[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 98 (Wednesday, May 20, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30770-30774]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-10821]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88878; File No. SR-NYSEAMER-2020-38]


Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of 
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its 
Rules To Add New Rule 7.19E

May 14, 2020.
    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 7, 2020, NYSE American LLC (``NYSE American'' 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 
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 its rules to add new Rule 7.19E 
(Pre-Trade Risk Controls). 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.

[[Page 30771]]

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
    In order to assist ETP Holders' efforts to manage their risk, the 
Exchange proposes to amend its rules to add new Rule 7.19E (Pre-Trade 
Risk Controls) to establish a set of pre-trade risk controls by which 
Entering Firms and their designated Clearing Firms (as defined below) 
may set credit limits and other pre-trade risk controls for an Entering 
Firm's trading on the Exchange and authorize the Exchange to take 
action if those credit limits or other pre-trade risk controls are 
exceeded.
    For purposes of this proposed rule change, the Exchange proposes to 
define the term ``Entering Firm'' to mean an ETP Holder that either has 
a correspondent relationship with a Clearing Firm whereby it executes 
trades and the clearing function is the responsibility of the Clearing 
Firm or clears for its own account \4\ and to define the term 
``Clearing Firm'' to mean an ETP Holder that acts as principal for 
clearing and settling a trade, whether for its own account or for an 
Entering Firm.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See proposed Rule 7.19E(a)(1).
    \5\ See proposed Rule 7.19E(a)(2). As required by Rule 7.14E, an 
ETP Holder is required to give up the name of the clearing firm 
through which each transaction on the Exchange will be cleared.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Overview
    In order to help firms manage their risk, the Exchange proposes to 
offer optional pre-trade risk controls that would authorize the 
Exchange to take automated actions if a designated credit limit or 
other pre-trade risk control for a firm is breached. Because Clearing 
Firms bear the risk on behalf of their correspondent Entering Firms, 
the Exchange proposes to make the proposed pre-trade risk controls 
available not only to Entering Firms, but also to their Clearing Firms, 
if so authorized by the Entering Firm. These pre-trade risk controls 
would provide Entering Firms and their Clearing Firms with enhanced 
abilities to manage their risk with respect to orders on the Exchange.
    As proposed, these optional controls would allow Entering Firms and 
their Clearing Firms (if designated by the Entering Firm) to each 
define different pre-set risk thresholds and to choose the automated 
action the Exchange would take if those thresholds are breached, which 
would range from notifying the Entering Firm and Clearing Firm that a 
limit has been breached, blocking new orders, or canceling orders until 
the Entering Firm has been reinstated to trade on the Exchange.
    Although use of the proposed Exchange-provided pre-trade risk 
controls are optional, all orders on the Exchange will pass through 
risk checks. As such, an Entering Firm that does not choose to set 
limits or permit its Clearing Firm to set limits on its behalf will not 
achieve any latency advantage with respect to its trading activity on 
the Exchange. In addition, the Exchange expects that any latency added 
by the pre-trade risk controls will be de minimis.
    The proposed pre-trade risk controls described are meant to 
supplement, and not replace, the ETP Holders' own internal systems, 
monitoring and procedures related to risk management. The Exchange does 
not guarantee that these controls will be sufficiently comprehensive to 
meet all of an ETP Holder's needs, the controls are not designed to be 
the sole means of risk management, and using these controls will not 
necessarily meet an ETP Holder's obligations required by Exchange or 
federal rules (including, without limitation, the Rule 15c3-5 under the 
Act \6\ (``Rule 15c3-5'')). Use of the Exchange's pre-trade risk 
controls will not automatically constitute compliance with Exchange or 
federal rules and responsibility for compliance with all Exchange and 
Commission rules remains with the ETP Holder.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-5.
    \7\ The Exchange proposes Commentary .01 to Rule 7.19E to 
provide that ``[t]he pre-trade risk controls described in this Rule 
are meant to supplement, and not replace, the ETP Holder's own 
internal systems, monitoring and procedures related to risk 
management and are not designed for compliance with Rule 15c3-5 
under the Exchange Act. Responsibility for compliance with all 
Exchange and SEC rules remains with the ETP Holder.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Proposed Rule Change
    Proposed Rule 7.19E(a) would set forth the definitions that would 
be used for purposes of the Rule. In addition to the defined terms of 
``Entering Firm'' and ``Clearing Firm,'' as described above, the 
Exchange proposes the following definitions:
     The term ``Single Order Maximum Notional Value Risk 
Limit'' would mean a pre-established maximum dollar amount for a single 
order before it can be traded.
     The term ``Single Order Maximum Quantity Risk Limit'' 
would mean a pre-established maximum number of shares that may be 
included in a single order before it can be traded.
     The term ``Gross Credit Risk Limit'' would mean a pre-
established maximum daily dollar amount for purchases and sales across 
all symbols, where both buy and sell orders are counted as positive 
values. For purposes of calculating the Gross Credit Risk Limit, 
unexecuted orders in the Exchange Book,\8\ orders routed on arrival 
pursuant to Rule 7.37E(a)(1), and executed orders are included.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The term ``Exchange Book'' is defined in Rule 1.1E to refer 
to the Exchange's electronic file of orders, which contains all 
orders entered on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 7.19E(b) would set forth the Pre-Trade Risk Controls 
that would be available to Entering Firms and Clearing Firms. Under 
proposed Rule 7.19E(b)(1), an Entering Firm may select one or more of 
the following optional pre-trade risk controls with respect to its 
trading activity on the Exchange: (i) Gross Credit Risk Limits; (ii) 
Single Order Maximum Notional Value Risk Limits; and (iii) Single Order 
Maximum Quantity Risk Limits, which would collectively be referred to 
as the ``Pre-Trade Risk Controls.''
    In addition, under proposed Rule 7.19E(b)(2)(A), an Entering Firm 
that does not self-clear may designate its Clearing Firm to (i) view 
any Pre-Trade Risk Controls set by the Entering Firm, or (ii) set one 
or more Pre-Trade Risk Controls on the Entering Firm's behalf, or both. 
Proposed Rule 7.19E(b)(2)(B) provides that an Entering Firm would be 
able to view any Pre-Trade Risk Controls that its Clearing Firm sets 
with respect to the Entering Firm's trading activity on the Exchange. 
Because both an Entering Firm and Clearing Firm (if so designated by 
the Entering Firm) would be able to access information about Pre-Trade 
Risk Controls, this mechanism would foster transparency between an 
Entering Firm and its Clearing Firm regarding which Pre-Trade Risk 
Control limits may have been set. For example, if an Entering Firm 
designates its Clearing Firm to view the Pre-Trade Risk Controls set by 
that Entering Firm, its Clearing Firm

[[Page 30772]]

may determine that it does not need to separately set Pre-Trade Risk 
Controls on behalf of such Entering Firm.
    Because the Entering Firm is the ETP Holder that is entering orders 
on the Exchange, the Exchange will not take action based on a Clearing 
Firm's instructions about the Entering Firm's trading activities on the 
Exchange without first receiving consent from the Entering Firm. 
Accordingly, proposed Rule 7.19E(b)(2)(C) would provide that if an 
Entering Firm designates a Clearing Firm to set Pre-Trade Risk Controls 
for the Entering Firm, the Entering Firm would be consenting to the 
Exchange taking certain prescribed actions (discussed further below) 
with respect to the Entering Firm's trading activity as provided for in 
proposed Rules 7.19E(c) and (d), described below. The Exchange would 
consider an Entering Firm to provide such consent by authorizing a 
Clearing Firm to enter Pre-Trade Risk Controls via the risk management 
tool that will be provided to Entering Firms in connection with this 
proposed rule change. Once such authorization is provided by the 
Entering Firm, the Clearing Firm would have access to the Pre-Trade 
Risk Controls that the Entering Firm designates. The proposed Rule 
makes clear that by designating a Clearing Firm to set limits on its 
trading activities, the Entering Firm will have authorized the Exchange 
to act pursuant to the Clearing Firm's instructions if the limits set 
by the Clearing Firm are breached.
    Proposed Rule 7.19E(b)(3) would set forth how the Pre-Trade Risk 
Controls could be set or adjusted. Proposed Rule 7.19E(b)(3)(A) would 
provide that Pre-Trade Risk Controls may be set before the beginning of 
a trading day and may be adjusted during the trading day. Proposed Rule 
7.19E(b)(3)(B) would provide that Entering Firms or Clearing Firms may 
set Pre-Trade Risk Controls at the MPID level or at one or more sub-IDs 
associated with that MPID.\9\ The Exchange believes that supporting 
Pre-Trade Risk Controls at both an MPID and sub-ID level would provide 
both Entering Firms, and if designated, their Clearing Firms, more 
granular control over how such risk controls are determined and 
monitored.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Entering Firms may request that the Exchange create sub-IDs 
associated with their MPIDs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 7.19E(b)(4) would provide that with respect to Gross 
Credit Risk Limits, an Entering Firm and, if so designated, its 
Clearing Firm, will receive notifications when the Entering Firm is 
approaching or has breached a limit set by itself or by the Clearing 
Firm. The Exchange believes that by providing such notifications, the 
Entering Firm, and if designated, its Clearing Firm, would have advance 
notice that the Entering Firm is approaching a designated limit and 
could take steps to mitigate the potential that an automated breach 
action would be triggered.
    Proposed Rule 7.19E(c) would set forth the actions the Exchange 
would be authorized to take when a Pre-Trade Risk Control set by an 
Entering Firm or a Clearing Firm is breached, which would be referred 
to as ``Automated Breach Actions.'' These proposed actions would be 
automated; if a Pre-Trade Risk Control is breached, the Exchange would 
automatically take the designated action and would not need further 
direction from either the Entering Firm or Clearing Firm to take such 
action.
    At the outset, proposed Rule 7.19E(c)(1) would provide that if both 
an Entering Firm and its Clearing Firm set the same type of Pre-Trade 
Risk Control for the Entering Firm but have set different limits, the 
Exchange would enforce the more restrictive limit. For example, if an 
Entering Firm sets a Single Order Maximum Notional Value Risk Limit of 
$20 million and its Clearing Firm sets the same risk limit at $15 
million, the Exchange will take action when the more restrictive limit 
is breached--i.e., $15 million.
    Proposed Rule 7.19E(c)(2) would set forth the Automated Breach 
Action the Exchange would take if an order would breach the designated 
limit of either a Single Order Maximum Notional Value Risk Limit or 
Single Order Maximum Quantity Risk Limit. As proposed, the Exchange 
would reject the incoming order that would have breached the applicable 
limit.
    Proposed Rule 7.19E(c)(3)(A) would set forth the Automated Breach 
Actions the Exchange would take if a designated Gross Credit Risk Limit 
is breached. The Exchange proposes to provide options of which 
Automated Breach Action the Exchange would be authorized to take if a 
Gross Credit Risk Limit is breached. Such Automated Breach Actions 
would be taken at the MPID or sub-ID level that is associated with the 
designated Gross Credit Risk Limit. As proposed, when setting Gross 
Credit Risk Limits, the Entering Firm or Clearing Firm setting the 
limit would be required to indicate one of the following actions that 
the Exchange would take if such limit is breached:
     ``Notification Only.'' As set forth in proposed Rule 
7.19E(c)(3)(A)(i), if this option is selected, the Exchange would 
continue to accept new orders and order instructions and would not 
cancel any unexecuted orders in the Exchange Book. Proposed Rule 
7.19E(b)(4), described above, sets forth the notifications that would 
be provided to an Entering Firm, and if designated, a Clearing Firm 
regarding the Pre-Trade Risk Controls that have been set. With the 
``Notification Only'' action, the Exchange would provide such 
notifications, but would not take any other automated actions with 
respect to new or unexecuted orders.
     ``Block Only.'' As set forth in proposed Rule 
7.19E(c)(3)(A)(ii), if this option is selected, the Exchange would 
reject new orders and order instructions but would not cancel any 
unexecuted orders in the Exchange Book. The Exchange would continue to 
accept instructions from the Entering Firm to cancel one or more orders 
in full (including Auction-Only Orders) or any instructions specified 
in proposed Rule 7.19E(e) (described below), but would not take any 
automated action to cancel orders.
     ``Cancel and Block.'' As set forth in proposed Rule 
7.19E(c)(3)(A)(iii), if this option is selected, in addition to the 
Block actions described above, the Exchange would also cancel all 
unexecuted orders in the Exchange Book other than Auction-Only Orders.
    If an Entering Firm and its Clearing Firm each set different limits 
for a Gross Credit Risk Limit for the Entering Firm's activities on the 
Exchange, proposed Rule 7.19E(c)(3)(B) would provide that the Exchange 
would enforce the action that was chosen by the party that set the 
limit that was breached. For example, if a Clearing Firm sets a lower 
limit and designates the ``Cancel and Block'' Automated Breach Action, 
if that limit is breached, the Exchange will implement that ``Cancel 
and Block'' action even if the Entering Firm designated a different 
Automated Breach Action.
    Proposed Rule 7.19E(c)(3)(C) would provide that if both the 
Entering Firm and Clearing Firm set the same Gross Credit Risk Limit 
and that limit is breached, the Exchange would enforce the most 
restrictive Automated Breach Action. As further proposed, for purposes 
of this Rule, the ``Cancel and Block'' action would be more restrictive 
than ``Block Only,'' which would be more restrictive than 
``Notification Only.'' For example, if the Entering Firm selects the 
``Block Only'' action for a Gross Credit Risk Limit and its Clearing 
Firm selects the ``Cancel and Block'' action for the same Gross Credit 
Risk Limit, if the limit is breached, the Exchange would take the 
``Cancel and Block'' action for the Entering Firm's orders.

[[Page 30773]]

    Proposed Rule 7.19E(c)(4) would provide that if a Pre-Trade Risk 
Control set at the MPID level is breached, the Automated Breach Action 
specified at the MPID level would be applied to all sub-IDs associated 
with that MPID. For instance, if a Clearing Firm sets a Gross Credit 
Risk Limit for an MPID at $500 million and the Entering Firm sets Gross 
Credit Risk Limits for each of three sub-IDs associated with that MPID 
at $500 million each, if two of the sub-IDs reach a $250 million limit, 
which combined is the Gross Credit Risk Limit at the MPID level, the 
Automated Breach Action associated with the limit at the MPID level 
would be triggered and would apply also to the associated sub-IDs, even 
though none of the sub-IDs have breached their separate $500 million 
limits. This functionality ensures that an Entering Firm cannot 
effectively override a Pre-Trade Risk Control set at the MPID level by 
setting risk limits for each of the MPID's associated sub-IDs that 
cumulatively equal more than the MPID's total Gross Credit Risk Limit.
    Proposed Rule 7.19E(d) concerns how an Entering Firm's ability to 
enter orders and order instructions would be reinstated after a ``Block 
Only'' or ``Cancel and Block'' Automated Breach Action has been 
triggered. In such case, proposed Rule 7.19E(d) provides that the 
Exchange would not reinstate the Entering Firm's ability to enter 
orders and order instructions on the Exchange (other than instructions 
to cancel one or more orders (including Auction-Only Orders) in full) 
without the consent of (1) the Entering Firm, and (2) the Clearing 
Firm, if the Entering Firm has designated that the Clearing Firm's 
consent is required. The Exchange proposes to include this 
functionality because the Clearing Firm bears the risk of any exposure 
of its correspondent Entering Firms.
    Finally, proposed Rule 7.19E(e) would set forth ``kill switch'' 
functionality, which would allow an Entering Firm or its designated 
Clearing Firm to direct the Exchange to take certain bulk Kill Switch 
Actions with respect to orders. In contrast to the Automated Breach 
Actions described above, which the Exchange would take automatically 
after the breach of a credit limit, the Exchange would not take any of 
the Kill Switch Actions without express direction from the Entering 
Firm or its designated Clearing Firm.
    Specifically, Proposed Rule 7.19E(e) would specify that an Entering 
Firm, or if authorized pursuant to proposed Rule 7.19E(b)(2)(A), its 
Clearing Firm, could direct the Exchange to take one or more of the 
following actions with respect to orders at either an MPID, or if 
designated, sub-ID Level: (1) Cancel all Auction-Only Orders; (2) 
Cancel all unexecuted orders in the Exchange Book other than Auction-
Only Orders; or (3) Block the entry of any new orders and order 
instructions, provided that the Exchange would continue to accept 
instructions from Entering Firms to cancel one or more orders 
(including Auction-Only Orders) in full, and later, reverse that block.
    The Exchange proposes that the Kill Switch functionality proposed 
in Rule 7.19E(e) would supersede and replace the Exchange's previously 
filed proposed rule change,\10\ which provided certain post-trade risk 
management tools to ETP Holders, but not to their Clearing Firms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71165 (December 20, 
2013), 78 FR 79053 (December 27, 2013) (SR-NYSEMKT-2013-102) (Notice 
of filing and immediate effectiveness of proposed rule change) (the 
``2013 Risk Control Filing'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to provide these post-trade Kill Switch 
Actions in addition to the pre-trade Automated Breach Actions described 
above in order to give Entering Firms and their Clearing Firms more 
flexibility in setting risk controls. An Entering Firm that wants more 
control over when and which actions are taken with respect to its 
orders may choose to use these Kill Switch Actions instead of the 
``Block'' or ``Cancel and Block'' Automated Breach Actions described 
above. For example, for an Entering Firm that selects the 
``Notification Only'' Automated Breach Action, if it receives 
notification of a credit breach, it could choose to direct the Exchange 
to take a Kill Switch Action described in proposed Rule 7.19E(e).
c. Proposed Rule Commentary
    The Exchange proposes Commentary .01 to Rule 7.19E to specify that 
the Pre-Trade Risk Controls described in this Rule are meant to 
supplement, and not replace, the ETP Holder's own internal systems, 
monitoring and procedures related to risk management and are not 
designed for compliance with Rule 15c3-5 under the Act.\11\ This 
proposed Commentary specifies that use of the Exchange's pre-trade risk 
controls would not automatically constitute compliance with Exchange or 
federal rules and responsibility for compliance with all Exchange and 
SEC rules remains with the ETP Holder. The Exchange does not guarantee 
that these controls will be sufficiently comprehensive to meet all of 
an ETP Holder's needs, the controls are not designed to be the sole 
means of risk management, and using these controls will not necessarily 
meet an ETP Holder's obligations required by Exchange or federal rules 
(including, without limitation, the Rule 15c3-5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent 
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\12\ in general, and furthers the 
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\13\ in particular, because 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, 
and because it is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between 
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule will 
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open 
market and a national market system because the proposed optional Pre-
Trade Risk Controls would provide both Entering Firms, and if 
designated, Clearing Firms, with the ability to manage risk, while also 
providing an alert system that would help to ensure that such firms are 
aware of developing issues. In addition, the Pre-Trade Risk Controls 
would provide Clearing Firms, who have assumed certain risks of the 
Entering Firms, greater control and flexibility over setting risk 
tolerance and exposure on behalf of their correspondent Entering Firms. 
As such, the Exchange believes that the Pre-Trade Risk Controls would 
provide a means to address potentially market-impacting events, helping 
to ensure the proper functioning of the market.
    In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is 
designed to protect investors and the public interest because the Pre-
Trade Risk Controls are a form of impact mitigation that will aid 
Entering Firms and Clearing Firms in minimizing their risk exposure and 
reduce the potential for disruptive, market-wide events. The Exchange 
understands that ETP Holders implement a number of different risk-based 
controls, including those required by Rule 15c3-5. The proposed 
controls will serve as an additional tool for Entering Firms and 
Clearing Firms to

[[Page 30774]]

assist them in identifying any risk exposure. The Exchange believes the 
Pre-Trade Risk Controls will assist Entering Firms and Clearing Firms 
in managing their financial exposure which, in turn, could enhance the 
integrity of trading on the securities markets and help to assure the 
stability of the financial system.
    Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule will foster 
cooperation and coordination with persons facilitating transactions in 
securities because the Exchange will provide alerts to Entering Firms 
and their Clearing Firms when the Entering Firm's trading reaches 
certain thresholds. As such, the Exchange will help Clearing Firms 
monitor the risk levels of their correspondent Entering Firms and 
provide tools for Clearing Firms, if designated, to take action.
    The Exchange believes that proposed Commentary .01 to Rule 7.19 is 
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices and 
promote just and equitable principles of trade because it provides 
clarity in Exchange rules that the proposed Pre-Trade Risk Controls are 
intended to supplement, and not replace, an ETP Holder's own internal 
systems, monitoring, and procedures related to compliance with Rule 
15c3-5.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change does 
not unfairly discriminate among the Exchange's ETP Holders because use 
of the Pre-Trade Risk Controls is optional and is not a prerequisite 
for participation on the Exchange. In addition, because all orders on 
the Exchange would pass through the risk checks, there would be no 
difference in the latency experienced by ETP Holders who have opted to 
use the Pre-Trade Risk Controls versus those who have not opted to use 
them.

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. In fact, the Exchange 
believes that the proposal will have a positive effect on competition 
because, by providing Entering Firms and their Clearing Firms 
additional means to monitor and control risk, the proposed rule will 
increase confidence in the proper functioning of the markets. The 
Exchange believes the proposed Pre-Trade Risk Controls will assist 
Entering Firms and Clearing Firms in managing their financial exposure 
which, in turn, could enhance the integrity of trading on the 
securities markets and help to assure the stability of the financial 
system. As a result, the level of competition should increase as public 
confidence in the markets is solidified.

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 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 if consistent with the protection of 
investors and the public interest, provided that the self-regulatory 
organization has given the Commission written notice of its intent to 
file 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,\14\ the proposed rule change has become 
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \15\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The Exchange has fulfilled this requirement.
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \16\ 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) \17\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed 
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 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-NYSEAMER-2020-38 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to: Secretary, 
Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 
20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2020-38. 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-NYSEAMER-2020-38 and should be submitted 
on or before June 10, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-10821 Filed 5-19-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P