20488 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2022 / Notices 

10 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 

2 15 U.S.C. 78a. 

3 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

provide any Clearing Member with a 

competitive advantage over any other 

Clearing Member. Further, the proposed 

rule change would not affect Clearing 

Member’s access to OCC’s services or 

impose any direct burdens on Clearing 

Members. Accordingly, the proposed 

rule change would not unfairly inhibit 

access to OCC’s services or disadvantage 

or favor any particular user in 

relationship to another user. 

For the foregoing reasons, OCC 

believes that the proposed rule change 

is in the public interest, would be 

consistent with the requirements of the 

Act applicable to clearing agencies, and 

would not impact or impose a burden 

on competition. 

(C) Clearing Agency’s Statement on 

Comments on the Proposed Rule 

Change Received From Members, 

Participants or Others 

Written comments on the proposed 

rule change were not and are not 

intended to be solicited with respect to 

the proposed rule change and none have 

been received. 

III. Date of Effectiveness of the 

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for 

Commission Action 

Within 45 days of the date of 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register or within such longer period 

up to 90 days (i) as the Commission may 

designate if it finds such longer period 

to be appropriate and publishes its 

reasons for so finding or (ii) as to which 

the self-regulatory organization 

consents, the Commission will: 

(A) By order approve or disapprove 

such proposed rule change, or 

(B) institute proceedings to determine 

whether the proposed rule change 

should be disapproved. 

OCC shall post notice on its website 

of proposed changes that are 

implemented. The proposal shall not 

take effect until all regulatory actions 

required with respect to the proposal are 

completed. 

IV. Solicitation of Comments 

Interested persons are invited to 

submit written data, views and 

arguments concerning the foregoing, 

including whether the proposed rule 

change is consistent with the Act. 

Comments may be submitted by any of 

the following methods: 

Electronic Comments 

• Use the Commission’s internet 

comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ 

rules/sro.shtml); or 

• Send an email to rule-comments@

sec.gov. Please include File Number SR– 

OCC–2022–004 on the subject line. 

Paper Comments 

• Send paper comments in triplicate 

to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, 

Securities and Exchange Commission, 

100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 

20549–1090. 

All submissions should refer to File 

Number SR–OCC–2022–004. This file 

number should be included on the 

subject line if email is used. To help the 

Commission process and review your 

comments more efficiently, please use 

only one method. The Commission will 

post all comments on the Commission’s 

internet website (http://www.sec.gov/ 

rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the 

submission, all subsequent 

amendments, all written statements 

with respect to the proposed rule 

change that are filed with the 

Commission, and all written 

communications relating to the 

proposed rule change between the 

Commission and any person, other than 

those that may be withheld from the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be 

available for website viewing and 

printing in the Commission’s Public 

Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20549, on official 

business days between the hours of 

10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such 

filing also will be available for 

inspection and copying at the principal 

office of OCC and on OCC’s website at 

https://www.theocc.com/CompanyInformation/Documents-and-Archives/ 

By-Laws-and-Rules. 

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–OCC–2022–004 and should 

be submitted on or before April 28, 

2022. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.10

J. Matthew DeLesDernier, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2022–07341 Filed 4–6–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–94575; File No. SR– 

NYSEArca–2022–15] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE 

Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and 

Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed 

Rule Change To Amend the NYSE Arca 

Equities Fees and Charges 

April 1, 2022. 

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) 1 of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 

‘‘Act’’) 2 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,3

notice is hereby given that, on March 

21, 2022, NYSE Arca, Inc. (‘‘NYSE 

Arca’’ or the ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

(the ‘‘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. 

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 introduce a new 

credit that would apply to transactions 

executed on the Exchange using 

Discretionary Pegged Orders. The 

Exchange proposes to implement the fee 

change effective March 21, 2022. The 

proposed rule change is available on the 

Exchange’s website at www.nyse.com, at 

the principal office of the Exchange, and 

at the Commission’s Public Reference 

Room. 

II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

In its filing with the Commission, the 

self-regulatory organization included 

statements concerning the purpose of, 

and basis for, the proposed rule change 

and discussed any comments it received 

on the proposed rule change. The text 

of those statements may be examined at 

the places specified in Item IV below. 

The Exchange has prepared summaries, 

set forth in sections A, B, and C below, 

of the most significant parts of such 

statements. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2022 / Notices 20489 

4See 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’’). 

5See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61358, 

75 FR 3594, 3597 (January 21, 2010) (File No. S7– 

02–10) (Concept Release on Equity Market 

Structure). 

6See Cboe U.S Equities Market Volume 

Summary, available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/ 

equities/market_share. See generally https://

www.sec.gov/fast-answers/divisionsmarketregmr

exchangesshtml.html. 

7See FINRA ATS Transparency Data, available at 

https://otctransparency.finra.org/otctransparency/ 

AtsIssueData. A list of alternative trading systems 

registered with the Commission is available at 

https://www.sec.gov/foia/docs/atslist.htm. 

8See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Equities Market 

Volume Summary, available at http://

markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/. 

9See id. 

10See NYSE Arca Rule 7.31–E(h)(3). See also 

Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78181 (June 

28, 2016), 81 FR 43297 (July 1, 2016) (SR– 

NYSEArca–2016–44) (Notice of Filing of 

Amendment No. 1, and Order Granting Accelerated 

Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified 

by Amendment No. 1, To Add a New Discretionary 

Pegged Order). 

11A ‘‘Pegged Order’’ is defined in Rule 7.31–E(h) 

as a Limit Order that does not route with a working 

price that is pegged to a dynamic reference price. 

If the designated reference price is higher (lower) 

than the limit price of a Pegged Order to buy (sell), 

the working price will be the limit price of the 

order. 

12The term ‘‘working price’’ is defined in Rule 

7.36–E(a)(3) as the price at which an order is 

eligible to trade at any given time, which may be 

different from the limit price or display price of the 

order. The term ‘‘limit price’’ is defined in Rule 

7.36–E(a)(2) as the highest (lowest) specified price 

at which a Limit Order to buy (sell) is eligible to 

trade. 

13The term ‘‘PBBO’’ is defined in Rule 1.1(dd) as 

the highest Protected Bid and the lowest Protected 

Offer. 

14Pursuant to NYSE Arca Rule 7.31–E(b)(1), any 

order to buy or sell designated Day, if not traded, 

expires at the end of the designated session on the 

day on which it was entered. 

15The Core Trading Session for each security 

begins at 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time and ends at the 

conclusion of Core Trading Hours. See NYSE Arca 

Rule 7.34–E(a)(2). The term ‘‘Core Trading Hours’’ 

means the hours of 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time through 

4:00 p.m. Eastern Time or such other hours as may 

be determined by the Exchange from time to time. 

See NYSE Arca Rule 1.1. 

16 See https://www.nyse.com/trader-update/ 

history#110000415898. 

17 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 

18 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5). 

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 

Fee Schedule to introduce a new credit 

that would apply to transactions 

executed on the Exchange using 

Discretionary Pegged Orders. 

The Exchange proposes to implement 

the fee change effective March 21, 2022. 

Background 

The Exchange operates in a highly 

competitive market. The Securities and 

Exchange Commission (‘‘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.’’ 4

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.’’ 5 Indeed, equity trading is 

currently dispersed across 16 

exchanges,6 numerous alternative 

trading systems,7 and broker-dealer 

internalizers and wholesalers, all 

competing for order flow. Based on 

publicly available information, no single 

exchange currently has more than 18% 

market share.8 Therefore, no exchange 

possesses significant pricing power in 

the execution of equity order flow. More 

specifically, the Exchange currently has 

less than 9% market share of executed 

volume of equities trading.9

The Exchange believes that the evershifting 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 nonexchange venues to which a firm routes 

order flow. With respect to nonmarketable order flow that would 

provide liquidity on an Exchange, 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 that 

relate to orders that would provide 

liquidity on an exchange. 

Proposed Rule Change 

Pursuant to Commission approval, the 

Exchange adopted a new order type 

known as a Discretionary Pegged Order 

(‘‘DPO order’’).10 A DPO order is a 

Pegged Order 11 to buy (sell) that upon 

entry is assigned a working price 12

equal to the lower (higher) of the 

midpoint of the PBBO 13 (‘‘Midpoint 

Price’’) or the limit price of the order. In 

order to trade with contra-side orders on 

the NYSE Arca Book, a DPO order to 

buy (sell) will exercise the least amount 

of price discretion necessary from its 

working price to its discretionary price 

(defined as the lower (higher) of the 

Midpoint Price or the DPO order’s limit 

price), except during periods of quote 

instability. DPO orders are not 

displayed, must be designated Day 14

and are eligible to be designated for the 

Core Trading Session 15 only. 

In anticipation of the scheduled 

implementation of the DPO order 

functionality,16 the Exchange proposes 

to introduce a new credit to the Fee 

Schedule, effective March 21, 2022. 

Specifically, the Exchange proposes to 

introduce a credit of $0.0005 per share 

for DPO orders that add liquidity. To 

reflect the new credit, the Exchange 

proposes to amend Section IV of the Fee 

Schedule titled ‘‘Other Standard Rates 

for Securities with a Per Share Price 

$1.00 or Above’’ by adopting a new 

bullet that would state ‘‘($0.0005) credit 

for Discretionary Pegged Orders that add 

liquidity.’’ 

The Exchange believes the proposed 

rule change to adopt a new credit for 

DPO orders that add liquidity will 

incentivize ETP Holders to use the DPO 

order functionality and direct liquidityproviding orders to the Exchange, which 

would provide additional liquidity for 

incoming orders and offer additional 

opportunities for midpoint execution. 

2. Statutory Basis 

The Exchange believes that the 

proposed rule change is consistent with 

Section 6(b) of the Act,17 in general, and 

furthers the objectives of Sections 

6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,18 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. 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
20490 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2022 / Notices 

19See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 

(June 9, 2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005). 

20 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8). 

21 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 

51808, 70 FR 37495, 37498–99 (June 29, 2005) (S7– 

10–04) (Final Rule). 

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.’’ 19

The Exchange believes that the evershifting 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 non-marketable orders 

which provide liquidity on an 

Exchange, ETP Holders can choose from 

any one of the 16 currently operating 

registered exchanges to route such order 

flow. Accordingly, competitive forces 

reasonably constrain exchange 

transaction fees that relate to orders that 

would provide liquidity 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. 

In particular, the Exchange believes 

the proposed rule change is reasonable 

because it is designed to enhance the 

Exchange’s market quality by 

encouraging ETP Holders to add more 

liquidity on the Exchange, which would 

benefit all market participants by 

deepening the Exchange’s liquidity 

pool. The Exchange believes it is 

reasonable to introduce a fee incentive 

for the use of DPO orders, which is 

designed to exercise discretion in order 

to provide price improvement to contraside orders. As noted above, a DPO 

order is designed to be a non-displayed 

order that could execute at the midpoint 

of the PBBO, and thus would enhance 

order execution opportunities at the 

Exchange. The Exchange believes the 

proposed credit will therefore 

incentivize ETP Holders to utilize the 

new functionality. 

The Exchange believes it is reasonable 

to provide the proposed credit as an 

incentive to ETP Holders when they use 

the DPO order to provide liquidity to 

the Exchange, which would benefit all 

market participants. The Exchange 

believes the proposed change to adopt a 

new credit is reasonable as it would 

provide an incentive to ETP Holders to 

use the order type to provide 

meaningful added levels of liquidity, 

thereby contributing to market quality 

on the Exchange. 

As noted above, the Exchange 

operates in a highly competitive 

environment, particularly for attracting 

non-displayed and midpoint order flow. 

Additionally, many of the Exchange’s 

competitors for this order flow are 

alternative trading systems (ATSs) 

which are not registered national 

securities exchanges and therefore 

operate with far more regulatory 

freedom. For example, ATSs can 

segregate and/or eliminate undesirable 

order flow based on client demand, a 

function that is not available to the 

Exchange. 

Additionally, the Exchange is one of 

many venues and off-exchange venues 

to which market participants may direct 

their order flow, and it represents a 

small percentage of the overall market. 

The Exchange believes its proposal 

equitably allocates its fees among its 

market participants. 

The Exchange believes that the 

proposal represents an equitable 

allocation of fees and is not unfairly 

discriminatory because it would apply 

uniformly to all ETP Holders, in that all 

ETP Holders will be eligible for the 

proposed new credit and will have the 

opportunity to utilize the DPO order 

and receive the applicable credit when 

such orders add liquidity on the 

Exchange. The proposed credit would 

apply automatically and uniformly to all 

ETP Holders that use the new 

functionality. The proposed credit is 

designed as an incentive to all liquidity 

providers to submit liquidity providing 

orders by using the DPO order type and 

each will receive the associated credit 

when such orders add liquidity on the 

Exchange. While the Exchange has no 

way of knowing whether this proposed 

rule change would serve as an incentive 

to utilize the new order type, the 

Exchange anticipates a number of ETP 

Holders will benefit from the proposed 

rule change when they utilize the new 

functionality. As stated, the proposed 

new credit is designed to provide an 

incentive for ETP Holders to submit 

additional liquidity across all Tapes by 

using the DPO order type. 

The Exchange believes that the 

proposal is not unfairly discriminatory. 

The Exchange believes it is not unfairly 

discriminatory to provide the proposed 

credit as the credit would be provided 

on an equal basis to all ETP Holders that 

use the DPO order type to add liquidity 

in all securities. As noted above, the 

proposed credit is designed to serve as 

an incentive to all ETP Holders to 

utilize the DPO order type to add 

liquidity on the Exchange and each 

would receive the corresponding new 

credit. The Exchange also notes that the 

proposed rule change will not adversely 

impact any ETP Holder’s pricing or their 

ability to qualify for other fees and 

credits on the Exchange. Rather, should 

an ETP Holder not use the new 

functionality, the ETP Holder will 

merely not receive the corresponding 

rebate. 

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, this proposed 

rule change neither targets nor will it 

have a disparate impact on any 

particular category of market 

participant. The Exchange believes that 

this proposal does not permit unfair 

discrimination because the changes 

described in this proposal would be 

applied to all similarly situated ETP 

Holders. 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 rule change would not permit 

unfair discrimination among ETP 

Holders because the DPO order type 

functionality would be available to all 

ETP Holders and each such ETP Holder 

would receive the proposed new credit 

when adding liquidity on the Exchange 

through the use of the new order type. 

Finally, the submission of orders to 

the Exchange is optional for ETP 

Holders in that they could choose 

whether to submit orders to the 

Exchange 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,20 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 rule change would 

encourage the submission of additional 

liquidity to a public exchange, thereby 

promoting market depth 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.’’ 21


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2022 / Notices 20491 

22 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 

23 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(2). 

24 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B). 25 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

Intramarket Competition. The 

Exchange believes the proposed 

amendment to its Fee Schedule would 

not impose any burden on competition 

that is not necessary or appropriate in 

furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 

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 liquidity to the Exchange in 

all securities through the use of a new 

order type. The Exchange believes that 

the proposed adoption of a new credit 

would incentivize market participants 

to direct liquidity adding order flow to 

the Exchange, bringing with it 

additional execution opportunities for 

market participants. Greater overall 

order flow and more trading 

opportunities at multiple price points 

benefits all market participants on the 

Exchange by enhancing market quality 

and continuing to encourage ETP 

Holders to send orders to the Exchange, 

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 offexchange 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 9%. 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 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) 22 of the Act and 

subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b–4 23

thereunder, because it establishes a due, 

fee, or other charge imposed by the 

Exchange. 

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) 24 of the Act to 

determine whether the proposed rule 

change should be approved or 

disapproved. 

IV. Solicitation of Comments 

Interested persons are invited to 

submit written data, views, and 

arguments concerning the foregoing, 

including whether the proposed rule 

change is consistent with the Act. 

Comments may be submitted by any of 

the following methods: 

Electronic Comments 

• Use the Commission’s internet 

comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ 

rules/sro.shtml); or 

• Send an email to rule-comments@

sec.gov. Please include File Number SR– 

NYSEArca–2022–15 on the subject line. 

Paper Comments 

• Send paper comments in triplicate 

to Secretary, Securities and Exchange 

Commission, 100 F Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20549–1090. 

All submissions should refer to File 

Number SR–NYSEArca–2022–15. This 

file number should be included on the 

subject line if email is used. To help the 

Commission process and review your 

comments more efficiently, please use 

only one method. The Commission will 

post all comments on the Commission’s 

internet website (http://www.sec.gov/ 

rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the 

submission, all subsequent 

amendments, all written statements 

with respect to the proposed rule 

change that are filed with the 

Commission, and all written 

communications relating to the 

proposed rule change between the 

Commission and any person, other than 

those that may be withheld from the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be 

available for website viewing and 

printing in the Commission’s Public 

Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20549 on official 

business days between the hours of 

10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the 

filing also will be available for 

inspection and copying at the principal 

office of the Exchange. All comments 

received will be posted without change. 

Persons submitting comments are 

cautioned that we do not redact or edit 

personal identifying information from 

comment submissions. You should 

submit only information that you wish 

to make available publicly. All 

submissions should refer to File 

Number SR–NYSEArca–2022–15, and 

should be submitted on or before April 

28, 2022. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.25

J. Matthew DeLesDernier, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2022–07345 Filed 4–6–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[SEC File No. 270–359, OMB Control No. 

3235–0410] 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

Upon Written Request Copies Available 

From: Securities and Exchange 

Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 

100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 

20549–2736 

Extension: 

Rules 17h–1T and 17h–2T 

Notice is hereby given that pursuant 

to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(‘‘PRA’’) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) has submitted to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(‘‘OMB’’) a request for approval of 

extension of the previously approved 

collection of information provided for in 

Rules 17h–1T and 17h–2T (17 CFR 

240.17h–1T and 17 CFR 240.17h–2T), 

under the Securities Exchange Act of 

1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.). 

Rule 17h–1T requires a covered 

broker-dealer to maintain and preserve 

records and other information 

concerning certain entities that are 

associated with the broker-dealer. This 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES