Notice2025-21398

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE National, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Schedule of Fees and Rebates

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published
November 28, 2025

Issuing agencies

Securities and Exchange Commission

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 227 (Friday, November 28, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 227 (Friday, November 28, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54829-54832]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-21398]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-104244; File No. SR-NYSENAT-2025-24]


Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE National, Inc.; Notice of 
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its 
Schedule of Fees and Rebates

November 24, 2025.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that 
on September 30, 2025, NYSE National, Inc. (``NYSE National'' or the 
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission 
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, 
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The 
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the 
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees and Rebates 
(``Fee Schedule'') to (1) eliminate the rebate currently provided for 
non-tiered orders removing liquidity in securities priced at or above 
$1.00 that do not execute at a price better than the contra-side NBBO; 
and (2) add new Removing Tier 4. The proposed change is available on 
the Exchange's website at <a href="http://www.nyse.com">www.nyse.com</a>, at the principal office of the 
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and 
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization 
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the 
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the 
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at 
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared 
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most 
significant parts of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the 
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees and Rebates 
(``Fee Schedule'') to (1) eliminate the rebate currently provided for 
non-tiered orders removing liquidity in securities priced at or above 
$1.00 that do not execute at a price better than the contra-side NBBO; 
and (2) add Removing Tier 4.
    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 removing liquidity to the Exchange.
    The Exchange proposes to implement the rule change on October 1, 
2025.
Current Market and 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. 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.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (S7-10-04) (Final Rule) 
(``Regulation NMS'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the Commission itself has recognized, the market for trading 
services in NMS stocks has become ``more fragmented and competitive.'' 
\4\ Indeed, cash equity trading is currently dispersed across 16 
exchanges,\5\ numerous alternative trading systems,\6\ and numerous 
broker-dealer internalizers and wholesalers, all competing for order 
flow. Based on publicly-available information, no

[[Page 54830]]

single exchange has more than 20% of the market.\7\ Therefore, no 
exchange possesses significant pricing power in the execution of cash 
equity order flow. More specifically, the Exchange's share of executed 
volume of equity trades in Tapes A, B and C securities is less than 
2%.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808, 84FR 5202, 
5253 (February 20, 2019) (File No. S7-05-18) (Transaction Fee Pilot 
for NMS Stocks Final Rule) (``Transaction Fee Pilot'').
    \5\ See Cboe Global Markets, U.S. Equities Market Volume 
Summary, available at <a href="http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/">http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/</a>. See generally <a href="https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/divisionsmarketregmrexchangesshtml.html">https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/divisionsmarketregmrexchangesshtml.html</a>.
    \6\ See FINRA ATS Transparency Data, available at <a href="https://otctransparency.finra.org/otctransparency/AtsIssueData">https://otctransparency.finra.org/otctransparency/AtsIssueData</a>. A list of 
alternative trading systems registered with the Commission is 
available at <a href="https://www.sec.gov/foia/docs/atslist.htm">https://www.sec.gov/foia/docs/atslist.htm</a>.
    \7\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Equities Market Volume Summary, 
available at <a href="http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/">http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/</a>.
    \8\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the 
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can 
move order flow, or discontinue or reduce use of certain products, in 
response to fee changes. While it is not possible to know a firm's 
reason for moving order flow, the Exchange believes that one such 
reason is because of fee changes at any of the registered exchanges or 
non-exchange trading venues to which a firm routes order flow. These 
fees can vary from month to month, and not all are publicly available. 
With respect to non-marketable order flow that would provide liquidity 
on an exchange, ETP Holders can choose from any one of the 16 currently 
operating registered exchanges to route such order flow. Accordingly, 
competitive forces constrain the Exchange's transaction fees, and 
market participants can readily trade on competing venues if they deem 
pricing levels at those other venues to be more favorable.
    The Exchange utilizes a ``taker-maker'' or inverted fee model to 
attract orders that provide liquidity at the most competitive prices. 
Under the taker-maker model, offering rebates for taking (or removing) 
liquidity increases the likelihood that market participants will send 
orders to the Exchange to trade with liquidity providers' orders. This 
increased taker order flow provides an incentive for market 
participants to send orders that provide liquidity. The Exchange 
generally charges fees for order flow that provides liquidity. These 
fees are reasonable due to the additional marketable interest (in part 
attracted by the Exchange's rebate to remove liquidity) with which 
those order flow providers can trade.
Proposed Rule Change
    To respond to this competitive environment, the Exchange proposes 
the following changes to its Fee Schedule designed to provide order 
flow providers with additional incentives to route order flow to the 
Exchange. As described above, ETP Holders have a choice of where to 
send their order flow.
    First, the Exchange proposes to remove its current rebate of 
$0.0016 per share for non-tiered orders removing liquidity in 
securities priced at or above $1.00 that do not execute at a price 
better than the contra-side NBBO. Under the proposal, such orders would 
receive no rebate. The Exchange already provides no rebate for removing 
liquidity that executes at a price better than the contra-side NBBO, 
and that would remain unchanged.
    The Exchange believes that eliminating the rebate for non-tiered 
orders described above is competitive and would still incentivize ETP 
Holders to send liquidity-removing orders to the Exchange. Even with 
the removal of the rebate, the Exchange's charges for non-tiered orders 
removing liquidity in securities priced at or above $1.00 would still 
be more advantageous to ETP Holders than comparable rates at at least 
one of the Exchange's competitors.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See, e.g., Nasdaq BX Exchange Fee Schedule, available at 
<a href="https://www.nasdaqtrader.com/trader.aspx?id=bx_pricing">https://www.nasdaqtrader.com/trader.aspx?id=bx_pricing</a> (providing 
$0.0007 standard fee for removing displayed liquidity).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, in conjunction with removing the rebate for non-tiered 
orders described above, the Exchange also proposes to introduce new 
Removing Tier 4. Under the proposed Removing Tier 4, the Exchange would 
provide a rebate of $0.0010 per share to ETP Holders that remove 
liquidity for orders that do not execute at a price better than the 
contra-side NBBO from the Exchange in securities with a per share price 
of $1.00 or more and that have at least 50,000 Adding ADV.
    The Exchange believes that this change will incentivize more ETP 
Holders to route liquidity-adding order flow to the Exchange to meet 
the tier requirements for Removing Tier 4. For ETP Holders that cannot 
meet the higher requirements of current Removing Tier 3, the Exchange 
believes that the addition of proposed Removing Tier 4 would encourage 
additional removing order flow to the Exchange by providing a $0.0010 
per share rebate for orders that do not execute at a price better than 
the contra-side NBBO for ETP Holders that meet the 50,000 Adding ADV 
requirement. The Exchange believes that the increased order flow that 
may result from these proposed changes would in turn support the 
quality of price discovery on the Exchange and provide additional price 
improvement opportunities for incoming orders.
    As noted, the Exchange operates in a competitive environment. The 
Exchange does not know how much order flow ETP Holders choose to route 
to other exchanges or to off-exchange venues. Based on the profile of 
firms generally, the Exchange believes that with the proposed change, 
additional ETP Holders could choose to direct order flow to the 
Exchange. Without having a view of ETP Holders' activity on other 
exchanges and off-exchange venues, the Exchange has no way of knowing 
whether this proposed rule change would result in any additional ETP 
Holders directing orders to the Exchange.
    The proposed changes are not otherwise intended to address any 
other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that ETP 
Holders 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,\10\ in general, and furthers the 
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\11\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) & (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, 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.'' \12\ 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.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Regulation NMS, supra note 4, at 37499.
    \13\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of the competitive environment in which the Exchange

[[Page 54831]]

currently operates, the proposed rule change is a reasonable attempt to 
incentivize member organizations to direct order flow to the Exchange 
and provide additional liquidity in order to qualify for favorable 
pricing and rebates, thereby contributing to depth and market quality 
on the Exchange.
The Proposed Change Is Reasonable
    The Exchange believes that the proposal represents a reasonable 
attempt to attract additional order flow to the Exchange while 
realigning the Exchange's fees with those charged by other markets. The 
current rebate of $0.0016 for non-tiered orders removing liquidity in 
securities priced at or above $1.00 that do not execute at a price 
better than the contra-side NBBO has not operated in the way the 
Exchange anticipated, in that it did not drive significant volume from 
ETP Holders that do not qualify for Removing Tiers. As such, the 
Exchange proposes to remove it. Even with the removal of the rebate, 
however, the Exchange's pricing will remain competitive when compared 
to the fees charged by at least one other market for non-tiered orders 
removing liquidity.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See supra note 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange believes that proposed Removing Tier 4 
is reasonable. For ETP Holders that cannot meet the higher requirements 
of current Removing Tier 3, the Exchange believes that the addition of 
proposed Removing Tier 4 would encourage additional removing order flow 
to the Exchange by providing a $0.0010 per share rebate for ETP Holders 
that meet the 50,000 Adding ADV requirement.
    The Exchange believes that the proposal represents a reasonable 
effort to promote price discovery and enhanced order execution 
opportunities for ETP Holders. All ETP Holders would benefit from the 
greater amounts of liquidity on the Exchange, which would represent a 
wider range of execution opportunities.
The Proposal Is an Equitable Allocation of Fees and Rebates
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change equitably allocates 
its fees among its market participants. The proposed change would 
continue to encourage ETP Holders to both submit removing liquidity to 
the Exchange and execute orders on the Exchange, thereby contributing 
to robust levels of liquidity, to the benefit of all market 
participants.
    The Exchange believes that eliminating the rebate of $0.0016 for 
non-tiered orders removing liquidity in securities priced at or above 
$1.00 that do not execute at a price better than the contra-side NBBO 
and adding Removing Tier 4 is an equitable allocation of fees and 
credits. Even with the removal of the rebate for non-tiered orders 
removing liquidity, the Exchange's fees will remain competitive when 
compared to the fees charged by at least one other market for non-
tiered orders removing liquidity.\15\ To the extent that the proposed 
change attracts order flow to the Exchange, this order flow would make 
the Exchange a more competitive venue for, among other things, order 
execution. Thus, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change would 
continue to improve market quality for all market participants on the 
Exchange and, as a consequence, continue to attract more order flow to 
the Exchange, thereby improving market-wide quality and price 
discovery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See supra note 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further believes that the proposal constitutes an 
equitable allocation of fees and credits because all similarly situated 
ETP Holders and other market participants would be eligible for the 
same general and tiered rebates for removing liquidity. Moreover, the 
proposed change is equitable because the proposed rebates would apply 
equally to all similarly situated ETP Holders. The proposal neither 
targets nor will it have a disparate impact on any particular category 
of market participant.
The Proposal 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.
    Moreover, the proposal neither targets nor will it have a disparate 
impact on any particular category of market participant. The Exchange 
believes that the proposal does not permit unfair discrimination 
because the proposal would be applied to all similarly situated ETP 
Holders, and all ETP Holders would be subject to the same change to the 
rebate for non-tiered orders and the addition of Removing Tier 4. 
Accordingly, no ETP Holder already operating on the Exchange would be 
disadvantaged by the proposed allocation of fees and credits.
    The Exchange further believes that the proposed change would not 
permit unfair discrimination among ETP Holders because the non-tiered 
and tiered rates are available equally to all ETP Holders. As described 
above, in today's competitive marketplace, order flow providers have a 
choice of where to direct order flow, and the Exchange believes there 
are additional ETP Holders that could qualify if they chose to direct 
their order flow to the Exchange.
    Finally, 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,\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 change would encourage the submission of additional 
liquidity and order flow to a public exchange, thereby 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.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \17\ Regulation NMS, 70 FR at 37498-99.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Intramarket Competition. The proposed change is designed to attract 
additional order flow to the Exchange. As described above, the Exchange 
believes that the proposed change would continue to incentivize market 
participants to direct liquidity-removing orders to the Exchange. 
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. The 
proposed changes would be available to all similarly-situated market 
participants, and thus, the proposed change would not impose a 
disparate burden on competition among market participants on the 
Exchange.
    Intermarket Competition. The Exchange operates in a highly 
competitive market in which market participants can readily choose to 
send their orders to other exchanges and off-exchange venues if they 
deem fee levels at those other venues to be more favorable. In such an 
environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its

[[Page 54832]]

fees and rebates to remain competitive with other exchanges and off-
exchange venues. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees 
and rebates in response, and because market participants may readily 
adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange does not believe its 
proposed fee change can impose any burden on intermarket competition.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change could promote 
competition between the Exchange and other execution venues, including 
those that currently offer similar order types and comparable 
transaction pricing, by encouraging additional orders to be sent to the 
Exchange for execution.

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

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

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

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\18\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(2) thereunder \19\ the Exchange has designated this proposal as 
establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed on any 
person, whether or not the person is a member of the self-regulatory 
organization, which renders the proposed rule change effective upon 
filing. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

    <bullet> Use the Commission's internet comment form (<a href="https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml">https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml</a>); or
    <bullet> Send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b1c3c4ddd49cd2dedcdcd4dfc5c2f1c2d4d29fd6dec7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4230372e276f212d2f2f272c3631023127216c252d34">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>. Please include 
file number SR-NYSENAT-2025-24 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

    <bullet> Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities 
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to file number SR-NYSENAT-2025-24. 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 (<a href="https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml">https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml</a>). Copies of the filing will be available for inspection and 
copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not include 
personal identifiable information in submissions; you should submit 
only information that you wish to make available publicly. We may 
redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted material 
that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All submissions 
should refer to file number SR-NYSENAT-2025-24 and should be submitted 
on or before December 19, 2025.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stephanie J. Fouse,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2025-21398 Filed 11-26-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Indexed from Federal Register on November 28, 2025.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.