Document ID: SEC-2022-0837-0001
Agency: sec
Document Type: Notice
Title: Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: NYSE American, LLC
Posted Date: 2022-06-22T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 22, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37364-37368]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-13273]

[[Page 37364]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-95106; File No. SR-NYSEAMER-2022-24]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of 
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Change To Amend Certain 
Transaction Fees and Credits in the NYSE American Equities Price List 
and Fee Schedule

June 15, 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 June 1, 2022, NYSE American LLC (``NYSE American'' 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance 
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend certain transaction fees and credits 
in the NYSE American Equities Price List and Fee Schedule (``Price 
List'') pertaining to its Standard Rates and Retail Order Rates for 
transactions in securities at or above $1, as well as its transaction 
fees and credits and monthly credits applicable to Electronic 
Designated Market Makers (``eDMM'') in assigned securities. The 
Exchange proposes to implement the fee changes effective June 1, 2022. 
The proposed 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 certain transaction fees and credits 
in its Price List pertaining to its Standard Rates and Retail Order 
Rates for transactions in securities at or above $1, as well as its 
transaction fees and credits and monthly credits applicable to 
Electronic Designated Market Makers (``eDMM'') in assigned securities.
    The proposed changes respond to the current competitive environment 
where order flow providers have a choice of where to direct liquidity-
providing and liquidity-removing orders by offering further incentives 
for ETP Holders to send additional adding and removing liquidity to the 
Exchange.
    The Exchange proposes to implement the fee changes effective June 
1, 2022.
Competitive Environment
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. The 
Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over 
regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services 
in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, the Commission 
highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and 
SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the 
market system ``has been remarkably successful in promoting market 
competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors 
and listed companies.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (File No. S7-10-04) (Final 
Rule) (``Regulation NMS'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While Regulation NMS has enhanced competition, it has also fostered 
a ``fragmented'' market structure where trading in a single stock can 
occur across multiple trading centers. When multiple trading centers 
compete for order flow in the same stock, the Commission has recognized 
that ``such competition can lead to the fragmentation of order flow in 
that stock.'' \5\ Indeed, cash 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 17% market share.\8\ Therefore, no exchange 
possesses significant pricing power in the execution of cash equity 
order flow. More specifically, the Exchange currently has less than 1% 
market share of executed volume of cash equities trading.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61358, 75 FR 3594, 
3597 (January 21, 2010) (File No. S7-02-10) (Concept Release on 
Equity Market Structure).
    \6\ See 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.
    \7\ See 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.
    \8\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Equities Market Volume Summary, 
available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/.
    \9\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the 
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can 
move order flow, or discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of 
products. While it is not possible to know a firm's reason for shifting 
order flow, the Exchange believes that one such reason is because of 
fee changes at any of the registered exchanges or non-exchange venues 
to which the firm routes order flow. Accordingly, competitive forces 
compel the Exchange to use exchange transaction fees and credits 
because market participants can readily trade on competing venues if 
they deem pricing levels at those other venues to be more favorable.
Proposed Rule Change
    The Exchange proposes the following changes to its Price List.
Proposed Increase to Tier 2 Fee for Orders Removing Liquidity
    Regarding its Standard Rates in securities at or above $1, the 
Exchange proposes to increase the fee for Tier 2 orders removing 
liquidity. The current Tier 2 pricing available to ETP Holders with 
Adding ADV of at least 700,000 shares includes a fee of $0.0027 per 
share for orders removing liquidity from the Exchange. The Exchange 
proposes to increase this fee to $0.0028 per share.
    The Exchange proposes this change in part because it would be 
consistent with the applicable rate on other marketplaces. For 
instance, Nasdaq PSX charges a $0.0029 per share fee for removing 
liquidity for firms meeting certain requirements; otherwise, its fee 
for removing liquidity is $0.0030 per

[[Page 37365]]

share.\10\ The Exchange's proposed fee increase to $0.0028 from $0.0027 
for removing liquidity from the Exchange would still be competitive 
with respect to Nasdaq PSX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Nasdaq PSX Pricing at https://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=PSX_Pricing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive 
environment. The Exchange does not know how much order flow ETP Holders 
choose to route to other exchanges or to off-exchange venues. Without 
having a view of ETP Holder's activity on other exchanges and off-
exchange venues, the Exchange has no way of knowing whether this 
proposed rule change would have an effect on the number of orders any 
ETP Holder will direct to the Exchange.
    The Exchange does not propose any other changes to its Standard 
Rates in securities at or above $1.
Proposed Increase to Credit for Retail Orders That Add Liquidity
    Regarding its Retail Order Rates in securities at or above $1, the 
Exchange proposes to increase the credit for orders that add liquidity 
to the Exchange to $0.0032 per share, from the current level of $0.0030 
per share.
    The Exchange proposes this change in part because it would be 
consistent with the applicable rate on other marketplaces. For 
instance, the base credit for retail orders adding liquidity on Cboe 
BZX and Cboe EDGX is $0.0032 per share.\11\ The Exchange's affiliate 
NYSE Arca Equities similarly offers a credit of $0.0032 per share for 
retail orders adding liquidity.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Cboe BZX Price List at https://www.cboe.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/bzx/ and Cboe EDGX Price List at 
https://www.cboe.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/edgx/.
    \12\ See NYSE Arca Equities Price List at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/nyse-arca/NYSE_Arca_Marketplace_Fees.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the proposed change is intended to encourage greater 
participation from ETP Holders and to promote additional liquidity in 
Retail Orders. The competition for retail order flow between exchanges 
and off-exchange venues is fierce, and market participants can readily 
trade on competing venues if they deem pricing levels at those other 
venues to be more favorable. The Exchange believes that the proposed 
increase credit for orders that add liquidity to the Exchange could 
lead to more ETP Holders choosing to route their Retail Orders to the 
Exchange for execution rather than to a competing exchange.
    That said, the Exchange does not know how much Retail Order flow 
ETP Holders choose to route to other exchanges or to off-exchange 
venues. Without having a view of ETP Holders' activity on other markets 
and off-exchange venues, the Exchange has no way of knowing whether 
this proposed rule change would result in any ETP Holders sending more 
of their Retail Orders to the Exchange. The Exchange cannot predict 
with certainty how many ETP Holders would avail themselves of this 
opportunity, but additional Retail Orders would benefit all market 
participants because it would provide greater execution opportunities 
on the Exchange.
    The proposed rule change is designed to be available to all ETP 
Holders on the Exchange and is intended to provide ETP Holders a 
greater incentive to direct more of their Retail Orders to the 
Exchange. As is the case currently, the Retail Order Rates would remain 
optional for ETP Holders.
    The Exchange does not propose any other changes to its Retail Order 
Rates.
Proposed Modifications to Optional Monthly Credit per Security for 
eDMMs
    Regarding the fees and credits applicable to eDMMs on transactions 
in assigned securities, the Exchange proposes to modify the eDMM 
optional monthly credit per security. Currently, the Exchange offers 
eDMMs an optional monthly credit per security (``Credit Per Security'') 
up to a maximum credit of $550 per month per assigned security, 
provided that eDMMs agree to a credit of $0.0030 per share for orders 
adding displayed liquidity instead of the otherwise-applicable credit 
of $0.0045 per share.
    The Exchange proposes to modify both the available Credit Per 
Security levels as well as the credit to which eDMMs must agree to be 
eligible for the Credit Per Security. The Exchange proposes that for 
eDMMs agreeing to a $0.0020 credit per share for orders adding 
displayed liquidity, the Exchange would increase the available Credit 
Per Security to $350 (from $250) for an eDMM quoting at the National 
Best Bid or Offer (``NBBO'') for a minimum average of 40% of the time, 
and would increase the available Credit Per Security to $850 (from 
$550) for an eDMM quoting at the NBBO for a minimum average of 50% of 
the time.
    The proposed changes respond to the current competitive environment 
where order flow providers have a choice of where to direct liquidity-
providing orders by offering further incentives for eDMMs to increase 
quoting on, and send additional displayed liquidity to, the Exchange. 
The Exchange believes that providing Exchange eDMMs with the option to 
receive a lower per share transaction credit for increased quoting and 
adding displayed liquidity in exchange for new higher monthly rebates 
across all eDMM assigned securities would foster liquidity provision 
and stability in the marketplace and lessen eDMM reliance on 
transaction fees, to the benefit of the marketplace and all market 
participants.
    The Exchange does not propose any other changes to its rates to 
eDMMs on transactions in assigned securities, including any changes to 
the rates applicable to eDMMs that do not elect to receive the optional 
Credit Per Security.
    The proposed changes are not otherwise intended to address any 
other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any significant problems 
that market participants would have in complying with the proposed 
changes.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent 
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\13\ in general, and furthers the 
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\14\ in particular, 
because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, 
fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and other persons 
using its facilities, is designed to prevent fraudulent and 
manipulative acts and practices and to promote just and equitable 
principles of trade, and does not unfairly discriminate between 
customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposed Fee Change Is Reasonable
    As discussed above, the Exchange operates in a highly fragmented 
and competitive market. The Commission has repeatedly expressed its 
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining 
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically, 
in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market 
forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized 
that current regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably 
successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that 
are most important to investors and listed companies.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Regulation NMS, supra note 4, 70 FR at 37499.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the 
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can 
shift order flow, or discontinue to reduce use of certain categories of

[[Page 37366]]

products, in response to fee changes. ETP Holders can choose from any 
one of the 16 currently operating registered exchanges, and numerous 
off-exchange venues, to route such order flow. Accordingly, competitive 
forces constrain exchange transaction fees that relate to 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 order flow to the Exchange by 
adjusting the incentives for market participants, including eDMMs, to 
send additional displayed liquidity to the Exchange.
Proposed Increase to Tier 2 Fee for Orders Removing Liquidity
    The Exchange believes that is proposal to increase its Tier 2 fee 
for orders removing liquidity from the Exchange is reasonable because 
it would be consistent with the applicable rate on other marketplaces. 
As noted above, Nasdaq PSX, one of the Exchange's competitors, charges 
a fee of $0.0029 per share fee for removing liquidity for firms meeting 
certain requirements; otherwise, its fee for removing liquidity is 
$0.0030 per share. The Exchange's proposed fee increase to $0.0028 from 
$0.0027 for removing liquidity from the Exchange would potentially 
increase revenue while still being an advantageous fee when compared to 
Nasdaq PSX.
    As noted, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive 
environment. The Exchange does not know how much order flow ETP Holders 
choose to route to other exchanges or to off-exchange venues. Without 
having a view of ETP Holder's activity on other exchanges and off-
exchange venues, the Exchange has no way of knowing whether this 
proposed rule change would have an effect on the number of orders any 
ETP Holder will direct to the Exchange. The Exchange nevertheless 
believes that the proposed fee increase is a reasonable attempt to 
increase revenue within the fierce competitive environment.
Proposed Increase to Credit for Retail Orders That Add Liquidity
    The Exchange believes that the proposed increase to the credit for 
Retail Orders that add liquidity to the Exchange is reasonable.
    The Exchange operates in a fiercely competitive environment, 
particularly with regard to retail orders. As noted above, several of 
the Exchange's competitors offer base credits for retail orders adding 
liquidity that are higher (i.e., $0.0032 credit per share) than the 
Exchange's current credit ($0.0030 credit per share). The Exchange 
believes that this proposal to increase its credit for Retail Orders 
adding liquidity to the Exchange represents a reasonable attempt to 
attract additional Retail Orders to the Exchange, thereby increasing 
liquidity on the Exchange and improving the Exchange's market share 
relative to its competitors. In addition, the Exchange believes that 
attracting higher volumes of Retail Orders to be transacted on the 
Exchange by ETP Holders would benefit all market participants by 
offering greater price discovery and an increased opportunity to trade 
on the Exchange.
    Without having a view of ETP Holders' activity on other markets and 
off-exchange venues, the Exchange has no way of knowing whether this 
proposed rule change would result in any ETP Holder sending more of 
their Retail Orders to the Exchange, nor can the Exchange predict with 
certainty how many ETP Holders would avail themselves of this 
opportunity. Additional Retail Orders on the Exchange would benefit all 
market participants because they would provide greater execution 
opportunities on the Exchange.
Proposed Modifications to Optional Monthly Credit per Security for 
eDMMs
    The Exchange believes that the proposed modifications to eDMMs 
rates are reasonable. Providing eDMMs with the option to receive a 
lower per share transaction credit for adding displayed liquidity in 
exchange for higher monthly rebates per assigned liquidity, up to a 
maximum credit of $850 per month across all eDMM assigned securities, 
is reasonable because it would foster liquidity provision and stability 
in the marketplace and lessen eDMM reliance on transaction fees, to the 
benefit of the marketplace and all market participants. Moreover, the 
proposal is reasonable because it would balance the increased risks and 
heightened quoting and other obligations that eDMMs on the Exchange 
have and that other market participants do not. The Exchange also 
believes that increasing the maximum credit to $850 (from $550) per 
month for the Credit Per Security is reasonable and will provide a 
further incentive for eDMMs to quote and trade a greater number of 
securities on the Exchange and will generally allow the Exchange and 
eDMMs to better compete for order flow, and thus enhance competition.
The Proposed Change Is an Equitable Allocation of Fees and Credits
    The Exchange believes its proposal equitably allocates its fees 
among its market participants by fostering liquidity provision and 
stability in the marketplace.
    Proposed Increase to Tier 2 Fee for Orders Removing Liquidity
    The Exchange believes that is proposal to increase its Tier 2 fee 
for orders removing liquidity from the Exchange equitably allocates 
fees and credits among market participants because all ETP Holders that 
participate on the Exchange may qualify for the proposed fee.
    The proposed change also is equitable because it would be 
consistent with the applicable rates on other marketplaces. As noted 
above, Nasdaq PSX, one of the Exchange's competitors, charges a fee of 
$0.0029 per share fee for removing liquidity for firms meeting certain 
requirements; otherwise, its fee for removing liquidity is $0.0030 per 
share.
Proposed Increase to Credit for Retail Orders That Add Liquidity
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to increase the credit 
available for Retail Orders that add liquidity to the exchange 
equitably allocates its fees among market participants because all ETP 
Holders that participate on the Exchange may qualify for the proposed 
credit if they elect to send their Retail Orders to the Exchange and 
properly designate them as Retail Orders.
    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 increasing the credit available for orders designated as 
Retail Orders would attract additional order flow and liquidity to the 
Exchange, thereby contributing to price discovery on the Exchange and 
benefiting investors generally.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is equitable 
because maintaining or increasing the proportion of Retail Orders in 
exchange-listed securities that are executed on a registered national 
securities exchange (rather than relying on certain available off-
exchange execution methods) would contribute to investors' confidence 
in the fairness of their transactions and would benefit all investors 
by deepening the Exchange's liquidity pool, supporting the quality of 
price discovery, promoting market transparency, and improving investor 
protection.

[[Page 37367]]

Proposed Modifications to Optional Monthly Credit per Security for 
eDMMs
    The Exchange believes that it is equitable to offer eDMMs the 
option to receive a lower per share transaction credit for adding 
displayed liquidity in exchange for monthly rebates per assigned 
security because it would balance the increased risks and heightened 
quoting and other obligations that eDMMs on the Exchange have and that 
other market participants do not have. As such, it is equitable to 
offer eDMMs the option to receive a flat per security credit based on 
the eDMM's quoting in that symbol, coupled with a lower transaction 
fee.
    The proposed change is also equitable because it would apply 
equally to all eDMM firms, who would have the option to elect (or not 
elect) to participate on a monthly basis.
    Moreover, the Exchange believes that the proposal is equitable 
because eDMMs would be required to meet the prescribed quoting 
requirements in order to qualify for the payments, as described above. 
All eDMMs would be eligible to elect to receive a Credit Per Security 
and could do so by notifying the Exchange and meeting the per symbol 
quoting requirement.
The Proposed Fee Change Is Not Unfairly Discriminatory
    The Exchange believe that the proposed rule is not unfairly 
discriminatory, for the following reasons.
Proposed Increase to Tier 2 Fee for Orders Removing Liquidity
    The Exchange believes that is proposal to increase its Tier 2 fee 
for orders removing liquidity from the Exchange does not permit unfair 
discrimination because the proposed fee would be applied to all 
similarly situated ETP Holders and other market participants, who would 
all be eligible for the same rates on an equal basis. Accordingly, no 
ETP Holder already operating on the Exchange would be disadvantaged by 
this allocation of fees and credits.
    In addition, the Exchange notes that 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, they can 
choose the extent of their activity in this regard.
Proposed Increase to Credit for Retail Orders That Add Liquidity
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to increase the credit for 
Retail Orders that add liquidity to the Exchange is not unfairly 
discriminatory because it would apply to all ETP Holders on an equal 
and non-discriminatory basis, and all similarly-situated ETP Holders 
would earn the same credits and pay the same fees for Retail Orders 
executed on the Exchange. In addition, the submission of Retail Orders 
is optional for ETP Holders in that they could choose whether to submit 
Retail Orders to the Exchange and, if they do, they can choose the 
extent of their activity in this regard.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change is not unfairly 
discriminatory because maintaining or increasing the proportion of 
Retail Orders in exchange-listed securities that are executed on a 
registered national securities exchange (rather than relying on certain 
available off-exchange execution methods) would contribute to 
investors' confidence in the fairness of their transactions and would 
benefit all investors by deepening the Exchange's liquidity pool, 
supporting the quality of price discovery, promoting market 
transparency, and improving investor protection.
Proposed Modifications to Optional Monthly Credit per Security for 
eDMMs
    The Exchange believes it is not unfairly discriminatory to offer 
eDMMs the option to receive a flat per security credit coupled with a 
lower transaction fee for orders that provide displayed liquidity in 
assigned securities as the proposed credits would be provided on an 
equal basis to all such participants. The proposed modified Credit Per 
Security levels would apply equally to all eDMM firms, who would have 
the option to elect (or not elect) to participate on a monthly basis. 
Further, the Exchange believes the proposed incremental credits would 
incentivize eDMMs that meet the proposed quoting requirements to send 
more orders to the Exchange to qualify for a higher Credit Per 
Security.
    The proposal neither targets nor will it have a disparate impact on 
any particular category of market participant. The proposal does not 
permit unfair discrimination because the proposed thresholds would be 
applied to all similarly situated eDMMs, who would all be eligible for 
the same credit on an equal basis. Accordingly, no eDMM already 
operating on the Exchange would be disadvantaged by this allocation of 
fees.
    For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal 
is consistent with the Act.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\16\ the Exchange 
believes that the proposed rule change would not impose any burden on 
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the 
purposes of the Act. Instead, as discussed above, the Exchange believes 
that the proposed fee change would encourage the submission of 
additional liquidity to a public exchange, thereby promoting market 
depth, price discovery, and transparency and enhancing order execution 
opportunities for market participants. As a result, the Exchange 
believes that the proposed change furthers the Commission's goal in 
adopting Regulation NMS of fostering integrated competition among 
orders, which promotes ``more efficient pricing of individual stocks 
for all types of orders, large and small.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \17\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808, 70 FR 37495, 
37498-99 (June 29, 2005) (S7-10-04) (Final Rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Intramarket Competition. The Exchange believes the proposed change 
would not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or 
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed 
change is designed to attract additional orders to the Exchange. The 
Exchange believes that the proposed changes would incentivize market 
participants to direct their orders to the Exchange. Greater overall 
order flow, trading opportunities, and pricing transparency benefit all 
market participants on the Exchange by enhancing market quality and 
continuing to encourage ETP Holders to send orders, thereby 
contributing towards a robust and well-balanced market ecosystem.
    Intermarket Competition. The Exchange operates in a highly 
competitive market in which market participants can readily choose to 
send their orders to other exchange and off-exchange venues if they 
deem fee levels at those other venues to be more favorable. As noted 
above, the Exchange currently has less than 1% market share of executed 
volume of equities trading. In such an environment, the Exchange must 
continually adjust its fees and credits to remain competitive with 
other exchanges and with off-exchange venues. Because competitors are 
free to modify their own fees and credits in response, and because 
market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, 
the Exchange does not believe its proposed fee change

[[Page 37368]]

can impose any burden on intermarket competition.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change could promote 
competition between the Exchange and other execution venues, including 
those that currently offer similar order types and comparable 
transaction pricing, by encouraging additional orders to be sent to the 
Exchange for execution.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed 
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the 
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for 
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to 
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \18\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 
19b-4 \19\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other 
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule 
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule 
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or 
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or 
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission 
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under 
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \20\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed 
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and 
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule 
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of 
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include 
File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2022-24 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-NYSEAMER-2022-24. 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-NYSEAMER-2022-24, and should be 
submitted on or before July 13, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-13273 Filed 6-21-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P