7654 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 28 / Wednesday, February 11, 2015 / Notices 

1 15 U.S.C. 78k–1. 

2 17 CFR 242.608. 

3Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67457 (July 

18, 2012), 77 FR 45722 (August 1, 2012). 

4Pursuant to Section I(C) of the Selection NMS 

Plan, a ‘‘Bid’’ is a proposal submitted by a Bidder 

in response to the RFP. 

5See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70892 

(Nov. 15, 2013), 78 FR 69910 (Nov. 21, 2013)(Notice 

of Selection NMS Plan). 

6 Id. 

7See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71596 

(Feb. 21, 2014), 79 FR 11152 (Feb. 27, 

2014)(Approval Order). 

8See 17 CFR 242.608(a)(4) and (a)(5). 

9See Letter from the Participants to Brent J. 

Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated December 12, 

2014. 

prices of the underlying assets 

subsequent to the Spin-Off Transaction. 

9. Applicants assert that the Spin-Off 

Transaction is being proposed to benefit 

NHF shareholders. The advisory fees for 

NXRT REIT will be substantially similar 

to those paid by NHF prior to the SpinOff Transaction, and neither Adviser 

nor any affiliated person of NHF or 

NXRT REIT will receive additional fees 

on a consolidated basis solely as a result 

of the Spin-Off Transaction. The Board 

of NHF has determined that the 

prospective benefits to the Advisers 

would be marginal compared to the 

prospective benefits to NHF 

shareholders. In addition, by 

consummating the Spin-Off 

Transaction, NHF would enable its 

shareholders to receive securities 

without the costs associated with a 

public offering. 

Applicants’ Condition 

NXRT REIT will commit in its articles 

of incorporation that it will comply with 

section 15 of the Act as if it were an 

investment company registered under 

the Act, and that it will not enter into 

an investment advisory agreement 

unless that agreement complies with 

section 15 of the Act and any applicable 

rules thereunder or published guidance 

of the Commission or its staff. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Investment Management, under delegated 

authority. 

Brent J. Fields, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2015–02796 Filed 2–10–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–74223; File No. 4–668] 

Joint Industry Plan; Notice of 

Amendment to the National Market 

System Plan Governing the Process of 

Selecting a Plan Processor and 

Developing a Plan for the Consolidated 

Audit Trail by BATS Exchange, Inc., 

BATS–Y Exchange, Inc., BOX Options 

Exchange LLC, C2 Options Exchange, 

Incorporated, Chicago Board Options 

Exchange, Incorporated, Chicago 

Stock Exchange, Inc., EDGA 

Exchange, Inc., EDGX Exchange, Inc., 

Financial Industry Regulatory 

Authority, Inc., International Securities 

Exchange, LLC, ISE Gemini, LLC, 

Miami International Securities 

Exchange LLC, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., 

NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, The 

NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, National 

Stock Exchange, Inc., New York Stock 

Exchange LLC, and NYSE MKT LLC, 

NYSE Arca, Inc. 

February 6, 2015. 

I. Introduction 

Pursuant to Section 11A of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

(‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 608 thereunder,2

notice is hereby given that, on December 

12, 2014, BATS Exchange, Inc., BATS– 

Y Exchange, Inc., BOX Options 

Exchange LLC, C2 Options Exchange, 

Incorporated, Chicago Board Options 

Exchange, Incorporated, Chicago Stock 

Exchange, Inc., EDGA Exchange, Inc., 

EDGX Exchange, Inc., Financial 

Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., 

International Securities Exchange, LLC, 

ISE Gemini, LLC, Miami International 

Securities Exchange LLC, NASDAQ 

OMX BX, Inc., NASDAQ OMX PHLX 

LLC, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, 

National Stock Exchange, Inc., New 

York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE MKT 

LLC, and NYSE Arca, Inc. (collectively, 

‘‘SROs’’ or ‘‘Participants’’), filed with 

the Securities and Exchange 

Commission (the ‘‘Commission’’) a 

proposal to amend the Plan Governing 

the Process of Selecting a Plan Processor 

and Developing a Plan for the 

Consolidated Audit Trail (the ‘‘Selection 

Plan’’). 

II. Background 

On July 11, 2012, the Commission 

adopted Rule 613 to require the SROs to 

jointly submit a national market system 

(‘‘NMS’’) plan to create, implement, and 

maintain a consolidated audit trail 

(‘‘CAT NMS Plan’’).3 To facilitate the 

development of the consolidated audit 

trail, following the adoption of Rule 

613, the SROs created a working group 

consisting of representatives from each 

SRO. The SROs also decided to engage 

in a request for proposal (‘‘RFP’’) 

process to help them develop the CAT 

NMS Plan and to solicit bids (‘‘Bids 4’’) 

for the role of Plan Processor to build, 

operate, administer, and maintain the 

consolidated audit trail.5 In addition, on 

September 3, 2013, the SROs filed, for 

approval, the Selection Plan to govern 

how the SROs would proceed with 

formulating and submitting the CAT 

NMS Plan—and, as part of that process, 

how the SROs would review, evaluate, 

and narrow down the Bids submitted in 

response to the RFP—and ultimately 

selecting the Plan Processor.6 The 

Selection Plan was approved on 

February 21, 2014.7

The SROs propose to amend the 

Selection Plan in two ways. First, the 

SROs propose to provide opportunities 

to accept revised Bids prior to approval 

of the CAT NMS Plan, and second, to 

allow the list of Shortlisted Bids to be 

narrowed prior to Commission approval 

of the CAT NMS Plan. A copy of the 

proposed amendment to the Selection 

Plan is attached as Exhibit A hereto. The 

Commission is publishing this notice to 

solicit comments from interested 

persons on the proposed amendment to 

the Selection Plan. 

III. Description of the Plan 

Set forth in this Section II is the 

statement of the purpose of the 

Selection Plan, along with the 

information required by Rule 608(a)(4) 

and (5) under the Exchange Act,8

prepared and submitted by the SROs to 

the Commission.9

A. Background 

The Selection Plan governs the 

process for Participant review of Bids 

for the role of Plan Processor for the 

CAT NMS Plan, the procedures for 

evaluating the Bids, and ultimately, 

until approval of the CAT NMS Plan, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 28 / Wednesday, February 11, 2015 / Notices 7655 

10See 78 FR 69910 at 69917. 

11 Id. 

12 Id. at 69917–18. 

the selection of the Plan Processor. The 

CAT NMS Plan was filed with the 

Commission for approval on September 

30, 2014. 

After gaining experience with the 

development process for the CAT NMS 

Plan, the Participants believe it is 

necessary to amend the Selection Plan 

to ensure that the Participants will be 

able to choose a Plan Processor within 

the timeframe provided in the Selection 

Plan and Rule 613. The Participants 

propose amending the Selection Plan to 

(1) provide for additional opportunities 

to accept revised Bids and (2) allow the 

set of Shortlisted Bids to be narrowed 

prior to Commission approval of the 

CAT NMS Plan. 

1. The Selection Plan Currently Allows 

Bid Revisions Only Following CAT 

NMS Plan Approval, and Does Not 

Allow for Narrowing of the Set of 

Shortlisted Bids 

Under the Selection Plan, Shortlisted 

Bidders are only eligible to revise Bids 

following Commission approval of the 

CAT NMS Plan. The Selection Plan 

specifies that, following approval of the 

CAT NMS Plan by the SEC, Shortlisted 

Bidders for the role of Plan Processor 

may be permitted to revise their Bids 

based on the provisions in the approved 

CAT NMS Plan, including further 

discussions if determined to be 

necessary by the Selection Committee 

described in the Selection Plan.10 The 

Selection Plan provides that a 

Shortlisted Bidder will be permitted to 

revise its Bid only upon approval by a 

majority of the Selection Committee, 

subject to certain recusal provisions in 

the Selection Plan, that revisions are 

necessary or appropriate in the light of 

the content of the Shortlisted Bidder’s 

initial Bid and the provisions in the 

approved CAT NMS Plan.11

The Selection Plan also requires that 

selection of the Plan Processor occur 

from among the initial set of Shortlisted 

Bids.12 Under the current Selection 

Plan, the Participants are not permitted 

to narrow the list of Shortlisted Bids 

determined pursuant to Section VI(B) of 

the Selection Plan. 

2. Allowing Revision(s) of Bids In Light 

of Additional Information Available to 

Shortlisted Bidders and Providing for 

Narrowing the Set of Shortlisted Bidders 

Will Allow the Participants to Select the 

Plan Processor More Effectively and 

Efficiently Within the Rule 613 

Timeframe 

The Participants believe that 

providing the Shortlisted Bidders with 

an additional opportunity or 

opportunities to revise their Bids prior 

to the approval of the CAT NMS Plan 

is critical to the timely and considered 

selection of the Plan Processor. Since 

the Bidders submitted their Bids, the 

Participants have expended substantial 

effort in analyzing potential solutions 

for the consolidated audit trail (‘‘CAT’’) 

by gathering and evaluating data and 

information from a variety of market 

participants, including Bidders, brokerdealers, vendors, regulators and others. 

As a result, since the original Bid date, 

the Participants have made substantial 

strides in identifying characteristics of 

an optimal solution and formalizing 

these determinations in the proposed 

CAT NMS Plan and related technical 

documents. Given the development of 

the requirements for an optimal solution 

for the CAT, the Participants believe 

that waiting until after the approval of 

the CAT NMS Plan to permit the 

Shortlisted Bidders to revise their Bids 

will shortchange the Bid process to the 

detriment of the final plan. Moreover, 

given the passage of time since the 

original Bids, Bidders have indicated 

that new technological and other 

beneficial solutions are now available 

that may further improve the Bids, and, 

ultimately, the proposed solutions. 

In addition, the Participants believe 

that delaying the Bid revision process 

until after the approval of the CAT NMS 

Plan will prevent Bidders from 

submitting, and the Participants from 

adequately reviewing the most relevant, 

informative and fulsome Bids before 

selecting a Plan Processor. Specifically, 

Rule 613(a)(2)(i) requires the 

Participants to select the Plan Processor 

within two months after effectiveness of 

the CAT NMS Plan. The Participants 

anticipate permitting the Shortlisted 

Bidders to revise their Bids, pursuant to 

Section VI(D) of the Selection Plan, after 

approval of the CAT NMS Plan, if there 

are substantial changes to the CAT NMS 

Plan before the CAT NMS Plan is 

approved by the Commission. 

Therefore, the Participants will have 

only a short time period of two months 

to analyze the Shortlisted Bids—Bids 

that are likely to have substantial 

revisions after the approval of the CAT 

NMS Plan for the reasons discussed 

above. Given the very large amount of 

information to digest in the revised Bids 

and the importance of appropriately 

analyzing such information, the 

Participants do not believe that two 

months will be sufficient to select the 

Plan Processor given the limitations of 

the current Selection Plan. However, if 

the Shortlisted Bidders are able to revise 

their Bids to reflect the provisions of the 

proposed CAT NMS Plan and any draft 

technical materials, as well as any new 

technology or other relevant 

developments, prior to the approval of 

the CAT NMS Plan, then the 

Participants believe that they will be 

able to select the Plan Processor within 

the time limits imposed by Rule 613 in 

a more thoughtful and deliberative 

manner. 

In addition, the Participants believe 

that providing the Selection Committee 

the discretion to further reduce the 

number of Shortlisted Bids, either 

before or after any revisions to 

Shortlisted Bids are accepted, would 

also facilitate the selection of the Plan 

Processor within the time limits 

imposed by Rule 613. Allowing the 

Selection Committee to reduce the 

number of Shortlisted Bids before 

approval of the CAT NMS Plan could 

allow the Participants to more 

efficiently select the Plan Processor by 

focusing attention on a more refined set 

of options during the limited two month 

time period for selection following 

approval of the CAT NMS Plan. 

B. Requirements Pursuant to Rule 608(a) 

1. Description of the Amendments to the 

Selection Plan 

The Participants propose amending 

the Selection Plan to permit the 

Shortlisted Bidders to revise their Bids 

one or more times prior to approval of 

the CAT NMS Plan if the Selection 

Committee determines, by majority vote, 

subject to the applicable recusal 

provisions, that such revisions are 

necessary and appropriate. The 

proposed amendment would not affect 

Section VI(D) of the Selection Plan, 

which allows for revisions to Shortlisted 

Bids following Commission approval of 

the CAT NMS Plan. 

The Participants also propose 

amending the Selection Plan to provide 

the Selection Committee discretion to 

narrow the set of Shortlisted Bids prior 

to approval of the CAT NMS Plan. 

Specifically, the proposed amendment 

would authorize another round of 

voting to narrow the set of Shortlisted 

Bids. This round of voting, which could 

occur either before or after any revisions 

to Shortlisted Bids are accepted, would 

be commenced upon at least a twoVerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Feb 10, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11FEN1.SGM 11FEN1

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
7656 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 28 / Wednesday, February 11, 2015 / Notices 

13 17 CFR 242.608. 

thirds vote of the Selection Committee, 

and would proceed in a manner similar 

to the initial round for voting for the 

Shortlisted Bids. Each Voting Senior 

Officer would choose a first, second, 

and third choice Shortlisted Bid, with 

each choice receiving a weight of, 

respectively, three points, two points, 

and one point. The three bids receiving 

the highest cumulative number of points 

would constitute the new set of 

Shortlisted Bids. In the event of a tie 

that would result in more than three 

final Shortlisted Bids, the votes would 

be recounted, excluding each Voting 

Senior Officer’s third choice. The three 

Shortlisted Bids receiving the largest 

number of cumulative votes in this 

recount would be the new Shortlisted 

Bids. If this recount were to result in a 

tie leading to a larger or equal number 

of final Shortlisted Bids than the initial 

count, the results of the initial count 

would constitute the new set of 

Shortlisted Bids. The proposed 

amendment also includes, for the sake 

of clarity, a provision ensuring that at 

least one Non-SRO Bid is included in 

the narrowed set of Shortlisted Bids. 

The individual scores and rankings 

under any vote to narrow the list of 

Shortlisted Bids shall be kept 

confidential. 

Finally, the proposed amendment 

includes provisions with respect to the 

recusal of Participants that also are 

Shortlisted Bidders. Under this 

proposed provision, no Bidding 

Participant shall vote in the process 

narrowing the set of Shortlisted Bidders, 

if a Bid submitted by or including the 

Participant or an Affiliate of the 

Participant is a Shortlisted Bid. 

2. Governing or Constituent Documents 

Not applicable. 

3. Implementation of Amendment 

The terms of the proposed 

amendments will be operative 

immediately upon approval of the 

amendments by the Commission. 

4. Development and Implementation 

Phases 

Not applicable. 

5. Analysis of Impact on Competition 

The proposed amendments do not 

impose any burden on competition that 

is not necessary or appropriate in 

furtherance of the purposes of the 

Exchange Act. The SROs believe that 

the amendments are reasonably 

designed to help assure that the SROs 

receive more updated and informed 

submissions from Shortlisted Bidders 

before the CAT NMS Plan is finalized, 

thereby helping to assure that the 

selection of the Plan Processor for the 

CAT NMS Plan proceeds efficiently 

within the timeframe provided by Rule 

613. Moreover, the SROs believe that 

the amended process will facilitate the 

development of an audit trail that 

maximizes its regulatory utility while 

minimizing unnecessary costs, to the 

benefit of all market participants. 

Furthermore, providing the ability to 

narrow the list of Bidders at an earlier 

stage will prevent Bidders whose Bids 

are unlikely to be selected from 

misallocating their resources toward the 

further development of their Bid. 

6. Written Understanding or Agreements 

Relating to Interpretation of, or 

Participation in, Plan 

Not applicable. 

7. Statement That the Amendments 

Have Been Approved by the Plan 

Sponsors 

The Selection Plan provides that 

amendments to the Selection Plan shall 

be effected by means of a written 

amendment that: (1) Sets forth the 

change, addition, or deletion; (2) is 

executed by over two-thirds of the 

Participants; and (3) is approved by the 

SEC pursuant to Rule 608, or otherwise 

becomes effective under Rule 608.13

The proposed amendments have been 

executed by eighteen of the Participants, 

and have consequently been approved 

by the SROs. One Participant which is 

also a Shortlisted Bidder, abstained 

from the decision whether to adopt 

these amendments to avoid potential 

conflicts of interest. 

8. Terms and Conditions of Access 

Not applicable. 

9. Method of Determination and 

Imposition, and Amount of, Fees and 

Charges 

Not applicable. 

10. Method and Frequency of Processor 

Evaluation 

Not applicable. 

11. Dispute Resolution 

Not applicable. 

IV. Solicitation of Comments 

Interested persons are invited to 

submit written data, views, and 

arguments concerning the foregoing, 

including whether the Amendment to 

the Plan 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 4– 

668 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 4–668. 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 

Amendment to the Plan that are filed 

with the Commission, and all written 

communications relating to the 

Amendment to the Plan 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 10:00 a.m. and 

3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing will also 

be available for inspection and copying 

at the Participants’ principal offices. 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 4–668 and should be submitted 

on or before March 13, 2015. 

By the Commission. 

Brent J. Fields, 

Secretary. 

Exhibit A 

Proposed new language is italicized; 

proposed deletions are in [brackets]. 

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TEXT 

Plan Processor Evaluation and Selection 

Plan 

I. Definitions 

* * * * * 

(X) ‘‘Shortlisted Bid’’ means a Bid 

submitted by a Qualified Bidder and 

selected as a Shortlisted Bid by the 

Selection Committee pursuant to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 28 / Wednesday, February 11, 2015 / Notices 7657 

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

3 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6)(iii). 

Section VI(B) and, if applicable, 

pursuant to Section VI(C)(3) of the Plan. 

* * * * * 

III. Operating Committee 

* * * * * 

(E) Conflicts and Recusals 

A Participant may recuse itself from 

voting on any matter under 

consideration by the Operating 

Committee if the Participant determines 

that voting on such matter raises a 

conflict of interest. Except as provided 

in Sections V(B)(2), and V(B)(3), and 

V(B)(4) of the Plan, no Participant is 

automatically recused from voting on 

any matter. 

* * * * * 

V. Selection Committee 

* * * * * 

(B) Voting 

* * * * * 

(2) No Bidding Participant shall vote 

on whether a Shortlisted Bidder will be 

permitted to revise its Bid pursuant to 

Section VI(C)(2) or Section VI(D)(1) 

below if a Bid submitted by or including 

the Participant or an Affiliate of the 

Participant is a Shortlisted Bid. 

(3) No Bidding Participant shall vote 

in the process narrowing the set of 

Shortlisted Bidders as set forth in 

Section VI(C)(3) if a Bid submitted by or 

including the Participant or an Affiliate 

of the Participant is a Shortlisted Bid. 

(4) No Bidding Participant shall vote 

in the second round set forth in Section 

VI(E)(4) below if a Bid submitted by or 

including the Participant or an Affiliate 

of the Participant is part of the second 

round. 

(5) All votes by the Selection 

Committee shall be confidential and 

non-public. All such votes will be 

tabulated by an independent third party 

approved by the Operating Committee, 

and a Participant’s individual votes will 

not be disclosed to other Participants or 

to the public. 

* * * * * 

VI. RFP Bid Evaluation and Plan 

Processor Selection 

* * * * * 

(C) Formulation of the CAT NMS Plan 

(1) The Selection Committee shall 

review the Shortlisted Bids to identify 

optimal proposed solutions for the 

consolidated audit trail and provide 

descriptions of such proposed solutions 

for inclusion in the CAT NMS Plan. 

This process may, but is not required to, 

include iterative discussions with 

Shortlisted Bidders to address any 

aspects of an optimal proposed solution 

that were not fully addressed in a 

particular Bid. 

(2) Prior to the approval of the CAT 

NMS Plan, all Shortlisted Bidders will 

be permitted to revise their Bids one or 

more times if the Selection Committee 

determines, by majority vote, that such 

revision(s) are necessary or appropriate. 

(3) Prior to approval of the CAT NMS 

Plan, and either before or after any 

revisions to Shortlisted Bids are 

accepted, the Selection Committee may 

determine, by at least a two-thirds vote, 

to narrow the number of Shortlisted 

Bids to three Bids, in accordance with 

the process in this Paragraph (C)(3). 

(a) Each Voting Senior Officer shall 

select a first, second, and third choice 

from among the Shortlisted Bids. 

(b) A weighted score shall be assigned 

to each choice as follows: 

• First—3 points. 

• Second—2 points. 

• Third—1 point. 

(c) The three Shortlisted Bids 

receiving the highest cumulative scores 

will be the new set of Shortlisted Bids. 

(d) In the event of a tie that would 

result in more than three final 

Shortlisted Bids, the votes shall be 

recounted, omitting each Voting Senior 

Officer’s third choice, in order to break 

the tie. If this recount produces a tie 

that would result in a number of final 

Shortlisted Bids larger than or equal to 

that from the initial count, the results of 

the initial count shall constitute the 

final set of Shortlisted Bids. 

(e) To the extent there are Non-SRO 

Bids that are Shortlisted Bids, the final 

Shortlisted Bids selected pursuant to 

this Section VI(C)(3) must, if possible, 

include at least one Non-SRO Bid. If 

following the vote set forth in this 

Section VI(C)(3), no Non-SRO Bid was 

selected as a final Shortlisted Bid, the 

Non-SRO Bid receiving the highest 

cumulative votes shall be retained as a 

Shortlisted Bid. 

(f) The third party tabulating votes, as 

specified in Section V(B)(5), shall 

identify to the Selection Committee the 

new set of Shortlisted Bids, but shall 

keep confidential the individual scores 

and rankings of the Shortlisted Bids 

from the process in this Paragraph 

(C)(3). 

(4) The Participants shall incorporate 

information on optimal proposed 

solutions in the CAT NMS Plan, 

including cost-benefit information as 

required by SEC Rule 613. 

[FR Doc. 2015–02840 Filed 2–10–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–74211; File No. SR–BX– 

2015–008] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice 

of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness 

of Proposed Rule Change by NASDAQ 

OMX BX, Inc. Relating to a 

Typographical Error 

February 5, 2015. 

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

(‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 2 thereunder, 

notice is hereby given that, on January 

29, 2015, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (‘‘BX’’ 

or ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the Securities 

and Exchange Commission (‘‘SEC’’ or 

‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule 

change as described in Items I and II 

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. 

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Terms of Substance of 

the Proposed Rule Change 

The Exchange proposes to modify the 

BX Rulebook at Options Chapter VI, 

Section 1 to correct a typographical 

error in a previous rule change. 

The Exchange requests that the 

Commission waive the 30-day operative 

delay period contained in Exchange Act 

Rule 19b–4(f)(6)(iii).3

The text of the proposed rule change 

is available on the Exchange’s Web site 

at http://nasdaqomxbx.cchwall 

street.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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES