[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 9 (Tuesday, January 14, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2202-2207]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-00357]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87908; File No. S7-24-89]


Joint Industry Plan; Notice of Filing of the Forty-Fourth 
Amendment to the Joint Self-Regulatory Organization Plan Governing the 
Collection, Consolidation and Dissemination of Quotation and 
Transaction Information for Nasdaq-Listed Securities Traded on 
Exchanges on an Unlisted Trading Privileges Basis

January 8, 2020.

I. Introduction

    Pursuant to Section 11A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 608 of Regulation National Market System 
(``NMS'') thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that on July 5, 
2019,\3\ the Joint Self-Regulatory Organization Plan Governing the 
Collection, Consolidation and Dissemination of Quotation and 
Transaction Information for Nasdaq-Listed Securities Traded on 
Exchanges on an Unlisted Trading Privileges Basis (``Nasdaq/UTP Plan'' 
or ``Plan'') \4\ participants (``Participants'') \5\ filed with the 
Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') a 
proposal to amend the Nasdaq/UTP Plan. The amendment represents the 
44th amendment to the Nasdaq/UTP Plan (``Amendment''). As described in 
the Amendment, the Participants propose to make mandatory a conflicts

[[Page 2203]]

of interest disclosure regime that currently is voluntary. Under the 
current practice, which the Amendment would make mandatory, the 
Participants,\6\ the Processor,\7\ the Administrator,\8\ and the 
members of the Advisory Committee \9\ (collectively, the ``Disclosing 
Parties'') \10\ provide responses to a set of questions designed to 
provide transparency regarding potential conflicts of interest of such 
parties. Each of the Disclosing Parties' responses are then made 
publicly available on the Plan's website.\11\ The Participants state 
that they believe that publicly providing these responses increases 
transparency and confidence in the governance of the Plan.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \2\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \3\ See Letter from Robert Books, Chair, Nasdaq/UTP Plan 
Operating Committee, to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Commission, 
dated July 3, 2019 (``Transmittal Letter'').
    \4\ The Plan governs the collection, processing, and 
dissemination on a consolidated basis of quotation information and 
transaction reports in Eligible Securities for its Participants. 
This consolidated information informs investors of the current 
quotation and recent trade prices of Nasdaq securities. It enables 
investors to ascertain from one data source the current prices in 
all the markets trading Nasdaq securities. The Plan serves as the 
required transaction reporting plan for its Participants, which is a 
prerequisite for their trading Eligible Securities. See Securities 
Exchange Act Release No. 55647 (April 19, 2007), 72 FR 20891 (April 
26, 2007).
    \5\ The Participants are the national securities association and 
national securities exchanges that submit trades and quotes to the 
Plan and include: Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc., Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc., 
Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc., Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc., Cboe Exchange, 
Inc., NYSE Chicago, Inc., Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, 
Inc., The Investors' Exchange LLC, Long-Term Stock Exchange, Inc., 
Nasdaq BX, Inc., Nasdaq ISE, LLC, Nasdaq PHLX, Inc., The Nasdaq 
Stock Market LLC, New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE American LLC, 
NYSE Arca, Inc., and NYSE National, Inc. (each a ``Participant'' and 
collectively, the ``Participants''). Participants are also members 
of the Plan's Operating Committee.
    \6\ See Id.
    \7\ The ``Processor'' is charged with collecting, processing and 
preparing for distribution or publication all Plan information. The 
Processor for the Nasdaq/UTP Plan is Nasdaq Stock Market LLC 
(``Nasdaq'').
    \8\ The ``Administrator'' is charged with administering the 
Plans to include data feed approval, customer communications, 
contract management, and related functions. The Administrator of the 
Nasdaq/UTP Plan is Nasdaq.
    \9\ ``Advisory Committee members'' are individuals who represent 
particular types of financial services firms or actors in the 
securities market, or who were selected by Plan participants to be 
on the Advisory Committee.
    \10\ Information about the Processor, Administrator, and 
Advisory Committee members is available at https://www.utpplan.com/governance.
    \11\ See https://www.utpplan.com/governance.
    \12\ See Transmittal Letter at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed Amendment has been filed by the Participants pursuant 
to Rule 608(b)(2) under Regulation NMS.\13\ The Commission is 
publishing this notice to solicit comments from interested persons on 
the proposed Amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 242.608(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that, contemporaneously with the issuance of 
this notice, it has issued a notice of proposed order (``Governance 
Notice'') \14\ soliciting public comment on a proposed order that would 
direct the national securities exchanges and the Financial Industry 
Regulatory Authority, Inc. (collectively, ``SROs'') to act jointly in 
developing and filing with the Commission a proposed new single 
national market system plan, which will replace the existing national 
market system plans that govern the public dissemination of real-time, 
consolidated equity market data for national market system stocks 
(``Equity Data Plans''). The Commission stated in the Governance Notice 
its view that, among other concerns,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87906 (January 8, 
2020).

conflicts of interest are inherent to the Equity Data Plans' current 
governance structure because some exchange Participants have a dual 
role as both an SRO jointly responsible for the operation of the 
Equity Data Plans and part of a publicly held company that offers 
proprietary data products. Moreover, an SRO representative on the 
operating committee may have direct responsibility for some or all 
of an exchange's proprietary data business.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id. at A-66 to A-67 (footnotes omitted).

    The Governance Notice solicits public comment on a proposed order 
that would direct the SROs to include provisions in the New Data Plan 
(as defined in the Governance Notice) addressing several issues arising 
from the current governance structure of the Plan, and the proposed 
order discusses the Commission's view that the new data plan should 
include a comprehensive conflicts of interest policy.
    In addition, contemporaneously with the publication of notice of 
the Amendment set forth below, the Commission also is publishing a 
separate proposed amendment from the Nasdaq/UTP Plan concerning a 
confidentiality policy.

II. Text of the Amendment

    Set forth below is the entirety of the Amendment submission that 
the Participants prepared and filed with the Commission, which includes 
a statement of the purpose and summary of the Amendment, along with the 
information required by Rules 608(a) and 601(a) under the Act.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See 17 CFR 242.608(a)(4) and (a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Statement of the Purpose of the Amendment

1. Background
    With Exchanges permitted to offer both proprietary market data 
products and also acting as Participants in running the public market 
data stream, potential conflicts of interest are inherent in the 
structure developed under Regulation NMS. There may be instances in 
which representatives from the Participants and Advisory Committee 
members have responsibilities with respect to both proprietary data and 
Securities Information Processor (``SIP'') data. Drawing on the 
expertise of persons with such overlapping responsibilities may give 
rise to potential conflicts of interest, and to address such potential 
conflicts of interest, the Participants adopted a voluntary conflicts 
disclosure regime.
    After discussion among the Participants and the Advisory Committee 
at several meetings of the Plan's Operating Committee, the Participants 
believe that a disclosure regime is a pragmatic step to address 
potential conflicts of interest.
    As noted below, the Disclosing Parties have voluntarily provided 
responses to the disclosure regime questions. The responses are 
available on the Plan's website. The purpose of the Amendment is to 
make the disclosures a requirement on a going forward basis instead of 
relying on voluntary disclosures.
Required Disclosures
    As part of the disclosure regime, the Participants propose that the 
Participants, the Processors, the Administrators, and members of the 
Advisory Committee respond to questions that are tailored to elicit 
responses that disclose the potential conflicts of interest.
    The Participants propose that the Participants respond to the 
following questions and instructions:
     Is the Participant's firm for profit or not-for-profit? If 
the Participant's firm is for profit, is it publicly or privately 
owned? If privately owned, list any owner with an interest of 5% or 
more of the Participant, where to the Participant's knowledge, such 
owner, or any affiliate controlling, controlled by, or under common 
control with the owner, subscribes, directly or through a third-party 
vendor, to SIP and/or exchange Proprietary Market Data products.
     Does the Participant firm offer real-time proprietary 
equity market data that is filed with the SEC (``Proprietary Market 
Data'')? If yes, does the firm charge a fee for such offerings?
     Provide the names of the representative and any 
alternative representatives designated by the Participant who are 
authorized under the Plans to vote on behalf of the Participant. Also 
provide a narrative description of the representatives' roles within 
the Participant organization, including the title of each individual as 
well as any direct responsibilities related to the development, 
dissemination, sales, or marketing of the Participant's Proprietary 
Market Data, and the nature of those responsibilities.
    The Participants propose that the Processors respond to the 
following questions and instructions:
     Is the Processor an affiliate of or affiliated with any 
Participant? If yes, disclose the Participant(s)?
     Provide a narrative description of the functions directly 
performed by the manager employed by the Processor to provide Processor 
services to the Plans and the staff that reports to that manager 
(collectively, the ``Plan Processor'').

[[Page 2204]]

     Does the Plan Processor provide any services for any 
Participant's Proprietary Market Data products or other Plans? If yes, 
disclose the services the Plan Processor performs and identify which 
Plans. Does the Plan Processor have any profit or loss responsibility 
for a Participant's Proprietary Market Data products?
     List the policies and procedures established to safeguard 
confidential Plan information that is applicable to the Plan Processor.
    The Participants propose that the Administrators respond to the 
following questions and instructions:
     Is the Administrator an affiliate of or affiliated with 
any Participant? If yes, which Participant?
     Provide a narrative description of the functions directly 
performed by administrative services manager and the staff that reports 
to that manager (collectively, the ``Plan Administrator'').
     Does the Plan Administrator provide any services for any 
Participant's Proprietary Market Data products? If yes, what services? 
Does the Plan Administrator have any profit or loss responsibility for 
a Participant's Proprietary Market Data products?
     List the policies and procedures established to safeguard 
confidential Plan information that is applicable to the Plan 
Administrator.
    The Participants propose that the Members of the Advisory Committee 
respond to the following questions and instructions:
     Provide the Advisor's title and a brief description of the 
Advisor's role within the firm.
     Does the Advisor have responsibilities related to the 
firm's use or procurement of market data?
     Does the Advisor have responsibilities related to the 
firm's trading or brokerage services?
     Does the Advisor's firm use the SIP? Does the Advisor's 
firm use exchange Proprietary Market Data products?
     Does the Advisor's firm have an ownership interest of 5% 
or more in one or more Participants? If yes, list the Participant(s).
     Does the Advisor actively participate in any litigation 
against the Plans?
    The Participants will post the responses to these questions on the 
Plan's website. If a Disclosing Party has any material changes in its 
responses, the Disclosing Party must promptly update its disclosures. 
Additionally, the Disclosing Parties will update the disclosures on an 
annual basis to reflect any changes. This annual update must be made 
before the first quarterly session meeting of each calendar year, which 
is generally held in mid-February.

B. Governing or Constituent Documents

    Not applicable.

C. Implementation of Amendment

    Each of the Participants has approved the amendments in accordance 
with Section IV.C of the Nasdaq/UTP Plan. The Participants also 
received and incorporated feedback from the Advisory Committee in 
preparing the disclosure requirements.

D. Development and Implementation Phases

    The Disclosing Parties have voluntarily completed, and the 
Participants have posted, responses to the questions outlined above on 
the Plan's website. The purpose of the amendment, going forward, is to 
make the disclosures a requirement rather than relying on voluntary 
disclosures.

E. Analysis of Impact on Competition

    The Participants believe that the proposed amendments do not impose 
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in 
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Participants, together with 
the other Disclosing Parties, have determined to implement the 
disclosure regime described herein. The Participants believe that 
adopting this disclosure regime is an important step in addressing the 
potential conflicts of interest.
    The disclosure regime should increase transparency in the 
governance of the public market data stream, and consequently, increase 
confidence in the proper functioning of the Operating Committee.

F. Written Understanding or Agreements Relating to Interpretation of, 
or Participation in, Plan

    Not applicable.

G. Approval by Sponsors in Accordance With Plan

    Section IV.C.1 of the Nasdaq/UTP Plan requires the Participants to 
unanimously approve the amendment proposed herein. They so approved it.

H. Description of Operation of Facility Contemplated by the Proposed 
Amendment

    Not applicable.

I. Terms and Conditions of Access

    Not applicable.

J. Method of Determination and Imposition, and Amount of, Fees and 
Charges

    Not applicable.

K. Method and Frequency of Processor Evaluation

    Not applicable.

L. Dispute Resolution

    Not applicable.

III. Regulation NMS Rule 601(a)

A. Equity Securities for Which Transaction Reports Shall Be Required by 
the Plan

    Not applicable.

B. Reporting Requirements

    Not applicable.

C. Manner of Collecting, Processing, Sequencing, Making Available and 
Disseminating Last Sale Information

    Not applicable.

D. Manner of Consolidation

    Not applicable.

E. Standards and Methods Ensuring Promptness, Accuracy and Completeness 
of Transaction Reports

    Not applicable.

F. Rules and Procedures Addressed to Fraudulent or Manipulative 
Dissemination

    Not applicable.

G. Terms of Access to Transaction Reports

    Not applicable.

H. Identification of Marketplace of Execution

    Not applicable.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    The Commission seeks comments on the Amendment. Interested persons 
are invited to submit written data, views, and comments concerning the 
foregoing, including whether the Amendment is consistent with the Act 
and the rules thereunder. Among other things, the Commission asks 
commenters to consider whether the Amendment to the current Plan 
addresses the concerns outlined in the Governance Notice or whether 
they should be further enhanced regarding conflicts of interest in 
national market system plan governance. Accordingly, the Commission 
requests comments on matters including, but not limited to, the 
following:

Proposed Disclosure

    1. The text of the Amendment, set forth above, states that: ``With

[[Page 2205]]

Exchanges permitted to offer both proprietary market data products and 
also acting as Participants in running the public market data stream, 
potential conflicts of interest are inherent in the structure developed 
under Regulation NMS.'' The Amendment further notes that ``[t]here may 
be instances in which representatives from the Participants and 
Advisory Committee members have responsibilities with respect to both 
proprietary data and [SIP] data'' and that ``such overlapping 
responsibilities may give rise to potential conflicts of interest.'' Do 
commenters believe the proposed Amendment adequately addresses those 
potential conflicts? Please provide sufficient detail to support your 
views, including, to the extent available, actual or possible examples.
    2. If commenters do not believe that the proposed Amendment 
adequately addresses the potential conflicts of interest arising from 
the Plan's current governance structure, is that because commenters 
believe the Amendment is inadequate in any particular way? Or is it 
because commenters believe that the potential conflicts of interest 
have not been characterized accurately? If so, in what ways do 
commenters believe the Amendment fails to describe the current 
environment and potential conflicts of interest?
    3. In their filing, the Participants state that the proposed 
questions in the disclosure document are tailored to elicit information 
relevant to assess the extent of an individual's potential conflict of 
interests with the Plan. Do commenters believe that the questions for 
Participants, Processors, Administrators, and members of the Advisory 
Committee are sufficient to elicit information to provide insight into 
all potential conflicts? Will public availability of the responses 
increase transparency and confidence in the governance of the Plan? Do 
commenters believe the proposed disclosures are sufficient or should 
enhanced disclosures be required? If so, what additional items of 
disclosure should be required and why? Do commenters believe that 
additional disclosures should be required for the representatives and 
alternative representatives of a Participant, Processor, Administrator, 
or member of the Advisory Committee?
    4. In their filing, the Participants state that a disclosure-based 
regime is a pragmatic step to address potential conflicts of interests. 
Do commenters agree or disagree with that statement? Do commenters 
believe that a disclosure-based regime is sufficient to address the 
potential conflicts that Participants, Processors, Administrators, and 
members of the Advisory Committee may face in their roles within the 
Plan?
    5. Do commenters think any other types of persons should be 
required to provide disclosures, such as services providers to the 
Administrator that provide audit, accounting, or other professional 
services? As an example, if auditing services are outsourced to a 
Participant's employer or an affiliate that also is offering 
proprietary data products to SIP customers and/or conducting audits for 
those products, should that entity also be required to disclose its 
conflicts and otherwise be subject to the terms of the conflicts of 
interest policy, even if it is neither the Administrator nor Processor?
    6. Do commenters believe that an alternative approach could better 
identify and address conflicts of interests among Participants, 
Processors, Administrators, and the Advisory Committee, as well as 
auditors? For example, should a disclosure regime be supplemented with 
certain prohibited conduct or procedural requirements, such as a 
prohibition on a Participant voting when that Participant has direct 
business responsibilities related to producing, selling, or managing 
competing data products? If you believe an alternative approach is 
appropriate, please provide details on any such alternative approach. 
Do commenters regard the Plan's ability to identify and protect the 
confidentiality of competitive information as an important component to 
the Plan's ability to manage conflicts of interest? If so, how do 
commenters regard the interaction between this proposed Amendment and 
the separate proposed Plan amendment to govern treatment of 
confidential information noted above?
    7. Do commenters believe that the proposed disclosure questions for 
each party are sufficient to identify the specific relationships that 
may give rise to a conflict under the Plan and related information? 
Separately, do commenters believe that the proposed questions 
effectively require all material facts necessary to not only identify 
the nature of the conflict, but also the effect it may have on the 
Plan? Should the Amendment require more disclosure of such potential 
effects or greater details with respect to the disclosures that are 
made?
    8. Do commenters believe that the Plan should require additional 
public disclosures of any personal, business, or financial interests, 
and any employment or other commercial relationships that could 
materially affect the ability of a party to be impartial regarding 
actions of the Plan?
    9. The Participants propose to continue to post the conflicts of 
interest disclosures for each party on the Plan's website. Do 
commenters believe that doing so provides sufficient public notice of 
potential conflicts? If not, in what other manner should the 
disclosures be made public? For example, should Participants be 
required to acknowledge potential conflicts when discussing specific 
matters at Operating Committee meetings or subcommittee meetings that 
present a conflict? Should a complete set of the disclosures be 
included in the materials for each Plan meeting? Is the timing clear 
with respect to the requirement that a Disclosing Party ``promptly'' 
update its disclosures, or should the Amendment be more specific? What 
do commenters consider sufficiently prompt? Within one week? Within 30 
days? Some other timeframe?
    10. As proposed, the Amendment states that disclosures will be made 
and updated annually or upon any material change. Do commenters believe 
that these intervals are sufficient, or should updates be required more 
frequently such as in advance of scheduled Plan meetings? What 
constitutes a ``material'' change that should require the filing of an 
amended disclosure? Please explain.

Proposed Disclosure for Participants

    1. Do commenters believe that any individual representing a 
Participant that is directly involved in the management, development, 
pricing, or sale of proprietary data products offered to SIP customers 
should participate in discussions and related Plan votes regarding the 
pricing of SIP data products? If so, how do commenters believe 
Participants should address the conflicts their representatives may 
face in their dual role of pricing and developing SIP data products as 
well as their own proprietary data products?
    2. Do commenters believe that a Participant should be recused from 
voting when it or an affiliate is competing for a contract to serve as 
a Processor for the Plan? Why or why not? Are there any other scenarios 
that present conflicts that should result in a Participant being 
recused from voting?
    3. Do commenters believe recusal on certain Plan action when a 
potential conflict is present is an appropriate mechanism to address 
conflicts? If so, under what circumstances? If applicable, do 
commenters believe that recusal should be mandatory or should it be 
voluntary? Why or why not?
    4. Do commenters believe that Operating Committee members should

[[Page 2206]]

be permitted to raise the issue of a potential conflict of interest of 
another Participant for discussion before the Operating Committee, even 
if the Participant did not itself disclose the potential conflict? Do 
commenters believe that the Operating Committee should have the ability 
to take action in response to disclosed or undisclosed conflicts, such 
as requiring the Participant to recuse itself from a certain discussion 
or vote on a particular matter? If so, how should the Operating 
Committee take such action? Should the Participants vote on recusal or 
should the Participants seek input from the Advisory Committee? Why or 
why not?

Proposed Disclosures for Processors

    1. Do commenters believe that the proposed disclosure questions for 
the Processor are sufficient to identify the specific circumstances in 
which a Participant is both voting on an Operating Committee and 
competing to act as Processor for the Plan? Do commenters believe that 
the disclosure questions are tailored to the role that the Processor 
performs and the fact that the Processor is present at Plan meetings 
but do not vote on Plan matters, or should different or additional 
disclosure be required for the Processor? Separately, do commenters 
believe that the proposed Processor questions effectively require all 
material facts necessary to not only identify the nature of the 
potential conflict, but also the effect it may have on the Plan? Should 
the Amendment require more disclosure of such potential effects? Should 
the Amendment elaborate on what ``profit or loss responsibility for a 
Participant's Proprietary Market Data products'' means in the context 
of the required disclosures? Alternatively, do commenters believe that 
the Plan's separately-proposed confidentiality proposal would address 
some of the potential effects of conflicts of interests if approved?
    2. Do commenters have concerns about affiliations between a Plan's 
Processor and a Participant? If so, do commenters believe the conflicts 
of interest disclosure is sufficient to address those concerns? Should 
the Amendment require a description of the nature of the affiliation?
    3. Do commenters believe that a Participant or its affiliate that 
is competing for a contract to serve as a Processor for the Plan should 
participate in discussions and related Plan votes regarding the 
selection of the Processor for the Plan? If so, how do commenters 
believe Participants should address the conflicts they face in their 
dual role of competing to serve as a Processor while serving as a 
Participant that participates in the discussion of, and ultimately 
votes on, selection of the Processor?

Proposed Disclosures for the Administrator

    1. Do commenters believe that the proposed disclosure questions for 
the Administrator are sufficient to identify the specific interests and 
employment, commercial or other relationships that may give rise to a 
conflict under the Plan? Separately, do commenters believe that the 
proposed Administrator questions effectively require all material facts 
necessary to not only identify the nature of the conflict, but also the 
effect it may have on the Plan? Should the Amendment require more 
disclosure of such potential effects or greater details with respect to 
the disclosures that are made?
    2. To the extent that the Administrator enlists assistance from an 
auditor or any other professional services subcontractor for any of the 
Plan(s), and the subcontractor is affiliated with an entity that is 
involved in the development, pricing, or sale of proprietary data 
products offered to SIP customers, or is subject to any other conflict, 
should all of the disclosures and conflicts policies referenced above 
also be applicable to them? Or do commenters believe that concerns 
arising from potential conflicts of interest would be more 
appropriately addressed for a subcontractor if the subcontractor could 
attest that it is sufficiently walled-off from the proprietary data 
business of its affiliate?

Proposed Disclosures for Members of the Advisory Committee

    1. Do commenters believe that the proposed disclosure questions for 
Advisory Committee members are sufficient to identify the specific 
interests and employment, commercial, or other relationships that may 
give rise to a conflict under the Plan? Separately, do commenters 
believe that the proposed Advisory Committee members' questions 
effectively require all material facts necessary to not only identify 
the nature of the conflict, but also the effect it may have on the 
Plan? Should the Amendment require more disclosure of such potential 
effects or greater details with respect to the disclosures that are 
made? Should the Amendment require Members of the Advisory Committee to 
identify affiliations with any Disclosing Party, and clarify that both 
direct and indirect ownership interests in a Participant are subject to 
disclosure? Is it clear what ``actively participate in any litigation 
against the Plans'' means, or should the Amendment require additional 
detail?
    2. Do commenters believe that the Plan should require additional 
public disclosures of any personal, business, commercial, or financial 
interests, and any employment relationships that could materially 
affect the ability of the Advisory Committee Member to participate 
impartially in discussing actions of the Plan?
    3. Do commenters believe that Advisory Committee members that 
purchase SIP data products should participate in discussions regarding 
the pricing of SIP data products? If so, how do commenters believe 
Advisory Committee members should address that potential conflict?

Participant Statement Regarding Competition

    1. The Participants state in their filing that the Amendment does 
not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or 
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Do commenters 
believe that the Amendment to the Plan imposes any burden on 
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the 
purposes of the Act? Please explain.
    2. What effect might the Amendment have on competition, if any? 
Please explain. How would any effect on competition from the proposal 
benefit or harm the national market system and/or various market 
participants? Please describe and explain how, if at all, aspects of 
the national market system or different market participants would be 
affected. Please support any response with data, if possible.
    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 S7-24-89 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 File Number S7-24-89. 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 website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/

[[Page 2207]]

sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all written statements with 
respect to the proposed Amendment that are filed with the Commission, 
and all written communications relating to the proposed Amendment 
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 website 
viewing and printing at the principal office of the Plan. 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 S7-24-89 and 
should be submitted on or before February 4, 2020.

    By the Commission.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-00357 Filed 1-13-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P