1442 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 8 / Thursday, January 11, 2018 / Notices 

27 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

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

2 15 U.S.C. 78a. 

3 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

4The term ‘‘marketable’’ is defined in Rule 

1.1E(u) to mean for a Limit Order, an order than can 

be immediately executed or routed. 

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 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 No. 

SR–CboeBZX–2017–023 and should be 

submitted on or before February 1, 2018. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.27

Eduardo A. Aleman, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2018–00303 Filed 1–10–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–82447; File No. SR– 

NYSEAMER–2017–40] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE 

American LLC; Notice of Filing and 

Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed 

Rule Change To Amend Rule 7.31E 

Relating to Mid-Point Liquidity Orders 

and the MTS Modifier and Rule 7.36E 

To Add a Definition of ‘‘Aggressing 

Order’’ 

January 5, 2018. 

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

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

(‘‘Act’’) 2 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,3

notice is hereby given that on December 

22, 2017, NYSE American LLC 

(‘‘Exchange’’ or ‘‘NYSE American’’) filed 

with the Securities and Exchange 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) the 

proposed rule change as described in 

Items I, II, and III below, which Items 

have been prepared by the selfregulatory organization. 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 

Rule 7.31E relating to Mid-Point 

Liquidity Orders and the MTS Modifier 

and Rule 7.36E to add a definition of 

‘‘Aggressing Order.’’ The proposed rule 

change is available on the Exchange’s 

website at www.nyse.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 

self-regulatory organization 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 those 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 parts of such 

statements. 

A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and the 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

1. Purpose 

The Exchange proposes to amend 

Rule 7.31E (Orders and Modifiers) 

relating to Mid-Point Liquidity (‘‘MPL’’) 

Orders and the MTS Modifier and Rule 

7.36E (Order Ranking and Display) to 

add a definition of ‘‘Aggressing Order.’’ 

For MPL Orders, the Exchange proposes 

to amend the price at which a 

marketable MPL Order would trade 

when there are resting orders priced 

better than the midpoint. The Exchange 

also proposes to amend how resting 

orders with an MTS Modifier would 

trade in specified circumstances. 

Background 

As provided for in current Rule 

7.31E(d)(3)(C), on arrival, an MPL Order 

to buy (sell) that is eligible to trade will 

trade with resting orders to sell (buy) 

with a working price at or below (above) 

the midpoint of the PBBO (i.e., priced 

better than the midpoint of the PBBO). 

The rule further provides that resting 

MPL Orders to buy (sell) will trade at 

the midpoint of the PBBO against all 

incoming orders to sell (buy) priced at 

or below (above) the midpoint of the 

PBBO (i.e., priced better than the 

midpoint of the PBBO). 

Current Rule 7.31E(i)(3) describes the 

MTS Modifier, including how a resting 

order with an MTS Modifier will trade. 

Current Rule 7.31E(i)(3)(E)(i) provides 

that if a sell (buy) order does not meet 

the MTS of the resting order to buy (sell) 

with an MTS Modifier, that sell (buy) 

order will not trade with and may trade 

through such order with an MTS 

Modifier. Current Rule 7.31E(i)(3)(E)(ii) 

provides that if a resting sell (buy) order 

did not meet the MTS of a same-priced 

resting order to buy (sell) with an MTS 

Modifier, a subsequently arriving sell 

(buy) order that meets the MTS will 

trade ahead of the resting sell (buy) 

order. Finally, current Rule 

7.31E(i)(3)(E)(iii) provides that a resting 

order to buy (sell) with an MTS 

Modifier will not be eligible to trade if 

sell (buy) order(s) ranked Priority 2— 

Display Orders are displayed on the 

Exchange Book at a price lower (higher) 

than the working price of such MTS 

Order. Similarly, Rule 7.46E(f)(5)(I) 

(Tick Size Pilot Plan) provides that for 

Pilot Securities in Test Group Three, a 

resting order to buy (sell) with an MTS 

Modifier will not be eligible to trade if 

sell (buy) order(s) ranked Priority 2— 

Display Orders are displayed on the 

Exchange Book at a price equal to or 

lower (higher) than the working price of 

such MTS Order. 

Proposed Definition of ‘‘Aggressing 

Order’’ 

The Exchange proposes to amend 

Rule 7.36E to add a definition that 

would be used for purposes of Rule 7E. 

Proposed Rule 7.36E(a)(5) would define 

the term ‘‘Aggressing Order’’ to mean a 

buy (sell) order that is or becomes 

marketable against sell (buy) interest on 

the Exchange Book.4 This term would 

therefore refer to orders that are 

marketable against other orders on the 

Exchange Book, such as incoming 

orders and orders that have returned 

unexecuted after routing. 

This term would also be applicable to 

resting orders that become marketable 

due to one or more events. For the most 

part, resting orders will have already 

traded with contra-side orders against 


srobinson on DSK9F5VC42PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 8 / Thursday, January 11, 2018 / Notices 1443 

5See, e.g., Rule 7.31–E(d)(3)(B). 

6Rule 7.36E(c) provides that the Exchange ranks 

all non-marketable orders on the Exchange Book 

according to price—time priority. 

7A displayed odd-lot order that is not included 

in the calculation of the PBBO could be at the same 

price as an MPL Order. 

which they are marketable. However, 

there are circumstances when a resting 

order may become marketable, such as 

orders that become eligible to trade 

when a PBBO unlocks or uncrosses (e.g., 

MPL and Pegged Orders) or orders that 

have a trading restriction at specified 

prices (e.g., as discussed in greater 

detail below, orders with an MTS 

Modifier). To maximize the potential for 

orders to trade, the Exchange 

continually evaluates whether resting 

orders may become marketable. Events 

that could trigger a resting order to 

become marketable include updates to 

the working price of such order, updates 

to the PBBO or NBBO, changes to other 

orders on the Exchange Book, or 

processing of inbound messages (e.g., an 

update to Price Bands under the 

Regulation NMS Plan to Address 

Extraordinary Market Volatility). To 

address such circumstances, the 

Exchange proposes to include in 

proposed Rule 7.36E(a)(5) that a resting 

order may become an Aggressing Order 

if its working price changes, if the PBBO 

or NBBO is updated, because of changes 

to other orders on the Exchange Book, 

or when processing inbound messages. 

The order that becomes the 

Aggressing Order is the liquidity-taking 

order. Generally, if resting orders on 

both sides are determined to be an 

Aggressing Order, e.g., a locked PBBO 

becomes unlocked and as a result, MPL 

Orders are repriced, the later-arriving 

order will be the liquidity-taking order.5

However, if the evaluation results in 

only one side becoming an Aggressing 

Order, e.g., an order with an MTS 

Modifier becomes eligible to trade and 

the contra-side order(s) have no working 

price changes, the order with the MTS 

Modifier would become the liquiditytaking Aggressing Order. As described 

below, the Exchange proposes to use the 

term ‘‘Aggressing Order’’ in the rule text 

relating to the MTS Modifier. Because 

an Aggressing Order becomes a liquidity 

taker, such term could be applicable to 

other circumstances. For example, an 

order with a Non-Display Remove 

Modifier [sic] that trades as a liquidity 

taker would also be considered an 

Aggressing Order. However, at this time, 

the Exchange does not propose to 

amend its rules to use the term 

‘‘Aggressing Order’’ because the rule 

already specifies which order is the 

liquidity taker. 

Proposed Amendments Relating to MPL 

Orders 

The Exchange proposes to amend the 

first sentence of current Rule 

7.31E(d)(3)(C) to make this text 

applicable to any marketable MPL 

Order, and not just an arriving MPL 

Order. To effect this change, the 

Exchange proposes to use the term 

‘‘Aggressing Order’’ and replace the 

phrase ‘‘[o]n arrival, an MPL Order to 

buy (sell) that is eligible to trade’’ with 

the phrase, ‘‘[a]n Aggressing MPL Order 

to buy (sell).’’ 

The Exchange also proposes to amend 

the first sentence of current Rule 

7.31E(d)(3)(C) to describe at what price 

an Aggressing MPL Order would trade 

with contra-side resting orders that are 

priced better than the midpoint. The 

rule currently provides that an arriving 

MPL Order to buy (sell) would trade 

with resting orders to sell (buy) with a 

working price at or below (above) the 

midpoint of the PBBO. The Exchange 

proposes to specify that when an 

Aggressing MPL Order trades with 

resting orders priced better than the 

midpoint, it will trade at the working 

price of the resting orders, which is 

current functionality. For example, if 

the PBB is 10.10 and the midpoint is 

10.13, and there are non-displayed sell 

orders of 100 shares with working prices 

of 10.11 and 10.12, an Aggressing MPL 

Order to buy with a limit of 10.13 for 

200 shares would trade with such nondisplayed sell orders at 10.11 and 10.12, 

respectively. The Exchange believes that 

this proposed amendment would 

promote transparency in Exchange rules 

regarding at what price an Aggressing 

MPL Order would trade. 

By using the term ‘‘Aggressing 

Order,’’ this rule would be applicable to 

a resting MPL Order that becomes 

marketable, such as after a PBBO 

unlocks or uncrosses. In the above 

example, if the MPL Order to buy is 

ineligible to trade because of a crossed 

PBBO, and while the PBBO is crossed, 

the Exchange receives the two nondisplayed sell orders, when the PBBO 

uncrosses and the new midpoint is 

10.13, the resting MPL Order would 

become an Aggressing Order and would 

trade with the non-displayed sell orders 

at 10.11 and 10.12, respectively. 

The Exchange also proposes to amend 

the second sentence of Rule 

7.31E(d)(3)(C) to replace the term 

‘‘incoming orders’’ with the term 

‘‘Aggressing Orders.’’ This proposed 

rule change would provide greater 

specificity that any contra-side order 

that is an Aggressing Order, as defined 

in proposed Rule 7.36E(a)(5), would 

trade with a resting MPL Order at the 

midpoint of the PBBO. 

Proposed Amendments Relating to the 

MTS Modifier 

The Exchange proposes to amend 

Rules 7.31E(i)(3)(C) and (E) to specify 

circumstances when a resting order with 

an MTS Modifier would not be eligible 

to trade. 

Current Rule 7.31E(i)(3)(C) provides 

that an order with an MTS Modifier that 

is designated Day and cannot be 

satisfied on arrival would not trade and 

would be ranked in the Exchange Book. 

The Exchange proposes to describe new 

functionality relating to when an order 

with an MTS Modifier that is designated 

Day would not be eligible to trade. In 

short, if a later-arriving contra-side 

order can meet the MTS of a resting 

order with an MTS Modifier, the two 

orders would trade unless the execution 

would be inconsistent with either intramarket price priority or would result in 

a non-displayed order trading ahead of 

a same-side, same-priced displayed 

order.6 Therefore, as proposed, the 

Exchange would not permit an order 

with an MTS Modifier that crosses other 

displayed or non-displayed orders on 

the Exchange Book to trade at prices 

that are worse than the price of such 

contra-side orders. As further proposed, 

the Exchange would not permit a resting 

order with an MTS Modifier to trade at 

a price equal to a displayed contra-side 

order.7

To reflect these changes, the second 

sentence of Rule 7.31E(i)(3)(C) would 

provide that when a buy (sell) order 

with an MTS Modifier that is designated 

Day is ranked in the Exchange Book, it 

would not be eligible to trade: 

(i) At a price equal to or above (below) 

any sell (buy) orders that are displayed 

and that have a working price equal to 

or below (above) the working price of 

such order with an MTS Modifier, or 

(ii) at a price above (below) any sell 

(buy) orders that are not displayed and 

that have a working price below (above) 

the working price of such order with an 

MTS Modifier. 

For example, 

• if the PBBO is 10.10 x 10.16, on the 

Exchange Book there is a sell order 

(‘‘Order A’’) ranked Priority 3—NonDisplay Orders for 50 shares at 10.12 

and a sell order (‘‘Order B’’) ranked 

Priority 2—Display Orders for 25 shares 

at 10.11, and the Exchange receives a 

buy MPL Order (‘‘Order C’’) with an 

MTS Modifier for 100 shares with a 

10.16 limit, because the MTS cannot be 

met, Order C will not trade and will be 

ranked in the Exchange Book at the 

midpoint of 10.13. At this point, the 

Exchange would have a non-displayed 

buy order crossing both non-displayed 


srobinson on DSK9F5VC42PROD with NOTICES
1444 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 8 / Thursday, January 11, 2018 / Notices 

8Pursuant to Rule 7.31E(d)(3)(C), an Aggressing 

Order will trade with a resting MPL Order at the 

midpoint of the PBBO. 

9See discussion infra regarding the second 

sentence to proposed Rule 7.36E(a)(5). 

10A resting order with an MTS Modifier that 

becomes an Aggressing Order would trade 

consistent with Rule 7.31E(i)(3)(E) and therefore 

would trade with individual orders that each meet 

the MTS. 

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

12 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 

and displayed sell orders on the 

Exchange Book. If the Exchange then 

receives a non-displayed sell order 

(‘‘Order D’’) for 100 shares at 10.11, 

even though Order D would be 

marketable against Order C, it would not 

trade because a trade at 10.13 would be 

above the price of resting sell orders.8

Order D would be added to the 

Exchange Book at 10.11. 

• If next, the Exchange receives a buy 

order (‘‘Order E’’) to buy 25 shares at 

10.11, it would trade with Order B. As 

discussed above, this execution would 

trigger the Exchange to evaluate whether 

Order C becomes marketable against 

contra-side orders.9 In this scenario, 

because Order B has now executed, 

Order C is no longer restricted from 

trading at 10.11. Because Order C’s 

restriction has been lifted and Order D 

does not have a working price change, 

Order C would become an Aggressing 

Order and trade as the liquidity taker 

with Order D at 10.11. 

Because proposed Rule 

7.31E(i)(3)(C)(i) would be applicable to 

all securities that trade on the exchange, 

including Pilot Securities in the Tick 

Pilot Plan, the Exchange proposes to 

delete Rule 7.46E(f)(5)(I) as duplicative 

of the proposed new rule text. 

The Exchange also proposes to amend 

Rules 7.31E(i)(3)(E)(i), (ii), and (iii) 

relating to the behavior of resting orders 

with an MTS Modifier.10 The Exchange 

proposes a non-substantive change to 

Rule 7.31E(i)(3)(E) to change the term 

‘‘order(s)’’ to ‘‘orders,’’ which the 

Exchange believes is a more technically 

accurate way to describe that a resting 

order with an MTS Modifier will be 

evaluated against individual orders. 

First, the Exchange proposes to 

amend Rule 7.31E(i)(3)(E)(i) to use the 

term ‘‘Aggressing Order.’’ Use of this 

proposed new definition would not 

change the functionality associated with 

this rule. Accordingly, as proposed, the 

rule would provide that if an Aggressing 

Order to sell (buy) does not meet the 

MTS of the resting order to buy (sell) 

with an MTS Modifier, that Aggressing 

Order will not trade with and may trade 

through such order with an MTS 

Modifier (proposed new text in italics). 

The Exchange believes that use of the 

term ‘‘Aggressing Order’’ in the context 

of this rule would promote transparency 

of which order is trading with the 

resting order with an MTS Modifier. 

Second, the Exchange proposes to 

amend Rule 7.31E(i)(3)(E)(ii) to provide 

that if a resting sell (buy) non-displayed 

order did not meet the MTS of a samepriced resting order to buy (sell) with an 

MTS Modifier, a subsequently arriving 

sell (buy) order that meets the MTS 

would trade ahead of such resting nondisplayed sell (buy) order at that price 

(proposed new text in italics), e.g., at the 

internal locking price. The Exchange 

proposes to amend this rule to provide 

that the subsequently arriving order 

could trade ahead of a resting nondisplayed order at that price. As 

described above, the proposed 

amendment to Rule 7.31E(i)(3)(C)(i) 

would address circumstances when an 

order with an MTS Modifier is locked 

by a displayed order. In such case, the 

subsequently arriving order would not 

trade with the order with an MTS 

Modifier. 

Finally, the Exchange proposes to 

delete current Rule 7.31E(i)(3)(iii) as 

superseded by proposed Rule 

7.31E(i)(3)(C)(i) and (ii) and the 

amendments to Rule 7.31E(i)(3)(E)(i) 

and (ii). 

Because of the technology changes 

associated with these proposed rule 

change, the Exchange will announce the 

implementation date of this proposed 

rule change by Trader Update. The 

Exchange anticipates that the 

implementation date will be in the first 

quarter of 2018. 

2. Statutory Basis 

The proposed rule change is 

consistent with Section 6(b) of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 

‘‘Act’’),11 in general, and furthers the 

objectives of Section 6(b)(5),12 in 

particular, because it is designed to 

prevent fraudulent and manipulative 

acts and practices, to promote just and 

equitable principles of trade, to foster 

cooperation and coordination with 

persons engaged in facilitating 

transactions in securities, to remove 

impediments to, and perfect the 

mechanism of, a free and open market 

and a national market system and, in 

general, to protect investors and the 

public interest. 

The Exchange believes that the 

proposed definition of ‘‘Aggressing 

Order’’ in Rule 7.36E would remove 

impediments to, and perfect the 

mechanism of, a free and open market 

and a national market system and, in 

general, protect investors and the public 

interest because it would provide for a 

definition in Exchange rules that 

describes orders that are or become 

marketable. The Exchange believes that 

the proposed definition would promote 

transparency in Exchange rules by 

providing detail regarding 

circumstances when a resting order may 

become marketable, and thus would be 

an Aggressing Order. The Exchange 

further believes that use of such 

definition would promote clarity in 

Exchange rules, particularly in the 

context of the amendments to MPL 

Orders and orders with an MTS 

Modifier. 

The Exchange believes that the 

proposed amendments to Rule 

7.31E(d)(3)(C) to use the term 

‘‘Aggressing Order’’ and to describe the 

prices at which an Aggressing MPL 

Order would trade would remove 

impediments to, and perfect the 

mechanism of, a free and open market 

and a national market system and, in 

general, protect investors and the public 

interest because it would promote 

clarity and transparency in Exchange 

rules regarding the behavior of 

marketable MPL Orders. In particular, 

the rule would provide greater 

specificity regarding how a resting MPL 

Order that becomes an Aggressing Order 

would trade. 

Finally, the Exchange believes that 

the proposed amendments relating to 

when a resting order with an MTS 

Modifier would be eligible to trade 

would remove impediments to, and 

perfect the mechanism of, a free and 

open market and a national market 

system and, in general, protect investors 

and the public interest, because the 

proposed rule change would ensure that 

there would not be an execution of a 

resting order with an MTS Modifier that 

either would be inconsistent with intramarket price priority or would result in 

a non-displayed order trading ahead of 

a same-side, same-priced displayed 

order. This proposed rule change would 

therefore promote just and equitable 

principles of trade by ensuring that 

displayed interest does not get traded 

through by a non-displayed order. 

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 that is not 

necessary or appropriate in furtherance 

of the purposes of the Act. The 

Exchange believes that the proposed 

rule change is not designed to address 

any competitive issues, but rather to add 

further clarity to Exchange rules by 

defining the term ‘‘Aggressing Order’’ 

and using that term in connection with 

MPL Orders. In addition, the rule is 


srobinson on DSK9F5VC42PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 8 / Thursday, January 11, 2018 / Notices 1445 

13 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). 

14 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). 

15 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). 

16 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6)(iii). 

17 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B). 18 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. 82245 

(Dec. 8, 2017), 82 FR 58825 (Dec. 14, 2017) (SR– 

Phlx–2017–99) (‘‘Notice’’). 

4See Phlx Rule 1059. 

5See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63626 

(Dec. 30, 2010), 76 FR 812 (Jan. 6, 2011) (SR–Phlx– 

2010–185). 

6See Commentary .02 to Phlx Rule 1059. See also 

Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79782 (January 

12, 2017), 82 FR 6667 (January 19, 2017) (SR–Phlx– 

2017–01). 

designed to ensure that resting orders 

with an MTS Modifier would not trade 

through displayed orders or violate 

intra-market priority. 

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Comments on the 

Proposed Rule Change Received From 

Members, Participants, or Others 

No written comments were solicited 

or received with respect to the proposed 

rule change. 

III. Date of Effectiveness of the 

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for 

Commission Action 

The Exchange has filed the proposed 

rule change pursuant to Section 

19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 13 and Rule 

19b–4(f)(6) thereunder.14 Because the 

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 

prior to 30 days from the date on which 

it was filed, or such shorter time as the 

Commission may designate, if 

consistent with the protection of 

investors and the public interest, the 

proposed rule change has become 

effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) 

of the Act and Rule 19b–4(f)(6)(iii) 

thereunder. 

A proposed rule change filed under 

Rule 19b–4(f)(6) 15 normally does not 

become operative prior to 30 days after 

the date of the filing. However, pursuant 

to Rule 19b4(f)(6)(iii),16 the Commission 

may designate a shorter time if such 

action is consistent with the protection 

of investors and the public interest. 

At any time within 60 days of the 

filing of such proposed rule change, the 

Commission summarily may 

temporarily suspend such rule change if 

it appears to the Commission that such 

action is necessary or appropriate in the 

public interest, for the protection of 

investors, or otherwise in furtherance of 

the purposes of the Act. If the 

Commission takes such action, the 

Commission shall institute proceedings 

under Section 19(b)(2)(B) 17 of the Act to 

determine whether the proposed rule 

change 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– 

NYSEAMER–2017–40 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–NYSEAMER–2017–40. 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 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–NYSEAMER–2017–40 and 

should be submitted on or before 

February 1, 2018. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.18

Eduardo A. Aleman, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2018–00306 Filed 1–10–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–82445; File No. SR–Phlx– 

2017–99] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq 

PHLX LLC; Order Granting Accelerated 

Approval of a Proposed Rule Change 

To Amend Rule 1059 To Make 

Permanent a Program That Allows 

Cabinet Trade Transactions To Take 

Place at a Price Below $1 Per Option 

Contract 

January 5, 2018. 

I. Introduction 

On November 29, 2017, Nasdaq PHLX 

LLC (the ‘‘Exchange’’ or ‘‘Phlx’’) filed 

with the Securities and Exchange 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’), pursuant 

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

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

19b–4 thereunder,2 a proposed rule 

change amending the Exchange’s rules 

to make permanent a program that 

allows transactions to take place in open 

outcry trading at prices of at least $0 but 

less than $1 per option contract (‘‘subdollar cabinet trades’’). The proposed 

rule change was published for comment 

in the Federal Register on December 14, 

2017.3 The Commission received no 

comment letters on the proposed rule 

change. This order approves the 

proposed rule change on an accelerated 

basis. 

II. Description of the Proposed Rule 

Change 

Prior to 2010, Phlx Rule 1059 

(Accommodation Transactions) allowed 

cabinet trade transactions at a price of 

$1 per option contract to occur in open 

outcry trading for certain options 

classes.4 In 2010, the Exchange 

amended Phlx Rule 1059 on a pilot 

basis to allow sub-dollar cabinet trades 

to take place at prices of at least $0 but 

less than $1 per option contract.5 The 

Exchange now proposes to amend Phlx 

Rule 1059 to make permanent its subdollar cabinet trade pilot program, 

which currently is scheduled to expire 

on January 5, 2018.6

The Exchange permits sub-dollar 

cabinet trade transactions to be traded 


srobinson on DSK9F5VC42PROD with NOTICES