51894 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 8, 2017 / Notices 

26See the GSD Rulebook of FICC, Rule 4— 

Clearing Fund and Loss Allocation; the MBSD 

Clearing Rules of FICC, Rule 4—Clearing Fund and 

Loss Allocation; Rules and Procedures of NSCC, 

Procedure XV—Clearing Fund Formula and Other 

Matters; By-Laws and Organizational Certificate of 

DTC, Rule 4—Participants Fund and Participants 

Investment, available at http://dtcc.com/legal/rulesand-procedures. 

27 17 CFR 240.17Ad–22(e)(4)(i). 

28 17 CFR 240.17Ad–22(e)(6)(iv). 

29 Id. 

30 15 U.S.C. 78q–1(b)(3)(F). 

31 In approving the Proposed Rule Changes, the 

Commission considered the proposals’ impact on 

efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 

U.S.C. 78c(f). 

32 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

by the participant.26 Therefore, the 

Commission finds that the proposed 

rule changes are designed to help ensure 

that the Clearing Agencies maintain 

sufficient financial resources to cover 

their credit exposure to each participant 

with a high degree of confidence, 

consistent with Rule 17Ad–22(e)(4)(i) 

under the Act.27

C. Consistency With Rule 17Ad– 

22(e)(6)(iv) 

Rule 17Ad–22(e)(6)(iv) under the Act 

requires that each covered clearing 

agency that is a CCP to establish, 

implement, maintain and enforce 

written policies and procedures 

reasonably designed to cover its credit 

exposures to its participants by 

establishing a risk-based margin system 

that, at a minimum, uses reliable 

sources of timely price data and uses 

procedures and sound valuation models 

for addressing circumstances in which 

pricing data are not readily available or 

reliable.28

As described above, the Framework 

provides that NSCC and FICC, each a 

CCP, would perform due diligence on 

each Pricing Vendor prior to 

engagement, and at least annually 

thereafter, to assess the reliability of 

such Pricing Vendor. The Framework 

also describes how NSCC and FICC 

would select two Pricing Vendors for 

each security in case one becomes 

unavailable, unreliable, or otherwise 

unusable. In the event that both Primary 

and Secondary Pricing Vendors become 

unavailable, unreliable, or unusable, the 

Framework provides that NSCC and 

FICC would assign each affected 

security its last available price. The 

Framework would further provide that, 

if the last available price is unavailable, 

unreliable, or otherwise unusable for a 

security, NSCC and FICC would 

establish a price for that security based 

on valuation models (where applicable) 

and in accordance with the policies and 

procedures that support the Framework. 

By setting forth how NSCC and FICC 

would select Pricing Vendors that can 

provide timely and reliable pricing data, 

and how NSCC and FICC would price 

securities when pricing data is not 

readily available or reliable, the 

Commission finds that the proposed 

rule changes are consistent with Rule 

17Ad–22(e)(6)(iv) under the Act.29

III. Conclusion 

On the basis of the foregoing, the 

Commission finds that the proposed 

rule changes are consistent with the 

requirements of the Act and in 

particular with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) 30

of the Act and the rules and regulations 

thereunder. 

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to 

Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, that 

proposed rule changes SR–DTC–2017– 

016, SR–NSCC–2017–016, or SR–FICC– 

2017–020 be, and hereby are, 

APPROVED.31

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.32

Eduardo A. Aleman, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2017–24257 Filed 11–7–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–82003; File No. SR– 

NASDAQ–2017–113] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The 

Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Notice of 

Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of 

Proposed Rule Change To Amend the 

Exchange’s Fees at Rule 7058 

November 2, 2017. 

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

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

(‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2

notice is hereby given that on October 

20, 2017, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC 

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

Securities and Exchange Commission 

(‘‘SEC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) the proposed 

rule change as described in Items I, II, 

and III, below, which Items have been 

prepared by the Exchange. 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 

Exchange’s fees at Rule 7058 to: (i) Offer 

to waive fees under this Rule for 30 days 

for any new, prospective, or returning 

purchaser of either QView or the 

Latency Optics add-on service; and (ii) 

remove language offering a subscription 

to TradeInfo for up to five users at no 

additional cost to subscribers of the 

Latency Optics add-on service. 

The text of the proposed rule change 

is available on the Exchange’s Web site 

at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com/, at 

the principal office of the Exchange, and 

at the Commission’s Public Reference 

Room. 

II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

In its filing with the Commission, the 

Exchange included statements 

concerning the purpose of and basis for 

the proposed rule change and discussed 

any comments it received on the 

proposed rule change. The text of these 

statements may be examined at the 

places specified in Item IV below. The 

Exchange has prepared summaries, set 

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

the most significant aspects of such 

statements. 

A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

1. Purpose 

The Exchange proposes to amend its 

fees at Rule 7058 to: (i) Offer to waive 

fees under this Rule for 30 days for any 

new, prospective, or returning 

purchaser of either QView or the 

Latency Optics add-on service; and (ii) 

remove language offering a subscription 

to TradeInfo for up to five users at no 

additional cost to subscribers of the 

Latency Optics add-on service, along 

with conforming changes. The purposes 

of the proposed changes are to: (i) 

Encourage new, prospective, and 

returning purchasers of either QView or 

the Latency Optics add-on service to 

examine these products more closely 

and thereby increase the number of 

customers for this product; and (ii) 

remove a rarely used fee provision in 

order to render the Latency Optics 

subscription easier to administer. 

Current Products 

QView 

QView is a web-based tool designed 

to provide a subscribing member with 

the ability to track its trading activity on 

the Exchange through both real-time 

and historical order and execution 

summaries, available on a daily or a 

monthly basis. The QView dashboard 

allows the member to view a summary 

of its executions and open orders, 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 8, 2017 / Notices 51895 

3The service measures the historical latency of 

the member firm’s order messages sent to and from 

the Nasdaq Market Center through the member 

firm’s OUCH ports and received on ITCH ports. See 

Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68617 (January 

10, 2013), 78 FR 3480 (January 16, 2013) (SR– 

NASDAQ–2013–15) [sic]. OUCH ports are used for 

order entry; multicast ITCH ports are used for the 

dissemination of ITCH multicast feeds. 

4As a conforming change, the Exchange proposes 

to delete an obsolete reference to a free trial period 

that expired in September 2013. In addition, a 

comma is added after the phrase ‘‘In addition,’’ in 

Rule 7058(b) to correct a grammatical error. 

5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 

6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5). 

7Availability of QView, the Latency Optics addon service and TradeInfo is already limited to 

members of the Exchange, which is not unfair 

discrimination because the information provided 

solely concerns a member firm’s trading activity on 

the Exchange. 

8See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 

(June 9, 2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005) 

(‘‘Regulation NMS Adopting Release’’). 

9 Id. 

including, but not limited to: The 

number of executions and their dollar 

value; executions by symbol; total 

volume; whether an order has been 

added or removed; whether the order is 

for a buy or a sell; whether an order is 

open; and information related to routing 

strategies. QView also includes ranking 

and market share statistics, such as how 

the subscribing member firm ranks in 

Nasdaq market activity as compared to 

other Nasdaq participants. QView data 

may be segregated by individual Market 

Participant Identifiers (MPIDs) or ports. 

QView was developed to work in 

conjunction with TradeInfo (discussed 

below) to allow the QView purchaser to 

view specific order and execution 

information provided by the QView 

dashboard interface. 

As set forth in Rule 7058(a), members 

may subscribe to QView for a fee of 

$600 per month. 

Latency Optics 

A member that subscribes to QView 

may also purchase the Latency Optics 

add-on service, which provides the 

member with the ability to monitor 

three types of latency for order messages 

and compare that latency to the average 

on the Nasdaq system: 3 (1) Roundtrip 

time between order entry and receipt of 

acknowledgement; (2) roundtrip time 

between order entry and the time that 

the order appears on the TotalView 

ITCH multicast feed; and (3) the 

roundtrip time between the entry of an 

order cancellation request and the time 

that the message in reply is received by 

the client device. Data is displayed 

graphically and in table format, and may 

be segregated by MPID or ports. 

Subscribers may also set hourly or endof-day alert notifications. 

As set forth in Rule 7058(b), the 

Latency Optics add-on is available for a 

fee of $2,900 per month. 

TradeInfo 

TradeInfo is a web-based tool that 

allows a member to see the status of 

orders, executions, cancels and breaks, 

generate reports for download, and 

cancel or correct open orders. 

As set forth in Rule 7015(f), TradeInfo 

is complementary as part of the Nasdaq 

workstation or may be purchased 

separately for a fee of $95 per user per 

month. Under Rule 7058(b), a purchaser 

of the Latency Optics add-on may obtain 

TradeInfo for up to 5 users at no 

additional cost. 

Proposed Changes 

The Exchange proposes to: (i) 

Introduce a fee waiver for 30 days for 

any new, prospective or returning 

purchaser of either QView or the 

Latency Optics add-on service to 

encourage testing and dissemination of 

the product; and (ii) remove a rarely 

used provision of Rule 7058 that offers 

subscribers of the Latency Optics addon service a subscription to TradeInfo 

for up to five users at no additional cost. 

The Exchange proposes to initiate the 

new fee waiver program to foster 

interest in QView or the Latency Optics 

add-on service and encourage sales for 

both products. The waiver will be 

available only once per customer for any 

version of either product. New versions 

will be announced by the Exchange on 

www.nasdaqtrader.com. 

The Exchange also proposes to 

remove a rarely used provision of Rule 

7058 that offers subscribers of the 

Latency Optics add-on service a 

subscription to TradeInfo for up to five 

users at no additional cost. As stated in 

Rule 7015(f), TradeInfo is 

complementary as part of the Nasdaq 

workstation. Because TradeInfo is 

already available free of charge with the 

Nasdaq workstation, customers have 

expressed little interest in this discount, 

and that provision has been rarely, if 

ever, used. As such, the Exchange 

proposes to eliminate that provision.4

The proposed changes do not affect 

the cost of any other Nasdaq product. 

2. Statutory Basis 

The Exchange believes that its 

proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) 

of the Act,5 in general, and furthers the 

objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) 

of the Act,6 in particular, in that it 

provides for the equitable allocation of 

reasonable dues, fees and other charges 

among members and issuers and other 

persons using any facility, and is not 

designed to permit unfair 

discrimination between customers, 

issuers, brokers, or dealers. 

The fee waiver proposal is an 

equitable allocation of reasonable dues, 

fees and other charges because it will 

reduce fees for new, prospective, and 

returning purchasers of QView or 

Latency Optics, while not 

disadvantaging continuing subscribers 

because their fees will not change. 

Moreover, the additional subscriptions 

resulting from the fee waiver will 

increase market transparency, and, as 

the total number of subscribers 

increases, the additional subscriptions 

will decrease the likelihood of future fee 

increases as a result of rising fixed costs. 

Removal of the provision in Rule 

7058(b) allowing a free subscription to 

TradeInfo for five users is an equitable 

allocation of reasonable dues, fees and 

other charges because all members will 

be charged the same fees for the same 

product. Moreover, the proposed change 

will have little substantive impact on 

fees because the discount was rarely, if 

ever, used. This proposed change will 

not permit unfair discrimination 

between customers, issuers, brokers, or 

dealers because the proposal will 

remove a basis for price differentiation 

among customers that currently exists.7

In adopting Regulation NMS,8 the 

Commission granted SROs and brokerdealers increased authority and 

flexibility to offer new and unique 

market data to the public. It was 

believed that this authority would 

expand the amount of data available to 

consumers, and also spur innovation 

and competition for the provision of 

market data. Regulation NMS— 

deregulating the market in proprietary 

data—furthers the Act’s goals of 

facilitating efficiency and competition: 

[E]fficiency is promoted when brokerdealers who do not need the data 

beyond the prices, sizes, market center 

identifications of the NBBO and 

consolidated last sale information are 

not required to receive (and pay for) 

such data. The Commission also 

believes that efficiency is promoted 

when broker-dealers may choose to 

receive (and pay for) additional market 

data based on their own internal 

analysis of the need for such data.9

Nasdaq believes that QView, the 

Latency Optics add-on and TradeInfo— 

which provide members with the ability 

to track order flow, observe latency and 

obtain order data—is precisely the sort 

of market data product that the 

Commission envisioned when it 

adopted Regulation NMS. 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
51896 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 8, 2017 / Notices 

10NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 

2010). 

11See NetCoalition, at 534–535. 

12 Id. at 537. 

13 Id. at 539 (quoting Securities Exchange Act 

Release No. 59039 (December 2, 2008), 73 FR 

74770, 74782–83 (December 9, 2008) (SR– 

NYSEArca–2006–21)). 

14See Sec. Indus. Fin. Mkts. Ass’n (SIFMA), 

Initial Decision Release No. 1015, 2016 SEC LEXIS 

2278 (ALJ June 1, 2016) (finding the existence of 

vigorous competition with respect to non-core 

market data). 

15See William J. Baumol and Daniel G. Swanson, 

‘‘The New Economy and Ubiquitous Competitive 

Price Discrimination: Identifying Defensible Criteria 

of Market Power,’’ Antitrust Law Journal, Vol. 70, 

No. 3 (2003). 

16Only member firms can purchase QView, the 

Latency Optics add-on, and TradeInfo. 

In NetCoalition v. Securities and 

Exchange Commission 10

(‘‘NetCoalition’’) the D.C. Circuit upheld 

the Commission’s use of a market-based 

approach in evaluating the fairness of 

market data fees against a challenge 

claiming that Congress mandated a costbased approach.11 As the court 

emphasized, the Commission ‘‘intended 

in Regulation NMS that ‘market forces, 

rather than regulatory requirements’ 

play a role in determining the market 

data . . . to be made available to 

investors and at what cost.’’ 12 ‘‘No one 

disputes that competition for order flow 

is ‘fierce.’ . . . As the SEC explained, 

‘[i]n the U.S. national market system, 

buyers and sellers of securities, and the 

broker-dealers that act as their orderrouting agents, have a wide range of 

choices of where to route orders for 

execution’; [and] ‘no exchange can 

afford to take its market share 

percentages for granted’ because ‘no 

exchange possesses a monopoly, 

regulatory or otherwise, in the execution 

of order flow from broker 

dealers’. . . .’’ 13

Data products such as QView, the 

Latency Optics add-on and TradeInfo 

are a means by which exchanges 

compete to attract order flow. To the 

extent that exchanges are successful in 

such competition, they earn trading 

revenues and also enhance the value of 

their data products by increasing the 

amount of data they are able to provide. 

The need to compete for order flow 

places substantial pressure upon 

exchanges to keep their fees for both 

executions and data reasonable.14

Fees for QView, the Latency Optics 

add-on and TradeInfo are optional in 

that they apply only to firms that elect 

to purchase these products, which, like 

all proprietary data products, they may 

cancel at any time. 

For all of the reasons set forth above, 

the Exchange has provided a substantial 

basis demonstrating that the proposed 

fee is equitable, fair, reasonable and not 

unreasonably discriminatory, and 

therefore consistent with and in 

furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Burden on Competition 

The Exchange does not believe that 

the proposed rule changes will impose 

any burden on competition not 

necessary or appropriate in furtherance 

of the purposes of the Act. Introduction 

of the proposed fee waiver will enhance 

competition by increasing customer 

familiarity with the product, thereby 

leading to more informed purchase 

decisions. Further, the product itself 

enhances competition by promoting 

transparency, and the increased use of 

the product generated by the fee waiver 

will increase the amount of information 

available to the market. Moreover, 

removal of the provision in 7058(b) 

allowing a free subscription to 

TradeInfo for five users will enhance 

competition by simplifying the fee 

structure for these products. 

The market for data products is 

extremely competitive and firms may 

freely choose alternative venues and 

data vendors based on the aggregate fees 

assessed, the data offered, and the value 

provided. Exchanges compete with each 

other for listings, trades, and market 

data itself. 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, market data 

and trade execution are a paradigmatic 

example of joint products with joint 

costs. The decision whether and on 

which platform to post an order will 

depend on the attributes of the platform 

where the order can be posted, 

including the execution fees, data 

quality and price, and distribution of its 

data products. 

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 transaction 

execution platform 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, 

the operation of the exchange is 

characterized by high fixed costs and 

low marginal costs. This cost structure 

is common in content distribution 

industries such as software, where 

developing new software typically 

requires a large initial investment (and 

continuing large investments to upgrade 

the software), but once the software is 

developed, the incremental cost of 

providing that software to an additional 

user is typically small, or even zero 

(e.g., if the software can be downloaded 

over the internet after being 

purchased).15 In Nasdaq’s case, it is 

costly to build and maintain a trading 

platform, but the incremental cost of 

trading each additional share on an 

existing platform, or distributing an 

additional instance of data, is very low. 

Market information and executions are 

each produced jointly (in the sense that 

the activities of trading and placing 

orders are the source of the information 

that is distributed) and are each subject 

to significant scale economies. 

Competition among trading platforms 

can be expected to constrain the 

aggregate return each platform earns 

from the sale of its joint products. The 

level of competition and contestability 

in the market is evident in the 

numerous alternative venues that 

compete for order flow, including SRO 

markets, as well as internalizing BDs 

and various forms of alternative trading 

systems (‘‘ATSs’’), including dark pools 

and electronic communication networks 

(‘‘ECNs’’). Each SRO market competes to 

produce transaction reports via trade 

executions, and two FINRA-regulated 

TRFs compete to attract internalized 

transaction reports. It is common for 

BDs to further and exploit this 

competition by sending their order flow 

and transaction reports to multiple 

markets, rather than providing them all 

to a single market. Competitive markets 

for order flow, executions, and 

transaction reports provide pricing 

discipline for the inputs of proprietary 

data products. The large number of 

SROs, TRFs, BDs, and ATSs that 

currently produce proprietary data or 

are currently capable of producing it 

provides further pricing discipline for 

proprietary data products. Each SRO, 

TRF, ATS, and BD is currently 

permitted to produce proprietary data 

products, and many currently do or 

have announced plans to do so, 

including Nasdaq, NYSE, NYSE MKT, 

NYSE Arca, and the BATS exchanges. 

Firms make decisions regarding 

market data based on the total cost of 

interacting with the Exchange, and an 

‘‘excessive’’ price for one product has 

the potential to impair revenues from all 

products. If the price of QView, the 

Latency Optics add-on or TradeInfo 

were to become unattractive to member 

firms,16 those firms would opt not to 

purchase the product, or may reduce 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 8, 2017 / Notices 51897 

17 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 

18 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

3The term ‘‘MIAX Select Symbols’’ means 

options overlying AAL, AAPL, AIG, AMAT, AMD, 

AMZN, BA, BABA, BBRY, BIDU, BP, C, CAT, CBS, 

CELG, CLF, CVX, DAL, EBAY, EEM, FB, FCX, GE, 

GILD, GLD, GM, GOOGL, GPRO, HAL, HTZ, INTC, 

IWM, JCP, JNJ, JPM, KMI, KO, MO, MRK, NFLX, 

NOK, NQ, ORCL, PBR, PFE, PG, QCOM, QQQ, RIG, 

S, SPY, SUNE, T, TSLA, USO, VALE, VXX, WBA, 

WFC, WMB, WY, X, XHB, XLE, XLF, XLP, XOM, 

and XOP. 

4See section 1)a)iii) of the Fee Schedule for a 

complete description of the Program. 

5See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71700 

(March 12, 2014), 79 FR 15188 (March 18, 2014) 

(SR–MIAX–2014–13). 

their purchases of other products sold 

by the Exchange. 

For all of the reasons set forth above, 

the Exchange does not believe that the 

proposed rule changes will impose any 

burden on competition not necessary or 

appropriate in furtherance of the 

purposes of the Act. 

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Comments on the 

Proposed Rule Change Received From 

Members, Participants, or Others 

No written comments were either 

solicited or received. 

III. Date of Effectiveness of the 

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for 

Commission Action 

The foregoing rule change has become 

effective pursuant to Section 

19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.17

At any time within 60 days of the 

filing of the proposed rule change, the 

Commission summarily may 

temporarily suspend such rule change if 

it appears to the Commission that such 

action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in 

the public interest; (ii) for the protection 

of investors; or (iii) otherwise in 

furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 

If the Commission takes such action, the 

Commission shall institute proceedings 

to determine whether the proposed rule 

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– 

NASDAQ–2017–113 on the subject line. 

Paper Comments 

• Send paper comments in triplicate 

to Secretary, Securities and Exchange 

Commission, 100 F Street NE., 

Washington, DC 20549–1090. 

All submissions should refer to File 

Number SR–NASDAQ–2017–113. 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 also will be available for 

inspection and copying at the principal 

office of the Exchange. All comments 

received will be posted without change. 

Persons submitting comments are 

cautioned that we do not redact or edit 

personal identifying information from 

comment submissions. You should 

submit only information that you wish 

to make available publicly. All 

submissions should refer to File 

Number SR–NASDAQ–2017–113 and 

should be submitted on or before 

November 29, 2017. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.18

Eduardo A. Aleman, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2017–24254 Filed 11–7–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–81998; File No. SR–MIAX– 

2017–45] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami 

International Securities Exchange LLC; 

Notice of Filing and Immediate 

Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule 

Change To Amend Its Fee Schedule 

November 2, 2017. 

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

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

(‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2

notice is hereby given that on October 

30, 2017, Miami International Securities 

Exchange LLC (‘‘MIAX Options’’ or 

‘‘Exchange’’) 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 the Exchange. 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 is filing a proposal to 

amend the MIAX Options Fee Schedule 

(the ‘‘Fee Schedule’’). 

The text of the proposed rule change 

is available on the Exchange’s Web site 

at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rulefilings, at MIAX’s principal office, and 

at the Commission’s Public Reference 

Room. 

II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

In its filing with the Commission, the 

Exchange included statements 

concerning the purpose of and basis for 

the proposed rule change and discussed 

any comments it received on the 

proposed rule change. The text of these 

statements may be examined at the 

places specified in Item IV below. The 

Exchange has prepared summaries, set 

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

the most significant aspects of such 

statements. 

A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

1. Purpose 

The Exchange proposes to amend the 

list of MIAX Select Symbols 3 contained 

in the Priority Customer Rebate Program 

(the ‘‘Program’’) 4 of the Exchange’s Fee 

Schedule to 1. delete the symbol 

‘‘SUNE’’ associated with SunEdison, 

Inc. (‘‘SunEdison’’) and 2. replace the 

symbol ‘‘BBRY’’ with ‘‘BB’’ associated 

with BlackBerry Limited 

(‘‘BlackBerry’’). 

The Exchange initially created the list 

of MIAX Select Symbols on March 1, 

2014,5 and has added and removed 

option classes from that list since that 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES