52084 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 216 / Thursday, November 9, 2017 / Notices 

10See supra notes 6–7. 

11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8). 

12 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). 

13 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b– 

4(f)(6) requires a self-regulatory organization to give 

the Commission written notice of its intent to file 

the proposed rule change at least five business days 

prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule 

change, or such shorter time as designated by the 

Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this 

requirement. 

14 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

with quotes and orders entered by 

different badges within the same 

Exchange account or member. Thus, the 

Exchange is proposing to provide 

members with flexibility with respect to 

how AIQ is implemented. While 

members that like the current 

functionality can continue to use it, 

members who would prefer to prevent 

self-trades across different badges 

within the same Exchange account or at 

the member level will now be provided 

with functionality that lets them do this. 

Similar flexibility is offered on both 

NOM and BZX.10 The Exchange 

believes that flexibility to apply AIQ at 

the Exchange account or member firm 

level would be useful for Phlx members 

too. The Exchange believes that the 

proposed rule change is designed to 

promote just and equitable principles of 

trade and will remove impediments to 

and perfect the mechanisms of a free 

and open market as it will further 

enhance self-trade protections provided 

to market makers similar to those 

protections provided on other markets. 

This functionality does not relieve or 

otherwise modify the duty of best 

execution owed to orders received from 

public customers. 

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Burden on Competition 

In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of 

the Act,11 the Exchange does not believe 

that the proposed rule change will 

impose any burden on intermarket or 

intramarket competition that is not 

necessary or appropriate in furtherance 

of the purposes of the Act. The 

proposed rule change is designed to 

enhance AIQ functionality provided to 

Exchange market makers, and will 

benefit members that wish to protect 

their quotes and orders against trading 

with other quotes and orders within the 

same Exchange account or member, 

rather than the more limited badge 

standard applied today. The new 

functionality, which provides similar 

flexibility to that offered on both NOM 

and BZX, is also completely voluntary, 

and members that wish to use the 

current functionality can also continue 

to do so. The Exchange does not believe 

that providing more flexibility to 

members will have any significant 

impact on competition. In fact, the 

Exchange believes that the proposed 

rule change is evidence of the 

competitive environment in the options 

industry where exchanges must 

continually improve their offerings to 

maintain competitive standing. 

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 

Because the foregoing proposed rule 

change does not: (i) Significantly affect 

the protection of investors or the public 

interest; (ii) impose any significant 

burden on competition; and (iii) become 

operative for 30 days from the date on 

which it was filed, or such shorter time 

as the Commission may designate, it has 

become effective pursuant to Section 

19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 12 and 

subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b–4 

thereunder.13

At any time within 60 days of the 

filing of the proposed rule change, the 

Commission summarily may 

temporarily suspend such rule change if 

it appears to the Commission that such 

action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in 

the public interest; (ii) for the protection 

of investors; or (iii) otherwise in 

furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 

If the Commission takes such action, the 

Commission shall institute proceedings 

to determine whether the proposed rule 

should be approved or disapproved. 

IV. Solicitation of Comments 

Interested persons are invited to 

submit written data, views, and 

arguments concerning the foregoing, 

including whether the proposed rule 

change is consistent with the Act. 

Comments may be submitted by any of 

the following methods: 

Electronic 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–2017–93 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–Phlx–2017–93. 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. 

Persons submitting comments are 

cautioned that we do not redact or edit 

personal identifying information from 

comment submissions. You should 

submit only information that you wish 

to make available publicly. All 

submissions should refer to File 

Number SR–Phlx–2017–93 and should 

be submitted on or before November 30, 

2017. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.14

Eduardo A. Aleman, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2017–24370 Filed 11–8–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–82008; File No. SR–Phlx– 

2017–88] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq 

PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and 

Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed 

Rule Change To Amend the 

Exchange’s Pricing Schedule at 

Section IV, Entitled ‘‘Other Transaction 

Fees’’ 

November 3, 2017. 

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

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

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


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 216 / Thursday, November 9, 2017 / Notices 52085 

3The order routing functionalities permit a Phlx 

member to provide access and connectivity to other 

members as well as utilize such access for 

themselves. The Exchange notes that under this 

arrangement one Phlx member may be eligible for 

payments under MARS, while another Phlx 

member might potentially be liable for transaction 

charges associated with the execution of the order, 

because those orders were delivered to the 

Exchange through a Phlx member’s connection to 

the Exchange and that member qualified for the 

MARS Payment. Consider the following example: 

Both members A and B are Phlx members but A 

does not utilize its own connections to route orders 

to the Exchange, and instead utilizes B’s 

connections. Under this program, B will be eligible 

for the MARS Payment while A is liable for any 

transaction charges resulting from the execution of 

orders that originate from A, arrive at the Exchange 

via B’s connectivity, and subsequently execute and 

clear at The Options Clearing Corporation or 

‘‘OCC,’’ where A is the valid executing clearing 

member or give-up on the transaction. Similarly, 

where B utilizes its own connections to execute 

transactions, B will be eligible for the MARS 

Payment, but would also be liable for any 

transaction resulting from the execution of orders 

that originate from B, arrive at the Exchange via B’s 

connectivity, and subsequently execute and clear at 

OCC, where B is the valid executing clearing 

member or give-up on the transaction. 

4Specifically the member’s routing system 

(hereinafter ‘‘System’’) would be required to: (1) 

Enable the electronic routing of orders to all of the 

U.S. options exchanges, including Phlx; (2) provide 

current consolidated market data from the U.S. 

options exchanges; and (3) be capable of interfacing 

with Phlx’s API to access current Phlx match engine 

functionality. The member’s System would also 

need to cause Phlx to be one of the top three default 

destination exchanges for individually executed 

marketable orders if Phlx is at the national best bid 

or offer (‘‘NBBO’’), regardless of size or time, but 

allow any user to manually override Phlx as the 

default destination on an order-by-order basis. The 

Exchange does not require Complex Orders to 

enable the electronic routing of orders to all of the 

U.S. options exchanges or provide current 

consolidated market data from the U.S. options 

exchanges. 

5The term ‘‘Firm’’ or (‘‘F’’) applies to any 

transaction that is identified by a Participant for 

clearing in the Firm range at OCC. 

6The term ‘‘Broker-Dealer’’ applies to any 

transaction which is not subject to any of the other 

transaction fees applicable within a particular 

category. 

7The term ‘‘Joint Back Office’’ or ‘‘JBO’’ applies 

to any transaction that is identified by a member or 

member organization 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 BrokerDealer. A JBO participant is a member, member 

organization or non-member organization 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 at 

Exchange Rule 703. 

8The 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). 

9A QCC Order is comprised of an order to buy 

or sell at least 1000 contracts that is identified as 

being part of a qualified contingent trade, as that 

term is defined in Rule 1080(o)(3), coupled with a 

contra-side order to buy or sell an equal number of 

contracts. The QCC Order must be executed at a 

price at or between the NBBO and be rejected if a 

Customer order is resting on the Exchange book at 

the same price. A QCC Order shall only be 

submitted electronically from off the floor to the 

Exchange’s match engine. See Rule 1080(o). 

10PIXL is the Exchange’s price improvement 

mechanism known as Price Improvement XL or 

(PIXLSM). See Rule 1080(n). 

11Mini Options are further specified in Phlx Rule 

1012, Commentary .13. 

12Singly Listed Options are options overlying 

currencies, equities, ETFs, ETNs treasury securities 

and indexes not listed on another exchange. 

notice is hereby given that on October 

30, 2017, Nasdaq 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. 

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Terms of Substance of 

the Proposed Rule Change 

The Exchange proposes to amend the 

Exchange’s Pricing Schedule at Section 

IV, entitled ‘‘Other Transaction Fees.’’ 

Specifically, the Exchange proposes to 

amend its subsidy program, the Market 

Access and Routing Subsidy or 

‘‘MARS,’’ for Phlx members that provide 

certain order routing functionalities 3 to 

other Phlx members and/or use such 

functionalities themselves. 

The text of the proposed rule change 

is available on the Exchange’s Web site 

at http://nasdaqphlx.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 

Phlx proposes to amend its subsidy 

program, MARS, which pays a subsidy 

to Phlx members that provide certain 

order routing functionalities to other 

Phlx members and/or use such 

functionalities themselves. Generally, 

under MARS, Phlx pays participating 

Phlx members to subsidize their costs of 

providing routing services to route 

orders to Phlx. The Exchange believes 

that MARS will continue to attract 

higher volumes of electronic equity and 

ETF options volume to the Exchange 

from non-Phlx market participants as 

well as Phlx members with the 

proposed amendments. 

Today, to qualify for MARS, a Phlx 

member’s order routing functionality 

would be required to meet certain 

criteria.4 With respect to Complex 

Orders, the Exchange would not require 

Complex Orders to enable the electronic 

routing of orders to all of the U.S. 

options exchanges or provide current 

consolidated market data from the U.S. 

options exchanges. Any Phlx member 

may apply for MARS, provided the 

requirements are met, including a robust 

and reliable System. The member is 

solely responsible for implementing and 

operating its System. 

Today, a MARS Payment would be 

made to Phlx members that have System 

Eligibility and have routed the requisite 

number of Eligible Contracts daily in a 

month, which were executed on Phlx. 

For the purpose of qualifying for the 

MARS Payment, Eligible Contracts 

include Firm,5 Broker-Dealer,6 Joint 

Back Office or ‘‘JBO’’ 7 or Professional 8

equity option orders that are 

electronically delivered and executed. 

Eligible Contracts do not include floorbased orders, qualified contingent cross 

or ‘‘QCC’’ orders,9 price improvement or 

‘‘PIXL’’ orders,10 Mini-Option orders 11

or Singly-Listed Options 12 orders. The 

Eligible Contracts requirements are not 

being amended. 

Phlx members that have System 

Eligibility and have executed the 

requisite number of Eligible Contracts in 

a month are paid rebates today as 

follows: 

Tiers 

Average 

daily 

volume 

(‘‘ADV’’) 

MARS 

payment 

1 .................................. 1,000 $0.01 

2 .................................. 27,500 0.08 

3 .................................. 32,500 0.10 

4 .................................. 40,000 0.12 

With respect to the MARS program, 

the Exchange proposes two sets of 

changes. First, the Exchange proposes to 

change the eligibility criteria for the 

program so that, instead of requiring the 

member’s System to designate Phlx to 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
52086 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 216 / Thursday, November 9, 2017 / Notices 

13Options overlying Standard and Poor’s 

Depositary Receipts/SPDRs (‘‘SPY’’) are based on 

the SPDR exchange-traded fund (‘‘ETF’’), which is 

designed to track the performance of the S&P 500 

Index. 

14A Phlx member will not be entitled to receive 

any other revenue for the use of its System 

specifically with respect to orders routed to Phlx 

with the exception of the Marketing Fee. 

15 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 

16 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5). 

17Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 

(June 9, 2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) 

(‘‘Regulation NMS Adopting Release’’). 

18NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 

2010). 

19See NetCoalition, at 534–535. 

20 Id. at 537. 

21 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)). 

22The only instance in which the proposed 

schedule would result in member receiving a lower 

rebate than it does now for a given ADV would be 

where the member’s ADV is between 27,500 and 

30,000 contracts. 

be one of the top three default 

destination exchanges for individually 

executed marketable orders (if Phlx is at 

the NBBO), the Rule would require the 

member’s System to designate Phlx to 

be one of the top five default 

designation exchanges in those 

circumstances. The Exchange proposes 

this change in recognition of the 

increasing number of options trading 

venues that exist and the desire of 

members for additional flexibility to 

route orders to such venues. 

Second, the Exchange proposes to 

replace the existing MARS Payment 

schedule in its entirety with a new 

schedule that will include all new ADV 

tiers as well as different rebate amounts 

that depend upon whether the Eligible 

Contracts that a member executes at a 

particular ADV tier are in Standard and 

Poor’s Depositary Receipts/SPDRs 

(‘‘SPY’’) 13 or not. The proposed tier 

schedule is as follows: 

Tiers 

Average 

daily 

volume 

(‘‘ADV’’) 

MARS 

payment 

NonSPY SPY 

1 ........................ 1,000 $0.01 $0.01 

2 ........................ 30,000 0.10 0.10 

3 ........................ 40,000 0.12 0.12 

4 ........................ 52,500 0.14 0.12 

5 ........................ 65,000 0.18 0.12 

6 ........................ 75,000 0.20 0.12 

As is the case today, no payment will 

be made with respect to orders that are 

routed to Phlx, but not executed.14

2. Statutory Basis 

The Exchange believes that its 

proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) 

of the Act,15 in general, and furthers the 

objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) 

of the Act,16 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, and is not 

designed to permit unfair 

discrimination between customers, 

issuers, brokers, or dealers. 

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.’’ 17

Likewise, in NetCoalition v. Securities 

and Exchange Commission 18

(‘‘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 costbased approach.19 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.’’ 20

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’. . . .’’ 21 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. 

The Exchange believes that its 

proposal is reasonable to relax its MARS 

eligibility criteria so that members’ 

Systems need only designate Phlx to be 

among their top five (rather than top 

three) default destination exchanges for 

individually executed marketable 

orders. The Exchange recognizes that 

the number of options trading venues 

has increased over the last few years 

and that members may desire or require 

flexibility to route orders to these 

venues. The proposal accommodates 

members in this respect without 

compromising their ability to participate 

in the MARS program. The proposal is 

not unfairly discriminatory in that the 

relaxed criteria will apply equally to all 

those who participate in the MARS 

program. 

The Exchange also believes that its 

proposal is reasonable to replace the 

existing MARS Payment schedule with 

a new schedule comprising new ADV 

tiers. The proposed schedule is 

designed to attract higher volumes of 

electronic equity and ETF options 

orders to the Exchange, which will, in 

turn, benefit all Phlx members by 

offering greater price discovery, 

increased transparency, and an 

increased opportunity to trade on the 

Exchange. The Exchange intends for the 

proposed schedule to achieve these 

results by increasing the number of ADV 

tiers in the schedule from four to six 

and, at each tier, paying a rebate that 

will be roughly the same as or greater 

than that which it pays now.22 For 

example, proposed Tiers 4, 5, and 6 will 

entitle members to receive payments of 

$0.14, $0.18, and $0.20 for non-SPY 

executions, respectively, and $0.12 for 

SPY executions, whereas the current top 

rebate is $0.12 for all types and volumes 

of executions. 

The proposed tier structure will also 

allow Phlx members 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 proposed MARS Payment 

schedule is not unfairly discriminatory 

because the Exchange will uniformly 

pay all Phlx members the rebates 

specified in the proposed MARS 

Payment tiers provided that the Phlx 

member 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 

Phlx member that offers market access 

and connectivity to the Exchange and/ 

or utilize such functionality themselves 

may earn the MARS Payment for all 

Eligible Contracts. 

Although the Exchange proposes to 

offer different rebates for executions of 

Eligible Contracts in SPY and those in 

other options, the Exchange does not 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 216 / Thursday, November 9, 2017 / Notices 52087 

23 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 24 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

believe that this proposal is unfairly 

discriminatory. SPY options are 

currently the most actively traded 

options class and the Exchange does not 

need to pay same rebates to incent 

members to route orders on SPY to the 

Exchange as it may need to pay to 

attract other types of options orders. 

Moreover, pricing by symbol is a 

common practice on many U.S. options 

exchanges. 

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. 

In terms of intra-market competition, 

the Exchange believes that its proposed 

rebate schedule will be highly 

competitive, both with respect to SPY, 

which is the most actively traded 

options class, as well as non-SPY 

options. Indeed, the proposed rebates 

under the new schedule will in most 

instances be the same, if not higher, as 

they are under the existing schedule. 

Likewise, the proposed change to the 

MARS eligibility criteria is procompetitive because it will make it 

easier for members to qualify for the 

program while routing orders to venues 

other than Phlx. 

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.23

At any time within 60 days of the 

filing of the proposed rule change, the 

Commission summarily may 

temporarily suspend such rule change if 

it appears to the Commission that such 

action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in 

the public interest; (ii) for the protection 

of investors; or (iii) otherwise in 

furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 

If the Commission takes such action, the 

Commission shall institute proceedings 

to determine whether the proposed rule 

should be approved or disapproved. 

IV. Solicitation of Comments 

Interested persons are invited to 

submit written data, views, and 

arguments concerning the foregoing, 

including whether the proposed rule 

change is consistent with the Act. 

Comments may be submitted by any of 

the following methods: 

Electronic 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–2017–88 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–Phlx–2017–88. 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. 

Persons submitting comments are 

cautioned that we do not redact or edit 

personal identifying information from 

comment submissions. You should 

submit only information that you wish 

to make available publicly. All 

submissions should refer to File 

Number SR–Phlx–2017–88 and should 

be submitted on or before November 30, 

2017. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.24

Eduardo A. Aleman, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2017–24368 Filed 11–8–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 

[Disaster Declaration #15366 and #15367; 

SOUTH CAROLINA Disaster Number SC– 

00052] 

Presidential Declaration Amendment of 

a Major Disaster for Public Assistance 

Only for the State of South Carolina 

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business 

Administration. 

ACTION: Amendment 1. 

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the 

Presidential declaration of a major 

disaster for Public Assistance Only for 

the State of South Carolina (FEMA– 

4346–DR), dated 10/16/2017. 

Incident: Hurricane Irma. 

Incident Period: 09/06/2017 through 

09/13/2017. 

DATES: Issued on 11/01/2017. 

Physical Loan Application Deadline 

Date: 12/15/2017. 

Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan 

Application Deadline Date: 07/16/2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan 

applications to: U.S. Small Business 

Administration, Processing and 

Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 

Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. 

Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, 

U.S. Small Business Administration, 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES