Consolidated Tape Association; Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove the Twenty-Fifth Charges Amendment to the Second Restatement of the CTA Plan and Sixteenth Charges Amendment to the Restated CQ Plan, 11763-11776 [2022-04334]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2022 / Notices investment company. The applicant has transferred its assets to Hartford Schroders Sustainable Core Bond Fund, a series of The Hartford Mutual Funds II, Inc., and on November 12, 2021 made a final distribution to its shareholders based on net asset value. Expenses of approximately $381,043.32 incurred in connection with the reorganization were paid by the applicant, the applicant’s investment adviser and the acquiring fund’s investment adviser. Filing Date: The application was filed on February 2, 2022. Applicant’s Address: sean.graber@ morganlewis.com. For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority. Dated: February 25, 2022. Jill M. Peterson, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. 2022–04385 Filed 3–1–22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011–01–P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [SEC File No. 270–247, OMB Control No. 3235–0259] Proposed Collection; Comment Request Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549–2736 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 Extension: Rule 19h–1 Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (‘‘PRA’’) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange Commission (‘‘Commission’’) is soliciting comments on the existing collection of information provided for in Rule 19h–1 (17 CFR 240.19h–1), under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.). The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) for extension and approval. Rule 19h–1 prescribes the form and content of notices and applications by self-regulatory organizations (‘‘SROs’’) regarding proposed admissions to, or continuances in, membership, participation or association with a member of any person subject to a statutory disqualification. The Commission uses the information provided in the submissions filed pursuant to Rule 19h–1 to review decisions by SROs to permit the entry into or continuance in the securities VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Mar 01, 2022 Jkt 256001 business of persons who have committed serious misconduct. The filings submitted pursuant to the Rule also permit inclusion of an application to the Commission for consent to associate with a member of an SRO notwithstanding a Commission order barring such association. The Commission reviews filings made pursuant to the Rule to ascertain whether it is in the public interest to permit the employment in the securities business of persons subject to statutory disqualification. The filings contain information that is essential to the staff’s review and ultimate determination on whether an association or employment is in the public interest and consistent with investor protection. It is estimated that approximately 20 respondents will make submissions pursuant to this Rule annually. With respect to submissions for Rule 19h–1(a) notices, and based upon past submissions, the staff estimates that respondents will make a total of 11 submissions per year. The staff estimates that the average number of hours necessary to complete a submission pursuant to Rule 19h–1(a) notices is 80 hours (for a total annual burden for all respondents in the amount of 17,600 hours). With respect to submissions for Rule 19h–1(a)(4) notifications, and based upon past submissions, the staff estimates that respondents will make a total of 9 submissions per year. The staff estimates that the average number of hours necessary to complete a submission pursuant to Rule 19h–1(a)(4) notifications is 80 hours (for a total annual burden for all respondents in the amount of 14,400 hours). With respect to submissions for Rule 19h–1(b), and based upon past submissions, the staff estimates that respondents will make a total of 28 submissions per year. The staff estimates that the average number of hours necessary to complete a submission pursuant to Rule 19h–1(b) is 13 hours (for a total annual burden for all respondents in the amount of 7,280 hours). With respect to submissions for Rule 19h–1(d), and based upon past submissions, the staff estimates that respondents will make a total of 5 submissions per year. The staff estimates that the average number of hours necessary to complete a submission pursuant to Rule 19h–1(d) is 80 hours (for a total annual burden for all respondents in the amount of 8,000 hours). The aggregate annual burden for all respondents is thus approximately 47,280 hours (17,600 + 14,400 + 7,280 + 8,000). Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 11763 information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission’s estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication May 2, 2022. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Please direct your written comments to: David Bottom, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o John Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or send an email to: PRA_ Mailbox@sec.gov. Dated: February 25, 2022. Jill M. Peterson, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. 2022–04386 Filed 3–1–22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011–01–P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34–94309; File No. SR–CTA/ CQ–2021–03] Consolidated Tape Association; Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove the Twenty-Fifth Charges Amendment to the Second Restatement of the CTA Plan and Sixteenth Charges Amendment to the Restated CQ Plan February 24, 2022. I. Introduction On November 5, 2021,1 certain participants in the Second Restatement of the Consolidated Tape Association (‘‘CTA’’) Plan and Restated Consolidated Quotation (‘‘CQ’’) Plan (collectively ‘‘CTA/CQ Plans’’ or ‘‘Plans’’) 2 filed with the Securities and 1 See Letter from Robert Books, Chair, CTA/CQ Operating Committee, to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Commission (Nov. 5, 2021) (‘‘Cover Letter’’). 2 The CTA Plan, pursuant to which markets collect and disseminate last-sale price information for non-Nasdaq-listed securities, is a ‘‘transaction reporting plan’’ under Rule 601 of Regulation NMS, E:\FR\FM\02MRN1.SGM Continued 02MRN1 11764 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2022 / Notices Exchange Commission (‘‘SEC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’), pursuant to Section 11A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (‘‘Act’’) 3 and Rule 608 of Regulation National Market System (‘‘NMS’’) thereunder,4 a proposal (the ‘‘Proposed Amendment’’) to amend the Plans.5 The Proposed Amendment was published for comment in the Federal Register on November 26, 2021.6 This order institutes proceedings, under Rule 608(b)(2)(i) of Regulation NMS,7 to determine whether to approve or disapprove the Proposed Amendment or to approve the Proposed Amendment with any changes or subject to any conditions the Commission deems necessary or appropriate after considering public comment. lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 II. Summary of the Proposed Amendment 8 Under the Proposed Amendment, the Participants propose to amend the Plans to adopt fees for the receipt of the expanded content of consolidated market data pursuant to the Commission’s Market Data Infrastructure Rule (‘‘MDI Rule’’).9 The Participants have submitted a separate 17 CFR 242.601, and a ‘‘national market system plan’’ under Rule 608 of Regulation NMS, 17 CFR 242.608. The CQ Plan, pursuant to which markets collect and disseminate bid/ask quotation information for non-Nasdaq-listed securities, is a ‘‘national market system plan’’ under Rule 608 under the Act, 17 CFR 242.608. See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 10787 (May 10, 1974), 39 FR at 17799 (May 20, 1974) (declaring the CTA Plan effective); 15009 (July 28, 1978), 43 FR at 34851 (Aug. 7, 1978) (temporarily authorizing the CQ Plan); and 16518 (Jan. 22, 1980), 45 FR at 6521 (Jan. 28, 1980) (permanently authorizing the CQ Plan). The most recent restatement of both Plans was in 1995. 3 15 U.S.C 78k–1. 4 17 CFR 242.608. 5 The Proposed Amendment was approved and executed by more than the Plans’ required twothirds of the self-regulatory organizations (‘‘SROs’’) that are participants of the UTP Plan. The participants that approved and executed the amendment (the ‘‘Participants’’) are: Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc., Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc., Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc., Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc., Cboe Exchange, Inc., Nasdaq ISE, LLC, Nasdaq PHLX, Inc., The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE American LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc., NYSE Chicago, Inc., and NYSE National, Inc.. The other SROs that are participants in the Plans are: Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., The Investors’ Exchange LLC, LongTerm Stock Exchange, Inc., MEMX LLC, MIAX PEARL, LLC, and Nasdaq BX, Inc. 6 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 93625 (Nov. 19, 2021), 86 FR 67517 (Nov. 26, 2021) (‘‘Notice’’). Comments received in response to the Notice are available at https://www.sec.gov/ comments/sr-ctacq-2021-03/srctacq202103.htm. 7 17 CFR 242.608(b)(2)(i). 8 The full text of the Proposed Amendment appears as Attachment A to the Notice. See Notice, supra note 6, 86 FR 67521–24. 9 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90610, 86 FR 18596 (April 9, 2021) (File No. S7–03–20) (‘‘MDI Rule Release’’). VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Mar 01, 2022 Jkt 256001 amendment to implement the non-feerelated aspects of the MDI Rule.10 The Participants propose a fee structure for the following three categories of consolidated equity market data, which collectively constitute the amended definition of core data, as that term is defined in amended Rule 600(b)(21) of Regulation NMS:11 (1) Level 1 Core Data, which would include Top of Book Quotations, Last Sale Price Information, and odd-lot information (as defined in amended Rule 600(b)(59)). Plan fees to subscribers currently are for Top of Book Quotations and Last Sale Price Information, as well as what is now defined as administrative data (as defined in amended Rule 600(b)(2)), regulatory data (as defined in amended Rule 600(b)(78)), and self-regulatory organization-specific program data (as defined in amended Rule 600(b)(85)). The Participants propose that Level 1 Core Data would continue to include all information that subscribers receive for current fees and add odd-lot information; (2) Depth of book data (as defined in amended Rule 600(b)(26)); and (3) Auction information (as defined in amended Rule 600(b)(5)).12 Professional and Nonprofessional Fees For each of the three categories of data described above, the Participants propose a Professional Subscriber Charge and a Nonprofessional Subscriber Charge. With respect to Level 1 Core Data, the Participants are not proposing to change the Professional Subscriber and Nonprofessional Subscriber fees currently set forth in the Plans. Access to odd-lot information would be made available to Level 1 Core Data Professional and Nonprofessional Subscribers at no additional charge. With respect to depth-of-book data, Professional Subscribers would pay $99.00 per device per month for each Network’s data. Nonprofessional Subscribers would pay $4.00 per subscriber per month for each Network’s 10 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 93615 (Nov. 19, 2021), 86 FR 67800 (Nov. 29, 2021). 11 17 CFR 242.600(b)(26). 12 The Participants state that they propose to price subsets of data that constitute core data separately so that data subscriber users have flexibility in how much consolidated market data content they wish to purchase. For example, the Participants state that they understand that certain data subscribers may not wish to add depth-of-book data or auction information, or may want to add only depth-of-book information, but not auction information. Accordingly, Participants are proposing to price subsets of data to provide flexibility to data subscribers. However, the Participants state that they expect that competing consolidators would purchase all core data. PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 depth-of-book data. The Participants are not proposing per-quote packet charges or enterprise rates for either Professional Subscribers or Nonprofessional Subscribers use of depth-of-book data at this time. Finally, with respect to auction information, both Professional Subscribers and Nonprofessional Subscribers would pay $10.00 per device/subscriber per month for each Network’s auction information data. Non-Display Use Fees The Participants propose Non-Display Use Fees relating to the three categories of data described above: (1) Level 1 Core Data; (2) depth-of-book data; and (3) auction information. With respect to Level 1 Core Data, the Participants are not proposing to change the Non-Display Use fees currently set forth in the Plans. Access to odd-lot information would be made available to Level 1 Core Data subscribers at no additional charge. With respect to depth-of-book data, subscribers would pay Non-Display Use Fees of $12,477.00 per month for each category of Non-Display Use per Network. With respect to auction information, subscribers would pay Non-Display Use fees of $1,248.00 per month for each category of Non-Display Use per Network. Access Fees Finally, the Participants propose Access Fees regarding the use of the three categories of data: (1) Level 1 Core Data; (2) depth-of-book data; and (3) auction information. With respect to Level 1 Core Data, the Participants are not proposing to change the Access Fees currently set forth in the Plans. Access to odd-lot information would be made available to Level 1 Core Data subscribers at no additional charge. With respect to depth-of-book data, subscribers would pay a monthly Access Fee of $9,850.00 per Network. With respect to auction information, subscribers would pay a monthly Access Fee of $985.00 per Network. Clarifications Related to Expanded Content In addition to the above fees, the Participants propose adding clarifying language regarding the applicability of various fees given the availability of the expanded market data content. First, the Participants propose to clarify that the Per-Quote-Packet Charges and the Broker-Dealer Enterprise Cap are not applicable to the expanded content, and only apply to the receipt and use of Level 1 Core Data. E:\FR\FM\02MRN1.SGM 02MRN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2022 / Notices The Participants state that, under the current Price List, the Per-Quote-Packet Charges and Enterprise Cap serve as alternative fee schedules to the normally applied Professional and Nonprofessional Subscriber Charges, and, further, that the proposed changes are designed to clarify that these alternative fee schedules are only available with respect to the use of Level 1 Core Data, and the fees for the use of depth-of-book data and auction information must be determined pursuant to the Professional and Nonprofessional fees described above. Second, the Participants propose to clarify that Level 1 Core Data would include Top of Book Quotation Information, Last Sale Price Information, odd-lot information, administrative data, regulatory data, and self-regulatory organization program data. The Participants state that the Proposed Amendment would use terms defined in amended Rule 600(b) to reflect both current data made available to data subscribers and the additional odd-lot information that would be included at no additional charge. Third, the Participants propose to clarify that the existing Redistribution Fees would apply to all three categories of core data (i.e., Level 1, depth-of-book, and auction information), including any subset thereof. According to the Participants, Redistribution Fees are charged to any entity that makes last sale information or quotation information available to any other entity or to any person other than its employees, irrespective of the means of transmission or access. The Participants propose to amend this description to make it applicable to core data, as that term is defined in amended Rule 600(b)(21). The Participants are not proposing to change the fee level for Redistribution Fees themselves. Fourth, the Participants propose that the existing Redistribution Fees would be charged to competing consolidators. The Participants argue (1) that the comparison the Commission made in the MDI Rule Release between selfaggregators (which would not pay Redistribution Fees) and competing consolidators is not appropriate in determining whether a redistribution fee is not unreasonably discriminatory; and (2) that the Participants do not believe that the Commission’s comparison is consistent with the current longstanding practice that redistribution fees are charged to any entity that distributes data externally.13 The Participants state 13 The Participants state that the current exclusive securities information processor (‘‘SIP’’) is not charged a Redistribution Fee. The Participants state, VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Mar 01, 2022 Jkt 256001 that, by definition, a self-aggregator would not be distributing data externally and therefore would not be subject to such fees, which, according to the Participants is consistent with current practice that a subscriber to consolidated data that only uses data for internal use is not charged a Redistribution Fee. The Participants state that the more appropriate comparison would be between competing consolidators and downstream vendors, both of which would be selling consolidated market data directly to market data subscribers. The Participants state that vendors are and still would be subject to Redistribution Fees when redistributing data to market data subscribers, and that it would be unreasonably discriminatory for competing consolidators, which would be competing with downstream market data vendors for the same data subscriber customers, to not be charged a Redistribution Fee for exactly the same activity. The Participants argue that it would be unreasonably discriminatory and impose a burden on competition to not charge competing consolidators the Redistribution Fee.14 Finally, the Participants propose to make non-substantive changes to language in the fee schedules to take into account the expanded content. For example, the Participants are proposing to add headings referencing Level 1 Core Data. Additionally, under Data Access Charges and Multiple Feed Charges, the Participants are proposing however, that unlike competing consolidators, the processor has been retained by the Plans to serve as an exclusive SIP, is subject to oversight by both the Plans and the Commission, and neither pays for the data nor engages with data subscriber customers. The Participants state that, by contrast, under the competing consolidator model, the Plans would have no role in either oversight of or determining which entities choose to be a competing consolidator, a competing consolidator would need to purchase consolidated market data just as any other vendor would, and competing consolidators would be responsible for competing for data subscriber clients. Accordingly, the Participants argue that competing consolidators would be more akin to vendors than the current exclusive SIPs. The Participants state that if any entity that is currently an exclusive SIP chooses to register as a competing consolidator, such entity would be subject to the Redistribution Fee. 14 The Participants argue that it would be more appropriate to compare competing consolidators and self-aggregators with respect to the fees charged for receipt and use of market data from the Participants and to address the fees for the usage of consolidated market data based on their actual usage, which, the Participants argue, is consistent with the statutory requirements of the Act that the data be provided on terms that are not unreasonably discriminatory. The Participants state that, for instance, Participants have proposed to charge a data access fee to competing consolidators that would be the same fee to self-aggregators. PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 11765 to amend ‘‘Bid-Ask’’ to refer to ‘‘Top of Book and odd-lot information.’’ Administrative Fees The Participants are not proposing any changes to the Multiple Feed Charges, Late/Clearly Erroneous Reporting Charges, and Consolidated Volume Data Non-Compliance Fee. According to the Participants, these current fees are administrative fees and would continue to apply to any data usage. III. Summary of Comments The Commission has received 16 comment letters on the Proposed Amendment.15 Fourteen commenters object to the Proposed Amendment,16 and two commenters support the Proposed Amendment.17 15 See Letters to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Commission from Hope M. Jarkowski, General Counsel, NYSE Group, Inc. (Jan. 22, 2022) (‘‘NYSE Letter’’); Christopher Solgan, Senior Counsel, MIAX Exchange Group (Jan.12, 2022) (‘‘MIAX Letter’’); Emil Framnes and Simon Emrich, Norges Bank Investment Management (Jan. 5, 2022) (‘‘NBIM Letter’’); James Angel, Ph.D., CFP, CFA, Associate Professor of Finance, Georgetown University (Dec. 21, 2021) (‘‘Angel Letter’’); Luc Burgun, President and CEO, NovaSparks S.A.S. (Dec. 17, 2021) (‘‘NovaSparks Letter’’); Joe Wald, Managing Director, Co-Head of Electronic Trading, BMO Capital Markets Group, BMO Capital Markets and Ray Ross, Managing Director, Co-Head of Electronic Trading, BMO Capital Markets Group (Dec. 17, 2021) (‘‘BMO Letter’’); Erika Moore, Vice President and Corporate Secretary, Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (Dec. 17, 2021) (‘‘Nasdaq Letter’’); John Ramsay, Chief Market Policy Officer, Investors Exchange LLC (Dec. 17, 2021) (‘‘IEX Letter’’); Ellen Greene, Managing Director, Equity & Options Market Structure, Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association and William C. Thum, Managing Director and Associate General Counsel, Asset Management Group, Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (Dec. 17, 2021) (‘‘SIFMA Letter’’); Marcia E. Asquith, Executive Vice President, Board and External Relations, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (Dec. 17, 2021) (‘‘FINRA Letter’’); Patrick Flannery, Chief Executive Officer, MayStreet (Dec. 17, 2021) (‘‘MayStreet Letter’’); Hubert De Jesus, Managing Director, Global Head of Market Structure and Electronic Trading, BlackRock and Samantha DeZur, Director, Global Public Policy, BlackRock (Dec. 16, 2021) (‘‘BlackRock Letter’’); Jonathan Hill, CEO, Cutler Group, LP Anand Prakash, CTO, Cutler Group, LP Nader Sharabati, CFO, Cutler Group, LP and Doug Patterson, CCO, Cutler Group, LP (Dec. 16, 2021) (‘‘Cutler Letter’’); Quinton Pike, CEO, Polygon.io, Inc. (Nov. 30, 2021) (‘‘Polygon.io Letter’’); Allison Bishop, President, Proof Services LLC (Nov. 22, 2021) (‘‘Proof Letter’’); Adrian Griffiths, Head of Market Structure, MEMX LLC, (Nov. 8, 2021) (‘‘MEMX Letter’’). 16 See MIAX Letter, supra note 15; NBIM Letter, supra note 15; Angel Letter, supra note 15; NovaSparks Letter, supra note 15; BMO Capital Letter, supra note 15; IEX Letter, supra note 15; SIFMA Letter, supra note 15; FINRA Letter, supra note 15; MayStreet Letter, supra note 15; BlackRock Letter, supra note 15; Cutler Letter, supra note 15; Polygon.io Letter, supra note 15; Proof Letter, supra note 15; MEMX Letter, supra note 15. 17 See Nasdaq Letter, supra note 15; NYSE Letter, supra note 15. E:\FR\FM\02MRN1.SGM 02MRN1 11766 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2022 / Notices A. Comments Regarding the Methodology Used To Justify the Proposed Fees lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 Some commenters oppose the Proposed Amendment, arguing that the proposed fees are based on a flawed methodology that, inconsistent with the MDI Rule Release, fails to provide a cost-based justification.18 These commenters state that the proposal should bear a reasonable relationship to the cost of producing the market data, which, they argue, is the primary basis the Commission has identified for justifying the prices for core data fees.19 Some commenters also state that the methodology used has resulted in proposed fees that are unreasonably high.20 In making this argument, some commenters object to using the current prices for the exchanges’ proprietary data products as the basis for calculating the proposed core data fees,21 stating that such a method is inconsistent with the MDI Rule’s goal of expanding access to consolidated data 22 and with statements in the MDI Rule Release that the proposed fees should bear a reasonable relationship to the cost of producing the data.23 Some commenters also state that they disagree with the Participants’ views in the proposal that a cost-based justification is not required because the Act does not require a showing of costs 18 See MIAX Letter, supra note 15, at 3; IEX Letter, supra note 15, at 2–3. See also BMO Letter, supra note 15, at 2–3; SIFMA Letter, supra note 15, at 4–5 (noting that the fees charged by monopolistic providers, such as exclusive SIPs, to be tied to some type of cost-based standard in order to preclude excessive profits if fees are too high or underfunding or subsidization if fees are too low); MayStreet Letter, supra note 15, at 6; BlackRock Letter, supra note 15, at 2; Proof Letter, supra note 15, at 2, 3; MEMX Letter, supra note 15, at 18. 19 See IEX Letter, supra note 15, at 1, 2–3 (stating that the proposal fails to establish that the fees for the data content underlying consolidated market data meet the statutory standards of being fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably discriminatory); MIAX Letter, supra note 15, at 3. See also BMO Letter, supra note 15, at 2–3; SIFMA Letter, supra note 15, at 4–5 (noting that the fees charged by monopolistic providers, such as exclusive SIPs, need to be tied to some type of cost-based standard in order to preclude excessive profits if fees are too high or underfunding or subsidization if fees are too low); MayStreet Letter, supra note 15, at 6; BlackRock Letter, supra note 15, at 2; Proof Letter, supra note 15, at 2, 3; MEMX Letter, supra note 15, at 18. 20 See MIAX Letter, supra note 15, at 3; MayStreet Letter, supra note 15, at 6; BlackRock Letter, supra note 15, at 2, 4–5; IEX Letter, supra note 15, at 4; Proof Letter, supra note 15, at 3; MEMX Letter, supra note 15, at 8, 11–12. 21 See MIAX Letter, supra note 15, at 4; SIFMA Letter, supra note 15, at 4, 5; IEX Letter, supra note 15, at 4. 22 See MIAX Letter, supra note 15, at 4. 23 See MIAX Letter, supra note 15, at 3; SIFMA Letter, supra note 15, at 4, 5; IEX Letter, supra note 15, at 1, 2–3. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Mar 01, 2022 Jkt 256001 and that cost analysis has not been provided in past equity market data plan proposals.24 These commenters state that the Commission has stated that a reasonable relation to cost is a primary basis for justifying core data fees.25 One commenter states that specific information, including quantitative information, should be provided to support the Participants’ claims that the proposed fee is fair and reasonable because it will permit the recovery of SRO costs or will not result in excessive pricing or profits.26 Additionally, some commenters state that they disagree with the Participants’ statement in the proposal that the Plan’s Operating Committee ‘‘has no knowledge of any costs associated with consolidated market data,’’ stating that Participants know how much it costs to collect and disseminate market data because they already perform this function, including in connection with proprietary feeds.27 One commenter states that a demonstration of costs is not required because neither the Exchange Act nor Commission rules requires that market data fees to be supported by a showing of costs.28 The commenter stated that the Commission’s standard for evaluating consolidated market data fees has not required a showing of the relationship between the proposed fees and the cost of producing the data, as illustrated by past equity market data plan proposals for consolidated market data fees which the commenter states were not justified on the basis of cost.29 This commenter argues that it is not clear how the Plan could support the fee proposals based on costs because the Operating Committee plays no role in the creation or dissemination of core 24 See MIAX Letter, supra note 15, at 3; SIFMA Letter, supra note 15, at 5. 25 See IEX Letter, supra note 15, at 1, 2–3; SIFMA Letter, supra note 15, at 5; MIAX Letter, supra note 15, at 3 (noting that the vast majority of such equity market data plan fees were adopted prior to issuance of the Commission’s staff fee guidance, and multiple SROs have more recently included cost based analysis when proposing fees for a market data product). 26 See MIAX Letter, supra note 15, at 3. 27 See SIFMA Letter, supra note 15, at 5; MIAX Letter, supra note 15, at 3; MayStreet Letter, supra note 15, at 6. 28 See NYSE Letter, supra note 15, at 3 (stating that the legislative history of the 1975 amendments to the Exchange Act, and particularly Section 11A, reflects that Congress’s principal concern was promoting competition between exchanges, not regulating market data pricing; and that economic studies have demonstrated that separating out the costs of producing market data from the other costs of operating an SRO is an impossible task that would enmesh the Commission in a continuous ratemaking process that would produce arbitrary results). 29 See id. at 3–4. PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 data under amended Rule 603(b), and thus has no information about how each exchange would generate core data under that rule.30 The commenter states that, in its view, it remains impossible to separate the costs of producing market data from other costs of operating an exchange.31 Another commenter opposes the use of cost as a basis for setting the proposed fees.32 This commenter dismisses other commenters’ suggestions that fees should be based on costs, rather than value, because, according to the commenter, the Commission has not offered guidance with respect to such a cost-based ratemaking system,33 and because any cost allocation between joint products would therefore be unworkable, inherently arbitrary, and inconsistent with the Congressional mandate that the Commission rely on competition whenever possible in meeting its regulatory responsibilities.34 The commenter states that the proposed fees have been tested by competition and that ‘‘Commission staff have indicated that they would look at factors beyond the competitive environment, such as cost, only if a ‘proposal lacks persuasive evidence that the proposed fee is constrained by significant competitive forces.’ ’’ 35 Some commenters oppose the use of the value-based methodology used to determine the fees under the Proposed Amendment.36 One commenter states that if the objective is to have the SIPs provide a service that is more affordable and accessible than the data products offered by individual exchanges, then ‘‘value to subscribers’’ should not be sole determinant of SIP fees because the current fees for exchange proprietary data products are not a reasonable gauge of the value of core data offered under the Plan.37 One commenter states that 30 See id. at 4. id. 32 See Nasdaq Letter, supra note 15, at 3. 33 See id. 34 See id. 35 See id. at 5–6 (citing to ‘‘Staff Guidance on SRO Rule Filings Relating to Fees’’ (May 19, 2019), available at https://www.sec.gov/tm/staff-guidancesro-rule-filings-fees). The Staff Guidance on SRO Rule Filings Relating to Fees in fact states: ‘‘If a Fee Filing proposal lacks persuasive evidence that the proposed fee is constrained by significant competitive forces, the SRO must provide a substantial basis, other than competitive forces, demonstrating that the fee is consistent with the Exchange Act. One such basis may be the production of related revenue and cost data, as discussed further below.’’ See ‘‘Staff Guidance on SRO Rule Filings Relating to Fees’’ (May 19, 2019), available at https://www.sec.gov/tm/staff-guidancesro-rule-filings-fees. 36 See Proof Letter, supra note 15; NBIM Letter, supra note 15; MayStreet Letter, supra note 15. 37 See Proof Letter, supra note 15, at 3. 31 See E:\FR\FM\02MRN1.SGM 02MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2022 / Notices basing the proposed pricing of the Plans’ fees on the proprietary feeds pricing does not seem appropriate because exchange proprietary data feeds are complements to consolidated market data feeds for latency-sensitive market participants; 38 less-latency sensitive market participants find consolidated market data more useful than the propriety data feeds; 39 and latencysensitive market participants will not view consolidated market data under the Plans to be a credible substitute for the proprietary data feeds even after the MDI Rule reforms are implemented.40 Another commenter states that basing the proposed fees on value instead of cost does not work because the mandate under the Exchange Act is to price SIP data at levels that maximize its availability.41 Two commenters argue that the proposed fees are fair and reasonable and not unreasonably discriminatory because they are reasonably related to the value that subscribers gain from the data, and achieve the Commission’s objective in Regulation NMS that prices for consolidated market data be set by market forces.42 One commenter argues that the pricing for exchange proprietary data feeds, including the depth-of-book data, top-of-book data, and auction information on which the proposed fees are based, is constrained by competitive forces, in that they have a history of being constrained by direct competition and by platform competition among the exchanges.43 This commenter states that the pricing for exchange proprietary data feeds is constrained by the highly competitive markets for exchange trading and exchange market data.44 It states that the proposed fees meet the Commission’s objective for market forces to determine the overall level of fees.45 38 See NBIM Letter, supra note 15, at 1–2. id. at 2. 40 See id. at 2. 41 See MayStreet Letter, supra note 15, at 6. 42 See NYSE Letter, supra note 15, at 5; Nasdaq Letter, supra note 15, at 5. 43 See NYSE Letter, supra note 15, at 5. 44 See id. The commenter further argues that exchanges compete against each other as platforms, and that, as such, no exchange can raise its prices to supracompetitive levels on one side of the platform, such as market data, without losing sales on the other, such as trading volume. The commenter argues that given this inter-exchange platform competition, the exchanges’ filed prices for depth-of-book data and auction information are constrained by market forces. See id. at 6–7. 45 See id. at 5. The commenter stated that by applying that established ratio to the current prices for consolidated top-of-book data, the fee proposals thus reflect the market forces that drive the pricing of depth-of-book information in relation to top-of book information and the value that the data has to market participants. Id. The ratio between such filed proprietary depth-of-book fees and proprietary lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 39 See VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Mar 01, 2022 Jkt 256001 This commenter also argues that basing fees on the value of the underlying data is the fairest and most economically efficient method for setting fees because setting fees according to the value of the data leads to optimal consumption: Fees that are too low do not allow for producers to remain profitable, while fees that are too high lead to underutilization.46 The commenter states that NMS Plans have historically used value as a fair and efficient basis for setting fees.47 The commenter argues that the best basis for determining the value of core data are the fees currently charged for proprietary data fees, which, according to the commenter, have been ‘‘tested by competitive forces’’ and therefore provide a good starting point for estimating the value of new core data and for setting fees at efficient levels.48 The commenter argues that the valuebased methodology provides a substantial basis for showing that current proprietary fees—and, by extension, the proposed fees for new core data—are equitable, fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably discriminatory.49 The commenter states that exchanges cannot overprice the total prices of their services without potentially losing order flow and damaging its overall ability to compete.50According to this commenter, exchanges that produce more valuable market data generally charge higher fees, and those with less valuable data charge lower fees,51 so fees vary according to the underlying value of the data, as measured by the liquidity available at the exchange.52 The commenter argues that the existence of significant competition provides a substantial basis for finding that the terms of an exchange’s fee proposal are equitable, fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably discriminatory.53 The commenter states that Commission staff has indicated that they would look at factors beyond the competitive environment, such as cost, only if a proposal lacks persuasive evidence that the proposed fee is constrained by top-of-book data therefore provides the Commission with a benchmark for evaluating the proposed fees, which NYSE argues are fair, reasonable, and not unfairly discriminatory because they are based on this ratio, which is reflective of market forces. See id. at 7. 46 See Nasdaq Letter, supra note 15, at 2. 47 See id. 48 See id. at 2, 6. 49 See id. at 6. 50 See id. at 4. 51 See id. 52 See id. 53 See id. at 5–6. PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 11767 significant competitive forces.54 The commenter argues that, because they are tested by market competition, proprietary data fees provide good and indicative starting point for estimating the value of new core data and setting fees at their efficient level.55 This, according to the commenter, provides a substantial basis for showing that current proprietary fees—and, by extension, the proposed fees for new core data—are equitable, fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably discriminatory.56 Some commenters object to the way in which the Participants used the fees of proprietary depth-of-book products to calculate a ratio (or multiplier) between those fees and the fees for proprietary top-of-book products and then multiplied existing SIP core top-of-book data fees by that multiplier to calculate the proposed depth-of-book fees for expanded core data under the MDI Rule.57 One commenter argues that the approach adopted is arbitrary because it presupposes that the fees exchanges charge for their proprietary market data are fair and reasonable.58 One commenter states that calculating the proposed fee levels in this manner— based on prices charged by the exchanges for their existing market data product—is not the right starting point for setting the proposed fees and inconsistent with the MDI Rule’s goal of expanding access to consolidated data.59 One commenter states that that the exchanges’ ‘‘platform competition’’ argument that competition for order flow constrains pricing for market data does not demonstrate that the fees are reasonable and mentions studies it has submitted to the Commission in the past that bolster their argument.60 Some commenters argue that the methodology used to calculate the fees does not account for the transfer of costs from the SROs to market participants under the decentralized consolidation model.61 One commenter states that, 54 See id. (citing to ‘‘Staff Guidance on SRO Rule Filings Relating to Fees’’ (May 19, 2019), available at https://www.sec.gov/tm/staff-guidance-sro-rulefilings-fees). 55 See id. at 6. 56 See id. 57 See MIAX Letter, supra note 15, at 4; SIFMA Letter, supra note 15, at 5. 58 See SIFMA Letter, supra note 15, at 5. 59 See MIAX Letter, supra note 15, at 4. 60 See SIFMA Letter, supra note 15, at 5–6. 61 See MEMX Letter, supra note 15, at 18; MIAX Letter, supra note 15, at 2; BlackRock Letter, supra note 15, at 2–3; Polygon.io Letter, supra note 15, at 1. On the other hand, one commenter stated that with respect to comments that the proposal should ‘‘back out’’ fees for the current Processors from the proposed fee structure, the MDI Rule requires the current Processors to continue operating for at least E:\FR\FM\02MRN1.SGM Continued 02MRN1 11768 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2022 / Notices while the proposal leaves fees for existing core data elements unchanged, the profits and operating costs of the exclusive securities information processors should be deducted from these fees to reflect the new role of competing consolidators.62 B. Comments Regarding the Proposed Fees 1. General Comments lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 Some commenters state the methodology used to calculate the proposed fees resulted in fees that are too high.63 Some commenters state that the proposed fees have not been shown to be fair and reasonable and not unreasonably discriminatory.64 One commenter states that the proposed fees for the content underlying consolidated market data are too high whether a costbasis or value-basis were used as a justification by the Participants.65 This commenter states that the cost of SIP data is too high relative to top-of-book proprietary feeds, and that market participants are currently choosing the less expensive option of top-of-book proprietary feeds,66 which, according to the commenter, indicates that Level 1 consolidated market data is not priced in accordance with its value to the market.67 Another commenter several more years, and that therefore, there are no savings to back out of any proposed fee structure at this time. See NYSE Letter, supra note 15, at 7. 62 See BlackRock Letter, supra note 15, at 2, 3– 4. 63 See BlackRock Letter, supra note 15, at 1–5; FINRA Letter, supra note 15, at 7; MIAX Letter, supra note 15, at 2; Angel Letter, supra note 15, at 9; NovaSparks Letter, supra note 15, at 1; BMO Letter, supra note 15, at 2–3; IEX Letter, supra note 15, at 1, 5; SIFMA Letter, supra note 15, at 1, 4– 5; IEX Letter, supra note 15, at 4; MEMX Letter, supra note 15, at 11–12. 64 See IEX Letter, supra note 15, 1, at 2–3; MIAX Letter, supra note 15, at 2; MEMX Letter, supra note 15, at 22; SIFMA Letter, supra note 15, at 4–5; BMO Letter, supra note 15, at 3; FINRA Letter, supra note 15, at 7; MayStreet Letter, supra note 15, at 4; BlackRock Letter, supra note 15, at 2, 6; Polygon.io Letter, supra note 15, at 2. 65 See MayStreet Letter, supra note 15, at 6. This commenter states that the cost of SIP data is too high relative to top-of-book proprietary feeds, and that market participants are currently choosing the less expensive option of top-of-book proprietary feeds, which, according to the commenter, indicates that Level 1 consolidated market data is not priced in accordance with its value to the market. See id. 66 See MayStreet Letter, supra note 15, at 6–7. 67 See id. at 7. The commenter states that Level 1 data should be priced so as to make the content available at a price that is competitive to proprietary top-of-book offerings, and that the fact that the price levels are unchanged from the current SIP prices reflects a failure by the Participants to accurately assess the value of Level 1 data. The commenter states that the value of the depth-ofbook data should focus on greater access and availability of this kind of data, and adds that the Operating Committee should consider what price point would increase availability of depth-of-book VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Mar 01, 2022 Jkt 256001 challenges the methodology and compares the proposed fees to fees currently charged for proprietary data fees and the proposed user and access fees for consolidated market data under the proposal to the prices that a firm would pay to obtain that data from proprietary data products that offer similar information.68 This commenter believes that at any given price a subscriber would be better off subscribing to the proprietary data fees listed instead of purchasing consolidated market data from the SIPs given the additional information included on those feeds.69 The commenter states that, because the proposed fees are generally more expensive than current proprietary data offering, the Proposed Amendments clearly fail the ‘‘fair and reasonable’’ test required by the Exchange Act.70 Some commenters state that the proposed fees would have an adverse impact on competition, and on competing consolidators in particular.71 One commenter states that, even where the proposed fees are lower than the fees charged for comparable proprietary data, the fact that other fees are higher than proprietary offerings is likely to reduce incentives for competing consolidators to actually offer that data content to their customers.72 Another commenter expresses concern that if the Proposed Amendment were approved the exchanges would entrench a high level of cost for market data that has no relation to their underlying expenses, is not subject to effective competitive forces, and serves as an formidable barrier to entry for newer firms.73 One commenter states that the Proposed Amendment conflates the prices that competing consolidators and self-aggregators pay the SROs for the information, rather than charging a multiplier of proprietary data feeds. See id. 68 See MEMX Letter, supra note 15, at 6. 69 See id. at 7. 70 See id. at 8. 71 See MIAX Letter, supra note 15, at 1, 3; 4; MEMX Letter, supra note 15, at 2, 9; 15–17, 21–22, 25; NBIM Letter, supra note 15, at 2; NovaSparks Letter, supra note 15, at 1; IEX Letter, supra note 15, at 5; SIFMA Letter, supra note 15, at 8; FINRA Letter, supra note 15, at 5; MayStreet Letter, supra note 15, at 5; BlackRock Letter, supra note 15, at 1–4; Polygon.io Letter, supra note 15, at 3; Proof Letter, supra note 15, at 3; Cutler Letter, supra note 15, at 1. 72 See MEMX Letter, supra note 15, at 9. The commenter further argues that it is unlikely that there will be any demand for the new data elements included in consolidated market data at prices that exceed the fees charged for proprietary data feeds today. This, the commenter argues, would limit the potential customer base for competing consolidators and inappropriately impede the viability of competing consolidators under the infrastructure rule. See MEMX Letter, supra note 15, at 17. 73 See Proof Letter, supra note 15, at 1. PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 underlying NMS information, and the prices that competing consolidators would charge for the consolidated data they generate.74 This commenter believes the proposals do not make clear that the proposed fees are for the content underlying the consolidated market data, as opposed to the consolidated market data itself.75 The commenter argues that the Participants confuse the content of consolidated market data and the consolidated market data itself,76 and states that the Proposed Amendment sets prices at levels that the SIPs currently charge for consolidated market data.77 One commenter believes that any analysis of current SIP fees should include a discussion of what structural changes could be made to SIP fees to eliminate or reduce the incentives that firms have today to avoid providing SIP data to their customers.78 One commenter believes that the current proposal will favor current market data vendors who already pay for these fees and have large customer bases, but will not necessarily use the most efficient data consolidation solutions.79 This commenter believes that all of the equity market data plans should have a unified feed and price list because most end users today consume all of the plans’ feeds.80 Another commenter states it supports the proposed a la carte fee structure for the expanded elements of consolidated data because, in the commenter’s view, market participants should be able to select from a variety of market data products and pay only for the content they consume.81 2. Fees for Top-of-Book Data Some commenters believe that the proposed fees for Level 1 core data, which include expanded content to include odd-lot quotations, are too high.82 One commenter states that the proposed fees for top-of-book data should be substantially lower to allow competing consolidators to operate their business.83 This commenter states that exchanges will no longer have to pay for the current processors and will not have the burden of maintaining custom feeds 74 See MayStreet Letter, supra note 15, at 2. id. 76 See id. at 3. 77 See id. at 6. 78 See MEMX Letter, supra note 15, at 20. 79 See NovaSparks Letter, supra note 15, at 1. 80 See id. at 1–2. 81 See BlackRock Letter, supra note 15, at 2–3. 82 See NovaSparks Letter, supra note 15; IEX Letter, supra note 15; MayStreet Letter, supra note 15; BlackRock Letter, supra note 15; MIAX Letter, supra note 15. 83 See NovaSparks Letter, supra note 15, at 1. 75 See E:\FR\FM\02MRN1.SGM 02MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2022 / Notices in specific formats since the proprietary data feeds would be used by the competing consolidators to distribute the new SIP market data.84 One commenter states that the net effect of the proposal is to make core data fees more expensive that proprietary data feeds, adding that it seems clear the purpose of the proposal is ‘‘to protect existing proprietary market data fee revenues by making market data from competing consolidators prohibitively expensive and their business non-viable.’’ 85 Another commenter states that the cost of SIP data is too high relative to topof-book proprietary feeds and that market participants are choosing the less expensive option of top-of-book proprietary feeds.86 This commenter believes this indicates that Level 1 consolidated market data is not priced in accordance with its value to the market.87 According to the commenter, Level 1 data should be priced as to make the content available at a price that is competitive to proprietary top-of-book offerings.88 This commenter further states that the fact that the price levels are unchanged from the current SIP prices reflects a failure by the Participants to accurately assess the value of Level 1 data.89 Another commenter opposes the proposal and asks the Commission disapprove it as it represents an overall increase in costs, including access fees, to end users as well as competing consolidators, thereby making market data less accessible and putting competing consolidators at a disadvantage.90 One commenter supports certain aspects of the proposal, including its a la carte fee structure, and the inclusion of odd-lot quotations free of charge.91 Moreover, some commenters expressed support for the proposed inclusion of odd-lot information free of charge in the expanded Level 1 core data,92 with one commenter stating that this would result in top-of-book information that is more comprehensive, which should, in turn, strengthen best execution and enhance transparency and price discovery.93 One commenter states that the proposed Level 1 core data fees should be adjusted to reflect the new role of 84 See id. IEX Letter, supra note 15, at 5. 86 See MayStreet Letter, supra note 15, at 6–7. 87 See id. at 7. 88 See id. 89 See id. 90 See Cutler Letter, supra note 15, at 1–2. 91 See BlackRock Letter, supra note 15, at 1, 3. 92 See MIAX Letter, supra note 15, at 2; BlackRock Letter, supra note 15, at 1, 3; MayStreet Letter, supra note 15, at 2, 3, 6. 93 See BlackRock Letter, supra note 15, at 1, 3. lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 85 See VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Mar 01, 2022 Jkt 256001 competing consolidators.94 The commenter states that the MDI Rule fundamentally alters the ecosystem for market data by transitioning from exclusive SIPs to competing consolidators and that the Commission intended that this change would unbundle the data fees for consolidated market data from the fees for its consolidation and distribution because the prospective fees charged by competing consolidators would now include fees for aggregation of consolidated market data products and transmission of such products to subscribers.95 This commenter states that in leaving fees for existing core data elements unchanged, the Proposed Amendment fails to consider, as the Commission stated in the MDI Rule Release, that the effective national market system plan for NMS stocks will no longer be operating an exclusive SIP or performing aggregation and other operational functions.96 The commenter argues that the proposed fees should not have been left unchanged from existing core data elements fees, but rather, should have been reduced by at least 4%—the estimated SIP operating expenses excluding profits—to reflect the new role of competing consolidators, and deduct both SIP profits and operating costs from the price. According to the commenter, this 4% discount is derived directly from Commission estimates of SIP operating expenses ($16 million) and revenues ($390 million) in 2018 without any consideration of possible profits. The commenter adds that exclusive SIP profits should also be subtracted from the proposed fees for core data content, as ‘‘any markup for consolidation services should transition to be within the purview of competing consolidators.’’ 97 According to the commenter, keeping core data fees the same as the proposal purports to do would effectively ‘‘opaquely raise prices’’ for this data content.98 3. Fees for Depth-of-Book Data Some commenters argue that the calculation used by the Participants to determine the proposed depth-of-book fees is flawed and inconsistent with the MDI Rule Release because the calculation uses exchange proprietary data feeds that include full order-byorder depth-of-book, inclusive of top-ofbook information, rather than the more 94 See id. at 2–4. id. at 3–4. 96 See id. (citing to MDI Rule Release, 86 FR at 18685). 97 See id. at 4, note 12. 98 See id. at 4. 95 See PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 11769 limited depth information prescribed by the MDI Rule Release.99 These commenters point out that while the proprietary market data depth-of-book feeds used to calculate fees for the consolidated depth-of-book information include top-of-book data as part of those offerings, fees for the consolidated depth-of-book data product under the proposal do not include top-of-book.100 Consequently, some commenters argue, subscribers to the new core data would need to pay an additional surcharge to receive top-of-book data at current rates to obtain the same data content that is available today through proprietary feeds.101 Some commenters question the determination of the ratio (or multiplier) used by the Participants to set the depth-of-book feeds.102 One commenter states that fees for depth-of-book information ‘‘should be adjusted to use a multiplier of 2.94x to eliminate the overcharging from double counting top of book data; otherwise, those who subscribe to both Level 1 and depth of book data ‘‘would be paying twice for top of book content.’’ 103 Some commenters state that an additional problem with the adopted approach is that the proprietary depthof-book products, such as those used in the calculation, are primarily structured as comprehensive order-by-order feeds, which do not aggregate orders at each price level.104 According to these commenters, the depth-of-book elements prescribed by the MDI Rule warrant a lower price because they prescribe only the aggregated quotes available at the next five prices beyond the NBBO and thus include much less content than these proprietary feeds.105 One commenter states that complete, order-by-order depth-of-book feeds, such as those used in the calculation, are likely to be associated with ‘‘additional operational costs because of 99 See IEX Letter, supra note 15, at 3–4; MEMX Letter, supra note 15, at 11–12. BlackRock Letter, supra note 15, at 4–5; FINRA Letter, supra note 15, at 6. 100 See id. 101 See IEX Letter, supra note 15, at 4; MEMX Letter, supra note 15, at 6, 11–12; BlackRock Letter, supra note 15, at 4–5. 102 See IEX Letter, supra note 15; MEMX Letter, supra note 15; BlackRock Letter, supra note 15; FINRA Letter, supra note 15; Angel Letter, supra note 15; NovaSparks Letter, supra note 15. 103 See BlackRock Letter, supra note 15, at 4–5. See also IEX Letter, supra note 15, at 4; MEMX Letter, supra note 15, at 6, 11–12. 104 See IEX Letter, supra note 15, at 4; MEMX Letter, supra note 15, at 11–12; BlackRock Letter, supra note 15, at 4–5; FINRA Letter, supra note 15, at 6. 105 See IEX Letter, supra note 15, at 4; MEMX Letter, supra note 15, at 11–12. BlackRock Letter, supra note 15, at 4–5. E:\FR\FM\02MRN1.SGM 02MRN1 11770 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2022 / Notices increased message traffic with order by order data at all price levels.106 Accordingly, the commenter argues that an aggregated feed with only five levels of depth should have been priced at a discount relative to the corresponding exchange offerings to compensate for differences in both information content and costs.107 One commenter argues that the proposal fails to consider pricing for other proprietary data feeds that are aggregated by price level and would therefore serve as a more logical proxy for setting core data fees.108 One commenter states that the proposal fails to acknowledge or account for the fact that the proposed methodology relies on this commenter’s equity market data fees as one of the comparison points, notwithstanding that, unlike the other exchanges’ market data prices, the commenter’s fees used do not include individual per user fees, but apply only on a per firm basis for firms subscribing to ‘‘real time data.’’ 109 Some commentators believe that the proposed fees for depth-of-book data should be lower than proposed. One commenter states that retail investors should get free or very low cost depthof-book data because it is in the best interest of retail investors, the industry and the Commission.110 This commenter states that displaying depthof-book data can give investors a better understanding of how prices are formed.111 The commenter believes that the ability for an investor to see buying and selling interests at various price levels makes it easier for the investor to understand what determines the price of a particular security by seeing the interaction of market and limit orders.112 The commenter argues that making depth-of-book data ‘‘cheap’’ would allow brokers to give the data to retail clients for no or low cost, and that, this, in turn, would increase retail participation in the securities markets, because investors will not only understand markets better, but they will participate more in the markets.113 According to this commenter, if depthof-book data is expensive, it will not help most retail investors because they will not be able to afford to see it.114 Another commenter states that fees for depth-of-book are unreasonably high.115 The commenter states that, while the Participants decided on an alternative method in establishing fees and sought to demonstrate that the proposed fees are ‘‘related to the value of the data to subscribers,’’ 116 the proprietary depth-of-book price inputs used by the Participants were not properly calibrated and thus are over inclusive, resulting in depth-of-book fees that are unreasonably high.117 One commenter agrees with the notion that that depth-of-book data should be priced higher than top-ofbook data.118 This commenter, however, believes that the charges for depth-ofbook data from the Plans should be much lower than consuming the market data directly from the exchanges because the information provided under the Plan would still be a subset of what is provided by the proprietary data feeds.119 The commenter states that the 4x ratio used by the Participants to determine the fees for accessing depthof-book data is too high.120 One commenter opposes the proposed depth-of book data fees, because they, as well as all other proposed fees, represent an overall increase in costs to end users making market data less accessible, contrary to ‘‘the core precept 113 See id. at 8. id. 115 See FINRA Letter, supra note 15, at 5–6. 116 See id. at 5. 117 See id. at 6. Specifically, the commenter states that (1) the proprietary depth-of-book product fees used in determining the ratio also include proprietary top-of-book data and auction data–both of which would be charged separately from depthof-book data; (2) the depth-of-book product fees also included order-by-order depth information—which is typically considered more valuable, instead of aggregated—resulting in a higher ratio and overstatement of value; and (3) the proposed depthof-book data product fees also included full depth information, i.e., all prices levels (also typically considered more valuable), rather than just the top five price levels required under the MDI Rule, resulting in a higher ratio and fees that are not aligned with the value of the new depth-of-book data to subscribers. The commenter argues that, as a result, the method employed by the Participants does not align the proposed fees for the new depthof-book data to the value of the data to subscribers. See id. 118 See NovaSparks Letter, supra note 15, at 1. 119 See id. 120 See id. 114 See 106 See BlackRock Letter, supra note 15, at 4–5. BlackRock Letter, supra note 15, at 4–5. See also IEX Letter, supra note 15, at 4; MEMX Letter, supra note 15, at 11–12. 108 See IEX Letter, supra note 15, at 4. 109 See id. The commenter also points out that its fees do not vary depending on the type of use made by those firms, do not apply to data that is redistributed with a delay of as little as 15 milliseconds (whereas exchanges typically require a 15-minute delay to avoid charges for real-time data), and were determined and justified based on costs. The commenter further states that, to the extent the commenter’s fees are relevant at all, a more consistent approach would have been to reflect the commenter’s fees as zero, since this particular commenter does not charge any fees on an individual per user basis for either of the two data products. According to the commenter, the latter approach would substantially reduce the average ratio and multiplier, and thus substantially reduce the fees proposed to be charged for core data. See id. 110 See Angel Letter, supra note 15, at 3. 111 See id. at 7. 112 See id. lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 107 See VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Mar 01, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 of the’’ MDI Rule.121 Another commenter states that the value of the depth-of-book data should focus on greater access and availability of this kind of data, and that the Operating Committee should thus consider what price point would increase availability of depth-of-book information, rather than charging a multiplier of proprietary data feeds.122 One commenter expresses support for the proposed and ‘‘moderately priced’’ non-professional rate for depth-of-book information, because, in the commenter’s view, this aspect of the proposal ‘‘levels the playing field’’ for retail investors by providing them with access to the same information that is available to professionals traders at an affordable price, which, will help broaden adoption of this new category of data.123 4. Fees for Auction Data Some commenters believe that the proposed auction information fee would result in double charging for subscribers who purchase both auction and depthof-book information.124 According to these commenters, information about auction order imbalances is included with the proprietary depth-of-book data products used to calculate the depth-ofbook prices; therefore the proposed depth-of-book prices already incorporate the fees for auction imbalance data.125 Thus, these commenters argue that the proposed fees would result in double charging consumers who purchase both auction and depth-of-book information from competing consolidators.126 One commenter states that depth-of-book pricing is also inappropriately used to derive the value of auction data because auction information is more closely aligned with top-of-book content which only provides high-level information about aggregate order imbalances and does not include the order by order details or data about multiple price levels typically included in proprietary depth-of-book information products.127 One commenter states that while the 121 See Cutler Letter, supra note 15, at 1. This comment further states that the level of the proposed fees would make it difficult for such competing consolidators to offer products at prices competitive to those of proprietary feeds thereby placing competing consolidators at a disadvantage. See id. 122 See MayStreet Letter, supra note 15, at 7. 123 See BlackRock Letter, supra note 15, at 3, 5. 124 See MEMX Letter, supra note 15, at 11–12. BlackRock Letter, supra note 15, at 4–5; FINRA Letter, note 15, at 6. 125 See id. 126 See BlackRock Letter, supra note 15, at 4–5; MEMX Letter, supra note 15, at 11–12; FINRA Letter, supra note 15, at 6. 127 See BlackRock Letter, supra note 15, at 5. E:\FR\FM\02MRN1.SGM 02MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2022 / Notices pricing rationale in the proposal uses traded volumes to arrive at a 10% multiple for auction data, this ratio, however, is applied to the depth-of-book feed, which conveys information about displayed liquidity not trading activity. According to the commenter, (1) it would have been more congruent with the SROs’ proposition to use Level 1 core data as the basis for pricing auction content as this feed is more closely associated with trade volume, and (2) the fees for auction information should be set to 10% of Level 1 core data prices.128 Some commenters argue that the fees for auction information under the Proposed Amendment should be lower.129 One commenter states that retail investors should get free or moderately priced auction data because it is in the interests of retail investors, the industry and the Commission.130 The commenter believes that opening and closing auction data are important in the securities markets and that providing auction data to retail investors will increase retail investor participation in the market.131 The commenter also opines that it makes no sense for the Participants to charge professional and non-professionals the same amount for auction data.132 Another commenter states that the filing should not be approved because the price levels do not contribute to a level playing field between competing consolidators and the current plan administrators, such that competing consolidators will be at a disadvantage because they will not be able to offer products at prices competitive with those of proprietary feeds.133 5. Fees for Professional and NonProfessional Users Some commenters question the classification of users by professional or non-professional to develop the fees under the Proposed Amendment.134 One commenter states that it is unreasonably discriminatory against non-professional users to pay the same as professional users for auction data because professionals make far more use of the data.135 The commenter states that the filing contains no justification as to why the Participants propose to 128 See id. Angel Letter, supra note 15; Cutler Letter, supra note 15; BlackRock Letter, supra note 15. 130 See Angel Letter, supra note 15, at 3. 131 See id. at 9. 132 See id. 133 See Cutler Letter, supra note 15, at 1–2. 134 See Angel Letter, supra note 15; BlackRock Letter, supra note 15; MIAX Letter, supra note 15; Polygon.io Letter, supra note 15. 135 See Angel Letter, supra note 15, at 9–10. lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 129 See VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Mar 01, 2022 Jkt 256001 charge professionals the same as nonprofessionals for auction data.136 Some commenters support moderately priced or free nonprofessional user fees. One commenter supports the proposed ‘‘moderately priced’’ non-professional rate for depthof-book information, because, in the commenter’s view, this aspect of the proposal ‘‘levels the playing field’’ for retail investors by providing them with access to the same information that is available to professionals traders at an affordable price, which, will help broaden adoption of this new category of data.137 Another commenter states that free or moderately priced nonprofessional data, including depth-ofbook and auction data, is in the best interest of brokers and exchanges because it may increase retail order flow and thus profits into the industry.138 The commenter further believes that free or moderately priced nonprofessional data is in the best interest of the Commission as well because ‘‘[p]roviding better data to retail investors at low cost will reduce the amount of SEC resources devoted to dealing with complaints based on misunderstandings of market function.’’ 139 Two commenters state they supported the part of the Proposed Amendment that consists of low non-professional user fees.140 One commenter states that it believes the proposed nonprofessional user fees were a step in the right direction, but states that the Plan would charge fees for professional and non-professional users that are often higher than the fees charged by all of the exchange combined for proprietary products, creating disincentives for firms to take SIP data.141 The commenter advocates for fees that would expand access to consolidated market data including free access to odd-lot quotation information as well as cheaper access to depth-of-book quotation information for nonprofessional users.142 Some commenters suggest that the Participants should not categorize fees based on user type and suggest on ways to improve the Proposed Amendment as it relates to these types of user classifications. One commenter urges the Commission to disapprove the Proposed Amendment and any future amendment that maintains non- professional and professional user classifications because such classifications prevent competing consolidators from being able to offer products at competitive prices compared to the proprietary data feeds.143 One commenter recommends easier-to-track proxies for usage-based charges by utilizing data already reported by firms, such as FOCUS Reports.144 Another commenter suggests slowing down the data feeds by 15 milliseconds to mitigate the risk of professionals ‘‘masquerading’’ as nonprofessionals utilizing the cheaper data.145 One commenter states that the proposed professional user fees are based on a flawed methodology that fails to provide a cost based justification, and results in excessive fee levels which would discourage firms from registering as competing consolidators and hinder the formation of the decentralized consolidation model that the MDI Rule seeks to create.146 Another commenter believes that the Operating Committees should analyze whether it is fair and reasonable to continue to charge professional and non-professional user fees that exceed the fees charges for similar proprietary market data.147 This commenter argues that the Proposed Amendment should be disapproved because, for some firms, the professional fees proposed may be higher than if the firms purchased certain proprietary data products.148 However, another commenter responds that this analysis does not account for the fact that purchasers of the new data would be receiving a consolidated data product that aggregates all exchanges’ data together to determine an NBBO and the five best levels of depth among all the exchanges and disregards that the Proposed Amendment includes much lower fees for non-professionals.149 The commenter states that it is fair, reasonable, and not unreasonable discriminatory for ‘‘Wall Street to pay higher fees than Main Street.’’ 150 6. Fees for Non-Display Use Some commenters state that the proposed Non-Display Use fees are based on a flawed methodology that fails to provide a cost based justification, results in excessive fee levels which would discourage firms from registering as competing 136 See 143 See 137 See 144 See id. at 10. BlackRock Letter, supra note 15, at 1, 3. 138 See Angel Letter, supra note 15, at 11. 139 See id. at 11. 140 See MIAX Letter, supra note 15, at 2; MEMX Letter, supra note 15, at 3. 141 See MEMX Letter, supra note 15, at 3, 18–19. 142 See id. at 2. PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 11771 Polygon.io Letter, supra note 15, at 2–3. MayStreet Letter, supra note 15, at 8. 145 See Angel Letter, supra note 15, at 11. 146 See MIAX Letter, supra note 15, at 3. 147 See MEMX Letter, supra note 15, at 20. 148 See id. 149 See NYSE Letter, supra note 15, at 8. 150 See id. E:\FR\FM\02MRN1.SGM 02MRN1 11772 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2022 / Notices consolidators and hinder the formation of the decentralized consolidation model that the MDI Rule seeks to create.151 One commenter states that the fees in the Proposed Amendment, including the non-display fees, would place competing consolidators at a disadvantage because they will not be able to offer products at prices competitive with those of proprietary feeds.152 One commenter asks that the Commission reject that Amendment and any future proposal that maintains display/non-display and professional/ non-professional classifications.153 The commenter states that, if the Proposed Amendment is not rejected, competing consolidators will not be able to offer products at competitive prices to proprietary data feeds.154 7. Access Fees One commenter states that the proposed Access fees are based on a flawed methodology that fails to provide a cost based justification, and results in excessive fee levels which would discourage firms from registering as competing consolidators and hinder the formation of the decentralized consolidation model that the MDI Rule seeks to create.155 Another commenter stated that the proposed access fees are not fair and reasonable because they are more expensive than those fees charged by exchanges in the proprietary products.156 8. Redistribution Fees Two commenters suggest that the imposition of redistribution fees on competing consolidators would place competing consolidators at a competitive disadvantage.157 Another commenter states that by charging redistribution fees to competing consolidators, the filing creates a barrier to entry to technology solution vendors to become competing consolidators.158 One commenter states that the Proposed Amendment should treat competing consolidators as replacements to the exclusive SIPs, not as data vendors.159 It states that lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 151 See MIAX Letter, supra note 15, at 3; Polygon.io Letter, supra note 15, at 2–3. 152 See Cutler Letter, supra note 15, at 1–2. 153 See Polygon.io Letter, supra note 15, at 2. 154 See id. at 3. 155 See MIAX Letter, supra note 15, at 3. 156 See MEMX, supra note 15, at 6, 8. See also Cutler Letter, supra note 15, at 1–2 (noting that it supports the comment letter written by MEMX and that the Proposed Amendment makes market data less accessible). 157 See NBIM Letter, supra note 15, at 2; Cutler Letter, supra note 15, at 1–2. 158 See NovaSparks Letter, supra note 15, at 1. 159 See MayStreet Letter, supra note 15, at 3. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Mar 01, 2022 Jkt 256001 subjecting competing consolidators to the same fees as data vendors and subscribers that receive consolidated market data from the exclusive SIP fails to recognize that competing consolidators are SIPs and not similarly situated to today’s data vendors.160 This commenter further states that that competing consolidators should not be charged redistribution fees because they are not redistributing consolidated market data, but generating and distributing it for the first time.161 According to this commenter, these fees for redistribution should not be charged by the Plan because the Plan no longer would govern the distribution of consolidated market data.162 The commenter states that by not recognizing competing consolidators as SIPs, competing consolidators are placed at a competitive disadvantage relative to data vendors given that they take on expenses and risks that data vendors do not, such as the costs for generating consolidated market data, disclosing operational and performance metrics, registering with the Commission, and complying with Rule 614 of Regulation NMS.163 One commenter states that the proposed redistribution fee that would be charged to competing consolidators is inconsistent with the purposes and structure of the MDI Rule, and that this aspect of the proposal represents a ‘‘further indication that the intent of the majority was to subvert the purpose of the Commission’s order.’’ 164 Another commenter states that the redistribution fee for competing consolidators is inconsistent with the MDI Rule, not fair and reasonable, and unreasonably discriminatory.165 One commenter states that the proposal’s attempt to justify the redistribution fee based on the current centralized model that charges fees to downstream vendors is unsound because, under the decentralized MDI Rule, competing consolidators would be ‘‘stepping into the role that the SIPs hold today as the primary sources of consolidated market 160 See id. at 3–4. id. 162 See id., at 5. 163 See id. 164 See IEX Letter, supra note 15, at 5. 165 See MIAX Letter, supra note 15, at 2 (citing the MDI Rule Release which stated that ‘‘imposing redistribution fees on data content underlying consolidated market data that will be disseminated by competing consolidators would be difficult to reconcile with the standards of being fair and reasonable and not unreasonably discriminatory in the new decentralized model,’’ and that ‘‘fees proposed by the SROs should not contain redistribution fees for competing consolidators because this would hinder their ability to compete.’’). 161 See PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 data.’’ 166 According to this commenter, to charge a redistribution fee on top of the other proposed fees would ‘‘unquestionably put competing consolidators at a further competitive disadvantage as compared to aggregated proprietary data products offered by exchanges,’’ thus targeting them in an unfair and unreasonable manner.167 One commenter states the Proposed Amendment directly contradicts the Commission’s directive in the MDI Rule that competing consolidators not be treated the same as market data vendors.168 It believes that Participants are attempting to undermine the Commission’s authority over market data as enumerated in the CT Plan and MDI Rule in order to preserve their current revenues from proprietary and SIP data.169 It states that the Participants have taken the position that the competing consolidators should be charged redistribution fees just like any market data vendor. It believes this undermines the efforts of the MDI Rule.170 The commenter reiterates the Commission’s statement in the MDI Rule Release that ‘‘the Commission believes that the fees for the data content underlying consolidated market data should not include redistribution fees for competing consolidators. Competing consolidators will take the place of the exclusive SIPs in the dissemination of consolidated market data, which today do not pay redistribution fees for the consolidation and dissemination of SIP data.’’ 171 The commenter argues that by treating competing consolidators differently than the exclusive SIPs, the Participants are acting in an unreasonably discriminatory manner, effectively disregarding the Exchange Act mandates in addition to the Commission’s directive in the MDI Rule.172 The commenter argues that imposing redistribution fees on competing consolidators imposes an undue burden on competition in contravention of the standards under Section 3(f) of the Exchange Act that the Commission must consider in connection with any Commission rulemaking or review of SRO rules.173 Two commenters state that the redistribution fees charged to competing consolidators are in contravention of the Commission’s express direction in the 166 See id. id. 168 See SIFMA Letter, supra note 15, at 4–5. 169 See id. at 6. 170 See id. at 7. 171 See id. 172 See id., at 8. 173 See id. 167 See E:\FR\FM\02MRN1.SGM 02MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2022 / Notices MDI Rule and that the Proposed Amendment disregards the directive.174 One commenter states that, although the Commission compared competing consolidators to self-aggregators, a more appropriate comparison would be between competing consolidators and downstream vendors.175 According to this commenter, because such vendors would be subject to redistribution fees when redistributing data to its subscribers, it would impose a burden on competition and be unfair to vendors not to charge a redistribution fee for exactly the same activity to competing consolidators.176 9. Broker-Dealer Enterprise Cap One commenter favors expanding the broker-dealer enterprise cap that is part of the current fee schedule of the Plan. The commenter states that the Proposed Amendment provides no depth-of-book enterprise cap and the Level 1 enterprise caps are out of reach for most market Participants.177 In particular, this commenter recommends that enterprise caps be implemented at multiple tiers levels.178 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 C. NMS Plan Governance Some commenters state that the MDI Rule should be implemented through the CT Plan, as opposed to the existing market data equity plans (i.e., the CTA/ CQ, and Nasdaq/UTP Plans).179 One commenter reiterated its continued support for the provisions of the CT Plan overall.180 The commenter states that the real and potential conflicts of interest that currently exist relating to the provision of market data directly relate to the decision-making problems at the Plans’ Operating Committees.181 The commenter supports expanding the voting representation under the CT Plan to non-SROs and having them participate as full voting members of the Operating Committee.182 The commenter believes the Commission cannot approve the Proposed Amendment given the inherent conflicts of interests of the SROs who developed the proposals.183 The commenter states that, if the Commission approved the Proposed Amendment, it would be 174 See FINRA Letter, supra note 15, at 5; MEMX Letter, supra note 15, at 21. 175 See NYSE Letter, supra note 15, at 7. 176 See id. 177 See MayStreet Letter, supra note 15, at 8. 178 See id. at 8. 179 See BMO Letter, supra note 15; MEMX Letter, supra note 15; MIAX Letter, supra note 15; IEX Letter, supra note 15; and Polygon.io Letter, supra note 15. 180 See BMO Letter, supra note 15, at 1. 181 See id. at 2. 182 See id. 183 See id. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Mar 01, 2022 Jkt 256001 giving tacit approval to the shortcomings in the governance structure of the current Plans.184 This commenter also notes that the proposed fee amendments are explicitly stated by the Participants to be unrelated to the cost of providing the data, but rather to subscriber value.185 The commenter states that this is a clear example of the Plan’s Operating Committee failing to ensure that the public service mandates of the SIPs are achieved and is a failure in governance through the unmitigated conflicts of interest by voting members who just want to maximize profits.186 The commenter states that further evidence of the failure of the governance structure on the Operating Committee is that the fee proposals have been proposed while the remaining reforms of the CT Plan are stayed pending resolution of challenges in the D.C. Circuit.187 The commenter states that it is surprised that the proposals were filed without broader participation, given that certain members of the Operating Committee have stated publicly that the proposals contradict the Exchange Act standards for consolidated data which requires that the fees be fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably discriminatory.188 Another commenter also encourages the Commission to consider whether the CT Plan is a more appropriate body for setting fees for consolidated market data.189 This commenter believes that placing the responsibility for setting fees in the hands of the CT Plan would allow SIP fees to be set by an Operating Committee that better reflects the constituencies impacted by this filing, including non-SRO representatives.190 A second commenter states that the fee proposals are ‘‘the result of a conflicted and unbalanced voting process,’’ adding that it agreed with the recommendation that the responsibility for setting the proposed fees should be placed on the CT Plan.191 A third commenter recommends that the Commission disapprove the proposal and reassign the responsibility for the filing to the Operating Committee for the CT Plan, which the commenter states would have a ‘‘broader set of voting stakeholders and a fairer and less conflicted 184 See id. id. 186 See id. at 2–3. 187 See id. at 3. 188 See id. (citing note 14 of the Notice, which states in part: ‘‘FINRA, IEX, LTSE, MIAX, and MEMX have not joined in the decision to approve the filing of the proposed amendment, and Nasdaq BX is also withholding its vote at this time.’’). 189 See MEMX Letter, supra note 15, at 23–24. 190 See id. 191 See MIAX Letter, supra note 15, at 5. 185 See PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 11773 governance structure,’’ a change that, as this proposal shows, is ‘‘badly’’ needed.192 One commenter asks the Commission to reevaluate the process that led to the creation of the Proposed Amendment and make substantive changes to avoid the amendment process being used to derail timely implementation of the MDI Rule.193 D. Consideration of Other Actions Under Rule 608 of Regulation NMS In connection with recommending disapproval of the Proposed Amendment, one commenter states the Commission could consider potential action under Rule 608(a)(2) of Regulation NMS, which allows the Commission to directly propose amendments to effective national market system plans.194 The commenter states that in connection with a Commission disapproval of the Proposed Amendment, it would ‘‘support the Commission’s efforts to ensure that the newly expanded consolidated market data (i.e., new core data) under the Commission’s Infrastructure Rule is disseminated in a manner consistent with the Exchange Act standards to ensure the investing public and all market participants have fair and reasonable access to it.’’ 195 One commenter believes that it would be inconsistent with the Exchange Act and Rule 608 for the Commission to sua sponte change any or all of the proposed fees, as any such change would be material to the Proposed Amendment.196 The commenter states that, in its view, if the Commission intends to revise the Proposed Amendment in any material way, it must do so through rule-making under Rule 608(b)(2), by providing public notice of the specific changes it proposes and giving the Participants and general public an opportunity to comment.197 IV. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove the Proposed Amendment The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Rule 608(b)(2)(i) of Regulation NMS,198 and Rule 700 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice,199 to determine whether to approve or disapprove the Proposed Amendment or to approve the Proposed 192 See IEX Letter, supra note 15, at 5. Polygon.io Letter, supra note 15, at 3. 194 See SIFMA Letter, supra note 15, at 2. 195 See id. 196 See NYSE Letter, supra note 15, at 8. 197 See id. 198 17 CFR 242.608. 199 17 CFR 201.700. 193 See E:\FR\FM\02MRN1.SGM 02MRN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 11774 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2022 / Notices Amendment with any changes or subject to any conditions the Commission deems necessary or appropriate after considering public comment. Institution of proceedings does not indicate that the Commission has reached any conclusions with respect to any of the issues involved. Rather, the Commission seeks and encourages interested persons to provide additional comment on the Proposed Amendment to inform the Commission’s analysis. Rule 608(b)(2) of Regulation NMS provides that the Commission ‘‘shall approve a . . . proposed amendment to a national market system plan, with such changes or subject to such conditions as the Commission may deem necessary or appropriate, if it finds that such . . . amendment is necessary or 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 mechanisms of, a national market system, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.’’ 200 Rule 608(b)(2) further provides that the Commission shall disapprove a proposed amendment if it does not make such a finding.201 Pursuant to Rule 608(b)(2)(i) of Regulation NMS,202 the Commission is providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under consideration: • Whether the Proposed Amendment is consistent with the Commission’s MDI Rule; 203 • Whether, consistent with Rule 608 of Regulation NMS, the Proposed Amendment is necessary or 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 mechanisms of, a national market system, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act; 204 • Whether, consistent with Rule 603(a) and 614(d)(3) of Regulation NMS, the Proposed Amendment provides for the distribution of information with respect to quotations for and transactions in NMS stocks on terms that are fair and reasonable and not unreasonably discriminatory; • Whether modifications to the Proposed Amendment, or conditions to its approval, would be required to make the Proposed Amendment necessary or 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 mechanisms of, a national market system, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act; 205 • Whether the Proposed Amendment is consistent with Congress’s finding, in Section 11A(1)(C)(iii) of the Act, that it is in the public interest and appropriate for the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets to ensure ‘‘the availability to brokers, dealers, and investors or information with respect to quotations for and transactions in securities;’’ 206 and • Whether, consistent with the purposes of Section 11A(c)(1)(B) of the Act,207 the Proposed Amendment’s provisions are drafted to support the prompt, accurate, reliable, and fair collection, processing, distribution, and publication of information with respect to quotations for and transactions in NMS securities, and the fairness and usefulness of the form and content of such information. Under the Commission’s Rules of Practice, the ‘‘burden to demonstrate that a NMS plan filing is consistent with the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations issued thereunder . . . is on the plan participants that filed the NMS plan filing.’’ 208 The description of the NMS plan filing, its purpose and operation, its effect, and a legal analysis of its consistency with applicable requirements must all be sufficiently detailed and specific to support an affirmative Commission finding.209 Any failure of the plan participants that filed the NMS plan filing to provide such detail and specificity may result in the Commission not having a sufficient basis to make an affirmative finding that the NMS plan filing is consistent with the Exchange Act and the applicable rules and regulations thereunder.210 V. Commission’s Solicitation of Comments The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is consistent with Section 11A or any other provision of the Act, or the 200 See 205 See 201 See 206 15 17 CFR 242.608(b)(2). id. 202 17 CFR 242.608(b)(2)(i). See also Commission Rule of Practice 700(b)(2), 17 CFR 201.700(b)(2). 203 See MDI Rule Release, supra note 9. 204 See 17 CFR 242.608(b)(2). VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:46 Mar 01, 2022 Jkt 256001 id. U.S.C. 78k–1(a)(1)(C)(iii). 207 See 15 U.S.C. 78k–1(c)(1)(B). 208 17 CFR 201.700(b)(3)(ii). 209 Id. 210 Id. PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 608(b)(2)(i) of Regulation NMS,211 any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.212 The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency and merit of the Participants’ statements in support of the Proposed Amendment,213 in addition to any other comments they may wish to submit about the proposed rule changes. In particular, the Commission seeks comment on the following: 1. In the MDI Rule Release, the Commission stated that ‘‘the fees for the data content underlying consolidated market data must satisfy the statutory standards of being fair, reasonable and not unreasonably discriminatory.’’ 214 What are commenters’ views as to each of the fees proposed? 2. In the Cover Letter,215 the Participants state that ‘‘under the decentralized competing consolidator model, the Operating Committee has no knowledge of any of the costs associated with consolidated market data.’’ The Participants further state that, under the decentralized competing consolidator model described in the MDI Rule Release, the Plan’s Operating Committee no longer has a role in either specifying the technology associated with exchanges providing data or contracting with a SIP and that each national securities exchange will be responsible for determining the methods of access to and format of data necessary to generate consolidated market data. The Participants also state that the Operating Committee will not have access to information about how each exchange would generate the data that they each would be required to disseminate under amended Rule 603(b). According to the Participants, the Operating Committee does not have access to any information about the cost of providing consolidated market data under the decentralized competing consolidator model. Do commenters agree with the statements that the Participants have made with respect to their ability, 211 17 CFR 242.608(b)(2)(i). 700(c)(ii) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice provides that ‘‘[t]he Commission, in its sole discretion, may determine whether any issues relevant to approval or disapproval would be facilitated by the opportunity for an oral presentation of views.’’ 17 CFR 201.700(c)(ii). 213 See Notice, supra note 6. 214 See MDI Rule Release, supra note 9, 86 FR at 18684. 215 See Cover Letter, supra note 1. 212 Rule E:\FR\FM\02MRN1.SGM 02MRN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2022 / Notices current or future, to determine the costs of generating consolidated market data? 3. What are commenters’ views on the Participants argument that a ‘‘valuebased’’ methodology is an appropriate basis to determine the fees for core data? What are commenters’ views on the methodology proposed by the Participants? 4. What are commenters’ views on whether the comparison of exchanges’ proprietary depth-of-book fees to the current SIP feeds is an appropriate means to calculate the ‘‘value’’ of consolidated market data? Do commenters believe that the pricing for individual exchange market data products can serve as an appropriate means for justifying the proposed fees? What are commenters’ views on the prices of the depth-of-book feeds— whether by reference to cost or to prices set by a competitive market for equity market data as opposed to market power? 5. What are commenters’ views on the Participants’ calculation of the appropriate ratio to be applied to current SIP fees to generate the proposed fees for content underlying consolidated market data? Were appropriate depth-of-book products selected for the calculation? What are commenters’ views about the ratios and methodology used generate fees? 6. Under the Proposed Amendment, the consolidated market data depth-ofbook product would not include top-ofbook data. What are commenters’ views on basing the price of depth-of-book consolidated market data on the fees for proprietary products that include top-ofbook data? 7. In the Cover Letter,216 the Participants state that they reviewed the depth-of-book to top-of-book ratios of Professional device rates on Nasdaq (Nasdaq Basic/Nasdaq TotalView), Cboe (Cboe Full Depth), NYSE (BQT/NYSE Integrated), and IEX (TOPS/DEEP) to determine an appropriate ratio between the fees of depth-of-book core data products and the current Level 1 (topof-book) data. The Participants further state that they believe that the 3.94x ratio represents the difference in value between top-of-book data and five levels of depth that would be required to be included in consolidated market data under amended Rule 603(b). What are commenters’ views on setting fees under the Proposed Amendment based on the ratio of fees for depth-of-book and topof-book proprietary data products? 8. Under the Proposed Amendment, the consolidated market data depth-ofbook product would include only 216 See Cover Letter, supra note 1. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Mar 01, 2022 Jkt 256001 aggregate order information at each price level, not order-by-order data. What are commenters’ views on whether the price of depth-of-book consolidated market data should be based on the fees for proprietary products that include order-by-order data? What are commenters’ views on the selection of the referenced proprietary data products used to price the fees in the Proposed Amendment, including other exchange fees considered but not selected as a reference for the development of pricing under the Proposed Amendment? 9. Under the Proposed Amendment, the consolidated market data depth-ofbook product would not include auction data, which would be sold separately. What are commenters’ views on whether the price of depth-of-book consolidated market data should be based on the fees for proprietary depthof-book products that include auction data? 10. What are commenters’ views on whether users should be classified as professionals and non-professionals under the Proposed Amendment? Should non-professional subscribers to pay the same fees as professional subscribers for the auction data under the Proposed Amendment? Why or why not? Should professionals to pay a different price than non-professionals for products other than auction data under the Proposed Amendment? Why or why not? If commenters believe that classification based on user type for the contents of the consolidated market data is appropriate, do commenters support or oppose low-cost non-professional user fees? Why or why not? 11. What are commenters’ views on the non-display fees in the Proposed Amendment? 12. What are commenters’ views on the access fees in the Proposed Amendment? What are commenters’ views on whether the Participants should charge access fees? Should competing consolidators be required to pay access fees? Why or why not? Should access fees be treated like connectivity fees, market data fees, or something else? Why or why not? 13. What are commenters’ views on how the cost of purchasing consolidated top-of-book, depth-of-book, and auction data under the Proposed Amendment compares to the cost of subscribing to the existing proprietary data feeds that would contain similar or more data? What are commenters’ views regarding the relationship of this comparison to the fees under the Proposed Amendment? 14. The Commission stated in the MDI Rule Release that ‘‘imposing PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 11775 redistribution fees on data content underlying consolidated market data that will be disseminated by competing consolidators would be difficult to reconcile with the standards of being fair and reasonable and not unreasonably discriminatory in the new decentralized model,’’ 217 and that ‘‘fees proposed by the SROs should not contain redistribution fees for competing consolidators because this would hinder their ability to compete.’’ 218 What are commenters’ views on the justification offered by the Participants in favor of charging redistribution fees to competing consolidators? What are commenters’ views regarding competing consolidators being treated similarly to data vendors and charged redistribution fees? Would charging redistribution fees to competing consolidators (and thus subjecting them to the same fees as vendors and subscribers) place them at a competitive disadvantage to the exchanges offering proprietary market data for sale? Why or why not? Do commenters believe that imposing redistribution fees on competing consolidators would impose a burden on competition? Why or why not? What are commenters’ views on the level of redistribution fees in the Proposed Amendment? 15. What are commenters’ views on the prices for Level 1 core data, which has been expanded to include odd-lot quotations? 16. What are commenters’ views on whether the operating costs of the exclusive SIPs should be deducted from the Level 1 fees in the Proposed Amendment to reflect the new role of competing consolidators? If so, how should they be taken into account? What are commenter’s views on whether the operating costs of the exclusive SIPs should be taken into account in determining the fees for depth-of-book core data? If so, how should they be taken into account? Do commenters believe that the new fees for Level 1 core data should have been proposed by the Participants? Why or why not? What are commenters’ views on how any new fees for Level 1 data should have been determined? 17. Overall, what are commenters’ views on the proposed prices for consolidated depth-of-book data? How do commenters believe the cost of depth-of-book data under the Plan should compare to consuming the same or similar data directly from the exchanges? Do commenters believe that 217 See MDI Rule Release, supra note 9, 86 FR at 18685. 218 See id., 86 FR at 18682, n.1136. E:\FR\FM\02MRN1.SGM 02MRN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 11776 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2022 / Notices the proposed price point for depth-ofbook data would increase the availability of the information for investors? Why or why not? Do commenters believe that the calculation of the proposed depth-of-book data fee would essentially double-charge customers for top-of-book information that they would have to buy separately through the Level I feed? Why or why not? 18. What are commenters’ views on the prices for auction information? Do commenters believe the proposed prices for auction information are priced too high, too low, or at the correct level? Why or why not? What are commenters’ views on the lack of a distinction between prices charged to professional and non-professional users for auction information? 19. In the Cover Letter,219 the Participants stated that, with respect to the fees for auction information, they looked to the percentage of average dialing trading volume that occurs during an auction process and determined that roughly 10% of the trading volume takes place in auctions. The Participants stated that they therefore believe that charging a fee for auction data that is 10% of the fee charged for depth-of-book data appropriately reflects the value of auction information. What are commenters’ views about this method for determining the fees for auction data? 20. What are commenters’ views on the lack of an enterprise fee cap in the proposal? Should enterprise caps have been proposed by the Participants for each category of data (e.g., Level 1, depth-of-book, auction information)? Should multiples enterprise caps have been proposed to reflect different size enterprises? Why or why not? 21. What are commenters’ views on the Participants’ clarification in the Proposed Amendment that the PerQuote-Packet Charges would not apply to the expanded market data content required by the MDI Rule and would only be available for the receipt and use of the Level 1 Service? 22. What are commenters’ views on the belief of some market participants that conflicts of interest by the Participants who also sell proprietary data products have resulted in proposed fees that are not fair, reasonable, and unreasonably discriminatory? 220 What are commenters’ views on whether the opinions of the advisory committee members and SROs who did not vote in favor of the Proposed Amendment 219 See 220 See Cover Letter, supra note 1. Section III.C, supra. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Mar 01, 2022 Jkt 256001 should have been accommodated in the Proposed Amendment? 23. Should the Commission approve or disapprove the Proposed Amendment? Why or why not? Should the Commission approve the Proposed Amendment with modifications? If so, what modifications would be appropriate and why? Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposal should be approved or disapproved by March 23, 2022. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person’s submission must file that rebuttal by April 6, 2022. 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 No. SR– CTA/CQ–2021–03 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 No. SR–CTA/CQ–2021–03. 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 (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 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 Participants’ principal offices. 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 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number File No. SR–CTA/CQ– 2021–03 and should be submitted on or before March 23, 2022. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.221 Jill M. Peterson, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. 2022–04334 Filed 3–1–22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011–01–P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34–94304; File No. SR–OCC– 2021–014)] Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change Concerning The Options Clearing Corporation’s Cash and Investment Management February 24, 2022. I. Introduction On December 23, 2021, the Options Clearing Corporation (‘‘OCC’’) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule change SR–OCC–2021– 014 (‘‘Proposed Rule Change’’) pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (‘‘Exchange Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 2 thereunder to (i) add OCC’s existing policy regarding cash and related investments to its Rules, and (ii) amend OCC’s Rules governing the use of Clearing Fund contributions to ensure access in the event of the failure of an investment counterparty with whom OCC has invested cash collateral.3 The Proposed Rule Change was published for public comment in the Federal Register on January 12, 2022.4 The Commission has 221 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(85). U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 3 See Notice of Filing infra note 5, at 87 FR 1819. 4 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 93916 (Jan. 12, 2022), 87 FR 1819 (Jan. 12, 2022) (File No. SR– OCC–2021–014) (‘‘Notice of Filing’’). OCC also filed a related advance notice (SR–OCC–2021–803) (‘‘Advance Notice’’) with the Commission pursuant to Section 806(e)(1) of Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, entitled the Payment, Clearing, and Settlement Supervision Act of 2010 and Rule 19b–4(n)(1)(i) under the Exchange Act. 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1). 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1) and 17 CFR 240.19b–4, respectively. The Advance Notice was published in the Federal Register on January 12, 2022. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 93915 (Jan. 6, 2022), 87 FR 1814 (Jan. 12, 2022) (File No. SR–OCC–2021– 803). A Notice of No Objection to the Advance Notice was published in the Federal Register on February 23, 2022. See Securities Exchange Act 1 15 E:\FR\FM\02MRN1.SGM 02MRN1

Agencies

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 41 (Wednesday, March 2, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11763-11776]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04334]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-94309; File No. SR-CTA/CQ-2021-03]


Consolidated Tape Association; Order Instituting Proceedings To 
Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove the Twenty-Fifth Charges 
Amendment to the Second Restatement of the CTA Plan and Sixteenth 
Charges Amendment to the Restated CQ Plan

February 24, 2022.

I. Introduction

    On November 5, 2021,\1\ certain participants in the Second 
Restatement of the Consolidated Tape Association (``CTA'') Plan and 
Restated Consolidated Quotation (``CQ'') Plan (collectively ``CTA/CQ 
Plans'' or ``Plans'') \2\ filed with the Securities and

[[Page 11764]]

Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission''), pursuant to Section 
11A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \3\ and Rule 608 
of Regulation National Market System (``NMS'') thereunder,\4\ a 
proposal (the ``Proposed Amendment'') to amend the Plans.\5\ The 
Proposed Amendment was published for comment in the Federal Register on 
November 26, 2021.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Letter from Robert Books, Chair, CTA/CQ Operating 
Committee, to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Commission (Nov. 5, 
2021) (``Cover Letter'').
    \2\ The CTA Plan, pursuant to which markets collect and 
disseminate last-sale price information for non-Nasdaq-listed 
securities, is a ``transaction reporting plan'' under Rule 601 of 
Regulation NMS, 17 CFR 242.601, and a ``national market system 
plan'' under Rule 608 of Regulation NMS, 17 CFR 242.608. The CQ 
Plan, pursuant to which markets collect and disseminate bid/ask 
quotation information for non-Nasdaq-listed securities, is a 
``national market system plan'' under Rule 608 under the Act, 17 CFR 
242.608. See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 10787 (May 10, 
1974), 39 FR at 17799 (May 20, 1974) (declaring the CTA Plan 
effective); 15009 (July 28, 1978), 43 FR at 34851 (Aug. 7, 1978) 
(temporarily authorizing the CQ Plan); and 16518 (Jan. 22, 1980), 45 
FR at 6521 (Jan. 28, 1980) (permanently authorizing the CQ Plan). 
The most recent restatement of both Plans was in 1995.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C 78k-1.
    \4\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \5\ The Proposed Amendment was approved and executed by more 
than the Plans' required two-thirds of the self-regulatory 
organizations (``SROs'') that are participants of the UTP Plan. The 
participants that approved and executed the amendment (the 
``Participants'') are: Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc., Cboe BZX Exchange, 
Inc., Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc., Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc., Cboe 
Exchange, Inc., Nasdaq ISE, LLC, Nasdaq PHLX, Inc., The Nasdaq Stock 
Market LLC, New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE American LLC, NYSE 
Arca, Inc., NYSE Chicago, Inc., and NYSE National, Inc.. The other 
SROs that are participants in the Plans are: Financial Industry 
Regulatory Authority, Inc., The Investors' Exchange LLC, Long-Term 
Stock Exchange, Inc., MEMX LLC, MIAX PEARL, LLC, and Nasdaq BX, Inc.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 93625 (Nov. 19, 
2021), 86 FR 67517 (Nov. 26, 2021) (``Notice''). Comments received 
in response to the Notice are available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-ctacq-2021-03/srctacq202103.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This order institutes proceedings, under Rule 608(b)(2)(i) of 
Regulation NMS,\7\ to determine whether to approve or disapprove the 
Proposed Amendment or to approve the Proposed Amendment with any 
changes or subject to any conditions the Commission deems necessary or 
appropriate after considering public comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 242.608(b)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Summary of the Proposed Amendment ⁸
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The full text of the Proposed Amendment appears as 
Attachment A to the Notice. See Notice, supra note 6, 86 FR 67521-
24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Proposed Amendment, the Participants propose to amend the 
Plans to adopt fees for the receipt of the expanded content of 
consolidated market data pursuant to the Commission's Market Data 
Infrastructure Rule (``MDI Rule'').\9\ The Participants have submitted 
a separate amendment to implement the non-fee-related aspects of the 
MDI Rule.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90610, 86 FR 18596 
(April 9, 2021) (File No. S7-03-20) (``MDI Rule Release'').
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 93615 (Nov. 19, 
2021), 86 FR 67800 (Nov. 29, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Participants propose a fee structure for the following three 
categories of consolidated equity market data, which collectively 
constitute the amended definition of core data, as that term is defined 
in amended Rule 600(b)(21) of Regulation NMS:\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 242.600(b)(26).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Level 1 Core Data, which would include Top of Book Quotations, 
Last Sale Price Information, and odd-lot information (as defined in 
amended Rule 600(b)(59)). Plan fees to subscribers currently are for 
Top of Book Quotations and Last Sale Price Information, as well as what 
is now defined as administrative data (as defined in amended Rule 
600(b)(2)), regulatory data (as defined in amended Rule 600(b)(78)), 
and self-regulatory organization-specific program data (as defined in 
amended Rule 600(b)(85)). The Participants propose that Level 1 Core 
Data would continue to include all information that subscribers receive 
for current fees and add odd-lot information;
    (2) Depth of book data (as defined in amended Rule 600(b)(26)); and
    (3) Auction information (as defined in amended Rule 600(b)(5)).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The Participants state that they propose to price subsets 
of data that constitute core data separately so that data subscriber 
users have flexibility in how much consolidated market data content 
they wish to purchase. For example, the Participants state that they 
understand that certain data subscribers may not wish to add depth-
of-book data or auction information, or may want to add only depth-
of-book information, but not auction information. Accordingly, 
Participants are proposing to price subsets of data to provide 
flexibility to data subscribers. However, the Participants state 
that they expect that competing consolidators would purchase all 
core data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Professional and Nonprofessional Fees

    For each of the three categories of data described above, the 
Participants propose a Professional Subscriber Charge and a 
Nonprofessional Subscriber Charge.
    With respect to Level 1 Core Data, the Participants are not 
proposing to change the Professional Subscriber and Nonprofessional 
Subscriber fees currently set forth in the Plans. Access to odd-lot 
information would be made available to Level 1 Core Data Professional 
and Nonprofessional Subscribers at no additional charge.
    With respect to depth-of-book data, Professional Subscribers would 
pay $99.00 per device per month for each Network's data. 
Nonprofessional Subscribers would pay $4.00 per subscriber per month 
for each Network's depth-of-book data. The Participants are not 
proposing per-quote packet charges or enterprise rates for either 
Professional Subscribers or Nonprofessional Subscribers use of depth-
of-book data at this time.
    Finally, with respect to auction information, both Professional 
Subscribers and Nonprofessional Subscribers would pay $10.00 per 
device/subscriber per month for each Network's auction information 
data.

Non-Display Use Fees

    The Participants propose Non-Display Use Fees relating to the three 
categories of data described above: (1) Level 1 Core Data; (2) depth-
of-book data; and (3) auction information.
    With respect to Level 1 Core Data, the Participants are not 
proposing to change the Non-Display Use fees currently set forth in the 
Plans. Access to odd-lot information would be made available to Level 1 
Core Data subscribers at no additional charge.
    With respect to depth-of-book data, subscribers would pay Non-
Display Use Fees of $12,477.00 per month for each category of Non-
Display Use per Network.
    With respect to auction information, subscribers would pay Non-
Display Use fees of $1,248.00 per month for each category of Non-
Display Use per Network.

Access Fees

    Finally, the Participants propose Access Fees regarding the use of 
the three categories of data: (1) Level 1 Core Data; (2) depth-of-book 
data; and (3) auction information.
    With respect to Level 1 Core Data, the Participants are not 
proposing to change the Access Fees currently set forth in the Plans. 
Access to odd-lot information would be made available to Level 1 Core 
Data subscribers at no additional charge.
    With respect to depth-of-book data, subscribers would pay a monthly 
Access Fee of $9,850.00 per Network.
    With respect to auction information, subscribers would pay a 
monthly Access Fee of $985.00 per Network.

Clarifications Related to Expanded Content

    In addition to the above fees, the Participants propose adding 
clarifying language regarding the applicability of various fees given 
the availability of the expanded market data content.
    First, the Participants propose to clarify that the Per-Quote-
Packet Charges and the Broker-Dealer Enterprise Cap are not applicable 
to the expanded content, and only apply to the receipt and use of Level 
1 Core Data.

[[Page 11765]]

The Participants state that, under the current Price List, the Per-
Quote-Packet Charges and Enterprise Cap serve as alternative fee 
schedules to the normally applied Professional and Nonprofessional 
Subscriber Charges, and, further, that the proposed changes are 
designed to clarify that these alternative fee schedules are only 
available with respect to the use of Level 1 Core Data, and the fees 
for the use of depth-of-book data and auction information must be 
determined pursuant to the Professional and Nonprofessional fees 
described above.
    Second, the Participants propose to clarify that Level 1 Core Data 
would include Top of Book Quotation Information, Last Sale Price 
Information, odd-lot information, administrative data, regulatory data, 
and self-regulatory organization program data. The Participants state 
that the Proposed Amendment would use terms defined in amended Rule 
600(b) to reflect both current data made available to data subscribers 
and the additional odd-lot information that would be included at no 
additional charge.
    Third, the Participants propose to clarify that the existing 
Redistribution Fees would apply to all three categories of core data 
(i.e., Level 1, depth-of-book, and auction information), including any 
subset thereof. According to the Participants, Redistribution Fees are 
charged to any entity that makes last sale information or quotation 
information available to any other entity or to any person other than 
its employees, irrespective of the means of transmission or access. The 
Participants propose to amend this description to make it applicable to 
core data, as that term is defined in amended Rule 600(b)(21). The 
Participants are not proposing to change the fee level for 
Redistribution Fees themselves.
    Fourth, the Participants propose that the existing Redistribution 
Fees would be charged to competing consolidators. The Participants 
argue (1) that the comparison the Commission made in the MDI Rule 
Release between self-aggregators (which would not pay Redistribution 
Fees) and competing consolidators is not appropriate in determining 
whether a redistribution fee is not unreasonably discriminatory; and 
(2) that the Participants do not believe that the Commission's 
comparison is consistent with the current long-standing practice that 
redistribution fees are charged to any entity that distributes data 
externally.\13\ The Participants state that, by definition, a self-
aggregator would not be distributing data externally and therefore 
would not be subject to such fees, which, according to the Participants 
is consistent with current practice that a subscriber to consolidated 
data that only uses data for internal use is not charged a 
Redistribution Fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Participants state that the current exclusive 
securities information processor (``SIP'') is not charged a 
Redistribution Fee. The Participants state, however, that unlike 
competing consolidators, the processor has been retained by the 
Plans to serve as an exclusive SIP, is subject to oversight by both 
the Plans and the Commission, and neither pays for the data nor 
engages with data subscriber customers. The Participants state that, 
by contrast, under the competing consolidator model, the Plans would 
have no role in either oversight of or determining which entities 
choose to be a competing consolidator, a competing consolidator 
would need to purchase consolidated market data just as any other 
vendor would, and competing consolidators would be responsible for 
competing for data subscriber clients. Accordingly, the Participants 
argue that competing consolidators would be more akin to vendors 
than the current exclusive SIPs. The Participants state that if any 
entity that is currently an exclusive SIP chooses to register as a 
competing consolidator, such entity would be subject to the 
Redistribution Fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Participants state that the more appropriate comparison would 
be between competing consolidators and downstream vendors, both of 
which would be selling consolidated market data directly to market data 
subscribers. The Participants state that vendors are and still would be 
subject to Redistribution Fees when redistributing data to market data 
subscribers, and that it would be unreasonably discriminatory for 
competing consolidators, which would be competing with downstream 
market data vendors for the same data subscriber customers, to not be 
charged a Redistribution Fee for exactly the same activity. The 
Participants argue that it would be unreasonably discriminatory and 
impose a burden on competition to not charge competing consolidators 
the Redistribution Fee.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The Participants argue that it would be more appropriate to 
compare competing consolidators and self-aggregators with respect to 
the fees charged for receipt and use of market data from the 
Participants and to address the fees for the usage of consolidated 
market data based on their actual usage, which, the Participants 
argue, is consistent with the statutory requirements of the Act that 
the data be provided on terms that are not unreasonably 
discriminatory. The Participants state that, for instance, 
Participants have proposed to charge a data access fee to competing 
consolidators that would be the same fee to self-aggregators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Participants propose to make non-substantive changes 
to language in the fee schedules to take into account the expanded 
content. For example, the Participants are proposing to add headings 
referencing Level 1 Core Data. Additionally, under Data Access Charges 
and Multiple Feed Charges, the Participants are proposing to amend 
``Bid-Ask'' to refer to ``Top of Book and odd-lot information.''

Administrative Fees

    The Participants are not proposing any changes to the Multiple Feed 
Charges, Late/Clearly Erroneous Reporting Charges, and Consolidated 
Volume Data Non-Compliance Fee. According to the Participants, these 
current fees are administrative fees and would continue to apply to any 
data usage.

III. Summary of Comments

    The Commission has received 16 comment letters on the Proposed 
Amendment.\15\ Fourteen commenters object to the Proposed 
Amendment,\16\ and two commenters support the Proposed Amendment.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Letters to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Commission 
from Hope M. Jarkowski, General Counsel, NYSE Group, Inc. (Jan. 22, 
2022) (``NYSE Letter''); Christopher Solgan, Senior Counsel, MIAX 
Exchange Group (Jan.12, 2022) (``MIAX Letter''); Emil Framnes and 
Simon Emrich, Norges Bank Investment Management (Jan. 5, 2022) 
(``NBIM Letter''); James Angel, Ph.D., CFP, CFA, Associate Professor 
of Finance, Georgetown University (Dec. 21, 2021) (``Angel 
Letter''); Luc Burgun, President and CEO, NovaSparks S.A.S. (Dec. 
17, 2021) (``NovaSparks Letter''); Joe Wald, Managing Director, Co-
Head of Electronic Trading, BMO Capital Markets Group, BMO Capital 
Markets and Ray Ross, Managing Director, Co-Head of Electronic 
Trading, BMO Capital Markets Group (Dec. 17, 2021) (``BMO Letter''); 
Erika Moore, Vice President and Corporate Secretary, Nasdaq Stock 
Market LLC (Dec. 17, 2021) (``Nasdaq Letter''); John Ramsay, Chief 
Market Policy Officer, Investors Exchange LLC (Dec. 17, 2021) (``IEX 
Letter''); Ellen Greene, Managing Director, Equity & Options Market 
Structure, Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association and 
William C. Thum, Managing Director and Associate General Counsel, 
Asset Management Group, Securities Industry and Financial Markets 
Association (Dec. 17, 2021) (``SIFMA Letter''); Marcia E. Asquith, 
Executive Vice President, Board and External Relations, Financial 
Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (Dec. 17, 2021) (``FINRA 
Letter''); Patrick Flannery, Chief Executive Officer, MayStreet 
(Dec. 17, 2021) (``MayStreet Letter''); Hubert De Jesus, Managing 
Director, Global Head of Market Structure and Electronic Trading, 
BlackRock and Samantha DeZur, Director, Global Public Policy, 
BlackRock (Dec. 16, 2021) (``BlackRock Letter''); Jonathan Hill, 
CEO, Cutler Group, LP Anand Prakash, CTO, Cutler Group, LP Nader 
Sharabati, CFO, Cutler Group, LP and Doug Patterson, CCO, Cutler 
Group, LP (Dec. 16, 2021) (``Cutler Letter''); Quinton Pike, CEO, 
Polygon.io, Inc. (Nov. 30, 2021) (``Polygon.io Letter''); Allison 
Bishop, President, Proof Services LLC (Nov. 22, 2021) (``Proof 
Letter''); Adrian Griffiths, Head of Market Structure, MEMX LLC, 
(Nov. 8, 2021) (``MEMX Letter'').
    \16\ See MIAX Letter, supra note 15; NBIM Letter, supra note 15; 
Angel Letter, supra note 15; NovaSparks Letter, supra note 15; BMO 
Capital Letter, supra note 15; IEX Letter, supra note 15; SIFMA 
Letter, supra note 15; FINRA Letter, supra note 15; MayStreet 
Letter, supra note 15; BlackRock Letter, supra note 15; Cutler 
Letter, supra note 15; Polygon.io Letter, supra note 15; Proof 
Letter, supra note 15; MEMX Letter, supra note 15.
    \17\ See Nasdaq Letter, supra note 15; NYSE Letter, supra note 
15.

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

[[Page 11766]]

A. Comments Regarding the Methodology Used To Justify the Proposed Fees

    Some commenters oppose the Proposed Amendment, arguing that the 
proposed fees are based on a flawed methodology that, inconsistent with 
the MDI Rule Release, fails to provide a cost-based justification.\18\ 
These commenters state that the proposal should bear a reasonable 
relationship to the cost of producing the market data, which, they 
argue, is the primary basis the Commission has identified for 
justifying the prices for core data fees.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See MIAX Letter, supra note 15, at 3; IEX Letter, supra 
note 15, at 2-3. See also BMO Letter, supra note 15, at 2-3; SIFMA 
Letter, supra note 15, at 4-5 (noting that the fees charged by 
monopolistic providers, such as exclusive SIPs, to be tied to some 
type of cost-based standard in order to preclude excessive profits 
if fees are too high or underfunding or subsidization if fees are 
too low); MayStreet Letter, supra note 15, at 6; BlackRock Letter, 
supra note 15, at 2; Proof Letter, supra note 15, at 2, 3; MEMX 
Letter, supra note 15, at 18.
    \19\ See IEX Letter, supra note 15, at 1, 2-3 (stating that the 
proposal fails to establish that the fees for the data content 
underlying consolidated market data meet the statutory standards of 
being fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably discriminatory); MIAX 
Letter, supra note 15, at 3. See also BMO Letter, supra note 15, at 
2-3; SIFMA Letter, supra note 15, at 4-5 (noting that the fees 
charged by monopolistic providers, such as exclusive SIPs, need to 
be tied to some type of cost-based standard in order to preclude 
excessive profits if fees are too high or underfunding or 
subsidization if fees are too low); MayStreet Letter, supra note 15, 
at 6; BlackRock Letter, supra note 15, at 2; Proof Letter, supra 
note 15, at 2, 3; MEMX Letter, supra note 15, at 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some commenters also state that the methodology used has resulted 
in proposed fees that are unreasonably high.\20\ In making this 
argument, some commenters object to using the current prices for the 
exchanges' proprietary data products as the basis for calculating the 
proposed core data fees,\21\ stating that such a method is inconsistent 
with the MDI Rule's goal of expanding access to consolidated data \22\ 
and with statements in the MDI Rule Release that the proposed fees 
should bear a reasonable relationship to the cost of producing the 
data.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See MIAX Letter, supra note 15, at 3; MayStreet Letter, 
supra note 15, at 6; BlackRock Letter, supra note 15, at 2, 4-5; IEX 
Letter, supra note 15, at 4; Proof Letter, supra note 15, at 3; MEMX 
Letter, supra note 15, at 8, 11-12.
    \21\ See MIAX Letter, supra note 15, at 4; SIFMA Letter, supra 
note 15, at 4, 5; IEX Letter, supra note 15, at 4.
    \22\ See MIAX Letter, supra note 15, at 4.
    \23\ See MIAX Letter, supra note 15, at 3; SIFMA Letter, supra 
note 15, at 4, 5; IEX Letter, supra note 15, at 1, 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some commenters also state that they disagree with the 
Participants' views in the proposal that a cost-based justification is 
not required because the Act does not require a showing of costs and 
that cost analysis has not been provided in past equity market data 
plan proposals.\24\ These commenters state that the Commission has 
stated that a reasonable relation to cost is a primary basis for 
justifying core data fees.\25\ One commenter states that specific 
information, including quantitative information, should be provided to 
support the Participants' claims that the proposed fee is fair and 
reasonable because it will permit the recovery of SRO costs or will not 
result in excessive pricing or profits.\26\ Additionally, some 
commenters state that they disagree with the Participants' statement in 
the proposal that the Plan's Operating Committee ``has no knowledge of 
any costs associated with consolidated market data,'' stating that 
Participants know how much it costs to collect and disseminate market 
data because they already perform this function, including in 
connection with proprietary feeds.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See MIAX Letter, supra note 15, at 3; SIFMA Letter, supra 
note 15, at 5.
    \25\ See IEX Letter, supra note 15, at 1, 2-3; SIFMA Letter, 
supra note 15, at 5; MIAX Letter, supra note 15, at 3 (noting that 
the vast majority of such equity market data plan fees were adopted 
prior to issuance of the Commission's staff fee guidance, and 
multiple SROs have more recently included cost based analysis when 
proposing fees for a market data product).
    \26\ See MIAX Letter, supra note 15, at 3.
    \27\ See SIFMA Letter, supra note 15, at 5; MIAX Letter, supra 
note 15, at 3; MayStreet Letter, supra note 15, at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter states that a demonstration of costs is not required 
because neither the Exchange Act nor Commission rules requires that 
market data fees to be supported by a showing of costs.\28\ The 
commenter stated that the Commission's standard for evaluating 
consolidated market data fees has not required a showing of the 
relationship between the proposed fees and the cost of producing the 
data, as illustrated by past equity market data plan proposals for 
consolidated market data fees which the commenter states were not 
justified on the basis of cost.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See NYSE Letter, supra note 15, at 3 (stating that the 
legislative history of the 1975 amendments to the Exchange Act, and 
particularly Section 11A, reflects that Congress's principal concern 
was promoting competition between exchanges, not regulating market 
data pricing; and that economic studies have demonstrated that 
separating out the costs of producing market data from the other 
costs of operating an SRO is an impossible task that would enmesh 
the Commission in a continuous ratemaking process that would produce 
arbitrary results).
    \29\ See id. at 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This commenter argues that it is not clear how the Plan could 
support the fee proposals based on costs because the Operating 
Committee plays no role in the creation or dissemination of core data 
under amended Rule 603(b), and thus has no information about how each 
exchange would generate core data under that rule.\30\ The commenter 
states that, in its view, it remains impossible to separate the costs 
of producing market data from other costs of operating an exchange.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See id. at 4.
    \31\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another commenter opposes the use of cost as a basis for setting 
the proposed fees.\32\ This commenter dismisses other commenters' 
suggestions that fees should be based on costs, rather than value, 
because, according to the commenter, the Commission has not offered 
guidance with respect to such a cost-based ratemaking system,\33\ and 
because any cost allocation between joint products would therefore be 
unworkable, inherently arbitrary, and inconsistent with the 
Congressional mandate that the Commission rely on competition whenever 
possible in meeting its regulatory responsibilities.\34\ The commenter 
states that the proposed fees have been tested by competition and that 
``Commission staff have indicated that they would look at factors 
beyond the competitive environment, such as cost, only if a `proposal 
lacks persuasive evidence that the proposed fee is constrained by 
significant competitive forces.' '' \35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Nasdaq Letter, supra note 15, at 3.
    \33\ See id.
    \34\ See id.
    \35\ See id. at 5-6 (citing to ``Staff Guidance on SRO Rule 
Filings Relating to Fees'' (May 19, 2019), available at https://www.sec.gov/tm/staff-guidance-sro-rule-filings-fees). The Staff 
Guidance on SRO Rule Filings Relating to Fees in fact states: ``If a 
Fee Filing proposal lacks persuasive evidence that the proposed fee 
is constrained by significant competitive forces, the SRO must 
provide a substantial basis, other than competitive forces, 
demonstrating that the fee is consistent with the Exchange Act. One 
such basis may be the production of related revenue and cost data, 
as discussed further below.'' See ``Staff Guidance on SRO Rule 
Filings Relating to Fees'' (May 19, 2019), available at https://www.sec.gov/tm/staff-guidance-sro-rule-filings-fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some commenters oppose the use of the value-based methodology used 
to determine the fees under the Proposed Amendment.\36\ One commenter 
states that if the objective is to have the SIPs provide a service that 
is more affordable and accessible than the data products offered by 
individual exchanges, then ``value to subscribers'' should not be sole 
determinant of SIP fees because the current fees for exchange 
proprietary data products are not a reasonable gauge of the value of 
core data offered under the Plan.\37\ One commenter states that

[[Page 11767]]

basing the proposed pricing of the Plans' fees on the proprietary feeds 
pricing does not seem appropriate because exchange proprietary data 
feeds are complements to consolidated market data feeds for latency-
sensitive market participants; \38\ less-latency sensitive market 
participants find consolidated market data more useful than the 
propriety data feeds; \39\ and latency-sensitive market participants 
will not view consolidated market data under the Plans to be a credible 
substitute for the proprietary data feeds even after the MDI Rule 
reforms are implemented.\40\ Another commenter states that basing the 
proposed fees on value instead of cost does not work because the 
mandate under the Exchange Act is to price SIP data at levels that 
maximize its availability.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See Proof Letter, supra note 15; NBIM Letter, supra note 
15; MayStreet Letter, supra note 15.
    \37\ See Proof Letter, supra note 15, at 3.
    \38\ See NBIM Letter, supra note 15, at 1-2.
    \39\ See id. at 2.
    \40\ See id. at 2.
    \41\ See MayStreet Letter, supra note 15, at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two commenters argue that the proposed fees are fair and reasonable 
and not unreasonably discriminatory because they are reasonably related 
to the value that subscribers gain from the data, and achieve the 
Commission's objective in Regulation NMS that prices for consolidated 
market data be set by market forces.\42\ One commenter argues that the 
pricing for exchange proprietary data feeds, including the depth-of-
book data, top-of-book data, and auction information on which the 
proposed fees are based, is constrained by competitive forces, in that 
they have a history of being constrained by direct competition and by 
platform competition among the exchanges.\43\ This commenter states 
that the pricing for exchange proprietary data feeds is constrained by 
the highly competitive markets for exchange trading and exchange market 
data.\44\ It states that the proposed fees meet the Commission's 
objective for market forces to determine the overall level of fees.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See NYSE Letter, supra note 15, at 5; Nasdaq Letter, supra 
note 15, at 5.
    \43\ See NYSE Letter, supra note 15, at 5.
    \44\ See id. The commenter further argues that exchanges compete 
against each other as platforms, and that, as such, no exchange can 
raise its prices to supracompetitive levels on one side of the 
platform, such as market data, without losing sales on the other, 
such as trading volume. The commenter argues that given this inter-
exchange platform competition, the exchanges' filed prices for 
depth-of-book data and auction information are constrained by market 
forces. See id. at 6-7.
    \45\ See id. at 5. The commenter stated that by applying that 
established ratio to the current prices for consolidated top-of-book 
data, the fee proposals thus reflect the market forces that drive 
the pricing of depth-of-book information in relation to top-of book 
information and the value that the data has to market participants. 
Id. The ratio between such filed proprietary depth-of-book fees and 
proprietary top-of-book data therefore provides the Commission with 
a benchmark for evaluating the proposed fees, which NYSE argues are 
fair, reasonable, and not unfairly discriminatory because they are 
based on this ratio, which is reflective of market forces. See id. 
at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This commenter also argues that basing fees on the value of the 
underlying data is the fairest and most economically efficient method 
for setting fees because setting fees according to the value of the 
data leads to optimal consumption: Fees that are too low do not allow 
for producers to remain profitable, while fees that are too high lead 
to underutilization.\46\ The commenter states that NMS Plans have 
historically used value as a fair and efficient basis for setting 
fees.\47\ The commenter argues that the best basis for determining the 
value of core data are the fees currently charged for proprietary data 
fees, which, according to the commenter, have been ``tested by 
competitive forces'' and therefore provide a good starting point for 
estimating the value of new core data and for setting fees at efficient 
levels.\48\ The commenter argues that the value-based methodology 
provides a substantial basis for showing that current proprietary 
fees--and, by extension, the proposed fees for new core data--are 
equitable, fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably discriminatory.\49\ 
The commenter states that exchanges cannot overprice the total prices 
of their services without potentially losing order flow and damaging 
its overall ability to compete.\50\According to this commenter, 
exchanges that produce more valuable market data generally charge 
higher fees, and those with less valuable data charge lower fees,\51\ 
so fees vary according to the underlying value of the data, as measured 
by the liquidity available at the exchange.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See Nasdaq Letter, supra note 15, at 2.
    \47\ See id.
    \48\ See id. at 2, 6.
    \49\ See id. at 6.
    \50\ See id. at 4.
    \51\ See id.
    \52\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter argues that the existence of significant competition 
provides a substantial basis for finding that the terms of an 
exchange's fee proposal are equitable, fair, reasonable, and not 
unreasonably discriminatory.\53\ The commenter states that Commission 
staff has indicated that they would look at factors beyond the 
competitive environment, such as cost, only if a proposal lacks 
persuasive evidence that the proposed fee is constrained by significant 
competitive forces.\54\ The commenter argues that, because they are 
tested by market competition, proprietary data fees provide good and 
indicative starting point for estimating the value of new core data and 
setting fees at their efficient level.\55\ This, according to the 
commenter, provides a substantial basis for showing that current 
proprietary fees--and, by extension, the proposed fees for new core 
data--are equitable, fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably 
discriminatory.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ See id. at 5-6.
    \54\ See id. (citing to ``Staff Guidance on SRO Rule Filings 
Relating to Fees'' (May 19, 2019), available at https://www.sec.gov/tm/staff-guidance-sro-rule-filings-fees).
    \55\ See id. at 6.
    \56\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some commenters object to the way in which the Participants used 
the fees of proprietary depth-of-book products to calculate a ratio (or 
multiplier) between those fees and the fees for proprietary top-of-book 
products and then multiplied existing SIP core top-of-book data fees by 
that multiplier to calculate the proposed depth-of-book fees for 
expanded core data under the MDI Rule.\57\ One commenter argues that 
the approach adopted is arbitrary because it presupposes that the fees 
exchanges charge for their proprietary market data are fair and 
reasonable.\58\ One commenter states that calculating the proposed fee 
levels in this manner--based on prices charged by the exchanges for 
their existing market data product--is not the right starting point for 
setting the proposed fees and inconsistent with the MDI Rule's goal of 
expanding access to consolidated data.\59\ One commenter states that 
that the exchanges' ``platform competition'' argument that competition 
for order flow constrains pricing for market data does not demonstrate 
that the fees are reasonable and mentions studies it has submitted to 
the Commission in the past that bolster their argument.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ See MIAX Letter, supra note 15, at 4; SIFMA Letter, supra 
note 15, at 5.
    \58\ See SIFMA Letter, supra note 15, at 5.
    \59\ See MIAX Letter, supra note 15, at 4.
    \60\ See SIFMA Letter, supra note 15, at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some commenters argue that the methodology used to calculate the 
fees does not account for the transfer of costs from the SROs to market 
participants under the decentralized consolidation model.\61\ One 
commenter states that,

[[Page 11768]]

while the proposal leaves fees for existing core data elements 
unchanged, the profits and operating costs of the exclusive securities 
information processors should be deducted from these fees to reflect 
the new role of competing consolidators.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ See MEMX Letter, supra note 15, at 18; MIAX Letter, supra 
note 15, at 2; BlackRock Letter, supra note 15, at 2-3; Polygon.io 
Letter, supra note 15, at 1. On the other hand, one commenter stated 
that with respect to comments that the proposal should ``back out'' 
fees for the current Processors from the proposed fee structure, the 
MDI Rule requires the current Processors to continue operating for 
at least several more years, and that therefore, there are no 
savings to back out of any proposed fee structure at this time. See 
NYSE Letter, supra note 15, at 7.
    \62\ See BlackRock Letter, supra note 15, at 2, 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Comments Regarding the Proposed Fees

1. General Comments
    Some commenters state the methodology used to calculate the 
proposed fees resulted in fees that are too high.\63\ Some commenters 
state that the proposed fees have not been shown to be fair and 
reasonable and not unreasonably discriminatory.\64\ One commenter 
states that the proposed fees for the content underlying consolidated 
market data are too high whether a cost-basis or value-basis were used 
as a justification by the Participants.\65\ This commenter states that 
the cost of SIP data is too high relative to top-of-book proprietary 
feeds, and that market participants are currently choosing the less 
expensive option of top-of-book proprietary feeds,\66\ which, according 
to the commenter, indicates that Level 1 consolidated market data is 
not priced in accordance with its value to the market.\67\ Another 
commenter challenges the methodology and compares the proposed fees to 
fees currently charged for proprietary data fees and the proposed user 
and access fees for consolidated market data under the proposal to the 
prices that a firm would pay to obtain that data from proprietary data 
products that offer similar information.\68\ This commenter believes 
that at any given price a subscriber would be better off subscribing to 
the proprietary data fees listed instead of purchasing consolidated 
market data from the SIPs given the additional information included on 
those feeds.\69\ The commenter states that, because the proposed fees 
are generally more expensive than current proprietary data offering, 
the Proposed Amendments clearly fail the ``fair and reasonable'' test 
required by the Exchange Act.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ See BlackRock Letter, supra note 15, at 1-5; FINRA Letter, 
supra note 15, at 7; MIAX Letter, supra note 15, at 2; Angel Letter, 
supra note 15, at 9; NovaSparks Letter, supra note 15, at 1; BMO 
Letter, supra note 15, at 2-3; IEX Letter, supra note 15, at 1, 5; 
SIFMA Letter, supra note 15, at 1, 4-5; IEX Letter, supra note 15, 
at 4; MEMX Letter, supra note 15, at 11-12.
    \64\ See IEX Letter, supra note 15, 1, at 2-3; MIAX Letter, 
supra note 15, at 2; MEMX Letter, supra note 15, at 22; SIFMA 
Letter, supra note 15, at 4-5; BMO Letter, supra note 15, at 3; 
FINRA Letter, supra note 15, at 7; MayStreet Letter, supra note 15, 
at 4; BlackRock Letter, supra note 15, at 2, 6; Polygon.io Letter, 
supra note 15, at 2.
    \65\ See MayStreet Letter, supra note 15, at 6. This commenter 
states that the cost of SIP data is too high relative to top-of-book 
proprietary feeds, and that market participants are currently 
choosing the less expensive option of top-of-book proprietary feeds, 
which, according to the commenter, indicates that Level 1 
consolidated market data is not priced in accordance with its value 
to the market. See id.
    \66\ See MayStreet Letter, supra note 15, at 6-7.
    \67\ See id. at 7. The commenter states that Level 1 data should 
be priced so as to make the content available at a price that is 
competitive to proprietary top-of-book offerings, and that the fact 
that the price levels are unchanged from the current SIP prices 
reflects a failure by the Participants to accurately assess the 
value of Level 1 data. The commenter states that the value of the 
depth-of-book data should focus on greater access and availability 
of this kind of data, and adds that the Operating Committee should 
consider what price point would increase availability of depth-of-
book information, rather than charging a multiplier of proprietary 
data feeds. See id.
    \68\ See MEMX Letter, supra note 15, at 6.
    \69\ See id. at 7.
    \70\ See id. at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some commenters state that the proposed fees would have an adverse 
impact on competition, and on competing consolidators in 
particular.\71\ One commenter states that, even where the proposed fees 
are lower than the fees charged for comparable proprietary data, the 
fact that other fees are higher than proprietary offerings is likely to 
reduce incentives for competing consolidators to actually offer that 
data content to their customers.\72\ Another commenter expresses 
concern that if the Proposed Amendment were approved the exchanges 
would entrench a high level of cost for market data that has no 
relation to their underlying expenses, is not subject to effective 
competitive forces, and serves as an formidable barrier to entry for 
newer firms.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ See MIAX Letter, supra note 15, at 1, 3; 4; MEMX Letter, 
supra note 15, at 2, 9; 15-17, 21-22, 25; NBIM Letter, supra note 
15, at 2; NovaSparks Letter, supra note 15, at 1; IEX Letter, supra 
note 15, at 5; SIFMA Letter, supra note 15, at 8; FINRA Letter, 
supra note 15, at 5; MayStreet Letter, supra note 15, at 5; 
BlackRock Letter, supra note 15, at 1-4; Polygon.io Letter, supra 
note 15, at 3; Proof Letter, supra note 15, at 3; Cutler Letter, 
supra note 15, at 1.
    \72\ See MEMX Letter, supra note 15, at 9. The commenter further 
argues that it is unlikely that there will be any demand for the new 
data elements included in consolidated market data at prices that 
exceed the fees charged for proprietary data feeds today. This, the 
commenter argues, would limit the potential customer base for 
competing consolidators and inappropriately impede the viability of 
competing consolidators under the infrastructure rule. See MEMX 
Letter, supra note 15, at 17.
    \73\ See Proof Letter, supra note 15, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter states that the Proposed Amendment conflates the 
prices that competing consolidators and self-aggregators pay the SROs 
for the underlying NMS information, and the prices that competing 
consolidators would charge for the consolidated data they generate.\74\ 
This commenter believes the proposals do not make clear that the 
proposed fees are for the content underlying the consolidated market 
data, as opposed to the consolidated market data itself.\75\ The 
commenter argues that the Participants confuse the content of 
consolidated market data and the consolidated market data itself,\76\ 
and states that the Proposed Amendment sets prices at levels that the 
SIPs currently charge for consolidated market data.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ See MayStreet Letter, supra note 15, at 2.
    \75\ See id.
    \76\ See id. at 3.
    \77\ See id. at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter believes that any analysis of current SIP fees should 
include a discussion of what structural changes could be made to SIP 
fees to eliminate or reduce the incentives that firms have today to 
avoid providing SIP data to their customers.\78\ One commenter believes 
that the current proposal will favor current market data vendors who 
already pay for these fees and have large customer bases, but will not 
necessarily use the most efficient data consolidation solutions.\79\ 
This commenter believes that all of the equity market data plans should 
have a unified feed and price list because most end users today consume 
all of the plans' feeds.\80\ Another commenter states it supports the 
proposed a la carte fee structure for the expanded elements of 
consolidated data because, in the commenter's view, market participants 
should be able to select from a variety of market data products and pay 
only for the content they consume.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ See MEMX Letter, supra note 15, at 20.
    \79\ See NovaSparks Letter, supra note 15, at 1.
    \80\ See id. at 1-2.
    \81\ See BlackRock Letter, supra note 15, at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Fees for Top-of-Book Data
    Some commenters believe that the proposed fees for Level 1 core 
data, which include expanded content to include odd-lot quotations, are 
too high.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ See NovaSparks Letter, supra note 15; IEX Letter, supra 
note 15; MayStreet Letter, supra note 15; BlackRock Letter, supra 
note 15; MIAX Letter, supra note 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter states that the proposed fees for top-of-book data 
should be substantially lower to allow competing consolidators to 
operate their business.\83\ This commenter states that exchanges will 
no longer have to pay for the current processors and will not have the 
burden of maintaining custom feeds

[[Page 11769]]

in specific formats since the proprietary data feeds would be used by 
the competing consolidators to distribute the new SIP market data.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ See NovaSparks Letter, supra note 15, at 1.
    \84\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter states that the net effect of the proposal is to make 
core data fees more expensive that proprietary data feeds, adding that 
it seems clear the purpose of the proposal is ``to protect existing 
proprietary market data fee revenues by making market data from 
competing consolidators prohibitively expensive and their business non-
viable.'' \85\ Another commenter states that the cost of SIP data is 
too high relative to top-of-book proprietary feeds and that market 
participants are choosing the less expensive option of top-of-book 
proprietary feeds.\86\ This commenter believes this indicates that 
Level 1 consolidated market data is not priced in accordance with its 
value to the market.\87\ According to the commenter, Level 1 data 
should be priced as to make the content available at a price that is 
competitive to proprietary top-of-book offerings.\88\ This commenter 
further states that the fact that the price levels are unchanged from 
the current SIP prices reflects a failure by the Participants to 
accurately assess the value of Level 1 data.\89\ Another commenter 
opposes the proposal and asks the Commission disapprove it as it 
represents an overall increase in costs, including access fees, to end 
users as well as competing consolidators, thereby making market data 
less accessible and putting competing consolidators at a 
disadvantage.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ See IEX Letter, supra note 15, at 5.
    \86\ See MayStreet Letter, supra note 15, at 6-7.
    \87\ See id. at 7.
    \88\ See id.
    \89\ See id.
    \90\ See Cutler Letter, supra note 15, at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter supports certain aspects of the proposal, including 
its a la carte fee structure, and the inclusion of odd-lot quotations 
free of charge.\91\ Moreover, some commenters expressed support for the 
proposed inclusion of odd-lot information free of charge in the 
expanded Level 1 core data,\92\ with one commenter stating that this 
would result in top-of-book information that is more comprehensive, 
which should, in turn, strengthen best execution and enhance 
transparency and price discovery.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ See BlackRock Letter, supra note 15, at 1, 3.
    \92\ See MIAX Letter, supra note 15, at 2; BlackRock Letter, 
supra note 15, at 1, 3; MayStreet Letter, supra note 15, at 2, 3, 6.
    \93\ See BlackRock Letter, supra note 15, at 1, 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter states that the proposed Level 1 core data fees 
should be adjusted to reflect the new role of competing 
consolidators.\94\ The commenter states that the MDI Rule fundamentally 
alters the ecosystem for market data by transitioning from exclusive 
SIPs to competing consolidators and that the Commission intended that 
this change would unbundle the data fees for consolidated market data 
from the fees for its consolidation and distribution because the 
prospective fees charged by competing consolidators would now include 
fees for aggregation of consolidated market data products and 
transmission of such products to subscribers.\95\ This commenter states 
that in leaving fees for existing core data elements unchanged, the 
Proposed Amendment fails to consider, as the Commission stated in the 
MDI Rule Release, that the effective national market system plan for 
NMS stocks will no longer be operating an exclusive SIP or performing 
aggregation and other operational functions.\96\ The commenter argues 
that the proposed fees should not have been left unchanged from 
existing core data elements fees, but rather, should have been reduced 
by at least 4%--the estimated SIP operating expenses excluding 
profits--to reflect the new role of competing consolidators, and deduct 
both SIP profits and operating costs from the price. According to the 
commenter, this 4% discount is derived directly from Commission 
estimates of SIP operating expenses ($16 million) and revenues ($390 
million) in 2018 without any consideration of possible profits. The 
commenter adds that exclusive SIP profits should also be subtracted 
from the proposed fees for core data content, as ``any markup for 
consolidation services should transition to be within the purview of 
competing consolidators.'' \97\ According to the commenter, keeping 
core data fees the same as the proposal purports to do would 
effectively ``opaquely raise prices'' for this data content.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ See id. at 2-4.
    \95\ See id. at 3-4.
    \96\ See id. (citing to MDI Rule Release, 86 FR at 18685).
    \97\ See id. at 4, note 12.
    \98\ See id. at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Fees for Depth-of-Book Data
    Some commenters argue that the calculation used by the Participants 
to determine the proposed depth-of-book fees is flawed and inconsistent 
with the MDI Rule Release because the calculation uses exchange 
proprietary data feeds that include full order-by-order depth-of-book, 
inclusive of top-of-book information, rather than the more limited 
depth information prescribed by the MDI Rule Release.\99\ These 
commenters point out that while the proprietary market data depth-of-
book feeds used to calculate fees for the consolidated depth-of-book 
information include top-of-book data as part of those offerings, fees 
for the consolidated depth-of-book data product under the proposal do 
not include top-of-book.\100\ Consequently, some commenters argue, 
subscribers to the new core data would need to pay an additional 
surcharge to receive top-of-book data at current rates to obtain the 
same data content that is available today through proprietary 
feeds.\101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ See IEX Letter, supra note 15, at 3-4; MEMX Letter, supra 
note 15, at 11-12. BlackRock Letter, supra note 15, at 4-5; FINRA 
Letter, supra note 15, at 6.
    \100\ See id.
    \101\ See IEX Letter, supra note 15, at 4; MEMX Letter, supra 
note 15, at 6, 11-12; BlackRock Letter, supra note 15, at 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some commenters question the determination of the ratio (or 
multiplier) used by the Participants to set the depth-of-book 
feeds.\102\ One commenter states that fees for depth-of-book 
information ``should be adjusted to use a multiplier of 2.94x to 
eliminate the overcharging from double counting top of book data; 
otherwise, those who subscribe to both Level 1 and depth of book data 
``would be paying twice for top of book content.'' \103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ See IEX Letter, supra note 15; MEMX Letter, supra note 15; 
BlackRock Letter, supra note 15; FINRA Letter, supra note 15; Angel 
Letter, supra note 15; NovaSparks Letter, supra note 15.
    \103\ See BlackRock Letter, supra note 15, at 4-5. See also IEX 
Letter, supra note 15, at 4; MEMX Letter, supra note 15, at 6, 11-
12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some commenters state that an additional problem with the adopted 
approach is that the proprietary depth-of-book products, such as those 
used in the calculation, are primarily structured as comprehensive 
order-by-order feeds, which do not aggregate orders at each price 
level.\104\ According to these commenters, the depth-of-book elements 
prescribed by the MDI Rule warrant a lower price because they prescribe 
only the aggregated quotes available at the next five prices beyond the 
NBBO and thus include much less content than these proprietary 
feeds.\105\ One commenter states that complete, order-by-order depth-
of-book feeds, such as those used in the calculation, are likely to be 
associated with ``additional operational costs because of

[[Page 11770]]

increased message traffic with order by order data at all price 
levels.\106\ Accordingly, the commenter argues that an aggregated feed 
with only five levels of depth should have been priced at a discount 
relative to the corresponding exchange offerings to compensate for 
differences in both information content and costs.\107\ One commenter 
argues that the proposal fails to consider pricing for other 
proprietary data feeds that are aggregated by price level and would 
therefore serve as a more logical proxy for setting core data 
fees.\108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ See IEX Letter, supra note 15, at 4; MEMX Letter, supra 
note 15, at 11-12; BlackRock Letter, supra note 15, at 4-5; FINRA 
Letter, supra note 15, at 6.
    \105\ See IEX Letter, supra note 15, at 4; MEMX Letter, supra 
note 15, at 11-12. BlackRock Letter, supra note 15, at 4-5.
    \106\ See BlackRock Letter, supra note 15, at 4-5.
    \107\ See BlackRock Letter, supra note 15, at 4-5. See also IEX 
Letter, supra note 15, at 4; MEMX Letter, supra note 15, at 11-12.
    \108\ See IEX Letter, supra note 15, at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter states that the proposal fails to acknowledge or 
account for the fact that the proposed methodology relies on this 
commenter's equity market data fees as one of the comparison points, 
notwithstanding that, unlike the other exchanges' market data prices, 
the commenter's fees used do not include individual per user fees, but 
apply only on a per firm basis for firms subscribing to ``real time 
data.'' \109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ See id. The commenter also points out that its fees do not 
vary depending on the type of use made by those firms, do not apply 
to data that is redistributed with a delay of as little as 15 
milliseconds (whereas exchanges typically require a 15-minute delay 
to avoid charges for real-time data), and were determined and 
justified based on costs. The commenter further states that, to the 
extent the commenter's fees are relevant at all, a more consistent 
approach would have been to reflect the commenter's fees as zero, 
since this particular commenter does not charge any fees on an 
individual per user basis for either of the two data products. 
According to the commenter, the latter approach would substantially 
reduce the average ratio and multiplier, and thus substantially 
reduce the fees proposed to be charged for core data. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some commentators believe that the proposed fees for depth-of-book 
data should be lower than proposed. One commenter states that retail 
investors should get free or very low cost depth-of-book data because 
it is in the best interest of retail investors, the industry and the 
Commission.\110\ This commenter states that displaying depth-of-book 
data can give investors a better understanding of how prices are 
formed.\111\ The commenter believes that the ability for an investor to 
see buying and selling interests at various price levels makes it 
easier for the investor to understand what determines the price of a 
particular security by seeing the interaction of market and limit 
orders.\112\ The commenter argues that making depth-of-book data 
``cheap'' would allow brokers to give the data to retail clients for no 
or low cost, and that, this, in turn, would increase retail 
participation in the securities markets, because investors will not 
only understand markets better, but they will participate more in the 
markets.\113\ According to this commenter, if depth-of-book data is 
expensive, it will not help most retail investors because they will not 
be able to afford to see it.\114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ See Angel Letter, supra note 15, at 3.
    \111\ See id. at 7.
    \112\ See id.
    \113\ See id. at 8.
    \114\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another commenter states that fees for depth-of-book are 
unreasonably high.\115\ The commenter states that, while the 
Participants decided on an alternative method in establishing fees and 
sought to demonstrate that the proposed fees are ``related to the value 
of the data to subscribers,'' \116\ the proprietary depth-of-book price 
inputs used by the Participants were not properly calibrated and thus 
are over inclusive, resulting in depth-of-book fees that are 
unreasonably high.\117\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ See FINRA Letter, supra note 15, at 5-6.
    \116\ See id. at 5.
    \117\ See id. at 6. Specifically, the commenter states that (1) 
the proprietary depth-of-book product fees used in determining the 
ratio also include proprietary top-of-book data and auction data-
both of which would be charged separately from depth-of-book data; 
(2) the depth-of-book product fees also included order-by-order 
depth information--which is typically considered more valuable, 
instead of aggregated--resulting in a higher ratio and overstatement 
of value; and (3) the proposed depth-of-book data product fees also 
included full depth information, i.e., all prices levels (also 
typically considered more valuable), rather than just the top five 
price levels required under the MDI Rule, resulting in a higher 
ratio and fees that are not aligned with the value of the new depth-
of-book data to subscribers. The commenter argues that, as a result, 
the method employed by the Participants does not align the proposed 
fees for the new depth-of-book data to the value of the data to 
subscribers. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter agrees with the notion that that depth-of-book data 
should be priced higher than top-of-book data.\118\ This commenter, 
however, believes that the charges for depth-of-book data from the 
Plans should be much lower than consuming the market data directly from 
the exchanges because the information provided under the Plan would 
still be a subset of what is provided by the proprietary data 
feeds.\119\ The commenter states that the 4x ratio used by the 
Participants to determine the fees for accessing depth-of-book data is 
too high.\120\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \118\ See NovaSparks Letter, supra note 15, at 1.
    \119\ See id.
    \120\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter opposes the proposed depth-of book data fees, because 
they, as well as all other proposed fees, represent an overall increase 
in costs to end users making market data less accessible, contrary to 
``the core precept of the'' MDI Rule.\121\ Another commenter states 
that the value of the depth-of-book data should focus on greater access 
and availability of this kind of data, and that the Operating Committee 
should thus consider what price point would increase availability of 
depth-of-book information, rather than charging a multiplier of 
proprietary data feeds.\122\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ See Cutler Letter, supra note 15, at 1. This comment 
further states that the level of the proposed fees would make it 
difficult for such competing consolidators to offer products at 
prices competitive to those of proprietary feeds thereby placing 
competing consolidators at a disadvantage. See id.
    \122\ See MayStreet Letter, supra note 15, at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter expresses support for the proposed and ``moderately 
priced'' non-professional rate for depth-of-book information, because, 
in the commenter's view, this aspect of the proposal ``levels the 
playing field'' for retail investors by providing them with access to 
the same information that is available to professionals traders at an 
affordable price, which, will help broaden adoption of this new 
category of data.\123\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \123\ See BlackRock Letter, supra note 15, at 3, 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Fees for Auction Data
    Some commenters believe that the proposed auction information fee 
would result in double charging for subscribers who purchase both 
auction and depth-of-book information.\124\ According to these 
commenters, information about auction order imbalances is included with 
the proprietary depth-of-book data products used to calculate the 
depth-of-book prices; therefore the proposed depth-of-book prices 
already incorporate the fees for auction imbalance data.\125\ Thus, 
these commenters argue that the proposed fees would result in double 
charging consumers who purchase both auction and depth-of-book 
information from competing consolidators.\126\ One commenter states 
that depth-of-book pricing is also inappropriately used to derive the 
value of auction data because auction information is more closely 
aligned with top-of-book content which only provides high-level 
information about aggregate order imbalances and does not include the 
order by order details or data about multiple price levels typically 
included in proprietary depth-of-book information products.\127\ One 
commenter states that while the

[[Page 11771]]

pricing rationale in the proposal uses traded volumes to arrive at a 
10% multiple for auction data, this ratio, however, is applied to the 
depth-of-book feed, which conveys information about displayed liquidity 
not trading activity. According to the commenter, (1) it would have 
been more congruent with the SROs' proposition to use Level 1 core data 
as the basis for pricing auction content as this feed is more closely 
associated with trade volume, and (2) the fees for auction information 
should be set to 10% of Level 1 core data prices.\128\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \124\ See MEMX Letter, supra note 15, at 11-12. BlackRock 
Letter, supra note 15, at 4-5; FINRA Letter, note 15, at 6.
    \125\ See id.
    \126\ See BlackRock Letter, supra note 15, at 4-5; MEMX Letter, 
supra note 15, at 11-12; FINRA Letter, supra note 15, at 6.
    \127\ See BlackRock Letter, supra note 15, at 5.
    \128\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some commenters argue that the fees for auction information under 
the Proposed Amendment should be lower.\129\ One commenter states that 
retail investors should get free or moderately priced auction data 
because it is in the interests of retail investors, the industry and 
the Commission.\130\ The commenter believes that opening and closing 
auction data are important in the securities markets and that providing 
auction data to retail investors will increase retail investor 
participation in the market.\131\ The commenter also opines that it 
makes no sense for the Participants to charge professional and non-
professionals the same amount for auction data.\132\ Another commenter 
states that the filing should not be approved because the price levels 
do not contribute to a level playing field between competing 
consolidators and the current plan administrators, such that competing 
consolidators will be at a disadvantage because they will not be able 
to offer products at prices competitive with those of proprietary 
feeds.\133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \129\ See Angel Letter, supra note 15; Cutler Letter, supra note 
15; BlackRock Letter, supra note 15.
    \130\ See Angel Letter, supra note 15, at 3.
    \131\ See id. at 9.
    \132\ See id.
    \133\ See Cutler Letter, supra note 15, at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Fees for Professional and Non-Professional Users
    Some commenters question the classification of users by 
professional or non-professional to develop the fees under the Proposed 
Amendment.\134\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \134\ See Angel Letter, supra note 15; BlackRock Letter, supra 
note 15; MIAX Letter, supra note 15; Polygon.io Letter, supra note 
15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter states that it is unreasonably discriminatory against 
non-professional users to pay the same as professional users for 
auction data because professionals make far more use of the data.\135\ 
The commenter states that the filing contains no justification as to 
why the Participants propose to charge professionals the same as non-
professionals for auction data.\136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \135\ See Angel Letter, supra note 15, at 9-10.
    \136\ See id. at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some commenters support moderately priced or free non-professional 
user fees. One commenter supports the proposed ``moderately priced'' 
non-professional rate for depth-of-book information, because, in the 
commenter's view, this aspect of the proposal ``levels the playing 
field'' for retail investors by providing them with access to the same 
information that is available to professionals traders at an affordable 
price, which, will help broaden adoption of this new category of 
data.\137\ Another commenter states that free or moderately priced non-
professional data, including depth-of-book and auction data, is in the 
best interest of brokers and exchanges because it may increase retail 
order flow and thus profits into the industry.\138\ The commenter 
further believes that free or moderately priced non-professional data 
is in the best interest of the Commission as well because ``[p]roviding 
better data to retail investors at low cost will reduce the amount of 
SEC resources devoted to dealing with complaints based on 
misunderstandings of market function.'' \139\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \137\ See BlackRock Letter, supra note 15, at 1, 3.
    \138\ See Angel Letter, supra note 15, at 11.
    \139\ See id. at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two commenters state they supported the part of the Proposed 
Amendment that consists of low non-professional user fees.\140\ One 
commenter states that it believes the proposed non-professional user 
fees were a step in the right direction, but states that the Plan would 
charge fees for professional and non-professional users that are often 
higher than the fees charged by all of the exchange combined for 
proprietary products, creating disincentives for firms to take SIP 
data.\141\ The commenter advocates for fees that would expand access to 
consolidated market data including free access to odd-lot quotation 
information as well as cheaper access to depth-of-book quotation 
information for non-professional users.\142\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \140\ See MIAX Letter, supra note 15, at 2; MEMX Letter, supra 
note 15, at 3.
    \141\ See MEMX Letter, supra note 15, at 3, 18-19.
    \142\ See id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some commenters suggest that the Participants should not categorize 
fees based on user type and suggest on ways to improve the Proposed 
Amendment as it relates to these types of user classifications. One 
commenter urges the Commission to disapprove the Proposed Amendment and 
any future amendment that maintains non-professional and professional 
user classifications because such classifications prevent competing 
consolidators from being able to offer products at competitive prices 
compared to the proprietary data feeds.\143\ One commenter recommends 
easier-to-track proxies for usage-based charges by utilizing data 
already reported by firms, such as FOCUS Reports.\144\ Another 
commenter suggests slowing down the data feeds by 15 milliseconds to 
mitigate the risk of professionals ``masquerading'' as non-
professionals utilizing the cheaper data.\145\ One commenter states 
that the proposed professional user fees are based on a flawed 
methodology that fails to provide a cost based justification, and 
results in excessive fee levels which would discourage firms from 
registering as competing consolidators and hinder the formation of the 
decentralized consolidation model that the MDI Rule seeks to 
create.\146\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \143\ See Polygon.io Letter, supra note 15, at 2-3.
    \144\ See MayStreet Letter, supra note 15, at 8.
    \145\ See Angel Letter, supra note 15, at 11.
    \146\ See MIAX Letter, supra note 15, at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another commenter believes that the Operating Committees should 
analyze whether it is fair and reasonable to continue to charge 
professional and non-professional user fees that exceed the fees 
charges for similar proprietary market data.\147\ This commenter argues 
that the Proposed Amendment should be disapproved because, for some 
firms, the professional fees proposed may be higher than if the firms 
purchased certain proprietary data products.\148\ However, another 
commenter responds that this analysis does not account for the fact 
that purchasers of the new data would be receiving a consolidated data 
product that aggregates all exchanges' data together to determine an 
NBBO and the five best levels of depth among all the exchanges and 
disregards that the Proposed Amendment includes much lower fees for 
non-professionals.\149\ The commenter states that it is fair, 
reasonable, and not unreasonable discriminatory for ``Wall Street to 
pay higher fees than Main Street.'' \150\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \147\ See MEMX Letter, supra note 15, at 20.
    \148\ See id.
    \149\ See NYSE Letter, supra note 15, at 8.
    \150\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Fees for Non-Display Use
    Some commenters state that the proposed Non-Display Use fees are 
based on a flawed methodology that fails to provide a cost based 
justification, results in excessive fee levels which would discourage 
firms from registering as competing

[[Page 11772]]

consolidators and hinder the formation of the decentralized 
consolidation model that the MDI Rule seeks to create.\151\ One 
commenter states that the fees in the Proposed Amendment, including the 
non-display fees, would place competing consolidators at a disadvantage 
because they will not be able to offer products at prices competitive 
with those of proprietary feeds.\152\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \151\ See MIAX Letter, supra note 15, at 3; Polygon.io Letter, 
supra note 15, at 2-3.
    \152\ See Cutler Letter, supra note 15, at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter asks that the Commission reject that Amendment and 
any future proposal that maintains display/non-display and 
professional/non-professional classifications.\153\ The commenter 
states that, if the Proposed Amendment is not rejected, competing 
consolidators will not be able to offer products at competitive prices 
to proprietary data feeds.\154\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \153\ See Polygon.io Letter, supra note 15, at 2.
    \154\ See id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Access Fees
    One commenter states that the proposed Access fees are based on a 
flawed methodology that fails to provide a cost based justification, 
and results in excessive fee levels which would discourage firms from 
registering as competing consolidators and hinder the formation of the 
decentralized consolidation model that the MDI Rule seeks to 
create.\155\ Another commenter stated that the proposed access fees are 
not fair and reasonable because they are more expensive than those fees 
charged by exchanges in the proprietary products.\156\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \155\ See MIAX Letter, supra note 15, at 3.
    \156\ See MEMX, supra note 15, at 6, 8. See also Cutler Letter, 
supra note 15, at 1-2 (noting that it supports the comment letter 
written by MEMX and that the Proposed Amendment makes market data 
less accessible).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. Redistribution Fees
    Two commenters suggest that the imposition of redistribution fees 
on competing consolidators would place competing consolidators at a 
competitive disadvantage.\157\ Another commenter states that by 
charging redistribution fees to competing consolidators, the filing 
creates a barrier to entry to technology solution vendors to become 
competing consolidators.\158\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \157\ See NBIM Letter, supra note 15, at 2; Cutler Letter, supra 
note 15, at 1-2.
    \158\ See NovaSparks Letter, supra note 15, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter states that the Proposed Amendment should treat 
competing consolidators as replacements to the exclusive SIPs, not as 
data vendors.\159\ It states that subjecting competing consolidators to 
the same fees as data vendors and subscribers that receive consolidated 
market data from the exclusive SIP fails to recognize that competing 
consolidators are SIPs and not similarly situated to today's data 
vendors.\160\ This commenter further states that that competing 
consolidators should not be charged redistribution fees because they 
are not redistributing consolidated market data, but generating and 
distributing it for the first time.\161\ According to this commenter, 
these fees for redistribution should not be charged by the Plan because 
the Plan no longer would govern the distribution of consolidated market 
data.\162\ The commenter states that by not recognizing competing 
consolidators as SIPs, competing consolidators are placed at a 
competitive disadvantage relative to data vendors given that they take 
on expenses and risks that data vendors do not, such as the costs for 
generating consolidated market data, disclosing operational and 
performance metrics, registering with the Commission, and complying 
with Rule 614 of Regulation NMS.\163\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \159\ See MayStreet Letter, supra note 15, at 3.
    \160\ See id. at 3-4.
    \161\ See id.
    \162\ See id., at 5.
    \163\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter states that the proposed redistribution fee that 
would be charged to competing consolidators is inconsistent with the 
purposes and structure of the MDI Rule, and that this aspect of the 
proposal represents a ``further indication that the intent of the 
majority was to subvert the purpose of the Commission's order.'' \164\ 
Another commenter states that the redistribution fee for competing 
consolidators is inconsistent with the MDI Rule, not fair and 
reasonable, and unreasonably discriminatory.\165\ One commenter states 
that the proposal's attempt to justify the redistribution fee based on 
the current centralized model that charges fees to downstream vendors 
is unsound because, under the decentralized MDI Rule, competing 
consolidators would be ``stepping into the role that the SIPs hold 
today as the primary sources of consolidated market data.'' \166\ 
According to this commenter, to charge a redistribution fee on top of 
the other proposed fees would ``unquestionably put competing 
consolidators at a further competitive disadvantage as compared to 
aggregated proprietary data products offered by exchanges,'' thus 
targeting them in an unfair and unreasonable manner.\167\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \164\ See IEX Letter, supra note 15, at 5.
    \165\ See MIAX Letter, supra note 15, at 2 (citing the MDI Rule 
Release which stated that ``imposing redistribution fees on data 
content underlying consolidated market data that will be 
disseminated by competing consolidators would be difficult to 
reconcile with the standards of being fair and reasonable and not 
unreasonably discriminatory in the new decentralized model,'' and 
that ``fees proposed by the SROs should not contain redistribution 
fees for competing consolidators because this would hinder their 
ability to compete.'').
    \166\ See id.
    \167\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter states the Proposed Amendment directly contradicts 
the Commission's directive in the MDI Rule that competing consolidators 
not be treated the same as market data vendors.\168\ It believes that 
Participants are attempting to undermine the Commission's authority 
over market data as enumerated in the CT Plan and MDI Rule in order to 
preserve their current revenues from proprietary and SIP data.\169\ It 
states that the Participants have taken the position that the competing 
consolidators should be charged redistribution fees just like any 
market data vendor. It believes this undermines the efforts of the MDI 
Rule.\170\ The commenter reiterates the Commission's statement in the 
MDI Rule Release that ``the Commission believes that the fees for the 
data content underlying consolidated market data should not include 
redistribution fees for competing consolidators. Competing 
consolidators will take the place of the exclusive SIPs in the 
dissemination of consolidated market data, which today do not pay 
redistribution fees for the consolidation and dissemination of SIP 
data.'' \171\ The commenter argues that by treating competing 
consolidators differently than the exclusive SIPs, the Participants are 
acting in an unreasonably discriminatory manner, effectively 
disregarding the Exchange Act mandates in addition to the Commission's 
directive in the MDI Rule.\172\ The commenter argues that imposing 
redistribution fees on competing consolidators imposes an undue burden 
on competition in contravention of the standards under Section 3(f) of 
the Exchange Act that the Commission must consider in connection with 
any Commission rulemaking or review of SRO rules.\173\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \168\ See SIFMA Letter, supra note 15, at 4-5.
    \169\ See id. at 6.
    \170\ See id. at 7.
    \171\ See id.
    \172\ See id., at 8.
    \173\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two commenters state that the redistribution fees charged to 
competing consolidators are in contravention of the Commission's 
express direction in the

[[Page 11773]]

MDI Rule and that the Proposed Amendment disregards the directive.\174\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \174\ See FINRA Letter, supra note 15, at 5; MEMX Letter, supra 
note 15, at 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter states that, although the Commission compared 
competing consolidators to self-aggregators, a more appropriate 
comparison would be between competing consolidators and downstream 
vendors.\175\ According to this commenter, because such vendors would 
be subject to redistribution fees when redistributing data to its 
subscribers, it would impose a burden on competition and be unfair to 
vendors not to charge a redistribution fee for exactly the same 
activity to competing consolidators.\176\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \175\ See NYSE Letter, supra note 15, at 7.
    \176\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. Broker-Dealer Enterprise Cap
    One commenter favors expanding the broker-dealer enterprise cap 
that is part of the current fee schedule of the Plan. The commenter 
states that the Proposed Amendment provides no depth-of-book enterprise 
cap and the Level 1 enterprise caps are out of reach for most market 
Participants.\177\ In particular, this commenter recommends that 
enterprise caps be implemented at multiple tiers levels.\178\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \177\ See MayStreet Letter, supra note 15, at 8.
    \178\ See id. at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. NMS Plan Governance

    Some commenters state that the MDI Rule should be implemented 
through the CT Plan, as opposed to the existing market data equity 
plans (i.e., the CTA/CQ, and Nasdaq/UTP Plans).\179\ One commenter 
reiterated its continued support for the provisions of the CT Plan 
overall.\180\ The commenter states that the real and potential 
conflicts of interest that currently exist relating to the provision of 
market data directly relate to the decision-making problems at the 
Plans' Operating Committees.\181\ The commenter supports expanding the 
voting representation under the CT Plan to non-SROs and having them 
participate as full voting members of the Operating Committee.\182\ The 
commenter believes the Commission cannot approve the Proposed Amendment 
given the inherent conflicts of interests of the SROs who developed the 
proposals.\183\ The commenter states that, if the Commission approved 
the Proposed Amendment, it would be giving tacit approval to the 
shortcomings in the governance structure of the current Plans.\184\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \179\ See BMO Letter, supra note 15; MEMX Letter, supra note 15; 
MIAX Letter, supra note 15; IEX Letter, supra note 15; and 
Polygon.io Letter, supra note 15.
    \180\ See BMO Letter, supra note 15, at 1.
    \181\ See id. at 2.
    \182\ See id.
    \183\ See id.
    \184\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This commenter also notes that the proposed fee amendments are 
explicitly stated by the Participants to be unrelated to the cost of 
providing the data, but rather to subscriber value.\185\ The commenter 
states that this is a clear example of the Plan's Operating Committee 
failing to ensure that the public service mandates of the SIPs are 
achieved and is a failure in governance through the unmitigated 
conflicts of interest by voting members who just want to maximize 
profits.\186\ The commenter states that further evidence of the failure 
of the governance structure on the Operating Committee is that the fee 
proposals have been proposed while the remaining reforms of the CT Plan 
are stayed pending resolution of challenges in the D.C. Circuit.\187\ 
The commenter states that it is surprised that the proposals were filed 
without broader participation, given that certain members of the 
Operating Committee have stated publicly that the proposals contradict 
the Exchange Act standards for consolidated data which requires that 
the fees be fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably discriminatory.\188\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \185\ See id.
    \186\ See id. at 2-3.
    \187\ See id. at 3.
    \188\ See id. (citing note 14 of the Notice, which states in 
part: ``FINRA, IEX, LTSE, MIAX, and MEMX have not joined in the 
decision to approve the filing of the proposed amendment, and Nasdaq 
BX is also withholding its vote at this time.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another commenter also encourages the Commission to consider 
whether the CT Plan is a more appropriate body for setting fees for 
consolidated market data.\189\ This commenter believes that placing the 
responsibility for setting fees in the hands of the CT Plan would allow 
SIP fees to be set by an Operating Committee that better reflects the 
constituencies impacted by this filing, including non-SRO 
representatives.\190\ A second commenter states that the fee proposals 
are ``the result of a conflicted and unbalanced voting process,'' 
adding that it agreed with the recommendation that the responsibility 
for setting the proposed fees should be placed on the CT Plan.\191\ A 
third commenter recommends that the Commission disapprove the proposal 
and reassign the responsibility for the filing to the Operating 
Committee for the CT Plan, which the commenter states would have a 
``broader set of voting stakeholders and a fairer and less conflicted 
governance structure,'' a change that, as this proposal shows, is 
``badly'' needed.\192\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \189\ See MEMX Letter, supra note 15, at 23-24.
    \190\ See id.
    \191\ See MIAX Letter, supra note 15, at 5.
    \192\ See IEX Letter, supra note 15, at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter asks the Commission to reevaluate the process that 
led to the creation of the Proposed Amendment and make substantive 
changes to avoid the amendment process being used to derail timely 
implementation of the MDI Rule.\193\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \193\ See Polygon.io Letter, supra note 15, at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Consideration of Other Actions Under Rule 608 of Regulation NMS

    In connection with recommending disapproval of the Proposed 
Amendment, one commenter states the Commission could consider potential 
action under Rule 608(a)(2) of Regulation NMS, which allows the 
Commission to directly propose amendments to effective national market 
system plans.\194\ The commenter states that in connection with a 
Commission disapproval of the Proposed Amendment, it would ``support 
the Commission's efforts to ensure that the newly expanded consolidated 
market data (i.e., new core data) under the Commission's Infrastructure 
Rule is disseminated in a manner consistent with the Exchange Act 
standards to ensure the investing public and all market participants 
have fair and reasonable access to it.'' \195\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \194\ See SIFMA Letter, supra note 15, at 2.
    \195\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter believes that it would be inconsistent with the 
Exchange Act and Rule 608 for the Commission to sua sponte change any 
or all of the proposed fees, as any such change would be material to 
the Proposed Amendment.\196\ The commenter states that, in its view, if 
the Commission intends to revise the Proposed Amendment in any material 
way, it must do so through rule-making under Rule 608(b)(2), by 
providing public notice of the specific changes it proposes and giving 
the Participants and general public an opportunity to comment.\197\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \196\ See NYSE Letter, supra note 15, at 8.
    \197\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove the 
Proposed Amendment

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Rule 
608(b)(2)(i) of Regulation NMS,\198\ and Rule 700 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice,\199\ to determine whether to approve or disapprove 
the Proposed Amendment or to approve the Proposed

[[Page 11774]]

Amendment with any changes or subject to any conditions the Commission 
deems necessary or appropriate after considering public comment. 
Institution of proceedings does not indicate that the Commission has 
reached any conclusions with respect to any of the issues involved. 
Rather, the Commission seeks and encourages interested persons to 
provide additional comment on the Proposed Amendment to inform the 
Commission's analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \198\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \199\ 17 CFR 201.700.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 608(b)(2) of Regulation NMS provides that the Commission 
``shall approve a . . . proposed amendment to a national market system 
plan, with such changes or subject to such conditions as the Commission 
may deem necessary or appropriate, if it finds that such . . . 
amendment is necessary or 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 mechanisms of, a 
national market system, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of 
the Act.'' \200\ Rule 608(b)(2) further provides that the Commission 
shall disapprove a proposed amendment if it does not make such a 
finding.\201\ Pursuant to Rule 608(b)(2)(i) of Regulation NMS,\202\ the 
Commission is providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under 
consideration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \200\ See 17 CFR 242.608(b)(2).
    \201\ See id.
    \202\ 17 CFR 242.608(b)(2)(i). See also Commission Rule of 
Practice 700(b)(2), 17 CFR 201.700(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether the Proposed Amendment is consistent with the 
Commission's MDI Rule; \203\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \203\ See MDI Rule Release, supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether, consistent with Rule 608 of Regulation NMS, the 
Proposed Amendment is necessary or 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 mechanisms of, a 
national market system, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of 
the Act; \204\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \204\ See 17 CFR 242.608(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether, consistent with Rule 603(a) and 614(d)(3) of 
Regulation NMS, the Proposed Amendment provides for the distribution of 
information with respect to quotations for and transactions in NMS 
stocks on terms that are fair and reasonable and not unreasonably 
discriminatory;
     Whether modifications to the Proposed Amendment, or 
conditions to its approval, would be required to make the Proposed 
Amendment necessary or 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 mechanisms of, a 
national market system, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of 
the Act; \205\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \205\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether the Proposed Amendment is consistent with 
Congress's finding, in Section 11A(1)(C)(iii) of the Act, that it is in 
the public interest and appropriate for the protection of investors and 
the maintenance of fair and orderly markets to ensure ``the 
availability to brokers, dealers, and investors or information with 
respect to quotations for and transactions in securities;'' \206\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \206\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1)(C)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether, consistent with the purposes of Section 
11A(c)(1)(B) of the Act,\207\ the Proposed Amendment's provisions are 
drafted to support the prompt, accurate, reliable, and fair collection, 
processing, distribution, and publication of information with respect 
to quotations for and transactions in NMS securities, and the fairness 
and usefulness of the form and content of such information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \207\ See 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(c)(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, the ``burden to 
demonstrate that a NMS plan filing is consistent with the Exchange Act 
and the rules and regulations issued thereunder . . . is on the plan 
participants that filed the NMS plan filing.'' \208\ The description of 
the NMS plan filing, its purpose and operation, its effect, and a legal 
analysis of its consistency with applicable requirements must all be 
sufficiently detailed and specific to support an affirmative Commission 
finding.\209\ Any failure of the plan participants that filed the NMS 
plan filing to provide such detail and specificity may result in the 
Commission not having a sufficient basis to make an affirmative finding 
that the NMS plan filing is consistent with the Exchange Act and the 
applicable rules and regulations thereunder.\210\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \208\ 17 CFR 201.700(b)(3)(ii).
    \209\ Id.
    \210\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Commission's Solicitation of Comments

    The Commission requests that interested persons provide written 
submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the 
issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have 
with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written 
views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is 
consistent with Section 11A or any other provision of the Act, or the 
rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do not appear to be 
any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would be 
facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the 
Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 608(b)(2)(i) of Regulation 
NMS,\211\ any request for an opportunity to make an oral 
presentation.\212\ The Commission asks that commenters address the 
sufficiency and merit of the Participants' statements in support of the 
Proposed Amendment,\213\ in addition to any other comments they may 
wish to submit about the proposed rule changes. In particular, the 
Commission seeks comment on the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \211\ 17 CFR 242.608(b)(2)(i).
    \212\ Rule 700(c)(ii) of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
provides that ``[t]he Commission, in its sole discretion, may 
determine whether any issues relevant to approval or disapproval 
would be facilitated by the opportunity for an oral presentation of 
views.'' 17 CFR 201.700(c)(ii).
    \213\ See Notice, supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. In the MDI Rule Release, the Commission stated that ``the fees 
for the data content underlying consolidated market data must satisfy 
the statutory standards of being fair, reasonable and not unreasonably 
discriminatory.'' \214\ What are commenters' views as to each of the 
fees proposed?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \214\ See MDI Rule Release, supra note 9, 86 FR at 18684.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. In the Cover Letter,\215\ the Participants state that ``under 
the decentralized competing consolidator model, the Operating Committee 
has no knowledge of any of the costs associated with consolidated 
market data.'' The Participants further state that, under the 
decentralized competing consolidator model described in the MDI Rule 
Release, the Plan's Operating Committee no longer has a role in either 
specifying the technology associated with exchanges providing data or 
contracting with a SIP and that each national securities exchange will 
be responsible for determining the methods of access to and format of 
data necessary to generate consolidated market data. The Participants 
also state that the Operating Committee will not have access to 
information about how each exchange would generate the data that they 
each would be required to disseminate under amended Rule 603(b). 
According to the Participants, the Operating Committee does not have 
access to any information about the cost of providing consolidated 
market data under the decentralized competing consolidator model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \215\ See Cover Letter, supra note 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Do commenters agree with the statements that the Participants have 
made with respect to their ability,

[[Page 11775]]

current or future, to determine the costs of generating consolidated 
market data?
    3. What are commenters' views on the Participants argument that a 
``value-based'' methodology is an appropriate basis to determine the 
fees for core data? What are commenters' views on the methodology 
proposed by the Participants?
    4. What are commenters' views on whether the comparison of 
exchanges' proprietary depth-of-book fees to the current SIP feeds is 
an appropriate means to calculate the ``value'' of consolidated market 
data? Do commenters believe that the pricing for individual exchange 
market data products can serve as an appropriate means for justifying 
the proposed fees? What are commenters' views on the prices of the 
depth-of-book feeds--whether by reference to cost or to prices set by a 
competitive market for equity market data as opposed to market power?
    5. What are commenters' views on the Participants' calculation of 
the appropriate ratio to be applied to current SIP fees to generate the 
proposed fees for content underlying consolidated market data? Were 
appropriate depth-of-book products selected for the calculation? What 
are commenters' views about the ratios and methodology used generate 
fees?
    6. Under the Proposed Amendment, the consolidated market data 
depth-of-book product would not include top-of-book data. What are 
commenters' views on basing the price of depth-of-book consolidated 
market data on the fees for proprietary products that include top-of-
book data?
    7. In the Cover Letter,\216\ the Participants state that they 
reviewed the depth-of-book to top-of-book ratios of Professional device 
rates on Nasdaq (Nasdaq Basic/Nasdaq TotalView), Cboe (Cboe Full 
Depth), NYSE (BQT/NYSE Integrated), and IEX (TOPS/DEEP) to determine an 
appropriate ratio between the fees of depth-of-book core data products 
and the current Level 1 (top-of-book) data. The Participants further 
state that they believe that the 3.94x ratio represents the difference 
in value between top-of-book data and five levels of depth that would 
be required to be included in consolidated market data under amended 
Rule 603(b). What are commenters' views on setting fees under the 
Proposed Amendment based on the ratio of fees for depth-of-book and 
top-of-book proprietary data products?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \216\ See Cover Letter, supra note 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. Under the Proposed Amendment, the consolidated market data 
depth-of-book product would include only aggregate order information at 
each price level, not order-by-order data. What are commenters' views 
on whether the price of depth-of-book consolidated market data should 
be based on the fees for proprietary products that include order-by-
order data? What are commenters' views on the selection of the 
referenced proprietary data products used to price the fees in the 
Proposed Amendment, including other exchange fees considered but not 
selected as a reference for the development of pricing under the 
Proposed Amendment?
    9. Under the Proposed Amendment, the consolidated market data 
depth-of-book product would not include auction data, which would be 
sold separately. What are commenters' views on whether the price of 
depth-of-book consolidated market data should be based on the fees for 
proprietary depth-of-book products that include auction data?
    10. What are commenters' views on whether users should be 
classified as professionals and non-professionals under the Proposed 
Amendment? Should non-professional subscribers to pay the same fees as 
professional subscribers for the auction data under the Proposed 
Amendment? Why or why not? Should professionals to pay a different 
price than non-professionals for products other than auction data under 
the Proposed Amendment? Why or why not? If commenters believe that 
classification based on user type for the contents of the consolidated 
market data is appropriate, do commenters support or oppose low-cost 
non-professional user fees? Why or why not?
    11. What are commenters' views on the non-display fees in the 
Proposed Amendment?
    12. What are commenters' views on the access fees in the Proposed 
Amendment? What are commenters' views on whether the Participants 
should charge access fees? Should competing consolidators be required 
to pay access fees? Why or why not? Should access fees be treated like 
connectivity fees, market data fees, or something else? Why or why not?
    13. What are commenters' views on how the cost of purchasing 
consolidated top-of-book, depth-of-book, and auction data under the 
Proposed Amendment compares to the cost of subscribing to the existing 
proprietary data feeds that would contain similar or more data? What 
are commenters' views regarding the relationship of this comparison to 
the fees under the Proposed Amendment?
    14. The Commission stated in the MDI Rule Release that ``imposing 
redistribution fees on data content underlying consolidated market data 
that will be disseminated by competing consolidators would be difficult 
to reconcile with the standards of being fair and reasonable and not 
unreasonably discriminatory in the new decentralized model,'' \217\ and 
that ``fees proposed by the SROs should not contain redistribution fees 
for competing consolidators because this would hinder their ability to 
compete.'' \218\ What are commenters' views on the justification 
offered by the Participants in favor of charging redistribution fees to 
competing consolidators? What are commenters' views regarding competing 
consolidators being treated similarly to data vendors and charged 
redistribution fees? Would charging redistribution fees to competing 
consolidators (and thus subjecting them to the same fees as vendors and 
subscribers) place them at a competitive disadvantage to the exchanges 
offering proprietary market data for sale? Why or why not? Do 
commenters believe that imposing redistribution fees on competing 
consolidators would impose a burden on competition? Why or why not? 
What are commenters' views on the level of redistribution fees in the 
Proposed Amendment?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \217\ See MDI Rule Release, supra note 9, 86 FR at 18685.
    \218\ See id., 86 FR at 18682, n.1136.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. What are commenters' views on the prices for Level 1 core data, 
which has been expanded to include odd-lot quotations?
    16. What are commenters' views on whether the operating costs of 
the exclusive SIPs should be deducted from the Level 1 fees in the 
Proposed Amendment to reflect the new role of competing consolidators? 
If so, how should they be taken into account? What are commenter's 
views on whether the operating costs of the exclusive SIPs should be 
taken into account in determining the fees for depth-of-book core data? 
If so, how should they be taken into account? Do commenters believe 
that the new fees for Level 1 core data should have been proposed by 
the Participants? Why or why not? What are commenters' views on how any 
new fees for Level 1 data should have been determined?
    17. Overall, what are commenters' views on the proposed prices for 
consolidated depth-of-book data? How do commenters believe the cost of 
depth-of-book data under the Plan should compare to consuming the same 
or similar data directly from the exchanges? Do commenters believe that

[[Page 11776]]

the proposed price point for depth-of-book data would increase the 
availability of the information for investors? Why or why not? Do 
commenters believe that the calculation of the proposed depth-of-book 
data fee would essentially double-charge customers for top-of-book 
information that they would have to buy separately through the Level I 
feed? Why or why not?
    18. What are commenters' views on the prices for auction 
information? Do commenters believe the proposed prices for auction 
information are priced too high, too low, or at the correct level? Why 
or why not? What are commenters' views on the lack of a distinction 
between prices charged to professional and non-professional users for 
auction information?
    19. In the Cover Letter,\219\ the Participants stated that, with 
respect to the fees for auction information, they looked to the 
percentage of average dialing trading volume that occurs during an 
auction process and determined that roughly 10% of the trading volume 
takes place in auctions. The Participants stated that they therefore 
believe that charging a fee for auction data that is 10% of the fee 
charged for depth-of-book data appropriately reflects the value of 
auction information. What are commenters' views about this method for 
determining the fees for auction data?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \219\ See Cover Letter, supra note 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    20. What are commenters' views on the lack of an enterprise fee cap 
in the proposal? Should enterprise caps have been proposed by the 
Participants for each category of data (e.g., Level 1, depth-of-book, 
auction information)? Should multiples enterprise caps have been 
proposed to reflect different size enterprises? Why or why not?
    21. What are commenters' views on the Participants' clarification 
in the Proposed Amendment that the Per-Quote-Packet Charges would not 
apply to the expanded market data content required by the MDI Rule and 
would only be available for the receipt and use of the Level 1 Service?
    22. What are commenters' views on the belief of some market 
participants that conflicts of interest by the Participants who also 
sell proprietary data products have resulted in proposed fees that are 
not fair, reasonable, and unreasonably discriminatory? \220\ What are 
commenters' views on whether the opinions of the advisory committee 
members and SROs who did not vote in favor of the Proposed Amendment 
should have been accommodated in the Proposed Amendment?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \220\ See Section III.C, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    23. Should the Commission approve or disapprove the Proposed 
Amendment? Why or why not? Should the Commission approve the Proposed 
Amendment with modifications? If so, what modifications would be 
appropriate and why?
    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and 
arguments regarding whether the proposal should be approved or 
disapproved by March 23, 2022. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal 
to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by April 6, 
2022. 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 [email protected]. Please include 
File No. SR-CTA/CQ-2021-03 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 No. SR-CTA/CQ-2021-03. 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 (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 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 Participants' principal offices. 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 File No. SR-CTA/CQ-2021-03 and should be 
submitted on or before March 23, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\221\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \221\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(85).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-04334 Filed 3-1-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.