37966 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 155 / Monday, August 14, 2017 / Notices 

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

14 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

technical resources than regulating nonCustomer trading activity, which tends 

to be more automated and less labor 

intensive. As a result, the costs 

associated with administering the 

Customer component of the Exchange’s 

overall regulatory program are 

anticipated to be typically higher than 

the costs associated with administering 

the non-Customer component of its 

regulatory program. The Exchange 

proposes assessing higher fees to those 

members that will require more 

Exchange regulatory services based on 

the amount of Customer options 

business they conduct. Additionally, the 

dues and fees paid by members go into 

the general funds of the Exchange, a 

portion of which is used to help pay the 

costs of regulation. The Exchange has in 

place a regulatory structure to surveil, 

conduct examinations and monitor the 

marketplace for violations of Exchange 

Rules. The ORF assists the Exchange to 

fund the cost of this regulation of the 

marketplace. 

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. The ORF is 

not intended to have any impact on 

competition. Rather, it is designed to 

enable the Exchange to recover a 

material portion of the Exchange’s cost 

related to its regulatory activities. The 

Exchange is obligated to ensure that the 

amount of regulatory revenue collected 

from the ORF, in combination with its 

other regulatory fees and fines, does not 

exceed regulatory costs. 

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.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 No. SR– 

Phlx–2017–54 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 No. 

SR–Phlx–2017–54. 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 No. 

SR–Phlx–2017–54, and should be 

submitted on or before September 5, 

2017. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.14

Eduardo A. Aleman, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2017–17048 Filed 8–11–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–81350; File No. SR–ISE– 

2017–77] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq 

ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing and 

Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed 

Rule Change To Amend Its Schedule of 

Fees 

August 8, 2017. 

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, 

2017, Nasdaq ISE, LLC (‘‘ISE’’ or 

‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the Securities 

and Exchange Commission (‘‘SEC’’ or 

‘‘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 its 

Schedule of Fees to (1) eliminate 

Priority Customer complex order rebates 

for all net zero complex orders without 

any associated average daily volume 

requirement, and (2) reduce the maker 

fee charged to Market Makers and NonNasdaq ISE Market Makers for Regular 

Orders in Select Symbols when trading 

against Priority Customer complex 

orders that leg into the regular order 

book. 

The text of the proposed rule change 

is available on the Exchange’s Web site 

at www.ise.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 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 155 / Monday, August 14, 2017 / Notices 37967 

3A ‘‘Priority Customer’’ is a person or entity that 

is not a broker/dealer in securities, and does not 

place more than 390 orders in listed options per day 

on average during a calendar month for its own 

beneficial account(s), as defined in Nasdaq ISE Rule 

100(a)(37A). 

4The term ‘‘Market Makers’’ refers to 

‘‘Competitive Market Makers’’ and ‘‘Primary Market 

Makers’’ collectively. See ISE Rule 100(a)(25). 

5A ‘‘Non-Nasdaq ISE Market Maker’’ is a market 

maker as defined in Section 3(a)(38) of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, 

registered in the same options class on another 

options exchange. 

6 ‘‘Select Symbols’’ are options overlying all 

symbols listed on the Nasdaq ISE that are in the 

Penny Pilot Program. 

7See ISE Schedule of Fees, Section I., Regular 

Order Fees and Rebates. 

8A Market Maker Plus is a Market Maker who is 

on the National Best Bid or National Best Offer a 

specified percentage of the time for series trading 

between $0.03 and $3.00 (for options whose 

underlying stock’s previous trading day’s last sale 

price was less than or equal to $100) and between 

$0.10 and $3.00 (for options whose underlying 

stock’s previous trading day’s last sale price was 

greater than $100) in premium in each of the front 

two expiration months. The specified percentage is 

at least 80% but lower than 85% of the time for Tier 

1, at least 85% but lower than 95% of the time for 

Tier 2, and at least 95% of the time for Tier 3. A 

Market Maker’s single best and single worst quoting 

days each month based on the front two expiration 

months, on a per symbol basis, will be excluded in 

calculating whether a Market Maker qualifies for 

this rebate, if doing so will qualify a Market Maker 

for the rebate. 

9Market Makers that qualify for Market Maker 

Plus are not charged a fee or provided a rebate 

when trading against non-Priority Customer 

complex orders that leg into the regular order book. 

Other Market Makers and Non-Nasdaq ISE Market 

Makers are charged the regular $0.10 per contract 

fee when trading against non-Priority Customer 

complex orders that leg into the regular order book. 

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 Schedule of Fees 

to (1) eliminate Priority Customer 3

complex order rebates for all net zero 

complex orders without any associated 

average daily volume (‘‘ADV’’) 

requirement, and (2) reduce the maker 

fee charged to Market Makers 4 and NonNasdaq ISE Market Makers 5 for Regular 

Orders in Select Symbols 6 when trading 

against Priority Customer complex 

orders that leg into the regular order 

book. These changes are designed to 

eliminate rebate arbitrage where market 

participants enter valueless complex 

orders solely for the purpose of earning 

a rebate, and to reduce disincentives for 

Market Makers to provide liquidity on 

the Exchange. 

Currently, the Exchange does not 

provide Priority Customer rebates for 

complex orders that that leg in to the 

regular order book and trade at a net 

price per contract that is at or near $0.00 

(i.e., net zero complex orders), provided 

those orders are entered on behalf of 

originating market participants that 

execute an ADV of at least 1,000 

contracts in net zero complex orders in 

a given month. For purposes of 

determining which complex orders 

qualify as net zero the Exchange counts 

all complex orders that leg in to the 

regular order book and are executed at 

a net price per contract that is within a 

range of $0.01 credit and $0.01 debit. 

The Exchange now proposes to 

eliminate Priority Customer complex 

order rebates for all net zero complex 

orders, regardless of whether the order 

is entered on behalf of originating 

market participants that execute a 

specified ADV of net zero complex 

orders. 

Priority Customer complex orders are 

typically eligible for tiered rebates that 

range from $0.26 per contract (i.e., for 

Tier 1) to $0.49 per contract (i.e., for 

Tier 8) depending on the member’s 

Priority Customer Complex ADV. 

Pursuant to the provision described 

above, however, the Exchange does not 

provide these rebates for net zero 

complex orders entered on behalf of 

originating market participants that 

execute a significant ADV of these 

orders in a given month. This provision 

is designed to prevent members from 

engaging in rebate arbitrage by entering 

essentially valueless complex orders 

solely to recover rebates. While net zero 

complex orders would generally not 

find a counterparty in the complex 

order book, they may leg in to the 

regular order book where they are 

typically executed by Market Makers or 

other market participants on the 

individual legs who pay a fee to trade 

with this order flow. Market Makers 

have continued to express concerns 

about trading against net zero complex 

orders that leg into the regular market, 

as offending firms modify their behavior 

to stay within the ADV requirements set 

by the Exchange. These Market Makers 

have indicated that continued 

interaction with these economically 

valueless orders impedes their ability to 

provide liquidity on the Exchange as 

they are charged to trade against these 

net zero complex orders when they leg 

into the regular market and execute 

against their quotes. 

The Exchange believes that it is in the 

interest of a fair and orderly market to 

provide appropriate incentives for 

Market Makers to maintain quality 

markets. As a result, the Exchange has 

instituted several programs that are 

aimed at incentivizing Market Makers to 

provide liquidity, including, for 

example, the Market Maker Plus 

program, which rewards Market Makers 

for routinely quoting at the national best 

bid or offer.7 Despite the Exchange’s 

efforts to date, market participants have 

continued to enter valueless net zero 

complex orders and may earn rebates for 

those orders if they stay within the ADV 

threshold described in the rule. In 

particular, today, market participants 

can reduce their ADV in net zero 

complex orders and/or split their net 

zero order flow across multiple 

originating market participants to stay 

within the ADV thresholds set by the 

Exchange, and thereby qualify for 

Priority Customer complex order 

rebates. The Exchange believes that it is 

appropriate at this time to completely 

remove incentives for trading net zero 

complex orders by eliminating the 

current ADV threshold. With this 

proposed change, all net zero complex 

orders will be ineligible for Priority 

Customer complex order rebates. 

Eliminating the ADV requirement will 

discourage market participants from 

engaging in this economically valueless 

conduct, which impedes Market 

Makers’ ability to maintain quality 

markets, as no net zero complex orders 

will be rebate eligible. Priority Customer 

complex orders that do not meet the 

definition of a net zero complex order 

will continue to receive rebates based 

on the tier achieved. 

In addition, the Exchange proposes to 

reduce the fee charged to Market Makers 

and Non-Nasdaq ISE Market Makers for 

Regular Orders in Select Symbols when 

trading against Priority Customer 

complex orders that leg into the regular 

book. Currently, Market Makers 

(including Market Makers that qualify 

for Market Maker Plus) 8 and NonNasdaq ISE Market Makers are charged 

a maker fee of $0.30 per contract for 

Regular Orders in Select Symbols when 

trading against Priority Customer 

complex orders that leg into the regular 

order book.9 This higher maker fee was 

originally adopted because the 

Exchange pays a rebate to Priority 

Customer complex orders that leg into 

the regular order book. With the changes 

described above, the Exchange believes 

that it is appropriate to revisit this fee, 

and now proposes to reduce the fee to 

$0.10 per contract. This change will 

reduce disincentives for Market Makers 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
37968 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 155 / Monday, August 14, 2017 / Notices 

10With the proposed fee reduction, Market 

Makers (other than those that qualify for Market 

Maker Plus) and Non-Nasdaq ISE Market Makers 

will be charged a maker fee of $0.10 per contract 

for Regular Orders in Select Symbols regardless of 

the order on the other side of the trade. The 

Exchange therefore proposes to effectuate this 

change by deleting footnote 11. 

11 15 U.S.C. 78f. 

12 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). 

13A ‘‘Firm Proprietary’’ order is an order 

submitted by a member for its own proprietary 

account. 

14A ‘‘Broker-Dealer’’ order is an order submitted 

by a member for a broker-dealer account that is not 

its own proprietary account. 

15A ‘‘Professional Customer’’ is a person or entity 

that is not a broker/dealer and is not a Priority 

Customer. 

16 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8). 

to provide liquidity to the benefit of all 

market participants that trade on the 

Exchange.10

2. Statutory Basis 

The Exchange believes that the 

proposed rule change is consistent with 

the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,11

in general, and Section 6(b)(4) of the 

Act,12 in particular, in that it is designed 

to provide for the equitable allocation of 

reasonable dues, fees, and other charges 

among its members and other persons 

using its facilities. 

The Exchange believes that it is 

reasonable and equitable to remove the 

ADV threshold from the net zero 

provision in the Schedule of Fees as this 

change is designed to remove financial 

incentives for market participants to 

engage in rebate arbitrage by entering 

net zero complex orders on the 

Exchange that do not have any 

economic substance. With the current 

provision, offending firms have 

repeatedly found ways to continue to 

submit these economically valueless 

orders to the detriment of the Exchange 

and market participants that trade on 

the Exchange. The continued 

submission of these net zero complex 

orders by a handful of market 

participants has generated complaints 

from the Market Makers that trade 

against these orders in the regular order 

book, as firms recognize these net zero 

complex orders as essentially noneconomic. The Exchange believes that 

eliminating the ADV threshold will take 

away the incentives for firms to 

continue to enter net zero complex 

orders purely to earn a rebate, thereby 

reducing the cost of these trades to the 

Exchange and its members. 

Market Makers may be impeded in 

providing liquidity when doing so may 

result in trading against these net zero 

complex orders that leg into the regular 

market. The Exchange believes that it is 

important that Market Makers be 

properly incentivized to maintain 

quality markets, and is therefore 

proposing to take steps to eliminate the 

incentives for market participants to 

enter net zero complex orders. Priority 

Customer complex orders, including net 

zero complex orders that leg in to the 

regular order book, are currently paid 

significant rebates by the Exchange, 

which are funded in part by charging 

higher fees to the market participants 

that trade against these orders. The 

Exchange believes that eliminating the 

ADV requirement in this provision will 

discourage market participants from 

entering valueless net zero complex 

orders, which are entered for the sole 

purpose of earning a rebate. As a result, 

the Exchange believes that Market 

Makers will be aided in their role of 

providing liquidity and maintaining 

quality markets to the benefit of all 

market participants that trade on the 

Exchange. 

Furthermore, the Exchange believes 

that the proposed change is not unfairly 

discriminatory as it is designed to stop 

market participants from taking 

advantage of Exchange rebates by 

entering orders that lack economic 

substance. The Exchange is proposing to 

eliminate Priority Customer complex 

order rebates for all market participants, 

regardless of their ADV in this activity. 

Thus, all market participants that enter 

net zero complex orders will be 

uniformly denied rebates for those 

orders. To the extent that those market 

participants execute non-net zero 

complex orders, however, they will 

continue to receive Priority Customer 

complex order rebates based on their 

ADV in that activity. The Exchange does 

not believe that it is unfairly 

discriminatory to eliminate the ADV 

threshold for net zero complex orders 

since the elimination of this threshold 

means that no market participants will 

receive rebates for these orders. 

The Exchange also believes that it is 

reasonable and equitable reduce the 

maker fee charged to Market Makers and 

Non-Nasdaq ISE Market Makers for 

Regular Orders in Select Symbols when 

trading against Priority Customer 

complex orders that leg into the regular 

order book. With the changes described 

above related to net zero complex 

orders, which will eliminate rebates for 

certain Priority Customer complex 

orders that leg in to the regular order 

book, the Exchange believes that it is 

appropriate to also reduce the amount 

charged to Market Makers when trading 

against such Priority Customer complex 

orders in the regular order book. 

Furthermore, the Exchange believes that 

reducing the fee charged to Market 

Makers and Non-Nasdaq ISE Makers 

when trading against Priority Customer 

complex order that leg into the regular 

order book will increase incentives for 

those firms to provide liquidity to the 

benefit of all market participants that 

trade on the Exchange. The Exchange 

does not believe that this change is 

unfairly discriminatory as the same 

$0.10 per contract maker fee applies to 

Market Makers (other than those that 

qualify for Market Maker Plus) and NonNasdaq ISE Market Makers when 

trading against other orders in these 

symbols, and is also the same as the 

maker fees charged to Firm 

Proprietary,13 Broker-Dealer,14 and 

Professional Customer orders.15

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Burden on Competition 

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

the Act,16 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. By 

eliminating the ADV requirement 

applicable to the Exchange’s net zero 

complex order provision in the 

Schedule of Fees, the proposed rule 

change is designed to eliminate the 

ability for certain market participants to 

engage in rebate arbitrage to the 

detriment of the Exchange and its 

members. Rather than impede 

competition, the Exchange believes that 

this change will enhance competition by 

enabling Market Makers to step up and 

maintain quality markets to the benefit 

of all market participants that trade on 

the Exchange. In addition, the reduction 

of Market Maker and Non-Nasdaq ISE 

Market Maker fees for trading against 

Priority Customer complex orders that 

leg into the regular order book will also 

further competition as the fees are 

consistent with those charged to other 

market participants. The Exchange 

operates in a highly competitive market 

in which market participants can 

readily direct their order flow to 

competing venues. In such an 

environment, the Exchange must 

continually review, and consider 

adjusting, its fees and rebates to remain 

competitive with other exchanges. For 

the reasons described above, the 

Exchange believes that the proposed fee 

changes reflect this competitive 

environment. 

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. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 155 / Monday, August 14, 2017 / Notices 37969 

17 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 

18 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(2). 

19 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 Exchange originally filed the proposed 

changes on July 21, 2017 (SR–NYSEMKT–2017–47) 

and withdrew such filing on July 27, 2017. 

5See Securities Exchange Act Release No.80283 

(March 21, 2017), 82 FR 15244 (March 27, 2017) 

(SR–NYSEMKT–2017–14). 

6See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80748 

(May 23, 2017), 82 FR 24764 (May 30, 2017) (SR– 

NYSEMKT 2017–20). 

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,17 and Rule 

19b–4(f)(2) 18 thereunder. 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– 

ISE–2017–77 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–ISE–2017–77. 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–ISE– 

2017–77 and should be submitted on or 

before September 5, 2017. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.19

Eduardo A. Aleman, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2017–17065 Filed 8–11–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–81337; File No. SR– 

NYSEAMER–2017–02] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE 

American LLC; Notice of Filing and 

Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed 

Change in Connection With Its Recent 

Name Change From NYSE MKT LLC to 

NYSE American LLC and the Related 

Rebranding of NYSE Amex Options to 

NYSE American Options 

DATES: August 8, 2017. 

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

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 

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

notice is hereby given that, on July 27, 

2017, NYSE American LLC (the 

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

with the Securities and Exchange 

Commission (the ‘‘Commission’’) the 

proposed rule change as described in 

Items I and II below, which Items have 

been prepared by the self-regulatory 

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 in connection 

with its recent name change from NYSE 

MKT LLC (‘‘NYSE MKT’’) to NYSE 

American and the related rebranding of 

NYSE Amex Options to NYSE American 

Options, to make technical and 

conforming changes to the rules of the 

Exchange (‘‘Rules’’) and the NYSE 

American Options Fee Schedule (‘‘Fee 

Schedule’’). The proposed change is 

available on the Exchange’s Web site 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, in 

connection with its name change from 

NYSE MKT to NYSE American and the 

related rebranding of NYSE Amex 

Options to NYSE American Options, to 

make technical and conforming changes 

the Rules and Fee Schedule.4

Background 

On March 16, 2017, the Exchange 

filed rule changes with the Commission 

in connection with its name change to 

NYSE American.5 In addition, on May 

19, 2017, the Exchange filed rule 

changes with the Commission 

associated with the rebranding of NYSE 

Amex Options, the Exchange’s facility 

for trading options, to NYSE American 

Options.6 In those filings, the Exchange 

committed to submitting subsequent 

rule filings as necessary to make any 

technical and conforming changes to 

proposed rule changes that were 

pending as of the time of those filings 

or that occurred after such filings but 

before the operative date of the name 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES