Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Offer and Establish Fees for a New Exchange Service, EdgeRisk Gateways, 39386-39390 [2013-15662]
Download as PDF
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
39386
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 126 / Monday, July 1, 2013 / Notices
likely will, grow, and nothing in the
proposal inhibits additional wireless
vendors accessing or providing CME
data. Any or all of those vendors and
networks is an effective competitor to
the NASDAQ wireless offering. A
market data vendor could also induce
purchasers away from NASDAQ with an
ever-so-slightly slower but still valuable
product at a lower price. This variety of
price and speed attributes is an effective
constraint on NASDAQ’s pricing power.
Moreover, fiber optic networks are
themselves effective competitors for
wireless data. As stated above, 17
vendors currently offer connectivity to
the NASDAQ data center at various,
competing prices. Fiber optic networks
are more resilient than wireless
networks, which can be more
susceptible to severe weather affects;
this mature market for fiber optic
networks will remain attractive to many
clients who are more risk averse. While
some NASDAQ firms will opt for faster,
costlier wireless data, many others will
conclude that the price and speed
attributes of fiber optic data provide a
reasonable competitive alternative to
wireless data.
Competition between the Exchange
and competing trading venues will be
enhanced by allowing the Exchange to
offer its market participants a lower
latency connectivity option.
Competition among market participants
will also be supported by allowing small
and large participants the same price for
this lower latency connectivity.
The proposed rule change will
likewise enhance competition among
service providers offering connections
between market participants and the
data centers. The offering will expand
the multiple means of connectivity
available, allowing customers to
compare the benefits and costs of lower
latency transmission and related costs
with reference to numerous variables.
The Exchange, and presumably its
competitors, selects service providers on
a competitive basis in order to pass
along price advantages to its customers
to win and maintain their business. The
offering is consistent with the
Exchange’s own economic incentives to
facilitate as many market participants as
possible in connecting to its market.
spectrum reservation databases at the Federal
Communications Commission. While it is difficult
to state a definitive number of active vendors,
NASDAQ can state categorically that multiple
vendors currently provide wireless services such as
NASDAQ is proposing to provide via this proposed
rule change.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:38 Jun 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement on Comments on the
Proposed Rule Change Received From
Members, Participants, or Others
Written comments were neither
solicited nor received.
III. Date of Effectiveness of the
Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action
Because the foregoing proposed rule
change does not: (i) Significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant
burden on competition; and (iii) become
operative for 30 days from the date on
which it was filed, or such shorter time
as the Commission may designate, it has
become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii)[sic] of the Act 10 and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b–4
thereunder.11 At any time within 60
days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if
it appears to the Commission that such
action is necessary or appropriate in the
public interest, for the protection of
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act.
IV. Solicitation of Comments
Interested persons are invited to
submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing,
including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act.
Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:
Electronic Comments
• Use the Commission’s Internet
comment form (https://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml); or
• Send an email to rulecomments@sec.gov. Please include File
Number SR–NASDAQ–2013–084 on the
subject line.
Paper Comments
• Send paper comments in triplicate
to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary,
Securities and Exchange Commission,
100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549–1090.
All submissions should refer to File
Number SR–NASDAQ–2013–084. This
file number should be included on the
subject line if email is used. To help the
Commission process and review your
comments more efficiently, please use
only one method. The Commission will
post all comments on the Commission’s
Internet Web site (https://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the
submission, all subsequent
amendments, all written statements
with respect to the proposed rule
change that are filed with the
Commission, and all written
communications relating to the
proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than
those that may be withheld from the
public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission’s Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the
filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal
office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change;
the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR–
NASDAQ–2013–084 and should be
submitted on or before July 22, 2013.
For the Commission, by the Division of
Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated
authority.12
Kevin M. O’Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013–15624 Filed 6–28–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
[Release No. 34–69855; File No. SR–EDGX–
2013–21]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGX
Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change to Offer and Establish
Fees for a New Exchange Service,
EdgeRisk Gateways
June 25, 2013.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2
notice is hereby given that on June 14,
2013, EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the
‘‘Exchange’’ or ‘‘EDGX’’) filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission
(‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule
change as described in Items I and II
below, which items have been prepared
by the self-regulatory organization. The
Exchange has designated the proposed
rule change as it pertains to the fees for
EdgeRisk Gateway SM (the ‘‘Service’’) as
‘‘establishing or charging a due, fee or
12 17
10 15
U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(ii)[sic].
11 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6).
PO 00000
Frm 00136
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).
U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.
1 15
E:\FR\FM\01JYN1.SGM
01JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 126 / Monday, July 1, 2013 / Notices
other charge’’ under Section
19b(b)(3)(A) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b–
4(f)(2) thereunder,4 which renders the
proposal effective upon receipt of this
filing by the Commission. Additionally,
the Exchange has designated the
proposed rule change as it pertains to
the EdgeRisk Gateway service as
constituting a ‘‘non-controversial’’ rule
change under Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the
Act 5 and Rule 19b–4(f)(6) thereunder,6
which renders the proposal effective
upon receipt of this filing by the
Commission. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement of the Terms of Substance of
the Proposed Rule Change
The Exchange proposes to offer and
establish fees for the Service, a risk
management tool available to Members 7
and non-Members 8 of the Exchange. All
of the changes described herein are
applicable to EDGX Members. The text
of the proposed rule change is available
on the Exchange’s Internet Web site at
www.directedge.com, at the Exchange’s
principal office, and at the Public
Reference Room of the Commission.
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
self-regulatory organization included
statements concerning the purpose of,
and basis for, the proposed rule change
and discussed any comments it received
on the proposed rule change. The text
of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below.
The self-regulatory organization has
prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B and C below, of the most
significant aspects of such statements.
A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement of the Purpose of, and the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule
Change
1. Purpose
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Proposed Addition of EdgeRisk
Gateway Service
The Exchange currently offers logical
ports through which Members and nonMembers enter orders in the Exchange’s
3 15
U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
CFR 240.19b–4(f)(2).
5 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
6 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6).
7 As defined in Exchange Rule 1.5(n).
8 Specifically, service bureaus that act as a
conduit for orders entered by Members that are
their customers.
4 17
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:38 Jun 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
System,9 receive drop copies of orders
and execution messages, and receive
transmission of depth of book data
(‘‘Logical Ports’’). Each Logical Port is
assigned an access gateway that
performs order validations and manages
the cycle of a submitted order’s flow of
information to the System and back to
the Member. The access gateway
performs functions such as message
validation, acknowledgement
messaging, risk checks, matching engine
routing and execution messaging. The
Exchange currently assigns Members’
and non-Members’ Logical Ports to the
access gateways through a standard
method that accounts for the relative
message traffic expected over the
Logical Port as well as redundancy
requirements, where an access gateway
contains assigned Logical Ports for a
number of firms. The Exchange assigns
Member and non-Member sessions to
multiple access gateways so that the
failure of one gateway may not result in
the loss of access. On an ongoing basis,
the Exchange carefully monitors
incoming and outgoing traffic on all
access gateways to ensure that available
capacity is adequate to support
Exchange message traffic and installs
additional access gateways as needed to
ensure consistent capacity levels are
maintained. Although the Exchange
monitors traffic to ensure available
capacity, it cannot completely address
the effect of a trading disruption caused
by any Member or Non-Member.
In order to assist Members’ and nonMembers’ efforts to mitigate the impact
of trading disruptions, the Exchange
proposes to offer EdgeRisk Gateway as
a new, optional fee-based service that
provides Members and non-Members
the option to obtain dedicated primary
and backup access gateways in addition
to, or in place of, a shared access
gateway. Such Members and nonMembers that choose to obtain the
Service (each, a ‘‘Subscriber’’, and
collectively ‘‘Subscribers’’) would
benefit from enhanced risk mitigation,
as it would reduce the impact of another
firm’s message peaks or programming
mistakes on the Subscriber’s trading
experience. The Exchange notes that the
Commission recently expressed concern
regarding the potential ripple effects
caused by systems disruptions and
message traffic-related issues in
particular.10 The Service would mitigate
9 As
defined in Exchange Rule 1.5(cc).
e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No.
69077, 78 FR 18084, 18138 (March 25, 2013) (File
No. S7–01–13) (proposing Regulation SCI). In
particular, the Commission noted that systems
disruptions ‘‘could result in confusion about
whether orders are handled correctly or whether the
systems issue . . . could have caused capacity
10 See,
PO 00000
Frm 00137
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
39387
risks associated with disruptions caused
by excessive message traffic or
programming mistakes because the
Subscriber’s order flow on its dedicated
access gateways would be insulated
from such external disruptions.
Furthermore, by reducing the impact
that could arise from another firm, the
Service would provide improved
performance, as the performance and
capacity of the access gateways would
be determined solely by the Subscriber’s
order behavior.11
The Service would include dedicated
access to both a primary and a backup
access gateway to afford Subscribers
access redundancy. Accordingly, the
backup access gateway would function
as a safety measure, allowing
Subscribers to allocate their sessions
across both access gateways, protecting
Subscribers from a loss of access due to
a server malfunction. Additionally,
Subscribers may also request some of
their Logical Ports continue to be
assigned to shared access gateways for
further risk mitigation.
The Exchange notes that both gateway
options (shared and dedicated) would
offer full backup to the extent that a
Member or non-Member’s sessions are
spread across multiple gateways. The
Exchange further notes that it would, on
an ongoing basis, continue to carefully
monitor incoming and outgoing message
traffic across all access gateways (shared
and dedicated) so that available capacity
is adequate to support Exchange
message traffic. Additionally, the
Exchange would continue to install
additional shared access gateways as
needed so that consistent capacity levels
are maintained.
Both shared and dedicated gateway
options consist of identical hardware
and software with identical capacity
and capabilities, offering equivalent
latency under the same loads. To the
extent that the load on a Subscriber’s
dedicated gateway is less than the load
on a shared gateway, a Subscriber
normally would expect reduced
issues elsewhere.’’ Id. at 18138. The Commission
went on to warn that, ‘‘if an e-market-maker
handling 20 percent of message traffic experiences
a systems issue, the order flow could be diverted
elsewhere, including to entities that are unable to
handle the increase in message traffic, resulting in
a disruption to that entity’s systems as well.
Similarly, a broker-dealer accidentally could run a
test during live trading and flood markets with
message traffic such that those markets hit their
capacity limits, resulting in a disruption.’’ Id. at
18138, n. 336.
11 The Exchange notes that the capacity of any
system is finite and, as such, the risk associated
with access gateway capacity cannot be eliminated
entirely, as infrastructure components, the
Subscriber’s infrastructure, or the Subscriber’s own
trading patterns can affect the Subscriber’s overall
trading experience.
E:\FR\FM\01JYN1.SGM
01JYN1
39388
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 126 / Monday, July 1, 2013 / Notices
latencies in sending orders to the
Exchange through its dedicated
gateway. In this regard, the Service is
similar to other types of services
provided by self-regulatory
organizations that offer higher levels of
service for a higher fee.12 Other than the
possible reduced latencies due to
reduced gateway load, the Exchange
believes that there are no material
differences in terms of access to the
Exchange between Subscribers and
Members and non-Members that choose
not to subscribe to the Service.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Proposed Fees Applicable to the Service
The Exchange proposes to offer the
Service to Members and non-Members
for a monthly charge of $5,000. The
Exchange is offering this new pricing
model in order to keep pace with
changes in the industry and evolving
Member needs as new technologies
emerge and products continue to
develop and change. As previously
noted, purchase and use of the Service
would be entirely optional. To assure
service quality as discussed above,
access gateways would be provisioned
as a pair, in which a second access
gateway would be included for use as a
backup, allowing Subscribers to allocate
their sessions across both access
gateways. Therefore, a Subscriber would
receive a pair of access gateways for a
fee of $5,000 per month.
The Exchange notes that the Service
and accompanying fees would be
subject to significant competitive forces
because, as discussed in detail below,
the Service is similar to that currently
provided by the International Securities
Exchange, LLC (‘‘ISE’’).13
12 For example, many exchanges allow their
member and non-member organizations the option
to pay a higher price in exchange for a more stable
and/or efficient connection, such as that obtained
through co-location services or payment for logical
ports. See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No.
62960 (September 21, 2010), 75 FR 59310
(September 27, 2010) (SR–NYSE–2010–56)
(approving fees charged by NYSE for its co-location
services); Securities Exchange Act Release No.
62397 (June 28, 2010) 75 FR 38860 (July 6, 2010)
(SR–NASDAQ–2010–019) (approving fees charged
by NASDAQ for its co-location services); see also
NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, Price List—Trading
Connectivity, https://www.nasdaqtrader.com/
trader.aspx?id=pricelisttrading2 (listing fees for use
of logical ports); BATS Exchange, Inc. & BATS YExchange, Inc., Exchange Fee Schedule, https://
cdn.batstrading.com/resources/regulation/
rule_book/BATS-Exchanges_Fee_Schedules.pdf
(listing fees for logical ports); EDGA Exchange, Inc.,
EDGA Exchange Fee Schedule, https://
www.directedge.com/Membership/FeeSchedule/
EDGAFeeSchedule.aspx (listing fees for logical
ports).
13 See Securities Exchange Release No. 68324
(November 30, 2012), 77 FR 72901 (December 6,
2012) (SR–ISE–2012–89) (allowing members to
utilize a pair of dedicated gateways and adopting
a fee for the use of such gateways). See also, ISE,
Schedule of Fees, https://www.ise.com/assets/
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:38 Jun 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
Implementation Date
The Exchange intends to implement
the proposed rule change upon the
operative date of this filing and will
announce its availability via an
information circular to be posted on the
Exchange’s Web site.
2. Statutory Basis
The Exchange believes the proposed
rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act,14 and the rules
and regulations thereunder that are
applicable to a national securities
exchange. The bases under the Act for
the proposed rule change are: (i) the
requirement under Section 6(b)(4) 15
that the rules of an exchange be
designed to provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among its members and
other persons using its facilities; and (ii)
the requirement under Section 6(b)(5) 16
that the rules of an exchange be
designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to
foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to
remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market
and a national market system, and, in
general, to protect investors and the
public interest and not to permit unfair
discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
The Exchange believes that the
proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act 17 because it
would provide for an equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges. In particular, the
proposed fee is equitable because the fee
applies only to those Members and nonMembers that have purchased Logical
Ports and elected to become
Subscribers. The Exchange notes that
the Service would be a fee-based service
because it would be prohibitively
expensive for the Exchange to establish
dedicated access gateways for every
Exchange participant. As discussed
above, the Service would provide
Subscribers with improved risk
mitigation at an increased cost.
Although non-Subscribers may
indirectly benefit from the Service to the
documents/OptionsExchange/legal/fee/
fee_schedule.pdf (charging $250 per shared gateway
per month and $2000 per dedicated gateway pair
per month).
14 15 U.S.C. 78f.
15 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
16 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
17 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
PO 00000
Frm 00138
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
extent that the Service would isolate
shared gateways from potential message
disruptions as a result of Subscribers’
trading patterns on the dedicated
gateways, the bulk of the benefits of the
Service would accrue only to
Subscribers. It is therefore equitable that
only Subscribers be allocated a fee for
the Service and that Members and nonMembers that choose to utilize only
shared gateways continue to be assessed
no fee. In addition, the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change
constitutes an equitable allocation of
fees because all similarly situated
Members and non-Members would be
charged the same amount (all shared
gateways are free whereas all dedicated
gateways would be $5,000 per month),
based on their preference for either a
shared gateway or a dedicated gateway.
The Exchange believes that the
proposed fee for the Service is
reasonable because the Service would
be optional, available to all Members
and non-Members who have Logical
Ports and that the fees charged for the
Service would be the same for all
Subscribers. In addition, the proposed
fee would be reasonable because the fee
is a reflection of the cost of necessary
hardware, software and infrastructure
costs, maintenance fees and staff
support costs. The revenue generated by
the Service would pay for the
development, marketing, technical
infrastructure and operating costs of the
Service. Profits generated above these
costs would help offset the costs that the
Exchange incurs in operating and
regulating a highly efficient and reliable
platform for the trading of U.S. equities.
This increased revenue stream would
allow the Exchange to offer the Service
at a reasonable rate, consistent with the
similar service currently provided by
the ISE and discussed in more detail
below.18
In addition, the Exchange notes that it
operates in a highly competitive market.
In such an environment, the Exchange
must continually review, and consider
adjusting, its fees. As discussed above,
the Service would be optional. If
Members and/or non-Members deem the
proposed fee for the Service to be
unreasonable or to outweigh the benefits
of the Service, such Members and/or
non-Members would be under no
obligation to subscribe to or continue to
18 See Securities Exchange Release No. 68324
(November 30, 2012), 77 FR 72901 (December 6,
2012) (SR–ISE–2012–89) (allowing members to
utilize a pair of dedicated gateways and adopting
a fee for the use of such gateways). See also, ISE,
Schedule of Fees, https://www.ise.com/assets/
documents/OptionsExchange/legal/fee/
fee_schedule.pdf (charging $250 per shared gateway
per month and $2000 per dedicated gateway pair
per month).
E:\FR\FM\01JYN1.SGM
01JYN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 126 / Monday, July 1, 2013 / Notices
subscribe to the Service. These market
forces would act as a restraint on
excessively high fees because if the
market judged that the Service was
overpriced, the resulting lack of interest
would render the Service irrelevant.
Furthermore, the Exchange believes
that its fee for the Service is reasonable
because it is within industry norms, as
it is comparable to that assessed by ISE
for its dedicated gateway service.
Currently, ISE charges its members a
monthly fee of $250 per shared gateway
and provides the option to utilize a pair
of dedicated gateways for a fee of $2,000
per month.19 The Exchange believes
that its pricing ($5,000 per dedicated
gateway pair per month) is competitive
with that offered by ISE because,
although the cost of a dedicated gateway
pair would be higher, the Exchange
currently allows dedicated gateway
Subscribers as well as its other Members
and non-Members to utilize multiple
shared gateways at no charge.
Lastly, the Exchange believes that the
proposed fee is reasonable because
payment for the Service on a monthly
basis would provide flexibility and
administrative benefits. Subscribers that
choose to cancel the Service within the
thirty (30) days’ notice would have no
recurring obligation. By offering
payment for the Service on a month-tomonth basis, the Exchange assumes the
risk of termination by Subscribers prior
to such time that it is able to recoup the
costs of hardware, software, and
operational resources necessary to
provide the Service.
The Exchange believes that the
proposed rule change is also consistent
with the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of
the Act,20 which requires, among other
things, that the Exchange’s rules are not
designed to unfairly discriminate
between customers, issuers, brokers or
dealers and are designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged
in regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to,
and facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and
open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. The
Exchange believes that this proposal
would not unfairly discriminate
between customers, issuers, brokers, or
19 See ISE, Schedule of Fees, https://www.ise.com/
assets/documents/OptionsExchange/legal/fee/
fee_schedule.pdf (charging $250 per shared gateway
per month and $2000 per dedicated gateway pair
per month).
20 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:38 Jun 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
dealers because purchase of the Service
would not be a prerequisite for
participation on the Exchange. Only
those Members and non-Members that
deem the Service to be of sufficient
overall value and usefulness would
purchase it. The fees applicable to the
Service would apply uniformly to all
Subscribers. While Members and nonMembers may opt for a dedicated
gateway, those that do not will continue
to be able to access the Exchange via a
shared gateway. The Exchange further
notes that it would, on an ongoing basis,
continue to carefully monitor incoming
and outgoing message traffic across all
access gateways (shared and dedicated)
so that available capacity is adequate to
support Exchange message traffic.
Additionally, the Exchange would
continue to install additional shared
access gateways as needed so that
consistent capacity levels are
maintained. Furthermore, the Exchange
notes that both shared and dedicated
gateway options consist of identical
hardware and software with identical
capacity and capabilities, offering
equivalent latency under the same
loads. To the extent that the load on a
Subscriber’s dedicated gateway is less
than the load on a shared gateway, a
Subscriber normally would expect
reduced latencies in sending orders to
the Exchange through its dedicated
gateway. In this regard, the Service is
similar to other types of services
provided by self-regulatory
organizations that offer higher levels of
service for a higher fee.21 Other than the
reduced latencies due to reduced
gateway load, the Exchange believes
that there are no material differences in
terms of access to the Exchange between
Subscribers and Members and nonMembers that choose not to subscribe to
the Service. Thus, access to the
21 For example, many exchanges allow their
member and non-member organizations the option
to pay a higher price in exchange for a more stable
and/or efficient connection, such as that obtained
through co-location services or payment for logical
ports. See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No.
62960 (September 21, 2010), 75 FR 59310
(September 27, 2010) (SR–NYSE–2010–56)
(approving fees charged by NYSE for its co-location
services); Securities Exchange Act Release No.
62397 (June 28, 2010) 75 FR 38860 (July 6, 2010)
(SR–NASDAQ–2010–019) (approving fees charged
by NASDAQ for its co-location services); see also
NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, Price List—Trading
Connectivity, https://www.nasdaqtrader.com/
trader.aspx?id=pricelisttrading2 (listing fees for use
of logical ports); BATS Exchange, Inc. & BATS YExchange, Inc., Exchange Fee Schedule, https://
cdn.batstrading.com/resources/regulation/
rule_book/BATS-Exchanges_Fee_Schedules.pdf
(listing fees for logical ports); EDGA Exchange, Inc.,
EDGA Exchange Fee Schedule, https://
www.directedge.com/Membership/FeeSchedule/
EDGAFeeSchedule.aspx (listing fees for logical
ports).
PO 00000
Frm 00139
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
39389
Exchange would continue to be offered
on fair and non-discriminatory terms.
In providing access to a pair of access
gateways, the Service is also designed to
allow Subscribers to mitigate risks
associated with potentially fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices that
may adversely affect the Subscriber’s
trading experience. If, for example, a
firm attempted to manipulate the
submission of order flow into shared
access gateways by directly or indirectly
causing a surge in message traffic to be
sent to the Exchange, Subscribers
would, to an extent, mitigate the risks
associated with such a manipulative
tactic, as they would be insulated from
all such external order flow.
B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement on Burden on Competition
The Exchange does not believe that
the proposed rule change would result
in any burden on competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act, as amended.
The Exchange believes that the
Service would neither increase nor
decrease intramarket competition
because the Service is available to all
Members and non-Members on a
uniform and voluntary basis. As the
Exchange currently supports access
through shared access gateways and
strives to ensure that all access gateways
maintain a consistent level of capacity,
the use of the Service by a Member or
non-Member would be driven in part by
their relative tolerance for the risks
associated with trading disruptions.
The Exchange notes that there is
significant competition among market
centers for higher quality services at a
premium, including, but not limited to,
services related to connectivity. By
introducing the proposed Service, the
Exchange believes that it would be
providing an additional service similar
to that currently offered by ISE.22 As
such, the Service would increase
competition by providing Members with
additional options related to
connectivity. The Exchange therefore
believes that the Service would increase
intermarket competition because it may
attract order flow from market
participants interested in the benefits
offered by the Service that might
otherwise send their order flow to
competing venues. Alternatively, if
demand for the Service does not meet
expectations, the Service would neither
increase nor decrease intermarket
competition because the Service would
22 See ISE, Schedule of Fees, https://www.ise.com/
assets/documents/OptionsExchange/legal/fee/
fee_schedule.pdf (charging $250 per shared gateway
per month and $2000 per dedicated gateway pair
per month).
E:\FR\FM\01JYN1.SGM
01JYN1
39390
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 126 / Monday, July 1, 2013 / Notices
fail to persuade market participants to
send their order flow to the Exchange
rather than to competing venues.
C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement on Comments on the
Proposed Rule Change Received From
Members, Participants, or Others
The Exchange has not solicited, and
does not intend to solicit, comments on
this proposed rule change. The
Exchange has not received any
unsolicited written comments from its
Members or other interested parties.
III. Date of Effectiveness of the
Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action
The portion of the foregoing proposed
rule change pertain to fees for the
EdgeRisk Gateway has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) 23 of the
Act and paragraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b–4 24
thereunder.
Additionally, because the portion of
the foregoing proposed rule change
pertaining to the establishment of the
EdgeRisk Gateway service does not: (1)
Significantly affect the protection of
investors or the public interest; (2)
impose any significant burden on
competition; and (3) by its terms does
not become operative for 30 days after
the date of this filing, or such shorter
time as the Commission may designate
if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the
proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
of the Act 25 and Rule 19b–4(f)(6)
thereunder.26
A proposed rule change filed under
Rule 19b–4(f)(6) normally does not
become operative for 30 days after the
date of filing. However, Rule 19b–
4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to
designate a shorter time if such action
is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The
Exchange has asked the Commission to
waive the 30-day operative delay so that
the proposal may become operative
immediately upon filing. The
Commission believes that waiving the
30-day operative delay is consistent
with the protection of investors and the
public interest so that Members and
non-Members may immediately obtain
23 15
U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
CFR 240.19b–4(f)(2).
25 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
26 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b–
4(f)(6)(iii) requires a self-regulatory organization to
provide the Commission with written notice of its
intent to file the proposed rule change, along with
a brief description and text of the proposed rule
change, at least five business days prior to the date
of filing of the proposed rule change, or such
shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has met this requirement.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
24 17
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:38 Jun 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
the EdgeRisk Gateway to potentially
assist them in mitigating risks
associated with excess message traffic
and programmatic mistakes.27
Accordingly, the Commission hereby
grants the Exchange’s request and
designates the proposal operative upon
filing.
At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the
Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if
it appears to the Commission that such
action is necessary or appropriate in the
public interest, for the protection of
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act.
printing in the Commission’s Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the
filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal
office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change;
the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR–EDGX–
2013–21 and should be submitted on or
before July 22, 2013.
IV. Solicitation of Comments
Interested persons are invited to
submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing,
including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act.
Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:
For the Commission, by the Division of
Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated
authority.28
Kevin M. O’Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
Electronic Comments
• Use the Commission’s Internet
comment form (https://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml); or
• Send an email to rulecomments@sec.gov. Please include File
Number SR–EDGX–2013–21 on the
subject line.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
Paper Comments
• Send paper comments in triplicate
to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary,
Securities and Exchange Commission,
100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549–1090.
All submissions should refer to File
Number SR–EDGX–2013–21. This file
number should be included on the
subject line if email is used. To help the
Commission process and review your
comments more efficiently, please use
only one method. The Commission will
post all comments on the Commission’s
Internet Web site (https://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the
submission, all subsequent
amendments, all written statements
with respect to the proposed rule
change that are filed with the
Commission, and all written
communications relating to the
proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than
those that may be withheld from the
public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for Web site viewing and
27 For purposes only of waiving the 30-day
operative delay, the Commission has also
considered the proposed rule’s impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See
15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
PO 00000
Frm 00140
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
[FR Doc. 2013–15662 Filed 6–28–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
[Release No. 34–69853; File No. SR–ISE–
2013–41]
Self-Regulatory Organizations;
International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change To Extend the Price
Improvement Mechanism Pilot
Program
June 25, 2013.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2
notice is hereby given that on June 21,
2013, the International Securities
Exchange, LLC (the ‘‘Exchange’’ or the
‘‘ISE’’) filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission the proposed
rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which items have been
prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement of the Terms of Substance of
the Proposed Rule Change
The ISE proposes to extend two pilot
programs related to its Price
Improvement Mechanism (‘‘PIM’’). The
text of the proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange’s Web site
www.ise.com, at the principal office of
28 17
CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).
U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.
1 15
E:\FR\FM\01JYN1.SGM
01JYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 126 (Monday, July 1, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39386-39390]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15662]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-69855; File No. SR-EDGX-2013-21]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Offer and
Establish Fees for a New Exchange Service, EdgeRisk Gateways
June 25, 2013.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on June 14, 2013, EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as
it pertains to the fees for EdgeRisk Gateway SM (the
``Service'') as ``establishing or charging a due, fee or
[[Page 39387]]
other charge'' under Section 19b(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective upon
receipt of this filing by the Commission. Additionally, the Exchange
has designated the proposed rule change as it pertains to the EdgeRisk
Gateway service as constituting a ``non-controversial'' rule change
under Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \5\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder,\6\ which renders the proposal effective upon receipt of
this filing by the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice
to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
\2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
\3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
\4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
\5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
\6\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change
The Exchange proposes to offer and establish fees for the Service,
a risk management tool available to Members \7\ and non-Members \8\ of
the Exchange. All of the changes described herein are applicable to
EDGX Members. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Internet Web site at www.directedge.com, at the Exchange's
principal office, and at the Public Reference Room of the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ As defined in Exchange Rule 1.5(n).
\8\ Specifically, service bureaus that act as a conduit for
orders entered by Members that are their customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.
A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change
1. Purpose
Proposed Addition of EdgeRisk Gateway Service
The Exchange currently offers logical ports through which Members
and non-Members enter orders in the Exchange's System,\9\ receive drop
copies of orders and execution messages, and receive transmission of
depth of book data (``Logical Ports''). Each Logical Port is assigned
an access gateway that performs order validations and manages the cycle
of a submitted order's flow of information to the System and back to
the Member. The access gateway performs functions such as message
validation, acknowledgement messaging, risk checks, matching engine
routing and execution messaging. The Exchange currently assigns
Members' and non-Members' Logical Ports to the access gateways through
a standard method that accounts for the relative message traffic
expected over the Logical Port as well as redundancy requirements,
where an access gateway contains assigned Logical Ports for a number of
firms. The Exchange assigns Member and non-Member sessions to multiple
access gateways so that the failure of one gateway may not result in
the loss of access. On an ongoing basis, the Exchange carefully
monitors incoming and outgoing traffic on all access gateways to ensure
that available capacity is adequate to support Exchange message traffic
and installs additional access gateways as needed to ensure consistent
capacity levels are maintained. Although the Exchange monitors traffic
to ensure available capacity, it cannot completely address the effect
of a trading disruption caused by any Member or Non-Member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ As defined in Exchange Rule 1.5(cc).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to assist Members' and non-Members' efforts to mitigate
the impact of trading disruptions, the Exchange proposes to offer
EdgeRisk Gateway as a new, optional fee-based service that provides
Members and non-Members the option to obtain dedicated primary and
backup access gateways in addition to, or in place of, a shared access
gateway. Such Members and non-Members that choose to obtain the Service
(each, a ``Subscriber'', and collectively ``Subscribers'') would
benefit from enhanced risk mitigation, as it would reduce the impact of
another firm's message peaks or programming mistakes on the
Subscriber's trading experience. The Exchange notes that the Commission
recently expressed concern regarding the potential ripple effects
caused by systems disruptions and message traffic-related issues in
particular.\10\ The Service would mitigate risks associated with
disruptions caused by excessive message traffic or programming mistakes
because the Subscriber's order flow on its dedicated access gateways
would be insulated from such external disruptions. Furthermore, by
reducing the impact that could arise from another firm, the Service
would provide improved performance, as the performance and capacity of
the access gateways would be determined solely by the Subscriber's
order behavior.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69077, 78 FR
18084, 18138 (March 25, 2013) (File No. S7-01-13) (proposing
Regulation SCI). In particular, the Commission noted that systems
disruptions ``could result in confusion about whether orders are
handled correctly or whether the systems issue . . . could have
caused capacity issues elsewhere.'' Id. at 18138. The Commission
went on to warn that, ``if an e-market-maker handling 20 percent of
message traffic experiences a systems issue, the order flow could be
diverted elsewhere, including to entities that are unable to handle
the increase in message traffic, resulting in a disruption to that
entity's systems as well. Similarly, a broker-dealer accidentally
could run a test during live trading and flood markets with message
traffic such that those markets hit their capacity limits, resulting
in a disruption.'' Id. at 18138, n. 336.
\11\ The Exchange notes that the capacity of any system is
finite and, as such, the risk associated with access gateway
capacity cannot be eliminated entirely, as infrastructure
components, the Subscriber's infrastructure, or the Subscriber's own
trading patterns can affect the Subscriber's overall trading
experience.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Service would include dedicated access to both a primary and a
backup access gateway to afford Subscribers access redundancy.
Accordingly, the backup access gateway would function as a safety
measure, allowing Subscribers to allocate their sessions across both
access gateways, protecting Subscribers from a loss of access due to a
server malfunction. Additionally, Subscribers may also request some of
their Logical Ports continue to be assigned to shared access gateways
for further risk mitigation.
The Exchange notes that both gateway options (shared and dedicated)
would offer full backup to the extent that a Member or non-Member's
sessions are spread across multiple gateways. The Exchange further
notes that it would, on an ongoing basis, continue to carefully monitor
incoming and outgoing message traffic across all access gateways
(shared and dedicated) so that available capacity is adequate to
support Exchange message traffic. Additionally, the Exchange would
continue to install additional shared access gateways as needed so that
consistent capacity levels are maintained.
Both shared and dedicated gateway options consist of identical
hardware and software with identical capacity and capabilities,
offering equivalent latency under the same loads. To the extent that
the load on a Subscriber's dedicated gateway is less than the load on a
shared gateway, a Subscriber normally would expect reduced
[[Page 39388]]
latencies in sending orders to the Exchange through its dedicated
gateway. In this regard, the Service is similar to other types of
services provided by self-regulatory organizations that offer higher
levels of service for a higher fee.\12\ Other than the possible reduced
latencies due to reduced gateway load, the Exchange believes that there
are no material differences in terms of access to the Exchange between
Subscribers and Members and non-Members that choose not to subscribe to
the Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ For example, many exchanges allow their member and non-
member organizations the option to pay a higher price in exchange
for a more stable and/or efficient connection, such as that obtained
through co-location services or payment for logical ports. See,
e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62960 (September 21,
2010), 75 FR 59310 (September 27, 2010) (SR-NYSE-2010-56) (approving
fees charged by NYSE for its co-location services); Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 62397 (June 28, 2010) 75 FR 38860 (July 6,
2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-019) (approving fees charged by NASDAQ for its
co-location services); see also NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, Price
List--Trading Connectivity, https://www.nasdaqtrader.com/trader.aspx?id=pricelisttrading2 (listing fees for use of logical
ports); BATS Exchange, Inc. & BATS Y-Exchange, Inc., Exchange Fee
Schedule, https://cdn.batstrading.com/resources/regulation/rule_book/BATS-Exchanges_Fee_Schedules.pdf (listing fees for logical
ports); EDGA Exchange, Inc., EDGA Exchange Fee Schedule, https://www.directedge.com/Membership/FeeSchedule/EDGAFeeSchedule.aspx
(listing fees for logical ports).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Fees Applicable to the Service
The Exchange proposes to offer the Service to Members and non-
Members for a monthly charge of $5,000. The Exchange is offering this
new pricing model in order to keep pace with changes in the industry
and evolving Member needs as new technologies emerge and products
continue to develop and change. As previously noted, purchase and use
of the Service would be entirely optional. To assure service quality as
discussed above, access gateways would be provisioned as a pair, in
which a second access gateway would be included for use as a backup,
allowing Subscribers to allocate their sessions across both access
gateways. Therefore, a Subscriber would receive a pair of access
gateways for a fee of $5,000 per month.
The Exchange notes that the Service and accompanying fees would be
subject to significant competitive forces because, as discussed in
detail below, the Service is similar to that currently provided by the
International Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE'').\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Securities Exchange Release No. 68324 (November 30,
2012), 77 FR 72901 (December 6, 2012) (SR-ISE-2012-89) (allowing
members to utilize a pair of dedicated gateways and adopting a fee
for the use of such gateways). See also, ISE, Schedule of Fees,
https://www.ise.com/assets/documents/OptionsExchange/legal/fee/fee_schedule.pdf (charging $250 per shared gateway per month and $2000
per dedicated gateway pair per month).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Implementation Date
The Exchange intends to implement the proposed rule change upon the
operative date of this filing and will announce its availability via an
information circular to be posted on the Exchange's Web site.
2. Statutory Basis
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the requirements of the Act,\14\ and the rules and regulations
thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange. The
bases under the Act for the proposed rule change are: (i) the
requirement under Section 6(b)(4) \15\ that the rules of an exchange be
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its members and other persons using its
facilities; and (ii) the requirement under Section 6(b)(5) \16\ that
the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged
in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect
to, and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest and not to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
\15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
\16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \17\ because it would provide for an
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges. In
particular, the proposed fee is equitable because the fee applies only
to those Members and non-Members that have purchased Logical Ports and
elected to become Subscribers. The Exchange notes that the Service
would be a fee-based service because it would be prohibitively
expensive for the Exchange to establish dedicated access gateways for
every Exchange participant. As discussed above, the Service would
provide Subscribers with improved risk mitigation at an increased cost.
Although non-Subscribers may indirectly benefit from the Service to the
extent that the Service would isolate shared gateways from potential
message disruptions as a result of Subscribers' trading patterns on the
dedicated gateways, the bulk of the benefits of the Service would
accrue only to Subscribers. It is therefore equitable that only
Subscribers be allocated a fee for the Service and that Members and
non-Members that choose to utilize only shared gateways continue to be
assessed no fee. In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed
rule change constitutes an equitable allocation of fees because all
similarly situated Members and non-Members would be charged the same
amount (all shared gateways are free whereas all dedicated gateways
would be $5,000 per month), based on their preference for either a
shared gateway or a dedicated gateway.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange believes that the proposed fee for the Service is
reasonable because the Service would be optional, available to all
Members and non-Members who have Logical Ports and that the fees
charged for the Service would be the same for all Subscribers. In
addition, the proposed fee would be reasonable because the fee is a
reflection of the cost of necessary hardware, software and
infrastructure costs, maintenance fees and staff support costs. The
revenue generated by the Service would pay for the development,
marketing, technical infrastructure and operating costs of the Service.
Profits generated above these costs would help offset the costs that
the Exchange incurs in operating and regulating a highly efficient and
reliable platform for the trading of U.S. equities. This increased
revenue stream would allow the Exchange to offer the Service at a
reasonable rate, consistent with the similar service currently provided
by the ISE and discussed in more detail below.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See Securities Exchange Release No. 68324 (November 30,
2012), 77 FR 72901 (December 6, 2012) (SR-ISE-2012-89) (allowing
members to utilize a pair of dedicated gateways and adopting a fee
for the use of such gateways). See also, ISE, Schedule of Fees,
https://www.ise.com/assets/documents/OptionsExchange/legal/fee/fee_schedule.pdf (charging $250 per shared gateway per month and $2000
per dedicated gateway pair per month).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market. In such an environment, the Exchange must
continually review, and consider adjusting, its fees. As discussed
above, the Service would be optional. If Members and/or non-Members
deem the proposed fee for the Service to be unreasonable or to outweigh
the benefits of the Service, such Members and/or non-Members would be
under no obligation to subscribe to or continue to
[[Page 39389]]
subscribe to the Service. These market forces would act as a restraint
on excessively high fees because if the market judged that the Service
was overpriced, the resulting lack of interest would render the Service
irrelevant.
Furthermore, the Exchange believes that its fee for the Service is
reasonable because it is within industry norms, as it is comparable to
that assessed by ISE for its dedicated gateway service. Currently, ISE
charges its members a monthly fee of $250 per shared gateway and
provides the option to utilize a pair of dedicated gateways for a fee
of $2,000 per month.\19\ The Exchange believes that its pricing ($5,000
per dedicated gateway pair per month) is competitive with that offered
by ISE because, although the cost of a dedicated gateway pair would be
higher, the Exchange currently allows dedicated gateway Subscribers as
well as its other Members and non-Members to utilize multiple shared
gateways at no charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See ISE, Schedule of Fees, https://www.ise.com/assets/documents/OptionsExchange/legal/fee/fee_schedule.pdf (charging $250
per shared gateway per month and $2000 per dedicated gateway pair
per month).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, the Exchange believes that the proposed fee is reasonable
because payment for the Service on a monthly basis would provide
flexibility and administrative benefits. Subscribers that choose to
cancel the Service within the thirty (30) days' notice would have no
recurring obligation. By offering payment for the Service on a month-
to-month basis, the Exchange assumes the risk of termination by
Subscribers prior to such time that it is able to recoup the costs of
hardware, software, and operational resources necessary to provide the
Service.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is also
consistent with the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\20\ which
requires, among other things, that the Exchange's rules are not
designed to unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers
or dealers and are designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts
and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
The Exchange believes that this proposal would not unfairly
discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers because
purchase of the Service would not be a prerequisite for participation
on the Exchange. Only those Members and non-Members that deem the
Service to be of sufficient overall value and usefulness would purchase
it. The fees applicable to the Service would apply uniformly to all
Subscribers. While Members and non-Members may opt for a dedicated
gateway, those that do not will continue to be able to access the
Exchange via a shared gateway. The Exchange further notes that it
would, on an ongoing basis, continue to carefully monitor incoming and
outgoing message traffic across all access gateways (shared and
dedicated) so that available capacity is adequate to support Exchange
message traffic. Additionally, the Exchange would continue to install
additional shared access gateways as needed so that consistent capacity
levels are maintained. Furthermore, the Exchange notes that both shared
and dedicated gateway options consist of identical hardware and
software with identical capacity and capabilities, offering equivalent
latency under the same loads. To the extent that the load on a
Subscriber's dedicated gateway is less than the load on a shared
gateway, a Subscriber normally would expect reduced latencies in
sending orders to the Exchange through its dedicated gateway. In this
regard, the Service is similar to other types of services provided by
self-regulatory organizations that offer higher levels of service for a
higher fee.\21\ Other than the reduced latencies due to reduced gateway
load, the Exchange believes that there are no material differences in
terms of access to the Exchange between Subscribers and Members and
non-Members that choose not to subscribe to the Service. Thus, access
to the Exchange would continue to be offered on fair and non-
discriminatory terms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
\21\ For example, many exchanges allow their member and non-
member organizations the option to pay a higher price in exchange
for a more stable and/or efficient connection, such as that obtained
through co-location services or payment for logical ports. See,
e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62960 (September 21,
2010), 75 FR 59310 (September 27, 2010) (SR-NYSE-2010-56) (approving
fees charged by NYSE for its co-location services); Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 62397 (June 28, 2010) 75 FR 38860 (July 6,
2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-019) (approving fees charged by NASDAQ for its
co-location services); see also NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, Price
List--Trading Connectivity, https://www.nasdaqtrader.com/trader.aspx?id=pricelisttrading2 (listing fees for use of logical
ports); BATS Exchange, Inc. & BATS Y-Exchange, Inc., Exchange Fee
Schedule, https://cdn.batstrading.com/resources/regulation/rule_book/BATS-Exchanges_Fee_Schedules.pdf (listing fees for logical
ports); EDGA Exchange, Inc., EDGA Exchange Fee Schedule, https://www.directedge.com/Membership/FeeSchedule/EDGAFeeSchedule.aspx
(listing fees for logical ports).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In providing access to a pair of access gateways, the Service is
also designed to allow Subscribers to mitigate risks associated with
potentially fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices that may
adversely affect the Subscriber's trading experience. If, for example,
a firm attempted to manipulate the submission of order flow into shared
access gateways by directly or indirectly causing a surge in message
traffic to be sent to the Exchange, Subscribers would, to an extent,
mitigate the risks associated with such a manipulative tactic, as they
would be insulated from all such external order flow.
B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.
The Exchange believes that the Service would neither increase nor
decrease intramarket competition because the Service is available to
all Members and non-Members on a uniform and voluntary basis. As the
Exchange currently supports access through shared access gateways and
strives to ensure that all access gateways maintain a consistent level
of capacity, the use of the Service by a Member or non-Member would be
driven in part by their relative tolerance for the risks associated
with trading disruptions.
The Exchange notes that there is significant competition among
market centers for higher quality services at a premium, including, but
not limited to, services related to connectivity. By introducing the
proposed Service, the Exchange believes that it would be providing an
additional service similar to that currently offered by ISE.\22\ As
such, the Service would increase competition by providing Members with
additional options related to connectivity. The Exchange therefore
believes that the Service would increase intermarket competition
because it may attract order flow from market participants interested
in the benefits offered by the Service that might otherwise send their
order flow to competing venues. Alternatively, if demand for the
Service does not meet expectations, the Service would neither increase
nor decrease intermarket competition because the Service would
[[Page 39390]]
fail to persuade market participants to send their order flow to the
Exchange rather than to competing venues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See ISE, Schedule of Fees, https://www.ise.com/assets/documents/OptionsExchange/legal/fee/fee_schedule.pdf (charging $250
per shared gateway per month and $2000 per dedicated gateway pair
per month).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from its Members or other interested
parties.
III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action
The portion of the foregoing proposed rule change pertain to fees
for the EdgeRisk Gateway has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) \23\ of the Act and paragraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 \24\
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
\24\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, because the portion of the foregoing proposed rule
change pertaining to the establishment of the EdgeRisk Gateway service
does not: (1) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the
public interest; (2) impose any significant burden on competition; and
(3) by its terms does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of this filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest,
the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \25\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
\26\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to provide the Commission
with written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change,
along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change,
at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Exchange has met this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing. However,
Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to designate a shorter
time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and
the public interest. The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the
30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become operative
immediately upon filing. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-
day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and
the public interest so that Members and non-Members may immediately
obtain the EdgeRisk Gateway to potentially assist them in mitigating
risks associated with excess message traffic and programmatic
mistakes.\27\ Accordingly, the Commission hereby grants the Exchange's
request and designates the proposal operative upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
IV. Solicitation of Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:
Electronic Comments
Use the Commission's Internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
Send an email to rule-comments@sec.gov. Please
include File Number SR-EDGX-2013-21 on the subject line.
Paper Comments
Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGX-2013-21. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGX-2013-21 and should be
submitted on or before July 22, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\28\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-15662 Filed 6-28-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P