Document ID: SEC-2016-0728-0001
Agency: sec
Document Type: Notice
Title: Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: NASDAQ PHLX LLC
Posted Date: 2016-04-27T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 81 (Wednesday, April 27, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24909-24913]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-09716]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77673; File No. SR-Phlx-2016-51]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing 
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Qualified 
Contingent Cross Pricing

April 21, 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 April 14, 2016, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 Pricing Schedule at 
Section II, entitled ``Multiply Listed Options Fees.'' Specifically, 
the Exchange is proposing to amend the Qualified Contingent Cross 
(``QCC'') pricing.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's 
Web site at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal 
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements 
concerning the purpose of and basis for

[[Page 24910]]

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 purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Exchange's 
Pricing Schedule at Section II, entitled ``Multiply Listed Options 
Fees.'' Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to amend QCC pricing.
QCC Transaction Fee
    Today, the Exchange assesses a QCC Transaction Fee of $0.20 per 
contract to a Specialist,\3\ Market Maker,\4\ Professional,\5\ Firm \6\ 
and Broker-Dealer.\7\ Customers are not assessed a QCC Transaction Fee. 
The Exchange proposes to no longer assess Professionals a QCC 
Transaction Fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A ``Specialist'' is an Exchange member who is registered as 
an options specialist pursuant to Rule 1020(a).
    \4\ The term ``Market Maker'' includes Registered Options 
Traders (``ROT''). See Exchange Rule 1014(b)(i) and (ii). A ROT 
includes a Streaming Quote Trader or ``SQT,'' a Remote Streaming 
Quote Trader or ``RSQT'' and a Non-SQT, which by definition is 
neither a SQT nor a RSQT. A ROT is defined in Exchange Rule 1014(b) 
as a regular member or a foreign currency options participant of the 
Exchange located on the trading floor who has received permission 
from the Exchange to trade in options for his own account. An SQT is 
an ROT who has received permission from the Exchange to generate and 
submit option quotations electronically in options to which such SQT 
is assigned. See Rule 1014(b)(ii)(A). An RSQT is an ROT that is a 
member affiliated with and Remote Streaming Quote Organization with 
no physical trading floor presence who has received permission from 
the Exchange to generate and submit option quotations electronically 
in options to which such RSQT has been assigned. See Rule 
1014(b)(ii)(B).
    \5\ The term ``Professional'' means any person or entity that 
(i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) places more 
than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a 
calendar month for its own beneficial account(s). See Rule 
1000(b)(14).
    \6\ The term ``Firm'' applies to any transaction that is 
identified by a member or member organization for clearing in the 
Firm range at The Options Clearing Corporation.
    \7\ The term ``Broker-Dealer'' applies to any transaction which 
is not subject to any of the other transaction fees applicable 
within a particular category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

QCC Rebate
    The Exchange also pays rebates on QCC Orders.\8\ Rebates are paid 
for all qualifying executed QCC Orders, as defined in Rule 1080(o) \9\ 
and Floor QCC Orders, as defined in Rule 1064(e),\10\ except where the 
transaction is either: (i) Customer-to-Customer; or (ii) a dividend, 
merger, short stock interest or reversal or conversion strategy 
execution.\11\ The maximum QCC Rebate to be paid in a given month will 
not exceed $450,000.\12\ The Exchange pays rebates to market 
participants acting as agent on qualifying QCC Orders. The Exchange 
proposes to no longer pay QCC Rebates on Customer-to-Professional 
orders.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Section II of the Pricing Schedule.
    \9\ A QCC Order is comprised of an originating order to buy or 
sell at least 1,000 contracts, or 10,000 contracts in the case of 
Mini Options, 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 or orders totaling an equal number 
of contracts. See Rule 1080(o).
    \10\ A Floor QCC Order must: (i) Be for at least 1,000 
contracts; (ii) meet the six requirements of Rule 1080(o)(3) which 
are modeled on the QCT Exemption; (iii) be executed at a price at or 
between the National Best Bid and Offer (``NBBO''); and (iv) be 
rejected if a Customer order is resting on the Exchange book at the 
same price. In order to satisfy the 1,000-contract requirement, a 
Floor QCC Order must be for 1,000 contracts and could not be, for 
example, two 500-contract orders or two 500-contract legs.
    \11\ See Section II of the Pricing Schedule.
    \12\ Id.
    \13\ At this time, the Exchange will continue to pay a QCC 
Rebate where the transaction is Professional-to-Professional.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    QCC Orders are an order to buy or sell at least 1,000 contracts, or 
10,000 contracts in the case of Mini Options.\14\ These large-sized 
contingent orders are complex in nature and have a stock-tied 
component, which requires the option leg to be executed at the NBBO or 
better. The parties to a contingent trade are focused on the spread or 
ratio between the transaction prices for each of the component 
instruments (i.e., the net price of the entire contingent trade), 
rather than on the absolute price of any single component. Permitting 
Professional orders to be treated similar to Customer orders with 
respect to this order type is reasonable because of the characteristics 
of the QCC Order which are described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See notes 9 and 10 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The differentiation between a Customer and Professional is not 
necessary with respect to QCC Orders because these orders are exempt 
from requirements regarding order exposure.\15\ Further, QCC Orders are 
not executed pursuant to a priority scheme.\16\ Also, as explained 
above, because of the size of the order, sophistication of the investor 
and complexity of the transaction, it is difficult to distinguish as 
between a Customer and Professional with respect to QCC Orders.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Rule 1080(c)(ii)(C).
    \16\ By way of comparison, Customers receive priority over other 
market participants with respect to the execution of their order 
within the Exchange's order book or on the Floor.
    \17\ A Professional transacting a QCC Order would count that 
order toward the 390 orders in listed options per day. See note 5 
above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange believes that treating Customer orders and 
Professional orders in a similar manner with respect to fees, when 
transacting QCC Orders, will attract more QCC Orders to the Exchange 
because there would be no fee for Professional orders.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,\18\ in 
general, and furthers the objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of 
the Act,\19\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \19\ 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.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 
2005), 70 FR 37497, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting 
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Likewise, in NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission 
(``NetCoalition'') \21\ 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.\22\ 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.'' \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 
2005) at 534-535.
    \22\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 
2005) at 534.
    \23\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 
2005) at 537.

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

[[Page 24911]]

    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' . . . .'' \24\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 
2005) at 539 (quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 
(December 2, 2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-
NYSEArca-2006-21).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is reasonable to no longer assess a QCC Transaction Fee for 
Professional orders and to not pay a QCC Rebate on Customer-to-
Professional orders because the distinction that necessitated the 
differentiation as between Customer and Professional orders is not 
meaningful with respect to QCC Orders. QCC Orders are orders to buy or 
sell at least 1,000 contracts, or 10,000 contracts in the case of Mini 
Options.\25\ These large-sized contingent orders are complex in nature 
and have a stock-tied component, which requires the option leg to be 
executed at the NBBO or better. The parties to a contingent trade are 
focused on the spread or ratio between the transaction prices for each 
of the component instruments (i.e., the net price of the entire 
contingent trade), rather than on the absolute price of any single 
component. Also, no Customer priority exists with respect to QCC Orders 
as with orders transacted within the order book or on the Floor. 
Permitting Professional orders to be treated similar to Customer orders 
with respect to this order type will attract more QCC Orders to the 
Exchange because the Exchange would no longer assess a QCC Transaction 
Fee for Professional orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See notes 9 and 10 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange recently amended its definition of a 
Professional to add specificity with respect to the manner in which the 
volume threshold will be calculated to determine if orders should be 
treated as Professional.\26\ Currently, member organizations are 
required to review their Customers' activity on at least a quarterly 
basis to determine whether orders that are not for the account of a 
broker-dealer should be represented as Customer orders or Professional 
orders.\27\ The Exchange anticipates that the specificity added to the 
Professional definition may cause current market participants that mark 
orders as Customer to be required to mark those orders as Professional 
as the calendar quarter comes to a close. Orders that were marked 
Customer were not subject to a fee. With this proposal, Professional 
orders would not be assessed a QCC Transaction Fee. Furthermore, when a 
QCC Order is Customer-to-Customer or Customer-to-Professional the agent 
transacting the QCC Order will not be eligible to receive a QCC Rebate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77054 (February 4, 
2016), 81 FR 7166 (February 10, 2016) (SR-Phlx-2016-10) (Notice of 
Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Professional Customer 
Definition). This rule change became operative on April 1, 2016.
    \27\ Orders for any Customer that had an average of more than 
390 orders per day during any month of a calendar quarter must be 
represented as Professional orders for the next calendar quarter. 
Member organizations are required to conduct a quarterly review and 
make any appropriate changes to the way in which they are 
representing orders within five days after the end of each calendar 
quarter. While member organizations will only be required to review 
their accounts on a quarterly basis, if during a quarter the 
Exchange identifies a Customer for which orders are being 
represented as Customer orders but that has averaged more than 390 
orders per day during a month, the Exchange will notify the member 
organization and the member organization will be required to change 
the manner in which it is representing the Customer's orders within 
five days. See Id. at 7165, n.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that no longer assessing a QCC Transaction 
Fee for Professional orders and not paying a QCC Rebate on Customer-to-
Professional orders is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory 
because QCC Orders are distinctive as compared to transactions executed 
within the order book or on the Floor, which orders are subject to 
exposure and grant Customers priority over other market participants. 
The original purpose for the distinction between a Customer and a 
Professional was to prevent market professionals \28\ with access to 
sophisticated trading systems that contain functionality not available 
to retail Customers, from taking advantage of Customer priority, where 
Customer orders are given execution priority over non-Customer orders. 
The Exchange noted at the time that it adopted the Professional 
designation that identifying Professional accounts based upon the 
average number of orders entered for a beneficial account was an 
appropriate objective approach that would reasonably distinguish such 
persons and entities from retail investors.\29\ QCC Orders are by 
definition large-sized contingent orders which have a stock-tied 
component.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ The Exchange noted in its filing that market professionals 
have access to functionality, including things such as continuously 
updated pricing models based upon real-time streaming data, access 
to multiple markets simultaneously and order and risk management 
tools. See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 61426 (January 
26, 2010), 75 FR 5360 (February 2, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-05).
    \29\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 61426 (January 
26, 2010), 75 FR 5360 (February 2, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-05).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to QCC transactions, the Commission noted in an order 
approving a qualified contingent cross order type on International 
Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE'') that ``The Commission believes that 
those customers participating in QCC Orders will likely be 
sophisticated investors who should understand that, without a 
requirement of exposure for QCC Orders, their order would not be given 
an opportunity for price improvement on the Exchange. These customers 
should be able to assess whether the net prices they are receiving for 
their QCC Order are competitive, and who will have the ability to 
choose among broker-dealers if they believe the net price one broker-
dealer provides is not competitive. Further, broker-dealers are subject 
to a duty of best execution for their customers' orders, and that duty 
does not change for QCC Orders.'' \30\ The intent behind the 
Professional designation does not apply in the context of transacting 
QCC Orders, because of the size of the order, sophistication of the 
investor and complexity of the transaction, and therefore the pricing 
differentiation is not necessary. For these reasons the Exchange 
believes that distinguishing a Customer order from a Professional order 
is not necessary with respect to QCC Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 63955 (February 
24, 2011), 76 FR 11533 (March 2, 2011) (SR-ISE-2010-73).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to distinguishing Professional orders from other Non-
Customer participant orders, the Exchange notes that these other market 
participants are distinct from a Professional for purposes of assessing 
QCC Transaction fees for the below reasons. With respect to Firms, 
these market participants are eligible for the Monthly Firm Fee Cap of 
$75,000 per month.\31\ Firms are not subject to QCC Transaction Fees 
once the Monthly Firm Fee Cap is met in a given month. Specialists and 
Market Makers are eligible for the Monthly Market Maker

[[Page 24912]]

Cap of $500,000 per month.\32\ Specialists and Market Makers are not 
subject to QCC Transaction Fees once the Monthly Market Maker Cap is 
met in a given month. Professionals are not subject to similar caps. 
With respect to Broker-Dealers, the Exchange notes that members may 
choose to register as a Broker-Dealer. This category of market 
participant transacts QCC Orders on an agency basis and receives 
eligible rebates pursuant to the QCC Rebate Schedule.\33\ By way of 
example, presume a Customer order to buy 10,000 contracts eligible as a 
QCC Order. Presume the selling contra-parties to this order are a 
Customer, Professional, Firm, Specialist and Broker-Dealer each with 
2,000 contracts. In this example, the Customer buying order will not be 
subject to a QCC Transaction Fee. The Customer selling order would not 
be subject to a fee or rebate. The Professional selling order would not 
be subject to a fee or rebate as proposed herein. Orders for Firms, 
Specialists and Broker-Dealers would be assessed a $0.20 per contract 
QCC Transaction Fee and would be eligible for rebates pursuant to the 
QCC Rebate Schedule. Market participants acting as agent, as compared 
to market participants trading for their own account, are eligible to 
receive QCC Rebates. The Exchange pays QCC Rebates to market 
participants acting as agent for QCC Orders, subject to the QCC Rebate 
Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Firms are subject to a maximum fee of $75,000 (``Monthly 
Firm Fee Cap''). Firm Floor Option Transaction Charges and QCC 
Transaction Fees, in the aggregate, for one billing month will not 
exceed the Monthly Firm Fee Cap per member organization when such 
members are trading in their own proprietary account. See Section II 
of the Pricing Schedule.
    \32\ Specialists and Market Makers are subject to a ``Monthly 
Market Maker Cap'' of $500,000 for: (i) Electronic Option 
Transaction Charges; and (ii) QCC Transaction Fees (as defined in 
Exchange Rule 1080(o) and Floor QCC Orders, as defined in 1064(e)). 
The trading activity of separate Specialist and Market Maker member 
organizations will be aggregated in calculating the Monthly Market 
Maker Cap if there is Common Ownership between the member 
organizations. See Section II of the Pricing Schedule.
    \33\ QCC Rebates are paid by volume. There are currently six 
tiers which pay a QCC Rebate between $0.00 and $0.11 per contract. 
See Section II of the Pricing Schedule. Of note, market participants 
may transact QCC Orders on an agency basis and be eligible for a QCC 
Rebate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that distinguishing Professional orders from 
other Non-Customer orders is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory 
because with respect to QCC Orders it is difficult to distinguish a 
Customer order from a Professional order. QCC Orders are an exception 
to the general distinctions drawn as between Customer orders and 
Professional orders. Aside from the lack of priority for QCC Orders, 
the size of the order, sophistication of the investor and complexity of 
the transaction make it difficult to distinguish a Customer order from 
a Professional order. For purposes of the QCC Order, the Exchange 
believes that such distinction is not necessary.
    Further, the Exchange's proposal would continue to assess all other 
market participants a QCC Transaction Fee of $0.20 per contract. Also, 
Customer-to-Professional orders will not be eligible for a QCC Rebate 
for the reasons explained herein.

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, 
that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any 
burden on competition is extremely limited.
    The initial purpose of the distinction between a Customer order and 
a Professional order was to prevent market professionals with access to 
sophisticated trading systems that contain functionality not available 
to retail customers, from taking advantage of Customer priority, where 
Customer orders are given execution priority over Non-Customer orders. 
Professional orders are identified based upon the average number of 
orders entered for a beneficial account.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    QCC Orders are by definition large-sized contingent orders which 
have a stock-tied component. The parties to a contingent trade are 
focused on the spread or ratio between the transaction prices for each 
of the component instruments (i.e., the net price of the entire 
contingent trade), rather than on the absolute price of any single 
component. Treating Customer orders and Professional orders in the same 
manner in terms of pricing with respect to QCC Orders does not provide 
any advantage to a Professional. The distinction does not create an 
opportunity to burden competition, for the reasons stated herein with 
respect to priority as well as the reasons below.
    With respect to distinguishing Professional orders from other Non-
Customer orders, the Exchange notes that Non-Customer orders are 
distinct from Professional orders for purposes of assessing QCC 
Transaction fees. Firms are eligible for the Monthly Firm Fee Cap and 
not subject to QCC Transaction Fees once the Monthly Firm Fee Cap is 
met in a given month.\35\ Specialists and Market Makers are eligible 
for the Monthly Market Maker Cap and not subject to QCC Transaction 
Fees once the Monthly Market Maker Cap is met in a given month.\36\ 
Professionals are not subject to similar caps. With respect to Broker-
Dealers, the Exchange notes that members may choose to register as a 
Broker-Dealer. This category of market participant transacts QCC Orders 
on an agency basis and is eligible to receive QCC Rebates. Further, the 
Exchange's proposal would continue to assess Specialist, Marker Maker, 
Firm and Broker-Dealer orders similar to QCC Transaction Fee of $0.20 
per contract. Also, Customer-to-Professional orders do not impose an 
undue burden on intra-market competition for the reasons explained 
herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Market participants acting as agents would be eligible to 
receive a QCC Rebate.
    \36\ Specialists and Market Makers trade only for their own 
account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal does not place on undue burden on inter-
market competition because the QCC order type is similar on other 
options exchanges \37\ and these exchanges may also file to eliminate 
the distinction between Customers and Professionals for the QCC order 
type.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated's Fees 
Schedule and Miami International Securities Exchange LLC's Pricing 
Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 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

[[Page 24913]]

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-2016-51 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2016-51. 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-Phlx-2016-51 and 
should be submitted on or before May 18, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-09716 Filed 4-26-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P