Document ID: SEC-2019-1212-0001
Agency: sec
Document Type: Notice
Title: Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: NYSE Arca, Inc.
Posted Date: 2019-08-22T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 163 (Thursday, August 22, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43845-43849]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-18058]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-86697; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2019-59]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing 
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 6.40-
O To Reduce the Minimum Allowable Parameter for the Transaction- and 
Volume-Based Settings in the Risk Limitation Mechanism

August 16, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of 
1934 (the

[[Page 43846]]

``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given that, 
on August 7, 2019, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the ``Exchange'') 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 Substance 
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.40-O (Risk Limitation 
Mechanism) to reduce the minimum allowable parameter for the 
transaction- and volume-based settings in the Risk Limitation 
Mechanism. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's 
website at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and 
at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and 
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization 
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the 
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the 
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at 
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared 
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most 
significant parts of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the 
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.40-O (Risk Limitation 
Mechanism) to reduce the minimum allowable parameter for the 
transaction- and volume-based settings in the Risk Limitation 
Mechanism. The filing would align the minimum allowable parameter for 
the transaction- and volume-based settings with the minimum allowable 
setting for the percentage-based setting, which the Exchange reduced 
earlier this year.\4\ This proposal would allow the Exchange to (opt 
to) set uniform minimum exposure requirements, particularly for Market 
Makers who are obligated to utilize one of the three risk settings.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85494 (April 3, 
2019), 84 FR 14166 (April 9, 2019) (SR-NYSEArca-2019-18) (lowering 
from 100% to one percent the minimum allowable parameter for the 
percentage-based risk setting). For consistency with the proposed 
textual changes, the Exchange proposes to modify ``1'' to ``one'' in 
regards to the minimum allowable percentage-based parameter. See 
proposed Commentary .03 to Rule 6.40-O.
    \5\ See infra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Risk Limitation Mechanism
    Rule 6.40-O sets forth the risk-limitation mechanism (the 
``Mechanism''), which is designed to help Market Makers, as well as OTP 
Holder and OTP Firms (collectively, ``OTPs''), better manage risk 
related to quoting and submitting orders, respectively, during periods 
of increased and significant trading activity.\6\ The Exchange requires 
Market Makers to utilize a risk limitation mechanism for quotes, which 
automatically removes a Market Maker's quotes in all series of an 
options class when certain parameter settings are breached.\7\ The 
Exchange permits, but does not require, OTPs (including Market Makers) 
to utilize its risk limitation mechanism for orders, which 
automatically cancels such orders when certain parameter settings are 
breached.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Market Makers are included in the definition of OTPs and 
therefore, unless the Exchange is discussing the quoting activity of 
Market Makers, the Exchange does not distinguish Market Markers from 
OTPs when discussing the risk limitation mechanisms. See Rule 
1.1(nn) (defining OTP Holder as ``a natural person, in good 
standing, who has been issued an OTP, or has been named as a 
Nominee'' that is ``a registered broker or dealer pursuant to 
Section 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or a nominee or 
an associated person of a registered broker or dealer that has been 
approved by the Exchange to conduct business on the Exchange's 
Trading Facilities''). See also Rule 6.32-O(a) (defining a Market 
Maker as an individual ``registered with the Exchange for the 
purpose of making transactions as a dealer-specialist on the Floor 
of the Exchange or for the purpose of submitting quotes 
electronically and making transactions as a dealer-specialist 
through the NYSE Arca OX electronic trading system'').
    \7\ See Rule 6.40-O, Commentary .04(a) (providing that Market 
Makers are required to utilize one of the three risk settings for 
their quotes); and Commentary .01 (regarding the cancellation of 
quotes once the risk settings have been breached).
    \8\ See Rule 6.40-O, Commentary .04(b) (providing that OTPs may 
avail themselves of one of the three risk limitation mechanisms for 
certain of their orders) and Commentary .01 (regarding the 
cancellation of orders once the risk settings have been breached).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Rule 6.40-O, the Exchange establishes a time period 
during which the Mechanism calculates for quotes and orders, 
respectively: (1) The number of trades executed by the Market Maker or 
OTP in a particular options class (``transaction-based''); (2) the 
volume of contracts traded by the Market Maker or OTP in a particular 
options class (``volume-based''); or (3) the aggregate percentage of 
the Market Maker's quoted size or OTP's order size(s) executed in a 
particular options class (``percentage-based'') (each a ``risk 
setting''; collectively, the ``risk settings'').\9\ If a risk setting 
is triggered, the Mechanism will cancel all of the Market Maker's 
quotes or the OTP's open orders in that class until the Market Maker or 
OTP notifies the Exchange it will resume submitting quotes or 
orders.\10\ The temporary suspension of quotes or orders from the 
market that results when the risk settings are triggered is meant to 
operate as a safety valve that enables Market Makers and/or OTPs to re-
evaluate their positions before requesting to re-enter the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Rule 6.40-O (b)-(d) (setting forth the three risk 
limitation mechanisms available). A Market Maker may activate one 
Risk Limitation Mechanism for its quotes (which is required) and a 
different Risk Limitation Mechanism for its orders (which is 
optional), even if both are activated for the same class. See also 
Commentary .08 to Rule 6.40-O.
    \10\ See Commentaries .01 and .02 to Rule 6.40-O (requiring that 
a Market Maker or OTP Holder request that it be re-enabled after a 
breach of its risk settings).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Change to Minimum Parameter for Transaction- and Volume-Based 
Risk Settings
    Per Commentary .03 to Rule 6.40-O, the Exchange establishes outside 
allowable parameters for each risk setting and announces by Trader 
Update ``any applicable minimum, maximum and/or default settings for 
the Risk Limitation Mechanisms'' that are at or within these outside 
parameters. OTPs, in turn, adjust their own risk settings within the 
Exchange-established parameters, based on risk tolerance, taking into 
account such factors as present and anticipated market conditions, news 
in an option, and/or sudden change in volatility of an option. Put 
another way, the rule sets forth the minimum/maximum for each risk 
setting and the Exchange may, but does not have to, use these settings. 
However, the Exchange may instead choose settings that are higher than 
the minimum and lower than the maximum settings (i.e., if the rule 
allows a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 10, the Exchange could use these 
parameters or could instead establish a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 
7). Once the Exchange determines and announces the applicable 
parameters for each risk setting, the OTP, in turn, selects a setting 
within the Exchange announced parameters that suits their risk 
tolerance (i.e., assuming the Exchange selected a minimum of 3 and

[[Page 43847]]

a maximum of 7, the OTP may select a setting of 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7).
    Earlier this year--in April, the Exchange reduced from 100% to one 
percent the minimum allowable parameter for the percentage-based risk 
setting.\11\ For consistency and uniformity, the Exchange now proposes 
to likewise adjust the minimum allowable parameter as established by 
Rule for the other two risk settings: Transaction- and volume-based. 
Currently, the transaction-based risk setting has a minimum allowable 
parameter of three (trades) and the volume-based risk setting has a 
minimum allowable parameter of 20 (contracts). The Exchange proposes to 
reduce the minimum allowable parameter for both risk settings to 
one.\12\ The following illustrates the potential impact should the 
Exchange reduce to one (1) the minimum allowable parameter for each of 
the transaction- and volume-based risk settings:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See supra note 4.
    \12\ See proposed Commentary .03 to Rule 6.40-O. The manner in 
which Rule 6.40-O operates is not being amended in this rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Examples of Impact of Reducing Transaction-Based Minimum Allowable 
Parameter
    If a market participant utilizing the transaction-based risk 
setting has interest in three series of the same underlying (A, B and 
C), for 10 contracts each, and the market participant has set the 
exposure risk to three, a single execution of any size in each series 
(A, B and C) or a combination of three executions of any size in any 
series (A, B or C) would result in the remaining interest in the class 
being canceled. In this case, because the Mechanism is counting the 
number of executions, the participant can be at risk for any number of 
executions from 3 to thirty. However, if only two executions occur, no 
other interest would be canceled. If there is a subsequent execution 
within the applicable time period \13\ for any number of contracts, the 
remaining interest in the class would be canceled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Commentary .03 to Rule 6.40-O (providing that the 
Exchange will specify via Trader Update ``any applicable time 
period(s) for the Risk Limitation Mechanisms; provided, however, 
that the Exchange will not specify a time period of less than 100 
milliseconds'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the same facts as above, but instead the participant's exposure 
risk is set to 1 transaction (as opposed to 3), a single execution in 
any series for any number of contracts, would result in the remaining 
interest in the class being canceled.
Examples of Impact of Reducing Volume-Based Minimum Allowable Parameter
    If a market participant utilizing the volume-based risk setting has 
interest in three series of the same underlying (A, B and C), for 10 
contracts each, and the market participant has set the exposure risk to 
20 contracts, any combination of executions across the three series 
that total twenty or more contracts would result in the remaining 
interest in the class being canceled. In this case, because the 
Mechanism is counting the volume (or number) of contracts executed, the 
participant can be at risk for any number of contracts from 20 to 29 
(executions of 10 contracts in series A and 9 contracts in series B 
would not cause cancelation, but a subsequent execution of any number 
of contracts in series C within the applicable time period \14\ would 
result in the remaining interest in the class being canceled).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the same facts as above, but instead the participant's exposure 
risk is set to 1 contract (as opposed to 20), an execution in any 
series for any number of contracts, will result in the remaining 
interest in the class being canceled.
* * * * *
    The proposed reduction of the minimum parameter for each of the 
transaction- and volume-based risk settings was specifically requested 
by some OTPs and would inure to their benefit as it would allow the 
Exchange to offer more sensitive risk controls. The Exchange notes that 
it is not modifying the maximum threshold for either of the transaction 
or volume-based settings, which provide OTPs, and Market Makers in 
particular, the ability to more finely calibrate their risk 
exposure.\15\ The Exchange believes a modification to the minimum 
parameter for these risk settings would account for increased market 
volatility and fragmentation, as well as the ever-increasing 
automation, speed and volume transacted in today's electronic trading 
environment. In this regard, this proposed change would provide the 
Exchange with more flexibility within which to establish the lower 
bound risk parameter for OTPs that use this risk setting. To the extent 
this flexibility is utilized, the Exchange believes this should afford 
such OTPs the ability to better calibrate and manage risk.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ In 2016, the Exchange modified both the upper and lower 
bound of the transaction-based setting and only the upper bound of 
the volume-based (as well as the upper bound of the percentage-
based) risk setting. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79469 
(December 5, 2016), 81 FR 89171 (December 9, 2016) (NYSEArca-2016-
155). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67714 (August 22, 
2012), 77 FR 52104 (August 28, 2012) (NYSEArca-2012-87) (immediate 
effective filing to introduce minimum and maximum parameters for the 
risk settings).
    \16\ The Exchange would still announce by Trader Update the 
actual minimum setting for the transaction- and volume-based risk 
settings, which may be the same as or greater than the proposed 
minimum parameter of one (1) (but no greater than the maximum 
allowable transaction- or volume-based setting, as applicable). See 
Commentary .03 to Rule 6.40-O.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation
    The Exchange will announce by Trader Update the implementation date 
of the proposed rule change.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 
6(b) of the Act,\17\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 
6(b)(5) of the Act,\18\ in particular, in that it is designed to 
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just 
and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and 
coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, 
processing information with respect to, and 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OTPs are vulnerable to the risk from a system or other error or a 
market event that may cause them to send a large number of orders or 
receive multiple, automatic executions before they can adjust their 
exposure in the market. Without adequate risk management tools, such as 
the available risk settings, OTPs may opt to reduce the amount of order 
flow and liquidity that they provide to the market, which could 
undermine the quality of the markets available to market participants. 
The Exchange believes that the proposed reduction of the minimum 
parameter for each of the transaction- and volume-based risk settings 
would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and 
open market by providing the Exchange with more flexibility within 
which to establish the appropriate lower bound of these risk settings, 
in consideration of market conditions, which would enable this risk 
setting to operate in the manner intended to the benefit of all market 
participants. To the extent this flexibility is utilized, the Exchange 
believes this should afford OTPs that utilize this risk setting the 
ability to better calibrate and manage risk.

[[Page 43848]]

    Further, this proposed change, which was specifically requested by 
some OTPs, would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a 
free and open market because it would be available to all OTPs (if the 
Exchange chooses to reduce the minimum parameter--down to one (1)--for 
one or both of the transaction- and volume-based risk settings) and may 
encourage more OTPs to utilize the transaction- or volume-based risk 
settings, specifically, or the risk settings generally, which would 
benefit all market participants. The Exchange believes this proposal 
has the potential to help OTPs better manage their risk as it would 
allow for more precise customization of their risk settings which 
would, in turn, help OTPs avoid trading a number of contracts that 
exceeds the OTP's risk tolerance level. In particular, this proposed 
reduction in the minimum allowable parameter would mean that the 
Exchange has the ability to set a minimum as low as one (1) for each of 
the three risk settings.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that other options exchanges offer risk settings 
for quotes and orders, including analogous transaction- and volume-
based settings. For example, Rule 21.16, Risk Monitor Mechanism, on 
both Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX'') and Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. 
(``EDGX'') states that each BZX or EDGX Member may (but is not required 
to) configure a single counting program or multiple counting programs 
to govern its trading activity (i.e., on a per port basis).\20\ Just as 
with the Exchange's risk settings, both BZX and EDGX offer risk 
settings based on the number of contracts (or ``volume'') executed and 
the number of executions (or ``count'') within a time period designated 
by the BZX/EDGX member (collectively, the ``risk limits'').\21\ These 
risk limits are calculated similarly to the risk setting on the 
Exchange: For each series of an option class, the number of executions 
or contracts traded (depending on the applicable risk setting) are 
counted and when they reach the applicable threshold, the risk 
protections are activated. Unlike the Exchange's rule, which 
establishes potential minimum and maximum settings to be determined by 
the Exchange, BZX/EDGX Rule 21.16 has no minimum equivalent, which 
would allow the Member (whether orders or market maker quotes) to set 
its risk settings for its trading activity as low as one contract or 
one execution. And unlike the Exchange, BZX/EDGX do not require its 
market makers to establish risk settings for quotes, nor does it impose 
a default setting for participants that do not establish such risk 
settings. The proposed change would authorize the Exchange to set the 
minimum parameters for the transaction- and volume-based to be as low 
as one trade or one contract, as applicable, which would thus allow the 
Exchange's rule to align with the minimum per the percentage-based risk 
setting as well as with the BZX/EDGX rule.\22\ The Exchange believes 
that this proposal is consistent with the BXZ/EDGX rules that allow 
order senders (i.e., including non-Market Makers) to use a 
transactional- or volume-based risk parameter that may be set as low as 
one execution or one contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See BZX and EDGX Rule 21.16(a)(i)-(iv) (providing optional 
risk control settings). On each market (BZX and EDGX), risk setting 
limits have been reached, the Risk Monitor Mechanism cancels or 
rejects such Member's orders or quotes in all underlying securities 
and cancels or rejects any additional orders or quotes. See BZX and 
EDGX Rule 21.16(b)(i)-(iii).
    \21\ See BZX and EDGX Rule 21.16(a)(i), (iii) (setting forth 
volume and count risk settings). See also BZX and EDGX Rule 
21.16(a)(iv) (setting forth percentage-based setting).
    \22\ The Exchange notes that other options in exchanges in the 
Cboe family offer a similar Risk Monitor Mechanism. See, e.g., Cboe 
C2 Exchange, Inc. (``C2'') Rule 6.14(c)(5)(A)(i)-(v) (setting forth 
risk settings, with paragraphs (i) and (iii) setting forth the 
volume- and count (or transaction)-based setting, each of which 
mirror those offered by BZX and EDGX). See also Securities Exchange 
Act Release No. 84778 (December 10, 2018), 83 FR 64384 (December 14, 
2018) (SR-CboeEDGX-2018-058) (immediately effective EDGX filing to 
harmonize risk mechanism to that of its affiliated exchange, C2 in 
Rule 21.16).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Cboe Exchange Inc. (``Cboe'') Rule 8.18, Quote Risk Monitor 
(``QRM'') likewise requires risk settings that apply solely to quotes. 
For each such option class in which the Cboe market maker is engaged in 
trading, that market maker must establish ``a maximum number of 
contracts for such option class and ``the maximum number of series for 
which either side of the quote is fully traded.\23\ While Cboe requires 
a maximum for each of these risk settings, it does not require or set a 
minimum. In addition, Nasdaq PHLX (``PHLX'')--like the Exchange and 
Cboe--also requires its market makers to utilize one of its risk 
settings (either volume-based or percentage-based) for quotes.\24\ 
PHLX's volume-based risk setting operates similar to the Exchange's 
analogous setting, except that the PHLX market maker need only 
establish a maximum volume threshold that, when reached, will trigger 
PHLX to remove that market maker's quotes.\25\ The Exchange believes 
that this proposal is consistent with the Cboe and PHLX rules that 
require market makers on those exchanges to use a risk parameter that 
may be set as low as one contract or one execution, given that those 
exchanges only require that a maximum threshold be selected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The Exchange notes that the QRM also allows Cboe market 
makers to establish ``a maximum cumulative percentage'' that the 
market maker is willing to trade, where the cumulative percentage is 
the sum of the percentages of the original quoted size of each side 
of each series that traded, and a Measurement Interval.'' See Cboe 
Rule 8.18.
    \24\ See PHLX Rule 1099(c)(2)(A),(B).
    \25\ See PHLX Rule 1099(c)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change 
would promote just and equitable principles of trade because Market 
Makers have the option to select any one of the three risk settings for 
quotes and non-Market Makers have this same option or may choose to 
utilize no risk settings at all. Thus, this proposal merely provides 
the Exchange additional latitude in establishing the potential minimum 
for the transaction- and volume-based risk settings and may encourage 
more OTPs to utilize these or the third (percentage-based) risk 
setting, which benefits all market participants.
    The Exchange believes the technical change replacing ``one'' for 
``1'' with regard to the minimum allowable percentage-based parameter 
change would promote just and equitable principles of trade because it 
would add internal consistency to Exchange rules.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will 
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate 
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange is proposing a 
minimum parameter for two of its risk settings that would provide the 
Exchange with greater flexibility in establishing the appropriate lower 
bound of the transaction and volume-based settings, which may in turn 
provide OTPs that utilize this setting with greater control and 
flexibility over setting their risk tolerance and, potentially, more 
protection over risk exposure. The proposal is structured to offer the 
same enhancement to all OTPs, regardless of size, and would not impose 
a competitive burden on any participant. The proposal may foster 
competition among Market Makers by providing them with the ability to 
enhance and customize their settings in order to compete for executions 
and order flow.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed enhancement to the 
existing risk limitation mechanism would impose a burden on competing 
options exchanges. Rather, it provides OTPs with the opportunity to 
avail

[[Page 43849]]

themselves of risk settings for quotes and orders that are consistent 
with such tools currently available on BZX, EDGX, Cboe and PHLX.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See supra notes 20-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) 
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public 
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) 
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or 
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become 
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \27\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \28\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) 
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission 
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along 
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at 
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed 
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. 
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the 
Act \29\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date 
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \30\ permits the 
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent 
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange 
has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay so 
that the proposed rule change may become operative upon filing. The 
Exchange states that such waiver would allow the Exchange to implement 
without delay the proposed functionality and compete more evenly with 
other exchanges that offer similar functionality for quotes and orders. 
Therefore, the Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative 
delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public 
interest. Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the operative delay 
and designates the proposed rule change operative upon filing.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \30\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \31\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, 
the Commission also has considered the proposed rule's impact on 
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 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 to 
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or 
disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and 
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule 
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of 
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to rule-comments@sec.gov. Please include 
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2019-59 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-NYSEArca-2019-59. This 
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To 
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, 
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on 
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). 
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written 
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with 
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed 
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those 
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions 
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in 
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection 
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments 
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are 
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying 
information from comment submissions. You should submit only 
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions 
should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2019-59 and should be submitted 
on or before September 12, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-18058 Filed 8-21-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P