Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 27, 2016 / Notices 4731 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

3The term ‘‘NOM Market Maker’’ is a Participant 

that has registered as a Market Maker on NOM 

pursuant to Chapter VII, Section 2, and must also 

remain in good standing pursuant to Chapter VII, 

Section 4. In order to receive NOM Market Maker 

pricing in all securities, the Participant must be 

registered as a NOM Market Maker in at least one 

security. 

4A ‘‘Non-NOM Market Maker’’ 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. 

5The term ‘‘Customer’’ or (‘‘C’’) applies to any 

transaction that is identified by a Participant for 

clearing in the Customer range at The Options 

Clearing Corporation which is not for the account 

of broker or dealer or for the account of a 

‘‘Professional’’ (as that term is defined in Chapter 

I, Section 1(a)(48)). 

6The term ‘‘Professional’’ or (‘‘P’’) 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) pursuant to 

Chapter I, Section 1(a)(48). All Professional orders 

shall be appropriately marked by Participants. 

7The term ‘‘Firm’’ or (‘‘F’’) applies to any 

transaction that is identified by a Participant for 

clearing in the Firm range at The Options Clearing 

Corporation. 

8The 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. 

9The term ‘‘Common Ownership’’ shall mean 

Participants under 75% common ownership or 

control. Common Ownership shall apply to all 

pricing in Chapter XV, Section 2 for which a 

volume threshold or volume percentage is required 

to obtain the pricing. 

10 15 U.S.C. 78f. 

11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5). 

12 Id. [sic] at 539 (quoting Securities Exchange 

Release No. 59039 (December 2, 2008), 73 FR 74770 

(December 9, 2008) (SR–NYSEArca–2006–21) at 73 

FR at 74782–74783). 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.27

Brent J. Fields, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2016–01540 Filed 1–26–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–76967; File No. SR– 

NASDAQ–2016–004] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The 

NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of 

Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of 

Proposed Rule Change To Amend 

NOM Rules at Chapter XV, Section 2 

January 22, 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 January 

11, 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. 

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Terms of Substance of 

the Proposed Rule Change 

The Exchange proposes to amend 

Chapter XV, entitled ‘‘Options Pricing,’’ 

at Section 2, which governs pricing for 

Exchange members using the NASDAQ 

Options Market (‘‘NOM’’), the 

Exchange’s facility for executing and 

routing standardized equity and index 

options. 

The Exchange purposes [sic] to amend 

its NOM Market Maker 3 and Non-NOM 

Market Maker 4 Fees for Removing 

Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options to offer 

Participants an incentive to direct a 

greater amount of order flow to NOM 

from January 11, 2016 through January 

29, 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 

The Exchange proposes certain 

amendments to the NOM transaction 

fees set forth at Chapter XV, Section 2 

for executing and routing standardized 

equity and index options under the 

Penny Pilot Options program. The 

Exchange desires to incentivize NOM 

Participants to add an even greater 

amount of liquidity to NOM from 

January 11, 2016 through January 29, 

2016. Specifically, the Exchange 

proposes to incentivize Participants by 

offering the opportunity to reduce the 

NOM Market Maker and Non-NOM 

Market Maker Penny Pilot Options Fees 

for Removing Liquidity from $0.50 to 

$0.48 per contract, for the time period 

from January 11, 2016 through January 

29, 2016, provided the Participant adds 

1.30% of Customer,5 Professional,6

Firm,7 Broker-Dealer 8 or Non-NOM 

Market Maker liquidity and the 

Participant is (i) both the buyer and 

seller or (ii) the Participant removes 

liquidity from another Participant under 

Common Ownership.9

This incentive offer will not apply to 

volume transacted prior to January 11, 

2016 or after January 29, 2016. 

2. Statutory Basis 

The Exchange believes that the 

proposed rule change is consistent with 

Section 6 of the Act,10 in general, and 

with Section 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the 

Act,11 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. Attracting 

order flow to the Exchange benefits all 

Participants who have the opportunity 

to interact with this order flow. 

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. 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 brokerdealers 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’. . . .’’ 12 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 and this proposal 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
4732 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 27, 2016 / Notices 

13Pursuant to Chapter VII (Market Participants), 

Section 5 (Obligations of Market Makers), in 

registering as a market maker, an Options 

Participant commits himself to various obligations. 

Transactions of a Market Maker in its market 

making capacity must constitute a course of 

dealings reasonably calculated to contribute to the 

maintenance of a fair and orderly market, and 

Market Makers should not make bids or offers or 

enter into transactions that are inconsistent with 

such course of dealings. Further, all Market Makers 

are designated as specialists on NOM for all 

purposes under the Act or rules thereunder. See 

Chapter VII, Section 5. 

14Each NOM Participant is assigned a firm code 

by the Exchange. 

15 In this example, the same Participant that 

added and removed the order would be entitled to 

the fee reduction because the NOM Participant was 

the buyer and seller on the transaction. 

16The Firm Floor Options Transaction Charges 

will be waived for members executing facilitation 

orders pursuant to Exchange Rule 1064 when such 

members are trading in their own proprietary 

account (including Cabinet Options Transaction 

Charges). The Firm Floor Options Transaction 

Charges will be waived for the buy side of a 

transaction if the same member or its affiliates 

is consistent with those views in that it 

is a price cut driven by competition. 

The Exchange’s proposal to 

incentivize Participants by offering the 

opportunity to reduce the NOM Market 

Maker and Non-NOM Market Maker 

Penny Pilot Options Fees for Removing 

Liquidity from $0.50 to $0.48 per 

contract, for the time period from 

January 11, 2016 through January 29, 

2016, provided the Participant adds 

1.30% of Customer, Professional, Firm, 

Broker-Dealer or Non-NOM Market 

Maker liquidity and the Participant is (i) 

both the buyer and seller or (ii) the 

Participant removes liquidity from 

another Participant under Common 

Ownership is reasonable because the 

Exchange believes NOM will attract a 

greater amount of order flow by offering 

this discounted rate. The Exchange 

believes that this additional fee 

reduction for Non-NOM Market Makers 

and NOM Market Makers should further 

incentivize Participants to add liquidity 

in Penny Pilot Options on NOM to 

obtain the discounted rate from January 

11, 2016 through January 29, 2016. 

The Exchange’s proposal to 

incentivize Participants by offering the 

opportunity to reduce the NOM Market 

Maker and Non-NOM Market Maker 

Penny Pilot Options Fees for Removing 

Liquidity from $0.50 to $0.48 per 

contract, for the time period from 

January 11, 2016 through January 29, 

2016, provided the Participant adds 

1.30% of Customer, Professional, Firm, 

Broker-Dealer or Non-NOM Market 

Maker liquidity and the Participant is (i) 

both the buyer and seller or (ii) the 

Participant removes liquidity from 

another Participant under Common 

Ownership is equitable and not unfairly 

discriminatory for the reasons which 

follow. NOM Market Makers have 

obligations to the market and regulatory 

requirements, which normally do not 

apply to other market participants.13 A 

NOM Market Maker has the obligation, 

for example, 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 [sic] course of 

dealings. The proposed differentiation 

as between NOM Market Makers and 

other market participants recognizes the 

differing contributions made to the 

trading environment on the Exchange by 

NOM Market Makers. For the above 

reasons, the Exchange believes that 

NOM Market Makers are entitled to 

discounted fees, provided they qualify 

for the discount. The Exchange believes 

it is equitable and not unfairly 

discriminatory to offer the fee discount 

to Non-NOM Market Makers because the 

Exchange is offering Participants 

flexibility in the manner in which they 

are submitting their orders. Non-NOM 

Market Makers have obligations on 

other exchanges to qualify as a market 

maker. Also, the Exchange believes that 

market makers not registered on NOM 

will be encouraged to send orders to 

NOM as an away market maker (NonNOM Market Maker) with this 

incentive. Because the incentive is being 

offered to both market makers registered 

on NOM and those not registered on 

NOM, the Exchange believes that the 

proposal is equitable and not unfairly 

discriminatory because it encourages 

market makers to direct liquidity to 

NOM to the benefit of all Participants. 

This proposal recognizes the overall 

contributions made by market makers to 

a listed options market. 

The Exchange believes that it is 

reasonable, equitable and not unfairly 

discriminatory to only offer the fee 

reduction to NOM Market Makers and 

Non-NOM Market Makers because the 

Exchange is offering this $0.02 per 

contract fee discount to the Penny Pilot 

Options Fees for Removing Liquidity to 

incentivize NOM Participants to select 

NOM as a venue to send Customer, 

Professional, Firm, Broker-Dealer or 

Non-NOM Market Maker order flow 

from January 11, 2016 through January 

29, 2016. 

The Exchange believes that it is 

reasonable, equitable and not unfairly 

discriminatory to permit NOM 

Participants with 75 percent common 

ownership to aggregate their volume for 

purposes of obtaining the fee discount 

because certain NOM Participants chose 

to segregate their businesses into 

different legal entities for purposes of 

conducting business. The Exchange 

believes that these NOM Participants 

should be treated as one entity for 

purposes of qualifying for the 

discounted Fee for Removing Liquidity 

in Penny Pilot Options, from January 11, 

2016 through January 29, 2016, as long 

as there is at least 75% common 

ownership or control among the NOM 

Participants. The Exchange also believes 

that it is reasonable, equitable and not 

unfairly discriminatory to offer a $0.02 

per contract reduced Penny Pilot Option 

Fee for Removing Liquidity to NonNOM Market Makers and NOM Market 

Makers for transactions in which the 

same NOM Participant or a NOM 

Participant under Common Ownership 

is the buyer and the seller from January 

11. 2016 through January 29, 2016. 

NOM Participants that chose to 

segregate their businesses into different 

legal entities should still be afforded the 

opportunity to receive the discount as if 

they were the same NOM Participant on 

both sides of the transaction. 

It is important to note that NOM 

Participants are unaware at the time the 

order is entered of the identity of the 

contra-party. Because contra-parties are 

anonymous, the Exchange believes that 

NOM Participants would aggressively 

pursue order flow in order to receive the 

benefit of the reduction. Offering the 

additional fee reduction is reasonable, 

equitable and not unfairly 

discriminatory because Participants 

would be entitled to receive the fee 

reduction when the Participant is both 

the buyer and seller. By way of example, 

if a NOM Participant that is assigned the 

firm code 14 ‘‘ABC’’ by the Exchange 

posted an order utilizing its Customer 

order router, and the order was removed 

by an ABC NOM Market Maker order, 

the NOM Participant would receive the 

$0.02 per contract fee reduction for that 

trade ($0.50 to $0.48 per contract). The 

fee reduction would only be applicable 

from January 11, 2016 through January 

29, 2016. The Exchange proposes to 

utilize the Exchange assigned firm code 

to determine which NOM Participant 

executed an order and to apply the fee 

reduction to the Non-NOM Market 

Maker or NOM Market Maker Penny 

Pilot Option Fee for Removing Liquidity 

if the same NOM Participant was the 

buyer and the seller to a transaction.15

This concept is not novel. Today 

NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (‘‘Phlx’’) 

assesses a Firm Floor Options 

Transaction Charge based on which side 

of the transaction the member 

represents as well whether the same 

member or its affiliates under Common 

Ownership was represented.16


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 27, 2016 / Notices 4733 

under Common Ownership represents both sides of 

a Firm transaction when such members are trading 

in their own proprietary account. In addition, the 

Broker-Dealer Floor Options Transaction Charge 

(including Cabinet Options Transaction Charges) 

will be waived for members executing facilitation 

orders pursuant to Exchange Rule 1064 when such 

members would otherwise incur this charge for 

trading in their own proprietary account contra to 

a Customer (‘‘BD-Customer Facilitation’’), if the 

member’s BD-Customer Facilitation average daily 

volume (including both FLEX and non-FLEX 

transactions) exceeds 10,000 contracts per day in a 

given month. See Phlx’s Pricing Schedule. 

17See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64494 

(May 13, 2011), 76 FR 29014 (May 19, 2011) (SR– 

NASDAQ–2011–066) (‘‘Professional Filing’’). In this 

filing, the Exchange addressed the perceived 

favorable pricing of Professionals who were 

assessed fees and paid rebates like a Customer prior 

to the filing. The Exchange noted in that filing that 

a Professional, unlike a retail Customer, has access 

to sophisticated trading systems that contain 

functionality not available to retail Customers. 

18See Professional Filing. 

19See Professional Filing. The Exchange also in 

[sic] the Professional Filing that it believes the role 

of the retail Customer in the marketplace is distinct 

from that of the Professional and the Exchange’s fee 

proposal at that time accounted for this distinction 

by pricing each market participant according to 

their roles and obligations. 

20See note 13. 21See note 13. 22 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 

Finally, the Exchange’s proposal to 

count all order flow toward the 1.30% 

requisite volume, except for NOM 

Market Maker order flow is reasonable, 

equitable and not unfairly 

discriminatory because NOM Market 

Makers are entitled to rebates today 

similar to Customers and Professionals. 

Customer volume is important because 

it continues to attract liquidity to the 

Exchange, which benefits all market 

participants. Further, with respect to 

Professional liquidity, the Exchange 

initially established Professional pricing 

in order to ‘‘. . . bring additional 

revenue to the Exchange.’’ 17 The 

Exchange noted in the Professional 

Filing that it believes ‘‘. . . that the 

increased revenue from the proposal 

would assist the Exchange to recoup 

fixed costs.’’ 18 Further, the Exchange 

noted in that filing that it believes that 

establishing separate pricing for a 

Professional, which ranges between that 

of a Customer and market maker, 

accomplishes this objective.19 The 

Exchange offers NOM Market Makers 

rebates in acknowledgment of the 

obligations 20 these Participants bear in 

the market. The Exchange believes that 

it is not necessary to count NOM Market 

Maker volume toward the volume to 

qualify for the fee reduction because 

that volume is counted toward the 

qualifiers for the NOM Market Maker 

rebates. 

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 this instance, the proposed 

amendments to NOM Market Maker and 

Non-NOM Market Maker Penny Pilot 

Options Fees for Removing Liquidity do 

not impose an undue burden on intermarket competition because the 

Exchange’s execution services are 

completely voluntary and subject to 

extensive competition. 

The Exchange’s proposal to 

incentivize Participants by offering the 

opportunity to reduce the NOM Market 

Maker and Non-NOM Market Maker 

Penny Pilot Options Fees for Removing 

Liquidity from $0.50 to $0.48 per 

contract, for the time period from 

January 11, 2016 through January 29, 

2016, provided the Participant adds 

1.30% of Customer, Professional, Firm, 

Broker-Dealer or Non-NOM Market 

Maker liquidity and the Participant is (i) 

both the buyer and seller or (ii) the 

Participant removes liquidity from 

another Participant under Common 

Ownership does not create an undue 

burden on intra-market competition 

because NOM Market Makers have 

obligations to the market and regulatory 

requirements, which normally do not 

apply to other market participants.21

Offering the fee discount to Non-NOM 

Market Makers provides Participants 

with flexibility in the manner in which 

they are submitting their orders. NonNOM Market Makers have obligations 

on other exchanges to qualify as a 

market maker. Also, the Exchange 

believes that market makers not 

registered on NOM will be encouraged 

to send orders to NOM as an away 

market maker (Non-NOM Market Maker) 

with this incentive. Because the 

incentive is being offered to both market 

makers registered on NOM and those 

not registered on NOM, the Exchange 

believes that the proposal does not 

impose an undue burden on intramarket competition because it 

encourages market makers to direct 

liquidity to NOM to the benefit of all 

Participants. 

The Exchange believes that permitting 

NOM Participants with 75 percent 

common ownership to aggregate their 

volume for purposes of obtaining the fee 

discount does not create an undue 

burden on intra-market competition 

because certain NOM Participants chose 

to segregate their businesses into 

different legal entities for purposes of 

conducting business. NOM Participants 

that chose to segregate their businesses 

into different legal entities should still 

be afforded the opportunity to receive 

the discount as if they were the same 

NOM Participant on both sides of the 

transaction. 

Participants would be entitled to 

receive the fee reduction when the 

Participant is both the buyer and seller 

and therefore this qualifier does not 

create an undue burden on intra-market 

competition. NOM Participants are 

unaware at the time the order is entered 

of the identity of the contra-party, 

therefore, since contra-parties are 

anonymous, the Exchange believes that 

NOM Participants would aggressively 

pursue order flow in order to receive the 

benefit of the reduction, to the benefit 

of all Participants. 

The Exchange’s proposal to count all 

order flow toward the 1.30% requisite 

volume, except for NOM Market Maker 

order flow does not impose an undue 

burden on intra-market competition 

because the Exchange believes it is not 

necessary to count NOM Market Maker 

volume in qualifying for the fee 

discount as that volume is counted 

toward qualifying for NOM Market 

Maker rebates. 

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

At any time within 60 days of the 

filing of the proposed rule change, the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
4734 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 27, 2016 / Notices 

23 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

3See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74892 

(May 6, 2015), 80 FR 27513 (May 13, 2015). 

4See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76552 

(December 3, 2015), 80 FR 76591. 

5See Letters from Brendon J. Weiss, Co-Head 

Government Affairs, Intercontinental Exchange Inc. 

and John K. Kerin, CEO, Chicago Stock Exchange 

dated January 15, 2016, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, 

Commission; Mary Lou Von Kaenel, Managing 

Director, Financial Information Forum, dated 

December 22, 2015; and Theodore R. Lazo, 

Managing Director and Associate General Counsel, 

Securities Industry and Financial Markets 

Association, dated December 18, 2015, to Robert W. 

Errett, Deputy Secretary, Commission. 

6 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 

7 Id. 

8 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(31). 

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 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–2016–004 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–2016–004. 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– 

NASDAQ–2016–004, and should be 

submitted on or before February 17, 

2016. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.23

Brent J. Fields, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2016–01666 Filed 1–26–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–76945; File No. SR–BATS– 

2015–108] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS 

Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Designation 

of Longer Period for Commission 

Action on a Proposed Rule Change To 

Adopt Rule 11.27 To Implement the 

Quoting and Trading Requirements of 

the Tick Size Pilot Program 

January 21, 2016. 

On November 30, 2015, BATS 

Exchange, Inc. (‘‘Exchange’’ or ‘‘BATS’’) 

filed with the Securities and Exchange 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’), pursuant 

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

Exchange Act of 1934 (‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 

19b–4 thereunder,2 a proposed rule 

change to adopt Exchange Rule 11.27 to 

implement the quoting and trading 

requirements set forth in the Regulation 

NMS Plan to Implement a Tick Size 

Pilot Program.3 The proposed rule 

change was published for comment in 

the Federal Register on December 9, 

2015.4 The Commission has received 

three comment letters on the proposal.5

Section 19(b)(2) of the Act 6 provides 

that, within 45 days of the publication 

of the notice of the filing of a proposed 

rule change, or within such longer 

period up to 90 days as the Commission 

may designate if it finds such longer 

period to be appropriate and publishes 

its reasons for so finding or as to which 

the self-regulatory organization 

consents, the Commission shall either 

approve the proposed rule change, 

disapprove the proposed rule change, or 

institute proceedings to determine 

whether the proposed rule change 

should be disapproved. The 45th day for 

this filing is January 23, 2016. 

The Commission is extending this 45- 

day time period. The Commission finds 

that it is appropriate to designate a 

longer period within which to take 

action on the proposed rule change so 

that it has sufficient time to consider the 

proposal. 

Accordingly, pursuant to Section 

19(b)(2) of the Act,7 the Commission 

designates March 8, 2016, as the date by 

which the Commission should either 

approve, disapprove, or institute 

proceedings to determine whether to 

disapprove the proposed rule change 

(File No. SR–BATS–2015–108). 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.8

Brent J. Fields, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2016–01529 Filed 1–26–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 

Data Collection Available for Public 

Comments 

ACTION: 60-Day notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Small Business 

Administration (SBA) intends to request 

approval, from the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for the 

collection of information described 

below. The Paperwork Reduction Act 

(PRA) of 1995, 44 U.S.C Chapter 35 

requires federal agencies to publish a 

notice in the Federal Register 

concerning each proposed collection of 

information before submission to OMB, 

and to allow 60 days for public 

comment in response to the notice. This 

notice complies with that requirement. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

March 28, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Send all comments to 

Rachel Newman Karton, Program 

Analyst, Office of Entrepreneurial 

Development, Small Business 

Administration, 409 3rd Street, 6th 

Floor, Washington, DC 20416. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rachel Newman Karton, Program 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES