1084 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 9, 2018 / Notices 

14Applicants are not requesting and the 

Commission is not providing any relief for 

transaction fees received in connection with any 

Co-Investment Transaction. 

1 15 U.S.C. 78k–1. 

2 17 CFR 242.608. 

3The Participants are: Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc.; 

Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Cboe EDGA Exchange, 

Inc.; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Cboe Exchange, 

Inc.; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.; Financial 

Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Investors 

Exchange LLC; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; 

Nasdaq PHLX LLC; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; 

New York Stock Exchange LLC; NYSE Arca, Inc.; 

NYSE American LLC; and NYSE National, Inc. 

(collectively, the ‘‘Participants’’). 

4The Plan governs the collection, processing, and 

dissemination on a consolidated basis of quotation 

information and transaction reports in Eligible 

Securities for each of its Participants. This 

consolidated information informs investors of the 

current quotation and recent trade prices of Nasdaq 

securities. It enables investors to ascertain from one 

data source the current prices in all the markets 

trading Nasdaq securities. The Plan serves as the 

required transaction reporting plan for its 

Participants, which is a prerequisite for their 

trading Eligible Securities. See Securities Exchange 

Act Release No. 55647 (April 19, 2007), 72 FR 

20891 (April 26, 2007). 

5See Letter from Emily Kasparov to Brent J. 

Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated December 13, 

2017 (‘‘Transmittal Letter’’). 

condition will be considered a CoInvestment Transaction for all purposes 

and be subject to the other conditions 

set forth in the application. 

9. The Independent Trustees of each 

Regulated Entity will be provided 

quarterly for review all information 

concerning Potential Co-Investment 

Transactions and Co-Investment 

Transactions, including investments 

made by other Regulated Entities or 

Affiliated Investors that a Regulated 

Entity considered but declined to 

participate in, so that the Independent 

Trustees may determine whether all 

investments made during the preceding 

quarter, including those investments 

which the Regulated Entity considered 

but declined to participate in, comply 

with the conditions of the Order. In 

addition, the Independent Trustees will 

consider at least annually the continued 

appropriateness for such Regulated 

Entity of participating in new and 

existing Co-Investment Transactions. 

10. Each Regulated Entity will 

maintain the records required by section 

57(f)(3) of the Act as if each of the 

Regulated Entities were a BDC and each 

of the investments permitted under 

these conditions were approved by a 

Required Majority under section 57(f). 

11. No Independent Trustee of a 

Regulated Entity will also be a trustee, 

director, general partner, managing 

member or principal, or otherwise an 

‘‘affiliated person’’ (as defined in the 

Act) of any Affiliated Investor. 

12. The expenses, if any, associated 

with acquiring, holding or disposing of 

any securities acquired in a CoInvestment Transaction (including, 

without limitation, the expenses of the 

distribution of any such securities 

registered for sale under the Securities 

Act) shall, to the extent not payable by 

the Guggenheim Advisers under their 

respective advisory agreements with the 

Regulated Entities and the Affiliated 

Investors, be shared by the Regulated 

Entities and the Affiliated Investors in 

proportion to the relative amounts of the 

securities held or to be acquired or 

disposed of, as the case may be. 

13. Any transaction fee (including 

break-up or commitment fees but 

excluding brokers’ fees contemplated by 

section 17(e) or 57(k) of the Act, as 

applicable) 14 received in connection 

with a Co-Investment Transaction will 

be distributed to the participating 

Regulated Entities and Affiliated 

Investors on a pro rata basis based on 

the amount they invested or committed, 

as the case may be, in such CoInvestment Transaction. If any 

transaction fee is to be held by a 

Guggenheim Adviser pending 

consummation of the transaction, the 

fee will be deposited into an account 

maintained by the Guggenheim Adviser 

at a bank or banks having the 

qualifications prescribed in section 

26(a)(1) of the Act, and the account will 

earn a competitive rate of interest that 

will also be divided pro rata among the 

participating Regulated Entities and 

Affiliated Investors based on the amount 

they invest in the Co-Investment 

Transaction. None of the other 

Regulated Entities, Affiliated Investors, 

the Guggenheim Advisers nor any 

affiliated person of the Regulated 

Entities or the Affiliated Investors will 

receive additional compensation or 

remuneration of any kind as a result of 

or in connection with a Co-Investment 

Transaction (other than (a) in the case 

of the Regulated Entities and the 

Affiliated Investors, the pro rata 

transaction fees described above and 

fees or other compensation described in 

condition 2(c)(iii)(c) and (b) in the case 

of the Guggenheim Advisers, investment 

advisory fees paid in accordance with 

the Regulated Entities’ and the 

Affiliated Investors’ investment 

advisory agreements). 

14. If the Holders own in the aggregate 

more than 25 percent of the shares of a 

Regulated Entity, then the Holders will 

vote such shares as directed by an 

independent third party when voting on 

(1) the election of directors or trustees; 

(2) the removal of one or more directors 

or trustees; or (3) any matters requiring 

approval by the vote of a majority of the 

outstanding voting securities, as defined 

in section 2(a)(42) of the Act. 

15. Each Regulated Entity’s chief 

compliance officer, as defined in Rule 

38a–1(a)(4), will prepare an annual 

report for its Board that evaluates (and 

documents the basis of that evaluation) 

the Regulated Entity’s compliance with 

the terms and conditions of the 

application and the procedures 

established to achieve such compliance. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Investment Management, under delegated 

authority. 

Eduardo A. Aleman, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2018–00162 Filed 1–8–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–82440; File No. S7–24–89] 

Joint Industry Plan; Notice of Filing 

and Immediate Effectiveness of the 

Forty-First Amendment to the Joint 

Self-Regulatory Organization Plan 

Governing the Collection, 

Consolidation and Dissemination of 

Quotation and Transaction Information 

for Nasdaq-Listed Securities Traded on 

Exchanges on an Unlisted Trading 

Privileges Basis 

January 3, 2018. 

Pursuant to Section 11A of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

(‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 608 thereunder,2

notice is hereby given that on December 

14, 2017, the Participants 3 in the Joint 

Self-Regulatory Organization Plan 

Governing the Collection, Consolidation 

and Dissemination of Quotation and 

Transaction Information for NasdaqListed Securities Traded on Exchanges 

on an Unlisted Trading Privileges Basis 

(‘‘NASDAQ/UTP Plan’’ or ‘‘Plan’’) filed 

with the Securities and Exchange 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) a proposal 

to amend the NASDAQ/UTP Plan.4 The 

amendment is the 41st Amendment to 

the NASDAQ/UTP Plan 

(‘‘Amendment’’).5

The Amendment proposes to modify 

the text of the fee schedule of the Plan 

to adopt a ‘‘Multiple Instance, Single 

User’’ (‘‘MISU’’) Program that aligns 

with the MISU Program used by the 

CTA and CQ Plans. As explained in 

greater detail below, the Participants 

state that the Amendment moves 

towards harmonizing the fees under the 

Plan with the fees under the CTA and 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 9, 2018 / Notices 1085 

6See infra note 8 and accompanying text. 

7 17 CFR 242.608(b)(3)(i). 

8See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69361 

(Apr. 10, 2013), 78 FR 22588 (Apr. 16, 2013). 

9The Plan would still allow subscriber firms to 

take advantage of the Net Reporting Program rather 

than the MISU program if they so choose. 

10The Plan’s Data Policies can be found online 

at http://utpplan.com/DOC/Datapolicies.pdf. 

CQ Plan, thereby reducing the 

administrative burden on subscriber 

firms. Currently, the Plan has in place 

a net reporting option for the 

professional subscriber fee, known as 

the ‘‘Net Reporting Program.’’ 6 The Net 

Reporting Program allows a firm to 

report only a single device in cases 

where the firm provides market data to 

an employee on multiple internallycontrolled, fee-liable devices. The Net 

Reporting Program, however, is only 

available for internal devices with 

respect to which the firm controls 

access to market data and not for 

external devices for which a vendor 

(and not the firm) controls access to 

market data. The proposed adoption of 

the MISU Program would eliminate this 

restriction and allow firms to provide a 

net reporting option that includes both 

internal devices with respect to which 

the firm controls access to market data 

as well as external devices for which 

another vendor controls access to 

market data. 

According to the Participants, because 

the adoption of the MISU Program will 

result in more netting of devices than 

currently exists under the Net Reporting 

Program, the Plan expects that the 

number of devices being reported will 

decrease. Therefore, to make the 

adoption of the MISU Program revenue 

neutral, the Participants are proposing 

an increase in the professional 

subscriber device fee from $22 to $24, 

regardless of whether or not a 

professional subscriber opts for the 

MISU program. A description of the 

Plan’s expectations with regards to the 

decrease in the number of reported 

devices, and calculations regarding the 

revenue neutral aspect of the proposed 

amendment is described in greater 

detail below. 

Pursuant to Rule 608(b)(3)(i) under 

Regulation NMS,7 the Participants 

designate the Amendment as 

establishing or changing a fee or other 

charge collected on behalf of the 

Participants in connection with access 

to, or use of, any facility contemplated 

by the Nasdaq/UTP Plan and are 

submitting the amendment for 

immediate effectiveness. 

The Commission is publishing this 

notice to solicit comments from 

interested persons on the Amendment. 

Set forth in Sections I and II is the 

statement of the purpose and summary 

of the Amendments, along with the 

information required by Rules 608(a) 

and 601(a) under the Act, prepared and 

submitted by the Participants to the 

Commission. 

I. Rule 608(a) 

A. Purpose of the Amendment 

1. Background 

In April 2013, the Plan adopted the 

Net Reporting Program for professional 

subscriber device fees.8 If a firm 

complied with the requirements of the 

Net Reporting Program, this option 

permitted the firm to report only a 

single device in cases where the firm 

provided market data to an employee on 

multiple internally-controlled, fee-liable 

devices. That is, only a single device fee 

would apply with respect to that firm’s 

provision of market data to that person, 

even though he or she receives data on 

multiple devices. At that time, the Net 

Reporting Program was made available 

solely for internally-controlled devices 

with respect to which the firm 

controlled access to market data and not 

for external devices for which a vendor 

(and not the firm) controlled access to 

market data (‘‘vendor-controlled 

terminals’’). 

The rationale for not including 

vendor-controlled terminals in the Net 

Reporting Program was because of the 

Plan’s indirect billing model and the 

associated administrative burden of 

including the vendor-controlled 

terminals in the Net Reporting Program 

under the indirect billing model. Under 

the CTA and CQ Plans, Network A and 

Network B administrators bill end users 

directly, and as a result, did not face 

similar administrative burdens for 

including vendor-controlled terminals. 

Therefore, the CTA and CQ Plans follow 

a MISU Program, which allows vendorcontrolled terminals to be netted with 

internally-controlled devices. 

The CTA’s and CQ’s MISU Programs 

allow subscriber firms to reduce the 

number of professional subscriber 

devices being reported for that 

particular subscriber. As the name 

suggests, it allows the subscriber firm to 

be charged a single fee when an 

employee is accessing market data on 

multiple devices. A subscriber firm not 

opting for the MISU Program is required 

to pay a device fee for each device 

accessed by an employee. To be 

included in the CTA’s and CQ’s MISU 

Programs, the subscriber firm is 

required to comply with a number of 

requirements designed to ensure that 

the Network A and Network B market 

data administrator is able to properly 

account for the multiple devices being 

used by a single user. 

2. Harmonization of CTA/CQ’s and 

UTP’s MISU Programs 

The Plan is proposing to adopt a 

MISU Program that allows subscriber 

firms to report usage in a manner 

consistent with the CTA and CQ Plans.9

Specifically, the Plan’s proposed MISU 

Program would allow subscriber firms 

to net vendor-controlled terminals with 

internally-controlled devices. 

As an example, consider a subscriber 

firm that has an employee who accesses 

market data on two separate internallycontrolled devices, as well as two 

vendor-controlled terminals. Under the 

Net Reporting Program, that subscriber 

firm would report three devices for the 

employee: The two separate internallycontrolled devices would be netted to be 

counted as one device, and the two 

vendor-controlled terminals would be 

separately counted. However, under the 

proposed MISU Program, the subscriber 

firm would report a single device for the 

employee because both vendorcontrolled terminals could be netted 

with the internally-controlled devices. 

To take advantage of the MISU 

Program, subscriber firms must comply 

with certain requirements that will be 

set forth in an updated Data Policy 

document.10 First, such subscriber firms 

must submit application 

documentation, including a sample 

MISU report to demonstrate their ability 

to comply with the reporting 

requirements. Additionally, such 

subscriber firms must demonstrate 

internal controls for entitlements, 

monitoring, and usage reporting 

requirements. After the application 

documentation and internal controls are 

verified, the subscriber firm will receive 

an approval letter confirming 

acceptance into the MISU Program. 

Once accepted to the MISU Program, the 

subscriber firm will have continuing 

obligations related to reporting that will 

ensure the UTP Administrator is able to 

properly calculate credit under the 

MISU Program. Such reporting 

obligations will be detailed in the Data 

Policy document made available via the 

UTP website. 

3. Revenue Neutral Implementation of 

MISU Program 

The purpose of this amendment is to 

harmonize the CQ/CTA Plans and the 

Plan and reduce administrative burdens 

for subscriber firms—the purpose of the 

amendment is not intended to increase 

or decrease Plan revenue. As a result of 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
1086 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 9, 2018 / Notices 

11 Due to the reporting requirements under the 

CTA’s MISU Program, it is possible to calculate the 

amount of netting that currently occurs and the 

effects of that netting on the total number of 

professional subscriber devices. 

the MISU Program, however, subscriber 

firms will be able to net certain devices 

such that the total number of devices 

being reported will decrease. Therefore, 

to remain revenue neutral, the Plan is 

proposing an increase in the 

professional subscriber device fee from 

$22 to $24. As described in more detail 

below, the Plan has determined, based 

on past experience, that an increase of 

the professional subscriber device fee to 

$24 will offset revenue losses resulting 

from a decrease in the number of 

devices due to increased netting as well 

as natural price attrition. 

B. Governing or Constituent Documents 

Not applicable. 

C. Implementation of the Amendments 

Pursuant to Rule 608(b)(3)(i) under 

Regulation NMS, the Participants have 

designated the proposed amendment as 

establishing or changing fees and are 

submitting the amendment for 

immediate effectiveness. However, to 

effectuate the MISU Program, certain 

reporting systems will need to be 

developed to accommodate the reports 

that subscriber firms are required to file 

under the MISU Program. Therefore, the 

MISU Program and associated fee 

increase will be implemented after 

development of necessary systems. The 

Plan will announce the planned 

implementation date, and expects to be 

able to proceed with the MISU Program 

during the first quarter of 2018. 

D. Development and Implementation 

Phases 

See Item I.C. above. 

E. Analysis of Impact on Competition 

The proposed amendments do not 

impose any burden on competition that 

is not necessary or appropriate in 

furtherance of the purposes of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The 

proposed adoption of the MISU Program 

will reduce the administrative burden 

placed on subscriber firms by 

harmonizing the approach to netting 

available under the CQ/CTA Plans and 

the Plan. The Plan has consulted with 

subscriber firms who have expressed 

overwhelming support for the 

harmonization detailed herein. As a 

result, the proposed adoption of the 

MISU Program would promote 

consistency in market data 

administration among the national 

market system plans and make market 

data fees easier to administer for 

subscriber firms. 

Additionally, while the adoption of 

the MISU Program will include a fee 

increase, such fee increase is necessary 

to ensure that the adoption of the MISU 

Program remains revenue neutral. As 

described below, the Plan has based the 

fee increase on experience with netting 

under the CQ/CTA Plans as well as 

natural price attrition. 

F. Written Understanding or Agreements 

Relating to Interpretation of, or 

Participation in, Plan 

Not applicable. 

G. Approval by Sponsors in Accordance 

With Plan 

See Item I.C. above. 

H. Description of Operation of Facility 

Contemplated by the Proposed 

Amendments 

Not applicable. 

I. Terms and Conditions of Access 

Not applicable. 

J. Method of Determination and 

Imposition, and Amount of, Fees and 

Charges 

The Participants proposed to increase 

the professional subscriber device fee 

from $22 to $24 after performing an 

analysis to adopt a revenue-neutral 

MISU Program. The adoption of the 

MISU Program is designed to reduce 

administrative burdens on subscriber 

firms by harmonizing the various 

market data plans. The fee changes are 

designed to ensure that the MISU 

Program has a negligible effect on Plan 

revenue. 

In determining the necessary fee 

increase to achieve revenue neutrality, 

the Participants reviewed two aspects of 

the adoption of the MISU Program that 

would result in decreased revenue: (1) 

An increase in the netting of devices 

and (2) natural price attrition. 

First, as previously explained, the 

MISU Program will allow subscriber 

firms to net internally controlled 

devices with vendor-controlled 

terminals. For example, consider a 

subscriber firm who has an employee 

who accesses market data on two 

separate internal devices, as well as two 

vendor-controlled terminals. Under the 

current Net Reporting Program, that 

subscriber firm would report three 

devices for the employee: The two 

separate internal devices would be 

netted to be counted as one device, and 

the two vendor-controlled terminals 

would be separately counted. However, 

under the proposed MISU Program, the 

subscriber firm would report a single 

device for the employee because the 

internally-controlled devices can be 

netted with both vendor-controlled 

terminals. Because of this additional 

netting, the number of devices, and 

therefore the amount of revenue 

collected, would decrease. Therefore, to 

remain revenue neutral, the fee would 

need to be increased by an amount that 

is proportional to the projected decrease 

in the number of professional subscriber 

devices being reported. 

Experience under the CTA Plan has 

demonstrated that the current MISU 

Program already in place currently 

results in a loss of 3.5% of the total 

number of professional subscriber 

devices due to netting of multiple 

terminals.11 However, because the 

MISU Program will now be available 

under all three market data plans, the 

Participants believe that a larger 

percentage (5%) of netting will occur 

because it is more likely the benefits of 

being able to take advantage of the 

MISU Programs under all three market 

data plans outweighs the costs of 

complying with the MISU Program. As 

a result, more subscriber firms will find 

it economically beneficial to take 

advantage of the MISU Program. 

Second, whenever there is a market 

data fee price increase, the Plan 

experiences natural price attrition 

whereby subscriber firms cancel their 

subscriptions simply because of the 

price increases. The Participants 

analyzed potential attrition based on the 

actual effect of past price increases for 

Tapes A and B. Specifically, the 

Participants looked at attrition rates of 

3% and 5% as a result of the proposed 

professional subscriber device fee 

increase. 

Using these two inputs based on 

experience (projected netting rates and 

attrition rates), the Participants 

determined that an increase of the 

professional subscriber device fee to $24 

was likely to result in a revenue neutral 

adoption of the MISU Program. In 

particular, a natural price attrition rate 

of 3–5% and a netting increase of 5% 

would result in a decrease in revenue of 

8–10%. Therefore, the Participants 

decided to propose the increase of the 

professional subscriber device fee from 

$22 to $24 (an increase of 9%) as a 

reasoned approach to ensuring that the 

adoption of the MISU Program by the 

Plan would remain revenue neutral. 

K. Method and Frequency of Processor 

Evaluation 

Not applicable. 

L. Dispute Resolution 

Not applicable. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 9, 2018 / Notices 1087 

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 

2 15 U.S.C. 78a. 

3 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

4 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 

5 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

6See Rules 11.350(c) and (d), governing the IEX 

Opening and Closing Auction, respectively. 

7 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 

8 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6)(iii). 

II. Rule 601(a) 

A. Equity Securities for Which 

Transaction Reports Shall Be Required 

by the Plan 

Not applicable. 

B. Reporting Requirements 

Not applicable. 

C. Manner of Collecting, Processing, 

Sequencing, Making Available and 

Disseminating Last Sale Information 

Not applicable. 

D. Manner of Consolidation 

Not applicable. 

E. Standards and Methods Ensuring 

Promptness, Accuracy and 

Completeness of Transaction Reports 

Not applicable. 

F. Rules and Procedures Addressed to 

Fraudulent or Manipulative 

Dissemination 

Not applicable. 

G. Terms of Access to Transaction 

Reports 

Not applicable. 

H. Identification of Marketplace of 

Execution 

Not applicable. 

III. Solicitation of Comments 

The Commission seeks comment on 

the Amendment. In particular, the 

Commission seeks comment on, among 

other things: (1) Whether the effect on 

revenue would be neutral as represented 

by the Participants given that there will 

be an increase in the professional 

subscriber device fee; and (2) whether 

the process subscribers must follow and 

the requirements that subscribers must 

comply with to take advantage of the 

MISU Program, are transparent, 

objective, and subject to fair and nondiscriminatory application. Interested 

persons are invited to submit written 

data, views, and arguments concerning 

the foregoing, including whether the 

proposed Amendment is consistent with 

the Act. Comments may be submitted by 

any of the following methods: 

Electronic Comments 

• Use the Commission’s internet 

comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ 

rules/sro.shtml); or 

• Send an email to rule-comments@

sec.gov. Please include File Number S7– 

24–89 on the subject line. 

Paper Comments 

• Send paper comments in triplicate 

to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities 

and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street 

NE, Washington, DC 20549–1090. 

All submissions should refer to File 

Number File No. S7–24–89. 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 

website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/ 

sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all 

written statements with respect to the 

proposed Amendment that are filed 

with the Commission, and all written 

communications relating to the 

proposed Amendment 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 on official business 

days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. 

and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the Amendment 

also will be available for website 

viewing and printing at the principal 

office of the Plan. 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 S7–24–89 and should be 

submitted on or before January 30, 2018. 

By the Commission. 

Brent J. Fields, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2018–00168 Filed 1–8–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–82435; File No. SR–IEX– 

2017–44] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; 

Investors Exchange LLC; Notice of 

Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of 

Proposed Rule Change Related to the 

Optional IEX Aggregate Risk Controls 

Mechanism 

January 3, 2018. 

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) 1 of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 

‘‘Act’’) 2 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,3

notice is hereby given that, on December 

22, 2017, the Investors Exchange LLC 

(‘‘IEX’’ or the ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

(the ‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule 

change as described in Items I, II and III 

below, which Items have been prepared 

by the self-regulatory organization. The 

Commission is publishing this notice to 

solicit comments on the proposed rule 

change from interested persons. 

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Terms of Substance of 

the Proposed Rule Change 

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 

19(b)(1) under the Securities Exchange 

Act of 1934 (‘‘Act’’),4 and Rule 19b–4 

thereunder,5 Investors Exchange LLC 

(‘‘IEX’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’) is filing with the 

Commission a proposed rule change to 

amend Rule 11.380 to clarify that the 

optional IEX Aggregate Risk Controls 

(‘‘ARC’’) mechanism will not cancel 

certain orders eligible for execution in 

the Opening or Closing Auction after the 

applicable Lock-in Time and before the 

Opening or Closing Auction match, 

respectively.6 The Exchange has 

designated this rule change as noncontroversial under Section 19(b)(3)(A) 

of the Act 7 and provided the 

Commission with the notice required by 

Rule 19b–4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.8 The 

text of the proposed rule change is 

available at the Exchange’s website at 

www.iextrading.com, at the principal 

office of the Exchange, and at the 

Commission’s Public Reference Room. 

II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

In its filing with the Commission, the 

self-regulatory organization included 

statements concerning the purpose of 

and basis for the proposed rule change 

and discussed any comments it received 

on the proposed rule change. The text 

of these statement may be examined at 

the places specified in Item IV below. 

The self-regulatory organization has 

prepared summaries, set forth in 

Sections A, B, and C below, of the most 

significant aspects of such statements. 

A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and the 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

1. Purpose 

The purpose of this proposed rule 

change is to amend Rule 11.380 (Risk 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES