Notice2022-25088
Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amend the NYSE Arca Equities Fees and Charges
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
November 18, 2022
Issuing agencies
Securities and Exchange Commission
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 222 (Friday, November 18, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 222 (Friday, November 18, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69356-69360]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-25088]
[[Page 69356]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-96305; File No. SR-NYSEARCA-2022-75]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amend the NYSE Arca
Equities Fees and Charges
November 14, 2022.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 1, 2022, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. 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\ 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 Arca Equities Fees and
Charges (``Fee Schedule'') to adopt a new pricing tier, Retail Tier 2.
The Exchange proposes to implement the fee changes effective November
1, 2022. The proposed rule 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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change
1. Purpose
The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to adopt a new
pricing tier, Retail Tier 2. The proposed changes respond to the
current competitive environment where order flow providers have a
choice of where to direct liquidity-providing orders by offering
further incentives for ETP Holders to send additional displayed
liquidity to the Exchange.
The Exchange proposes to implement the fee changes effective
November 1, 2022.
Background
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.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 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.'' \4\ Indeed, equity trading is currently dispersed across
16 exchanges,\5\ numerous alternative trading systems,\6\ 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.\7\ Therefore, no exchange possesses
significant pricing power in the execution of equity order flow. More
specifically, the Exchange currently has less than 10% market share of
executed volume of equities trading.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 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).
\5\ 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>.
\6\ 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>.
\7\ 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>.
\8\ 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 a firm routes order flow. The competition for Retail Orders
\9\ is even more stark, particularly as it relates to exchange versus
off-exchange venues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ A Retail Order is an agency order 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 to price
or side of market and the order does not originate from a trading
algorithm or any other computerized methodology. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 67540 (July 30, 2012), 77 FR 46539 (August
3, 2012) (SR-NYSEArca-2012-77).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 that 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.
To respond to this competitive environment, the Exchange has
established a number of Retail Tiers, e.g., Retail Tier 1, Retail Tier
2, Retail Tier 3 and Retail Step-Up Tier, which are designed to provide
an incentive for ETP Holders to route Retail Orders to the Exchange by
providing higher credits for adding liquidity correlated to an ETP
Holder's higher trading volume in Retail Orders on the Exchange. Under
three of these four tiers, ETP Holders also do not pay a fee when such
Retail Orders have a time-in-force of Day that remove liquidity from
the Exchange.
Proposed Rule Change
The proposed rule change is designed to be available to all ETP
Holders on the Exchange and is intended to provide ETP Holders an
opportunity to receive enhanced rebates by quoting and trading more on
the Exchange.
The Exchange currently provides tiered credits for Retail Orders
that provide liquidity on the Exchange. Specifically, Section VII. Tier
Rates--Round Lots and Odd Lots (Per Share
[[Page 69357]]
Price $1.00 or Above), provides a credit of $0.0038 per share for
Adding under Retail Tier 1, a credit of $0.0036 per share for Adding
under Retail Tier 2, a credit of $0.0034 per share for Adding under
Retail Tier 3, and a credit of $0.0035 per share for Adding under
Retail Step-Up Tier.\10\ The Retail Tiers are designed to encourage ETP
Holders that provide displayed liquidity in Retail Orders on the
Exchange to increase that order flow, which would benefit all ETP
Holders by providing greater execution opportunities on the Exchange.
In order to provide an incentive for ETP Holders to direct providing
displayed Retail Order flow to the Exchange, the credits increase in
the various tiers based on increased levels of volume directed to the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Fee Schedule, Retail Tiers table under Section VII.
Tier Rates--Round Lots and Odd Lots (Per Share Price $1.00 or
Above).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange proposes to adopt a new pricing tier, Retail Tier
2,\11\ which would provide a credit of $0.0037 per share to ETP Holders
that execute an ADV of Retail Orders with a time-in-force of Day that
add or remove liquidity during the month that is equal to at least
0.35% of CADV. As with current Retail Tier 1, Retail Tier 2 and Retail
Step-Up Tier, under the proposed Retail Tier 2, ETP Holders that
qualify for proposed Retail Tier 2 would also not be charged a fee for
Retail Orders with a time-in-force of Day that remove liquidity.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ With this proposed rule change to adopt new Retail Tier 2,
the Exchange proposes to rename current Retail Tier 2 to Retail Tier
3 and rename current Retail Tier 3 to Retail Tier 4.
\12\ Pursuant to footnote (e) under Retail Tiers, ETP Holders
that qualify for current Retail Tier 1, Retail Tier 2 and Retail
Step-Up Tier are not charged a fee or provided a credit for Retail
Orders where each side of the executed order (1) shares the same
MPID and (2) is a Retail Order with a time-in-force of Day. See Fee
Schedule. With the proposed renaming of current Retail Tier 2 to
Retail Tier 3, the Exchange also proposes to add Retail Tier 3 to
current footnote (e) to reflect its applicability to the renamed
tier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With this proposed rule change, the following credits would be
available to ETP Holders that provide increased levels of displayed
liquidity in Retail Orders on the Exchange:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier Credit for retail adding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retail Tier 1................ $0.0038 (Tape A, Tape B and Tape C).
Retail Tier 2................ $0.0037 (Tape A, Tape B and Tape C).
Retail Tier 3................ $0.0036 (Tape A, Tape B and Tape C).
Retail Tier 4................ $0.0034 (Tape A, Tape B and Tape C).
Retail Step-Up Tier.......... $0.0035 (Tape A, Tape B and Tape C).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to encourage greater
participation from ETP Holders and promote additional liquidity in
Retail Orders. As described above, ETP Holders with liquidity-providing
orders have a choice of where to send those orders. The Exchange
believes that the proposed new increased credit should encourage more
ETP Holders to route their liquidity-providing Retail Order to the
Exchange 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. While the
proposed Retail Tier 2 pricing tier would be available to all ETP
Holders, no ETP Holder currently qualifies given the pricing tier is
new. 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 to qualify for the proposed
Retail Order credit. The Exchange cannot predict with certainty how
many ETP Holders would avail themselves of this opportunity, but
additional liquidity-providing Retail Orders would benefit all market
participants because it would provide greater execution opportunities
on the Exchange.
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 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 supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given this competitive environment, the proposal represents a
reasonable attempt to attract additional order flow to the Exchange.
As noted above, the competition for Retail Order flow is stark
given the amount of retail limit orders that are routed to non-exchange
venues. 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 or reduce use of certain
categories of products, in response to fee changes. This competition is
particularly acute for non-marketable, or limit, retail orders, i.e.,
retail orders that can provide liquidity on an exchange. That
competition is even more fierce for retail limit orders that provide
displayed liquidity on an exchange. With respect to such orders, ETP
Holders can choose from any one of the 16 currently operating
registered exchanges to route such order flow. Accordingly, competitive
forces constrain exchange transaction fees, particularly as they relate
to competing for retail orders. Stated otherwise, changes to exchange
transaction fees can have a direct effect on the ability of an exchange
to compete for order flow.
The Exchange believes the proposed change to adopt the Retail Tier
2 pricing tier is reasonable because it would provide ETP Holders with
additional incentives to send a greater number of Retail Orders to the
Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposal represents a
reasonable effort to provide enhanced order execution opportunities for
ETP Holders. All ETP Holders would benefit from the greater amounts of
liquidity on the Exchange, which would
[[Page 69358]]
represent a wider range of execution opportunities. The Exchange notes
that market participants are free to shift their order flow to
competing venues if they believe other markets offer more favorable
fees and credits.
The Exchange believes the proposed change is also reasonable
because the increased credit proposed herein would continue to
encourage ETP Holders to send Retail Orders to the Exchange to qualify
for the proposed pricing tier. As noted above, the Exchange operates in
a highly competitive environment, particularly for attracting Retail
Order flow that provides displayed liquidity on an exchange. The
Exchange believes it is reasonable to continue to provide credits for
adding liquidity, in general, and higher credits for Retail Orders that
provide displayed liquidity if an ETP Holder meets the requirement for
the Retail Tiers.
Further, given the competitive market for attracting Retail Orders,
the Exchange notes that with this proposed rule change, the Exchange's
pricing for Retail Orders would be comparable to credits currently in
place on other exchanges that the Exchange competes with for order
flow. For example, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (`EDGX'') provides its
members with a credit of $0.0037 per share for retail orders that add
liquidity to that market if an EDGX member adds liquidity in Retail
Orders of at least 0.45% of CADV.\16\ Additionally, MIAX PEARL, LLC
(``MIAX'') provides is member with a similar credit of $0.0037 per
share for Retail Orders that add liquidity to that market.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See EDGX Fee Schedule, Fee Codes and Associated Fees, at
<a href="https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/edgx/">https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/edgx/</a>.
\17\ See MIAX Fee Schedule, at <a href="https://www.miaxoptions.com/sites/default/files/fee_schedule-files/MIAX_Pearl_Equities_Fee_Schedule_09012022.pdf">https://www.miaxoptions.com/sites/default/files/fee_schedule-files/MIAX_Pearl_Equities_Fee_Schedule_09012022.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, increased
transparency, and an increased opportunity to trade on the Exchange.
On the backdrop 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 that the proposed rule change to adopt new
Retail Tier 2 equitably allocates fees and credits among its market
participants because it is reasonably related to the value of the
Exchange's market quality associated with higher volume in Retail
Orders. The Exchange believes that pricing is just one of the factors
that ETP Holders consider when determining where to direct their order
flow. Among other things, factors such as execution quality, fill
rates, and volatility, are important and deterministic to ETP Holders
in deciding where to send their order flow.
Further, the Exchange notes that, with this proposed rule change,
the difference between the highest credit provided for Retail Orders,
$0.0038 per share under Retail Tier 1, and the credit for Retail Orders
that do not qualify for any Retail Order pricing tiers, $0.0032 per
share, is $0.0006, or 15%, which the Exchange believes is relatively
small given the heightened requirements that ETP Holders must meet to
qualify for the higher credit. Similarly, with this proposed rule
change, the difference in the highest credit for Retail Orders, $0.0038
per share under Retail Tier 1 and the credit provided for Retail Orders
to those ETP Holders qualifying for proposed Retail Tier 2, $0.0037 per
share, would only be $0.0001 per share, or less than 3%. Therefore, the
Exchange believes the proposed new Retail Tier 2 pricing tier is
equitably allocated and provides credits that are reasonably related to
the value to the Exchange's market quality associated with higher
volumes.
Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed adoption of new
Retail Tier 2 is equitable because the magnitude of the proposed credit
is not unreasonably high relative to credits paid by other exchanges
for orders that provide additional liquidity in Retail Orders.\18\ The
Exchange believes the proposed rule change would improve market quality
for all market participants on the Exchange and, as a consequence,
attract more Retail Orders to the Exchange, thereby improving market-
wide quality and price discovery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See supra notes 16-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change equitably
allocates its fees and credits because maintaining 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 proposed rule change 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. Moreover, the proposal neither
targets nor will it have a disparate impact on any particular category
of market participant. The Exchange believes that the proposal does not
permit unfair discrimination because the proposal would be applied to
all similarly situated ETP Holders and all ETP Holders would be
similarly subject to the proposed volume requirement to qualify for the
proposed new Retail Tier 2. Accordingly, no ETP Holder already
operating on the Exchange would be disadvantaged by the proposed
allocation of fees. The Exchange further believes that the proposed
change would not permit unfair discrimination among ETP Holders because
the general and tiered rates are available equally to all ETP Holders.
As described above, in today's competitive marketplace, order flow
providers have a choice of where to direct liquidity-providing order
flow, and the Exchange believes the proposed adoption of an increased
credit under the proposed new pricing tier will incentivize greater
number of ETP Holders to direct their order flow to the Exchange.
Lastly, the submission of Retail Orders is optional for ETP Holders in
that they could choose whether to submit Retail Orders and, if they do,
the extent of its 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,\19\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would not impose
[[Page 69359]]
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 changes 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.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
\20\ See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intramarket Competition. The Exchange believes the proposed rule
change does not impose any burden on intramarket competition that is
not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Particularly, the proposed change applies to all ETP Holders equally in
that all ETP Holders are eligible for the proposed pricing tier, have a
reasonable opportunity to meet the proposed pricing tier's criteria and
will all receive the proposed rebate if such criteria is met. The
Exchange does not believe that the proposed change represents a
significant departure from previous pricing offered by the Exchange or
its competitors. The proposed change is designed to attract additional
order flow to the Exchange. The Exchange believes the proposed new
pricing tier would continue to incentivize market participants to
submit orders that qualify as Retail Order to the Exchange. Greater
overall order flow, trading opportunities, and pricing transparency
would benefit all market participants on the Exchange by enhancing
market quality and would continue to encourage ETP Holders to send
their orders to the Exchange, thereby contributing towards a robust and
well-balanced market ecosystem. Additionally, the proposed rule change
would apply to all ETP Holders equally in that all ETP Holders would be
eligible for the proposed pricing tier, have a reasonable opportunity
to meet the proposed pricing tier's criteria and would all receive the
proposed credit if such criteria is met.
Intermarket Competition. The Exchange believes the proposed rule
change does not impose any burden on intermarket competition that is
not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market
participants can readily choose to send their orders to other exchanges
and off-exchange venues if they deem fee levels at those other venues
to be more favorable. As noted above, the Exchange's market share of
intraday trading (i.e., excluding auctions) is currently less than 10%.
In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees
and rebates 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
this proposed fee change would 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) \21\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \22\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
\22\ 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) \23\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ 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#e694938a83cb85898b8b83889295a6958385c8818990"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="95e7e0f9f0b8f6faf8f8f0fbe1e6d5e6f0f6bbf2fae3">[email protected]</span></a>. Please include
File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2022-75 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-NYSEARCA-2022-75. 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 offices 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-NYSEARCA-2022-75, and should be
submitted on or before December 9, 2022.
[[Page 69360]]
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-25088 Filed 11-17-22; 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 November 18, 2022.
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.