Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 126 / Tuesday, July 6, 2021 / Notices 35551 

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

2 15 U.S.C. 78a. 

3 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

4The Exchange originally filed to amend the Fee 

Schedule on June 1, 2021 (SR–NYSEArca–2021– 

49). SR–NYSEArca–2021–49 was subsequently 

withdrawn and replaced by this filing. 

5A 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). 

6See 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’’). 

7See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61358, 

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

02–10) (Concept Release on Equity Market 

Structure). 

8See 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/ 

divisionsmarketregmrexchangesshtml.html. 

9See 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. 

10See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Equities Market 

Volume Summary, available at http://

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

11See id. 

12See Retail Order Tier, Retail Order Step-Up 

Tier 1, Retail Order Step-Up Tier 2 and Retail Order 

Step-Up Tier 3 on the Fee Schedule. 

Office of Personnel Management. 

Alexys Stanley, 

Regulatory Affairs Analyst. 

[FR Doc. 2021–14160 Filed 7–2–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6325–58–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–92291; File No. SR– 

NYSEArca–2021–52] 

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 

June 29, 2021. 

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 June 14, 

2021, 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 and II 

below, which Items have been prepared 

by the self-regulatory organization. The 

Commission is publishing this notice to 

solicit comments on the proposed rule 

change from interested persons. 

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 modify the per 

share credit and fee associated with 

certain Retail Orders that add and 

remove liquidity. The Exchange 

proposes to implement the fee change 

effective June 14, 2021.4 The proposed 

rule change is available on the 

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

the principal office of the Exchange, and 

at the Commission’s Public Reference 

Room. 

II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

In its filing with the Commission, the 

self-regulatory organization included 

statements concerning the purpose of, 

and basis for, the proposed rule change 

and discussed any comments it received 

on the proposed rule change. The text 

of those statements may be examined at 

the places specified in Item IV below. 

The Exchange has prepared summaries, 

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

of the most significant parts of such 

statements. 

A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and the 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

1. Purpose 

The Exchange proposes to amend the 

Fee Schedule to modify the per share 

credit and fee associated with certain 

Retail Orders 5 that add and remove 

liquidity. The Exchange proposes to 

implement the fee change effective June 

14, 2021. 

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.’’ 6

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.’’ 7 Indeed, equity trading is 

currently dispersed across 16 

exchanges,8 numerous alternative 

trading systems,9 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.10 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.11

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. The competition for Retail 

Orders is even more stark, particularly 

as it relates to exchange versus offexchange 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 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 Retail Order Step-Up tiers,12

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 the Retail Order StepUp Tiers, ETP Holders also do not pay 

a fee when such Retail Orders have a 

time-in-force of Day and remove 

liquidity from the Exchange. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
35552 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 126 / Tuesday, July 6, 2021 / Notices 

13This occurs when two orders presented to the 

Exchange from the same ETP Holder (i.e., MPID) are 

presented separately and not in a paired manner, 

but nonetheless inadvertently match with one 

another. 

14Under Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 pricing tiers, 

such orders would pay a fee of $0.0029 per share 

in Tape B securities. See Fee Schedule. 

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

16 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5). 

17See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 

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

18See infra, note 19. 

Proposed Rule Change 

In response to this competitive 

environment, the Exchange proposes to 

modify the per share credit and fee 

associated with the execution of orders 

that are internalized.13 An internalized 

retail order execution is a trade where 

two Retail Orders that trade against each 

other share the same Market Participant 

Identifier (‘‘MPID’’). As proposed, the 

Exchange would not charge a fee or pay 

a credit for certain orders that qualify 

for the Retail Order Step-Up Tier 1, 

Retail Order Step-Up Tier 2 and Retail 

Order Step-Up Tier 3 pricing tiers. More 

specifically, the Exchange proposes to 

not charge a fee or pay a credit for Retail 

Orders where each side of the executed 

order shares the same MPID, each side 

of the executed order is a Retail Order 

with a time-in-force of Day, and the 

executed orders have an average daily 

volume (‘‘ADV’’) of at least 150,000 

shares. The proposed rule change would 

not create new means of submitting 

orders to the Exchange nor would it 

permit ETP Holders to circumvent the 

Exchange’s order priority rules. The 

Exchange’s priority rules would 

continue to apply as they currently do 

with respect to the execution of Retail 

Orders that are the subject of this 

proposed rule change. 

Under the Retail Order Step-Up Tier 

1 pricing tier, such orders currently 

receive a credit of $0.0038 per share for 

adding liquidity and do not pay a fee for 

removing liquidity. Under the Retail 

Order Step-Up Tier 2 pricing tier, such 

orders currently receive a credit of 

$0.0035 per share for adding liquidity 

and do not pay a fee for removing 

liquidity. Lastly, under the Retail Order 

Step-Up Tier 3 pricing tier, such orders 

currently receive a credit of $0.0036 per 

share for adding liquidity and do not 

pay a fee for removing liquidity. When 

both sides of an execution are not Retail 

Orders or do not share the same MPID, 

the Exchange will continue to not 

charge a fee for removing liquidity and 

will provide the credits noted above. 

The proposed rule change would not 

impact orders that qualify for the Retail 

Order pricing tier that are internalized. 

Such orders would continue to receive 

a credit of $0.0033 per share for 

providing liquidity and would pay a 

basic rate fee of $0.0030 per share for 

removing liquidity.14

The following example illustrates 

how the proposed rule change would 

operate. Assume an ETP holder qualifies 

for the Retail Order Step-Up Tier 3 

pricing tier. As such, the ETP Holder 

would receive a credit of $0.0036 per 

share for Retail Orders that add liquidity 

and would pay no fee for Retail Orders 

with a time-in-force of Day that remove 

liquidity. Further assume that the ETP 

holder has an ADV of Retail Orders with 

a time-in-force of Day that remove 

liquidity of 500,000 shares, of which 

• 250,000 shares ADV where both 

sides of the executed orders share the 

same MPID and are both Retail Orders 

with a time-in-force of Day. Both sides 

of such orders would not pay a fee or 

receive a credit. 

• 100,000 shares ADV where both 

sides of the executed orders share the 

same MPID but are not both Retail 

Orders with a time-in-force of Day (e.g., 

the liquidity providing order is not a 

Retail Order). The retail removing 

shares would continue to not pay a fee 

for removing liquidity and the non-retail 

providing shares would continue to 

receive the tiered or basic rates that are 

applicable based on the ETP holder’s 

qualifying levels. 

• The remaining 150,000 shares ADV 

are where both sides of the executed 

orders do not share the same MPID. The 

retail removing shares would continue 

to not pay a fee for removing liquidity 

and the non-retail providing shares 

would continue to receive the tiered or 

basic rates that are applicable based on 

the ETP holder’s qualifying levels. 

If instead, the ETP Holder in the 

example above has an ADV under 

150,000 shares then the ETP Holder 

would not be subject to the proposed fee 

change. 

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,15 in general, and 

furthers the objectives of Sections 

6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,16 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. 

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.’’ 17

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 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 

reasonably 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 proposal represents a reasonable 

attempt to attract additional Retail 

Orders and retain existing Retail Order 

flow on the Exchange. 

The Exchange believes that the 

proposed change to adopt lower credits 

for Retail Orders that are internalized is 

reasonable because while ETP Holders 

would no longer receive credits for such 

orders, they would also continue to not 

pay any fees for such orders. Further, as 

noted below, the Exchange believes that 

not providing a credit and not charging 

a fee for Retail Orders that are 

internalized is reasonable because, 

despite the lower credit, the resulting 

pricing would remain favorable 

compared to the fees charged for orders 

that are internalized by another 

market,18 and will therefore continue to 

incentivize market participants to 

submit Retail Orders to the Exchange. 

That said, the Exchange notes that 

market participants are free to shift their 

order flow to competing venues if they 

believe other markets offer more 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 126 / Tuesday, July 6, 2021 / Notices 35553 

19See EDGX Price List, Fee Codes EA and ER, at 

https://www.cboe.com/us/equities/membership/fee_

schedule/edgx/. 

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

21Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808, 70 

FR 37495, 37498–99 (June 29, 2005) (S7–10–04) 

(Final Rule). 

favorable fees and credits. Additionally, 

the proposed rule change would apply 

only to a subset of Retail Orders 

directed to the Exchange by ETP 

Holders, i.e., those that share the same 

MPID and that add and remove retail 

liquidity. All other Retail Orders would 

continue to be subject to current fees 

and credits, including those orders that 

qualify for the Retail Order pricing tier. 

The Exchange believes the proposed 

rule change is also reasonable as it is 

designed to incentivize ETP Holders to 

send orders to the Exchange that may 

otherwise be internalized off-exchange, 

which further contributes to a deeper, 

more liquid market and provide even 

more execution opportunities for market 

participants. This overall increase in 

activity deepens the Exchange’s 

liquidity pool, offers additional cost 

savings, supports the quality of price 

discovery, promotes market 

transparency and improves market 

quality, for all investors. 

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 its proposal is 

an equitable allocation of its fees among 

its market participants because all ETP 

Holders that participate on the 

Exchange will be able to internalize 

their Retail Orders on the Exchange at 

no cost, i.e., they would not receive any 

credit or pay any fee for the execution 

of Retail Orders that are internalized. 

Without having a view of ETP Holders’ 

activity on other markets and offexchange 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. 

Further, given the competitive market 

for attracting Retail Order flow, the 

Exchange notes that with this proposed 

rule change, the cost for executing Retail 

Orders that are internalized would be 

lower than the fees charged by other 

exchanges that the Exchange competes 

with for order flow. For example, EDGX 

Equities (‘‘EDGX’’) charges its members 

an internalization fee of $0.00050 per 

share for orders that add liquidity and 

a fee of $0.00050 per share for orders 

that remove liquidity if such members 

do not have an adding ADV of 

10,000,000 shares.19

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 recalibrating 

the fees and credits charged for 

execution of Retail Orders that are 

internalized will continue to 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 exchangelisted 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 nondiscriminatory basis. The Exchange 

believes that the proposed rule change 

is not unfairly discriminatory because 

maintaining or increasing the 

proportion of Retail Orders in exchangelisted 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 be charged the same fee 

for executing Retail Orders that are 

internalized. The Exchange also notes 

that proposed rule change will not 

adversely impact any ETP Holder’s 

ability to qualify for other reduced fee 

or enhanced rebate tiers. 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,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 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 

competition among orders, which 

promotes ‘‘more efficient pricing of 

individual stocks for all types of orders, 

large and small.’’ 21

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 

would be able to internalize Retail 

Orders on the Exchange at no cost, i.e., 

they would receive no credit or pay any 

fee. Additionally, the proposed change 

is designed to attract additional order 

flow to the Exchange. The Exchange 

believes that the proposed rule change 

would continue to incentivize market 

participants to submit Retail Orders that 

are internalized and executed on a 

public and transparent market rather 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
35554 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 126 / Tuesday, July 6, 2021 / Notices 

22 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 23 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

than on an off-exchange venue because 

ETP Holders would be able to transact 

such orders at no cost. Greater liquidity 

benefits all market participants on the 

Exchange by providing more trading 

opportunities and encourages ETP 

Holders to send orders, thereby 

contributing to robust levels of liquidity, 

which benefits all market participants. 

The proposed pricing for internalizing 

Retail Orders would be available to all 

similarly-situated market participants, 

and, as such, the proposed change 

would not impose a disparate burden on 

competition among market participants 

on the Exchange. 

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 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 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 has become 

effective pursuant to Section 

19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.22

At any time within 60 days of the 

filing of the proposed rule change, the 

Commission summarily may 

temporarily suspend such rule change if 

it appears to the Commission that such 

action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in 

the public interest; (ii) for the protection 

of investors; or (iii) otherwise in 

furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 

If the Commission takes such action, the 

Commission shall institute proceedings 

to determine whether the proposed rule 

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–2021–52 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–2021–52. 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–2021–52 and 

should be submitted on or before July 

27, 2021. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.23

J. Matthew DeLesDernier, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2021–14254 Filed 7–2–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

Sunshine Act Meeting; Cancellation 

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS

ANNOUNCEMENT: 86 FR 34080, June 28, 

2021. 

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF

THE MEETING: Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 

2 p.m. 

CHANGES IN THE MEETING: The Closed 

Meeting scheduled for Thursday, July 1, 

2021 at 2 p.m., has been cancelled. 

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

For further information; please contact 

Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office 

of the Secretary at (202) 551–5400. 

Dated: July 1, 2021. 

Vanessa A. Countryman, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2021–14426 Filed 7–1–21; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Investment Company Act Release No. 

34320; File No. 812–15214] 

BNY Mellon Alcentra Opportunistic 

Global Credit Income Fund and BNY 

Mellon Investment Adviser, Inc. 

June 29, 2021. 

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange 

Commission (the ‘‘Commission’’). 

ACTION: Notice. 

Notice of an application for an order 

pursuant to section 6(c) of the 

Investment Company Act of 1940 (the 

‘‘1940 Act’’) for an exemption from 

sections 18(a)(2), 18(c), and 18(i) of the 

1940 Act, pursuant to section 6(c) and 

23(c) of the 1940 Act for certain 

exemptions from rule 23c–3 under the 

1940 Act, and for an order pursuant to 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES