[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 9 (Tuesday, January 14, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2202-2207]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-00357]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-87908; File No. S7-24-89]
Joint Industry Plan; Notice of Filing of the Forty-Fourth
Amendment to the Joint Self-Regulatory Organization Plan Governing the
Collection, Consolidation and Dissemination of Quotation and
Transaction Information for Nasdaq-Listed Securities Traded on
Exchanges on an Unlisted Trading Privileges Basis
January 8, 2020.
I. Introduction
Pursuant to Section 11A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 608 of Regulation National Market System
(``NMS'') thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that on July 5,
2019,\3\ the Joint Self-Regulatory Organization Plan Governing the
Collection, Consolidation and Dissemination of Quotation and
Transaction Information for Nasdaq-Listed Securities Traded on
Exchanges on an Unlisted Trading Privileges Basis (``Nasdaq/UTP Plan''
or ``Plan'') \4\ participants (``Participants'') \5\ filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') a
proposal to amend the Nasdaq/UTP Plan. The amendment represents the
44th amendment to the Nasdaq/UTP Plan (``Amendment''). As described in
the Amendment, the Participants propose to make mandatory a conflicts
[[Page 2203]]
of interest disclosure regime that currently is voluntary. Under the
current practice, which the Amendment would make mandatory, the
Participants,\6\ the Processor,\7\ the Administrator,\8\ and the
members of the Advisory Committee \9\ (collectively, the ``Disclosing
Parties'') \10\ provide responses to a set of questions designed to
provide transparency regarding potential conflicts of interest of such
parties. Each of the Disclosing Parties' responses are then made
publicly available on the Plan's website.\11\ The Participants state
that they believe that publicly providing these responses increases
transparency and confidence in the governance of the Plan.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
\2\ 17 CFR 242.608.
\3\ See Letter from Robert Books, Chair, Nasdaq/UTP Plan
Operating Committee, to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Commission,
dated July 3, 2019 (``Transmittal Letter'').
\4\ The Plan governs the collection, processing, and
dissemination on a consolidated basis of quotation information and
transaction reports in Eligible Securities for its Participants.
This consolidated information informs investors of the current
quotation and recent trade prices of Nasdaq securities. It enables
investors to ascertain from one data source the current prices in
all the markets trading Nasdaq securities. The Plan serves as the
required transaction reporting plan for its Participants, which is a
prerequisite for their trading Eligible Securities. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 55647 (April 19, 2007), 72 FR 20891 (April
26, 2007).
\5\ The Participants are the national securities association and
national securities exchanges that submit trades and quotes to the
Plan and include: Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc., Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.,
Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc., Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc., Cboe Exchange,
Inc., NYSE Chicago, Inc., Financial Industry Regulatory Authority,
Inc., The Investors' Exchange LLC, Long-Term Stock Exchange, Inc.,
Nasdaq BX, Inc., Nasdaq ISE, LLC, Nasdaq PHLX, Inc., The Nasdaq
Stock Market LLC, New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE American LLC,
NYSE Arca, Inc., and NYSE National, Inc. (each a ``Participant'' and
collectively, the ``Participants''). Participants are also members
of the Plan's Operating Committee.
\6\ See Id.
\7\ The ``Processor'' is charged with collecting, processing and
preparing for distribution or publication all Plan information. The
Processor for the Nasdaq/UTP Plan is Nasdaq Stock Market LLC
(``Nasdaq'').
\8\ The ``Administrator'' is charged with administering the
Plans to include data feed approval, customer communications,
contract management, and related functions. The Administrator of the
Nasdaq/UTP Plan is Nasdaq.
\9\ ``Advisory Committee members'' are individuals who represent
particular types of financial services firms or actors in the
securities market, or who were selected by Plan participants to be
on the Advisory Committee.
\10\ Information about the Processor, Administrator, and
Advisory Committee members is available at https://www.utpplan.com/governance.
\11\ See https://www.utpplan.com/governance.
\12\ See Transmittal Letter at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed Amendment has been filed by the Participants pursuant
to Rule 608(b)(2) under Regulation NMS.\13\ The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments from interested persons on
the proposed Amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 17 CFR 242.608(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission notes that, contemporaneously with the issuance of
this notice, it has issued a notice of proposed order (``Governance
Notice'') \14\ soliciting public comment on a proposed order that would
direct the national securities exchanges and the Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority, Inc. (collectively, ``SROs'') to act jointly in
developing and filing with the Commission a proposed new single
national market system plan, which will replace the existing national
market system plans that govern the public dissemination of real-time,
consolidated equity market data for national market system stocks
(``Equity Data Plans''). The Commission stated in the Governance Notice
its view that, among other concerns,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87906 (January 8,
2020).
conflicts of interest are inherent to the Equity Data Plans' current
governance structure because some exchange Participants have a dual
role as both an SRO jointly responsible for the operation of the
Equity Data Plans and part of a publicly held company that offers
proprietary data products. Moreover, an SRO representative on the
operating committee may have direct responsibility for some or all
of an exchange's proprietary data business.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Id. at A-66 to A-67 (footnotes omitted).
The Governance Notice solicits public comment on a proposed order
that would direct the SROs to include provisions in the New Data Plan
(as defined in the Governance Notice) addressing several issues arising
from the current governance structure of the Plan, and the proposed
order discusses the Commission's view that the new data plan should
include a comprehensive conflicts of interest policy.
In addition, contemporaneously with the publication of notice of
the Amendment set forth below, the Commission also is publishing a
separate proposed amendment from the Nasdaq/UTP Plan concerning a
confidentiality policy.
II. Text of the Amendment
Set forth below is the entirety of the Amendment submission that
the Participants prepared and filed with the Commission, which includes
a statement of the purpose and summary of the Amendment, along with the
information required by Rules 608(a) and 601(a) under the Act.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See 17 CFR 242.608(a)(4) and (a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Statement of the Purpose of the Amendment
1. Background
With Exchanges permitted to offer both proprietary market data
products and also acting as Participants in running the public market
data stream, potential conflicts of interest are inherent in the
structure developed under Regulation NMS. There may be instances in
which representatives from the Participants and Advisory Committee
members have responsibilities with respect to both proprietary data and
Securities Information Processor (``SIP'') data. Drawing on the
expertise of persons with such overlapping responsibilities may give
rise to potential conflicts of interest, and to address such potential
conflicts of interest, the Participants adopted a voluntary conflicts
disclosure regime.
After discussion among the Participants and the Advisory Committee
at several meetings of the Plan's Operating Committee, the Participants
believe that a disclosure regime is a pragmatic step to address
potential conflicts of interest.
As noted below, the Disclosing Parties have voluntarily provided
responses to the disclosure regime questions. The responses are
available on the Plan's website. The purpose of the Amendment is to
make the disclosures a requirement on a going forward basis instead of
relying on voluntary disclosures.
Required Disclosures
As part of the disclosure regime, the Participants propose that the
Participants, the Processors, the Administrators, and members of the
Advisory Committee respond to questions that are tailored to elicit
responses that disclose the potential conflicts of interest.
The Participants propose that the Participants respond to the
following questions and instructions:
Is the Participant's firm for profit or not-for-profit? If
the Participant's firm is for profit, is it publicly or privately
owned? If privately owned, list any owner with an interest of 5% or
more of the Participant, where to the Participant's knowledge, such
owner, or any affiliate controlling, controlled by, or under common
control with the owner, subscribes, directly or through a third-party
vendor, to SIP and/or exchange Proprietary Market Data products.
Does the Participant firm offer real-time proprietary
equity market data that is filed with the SEC (``Proprietary Market
Data'')? If yes, does the firm charge a fee for such offerings?
Provide the names of the representative and any
alternative representatives designated by the Participant who are
authorized under the Plans to vote on behalf of the Participant. Also
provide a narrative description of the representatives' roles within
the Participant organization, including the title of each individual as
well as any direct responsibilities related to the development,
dissemination, sales, or marketing of the Participant's Proprietary
Market Data, and the nature of those responsibilities.
The Participants propose that the Processors respond to the
following questions and instructions:
Is the Processor an affiliate of or affiliated with any
Participant? If yes, disclose the Participant(s)?
Provide a narrative description of the functions directly
performed by the manager employed by the Processor to provide Processor
services to the Plans and the staff that reports to that manager
(collectively, the ``Plan Processor'').
[[Page 2204]]
Does the Plan Processor provide any services for any
Participant's Proprietary Market Data products or other Plans? If yes,
disclose the services the Plan Processor performs and identify which
Plans. Does the Plan Processor have any profit or loss responsibility
for a Participant's Proprietary Market Data products?
List the policies and procedures established to safeguard
confidential Plan information that is applicable to the Plan Processor.
The Participants propose that the Administrators respond to the
following questions and instructions:
Is the Administrator an affiliate of or affiliated with
any Participant? If yes, which Participant?
Provide a narrative description of the functions directly
performed by administrative services manager and the staff that reports
to that manager (collectively, the ``Plan Administrator'').
Does the Plan Administrator provide any services for any
Participant's Proprietary Market Data products? If yes, what services?
Does the Plan Administrator have any profit or loss responsibility for
a Participant's Proprietary Market Data products?
List the policies and procedures established to safeguard
confidential Plan information that is applicable to the Plan
Administrator.
The Participants propose that the Members of the Advisory Committee
respond to the following questions and instructions:
Provide the Advisor's title and a brief description of the
Advisor's role within the firm.
Does the Advisor have responsibilities related to the
firm's use or procurement of market data?
Does the Advisor have responsibilities related to the
firm's trading or brokerage services?
Does the Advisor's firm use the SIP? Does the Advisor's
firm use exchange Proprietary Market Data products?
Does the Advisor's firm have an ownership interest of 5%
or more in one or more Participants? If yes, list the Participant(s).
Does the Advisor actively participate in any litigation
against the Plans?
The Participants will post the responses to these questions on the
Plan's website. If a Disclosing Party has any material changes in its
responses, the Disclosing Party must promptly update its disclosures.
Additionally, the Disclosing Parties will update the disclosures on an
annual basis to reflect any changes. This annual update must be made
before the first quarterly session meeting of each calendar year, which
is generally held in mid-February.
B. Governing or Constituent Documents
Not applicable.
C. Implementation of Amendment
Each of the Participants has approved the amendments in accordance
with Section IV.C of the Nasdaq/UTP Plan. The Participants also
received and incorporated feedback from the Advisory Committee in
preparing the disclosure requirements.
D. Development and Implementation Phases
The Disclosing Parties have voluntarily completed, and the
Participants have posted, responses to the questions outlined above on
the Plan's website. The purpose of the amendment, going forward, is to
make the disclosures a requirement rather than relying on voluntary
disclosures.
E. Analysis of Impact on Competition
The Participants believe that the proposed amendments do not impose
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Participants, together with
the other Disclosing Parties, have determined to implement the
disclosure regime described herein. The Participants believe that
adopting this disclosure regime is an important step in addressing the
potential conflicts of interest.
The disclosure regime should increase transparency in the
governance of the public market data stream, and consequently, increase
confidence in the proper functioning of the Operating Committee.
F. Written Understanding or Agreements Relating to Interpretation of,
or Participation in, Plan
Not applicable.
G. Approval by Sponsors in Accordance With Plan
Section IV.C.1 of the Nasdaq/UTP Plan requires the Participants to
unanimously approve the amendment proposed herein. They so approved it.
H. Description of Operation of Facility Contemplated by the Proposed
Amendment
Not applicable.
I. Terms and Conditions of Access
Not applicable.
J. Method of Determination and Imposition, and Amount of, Fees and
Charges
Not applicable.
K. Method and Frequency of Processor Evaluation
Not applicable.
L. Dispute Resolution
Not applicable.
III. Regulation NMS Rule 601(a)
A. Equity Securities for Which Transaction Reports Shall Be Required by
the Plan
Not applicable.
B. Reporting Requirements
Not applicable.
C. Manner of Collecting, Processing, Sequencing, Making Available and
Disseminating Last Sale Information
Not applicable.
D. Manner of Consolidation
Not applicable.
E. Standards and Methods Ensuring Promptness, Accuracy and Completeness
of Transaction Reports
Not applicable.
F. Rules and Procedures Addressed to Fraudulent or Manipulative
Dissemination
Not applicable.
G. Terms of Access to Transaction Reports
Not applicable.
H. Identification of Marketplace of Execution
Not applicable.
IV. Solicitation of Comments
The Commission seeks comments on the Amendment. Interested persons
are invited to submit written data, views, and comments concerning the
foregoing, including whether the Amendment is consistent with the Act
and the rules thereunder. Among other things, the Commission asks
commenters to consider whether the Amendment to the current Plan
addresses the concerns outlined in the Governance Notice or whether
they should be further enhanced regarding conflicts of interest in
national market system plan governance. Accordingly, the Commission
requests comments on matters including, but not limited to, the
following:
Proposed Disclosure
1. The text of the Amendment, set forth above, states that: ``With
[[Page 2205]]
Exchanges permitted to offer both proprietary market data products and
also acting as Participants in running the public market data stream,
potential conflicts of interest are inherent in the structure developed
under Regulation NMS.'' The Amendment further notes that ``[t]here may
be instances in which representatives from the Participants and
Advisory Committee members have responsibilities with respect to both
proprietary data and [SIP] data'' and that ``such overlapping
responsibilities may give rise to potential conflicts of interest.'' Do
commenters believe the proposed Amendment adequately addresses those
potential conflicts? Please provide sufficient detail to support your
views, including, to the extent available, actual or possible examples.
2. If commenters do not believe that the proposed Amendment
adequately addresses the potential conflicts of interest arising from
the Plan's current governance structure, is that because commenters
believe the Amendment is inadequate in any particular way? Or is it
because commenters believe that the potential conflicts of interest
have not been characterized accurately? If so, in what ways do
commenters believe the Amendment fails to describe the current
environment and potential conflicts of interest?
3. In their filing, the Participants state that the proposed
questions in the disclosure document are tailored to elicit information
relevant to assess the extent of an individual's potential conflict of
interests with the Plan. Do commenters believe that the questions for
Participants, Processors, Administrators, and members of the Advisory
Committee are sufficient to elicit information to provide insight into
all potential conflicts? Will public availability of the responses
increase transparency and confidence in the governance of the Plan? Do
commenters believe the proposed disclosures are sufficient or should
enhanced disclosures be required? If so, what additional items of
disclosure should be required and why? Do commenters believe that
additional disclosures should be required for the representatives and
alternative representatives of a Participant, Processor, Administrator,
or member of the Advisory Committee?
4. In their filing, the Participants state that a disclosure-based
regime is a pragmatic step to address potential conflicts of interests.
Do commenters agree or disagree with that statement? Do commenters
believe that a disclosure-based regime is sufficient to address the
potential conflicts that Participants, Processors, Administrators, and
members of the Advisory Committee may face in their roles within the
Plan?
5. Do commenters think any other types of persons should be
required to provide disclosures, such as services providers to the
Administrator that provide audit, accounting, or other professional
services? As an example, if auditing services are outsourced to a
Participant's employer or an affiliate that also is offering
proprietary data products to SIP customers and/or conducting audits for
those products, should that entity also be required to disclose its
conflicts and otherwise be subject to the terms of the conflicts of
interest policy, even if it is neither the Administrator nor Processor?
6. Do commenters believe that an alternative approach could better
identify and address conflicts of interests among Participants,
Processors, Administrators, and the Advisory Committee, as well as
auditors? For example, should a disclosure regime be supplemented with
certain prohibited conduct or procedural requirements, such as a
prohibition on a Participant voting when that Participant has direct
business responsibilities related to producing, selling, or managing
competing data products? If you believe an alternative approach is
appropriate, please provide details on any such alternative approach.
Do commenters regard the Plan's ability to identify and protect the
confidentiality of competitive information as an important component to
the Plan's ability to manage conflicts of interest? If so, how do
commenters regard the interaction between this proposed Amendment and
the separate proposed Plan amendment to govern treatment of
confidential information noted above?
7. Do commenters believe that the proposed disclosure questions for
each party are sufficient to identify the specific relationships that
may give rise to a conflict under the Plan and related information?
Separately, do commenters believe that the proposed questions
effectively require all material facts necessary to not only identify
the nature of the conflict, but also the effect it may have on the
Plan? Should the Amendment require more disclosure of such potential
effects or greater details with respect to the disclosures that are
made?
8. Do commenters believe that the Plan should require additional
public disclosures of any personal, business, or financial interests,
and any employment or other commercial relationships that could
materially affect the ability of a party to be impartial regarding
actions of the Plan?
9. The Participants propose to continue to post the conflicts of
interest disclosures for each party on the Plan's website. Do
commenters believe that doing so provides sufficient public notice of
potential conflicts? If not, in what other manner should the
disclosures be made public? For example, should Participants be
required to acknowledge potential conflicts when discussing specific
matters at Operating Committee meetings or subcommittee meetings that
present a conflict? Should a complete set of the disclosures be
included in the materials for each Plan meeting? Is the timing clear
with respect to the requirement that a Disclosing Party ``promptly''
update its disclosures, or should the Amendment be more specific? What
do commenters consider sufficiently prompt? Within one week? Within 30
days? Some other timeframe?
10. As proposed, the Amendment states that disclosures will be made
and updated annually or upon any material change. Do commenters believe
that these intervals are sufficient, or should updates be required more
frequently such as in advance of scheduled Plan meetings? What
constitutes a ``material'' change that should require the filing of an
amended disclosure? Please explain.
Proposed Disclosure for Participants
1. Do commenters believe that any individual representing a
Participant that is directly involved in the management, development,
pricing, or sale of proprietary data products offered to SIP customers
should participate in discussions and related Plan votes regarding the
pricing of SIP data products? If so, how do commenters believe
Participants should address the conflicts their representatives may
face in their dual role of pricing and developing SIP data products as
well as their own proprietary data products?
2. Do commenters believe that a Participant should be recused from
voting when it or an affiliate is competing for a contract to serve as
a Processor for the Plan? Why or why not? Are there any other scenarios
that present conflicts that should result in a Participant being
recused from voting?
3. Do commenters believe recusal on certain Plan action when a
potential conflict is present is an appropriate mechanism to address
conflicts? If so, under what circumstances? If applicable, do
commenters believe that recusal should be mandatory or should it be
voluntary? Why or why not?
4. Do commenters believe that Operating Committee members should
[[Page 2206]]
be permitted to raise the issue of a potential conflict of interest of
another Participant for discussion before the Operating Committee, even
if the Participant did not itself disclose the potential conflict? Do
commenters believe that the Operating Committee should have the ability
to take action in response to disclosed or undisclosed conflicts, such
as requiring the Participant to recuse itself from a certain discussion
or vote on a particular matter? If so, how should the Operating
Committee take such action? Should the Participants vote on recusal or
should the Participants seek input from the Advisory Committee? Why or
why not?
Proposed Disclosures for Processors
1. Do commenters believe that the proposed disclosure questions for
the Processor are sufficient to identify the specific circumstances in
which a Participant is both voting on an Operating Committee and
competing to act as Processor for the Plan? Do commenters believe that
the disclosure questions are tailored to the role that the Processor
performs and the fact that the Processor is present at Plan meetings
but do not vote on Plan matters, or should different or additional
disclosure be required for the Processor? Separately, do commenters
believe that the proposed Processor questions effectively require all
material facts necessary to not only identify the nature of the
potential conflict, but also the effect it may have on the Plan? Should
the Amendment require more disclosure of such potential effects? Should
the Amendment elaborate on what ``profit or loss responsibility for a
Participant's Proprietary Market Data products'' means in the context
of the required disclosures? Alternatively, do commenters believe that
the Plan's separately-proposed confidentiality proposal would address
some of the potential effects of conflicts of interests if approved?
2. Do commenters have concerns about affiliations between a Plan's
Processor and a Participant? If so, do commenters believe the conflicts
of interest disclosure is sufficient to address those concerns? Should
the Amendment require a description of the nature of the affiliation?
3. Do commenters believe that a Participant or its affiliate that
is competing for a contract to serve as a Processor for the Plan should
participate in discussions and related Plan votes regarding the
selection of the Processor for the Plan? If so, how do commenters
believe Participants should address the conflicts they face in their
dual role of competing to serve as a Processor while serving as a
Participant that participates in the discussion of, and ultimately
votes on, selection of the Processor?
Proposed Disclosures for the Administrator
1. Do commenters believe that the proposed disclosure questions for
the Administrator are sufficient to identify the specific interests and
employment, commercial or other relationships that may give rise to a
conflict under the Plan? Separately, do commenters believe that the
proposed Administrator questions effectively require all material facts
necessary to not only identify the nature of the conflict, but also the
effect it may have on the Plan? Should the Amendment require more
disclosure of such potential effects or greater details with respect to
the disclosures that are made?
2. To the extent that the Administrator enlists assistance from an
auditor or any other professional services subcontractor for any of the
Plan(s), and the subcontractor is affiliated with an entity that is
involved in the development, pricing, or sale of proprietary data
products offered to SIP customers, or is subject to any other conflict,
should all of the disclosures and conflicts policies referenced above
also be applicable to them? Or do commenters believe that concerns
arising from potential conflicts of interest would be more
appropriately addressed for a subcontractor if the subcontractor could
attest that it is sufficiently walled-off from the proprietary data
business of its affiliate?
Proposed Disclosures for Members of the Advisory Committee
1. Do commenters believe that the proposed disclosure questions for
Advisory Committee members are sufficient to identify the specific
interests and employment, commercial, or other relationships that may
give rise to a conflict under the Plan? Separately, do commenters
believe that the proposed Advisory Committee members' questions
effectively require all material facts necessary to not only identify
the nature of the conflict, but also the effect it may have on the
Plan? Should the Amendment require more disclosure of such potential
effects or greater details with respect to the disclosures that are
made? Should the Amendment require Members of the Advisory Committee to
identify affiliations with any Disclosing Party, and clarify that both
direct and indirect ownership interests in a Participant are subject to
disclosure? Is it clear what ``actively participate in any litigation
against the Plans'' means, or should the Amendment require additional
detail?
2. Do commenters believe that the Plan should require additional
public disclosures of any personal, business, commercial, or financial
interests, and any employment relationships that could materially
affect the ability of the Advisory Committee Member to participate
impartially in discussing actions of the Plan?
3. Do commenters believe that Advisory Committee members that
purchase SIP data products should participate in discussions regarding
the pricing of SIP data products? If so, how do commenters believe
Advisory Committee members should address that potential conflict?
Participant Statement Regarding Competition
1. The Participants state in their filing that the Amendment does
not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Do commenters
believe that the Amendment to the Plan imposes any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act? Please explain.
2. What effect might the Amendment have on competition, if any?
Please explain. How would any effect on competition from the proposal
benefit or harm the national market system and/or various market
participants? Please describe and explain how, if at all, aspects of
the national market system or different market participants would be
affected. Please support any response with data, if possible.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
Electronic Comments
Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number S7-24-89 on the subject line.
Paper Comments
Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number File Number S7-24-89. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
[[Page 2207]]
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all written statements with
respect to the proposed Amendment that are filed with the Commission,
and all written communications relating to the proposed Amendment
between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be
withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
552, will be available for website viewing and printing in the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for website
viewing and printing at the principal office of the Plan. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions.
You should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number S7-24-89 and
should be submitted on or before February 4, 2020.
By the Commission.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-00357 Filed 1-13-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P