1444 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 6 / Friday, January 9, 2015 / Notices 

28 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 

29 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(2). 

30 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B). 31 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

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

2 15 U.S.C. 78a. 

3 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

In setting the proposed fees, the 

Exchange considered the 

competitiveness of the market for 

proprietary data and all of the 

implications of that competition. The 

Exchange believes that it has considered 

all relevant factors and has not 

considered irrelevant factors in order to 

establish fair, reasonable, and not 

unreasonably discriminatory fees and an 

equitable allocation of fees among all 

users. The existence of numerous 

alternatives to the Exchange’s products, 

including proprietary data from other 

sources, ensures that the Exchange 

cannot set unreasonable fees, or fees 

that are unreasonably discriminatory, 

when vendors and subscribers can elect 

these alternatives or choose not to 

purchase a specific proprietary data 

product if the attendant fees are not 

justified by the returns that any 

particular vendor or data recipient 

would achieve through the purchase. 

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Comments on the 

Proposed Rule Change Received From 

Members, Participants, or Others 

No written comments were solicited 

or received with respect to the proposed 

rule change. 

III. Date of Effectiveness of the 

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for 

Commission Action 

The foregoing rule change is effective 

upon filing pursuant to Section 

19(b)(3)(A) 28 of the Act and 

subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b–4 29

thereunder, because it establishes a due, 

fee, or other charge imposed by the 

Exchange. 

At any time within 60 days of the 

filing of such proposed rule change, the 

Commission summarily may 

temporarily suspend such rule change if 

it appears to the Commission that such 

action is necessary or appropriate in the 

public interest, for the protection of 

investors, or otherwise in furtherance of 

the purposes of the Act. If the 

Commission takes such action, the 

Commission shall institute proceedings 

under Section 19(b)(2)(B) 30 of the Act to 

determine whether the proposed rule 

change should be approved or 

disapproved. 

IV. Solicitation of Comments 

Interested persons are invited to 

submit written data, views, and 

arguments concerning the foregoing, 

including whether the proposed rule 

change is consistent with the Act. 

Comments may be submitted by any of 

the following methods: 

Electronic Comments 

• Use the Commission’s Internet 

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

rules/sro.shtml); or 

• Send an email to rule-comments@

sec.gov. Please include File Number SR– 

NYSEMKT–2014–115 on the subject 

line. 

Paper Comments 

• Send paper comments in triplicate 

to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities 

and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street 

NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090. 

All submissions should refer to File 

Number SR–NYSEMKT–2014–115. This 

file number should be included on the 

subject line if email is used. To help the 

Commission process and review your 

comments more efficiently, please use 

only one method. The Commission will 

post all comments on the Commission’s 

Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/

rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the 

submission, all subsequent 

amendments, all written statements 

with respect to the proposed rule 

change that are filed with the 

Commission, and all written 

communications relating to the 

proposed rule change between the 

Commission and any person, other than 

those that may be withheld from the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be 

available for Web site viewing and 

printing in the Commission’s Public 

Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., 

Washington, DC 20549, on official 

business days between the hours of 

10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the 

filing will also be available for 

inspection and copying at the NYSE’s 

principal office and on its Internet Web 

site at www.nyse.com. All comments 

received will be posted without change; 

the Commission does not edit personal 

identifying information from 

submissions. You should submit only 

information that you wish to make 

available publicly. All submissions 

should refer to File Number SR– 

NYSEMKT–2014–115 and should be 

submitted on or before January 30, 2015. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.31

Brent J. Fields, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2015–00133 Filed 1–8–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–73986; File No. SR– 

NYSEMKT–2014–113] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE 

MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and 

Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed 

Rule Change Amending the Fees for 

NYSE MKT BBO and NYSE MKT 

Trades 

January 5, 2015. 

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 

23, 2014, NYSE MKT LLC (the 

‘‘Exchange’’ or ‘‘NYSE MKT’’) 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 selfregulatory organization. The 

Commission is publishing this notice to 

solicit comments on the proposed rule 

change from interested persons. 

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Terms of Substance of 

the Proposed Rule Change 

The Exchange proposes to amend the 

fees for NYSE MKT BBO and NYSE 

MKT Trades to: (1) Change the way the 

user fee is calculated and applied, 

operative on January 1, 2015; and (2) 

establish eligibility requirements for 

redistribution on a managed nondisplay basis and an access fee for 

managed non-display data recipients, 

operative on January 1, 2015. The text 

of the proposed rule change is available 

on the Exchange’s Web site at 

www.nyse.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 those statements may be examined at 

the places specified in Item IV below. 

The Exchange has prepared summaries, 

set forth in sections A, B, and C below, 

of the most significant parts of such 

statements. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 6 / Friday, January 9, 2015 / Notices 1445 

4See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 59544 

(Mar. 9, 2009), 74 FR 11162 (Mar. 16, 2009) (SR– 

NYSE–2008–131) and 62038 (May 5, 2010), 75 FR 

26825 (May 12, 2010) (SR–NYSE–2010–22). 

5See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 61936 

(Apr. 16, 2010), 75 FR 21088 (Apr. 22, 2010) (SR– 

NYSEAmex–2010–30 (notice) and 62187 (May 27, 

2010), 75 FR 31500 (June 2, 2014) (SR–NYSEAmex– 

2010–35) (approval order) (‘‘Unit-of-Count Policy 

filing’’). 

6See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 69285 

(April 3, 2013), 78 FR 21172 (April 9, 2013) (SR– 

NYSEMKT–2013–32) (‘‘2013 Non-Display Filing’’) 

and 72020 (September 9, 2014), 79 FR 55040 (Sept. 

15, 2014) (SR–NYSEMKT–2014–72). Existing 

customers approved for the Unit-of-Count Policy for 

display usage have continued to follow the Policy 

in anticipation of new display fees being 

implemented. 

7 ‘‘Redistributor’’ means a vendor or any other 

person that provides an NYSE MKT data product 

to a data recipient or to any system that a data 

recipient uses, irrespective of the means of 

transmission or access. 

8See Unit-of-Count Policy filing, supra note 5. 

9The Exchange has separately proposed to retire 

the Unit-of-Count Policy and modify the eligibility 

requirements for Managed Non-Display Services for 

all of its proprietary market data products, 

including NYSE MKT BBO and NYSE MKT Trades, 

and thereby harmonize the eligibility requirements 

for all NYSE MKT data products that have Managed 

Non-Display fees. See SR–NYSEMKT–2014–115 

(filing for NYSE MKT OpenBook) and SR– 

NYSEMKT–2014–114 (filing for NYSE MKT Order 

Imbalances) (collectively, ‘‘NYSE MKT 2014 

Filings’’). 

10See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 

70748 (Oct. 23, 2013), 70748 (Oct. 23, 2013), 78 FR 

64569 (Oct. 29, 2013) (SR–Phlx–2013–105) (notice 

of filing and immediate effectiveness of proposed 

rule change to establish non-display Managed Data 

Solution for NASDAQ OMX PHLX (‘‘Phlx’’)); 70269 

(Aug. 27, 2013), 78 FR 54336 (Sept. 3, 2013) (SR– 

NASDAQ–2013–106) (notice of filing and 

immediate effectiveness of proposed rule change to 

establish non-display Managed Data Solution for 

NASDAQ Stock Market (‘‘Nasdaq’’)); and 69182 

(Mar. 19, 2013), 78 FR 18378 (Mar. 26, 2013) (SR– 

Phlx–2013–28) (notice of filing and immediate 

effectiveness of proposed rule change to establish 

non-display Managed Data Solution for Phlx 

equities market PSX). 

A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and the 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

1. Purpose 

The Exchange proposes to amend the 

fees for NYSE MKT BBO and NYSE 

MKT Trades data feeds, as set forth on 

the NYSE MKT LLC Equities Proprietary 

Market Data Fee Schedule (‘‘Fee 

Schedule’’), as follows: 

• To change the way the user fees are 

calculated and applied by eliminating 

the unit-of-count policy, operative on 

January 1, 2015; and 

• To establish eligibility requirements 

for redistribution of market data on a 

Managed Non-Display basis and 

establish an access fee for Managed 

Non-Display data recipients, operative 

on January 1, 2015. 

Changes to the Method of Calculating 

and Applying User Fees 

For display use of the NYSE MKT 

BBO and NYSE MKT Trades data feeds, 

the Fee Schedule sets forth a 

Professional User Fee of $1 per month 

or a Non-Professional User Fee of $0.05 

per month. These user fees generally 

apply to each display device that has 

access to NYSE MKT BBO or NYSE 

MKT Trades. 

Vendors and subscribers that are 

eligible for the Unit-of-Count Policy 

may avail themselves of an alternative 

method for counting how many user 

fees should be charged for display use 

of the NYSE MKT BBO and NYSE MKT 

Trades data feeds. The Unit-of-Count 

Policy was first introduced by the 

Exchange’s affiliate, New York Stock 

Exchange LLC (‘‘NYSE’’), as a pilot in 

2009 for its NYSE OpenBook data feed 4

and is available for NYSE MKT BBO 

and NYSE MKT Trades.5 Since April 

2013, the Unit-of-Count Policy has 

applied only to user fees associated with 

display usage.6

The effect of the Unit-of-Count Policy 

for these subscribers is that a single user 

fee applies to individual users that 

receive multiple display device services, 

i.e., multiple devices displaying NYSE 

MKT BBO or NYSE MKT Trades, 

referred to as ‘‘netting.’’ The Exchange 

proposes to retire the Unit-of-Count 

Policy effective January 1, 2015. As a 

result, as of January 1, 2015, subscribers 

that are currently eligible for ‘‘netting’’ 

under the Unit-of-Count Policy would 

pay the user fee for each display device 

that has access to NYSE MKT BBO or 

NYSE MKT Trades, even if a single user 

is receiving NYSE MKT BBO or NYSE 

MKT Trades over multiple devices, as 

well as all other applicable fees set forth 

on the Fee Schedule. 

Proposed Changes to Managed NonDisplay Services and Fees 

Non-Display Use of NYSE MKT 

market data means accessing, 

processing, or consuming NYSE MKT 

market data delivered via direct and/or 

Redistributor 7 data feeds for a purpose 

other than in support of a data 

recipient’s display or further internal or 

external redistribution. A Redistributor 

approved for Managed Non-Display 

Services manages and controls the 

access to NYSE MKT BBO or NYSE 

MKT Trades and does not allow for 

further internal distribution or external 

redistribution of NYSE MKT BBO or 

NYSE MKT Trades by the data 

recipients. Managed Non-Display 

Services Fees apply when a data 

recipient’s non-display applications are 

hosted by a Redistributor that has been 

approved for Managed Non-Display 

Services. 

A Redistributor approved for 

Managed Non-Display Services is 

required to report to the Exchange on a 

monthly basis the data recipients that 

are receiving NYSE MKT BBO or NYSE 

MKT Trades through the Redistributor’s 

Managed Non-Display Service. A data 

recipient receiving NYSE MKT BBO or 

NYSE MKT Trades through a 

Redistributor’s Managed Non-Display 

Service does not have any reporting 

requirements. 

Currently, to be approved for 

Managed Non-Display Services, a 

Redistributor of the Managed NonDisplay Services must be approved 

under the Unit-of-Count policy.8 In 

connection with the retirement of the 

Unit-of-Count Policy,9 eligibility for 

Managed Non-Display Services of NYSE 

MKT BBO or NYSE MKT Trades would 

no longer be based on eligibility under 

the Unit-of-Count Policy. The Exchange 

proposes instead to establish eligibility 

requirements specifically for the 

redistribution of market data for 

Managed Non-Display Services. The 

Exchange also proposes to add an access 

fee that would apply to a data recipient 

that receives NYSE MKT BBO or NYSE 

MKT Trades from an approved 

Redistributor of Managed Non-Display 

Services. 

The proposed eligibility requirements 

for the provision of Managed NonDisplay Services would be similar to the 

eligibility requirements for the Unit-ofCount Policy in that they would require 

the Redistributor to manage and control 

the access to NYSE MKT BBO or NYSE 

MKT Trades for data recipients’ nondisplay applications and not allow for 

further internal distribution or external 

redistribution of the information by data 

recipients. In addition, to be eligible to 

provide Managed Non-Display Services, 

the Redistributor would be required to 

(a) host the data recipients’ non-display 

applications in equipment located in the 

Redistributor’s data center and/or 

hosted space/cage and (b) offer NYSE 

MKT BBO or NYSE MKT Trades in the 

Redistributor’s own messaging formats 

(rather than using raw message formats) 

by reformatting and/or altering NYSE 

MKT BBO or NYSE MKT Trades prior 

to retransmission without affecting the 

integrity of NYSE MKT BBO or NYSE 

MKT Trades and without rendering 

NYSE MKT BBO or NYSE MKT Trades 

inaccurate, unfair, uninformative, 

fictitious, misleading or discriminatory. 

The proposed eligibility requirements 

are similar to data distribution models 

currently in use and align the Exchange 

with other markets.10


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
1446 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 6 / Friday, January 9, 2015 / Notices 

11 In order to harmonize its approach to fees for 

its market data products, the Exchange is proposing 

to establish access fees for Managed Non-Display 

Services for NYSE MKT OpenBook and NYSE MKT 

Order Imbalances that are also half of the existing 

access fee for each respective data feed. See NYSE 

MKT 2014 Filings, supra note 9. 

12 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 

13 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5). 

14See 2013 Non-Display Filing, supra, note 6. 

15See supra note 10. 

16See supra note 10. NASDAQ offers a Managed 

Data Solution that assesses a monthly Managed 

Data Solution Administration fee of $1,500 and 

monthly Subscriber fees of $60 for nonprofessionals to $300 for professionals. See 

NASDAQ Rule 7026(b). Phlx charges a monthly 

Managed Data Solution Administration fee of 

$2,000 and a monthly Subscriber fee of $500. The 

monthly License fee is in addition to the monthly 

Distributor fee of $3,500 (for external usage), and 

the $500 monthly Subscriber fee is assessed for 

each Subscriber of a Managed Data Solution. See 

Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70748 (Oct. 23, 

2013), 78 FR 64569 (Oct. 29, 2013) (SR–Phlx–2013– 

105). 

17See NASDAQ Rule 7047 (Nasdaq Basic) and 

BATS Rule 11.22 (BATS TOP and Last Sale). 

The reporting requirements associated 

with the Managed Non-Display Service 

would not change. A Redistributor 

approved for Managed Non-Display 

Service would be required to report to 

the Exchange on a monthly basis the 

data recipients that are receiving NYSE 

MKT BBO or NYSE MKT Trades 

through the Redistributor’s Managed 

Non-Display Service. A data recipient 

receiving NYSE MKT BBO or NYSE 

MKT Trades through a Redistributor’s 

Managed Non-Display Service would 

continue not to have any reporting 

requirements. 

In addition, the Exchange proposes to 

adopt an Access Fee of $375/month 

applicable only to data recipients that 

receive NYSE MKT BBO and/or NYSE 

MKT Trades from an approved 

Redistributor of Managed Non-Display 

Services, operative January 1, 2015. 

Currently, all data recipients, including 

recipients of Managed Non-Display 

Services, are required to pay an Access 

Fee of $750/month to receive NYSE 

MKT BBO and/or NYSE MKT Trades. 

The Exchange charges a single Access 

Fee for clients receiving both NYSE 

MKT BBO and NYSE MKT Trades. 

Because the purpose of an access fee is 

to charge data recipients for access to 

the Exchange’s proprietary market data, 

the Exchange believes it is appropriate 

to charge an access fee to all data 

recipients, including recipients of 

Managed Non-Display Services.11 In 

recognition that data recipients of 

Managed Non-Display Services receive 

NYSE MKT BBO and NYSE MKT 

Trades in a controlled format, the 

Exchange proposes to establish an 

Access Fee that would be applicable 

only to data recipients of Managed NonDisplay Services and that would be half 

the size of the current Access Fee. As 

with the existing Access Fee, the 

Exchange would charge a single Access 

Fee for Managed Non-Display Services 

for clients of both NYSE MKT BBO and 

NYSE MKT Trades. In connection with 

this change, the Exchange also proposes 

to amend the Fee Schedule to specify 

that the current Access Fee of $750/ 

month is charged to data recipients 

other than those receiving data through 

Managed Non-Display Services. The 

proposed Managed Non-Display Access 

Fee would be in addition to the current 

Managed Non-Display Services Fee of 

$150/month [sic] for NYSE MKT BBO 

and $600/month [sic] for NYSE MKT 

Trades by each data recipient. 

2. Statutory Basis 

The Exchange believes that the 

proposed rule change is consistent with 

the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,12

in general, and Sections 6(b)(4) and 

6(b)(5) of the Act,13 in particular, in that 

it provides an equitable allocation of 

reasonable fees among users and 

recipients of the data and is not 

designed to permit unfair 

discrimination among customers, 

issuers, and brokers. 

The Exchange believes that it is 

reasonable to retire the Unit-of-Count 

Policy. First, as evidenced by the low 

number of eligible subscribers, the Unitof-Count Policy is not currently 

considered useful to market data 

recipients as a method for counting 

users. In addition, as the Exchange 

noted in the 2013 Non-Display Filing,14

the Exchange determined at that time 

that its fee structure, which was based 

primarily on counting devices, both 

display and non-display, and included 

the Unit-of-Count Policy, was no longer 

appropriate in light of market and 

technology developments. In addition to 

implementing the non-display pricing to 

address the difficulties of counting nondisplay devices, and to reflect the value 

of non-display data to customers, the 

Exchange noted that it anticipated 

implementing a new display use fee 

structure later. Retiring the Unit-ofCount Policy, which now applies only 

to display use, would allow the 

Exchange to apply a consistent method 

for counting users among all customers 

using NYSE MKT BBO or NYSE MKT 

Trades, whether on a display or nondisplay basis. 

The Exchange believes that revising 

the eligibility requirements for Managed 

Non-Display Services so that the 

requirements are more closely aligned 

with the nature of the services being 

provided is reasonable. The proposed 

additional requirements for hosting in 

the Redistributor’s data center and for 

reformatting and/or altering the market 

data prior to retransmission are also 

consistent with similar requirements of 

other markets for the provision of 

managed data.15

The Exchange believes that the 

proposed Access Fee for Managed NonDisplay Services is reasonable, because 

the data is of value to recipients, and it 

is reasonable to charge them a lower 

access fee because they are receiving the 

data through a Redistributor in a 

controlled form rather than from the 

Exchange in raw form. The Exchange 

believes that the proposed fees directly 

and appropriately reflect the significant 

value of using non-display data in a 

wide range of computer-automated 

functions relating to both trading and 

non-trading activities and that the 

number and range of these functions 

continue to grow through innovation 

and technology developments. 

NASDAQ and Phlx also both offer 

managed non-display data solutions and 

charge access fees for such services.16

The fees are also equitable and not 

unfairly discriminatory because they 

would apply to all data recipients that 

choose to subscribe to Managed NonDisplay Services for NYSE MKT BBO or 

NYSE MKT Trades. 

The fees are also equitable and not 

unfairly discriminatory because they 

will apply to all data recipients that 

choose to subscribe to the feeds. 

The Exchange notes that NYSE MKT 

BBO and NYSE MKT Trades are entirely 

optional. The Exchange is not required 

to make NYSE MKT BBO and NYSE 

MKT Trades available or to offer any 

specific pricing alternatives to any 

customers, nor is any firm required to 

purchase NYSE MKT BBO or NYSE 

MKT Trades. Firms that do purchase 

NYSE MKT BBO or NYSE MKT Trades 

do so for the primary goals of using the 

products to increase revenues, reduce 

expenses, and in some instances 

compete directly with the Exchange 

(including for order flow); those firms 

are able to determine for themselves 

whether NYSE MKT BBO or NYSE MKT 

Trades or any other similar products are 

attractively priced or not. 

Firms that do not wish to purchase 

NYSE MKT BBO or NYSE MKT Trades 

at the new prices have a variety of 

alternative market data products from 

which to choose,17 or if NYSE MKT 

BBO or NYSE MKT Trades do not 

provide sufficient value to firms as 

offered based on the uses those firms 

have or planned to make of the 

products, such firms may simply choose 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 6 / Friday, January 9, 2015 / Notices 1447 

18See In the Matter of the Application of 

Securities Industry And Financial Markets 

Association For Review of Actions Taken by SelfRegulatory Organizations, Release Nos. 34–72182; 

AP–3–15350; AP–3–15351 (May 16, 2014). 

19For example, Goldman Sachs Execution and 

Clearing, L.P. has disclosed that it does not use 

proprietary market data in connection with Sigma 

X, its ATS. See response to Question E3, available 

at http://www.goldmansachs.com/media-relations/ 

in-the-news/current/pdf-media/gsec-orderhandling-practices-ats-specific.pdf. By way of 

comparison, IEX has disclosed that it uses 

proprietary market data feeds from all registered 

stock exchanges and the LavaFlow ECN. See 

http://www.iextrading.com/about/. 

20NetCoalition, 615 F.3d at 535. 

21The Exchange believes that cost-based pricing 

would be impractical because it would create 

enormous administrative burdens for all parties and 

the Commission to cost-regulate a large number of 

participants and standardize and analyze 

extraordinary amounts of information, accounts, 

and reports. In addition, and as described below, it 

is impossible to regulate market data prices in 

isolation from prices charged by markets for other 

services that are joint products. Cost-based rate 

regulation would also lead to litigation and may 

distort incentives, including those to minimize 

costs and to innovate, leading to further waste. 

Under cost-based pricing, the Commission would 

be burdened with determining a fair rate of return, 

and the industry could experience frequent rate 

increases based on escalating expense levels. Even 

in industries historically subject to utility 

regulation, cost-based ratemaking has been 

discredited. As such, the Exchange believes that 

cost-based ratemaking would be inappropriate for 

proprietary market data and inconsistent with 

Congress’s direction that the Commission use its 

authority to foster the development of the national 

market system, and that market forces will continue 

to provide appropriate pricing discipline. See 

Appendix C to NYSE’s comments to the 

Commission’s 2000 Concept Release on the 

Regulation of Market Information Fees and 

Revenues, which can be found on the Commission’s 

Web site at http://www.sec.gov/rules/concept/ 

s72899/buck1.htm. 

22Press Release, U.S. Department of Justice, 

Assistant Attorney General Christine Varney Holds 

Conference Call Regarding NASDAQ OMX Group 

Inc. and IntercontinentalExchange Inc. Abandoning 

Their Bid for NYSE Euronext (May 16, 2011), 

available at http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/atr/ 

speeches/2011/at-speech-110516.html; see also 

Complaint in U.S. v. Deutsche Borse AG and NYSE 

Euronext, Case No. 11–cv–2280 (DC Dist.) ¶ 24 

(‘‘NYSE and Direct Edge compete head-to-head . . . 

in the provision of real-time proprietary equity data 

products.’’). 

23Concept Release on Equity Market Structure, 

Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61358 (Jan. 14, 

2010), 75 FR 3594 (Jan. 21, 2010) (File No. S7–02– 

10). This Concept Release included data from the 

third quarter of 2009 showing that no market center 

traded more than 20% of the volume of listed 

stocks, further evidencing the dispersal of and 

competition for trading activity. Id. at 3598. Data 

available on ArcaVision show that from June 30, 

2013 to June 30, 2014, no exchange traded more 

than 12% of the volume of listed stocks by either 

Continued 

to conduct their business operations in 

ways that do not use NYSE MKT BBO 

or NYSE MKT Trades. The Exchange 

notes that broker-dealers are not 

required to purchase proprietary market 

data to comply with their best execution 

obligations.18 Similarly, there is no 

requirement in Regulation NMS or any 

other rule that proprietary data be 

utilized for order routing decisions, and 

some broker-dealers and alternative 

trading systems (‘‘ATSs’’) have chosen 

not to do so.19

The decision of the United States 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit in NetCoalition v. 

SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 2010), 

upheld reliance by the Securities and 

Exchange Commission (‘‘Commission’’) 

upon the existence of competitive 

market mechanisms to set reasonable 

and equitably allocated fees for 

proprietary market data: 

In fact, the legislative history indicates that 

the Congress intended that the market system 

‘evolve through the interplay of competitive 

forces as unnecessary regulatory restrictions 

are removed’ and that the SEC wield its 

regulatory power ‘in those situations where 

competition may not be sufficient,’ such as 

in the creation of a ‘consolidated 

transactional reporting system.’ 

Id. at 535 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 94– 

229 at 92 (1975), as reprinted in 1975 

U.S.C.C.A.N. 323). The court agreed 

with the Commission’s conclusion that 

‘‘Congress intended that ‘competitive 

forces should dictate the services and 

practices that constitute the U.S. 

national market system for trading 

equity securities.’ ’’ 20

As explained below in the Exchange’s 

Statement on Burden on Competition, 

the Exchange believes that there is 

substantial evidence of competition in 

the marketplace for proprietary market 

data and that the Commission can rely 

upon such evidence in concluding that 

the fees established in this filing are the 

product of competition and therefore 

satisfy the relevant statutory standards. 

In addition, the existence of alternatives 

to these data products, such as 

consolidated data and proprietary data 

from other sources, as described below, 

further ensures that the Exchange 

cannot set unreasonable fees, or fees 

that are unreasonably discriminatory, 

when vendors and subscribers can 

select such alternatives. 

As the NetCoalition decision noted, 

the Commission is not required to 

undertake a cost-of-service or 

ratemaking approach. The Exchange 

believes that, even if it were possible as 

a matter of economic theory, cost-based 

pricing for non-core market data would 

be so complicated that it could not be 

done practically or offer any significant 

benefits.21

For these reasons, the Exchange 

believes that the proposed fees are 

reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly 

discriminatory. 

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Burden on Competition 

The Exchange does not believe that 

the proposed rule change will impose 

any burden on competition that is not 

necessary or appropriate in furtherance 

of the purposes of the Act. An 

exchange’s ability to price its 

proprietary market data feed products is 

constrained by actual competition for 

the sale of proprietary market data 

products, the joint product nature of 

exchange platforms, and the existence of 

alternatives to the Exchange’s 

proprietary data. 

The Existence of Actual Competition 

The market for proprietary data 

products is currently competitive and 

inherently contestable because there is 

fierce competition for the inputs 

necessary for the creation of proprietary 

data and strict pricing discipline for the 

proprietary products themselves. 

Numerous exchanges compete with one 

another for listings and order flow and 

sales of market data itself, providing 

ample opportunities for entrepreneurs 

who wish to compete in any or all of 

those areas, including producing and 

distributing their own market data. 

Proprietary data products are produced 

and distributed by each individual 

exchange, as well as other entities, in a 

vigorously competitive market. Indeed, 

the U.S. Department of Justice (‘‘DOJ’’) 

(the primary antitrust regulator) has 

expressly acknowledged the aggressive 

actual competition among exchanges, 

including for the sale of proprietary 

market data. In 2011, the DOJ stated that 

exchanges ‘‘compete head to head to 

offer real-time equity data products. 

These data products include the best bid 

and offer of every exchange and 

information on each equity trade, 

including the last sale.’’ 22

Moreover, competitive markets for 

listings, order flow, executions, and 

transaction reports provide pricing 

discipline for the inputs of proprietary 

data products and therefore constrain 

markets from overpricing proprietary 

market data. Broker-dealers send their 

order flow and transaction reports to 

multiple venues, rather than providing 

them all to a single venue, which in turn 

reinforces this competitive constraint. 

As a 2010 Commission Concept Release 

noted, the ‘‘current market structure can 

be described as dispersed and complex’’ 

with ‘‘trading volume . . . dispersed 

among many highly automated trading 

centers that compete for order flow in 

the same stocks’’ and ‘‘trading centers 

offer[ing] a wide range of services that 

are designed to attract different types of 

market participants with varying trading 

needs.’’ 23 More recently, SEC Chair 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
1448 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 6 / Friday, January 9, 2015 / Notices 

trade or dollar volume, further evidencing the 

continued dispersal of and fierce competition for 

trading activity. See https://www.arcavision.com/ 

Arcavision/arcalogin.jsp. 

24Mary Jo White, Enhancing Our Equity Market 

Structure, Sandler O’Neill & Partners, L.P. Global 

Exchange and Brokerage Conference (June 5, 2014) 

(available on the Commission Web site), citing 

Tuttle, Laura, 2014, ‘‘OTC Trading: Description of 

Non-ATS OTC Trading in National Market System 

Stocks,’’ at 7–8. 

25See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72153 

(May 12, 2014), 79 FR 28575, 28578 n.15 (May 16, 

2014) (SR–NASDAQ–2014–045) (‘‘[A]ll of the 

exchange’s costs are incurred for the unified 

purposes of attracting order flow, executing and/or 

routing orders, and generating and selling data 

about market activity. The total return that an 

exchange earns reflects the revenues it receives 

from the joint products and the total costs of the 

joint products.’’). See also Securities Exchange Act 

Release No. 62907 (Sept. 14, 2010), 75 FR 57314, 

57317 (Sept. 20, 2010) (SR–NASDAQ–2010–110), 

and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62908 

(Sept. 14, 2010), 75 FR 57321, 57324 (Sept. 20, 

2010) (SR–NASDAQ–2010–111). 

26See generally Mark Hirschey, Fundamentals of 

Managerial Economics, at 600 (2009) (‘‘It is 

important to note, however, that although it is 

possible to determine the separate marginal costs of 

goods produced in variable proportions, it is 

impossible to determine their individual average 

costs. This is because common costs are expenses 

necessary for manufacture of a joint product. 

Common costs of production—raw material and 

equipment costs, management expenses, and other 

overhead—cannot be allocated to each individual 

by-product on any economically sound basis. . . . 

Any allocation of common costs is wrong and 

arbitrary.’’). This is not new economic theory. See, 

e.g., F.W. Taussig, ‘‘A Contribution to the Theory 

of Railway Rates,’’ Quarterly Journal of Economics 

V(4) 438, 465 (July 1891) (‘‘Yet, surely, the division 

is purely arbitrary. These items of cost, in fact, are 

jointly incurred for both sorts of traffic; and I cannot 

share the hope entertained by the statistician of the 

Commission, Professor Henry C. Adams, that we 

shall ever reach a mode of apportionment that will 

lead to trustworthy results.’’). 

Mary Jo White has noted that 

competition for order flow in exchangelisted equities is ‘‘intense’’ and divided 

among many trading venues, including 

exchanges, more than 40 alternative 

trading systems, and more than 250 

broker-dealers.24

If an exchange succeeds in its 

competition for quotations, order flow, 

and trade executions, then it earns 

trading revenues and increases the value 

of its proprietary market data products 

because they will contain greater quote 

and trade information. Conversely, if an 

exchange is less successful in attracting 

quotes, order flow, and trade 

executions, then its market data 

products may be less desirable to 

customers using them in support of 

order routing and trading decisions in 

light of the diminished content; data 

products offered by competing venues 

may become correspondingly more 

attractive. Thus, competition for 

quotations, order flow, and trade 

executions puts significant pressure on 

an exchange to maintain both execution 

and data fees at reasonable levels. 

In addition, in the case of products 

that are also redistributed through 

market data vendors, such as Bloomberg 

and Thompson Reuters, the vendors 

themselves provide additional price 

discipline for proprietary data products 

because they control the primary means 

of access to certain end users. These 

vendors impose price discipline based 

upon their business models. For 

example, vendors that assess a 

surcharge on data they sell are able to 

refuse to offer proprietary products that 

their end users do not or will not 

purchase in sufficient numbers. Vendors 

will not elect to make available NYSE 

MKT BBO or NYSE MKT Trades unless 

their customers request it, and 

customers will not elect to pay the 

proposed fees unless NYSE MKT BBO 

or NYSE MKT Trades can provide value 

by sufficiently increasing revenues or 

reducing costs in the customer’s 

business in a manner that will offset the 

fees. All of these factors operate as 

constraints on pricing proprietary data 

products. 

Joint Product Nature of Exchange 

Platform 

Transaction execution and proprietary 

data products are complementary in that 

market data is both an input and a 

byproduct of the execution service. In 

fact, proprietary market data and trade 

executions are a paradigmatic example 

of joint products with joint costs. The 

decision of whether and on which 

platform to post an order will depend 

on the attributes of the platforms where 

the order can be posted, including the 

execution fees, data availability and 

quality, and price and distribution of 

data products. Without a platform to 

post quotations, receive orders, and 

execute trades, exchange data products 

would not exist. 

The costs of producing market data 

include not only the costs of the data 

distribution infrastructure, but also the 

costs of designing, maintaining, and 

operating the exchange’s platform for 

posting quotes, accepting orders, and 

executing transactions and the cost of 

regulating the exchange to ensure its fair 

operation and maintain investor 

confidence. The total return that a 

trading platform earns reflects the 

revenues it receives from both products 

and the joint costs it incurs. 

Moreover, an exchange’s brokerdealer customers generally view the 

costs of transaction executions and 

market data as a unified cost of doing 

business with the exchange. A brokerdealer will only choose to direct orders 

to an exchange if the revenue from the 

transaction exceeds its cost, including 

the cost of any market data that the 

broker-dealer chooses to buy in support 

of its order routing and trading 

decisions. If the costs of the transaction 

are not offset by its value, then the 

broker-dealer may choose instead not to 

purchase the product and trade away 

from that exchange. There is substantial 

evidence of the strong correlation 

between order flow and market data 

purchases. For example, in November 

2014, more than 80% of the transaction 

volume on each of NYSE MKT and the 

Exchange’s affiliates New York Stock 

Exchange LLC (‘‘NYSE’’) and NYSE 

Arca, Inc. (‘‘NYSE Arca’’) was executed 

by market participants that purchased 

one or more proprietary market data 

products (the 20 firms were not the 

same for each market). A supercompetitive increase in the fees for 

either executions or market data would 

create a risk of reducing an exchange’s 

revenues from both products. 

Other market participants have noted 

that proprietary market data and trade 

executions are joint products of a joint 

platform and have common costs.25 The 

Exchange agrees with and adopts those 

discussions and the arguments therein. 

The Exchange also notes that the 

economics literature confirms that there 

is no way to allocate common costs 

between joint products that would shed 

any light on competitive or efficient 

pricing.26

Analyzing the cost of market data 

product production and distribution in 

isolation from the cost of all of the 

inputs supporting the creation of market 

data and market data products will 

inevitably underestimate the cost of the 

data and data products because it is 

impossible to obtain the data inputs to 

create market data products without a 

fast, technologically robust, and wellregulated execution system, and system 

and regulatory costs affect the price of 

both obtaining the market data itself and 

creating and distributing market data 

products. It would be equally 

misleading, however, to attribute all of 

an exchange’s costs to the market data 

portion of an exchange’s joint products. 

Rather, all of an exchange’s costs are 

incurred for the unified purposes of 

attracting order flow, executing and/or 

routing orders, and generating and 

selling data about market activity. The 

total return that an exchange earns 

reflects the revenues it receives from the 

joint products and the total costs of the 

joint products. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 6 / Friday, January 9, 2015 / Notices 1449 

27FINRA’s Alternative Display Facility also 

receives over-the-counter trade reports that it sends 

to CTA. 

28This is simply a securities market-specific 

example of the well-established principle that in 

certain circumstances more sales at lower margins 

can be more profitable than fewer sales at higher 

margins; this example is additional evidence that 

market data is an inherent part of a market’s joint 

platform. 

29See ‘‘LavaFlow—ADF Migration,’’ available at 

https://www.lavatrading.com/news/pdf/ 

LavaFlow_ADF_Migration.pdf. 

30See supra note 17. 

31See supra note 29. 

32 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 

33 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(2). 

34 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B). 

As noted above, the level of 

competition and contestability in the 

market is evident in the numerous 

alternative venues that compete for 

order flow, including 12 equities selfregulatory organization (‘‘SRO’’) 

markets, as well as various forms of 

ATSs, including dark pools and 

electronic communication networks 

(‘‘ECNs’’), and internalizing brokerdealers. SRO markets compete to attract 

order flow and produce transaction 

reports via trade executions, and two 

FINRA-regulated Trade Reporting 

Facilities compete to attract transaction 

reports from the non-SRO venues.27

Competition among trading platforms 

can be expected to constrain the 

aggregate return that each platform 

earns from the sale of its joint products, 

but different trading platforms may 

choose from a range of possible, and 

equally reasonable, pricing strategies as 

the means of recovering total costs. For 

example, some platforms may choose to 

pay rebates to attract orders, charge 

relatively low prices for market data 

products (or provide market data 

products free of charge), and charge 

relatively high prices for accessing 

posted liquidity. Other platforms may 

choose a strategy of paying lower 

rebates (or no rebates) to attract orders, 

setting relatively high prices for market 

data products, and setting relatively low 

prices for accessing posted liquidity. For 

example, BATS and Direct Edge, which 

previously operated as ATSs and 

obtained exchange status in 2008 and 

2010, respectively, have provided 

certain market data at no charge on their 

Web sites in order to attract more order 

flow, and use revenue rebates from 

resulting additional executions to 

maintain low execution charges for their 

users.28 Similarly, LavaFlow ECN 

provides market data to its subscribers 

at no charge.29 In this environment, 

there is no economic basis for regulating 

maximum prices for one of the joint 

products in an industry in which 

suppliers face competitive constraints 

with regard to the joint offering. 

Existence of Alternatives 

The large number of SROs, ATSs, and 

internalizing broker-dealers that 

currently produce proprietary data or 

are currently capable of producing it 

provides further pricing discipline for 

proprietary data products. Each SRO, 

ATS, and broker-dealer is currently 

permitted to produce and sell 

proprietary data products, and many 

currently do or have announced plans to 

do so, including but not limited to the 

Exchange, NYSE, NYSE Arca, NASDAQ 

OMX, BATS, and Direct Edge. 

The fact that proprietary data from 

ATSs, internalizing broker-dealers, and 

vendors can bypass SROs is significant 

in two respects. First, non-SROs can 

compete directly with SROs for the 

production and sale of proprietary data 

products. By way of example, BATS and 

NYSE Arca both published proprietary 

data on the Internet before registering as 

exchanges. Second, because a single 

order or transaction report can appear in 

an SRO proprietary product, a non-SRO 

proprietary product, or both, the amount 

of data available via proprietary 

products is greater in size than the 

actual number of orders and transaction 

reports that exist in the marketplace. 

With respect to NYSE MKT BBO and 

NYSE MKT Trades, competitors offer 

close substitute products.30 Because 

market data users can find suitable 

substitutes for most proprietary market 

data products, a market that overprices 

its market data products stands a high 

risk that users may substitute another 

source of market data information for its 

own. 

Those competitive pressures imposed 

by available alternatives are evident in 

the Exchange’s proposed pricing. 

In addition to the competition and 

price discipline described above, the 

market for proprietary data products is 

also highly contestable because market 

entry is rapid and inexpensive. The 

history of electronic trading is replete 

with examples of entrants that swiftly 

grew into some of the largest electronic 

trading platforms and proprietary data 

producers: Archipelago, Bloomberg 

Tradebook, Island, RediBook, Attain, 

TrackECN, BATS Trading and Direct 

Edge. As noted above, BATS launched 

as an ATS in 2006 and became an 

exchange in 2008, while Direct Edge 

began operations in 2007 and obtained 

exchange status in 2010. As noted 

above, LavaFlow ECN provides market 

data to its subscribers at no charge.31

In setting the proposed fees, the 

Exchange considered the 

competitiveness of the market for 

proprietary data and all of the 

implications of that competition. The 

Exchange believes that it has considered 

all relevant factors and has not 

considered irrelevant factors in order to 

establish fair, reasonable, and not 

unreasonably discriminatory fees and an 

equitable allocation of fees among all 

users. The existence of numerous 

alternatives to the Exchange’s products, 

including proprietary data from other 

sources, ensures that the Exchange 

cannot set unreasonable fees, or fees 

that are unreasonably discriminatory, 

when vendors and subscribers can elect 

these alternatives or choose not to 

purchase a specific proprietary data 

product if the attendant fees are not 

justified by the returns that any 

particular vendor or data recipient 

would achieve through the purchase. 

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Comments on the 

Proposed Rule Change Received From 

Members, Participants, or Others 

No written comments were solicited 

or received with respect to the proposed 

rule change. 

III. Date of Effectiveness of the 

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for 

Commission Action 

The foregoing rule change is effective 

upon filing pursuant to Section 

19(b)(3)(A) 32 of the Act and 

subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b–4 33

thereunder, because it establishes a due, 

fee, or other charge imposed by the 

Exchange. 

At any time within 60 days of the 

filing of such proposed rule change, the 

Commission summarily may 

temporarily suspend such rule change if 

it appears to the Commission that such 

action is necessary or appropriate in the 

public interest, for the protection of 

investors, or otherwise in furtherance of 

the purposes of the Act. If the 

Commission takes such action, the 

Commission shall institute proceedings 

under Section 19(b)(2)(B) 34 of the Act to 

determine whether the proposed rule 

change should be approved or 

disapproved. 

IV. Solicitation of Comments 

Interested persons are invited to 

submit written data, views, and 

arguments concerning the foregoing, 

including whether the proposed rule 

change is consistent with the Act. 

Comments may be submitted by any of 

the following methods: 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
1450 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 6 / Friday, January 9, 2015 / Notices 

35 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

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

4 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(2). 

5Each term not otherwise defined herein has the 

respective meaning set forth in DTC’s rules (the 

‘‘Rules’’). 

6 DTC TaxReliefSM is a service mark of DTC. 

7As applicable, the existing maximum fee and/or 

surcharge per final election as set forth in the Fee 

Schedule would continue to remain in effect for 

Canadian securities. Current fees for non-Canadian 

securities would remain unchanged. 

8U.S. Branches utilize this service for tax 

reporting purposes only rather than full tax 

withholding. However, imposition of the monthly 

minimum charge is necessary in light of associated 

costs incurred by DTC in this regard. 

Electronic Comments 

• Use the Commission’s Internet 

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

rules/sro.shtml); or 

• Send an email to rulecomments@sec.gov. Please include File 

Number SR–NYSEMKT–2014–113 on 

the subject line. 

Paper Comments 

• Send paper comments in triplicate 

to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities 

and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street 

NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090. 

All submissions should refer to File 

Number SR–NYSEMKT–2014–113. This 

file number should be included on the 

subject line if email is used. To help the 

Commission process and review your 

comments more efficiently, please use 

only one method. The Commission will 

post all comments on the Commission’s 

Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ 

rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the 

submission, all subsequent 

amendments, all written statements 

with respect to the proposed rule 

change that are filed with the 

Commission, and all written 

communications relating to the 

proposed rule change between the 

Commission and any person, other than 

those that may be withheld from the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be 

available for Web site viewing and 

printing in the Commission’s Public 

Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., 

Washington, DC 20549, on official 

business days between the hours of 

10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the 

filing will also be available for 

inspection and copying at the NYSE’s 

principal office and on its Internet Web 

site at www.nyse.com. All comments 

received will be posted without change; 

the Commission does not edit personal 

identifying information from 

submissions. You should submit only 

information that you wish to make 

available publicly. All submissions 

should refer to File Number SR– 

NYSEMKT–2014–113 and should be 

submitted on or before January 30, 2015. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.35

Brent J. Fields, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2015–00132 Filed 1–8–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–73982; File No. SR–DTC– 

2014–13] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The 

Depository Trust Company; Notice of 

Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of 

Proposed Rule Change To Amend 

Fees Charged for Tax Services 

January 5, 2015. 

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

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (‘‘Act’’) 

and Rule 19b–4 2 thereunder, notice is 

hereby given that on December 23, 2014, 

The Depository Trust Company (‘‘DTC’’) 

filed with the Securities and Exchange 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) the 

proposed rule change as described in 

Items I, II and III below, which Items 

have been prepared by DTC. DTC filed 

the proposed rule change pursuant to 

Section 19(b)(3)(A) 3 of the Act and Rule 

19b–4(f)(2) 4 thereunder. The proposed 

rule change was effective upon filing 

with the Commission. The Commission 

is publishing this notice to solicit 

comments on the proposed rule change 

from interested persons. 

I. Clearing Agency’s Statement of the 

Terms of Substance of the Proposed 

Rule Change 

The proposed rule change consists of 

amendments to the DTC Fee Schedule 

(‘‘Fee Schedule’’) in order to adjust 

certain fees related to DTC’s tax 

services, as more fully described 

below.5

II. Clearing Agency’s Statement of the 

Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the 

Proposed Rule Change 

In its filing with the Commission, 

DTC included statements concerning 

the purpose of and basis for the 

proposed rule change and discussed any 

comments it received on the proposed 

rule change. The text of these statements 

may be examined at the places specified 

in Item IV below. DTC has prepared 

summaries, set forth in sections A, B, 

and C below, of the most significant 

aspects of such statements. 

(A) Clearing Agency’s Statement of the 

Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the 

Proposed Rule Change 

1. Purpose 

Pursuant to the proposed rule change 

DTC would revise certain fees for the: (i) 

DTC TaxReliefSM Service,6 and (ii) DTC 

U.S. Tax Withholding Service, as more 

fully described below. 

DTC TaxReliefSM Service Fee Increase 

The DTC TaxReliefSM Service enables 

investors to preclude overwithhholding 

on income payments in various foreign 

jurisdictions. The current fee structure 

for this service is not aligned with the 

costs to DTC of providing this service as 

it relates to processing of Canadian 

securities due to associated volumes 

and the resources necessary for such 

processing. 

Therefore, to better align fees with the 

costs associated with delivering this 

aspect of this service to Participants, 

DTC proposes to increase the fee per 

final election (including post-payable) 

processed for foreign withholding tax 

relief for Canadian securities from 

0.625% of tax relief secured to 0.700% 

of tax relief secured, with the minimum 

fee per final election increased from 

$32.00 to $38.00.7

U.S. Tax Withholding Service 

The U.S. Tax Withholding Service 

provides for withholding of U.S. tax on 

payments to foreign Participants of DTC. 

As applicable law has become 

increasingly complex, the cost of DTC’s 

offering of this service is not aligned 

with fees charged. Accordingly, 

pursuant to the proposed change, to 

better align the Fee Schedule with the 

costs associated with providing this 

service to Participants, DTC would 

amend the Fee Schedule for the U.S. 

Tax Withholding Service as follows: 

1. The fee charged for withholding 

instructions per each Elective Dividend 

Service (‘‘EDS’’) election for a 

transaction processed by the U.S. Tax 

Withholding Service would increase 

from $1.80 to $2.50. 

2. The monthly fee per account would 

increase from $150 to $250. 

3. DTC would begin charging U.S. 

branches of foreign banks (‘‘U.S. 

Branches’’) the above monthly fee of 

$250 per account. Currently U.S. 

Branches are not charged the monthly 

fee for this service.8

4. The annual minimum fee charged 

to Participants for use of the U.S. Tax 

Withholding Service would increase 

from $5,000 to $7,500. For example, if 

an account is charged $7,000 in fees for 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES