F 12 Notes:

Unless otherwise noted, a value of 10% humic acid and a value of 0.0003 mg/ L sulfide were assumed for all tests ( HydroQual 2001).

1. Temperature value used here is either the mean or the midpoint of the range measured for this specific test or for a group of tests reported in this study.

2. pH value used here is either the mean or the midpoint of the range measured for this specific test or for a group of tests reported in this study.

3. The dissolved copper LC50/ EC50 used here was calculated as 96% of the reported total LC50/ EC50 value ( based on Stephan 1995).

4. A default reconstituted water DOC value of 0.5 mg/ L was used for this test ( see U. S. EPA 2003).

5. Alkalinity and hardness values used are midpoints of nominal range for very hard reconstituted water ( U. S. EPA 1993; ASTM 2000). Cations and anions were calculated stoichiometrically according to nominal concentrations of salts added ( ASTM 2000; U. S. EPA 1993), and adjusted according to the expected hardness ( see U. S. EPA 2003).

6. Hardness value used here is either the mean or the midpoint of the range measured for this specific test or for a group of tests reported in this study.

7. Alkalinity value used here is either the mean or the midpoint of the range measured for this specific test or for a group of tests reported in this study.

8. Concentration of K is mean of values reported for Lake Superior water in Biesinger and Christensen ( 1972) and Erickson et al. ( 1996 a, b). Ca, Mg, Na, Cl, and SO 4 were derived in the same way,

but were adjusted according to the measured hardness of the test water. DOC value is a mean of Lake Superior measurements taken by Greg Lien at U. S. EPA Duluth. See U. S. EPA 2003 for details.

9. DOC value is measured TOC of the same well water reported by McCrady and Chapman ( 1979).

10. Using available data for the Western Fish Toxicology Station ( G. Chapman unpublished data, Samuelson 1976), regression analyses were conducted to quantify relationships between hardness and various ions ( see U. S. EPA 2003). The resulting regression equations were used to estimate concentrations of Ca, Mg, Na, Cl, and S04. The mean K value was used because the relationship between K and hardness was non significant.

11. Alkalinity and pH values used are midpoints of nominal range for soft reconstituted water ( ASTM 2000; U. S. EPA 1993). Cations and anions were calculated stoichiometrically according to nominal concentrations of salts added ( ASTM 2000; U. S. EPA 1993), and adjusted according to the measured hardness ( see U. S. EPA 2003 for details.) Hardness, alkalinity, and pH values used are midpoints of nominal range for moderately hard reconstituted water ( ASTM 2000; U. S. EPA 1993). Cations and anions were calculated stoichiometrically according to nominal concentrations of salts added ( see U. S. EPA 2003 for details.) Although test organisms were fed during this test, test results were used because Hyalella azteca are cannibalistic and only a small amount of food ( 500 ul) was added to the test chambers ( 300 mls) such that the percentage addition is not so great as to significantly affect copper complexation.

12. The dissolved copper LC50 used here was calculated as 92% of the reported total LC50 value ( based on percent dissolved reported by authors).

13. DOC value is based on measured TOC in the Lake Superior dilution water used and an estimate of the dissolved fraction ( see U. S. EPA 2003).

14. Test was conducted in City of Blacksburg, VA tap water. Ionic concentrations and DOC were not measured. Ionic concentrations were estimated based on measurements made by the City of Blacksburg as well as USGS NASQAN data for the New River ( see U. S. EPA 2003). These concentrations were adjusted according to the measured hardness of the test water. The DOC value used here was based on measurements of TOC made by the City of Blacksburg ( see U. S. EPA 2003).

15. Ionic concentrations were estimated based on New River data included in the USGS NASQAN database, and were adjusted according to the measured hardness of the test water ( see U. S. EPA 2003). The DOC value used here was based on a single measurement made on a New River water sample collected by Don Cherry in 2000.

16. Ionic concentrations were estimated based on measurements made on a single Clinch River water sample collected by Don Cherry in 2000, and were adjusted according to the measured hardness of the test water ( see U. S. EPA 2003). The DOC value used here was based on a measurement made on the same water sample.

17. Alkalinity was estimated based on pH adjustment according to nomograph in Faust and Aly ( 1981)  see U. S. EPA 2003.

18. This test was conducted in a standard reconstituted water ( ASTM 2000; U. S. EPA 1993). Ionic concentrations were calculated stoichiometrically according to nominal concentrations of salts added ( ASTM 2000; U. S. EPA 1993), and adjusted according to the measured hardness of the test water ( see U. S. EPA 2003 for details.)

19. DOC was measured in the dilution water, but was not detected ( detection limit = 1 mg/ L). DOC value used was 0.5 mg/ L, which is one half the detection limit and is consistent with the recommended default DOC value for reconstituted waters ( see U. S. EPA 2003) pH was not reported; value used here is midpoint of nominal range for moderately hard reconstituted waters. The dissolved copper LC50 was calculated from the total copper LC50 using a 1.26 total to dissolved ratio reported by the author.

20. Hardness, alkalinity, and pH values used are midpoints of nominal range for hard reconstituted water ( ASTM 2000; U. S. EPA 1993). Cations and anions were calculated stoichiometrically according to nominal concentrations of salts added ( see U. S. EPA 2003 for details).

21. Test temperature was not reported; temperature used here is the temperature recommended by OECD ( 1981) because these methods were cited by the study's author.

22. Ionic composition calculated from Table 1 titled: Microcosm Medium ( T82MV) and sediment composition, in ASTM ( 2000) publication E1366, vol. 11.05. T85MVK is recommended for culturing Daphnia magna and varies from T82MV by including 0.1 times the concentration of nitrate and phosphate.

23. TOC was measured in the dilution water, but was not detected ( detection limit = 0.25 mg/ L). DOC value used was 0.125 mg/ L, which is one half the TOC detection limit ( see U. S. EPA 2003).

24. Ionic concentrations used here are those reported in the publication, which are estimated values based on known chemistry of well water and amounts of chemicals added.

25. Concentration of K is mean of values reported for Lake Superior water in Biesinger and Christensen ( 1972) and Erickson et al. ( 1996). Ca, Mg, Na, Cl, and SO 4 were derived in the same way, but were adjusted according to the measured hardness of the test water. See U. S. EPA 2003 for details.

26. Ionic concentrations were estimated based on measured values reported for the source water in STORET, and adjusted according to the measured hardness of the test water ( see U. S. EPA 2003).

27. Using available data for the St. Louis River from the USGS NASQAN database, regression analyses were conducted to quantify relationships between hardness and various ions ( see U. S. EPA 2003). The resulting regression equations were used to estimate ionic concentrations of Ca, Mg, Na, Cl, and S04. F 13 28. Concentrations of Na, K, Cl, and S04 are means of values reported for Lake Superior water in Biesinger and Christensen ( 1972) and Erickson et al. ( 1996) ( see U. S. EPA 2003). Ca, Mg, and SO 4 were derived in the same way, but were adjusted according to the amounts of CaSO 4 or MgSO 4 added to the test water.

29. Concentrations of Na, K, Cl, and S04 are means of values reported for Lake Superior water in Erickson et al. ( 1996). Ca and Mg values were derived in the same way, but were adjusted according to the measured hardness of the test water. DOC value is a mean of Lake Superior measurements taken by Greg Lien at U. S. EPA Duluth. See U. S. EPA 2003 for details.

30. With the exception of sulfide and dissolved copper, all parameters listed here were measured either in the exposure chamber water ( pH, temperature, total copper) or in the dilution water prior to testing ( ions, alkalinity, DOC) and were reported by Welsh ( 1996).

31. Dilution water was not a standard reconstituted water mix; concentrations of salts added were reported in this study. Measurements of hardness and alkalinity were not reported in this study;

values used here were estimated based on nominal concentrations of salts added. DOC value used here is based on subsequent DOC measurement made on the same laboratory's dilution water ( data provided by Uwe Borgmann).

32. Sufficient Cerophyl was added for C. tentans to construct burrows during the exposure. The authors reported that the cerophyl was required as substrate and food by the test animals for growth and survival.

33. A default DOC value of 1.6 mg/ L, applicable to tap and well waters, was used for this test ( see U. S. EPA 2003).

34. Ionic concentrations for this water ( Green Duwamish River) were estimated based on measured values reported in Santos and Stoner ( 1973), and adjusted according to the measured hardness of the test water ( see U. S. EPA 2003).

35. With the exception of sulfide and dissolved copper, all parameters listed here were measured either in the exposure chamber water ( pH, hardness, alkalinity, temperature, total copper) or in the dilution water prior to testing ( ions, alkalinity, TOC) and were reported by Chapman ( 1975 and/ or 1978). TOC was assumed to be 100% dissolved.

36. DOC value is a measure of TOC in the Western Fish Toxicology Station well water, as reported in Chapman 1978.

37. Dilution water used in this test was taken from the Chehalis River. DOC was estimated based on data supplied by the USGS NASQAN database. Ionic concentrations were provided by the author ( see U. S. EPA 2003).

38. With the exception of sulfide and total copper LC50s, all parameters listed here were measured either in the exposure chamber water or in the dilution water and were reported by Hagler Bailly ( 1996). Total copper was measured, but LC50s were not reported. We estimated total copper LC50s based on reported dissolved LC50s and percentages of total copper in dissolved form.

39. Tests reported by Fogels and Sprague ( 1977) and Howarth and Sprague ( 1978) were conducted in very hard well water or a mix of this well water and de ionized water. Measurements of organic carbon, most ionic concentrations, and occasionally alkalinity were not made or not reported. Methods used for estimating these parameters are described in U. S. EPA 2003. The authors reported LC50s as dissolved copper concentrations, and no attempt was made here to estimate total copper LC50s.

40. Tests were conducted in dechlorinated City of Montreal tap water. Ionic concentrations given here are based on those reported for the dilution water ( Anderson and Spear 1980 a, b) and adjusted slightly based on measured test water hardness.

41. Tests were conducted in water collected from Pinto Creek, Arizona. Author reported concentrations of Ca, Mg, Na, and SO 4. Default values were used for K, Cl, and DOC ( Cl default was scaled according to measured hardness). LC50s were reported as dissolved copper; we have not attempted to estimate total copper values.

42. This test was conducted in dechlorinated tap water at the Chesapeake Biological Laboratory in Solomons, MD. Measurements of ions, alkalinity, and DOC were not reported, so default values were used here. Default values for alkalinity and ions are from HydroQual 2001, and all except alkalinity and K were adjusted according to the measured hardness of the test water.

43. This test was conducted in a mix of Lake Superior water and laboratory reconstituted water. DOC value given here is an estimate based on the percent dilution of Lake Superior water and DOC measurements made on Lake Superior water by Greg Lien at U. S. EPA Duluth ( see U. S. EPA 2003).

44. This test was conducted in a laboratory reconstituted water. DOC value is based on measurements taken by Greg Lien on reconstituted water used at U. S. EPA Duluth ( see U. S. EPA 2003).

45. This test was conducted in Lake Superior water with added humic acid ( additional salts may have been added). DOC value here is estimated based on Lake Superior DOC ( see note 60) and nominal additions of humic acid. The percent humic acid was also adjusted accordingly.

46. Measurements of alkalinity and ions were not reported for this test; alkalinity for similar test water reported in Birge et al. 1981 was used here. Ions were estimated based on concentrations reported in Birge et al. 1981 and adjusted according to measured test hardness. One of the acute tests with fathead minnows from this study was excluded because the minnows, which were held for 10 days at 220 mg/ L water hardness, were subsequently tested at a hardness 100 mg/ L without acclimation.

47. With the exception of dissolved copper, sulfide, and hardness, all parameters listed here were measured either in the exposure chamber water ( pH, temperature, total copper) or in the dilution water prior to testing ( ions, alkalinity, DOC) ( Welsh et al. 1993). Some of these data were not reported by Welsh et al. ( 1993), but were provided to EPA by the primary author. Hardness was calculated based on measured concentrations of Ca and Mg ( see U. S. EPA 2003).

48. This test was conducted in dechlorinated City of Denton, TX tap water, and although not reported by Bennet et al. ( 1995), alkalinity, pH, and temperature were measured in the test chambers. Data were supplied to EPA by the authors ( see U. S. EPA 2003); means of all daily measurements of test chambers were used here. Ionic concentrations were not available for this test; default values ( HydroQual 2001) adjusted for measured test hardness were used.

49. This test was conducted in carbon filtered, millipore Ann Arbor tap water, and the DOC was assumed to be 0.5 mg/ L ( default for reconstituted waters). Concentrations of Ca and Mg were calculated based on reported total hardness and Ca hardness. Default values adjusted according to measured hardness were used for other ions ( K was not adjusted; see U. S. EPA 2003).

50. This test was conducted in natural lake water ( Lake Cultus, BC). The mean " soluble organic carbon" ( DOC) value reported by the author for this lake was used here. Authors reported sulfate concentrations in the dilution water, but did not report any other anion or cation concentrations. These concentrations were estimated using default values from ( HydroQual 2001), adjusting all except K according to the measured hardness of the test water.

51. A default DOC value of 0.3 mg/ L for ultra pure water was used for this test ( see U. S. EPA 2003).

52. This test was conducted in tap water from an unspecified source. Authors did not report a DOC concentration for this water, but stated that it was " free from... organic matter." On this basis, a default value of 0.5 mg DOC/ L was used. Ionic concentrations were estimated using default values from ( HydroQual 2001), adjusting all except K according to the measured hardness of the test F 14 water.

53. Alkalinity value used is the midpoint of nominal range for soft reconstituted water ( ASTM 2000; U. S. EPA 1993). Cations and anions were calculated stoichiometrically according to nominal concentrations of salts added ( ASTM 2000; U. S. EPA 1993), and adjusted according to the measured hardness ( see U. S. EPA 2003 for details.)

54. This test was conducted in a non standard reconstituted water ( Kristen Long's recipe). Ionic concentrations were calculated stoichiometrically according to nominal concentrations of salts added and adjusted according to the measured hardness.

55. With the exception of sulfide, all parameters listed were measured in the exposure chamber.

56. This test was conducted in a non standard reconstituted water ( Kristen Long's recipe). Ionic concentrations were calculated stoichiometrically according to nominal concentrations of salts added and adjusted according to the measured hardness.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 161 (Tuesday, August 22, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39921-39923]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17684]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81408; File No. SR-NYSEAMER-2017-04]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Modify
the NYSE American Options Fee Schedule

August 16, 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 August 1, 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,
II, and III 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to modify the NYSE American Options Fee
Schedule (``Fee Schedule''). The Exchange proposes to implement the fee
change effective August 1, 2017. 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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to amend the Fee Schedule effective
August 1, 2017. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to modify the fees
for Firm Electronic transactions in Penny Pilot issues, and to offer an
incentive for ATP Holders to electronically transact business of
Broker-Dealers, Firms, Non-NYSE American Market Makers, and
Professional Customers (``Non Customer/Non Market Maker Interest'') on
the Exchange.
    Currently, the Exchange charges $0.42 per contract for Electronic
executions in Penny Pilot issues that clear in the Firm range. The
Exchange proposes to modify that fee to $0.47, which is similar to
transaction charges fees paid on other exchanges.\4\ The Exchange does
not propose to alter the per contract fee of $0.75 for Electronic
executions in Non-Penny Pilot issues that clear in the Firm range.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See, e.g., MIAX Options Exchange (``MIAX'') fee schedule,
available here, https://www.miaxoptions.com/sites/default/files/fee_schedule-files/MIAX_Options_Fee_Schedule_06302017.pdf (charging
$0.47 per contract for electronic executions in Penny Pilot Issues
that clear in the Firm range); NASDAQ PHLX LLC (``PHLX'') Pricing
Schedule, available here, http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Micro.aspx?id=phlxpricing (charging $0.48 per contract for
electronic executions in Penny Pilot Issues that clear in the Firm
range).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange proposes to offer reduced fees to
encourage ATP Holders to transact additional Non Customer/Non Market
Maker Interest on the Exchange.\5\ Specifically, the Exchange proposes
to charge a reduced per contract rate on Electronic executions of $0.36
per contract for Penny Pilot Issues, and $0.60 per contract for Non-
Penny Pilot Issues, to ATP Holders that transact at least 0.05% of
TCADV above that ATP Holder's 2nd Quarter 2017 Non-Customer, Non-Market
Maker Interest.\6\ However, the Exchange would exclude from this TCADV
calculation Electronic executions in the following: CUBE, QCC, Strategy
Executions, and any ``Routed Volume,'' i.e., any volume attributable to
orders routed to another exchange in connection with the Options Order
Protection and Locked/Crossed Market Plan referenced in Rule 991NY. The
Exchange notes that this proposed rate is comparable to pricing
incentives offered on other options exchanges, including MIAX.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See proposed note 8 to Section I.A. (Options Transactions
and Credits, Rates for Options transactions) of the Fee Schedule.
The Exchange notes that executions via the BOLD Mechanism would be
included in the TCADV calculation.
    \6\ Currently, the Exchange charges ATP Holders transacting Non-
Customer/Non-Market Maker Interest (excluding Firms) a per contract
rate of $0.50 per contract for Penny Pilot Issues, and $0.75 per
contract for Non-Penny Pilot Issues. The Exchange does not propose
to alter these base rates.
    \7\ See supra note 4, MIAX fee schedule, Section (1)(a)(iv)
(providing a per contract credit for certain orders executed on the
exchange, provided the Member achieves certain ``Professional''
volume increase percentage thresholds in the month relative to a
baseline period, which credits result in a per-contract rates [sic]
similar to the Exchange's proposal). MIAX similarly excludes from
this calculation certain volumes, including executions in price
improvement auctions, QCCs, as well as Routed Volume. The following
are considered ``Professional'' interest on MIAX: Public Customers,
that are not Priority Customers; non-MIAX Options Market Makers;
non-Member Broker-Dealers; or Firms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\8\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\9\ in particular,
because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and other persons
using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between
customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed increased fee for Firm
Electronic transactions in Penny Pilot Issues is reasonable as it is
competitive with rates changes by other options exchanges for Firm
transactions.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed reduced fees for Non-
Customer/Non-Market Maker Interest executed on the Exchange are fair,
equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory. The Exchange believes
the proposed reduced rates are reasonably designed to encourage ATP
Holders that transact Non-Customer/Non-Market Maker Interest to direct
this order flow to the Exchange. To the extent this goal is achieved,
the Exchange would improve its overall competitiveness and strengthen
its market quality for all market participants. The proposed rates are
fair and equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory because they
apply equally to all ATP Holders that transact Non-Customer/Non-Market
Maker Interest. In addition, the proposed changes are equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because, while only Non-Customer/Non-Market
Maker Interest qualifies for the reduced fees, any increase in this
type of order flow would attract greater volume and liquidity of all
account type [sic] to the Exchange, which benefit all market
participants by providing more trading opportunities and tighter
spreads.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed reduced rates are
not unfairly discriminatory to Market Makers or Customers. The Exchange
offers separate incentives to Market Makers, which incentives take into
account the distinct obligations of Market Makers) [sic]. Further, the
Exchange does not impose any fee on Electronic executions of Customer
interest.
    For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is
consistent with the Act.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\11\ the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden
on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act. The proposed fee increase for Electronic
executions in Penny Pilot Issues that clear in the Firm range are
competitive with rates charged by other options exchanges, and
therefore do not impose any undue burden on competition.\12\ In
addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed reduced rates for
Non-Customer/Non-Market Maker Interest executed on the Exchange rule
change would increase both intermarket and intramarket competition by
incenting ATP Holders to direct this type of interest to the Exchange,
which would enhance the quality of the Exchange's markets and increase
the volume of contracts traded here. To the extent that this purpose is
achieved, all the Exchange's market participants would benefit from the
improved market liquidity. Enhanced market quality and increased
transaction volume that results from the anticipated increase in order
flow directed to the Exchange will benefit all market participants and
improve competition on the Exchange. The proposed changes are intended
to promote competition and better improve the Exchange's competitive
position and make the Exchange a more attractive marketplace in order
to encourage market participants to bring increased volume to the
Exchange. To the extent that the proposed changes make the Exchange a
more attractive marketplace

for market participants at other exchanges, such market participants
are welcome to become ATP Holders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \12\ See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market
in which market participants can readily favor competing venues. In
such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider
adjusting, its fees and credits to remain competitive with other
exchanges. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that
the proposed rule change reflects 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 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 foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \13\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \14\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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)\15\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2017-04 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-2017-04. 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 such 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-NYSEAMER-2017-04, and should
be submitted on or before September 12, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-17684 Filed 8-21-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P