[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 9 (Tuesday, January 14, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2193-2197]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-00363]



[[Page 2193]]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87907; File No. SR-CTA/CQ-2019-01]


Consolidated Tape Association; Notice of Filing of the Thirtieth 
Substantive Amendment to the Second Restatement of the CTA Plan and 
Twenty-Second Substantive Amendment to the Restated CQ Plan

January 8, 2020.

I. Introduction

    Pursuant to Section 11A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 608 of Regulation National Market System 
(``NMS'') thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that on July 5, 
2019,\3\ the Consolidated Tape Association Plan (``CTA Plan'') 
participants (``Participants'') \4\ filed with the Securities and 
Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') a proposal to amend the 
Second Restatement of the CTA Plan and the Restated Consolidated 
Quotation Plan (``CQ Plan'') (each a ``Plan'' and together with the CTA 
Plan, the ``Plans'').\5\ These amendments represent the Thirtieth 
Substantive Amendment to the CTA Plan and the Twenty-Second Substantive 
Amendment to the CQ Plan (``Amendments''). As described in the 
Amendments, the Participants propose to make mandatory a conflicts of 
interest disclosure regime that currently is voluntary. Under the 
current practice, which the Amendments would make mandatory, the 
Participants,\6\ the Processor,\7\ the Administrator,\8\ and the 
members of the Advisory Committee \9\ (collectively, the ``Disclosing 
Parties'') \10\ provide responses to a set of questions designed to 
provide transparency regarding potential conflicts of interest of such 
parties. Each of the Disclosing Parties' responses are then made 
publicly available on the Plans' website.\11\ The Participants state 
that they believe that publicly providing these responses increases 
transparency and confidence in the governance of the Plans.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \2\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \3\ See Letter from Robert Books, Chair, CTA/CQ Operating 
Committee to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Commission, dated July 
3, 2019 (``Transmittal Letter'').
    \4\ The Participants are the national securities association and 
national securities exchanges that submit trades and quotes to the 
Plans and include: Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc., Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc., 
Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc., Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc., Cboe Exchange, 
Inc., NYSE Chicago, Inc., Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, 
Inc., The Investors' Exchange LLC, Long-Term Stock Exchange, Inc., 
Nasdaq BX, Inc., Nasdaq ISE, LLC, Nasdaq PHLX, Inc., The Nasdaq 
Stock Market LLC, New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE American LLC, 
NYSE Arca, Inc., and NYSE National, Inc. (each a ``Participant'' and 
collectively, the ``Participants''). Participants are also members 
of the Plans' Operating Committees.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 10787 (May 10, 
1974), 39 FR 17799 (May 20, 1974) (declaring the CTA Plan 
effective); 15009 (July 28, 1978), 43 FR 34851 (August 7, 1978) 
(temporarily authorizing the CQ Plan); and 16518 (January 22, 1980), 
45 FR 6521 (January 28, 1980) (permanently authorizing the CQ Plan). 
The most recent restatement of both Plans was in 1995. The CTA Plan, 
pursuant to which markets collect and disseminate last sale price 
information for non-NASDAQ listed securities, is a ``transaction 
reporting plan'' under Rule 601 under the Act, 17 CFR 242.601, and a 
``national market system plan'' under Rule 608 under the Act, 17 CFR 
242.608. The CQ Plan, pursuant to which markets collect and 
disseminate bid/ask quotation information for listed securities, is 
a ``national market system plan'' under Rule 608 under the Act, 17 
CFR 242.608.
    \6\ See supra note 4.
    \7\ The ``Processor'' is charged with collecting, processing and 
preparing for distribution or publication all Plan information. The 
Processor of the Plans is the Securities Industry Automation 
Corporation.
    \8\ The ``Administrator'' is charged with administering the 
Plans to include data feed approval, customer communications, 
contract management, and related functions. The Administrator of the 
Plans is the New York Stock Exchange LLC.
    \9\ ``Advisory Committee members'' are individuals who represent 
particular types of financial services firms or actors in the 
securities market, and who were selected by Plan participants to be 
on the Advisory Committee.
    \10\ A list of the Processor, Administrator, and Advisory 
Committee members is available at https://www.ctaplan.com/governance.
    \11\ See https://www.ctaplan.com/governance.
    \12\ See Transmittal Letter at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed Amendments have been filed by the Participants 
pursuant to Rule 608(b)(2) under Regulation NMS.\13\ The Commission is 
publishing this notice to solicit comments from interested persons on 
the proposed Amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 242.608(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that, contemporaneously with the issuance of 
this notice, it has issued a notice of proposed order (``Governance 
Notice'') \14\ soliciting public comment on a proposed order that would 
direct the national securities exchanges and the Financial Industry 
Regulatory Authority, Inc. (collectively, ``SROs'') to act jointly in 
developing and filing with the Commission a proposed new single 
national market system plan, which will replace the existing national 
market system plans that govern the public dissemination of real-time, 
consolidated equity market data for national market system stocks 
(``Equity Data Plans''). The Commission stated in the Governance Notice 
its view that, among other concerns,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87906 (January 8, 
2020).

conflicts of interest are inherent to the Equity Data Plans' current 
governance structure because some exchange Participants have a dual 
role as both an SRO jointly responsible for the operation of the 
Equity Data Plans and part of a publicly held company that offers 
proprietary data products. Moreover, an SRO representative on the 
operating committee may have direct responsibility for some or all 
of an exchange's proprietary data business.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id. at A-66 to A-67 (footnotes omitted).

    The Governance Notice solicits public comment on a proposed order 
that would direct the SROs to include provisions in the New Data Plan 
(as defined in the Governance Notice) addressing several issues arising 
from the current governance structure of the Plans, and the proposed 
order discusses the Commission's view that the new data plan should 
include a comprehensive conflicts of interest policy.
    In addition, contemporaneously with the publication of notice of 
the Amendments set forth below, the Commission also is publishing a 
separate proposed amendment from the Plans concerning a confidentiality 
policy.

II. Text of the Amendment

    Set forth below is the entirety of the Amendment submission that 
the Participants prepared and filed with the Commission, which includes 
a statement of the purpose and summary of the Amendments, along with 
the information required by Rules 608(a) and 601(a) under the Act.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See 17 CFR 242.608(a)(4) and (a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Statement of the Purpose of the Amendment

1. Background
    With Exchanges permitted to offer both proprietary market data 
products and also acting as Participants in running the public market 
data stream, potential conflicts of interest are inherent in the 
structure developed under Regulation NMS. There may be instances in 
which representatives from the Participants and Advisory Committee 
members have responsibilities with respect to both proprietary data and 
Securities Information Processor (``SIP'') data. Drawing on the 
expertise of persons with such overlapping responsibilities may give 
rise to potential conflicts of interest, and to address such potential 
conflicts of interest, the Participants adopted a voluntary conflicts 
disclosure regime.
    After discussion among the Participants and the Advisory Committee 
at several meetings of the

[[Page 2194]]

Plans' Operating Committee, the Participants believe that a disclosure 
regime is a pragmatic step to address potential conflicts of interest.
    As noted below, the Disclosing Parties have voluntarily provided 
responses to the disclosure regime questions. The responses are 
available on the Plans' website. The purpose of the Amendments is to 
make the disclosures a requirement on a prospective basis instead of 
relying on voluntary disclosures.
Required Disclosures
    As part of the disclosure regime, the Participants propose that the 
Participants, the Processors, the Administrators, and members of the 
Advisory Committee respond to questions that are tailored to elicit 
responses that disclose the potential conflicts of interest.
    The Participants propose that the Participants respond to the 
following questions and instructions:
     Is the Participant's firm for profit or not-for-profit? If 
the Participant's firm is for profit, is it publicly or privately 
owned? If privately owned, list any owner with an interest of 5% or 
more of the Participant, where to the Participant's knowledge, such 
owner, or any affiliate controlling, controlled by, or under common 
control with the owner, subscribes, directly or through a third-party 
vendor, to SIP and/or exchange Proprietary Market Data products.
     Does the Participant firm offer real-time proprietary 
equity market data that is filed with the SEC (``Proprietary Market 
Data'')? If yes, does the firm charge a fee for such offerings?
     Provide the names of the representative and any 
alternative representatives designated by the Participant who are 
authorized under the Plans to vote on behalf of the Participant. Also 
provide a narrative description of the representatives' roles within 
the Participant organization, including the title of each individual as 
well as any direct responsibilities related to the development, 
dissemination, sales, or marketing of the Participant's Proprietary 
Market Data, and the nature of those responsibilities.
    The Participants propose that the Processors respond to the 
following questions and instructions:
     Is the Processor an affiliate of or affiliated with any 
Participant? If yes, disclose the Participant(s)?
     Provide a narrative description of the functions directly 
performed by the manager employed by the Processor to provide Processor 
services to the Plans and the staff that reports to that manager 
(collectively, the ``Plan Processor'').
     Does the Plan Processor provide any services for any 
Participant's Proprietary Market Data products or other Plans? If yes, 
disclose the services the Processor performs and identify which Plans. 
Does the Plan Processor have any profit or loss responsibility for a 
Participant's Proprietary Market Data products?
     List the policies and procedures established to safeguard 
confidential Plan information that is applicable to the Plan Processor.
    The Participants propose that the Administrators respond to the 
following questions and instructions:
     Is the Administrator an affiliate of or affiliated with 
any Participant? If yes, which Participant?
     Provide a narrative description of the functions directly 
performed by administrative services manager and the staff that reports 
to that manager (collectively, the ``Plan Administrator'').
     Does the Plan Administrator provide any services for any 
Participant's Proprietary Market Data products? If yes, what services? 
Does the Plan Administrator have any profit or loss responsibility for 
a Participant's Proprietary Market Data products?
     List the policies and procedures established to safeguard 
confidential Plan information that is applicable to the Plan 
Administrator.
    The Participants propose that the Members of the Advisory Committee 
respond to the following questions and instructions:
     Provide the Advisor's title and a brief description of the 
Advisor's role within the firm.
     Does the Advisor have responsibilities related to the 
firm's use or procurement of market data?
     Does the Advisor have responsibilities related to the 
firm's trading or brokerage services?
     Does the Advisor's firm use the SIP? Does the Advisor's 
firm use exchange Proprietary Market Data products?
     Does the Advisor's firm have an ownership interest of 5% 
or more in one or more Participants? If yes, list the Participant(s).
     Does the Advisor actively participate in any litigation 
against the Plans?
    The Participants will post the responses to these questions on the 
Plans' website. If a Disclosing Party has any material changes in its 
responses, the Disclosing Party must promptly update its disclosures. 
Additionally, the Disclosing Parties will update the disclosures on an 
annual basis to reflect any changes. This annual update must be made 
before the first quarterly session meeting of each calendar year, which 
is generally held in mid-February.

B. Governing or Constituent Documents

    Not applicable.

C. Implementation of Amendment

    Each of the Participants has approved the amendments in accordance 
with Section IV(b) of the CTA Plan and Section IV(c) of the CQ Plan, as 
applicable. The Participants also received and incorporated feedback 
from the Advisory Committee in preparing the disclosure requirements.

D. Development and Implementation Phases

    The Disclosing Parties have voluntarily completed, and the 
Participants have posted, responses to the questions outlined above on 
the Plans' website. The purpose of the amendment, going forward, is to 
make the disclosures a requirement rather than relying on voluntary 
disclosures.

E. Analysis of Impact on Competition

    The Participants believe that the proposed amendments do not impose 
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in 
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Participants, together with 
the other Disclosing Parties, have determined to implement the 
disclosure regime described herein. The Participants believe that 
adopting this disclosure regime is an important step in addressing 
potential conflicts of interest.
    The disclosure regime should increase transparency in the 
governance of the public market data stream, and consequently, increase 
confidence in the proper functioning of the Operating Committee.

F. Written Understanding or Agreements Relating to Interpretation of, 
or Participation in, Plan

    Not applicable.

G. Approval by Sponsors in Accordance With Plan

    Section IV(c)(i) of the CQ Plan and Section IV(b)(i) of the CTA 
Plan require the Participants to unanimously approve the amendments 
proposed herein. They so approved it.

H. Description of Operation of Facility Contemplated by the Proposed 
Amendment

    Not applicable.

I. Terms and Conditions of Access

    Not applicable.

[[Page 2195]]

J. Method of Determination and Imposition, and Amount of, Fees and 
Charges

    Not applicable.

K. Method and Frequency of Processor Evaluation

    Not applicable.

L. Dispute Resolution

    Not applicable.

III. Regulation NMS Rule 601(a) (Solely in its Application to the 
Amendments to the CTA Plan)

A. Equity Securities for Which Transaction Reports Shall Be Required by 
the Plan

    Not applicable.

B. Reporting Requirements

    Not applicable.

C. Manner of Collecting, Processing, Sequencing, Making Available and 
Disseminating Last Sale Information

    Not applicable.

D. Manner of Consolidation

    Not applicable.

E. Standards and Methods Ensuring Promptness, Accuracy and Completeness 
of Transaction Reports

    Not applicable.

F. Rules and Procedures Addressed to Fraudulent or Manipulative 
Dissemination

    Not applicable.

G. Terms of Access to Transaction Reports

    Not applicable.

H. Identification of Marketplace of Execution

    Not applicable.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    The Commission seeks comments on the Amendments. Interested persons 
are invited to submit written data, views, and comments concerning the 
foregoing, including whether the Amendments are consistent with the Act 
and the rules thereunder. Among other things, the Commission asks 
commenters to consider whether the Amendments to the current Plans 
address the concerns outlined in the Governance Notice or whether they 
should be further enhanced regarding conflicts of interest in national 
market system plan governance. Accordingly, the Commission requests 
comments on matters including, but not limited to, the following:

Proposed Disclosure

    1. The text of the Amendments, set forth above, state that: ``With 
Exchanges permitted to offer both proprietary market data products and 
also acting as Participants in running the public market data stream, 
potential conflicts of interest are inherent in the structure developed 
under Regulation NMS.'' The Amendments further note that ``[t]here may 
be instances in which representatives from the Participants and 
Advisory Committee members have responsibilities with respect to both 
proprietary data and [SIP] data'' and that ``such overlapping 
responsibilities may give rise to potential conflicts of interest.'' Do 
commenters believe the proposed Amendments adequately address those 
potential conflicts? Please provide sufficient detail to support your 
views, including, to the extent available, actual or possible examples.
    2. If commenters do not believe that the proposed Amendments 
adequately address the potential conflicts of interest arising from the 
Plans' current governance structure, is that because commenters believe 
the Amendments are inadequate in any particular way? Or is it because 
commenters believe that the potential conflicts of interest have not 
been characterized accurately? If so, in what ways do commenters 
believe the Amendments fail to describe the current environment and 
potential conflicts of interest?
    3. In their filing, the Participants state that the proposed 
questions in the disclosure document are tailored to elicit information 
relevant to assess the extent of an individual's potential conflict of 
interests with the Plans. Do commenters believe that the questions for 
Participants, Processors, Administrators, and members of the Advisory 
Committee are sufficient to elicit information to provide insight into 
all potential conflicts? Will public availability of the responses 
increase transparency and confidence in the governance of the Plans? Do 
commenters believe the proposed disclosures are sufficient or should 
enhanced disclosures be required? If so, what additional items of 
disclosure should be required and why? Do commenters believe that 
additional disclosures should be required for the representatives and 
alternative representatives of a Participant, Processor, Administrator, 
or member of the Advisory Committee?
    4. In their filing, the Participants state that a disclosure-based 
regime is a pragmatic step to address potential conflicts of interests. 
Do commenters agree or disagree with that statement? Do commenters 
believe that a disclosure-based regime is sufficient to address the 
potential conflicts that Participants, Processors, Administrators, and 
members of the Advisory Committee may face in their roles within the 
Plans?
    5. Do commenters think any other types of persons should be 
required to provide disclosures, such as services providers to the 
Administrator that provide audit, accounting, or other professional 
services? As an example, if auditing services are outsourced to a 
Participant's employer or an affiliate that also is offering 
proprietary data products to SIP customers and/or conducting audits for 
those products, should that entity also be required to disclose its 
conflicts and otherwise be subject to the terms of the conflicts of 
interest policy, even if it is neither the Administrator nor Processor?
    6. Do commenters believe that an alternative approach could better 
identify and address conflicts of interests among Participants, 
Processors, Administrators, and the Advisory Committee, as well as 
auditors? For example, should a disclosure regime be supplemented with 
certain prohibited conduct or procedural requirements, such as a 
prohibition on a Participant voting when that Participant has direct 
business responsibilities related to producing, selling, or managing 
competing data products? If you believe an alternative approach is 
appropriate, please provide details on any such alternative approach. 
Do commenters regard the Plans' ability to identify and protect the 
confidentiality of competitive information as an important component to 
the Plans' ability to manage conflicts of interest? If so, how do 
commenters regard the interaction between these proposed Amendments and 
the separate proposed Plan amendments to govern treatment of 
confidential information noted above?
    7. Do commenters believe that the proposed disclosure questions for 
each party are sufficient to identify the specific relationships that 
may give rise to a conflict under the Plans and related information? 
Separately, do commenters believe that the proposed questions 
effectively require all material facts necessary to not only identify 
the nature of the conflict, but also the effect it may have on the 
Plans? Should the Amendments require more disclosure of such potential 
effects or greater details with respect to the disclosures that are 
made?
    8. Do commenters believe that the Plans should require additional 
public disclosures of any personal, business, or financial interests, 
and any employment

[[Page 2196]]

or other commercial relationships that could materially affect the 
ability of a party to be impartial regarding actions of the Plans?
    9. The Participants propose to continue to post the conflicts of 
interest disclosures for each party on the Plans' website. Do 
commenters believe that doing so provides sufficient public notice of 
potential conflicts? If not, in what other manner should the 
disclosures be made public? For example, should Participants be 
required to acknowledge potential conflicts when discussing specific 
matters at Operating Committee meetings or subcommittee meetings that 
present a conflict? Should a complete set of the disclosures be 
included in the materials for each Plan meeting? Is the timing clear 
with respect to the requirement that a Disclosing Party ``promptly'' 
update its disclosures, or should the Amendments be more specific? What 
do commenters consider sufficiently prompt? Within one week? Within 30 
days? Some other timeframe?
    10. As proposed, the Amendments state that disclosures will be made 
and updated annually or upon any material change. Do commenters believe 
that these intervals are sufficient, or should updates be required more 
frequently such as in advance of scheduled Plan meetings? What 
constitutes a ``material'' change that should require the filing of an 
amended disclosure? Please explain.

Proposed Disclosure for Participants

    1. Do commenters believe that any individual representing a 
Participant that is directly involved in the management, development, 
pricing, or sale of proprietary data products offered to SIP customers 
should participate in discussions and related Plan votes regarding the 
pricing of SIP data products? If so, how do commenters believe 
Participants should address the conflicts their representatives may 
face in their dual role of pricing and developing SIP data products as 
well as their own proprietary data products?
    2. Do commenters believe that a Participant should be recused from 
voting when it or an affiliate is competing for a contract to serve as 
a Processor for the Plans? Why or why not? Are there any other 
scenarios that present conflicts that should result in a Participant 
being recused from voting?
    3. Do commenters believe recusal on certain Plan action when a 
potential conflict is present is an appropriate mechanism to address 
conflicts? If so, under what circumstances? If applicable, do 
commenters believe that recusal should be mandatory or should it be 
voluntary? Why or why not?
    4. Do commenters believe that Operating Committee members should be 
permitted to raise the issue of a potential conflict of interest of 
another Participant for discussion before the Operating Committee, even 
if the Participant did not itself disclose the potential conflict? Do 
commenters believe that the Operating Committee should have the ability 
to take action in response to disclosed or undisclosed conflicts, such 
as requiring the Participant to recuse itself from a certain discussion 
or vote on a particular matter? If so, how should the Operating 
Committee take such action? Should the Participants vote on recusal or 
should the Participants seek input from the Advisory Committee? Why or 
why not?

Proposed Disclosures for Processors

    1. Do commenters believe that the proposed disclosure questions for 
Processors are sufficient to identify the specific circumstances in 
which a Participant is both voting on an Operating Committee and 
competing to act as Processor for one of the Plans? Do commenters 
believe that the disclosure questions are tailored to the role that 
Processors perform and the fact that they are present at Plan meetings 
but do not vote on Plan matters, or should different or additional 
disclosure be required for Processors? Separately, do commenters 
believe that the proposed Processor questions effectively require all 
material facts necessary to not only identify the nature of the 
potential conflict, but also the effect it may have on the Plans? 
Should the Amendments require more disclosure of such potential 
effects? Should the Amendments elaborate on what ``profit or loss 
responsibility for a Participant's Proprietary Market Data products'' 
means in the context of the required disclosures? Alternatively, do 
commenters believe that the Plans' separately-proposed confidentiality 
proposal would address some of the potential effects of conflicts of 
interests if approved?
    2. Do commenters have concerns about affiliations between a Plan's 
Processor and a Participant? If so, do commenters believe the conflicts 
of interest disclosure is sufficient to address those concerns? Should 
the Amendments require a description of the nature of the affiliation?
    3. Do commenters believe that a Participant or its affiliate that 
is competing for a contract to serve as a Processor for the Plans 
should participate in discussions and related Plan votes regarding the 
selection of the Processor for the Plans? If so, how do commenters 
believe Participants should address the conflicts they face in their 
dual role of competing to serve as a Processor while serving as a 
Participant that participates in the discussion of, and ultimately 
votes on, selection of the Processor?

Proposed Disclosures for Administrators

    1. Do commenters believe that the proposed disclosure questions for 
Administrators are sufficient to identify the specific interests and 
employment, commercial or other relationships that may give rise to a 
conflict under the Plans? Separately, do commenters believe that the 
proposed Administrator questions effectively require all material facts 
necessary to not only identify the nature of the conflict, but also the 
effect it may have on the Plans? Should the Amendments require more 
disclosure of such potential effects or greater details with respect to 
the disclosures that are made?
    2. To the extent that the Administrator enlists assistance from an 
auditor or any other professional services subcontractor for any of the 
Plan(s), and the subcontractor is affiliated with an entity that is 
involved in the development, pricing, or sale of proprietary data 
products offered to SIP customers, or is subject to any other conflict, 
should all of the disclosures and conflicts policies referenced above 
also be applicable to them? Or do commenters believe that concerns 
arising from potential conflicts of interest would be more 
appropriately addressed for a subcontractor if the subcontractor could 
attest that it is sufficiently walled-off from the proprietary data 
business of its affiliate?

Proposed Disclosures for Members of the Advisory Committee

    1. Do commenters believe that the proposed disclosure questions for 
Advisory Committee members are sufficient to identify the specific 
interests and employment, commercial, or other relationships that may 
give rise to a conflict under the Plans? Separately, do commenters 
believe that the proposed Advisory Committee members' questions 
effectively require all material facts necessary to not only identify 
the nature of the conflict, but also the effect it may have on the 
Plans? Should the Amendments require more disclosure of such potential 
effects or greater details with respect to the disclosures that are 
made? Should the Amendments require Members of the Advisory Committee 
to identify affiliations with any Disclosing Party, and clarify that 
both direct and indirect ownership interests in a Participant are 
subject to disclosure? Is it clear what

[[Page 2197]]

``actively participate in any litigation against the Plans'' means, or 
should the Amendments require additional detail?
    2. Do commenters believe that the Plans should require additional 
public disclosures of any personal, business, commercial, or financial 
interests, and any employment relationships that could materially 
affect the ability of the Advisory Committee Member to participate 
impartially in discussing actions of the Plans? Please explain.
    3. Do commenters believe that Advisory Committee members that 
purchase SIP data products should participate in discussions regarding 
the pricing of SIP data products? If so, how do commenters believe 
Advisory Committee members should address that potential conflict?

Participant Statement Regarding Competition

    1. The Participants state in their filing that the Amendments do 
not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or 
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Do commenters 
believe that the Amendments to the Plans impose any burden on 
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the 
purposes of the Act?
    2. What effect might the Amendments have on competition, if any? 
Please explain. How would any effect on competition from the proposal 
benefit or harm the national market system and/or various market 
participants? Please describe and explain how, if at all, aspects of 
the national market system or different market participants would be 
affected. Please support any response with data, if possible.
    Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to rule-comments@sec.gov. Please include 
File Number SR-CTA/CQ-2019-01 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-CTA/CQ-2019-01. This 
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To 
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, 
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on 
the Commission's website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies 
of the submission, all written statements with respect to the proposed 
Amendments that are filed with the Commission, and all written 
communications relating to the proposed Amendments 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 website viewing and printing at 
the principal office of the Plans. 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-CTA/
CQ-2019-01 and should be submitted on or before February 4, 2020.

    By the Commission.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-00363 Filed 1-13-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


