
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 9 (Thursday, January 14, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1976-1980]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-00569]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76858; File No. SR-Phlx-2015-109)


Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of 
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend 
Permit Fees

January 8, 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 December 30, 2015, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') 
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or 
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, 
and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The 
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the 
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's Pricing Schedule at 
Section VI, entitled ``Membership Fees.'' The Exchange also proposes to 
correct a reference to The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. within the Pricing 
Schedule.
    The Exchange purposes to increase certain permit fees. The 
Exchange's permit fees remain competitive with those of other options 
Exchanges. While the changes proposed herein are effective upon filing, 
the Exchange has designated the amendments to become operative on 
January 4, 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 any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The 
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in 
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in 
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such 
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and 
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to increase permit fees to allocate its costs 
to various options market participants, specifically floor 
participants. The Exchange assesses Permit Fees by market participant. 
Today, the Exchange assesses the same monthly Permit Fees of $2,300 to 
Floor Brokers,\3\ Specialists \4\ and Market Makers.\5\ All other 
market

[[Page 1977]]

participants (Professionals,\6\ Firms \7\ and Broker-Dealers,\8\ 
collectively ``Other Market Participants'') are assessed a Permit Fee 
of $4,000 in a given month, unless the member or member organization or 
those member organizations under Common Ownership,\9\ execute at least 
100 options in a Phlx house account that is assigned to one of the 
member organizations in a given month, in which case the Permit Fee is 
$2,300 for that month. The Exchange believes that 100 options in a 
given month continues to be a reasonable level given the volume of 
options transacted on Phlx to receive the lower Permit Fee. Also, 
today, option members and member organizations pay an additional Permit 
Fee for each sponsored options participant, which fee is the Permit Fee 
that is assessed to the member or member organization sponsoring the 
options participant,\10\ of either $2,300 or $4,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A ``Floor Broker'' is defined in Phlx Rule 1060 as ``[a]n 
individual who is registered with the Exchange for the purpose, 
while on the Options Floor, of accepting and executing options 
orders received from members and member organizations.''
    \4\ A ``Specialist'' is an Exchange member who is registered as 
an options specialist. See Phlx Rule 1020(a).
    \5\ A ``Market Maker'' includes Registered Options Traders 
(``ROTs'') (see Rule 1014(b)(i) and (ii)), which includes Streaming 
Quote Traders (``SQTs'') (see Rule 1014(b)(ii)(A)) and Remote 
Streaming Quote Traders (``RSQTs'') (see Rule 1014(b)(ii)(B)). An 
RSQT is defined in Exchange Rule in 1014(b)(ii)(B) as an ROT that is 
a member affiliated with an Remote Streaming Quote Trader 
Organization or ``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 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). 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.
    \6\ The term ``Professional'' means any person or entity that 
(i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) places more 
than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a 
calendar month for its own beneficial account(s). See Rule 
1000(b)(14).
    \7\ 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.
    \8\ The term ``Broker-Dealer'' applies to any transaction that 
is not subject to any of the other transaction fees applicable 
within a particular category.
    \9\ The term ``Common Ownership'' shall mean members or member 
organizations under 75% common ownership or control. See Preface to 
Exchange's Pricing Schedule.
    \10\ See Exchange Rule 1094 titled Sponsored Participants. A 
Sponsored Participant may obtain authorized access to the Exchange 
only if such access is authorized in advance by one or more 
Sponsoring Member Organizations. Sponsored Participants must enter 
into and maintain participant agreements with one or more Sponsoring 
Member Organizations establishing a proper relationship(s) and 
account(s) through which the Sponsored Participant may trade on the 
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is not amending the Permit Fees for Other Market 
Participants or the criteria of the lower Permit Fee of $2,300 per 
month for members and member organizations that execute a certain 
amount of volume on the Exchange.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ A Series A-1 permit shall only be issued to an individual 
who is a natural person of at least twenty-one (21) years of age. A 
Series A-1 permit shall only be issued to a corporation who meets 
the eligibility and application requirements set forth in the By-
Laws and Rules, including, without limitation, Rule 972, and no 
individual shall hold more than a single Series A-1 permit. See Rule 
908. All members are required to have a permit. A member 
organization will be billed for each permit that is affiliated with 
the member organization. Each Floor Brokers must obtain a permit to 
transact business on the trading floor. Each Market Maker must 
obtain a permit to transact business either electronically or on the 
trading floor. Each member organization must have at least one 
member qualifying the firm and that one member will be billed a 
permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to correct a reference to The NASDAQ OMX 
Group, Inc. within the Pricing Schedule. The amendments are detailed 
below.
Permit Fee Amendments
     The Exchange proposes to increase the Floor Broker Permit 
Fee from $2,300 to $3,000 per month.
     The Exchange proposes to increase the Floor Specialist 
\12\ and Floor Market Maker \13\ Permit Fee from $2,300 to $4,500 per 
month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ A Floor Specialist is a Specialist that does have a 
physical presence on the Exchange's trading floor.
    \13\ A Floor Market Maker is a Market Maker that does have a 
physical presence on the Exchange's trading floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The Exchange proposes to increase the Permit Fee for 
Remote Specialists and Remote Market Makers \14\ from $2,300 to $4,000 
\15\ and offer Remote Specialists and Remote Market Makers an 
opportunity to lower the Permit Fee to $2,300 provided the member or 
member organization, or member organizations under Common Ownership, 
executes at least 100 options in a Phlx house account that is assigned 
to one of the member organizations in a given month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Remote Specialists and Remote Market Makers do not have a 
physical presence on an Exchange floor.
    \15\ While this Permit fee for Remote Specialists and Remote 
Market Makers is being increased, today all Remote Specialists and 
Remote Market Makers qualify for the lower Permit Fee of $2,300.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that these increased fees will raise revenue 
for the Exchange. The Exchange believes that these Permit Fees remain 
competitive with fees at other options exchanges \16\ and reasonably 
allocate costs based on Exchange resources consumed by these market 
participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See note 25 below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name Change
     The Exchange proposes to correct a reference to The NASDAQ 
OMX Group, Inc. within the Pricing Schedule to newly named Nasdaq, Inc.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 
6(b) of the Act \17\ in general, and furthers the objectives of 
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act \18\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \18\ 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, for example, the Commission indicated that market forces should 
generally determine the price of non-core market data because national 
market system regulation ``has been remarkably successful in promoting 
market competition in its broader forms that are most important to 
investors and listed companies.'' \19\ Likewise, in NetCoalition v. 
NYSE Arca, Inc. [sic] \20\ (``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.\21\ 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.'' \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 [sic] at 37499 
(June 9, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting Release'').
    \20\ NetCoalition v. NYSE Arca, Inc. [sic] 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. 
Cir. 2010).
    \21\ See NetCoalition, at 534.
    \22\ 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 percetages for granted' because `no exchange 
possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of 
order flow from broker dealers'. . . .'' \23\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Id. at 539 (quoting ArcaBook Order, 73 FR at 74782-74783).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendments to Permit Fees
    The Exchange's proposal to increase Floor Broker Permit Fees from 
$2,300 to $3,000 and Floor Specialist and Floor Market Maker Permit 
Fees from $2,300 to $4,500 is reasonable because the

[[Page 1978]]

Exchange incurs costs in operating and maintaining a trading floor that 
are unique to a floor operation. The Exchange believes it is reasonable 
to allocate the Exchange's expenses, among the market participants on 
the trading floor, and raise the floor Permit Fees because of the 
unique resources consumed by each category of floor market participant 
and additional floor services. The proposed increase covers the rising 
facility costs and staffing expenses required to service the floor 
community, process trading tickets and service the trading floor. The 
Exchange has not increased these fees in two years.
    Floor Specialists and Floor Market Makers benefit from the access 
they have to interact with orders which are made available in open 
outcry on the trading floor. These market participants may choose to 
conduct their business either electronically or on the trading floor, 
unlike Floor Brokers, who have a business model that is naturally tied 
to the physical trading space. The Exchange offers Specialists and 
Market Makers a choice on how to conduct business, electronic or floor. 
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to assess Floor Specialists 
and Floor Market Makers the higher floor permits because it is offering 
different trading experiences to these market participants.
    The Exchange notes that assessing different Permit Fee rates to 
different types of market participants is not novel.\24\ Both CBOE and 
NYSE Arca have different fixed and transaction fees for floor as 
compared to electronically transmitted orders. Also, the proposed 
Permit Fees are competitive with fees at other options exchanges. Both 
CBOE and NYSE Arca assess different fees to Floor Brokers and Market 
Makers.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated 
(``CBOE''), the International Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE'') and 
Miami International Securities Exchange LLC (``MIAX'') assess 
different Trading Permit Fees to different market participants. See 
CBOE's Fees Schedule, ISE's Fee Schedule and MIAX's Fee Schedule.
    \25\ See CBOE's Fees Schedule. A Market-Maker Trading Permit is 
$5,500 per month, except for ETH only permits which are $1,000 per 
month. A Floor Broker Trading Permit is $9,000 per month. An 
Electronic Access Permit is $1,600 per month, except for ETH only 
which is $500 per month. There are also other permits for SPX and 
VIX trading and some waivers apply to ETH for the first permit. See 
also NYSE Arca, Inc.'s (``NYSE Arca'') Options Trading Participation 
Rights in NYSE Arca Options Fees and Charges. Floor Brokers on NYSE 
Arca are assessed a $1,000 per month options trading participant 
rights (``OTP'') fee for the first OTP and $250 for each additional 
OTP. NYSE Arca Market Makers are assessed $6,000 for the first OTP 
and then the OTP fee declines on a scale down to $1,000 for 
additional OTPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to increase Floor Broker Permit Fees from 
$2,300 to $3,000 and Floor Specialist and Floor Market Maker from 
$2,300 to $4,500 is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because 
the Exchange seeks to allocate the costs in a fair and equitable manner 
by assessing fees consistent with the consumption of resources. The 
differentiation in fees as between electronic trading and floor trading 
recognizes these different business models. For example, Floor Brokers 
are registered with the Exchange for the purpose, while on the options 
floor, of accepting and executing options orders received from members 
and member organizations.\26\ This type of business model is distinct 
from that of an electronic trader. Additionally, Floor Specialists and 
Floor Market Makers have the opportunity to interact with Floor Broker 
order flow on the Exchange floor and to provide liquidity to the 
Exchange. The proposed Permit Fee structure recognizes the resources 
consumed by these market participants on the trading floor. The 
Exchange is one of only four options exchanges that offer a trading 
floor environment in addition to the electronic environment. The 
Exchange is required to staff the trading floor with regulatory 
personnel and provide a physical infrastructure in addition to other 
costs which are also incurred to operate an electronic environment. The 
floor environment offers floor market participants the choice of 
transacting certain complex transactions, i.e. a Complex Order \27\ 
with multiple legs, on the trading floor in open outcry or the 
electronic market. Certain FLEX transactions,\28\ transfers \29\ or 
accommodation transactions \30\ also lend themselves to the trading 
floor environment and the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Exchange Rule 1060.
    \27\ A Complex Order is any order involving the simultaneous 
purchase and/or sale of two or more different options series in the 
same underlying security, priced at 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. Furthermore, a Complex Order can also be a stock-option 
order, which is an order to buy or sell a stated number of units of 
an underlying stock or ETF coupled with the purchase or sale of 
options contract(s). See Exchange Rule 1080, Commentary .08(a)(i).
    \28\ See Phlx Rule 1079.
    \29\ See Phlx Rule 1058.
    \30\ See Phlx Rule 1059.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the increased Permit Fees to Floor 
Brokers, Floor Specialists and Floor Market Makers is equitable and not 
unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange is allocating the 
additional floor cost to the market participants that benefit from the 
trading floor. Further, the Exchange believes that it is equitable and 
not unfairly discriminatory to assess Floor Specialists and Floor 
Market Makers the higher floor Permit Fees among all floor participants 
because Specialists and Market Makers may decide to stream remotely or 
conduct their business on the trading floor in open outcry. These 
market participants are offered the opportunity to also avail 
themselves of both means to access the Exchange, whereby they may 
interact with order floor in the electronic Order Book and/or interact 
with order floor in the trading crowd on the Exchange's trading floor. 
This opportunity to conduct their business on the trading floor and 
access the Exchange through both avenues comes at a cost to the 
Exchange,\31\ which costs is being allocated to Floor Specialists and 
Floor Market Makers through higher Permit Fees as compared to Floor 
Brokers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ As noted herein, the Exchange staffs the trading floor with 
regulatory personnel and provides a physical infrastructure for the 
trading floor. Surveillances for the floor and electronic 
environment may also differ. For example, the Exchange monitors 
Specialist and Market Maker quoting obligations separately for 
electronic quoting versus floor quoting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to increase Permit Fees for Remote 
Specialists and Remote Market Makers from $2,300 to $4,000 is 
reasonable because the Exchange is allocating costs differently as 
between electronic and floor trading. The differentiation in fees as 
between electronic trading and floor trading recognizes the 
distinctions in these business models. The Exchange's proposal will 
also offer Remote Specialists and Remote Market Makers the opportunity 
to reduce the Permit Fee from $4,000 to $2,300 by directing at least 
100 option contracts to the Exchange in a given month.\32\ This 
proposal allocates costs to each market participants based on their 
chosen business model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ The Exchange believes that 100 options in a given month 
continues to be a reasonable level given the volume of options 
transacted on Phlx to receive the lower Permit Fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to increase Permit Fees for Remote 
Specialists and Remote Market Makers that conduct an electronic 
business from $2,300 to $4,000 is equitable and not unfairly 
discriminatory as all electronic market participants will uniformly be 
assessed a $4,000 a month Permit Fee and will uniformly be offered an 
opportunity to decrease that Permit Fee to $2,300 by directing at least 
100 option contracts in a given month to the Exchange. This liquidity 
benefits all market participants and in turn brings revenue to the 
Exchange through transaction fees assessed to these orders. The 
Exchange believes that assessing different rates for

[[Page 1979]]

floor market participants as compared to electronic market participants 
for Permit Fees is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because of 
the increasing costs incurred by the Exchange in operating and 
maintaining the trading floor, which costs have increased over the 
years. The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly 
discriminatory to assess Remote Specialists and Remote Market Makers a 
lower rate than Floor Specialists and Floor Market Makers. Specialists 
and Market Makers have the ability to operate an electronic business on 
the Exchange, as compared to Floor Brokers, who have a business model 
that is naturally tied to the physical trading space. Floor Specialists 
and Floor Market Makers desiring to interact with the order flow 
generated by these Floor Brokers are offered the opportunity to 
transact business on the trading floor in addition to the electronic 
market. This opportunity comes at a cost for the Exchange which is 
being equitably allocated to the consumers of this resource.
Name Change
    The Exchange's proposal to correct the reference to The NASDAQ OMX 
Group, Inc. within the reference to the trademark PHLX[supreg] to 
recently renamed Nasdaq, Inc.\33\ is reasonable, equitable and not 
unfairly discriminatory because the amendment simply updates the name.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75421 (July 16, 
2015), 80 FR 42136 (July 10, 2015) (SR-BSECC-2015-001; SR-BX-2015-
030; SR-NASDAQ-2015-058; SR-Phlx-2015-46; SR-SCCP-2015-01).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
    The Exchange's proposal to increase Floor Broker Permit Fees from 
$2,300 to $3,000 and Floor Specialist and Floor Market Maker from 
$2,300 to $4,500 does not impose an undue burden on intra-market 
competition because the Exchange proposes to allocate the costs to 
floor participants because they consume a greater amount of Exchange 
resources. The Exchange is required to staff the trading floor with 
regulatory personnel and provide a physical infrastructure in addition 
to other costs which are also incurred to operate an electronic 
environment. The Exchange has incurred increasing costs in operating 
and maintaining the trading floor, which costs have increased over the 
years. Specialists and Market Makers have the ability to operate an 
electronic business on the Exchange, as compared to Floor Brokers, who 
have a business model that is naturally tied to the physical trading 
space.
    Floor Specialists and Floor Market Makers desiring to interact with 
the order flow generated by these Floor Brokers are offered the 
opportunity to transact business on the trading floor in addition to 
the electronic market. This opportunity comes at a cost for the 
Exchange. The Exchange believes that the increased fee to Floor 
Specialists and Floor Market Makers does not impose an undue burden on 
intra-market competition because the Exchange is allocating the 
additional floor cost to the participants that benefit from such a dual 
structure.
    The Exchange's proposal to increase Permit Fees for Remote 
Specialists and Remote Market Makers from $2,300 to $4,000 does not 
impose an undue burden on intra-market competition because all 
electronic market participants will uniformly be assessed a $4,000 a 
month Permit Fee and will uniformly be offered an opportunity to 
decrease that fee by directing at least 100 option contracts in a given 
month. This liquidity benefits all market participants and in turn 
brings revenue to the Exchange through transaction fees assessed to 
these orders. The Exchange believes that assessing Remote Specialists 
and Remote Market Makers a lower rate than Floor Specialists and Floor 
Market Makers does not impose an undue burden on intra-market 
competition because Specialists and Market Makers have the ability to 
operate an electronic business on the Exchange, as compared to Floor 
Brokers, who have a business model that is naturally tied to the 
physical trading space. Specialists and Market Makers desiring to 
interact with the order flow generated by these Floor Brokers are 
offered the opportunity to transact business on the trading floor in 
addition to the electronic market. This opportunity comes at a cost for 
the Exchange.
    The proposed Permit Fees are competitive with fees at other options 
exchanges.\34\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See note 25 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name Change
    The Exchange's proposal to correct the reference to The NASDAQ OMX 
Group, Inc. within the reference to the trademark PHLX[supreg] to 
recently renamed Nasdaq, Inc. does not impose any undue burden on 
intra-market competition because the amendment simply updates the name.

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

    \35\ 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.

[[Page 1980]]

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-Phlx-2015-109 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-2015-109. 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 such 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-2015-109, and should be 
submitted on or before February 4, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\36\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-00569 Filed 1-13-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


