
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 47 (Monday, March 13, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13536-13540]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-04817]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80169; File No. SR-BatsBZX-2016-80]


Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of 
Filing of Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 and Order Granting Accelerated 
Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 
2, Relating to BZX Rule 14.11, Other Securities, and BZX Rule 14.12, 
Failure To Meet Listing Standards

March 7, 2017.

I. Introduction

    On November 18, 2016, Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'' or 
``BZX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission 
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities 
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a 
proposed rule change to amend BZX Rule (``Rule'') 14.11 to add specific 
continued listing standards for exchange-traded products (``ETPs'') and 
to amend Rule 14.12 to specify the delisting procedures for these 
products. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the 
Federal Register on December 7, 2016.\3\ On January 18, 2017, the 
Commission designated a longer period within which to approve the 
proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute 
proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed 
rule change.\4\ On March 1, 2017, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to 
the proposed rule change, which amended and replaced the original 
proposal.\5\ On March 3, 2017, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 2 to 
the proposed rule change.\6\ The Commission received nine comment 
letters on the proposed rule change.\7\ The Commission is publishing 
this notice to solicit comments on Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 from 
interested persons, and is approving the proposed rule change, as 
modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79450 (December 1, 
2016), 81 FR 88284.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79839, 82 FR 8452 
(January 25, 2017).
    \5\ In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange: (i) Further amended Rule 
14.11(a) to require a Company with securities listed under Rule 
14.11 to provide the Exchange with prompt notification if the 
Company (rather than an Executive Officer of the Company) becomes 
aware of its non-compliance with the requirements of Rule 14.11; 
(ii) further amended Rule 14.11 to reflect that certain listing 
requirements apply on an initial and ongoing basis; (iii) further 
amended Rule 14.11 to consistently state that the Exchange will 
initiate delisting proceedings if continued listing requirements are 
not maintained; (iv) further amended Rule 14.11 to provide that the 
Exchange would initiate delisting proceedings due to an interruption 
to the dissemination of index, reference asset, or intraday 
indicative values (as applicable to the product) only if the 
interruption persists past the trading day in which it occurred; (v) 
further amended Rule 14.11 to consistently state that the Exchange 
will implement and maintain surveillance procedures for the 
applicable product; and (vi) made other technical, clarifying, and 
conforming changes throughout Rule 14.11. Amendment No. 1 is 
available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-batsbzx-2016-80/batsbzx201680-1610929-135984.pdf.
    \6\ In Amendment No. 2, the Exchange specified the 
implementation date for the proposed rule change and made clarifying 
and technical changes. Amendment No. 2 is available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-batsbzx-2016-80/batsbzx201680-1610934-135985.pdf.
    \7\ See Letters to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, from 
David W. Blass, General Counsel, Investment Company Institute, dated 
January 12, 2017 (``ICI Letter''); Anna Paglia, Head of Legal, 
Invesco PowerShares Capital Management LLC, dated February 10, 2017 
(``PowerShares Letter''); Steven Price, SVP, Director of 
Distribution Services and Chief Compliance Officer, ALPS 
Distributors, Inc., ALPS Portfolio Solutions Distributor, Inc., 
dated February 10, 2017 (``ALPS Letter''); James E. Ross, Executive 
Vice President and Chairman, Global SPDR Business, State Street 
Global Advisors, dated February 13, 2017 (``SSGA Letter''); Samara 
Cohen, Managing Director, U.S. Head of iShares Capital Markets, 
Joanne Medero, Managing Director, Government Relations & Public 
Policy, and Deepa Damre, Managing Director, Legal & Compliance, 
BlackRock, Inc., dated February 14, 2017 (``BlackRock Letter''); 
Peter K. Ewing, Senior Vice President, Northern Trust Investments, 
Inc., dated February 14, 2017 (``NTI Letter''); Ryan Louvar, General 
Counsel, WisdomTree Asset Management, Inc., dated February 15, 2017 
(``WisdomTree Letter''); Kevin McCarthy, Senior Managing Director, 
Nuveen Fund Advisors, LLC, dated February 15, 2017 (``Nuveen 
Letter''); and Matthew B. Farber, Assistant General Counsel, First 
Trust Advisors L.P., dated February 23, 2017 (``First Trust 
Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment 
Nos. 1 and 2

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 14.11 to specify continued 
listing requirements for products listed under that rule, which include 
products listed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) under the Act (``generically-
listed products'') and products listed pursuant to proposed rule 
changes filed with the Commission (``non-generically-listed 
products'').\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See infra notes 33-35 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 14.11(a) to specify issuer 
notification requirements related to failures to comply with continued 
listing requirements. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 
14.11(a) to require a company with securities listed under Rule 14.11 
to promptly notify the Exchange after the company becomes aware of any 
non-compliance by the company with the requirements of the rule. As 
proposed, the Exchange would initiate delisting proceedings for a 
product listed under Rule 14.11 if any of its continued listing 
requirements (including those set forth in an Exchange Rule and those 
set forth in an applicable proposed rule change) is not continuously 
maintained.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Unlike failures to comply with other continued listing 
requirements, if there is an interruption to the dissemination of 
the reference asset, index, or intraday indicative values for a 
listed product, the Exchange would initiate delisting proceedings 
under Rule 14.12 only if the interruption persists past the trading 
day in which it occurred. See, e.g., proposed changes to Rules 
14.11(b)(9)(B)(i)(b) and (e), and 14.11(c)(9)(B)(i)(b) and (e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 14.12 to specify the 
delisting procedures for products listed under Rule 14.11. Under 
proposed Rule 14.12(f)(2)(A), unless the company is currently under 
review by an Adjudicatory Body for a Staff Delisting Determination, the 
Listing Qualifications Department may accept and review a plan to 
regain compliance when the company fails to meet a continued listing 
requirement contained in Rule 14.11. Under the proposed rule, the 
company would be required to submit its compliance plan within 45 
calendar days of the Exchange staff's notification of deficiencies.
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to make conforming and technical 
changes throughout Rule 14.11 to maintain consistency in its rules. For 
example, the Exchange proposes to consistently use the language 
``initiate delisting proceedings pursuant to Rule 14.12'' when 
describing the delisting procedures for a product that fails to meet 
continued listing requirements; \10\ consistently state that, if the 
index that underlies a series of Portfolio Depository Receipts or Index 
Fund Shares is maintained by a broker-dealer or fund advisor, the index 
shall be calculated by a third party who is not

[[Page 13537]]

a broker-dealer or fund advisor; \11\ consistently reflect that 
delisting ``following the initial 12 month period following 
commencement of trading on the Exchange'' only applies to the record/
beneficial holder, number of shares issued and outstanding, and the 
market value of shares issued and outstanding requirements; \12\ and 
consistently use the term ``Regular Trading Hours'' in the context of 
intraday indicative value dissemination.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See, e.g., proposed changes to Rules 14.11(b)(9)(B)(i) and 
14.11(c)(9)(B)(i).
    \11\ See proposed changes to Rules 14.11(b)(4)(B)(i), 
14.11(b)(5)(A)(i), 14.11(c)(4)(C)(i), and 14.11(c)(5)(A)(i); see 
also Rule 14.11(b)(3)(B)(i) (currently stating that, for certain 
Portfolio Depository Receipts, ``[i]f the index is maintained by a 
broker-dealer or fund advisor . . . the index shall be calculated by 
a third party who is not a broker-dealer or fund advisor'') and Rule 
14.11(c)(3)(B)(i) (currently stating that, for certain Index Fund 
Shares, ``[i]f the index is maintained by a broker-dealer or fund 
advisor . . . the index shall be calculated by a third party who is 
not a broker-dealer or fund advisor'').
    \12\ See, e.g., proposed changes to Rule 14.11(e)(4)(E)(ii); see 
also, e.g., Rule 14.11(e)(8)(D)(ii)(a) (currently applying the 12-
month threshold only to the record/beneficial holder, number of 
units issued and outstanding, and market value of units issued and 
outstanding requirements for Partnership Units).
    \13\ See, e.g., proposed changes to Rule 14.11(b)(3)(C); see 
also, e.g., Rule 14.11(i)(4)(B)(i) (currently requiring the 
dissemination of intraday indicative values for Managed Fund Shares 
during Regular Trading Hours).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to implement the rule changes by October 1, 
2017.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by 
Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, is consistent with the requirements of the Act 
and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national 
securities exchange.\14\ In particular, the Commission finds that the 
proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\15\ 
which requires, among other things, that the rules of a national 
securities exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative 
acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has 
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, 
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission received nine comment letters that express concerns 
regarding the proposal.\16\ First, commenters question how an ETF, 
especially one that uses indexes established and maintained by 
unaffiliated third parties, would comply with the proposed rules, and 
how the Exchange would enforce them.\17\ Commenters assert that it 
would be unrealistic to anticipate that an ETF could ensure that an 
unaffiliated index complies with the initial listing standards on an 
ongoing basis, and express concern that an equity-index ETF, through no 
action of its own, could see certain of the constituent securities of 
the unaffiliated index fall below the listing requirements.\18\ One 
commenter believes that even if a third party index provider was 
amenable to changes to an underlying index that would allow an ETF to 
regain compliance with the continued listing standards, it is unlikely 
that the ETF would be able to formulate a compliance plan within 45 
calendar days of the Exchange staff's notification.\19\ Second, 
commenters argue that the proposal would provide for unfair 
discrimination because the proposed rules would result in differential 
treatment of ETFs as compared to other securities (e.g., common 
stock).\20\ Commenters believe that the continued listing standards for 
equity securities generally differ from the initial listing standards, 
whereas the proposed ETF continued listing standards would be the same 
as the initial listing standards.\21\ Third, commenters assert that the 
proposal provides no explanation or evidence regarding the potential 
manipulation of ETFs under the current rules, or how the proposal would 
reduce the potential for manipulation.\22\ One commenter also believes 
that significant compliance enhancements could be required to ensure 
proper and continuous testing of securities held in an index, and 
questions how this type of testing would enhance investor 
protection.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See supra note 7.
    \17\ See ICI Letter at 1-2; see also PowerShares Letter at 1; 
SSGA Letter at 1; BlackRock Letter at 1-2; and Nuveen Letter at 1. 
The Commission notes that the ALPS Letter, NTI Letter, WisdomTree 
Letter, and First Trust Letter also express general support for all 
the views expressed in the ICI Letter.
    \18\ See ICI Letter at 1-3; see also PowerShares Letter at 2; 
SSGA Letter at 1; BlackRock Letter at 2; and Nuveen Letter at 2.
    \19\ See BlackRock Letter at 2.
    \20\ See ICI Letter at 2; see also PowerShares Letter at 1; SSGA 
Letter at 1; and Nuveen Letter at 1-2.
    \21\ See ICI Letter at 2; see also Nuveen Letter at 1-2.
    \22\ See ICI Letter at 2; see also PowerShares Letter at 1-2; 
SSGA Letter at 1; and Nuveen Letter at 2.
    \23\ See BlackRock Letter at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the proposal is consistent with the 
Act. As the Commission previously stated, the development, 
implementation, and enforcement of standards governing the initial and 
continued listing of securities on an exchange are activities of 
critical importance to financial markets and the investing public.\24\ 
Once a security has been approved for initial listing, continued 
listing criteria allow an exchange to monitor the status and trading 
characteristics of that issue to ensure that it continues to meet the 
exchange's standards for market depth and liquidity so that fair and 
orderly markets can be maintained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65225 
(August 30, 2011), 76 FR 55148, 55152 (September 6, 2011) (SR-BATS-
2011-018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to commenters' concerns regarding the inability of 
certain ETFs to assure compliance with the proposal, the Commission 
believes that a variety of means are available to ETP (including ETF) 
issuers to monitor for a product's compliance with the continued 
listing standards. For example, information regarding the composition 
of a third party index may be publicly available, or may be obtained 
from the index provider pursuant to provisions in the index licensing 
agreement, so that the ETP issuer can monitor its compliance on an 
ongoing basis. If an index approaches the thresholds set forth in the 
continued listing standards, the issuer may decide to engage in 
discussions with the index provider regarding potential modifications 
to the index so that the ETP can continue to be listed on the Exchange. 
If an index provider is unwilling to modify the index in order to 
comply with the Exchange's listing requirements, the Exchange may 
submit a rule proposal to continue to list the product based on the 
index.\25\ Moreover, as noted below, the listing standards that address 
the index composition with respect to certain index-based ETPs already 
apply equally on an initial and ongoing basis,\26\ so some ETP issuers 
should have experience complying with these requirements. With respect 
to commenters' questions regarding the Exchange's enforcement of the 
proposed continued listing requirements, the Commission notes that the 
Exchange is proposing to apply its existing delisting procedures, which 
allow for the time to

[[Page 13538]]

regain compliance to be extended to as long as 180 days,\27\ to 
products listed under Rule 14.11, rather than adopting new delisting 
procedures for these products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ The Commission also notes that the Exchange may 
preemptively submit a rule proposal to provide for the continued 
listing of a specific product where the underlying index is 
approaching thresholds in the continued listing requirements, but 
has not yet fallen below those thresholds (i.e., submit a rule 
proposal before the delisting procedures are triggered).
     For an example of an exchange rule proposal to continue the 
listing of a product that no longer meets generic listing standards, 
see Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57320 (February 13, 2008), 
73 FR 9395 (February 20, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2008-15).
    \26\ See infra note 30 and accompanying text.
    \27\ See Rule 14.12(f)(2)(B) (stating that, upon review of a 
plan of compliance, Exchange staff may, among other things, grant an 
extension of time to regain compliance not greater than 180 calendar 
days from the date of staff's initial notification, unless the 
company is currently under review by an Adjudicatory Body for a 
Staff Delisting Determination). Exchange staff may also extend the 
45-calendar day period for the submission of a compliance plan by 5 
calendar days upon good cause shown. See Rule 14.12(f)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to commenters' concerns that the proposed listing 
standards would treat ETPs fundamentally differently than other types 
of listed equity securities, the Commission notes that ETPs and other 
types of equity securities each have certain listing standards that are 
higher on an initial basis and lower on a continuing basis.\28\ 
Similarly, ETPs and other types of equity securities each have certain 
listing standards that are the same on an initial and continuing 
basis.\29\ In fact, the listing standards that address the index 
composition with respect to certain index-based ETPs already apply 
equally on an initial and ongoing basis.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See, e.g., Rule 14.11(e)(5), Interpretations and Policies 
.04(a) (requiring a minimum of 100,000 shares of a series of 
Currency Trust Shares to be outstanding at commencement of trading) 
and Rule 14.11(e)(5)(E)(ii)(b) (requiring 50,000 Currency Trust 
Shares issued and outstanding for continued listing).
    \29\ See, e.g., Rule 14.8(b)(1)(B) (requiring at least 1,100,000 
publicly held shares for the initial listing of primary equity 
securities on BZX); Rule 14.8(e)(2)(B)(ii) (requiring at least 
1,100,000 publicly held shares for the continued listing of primary 
equity securities on BZX under the Market Value Standard); and Rule 
14.8(e)(2)(C)(ii) (requiring at least 1,100,000 publicly held shares 
for the continued listing of primary equity securities on BZX under 
the Total Assets/Total Revenue Standard).
    \30\ See Rule 14.11(d)(2)(K)(iii) (setting forth the initial and 
continued listing requirements for Fixed Income Index-Linked 
Securities and stating that ``[t]he Exchange will commence delisting 
or removal proceedings if any of the initial listing criteria 
described above are not continuously maintained''). The Commission 
also notes that ETPs are structurally different from other types of 
equity securities. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53142 
(January 19, 2006), 71 FR 4180, 4182 and 4187 (January 25, 2006) 
(SR-NASD-2006-001) (approving generic listing standards for Index-
Linked Securities, stating that ``[a]n Index Security, just like an 
ETF, derives its value by reference to the underlying index. For 
this reason, the Commission has required that markets that list 
index based securities monitor the qualifications of not just the 
actual security (e.g., the ETF, index option, or Index Securities), 
but also of the underlying indexes (and of the index providers),'' 
and where the NASD stated that ``[i]n contrast to a typical 
corporate security (e.g., a share of common stock of a corporation), 
whose value is determined by the interplay of supply and demand in 
the marketplace, the fair value of an index-based security can be 
determined only by reference to the underlying index itself, which 
is a proprietary creation of the particular index provider. For this 
reason, the Commission has always required that markets that list or 
trade index-based securities continuously monitor the qualifications 
of not just the actual securities being traded (e.g., exchange-
traded funds (`ETF'), index options, or Index Securities), but also 
of the underlying indexes and of the index providers.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, with respect to commenters' questions regarding the 
purpose of the proposal and its impact on the potential for 
manipulation and investor protection, the Commission notes that, in 
approving a wide variety of ETP listing standards, including standards 
that apply to underlying indexes or portfolios, the Commission has 
consistently explained that these standards, among other things,\31\ 
are intended to reduce the potential for manipulation by assuring that 
the ETP is sufficiently broad-based, and that the components of an 
index or portfolio underlying an ETP are adequately capitalized, 
sufficiently liquid, and that no one stock dominates the index.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 54739 
(November 9, 2006), 71 FR 66993, 66997 (November 17, 2006) (SR-AMEX-
2006-78) (approving generic listing standards for Portfolio 
Depositary Receipts and Index Fund Shares based on international or 
global indexes, and stating that ``the proposed listing standards 
are designed to preclude ETFs from becoming surrogates for trading 
in unregistered securities'' and that ``the requirement that each 
component security underlying an ETF be listed on an exchange and 
subject to last-sale reporting should contribute to the transparency 
of the market for ETFs'' and that ``by requiring pricing information 
for both the relevant underlying index and the ETF to be readily 
available and disseminated, the proposal is designed to ensure a 
fair and orderly market for ETFs''); 53142 (January 19, 2006), 71 FR 
4180, 4186 (January 25, 2006) (SR-NASD-2006-001) (approving generic 
listing standards for Index-Linked Securities and stating that 
``[t]he Commission believes that by requiring pricing information 
for both the relevant underlying index or indexes and the Index 
Security to be readily available and disseminated, the proposed 
listing standards should help ensure a fair and orderly market for 
Index Securities''); 34758 (September 30, 1994), 59 FR 50943, 50945-
46 (October 6, 1994) (SR-NASD-94-49) (approving listing standards 
for Selected Equity-Linked Debt Securities (``SEEDS'') and stating 
that ``the listing standards and issuance restrictions should help 
to reduce the likelihood of any adverse market impact on the 
securities underlying SEEDS,'' and where the NASD stated that ``the 
proposed numerical, quantitative listing standards should ensure 
that only substantial companies capable of meeting their contingent 
obligations created by SEEDS are able to list such products on 
Nasdaq'').
    \32\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 54739 
(November 9, 2006), 71 FR 66993, 66996-97 (November 17, 2006) (SR-
AMEX-2006-78) (approving generic listing standards for Portfolio 
Depositary Receipts and Index Fund Shares based on international or 
global indexes, and stating that standards related to the 
composition of an index or portfolio underlying an ETF ``are 
designed, among other things, to require that components of an index 
or portfolio underlying an ETF are adequately capitalized and 
sufficiently liquid, and that no one stock dominates the index'' and 
that ``[t]aken together, the Commission finds that these standards 
are reasonably designed to ensure that stocks with substantial 
market capitalization and trading volume account for a substantial 
portion of any underlying index or portfolio, and that when applied 
in conjunction with the other applicable listing requirements, will 
permit the listing only of ETFs that are sufficiently broad-based in 
scope to minimize potential manipulation''); 53142 (January 19, 
2006), 71 FR 4180, 4186 (January 25, 2006) (SR-NASD-2006-001) 
(approving generic listing standards for Index-Linked Securities and 
stating that the listing standards for Index-Linked Securities, 
including minimum market capitalization, monthly trading volume, and 
relative weight requirements ``are designed to ensure that the 
trading markets for index components underlying Index Securities are 
adequately capitalized and sufficiently liquid, and that no one 
stock dominates the index. The Commission believes that these 
requirements should significantly minimize the potential for [ ] 
manipulation.''); 78396 (July 22, 2016), 81 FR 49698, 49702 (July 
28, 2016) (SR-BATS-2015-100) (approving generic listing standards 
for Managed Fund Shares, noting the Exchange's statement that the 
proposed requirements for Managed Fund Shares are based in large 
part on the generic listing criteria currently applicable to Index 
Fund Shares and stating that ``the Commission believes that this is 
an appropriate approach with respect to underlying asset classes 
covered by the existing generic standards, because the mere addition 
of active management to an ETF portfolio that would qualify for 
generic listing as an index-based ETF should not affect the 
portfolio's susceptibility to manipulation'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For exchange listing standards to effectively achieve their goals, 
including to effectively address the potential for manipulation of a 
listed ETP, their application cannot be linked to only a single point 
in time (i.e., the time of initial listing). Instead, they must be 
applied on an ongoing basis. The Commission notes that, currently, 
certain provisions within Rule 14.11 impose specific listing 
requirements on an initial basis, without imposing ongoing listing 
requirements that are intended to achieve the same goals as these 
initial listing requirements.\33\ To fill this gap, the proposal would 
specify that certain listing requirements in Rule 14.11 apply both on 
an initial and ongoing basis, rather than only at the time of initial 
listing.\34\ Also, with

[[Page 13539]]

respect to non-generically listed products, the Exchange proposes to 
amend Rule 14.11(a) to state that any of the statements or 
representations in the proposed rule change regarding the index 
composition, the description of the portfolio or reference asset, 
limitations on portfolio holdings or reference assets, dissemination 
and availability of index, reference asset, and intraday indicative 
values (as applicable), or the applicability of Exchange listing rules 
specified in the proposed rule change constitute continued listing 
requirements.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Moreover, certain of the listing requirements do not 
explicitly state that they apply on an ongoing, as well as initial, 
basis. In these cases, the proposal would make explicit that the 
requirements apply both on an initial and ongoing basis. See, e.g., 
proposed changes to Rule 14.11(b)(3)(B)-(C) (making explicit that, 
for Portfolio Depository Receipts, requirements related to index 
methodology and index value dissemination, as well as intraday 
indicative value dissemination, apply on an initial and ongoing 
basis); proposed changes to Rule 14.11(d)(2)(E) (making explicit 
that, for Linked Securities, requirements related to tangible net 
worth and earnings apply on an initial and ongoing basis); proposed 
changes to Rule 14.11(e)(3), Interpretations and Policies .03 
(making explicit that, for Trust Certificates, requirements related 
to the qualifications of a trustee and changes to a trustee apply on 
an initial and ongoing basis).
    \34\ For example, current Rule 14.11(b)(3)(A)(i) sets forth 
requirements for component stocks of an index or portfolio 
underlying a series of generically-listed Portfolio Depository 
Receipts, which apply upon initial listing. These requirements 
include, for example, minimum market value, minimum monthly trading 
volume, and concentration limits for the component stocks. The 
proposal would specify that these requirements apply both on an 
initial and continued basis.
    \35\ The Commission notes that it has approved proposed rule 
changes for the listing and trading of ETPs that included similar 
representations. See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 
77548 (April 6, 2016), 81 FR 21626, 21630 (April 12, 2016) (SR-
NASDAQ-2015-161). The Commission also notes that similar types of 
requirements exist in Rule 14.11. See, e.g., Rule 14.11(b)(3) 
(setting forth, among other things, index composition requirements 
and intraday indicative value dissemination requirements for certain 
generically-listed Portfolio Depository Receipts).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the proposal specifies continued listing requirements for 
products listed pursuant to Rule 14.11, the Commission believes the 
proposal is designed to achieve on a continuing basis the goals of the 
listing requirements, including ensuring that the Exchange lists 
products that are not susceptible to manipulation and maintaining fair 
and orderly markets for the listed products. In particular,\36\ the 
Commission believes that the proposal is designed to ensure that stocks 
with substantial market capitalization and trading volume account for a 
substantial portion of the weight of an index or portfolio underlying a 
listed product; \37\ provide transparency regarding the components of 
an index or portfolio underlying a listed product; \38\ ensure that 
there is adequate liquidity in the listed product itself; \39\ and 
provide timely and fair disclosure of useful information that may be 
necessary to price the listed product.\40\ Moreover, the Commission 
believes that the proposal to require an issuer to notify the Exchange 
of its failures to comply with continued listing requirements would 
supplement the Exchange's own surveillance of the listed products.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See also supra notes 31-32 (noting additional goals of the 
ETP listing standards).
    \37\ For example, as proposed, the requirements under Rule 
14.11(b)(3)(A), including minimum market value and minimum monthly 
trading volume requirements for components of the index or portfolio 
underlying Portfolio Depository Receipts, would apply both on an 
initial and ongoing basis. Also, for non-generically listed 
products, the proposal would provide that statements or 
representations made in the proposed rule changes relating to the 
index composition and the description of the portfolio, among other 
things, constitute continued listing requirements. See proposed 
changes to Rule 14.11(a).
    \38\ For example, as proposed, the requirements under Rule 
14.11(b)(3)(A), including the requirement that components of the 
index or portfolio underlying Portfolio Depository Receipts be 
exchange-listed and NMS stocks, would apply both on an initial and 
ongoing basis.
    \39\ For example, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 
14.11(e)(12)(B) to explicitly state that listing requirements for 
SEEDS apply both on an initial and ongoing basis, including, for 
example, the minimum public distribution and the minimum market 
value of an issue of SEEDS.
    \40\ For example, the proposed changes to Rule 14.11(b)(3)(B)-
(C) would make explicit that the requirements related to the 
dissemination of the value of the index underlying Portfolio 
Depository Receipts and the intraday indicative value for Portfolio 
Depository Receipts apply on an initial and ongoing basis.
    \41\ The Commission notes that the concept of issuer 
notification is not novel. For example, in connection with its 
proposal to adopt generic listing standards for Managed Fund Shares, 
the Exchange stated that, prior to listing pursuant to the generic 
listing standards, an issuer would be required to represent to the 
Exchange that it will advise the Exchange of any failure by a series 
of Managed Fund Shares to comply with the continued listing 
requirements, and, pursuant to its obligations under Section 
19(g)(1) of the Act, the Exchange will surveil for compliance with 
the continued listing requirements. See Securities Exchange Act 
Release No. 78396 (July 22, 2016), 81 FR 49698, 49702 (July 28, 
2016) (SR-BATS-2015-100).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the proposal specifies the delisting procedures for 
products listed pursuant to Rule 14.11. The Commission believes that 
the proposed amendments to Rule 14.12 would provide transparency 
regarding the process that the Exchange will follow if a listed product 
fails to meet its continued listing requirements. Also, as noted above, 
the process surrounding compliance plans already exists in Rule 14.12. 
As a result, the proposed delisting procedures are not novel.
    Finally, the Commission believes that the conforming and technical 
proposed changes do not raise novel issues, are designed to further the 
goals of the listing standards, and provide clarity and consistency in 
the Exchange's rules.
    For the reasons discussed above, the Commission finds that the 
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, is 
consistent with the Act.

IV. Accelerated Approval of Amendment Nos. 1 and 2

    As noted above, in Amendment No. 1, the Exchange: (i) Further 
amended Rule 14.11(a) to require a Company with securities listed under 
Rule 14.11 to provide the Exchange with prompt notification if the 
Company (rather than an Executive Officer of the Company) becomes aware 
of its non-compliance with the requirements of Rule 14.11; (ii) further 
amended Rule 14.11 to reflect that certain listing requirements apply 
on an initial and ongoing basis; (iii) further amended Rule 14.11 to 
consistently state that the Exchange will initiate delisting 
proceedings if continued listing requirements are not maintained; (iv) 
further amended Rule 14.11 to provide that the Exchange would initiate 
delisting proceedings due to an interruption to the dissemination of 
index, reference asset, or intraday indicative values (as applicable to 
the product) only if the interruption persists past the trading day in 
which it occurred; (v) further amended Rule 14.11 to consistently state 
that the Exchange will implement and maintain surveillance procedures 
for the applicable product; and (vi) made other technical, clarifying, 
and conforming changes throughout Rule 14.11. The Commission believes 
that Amendment No. 1 furthers the goals of the proposed rule change as 
discussed above, and enhances consistency between the Exchange's 
proposal and a recently approved proposal from another exchange.\42\ In 
Amendment No. 2, the Exchange specified the implementation date for the 
proposed rule change and made clarifying and technical changes. The 
Commission believes that Amendment No. 2 provides clarity and does not 
alter the substance of the proposed rule change. Accordingly, the 
Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the 
Act,\43\ to approve the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment 
Nos. 1 and 2, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79784 (January 12, 
2017), 82 FR 6664 (January 19, 2017) (SR-NASDAQ-2016-135).
    \43\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Solicitation of Comments on Amendment Nos. 1 and 2

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and 
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether Amendment Nos. 1 
and 2 are consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of 
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to rule-comments@sec.gov. Please include 
File Number SR-BatsBZX-2016-80 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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


[[Page 13540]]


All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BatsBZX-2016-80. 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 Web site (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 Web site 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; the Commission does 
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should 
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All 
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BatsBZX-2016-80 and should 
be submitted on or before April 3, 2017.

VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the 
Act,\44\ that the proposed rule change (SR-BatsBZX-2016-80), as 
modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, be, and hereby is, approved on an 
accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-04817 Filed 3-10-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


