
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 219 (Monday, November 14, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79536-79540]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-27235]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79251; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2016-149]


Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; 
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To 
Amend the Exchange's Market Access and Routing Subsidy Program

November 7, 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 October 31, 2016, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or 
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission 
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in 
Items I, II, and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the 
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments 
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 transaction fees at 
Chapter XV, Section 2 entitled ``NASDAQ Options Market--Fees and 
Rebates,'' which governs pricing for Nasdaq Participants using the 
NASDAQ Options Market (``NOM''), Nasdaq's facility for executing and 
routing standardized equity and index options. The Exchange proposes to 
amend its subsidy program, the Market Access and Routing Subsidy or 
``MARS,'' for NOM Participants that provide certain order routing 
functionalities \3\ to other NOM Participants and/or use such 
functionalities themselves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The order routing functionalities permit a NOM Participant 
to provide access and connectivity to other Participants as well as 
utilize such access for themselves. The Exchange notes that one NOM 
Participant is eligible for payments under MARS, while another NOM 
Participant might potentially be liable for transaction charges 
associated with the execution of the order, because those orders 
were delivered to the Exchange through a NOM Participant's 
connection to the Exchange and that Participant qualified for the 
MARS Payment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While changes to the Pricing Schedule pursuant to this proposal are 
effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated these changes to be 
operative on November 1, 2016.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's 
Web site at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal office of 
the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements 
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and 
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The 
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in 
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in 
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such 
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    NOM proposes to amend the MARS subsidy program which pays a subsidy 
to NOM Participants that provide certain order routing functionalities 
to other NOM Participants and/or use such functionalities themselves. 
Generally, under MARS, the Exchange pays participating NOM Participants 
to subsidize their costs of providing routing services to route orders 
to NOM. The Exchange believes that MARS will continue to attract higher 
volumes of electronic equity and ETF options volume to the Exchange 
from non-NOM

[[Page 79537]]

Participants as well as NOM Participants.
    The Exchange proposes to amend Chapter XV, Section 2(6) to: (1) 
Provide another method to qualify for MARS System Eligibility; (2) 
expand the MARS Payment tiers; and (3) make clarifying changes to the 
rule text.
Amendment to MARS System Eligibility
    Today, to qualify for MARS, a NOM Participant's routing system 
(hereinafter ``System'') is required to meet certain criteria. 
Specifically the Participant's System is required to: (1) Enable the 
electronic routing of orders to all of the U.S. options exchanges, 
including NOM; (2) provide current consolidated market data from the 
U.S. options exchanges; and (3) be capable of interfacing with NOM's 
API to access current NOM match engine functionality. The NOM 
Participant's System would also need to cause NOM to be one of the top 
three default destination exchanges for individually executed 
marketable orders if NOM is at the national best bid or offer 
(``NBBO''), regardless of size or time, but allow any user to manually 
override NOM as the default destination on an order-by-order basis.
    The Exchange requires NOM Participants desiring to participate in 
MARS \4\ to complete a form, in a manner prescribed by the Exchange, 
and reaffirm their information on a quarterly basis to the Exchange. 
Any NOM Participant is permitted to apply for MARS, provided the above-
referenced requirements are met, including a robust and reliable 
System. The Participant is solely responsible for implementing and 
operating its System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For example, a NOM Participant that desires to qualify for 
MARS in November must complete the form and submit it to the 
Exchange no later than the last business day of November. Such form 
will require the NOM Participant to identify the NOM Participant 
seeking the MARS Payment and must list, among other things, the 
connections utilized by the NOM Participant to provide Exchange 
access to other NOM Participants and/or itself. MARS Payments would 
be made one month in arrears (i.e., a MARS Payment earned for 
activity in November would be paid to the qualifying NOM Participant 
in December), as is the case with all other transactional payments 
and assessments made by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend the requirements for MARS System 
Eligibility to continue to require the Participant's System to cause 
NOM to be the one of the top three default destination exchanges for 
individually executed marketable orders if NOM is at the national best 
bid or offer (``NBBO''), regardless of size or time. In the 
alternative, the Exchange proposes to permit a Participant to be 
eligible if the Participant's System causes NOM to be the one of the 
top three default destination exchanges for orders that establish a new 
NBBO on NOM's Order Book. The NOM Participant may become eligible for 
MARS System Eligibility by complying with one of the two options 
proposed herein.
    With respect to the new language, an example would be if the 
national best bid was 10 and national best offer was 20 and a NOM 
Participant bid 15 and that quote established a new NBBO on NOM's Order 
Book, that activity would also be considered eligible. The Exchange 
believes that this alternative method to qualify for MARS System 
Eligibility will further incentivize NOM Participants to provide 
liquidity at the NBBO on NOM to qualify for MARS.
Amendment to MARS Payment
    Today, NOM Participants that have System Eligibility and have 
routed the requisite number of Eligible Contracts daily in a month 
(Average Daily Volume), which were executed on NOM, are entitled to a 
MARS Payment. For the purpose of qualifying for the MARS Payment, 
Eligible Contracts may include Firm,\5\ Non-NOM Market Maker,\6\ 
Broker-Dealer \7\ or Joint Back Office or ``JBO'' \8\ equity option 
orders that add liquidity and are electronically delivered and 
executed.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``Firm'' or (``F'') applies to any transaction that 
is identified by a Participant for clearing in the Firm range at 
OCC.
    \6\ The term ``Non-NOM Market Maker'' or (``O'') is a registered 
market maker on another options exchange that is not a NOM Market 
Maker. A Non-NOM Market Maker must append the proper Non-NOM Market 
Maker designation to orders routed to NOM.
    \7\ The term ``Broker-Dealer'' or (``B'') applies to any 
transaction which is not subject to any of the other transaction 
fees applicable within a particular category.
    \8\ The term ``Joint Back Office'' or ``JBO'' applies to any 
transaction that is identified by a Participant for clearing in the 
Firm range at OCC and is identified with an origin code as a JBO. A 
JBO will be priced the same as a Broker-Dealer as of September 1, 
2014. A JBO participant is a Participant that maintains a JBO 
arrangement with a clearing broker-dealer (``JBO Broker'') subject 
to the requirements of Regulation T Section 220.7 of the Federal 
Reserve System as further discussed in Chapter XIII, Section 5.
    \9\ Eligible Contracts do not include Mini-Option orders. Mini 
Options are further specified in Chapter XV, Section 2(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today, the Exchange pays the following MARS Payments according to 
Average Daily Volume (``ADV'') \10\ submitted on NOM:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Average Daily Volume is all Eligible Contracts daily in a 
month aggregating Penny and Non-Penny Pilot Options.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Average
                                                       Daily      MARS
                       Tiers                           Volume    payment
                                                     (``ADV'')
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..................................................      2,500     $0.07
2..................................................      5,000      0.09
3..................................................     10,000      0.11
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also, NOM Participants that qualify for Customer and Professional 
Penny Pilot Options Rebate to Add Liquidity Tier 8 in Chapter XV, 
Section 2(1) will receive $0.09 per contract in addition to any MARS 
Payment tier on MARS Eligible Contracts the NOM Participant qualifies 
for in a given month. The specified MARS Payment is paid on all 
executed Eligible Contracts that add liquidity, which are routed to NOM 
through a participating NOM Participant's System and meet the requisite 
Eligible Contracts ADV. No payment will be made with respect to orders 
that are routed to NOM, but not executed.
    The Exchange proposes to add a new Tier 4 with an ADV of 20,000 
contracts and pay a MARS Payment of $0.15 per contract. The Exchange 
also proposes to rename the aforementioned tier 4 payment along with 
the current tier 1 through 3 payments as MARS Payment (Penny). The 
three existing payment tiers, along with the aforementioned new tier 4 
payment tier of $0.15 per contract would be paid for Penny Pilot 
Options transactions that qualify for the MARS Payment tier program.
    Additionally, the Exchange proposes 4 new tiers for Non-Penny Pilot 
Options transactions as follows: The 4 new tiers for MARS Payment (Non-
Penny) shall be: Tier 1 with an ADV of 2,500 contracts would pay $0.15 
per contract, tier 2 with an ADV of 5,000 contracts would pay $0.20 per 
contract, tier 3 with an ADV of 10,000 would pay $0.30 per contract and 
tier 4 with an ADV of 20,000 contracts would pay $0.50 per contract. 
The Exchange would continue to pay an additional $0.09 per contract in 
addition to any MARS Payment tier on MARS Eligible Contracts in a given 
month on the Non-Penny Pilot Options transactions, provided the NOM 
Participant qualified for the Customer and Professional Penny Pilot 
Options Rebate to Add Liquidity Tier 8 in Chapter XV, Section 2(1). The 
Exchange believes that MARS will continue to attract higher volumes of 
electronic equity and ETF options volume to the Exchange from non-NOM 
Participants as well as NOM Participants. This amendment may attract 
additional Non-Penny Pilot Options volume.

[[Page 79538]]

Clarifying Amendments
    Today, a Participant will not be entitled to receive any other 
revenue from the Exchange for the use of its System, specifically with 
respect to orders routed to NOM. The Exchange believes that the MARS 
Payment will subsidize the costs of NOM Participants in providing the 
routing services. The Exchange proposes to make clear that Participant 
will not be entitled to receive any other revenue for the use of its 
System from the Exchange. The Exchange believes this new rule text 
provides clarity. The Exchange also proposes to add a missing period 
into the rule text.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 
6(b) of the Act,\11\ in general, and furthers the objectives of 
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\12\ in particular, in that it 
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and 
other charges among Participants 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 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.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 
70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting 
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Likewise, in NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission 
\14\ (``NetCoalition'') the D.C. Circuit upheld the Commission's use of 
a market-based approach in evaluating the fairness of market data fees 
against a challenge claiming that Congress mandated a cost-based 
approach.\15\ 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.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
    \15\ See NetCoalition, at 534-535.
    \16\ 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'. . .. '' \17\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Id. at 539 (quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 
59039 (December 2, 2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) 
(SR-NYSEArca-2006-21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment to MARS System Eligibility
    The Exchange's proposal to amend the requirements for MARS System 
Eligibility to continue to permit in the alternative for a Participant 
to be eligible if the Participant's System causes NOM to be the one of 
the top three default destination exchanges for orders that establish a 
new NBBO on NOM's Order Book is reasonable because the amendment will 
continue to incentivize NOM Participants to quote at the NBBO on NOM to 
qualify for MARS. The Exchange believes that requiring NOM Participants 
to maintain their Systems according to the various requirements set 
forth by the Exchange in order to qualify for MARS is reasonable 
because the Exchange seeks to encourage market participants to send 
higher volumes of orders to NOM, which will contribute to the 
Exchange's depth of book as well as to the top of book liquidity. MARS 
is designed to enhance the competitiveness of the Exchange, 
particularly with respect to those exchanges that offer their own 
front-end order entry system or one they subsidize in some manner.\18\ 
The Exchange also notes that the Chicago Board of Options Exchange, 
Inc. (``CBOE'') currently offers a similar Order Routing Subsidy 
(``ORS''), which, similar to the current proposal, allows CBOE 
Participants to enter into subsidy arrangements with CBOE Trading 
Permit Holders (``TPHs'') that provide certain order routing 
functionalities to other CBOE TPHs and/or use such functionalities 
themselves.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See, e.g., supra note 10; Securities Exchange Act Release 
No. 34-54121 (July 10, 2006), 71 FR 40566 (July 17, 2006) (SR-ISE-
2006-31) (describing PrecISE, which is a front-end, order entry 
application for trading options utilized by International Securities 
Exchange LLC).
    \19\ See CBOE's Fees Schedule. CBOE's program permits both CBOE 
Participants and CBOE non-Participants to be eligible for a rebate. 
CBOE Participants are eligible to receive exchange transaction fees 
on transactions that earn a non-CBOE Participant a subsidy payment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to amend the requirements for MARS System 
Eligibility to further permit, in the alternative, for a Participant to 
be eligible if the Participant's System causes NOM to be the one of the 
top three default destination exchanges for orders that establish a new 
NBBO on NOM's Order Book is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory 
because these requirements will uniformly apply to all Participants 
desiring to qualify for MARS.
Amendments to MARS Eligible Contracts
    The Exchange's proposal to add a new Tier 4 with an ADV of 20,000 
contracts and pay a MARS Payment of $0.15 per contract and designate 
all remaining pricing as Penny Pilot Options transactions pricing and 
adopt new pricing for Non-Penny Pilot Options volume is reasonable 
because the amendments will attract higher volumes of electronic equity 
and ETF options volume to the Exchange, which will benefit all NOM 
Participants by offering greater price discovery, increased 
transparency, and an increased opportunity to trade on the Exchange. 
The expanded MARS Payments should enhance the competitiveness of the 
Exchange, particularly with respect to those exchanges that offer their 
own front-end order entry system or one they subsidize in some manner. 
The amendment to add Tier 4 will incentivize NOM Participants to 
achieve an even higher Penny Pilot Options rebate, provided the NOM 
Participant is eligible for MARS. Further, the tier structure will 
allow NOM Participants to price their services at a level that will 
enable them to attract order flow from market participants who would 
otherwise utilize an existing front-end order entry mechanism offered 
by the Exchange's competitors instead of incurring the cost in time and 
money to develop their own internal systems to be able to deliver 
orders directly to the Exchange's System.
    The Exchange's proposal to add a new Tier 4 with an ADV of 20,000 
contracts and pay a MARS Payment of $0.15 per contract and designate 
all remaining pricing as Penny Pilot Options transactions pricing and 
adopt new pricing for Non-Penny Pilot Options volume is equitable and 
not unfairly

[[Page 79539]]

discriminatory because the Exchange will uniformly pay all NOM 
Participants the rebates specified in the proposed MARS Payment tiers 
provided the NOM Participant has executed the requisite number of 
Eligible Contracts. Moreover, the Exchange believes that the proposed 
MARS Payments offered by the Exchange are equitable and not unfairly 
discriminatory because any qualifying NOM Participant that offers 
market access and connectivity to the Exchange and/or utilize such 
functionality themselves may earn the MARS Payment for all Eligible 
Contracts.
    The Exchange's proposal to adopt new Non-Penny Pilot Options MARS 
Payments tiers with higher rebates as compared to the Penny Pilot 
Options MARS Payment tiers is reasonable because the amendments will 
attract higher volumes of electronic equity and ETF options volume to 
the Exchange, which will benefit all NOM Participants by offering 
greater price discovery, increased transparency, and an increased 
opportunity to trade on the Exchange. The expanded MARS Payments should 
enhance the competitiveness of the Exchange, particularly with respect 
to those exchanges that offer their own front-end order entry system or 
one they subsidize in some manner. Today the Exchange bifurcates Penny 
and Non-Penny Options pricing. The Exchange pays higher Non-Penny Pilot 
Options rebates as compared to Penny Pilot Options rebates.\20\ Penny 
Pilot Options are more liquid and traditionally are assessed lower fees 
and paid lower rebates. The Exchange believes it is reasonable to pay 
higher rebates for Non-Penny Pilot Options which are assessed higher 
transaction fees on the Exchange.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See NOM Rules at Chapter XV, Section 2(1).
    \21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to adopt new Non-Penny Pilot Options MARS 
Payments tiers with higher rebates as compared to the Penny Pilot 
Options MARS Payment tiers is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory 
because the Exchange will uniformly pay all NOM Participants the MARS 
Payments specified in the proposed MARS Payment tiers for Penny and 
Non-Penny Pilot Options provided the NOM Participant has executed the 
requisite number of Eligible Contracts.
Clarifying Amendments
    The Exchange's proposal to amend the rule text to make clear that a 
Participant will not be entitled to receive any other revenue for the 
use of its System from the Exchange and add a missing period into the 
rule text is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory 
because it will clarify existing rule text for all NOM Participants.

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 
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.
Amendment to MARS System Eligibility
    The Exchange's proposal to amend the requirements for MARS System 
Eligibility to further permit, in the alternative, for a Participant to 
be eligible if the Participant's System causes NOM to be the one of the 
top three default destination exchanges for orders that establish a new 
NBBO on NOM's Order Book does not impose an undue burden on intra-
market competition because these requirements will uniformly apply to 
all Participants desiring to qualify for MARS.
Amendments to MARS Eligible Contracts
    The Exchange's proposal to add a new Tier 4 with an ADV of 20,000 
contracts and pay a MARS Payment of $0.15 per contract and designate 
this, along with all remaining pricing as Penny Pilot Options 
transactions pricing and adopt new pricing for Non-Penny Pilot Options 
volume does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition 
because the Exchange will uniformly pay all NOM Participants the 
rebates specified in the proposed MARS Payment tiers provided the NOM 
Participant has executed the requisite number of Eligible Contracts. 
Moreover, the Exchange believes that the proposed MARS Payments offered 
by the Exchange are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because 
any qualifying NOM Participant that offers market access and 
connectivity to the Exchange and/or utilizes such functionality 
themselves may earn the MARS Payment for all Eligible Contracts.
    The Exchange's proposal to adopt new Non-Penny Pilot Options MARS 
Payments tiers with higher rebates as compared to the Penny Pilot 
Options MARS Payment tiers does not impose an undue burden on intra-
market competition because the Exchange will uniformly pay all NOM 
Participants the MARS Payments specified in the proposed MARS Payment 
tiers for Penny and Non-Penny Pilot Options provided the NOM 
Participant has executed the requisite number of Eligible Contracts.
Clarifying Amendments
    The Exchange's proposal to amend the rule text to make clear that a 
Participant will not be entitled to receive any other revenue for the 
use of its System from the Exchange and add a missing period into the 
rule text does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition 
because it will clarify existing rule text for all NOM Participants.

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.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 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

[[Page 79540]]

Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the 
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and 
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule 
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of 
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to rule-comments@sec.gov. Please include 
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2016-149 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, 
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., 
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2016-149. 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-NASDAQ-2016-149 and 
should be submitted on or before December 5, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-27235 Filed 11-10-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


