Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change To Permit the Exchange To List and Trade Exchange Traded Products, 4051-4054 [2020-01097]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 15 / Thursday, January 23, 2020 / Notices
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 replacing the obsolete Twelfth
NYSE Operating Agreement with the
Thirteenth NYSE Operating Agreement
in its rules would remove impediments
to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a free
and open market and a national market
system and, in general, protect investors
and the public interest, by ensuring that
its rules remain consistent with the
NYSE operating agreement in effect,
thereby avoiding any possible market
participant confusion. The Exchange
notes that, as with the Twelfth NYSE
Operating Agreement, no amendment to
the Thirteenth Amended NYSE
Operating Agreement could be made
without the Exchange filing a proposed
rule change with the Commission.
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 Exchange Act.
The proposed rule change is not
designed to address any competitive
issue but rather is concerned solely with
ensuring that the Commission will have
the ability to enforce the Exchange Act
with respect to NYSE Amex Options
and its direct and indirect parent
entities.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
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 proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
of the Act 12 and Rule 19b–4(f)(3) 13
thereunder in that the proposed rule
change is concerned solely with the
administration of the Exchange.
At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the
Commission summarily may 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,
12 15
13 17
U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
CFR 240.19b–4(f)(3).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:13 Jan 22, 2020
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) 14 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 (https://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml); or
• Send an email to rule-comments@
sec.gov. Please include File Number SR–
NYSEAMER–2020–04 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–2020–04. 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 website (https://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
14 15
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
Frm 00161
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
4051
to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File
Number SR–NYSEAMER–2020–04 and
should be submitted on or before
February 13, 2020.
For the Commission, by the Division of
Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated
authority.15
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020–01037 Filed 1–22–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
[Release No. 34–88003; File No. SR–NYSE–
2019–54]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; New
York Stock Exchange LLC; Order
Instituting Proceedings To Determine
Whether To Approve or Disapprove a
Proposed Rule Change To Permit the
Exchange To List and Trade Exchange
Traded Products
January 17, 2020.
On October 3, 2019, New York Stock
Exchange LLC (‘‘Exchange’’ or ‘‘NYSE’’)
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 to list and trade Exchange
Traded Products that have a component
NMS Stock listed on the Exchange or
that are based on, or represent an
interest in, an underlying index or
reference asset that includes an NMS
Stock listed on the Exchange. The
proposed rule change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on
October 23, 2019.3 On December 5,
2019, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,4 the Commission designated a
longer period within which to approve
the proposed rule change, disapprove
the proposed rule change, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove the proposed rule change.5
The Commission has received no
comment letters on the proposal. This
order institutes proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act 6 to
15 17
CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).
U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.
3 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87329
(Oct. 17, 2019), 84 FR 56864 (‘‘Notice’’).
4 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
5 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87671
(Dec. 5, 2019), 84 FR 67763 (Dec. 11, 2019). The
Commission designated January 21, 2020, as the
date by which it should approve or disapprove, or
institute proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove, the proposed rule change.
6 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
1 15
E:\FR\FM\23JAN1.SGM
23JAN1
4052
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 15 / Thursday, January 23, 2020 / Notices
determine whether to approve or
disapprove the proposed rule change.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
I. Summary Description of the Proposal
The Exchange proposes to expand the
Exchange Traded Products (‘‘ETPs’’)
that would be eligible to list and trade
on the Exchange to include ETPs that
have a component NMS Stock 7 or that
are based on, or represent an interest in,
an underlying index or reference asset
that includes an NMS Stock listed on
the Exchange. To effectuate this change,
the Exchange proposes to delete the
preambles to NYSE Rules 5P and 8P
currently providing that the Exchange
will not list such ETPs.
The proposal would permit the
Exchange to list and trade on the NYSE
Trading Floor 8 both ETPs and one or
more component NMS Stocks forming
part of the underlying ETP index or
portfolio (‘‘side-by-side trading’’ 9).
Because listed securities are assigned to
a Designated Market Maker (‘‘DMM’’),
the proposed elimination of the current
restriction could result in DMMs being
assigned ETPs that may have one or
more component NMS Stocks forming
part of the underlying ETP index or
portfolio that are also assigned to the
DMM (‘‘integrated market making’’).10
The Commission has approved
7 NMS Stock is defined in Rule 600 of Regulation
NMS, 17 CFR 242.600(b)(48) as ‘‘any NMS security
other than an option.’’ ‘‘NMS Security’’ means any
security or class of securities for which transaction
reports are collected, processed, and made available
pursuant to an effective transaction reporting plan,
or an effective national market system plan for
reporting transactions in listed options.’’ See 17
CFR 242.600(b)(47). ‘‘NMS Security’’ refers to
‘‘exchange-listed equity securities and standardized
options, but does not include exchange-listed debt
securities, securities futures, or open-end mutual
funds, which are not currently reported pursuant to
an effective transaction reporting plan.’’ See
Question 1.1 in the ‘‘Responses to Frequently Asked
Questions Concerning Large Trader Reporting,’’
available at: https://www.sec.gov/divisions/
marketreg/large-trader-faqs.htm.
8 The term ‘‘Trading Floor’’ is defined in NYSE
Rule 6A to mean the restricted-access physical areas
designated by the Exchange for the trading of
securities, commonly known as the ‘‘Main Room’’
and the ‘‘Buttonwood Room.’’
9 ‘‘Side-by-side trading’’ refers to the trading of an
equity security and its related derivative product at
the same physical location, though ‘‘not necessarily
by the same specialist or specialist firm.’’ Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 46213 (July 16, 2002), 67
FR 48232, 48233 (July 23, 2002) (SR–Amex–2002–
21) (‘‘Release No. 46213’’) (order approving side-byside trading and integrated market making of broad
index-based ETFs and related options); see also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 45454
(February 15, 2002), 67 FR 8567, 8568 n.7 (February
25, 2002) (SR–NYSE–2001–43) (‘‘Release No.
45454’’) (order approving approved person of a
specialist to act as a specialist or primary market
maker with respect to an option on a stock in which
the NYSE specialist is registered on the Exchange).
10 ‘‘Integrated market making’’ refers to the
practice of the same person or firm making markets
in an equity security and its related option. See
Release No. 45454, 67 FR at 8568 n.7.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:13 Jan 22, 2020
Jkt 250001
integrated market making and side-byside trading for ‘‘broad-based’’ ETPs and
related options.11 According to the
Exchange, the test for whether a product
is ‘‘broad-based’’, and therefore is not
readily susceptible to manipulation, is
whether the individual components of
the ETP are sufficiently liquid and wellcapitalized and the product is not overconcentrated.12 When an ETP meets
both criteria, and therefore can be
considered ‘‘broad-based,’’ the
Commission has explicitly permitted
integrated market making and side-byside trading in both the ETP and related
options, with no requirement for
information barriers or physical or
organizational separation.13
In making a determination of whether
an ETP is broad-based, the Commission
has relied on an exchange’s listing
standards. According to the Exchange,
in permitting integrated market making
and side-by-side trading for two types of
ETPs and their related options, the
Commission looked to the American
Stock Exchange LLC’s listing standards
that are very similar to the Exchange’s
current listing standards.
The Exchange notes that the
relationship between an ETP and its
underlying listed NMS Stock
component or components is
fundamentally different than that
between an ETP and its related option.
11 See Release No. 46213, 67 FR at 48232
(approving side-by-side trading and integrated
market making for certain Exchange Traded Funds
(‘‘ETF’’) and Trust Issued Receipts (‘‘TIR’’) and
related options); see also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 62479 (July 9, 2010), 75 FR 41264 (July
15, 2010) (SR–Amex–2010–31) (‘‘Release No.
62479’’) (order approving side-by-side trading and
integrated market making in the QQQ ETF and
certain of its component securities where the QQQs
met the composition and concentration measures to
be classified as a broad-based ETF).
12 See Release No. 62479, id., 75 FR at 41272. The
Commission has expressed its belief ‘‘that, when
the securities underlying an ETF consist of a
number of liquid and well-capitalized stocks, the
likelihood that a market participant will be able to
manipulate the price of the ETF is reduced.’’ See
id. See generally Securities Exchange Act Release
Nos. 56633 (October 9, 2007), 72 FR 58696 (October
16, 2007) (SR–ISE–2007–60) (order approving
generic listing standards for ETFs based on both
U.S. and international indices, noting they are
‘‘sufficiently broad-based in scope to minimize
potential manipulation.’’); 55621 (April 12, 2007),
72 FR 19571 (April 18, 2007) (SR–NYSEArca–2006–
86); 54739 (November 9, 2006), 71 FR 66993
(November 17, 2006) (SR–Amex–2006–78); 57365
(February 21, 2008), 73 FR 10839 (February 28,
2008) (SR–CBOE–2007–109) (order approving
generic listing standards for ETFs based on
international indices, noting they are ‘‘sufficiently
broad-based in scope to minimize potential
manipulation.’’); 56049 (July 11, 2007), 72 FR 39121
(July 17, 2007) (SR–Phlx–2007–20); 55113 (January
17, 2007), 72 FR 3179 (January 24, 2007) (SR–
NYSE–2006–101); and 55269 (February 9, 2007), 72
FR 7490 (February 15, 2007) (SR–NASDAQ–2006–
50).
13 See note 11, supra.
PO 00000
Frm 00162
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
In the latter case, a small move in the
price of the listed security can trigger a
large move in the price of the related
option, increasing the incentive for a
market maker or specialist to
manipulate the security or coordinate
trading with the options market maker
or specialist. Here, the Exchange asserts
that there is no similar outsized
correlation between a move in the price
of a listed ETP and one or more of its
underlying NMS Stock components.
The potential for manipulation or
coordinated trading is significantly
attenuated for listed ETPs and their
underlying NMS Stock components
because the Exchange’s generic listed
standards are designed to ensure that
the Exchange will only list ETPs that are
‘‘broad-based’’—that is, the ETP’s
underlying component securities must
be sufficiently liquid and wellcapitalized, and the ETP must not be
unduly concentrated.
According to the Exchange, the listing
standards for Units based on an index
of both US Component Stocks and NonUS Component Stocks; 14 Equity-Index
Linked securities (commonly referred to
as Exchange Traded Notes or
‘‘ETNs’’); 15 Portfolio Depositary
Receipts under NYSE Rule 8.100 with
underlying component stocks consisting
of an index or portfolio of US
Component Stocks; 16 and actively
managed funds under NYSE Rule
8.600 17 are all broadly similar. The
Exchange could not list an ETP that
does not meet these generic listing
requirements without a proposed rule
change being filed with the
Commission.
The Exchange believes that listed
ETPs meeting these composition and
concentration measures would be
sufficiently broad-based to allow
integrated market making and side-byside trading in both the ETP and the
component NMS securities with no
requirement for information barriers or
physical or organizational separation.
As noted by the Exchange, equitybased ETPs that do not meet the
applicable generic listing standards
would require a rule filing with the
Commission prior to commencement of
Exchange listing or trading. The rule
filing would set forth the initial and
continued listing requirements in order
for such a product to be listed and
traded on the Exchange. In order for a
rule proposal to be consistent with the
14 See NYSE Rule 5.2(j)(3), Supp. Material
.01(a)(B)(1)–(5). The index or portfolio must include
a minimum of 20 component stocks.
15 See NYSE Rule 5.2(j)(6)(B)(I).
16 See NYSE Rule 8.100.
17 See NYSE Rule 8.600.
E:\FR\FM\23JAN1.SGM
23JAN1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 15 / Thursday, January 23, 2020 / Notices
Act, it must, among other things, further
the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act 18 in that it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices. The Exchange believes that
equity-based ETPs whose underlying
component composition varies greatly
from the generic listing standards, i.e.,
an ETP whose components are
insufficiently liquid or well-capitalized
or unduly concentrated, would be
unlikely to meet this requirement.
Accordingly, the Exchange believes that
ETPs listed and traded via the rule filing
process would also be sufficiently
broad-based in order to minimize
potential manipulation, thus justifying
integrated market making and side-byside trading in both the ETP and the
component NMS securities.
While the ‘‘broad-based’’ nature of
listed ETPs under either the generic
listing standards or via a rule filing
makes manipulation less likely, the
Exchange also believes that the potential
for manipulation of listed ETPs is
minimal because ETP pricing is based
on an ‘‘arbitrage function’’ performed by
market participants that affects the
supply of and demand for ETP shares
and, thus, ETP prices. This ‘‘arbitrage
function’’ is effectuated by creating new
ETP shares and redeeming existing ETP
shares based on investor demand; thus,
ETP supply is open-ended. As the
Commission has acknowledged, the
arbitrage function helps to keep an
ETP’s price in line with the value of its
underlying portfolio, i.e., it minimizes
deviation from NAV. Generally, the
higher the liquidity and trading volume
of an ETP, the more likely the ETP’s
price will not deviate from the value of
its underlying portfolio. Market makers
registered in ETPs play a key role in this
arbitrage function and DMMs, along
with other market participants, would
perform this role for ETPs listed on the
Exchange. In short, the Exchange
believes that the arbitrage mechanism is
an effective and efficient means of
ensuring that intraday pricing in ETPs
closely tracks the value of the
underlying portfolio or reference assets.
The Exchange believes that the price
regulating function played by the
arbitrage mechanism renders attempts to
influence or manipulate the price of an
ETP more difficult and more susceptible
to immediate detection and correction.
The fact that an ETP and one or more
of its underlying components are traded
in the same physical space on the
Exchange or by the same DMM on the
Exchange does not alter this dynamic in
the slightest, nor does it make price
manipulation more likely. Rather, the
18 15
U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:13 Jan 22, 2020
Jkt 250001
Exchange believes the arbitrage
mechanism would make price
manipulation more difficult and, thus,
less likely. Attempts by Floor-based
market participants to influence the
price of an ETP by, for instance,
manipulating one or more component
securities would be reflected in the
deviation of the price from the NAV just
as similar attempts today by upstairs
traders would be reflected in the
deviation of the price from the NAV.
Moreover, the Exchange asserts that a
broad-based ETP would, as shown
above, be even less susceptible to price
manipulation. The Exchange thus
believes that the type of broad-based
equity ETPs eligible for listing under the
generic listing standards, coupled with
the arbitrage mechanism, sufficiently
minimize the potential for manipulation
of ETPs listed and traded on the Trading
Floor.
With respect to integrated market
making, the Commission has approved
changes to NYSE Rule 98 that permit a
DMM unit to engage in integrated
market making with off-Floor market
making units in related products.19
NYSE Rule 98(c)(6) prohibits DMM
units from operating as a specialist or
market maker on the Exchange in
related products, unless specifically
permitted in Exchange rules. NYSE Rule
98(b)(7) defines ‘‘related products’’ as
‘‘any derivative instrument that is
related to a DMM security.’’ 20
Accordingly, consistent with the
proposal, the Exchange proposes to
amend NYSE Rule 98(b)(7) to
specifically exclude ETPs from the
definition of ‘‘related products.’’ The
Exchange believes that ETPs are
different from other types of related
products such as single-stock options or
futures and that, given the broad-based
nature of listed ETPs, integrated market
making and side-by-side trading in both
the ETP and underlying NMS stock
components is appropriate with no
requirement for information barriers or
physical or organizational separation.
According to the Exchange, trading on
the Exchange is subject to a
comprehensive regulatory program that
includes a suite of surveillances and
19 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58328
(August 7, 2008), 73 FR 48260 (August 18, 2008)
(SR–NYSE–2008–45) (order approving amendments
to NYSE Rule 98 that permit specialist firms to
integrate with off-Floor trading desks that trade in
‘‘related products,’’ as that term is defined in NYSE
Rule 98).
20 Under NYSE Rule 98(b)(7), derivative
instruments include options, warrants, hybrid
securities, single-stock futures, security-based swap
agreement, a forward contract, or ‘‘any other
instrument that is exercisable into or whose price
is based upon or derived from a security traded at
the Exchange.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00163
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
4053
routine examinations that review
trading by DMMs and other market
participants on the Exchange’s trading
Floor. Market participants on the
trading Floor, including DMMs, are also
required to implement policies and
procedures reasonably designed to
detect and to deter inappropriate
conduct and prevent the misuse of
material, non-public information or
disclosure of Floor-based non-public
order information.21
II. Proceedings To Determine Whether
To Approve or Disapprove SR–NYSE–
2019–54 and Grounds for Disapproval
Under Consideration
The Commission is instituting
proceedings pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act 22 to determine
whether the proposed rule change
should be approved or disapproved.
Institution of such proceedings is
appropriate at this time in view of the
legal and policy issues raised by the
proposed rule change. Institution of
proceedings does not indicate that the
Commission has reached any
conclusions with respect to any of the
issues involved. Rather, as described
below, the Commission seeks and
encourages interested persons to
provide comments on the proposed rule
change.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the
Act,23 the Commission is providing
notice of the grounds for disapproval
under consideration. The Commission is
instituting proceedings to allow for
additional analysis of the proposed rule
change’s consistency with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act, which requires,
among other things, that the rules of a
national securities exchange be
‘‘designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of
trade,’’ and ‘‘to protect investors and the
public interest.’’ 24
The Commission asks that
commenters address the sufficiency of
the Exchange’s statements in support of
the proposal, which are set forth in the
Notice,25 in addition to any other
comments they may wish to submit
about the proposed rule change. In
particular, the Commission seeks
comment on the following questions
and asks commenters to submit data
where appropriate to support their
views.
21 See, e.g., NYSE Rule 98(c)(3) (setting forth
restrictions on trading for member organizations
operating a DMM unit).
22 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
23 Id.
24 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
25 See Notice, supra note 3.
E:\FR\FM\23JAN1.SGM
23JAN1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
4054
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 15 / Thursday, January 23, 2020 / Notices
1. What are commenters’ views
generally on whether the Exchange’s
proposal to implement side-by-side
trading and integrated market making
for ETPs to be listed and traded on the
Exchange is consistent with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act, which requires that
the Exchange’s rules be designed to,
among other things, prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices?
2. With respect to ETPs that meet
their respective generic listing
requirements, is the ‘‘broad-based’’ test
as outlined by the Exchange the
appropriate standard that should be
equally applied to all ETPs, including
ETFs, TIRs, and ETNs? Specifically, are
the ETPs included in the proposal
‘‘broadly similar’’ as the Exchange
asserts and therefore subject to the same
analysis? If so, why? If not, what factors,
if any, should the Commission consider
in its review of side-by-side trading and
integrated market making related to
each category of ETPs, such as ETFs,
TIRs, and ETNs?
3. What are commenters’ views about
whether, as a result of the proposal to
implement side-by-side trading and
integrated market making, certain
Exchange members may acquire an
informational advantage over other
market participants with respect to
trading in the ETP and the underlying
securities? What are commenters’ views
on whether such informational
advantage, if any, presents concerns
regarding the potential for misuse of
material, non-public information?
4. What are commenters’ views on the
Exchange’s assertion that ETPs listed
and traded via the rule filing process
‘‘would also be sufficiently broadbased’’ in order to minimize potential
manipulation, thus justifying integrated
market making and side-by-side trading
in both the ETP and the component
NMS securities? Specifically, what are
commenters’ views on whether the
Exchange’s application of the ‘‘broadbased’’ test to equity-based ETPs that do
not comply with their respective generic
listing requirements is appropriate? If
not, why not? What are other factors, if
any, that ought to be considered with
respect to these types of equity-based
ETPs, specifically? What are other
factors, if any, that ought to be
considered for all ETPs, including ETPs
that are not primarily based on equity
securities, but nevertheless include
NMS stocks in their indexes or
portfolios, that do not satisfy their
respective generic listing requirements
in some form or manner?
5. What are commenter’s views on the
Exchange’s assertions that the potential
for manipulation of listed ETPs would
be minimal because ETP pricing is
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:13 Jan 22, 2020
Jkt 250001
based on an ‘‘arbitrage function’’
performed by market participants that
affects the supply of, and demand for,
ETP shares and, thus, ETP prices?
III. Procedure: Request for Written
Comments
The Commission requests that
interested persons provide written
submissions of their views, data, and
arguments with respect to the issues
identified above, as well as any other
concerns they may have with the
proposal. In particular, the Commission
invites the written views of interested
persons concerning whether the
proposal is consistent with Section
6(b)(5) or any other provision of the Act,
or the rules and regulations thereunder.
Although there do not appear to be any
issues relevant to approval or
disapproval that would be facilitated by
an oral presentation of views, data, and
arguments, the Commission will
consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any
request for an opportunity to make an
oral presentation.26
Interested persons are invited to
submit written data, views, and
arguments regarding whether the
proposal should be approved or
disapproved by February 13, 2020. Any
person who wishes to file a rebuttal to
any other person’s submission must file
that rebuttal by February 27, 2020. The
Commission asks that commenters
address the sufficiency of the
Exchange’s statements in support of the
proposal, in addition to any other
comments they may wish to submit
about the proposed rule change.
Comments may be submitted by any
of the following methods:
Electronic Comments
• Use the Commission’s internet
comment form (https://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml); or
• Send an email to rule-comments@
sec.gov. Please include File Number SR–
NYSE–2019–54 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
Number SR–NYSE–2019–54. This file
26 Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, as amended by the
Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Public Law
94–29 (June 4, 1975), grants the Commission
flexibility to determine what type of proceeding—
either oral or notice and opportunity for written
comments—is appropriate for consideration of a
particular proposal by a self-regulatory
organization. See Securities Act Amendments of
1975, Senate Comm. on Banking, Housing & Urban
Affairs, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 30
(1975).
PO 00000
Frm 00164
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 (https://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–NYSE–2019–54 and should
be submitted by February 13, 2020.
Rebuttal comments should be submitted
by February 27, 2020.
For the Commission, by the Division of
Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated
authority.27
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020–01097 Filed 1–22–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
Class Waiver of the Nonmanufacturer
Rule
U.S. Small Business
Administration.
ACTION: Notice of intent to waive the
Nonmanufacturer Rule for leather
holsters (M18 System) and accessories
under NAICS code 316998/PSC 8465.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Small Business
Administration (SBA) is considering
granting a request for a class waiver of
the Nonmanufacturer Rule (NMR) for
leather holsters (M18 System) and
accessories. According to the request, no
SUMMARY:
27 17
E:\FR\FM\23JAN1.SGM
CFR 200.30–3(a)(57).
23JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 15 (Thursday, January 23, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4051-4054]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-01097]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-88003; File No. SR-NYSE-2019-54]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Order
Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a
Proposed Rule Change To Permit the Exchange To List and Trade Exchange
Traded Products
January 17, 2020.
On October 3, 2019, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``Exchange'' or
``NYSE'') 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 to list and trade Exchange Traded Products that
have a component NMS Stock listed on the Exchange or that are based on,
or represent an interest in, an underlying index or reference asset
that includes an NMS Stock listed on the Exchange. The proposed rule
change was published for comment in the Federal Register on October 23,
2019.\3\ On December 5, 2019, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\4\ the Commission designated a longer period within which to
approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change,
or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the
proposed rule change.\5\ The Commission has received no comment letters
on the proposal. This order institutes proceedings under Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \6\ to
[[Page 4052]]
determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
\2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
\3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87329 (Oct. 17,
2019), 84 FR 56864 (``Notice'').
\4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
\5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87671 (Dec. 5,
2019), 84 FR 67763 (Dec. 11, 2019). The Commission designated
January 21, 2020, as the date by which it should approve or
disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove, the proposed rule change.
\6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Summary Description of the Proposal
The Exchange proposes to expand the Exchange Traded Products
(``ETPs'') that would be eligible to list and trade on the Exchange to
include ETPs that have a component NMS Stock \7\ or that are based on,
or represent an interest in, an underlying index or reference asset
that includes an NMS Stock listed on the Exchange. To effectuate this
change, the Exchange proposes to delete the preambles to NYSE Rules 5P
and 8P currently providing that the Exchange will not list such ETPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ NMS Stock is defined in Rule 600 of Regulation NMS, 17 CFR
242.600(b)(48) as ``any NMS security other than an option.'' ``NMS
Security'' means any security or class of securities for which
transaction reports are collected, processed, and made available
pursuant to an effective transaction reporting plan, or an effective
national market system plan for reporting transactions in listed
options.'' See 17 CFR 242.600(b)(47). ``NMS Security'' refers to
``exchange-listed equity securities and standardized options, but
does not include exchange-listed debt securities, securities
futures, or open-end mutual funds, which are not currently reported
pursuant to an effective transaction reporting plan.'' See Question
1.1 in the ``Responses to Frequently Asked Questions Concerning
Large Trader Reporting,'' available at: https://www.sec.gov/divisions/marketreg/large-trader-faqs.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposal would permit the Exchange to list and trade on the
NYSE Trading Floor \8\ both ETPs and one or more component NMS Stocks
forming part of the underlying ETP index or portfolio (``side-by-side
trading'' \9\). Because listed securities are assigned to a Designated
Market Maker (``DMM''), the proposed elimination of the current
restriction could result in DMMs being assigned ETPs that may have one
or more component NMS Stocks forming part of the underlying ETP index
or portfolio that are also assigned to the DMM (``integrated market
making'').\10\ The Commission has approved integrated market making and
side-by-side trading for ``broad-based'' ETPs and related options.\11\
According to the Exchange, the test for whether a product is ``broad-
based'', and therefore is not readily susceptible to manipulation, is
whether the individual components of the ETP are sufficiently liquid
and well-capitalized and the product is not over-concentrated.\12\ When
an ETP meets both criteria, and therefore can be considered ``broad-
based,'' the Commission has explicitly permitted integrated market
making and side-by-side trading in both the ETP and related options,
with no requirement for information barriers or physical or
organizational separation.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The term ``Trading Floor'' is defined in NYSE Rule 6A to
mean the restricted-access physical areas designated by the Exchange
for the trading of securities, commonly known as the ``Main Room''
and the ``Buttonwood Room.''
\9\ ``Side-by-side trading'' refers to the trading of an equity
security and its related derivative product at the same physical
location, though ``not necessarily by the same specialist or
specialist firm.'' Securities Exchange Act Release No. 46213 (July
16, 2002), 67 FR 48232, 48233 (July 23, 2002) (SR-Amex-2002-21)
(``Release No. 46213'') (order approving side-by-side trading and
integrated market making of broad index-based ETFs and related
options); see also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 45454
(February 15, 2002), 67 FR 8567, 8568 n.7 (February 25, 2002) (SR-
NYSE-2001-43) (``Release No. 45454'') (order approving approved
person of a specialist to act as a specialist or primary market
maker with respect to an option on a stock in which the NYSE
specialist is registered on the Exchange).
\10\ ``Integrated market making'' refers to the practice of the
same person or firm making markets in an equity security and its
related option. See Release No. 45454, 67 FR at 8568 n.7.
\11\ See Release No. 46213, 67 FR at 48232 (approving side-by-
side trading and integrated market making for certain Exchange
Traded Funds (``ETF'') and Trust Issued Receipts (``TIR'') and
related options); see also Securities Exchange Act Release No.
62479 (July 9, 2010), 75 FR 41264 (July 15, 2010) (SR-Amex-2010-31)
(``Release No. 62479'') (order approving side-by-side trading and
integrated market making in the QQQ ETF and certain of its component
securities where the QQQs met the composition and concentration
measures to be classified as a broad-based ETF).
\12\ See Release No. 62479, id., 75 FR at 41272. The Commission
has expressed its belief ``that, when the securities underlying an
ETF consist of a number of liquid and well-capitalized stocks, the
likelihood that a market participant will be able to manipulate the
price of the ETF is reduced.'' See id. See generally Securities
Exchange Act Release Nos. 56633 (October 9, 2007), 72 FR 58696
(October 16, 2007) (SR-ISE-2007-60) (order approving generic listing
standards for ETFs based on both U.S. and international indices,
noting they are ``sufficiently broad-based in scope to minimize
potential manipulation.''); 55621 (April 12, 2007), 72 FR 19571
(April 18, 2007) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-86); 54739 (November 9, 2006), 71
FR 66993 (November 17, 2006) (SR-Amex-2006-78); 57365 (February 21,
2008), 73 FR 10839 (February 28, 2008) (SR-CBOE-2007-109) (order
approving generic listing standards for ETFs based on international
indices, noting they are ``sufficiently broad-based in scope to
minimize potential manipulation.''); 56049 (July 11, 2007), 72 FR
39121 (July 17, 2007) (SR-Phlx-2007-20); 55113 (January 17, 2007),
72 FR 3179 (January 24, 2007) (SR-NYSE-2006-101); and 55269
(February 9, 2007), 72 FR 7490 (February 15, 2007) (SR-NASDAQ-2006-
50).
\13\ See note 11, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In making a determination of whether an ETP is broad-based, the
Commission has relied on an exchange's listing standards. According to
the Exchange, in permitting integrated market making and side-by-side
trading for two types of ETPs and their related options, the Commission
looked to the American Stock Exchange LLC's listing standards that are
very similar to the Exchange's current listing standards.
The Exchange notes that the relationship between an ETP and its
underlying listed NMS Stock component or components is fundamentally
different than that between an ETP and its related option. In the
latter case, a small move in the price of the listed security can
trigger a large move in the price of the related option, increasing the
incentive for a market maker or specialist to manipulate the security
or coordinate trading with the options market maker or specialist.
Here, the Exchange asserts that there is no similar outsized
correlation between a move in the price of a listed ETP and one or more
of its underlying NMS Stock components. The potential for manipulation
or coordinated trading is significantly attenuated for listed ETPs and
their underlying NMS Stock components because the Exchange's generic
listed standards are designed to ensure that the Exchange will only
list ETPs that are ``broad-based''--that is, the ETP's underlying
component securities must be sufficiently liquid and well-capitalized,
and the ETP must not be unduly concentrated.
According to the Exchange, the listing standards for Units based on
an index of both US Component Stocks and Non-US Component Stocks; \14\
Equity-Index Linked securities (commonly referred to as Exchange Traded
Notes or ``ETNs''); \15\ Portfolio Depositary Receipts under NYSE Rule
8.100 with underlying component stocks consisting of an index or
portfolio of US Component Stocks; \16\ and actively managed funds under
NYSE Rule 8.600 \17\ are all broadly similar. The Exchange could not
list an ETP that does not meet these generic listing requirements
without a proposed rule change being filed with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See NYSE Rule 5.2(j)(3), Supp. Material .01(a)(B)(1)-(5).
The index or portfolio must include a minimum of 20 component
stocks.
\15\ See NYSE Rule 5.2(j)(6)(B)(I).
\16\ See NYSE Rule 8.100.
\17\ See NYSE Rule 8.600.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange believes that listed ETPs meeting these composition
and concentration measures would be sufficiently broad-based to allow
integrated market making and side-by-side trading in both the ETP and
the component NMS securities with no requirement for information
barriers or physical or organizational separation.
As noted by the Exchange, equity-based ETPs that do not meet the
applicable generic listing standards would require a rule filing with
the Commission prior to commencement of Exchange listing or trading.
The rule filing would set forth the initial and continued listing
requirements in order for such a product to be listed and traded on the
Exchange. In order for a rule proposal to be consistent with the
[[Page 4053]]
Act, it must, among other things, further the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \18\ in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices. The Exchange believes that equity-
based ETPs whose underlying component composition varies greatly from
the generic listing standards, i.e., an ETP whose components are
insufficiently liquid or well-capitalized or unduly concentrated, would
be unlikely to meet this requirement. Accordingly, the Exchange
believes that ETPs listed and traded via the rule filing process would
also be sufficiently broad-based in order to minimize potential
manipulation, thus justifying integrated market making and side-by-side
trading in both the ETP and the component NMS securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the ``broad-based'' nature of listed ETPs under either the
generic listing standards or via a rule filing makes manipulation less
likely, the Exchange also believes that the potential for manipulation
of listed ETPs is minimal because ETP pricing is based on an
``arbitrage function'' performed by market participants that affects
the supply of and demand for ETP shares and, thus, ETP prices. This
``arbitrage function'' is effectuated by creating new ETP shares and
redeeming existing ETP shares based on investor demand; thus, ETP
supply is open-ended. As the Commission has acknowledged, the arbitrage
function helps to keep an ETP's price in line with the value of its
underlying portfolio, i.e., it minimizes deviation from NAV. Generally,
the higher the liquidity and trading volume of an ETP, the more likely
the ETP's price will not deviate from the value of its underlying
portfolio. Market makers registered in ETPs play a key role in this
arbitrage function and DMMs, along with other market participants,
would perform this role for ETPs listed on the Exchange. In short, the
Exchange believes that the arbitrage mechanism is an effective and
efficient means of ensuring that intraday pricing in ETPs closely
tracks the value of the underlying portfolio or reference assets.
The Exchange believes that the price regulating function played by
the arbitrage mechanism renders attempts to influence or manipulate the
price of an ETP more difficult and more susceptible to immediate
detection and correction. The fact that an ETP and one or more of its
underlying components are traded in the same physical space on the
Exchange or by the same DMM on the Exchange does not alter this dynamic
in the slightest, nor does it make price manipulation more likely.
Rather, the Exchange believes the arbitrage mechanism would make price
manipulation more difficult and, thus, less likely. Attempts by Floor-
based market participants to influence the price of an ETP by, for
instance, manipulating one or more component securities would be
reflected in the deviation of the price from the NAV just as similar
attempts today by upstairs traders would be reflected in the deviation
of the price from the NAV. Moreover, the Exchange asserts that a broad-
based ETP would, as shown above, be even less susceptible to price
manipulation. The Exchange thus believes that the type of broad-based
equity ETPs eligible for listing under the generic listing standards,
coupled with the arbitrage mechanism, sufficiently minimize the
potential for manipulation of ETPs listed and traded on the Trading
Floor.
With respect to integrated market making, the Commission has
approved changes to NYSE Rule 98 that permit a DMM unit to engage in
integrated market making with off-Floor market making units in related
products.\19\ NYSE Rule 98(c)(6) prohibits DMM units from operating as
a specialist or market maker on the Exchange in related products,
unless specifically permitted in Exchange rules. NYSE Rule 98(b)(7)
defines ``related products'' as ``any derivative instrument that is
related to a DMM security.'' \20\ Accordingly, consistent with the
proposal, the Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Rule 98(b)(7) to
specifically exclude ETPs from the definition of ``related products.''
The Exchange believes that ETPs are different from other types of
related products such as single-stock options or futures and that,
given the broad-based nature of listed ETPs, integrated market making
and side-by-side trading in both the ETP and underlying NMS stock
components is appropriate with no requirement for information barriers
or physical or organizational separation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58328 (August 7,
2008), 73 FR 48260 (August 18, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-45) (order
approving amendments to NYSE Rule 98 that permit specialist firms to
integrate with off-Floor trading desks that trade in ``related
products,'' as that term is defined in NYSE Rule 98).
\20\ Under NYSE Rule 98(b)(7), derivative instruments include
options, warrants, hybrid securities, single-stock futures,
security-based swap agreement, a forward contract, or ``any other
instrument that is exercisable into or whose price is based upon or
derived from a security traded at the Exchange.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the Exchange, trading on the Exchange is subject to a
comprehensive regulatory program that includes a suite of surveillances
and routine examinations that review trading by DMMs and other market
participants on the Exchange's trading Floor. Market participants on
the trading Floor, including DMMs, are also required to implement
policies and procedures reasonably designed to detect and to deter
inappropriate conduct and prevent the misuse of material, non-public
information or disclosure of Floor-based non-public order
information.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See, e.g., NYSE Rule 98(c)(3) (setting forth restrictions
on trading for member organizations operating a DMM unit).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove SR-NYSE-
2019-54 and Grounds for Disapproval Under Consideration
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \22\ to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be approved or disapproved. Institution of such
proceedings is appropriate at this time in view of the legal and policy
issues raised by the proposed rule change. Institution of proceedings
does not indicate that the Commission has reached any conclusions with
respect to any of the issues involved. Rather, as described below, the
Commission seeks and encourages interested persons to provide comments
on the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,\23\ the Commission is
providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under consideration.
The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional
analysis of the proposed rule change's consistency with Section 6(b)(5)
of the Act, which requires, among other things, that the rules of a
national securities exchange be ``designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade,'' and ``to protect investors and the public
interest.'' \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Id.
\24\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency of the
Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, which are set forth
in the Notice,\25\ in addition to any other comments they may wish to
submit about the proposed rule change. In particular, the Commission
seeks comment on the following questions and asks commenters to submit
data where appropriate to support their views.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See Notice, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 4054]]
1. What are commenters' views generally on whether the Exchange's
proposal to implement side-by-side trading and integrated market making
for ETPs to be listed and traded on the Exchange is consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, which requires that the Exchange's rules be
designed to, among other things, prevent fraudulent and manipulative
acts and practices?
2. With respect to ETPs that meet their respective generic listing
requirements, is the ``broad-based'' test as outlined by the Exchange
the appropriate standard that should be equally applied to all ETPs,
including ETFs, TIRs, and ETNs? Specifically, are the ETPs included in
the proposal ``broadly similar'' as the Exchange asserts and therefore
subject to the same analysis? If so, why? If not, what factors, if any,
should the Commission consider in its review of side-by-side trading
and integrated market making related to each category of ETPs, such as
ETFs, TIRs, and ETNs?
3. What are commenters' views about whether, as a result of the
proposal to implement side-by-side trading and integrated market
making, certain Exchange members may acquire an informational advantage
over other market participants with respect to trading in the ETP and
the underlying securities? What are commenters' views on whether such
informational advantage, if any, presents concerns regarding the
potential for misuse of material, non-public information?
4. What are commenters' views on the Exchange's assertion that ETPs
listed and traded via the rule filing process ``would also be
sufficiently broad-based'' in order to minimize potential manipulation,
thus justifying integrated market making and side-by-side trading in
both the ETP and the component NMS securities? Specifically, what are
commenters' views on whether the Exchange's application of the ``broad-
based'' test to equity-based ETPs that do not comply with their
respective generic listing requirements is appropriate? If not, why
not? What are other factors, if any, that ought to be considered with
respect to these types of equity-based ETPs, specifically? What are
other factors, if any, that ought to be considered for all ETPs,
including ETPs that are not primarily based on equity securities, but
nevertheless include NMS stocks in their indexes or portfolios, that do
not satisfy their respective generic listing requirements in some form
or manner?
5. What are commenter's views on the Exchange's assertions that the
potential for manipulation of listed ETPs would be minimal because ETP
pricing is based on an ``arbitrage function'' performed by market
participants that affects the supply of, and demand for, ETP shares
and, thus, ETP prices?
III. Procedure: Request for Written Comments
The Commission requests that interested persons provide written
submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the
issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have
with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written
views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) or any other provision of the Act, or
the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do not appear to
be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would be
facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the
Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for an
opportunity to make an oral presentation.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, as amended by the Securities
Act Amendments of 1975, Public Law 94-29 (June 4, 1975), grants the
Commission flexibility to determine what type of proceeding--either
oral or notice and opportunity for written comments--is appropriate
for consideration of a particular proposal by a self-regulatory
organization. See Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Senate Comm. on
Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th Cong., 1st
Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments regarding whether the proposal should be approved or
disapproved by February 13, 2020. Any person who wishes to file a
rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by
February 27, 2020. The Commission asks that commenters address the
sufficiency of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, in
addition to any other comments they may wish to submit about the
proposed rule change.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
Electronic Comments
Use the Commission's internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2019-54 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 Number SR-NYSE-2019-54. 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 website (https://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-NYSE-2019-54 and should be submitted by
February 13, 2020. Rebuttal comments should be submitted by February
27, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\27\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-01097 Filed 1-22-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
