4. Endocrine Effects There is no evidence to indicate that pyrethrin exposure results in endocrine toxicity in mammalian species. Studies on the effects of pyrethrins on avian reproduction were not submitted to the Agency; thus, no conclusion can be made regarding the potential for pyrethrins to cause endocrine disruption in avian species. Regarding the potential for pyrethrins to produce endocrine toxicity in aquatic species, reproductive effects were observed in full life cycle studies in daphnids. Exposure to 2.0 ppb resulted in reproductive effects, including the reduced number of offspring produced per adult. A chronic early life stage study conducted using the fathead minnow showed that exposure to 3.0 ppb significantly reduced hatching success, length and wet weight of freshwater fish. Although limited information is available, based on the reproductive effects observed in freshwater fish and daphnia, pyrethrins exhibited effects that may be indicative of endocrine disrupting activity.

Under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act ( FQPA), EPA is required to develop a screening program to determine whether certain substances ( including all pesticide active and other ingredients) " may have an effect in humans that is similar to an effect produced by a naturally occurring estrogen, or other such endocrine effects as the Administrator may designate." Following the recommendations of its Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing Advisory Committee ( EDSTAC), EPA determined that there was scientific basis for including, as part of the program, the androgen and thyroid hormone systems, in addition to the estrogen hormone system. EPA also adopted EDSTAC's recommendation that the Program include evaluations of potential effects in wildlife. For pesticide chemicals, EPA will use FIFRA and, to the extent that effects in wildlife may help determine whether a substance may have an effect in humans, FFDCA authority to require the wildlife evaluations. As the science develops and resources allow, screening of additional hormone systems may be added to the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program ( EDSP). When the appropriate screening and or testing protocols being considered under the Agency's Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program have been developed, pyrethrin may be subjected to additional screening and or testing to better characterize effects related to endocrine disruption.  102 5. Threatened and Endangered Species Concerns The acute level of concern ( LOCs) is exceeded for endangered and/ or threatened species of freshwater fish and invertebrates and are associated with the agricultural uses of pyrethrins. Based on a probit slope analysis to calculate the chance of an individual event corresponding to the freshwater fish, the estimated individual mortality associated with the calculated RQ values ( 0.24 to 1.10) range from 1 in 3.34 x 1014 to 1 in 4.17 x 108 . For the freshwater invertebrate, the estimated individual mortality associated with the calculated RQ values ( 0.03  0.41) range from 1 in 1.0 x 1016 to 1 in 8.44 x 109.

The acute level of concern ( LOCs) is exceeded for endangered and/ or threatened ( listed) species of estuarine/ marine fish and invertebrates that live in the water column and are associated with the agricultural and mosquito abatement uses of pyrethrins. For estuarine/ marine fish, the estimated individual mortality associated with the calculated RQ values ( 0.24 to 1.10 ) is 1.0 X 1016. For estuarine/ marine invertebrates for agriculture and mosquito abatement uses, the probit slope analysis was completed for both active ingredient and formulated product. Based on the default slope estimate of 4.5, the corresponding chance of individual mortality for estuarine/ marine invertebrates following exposure from the formulation is 1 in 4.17 x 108; and based on the slope estimate of 4.1, the corresponding chance of individual mortality for estuarine/ marine invertebrates following exposure to the technical grade active ingredient is 1 in 2.08 x 107.

In terrestrial environments, the Agency does not expect acute risk concerns for endangered mammals or avian species.

Listed Species a. Taxonomic Groups Potentially at Risk For the aquatic species ( fish and invertebrates) evaluated in this risk assessment, the acute RQs exceeded the LOC for listed species for many of the crop uses and exposure scenarios considered. The registrant must provide information on the proximity of Federally listed endangered species to the pyrethrins use sites. This requirement may be satisfied in one of three ways: 1) having membership in the FIFRA Endangered Species Task Force ( Pesticide Registration Notice 2000 2); 2) citing FIFRA Endangered Species Task Force data; or 3) independently producing these data, provided the information is of sufficient quality to meet FIFRA requirements. The information will be used by the OPP Endangered Species Protection Program to develop recommendations to avoid adverse effects to listed species.

b. Action Area For listed species assessment purposes, the action area is considered to be the area affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action. At the initial screening level, the risk assessment considers broadly described taxonomic groups and so conservatively assumes that listed species within those broad groups are collocated with the pesticide treatment area. This means that terrestrial plants and wildlife are assumed to be located on or adjacent to the treated site and aquatic organisms are assumed to be located in a surface water body adjacent to the treated site. The assessment also assumes that the listed species are located within an assumed area which has the relatively highest potential exposure to the pesticide, and that exposures are likely to decrease with  103 distance from the treatment area. Section III Analysis ( A. Use Characterization) of this risk assessment presents the pesticide use sites that are used to establish initial collocation of species with treatment areas.

If the assumptions associated with the screening level action area result in RQs that are below the listed species LOCs, a " no effect" determination conclusion is made with respect to listed species in that taxa, and no further refinement of the action area is necessary. Furthermore, RQs below the listed species LOCs for a given taxonomic group indicate no concern for indirect effects upon listed species that depend upon the taxonomic group covered by the RQ as a resource. However, in situations where the screening assumptions lead to RQs in excess of the listed species LOCs for a given taxonomic group, a potential for a " may affect" conclusion exists and may be associated with direct effects on listed species belonging to that taxonomic group or may extend to indirect effects upon listed species that depend upon that taxonomic group as a resource. In such cases, additional information on the biology of listed species, the locations of these species, and the locations of use sites could be considered to determine the extent to which screening assumptions regarding an action area apply to a particular listed organism. These subsequent refinement steps could consider how this information would impact the action area for a particular listed organism and may potentially include areas of exposure that are downwind and downstream of the pesticide use site.

c. Indirect Effects Analysis The Agency acknowledges that pesticides have the potential to exert indirect effects upon the listed organisms by, for example, perturbing forage or prey availability, altering the extent of nesting habitat, and creating gaps in the food chain. In conducting a screen for indirect effects, direct effect LOCs for each taxonomic group are used to make inferences concerning the potential for indirect effects upon listed species that rely upon non endangered organisms in these taxonomic groups as resources critical to their life cycle.

Because screening level acute RQs for mammals exceed the listed species acute LOCs, the Agency uses the dose response relationship from the toxicity study used for calculating the RQ to estimate the probability of acute effects associated with an exposure equivalent to the EEC ( see Probit Analysis below). This information serves as a guide to establish the need for and extent of additional analysis that may be performed using Services provided " species profiles" as well as evaluations of the geographical and temporal nature of the exposure to ascertain if a " not likely to adversely affect" determination can be made. The degree to which additional analyses are performed is commensurate with the predicted probability of adverse effects from the comparison of the dose response information with the EECs. The greater the probability that exposures will produce effects on a taxa, the greater the concern for potential indirect effects for listed species dependent upon that taxa, and therefore, the more intensive the analysis on the potential listed species of concern, their locations relative to the use site, and information regarding the use scenario ( e. g., timing, frequency, and geographical extent of pesticide application).

Probit Slope Analysis The probit slope response relationship is evaluated to calculate the chance of an individual event corresponding to the listed species acute LOCs. If information is unavailable to estimate a slope for a particular study, a default slope assumption of 4.5 is used as per original Agency assumptions of typical slope cited in Urban and Cook ( 1986).  104 Freshwater fish After an analysis of raw data from the acute toxicity studies ( MRID 430823 03 and 430823 04) with Rainbow Trout, one slope estimate was determined. A default slope of 4.5 was used for data from MRID 430823 03 ( FEK 99 as active ingredient) and a slope of 6 was used for data from MRID 430823 04 ( formulated product, pyrenone crop spray). Based on the default slope estimate of 4.5, the corresponding estimate chance of individual mortality for freshwater fish following pyrethrins exposure is 1 in 4.17 x 108. The slope from the other study ( MRID 430823 04) is 6 and the estimate of chance of individual mortality following pyrethrins exposure is 1 in 3.34 X 1014. The lower and upper bound estimate of the slope from MRID 430823 04 are  0.57 and 12.59, which provided an individual chance mortality range of 1 in 13 and 1 in 1.0 X 1016, respectively. RQ exceedances that occurred for freshwater fish, ranged from 0.07 to 0.5 compared to the LOC ( 0.05). The estimated individual mortality associated with the calculated RQ values ( 0.07 to 0.5 ) range from 1 in 3.34 X 1014 to 1 in 4.17 x 108.

Estuarine/ marine fish After an analysis of raw data from the acute toxicity studies with Sheepshead Minnow ( MRID 430823 07 and 430823 08) two slope estimates were determined. The slope from the study done with the technical grade active ingredient ( MRID 430823 04) is 13.7 and the estimate of chance of individual mortality following pyrethrins exposure is 1.0 X 1016. The lower and upper bound estimate of that slope are 6.95 and 19.41, which provided an individual chance mortality range of 1 in 1.0 X 1016 for both bounds. The slope from the study done with the formulated product ( MRID 430823 08) is 8.35 and the estimate of chance of individual mortality following pyrethrins exposure is 1.0 X 1016. The lower and upper bound estimate of that slope are 5.08 and 11.63, which provided an individual chance mortality range of 1 in 2.56 X 1010 to 1 in 1.0 X 1016. RQ exceedances that occurred for estuarine/ marine fish, ranged from 0.05 to 0.17 compared to the LOC ( 0.05). The estimated individual mortality associated with the calculated RQ values ( 0.05 to 0.17 ) is 1.0 X 1016.

Freshwater invertebrates After an analysis of raw data from the acute toxicity studies with daphnids ( MRID 430823 05 and 430823 06) slope estimate were identified. A default slope of 10.3 was used from associated with the technical grade active ingredient ( MRID 430823 05) and a slope of 6.7 was taken from data with the formulated product ( MRID 430823 06). Based on the slope estimate of 10.3, the corresponding estimate chance of individual mortality for freshwater invertebrates following pyrethrins exposure is 1 in 1.0 x 1016; and based on the slope estimate of 6.7, the corresponding chance of individual mortality for freshwater invertebrates following exposure to the formulated product is 1 in 8.44 x 109. The lower and upper bound estimate of the slopes from MRID 430823 05 and MRID 430823 06 range from 14.2 to 9.8 and from 6.43 to 3.3 respectively. These slopes provided an individual chance mortality range of 1 in 1.0 x 1016 ( technical grade active ingredient) to 1 in 1.0 X 1016 to 1 in 1.07 x 105 ( formulation). RQ exceedances that occurred for freshwater invertebrates, ranged from 0.05 0.24 ( formulation) to 0.03 0.24 ( TGAI) compared to the LOC ( 0.05). The estimated individual mortality associated with the calculated RQ values ( 0.03  0.41) range from 1 in 1.0 X 1016 to 1 in 8.44 x 109.

Estuarine/ marine invertebrates After an analysis of raw data from the acute toxicity studies with Mysid shrimp ( MRID 430823 11 and 430823 12) slope estimates were identified. A default slope of 4.5 was used for data associated with the formulated product ( MRID 430823 12) because there was no slope estimate from the study. A slope of 4.1was taken from data with the technical grade active ingredient ( MRID 430823 11). Based on the  105 default slope estimate of 4.5, the corresponding chance of individual mortality for estuarine/ marine invertebrates following exposure from the formulation is 1 in 4.17 x 108; and based on the slope estimate of 4.1, the corresponding chance of individual mortality for estuarine/ marine invertebrates following exposure to the technical grade active ingredient is 1 in 2.08 x 107. The lower and upper bound estimate of the slopes from MRID 430823 11 range from 0.27 to 7.93. These slopes provided an individual chance mortality range of 1 in 2.8 to 1 in 1.0 X 1016. RQ exceedances that occurred for estuarine/ marine invertebrates, ranged from 19.79 2.50 ( formulation) to 1.98 0.25 ( TGAI) compared to the LOC ( 0.05). The estimated individual mortality associated with the calculated RQ values ( 0.25 to 19.79) range from 1 in 4.17 x 108 to 1 in 1 in 2.08 x 107.

d. Critical Habitat In the evaluation of pesticide effects on designated critical habitat, consideration is given to the physical and biological features ( constituent elements) of a critical habitat identified by the U. S Fish and Wildlife and National Marine Fisheries Services as essential to the conservation of a listed species and which may require special management considerations or protection. The evaluation of impacts for a screening level pesticide risk assessment focuses on the biological features that are constituent elements and is accomplished using the screening level taxonomic analysis ( risk quotients, RQs) and listed species levels of concern ( LOCs) that are used to evaluate direct and indirect effects to listed organisms. This screening level risk assessment for critical habitat provides a listing of potential biological features that, if they are constituent elements of one or more critical habitats, would be of potential concern.

C. Description of Assumptions, Uncertainties, Strengths, and Limitations 1. Assumptions and Limitations Related to Exposure For All Taxa There are a number of areas of uncertainty in the aquatic and terrestrial risk assessments. The toxicity assessment for terrestrial and aquatic animals is limited by the number of species tested in the available toxicity studies. Use of toxicity data on representative species does not provide information on the potential variability in susceptibility to acute and chronic exposures.

This screening level risk assessment relies on labeled statements of the maximum rate of pyrethrins application, the maximum number of applications, and the shortest interval between applications. Together, these assumptions constitute a maximum use scenario. The frequency at which actual uses approach these maximums is dependant on resistance to the insecticide, timing of applications, and market forces.

2. Assumptions and Limitations Related to Exposure For Aquatic Species For an acute risk assessment, there is no averaging time for exposure. An instantaneous peak concentration, with a 1 in 10 year return frequency, is assumed. The use of the instantaneous peak assumes that instantaneous exposure is of sufficient duration to elicit acute effects comparable to those observed over more protracted exposure periods tested in the laboratory, typically 48 to 96 hours. In the absence of data regarding time to toxic event analyses and latent responses to instantaneous exposure, the degree to which risk is overestimated cannot be quantified. However, this constitutes a conservative approach in the analysis of a relatively labile chemical that is used in multiple scenarios. For PRZM/ EXAMS, thirteen scenarios were selected to represent a variety of uses, and use sites within the Continental US. Furthermore, additional special runs were performed to represent typical application interval, and to distinguish spray drift from runoff.  106 3. Assumptions and Limitations Related to Exposure For Terrestrial Species The data available to support the exposure assessment for pyrethrins is substantially complete, with the exception of a foliar dissipation study, which is an input variable for Tier 1 modeling of risks to birds and mammals ( i. e., T REX). The terrestrial modeling was conducted with a foliar half life of 1  14 days, which represent values calculated for phenothrin and pyrethrin, respectively, and may not be a realistic foliar half life for this compound. Photolysis data ( both aqueous and soil) suggest that pyrethrins undergo photolysis in the environment rapidly with half lives of several hours to about a day. Aerboic biodegradation also occurs rapidly with half lives o the order of several days. Therefore, the 35 day half life may be too high.

For screening terrestrial risk assessments, a generic bird or mammal is assumed to occupy either the treated field or adjacent areas receiving pesticide at a rate commensurate with the treatment rate on the field. The actual habitat requirements of any particular terrestrial species are not considered, and it is assumed that species occupy, exclusively and permanently, the treated area being modeled. This assumption leads to a maximum level of exposure in the risk assessment.

Screening level risk assessments for spray applications of pesticides consider dietary exposure alone. Other routes of exposure, not considered in this assessment, are discussed below:

Incidental soil ingestion exposure This risk assessment does not consider incidental soil ingestion. Available data suggests that up to 15% of the diet can consist of incidentally ingested soil depending on the species and feeding strategy. Since pyrethrins may adsorb to soils, this may be an important exposure pathway.

Inhalation exposure The screening risk assessment does not consider inhalation exposure. Such exposure may occur through three potential sources: ( 1) spray material in droplet form at the time of application ( 2) vapor phase pesticide volatilizing from treated surfaces, and ( 3) airborne particulate ( soil, vegetative material, and pesticide dusts).

Available data suggest that inhalation exposure at the time of application is not an appreciable route of exposure for birds. According to research on mallards and bobwhite quail, respirable particle size in birds ( particles reaching the lung) is limited to a maximum diameter of 2 to 5 microns. The spray droplet spectra covering the majority of pesticide application situations ( AgDrift model scenarios for very fine to coarse droplet applications) suggests that less than 1% of the applied material is within the respirable particle size.

Theoretically, inhalation of pesticide active ingredient in the vapor phase may be another source of exposure for some pesticides under some exposure situations. However, considering the low vapor pressure value, it is very unlikely that pyrethrins will exist in the gaseous phase at levels high enough to cause any adverse effects via inhalation.

The impact from exposure to dusts contaminated with the pesticide cannot be assessed generically as partitioning issues related to application site soils and chemical properties render the exposure potential from this route highly situation specific.  107 Dermal Exposure The screening assessment does not consider dermal exposure, except as it is indirectly included in calculations of RQs based on lethal doses per unit of pesticide treated area. Dermal exposure may occur through three potential sources: ( 1) direct application of spray to terrestrial wildlife in the treated area or within the drift footprint, ( 2) incidental contact with contaminated vegetation, or ( 3) contact with contaminated water or soil.

The available measured data related to wildlife dermal contact with pesticides are extremely limited. The Agency is actively pursuing modeling techniques to account for dermal exposure via direct application of spray and by incidental contact with vegetation.

Drinking Water Exposure Drinking water exposure to a pesticide active ingredient may be the result of consumption of surface water or consumption of the pesticide in dew or other water on the surfaces of treated vegetation. For pesticide active ingredients with a potential to dissolve in runoff, puddles on the treated field may contain the chemical. Given that pyrethrins are not soluble in water and do adsorb appreciably to suspended solids and sediment in the water column, there exists the potential for exposure to pyrethrins from drinking water.

Dietary Intake  The Differences Between Laboratory and Field Conditions The acute and chronic characterization of risk rely on comparisons of wildlife dietary residues with LC50 or NOAEC values expressed in concentrations of pesticides in laboratory feed. These comparisons assume that ingestion of food items in the field occurs at rates commensurate with those in the laboratory. Although the screening assessment process adjusts dry weight estimates of food intake to reflect the increased mass in fresh weight wildlife food intake estimates, it does not allow for gross energy and assimilative efficiency differences between wildlife food items and laboratory feed.

On gross energy content alone, direct comparison of a laboratory dietary concentration based effects threshold to a fresh weight pesticide residue estimate would result in an underestimation of field exposure by food consumption by a factor of 1.25  2.5 for most food items. Only for seeds would the direct comparison of dietary threshold to residue estimate lead to an overestimate of exposure.

Differences in assimilative efficiency between laboratory and wild diets suggest that current screening assessment methods do not account for a potentially important aspect of food requirements. Depending upon species and dietary matrix, bird assimilation of wild diet energy ranges from 23  80%, and mammal's assimilation ranges from 41  85% ( U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1993). If it is assumed that laboratory chow is formulated to maximize assimilative efficiency ( e. g., a value of 85%), a potential for underestimation of exposure may exist by assuming that consumption of food in the wild is comparable with consumption during laboratory testing. In the screening process, exposure may be underestimated because metabolic rates are not related to food consumption.

Finally, the screening procedure does not account for situations where the feeding rate may be above or below requirements to meet free living metabolic requirements. Gorging behavior is a possibility under some specific wildlife scenarios ( e. g., bird migration) where the food intake rate may be greatly increased. Kirkwood ( 1983) has suggested that an upper bound limit to this behavior might be the typical intake rate multiplied by a factor of 5.  108 In contrast is the potential for avoidance, operationally defined as animals responding to the presence of noxious chemicals in their food by reducing consumption of treated dietary elements. This response is seen in nature where herbivores avoid plant secondary compounds.

4. Assumptions and Limitations Related to Effects Assessment The data available to support the aquatic and terrestrial effects assessment is incomplete. Chronic toxicity studies with freshwater organisms show that the most sensitive endpoint is growth ( length and dry weight) for fish and reproduction for invertebrates. No data were submitted to evaluate the chronic risk to estuarine/ marine fish or invertebrates. Since pyrethrins tend to partition to the sediment compartment data regarding the toxicity of pyrethrins to sediment dwelling organisms is important.

Pyrethrins appear to be practically non toxic to avian species on a subacute oral and dietary basis. Chronic avian risk could not be evaluated because no reproductive toxicity data were submitted. Toxicity studies with rats suggest that pyrethrins can be categorized as slightly toxic to small mammals on an acute oral basis. Acute toxicity studies with honey bees show that pyrethrins are highly toxic on both a contact and an oral basis.

Age class and sensitivity of effects thresholds It is generally recognized that test organism age may have a significant impact on the observed sensitivity to a toxicant. The screening risk assessment acute toxicity data for fish are collected on juvenile fish between 0.1 and 5 grams. Aquatic invertebrate acute testing is performed on recommended immature age classes ( e. g., first instar for daphnids, second instar for amphipods, stoneflies and mayflies, and third instar for midges). Similarly, acute dietary testing with birds is also performed on juveniles, with mallard being 5 10 days old and quail 10 14 days old.

Testing of juveniles may overestimate toxicity at older age classes for pesticidal active ingredients, that act directly ( without metabolic transformation) because younger age classes may not have the enzymatic systems associated with detoxifying xenobiotics. The screening risk assessment has no current provisions for a generally applied method that accounts for this uncertainty. In so far as the available toxicity data may provide ranges of sensitivity information with respect to age class, the risk assessment uses the most sensitive life stage information as the conservative screening endpoint.

Use of the Most Sensitive Species Tested Although the screening risk assessment relies on a selected toxicity endpoint from the most sensitive species tested, it does not necessarily mean that the selected toxicity endpoints reflect sensitivity of the most sensitive species existing in a given environment. The relative position of the most sensitive species tested in the distribution of all possible species is a function of the overall variability among species to a particular chemical. In the case of listed species, there is uncertainty regarding the relationship of the listed species' sensitivity and the most sensitive species tested.

The Agency is not limited to a base set of surrogate toxicity information in establishing risk assessment conclusions. The Agency also considers toxicity data on non standard test species when available.

5. Assumptions Associated With the Acute LOCs The risk characterization section of the assessment document includes an evaluation of the potential for  109 individual effects at an exposure level equivalent to the LOC. This evaluation is based on the median lethal dose estimate and dose/ response relationship established for the effects study corresponding to each taxonomic group for which the LOCs are exceeded.

V. Literature Cited For list of literature cited, refer to Appendix K.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT The Environmental Fate and Effects Division would like to thank Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. ( SERA), and Syracuse Research Corporation for their assistance in developing this pyrethrins risk assessment. Thanks to the following persons for their collaboration in making this product: Antonio Quiñones Rivera, Mario Citra, Molly Ramsey, Tim Negley, and Phil Goodrum.


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 225 (Thursday, November 21, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64359-64363]
[FR Doc No: 2019-25207]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87550; File No. SR-NYSEAMER-2019-48]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Exchange Rules 1.1E and 7.29E To Eliminate the Delay Mechanism and
Amend Exchange Rule 7.31E and Related Exchange Rules To Re-Introduce
Previously-Approved Order Types and Modifiers

November 15, 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 November 4, 2019, NYSE American LLC (``NYSE American'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``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 Rules 1.1E and 7.29E to eliminate
the Delay Mechanism and amend Rule 7.31E and related rules to re-
introduce previously-approved order types and modifiers. 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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to decommission its Delay Mechanism and re-
introduce orders and modifiers that were eliminated in connection with
launching the Delay Mechanism. To effect these changes, the Exchange
proposes to amend Rules 1.1E and 7.29E to eliminate the Delay Mechanism
and amend Rule 7.31E and related rules to re-introduce previously-
approved order types and modifiers.
Background
    In 2017, the Exchange transitioned to trading on the Pillar trading
platform. In advance of that transition, the Exchange amended its rules
to transition from a Floor-based point-of-sale trading model to a fully
automated price-time priority allocation model.\4\ In the Pillar
Filing, the Exchange added Rule 7.31E, which describes the order types
and modifiers that would be available on the Exchange once it
transitioned to Pillar, and which was based on NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE
Arca'') Rule 7.31-E. Among the orders and modifiers that were approved
in the Pillar Filing were ALO Orders, Intermarket Sweep Orders
designated Day (``Day ISO''), Non-Display Remove Modifiers, and MPL-ALO
Orders.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 79993 (February 9,
2017), 82 FR 10814 (February 15, 2017) (SR-NYSEMKT-2017-01)
(``Pillar Filing'') and 80590 (May 4, 2017), 82 FR 21843 (May 10,
2017) (SR-NYSEMKT-2017-01) (Approval Order). The Exchange separately
filed to establish the rules governing market makers on the
Exchange. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80577 (May 2,
2017), 82 FR 21446 (May 8, 2017) (SR-NYSEMKT-2017-04) (Approval
Order).
    \5\ See Pillar Filing, id. (Rules 7.31E(e)(2), 7.31E(e)(3)(D),
7.31E(e)(2)(B)(iv)(b), 7.31E(3)(F), 7.31E(d)(3)(G)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In connection with the transition to the Pillar trading platform,
the Exchange introduced the Delay Mechanism, which was approved in a
separate proposed rule change.\6\ Rule 1.1E(y) defines the Delay
Mechanism to mean a delay that is 350 microseconds of latency that is
added to specified order processing. That rule further provides that
due to force majeure events and acts of third parties, the Exchange
does not guarantee that the delay will always be 350 microseconds.
Finally, that Rule provides that the Exchange will periodically monitor
such latency, and will make adjustments to the latency as reasonably
necessary to achieve consistency with the 350 microsecond target as
soon as commercially practicable and that if the Exchange determines to
increase or decrease the delay period, it will submit a rule filing
pursuant to Section 19 of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79998 (February 9,
2017), 82 FR 10828 (February 15, 2017) (SR-NYSEMKT-2017-05) (``Delay
Mechanism Filing'') and 80700 (May 16, 2017), 82 FR 23381 (May 22,
2017) (SR-NYSEMKT-2017-05) (Approval Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 7.29E(b)(1) provides that the Exchange will apply the Delay
Mechanism to:
    (A) All inbound communications from an ETP Holder to the NYSE
American Marketplace;
    (B) all outbound communications to an ETP Holder from the NYSE
American Marketplace;
    (C) all outbound communications the NYSE American Marketplace
routes to an Away Market;
    (D) all inbound communications from an Away Market about a routed
order; and
    (E) all outbound communications (e.g., bids, offers, and trades) to
the Exchange's proprietary data feeds.
    Rule 7.29E(b)(2) provides that the Exchange will not apply the
Delay Mechanism to:
    (A) All inbound communications from data feeds;
    (B) order processing and order execution on the Exchange's Book;
and
    (C) all outbound communications (e.g., bids, offers, and trades) to
the single plan processors under Rules 601 and 602 of Regulation NMS.
    In the Delay Mechanism Filing, the Exchange noted that in
conjunction with implementing the Delay Mechanism, the Exchange would
no longer offer ALO Orders or Day ISO functionality.\7\ Accordingly,
before transitioning to Pillar, the Exchange filed a separate proposed
rule change to eliminate ALO Orders and Day ISOs and related
functionality.\8\ To effect the

elimination of ALO Orders, the Exchange made the following changes to
the rules that were approved in the Pillar Filing:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Delay Mechanism Filing, supra note 6.
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81115 (July 11,
2017), 82 FR 32745 (July 17, 2017) (SR-NYSEMKT-2017-38) (Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Deleted Rule 7.31E(e)(2) and its subparagraphs, which
described ALO Orders, and replaced that section of the Rule with the
term ``Reserved.''
     Deleted Rule 7.31E(d)(2)(B), which provided that Limit
Non-Display Orders may be designated with a Non-Display Remove
Modifier.
     Deleted the last sentence of Rule 7.31E(d)(3)(E) and Rules
7.31E(d)(3)(F) and (G), which described MPL-ALO Orders and related Non-
Display Remove Modifier functionality.
     Deleted Rule 7.31E(e)(1)(C), which provided that an MKT
Only Order may be designated with a Non-Display Remove Modifier.
     Amended Rule 7.31E(j)(1) to delete the reference to ``ALO
Order.''
     Amended Rules 7.46E(f)(5)(F)(ii) and (iii) to delete
references to ALO Orders.
    To effect the changes described in the Delay Mechanism Filing to
eliminate Day ISO Orders, the Exchange made the following changes to
the rules that were approved in the Pillar Filing:
     Deleted Rules 7.31E(e)(3)(C) and (D), which described Day
ISO and Day ISO ALO Orders. The Exchange also amended Rule 7.31E(e)(3)
to provide that an ISO must be designated IOC and deleted the specific
reference to ``IOC ISO'' in Rule 7.31E(e)(3)(B).
     Amended Rules 7.11E(a)(5)(A) and 7.11E(a)(5)(A)(ii) to
delete references to ``Day ISO'' and make related conforming changes.
     Amended Rule 7.31E(a)(2)(C) to delete the last two
sentences, which described how Limit Orders are repriced upon arrival
of a Day ISO.
     Amended Rule 7.35E(h)(3)(C) to delete the last sentence,
which described how Day ISOs are processed when transitioning to
continuous trading.
     Deleted current Rule 7.46E(f)(5)(F)(i)(a), which relates
to Day ISO Orders, and the designation of subparagraph (b). The text of
then-approved Rule 7.46E(f)(5)(F)(i)(b) became the last sentence of
7.46E(f)(5)(F)(i).
Proposed Amendments
    In the Delay Mechanism Filing, the Exchange noted that the Delay
Mechanism was designed to provide a competitive trading model to those
ETP Holders and issuers that prefer to trade or list on an exchange
that offers an intentional, symmetrical delay.
    The Exchange has now been operating with the Delay Mechanism for
over two years. However, we have not had any issuers interested in
listing because of the Delay Mechanism. Additionally, market
participants have not increased their trading volume on the Exchange as
a result of adding the Delay Mechanism. For example, since introducing
the Delay Mechanism, market share on the Exchange has not materially
changed, and some market quality measures have declined. Specifically,
when comparing monthly statistics for Exchange-listed securities for
the first six months of trading on the Exchange in 2017 (pre-Delay
Mechanism) with trading on the Exchange for the period July 2017
through September 2019 (post-Delay Mechanism), the Exchange has
observed the following changes in market performance.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Pre-delay      Post-delay
                                             mechanism       mechanism
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NYSE American's Average Quoted Spread              208.2           292.4
 (bps)..................................
NYSE American's Average Quoted Shares at           2,762           1,197
 the BBO................................
NYSE American's Average Quoted Notional          $13,342          $9,549
 at the BBO.............................
NYSE American's % of trading day quoting           71.3%           68.4%
 at the NBBO............................
NYSE American's Market Share............           12.1%           11.5%
Consolidated Average Daily Volume.......     123,906,053     113,831,729
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that if market participants were interested
in trading on an exchange with an intentional, symmetrical delay, more
order flow would have been directed to the Exchange. But it simply has
not.
    The Exchange therefore proposes to eliminate the Delay Mechanism.
To effect this change, the Exchange proposes to delete the definition
of ``Delay Mechanism'' in Rule 1.1E(y) and delete Rule 7.29E(b), which
are the rules that were added in the Delay Mechanism Filing to
establish the Delay Mechanism.
    The Exchange also proposes to re-introduce previously-approved
order types and modifiers that were deleted in anticipation of
launching the Delay Mechanism, with specified differences described
below. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to add back rules to support
ALO and related functionality, as follows:
     Amend Rule 7.31E(e)(2) to delete the term ``Reserved'' and
add back the rule text that describes ALO Orders, as approved in the
Pillar Filing. The Exchange proposes a non-substantive difference from
the version of the rule approved in the Pillar Filing to use the term
``Non-Routable Limit Order'' instead of ``MKT-Only Order.''
     Amend Rule 7.31E(d)(2) to add back sub-paragraph (B), as
approved in the Pillar Filing, which would provide that Non-Displayed
Limit Orders may be designated with a Non-Display Remove Modifier. The
Exchange proposes a non-substantive difference from the version of the
rule approved in the Pillar Filing to use the term ``Non-Displayed
Limit Order'' instead of ``Limit Non-Display Order.''
     Amend Rule 7.31E(d)(3) relating to MPL Orders to re-
introduce MPL-ALO Orders and the Non-Display Remove Modifier. Since the
Pillar Filing, Rule 7.31E(d)(3) has been amended, which resulted in
changes to sub-numbering.\9\ With respect to the Non-Display Remove
Modifier, the Exchange proposes to re-introduce rule text previously
approved in the Pillar Filing as Rule 7.31E(d)(3)(G) with a non-
substantive difference that it would be numbered Rule 7.31E(d)(3)(F).
The Exchange also proposes to re-introduce a new last sentence to Rule
7.31E(d)(3)(D), which was previously approved in the Pillar Filing as
the last sentence of Rule 7.31E(d)(3)(E).
    With respect to MPL-ALO Orders, as noted in the Pillar Filing, at
that time, Rule 7.31E(d)(3) was based on NYSE Arca Rule 7.31-E(d)(3)
without any substantive differences. Since approval

of the Pillar Filing, NYSE Arca has amended Rule 7.31-E(d)(3) relating
to MPL-ALO Orders.\10\ The Exchange proposes that when re-introducing
MPL-ALO Orders on the Exchange, Rule 7.31E(d)(3) would be amended to
add new sub-paragraph (E) to reflect the changes described in the Arca
MPL Filing; the Exchange will not re-introduce the text that was
approved in the Pillar Filing as Rule 7.31E(d)(3)(F).
    As proposed, Rule 7.31E(d)(3)(E) would provide that an MPL Order
may be designated with an ALO Modifier, which would be defined as an
MPL-ALO Order. The proposed rule would further provide that an MPL-ALO
Order to buy (sell) will trade with resting orders to sell (buy) with a
working price below (above) the midpoint of the PBBO at the working
price of the resting orders, but will not trade with resting orders to
sell (buy) priced at the midpoint of the PBBO unless such resting order
is designated with a Non-Display Remove Modifier pursuant to Rule
7.31E(d)(3)(F). Finally, the Rule would provide that if an MPL-ALO
Order to buy (sell) cannot trade with a same-priced resting order to
sell (buy), a subsequently arriving order to sell (buy) eligible to
trade at the midpoint will trade ahead of a resting order to sell (buy)
that is not displayed at that price. If such resting order to sell
(buy) is displayed, the MPL-ALO Order to buy (sell) will not be
eligible to trade at that price. As noted above, this proposed rule
text is based on NYSE Arca Rule 7.31-E(d)(3)(E), NYSE National Rule
7.31(d)(3)(E), and NYSE Chicago Rule 7.31(d)(3)(E) without any
differences.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85144 (September 21,
2017), 82 FR 45099 (September 27, 2017) (SR-NYSEAmer-2017-17)
(Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change) (``Pillar ALO/Day ISO Filing'').
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82504 (January 16,
2018), 83 FR 3038 (January 22, 2018) (SR-NYSEArca-2018-01) (Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change)
(``Arca MPL Filing''). The rules of the Exchange's affiliates--New
York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''), NYSE National, Inc. (``NYSE
National''), and most recently approved, NYSE Chicago, Inc. (``NYSE
Chicago'')--that describe MPL-ALO Orders and related Non-Display
Remove Modifier are similarly based on the NYSE Arca rule, as
amended in the Arca MPL Filing. See NYSE Rule 7.31(d)(3)(E) (except
does not include reference to a Non-Display Remove Modifier, which
is not currently available on NYSE); NYSE National Rule
7.31(d)(3)(E); and NYSE Chicago Rule 7.31(d)(3)(E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Amend Rule 7.31E(e)(1) to add back sub-paragraph (C), as
approved in the Pillar Filing, which would provide that a Non-Routable
Limit Order may be designated with a Non-Display Remove Modifier. The
Exchange proposes a non-substantive difference from the version of the
rule approved in the Pillar Filing to use the term ``Non-Routable Limit
Order'' instead of ``MKT-Only Order.''
     Amend Rule 7.31E(j)(1) to add back the reference to ``ALO
Order,'' as approved in the Pillar Filing.
    The Exchange also proposes to add back rules to support Day ISO, as
follows:
     Amend Rule 7.31E(e)(3) to add back subparagraphs (C) and
(D), as approved in the Pillar Filing, which describe Day ISO and Day
ISO ALO Orders. The Exchange proposes non-substantive differences from
the version of the rule approved in the Pillar Filing to use the terms
``Non-Routable Limit Order'' instead of ``MKT-Only Order'' and ``Non-
Displayed Limit Order'' instead of ``Limit Non-Displayed Order.''
     Amend Rule 7.31E(e)(3) to delete the requirement that an
ISO must be designated IOC and amend Rule 7.31E(e)(3)(B) to add back
the term ``IOC ISO,'' both of which were approved in the Pillar Filing.
     Amend Rules 7.11E(a)(5)(A) and 7.11E(a)(5)(A)(ii) to add
back references to ``Day ISO'' and make related conforming changes, as
approved in the Pillar Filing.
     Amend Rule 7.31E(a)(2)(C) to add back rule text describing
when Limit Orders would be repriced under this provision. The Exchange
proposes that the text that would be added to this Rule would be based
on the rules of NYSE Arca, NYSE, NYSE National, and NYSE Chicago, which
were amended/adopted after the Pillar Filing, without any
differences.\11\ As proposed, the text that would be added to this rule
would provide that if a Day ISO to buy (sell) arrives before the PBO
(PBB) is updated, such re-priced Limit Order(s) to buy (sell) would be
repriced to the lower (higher) of the display price of the Day ISO or
the original price of the Limit Order(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85265 (March
7, 2019), 84 FR 9175 (March 13, 2019) (SR-NYSEArca-2019-08). See
also NYSE Rule 7.31(a)(2)(C), NYSE National Rule 7.31(a)(2)(C), and
NYSE Chicago Rule 7.31(a)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Amend Rule 7.35E(h)(3) to add back the last sentence under
subparagraph (C) of that Rule that was approved in the Pillar Filing,
which describes how Day ISOs are processed when transitioning to
continuous trading. The Exchange proposes a non-substantive difference
to include this sentence under new subparagraph (D) to Rule
7.35E(h)(3).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See NYSE Arca Rule 7.35-E(h)(3)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this time, the Exchange does not propose to revert any of the
other changes made in the Pillar ALO/Day ISO Filing. Specifically, the
Exchange does not propose any changes to Pegged Orders and does not
propose to amend Rule 7.46 relating to the Tick Size Pilot, which is no
longer operative.
    With the elimination of the Delay Mechanism and re-introduction of
ALO Orders, Day ISO, Non-Display Remove Modifiers, and MPL-ALOs, the
Exchange will operate on a fully-automated price-time priority trading
model that is substantially identical to the trading models of its
affiliated exchanges NYSE Arca and NYSE National. The Exchange is not
proposing to change its transaction fees for trading on the Exchange.
The Exchange currently charges a flat fee for orders that provide or
remove liquidity, provided that it does not charge for orders that
provide displayed liquidity.\13\ This pricing model differs from the
pricing model on NYSE Arca, which uses a maker-taker model, and NYSE
National, which uses a taker-maker model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See NYSE American Equities Fee Schedule, available here:
https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/nyse-american/NYSE_America_Equities_Price_List.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    Because of the technology changes associated with this proposed
rule change, the Exchange will announce the implementation date of this
proposed rule change by Trader Update. The Exchange anticipates that
the implementation date will be in November 2019.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Act,\14\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5),\15\ 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that eliminating the Delay Mechanism by
deleting Rules 1.1E(y) and 7.29E(b) would remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system because the reasons for establishing the Delay Mechanism no
longer exist. Specifically, the Delay Mechanism was designed to provide
a competitive trading model for those ETP Holders and issuers that
prefer to trade or list on an exchange that offers such a delay.
    Following two years of operating an exchange with the Delay
Mechanism, the Exchange believes market

participants are not interested in this trading model. The Exchange
believes that if market participants were interested in trading on an
exchange with an intentional, symmetrical delay, more order flow would
have been directed to the Exchange. But it simply has not. Accordingly,
the Exchange believes that decommissioning the Delay Mechanism would be
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, as
they have not chosen to use this trading model.
    In addition, comparison of numerous market quality metrics for
Exchange-listed securities between the Pre-Delay Mechanism and Post-
Delay Mechanism periods indicate that the Delay Mechanism resulted in a
degradation of the Exchange's displayed liquidity. Eliminating the
Delay Mechanism is expected to reverse this trend.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed re-introduction of ALO
Orders, Day ISO, Non-Display Remove Modifiers, and MPL-ALO Orders would
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system because the Exchange is proposing
rules that either have already been approved in the Pillar Filing, or
are based on the rules of NYSE Arca, NYSE, NYSE National, and NYSE
Chicago. Accordingly, the Exchange is not proposing new or novel order
types, but rather, will make available on the Exchange order types and
modifiers that are already available on affiliated exchanges.

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 Exchange anticipated
that the Delay Mechanism would provide a competitive trading model for
those ETP Holders and issuers that prefer to trade or list on an
exchange that offers an intentional, symmetrical delay. Following two
years of operating an exchange with the Delay Mechanism, the Exchange
believes that market participants are not interested in this trading
model. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that eliminating the
Delay Mechanism would impose any burden on competition.
    The Exchange further believes that re-introducing ALO Orders, Day
ISO, Non-Display Remove Modifiers, and MPL-ALO Orders would promote
competition by offering ETP Holders greater choice among the Exchange
and its affiliated exchanges that offer similar trading functionality.
With the decommissioning of the Delay Mechanism and re-introduction of
order types and modifiers, the Exchange does not propose to change its
transaction fee model, and therefore would be differentiated from NYSE
Arca and NYSE National because it charges a flat fee for all orders,
regardless of whether an order provides or removes liquidity (except
for orders that provide displayed liquidity, which are not charged at
all). Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
would promote competition by providing greater optionality to ETP
Holders that are interested in using the re-introduced order types on
an exchange that offers a flat-fee pricing model.

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

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

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \16\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\17\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \18\ In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6) requires the Exchange to give
the Commission written notice of the Exchange's intent to file the
proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of 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. The Exchange has satisfied this
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \19\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\20\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange has
represented that the existing delay mechanism has not attracted new
issuers or additional trading volume to the Exchange, and that re-
introducing previously approved order types would allow the Exchange to
have similar trading functionality with other exchanges. The Commission
believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay period is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest and hereby
waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the proposed rule
change operative upon filing.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \21\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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) \22\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 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_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2019-48 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-2019-48. 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-2019-48 and should be submitted
on or before December 12, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-25207 Filed 11-20-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P