50922 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 174 / Monday, September 13, 2021 / Notices 

17NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (D.C. 

Cir. 2010) (quoting Securities Exchange Act Release 

No. 59039 (December 2, 2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782– 

83 (December 9, 2008) (SR–NYSEArca–2006–21)). 

18 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 

19 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f). 20 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. 

dealers that act as their order-routing 

agents, have a wide range of choices of 

where to route orders for execution’; 

[and] ‘no exchange can afford to take its 

market share percentages for granted’ 

because ‘no exchange possesses a 

monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in 

the execution of order flow from broker 

dealers’ . . . .’’.17 Accordingly, the 

Exchange does not believe its proposed 

fee change imposes any burden on 

competition that is not necessary or 

appropriate in furtherance of the 

purposes of the Act. 

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Comments on the 

Proposed Rule Change Received From 

Members, Participants, or Others 

The Exchange neither solicited nor 

received comments on 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) 

of the Act 18 and paragraph (f) of Rule 

19b–4 19 thereunder. 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 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 will institute proceedings 

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– 

CboeEDGX–2021–038 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–CboeEDGX–2021–038. 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–CboeEDGX–2021–038 and 

should be submitted on or before 

October 4, 2021. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.20

J. Matthew DeLesDernier, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2021–19613 Filed 9–10–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–92882; File No. SR– 

NYSEArca–2021–74] 

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 

September 7, 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 August 

23, 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, II, and 

III 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 eliminate the per 

share credit associated with certain 

Retail Orders that add and remove 

liquidity. The Exchange proposes to 

implement the fee change effective 

August 23, 2021. 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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 174 / Monday, September 13, 2021 / Notices 50923 

4A 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). 

5The Exchange originally filed to amend the Fee 

Schedule on August 9, 2021 (SR–NYSEArca–2021– 

72). SR–NYSEArca–2021–72 was subsequently 

withdrawn and replaced by this filing. 

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/divisionsmarketregmr

exchangesshtml.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. 

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. 

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 eliminate the per share 

credit associated with certain Retail 

Orders 4 that add and remove liquidity. 

The Exchange proposes to implement 

the fee change effective August 23, 

2021.5

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. 

Proposed Rule Change 

The Exchange proposes to eliminate 

the per share credit 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’’). Under the proposal, 

for Retail Orders that are internalized, 

the Exchange would not provide the 

current rebate and would continue to 

not charge a fee for 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 (1) shares the same MPID and (2) 

is a Retail Order with a time-in-force of 

Day. 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 continue to 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 continue to pay a fee of $0.0030 

per share for removing liquidity.14

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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
50924 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 174 / Monday, September 13, 2021 / Notices 

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 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 92013 

(May 25, 2021), 86 FR 29312 (June 1, 2021) (SR– 

CboeBZX–2021–040). 

19See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 92445 

(July 20, 2021), 86 FR 40097 (July 26, 2021) (SR– 

CboeEDGX–2021–033). 

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. 

In particular, the Exchange believes 

that the proposed elimination of credits 

is reasonable because the Exchange has 

determined to no longer provide credits 

for Retail Orders that are internalized. 

With this proposed rule change, the 

Exchange is eliminating credits only for 

a subset of Retail Orders, i.e., orders that 

are internalized. The Exchange 

currently provides credits for Retail 

Orders that provide liquidity that other 

market participants can interact with. 

Retail Orders that are internalized, on 

the other hand, do not share that 

characteristic and therefore, the 

Exchange has determined not to provide 

credits for such orders. 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. 

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. 

The Exchange believes it is reasonable 

to no longer provide credits for certain 

types of orders transacted on the 

Exchange because the Exchange is not 

required to provide such credits. As 

noted above, the Exchange believes that 

it is reasonable to eliminate credits for 

Retail Orders that are internalized 

because the pricing incentive currently 

in place is intended to attract liquidity 

that other market participants can 

interact with. The Exchange is not 

required to provide credits for activity 

that it believes does not accrue liquidity 

on the Exchange for the benefit of other 

market participants. The Exchange notes 

that other markets have utilized a 

similar basis for eliminating rebates. In 

particular, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. 

(‘‘BZX’’) recently eliminated the rebate 

applied to orders in securities priced 

below $1.00 because, as BZX noted, it 

‘‘no longer wishes to, nor is it required 

to, provide such a rebate.’’ 18

The Exchange believes that, despite 

the removal of the credits, ETP Holders 

may continue to direct orders to the 

Exchange that may otherwise be 

internalized off-exchange, which would 

contribute to a deeper, more liquid 

market and provide even more 

execution opportunities for market 

participants. 

The Proposed Fee Change Is an 

Equitable Allocation of Fees and Credits 

The Exchange believes the proposal is 

an equitable allocation of 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. 

Notwithstanding the elimination of 

credits for Retail Orders that are 

internalized under Retail Order Step-Up 

Tiers 1–3, the Exchange believes it 

would continue to be an attractive 

venue for ETP Holders because they 

would still be able to execute Retail 

Orders that are internalized at no cost. 

However, without having a view of ETP 

Holders’ activity on other markets and 

off-exchange venues, the Exchange has 

no way of knowing whether the 

Exchange’s current fee structure would 

result in any ETP Holder sending their 

Retail Orders to the Exchange. The 

Exchange believes that its fee structure 

for Retail Orders that are not 

internalized should incentivize ETP 

Holders to continue to send such orders 

to the Exchange. The Exchange cannot 

predict with certainty how many ETP 

Holders would avail themselves of this 

opportunity but additional Retail Orders 

would benefit all market participants 

because it would provide greater 

execution opportunities on the 

Exchange. 

The Exchange further notes that the 

market for attracting Retail Orders 

remains competitive. For example, until 

recently, CBOE EDGX Equities, Inc. 

(‘‘EDGX’’) charged its members an 

internalization fee of $0.00050 per share 

for orders, including Retail Orders, that 

add liquidity and a fee of $0.00050 per 

share for orders, including Retail 

Orders, that remove liquidity if such 

members did not have an adding ADV 

of 10,000,000 shares.19 As a result of the 

recent EDGX fee change, EDGX now 

pays a rebate for Retail Orders that 

ranges between $0.0032 per share and 

$0.0037 per share. The Exchange 

believes that its fee structure for Retail 

Orders that are not internalized or do 

not qualify for Retail Order Step-Up 

Tiers 1–3 should continue to incentivize 

ETP Holders to send such orders to the 

Exchange. Specifically, under the 

Exchange’s step up tiers for Retail 

Orders, ETP Holders can receive more 

favorable credits that range between 

$0.0035 per share and $0.0038 per 

share. 

The Exchange believes the proposed 

change is equitable and not unfairly 

discriminatory because ETP Holders 

would continue to not pay any fees for 

Retail Orders that are internalized. 

Further, the Exchange believes the 

proposed change is equitable and not 

unfairly discriminatory because it 

would apply equally to all ETP Holders. 

Notwithstanding the elimination of 

credits for Retail Orders that are 

internalized under the Retail Order 

Step-Up Tiers 1–3, the Exchange 

believes that its current fee structure, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 174 / Monday, September 13, 2021 / Notices 50925 

20See e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 

667662 (April 6, 2012), 77 FR 22053 (April 12, 

2021) (SR–EDGX–2012–12). See also supra, note 19. 

21 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8). 

22See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808, 

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

(Final Rule). 

23 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 

24 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(2). 

25 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B). 

which provides rebates for Retail Orders 

when such orders provide liquidity and 

interact with other participants, should 

provide a sufficient incentive for ETP 

Holders to direct their Retail Orders to 

the Exchange. 

The Exchange believes that the 

proposed rule change is equitable 

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 

proposal is not unfairly discriminatory. 

The Exchange also believes that nothing 

about its proposed pricing model for 

Retail Orders that are internalized is 

inherently unfair; instead, it is a rational 

pricing model that was employed by 

one of the Exchange’s competitors for 

many years.20 Despite the elimination of 

the credits, the Exchange believes its fee 

structure incentivizes retail trading on a 

transparent market, thus enhances price 

discovery and improves the overall 

quality of the equity markets. 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. All ETP Holders 

on the Exchange that qualify for the 

Retail Order Step Up Tiers 1–3 whose 

Retail Orders are internalized would no 

longer receive credits and would 

continue to not pay a fee. The Exchange 

also notes that the 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,21 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, despite the elimination of credits 

for Retail Orders that are internalized 

under the Retail Order Step Up Tiers 1– 

3, the resulting fee structure would 

continue to incentivize the submission 

of Retail Orders to a public exchange, 

thereby enhancing order execution 

opportunities for all market 

participants. 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.’’ 22

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. The Exchange believes that the 

resulting fee structure would continue 

to incentivize market participants to 

submit Retail Orders that are 

internalized for execution on a public 

and transparent market rather 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 elimination of credits for Retail 

Orders that are internalized under the 

Retail Order Step Up Tiers 1–3 would 

impact all similarly-situated ETP 

Holders on an equal basis, 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. 

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) 23 of the Act and 

subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b–4 24

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) 25 of the Act to 

determine whether the proposed rule 

change should be approved or 

disapproved. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
50926 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 174 / Monday, September 13, 2021 / Notices 

26 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

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 No. SR– 

NYSEArca–2021–74 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 No. 

NYSEArca–2021–74. 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 No. 

NYSEArca–2021–74, and should be 

submitted on or before October 4, 2021. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.26

J. Matthew DeLesDernier, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2021–19610 Filed 9–10–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 

[Disaster Declaration #17129 and #17130; 

North Dakota Disaster Number ND–00100] 

Presidential Declaration of a Major 

Disaster for Public Assistance Only for 

the State of North Dakota 

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business 

Administration. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the 

Presidential declaration of a major 

disaster for Public Assistance Only for 

the State of North Dakota (FEMA–4613– 

DR), dated 09/01/2021. 

Incident: Severe Storm, Straight-Line 

Winds, and Flooding. 

Incident Period: 06/07/2021 through 

06/11/2021. 

DATES: Issued on 09/01/2021. 

Physical Loan Application Deadline 

Date: 11/01/2021. 

Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan 

Application Deadline Date: 06/01/2022. 

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan 

applications to: U.S. Small Business 

Administration, Processing and 

Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 

Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. 

Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, 

U.S. Small Business Administration, 

409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, 

Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205–6734. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is 

hereby given that as a result of the 

President’s major disaster declaration on 

09/01/2021, Private Non-Profit 

organizations that provide essential 

services of a governmental nature may 

file disaster loan applications at the 

address listed above or other locally 

announced locations. 

The following areas have been 

determined to be adversely affected by 

the disaster: 

Primary Counties: Burke, Divide, 

Emmons, Grant, Kidder, Lamoure, 

Sioux, Williams. 

The Interest Rates are: 

Percent 

For Physical Damage: 

Non-Profit Organizations with 

Credit Available Elsewhere ... 2.000 

Percent 

Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere ..................................... 2.000 

For Economic Injury: 

Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere ..................................... 2.000 

The number assigned to this disaster 

for physical damage is 17129 B and for 

economic injury is 17130 0. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Number 59008) 

James Rivera, 

Associate Administrator for Disaster 

Assistance. 

[FR Doc. 2021–19659 Filed 9–10–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8026–03–P 

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 

[Disaster Declaration #17125 and #17126; 

Tennessee Disaster Number TN–00131] 

Presidential Declaration of a Major 

Disaster for Public Assistance Only for 

the State of Tennessee 

AGENCY: Small Business Administration. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the 

Presidential declaration of a major 

disaster for Public Assistance Only for 

the State of Tennessee (FEMA–4609– 

DR), dated 09/01/2021. 

Incident: Severe Storm and Flooding. 

Incident Period: 08/21/2021. 

DATES: Issued on 09/01/2021. 

Physical Loan Application Deadline 

Date: 11/01/2021. 

Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan 

Application Deadline Date: 06/01/2022. 

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan 

applications to: U.S. Small Business 

Administration, Processing and 

Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 

Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. 

Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, 

U.S. Small Business Administration, 

409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, 

Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205–6734. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is 

hereby given that as a result of the 

President’s major disaster declaration on 

09/01/2021, Private Non-Profit 

organizations that provide essential 

services of a governmental nature may 

file disaster loan applications at the 

address listed above or other locally 

announced locations. 

The following areas have been 

determined to be adversely affected by 

the disaster: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1