further notes that the pursuant to the Plan. In approving the Reporters. The 75%/25% division
services provided by the Plan Processor Plan, the SEC noted that the Plan ‘‘is between Industry Members (other than
and the costs related thereto were necessary and appropriate in the public Execution Venue ATSs) and Execution
subject to a bidding process. interest, for the protection of investors Venues maintains the greatest level of
and the maintenance of fair and orderly comparability across the funding model.
(K) Funding Authority markets, to remove impediments to, and For example, the cost allocation
Commenters also questioned the perfect the mechanism of a national establishes fees for the largest Industry
authority of the Operating Committee to market system, or is otherwise in Members (i.e., those Industry Members
impose CAT Fees on Industry furtherance of the purposes of the in Tiers 1) that are comparable to the
Members.86 The Participants previously Act.’’ 91 To the extent that this proposal largest Equity Execution Venues and
responded to this same comment in the implements, interprets or clarifies the Options Execution Venues (i.e., those
Plan Response Letter and the Fee Rule Plan and applies specific requirements Execution Venues in Tier 1).
Response Letter.87 As the Participants to Industry Members, SRO believes that Furthermore, the allocation of total CAT
previously noted, SEC Rule 613 this proposal furthers the objectives of cost recovery recognizes the difference
specifically contemplates broker-dealers the Plan, as identified by the SEC, and in the number of CAT Reporters that are
contributing to the funding of the CAT. is therefore consistent with the Act. Industry Members (other than Execution
In addition, as noted by the SEC, the SRO believes that the proposed tiered Venue ATSs) versus CAT Reporters that
CAT ‘‘substantially enhance[s] the fees are reasonable. First, the total CAT are Execution Venues. Similarly, the
ability of the SROs and the Commission Fees to be collected would be directly 67%/33% allocation between Equity
to oversee today’s securities markets,’’ 88 associated with the costs of establishing and Options Execution Venues also
thereby benefitting all market and maintaining the CAT, where such helps to provide fee comparability for
participants. Therefore, the Operating costs include Plan Processor costs and the largest CAT Reporters.
Committing continues to believe that it costs related to insurance, third party Finally, SRO believes that the
is equitable for both Participants and services and the operational reserve. proposed fees are reasonable because
Industry Members to contribute to The CAT Fees would not cover they would provide ease of calculation,
funding the cost of the CAT. Participant services unrelated to the ease of billing and other administrative
2. Statutory Basis CAT. In addition, any surplus CAT Fees functions, and predictability of a fixed
cannot be distributed to the individual fee. Such factors are crucial to
SRO believes that the proposed rule Participants; such surpluses must be estimating a reliable revenue stream for
change is consistent with the provisions used as a reserve to offset future fees. the Company and for permitting CAT
of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,89 which Given the direct relationship between Reporters to reasonably predict their
require, among other things, that the the fees and the CAT costs, SRO payment obligations for budgeting
SRO rules must be designed to prevent believes that the total level of the CAT purposes.
fraudulent and manipulative acts and Fees is reasonable.
practices, to promote just and equitable In addition, SRO believes that the (B) Self-Regulatory Organization’s
principles of trade, and, in general, to proposed CAT Fees are reasonably Statement on Burden on Competition
protect investors and the public interest, designed to allocate the total costs of the Section 6(b)(8) of the Act 92 require
and not designed to permit unfair
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
CAT equitably between and among the that SRO rules not impose any burden
discrimination between customers, Participants and Industry Members, and on competition that is not necessary or
are therefore not unfairly appropriate. SRO does not believe that
86 See Suspension Order at 31661–2; SIFMA
discriminatory. As discussed in detail the proposed rule change will result in
Letter at 2.
87 See Plan Response Letter at 9–10; Fee Rule above, the proposed tiered fees impose any burden on competition that is not
Response Letter at 3–4. necessary or appropriate in furtherance
88 Rule 613 Adopting Release at 45726. 90 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
89 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 91 Approval Order at 84697. 92 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 23:42 Dec 14, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00202 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\15DEN1.SGM 15DEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_59993/page/24.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 240 / Friday, December 15, 2017 / Notices 59777
of the purposes of the Act. SRO notes comparability. As discussed above, the (5) Any additional data analysis on
that the proposed rule change Operating Committee believes that the the allocation of CAT costs, including
implements provisions of the CAT NMS proposals address the competitive any existing supporting evidence.
Plan approved by the Commission, and concerns raised by commenters.
Comparability
is designed to assist SRO in meeting its
(C) Self-Regulatory Organization’s
regulatory obligations pursuant to the (6) Commenters’ views on the shift in
Statement on Comments on the
Plan. Similarly, all national securities the standard used to assess the
Proposed Rule Change Received From
exchanges and FINRA are proposing comparability of CAT Fees, with the
Members, Participants or Others
this proposed fee schedule to emphasis now on comparability of
implement the requirements of the CAT SRO has set forth responses to individual entities instead of affiliated
NMS Plan. Therefore, this is not a comments received regarding the entities, including views as to whether
competitive fee filing and, therefore, it Original Proposal in Section 3(a)(4) this shift is consistent with the funding
does not raise competition issues above. principle expressed in the CAT NMS
between and among the exchanges and III. Solicitation of Comments on Plan that requires the Operating
FINRA. Amendment No. 1 Committee to establish a fee structure in
Moreover, as previously described, which the fees charged to ‘‘CAT
SRO believes that the proposed rule Interested persons are invited to
submit written data, views, and Reporters with the most CAT-related
change fairly and equitably allocates activity (measured by market share and/
costs among CAT Reporters. In arguments concerning the foregoing,
including whether Amendment No. 1 is or message traffic, as applicable) are
particular, the proposed fee schedule is generally comparable (where, for these
structured to impose comparable fees on consistent with the Act. In particular,
the Commission seeks comment on the comparability purposes, the tiered fee
similarly situated CAT Reporters, and structure takes into consideration
lessen the impact on smaller CAT following:
affiliations between or among CAT
Reporters. CAT Reporters with similar Allocation of Costs Reporters, whether Execution Venues
levels of CAT activity will pay similar and/or Industry Members).’’ 96
fees. For example, Industry Members (1) Commenters’ views as to whether
(other than Execution Venue ATSs) with the allocation of CAT costs is consistent (7) Commenters’ views as to whether
higher levels of message traffic will pay with the funding principle expressed in the reduction in the number of tiers for
higher fees, and those with lower levels the CAT NMS Plan that requires the Industry Members (other than Execution
of message traffic will pay lower fees. Operating Committee to ‘‘avoid any Venue ATSs) from nine to seven, the
Similarly, Execution Venue ATSs and disincentives such as placing an revised allocation of CAT costs between
other Execution Venues with larger inappropriate burden on competition Equity Execution Venues and Options
market share will pay higher fees, and and a reduction in market quality.’’ 93 Execution Venues from a 75%/25%
(2) Commenters’ views as to whether split to a 67%/33% split, and the
those with lower levels of market share
the allocation of 25% of CAT costs to adjustment of all tier percentages and
will pay lower fees. Therefore, given
the Execution Venues (including all the recovery allocations achieves
that there is generally a relationship
Participants) and 75% to Industry comparability across individual entities,
between message traffic and/or market
Members, will incentivize or and whether these changes should have
share to the CAT Reporter’s size, smaller
disincentivize the Participants to resulted in a change to the allocation of
CAT Reporters generally pay less than
effectively and efficiently manage the 75% of total CAT costs to Industry
larger CAT Reporters. Accordingly, SRO
CAT costs incurred by the Participants Members (other than Execution Venue
does not believe that the CAT Fees
since they will only bear 25% of such ATSs) and 25% of such costs to
would have a disproportionate effect on
costs. Execution Venues.
smaller or larger CAT Reporters. In (3) Commenters’ views on the
addition, ATSs and exchanges will pay determination to allocate 75% of all Discounts
the same fees based on market share. costs incurred by the Participants from
Therefore, SRO does not believe that the (8) Commenters’ views as to whether
November 21, 2016 to November 21, the discounts for options market-
fees will impose any burden on the 2017 to Industry Members (other than
competition between ATSs and makers, equities market-makers, and
Execution Venue ATSs), when such Equity ATSs trading OTC Equity
exchanges. Accordingly, SRO believes costs are development and build costs
that the proposed fees will minimize the Securities are clear, reasonable, and
and when Industry Member reporting is consistent with the funding principle
potential for adverse effects on scheduled to commence a year later,
competition between CAT Reporters in expressed in the CAT NMS Plan that
including views on whether such ‘‘fees,
the market. requires the Operating Committee to
costs and expenses . . . [are] fairly and
Furthermore, the tiered, fixed fee ‘‘avoid any disincentives such as
reasonably shared among the
funding model limits the disincentives placing an inappropriate burden on
Participants and Industry Members’’ in
to providing liquidity to the market. competition and a reduction in market
accordance with the CAT NMS Plan.94
Therefore, the proposed fees are (4) Commenters’ views on whether an quality,’’ 97 including views as to
structured to limit burdens on analysis of the ratio of the expected whether the discounts for market-
competitive quoting and other liquidity Industry Member-reported CAT makers limit any potential disincentives
provision in the market. messages to the expected SRO-reported to act as a market-maker and/or to
In addition, the Operating Committee provide liquidity due to CAT fees.
CAT messages should be the basis for
believes that the proposed changes to
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
determining the allocation of costs
the Original Proposal, as discussed message traffic from different regulatory data
between Industry Members and
above in detail, address certain sources, but the Commission did estimate the ratio
Execution Venues.95 of all SRO audit trail messages to OATS audit trail
competitive concerns raised by
messages to be 1.9431. See Securities Exchange Act
commenters, including concerns related 93 Section11.2(e) of the CAT NMS Plan. Release No. 77724 (April 27, 2016), 81 FR 30613,
to, among other things, smaller ATSs, 94 Section11.1(c) of the CAT NMS Plan. 30721 n.919 and accompanying text (May 17, 2016).
ATSs trading OTC Equity Securities, 95 The Notice for the CAT NMS Plan did not 96 Section 11.2(c) of the CAT NMS Plan.
market making quoting and fee provide a comprehensive count of audit trail 97 Section 11.2(e) of the CAT NMS Plan.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 23:42 Dec 14, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00203 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\15DEN1.SGM 15DEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_59993/page/25.svg)
![59778 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 240 / Friday, December 15, 2017 / Notices
Calculation of Costs and Imposition of (17) Commenters’ views as to whether Paper Comments
CAT Fees a tiered fee structure necessarily results
in less active tiers paying more per unit • Send paper comments in triplicate
(9) Commenters’ views as to whether to Secretary, Securities and Exchange
the amendment provides sufficient than those in more active tiers, thus
creating economies of scale, with Commission, 100 F Street NE,
information regarding the amount of Washington, DC 20549–1090.
costs incurred from November 21, 2016 supporting information if possible.
to November 21, 2017, particularly, how (18) Commenters’ views as to how the All submissions should refer to File
those costs were calculated, how those level of the fees for the least active tiers Number SR–BatsEDGX–2017–22. This
costs relate to the proposed CAT Fees, would or would not affect barriers to file number should be included on the
and how costs incurred after November entry. subject line if email is used. To help the
21, 2017 will be assessed upon Industry (19) Commenters’ views on whether Commission process and review your
Members and Execution Venues; the difference between the cost per unit comments more efficiently, please use
(10) Commenters’ views as to whether (messages or market share) in less active only one method. The Commission will
the timing of the imposition and tiers compared to the cost per unit in post all comments on the Commission’s
collection of CAT Fees on Execution more active tiers creates regulatory
internet website (http://www.sec.gov/
Venues and Industry Members is economies of scale that favor larger
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the
reasonably related to the timing of when competitors and, if so:
submission, all subsequent
the Company expects to incur such (a) How those economies of scale
amendments, all written statements
development and implementation compare to operational economies of
with respect to the proposed rule
costs.98 scale; and
change that are filed with the
(11) Commenters’ views on dividing (b) Whether those economies of scale
Commission, and all written
CAT costs equally among each of the reduce or increase the current
Participants, and then each Participant advantages enjoyed by larger communications relating to the
charging its own members as it deems competitors or otherwise alter the proposed rule change between the
appropriate, taking into consideration competitive landscape. Commission and any person, other than
the possibility of inconsistency in (20) Commenters’ views on whether those that may be withheld from the
charges, the potential for lack of the fees could affect competition public in accordance with the
transparency, and the impracticality of between and among national securities provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
multiple SROs submitting invoices for exchanges and FINRA, in light of the available for website viewing and
CAT charges. fact that implementation of the fees does printing in the Commission’s Public
not require the unanimous consent of all Reference Room, 100 F Street NE,
Burden on Competition and Barriers to Washington, DC 20549, on official
Entry such entities, and, specifically:
(a) Whether any of the national business days between the hours of
(12) Commenters’ views as to whether securities exchanges or FINRA are 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the
the allocation of 75% of CAT costs to disadvantaged by the fees; and filing also will be available for
Industry Members (other than Execution (b) If so, whether any such inspection and copying at the principal
Venue ATSs) imposes any burdens on disadvantages would be of a magnitude office of the Exchange. All comments
competition to Industry Members, that would alter the competitive received will be posted without change.
including views on what baseline landscape. Persons submitting comments are
competitive landscape the Commission cautioned that we do not redact or edit
(21) Commenters’ views on any
should consider when analyzing the personal identifying information from
potential burden imposed by the fees on
proposed allocation of CAT costs. comment submissions. You should
competitive quoting and other liquidity
(13) Commenters’ views on the
provision in the market, including, submit only information that you wish
burdens on competition, including the
specifically: to make available publicly. All
relevant markets and services and the
(a) Commenters’ views on the kinds of submissions should refer to File
impact of such burdens on the baseline
disincentives that discourage liquidity Number SR–BatsEDGX–2017–22, and
competitive landscape in those relevant
provision and/or disincentives that the should be submitted on or before
markets and services.
Commission should consider in its January 5, 2018.
(14) Commenters’ views on any
analysis;
potential burdens imposed by the fees For the Commission, by the Division of
on competition between and among (b) Commenters’ views as to whether Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated
CAT Reporters, including views on the fees could disincentivize the authority.99
which baseline markets and services the provision of liquidity; and
Robert W. Errett,
fees could have competitive effects on (c) Commenters’ views as to whether
the fees limit any disincentives to Deputy Secretary.
and whether the fees are designed to
provide liquidity. [FR Doc. 2017–27001 Filed 12–14–17; 8:45 am]
minimize such effects.
(15) Commenters’ general views on (22) Commenters’ views as to whether BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
the impact of the proposed fees on the amendment adequately responds to
economies of scale and barriers to entry. and/or addresses comments received on
(16) Commenters’ views on the related filings.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
baseline economies of scale and barriers Electronic Comments
to entry for Industry Members and
Execution Venues and the relevant • Use the Commission’s internet
markets and services over which these comment form (http://www.sec.gov/
economies of scale and barriers to entry rules/sro.shtml); or
exist. • Send an email to rule-comments@
sec.gov. Please include File Number SR–
98 Section 11.1(c) of the CAT NMS Plan. BatsEDGX–2017–22 on the subject line. 99 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 23:42 Dec 14, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00204 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\15DEN1.SGM 15DEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_59993/page/26.svg)
Document Created: 2017-12-15 03:37:10
Document Modified: 2017-12-15 03:37:10
| 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 59753 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR