Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 160 / Friday, August 17, 2018 / Notices 41121 

35 17 CFR 240.17Ad–22(b)(2). 

36 17 CFR 240.17Ad–22(d)(1). 

37 17 CFR 240.17Ad–22(d)(1). 

38 15 U.S.C. 78q–1(b)(3)(F). 

39 17 CFR 240.17Ad–22(b)(2), (d)(1). 

40 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 

41 In approving the proposed rule change, the 

Commission considered the proposal’s impact on 

efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 

U.S.C. 78c(f). 

42 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

3Pursuant to Rule 7018(a), the term 

‘‘Consolidated Volume’’ means the total 

consolidated volume reported to all consolidated 

transaction reporting plans by all exchanges and 

trade reporting facilities during a month in equity 

securities, excluding executed orders with a size of 

less than one round lot. 

enforce written policies and procedures 

reasonably designed to use margin 

requirements to limit its credit 

exposures to participants under normal 

market conditions. 

Moreover, as noted above, the 

proposed rule change resulted from a 

request by CPs for ICC to confirm it 

treats Mark-to-Market Margin as 

settlement payments. CPs therefore may 

hesitate to post Mark-to-Market Margin 

if ICC does not consistently treat such 

margin as settlement payments. Thus, 

the Commission believes the proposed 

rule change would help ICC enforce 

written policies and procedures 

reasonably designed to use margin 

requirements to limit its credit 

exposures to participants under normal 

market conditions. 

Therefore, for the above reasons the 

Commission finds that the proposed 

rule change is consistent with Rule 

17Ad–22(b)(2).35

C. Consistency With Rule 17Ad–22(d)(1) 

Rule 17Ad–22(d)(1) requires that ICC 

establish, implement, maintain and 

enforce written policies and procedures 

reasonably designed to provide for a 

well-founded, transparent, and 

enforceable legal framework for each 

aspect of its activities in all relevant 

jurisdictions.36

As discussed above, the proposed rule 

change would revise Chapters 4, 8, and 

20 of the ICC Rules to more clearly 

characterize Mark-to-Market Margin 

payments as settlement payments rather 

than collateral. The proposed rule 

change would also revise terminology to 

further clarify the legal characterization 

that payments of Mark-to-Market Margin 

represent settlement rather than 

collateral payments. These clarifying 

changes are the result of ICC’s analysis 

of the legal characterization of Mark-toMarket Margin payments, at the request 

of its CPs. 

Thus, ICC intends to treat Mark-toMarket Margin payments as settled 

rather than collateral, and the 

Commission believes that the proposed 

rule change’s clarifications and 

additions would help ensure that ICC’s 

margin system operates consistently 

with this intention. The Commission 

further believes that the proposed rule 

change would help ensure that the 

margin system is operating consistently 

for all CPs by confirming that all Markto-Market Margin would be treated as 

settlement payments. In ensuring the 

consistent treatment of Mark-to-Market 

Margin, the Commission believes that 

the proposed rule change would help 

ensure that the policies and procedures 

underlying ICC’s margin system provide 

a well-founded, transparent, and 

enforceable legal framework. 

Therefore, for the above reasons the 

Commission finds that the proposed 

rule change is consistent with Rule 

17Ad–22(d)(1).37

IV. Conclusion 

On the basis of the foregoing, the 

Commission finds that the proposal is 

consistent with the requirements of the 

Act, and in particular, with the 

requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of 

the Act 38 and Rules 17Ad–22(b)(2) and 

17Ad–22(d)(1) thereunder.39

It is therefore ordered pursuant to 

Section 19(b)(2) of the Act 40 that the 

proposed rule change (SR–ICC–2018– 

006) be, and hereby is, approved.41

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.42

Robert W. Errett, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2018–17741 Filed 8–16–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–83833; File No. SR–BX– 

2018–037] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq 

BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and 

Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed 

Rule Change To Amend Section 

7018(a) of the Exchange’s Rules 

August 13, 2018. 

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 July 31, 

2018, Nasdaq BX, Inc. (‘‘BX’’ 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 transaction fees at Rule 

7018(a), as described further below. 

While these amendments are effective 

upon filing, the Exchange has 

designated the proposed amendments to 

be operative on August 1, 2018. 

The text of the proposed rule change 

is available on the Exchange’s website at 

http://nasdaqbx.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 purpose of the proposed rule 

change is to amend the Exchange’s 

transaction fees at Rule 7018 to (i) adjust 

the volume threshold for a credit 

associated with orders that access 

liquidity that are entered by members 

that access liquidity equal to or in 

excess of a certain percentage of their 

[sic] total Consolidated Volume 3 for a 

month; and (ii) adding two credit tiers 

for orders entered by members that, 

during a given month, have a total 

volume (accessing and providing 

liquidity) equal to or exceeding 0.50% 

of total Consolidated Volume, at least 

20% more volume during that month (as 

a percentage of Consolidated Volume) 

than the member’s total volume in July 

2018, and where at least 30% of that 

20% increase in volume arises from 

adding liquidity. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
41122 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 160 / Friday, August 17, 2018 / Notices 

4See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34– 

83680 (July 20, 2018), 83 FR 35502 (July 26, 2018) 

(SR–BX–2018–032). 

5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 

6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5). 

7Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 

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

(‘‘Regulation NMS Adopting Release’’). 

8NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 

2010). 

9See NetCoalition, at 534–535. 

10 Id. at 537. 

11 Id. at 539 (quoting Securities Exchange Act 

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

First Change 

The Exchange operates on the ‘‘takermaker’’ model, whereby it pays credits 

to members that take liquidity and 

charges fees to members that provide 

liquidity. Currently, the Exchange offers 

several different credits for orders that 

access liquidity on the Exchange. 

Among these credits, the Exchange pays 

a credit of $0.0015 per share executed 

for an order that accesses liquidity 

(excluding orders with Midpoint 

pegging and excluding orders that 

receive price improvement and execute 

against an order with a Non-displayed 

price) entered by a member that 

accesses liquidity equal to or exceeding 

0.075% of total Consolidated Volume 

during a month. The Exchange proposes 

to decrease the Consolidated Volume 

threshold applicable to this credit to 

0.065% of total Consolidated Volume 

during a month. The Exchange recently 

had increased this threshold to 

0.075%,4 but it has since determined 

that this level is too high. It now 

proposes to recalibrate the threshold 

downward to make it easier for firms to 

reach the Consolidated Volume 

threshold necessary to qualify for the 

credit. 

Second Change 

The Exchange presently offers several 

credits for members whose orders 

remove liquidity from the Exchange. 

Among these credits, the Exchange 

offers a $0.0018 per share executed 

credit for orders that access liquidity in 

securities in Tapes A and C (excluding 

orders with Midpoint pegging and 

excluding orders that receive price 

improvement and execute against an 

order with a Non-displayed price) that 

are entered by a member that: (i) 

Accesses liquidity equal to or exceeding 

0.20% of total Consolidated Volume 

during a month; and (ii) accesses 20% 

more liquidity as a percentage of 

Consolidated Volume than the member 

accessed in May 2018. The Exchange 

also offers a $0.0019 per share executed 

credit for orders that access liquidity in 

securities in Tape B (excluding orders 

with Midpoint pegging and excluding 

orders that receive price improvement 

and execute against an order with a 

Non-displayed price) that are entered by 

a member that: (i) Accesses liquidity 

equal to or exceeding 0.20% of total 

Consolidated Volume during a month; 

and (ii) accesses 20% more liquidity as 

a percentage of Consolidated Volume 

than the member accessed in May 2018. 

The Exchange now plans to add two 

new tiers that will also entitle members 

to receive credits of $0.0018 and 

$0.0019 per share executed. The first of 

these new tiers will offer a member a 

$0.0018 per share executed credit for its 

orders that access liquidity in securities 

in Tapes A and C (excluding orders with 

Midpoint pegging and excluding orders 

that receive price improvement and 

execute against an order with a Nondisplayed price) to the extent that the 

member, during a given month: (i) Has 

a total volume (including both 

providing and accessing liquidity) that 

is equal to or exceeds 0.20% [sic] of 

total Consolidated Volume during that 

month; (ii) has a total volume that is at 

least 20% greater (as a percentage of 

Consolidated Volume) than its total 

volume in July 2018; and (iii) of the 

20% or more increase in total volume 

described above, at least 30% is 

attributable to adding liquidity. The 

second tier will offer a member a 

$0.0019 per share executed credit for 

orders that access liquidity in securities 

in Tape B (excluding orders with 

Midpoint pegging and excluding orders 

that receive price improvement and 

execute against an order with a Nondisplayed price) to members that satisfy 

these same three conditions. 

An example of how these two new 

credits will work is as follows. Firm X 

adds and removes 0.60% of total 

Consolidated Volume in securities in 

Tape A in July 2018. In August 2018, 

Firm X adds and removes 0.72% of total 

Consolidated Volume in securities in 

the same Tape. The increase in total 

volume as a percentage of total 

Consolidated Volume from July to 

August is 0.12%—which is an increase 

of approximately [sic] 20%. If at least 

30% of that 0.12% increase (0.036%) is 

attributable to Firm X adding liquidity, 

then Firm X will qualify for a $0.0018 

per share executed credit for its orders 

that access liquidity in securities in 

Tape A (excluding orders with Midpoint 

pegging and excluding orders that 

receive price improvement and execute 

against an order with a Non-displayed 

price). 

The Exchange proposes to add these 

credits to provide new and stronger 

incentive for members to increase their 

total volume of activity on the 

Exchange, provided that at least a 

certain percentage of that increase in 

total volume arises from adding 

liquidity. The Exchange also proposes a 

higher credit for increasing volume in 

Tape B than it does in Tapes A or C to 

specifically target Tape B securities, 

where the Exchange has seen less 

activity than it has in Tape A and C 

securities. 

2. Statutory Basis 

The Exchange believes that its 

proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) 

of the Act,5 in general, and furthers the 

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

of the Act,6 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.’’ 7

Likewise, in NetCoalition v. Securities 

and Exchange Commission 8

(‘‘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.9 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.’’ 10

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’. . . .’’ 11 Although the court 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 160 / Friday, August 17, 2018 / Notices 41123 

74770, 74782–83 (December 9, 2008) (SR– 

NYSEArca–2006–21)). 12 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 

and the SEC were discussing the cash 

equities markets, the Exchange believes 

that these views apply with equal force 

to the options markets. 

First Change 

The Exchange believes that it is 

reasonable to decrease the Consolidated 

Volume threshold on its credit for 

orders that access liquidity (excluding 

orders with Midpoint pegging and 

excluding orders that receive price 

improvement and execute against an 

order with Midpoint pegging [sic]) 

entered by members that access 

liquidity equal to or exceeding 0.075% 

of total Consolidated Volume during a 

month. The Exchange must, from time 

to time, assess the effectiveness of its 

credits in achieving their intended 

objectives and adjust the levels of such 

credits based on the Exchange’s 

observations of market participant 

behavior. In this instance, the Exchange 

recently had increased the Consolidated 

Volume threshold to provide a stronger 

incentive to market participants to 

improve the market, but the Exchange 

has since determined that this increase 

was too high and that the threshold 

needs to be recalibrated downward to 

0.065% to ensure that firms can 

continue to qualify for the credit. The 

Exchange believes that the proposed 

decrease is equitable and is not unfairly 

discriminatory because it will apply to 

all similarly situated member firms. 

Second Change 

Likewise, the Exchange believes that 

its proposal is reasonable to add new 

credits for orders that access liquidity 

(excluding orders with Midpoint 

pegging and those that receive price 

improvement and execute against an 

order with a non-displayed price) that 

are entered by members that, in a given 

month, remove and access [sic] liquidity 

equal to or in excess of 0.50% of 

Consolidated Volume during the month, 

have a total volume (as a percentage of 

Consolidated Volume) that is 20% 

greater than it was in July 2018, and 

where at least 30% of the 20% increase 

in total volume (as a percentage of 

Consolidated Volume) arises from 

adding liquidity. This proposal is 

reasonable because it will provide new 

and stronger incentive for members to 

improve the market by both adding and 

removing liquidity from the Exchange. It 

will also incent them to increase the 

extent of this activity on the Exchange 

relative to their activity levels as of July 

2018. The Exchange believes it is 

reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly 

discriminatory to propose a higher 

credit to members that increase volume 

in securities in Tape B than those that 

do so in securities in Tapes A and C 

because the Exchange has experienced 

less activity in Tape B securities relative 

to Tapes A and C securities and it 

wishes to specifically target increased 

activity with respect to Tape B 

securities. The Exchange also believes 

that these proposals are equitable and 

not unfairly discriminatory because they 

will apply to all similarly situated 

member firms. 

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 and credits 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 and credits in response, and 

because market participants may readily 

adjust their order routing practices, the 

Exchange believes that the degree to 

which fee or credit changes in this 

market may impose any burden on 

competition is extremely limited. 

In this instance, the Exchange’s 

proposals to add to or modify its credits 

do not impose a burden on competition 

because these proposals are reflective of 

the Exchange’s overall efforts to provide 

greater incentives to market participants 

that it believes will improve the market, 

to the benefit of all participants. The 

Exchange does not believe that any of 

the proposed changes will impair the 

ability of members or competing order 

execution venues to maintain their 

competitive standing in the financial 

markets. Moreover, because there are 

numerous competitive alternatives to 

the use of the Exchange, it is likely that 

BX will lose market share as a result of 

the changes if they are unattractive to 

market participants. 

Likewise, the Exchange’s proposed 

credits and credit amendments do not 

impose a burden on competition 

because the Exchange’s execution 

services are completely voluntary and 

subject to extensive competition both 

from other exchanges and from offexchange venues. Again, if the proposed 

credits 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 proposal will impair 

the ability of members or competing 

order execution venues to maintain 

their competitive standing in the 

financial markets. 

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.12

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– 

BX–2018–037 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–BX–2018–037. This file 

number should be included on the 

subject line if email is used. To help the 

Commission process and review your 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
41124 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 160 / Friday, August 17, 2018 / Notices 

13 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. 83639 

(July 16, 2018) (SR–ISE–2018–61). 

4 ‘‘Non-Priority Customers’’ include Market 

Makers, Non-Nasdaq ISE Market Makers, Firm 

Proprietary/Broker-Dealers, and Professional 

Customers. 

5A ‘‘Crossing Order’’ is an order executed in the 

Exchange’s Facilitation Mechanism, Solicited Order 

Mechanism, Price Improvement Mechanism (PIM) 

or submitted as a Qualified Contingent Cross order. 

For purposes of the fee schedule, orders executed 

in the Block Order Mechanism are also considered 

Crossing Orders. 

6 ‘‘Responses to Crossing Order’’ is any contraside interest submitted after the commencement of 

an auction in the Exchange’s Facilitation 

Mechanism, Solicited Order Mechanism, Block 

Order Mechanism or PIM. 

comments more efficiently, please use 

only one method. The Commission will 

post all comments on the Commission’s 

internet website (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 website 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–BX–2018–037 and should 

be submitted on or before September 7, 

2018. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.13

Robert W. Errett, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2018–17742 Filed 8–16–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–83830; File No. SR–ISE– 

2018–66] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq 

ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing and 

Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed 

Rule Change To Amend the 

Exchange’s Schedule of Fees Relating 

to Crossing Orders and Responses to 

Crossing Orders in Index Options on 

the Nasdaq 100 Reduced Value Index 

August 13, 2018. 

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 August 1, 

2018, Nasdaq ISE, LLC (‘‘ISE’’ or 

‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the Securities 

and Exchange Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule 

change as described in Items I and II 

below, which Items have been prepared 

by the Exchange. The Commission is 

publishing this notice to solicit 

comments on the proposed rule change 

from interested persons. 

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Terms of Substance of 

the Proposed Rule Change 

The Exchange proposes to amend the 

Exchange’s Schedule of Fees to provide 

further explanation on how the 

Exchange charges Crossing Orders and 

Responses to Crossing Orders in index 

options on the Nasdaq 100 Reduced 

Value Index (‘‘NQX’’). 

The text of the proposed rule change 

is available on the Exchange’s website at 

http://ise.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 recently adopted 

transaction fees and rebates for adding 

or removing liquidity from ISE (i.e., 

maker/taker fees and rebates) in NQX 

options, which apply to executions in 

both the regular and complex order 

book, according to the following 

schedule: 3

Market participant Maker 

fee/rebate 

Taker 

fee/rebate 

Market Maker ........................................................................................................................................................... ($0.25) $0.00 

Market Maker (for orders sent by Electronic Access Members) ............................................................................. (0.25) 0.00 

Non-Nasdaq ISE Market Maker (FarMM) ............................................................................................................... 0.25 0.25 

Firm Proprietary/Broker-Dealer ................................................................................................................................ 0.25 0.25 

Professional Customer ............................................................................................................................................ 0.25 0.25 

Priority Customer ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.00 0.00 

In SR–ISE–2018–61, the Exchange 

stated that the above pricing would 

apply to all executions in NQX, 

including Non-Priority Customer 4

Crossing Orders 5 in NQX. The 

Exchange now proposes to clarify that 

the taker fee applies to Crossing Orders 

(i.e., both the originating and contra side 

of the order) in NQX as well as 

responses to such orders by noting the 

following in Section III.B: ‘‘Fee will also 

apply to the originating and contra side 

of Crossing Orders, and to Responses to 

Crossing Orders.’’ 6

The Exchange does not seek to amend 

the manner in which Crossing Orders in 

NQX and responses thereto are 

currently charged, rather the Exchange 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1