[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 102 (Thursday, May 26, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33554-33555]
[FR Doc No: 2016-12455]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2016-0005]

Preparations for the 31st Session of the UN Sub-Committee of
Experts on the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and
Labelling of Chemicals (UNSCEGHS)

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA),
Department of Labor.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice is to advise interested persons that on Tuesday,
June 14, 2016, OSHA will conduct a public meeting to discuss proposals
in preparation for the 31st session of the United Nations Sub-Committee
of Experts on the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and
Labelling of Chemicals (UNSCEGHS) to be held July 5 to July 8, 2016 in
Geneva, Switzerland. OSHA, along with the U.S. Interagency GHS
(Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of
Chemicals) Coordinating Group, plans to consider the comments and
information gathered at this public meeting when developing the U.S.
Government positions for the UNSCEGHS meeting. Members of the
Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) will be present to update Canada's
status of their GHS policy and procedures. International conference
call capability will be available for this portion of the public
meeting.
    Also, on Tuesday, June 14, 2016, the Department of Transportation
(DOT), Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
will conduct a public meeting (See Docket No. PHMSA-2016-0060, Notice
No. 16-7) to discuss proposals in preparation for the 49th session of
the United Nations Sub-Committee of Experts on the Transport of
Dangerous Goods (UNSCE TDG) to be held June 27 to July 6, 2016, in
Geneva, Switzerland. During this meeting, PHMSA is also requesting
comments relative to potential new work items that may be considered
for inclusion in its international agenda. PHMSA will also provide an
update on recent actions to enhance transparency and stakeholder
interaction through improvements to the international standards portion
of its Web site.

DATES: Tuesday June 14, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Both meetings will be held at the DOT Headquarters
Conference Center, West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.
    Times and Locations:
    PHMSA public meeting: 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. EDT, Conference Room
4.
    OSHA public meeting: 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. EDT, Conference Room 4.
    Advanced Meeting Registration: The DOT requests that attendees pre-
register for these meetings by completing the form at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Q3Z53PT. Attendees may use the same form to pre-
register for both the PHMSA and the OSHA meetings. Failure to pre-
register may delay your access into the DOT Headquarters building.
Additionally, if you are attending in-person, arrive early to allow
time for security checks necessary to access the building. Conference
call-in and ``live meeting'' capability will be provided for both
meetings.
    The number is reserved and the Live Meeting link is setup for all
day.
Toll Free (USA):
Toll Free:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Access code: 3614708
International callers:
International Toll:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Access: 3614708
Attendee URL: https://meet.dot.gov/steven.webb/66C89T9M

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: At the Department of Transportation,
please contact Mr. Steven Webb or Mr. Aaron Wiener, Office of Hazardous
Materials Safety, Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590,
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    At the Department of Labor, please contact Maureen Ruskin, Office
of Chemical Hazards-Metals, OSHA Directorate of Standards and Guidance,
Department of Labor, Washington DC 20210, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  The OSHA Meeting: OSHA is hosting an open
informal public meeting of the U.S. Interagency GHS Coordinating Group
to provide interested groups and individuals with an update on GHS-
related issues and an opportunity to express their views orally and in
writing for consideration in developing U.S. Government positions for
the upcoming UNSCEGHS meeting.
    General topics on the agenda include:
 Review of Working papers
 Correspondence Group updates

 Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) Update
Information on the work of the UNSCEGHS including meeting agendas,
reports, and documents from previous sessions, can be found on the
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Transport
Division Web site located at the following web address; http://www.unece.org/trans/danger/publi/ghs/ghs_welcome_e.html.
    The UNSCEGHS bases its decisions on Working Papers. The Working
Papers for the 31st session of the UNSCEGHS are located at: http://www.unece.org/trans/main/dgdb/dgsubc4/c42016.html.
    Informal Papers submitted to the UNSCEGHS provide information for
the Sub-committee and are used either as a mechanism to provide
information to the Sub-committee or as the basis for future Working
Papers. Informal Papers for the 31st session of the UNSCEGHS are
located at: http://www.unece.org/trans/main/dgdb/dgsubc4/c4inf31.html.
    In addition to participating at the Public meeting, interested
parties may submit comments on the Working and Informal Papers for the
31st session of the UNSCEGHS to the docket established for
International/Globally Harmonized System (GHS) efforts at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. OSHA-2016-0005.
    The PHMSA Meeting: The Federal Register notice and additional
detailed information relating to PHMSA's public meeting will be
available upon publication at http://www.regulations.gov (Docket No.
PHMSA-2016-0060, Notice No. 16-7), and on the PHMSA Web site at: http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/hazmat/regs/international. The primary purpose of
PHMSA's meeting will be to prepare for the 49th session of the UNSCE
TDG. The 49th session of the UNSCE TDG is the third of four meetings
scheduled for the 2015-2016 biennium. The UNSCE TDG will consider
proposals for the 20th Revised Edition of the United Nations
Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods Model Regulations,
which may be implemented into relevant domestic, regional, and
international regulations from January 1, 2019. Copies of working
documents, informal documents, and the meeting agenda may be obtained
from the United Nations Transport Division's Web site at http://www.unece.org/trans/danger/danger.html.
    Authority and Signature: This document was prepared under the
direction of David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor
for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, pursuant
to sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657), and Secretary's Order 1-2012 (77 FR
3912), (Jan. 25, 2012).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on, May 23, 2016.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2016-12455 Filed 5-25-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 223 (Wednesday, November 18, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73570-73581]
[FR Doc No: 2020-25389]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90407; File No. SR-NYSE-2020-91]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Amending the Fees for NYSE BBO and NYSE Trades by Modifying the
Application of the Access Fee and Amending the Fees for NYSE Trades by
Adopting a Waiver Applicable to the Redistribution Fee

November 12, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on November 2, 2020, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' 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 Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to (1) amend the fees for NYSE BBO and NYSE
Trades by modifying the application of the Access Fee; and (2) amend
the fees for NYSE Trades by adopting a waiver applicable to the
Redistribution Fee.

The Exchange proposes to implement the proposed fee changes on January
1, 2021. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website 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.

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 decrease the fees for certain NYSE market
data products, as set forth on the NYSE Proprietary Market Data Fee
Schedule (``Fee Schedule''). These fee decreases, taken together with
similar fee decreases filed by the Exchange's affiliated exchanges,
NYSE American LLC (``NYSE American'') and NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE
Arca''),\3\ will reduce the fees associated with the NYSE BQT
proprietary data product, which competes directly with similar products
offered by both the Nasdaq and Cboe families of U.S. equity exchanges.
Collectively, the proposed fee decreases are intended to respond to the
competition posed by similar products offered by the other exchange
groups.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See SR-NYSEAmer-2020-79 and SR-NYSEArca-2020-95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange proposes to (1) reduce the Access Fees
by more than 93% for Redistributors \4\ of NYSE BBO and NYSE Trades
that subscribe to only such data feeds and do not subscribe to any
other market data product listed on the Fee Schedule other than NYSE
BQT, and use such market data products for external distribution only;
and (2) waive the Redistribution Fee for Redistributors that are
eligible for the Per User Access Fee if the Redistributor provides NYSE
Trades externally to at least one data feed recipient and reports such
recipient to the Exchange. All of the proposed changes would decrease
fees for market data on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A Redistributor is a vendor or any other person that
provides a NYSE data product to a data recipient or to any system
that a data recipient uses, irrespective of the means of
transmission or access.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to implement these proposed fee changes on
January 1, 2021.
Background
    The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for
competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices,
products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS,
the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues, and also recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37495, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (S7-10-04) (Final Rule)
(``Regulation NMS Adopting Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While Regulation NMS has enhanced competition, it has also fostered
a ``fragmented'' market structure where trading in a single stock can
occur across multiple trading centers. When multiple trading centers
compete for order flow in the same stock, the Commission has recognized
that ``such competition can lead to the fragmentation of order flow in
that stock.'' \6\ Indeed, equity trading is currently dispersed across
16 exchanges,\7\ numerous alternative trading systems,\8\ and broker-
dealer internalizers and wholesalers, all competing for order flow.
Based on publicly-available information, no single exchange currently
has more than 18% market share (whether including or excluding auction
volume).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61358, 75 FR 3594,
3597 (January 21, 2010) (File No. S7-02-10) (Concept Release on
Equity Market Structure).
    \7\ See Cboe Global Markets, U.S. Equities Market Volume
Summary, available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/. See generally https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/divisionsmarketregmrexchangesshtml.html.
    \8\ See FINRA ATS Transparency Data, available at https://otctransparency.finra.org/otctransparency/AtsIssueData. A list of
alternative trading systems registered with the Commission is
available at https://www.sec.gov/foia/docs/atslist.htm.
    \9\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Equities Market Volume Summary,
available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With the NYSE BQT market data product, NYSE and its affiliates
compete head to head with the Nasdaq Basic \10\ and Cboe One Feed \11\
market data products. Similar to those market data products, NYSE BQT,
which was established in 2014,\12\ consists of certain elements from
the NYSE BBO and NYSE Trades market data products as well as from
market data products from the Exchange's affiliates, NYSE American,
NYSE Arca, NYSE Chicago, Inc. (``NYSE Chicago''),\13\ and NYSE
National, Inc. (``NYSE National'').\14\ Similar to both Nasdaq Basic
and the Cboe One Feed, NYSE BQT provides investors with a unified view
of comprehensive last sale and BBO data in all Tape A, B, and C
securities that trade on the Exchange, NYSE American, NYSE Arca, NYSE
Chicago, and NYSE National. Also similar to Nasdaq Basic and the Cboe
One Feed, NYSE BQT is not intended to be used for purposes of making
order-routing or trading decisions, but rather provides indicative
prices for Tape A, B, and C securities.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ As described on the Nasdaq website, available here: http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=nasdaqbasic, Nasdaq Basic is a
``low cost alternative'' that provides ``Best Bid and Offer and Last
Sale information for all U.S. exchange-listed securities based on
liquidity within the Nasdaq market center, as well as trades
reported to the FINRA Trade Reporting Facility (``TRF'').''
    \11\ As described on the Cboe website, available here: https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_data_services/cboe_one/, the
Cboe One Feed is a ``market data product that provides cost-
effective, high-quality reference quotes and trade data for market
participants looking for comprehensive, real-time market data'' and
provides a ``unified view of the market from all four Cboe equity
exchanges: BZX Exchange, BYX Exchange, EDGX Exchange, and EDGA
Exchange.''
    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 72750 (August 4,
2014), 79 FR 46494 (August 8, 2014) (notice--NYSE BQT); and 73553
(November 6, 2014), 79 FR 67491 (November 13, 2014) (approval
order--NYSE BQT) (SR-NYSE-2014-40) (``NYSE BQT Filing'').
    \13\ In 2019, NYSE BQT was amended to include NYSE Chicago BBO
and NYSE Chicago Trades. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
87511 (November 12, 2019), 84 FR 63689 (November 18, 2019) (SR-NYSE-
2019-60).
    \14\ In 2018, NYSE BQT was amended to include NYSE National BBO
and NYSE National Trades. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
83359 (June 1, 2018), 83 FR 26507 (June 7, 2018) (SR-NYSE-2018-22).
    \15\ See NYSE BQT Filing, supra note 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange currently charges an access fee of $250 per month for
NYSE BQT, and, as provided for in footnote 5 to the Fee Schedule, to
subscribe to NYSE BQT, subscribers must also subscribe to, and pay
applicable fees for, NYSE BBO, NYSE Trades, NYSE American BBO, NYSE
American Trades, NYSE Arca BBO, NYSE Arca Trades, NYSE Chicago BBO,
NYSE Chicago Trades, NYSE National BBO, and NYSE National Trades. Thus,
an NYSE BQT subscriber currently pays the $250 access fee for NYSE
BQT,\16\ plus a $1,500 access fee for each of NYSE BBO and NYSE Trades,
plus a $750 access fee for each of NYSE American BBO and

NYSE American Trades,\17\ plus a $750 access fee for each of NYSE Arca
BBO and NYSE Arca trades,\18\ for a total of $6,250 ($250 + $3,000 +
$1,500 + $1,500).\19\ In addition, an NYSE BQT subscriber would need to
pay for the applicable Professional or Non-Professional User Fees for
the underlying market data products, as applicable.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Exchange is not proposing any change to the $250 access
fee for NYSE BQT.
    \17\ See NYSE American Equities Proprietary Market Data Fees
(``NYSE American Price List''), available here: https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/data/NYSE_Arca_Equities_Fee_Schedule.pdf.
    \18\ See NYSE Arca Equities Proprietary Market Data Fees (``NYSE
Arca Price List''), available here: https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/data/NYSE_Arca_Equities_Fee_Schedule.pdf.
    \19\ There are currently no fees charged for the NYSE Chicago
BBO, NYSE Chicago Trades, NYSE National BBO, or NYSE National Trades
market data products.
    \20\ The Exchange is not proposing any changes to the User Fees.
Currently, the Professional User Fees for each of NYSE BBO and NYSE
Trades is $4 per month, and the Non-Professional User Fees for each
of NYSE BBO and NYSE Trades is $0.20 per month. See Fees Schedule,
available here: https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/data/NYSE_Market_Data_Fee_Schedule.pdf. The Professional User Fees for
each of NYSE American BBO and NYSE American Trades is $4 per month,
and the Non-Professional User Fees for each of NYSE American BBO and
NYSE American Trades is $0.25 per month. See NYSE American Price
List, available here: https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/data/NYSE_American_Equities_Market_Data_Fee_Schedule.pdf. The
Professional User Fees for each of NYSE Arca BBO and NYSE Arca
Trades is $4 per month, and the Non-Professional User Fees for each
of NYSE Arca BBO and NYSE Arca Trades is $0.25 per month. See NYSE
Arca Price List, available here: https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/data/NYSE_Arca_Equities_Proprietary_Data_Fee_Schedule.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because NYSE BQT is priced based on the fees associated with the
underlying ten market data feeds, the Exchange and its affiliates
propose to compete with the Nasdaq Basic and Cboe One Feed by reducing
fees for the underlying market data products that comprise NYSE BQT.
Together with NYSE American and NYSE Arca, the Exchange similarly
proposes to compete for subscribers to NYSE BQT by designing its fee
decreases to be attractive to Redistributors that intend to subscribe
to and externally redistribute only NYSE BQT. The Exchange understands
that data recipients that are interested in subscribing to NYSE BQT
obtain their data from Redistributors that do not currently subscribe
to either the NYSE BQT data feed or any other market data product
listed on the Fee Schedule. Because such Redistributors do not
subscribe to NYSE BQT, the prospective data recipients that are the
customers of such Redistributors are unable to subscribe to NYSE BQT.
The proposed fee changes are designed to provide a financial incentive
for such Redistributors to subscribe to NYSE BQT so that their
customers, which have expressed an interest in subscribing to NYSE BQT,
would be able to access the product via such Redistributors.
Access Fee--NYSE BBO and NYSE Trades
    NYSE BBO is a NYSE-only market data product that allows a vendor to
redistribute on a real-time basis the same best-bid-and-offer
information that NYSE reports under the Consolidated Quotation Plan
(``CQ Plan'') for inclusion in the CQ Plan's consolidated quotation
information data stream (``NYSE BBO Information'').\21\ NYSE BBO
Information includes the best bids and offers for all securities that
are traded on the Exchange and for which NYSE reports quotes under the
CQ Plan. NYSE BBO is available over a single data feed, regardless of
the markets on which the securities are listed. NYSE BBO is made
available to its subscribers no earlier than the information it
contains is made available to the processor under the CQ Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 61914 (April 14,
2010), 75 FR 21077 (April 22, 2010) (SR-NYSE-2010-30) (notice--NYSE
BBO); and 62181 (May 26, 2010), 75 FR 31488 (June 3, 2010) (SR-NYSE-
2010-30) (approval order--NYSE BBO).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NYSE Trades is a NYSE-only market data product that allows a vendor
to redistribute on a real-time basis the same last sale information
that NYSE reports to the Consolidated Tape Association (``CTA'') for
inclusion in the CTA's consolidated data stream and certain other
related data elements (``NYSE Last Sale Information'').\22\ NYSE Last
Sale Information includes last sale information for all securities that
are traded on the Exchange. NYSE Trades is made available to
subscribers at the same time as the information it contains is made
available to the processor under the CTA Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 59309 (January 28,
2009), 74 FR 6073 (February 4, 2009) (SR-NYSE-2009-04) (notice--NYSE
Trades); and 59309 (March 19, 2009), 74 FR 13293 (March 26, 2009)
(SR-NYSE-2009-04) (approval order--NYSE Trades).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, subscribers of each of the NYSE BBO and NYSE Trades
products that receive a data feed pay an Access Fee of $1,500 per
month. In February 2020, the Exchange added the Per User Access Fee,
which is a reduced Access Fee of $100 per month currently available
only for subscribers of NYSE BBO and NYSE Trades that receive those
products in a display-only format, including for internal use for
Professional Users and external distribution to both Professional and
Non-Professional Users.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ A Per User Access Fee currently applies for subscribers of
NYSE BBO and NYSE Trades that receive a data feed and use those
market data products in a display-only format. See Fee Schedule. See
also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87803 (December 19, 2019),
84 FR 71505 (December 27, 2019) (SR-NYSE-2019-70) (Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Partial Amendment No. 1, To Amend the Fees for NYSE BBO and NYSE
Trades) (``BQT Fee Reduction Filing'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes that Redistributors of NYSE BBO and NYSE
Trades data feeds that do not subscribe to any other market data
product listed on the Fee Schedule, and use such market data products
for external distribution only, would also be eligible for the reduced
Per User Access Fee. A Redistributor that receives a data feed of NYSE
BBO and NYSE Trades and uses the market data products for any other
purpose (such as internal use) or that subscribes to any other products
listed on the Fee Schedule (other than NYSE BQT) would continue to pay
the $1,500 per month General Access Fee. As currently set forth in
footnote 8 to the Fee Schedule, a subscriber would be charged only one
access fee for each of the NYSE BBO and NYSE Trades products, depending
on the use of that product.
    To effect this change, the Exchange proposes to modify footnote 8
to the Fee Schedule as follows (proposed text is italicized, proposed
deletions bracketed):

    The Per User Access Fee is charged to: (i) [A] a subscriber that
receives a data feed and uses the market data product only for
Professional Users and Non-Professional Users in a display-only
format, including for internal use and external redistribution in a
display-only format, [will be charged the Per User Access Fee] and
(ii) a Redistributor that subscribes only to the NYSE BBO and NYSE
Trades data feeds, and does not subscribe to any other Products
listed on this Fee Schedule other than NYSE BQT, and uses these
market data products for external distribution only. A subscriber
that receives a data feed and uses the market data product for any
other purpose, including if combined with Per User use, will be
charged the General Access Fee. A subscriber will be charged only
one access fee for each of the NYSE BBO and NYSE Trades products,
depending on the use of that product.

    The proposed rule change would result in lower fees for
Redistributors of each of the NYSE BBO and NYSE Trades products that
receive NYSE BBO and NYSE Trades data feeds and do not subscribe to any
other market data product listed on the Fee Schedule, and use such
market data products for external distribution only.\24\ The

Exchange believes that the proposed fee reduction in NYSE BBO and NYSE
Trades would provide an incentive for such Redistributors to subscribe
to the NYSE BQT data feeds so that such product would be available to
their customers, which have expressed an interest in subscribing to
NYSE BQT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The Per User Access Fee is 93% lower than the General
Access Fee. Together with the corresponding proposed rule changes by
NYSE American and NYSE Arca to similarly reduce the access fees to
their BBO and Trades products for Redistributors, such
Redistributors would be eligible for significantly lower access fees
for NYSE BQT, from $6,250 per month to $850 per month ($250 + $200 +
$200 + $200), a reduction of more than 86%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change is intended to encourage greater use of
NYSE BQT by making it more affordable for Redistributors that have
customers interested in subscribing to NYSE BQT but that do not
currently subscribe to NYSE BBO or NYSE Trades or any other products
listed on the Fee Schedule. The proposed fee reduction would allow the
Exchange to compete more effectively with Nasdaq Basic and Cboe One
Feed by expanding the number of Redistributors that would subscribe to
NYSE BQT, and therefore make the product available to data subscribers
interested in NYSE BQT.
Redistribution Fee--NYSE Trades
    The Exchange currently charges a Redistribution Fee of $1,000 per
month for NYSE Trades. A Redistributor is required to report to the
Exchange each month the number of Professional and Non-Professional
Users and data feed recipients that receive NYSE Trades.
    The Exchange proposes to waive the Redistribution Fee for a
Redistributor that is eligible for the Per User Access Fee if the
Redistributor provides NYSE Trades externally to at least one data feed
recipient and reports such data feed recipient or recipients to the
Exchange. For example, a Redistributor that subscribes to the NYSE BBO
and NYSE Trades data feeds and does not subscribe to any other product
listed on the Fee Schedule would have the Redistribution Fee waived for
the month if such Redistributor provides NYSE BBO and NYSE Trades
externally to at least one data feed recipient and reports such data
feed recipient to the Exchange.
    By targeting this proposed fee waiver to Redistributors that
provide external distribution of NYSE Trades, the Exchange believes
that this would provide an incentive for Redistributors to make the
NYSE BQT market data product available to its customers. Specifically,
if a data recipient is interested in subscribing to NYSE BQT and relies
on a Redistributor to obtain market data products from the Exchange,
that data recipient would need its Redistributor to redistribute NYSE
BQT. Currently, Redistributors that redistribute some NYSE market data
products do not necessarily also make NYSE BQT available. The Exchange
believes that this proposed fee waiver for Redistributors of NYSE
Trades would provide an incentive for Redistributors to make NYSE BQT
available to their customers, which will increase the availability of
NYSE BQT to a larger potential population of data recipients.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ NYSE does not charge a Redistribution Fee for NYSE BBO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Applicability of Proposed Rule Change
    As noted above, the proposed rule change is designed to further
reduce the overall cost of NYSE BQT by reducing specified fees
applicable to the underlying market data products that comprise NYSE
BQT. Prior to the BQT Fee Reduction Filing, the Exchange had only one
subscriber to NYSE BQT. Today, the Exchange has seven subscribers,
three of whom became customers as a direct result of the BQT Fee
Reduction Filing and currently pay the reduced Per User Access Fee. The
Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes would provide a
further incentive for Redistributors to subscribe to NYSE BQT for
purposes of providing external distribution of NYSE BQT to potential
data recipients interested in the product.
    Because the proposed rule change is targeted to potential
Redistributors of NYSE BQT that do not currently subscribe to any NYSE
market data products, the proposed changes to the availability of the
NYSE BBO and NYSE Trades Per User Access Fees, together with the
proposed changes on NYSE American and NYSE Arca, are narrowly tailored
with that purpose in mind. Accordingly, these proposed fee changes are
not designed for Redistributors that are existing customers of NYSE
market data products or that engage in internal use of NYSE BQT. This
proposed rule change would not result in any changes to the market data
fees for NYSE BBO and NYSE Trades for such data subscribers.
    The Exchange believes that there are at least three potential
Redistributors that would meet the qualifications to be eligible for
these proposed fee changes. The Exchange further believes that this
proposed rule change has the potential to attract these three
Redistributors as new Redistributors for NYSE BQT, as well as new NYSE
BQT subscribers that would be subscribing to NYSE BBO and NYSE Trades
for the first time.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\26\ in general, and
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\27\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposed Rule Change Is Reasonable
    In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted SROs and broker-
dealers increased authority and flexibility to offer new and unique
market data to the public. The Commission has repeatedly expressed its
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically,
in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market
forces in determining prices and SRO revenues, and also recognized that
current regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably
successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that
are most important to investors and listed companies.'' \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Regulation NMS Adopting Release, 70 FR 37495, at 37499.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to market data, the decision of the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in NetCoalition
v. SEC upheld the Commission's reliance on the existence of competitive
market mechanisms to evaluate the reasonableness and fairness of 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.'' \29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 535 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
(``NetCoalition I'') (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.' '' \30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Id. at 535.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More recently, the Commission confirmed that it applies a ``market-
based'' test in its assessment of market data fees, and that under that
test:

the Commission considers whether the exchange was subject to
significant competitive forces in setting the terms of its proposal
for [market data], including the level of any fees. If an exchange
meets this burden, the Commission will find that its fee rule is
consistent with the Act unless there is a substantial countervailing
basis to find that the terms of the rule violate the Act or the
rules thereunder.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-90217 (October
16, 2020), 85 FR 67392 (October 22, 2020) (SR-NYSENAT-2020-05)
(``National IF Approval Order'') (internal quotation marks omitted),
quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74781 (December 9, 2008) (``2008 ArcaBook
Approval Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. The Proposed Fees Are Constrained by Significant Competitive Forces
a. Exchange Market Data Is Sold in a Competitive Market
    In 2018, Charles M. Jones, the Robert W. Lear of Professor of
Finance and Economics of the Columbia University School of Business,
conducted an analysis of the market for equity market data in the
United States. He canvassed the demand for both consolidated and
exchange proprietary market data products and the uses to which those
products were put by market participants, and reported his conclusions
in a paper annexed hereto.\32\ Among other things, Professor Jones
concluded that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Exhibit 3A, Charles M. Jones, Understanding the Market
for U.S. Equity Market Data, August 31, 2018 (hereinafter ``Jones
Paper'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     ``The market [for exchange market data] is characterized
by robust competition: Exchanges compete with each other in selling
proprietary market data products. They also compete with consolidated
data feeds and with data provided by alternative trading systems
(`ATSs'). Barriers to entry are very low, so existing exchanges must
also take into account competition from new entrants, who generally try
to build market share by offering their proprietary market data
products for free for some period of time.'' \33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Jones Paper at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     ``Although there are regulatory requirements for some
market participants to use consolidated data products, there is no
requirement for market participants to purchase any proprietary market
data product for regulatory purposes.'' \34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     ``There are a variety of data products, and consumers of
equity market data choose among them based on their needs. Like most
producers, exchanges offer a variety of market data products at
different price levels. Advanced proprietary market data products
provide greater value to those who subscribe. As in any other market,
each potential subscriber takes the features and prices of available
products into account in choosing what market data products to buy
based on its business model.'' \35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     ``Exchange equity market data fees are a small cost for
the industry overall: The data demonstrates that total exchange market
data revenues are orders of magnitude smaller than (i) broker-dealer
commissions, (ii) investment bank earnings from equity trading, and
(iii) revenues earned by third-party vendors.'' \36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     ``For proprietary exchange data feeds, the main question
is whether there is a competitive market for proprietary market data.
More than 40 active exchanges and alternative trading systems compete
vigorously in both the market for order flow and in the market for
market data. The two are closely linked: An exchange needs to consider
the negative impact on its order flow if it raises the price of its
market data. Furthermore, new entrants have been frequent over the past
10 years or so, and these venues often give market data away for free,
serving as a check on pricing by more established exchanges. These are
all the standard hallmarks of a competitive market.'' \37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Id. at 39-40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Professor Jones' conclusions are consistent with the demonstration
of the competitive constraints on the pricing of market data
demonstrated by analysis of exchanges as platforms for market data and
trading services, as shown below.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ More recently, Professors Jonathan Brogaard and James
Brugler also looked at the market for proprietary market data
products and confirmed that it is competitive. The authors document
that introducing fees for market data leads to lower market share,
and identify informed traders as the most affected trader categories
after fees are introduced. See Jonathan Brogaard and James Brugler,
Competition and Exchange Data Fees, October 2, 2020 (Exhibit 3B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Exchanges That Offer Market Data and Trading Services Function as
Two-Sided Platforms
    An exchange may demonstrate that its fees are constrained by
competitive forces by showing that platform competition applies.
    As the United States Supreme Court recognized in Ohio v. American
Express, platforms are firms that act as intermediaries between two or
more sets of agents, and typically the choices made on one side of the
platform affect the results on the other side of the platform via
externalities, or ``indirect network effects.'' \39\ Externalities are
linkages between the different ``sides'' of a platform such that one
cannot understand pricing and competition for goods or services on one
side of the platform in isolation; one must also account for the
influence of the other side. As the Supreme Court explained:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Ohio v. American Express, 138 S. Ct. 2274, 2280-81 (2018).

    To ensure sufficient participation, two-sided platforms must be
sensitive to the prices that they charge each side. . . . Raising
the price on side A risks losing participation on that side, which
decreases the value of the platform to side B. If the participants
on side B leave due to this loss in value, then the platform has
even less value to side A--risking a feedback loop of declining
demand. . . . Two-sided platforms therefore must take these indirect
network effects into account before making a change in price on
either side.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Id. at 2281.

    The Exchange and its affiliated exchanges have long maintained that
they function as platforms between consumers of market data and
consumers of trading services. Proving the existence of linkages
between the two sides of this platform requires an in-depth economic
analysis of both public data and confidential Exchange data about
particular customers' trading activities and market data purchases.
Exchanges, however, are prohibited from sharing details about these
specific customer activities and purchases. For example, pursuant to
Exchange Rule 7.41, transactions executed on the Exchange are processed
anonymously.
    The Exchange and its affiliated exchanges retained a third party
expert, Marc Rysman, Professor of Economics Boston University, to
analyze how platform economics applies to stock exchanges' sale of
market data products and trading services, and to explain how this
affects the assessment of competitive forces affecting the exchanges'
data fees.\41\ Professor Rysman was able to analyze exchange data that
is not otherwise publicly available in a manner that is consistent with
the exchanges' confidentiality obligations to customers. As shown in
his paper, Professor Rysman surveyed the existing economic literature
analyzing stock exchanges as platforms between market data and trading

activities, and explained the types of linkages between market data
access and trading activities that must be present for an exchange to
function as a platform. In addition, Professor Rysman undertook an
empirical analysis of customers' trading activities within the NYSE
group of exchanges in reaction to NYSE's introduction in 2015 of the
NYSE Integrated Feed, a full order-by-order depth of book data
product.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See Exhibit 3C, Marc Rysman, Stock Exchanges as Platforms
for Data and Trading, December 2, 2019 (hereinafter ``Rysman
Paper''), ] 7.
    \42\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 74128 (January 23,
2015), 80 FR 4951 (January 29, 2015) (SR-NYSE-2015-03) (Notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness of proposed rule change to
establish NYSE Integrated Feed) and 76485 (November 20, 2015), 80 FR
74158 (November 27, 2015) (SR-NYSE-2015-57) (Notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness of proposed rule change to establish fees
for the NYSE Integrated Feed).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Professor Rysman's analysis of this confidential firm-level data
shows that firms that purchased the NYSE Integrated Feed market data
product after its introduction were more likely to route orders to NYSE
as opposed to one of the other NYSE-affiliated exchanges, such as NYSE
Arca or NYSE American.\43\ Moreover, Professor Rysman shows that the
same is true for firms that did not subscribe to the NYSE Integrated
Feed: The introduction of the NYSE Integrated Feed led to more trading
on NYSE (as opposed to other NYSE-affiliated exchanges) by firms that
did not subscribe to the NYSE Integrated Feed.\44\ This is the sort of
externality that is a key characteristic of a platform market.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Rysman Paper ]] 79-89.
    \44\ Id. ]] 90-91.
    \45\ Id. ] 90.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From this empirical evidence, Professor Rysman concludes:
     ``[D]ata is more valuable when it reflects more trading
activity and more liquidity-providing orders. These linkages alone are
enough to make platform economics necessary for understanding the
pricing of market data.'' \46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Id. ] 95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     ``[L]inkages running in the opposite direction, from data
to trading, are also very likely to exist. This is because market data
from an exchange reduces uncertainty about the likelihood, price, or
timing of execution for an order on that exchange. This reduction in
uncertainty makes trading on that exchange more attractive for traders
that subscribe to that exchange's market data. Increased trading by
data subscribers, in turn, makes trading on the exchange in question
more attractive for traders that do not subscribe to the exchange's
market data.'' \47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Id. ] 96.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The ``mechanisms by which market data makes trading on an
exchange more attractive for subscribers to market data . . . apply to
a wide assortment of market data products, including BBO, order book,
and full order-by-order depth of book data products at all exchanges.''
\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     ``[E]mpirical evidence confirms that stock exchanges are
platforms for data and trading.'' \49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Id. ] 97.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     ``The platform nature of stock exchanges means that data
fees cannot be analyzed in isolation, without accounting for the
competitive dynamics in trading services.'' \50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Id. ] 98.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     ``Competition is properly understood as being between
platforms (i.e., stock exchanges) that balance the needs of consumers
of data and traders.'' \51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     ``Data fees, data use, trading fees, and order flow are
all interrelated.'' \52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     ``Competition for order flow can discipline the pricing of
market data, and vice-versa.'' \53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     ``As with platforms generally, overall competition between
exchanges will limit their overall profitability, not margins on any
particular side of the platform.'' \54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ Id. ] 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Exchange Market Data Fees Are Constrained by the Availability of
Substitute Platforms
    Professor Rysman's conclusions that exchanges function as platforms
for market data and transaction services mean that exchanges do not set
fees for market data products without considering, and being
constrained by, the effect the fees will have on the order-flow side of
the platform. And as the D.C. Circuit recognized in NetCoalition I,
``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is fierce.'' \55\
The court further noted that ``no exchange possesses a monopoly,
regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker
dealers,'' and that an exchange ``must compete vigorously for order
flow to maintain its share of trading volume.'' \56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ NetCoalition I, 615 F.3d at 544 (internal quotation
omitted).
    \56\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, while Regulation NMS has enhanced competition, it
has also fostered a ``fragmented'' market structure where trading in a
single stock can occur across multiple trading centers. When multiple
trading centers compete for order flow in the same stock, the
Commission has recognized that ``such competition can lead to the
fragmentation of order flow in that stock.'' \57\ The Commission's
Division of Trading and Markets has also recognized that with so many
``operating equities exchanges and dozens of ATSs, there is vigorous
price competition among the U.S. equity markets and, as a result,
[transaction] fees are tailored and frequently modified to attract
particular types of order flow, some of which is highly fluid and price
sensitive.'' \58\ Indeed, today, equity trading is currently dispersed
across 16 exchanges,\59\ numerous alternative trading systems,\60\
broker-dealer internalizers and wholesalers, all competing for order
flow. Based on publicly-available information, no single exchange
currently has more than 18% market share.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61358, 75 3594,
3597 (January 21, 2010) (File No. S7-02-10) (Concept Release on
Equity Market Structure).
    \58\ Commission Division of Trading and Markets, Memorandum to
EMSAC, dated October 20, 2015, available here: https://www.sec.gov/spotlight/emsac/memo-maker-taker-fees-on-equities-exchanges.pdf.
    \59\ See Cboe Global Markets, U.S. Equities Market Volume
Summary, available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/. See generally https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/divisionsmarketregmrexchangesshtml.html.
    \60\ See FINRA ATS Transparency Data, available at https://otctransparency.finra.org/otctransparency/AtsIssueData. A list of
alternative trading systems registered with the Commission is
available at https://www.sec.gov/foia/docs/atslist.htm.
    \61\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Equities Market Volume
Summary, available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, low barriers to entry mean that new exchanges may, and do,
rapidly and inexpensively enter the market and offer additional
substitute platforms to compete with the Exchange.\62\ For example, in
2020 alone, three new exchanges have entered the market: Long Term
Stock Exchange (LTSE), which began operations as an exchange on August
28, 2020; \63\ Members Exchange (MEMX), which began operations as an
exchange on September 29, 2020; \64\ and Miami

International Holdings (MIAX), which began operations of its first
equities exchange on September 29, 2020.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ See Jones Paper at 10-11.
    \63\ See LTSE Market Announcement: MA-2020-020, dated August 14,
2020, announcing LTSE production securities phase-in planned for
August 28, available here: https://assets.ctfassets.net/cchj2z2dcfyd/rnGvgggJUplaIk6N1xNA7/41926d3925a177d6455868090c46aeda/MA-2020-020__Production_Securities_Launching_August_28_-_Google_Docs.pdf and LTSE Market Announcement: MA-2020-025,
available here: https://assets.ctfassets.net/cchj2z2dcfyd/52nIKwAuOraU1agaNY5j80/0d27ab0eb9b540c67a5e9f831f23f0ac/MA-2020-025.pdf.
    \64\ As of October 29, 2020, MEMX is trading all NMS symbols but
has not yet enabled NMS routing. See https://info.memxtrading.com/trader-alert-20-10-memx-trading-symbols-update/.
    \65\ See MIAX Pearl Press release, dated September 29, 2020,
available here: https://www.miaxoptions.com/sites/default/files/alert-files/MIAX_Press_Release_09292020.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These low barriers enable existing exchange customers to
disintermediate and start their own exchanges if they think the prices
charged for exchange proprietary market data products are too high.
This is precisely the rationale behind the creation of MEMX, which was
formed by some of the largest and most well capitalized financial firms
that are also Exchange customers (including Bank of America, BlackRock,
Charles Schwab, Citadel, Citi, E*Trade, Fidelity, Goldman Sachs, J.P.
Morgan, Jane Street, Morgan Stanley, TD Ameritrade, and others).\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ MEMX Home Page (``Founded by members and investors, MEMX
aims to drive simplicity, efficiency, and competition in equity
markets.''), available at https://memx.com/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, one of MEMX's founding principles is that exchange
proprietary market data prices are too high, and that MEMX will benefit
its members by offering ``[l]ower pricing on market data.'' \67\ Nor is
this a new phenomenon: Exchange customers formed BATS to compete with
incumbent exchanges and once registered as an exchange in 2008, BATS
did not initially charge for market data. The BATS venture was a
financial success for its founders, first through recouping their
investment in its initial public offering and then in the subsequent
sale of BATS to Cboe, which now charges for market data from those
exchanges. Notably, MEMX has some of the same founding broker-dealer
customers, leading some to dub MEMX ``BATS 2.0.'' \68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ MEMX home page, available at https://memx.com/.
    \68\ See ``MEMX turns up the heat on US stock exchanges,''
Financial Times, January 9, 2019, available at https://www.ft.com/content/4908c8b0-1418-11e9-a581-4ff78404524e; see also ``US equities
exchanges: If you can't beat them, join them,'' Euromoney, February
13, 2019, available at https://www.euromoney.com/article/b1d3tfby4p3y4v/us-equities-exchanges-if-you-cant-beat-them-join-them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The fact that this cycle is viable and repeatable by entities that
both trade on and compete with existing exchanges confirms that
barriers to entry are low and that these markets are competitive and
contestable.\69\ And low barriers to entry act as a market check on
high prices.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ United States v. SunGard Data Sys., 172 F. Supp. 2d 172,
186 (D.D.C. 2001) (recognizing that ``[a]s a matter of law, courts
have generally recognized that when a customer can replace the
services of an external product with an internally-created system,
this captive output (i.e. the self-production of all or part of the
relevant product) should be included in the same market.''). In
SunGard, the court rejected the Antitrust Division's attempt to
block SunGuard's acquisition of the disaster recovery assets of
Comdisco on the basis that the acquisition would ``substantially
lessen competition in the market for shared hotsite disaster
recovery services,'' when the evidence showed that ``internal
hotsites'' created by customers competed with the ``external shared
hotsite business'' engaged in by the merging parties. Id. at 173-74,
187.
    \70\ United States v. Baker Hughes, 908 F.2d 981, 987 (1990)
(``In the absence of significant barriers [to entry], a company
probably cannot maintain supracompetitive pricing for any length of
time.''); see also David S. Evans and Richard Schmalensee, Markets
with Two-Sided Platforms, in 1 Issues In Competition Law and Policy
667, 685 (ABA Section of Antitrust Law 2008) (noting that exchange
mergers in 2005 and 2006 were approved by competition authorities in
part in reliance on planned and likely entry of other firms).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given Professor Rysman's conclusion that exchanges are platforms
for market data and trading, this fierce competition for order flow on
the trading side of the platform acts to constrain, or ``discipline,''
the pricing of market data on the other side of the platform.\71\ And
due to the ready availability of substitutes and the low cost to move
order flow to those substitute trading venues, an exchange setting
market data fees that are not at competitive levels would expect to
quickly lose business to alternative platforms with more attractive
pricing.\72\ Although the various exchanges may differ in their
strategies for pricing their market data products and their transaction
fees for trades--with some offering market data for free along with
higher trading costs, and others charging more for market data and
comparatively less for trading--the fact that exchanges are platforms
ensures that no exchange makes pricing decisions for one side of its
platform without considering, and being constrained by, the effects
that price will have on the other side of the platform.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ Rysman Paper ] 98.
    \72\ See Jones Paper at 11.
    \73\ In the context of the fee proposal that led to the National
IF Approval Order, supra note 32, one commenter contended that
trading was not a platform with exchange proprietary market data,
and that the exchanges' proprietary market data products were
instead ``complements'' for which exchanges could charge
supracompetitive prices. Professor Rysman debunked these contentions
in an additional paper. See Marc Rysman, Complements, Competition,
and Exchange Proprietary Data Products, August 13, 2020 (Exhibit
3D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In sum, the fierce competition for order flow thus constrains any
exchange from pricing its market data at a supracompetitive price, and
constrains the Exchange in setting its fees at issue here.
    The proposed fees are therefore reasonable because in setting them,
the Exchange is constrained by the availability of numerous substitute
platforms offering market data products and trading. Such substitutes
need not be identical, but only substantially similar to the product at
hand.
    More specifically, in reducing specified fees for the NYSE BBO and
NYSE Trades market data products, the Exchange is constrained by the
fact that, if its pricing across the platform is unattractive to
customers, customers have their pick of an increasing number of
alternative platforms to use instead of the Exchange. The Exchange
believes that it has considered all relevant factors and has not
considered irrelevant factors in order to establish reasonable fees.
The existence of numerous alternative platforms to the Exchange's
platform ensures that the Exchange cannot set unreasonable market data
fees without suffering the negative effects of that decision in the
fiercely competitive market for trading order flow.
d. The Availability of Substitute Market Data Products Constrains Fees
for NYSE BBO, NYSE Trades, and NYSE BQT
    Even putting aside the facts that exchanges are platforms and that
pricing decisions on the two sides of the platform are intertwined, the
Exchange is constrained in setting the proposed market data fees by the
availability of numerous substitute market data products. The
Commission has been clear that substitute products need not be
identical, but only substantially similar to the product at hand.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ For example, in the National IF Approval Order, the
Commission recognized that for some customers, the best bid and
offer information from consolidated data feeds may function as a
substitute for the NYSE National Integrated Feed product, which
contains order by order information. See National IF Approval Order,
supra note 32, at 67397 [release p. 21] (``[I]nformation provided by
NYSE National demonstrates that a number of executing broker-dealers
do not subscribe to the NYSE National Integrated Feed and executing
broker-dealers can otherwise obtain NYSE National best bid and offer
information from the consolidated data feeds.'' (internal quotations
omitted)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's NYSE BQT market data product is subject to
significant competitive forces that constrain its pricing.
Specifically, as described above, NYSE BQT competes head-to-head with
the Nasdaq Basic product and the Cboe One Feed. These products each
serve as reasonable substitutes for one another as they are each
designed to provide investors with a unified view of real-time quotes
and last-sale prices in all Tape A, B, and C securities. Each product
provides subscribers with consolidated top-of-book quotes and trades
from multiple U.S. equities

markets. In the case of NYSE BQT, this product provides top-of-book
quotes and trades data from five NYSE-affiliated U.S. equities
exchanges, which together account for approximately 22% of consolidated
U.S. equities trading volume as of September 2020.\75\ Cboe One Feed
similarly provides top-of-book quotes and trades data from Cboe's four
U.S. equities exchanges. NYSE BQT, Nasdaq Basic, and Cboe One Feed are
all intended to provide indicative pricing and are not intended to be
used for order routing or trading decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Equities Market Volume
Summary, available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/market/2019-10-31/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to competing with proprietary data products from Nasdaq
and Cboe, NYSE BQT also competes with the consolidated data feed.
However, the Exchange does not claim that NYSE BQT is a substitute for
consolidated data with respect to requirements under the Vendor Display
Rule, which is Regulation NMS Rule 603(c).
    The fact that this filing is proposing reductions in certain fees
and fee waivers is itself confirmation of the inherently competitive
nature of the market for the sale of proprietary market data. For
example, in August 2019, Cboe filed proposed rule changes to reduce
certain of its Cboe One Feed fees and noted that it attracted two
additional customers because of the reduced fees.\76\ More recently,
Nasdaq filed a proposed rule change to lower the enterprise license fee
for broker-dealers distributing Nasdaq Basic to internal Professional
subscribers and the enterprise license fee for broker-dealers
distributing Nasdaq Last Sale to Professional subscribers.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 86667 (August 14,
2019) (SR-CboeBZX-2019-069); 86670 (August 14, 2019) (SR-CboeBYX-
2019-012); 86676 (August 14, 2019) (SR-CboeEDGA-2019-013); and 86678
(August 14, 2019) (SR-CboeEDGX-2019-048) (Notices of filing and
Immediate effectiveness of proposed rule change to reduce fees for
the Cboe One Feed) (collectively ``Cboe One Fee Filings''). The Cboe
One Fee Filings were in effect from August 1, 2019 until September
30, 2019, when the Commission suspended them and instituted
proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove those
proposals. See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87164
(September 30, 2019), 84 FR 53208 (October 4, 2019) (SR-CboeBZX-
2019-069). On October 1, 2019, the Cboe equities exchanges refiled
the Cboe One Fee Filings on the basis that they had new customers
subscribe as a result of the Cboe One Fee Filings, and therefore its
fee proposal had increased competition for top-of-book market data.
See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 87312 (October 15, 2019),
84 FR 56235 (October 21, 2019) (SR-CboeBZX-2019-086); 87305 (October
14, 2019), 84 FR 56210 (October 21, 2019) (SR-CboeBYX-2019-015);
87295 (October 11, 2019), 84 FR 55624 (October 17, 2019) (SR-
CboeEDGX-2019-059); and 87294 (October 11, 2019), 84 FR 55638
(October 17, 2019) (SR-CboeEDGA-2019-015) (Notices of filing and
immediate effectiveness of proposed rule changes to re-file the
Small Retail Broker Distribution Program) (``Cboe One Fee Re-
Filings''). On November 26, 2019, the Commission suspended the Cboe
One Fee Re-Filings and instituted proceedings to determine whether
to approve or disapprove those proposals. See, e.g., Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 87629 (November 26, 2019), 84 FR 66245
(December 3, 2019) (SR-CboeBZX-2019-086). On November 27, 2019, the
Cboe equities exchanges refiled the Cboe One Fee Filings with one
revision to the requirements for participating in the Small Retail
Broker Distribution Program and additional information about the
basis for the proposed fee changes. See Securities Exchange Act
Release Nos. 87712 (December 10, 2019), 84 FR 68508 (December 16,
2019) (SR-CboeBZX-2019-101); 88713 (December 10, 2019), 84 FR 68530
(December 16, 2019) (SR-CboeBYX-2019-023); 87709 (December 10,
2019), 84 FR 68523 (December 16, 2019) (SR-CboeEDGA-2019-021); and
87711 (December 10, 2019), 84 FR 68501 (December 16, 2019) (SR-Cboe-
EDGX-2019-071) (Notices of filing and immediate effectiveness of
proposed rule changes to introduce a Small Retail Broker
Distribution Program) (``Cboe One Third Fee Re-Filings''). On
February 4, 2020, the Cboe equities exchanges withdrew the Cboe One
Third Fee Re-Filings and, on the same date, refiled the Cboe One Fee
Filings. See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 88221 (February
14, 2020), 85 FR 9904 (February 20, 2020) (SR-CboeBYX-2020-007);
88218 (February 14, 2020), 85 FR 9827 (February 20, 2020) (SR-
CboeBZX-2020-014); 88220 (February 14, 2020), 85 FR 9912 (February
20, 2020) (SR-CboeEDGA-2020-004); and 88219 (February 14, 2020), 85
FR 9872 (February 20, 2020) (SR-CboeEDGX-2020-008) (Notices of
filing and immediate effectiveness of proposed rule changes to
introduce a Small Retail Broker Distribution Program) (``Cboe One
Fourth Fee Re-Filings''). On April 15, 2020, the Cboe equities
exchanges withdrew the Cboe One Fee Filings and the Cboe One Fee Re-
Filings. Pursuant to the Cboe One Fourth Fee Re-Filings, the Small
Retail Broker Distribution Program is currently in effect at the
Cboe equities exchanges.
    \77\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90177 (October 14,
2020), 85 FR 66620 (October 20, 2020) (SR-NASDAQ-2020-065) (Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Lower the Enterprise License Fee for Broker-Dealers Distributing
Nasdaq Basic to Internal Professional Subscribers as Set Forth in
the Equity 7 Pricing Schedule, Section 147, and the Enterprise
License Fee for Broker-Dealers Distributing Nasdaq Last Sale to
Professional Subscribers at Equity 7, Section 139).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that NYSE BBO, NYSE Trades, and NYSE BQT are
entirely optional. The Exchange is not required to make the proprietary
data products that are the subject of this proposed rule change
available or to offer any specific pricing alternatives to any
customers, nor is any firm or investor required to purchase the
Exchange's data products. Unlike some other data products (e.g., the
consolidated quotation and last-sale information feeds) that firms are
required to purchase in order to fulfil regulatory obligations,\78\ a
customer's decision whether to purchase any of the Exchange's
proprietary market data feeds is entirely discretionary. Most firms
that choose to subscribe to the NYSE's proprietary market data feeds do
so for the primary goals of using them to increase their revenues,
reduce their expenses, and in some instances compete directly with the
Exchange's trading services. Such firms are able to determine for
themselves whether or not the products in question or any other similar
products are attractively priced. If the NYSE market data feeds do not
provide sufficient value to firms based on the uses those firms may
have for it, such firms may simply choose to conduct their business
operations in ways that do not use the products.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ The Exchange notes that broker-dealers are not required to
purchase proprietary market data to comply with their best execution
obligations. See In the Matter of the Application of Securities
Industry and Financial Markets Association for Review of Actions
Taken by Self-Regulatory Organizations, Release Nos. 34-72182; AP-3-
15350; AP-3-15351 (May 16, 2014). 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
ATSs have chosen not to do so.
    \79\ See generally Jones Paper at 8, 10-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, in the case of products that are also redistributed
through market data vendors, such as Bloomberg and Refinitiv, 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. This
competitive constraint is precisely what is driving the proposed fee
changes here, which are designed to attract new market data vendors,
and through them new subscribers, to the NYSE BQT product. Currently,
only four vendors subscribe to NYSE BQT, and each vendor has limited
redistribution of NYSE BQT. No other vendors currently subscribe to
NYSE BQT and likely will not unless their customers request it, and
customers will not elect to pay the proposed fees unless such product
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.
    Because of the availability of substitutes, an exchange 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 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 reasonable fees. The existence of
numerous alternatives to the Exchange's platform and, more
specifically, alternatives to the market data products, including
proprietary data from other sources, ensures that the Exchange cannot
set unreasonable fees 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.
2. The Proposed Fees Are Reasonable
    The specific fees that the Exchange proposes for NYSE BBO and NYSE
Trades are reasonable, for the following additional reasons.
    Overall. This proposed fee change is a result of the competitive
environment, as the Exchange seeks to decrease certain of its fees to
attract Redistributors that do not currently subscribe to the NYSE BQT
market data product. The Exchange is proposing the fee reductions at
issue to make the Exchange's fees more competitive for a specific
segment of market participants, thereby increasing the availability of
the Exchange's data products, and expanding the options available to
firms making data purchasing decisions based on their business needs.
The Exchange believes that this is consistent with the principles
contained in Regulation NMS to ``promote the wide availability of
market data and to allocate revenues to SROs that produce the most
useful data for investors.'' \80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ See Regulation NMS Adopting Release, 70 FR 37495, at 37503.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Access Fee. By making the reduced Per User Access Fee available to
Redistributors that subscribe only to the NYSE BBO and NYSE Trades data
feeds and NYSE BQT and do not have any internal use of such products,
and do not subscribe to any other products listed on the Fee Schedule,
the Exchange believes that more Redistributors may choose to subscribe
to these products, thereby expanding the distribution of this market
data for the benefit of investors that participate in the national
market system and increasing competition generally. The Exchange also
believes that offering the Per User Access Fee to these Redistributors
would expand the availability of NYSE BQT to potential data recipients
that are interested in subscribing to NYSE BQT but do not have access
to a Redistributor who subscribes to the data feeds.
    The Exchange determined to make the reduced Per User Access Fee
available to these Redistributors because it constitutes a substantial
reduction of the current fee, with the intended purpose of increasing
use of NYSE BQT by Redistributors that do not currently subscribe to
any NYSE market data products. NYSE BQT has been in place since 2014
but has a very small number of subscribers. The Exchange believes that
in order to compete with other indicative pricing products such as
Nasdaq Basic and Cboe One Feed, it needs to provide a meaningful
financial incentive for more Redistributors to choose to subscribe to
NYSE BQT so that they can make it available to their customers.
Accordingly, the proposed reduction to the access fees for NYSE BBO and
NYSE Trades, together with the proposed reduction to the access fees
for NYSE American BBO, NYSE American Trades, NYSE Arca BBO, and NYSE
Arca Trades, is reasonable because the reductions will make NYSE BQT a
more attractive offering for Redistributors that do not currently
subscribe to any NYSE market data products and make it more competitive
with Nasdaq Basic and Cboe One Feed. For example, the External
Distribution Fee for Cboe One Feed is currently $5,000 (which is the
sum of the External Distribution fees for the four exchange data
products that are included in Cboe One Feed) plus a Data Consolidation
Fee of $1,000, for a total of $6,000. Evidence of the competition among
exchange groups for these products has previously been demonstrated via
fee changes. For example, following the introduction of the Cboe One
Feed, Nasdaq responded by reducing its fees for the Nasdaq Basic
product.\81\ With the proposed changes by the Exchange, NYSE Arca, and
NYSE American, the Exchange is similarly seeking to compete by
decreasing the total access fees for NYSE BQT from $6,250 to $850 for
Redistributors that do not currently subscribe to any NYSE market data
products and have customers that are interested in subscribing to NYSE
BQT but cannot do so until their Redistributor also subscribes. This
proposed rule change therefore demonstrates the existence of an
effective, competitive market because this proposal resulted from a
need to generate innovative approaches in response to competition from
other exchanges that offer market data for a specific segment of market
participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ See e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83751 (July
31, 2018), 83 FR 38428 (August 6, 2018) (SR-NASDAQ-2018-058) (Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Lower Fees and Administrative Costs for Distributors of Nasdaq
Basic, Nasdaq Last Sale, NLS Plus and the Nasdaq Depth-of-Book
Products Through a Consolidated Enterprise License). Nasdaq filed
the proposed fee change to lower the Enterprise Fee for Nasdaq Basic
and other market data products in response to the Enterprise Fee for
the Cboe One Feed adopted by Cboe family of exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Redistribution Fees. Similarly, the proposed reduction to the NYSE
Trades Redistribution Fee is reasonable because it is designed to
provide an incentive for Redistributors to make NYSE BQT available so
that data recipients can subscribe to NYSE BQT. The Exchange further
believes that the proposed waiver of the NYSE Trades Redistribution Fee
is reasonable because it is designed to compete with market data
products offered by the Cboe family of equity exchanges.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ See, e.g., BZX Price List--U.S. Equities available at
http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=DPUSdata#db. BZX charges
$500 per month for internal distribution, and $2,500 per month for
external distribution, of BZX Last Sale. BZX also charges $500 per
month for internal distribution, and $2,500 per month for external
distribution, of BZX Top. See Cboe BZX U.S. Equities Exchange Fee
Schedule at http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/bzx/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For all of the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the
proposed fees are reasonable.
The Proposed Fees Are Equitably Allocated
    The Exchange believes the proposed fees for NYSE BBO and NYSE
Trades are allocated fairly and equitably among the various categories
of users of the feed, and any differences among categories of users are
justified.
    Overall. As noted above, this proposed fee change is a result of
the competitive environment for market data products that provide
indicative pricing information across a family of exchanges. To respond
to this competitive environment, the Exchange seeks to amend its fees
to access NYSE BBO and NYSE Trades for Redistributors that would be
subscribing only to the NYSE BBO and NYSE Trades data feeds and would
use these market data products for external distribution only, which
the Exchange hopes will attract new Redistributor subscribers for its
NYSE BQT market data product so that the product can be made available
to prospective market data recipients. The Exchange is proposing the
fee reductions to make the Exchange's fees more competitive

for a specific segment of market participants, thereby increasing the
availability of the Exchange's data products, expanding the options
available to firms making data purchasing decisions based on their
business needs, and generally increasing competition.
    Access Fee. The Exchange believes that making the Per User Access
Fee available to Redistributors that would be subscribing only to the
NYSE BBO and NYSE Trades data feeds and would use these market data
products for external distribution only is equitable as it would apply
equally to all data recipients that choose to subscribe to NYSE BBO or
NYSE Trades for external distribution only and who do not subscribe to
any other products listed on the Fee Schedule. Because NYSE BBO and
NYSE Trades are optional products, any data recipient could choose to
subscribe only to NYSE BBO or NYSE Trades to distribute externally and
be eligible for the proposed reduced fee. The Exchange does not believe
that it is inequitable that this proposed fee reduction would be
available only to data recipients that subscribe only to NYSE BBO or
NYSE Trades and only for external distribution. Internal use of data
represents a different set of use cases than a Redistributor that is
engaged only in external distribution of data. For example, non-display
data can be used by data recipients for a wide variety of profit-
generating purposes, including proprietary and agency trading and smart
order routing, as well as by data recipients that operate order
matching and execution platforms that compete directly with the
Exchange for order flow. The data also can be used for a variety of
non-trading purposes that indirectly support trading, such as risk
management and compliance. Although some of these non-trading uses do
not directly generate revenues, they can nonetheless substantially
reduce the recipient's costs by automating such functions so that they
can be carried out in a more efficient and accurate manner and reduce
errors and labor costs, thereby benefiting end users. The Exchange
believes that charging a different access fee for a Redistributor that
is engaged solely in external distribution of only the NYSE BBO and
NYSE Trades products is equitable because it would make NYSE BQT
available to more data recipients that are customers of such
Redistributors and who would not otherwise be able to access NYSE BQT
if their Redistributor did not subscribe to and redistribute NYSE BQT.
    Redistribution Fees. The Exchange believes the proposed change to
provide a waiver of the Redistribution Fee to a Redistributor that
would be eligible for the Per User Access Fee because it only
externally redistributes NYSE Trades to at least one data feed
recipient is equitably allocated. The proposed change would apply
equally to all Redistributors that are eligible for the Per User Access
Fee and choose to externally redistribute the NYSE Trades product, and
would serve as an incentive for Redistributors to make NYSE Trades more
broadly available for use by both Professional and Non-Professional
Users. This, in turn, could provide an incentive for Redistributors
that do not currently subscribe to any NYSE market data products to
subscribe to NYSE BQT and make it available to their customers.
    For all of the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the
proposed fees for the NYSE market data products are equitably
allocated.
The Proposed Fees Are Not Unfairly Discriminatory
    The Exchange believes the proposed fees are not unfairly
discriminatory because any differences in the application of the fees
are based on meaningful distinctions between customers, and those
meaningful distinctions are not unfairly discriminatory between
customers.
    Overall. As noted above, this proposed fee change is a result of
the competitive environment for market data products that provide
indicative pricing information across a family of exchanges. To respond
to this competitive environment, the Exchange seeks to amend its fees
to provide a financial incentive for Redistributors that do not
currently subscribe to any NYSE market data products that decide to
subscribe to NYSE BQT, which the Exchange hopes will attract more
subscribers for its NYSE BQT market data product. The Exchange is
proposing the fee reductions to make the Exchange's fees more
competitive for a specific segment of market participants, thereby
increasing the availability of the Exchange's data products, expanding
the options available to firms making data purchasing decisions based
on their business needs, and generally increasing competition.
    Access Fee. The Exchange believes that making the Per User Access
Fee available to Redistributors that would be subscribing only to the
NYSE BBO and NYSE Trades data feeds and would use these market data
products for external distribution only is not unfairly discriminatory
as it would apply equally to all Redistributors that choose to
subscribe to NYSE BBO or NYSE Trades for external distribution only and
who do not subscribe to any other products listed on the Fee Schedule.
Because NYSE BBO and NYSE Trades are optional products, any data
recipient could choose to subscribe only to NYSE BBO or NYSE Trades to
distribute externally and be eligible for the proposed reduced fee. The
Exchange does not believe that it is unfairly discriminatory that this
proposed fee reduction would be available only to data recipients that
subscribe only to NYSE BBO or NYSE Trades and only for external
distribution. Internal use of data represents a different set of use
cases than a Redistributor that is engaged only in external
distribution of data. For example, non-display data can be used by data
recipients for a wide variety of profit-generating purposes, including
proprietary and agency trading and smart order routing, as well as by
data recipients that operate order matching and execution platforms
that compete directly with the Exchange for order flow. The data also
can be used for a variety of non-trading purposes that indirectly
support trading, such as risk management and compliance. While some of
these non-trading uses do not directly generate revenues, they can
nonetheless substantially reduce the recipient's costs by automating
such functions so that they can be carried out in a more efficient and
accurate manner and reduce errors and labor costs, thereby benefiting
end users. The Exchange therefore believes that there is a meaningful
distinction between internal use and redistribution of market data and
that charging a different access fee to a Redistributor that is engaged
solely in external distribution of only the NYSE BBO and NYSE Trades
products is not unfairly discriminatory because it would make NYSE BQT
available to more data recipients that are customers of such
Redistributors and who would not otherwise be able to access NYSE BQT
if their Redistributor did not subscribe to and redistribute NYSE BQT.
    Moreover, the Exchange does not believe that it is unfairly
discriminatory to offer the Per User Access Fee only to those
Redistributors that would subscribe only to the NYSE BBO and NYSE
Trades data feeds and no other products on the Fee Schedule, and only
for external distribution. The Exchange does not currently have any
Redistributors that fit this description. This proposed rule change is
designed to provide an incentive for Redistributors that do not
currently subscribe to NYSE BQT or any other

products listed on the Fee Schedule, but have customers that are
interested in subscribing to NYSE BQT, to subscribe to the NYSE BBO and
NYSE Trades data feeds so that they can make NYSE BQT available to
their customers. This fee incentive is not necessary for Redistributors
that currently subscribe to the NYSE BBO and NYSE Trades data feeds
because such Redistributors could already subscribe to NYSE BQT, but
have chosen not to, and a reduction in their existing access fees would
likely not result in such Redistributors choosing to subscribe to NYSE
BQT.
    Redistribution Fees. The Exchange believes the proposed change to
provide a waiver of the Redistribution Fee to a Redistributor that
would be eligible for the Per User Access Fee because it only
externally redistributes NYSE Trades to at least one data recipient is
not unfairly discriminatory. The proposed waiver would apply equally to
all Redistributors that are eligible for the Per User Access Fee and
choose to externally redistribute the NYSE Trades product, and would
serve as an incentive for Redistributors that do not currently
subscribe to any NYSE market data products to subscribe to NYSE Trades
and then make NYSE BQT available to their customers.
    For all of the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the
proposed fees are 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. Indeed, as demonstrated
above, the Exchange believes the proposed rule changes are pro-
competitive.
    Intramarket Competition. The Exchange believes that the proposed
fees do not put any market participants at a relative disadvantage
compared to other market participants. As noted above, the proposed fee
schedule would apply to all subscribers of NYSE market data products,
and customers may not only choose whether to subscribe to the products
at all, but also may tailor their subscriptions to include only the
products and uses that they deem suitable for their business needs. The
Exchange also believes that the proposed fees neither favor nor
penalize one or more categories of market participants in a manner that
would impose an undue market on competition. As shown above, to the
extent that particular proposed fees apply to only a subset of
subscribers, those distinctions are not unfairly discriminatory and do
unfairly burden one set of customers over another.
    Intermarket Competition. The Exchange believes that the proposed
fees do not impose a burden on competition on other exchanges that is
not necessary or appropriate; indeed, the Exchange believes the
proposed fee changes would have the effect of increasing competition.
As demonstrated above and in Professor Rysman's paper, exchanges are
platforms for market data and trading. In setting the proposed fees,
the Exchange is constrained by the availability of substitute platforms
also offering market data products and trading, and low barriers to
entry mean new exchange platforms are frequently introduced. The fact
that exchanges are platforms ensures that no exchange can make pricing
decisions for one side of its platform without considering, and being
constrained by, the effects that price will have on the other side of
the platform. In setting fees at issue here, the Exchange is
constrained by the fact that, if its pricing across the platform is
unattractive to customers, customers will have its pick of an
increasing number of alternative platforms to use instead of the
Exchange. Given this intense competition between platforms, no one
exchange's market data fees can impose an unnecessary burden on
competition, and the Exchange's proposed fees do not do so here.
    In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees do not
impose a burden on competition or on other exchanges that is not
necessary or appropriate because of the availability of numerous
substitute market data products. Specifically, as described above, NYSE
BQT competes head-to-head with the Nasdaq Basic product and the Cboe
One Feed. These products each serve as reasonable substitutes for one
another as they are each designed to provide investors with a unified
view of real-time quotes and last-sale prices in all Tape A, B, and C
securities. Each product provides subscribers with consolidated top-of-
book quotes and trades from multiple U.S. equities markets. NYSE BQT
provides top-of-book quotes and trades data from five NYSE-affiliated
U.S. equities exchanges, while Cboe One Feed similarly provides top-of-
book quotes and trades data from Cboe's four U.S. equities exchanges.
NYSE BQT, Nasdaq Basic, and Cboe One Feed are all intended to provide
indicative pricing and therefore, are reasonable substitutes for one
another. Additionally, market data vendors are also able to offer close
substitutes to NYSE BQT. Because market data users can find suitable
substitute feeds, an exchange that overprices its market data products
stands a high risk that users may substitute another source of market
data information for its own. These competitive pressures ensure that
no one exchange's market data fees can impose an unnecessary burden on
competition, and the Exchange's proposed fees do not do so here.

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) \83\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \84\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \84\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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) \85\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2020-91 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-NYSE-2020-91. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (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 website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the 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-NYSE-2020-91, and should be submitted on
or before December 9, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-25389 Filed 11-17-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P