[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 103 (Wednesday, May 29, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24831-24834]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-11236]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85925; File No. SR-NYSEAMER-2019-19]


Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of 
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend 
Rule 967NY

May 23, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of 
1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given 
that on May 10, 2019, NYSE American LLC (``Exchange'') filed with the 
Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed 
rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been 
prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The Commission is 
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change 
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance 
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 967NY (Price Protection--
Orders) to enhance its current price protection mechanisms and adopt 
certain new price protection functionality for orders. The proposed 
rule change is available on the Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at 
the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public 
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 967NY (Price Protection--
Orders) to enhance its current price protection mechanisms and adopt 
certain new price protection functionality for Limit Orders, 
specifically, Price Reasonability Checks.
    The Exchange has in place various price check mechanisms that are 
designed to prevent incoming orders from automatically executing at 
potentially erroneous prices.\4\ These mechanisms are designed to help 
maintain a fair and orderly market by mitigating potential risks 
associated with orders trading at prices that are extreme and 
potentially erroneous. The Exchange proposes to adopt Rule 967NY(c) to 
add new price protection mechanisms for orders to help further prevent 
potentially erroneous executions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See, e.g., Rules 967NY(a) (trading collars) and (b) (limit 
order price filter), Rule 967.1NY (price protection for Market Maker 
quotes).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Price Reasonability Checks
    Proposed Rule 967NY(c) would provide Price Reasonability Checks 
(the ``Price Checks'' or ``Checks'') for Limit Orders based on the 
principle that an option order is in error and should be rejected (or 
canceled) when the same result can be achieved on the market for the 
underlying equity security at a lesser cost.\5\ The proposed Checks are 
based on the consolidated last sale price of the security underlying 
the option, once the security opens for trading (or reopens following a 
Trading Halt).\6\ The Exchange notes that it currently has price checks 
in place for Market Maker quotes that are similar to the checks for 
options orders proposed herein (the ``MM Quote Price Checks'').\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A Limit Order is an order to buy or sell a stated number of 
option contracts at a specified price, or better. See Rule 
900.3NY(b). The proposed Price Checks apply solely to single-leg 
Limit Orders and are not available for Complex Orders. The Exchange 
notes that Complex Orders are subject to separate price protections. 
See Rule 980NY, Commentary .05 (price protection filter) and .06 
(debit/credit reasonability checks).
    \6\ See proposed Rule 967NY(c).
    \7\ See Rule 967.1NY (providing two layers of price protection 
for quotes. The first layer assesses incoming sell quotes against 
the NBB and incoming buy quotes against the NBO; the second layer 
assesses the price of call or put bids against a specified (price) 
benchmark).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Buy Orders Arbitrage Checks
    Proposed Rule 967NY(c)(1) would protect buyers of puts and calls 
from presumptively erroneous executions. A buy order in a put series 
provides the right to sell the underlying security at the strike price, 
which strike price represents the option's maximum value. Proposed Rule 
6.60-O(c)(1)(A) would provide that an order to buy a put would be 
rejected or canceled if the price of the order is equal to or greater 
than the strike price of the option. For example, assume that SeriesA 
is a put series based on Underlying ABC, which has a strike price of 
$50.00. FIRM1 submits a new buy order on SeriesA for $50.00, which 
would be rejected because it is priced equal to the $50.00 strike 
price. Because the Exchange presumes such orders with a price that 
equals or exceeds the strike price of the option to be erroneous, the 
Exchange believes it would be appropriate to reject or cancel such 
orders. In addition to being similar to the MM Quote Check, this 
functionality is also available on at least one other options 
exchange.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Rule 967.1NY(a)(3) (providing in relevant part that 
``[a] Market Maker bid for Put options will be rejected if the price 
of the bid is equal to or greater than the strike price of the 
option''). See also Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc. (``CBOE'') 
Rule 6.14(a)(i)(A) (providing, in relevant part, that quote or buy 
limit orders for a put will be rejected if the price of the quote 
bid or order is equal to or greater than the strike price of the 
option).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A buy order in a call series provides the right to buy the 
underlying security at the strike price. Proposed Rule 967NY(c)(1)(B) 
would provide that an order to buy a call option would be canceled or 
rejected if the price of the order is equal to or greater than the 
consolidated last sale price of the underlying security (the ``last 
sale price''), plus a dollar amount to be determined by the Exchange 
(the ``specified dollar amount'') and announced by Trader Update.\9\ In 
general, a derivative product that conveys the right to buy the 
underlying should not be priced higher than the prevailing value of the 
underlying itself. In that case, a market participant could just 
purchase the underlying at the prevailing value rather than pay a 
larger amount for the call by incurring the option premium. However, 
the Exchange believes a specified dollar amount is reasonable because 
in certain situations, market participants opt to execute certain 
trades (which may be part of a strategy) even if such trades occur for 
a price more than the last sale price.\10\ However, absent the cap

[[Page 24832]]

provided by the specified dollar, such trades could occur at prices 
that are too far away from the last sale price and would be deemed 
potentially erroneous. The Exchange also believes that allowing for the 
specified dollar amount above the last sale price for buy orders in 
call options would help address certain market scenarios, including 
during periods of extreme price volatility. In addition to being 
similar to the MM Quote Check, this functionality is also available on 
at least one other options exchange.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Exchange anticipates that it would initially set the 
specified dollar amount to $0.50 and whether and when that amount 
changes would depend upon the interest and/or behavior of market 
participants.
    \10\ A small incremental allowance outside of the last sale 
price allows for a small premium to offset commissions associated 
with trading and may incentivize participants to take the other side 
of trades at or slightly outside of the last sale price. For the 
participant looking to close out their position, it may be 
financially beneficial to pay a small premium and close out the 
position rather than carry such position to expiration and take 
delivery. The purpose of this rule change is not to impede current 
order handling but to ensure execution prices are within a 
reasonable range of the last sale price.
    \11\ See Rule 967.1NY(a)(2) (providing in relevant part that 
``Market Maker bids for Call options will be rejected if the price 
of the bid is equal to or greater than the price of the underlying 
security''). See CBOE Rule 6.14(a)(i)(B) (providing, in relevant 
part, that quote or buy limit orders for a call will be rejected if 
``the quote bid or order is equal to or greater than the 
consolidated last sale price of the underlying security'' for equity 
and ETF options). CBOE also applies this check to index options 
based on the last disseminated value of the underlying index, which 
check the Exchange is not proposing in this filing. Unlike the 
current proposal, CBOE does not retain discretion to cancel/reject 
orders that are a specified dollar amount greater than the strike 
price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following examples illustrate this proposed functionality. For 
each example SeriesA is a call series based on Underlying ABC, which 
has a last sale price of $50.00.
    Example 1: The Exchange-determined specified dollar amount is 
$0.00, which means orders equal to or greater than $50.00 will be 
rejected (i.e., $50.00 (last sale) + $0.00 (specified dollar amount)). 
FIRM1 submits an order to buy a call in SeriesA for $51.00, which would 
be rejected because it is greater than $50.00. Similarly, if FIRM1 
submits an order to buy a call in SeriesA for $50.00 during pre-open, 
the order would be accepted and held until series opens. When SeriesA 
opens, the order would be rejected because it is equal to $50.00.
    Example 2: The Exchange-determined specified dollar amount is 
$5.00, which means orders equal to or greater than $55.00 will be 
rejected (i.e., $50.00 (last sale) + $5.00 (specified dollar amount)). 
FIRM1 submits an order to buy a call in SeriesA for $55.00, which would 
be rejected because it is equal to $55.00. However, if the FIRM1 were 
to submit an order to buy a call in SeriesA for $50.00, this would be 
accepted because $50.00 is less than $55.00.
Sell Orders Intrinsic Value Checks
    Proposed Rule 967NY(c)(2) would protect sellers of calls and puts 
based on the ``Intrinsic Value'' of an option, which is measured as the 
difference between the strike price and the last sale price. A sell 
order in a call series creates an obligation to sell the underlying 
security at the strike price and a sell order in a put series creates 
an obligation to buy the underlying security at the strike price. Thus, 
the Intrinsic Value for a call option is equal to the last sale price 
minus the strike price; whereas the Intrinsic Value for a put option is 
equal to the strike price minus the last sale price.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See proposed Rule 967NY(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 967NY(c)(2)(A) would provide that orders to sell for 
both calls and puts would be canceled or rejected as presumptively 
erroneous if the price of the order is equal to or lower than its 
Intrinsic Value, minus a threshold percentage (the ``threshold 
percentage'') to be determined by the Exchange and announced by Trader 
Update.\13\ The Exchange believes having a threshold percentage is 
reasonable because in certain situations market participants willingly 
want to execute certain trading strategies even if such trades occur 
for a price less than the Intrinsic Value.\14\ However, absent the cap 
provided by the threshold percentage, such trades could occur at prices 
that are too far away from the Intrinsic Value and would be deemed 
potentially erroneous. In addition, the threshold percentage would 
allow the Exchange to account for market scenarios, including during 
periods of extreme price volatility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Exchange anticipates that it would initially set the 
threshold percentage to ten percent (10%) and whether and when that 
amount changes would depend upon the interest and/or behavior of 
market participants.
    \14\ A small incremental allowance outside of the Intrinsic 
Value allows for a small premium to offset commissions associated 
with trading and may incentivize participants to take the other side 
of trades at or slightly outside of the Intrinsic Value. For the 
participant looking to close out their position, it may be 
financially beneficial to pay a small premium and close out the 
position rather than carry such position to expiration and take 
delivery. The purpose of this rule change is not to impede current 
order handling but to ensure execution prices are within a 
reasonable range of the Intrinsic Value of the option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following examples illustrate this proposed functionality.
    Example 1: SeriesA is a call series based on Underlying ABC, which 
has a last sale price of $220.00 and a strike price of $210.00. The 
Exchange-determined threshold percentage is 0%, which means the 
Intrinsic Value is $10.00. FIRM1 submits a new sell order on SeriesA 
for $9.90, which would be rejected because it is below the threshold of 
$10.00 ($220.00-$210.00) * (100-0%)/100.
    Example 2: SeriesA is a put series based on Underlying ABC, which 
has a last sale price of $210.00 and a strike price of $220.00. The 
Exchange-determined threshold percentage is 0%, which means the 
Intrinsic Value is $10.00. FIRM1 submits a sell order on SeriesA for 
$10.00, which would be rejected because it is equal to the threshold of 
$10.00 ($220.00-$210.00) * (100-0%)/100.
    Example 3: SeriesA is a call series based on Underlying ABC, which 
has a last sale price of $220.00 and a strike price of $210.00. The 
Exchange-determined threshold percentage is 10%, which means the 
Intrinsic Value is $9.00. FIRM1 submits a sell order on SeriesA for 
$9.90, which would be accepted because it is above the threshold of 
$9.00 ($220.00-$210.00) * (100-10%)/100.
Excluded From Price Checks
    Consistent with the operation of the MM Quote Price Checks,\15\ 
proposed Commentary .01 to the Rule would provide that the Price Checks 
would not apply to ``(i) any options series for which the underlying 
security has a non-standard cash or stock deliverable as part of a 
corporate action; (ii) any options series for which the underlying 
security is identified as over-the counter (`OTC' or `Pink Sheets'); 
(iii) any option series on an index; and (iv) Binary Return Derivatives 
(`ByRDs')'' (the ``Excluded Options'').\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Rule 967.1NY, Commentary .01.
    \16\ See proposed Rule 967NY, Commentary .01. See also proposed 
Rule 967NY(c) (providing that the Price Checks would apply, ``except 
as provided in Commentary .01 to this Rule'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed change would enable the Exchange to implement the 
Price Checks and apply the Checks to securities for which there is 
reliable price data for the underlying security to perform the Check. 
Specifically, like the MM Quote Checks, the Exchange would exclude any 
options series for which the underlying security has a non-standard 
cash or stock deliverable as part of a corporate action because the 
last sale information would not have been adjusted for the non-standard 
deliverable, and would therefore be unreliable. Also, like the MM Quote 
Checks, options whose underlying security is traded OTC or Pink Sheets 
would be considered Excluded Options because the last sale information 
for such underlying securities is not available on an active market 
data feed. The Exchange would also exclude any options series overlying 
a stock index because Exchange does not subscribe to

[[Page 24833]]

receive last sale information for such indices. Moreover, like the MM 
Quote Checks, the Exchange would exclude options on ByRDs because ByRDS 
track a value weighted average price (``VWAP'') and not the last sale 
of the underlying security.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See generally Section 17, Binary Return Derivatives, Rules 
900ByRDs-980NYByRDs. ByRDs are European-style option contracts on 
individual stocks, exchange-traded funds and Index-Linked Securities 
that have a fixed return in cash based on a set strike price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the MM Quote Checks, the Exchange also proposes to 
exempt from the Price Check any option series for which the Exchange 
determines it is necessary to exclude underlying securities in the 
interests of maintaining a fair and orderly market.\18\ The Exchange 
believes this proposed change would enable the Exchange to exclude 
option series, other than Excluded Options, from the Price Checks if 
the Exchange determines that the price protection feature would not 
function for the purpose of preventing erroneous orders.\19\ For 
example, if the last sale is zero, for whatever reason, the Exchange 
would have the discretion to forego the price check for a particular 
order. Similarly, if there was some other event or change that impacted 
the underlying security (for example if there was a change to the 
ticker symbol for the underlying security), the Exchange would retain 
discretion to exclude the affected options series from the Price Checks 
The Exchange has retained discretion to maintain a fair and orderly 
market for the MM Quote Checks and notes that another options exchange 
likewise has retained discretion for similar checks as relates to 
orders.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See proposed Rule 967NY Commentary .01(v).
    \19\ The Exchange would document, retain, and periodically 
review any Exchange decision to not apply the Price Checks, 
including the reason for the decision.
    \20\ See Rule 967.1NY, Commentary .01. CBOE Rule 6.14(a)(ii) 
(providing that CBOE ``may determine not to apply to a class either 
the put check in subparagraph (i)(A) or the call check in 
subparagraph (i)(B) above if a senior official at the Exchange's 
Help Desk determines the applicable check should not apply in the 
interest of maintaining a fair and orderly market'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Technical Change to Limit Order Filter
    Rule 967NY(b) describes the Limit Order Filter, which is another 
price protection that rejects limit orders that are priced a specified 
percentage away from the contra-side NBB or NBO feature offered by 
Exchange. The current Rule provides that limit orders received prior to 
the open ``will be rejected immediately before the Exchange conducts a 
Trading Auction of Rule 952NY.'' The Exchange proposes to clarify that 
such orders are not ``rejected immediately,'' but are instead accepted 
and then ``canceled'' before the Exchange conducts the Trading Auction 
``per Rule 952NY''--as ``of Rule 952NY'' is not grammatically 
correct.\21\ These proposed textual changes would more accurately 
reflect the treatment of such orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\See proposed Rule 967NY(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation
    The Exchange will announce by Trader Update the implementation date 
of the proposed rule change.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 
6(b) of the Act,\22\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 
6(b)(5) of the Act,\23\ in particular, in that it is designed to 
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just 
and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and 
coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, 
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions 
in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a 
free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to 
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed Price Checks 
would protect investors and the public interest and maintain fair and 
orderly markets by mitigating potential risks associated with market 
participants entering orders at unintended prices and orders trading at 
prices that are potentially erroneous, which may likely have resulted 
from human or operational error. The proposed Price Checks of the 
reasonability of Limit Order prices would assist in the maintenance of 
a fair and orderly market and protect investors by rejecting (or 
canceling) orders that exceed the corresponding benchmark. With regard 
to the proposed use of the specified dollar amount (as relates to buy 
orders for call options) and the threshold percentage (as relates to 
sell orders for puts and calls), the Exchange notes that in certain 
situations, market participants may opt to execute certain trades (that 
may be part of a strategy) even if such trades occur outside/away from 
the last sale price of the underlying or intrinsic value at seemingly 
erroneous prices. The Exchange believes it is appropriate to provide 
market participants flexibility to allow them to execute these trading 
strategies and therefore to adopt a buffer to permit the execution of 
such trades.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Nasdaq ISE, LLC has adopted a buffer when determining the 
calculation of the minimum/maximum values for certain complex order 
strategies. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83464 (June 19, 
2018), 83 FR 29583 (June 25, 2018) (SR-ISE-2018-55).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to have this 
flexibility to determine times when the check should not apply to 
respond to market events, such as times of extreme price volatility. 
This assists the Exchange's maintenance of a fair and orderly market, 
which ultimately removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a 
free and open market and protects investors and the public interest.
    With regard to the Excluded Options, the Exchange believes that 
where no reliable pricing data is available, it is appropriate to 
exclude such options from the Price Checks. Without such pricing 
information, there is risk that the Exchange may cancel or reject 
appropriately priced Limit Orders, which could negatively impact market 
participants. Further, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to have 
the flexibility to disable the Price Checks in response to a market 
event (for example, if dissemination of data was delayed and resulting 
in unreliable underlying values) to maintain a fair and orderly market. 
This will promote just and equitable principles of trade and ultimately 
protect investors.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed Price Checks, which are 
substantially similar to the MM Quote Checks, would further mitigate 
the risk to market participants that orders are executed at erroneous 
prices. Specifically, the Exchange believes that the Price Checks, 
which are responsive to member input, will facilitate transactions in 
securities and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market by 
providing ATP Holders with additional functionality that will assist 
them with managing their risk. Thus, the Exchange is proposing the 
Price Checks for the benefit of, and in consultation with, ATP Holders. 
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change will help the Exchange 
to maintain a fair and orderly market, and provide a valuable service 
to investors.
Technical Changes
    The Exchange notes that the proposed change to Rule 967NY(b) 
regarding the treatment of certain orders subject to the Limit Order 
Filter would provide clarity and transparency to Exchange rules and 
would promote just and equitable principles of trade and remove 
impediments to, and perfect the

[[Page 24834]]

mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system. The 
proposed rule amendments would also provide internal consistency within 
Exchange rules and operate to protect investors and the investing 
public by making the Exchange rules easier to navigate and comprehend.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will 
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate 
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change 
adds price protection mechanisms for option orders of all ATP Holders 
submitted to the Exchange to help further prevent potentially erroneous 
executions, which benefits all market participants. The Price Checks 
apply in same manner to all ATP Holders that submit orders that are 
subject to the Price Checks. The Exchange believes the proposed rule 
change would provide market participants with additional protection 
from anomalous or erroneous executions.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed enhancement to the 
existing price protections would impose a burden on competing options 
exchanges. Rather, it provides ATP Holders with the opportunity to 
avail themselves of similar protections that are currently available on 
the Exchange for Market Maker quotes and on another exchange for 
orders.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See supra nn. 8, 11, 15, 19-20, 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed 
clarifications to Limit Order Filter would impose any burden on 
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the 
purposes of the Act as these changes are not intended to address any 
competitive issues and would instead add more specificity, clarity and 
transparency regarding this functionality.

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) 
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public 
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) 
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or 
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become 
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \26\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \27\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule 
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule 
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or 
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or 
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to rule-comments@sec.gov. Please include 
File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2019-19 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-2019-19. 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-2019-19 and should be submitted 
on or before June 19, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\28\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-11236 Filed 5-28-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


