81 FR 14509 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Rebates and Fees for Adding and Removing Liquidity in SPY
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 52 (March 17, 2016)
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 52 (March 17, 2016)
| Page Range | 14509-14513 | |
| FR Document | 2016-05975 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 52 (Thursday, March 17, 2016)] [Notices] [Pages 14509-14513] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-05975] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-77351; File No. SR-Phlx-2016-33] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Rebates and Fees for Adding and Removing Liquidity in SPY March 11, 2016. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that on February 29, 2016, NASDAQ PHLX LLC (``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \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 amend the Exchange's Pricing Schedule at Section I, entitled ``Rebates and Fees for Adding and Removing Liquidity in SPY.'' While changes to the Pricing Schedule pursuant to this proposal are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated these changes to be operative on March 1, 2016. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed [[Page 14510]] any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Exchange's Pricing Schedule at Section I, entitled ``Rebates and Fees for Adding and Removing Liquidity in SPY,'' to (i) amend the Specialist \3\ and Market Maker \4\ Rebate for Adding Liquidity in Simple Orders; and (ii) reduce all Fees for Removing Liquidity in Simple Orders. The amendments will be described in greater detail below. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ The term ``Specialist'' applies to transactions for the account of a Specialist (as defined in Exchange Rule 1020(a)). \4\ The term ``Market Maker'' describes fees and rebates applicable to Registered Options Traders (``ROT''), Streaming Quote Traders (``SQT'') and Remote Streaming Quote Traders (``RSQT''). A ROT is defined in Exchange Rule 1014(b) as a regular member of the Exchange located on the trading floor who has received permission from the Exchange to trade in options for his own account. A ROT includes SQTs and RSQTs as well as on and off-floor ROTS. An SQT is defined in Exchange Rule 1014(b)(ii)(A) as an ROT who has received permission from the Exchange to generate and submit option quotations electronically in options to which such SQT is assigned. An RSQT is defined in Exchange Rule in 1014(b)(ii)(B) as an ROT that is a member affiliated with an RSQTO with no physical trading floor presence who has received permission from the Exchange to generate and submit option quotations electronically in options to which such RSQT has been assigned. A Remote Streaming Quote Trader Organization or ``RSQTO,'' which may also be referred to as a Remote Market Making Organization (``RMO''), is a member organization in good standing that satisfies the RSQTO readiness requirements in Rule 507(a). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fees and rebates applicable to options overlying Standard and Poor's Depositary Receipts/SPDRs (``SPY'') \5\ are located in Section I of the Exchange's Pricing Schedule. The Exchange specifies which fees and rebates apply to Simple Orders and Complex Orders.\6\ This proposal specifically applies to Simple Order pricing in SPY in Part A. The Exchange is not amending the Complex Order pricing in SPY in Part B. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ Options overlying Standard and Poor's Depositary Receipts/ SPDRs (``SPY'') are based on the SPDR exchange-traded fund (``ETF''), which is designed to track the performance of the S&P 500 Index. \6\ A Complex Order is an order involving the simultaneous purchase and/or sale of two or more different options series in the same underlying security, priced as a net debit or credit based on the relative prices of the individual components, for the same account, for the purpose of executing a particular investment strategy. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Simple Order--Rebate for Adding Liquidity Today, the Exchange pays a SPY Simple Order Rebate for Adding Liquidity of $0.20 per contract to Specialists and Market Makers. All other market participants do not receive a SPY Simple Order Rebate for Adding Liquidity. The Exchange proposes to replace the $0.20 per contract SPY Simple Order Rebate for Adding Liquidity with tiered rebates. The Exchange proposes to pay a $0.15 per contract Specialist and Market Maker SPY Simple Order Rebate for Adding Liquidity to participants that add 1 to 2,499 electronically executed Simple Order contracts per day in a month in SPY. The Exchange proposes to pay a $0.20 per contract Specialist and Market Maker SPY Simple Order Rebate for Adding Liquidity to participants that add 2,500 to 4,999 electronically executed Simple Order contracts per day in a month in SPY. The Exchange proposes to pay a $0.25 per contract Specialist and Market Maker SPY Simple Order Rebate for Adding Liquidity to participants that add 5,000 to 19,999 electronically executed Simple Order contracts per day in a month in SPY. Finally, the Exchange proposes to pay a $0.30 per contract Specialist and Market Maker SPY Simple Order Rebate for Adding Liquidity to participants that add greater than 20,000 electronically executed Simple Order contracts per day in a month in SPY. The Exchange believes that the proposed four tier rebate structure would incentive market participants to add more Specialist and Market Maker liquidity in SPY on the Exchange. Today, if a SPY transaction originates from the Exchange floor, that transaction is subject to the Multiply Listed Options Fees.\7\ However, if one side of the transaction originates on the Exchange floor and any other side of the trade was the result of an electronically submitted order or a quote, then the Section I fees apply to the transactions which originated on the Exchange floor and contracts that are executed electronically on all sides of the transaction.\8\ The Exchange will continue to treat the one side of the transaction which originates on the Exchange floor in the same manner and will count the one side of the transaction which originates on the Exchange floor toward the number of contracts to qualify for the Simple Order Rebate for Adding Liquidity for Specialists and Market Makers in SPY. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \7\ See Multiply Listed Options Fees in Section II of the Exchange's Pricing Schedule. \8\ See Part C of Section I of the Exchange's Pricing Schedule. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Simple Order--Fee for Removing Liquidity Today, the Exchange assesses a $0.44 per contract Customer \9\ Simple Order Fee for Removing Liquidity in SPY and a $0.49 per contract Simple Order Fee for Removing Liquidity in SPY to Specialists, Market Makers, Firms,\10\ Broker-Dealers \11\ and Professionals.\12\ The Exchange proposes to decrease the Simple Order Fees for Removing Liquidity and assess a $0.43 per contract Customer Simple Order Fee for Removing Liquidity in SPY and a $0.47 per contract Simple Order Fee for Removing Liquidity in SPY to Specialists, Market Makers, Firms, Broker- Dealers and Professionals. The Exchange believes that the reduction of the Simple Order Fees for Removing Liquidity in SPY will encourage participants to send additional order flow to the Exchange. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \9\ The term ``Customer'' applies to any transaction that is identified by a member or member organization for clearing in the Customer range at The Options Clearing Corporation which is not for the account of a broker or dealer or for the account of a ``Professional'' (as that term is defined in Rule 1000(b)(14)). \10\ The term ``Firm'' applies to any transaction that is identified by a member or member organization for clearing in the Firm range at The Options Clearing Corporation. \11\ The term ``Broker-Dealer'' applies to any transaction which is not subject to any of the other transaction fees applicable within a particular category. \12\ The term ``Professional'' applies to transactions for the accounts of Professionals, as defined in Exchange Rule 1000(b)(14). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cross-Reference and Marketing Fee The Exchange proposes to correct a typographical error related to a cross reference in the beginning of this section by removing the reference to Section ``C'' and properly adding the Section ``I'' reference. The Exchange proposes to replace the words ``Payment for Order Flow Fee'' with the words ``Marketing Fee'' to conform this term throughout the Pricing Schedule. The Exchange recently amended this term throughout the Pricing Schedule in a prior rule change and inadvertently did not mark this term to be amended as well.\13\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \13\ See SR-Phlx-2016-30 (not yet published). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \14\ in general, and furthers the [[Page 14511]] objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act \15\ in particular, in that it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any facility or system which the Exchange operates or controls, and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market model, 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.'' \16\ Likewise, in NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission \17\ (``NetCoalition'') the DC Circuit upheld the Commission's use of a market-based approach in evaluating the fairness of market data fees against a challenge claiming that Congress mandated a cost-based approach.\18\ As the court emphasized, the Commission ``intended in Regulation NMS that `market forces, rather than regulatory requirements' play a role in determining the market data . . . to be made available to investors and at what cost.'' \19\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \16\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 at 37499 (June 9, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting Release''). \17\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 2010). \18\ See NetCoalition, at 534. \19\ Id. at 537. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Further, ``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker dealers'. . . . '' \20\ Although the court and the SEC were discussing the cash equities markets, the Exchange believes that these views apply with equal force to the options markets. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \20\ Id. at 539 (quoting ArcaBook Order, 73 FR at 74782-74783). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Exchange continues to offer pricing specific to SPY because these options are currently the most actively traded options class. Pricing by symbol is a common practice on many U.S. options exchanges as a means to incentive order flow to be sent to an exchange for execution.\21\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \21\ See International Securities Exchange LLC's (``ISE'') Schedule of Fees. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Simple Order--Rebate for Adding Liquidity The Exchange's proposal to replace the $0.20 per contract SPY Simple Order Rebate for Adding Liquidity with tiered rebates is reasonable because the Exchange desires to incentivize market participants to transact a greater number of SPY options. All participants [sic] will continue to receive a SPY Simple Order Rebate for Adding Liquidity for Specialists and Market Makers provided they execute one electronic Simple Order SPY contract. In some cases, the rebate will be lower, if 2,499 or less electronic Simple Order SPY contracts are added, the SPY Simple Order Rebate for Adding Liquidity for Specialists and Market Makers will be $0.15 as compared to $0.20 per contract (today's rebate). Despite this decrease, the Exchange believes that participants will continue to be incentivized to add SPY order flow to the Exchange to receive the rebate. With this proposal, the Exchange is also offering the opportunity to earn higher rebates provided the participant adds at least 5,000 electronic Simple Order SPY contracts.\22\ In some cases the rebate will remain the same.\23\ The Exchange believes that the rebate will continue to encourage participants to direct SPY order flow to the Exchange. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \22\ The Exchange will pay a $0.25 per contract rebate if participant adds 5,000 to 19,999 contracts per day in a month and a $0.30 per contract rebate if participant adds greater than 20,000 contracts per day in a month in SPY. \23\ The Exchange will continue to pay a $0.20 per contract rebate if participant adds 2,500 to 4,999 contracts per day in a month in SPY. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Exchange's proposal to replace the $0.20 per contract SPY Simple Order Rebate for Adding Liquidity for Specialists and Market Makers with tiered rebates is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because Specialists and Market Makers have obligations to the market and regulatory requirements, which normally do not apply to other market participants.\24\ They have obligations to make continuous markets, engage in a course of dealings reasonably calculated to contribute to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market, and not make bids or offers or enter into transactions that are inconsistent with a course of dealings. The differentiation as between Specialists and Market Makers and all other market participants recognizes the differing contributions made to the liquidity and trading environment on the Exchange by these market participants. An increase in the activity of these market participants in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \24\ See Rule 1014 titled ``Obligations and Restrictions Applicable to Specialists and Registered Options Traders.'' --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Exchange believes that continuing to pay the Simple Order Rebate for Adding Liquidity [sic] to all [sic] transactions executed within the Exchange's order book, including transactions where one side of the transaction originates on the Exchange floor and any other side of the trade was the result of an electronically submitted order or a quote, is reasonable because the Exchange's treatment of these orders is consistent with its treatment of all other orders executed in the order book as compared to a floor order executed on the Exchange's trading floor. Further, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to count the one side of the transaction which originates on the Exchange floor toward the number of contracts to qualify for the Simple Order Rebate for Adding Liquidity for Specialists and Market Makers in SPY because this treatment of the floor order which executes in the order book is consistent with the treatment of all other electronically executed orders which qualify for the Section I pricing. The Exchange believes that continuing to pay the Simple Order Rebate for Adding Liquidity to all transactions executed within the Exchange's order book, including transactions where one side of the transaction originates on the Exchange floor and any other side of the trade was the result of an electronically submitted order or a quote, is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange is treating these orders similar to all other orders executed in the order book as compared to a floor order executed on the Exchange's trading floor. Further, the Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to count the one side of the transaction which originates on the Exchange floor toward the number of contracts to qualify for the Simple Order Rebate for Adding Liquidity for Specialists and Market Makers because today all electronically executed orders qualify for the Section I pricing. The transaction where one side of the transaction originates on the Exchange [[Page 14512]] floor and any other side of the trade was the result of an electronically submitted order or a quote will be treated in the same manner as all other orders executed in the order book. Simple Order--Fee for Removing Liquidity The Exchange's proposal to decrease the Customer Simple Order Fee in SPY for Removing Liquidity from $0.44 to $0.43 per contract and all other Simple Order Fees for Removing Liquidity in SPY for Specialists, Market Makers, Firms, Broker-Dealers and Professionals from $0.49 to $0.47 per contract is reasonable because the reduction of these fees will encourage participants to send additional order flow to the Exchange. The Exchange's proposal to decrease the Customer Simple Order Fee for Removing Liquidity in SPY from $0.44 to $0.43 per contract and all other Simple Order Fees for Removing Liquidity in SPY for Specialists, Market Makers, Firms, Broker-Dealers and Professionals from $0.49 to $0.47 per contract is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all participants will be assessed the same lower Simple Order Fee for Removing Liquidity in SPY of $0.47 per contract, except for Customers. The Exchange believes that assessing Customers a lower fee is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because Customer orders bring valuable liquidity to the market, which liquidity benefits other market participants. Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which attracts Specialists and Market Makers. An increase in the activity of these market participants in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants. Cross-Reference and Marketing Fee The Exchange's proposal to correct a typographical error related to a cross reference is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will clarify the Pricing Schedule. This amendment is non-substantive. The Exchange's proposal to replace the words ``Payment for Order Flow Fee'' with the words ``Marketing Fee'' is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the proposal will conform the rule text to other parts of the Rulebook. The usage of the term Marketing Fee would be consistent throughout the Rulebook. 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 not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In terms of inter-market competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited. In terms of intra-market competition, the Exchange believes that its proposed rebates and fees continue to remain competitive in SPY, which is the most actively traded options class.\25\ In sum, if the changes proposed herein are unattractive to market participants, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market share as a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of members or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \25\ The Exchange continues to incentive market participants to transact SPY by offering rebates in this Penny Pilot Option similar to ISE which pays rebates on Penny Pilot Options. See ISE's Fee Schedule. ISE Gemini, LLC (``ISE Gemini'') assesses a SPY tiered taker fee ranging from $0.44 to $0.45 for a priority customer and a tiered taker fee ranging from $0.48 to $0.49 per contract for all other market participants. See ISE Gemini's Fee Schedule. Also, the Exchange's Simple Order Fee for Removing Liquidity in SPY is lower as compared to pricing at C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated (``C2''). C2's penny pilot options pricing is $0.47 per contract for Priority [sic] Customers and $0.48 per contract for all other participants when removing liquidity. See C2's Fees Schedule. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Simple Order--Rebate for Adding Liquidity The Exchange's proposal to replace the $0.20 per contract SPY Simple Order Rebate for Adding Liquidity with tiered rebates does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition because Specialists and Market Makers have obligations to the market and regulatory requirements, which normally do not apply to other market participants.\26\ The differentiation as between Specialists and Market Makers and other market participants recognizes the differing contributions made to the liquidity and trading environment on the Exchange by these market participants. An increase in the activity of these market participants in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \26\ See note 24. Specialists and Market Makers have obligations to make continuous markets, engage in a course of dealings reasonably calculated to contribute to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market, and not make bids or offers or enter into transactions that are inconsistent with a course of dealings. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Exchange believes that continuing to pay the SPY Simple Order Rebate for Adding Liquidity to all transactions executed within the Exchange's order book, including transactions where one side of the transaction originates on the Exchange floor and any other side of the trade was the result of an electronically submitted order or a quote, does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition because the Exchange is treating these orders similar to all other orders executed in the order book as compared to a floor order executed on the Exchange's trading floor. Further, the Exchange believes counting the one side of the transaction which originates on the Exchange floor toward the number of contracts to qualify for the SPY Simple Order Rebate for Adding Liquidity for Specialists and Market Makers does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition because today all electronically executed orders qualify for the Section I pricing. The transaction where one side of the transaction originates on the Exchange floor and any other side of the trade was the result of an electronically submitted order or a quote will be treated in the same manner as all other orders executed in the order book. Simple Order--Fee for Removing Liquidity The Exchange's proposal to decrease the Customer Simple Order for Removing Liquidity in SPY from $0.44 to $0.43 per contract and all other Simple Order Fees for Removing Liquidity in SPY for Specialists, Market Makers, Firms, Broker-Dealers and Professionals from $0.49 to $0.47 per contract does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition because all participants will be assessed [[Page 14513]] the same lower Simple Order Fee for Removing Liquidity in SPY of $0.47 per contract, except for Customers. Customer orders bring valuable liquidity to the market, which liquidity benefits other market participants. Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which attracts Specialists and Market Makers. An increase in the activity of these market participants in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants. Cross-Reference and Marketing Fee The Exchange's proposal to correct a typographical error related to a cross reference does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition because the amendment is non-substantive. The Exchange's proposal to replace the words ``Payment for Order Flow Fee'' with the words ``Marketing Fee'' does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition because the proposal will conform the rule text to other parts of the Rulebook. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others No written comments were either solicited or received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\27\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic CommentsUse the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or Send an email to [email protected]. Please include File Number SR-Phlx-2016-33 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-Phlx-2016-33. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2016-33 and should be submitted on or before April 7, 2016. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.\28\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \28\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lynn M. Powalski, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. 2016-05975 Filed 3-16-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 52 / Thursday, March 17, 2016 / Notices 14509
proposed amendments to Sections 401 IV. Solicitation of Comments For the Commission, by the Division of
and 402 are designed to give the Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated
Exchange greater flexibility to halt Interested persons are invited to authority.16
trading in a particular listed security submit written data, views, and Lynn M. Powalski,
when the Exchange believes a halt is arguments concerning the foregoing, Deputy Secretary.
necessary or appropriate. Currently, including whether the proposed rule [FR Doc. 2016–05972 Filed 3–16–16; 8:45 am]
Sections 401 and 402 only permit the change is consistent with the Act. BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
Exchange to implement regulatory Comments may be submitted by any of
trading halts for the dissemination of the following methods:
material news. As currently drafted, the SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
Electronic Comments COMMISSION
Exchange believes these rules are
unnecessarily restrictive and do not • Use the Commission’s Internet [Release No. 34–77351; File No. SR–Phlx–
cover the full spectrum of situations comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ 2016–33]
where a trading halt may be necessary rules/sro.shtml); or
for the protection of investors. In Self-Regulatory Organizations;
• Send an email to rule-comments@ NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing
addition, the Exchange believes that its sec.gov. Please include File Number SR–
proposed changes are consistent with and Immediate Effectiveness of
NYSEMKT–2016–29 on the subject line. Proposed Rule Change to Rebates and
the NYSE and Nasdaq rules with respect
Paper Comments Fees for Adding and Removing
to trading halts. For the foregoing
Liquidity in SPY
reasons, therefore, the Exchange does
• Send paper comments in triplicate
not believe that such changes impose March 11, 2016.
to Secretary, Securities and Exchange
any burden on competition that is not Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
necessary or appropriate in furtherance Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Washington, DC 20549–1090.
of the purposes of the Act. (‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2
All submissions should refer to File notice is hereby given that on February
C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Number SR–NYSEMKT–2016–29. This 29, 2016, NASDAQ PHLX LLC
Statement on Comments on the (‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the Securities
file number should be included on the
Proposed Rule Change Received From and Exchange Commission (‘‘SEC’’ or
subject line if email is used. To help the
Members, Participants, or Others ‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule
Commission process and review your
No written comments were solicited comments more efficiently, please use change as described in Items I, II, and
or received with respect to the proposed only one method. The Commission will III, below, which Items have been
rule change. post all comments on the Commission’s prepared by the Exchange. The
Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ Commission is publishing this notice to
III. Date of Effectiveness of the rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the solicit comments on the proposed rule
Proposed Rule Change and Timing for submission, all subsequent change from interested persons.
Commission Action amendments, all written statements I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Because the foregoing proposed rule with respect to the proposed rule Statement of the Terms of Substance of
change does not: (i) Significantly affect change that are filed with the the Proposed Rule Change
the protection of investors or the public Commission, and all written The Exchange proposes to amend the
interest; (ii) impose any significant communications relating to the Exchange’s Pricing Schedule at Section
burden on competition; and (iii) become proposed rule change between the I, entitled ‘‘Rebates and Fees for Adding
operative prior to 30 days from the date Commission and any person, other than and Removing Liquidity in SPY.’’
on which it was filed, or such shorter those that may be withheld from the While changes to the Pricing
time as the Commission may designate, public in accordance with the Schedule pursuant to this proposal are
it has become effective pursuant to provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be effective upon filing, the Exchange has
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 13 and available for Web site viewing and designated these changes to be operative
Rule 19b–4(f)(6) 14 thereunder. printing in the Commission’s Public on March 1, 2016.
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., The text of the proposed rule change
At any time within 60 days of the
Washington, DC 20549 on official is available on the Exchange’s Web site
filing of the proposed rule change, the
business days between the hours of at http://
Commission summarily may
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com/, at
temporarily suspend such rule change if
filing also will be available for the principal office of the Exchange, and
it appears to the Commission that such
inspection and copying at the principal at the Commission’s Public Reference
action is necessary or appropriate in the Room.
public interest, for the protection of office of the Exchange. All comments
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of received will be posted without change; II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
the purposes of the Act. If the the Commission does not edit personal Statement of the Purpose of, and
Commission takes such action, the identifying information from Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule
Commission shall institute proceedings submissions. You should submit only Change
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act 15 to information that you wish to make In its filing with the Commission, the
determine whether the proposed rule available publicly. All submissions Exchange included statements
change should be approved or should refer to File Number SR– concerning the purpose of and basis for
disapproved. NYSEMKT–2016–29, and should be the proposed rule change and discussed
submitted on or before April 7, 2016.
13 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 16 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).
14 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
15 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B). 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:03 Mar 16, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM 17MRN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_14561/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 52 / Thursday, March 17, 2016 / Notices 14511
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) The Exchange continues to offer and orderly market, and not make bids
of the Act 15 in particular, in that it pricing specific to SPY because these or offers or enter into transactions that
provides for the equitable allocation of options are currently the most actively are inconsistent with a course of
reasonable dues, fees and other charges traded options class. Pricing by symbol dealings. The differentiation as between
among members and issuers and other is a common practice on many U.S. Specialists and Market Makers and all
persons using any facility or system options exchanges as a means to other market participants recognizes the
which the Exchange operates or incentive order flow to be sent to an differing contributions made to the
controls, and is not designed to permit exchange for execution.21 liquidity and trading environment on
unfair discrimination between the Exchange by these market
Simple Order—Rebate for Adding
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. participants. An increase in the activity
Liquidity
The Commission and the courts have of these market participants in turn
The Exchange’s proposal to replace facilitates tighter spreads, which may
repeatedly expressed their preference
the $0.20 per contract SPY Simple cause an additional corresponding
for competition over regulatory
Order Rebate for Adding Liquidity with increase in order flow from other market
intervention in determining prices,
tiered rebates is reasonable because the participants.
products, and services in the securities
Exchange desires to incentivize market The Exchange believes that
markets. In Regulation NMS, while
participants to transact a greater number continuing to pay the Simple Order
adopting a series of steps to improve the
of SPY options. All participants [sic] Rebate for Adding Liquidity [sic] to all
current market model, the Commission
will continue to receive a SPY Simple [sic] transactions executed within the
highlighted the importance of market Order Rebate for Adding Liquidity for Exchange’s order book, including
forces in determining prices and SRO Specialists and Market Makers provided transactions where one side of the
revenues and, also, recognized that they execute one electronic Simple transaction originates on the Exchange
current regulation of the market system Order SPY contract. In some cases, the floor and any other side of the trade was
‘‘has been remarkably successful in rebate will be lower, if 2,499 or less the result of an electronically submitted
promoting market competition in its electronic Simple Order SPY contracts order or a quote, is reasonable because
broader forms that are most important to are added, the SPY Simple Order Rebate the Exchange’s treatment of these orders
investors and listed companies.’’ 16 for Adding Liquidity for Specialists and is consistent with its treatment of all
Likewise, in NetCoalition v. Securities Market Makers will be $0.15 as other orders executed in the order book
and Exchange Commission 17 compared to $0.20 per contract (today’s as compared to a floor order executed
(‘‘NetCoalition’’) the DC Circuit upheld rebate). Despite this decrease, the on the Exchange’s trading floor. Further,
the Commission’s use of a market-based Exchange believes that participants will the Exchange believes it is reasonable to
approach in evaluating the fairness of continue to be incentivized to add SPY count the one side of the transaction
market data fees against a challenge order flow to the Exchange to receive which originates on the Exchange floor
claiming that Congress mandated a cost- the rebate. With this proposal, the toward the number of contracts to
based approach.18 As the court Exchange is also offering the qualify for the Simple Order Rebate for
emphasized, the Commission ‘‘intended opportunity to earn higher rebates Adding Liquidity for Specialists and
in Regulation NMS that ‘market forces, provided the participant adds at least Market Makers in SPY because this
rather than regulatory requirements’ 5,000 electronic Simple Order SPY treatment of the floor order which
play a role in determining the market contracts.22 In some cases the rebate executes in the order book is consistent
data . . . to be made available to will remain the same.23 The Exchange with the treatment of all other
investors and at what cost.’’ 19 believes that the rebate will continue to electronically executed orders which
Further, ‘‘[n]o one disputes that encourage participants to direct SPY qualify for the Section I pricing.
competition for order flow is ‘fierce.’ order flow to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that
. . . As the SEC explained, ‘[i]n the U.S. The Exchange’s proposal to replace continuing to pay the Simple Order
national market system, buyers and the $0.20 per contract SPY Simple Rebate for Adding Liquidity to all
sellers of securities, and the broker- Order Rebate for Adding Liquidity for transactions executed within the
dealers that act as their order-routing Specialists and Market Makers with Exchange’s order book, including
agents, have a wide range of choices of tiered rebates is equitable and not transactions where one side of the
where to route orders for execution’; unfairly discriminatory because transaction originates on the Exchange
[and] ‘no exchange can afford to take its Specialists and Market Makers have floor and any other side of the trade was
market share percentages for granted’ obligations to the market and regulatory the result of an electronically submitted
because ‘no exchange possesses a requirements, which normally do not order or a quote, is equitable and not
monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in apply to other market participants.24 unfairly discriminatory because the
the execution of order flow from broker They have obligations to make Exchange is treating these orders similar
dealers’. . . . ’’ 20 Although the court continuous markets, engage in a course to all other orders executed in the order
and the SEC were discussing the cash of dealings reasonably calculated to book as compared to a floor order
equities markets, the Exchange believes contribute to the maintenance of a fair executed on the Exchange’s trading
that these views apply with equal force floor. Further, the Exchange believes it
to the options markets. 21 See International Securities Exchange LLC’s is equitable and not unfairly
(‘‘ISE’’) Schedule of Fees. discriminatory to count the one side of
22 The Exchange will pay a $0.25 per contract
the transaction which originates on the
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
15 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5). rebate if participant adds 5,000 to 19,999 contracts
16 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 at per day in a month and a $0.30 per contract rebate Exchange floor toward the number of
37499 (June 9, 2005) (‘‘Regulation NMS Adopting if participant adds greater than 20,000 contracts per contracts to qualify for the Simple Order
Release’’). day in a month in SPY. Rebate for Adding Liquidity for
17 NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 23 The Exchange will continue to pay a $0.20 per
Specialists and Market Makers because
2010). contract rebate if participant adds 2,500 to 4,999
18 See NetCoalition, at 534. today all electronically executed orders
contracts per day in a month in SPY.
19 Id. at 537. 24 See Rule 1014 titled ‘‘Obligations and qualify for the Section I pricing. The
20 Id. at 539 (quoting ArcaBook Order, 73 FR at Restrictions Applicable to Specialists and transaction where one side of the
74782–74783). Registered Options Traders.’’ transaction originates on the Exchange
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:03 Mar 16, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM 17MRN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_14561/page/3.svg)
![14512 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 52 / Thursday, March 17, 2016 / Notices
floor and any other side of the trade was B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s have obligations to the market and
the result of an electronically submitted Statement on Burden on Competition regulatory requirements, which
order or a quote will be treated in the The Exchange does not believe that normally do not apply to other market
same manner as all other orders the proposed rule change will impose participants.26 The differentiation as
executed in the order book. any burden on competition not between Specialists and Market Makers
necessary or appropriate in furtherance and other market participants
Simple Order—Fee for Removing recognizes the differing contributions
Liquidity of the purposes of the Act. In terms of
made to the liquidity and trading
inter-market competition, the Exchange
environment on the Exchange by these
The Exchange’s proposal to decrease notes that it operates in a highly
market participants. An increase in the
the Customer Simple Order Fee in SPY competitive market in which market
activity of these market participants in
for Removing Liquidity from $0.44 to participants can readily favor competing
turn facilitates tighter spreads, which
$0.43 per contract and all other Simple venues if they deem fee levels at a
may cause an additional corresponding
Order Fees for Removing Liquidity in particular venue to be excessive, or
increase in order flow from other market
SPY for Specialists, Market Makers, rebate opportunities available at other
participants.
Firms, Broker-Dealers and Professionals venues to be more favorable. In such an The Exchange believes that
from $0.49 to $0.47 per contract is environment, the Exchange must continuing to pay the SPY Simple Order
reasonable because the reduction of continually adjust its fees to remain Rebate for Adding Liquidity to all
these fees will encourage participants to competitive with other exchanges and transactions executed within the
send additional order flow to the with alternative trading systems that Exchange’s order book, including
Exchange. have been exempted from compliance transactions where one side of the
with the statutory standards applicable transaction originates on the Exchange
The Exchange’s proposal to decrease to exchanges. Because competitors are
the Customer Simple Order Fee for floor and any other side of the trade was
free to modify their own fees in the result of an electronically submitted
Removing Liquidity in SPY from $0.44 response, and because market
to $0.43 per contract and all other order or a quote, does not impose an
participants may readily adjust their undue burden on intra-market
Simple Order Fees for Removing order routing practices, the Exchange
Liquidity in SPY for Specialists, Market competition because the Exchange is
believes that the degree to which fee treating these orders similar to all other
Makers, Firms, Broker-Dealers and changes in this market may impose any
Professionals from $0.49 to $0.47 per orders executed in the order book as
burden on competition is extremely compared to a floor order executed on
contract is equitable and not unfairly limited. the Exchange’s trading floor. Further,
discriminatory because all participants In terms of intra-market competition, the Exchange believes counting the one
will be assessed the same lower Simple the Exchange believes that its proposed side of the transaction which originates
Order Fee for Removing Liquidity in rebates and fees continue to remain on the Exchange floor toward the
SPY of $0.47 per contract, except for competitive in SPY, which is the most number of contracts to qualify for the
Customers. The Exchange believes that actively traded options class.25 In sum, SPY Simple Order Rebate for Adding
assessing Customers a lower fee is if the changes proposed herein are Liquidity for Specialists and Market
equitable and not unfairly unattractive to market participants, it is Makers does not impose an undue
discriminatory because Customer orders likely that the Exchange will lose burden on intra-market competition
bring valuable liquidity to the market, market share as a result. Accordingly, because today all electronically
which liquidity benefits other market the Exchange does not believe that the executed orders qualify for the Section
participants. Customer liquidity benefits proposed changes will impair the ability I pricing. The transaction where one
all market participants by providing of members or competing order side of the transaction originates on the
more trading opportunities, which execution venues to maintain their Exchange floor and any other side of the
attracts Specialists and Market Makers. competitive standing in the financial trade was the result of an electronically
An increase in the activity of these markets. submitted order or a quote will be
market participants in turn facilitates treated in the same manner as all other
Simple Order—Rebate for Adding
tighter spreads, which may cause an orders executed in the order book.
Liquidity
additional corresponding increase in
order flow from other market The Exchange’s proposal to replace Simple Order—Fee for Removing
participants. the $0.20 per contract SPY Simple Liquidity
Order Rebate for Adding Liquidity with The Exchange’s proposal to decrease
Cross-Reference and Marketing Fee tiered rebates does not impose an undue the Customer Simple Order for
The Exchange’s proposal to correct a burden on intra-market competition Removing Liquidity in SPY from $0.44
typographical error related to a cross because Specialists and Market Makers to $0.43 per contract and all other
reference is reasonable, equitable and Simple Order Fees for Removing
25 The Exchange continues to incentive market
not unfairly discriminatory because it Liquidity in SPY for Specialists, Market
participants to transact SPY by offering rebates in
will clarify the Pricing Schedule. This this Penny Pilot Option similar to ISE which pays Makers, Firms, Broker-Dealers and
amendment is non-substantive. rebates on Penny Pilot Options. See ISE’s Fee Professionals from $0.49 to $0.47 per
Schedule. ISE Gemini, LLC (‘‘ISE Gemini’’) assesses contract does not impose an undue
The Exchange’s proposal to replace
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
a SPY tiered taker fee ranging from $0.44 to $0.45 burden on intra-market competition
the words ‘‘Payment for Order Flow for a priority customer and a tiered taker fee ranging
because all participants will be assessed
Fee’’ with the words ‘‘Marketing Fee’’ is from $0.48 to $0.49 per contract for all other market
participants. See ISE Gemini’s Fee Schedule. Also,
reasonable, equitable and not unfairly the Exchange’s Simple Order Fee for Removing 26 See note 24. Specialists and Market Makers
discriminatory because the proposal Liquidity in SPY is lower as compared to pricing have obligations to make continuous markets,
will conform the rule text to other parts at C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated (‘‘C2’’). C2’s engage in a course of dealings reasonably calculated
penny pilot options pricing is $0.47 per contract for to contribute to the maintenance of a fair and
of the Rulebook. The usage of the term Priority [sic] Customers and $0.48 per contract for orderly market, and not make bids or offers or enter
Marketing Fee would be consistent all other participants when removing liquidity. See into transactions that are inconsistent with a course
throughout the Rulebook. C2’s Fees Schedule. of dealings.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:03 Mar 16, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM 17MRN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_14561/page/4.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 52 / Thursday, March 17, 2016 / Notices 14513
the same lower Simple Order Fee for Electronic Comments SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
Removing Liquidity in SPY of $0.47 per COMMISSION
contract, except for Customers. • Use the Commission’s Internet
Customer orders bring valuable liquidity comment form (http://www.sec.gov/
[Release No. 34–77352; SR–NYSEArca–
to the market, which liquidity benefits rules/sro.shtml); or
2015–68]
other market participants. Customer • Send an email to rule-comments@
liquidity benefits all market participants sec.gov. Please include File Number SR– Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE
by providing more trading Phlx–2016–33 on the subject line. Arca, Inc.; Notice of Withdrawal of a
opportunities, which attracts Specialists Proposed Rule Change Relating To
and Market Makers. An increase in the Paper Comments Implementation of a Fee on Securities
activity of these market participants in Lending and Repurchase Transactions
• Send paper comments in triplicate
turn facilitates tighter spreads, which With Respect to Shares of the
to Secretary, Securities and Exchange
may cause an additional corresponding CurrencyShares® Euro Trust and the
increase in order flow from other market Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549–1090. CurrencyShares® Japanese Yen Trust
participants.
All submissions should refer to File March 11, 2016.
Cross-Reference and Marketing Fee
Number SR–Phlx–2016–33. This file On July 30, 2015, NYSE Arca, Inc.
The Exchange’s proposal to correct a number should be included on the (‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the Securities
typographical error related to a cross subject line if email is used. To help the and Exchange Commission
reference does not impose an undue Commission process and review your (‘‘Commission’’), pursuant to Section
burden on intra-market competition comments more efficiently, please use 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act
because the amendment is non- only one method. The Commission will of 1934 (‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4
substantive. post all comments on the Commission’s thereunder,2 a proposed rule change
The Exchange’s proposal to replace Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ relating to implementation of a fee on
the words ‘‘Payment for Order Flow rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the securities lending and repurchase
Fee’’ with the words ‘‘Marketing Fee’’ transactions with respect to shares of
submission, all subsequent
does not impose an undue burden on the CurrencyShares® Euro Trust and the
amendments, all written statements
intra-market competition because the CurrencyShares® Japanese Yen Trust,
with respect to the proposed rule
proposal will conform the rule text to which are currently listed and trading
other parts of the Rulebook. change that are filed with the
Commission, and all written on the Exchange under NYSE Arca
C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Equities Rule 8.202. The proposed rule
communications relating to the
Statement on Comments on the change was published for comment in
proposed rule change between the
Proposed Rule Change Received From the Federal Register on August 20,
Commission and any person, other than
Members, Participants, or Others 2015.3
those that may be withheld from the
public in accordance with the On September 18, 2015, pursuant to
No written comments were either
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,4 the
solicited or received.
available for Web site viewing and Commission designated a longer period
III. Date of Effectiveness of the within which to approve the proposed
printing in the Commission’s Public
Proposed Rule Change and Timing for rule change, disapprove the proposed
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Commission Action rule change, or institute proceedings to
Washington, DC 20549, on official
The foregoing rule change has become determine whether to disapprove the
business days between the hours of proposed rule change.5 On November
effective pursuant to Section 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.27 18, 2016, the Commission instituted
filing also will be available for proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of
At any time within 60 days of the inspection and copying at the principal the Act 6 to determine whether to
filing of the proposed rule change, the office of the Exchange. All comments approve or disapprove the proposed
Commission summarily may received will be posted without change; rule change.7 On February 12, 2016,
temporarily suspend such rule change if the Commission does not edit personal pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,8
it appears to the Commission that such identifying information from the Commission designated a longer
action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in submissions. You should submit only period within which to take action on
the public interest; (ii) for the protection information that you wish to make proceedings to determine whether to
of investors; or (iii) otherwise in available publicly. All submissions approve or disapprove the proposed
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
should refer to File Number SR–Phlx–
If the Commission takes such action, the
2016–33 and should be submitted on or 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
Commission shall institute proceedings
to determine whether the proposed rule before April 7, 2016. 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.
3 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75698
should be approved or disapproved. For the Commission, by the Division of (Aug. 14, 2015), 80 FR 50701.
Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 4 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
IV. Solicitation of Comments authority.28 5 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75945,
Interested persons are invited to Lynn M. Powalski, 80 FR 57645 (Sept. 24, 2015). The Commission
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
designated a longer period within which to take
submit written data, views, and Deputy Secretary. action on the proposed rule change and designated
arguments concerning the foregoing, [FR Doc. 2016–05975 Filed 3–16–16; 8:45 am] November 18, 2015, as the date by which it should
including whether the proposed rule approve, disapprove, or institute proceedings to
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act.
change.
Comments may be submitted by any of 6 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
the following methods: 7 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76472,
80 FR 73258 (Nov. 24, 2015).
27 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 28 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:03 Mar 16, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM 17MRN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_14561/page/5.svg)
Document Created: 2016-03-17 00:58:51
Document Modified: 2016-03-17 00:58:51
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 14509 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR