[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 99 (Wednesday, May 22, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23613-23617]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-10638]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85871; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2019-32]


Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing 
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Modify Rule 
6.15-O and Conforming Changes to Rule 6.46-O Governing the Give Up of a 
Clearing Broker

May 16, 2019.
    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 May 2, 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, II, 
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory 
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit

[[Page 23614]]

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 modify Rule 6.15-O regarding the Give Up 
of a Clearing Member by OTP Holders and OTP Firms and proposes 
conforming changes to Rule 6.46-O. 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 purpose of this filing is to modify Rule 6.15-O regarding the 
Give Up of a Clearing Member \4\ by OTP Holders and OTP Firms (each an 
``OTP,'' collectively, ``OTPs'') and to make conforming changes to Rule 
6.46-O.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Rule 6.1-O(2) defines ``Clearing Member'' as an Exchange OTP 
which has been admitted to membership in the Options Clearing 
Corporation pursuant to the provisions of the Rules of the Options 
Clearing Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 6.15-O: Current Process To Give Up a Clearing Member
    In 2015 the Exchange adopted its current ``give up'' procedure for 
OTPs executing transactions on the Exchange.\5\ Per Rule 6.15-O, an OTP 
may give up a ``Designated Give Up'' or its ``Guarantor,'' as defined 
in the Rule and described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 75641 (August 7, 
2015), 80 FR 48577 (August 13, 2015) (SR-NYSEArca-2015-65).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Rule defines ``Designated Give Up'' as any Clearing Member that 
an OTP Holder (other than a Market Maker \6\) identifies to the 
Exchange, in writing, as a Clearing Member the OTP requests the ability 
to give up. To designate a ``Designated Give Up,'' an OTP must submit 
written notification to the Exchange. Specifically, the Exchange uses a 
standardized form (``Notification Form''). An OTP may currently 
designate any Clearing Member as a Designated Give Up. Additionally, 
there is no minimum or maximum number of Designated Give Ups that an 
OTP must identify. Similarly, should an OTP no longer want the ability 
to give up a particular Designated Give Up, the OTP informs the 
Exchange in writing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For purposes of this rule, references to ``Market Maker'' 
refer to OTPs acting in the capacity of a Market Maker and include 
all Exchange Market Maker capacities e.g., Lead Market Makers. As 
explained below, Market Makers give up Guarantors that have executed 
a Letter of Guarantee on behalf of the Marker Maker, pursuant to 
Rule 6.36-O; Market Makers need not give up Designated Give Ups.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 6.15-O also requires that the Exchange notify a Clearing 
Member, in writing and as soon as practicable, of each OTP that has 
identified it as a Designated Give Up. However, the Exchange will not 
accept any instructions from a Clearing Member to prohibit an OTP from 
designating the Clearing Member as a Designated Give Up. Additionally, 
there is no subjective evaluation of an OTP's list of Designated Give 
Ups by the Exchange. The Rule does, however, provide that a Designated 
Give Up may determine to not accept a trade on which its name was given 
up so long as it believes in good faith that it has a valid reason not 
to accept the trade.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Rule 6.15-O(f)(1) (setting forth procedures for 
rejecting a trade). An example of a valid reason to reject a trade 
may be that the Designated Give Up does not have a customer for that 
particular trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Rule defines ``Guarantor'' as a Clearing Member that has issued 
a Letter of Guarantee or Letter of Authorization for the executing OTP, 
pursuant to Rules of the Exchange \8\ that is in effect at the time of 
the execution of the applicable trade. An executing OTP may give up its 
Guarantor without such Guarantor being a ``Designated Give Up.'' 
Additionally, Rule 6.36 provides that a Letter of Guarantee is required 
to be issued and filed by each Clearing Member through which a Market 
Maker clears transactions. Accordingly, a Market Maker is enabled to 
give up only a Guarantor that had executed a Letter of Guarantee on its 
behalf pursuant to Rule 6.36-O; a Market Maker does not need to 
identify any Designated Give Ups. Like Designated Give Ups, Guarantors 
likewise have the ability to reject a trade.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Rule 6.36-O (Letters of Guarantee); Rule 6.45-O (Letters 
of Authorization).
    \9\ See Rule 6.15-O(f)(2) (providing that a Guarantor may 
``change the give up to another Clearing Member that has agreed to 
be the give up on the subject trade, provided such Clearing Member 
has notified the Exchange and the executing OTP Holder or OTP Firm 
in writing of its intent to accept the trade'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Beginning in early 2018, certain Clearing Members (in conjunction 
with the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association 
(``SIFMA'')) expressed concerns related to the process by which 
executing brokers on U.S. options exchanges (the ``Exchanges'') are 
allowed to designate or `give up' a clearing firm for purposes of 
clearing particular transactions. The SIFMA-affiliated Clearing Members 
have recently identified the current give-up process as a significant 
source of risk for clearing firms. SIFMA-affiliated Clearing Members 
subsequently requested that the Exchanges alleviate this risk by 
amending Exchange rules governing the give up process.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Nasdaq PHLX LLC (``Phlx'') recently modified its give up 
procedure to allow clearing members to ``opt in'' such that the 
clearing member may specify which Phlx member organizations are 
authorized to give up that clearing member. See Phlx Rule 1037. See 
also Securities and Exchange Act Release Nos. 84624 (November 19, 
2018), 83 FR 60547 (Notice); 85136 (February 14, 2019), 84 FR 5526 
(February 21, 2019) (SR-Phlx-2018-72) (Approval Order). The 
Exchange's proposal leads to the same result of providing its 
Clearing Members the ability to control risk and includes Phlx's 
``opt in'' process, but it otherwise differs in process from Phlx's 
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Amendment to Rules 6.15-O and 6.46-O
    Based on the above, the Exchange proposes to amend its rules 
regarding the current give up process in order to allow a Clearing 
Member to opt in, at The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') 
clearing number level, to a feature that, if enabled by the Clearing 
Member, would allow the Clearing Member to specify which OTPs are 
authorized to give up that OCC clearing number. As proposed, Rule 6.15-
O, Give Up of a Clearing Member, will be re-titled as ``Authorizing 
Give Up of a Clearing Member'' and would provide that for each 
transaction in which a non-Market Maker OTP participates, the OTP may 
indicate any OCC number of a Clearing Member through which a 
transaction will be cleared (``Give Up''), provided the Clearing Member 
has not elected to ``Opt In,'' as defined in paragraph (b) of the 
proposed Rule, and restricted the OCC number (``Restricted OCC 
Number'').\11\ Further, as proposed, an OTP may Give Up a Restricted 
OCC Number provided the OTP has written

[[Page 23615]]

authorization as described in paragraph (b)(ii) of the Rule 
(``Authorized OTP'').\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See proposed Rule 6.15-O(a).
    \12\ The Exchange proposes to delete the use of the modifier 
``executing'' as relates to OTP in the rule, which is extraneous and 
unnecessary, particularly in light of new concept of Authorized OTP. 
See proposed Rule 6.15-O(c)(i), (e)(2), (f)(1)-(3), (g)(1) and 
(h)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 6.15-O(b) provides that Clearing Members may request 
that the Exchange restrict one or more of their OCC clearing numbers 
(``Opt In'') as described in subparagraph (b)(i) of the Rule. As 
proposed, if a Clearing Member Opts In, the Exchange would require 
written authorization from the Clearing Member permitting an OTP to 
Give Up a Clearing Member's Restricted OCC Number. An Opt In would 
remain in effect until the Clearing Member terminates the Opt In as 
described in subparagraph (iii). If a Clearing Member does not Opt In, 
that Clearing Member's OCC number may be subject to Give Up by any OTP 
(other than a Market Maker).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See proposed Rule 6.15-O(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 6.15-O(b)(i) would set forth the process by which a 
Clearing Member may Opt In. Specifically, a Clearing Member may Opt In 
by sending a completed ``Clearing Member Restriction Form'' listing all 
Restricted OCC Numbers.\14\ A copy of the proposed form is attached in 
Exhibit 3A. As proposed, a Clearing Member may elect to restrict one or 
more OCC clearing numbers that are registered in its name at OCC. The 
Clearing Member would be required to submit the Clearing Member 
Restriction Form to the Exchange's Client Relationship Services 
(``CRS'') department as described on the form. Once submitted, the 
Exchange requires ninety days before a Restricted OCC Number is 
effective. The Exchange believes this 90-day time period would provide 
adequate time for OTPs that use a Restricted OCC Number to obtain the 
necessary written authorization for that Restricted OCC Number. During 
this 90-day time period, OTPs lacking the requisite authorization (and 
affected by this proposed provision) would still be able to Give Up 
that Restricted OCC Number (i.e., until the number becomes restricted 
within the System).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The Exchange's forms will be available on the Exchange's 
website. The Exchange also intends to maintain, on its website, a 
list of the Restricted OCC Numbers, which will be updated on a 
regular basis, and the Clearing Member's contact information to 
assist OTPs (to the extent they are not already Authorized OTPs) 
with requesting authorization for a Restricted OCC Number. The 
Exchange may utilize additional means to inform its members of such 
updates on a periodic basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed 6.15-O(b)(ii) would set forth the process for OTPs to Give 
Up a Clearing Member's Restricted OCC Number. Specifically, as 
proposed, an OTP desiring to Give Up a Restricted OCC Number must 
become an Authorized OTP.\15\ The Clearing Member would be required to 
authorize an OTP by submitting a completed ``Authorized OTP Form'' to 
the Exchange's CRS department, unless the Restricted OCC Number is 
already subject to a Letter of Guarantee or a Letter of Authorization 
to which the OTP is a party, as set forth in proposed paragraph (c) of 
the Rule. A copy of the proposed form is attached in Exhibit 3B.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The Exchange will develop procedures for notifying OTPs 
that they are authorized or unauthorized by Clearing Members.
    \16\ See supra note 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to proposed Rule 6.15-O(b)(iii), a Clearing Member may 
amend its Authorized OTPs or Restricted OCC Numbers by submitting a new 
Authorized OTP Form or a Clearing Member Restriction Form to the 
Exchange's CRS department indicating the amendment as described on the 
form. As proposed, once a Restricted OCC Number is effective pursuant 
to Rule 6.15-O(b)(i), the Exchange may permit the Clearing Member to 
authorize, or remove authorization for, an OTP to Give Up the 
Restricted OCC Number intra-day only in unusual circumstances, and on 
the next business day in all regular circumstances. The Exchange will 
promptly notify the OTPs if they are no longer authorized to Give Up a 
Clearing Member's Restricted OCC Number. Finally, as proposed, if a 
Clearing Member removes a Restricted OCC Number, any OTP (other than a 
Market Maker) may Give Up that OCC clearing number once the removal has 
become effective on or before the next business day.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See proposed Rule 6.15-O(b)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of the proposed changes to the Give Up process, the 
Exchange proposes to delete certain paragraphs of the current Rule 
related to the current Designated Give Up process. Specifically, the 
Exchange proposes to delete current paragraphs (a), (b)(1), (3)-(4), 
(6)-(7), (d).
    As proposed, paragraph (c) to Rule 6.15-O would be re-title 
``Guarantors and Market Makers.'' Proposed Rule 6.15-O(c)(i) would 
maintain the current definition and role of Guarantor (set forth in 
current paragraphs (a)(3) and (6)) and combine such information with 
language from Phlx Rule 1037(d) to provide, in relevant part that ``[a] 
Guarantor for an OTP Holder or OTP Firm will be enabled to be given up 
for that OTP Holder or OTP Firm without any further action by the OTP 
such that a clearing arrangement subject to a Letter of Guarantee or 
Letter of Authorization would immediately permit the Give Up of a 
Restricted OCC Number by the OTP Holder or OTP Firm that is party to 
the arrangement.'' \18\ In addition, to streamline the proposed Rule 
the Exchange proposes to relocate text from current Rule 6.15-O(a)(5) 
regarding Market Makers to proposed Rule 6.15-O(c)(ii) without any 
textual changes.\19\ The Exchange also proposes to clarify how the 
System would handle orders in light of the proposed changes to the Give 
Up process. As proposed, for any Restricted OCC Number, the Exchange's 
trading systems would only accept orders for that number from an 
Authorized OTP Holder.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See proposed Rule 6.15-O(c)(i).
    \19\ See proposed Rule 6.15-O(c)(ii). To conform to the 
foregoing changes to the organization of the Rule, the Exchange 
proposes to reclassify current paragraph (c) as proposed Rule 6.15-
O(d).
    \20\ See proposed Rule 6.15-O(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To further update the Rule to reflect the shift from an OTP 
designating a certain Clearing Member as the give up to the Clearing 
Member having the ability to limit which OTPs may give up that Clearing 
Member, the Exchange proposes to replace certain references to 
Designated Give Up with reference to ``Clearing Member for whom they 
are an Authorized ATP Holder'' \21\ or affiliated Clearing Member'' 
\22\ or simply ``Clearing Member,'' \23\ as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See proposed Rule 6.15-O(g)(1).
    \22\ See proposed Rule 6.15-O(g)(2).
    \23\ See generally proposed Rule 6.15-O(e)-(h). See also 
proposed Rule 961(d) and (e)(1) (as relates to replacing Designated 
Give Up with Authorized ATP Holder) and (e)(2), (f)(1)-(3), (g)(1) 
and (h)(1). The Exchange also proposes to rename Rule 961(e) (from 
Designated Give Up, to Authorized ATP Holder, as relates to the 
process for accepting a trade). The Exchange also proposes to update 
the cross reference in paragraph (e)(1) from ``paragraph (i)'' to 
proposed ``paragraph (g).'' See proposed Rule 961(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to add paragraph (i) to the Rule to 
provide that an ``intentional misuse of this Rule is impermissible, and 
may be treated as a violation of Rule 11.2(b), Prohibited Acts.'' \24\ 
This language would make clear that the Exchange will regulate an 
intentional misuse of this Rule and that such behavior would be a 
violation of Exchange rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Rule 11.2(b) provides that the willful violation of any 
provision of the Bylaws and Rules and procedures of the Exchange 
shall be considered conduct or proceedings inconsistent with just 
and equitable principles of trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, consistent with this proposed change, the Exchange also 
proposes to amend Rule 6.46-O(g) regarding the responsibilities of 
Floor Brokers to maintain error accounts ``for the purposes of 
correcting bona fide errors, as provided in Rule 6.14-O.'' As

[[Page 23616]]

proposed, the Exchange would specify that ``it will not be a violation 
of this provision if a trade is transferred away from an error account 
through the CMTA process at OCC.'' \25\ This additional language would 
enable an executing OTP that has executed an order to CMTA that order 
through its own clearing relationship. For example, assume a Floor 
Broker executes a trade giving up Firm A (a Clearing Member that is one 
of its Authorized OTPs) and, after the execution, the Floor Broker is 
informed that a portion of the trade needs to be changed to give-up 
Firm B (a Clearing Member that is not one of the Floor Broker's 
Authorized OTPs). The proposed language would enable the Floor Broker 
to CMTA the trade to Firm B through its own clearing arrangement (as 
long as the authorizations are in place for that CMTA to occur) rather 
than nullifying or busting the trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See proposed Rule 6.46-O(g). The Exchange also proposes to 
delete as obsolete reference to Rule 4.21-O, which is currently 
``Reserved,'' and therefore an outdated cross-reference. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation
    The Exchange will announce the implementation date of the proposed 
rule change no later than the end of Q3 2019 via Trader Notice.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) \26\ of 
the Act, in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 
6(b)(5),\27\ 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 facilitating transactions in securities, and to 
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open 
market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Particularly, as discussed above, several Clearing Firms affiliated 
with SIFMA have recently expressed concerns relating to the current 
give up process that permits OTPs to identify any Clearing Members as a 
Designated Give Up for purposes of clearing particular transactions, 
and have identified the current give-up process (i.e., a process that 
lacks authorization) as a significant source of risk for clearing 
firms.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to Rule 6.15-O 
would help alleviate this risk by enabling Clearing Members to `Opt In' 
to restrict one or more of its OCC clearing numbers (i.e., Restricted 
OCC Numbers), and to specify which Authorized OTPs may Give Up those 
Restricted OCC Numbers. As described above, all other ATP Holders would 
be required to receive written authorization from the Clearing Member 
before they can Give Up that Clearing Member's Restricted OCC Number. 
The Exchange believes that this authorization provides proper 
safeguards and protections for Clearing Members as it provides controls 
for Clearing Members to restrict access to their OCC clearing numbers, 
allowing access only to those Authorized OTPs upon their request. The 
Exchange also believes that its proposed Clearing Member Restriction 
Form allows the Exchange to receive in a uniform fashion, written and 
transparent authorization from Clearing Members, which ensures seamless 
administration of the Rule.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed Opt In process strikes the 
right balance between the various views and interests across the 
industry. For example, although the proposed rule would require OTPs 
(other than Authorized OTPs) to seek authorization from Clearing 
Members in order to have the ability to give them up, each OTP would 
still have the ability to Give Up a Restricted OCC Number that is 
subject to a Letter of Guarantee or Letter of Authorization without 
obtaining any further authorization if that OTP is party to that 
arrangement. The Exchange also notes that to the extent the executing 
OTP has a clearing arrangement with a Clearing Member (i.e., through a 
Letter of Guarantee or Letter of Authorization), a trade can be 
assigned to the executing OTP's Guarantor. Accordingly, the Exchange 
believes that the proposed rule change is reasonable and continues to 
provide certainty that a Clearing Member would be responsible for a 
trade, which protects investors and the public interest. Finally, the 
Exchange believes that adopting paragraph (i) of Rule 6.15-O and would 
make clear that an intentional misuse of this Rule would be a violation 
of the Exchange's rules.
    The Exchange also believes that the proposed change to Rule 6.46-O 
would protect investors because it would permit an executing OTP to 
utilize its error account to CMTA an order through its own clearing 
relationship. This would preserve executions while accommodating the 
proposed rule change that could result in an executing OTP not being 
permissioned to for a particular give-up.
    Thus, this proposal would foster cooperation and coordination with 
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and remove 
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and 
a national market system.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that this proposed rule change would 
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in 
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe 
that the proposed rule change would impose an unnecessary burden on 
intramarket competition because it would apply equally to all similarly 
situated OTPs. The Exchange also notes that, should the proposed 
changes make the Exchange more attractive for trading, market 
participants trading on other exchanges can always elect to become OTPs 
on the Exchange to take advantage of the trading opportunities.
    Furthermore, the proposed rule change does not address any 
competitive issues and ultimately, the target of the Exchange's 
proposal is to reduce risk for Clearing Members under the current give 
up model. Clearing firms make financial decisions based on risk and 
reward, and while it is generally in their beneficial interest to clear 
transactions for market participants in order to generate profit, it is 
the Exchange's understanding from SIFMA and clearing firms that the 
current process can create significant risk when the clearing firm can 
be given up on any market participant's transaction, even where there 
is no prior customer relationship or authorization for that designated 
transaction. In the absence of a mechanism that governs a market 
participant's use of a Clearing Member's services, the Exchange's 
proposal may indirectly facilitate the ability of a Clearing Member to 
manage their existing customer relationships while continuing to allow 
market participant choice in broker execution services. While Clearing 
Members may compete with executing brokers for order flow, the Exchange 
does not believe this proposal imposes an undue burden on competition. 
Rather, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change balances 
the need for Clearing Members to manage risks and allows them to 
address outlier behavior from executing brokers while still allowing 
freedom of choice to select an executing broker.

[[Page 23617]]

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed 
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the 
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for 
Commission Action

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \28\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\29\ 
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the 
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any 
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to 
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as 
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of 
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become 
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \29\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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) \30\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed 
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 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 protected]. Please include 
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2019-32 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-2019-32. 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-2019-32 and should be submitted 
on or before June 12, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-10638 Filed 5-21-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P