Notice2021-12750
Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Change Amending the NYSE American Equities Price List and Fee Schedule To Establish Pricing for Orders Designated as Retail Orders
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
June 17, 2021
Issuing agencies
Securities and Exchange Commission
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 115 (Thursday, June 17, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 115 (Thursday, June 17, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32288-32292]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2021-12750]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-92153; File No. SR-NYSEAMER-2021-29]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Change Amending the NYSE
American Equities Price List and Fee Schedule To Establish Pricing for
Orders Designated as Retail Orders
June 11, 2021.
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 June 1, 2021, NYSE American LLC (``NYSE American'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to
[[Page 32289]]
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 the NYSE American Equities Price
List and Fee Schedule (``Price List'') to establish pricing for orders
designated as ``Retail Orders.'' The Exchange proposes to implement the
fee changes effective June 1, 2021. The proposed change is available on
the Exchange's website at <a href="http://www.nyse.com">www.nyse.com</a>, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.
II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.
A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change
1. Purpose
The Exchange proposes to amend the Price List to establish pricing
for orders designated as ``Retail Orders,'' as defined below.
The proposed changes respond to the current competitive environment
where order flow providers have a choice of where to direct Retail
Orders by offering further incentives for ETP Holders \4\ to send such
orders to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Rules 1.1E(m) (definition of ETP) & (n) (definition of
ETP Holder).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange proposes to implement the fee changes effective June
1, 2021.
Competitive Environment
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. The
Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over
regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services
in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, the Commission
highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and
SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the
market system ``has been remarkably successful in promoting market
competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors
and listed companies.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (File No. S7-10-04) (Final
Rule) (``Regulation NMS'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While Regulation NMS has enhanced competition, it has also fostered
a ``fragmented'' market structure where trading in a single stock can
occur across multiple trading centers. When multiple trading centers
compete for order flow in the same stock, the Commission has recognized
that ``such competition can lead to the fragmentation of order flow in
that stock.'' \6\ Indeed, cash equity trading is currently dispersed
across 16 exchanges,\7\ numerous alternative trading systems,\8\ and
broker-dealer internalizers and wholesalers, all competing for order
flow. Based on publicly-available information, no single exchange
currently has more than 17% market share.\9\ Therefore, no exchange
possesses significant pricing power in the execution of cash equity
order flow. More specifically, the Exchange currently has less than 1%
market share of executed volume of cash equities trading.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61358, 75 FR 3594,
3597 (January 21, 2010) (File No. S7-02-10) (Concept Release on
Equity Market Structure).
\7\ See Cboe U.S Equities Market Volume Summary, available at
<a href="https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share">https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share</a>. See generally
<a href="https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/divisionsmarketregmrexchangesshtml.html">https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/divisionsmarketregmrexchangesshtml.html</a>.
\8\ See FINRA ATS Transparency Data, available at <a href="https://otctransparency.finra.org/otctransparency/AtsIssueData">https://otctransparency.finra.org/otctransparency/AtsIssueData</a>. A list of
alternative trading systems registered with the Commission is
available at <a href="https://www.sec.gov/foia/docs/atslist.htm">https://www.sec.gov/foia/docs/atslist.htm</a>.
\9\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Equities Market Volume Summary,
available at <a href="http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/">http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/</a>.
\10\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
move order flow, or discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of
products. While it is not possible to know a firm's reason for shifting
order flow, the Exchange believes that one such reason is because of
fee changes at any of the registered exchanges or non-exchange venues
to which the firm routes order flow. The competition for Retail Orders
is even more stark, particularly as it relates to exchange versus off-
exchange venues.
The Exchange thus needs to compete in the first instance with non-
exchange venues for Retail Order flow, and with the 15 other exchange
venues for the portion of Retail Order flow that is not directed off-
exchange. Accordingly, competitive forces compel the Exchange to use
exchange transaction fees and credits, particularly as they relate to
competing for Retail Order flow, because market participants can
readily trade on competing venues if they deem pricing levels at those
other venues to be more favorable.
Proposed Rule Change
In response to this competitive environment, the Exchange proposes
to amend its Price List to establish pricing for orders designated as
``Retail Orders.''
Proposed Definition of Retail Orders
To define Retail Orders, the Exchange proposes to amend the
``General'' section of the Fee Schedule and add a new subheading ``III.
Retail Orders'' to establish requirements for Retail Orders on the
Exchange that are based on the requirements to enter orders with
``retail'' modifiers for purposes of rates available for such orders on
the Exchange's affiliates, New York Stock Exchange, LLC (``NYSE'') and
NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'').\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See NYSE Rule 13 regarding Retail Modifiers and the NYSE
Arca procedures for designating orders with a retail modifier for
purposes of fee rates. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67540
(July 30, 2012), 77 FR 46539 (August 3, 2012) (SR-NYSEArca-2012-77).
These requirements are distinct from, but related to, the
requirements for a ``Retail Order'' on the Retail Liquidity Programs
available on NYSE and NYSE Arca. See NYSE Rule 7.44 and NYSE Arca
Rule 7.44-E. The Exchange does not offer a ``Retail Liquidity
Program.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed paragraph (a) would define ``Retail Order'' as an agency
order or a riskless principal order that meets the criteria of FINRA
Rule 5320.03 that originates from a natural person and is submitted to
the Exchange by an ETP Holder, provided that no change is made to the
terms of the order with respect to price or side of market and the
order does not originate from a trading algorithm or any other
computerized methodology.
Proposed paragraph (b) would specify that in order for an ETP
Holder to access the proposed Retail Order pricing, the ETP Holder
would be required to designate an order as a Retail Order in the form
and/or manner prescribed by the Exchange.
Proposed paragraph (c) would specify that in order to submit a
Retail Order, an ETP Holder must submit an attestation, in a form
prescribed by the Exchange, that substantially all orders designated as
``Retail Orders'' will meet the requirements set out in the definition
above.
Proposed paragraph (d) would specify that an ETP Holder must have
written policies and procedures reasonably
[[Page 32290]]
designed to assure that it will only designate orders as ``Retail
Orders'' if all requirements of a Retail Order are met. Such written
policies and procedures must require the ETP Holder to (i) exercise due
diligence before entering a Retail Order to assure that entry as a
Retail Order is in compliance with the requirements specified by the
Exchange, and (ii) monitor whether orders entered as Retail Orders meet
the applicable requirements. If an ETP Holder represents Retail Orders
from another broker-dealer customer, the ETP Holder's supervisory
procedures must be reasonably designed to assure that the orders it
receives from such broker-dealer customer that it designates as Retail
Orders meet the definition of a Retail Order. The ETP Holder must (i)
obtain an annual written representation, in a form acceptable to the
Exchange, from each broker-dealer customer that sends it orders to be
designated as Retail Orders that entry of such orders as Retail Orders
will be in compliance with the requirements specified by the Exchange,
and (ii) monitor whether its broker-dealer customer's Retail Order flow
continues to meet the applicable requirements.
Proposed paragraph (e) would specify that an ETP Holder that fails
to abide by the requirements specified in paragraphs (a)-(d) would not
be eligible for the Retail Order rates for orders it designates as
``Retail Orders.''
Proposed Rates for Retail Orders
The Exchange proposes that the rates for Retail Orders would be
available only for transactions in securities priced at or above $1.00.
To effect this change, the Exchange proposes to amend the Price List
for transactions in securities priced at or above $1.00, other than
transactions by Electronic Designated Market Makers in assigned
securities, to specify that the current fees are ``Standard Rates'' and
to add new ``Retail Order Rates.'' Specifically, the Exchange proposes
to delete the column labeled ``Category'' from the existing table and
to insert subheadings ``1. Securities at or above $1'' and ``a.
Standard Rates'' above the existing table. The Exchange does not
propose to make any changes to the rates in the table.
Below the first row of the existing table, the Exchange proposes to
add subheading ``b. Retail Order Rates *,'' below which the Exchange
proposes to specify the rates that orders designated by an ETP Holder
as ``Retail Orders'' would be eligible for. As proposed, orders
designated by an ETP Holder as ``Retail Orders'' may qualify for the
following fees and credits:
<bullet> A credit of $0.0030 per displayed share for orders
designated as Retail Orders that add liquidity. This credit is higher
than the Exchange's standard credit that ranges between $0.0024 per
share to $0.0027 per share for displayed and MPL orders adding
liquidity, depending on Adding ADV.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ As defined in the Fee Schedule, Adding ADV means an ETP
Holder's average daily volume of shares executed on the Exchange
that provided liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> A fee of $0.0010 per share for MPL orders designated as
Retail Orders that remove liquidity. This fee is lower than the
Exchange's standard fee of either $0.0026 per share or $0.0030 per
share for orders that remove liquidity, depending on Adding ADV.
<bullet> A fee of $0.0005 per share for orders designated as Retail
Orders executed in an opening auction, unless a more favorable rate
applies. This fee is equivalent to the Exchange's standard fee for
orders executed in an opening auction.
Below the proposed new Retail Order Rates subsection, the Exchange
proposes to insert a new heading ``2. Securities Below $1,'' followed
by the second row of the existing table. The Exchange proposes to
delete the ``Category'' column of the table and to add the ``Adding
Liquidity,'' ``Removing Liquidity,'' and ``Executions at Open and
Close'' column headings that appear in the existing table. The Exchange
does not propose to make any changes to the rates for transactions in
securities below $1.
As noted above, the proposed new subheading ``b. Retail Order Rates
*'' would include an asterisk. The Exchange proposes to add the
following text regarding the asterisk: ``* See section III under
`General' at the end of this Price List for information on designating
orders as `Retail Orders.' ''
The proposed pricing available for Retail Orders would be optional
for ETP Holders. Accordingly, an ETP Holder that does not opt to
identify qualified orders as Retail Orders would choose not to (i) make
an attestation to the Exchange, or (ii) maintain the policies and
procedures described above.
This proposed change is intended to encourage greater participation
from ETP Holders and to promote additional liquidity in Retail Orders.
As described above, ETP Holders have a choice of where to send such
orders. The Exchange believes that the proposed lower fees could lead
to more ETP Holders choosing to route their Retail Orders to the
Exchange for execution rather than to a competing exchange.
The Exchange does not know how much Retail Order flow ETP Holders
choose to route to other exchanges or to off-exchange venues. Without
having a view of ETP Holders' activity on other markets and off-
exchange venues, the Exchange has no way of knowing whether this
proposed rule change would result in any ETP Holders sending more of
their Retail Orders to the Exchange. The Exchange cannot predict with
certainty how many ETP Holders would avail themselves of this
opportunity, but additional Retail Orders would benefit all market
participants because it would provide greater execution opportunities
on the Exchange.
The proposed rule change is designed to be available to all ETP
Holders on the Exchange and is intended to provide ETP Holders a
greater incentive to direct more of their Retail Orders to the
Exchange.
The proposed changes are not otherwise intended to address any
other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any significant problems
that market participants would have in complying with the proposed
changes.
2. Statutory Basis
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\13\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\14\ in particular,
because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and other persons
using its facilities, is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices and to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and does not unfairly discriminate between
customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
\14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Proposed Fee Change Is Reasonable
As discussed above, the Exchange operates in a highly fragmented
and competitive market. The Commission has repeatedly expressed its
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically,
in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market
forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized
that current regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably
successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that
are most important to investors and listed companies.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Regulation NMS, supra note 5, 70 FR at 37499.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 32291]]
The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
shift order flow, or discontinue to reduce use of certain categories of
products, in response to fee changes. With respect to Retail Orders,
ETP Holders can choose from any one of the 16 currently operating
registered exchanges, and numerous off-exchange venues, to route such
order flow. Accordingly, competitive forces constrain exchange
transaction fees that relate to Retail Orders on an exchange. Stated
otherwise, changes to exchange transaction fees can have a direct
effect on the ability of an exchange to compete for order flow.
Given this competitive environment, the Exchange believes that this
proposal to establish pricing for orders designated as Retail Orders
represents a reasonable attempt to attract additional Retail Orders to
the Exchange. The Exchange believes the proposed change is also
reasonable because it is designed to attract higher volumes of Retail
Orders transacted on the Exchange by ETP Holders, which would benefit
all market participants by offering greater price discovery and an
increased opportunity to trade on the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that proposed General sub-section III is
reasonable because it would define ``Retail Order'' based on existing
requirements for orders designated as ``retail'' on NYSE and NYSE Arca,
and therefore is not novel. The Exchange further believes that the
designation, attestation, and written policies and procedures required
by proposed sub-section III are reasonable because they are also based
on existing procedures for similarly-defined orders on NYSE and NYSE
Arca, and therefore are not novel.
In light of the competitive environment in which the Exchange
currently operates, the proposed rule change is a reasonable attempt to
increase liquidity on the Exchange and improve the Exchange's market
share relative to its competitors.
The Proposed Fee Change Is an Equitable Allocation of Fees and Credits
The Exchange believes its proposal to establish pricing for orders
designated as Retail Orders equitably allocates its fees among its
market participants because all ETP Holders that participate on the
Exchange may qualify for the proposed credits and fees if they elect to
send their Retail Orders to the Exchange and properly designate them as
Retail Orders. Without having a view of ETP Holders' activity on other
markets and off-exchange venues, the Exchange has no way of knowing
whether this proposed rule change would result in any ETP Holder
sending more of their Retail Orders to the Exchange. The Exchange
cannot predict with certainty how many ETP Holders would avail
themselves of this opportunity, but additional Retail Orders would
benefit all market participants because it would provide greater
execution opportunities on the Exchange. The Exchange anticipates that
multiple ETP Holders that engage in retail trading activity would
endeavor to send more of their Retail Orders for execution on the
Exchange, thereby earning the proposed higher credits and paying the
proposed lower fees.
The Exchange further believes that the proposed change is equitable
because it is reasonably related to the value to the Exchange's market
quality associated with higher volume in Retail Orders. The Exchange
believes that establishing pricing for orders designated as Retail
Orders would attract order flow and liquidity to the Exchange, thereby
contributing to price discovery on the Exchange and benefiting
investors generally.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is equitable
because maintaining or increasing the proportion of Retail Orders in
exchange-listed securities that are executed on a registered national
securities exchange (rather than relying on certain available off-
exchange execution methods) would contribute to investors' confidence
in the fairness of their transactions and would benefit all investors
by deepening the Exchange's liquidity pool, supporting the quality of
price discovery, promoting market transparency, and improving investor
protection.
The Proposed Fee Change Is Not Unfairly Discriminatory
The Exchange believes that the proposal is not unfairly
discriminatory. In the prevailing competitive environment, ETP Holders
are free to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they believe that
alternatives offer them better value.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change is not unfairly
discriminatory because it would apply to all ETP Holders on an equal
and non-discriminatory basis. The Exchange believes that the proposed
rule change is not unfairly discriminatory because maintaining or
increasing the proportion of Retail Orders in exchange-listed
securities that are executed on a registered national securities
exchange (rather than relying on certain available off-exchange
execution methods) would contribute to investors' confidence in the
fairness of their transactions and would benefit all investors by
deepening the Exchange's liquidity pool, supporting the quality of
price discovery, promoting market transparency, and improving investor
protection. This aspect of the proposed rule change also is consistent
with the Act because all similarly-situated ETP Holders would earn the
same credits and pay the same fees for Retail Orders executed on the
Exchange.
Finally, the submission of Retail Orders is optional for ETP
Holders in that they could choose whether to submit Retail Orders to
the Exchange and, if they do, they can choose the extent of their
activity in this regard. The Exchange believes that it is subject to
significant competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's
statement regarding the burden on competition.
For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal
is consistent with the Act.
B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\16\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. Instead, as discussed above, the Exchange believes
that the proposed fee change would encourage the submission of
additional liquidity to a public exchange, thereby promoting market
depth, price discovery, and transparency and enhancing order execution
opportunities for ETP Holders. As a result, the Exchange believes that
the proposed change furthers the Commission's goal in adopting
Regulation NMS of fostering integrated competition among orders, which
promotes ``more efficient pricing of individual stocks for all types of
orders, large and small.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
\17\ See Regulation NMS, supra note 4, 70 FR at 37498-99.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intramarket Competition. The Exchange believes the proposed change
would not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed
change is designed to attract additional Retail Orders to the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that the proposed higher credits and lower fees
would incentivize market participants to direct their Retail Orders to
the Exchange. Greater overall order flow, trading
[[Page 32292]]
opportunities, and pricing transparency benefit all market participants
on the Exchange by enhancing market quality and continuing to encourage
ETP Holders to send orders, thereby contributing towards a robust and
well-balanced market ecosystem.
Intermarket Competition. The Exchange operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily choose to
send their orders to other exchange and off-exchange venues if they
deem fee levels at those other venues to be more favorable. As noted
above, the Exchange currently has less than 1% market share of executed
volume of equities trading. In such an environment, the Exchange must
continually adjust its fees and credits to remain competitive with
other exchanges and with off-exchange venues. Because competitors are
free to modify their own fees and credits in response, and because
market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices,
the Exchange does not believe its proposed fee change can impose any
burden on intermarket competition.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change could promote
competition between the Exchange and other execution venues, including
those that currently offer similar order types and comparable
transaction pricing, by encouraging additional orders to be sent to the
Exchange for execution.
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 foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \18\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \19\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
\19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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) \20\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ 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
<bullet> Use the Commission's internet comment form (<a href="http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml">http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml</a>); or
<bullet> Send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2c5e594049014f4341414942585f6c5f494f024b435a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6715120b024a04080a0a020913142714020449000811">[email protected]</span></a>. Please include
File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2021-29 on the subject line.
Paper Comments
<bullet> 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-2021-29. 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 (<a href="http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml">http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml</a>).
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-2021-29 and should be submitted
on or before July 8, 2021.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-12750 Filed 6-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on June 17, 2021.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.