Notice2026-03606
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
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
February 24, 2026
Issuing agencies
Securities and Exchange Commission
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 36 (Tuesday, February 24, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 36 (Tuesday, February 24, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8932-8937]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-03606]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-104870; File No. SR-NYSEARCA-2026-18]
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
February 19, 2026.
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 February 11, 2026, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' 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 the NYSE Arca Equities Fees and
Charges (``Fee Schedule'') with respect to Retail Tiers. The proposed
rule change is available on the Exchange's website at <a href="http://www.nyse.com">www.nyse.com</a>, and
at the principal office of the Exchange.
II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.
A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change
1. Purpose
The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule with respect to
Retail Tiers. More specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend the fee
for Retail
[[Page 8933]]
Orders \3\ with a time-in-force of Day that remove liquidity under
Retail Tier 3 and Retail Tier 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ A 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed changes respond to the current competitive environment
where ETP Holders have a choice among both exchange and off-exchange
venues of where to route marketable retail order flow.
The Exchange proposes to implement the fee changes effective
February 11, 2026.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Exchange originally filed to amend the Fee Schedule on
January 30, 2026 (SR-NYSEArca-2026-12). SR-NYSEArca-2026-12 was
withdrawn on February 11, 2026, and replaced by this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 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.'' \6\ Indeed, equity trading is currently dispersed across
16 exchanges,\7\ numerous alternative trading systems,\8\ and broker-
dealer internalizers and wholesalers, all competing for order flow.
Based on publicly available information, no single exchange currently
has more than 20% market share.\9\ Therefore, no exchange possesses
significant pricing power in the execution of equity order flow. More
specifically, the Exchange currently has less than 15% market share of
executed volume of equities trading.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 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).
\7\ See Cboe U.S Equities Market Volume Summary, available at
<a href="https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share">https://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>.
\8\ 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>.
\9\ 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>.
\10\ 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 a firm routes order flow. The competition for Retail Orders is
even more stark, particularly as it relates to exchange versus off-
exchange venues.
The Exchange thus needs to compete in the first instance with non-
exchange venues for Retail Order flow, and with the 17 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 a number of Retail Tiers, e.g., Retail Tier 1, Retail Tier
2, Retail Tier 3, Retail Tier 4 and Retail Tier 5, 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 certain of these tiers, ETP Holders also do not pay a fee when
such Retail Orders have a time-in-force of Day that remove liquidity
from the Exchange. The Retail Tiers are designed to encourage ETP
Holders that provide displayed liquidity in Retail Orders on the
Exchange to increase that order flow, which would benefit all ETP
Holders by providing greater execution opportunities on the Exchange.
In order to provide an incentive for ETP Holders to direct providing
displayed Retail Order flow to the Exchange, the credits increase in
the various tiers based on increased levels of volume directed to the
Exchange.
Proposed Rule Change
As noted above, the Exchange currently provides tiered credits for
Retail Orders that provide liquidity on the Exchange. Specifically,
Section VII. Tier Rates--Round Lots and Odd Lots (Per Share Price $1.00
or Above), provides a credit of $0.0038 per share for Adding under
Retail Tier 1, a credit of $0.0037 per share for Adding under Retail
Tier 2, a credit of $0.0036 per share for Adding under Retail Tier 3, a
credit of $0.0034 per share for Adding under Retail Tier 4, and a
credit of $0.0035 per share for Adding under Retail Tier 5.\11\
Additionally, the Exchange currently charges a fee of $0.0025 per share
for Retail Orders with a time-in-force of Day that removes liquidity
under Retail Tier 1, Retail Tier 2, Retail Tier 3 and Retail Tier 5 if
an ETP Holder executes 170 million or more shares of such orders in a
billing month or executes 0.055% of Dollar Plus Consolidated
Volume,\12\ up to 250 million shares a month, whichever is higher,
where the first 170 million shares of such orders or 0.055% of Dollar
Plus Consolidated Volume, up to 250 million shares, whichever is
higher, are not charged a fee. Since ETP Holders closely track the
number of Retail Orders they send to the Exchange, the Exchange
believes they can readily determine at the time of execution whether
their Retail Orders will execute free of charge or be subject to the
proposed fee of $0.0025 per share, described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Fee Schedule, Retail Tiers table under Section VII.
Tier Rates--Round Lots and Odd Lots (Per Share Price $1.00 or
Above).
\12\ Dollar Plus Consolidated Volume means the full month
equivalent of CADV in securities with a per share price $1.00 or
Above. See Fee Schedule, Section I. Definitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange proposes to now charge a fee of $0.0025 per share for
Retail Orders with a time-in-force of Day that remove liquidity under
Retail Tier 3 and Retail Tier 5 except that no fee would be charged for
the first 170 million shares of such orders or 0.055% of Dollar Plus
Consolidated Volume, up to 250 million shares, whichever is higher, to
ETP Holders registered as a Lead Market Maker (``LMM'') \13\ or Market
[[Page 8934]]
Maker \14\ in at least 200 \15\ Less Active ETPs \16\ in which the ETP
Holder meets at least two Performance Metrics.\17\ The Exchange
proposes to adopt new footnote (e) to describe the no fee exception.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The term ``Lead Market Maker'' is defined in Rule 1.1(w) to
mean a registered Market Maker that is the exclusive Designated
Market Maker in listings for which the Exchange is the primary
market.
\14\ Pursuant to Rule 7.23-E(a)(1), all registered Market
Makers, including LMMs, have an obligation to maintain continuous,
two-sided trading interest in those securities in which the Market
Marker is registered to trade. In addition, pursuant to Rule 7.24-
E(b), LMMs are held to higher performance standards in the
securities in which they are registered as LMM. LMMs can earn
additional financial incentives for meeting the higher performance
standards specified from time to time in the Fee Schedule. Only one
LMM can be registered in a NYSE-Arca listed security, but that
security can have an unlimited number of registered Market Makers.
Market Makers can also be registered in securities that trade on an
unlisted trading privileges basis on the Exchange.
\15\ The number of Less Active ETPs for a billing month will be
calculated as the average number of Less Active ETPs in which an LMM
is registered on the first and last business day of the previous
month.
\16\ Pursuant to Section I under LMM Transaction Fees and
Credits, the term ``Less Active ETPs'' means ETPs that have a CADV
in the prior calendar quarter that is the greater of either less
than 100,000 shares or less than 0.013% of Consolidated Tape B ADV.
The term ``ETP'' means Exchange Traded Product listed on NYSE Arca.
\17\ The applicable Performance Metrics are specified in Section
III under LMM Transaction Fees and Credits on the Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to charge ETP Holders a
fee for Retail Orders with a time-in-force of Day that remove
liquidity. The Exchange notes that the proposed fee of $0.0025 per
share for Retail Orders impacted by this proposed rule change is lower
than the standard fee of $0.0030 per share for orders on the Exchange
that remove liquidity. The Exchange further notes that other
marketplaces offer various incentives based on trading activity. For
instance, pursuant to its Retail Order Process, Nasdaq Stock Market LLC
(``Nasdaq'') charges a fee of $0.0025 per share for shares executed in
excess of 8 million shares in the month that remove liquidity while not
charging a fee for shares executed below 8 million shares in the month
that remove liquidity.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See RFTY Strategies (Retail Order Process) at <a href="https://nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=PriceListTrading2">https://nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=PriceListTrading2</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change to adopt an
exception so that the proposed fee would not apply is designed to
incentivize ETP Holders to increase liquidity-providing orders in NYSE
Arca-listed securities, including in lower volume securities, in which
they are registered as a LMM or Market Maker, that they send to the
Exchange, which would support the quality of price discovery on the
Exchange and provide additional liquidity for incoming orders for the
benefit of all market participants. The proposed rule change may also
incentivize ETP Holders to increase their Retail Orders with a time-in-
force of Day that add and remove liquidity to qualify for Retail Tier 1
or Retail Tier 2 and thereby earn increased credits for Adding and
continue to not pay a fee for removing liquidity when below the
existing cap.
The proposed rule change would also continue to encourage
additional liquidity on the Exchange by providing determinacy to the
Fee Schedule to enable market participants to determine what fee or
rebate level would be applicable to any submitted order at the time of
execution.
The Exchange notes that, in addition to its transaction business,
its listing business also operates in a highly competitive market in
which market participants, including issuers of securities, LMMs, and
other liquidity providers, can readily transfer their listings, or
direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels,
liquidity provision incentive programs, or other factors at a
particular venue to be insufficient or excessive. The proposed rule
change reflects the current competitive pricing environment and is
designed to incentivize market participants to participate as LMMs or
Market Makers, especially in Less Active ETPs, and thereby, further
enhance the market quality on such securities listed on the Exchange
and encourage issuers to list new products on the Exchange.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change would continue to
encourage additional liquidity on the Exchange. 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 how this proposed rule change would
impact ETP Holders in terms of the number of Retail Orders directed to
the Exchange or to other trading venues.
2. Statutory Basis
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\19\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\20\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
\20\ 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.'' \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given this competitive environment, the proposal represents a
reasonable attempt to attract additional order flow to the Exchange.
As noted above, the competition for Retail Order flow is stark
given the amount of retail limit orders that are routed to non-exchange
venues. 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 or reduce use of certain
categories of products, in response to fee changes. ETP Holders can
choose from any one of the 18 currently operating registered exchanges,
and numerous off-exchange venues, to route such order flow.
Accordingly, competitive forces constrain exchange transaction fees,
particularly as they relate to competing for retail orders. Stated
otherwise, changes to exchange transaction fees can have a direct
effect on the ability of an exchange to compete for order flow.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable to adopt the proposed fee
for Retail Orders. The Exchange believes that the proposed fee change
will encourage increased participation from retail liquidity providers
while maintaining a competitive and performance-based pricing structure
that better reflects current market conditions and trading volumes. The
Exchange believes the proposed fee change would continue to encourage
increased participation from retail liquidity providers. The Exchange
believes the proposed change is also reasonable because it is designed
to attract higher volumes of Retail Orders transacted on the Exchange
by ETP Holders which would benefit all market participants by offering
greater price discovery, increased transparency, and an increased
opportunity to trade on the
[[Page 8935]]
Exchange. As noted above, ETP Holders could continue to not pay the
proposed fee by sending greater volume of Retail Orders with a time-in-
force of Day that remove liquidity and qualify for Retail Tier 1 or
Retail Tier 2, as each of these pricing tiers would continue to not
charge a fee for Retail Orders with a time-in-force of Day that remove
liquidity when below the existing cap.
The Exchange believes the proposed exception to not pay a fee for
Retail Orders with a time-in-force of Day that remove liquidity is
reasonable because it provides ETP Holders with an opportunity to not
pay the proposed fee by incentivizing ETP Holders to register as an LMM
or Market Maker in NYSE Arca-listed securities, including in lower
volume securities, and transacting in such securities to meet the
minimum performance requirements and thus qualify to not pay the
proposed fee. The Exchange also believes it is reasonable to require
ETP Holders to register as a LMM or Market Maker in a minimum number of
Less Active ETPs and to meet at least two Performance Metrics in such
securities as the Exchange believes this requirement would enhance
market quality in Less Active ETPs and support the quality of price
discovery in such securities.
The Exchange believes the proposed exception to not pay a fee for
Retail Orders that are impacted by this proposed rule change is
reasonable as these changes would provide an incentive for ETP Holders
to direct their order flow to the Exchange and provide meaningful added
levels of liquidity and thereby, qualify to not pay the proposed fee.
As noted above, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive
environment, particularly for attracting order flow that provides
displayed liquidity on an exchange. More specifically, the Exchange
notes that greater add volume order flow may provide for deeper, more
liquid markets and execution opportunities at improved prices, which
the Exchange believes would incentivize liquidity providers to submit
additional liquidity and enhance execution opportunities.
The Exchange believes that the proposal represents a reasonable
effort to provide 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 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.
On the backdrop of the competitive environment in which the
Exchange currently operates, the proposed rule change is a reasonable
attempt to increase liquidity on the Exchange and improve the
Exchange's market share relative to its competitors.
The Proposed Fee Change Is an Equitable Allocation of Fees and Credits
The Exchange believes the proposal equitably allocates fees and
credits among market participants because all ETP Holders that
participate on the Exchange would be subject to the proposed rule
change on an equal basis. The Exchange believes its proposal equitably
allocates its fees and credits among its market participants by
fostering liquidity provision and stability in the marketplace.
The Exchange believes the proposed changes to Retail Orders are an
equitable allocation of fees because the proposed changes, taken
together, will incentivize ETP Holders to continue to direct their
Retail Order flow to the Exchange. The Exchange also believes that the
proposed rule change is equitable because it would apply to all
similarly situated ETP Holders. As previously noted, the Exchange
operates in a competitive environment, particularly as it relates to
attracting Retail Orders to the Exchange. The Exchange does not know
how much order flow ETP Holders choose to route to other exchanges or
to off-exchange venues. The Exchange believes that pricing is just one
of the factors that ETP Holders consider when determining where to
direct their order flow. Among other things, factors such as execution
quality, fill rates, and volatility, are important and deterministic to
ETP Holders in deciding where to send their order flow.
The Exchange believes that the proposed exception to not pay a fee
for Retail Orders with a time-in-force of Day that remove liquidity
represents an equitable allocation of fees and credits and is not
unfairly discriminatory because it would apply uniformly to all ETP
Holders, in that all ETP Holders would be eligible to utilize the
exception by registering as a LMM or Market Maker in a Less Active ETP
and meeting the market quality metrics. The Exchange believes that the
proposal to offer a fee exception tied to market quality metrics
represents an equitable allocation of payments because LMMs and Market
Makers would be required to not only meet their Rule 7.23-E obligations
but also meet prescribed performance requirements in order to qualify
for the pricing structure. Further, all LMMs and Market Makers on the
Exchange are eligible to participate and could do so by simply
registering in a Less Active ETP and meeting the proposed market
quality metrics. Under the proposal, no fee would be charged under
Retail Tier 3 and Retail Tier 5 to ETP Holders that register as a LMM
or Market Maker in at least 200 Less Active ETPs in which it meets at
least two Performance Metrics.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change equitably
allocates its fees and credits 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 proposed rule change 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
similarly subject to the proposed changes. Accordingly, no ETP Holder
already operating on the Exchange would be disadvantaged by the
proposed allocation of fees. The Exchange further believes that the
proposed change would not permit unfair discrimination among ETP
Holders because the general and tiered rates are available equally to
all ETP Holders.
The Exchange believes it is not unfairly discriminatory to provide
an exception not to pay a fee for Retail Orders with a time-in-force of
Day that remove liquidity, as the exception would be provided on an
equal basis to all ETP Holders that meet the proposed performance
requirements. Further, the Exchange believes the proposed exception not
to pay a fee would incentivize ETP Holders to register in Less Active
ETPs and send more orders to the Exchange to meet the performance
metrics. As noted above, ETP Holders could continue to not pay the
proposed fee by sending greater
[[Page 8936]]
volume of Retail Orders with a time-in-force of Day that remove
liquidity and qualify for Retail Tier 1 or Retail Tier 2, as each of
these pricing tiers would continue to not charge a fee for Retail
Orders with a time-in-force of Day that remove liquidity when below the
existing cap. The Exchange believes that the proposed exception is not
unfairly discriminatory because it would be available to all ETP
Holders on an equal and non-discriminatory basis.
As described above, in today's competitive marketplace, order flow
providers have a choice of where to direct liquidity-providing order
flow, in particular, Retail Orders. The Exchange notes that 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,\22\ 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 changes would encourage the submission of additional
liquidity to a public exchange, thereby promoting market depth, price
discovery and transparency and enhancing order execution opportunities
for ETP Holders. As a result, the Exchange believes that the proposed
change furthers the Commission's goal in adopting Regulation NMS of
fostering integrated competition among orders, which promotes ``more
efficient pricing of individual stocks for all types of orders, large
and small.'' \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
\23\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed change represents a
significant departure from previous pricing offered by the Exchange or
its competitors. The proposed change is designed to attract additional
order flow to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed
changes would continue to incentivize market participants to direct
order flow to the Exchange. The Exchange also believes that that the
proposed exception to not pay a fee for Retail Orders with a time-in-
force of Day that remove liquidity would incentivize ETP Holders to
participate as LMMs or Market Makers and direct liquidity adding order
flow to the Exchange in order to meet certain performance metrics,
which would bring with it additional execution opportunities for market
participants and improved price transparency. Greater overall order
flow, trading opportunities, and pricing transparency would benefit all
market participants on the Exchange by enhancing market quality and
would continue to encourage ETP Holders to send their orders to the
Exchange, thereby contributing towards a robust and well-balanced
market ecosystem. All ETP Holders would be subject to the proposed
changes, and, as such, the proposed changes would not impose a
disparate burden on competition among market participants on the
Exchange. As noted, the proposal would apply to all similarly situated
ETP Holders on the same and equal terms, who would benefit from the
changes on the same basis. Accordingly, 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 off-exchange venues if they deem fee levels at those other venues
to be more favorable. As noted above, the Exchange's market share of
intraday trading (i.e., excluding auctions) is currently less than 10%.
In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees
and rebates to remain competitive with other exchanges and with off-
exchange venues. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees
and credits in response, and because market participants may readily
adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange does not believe
this proposed fee change would impose any burden on intermarket
competition.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change could promote
competition between the Exchange and other execution venues, including
those that currently offer similar order types and comparable
transaction pricing, by encouraging additional orders to be sent to the
Exchange for execution.
C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.
III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\24\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(2) thereunder \25\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
\25\ 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#5220273e377f313d3f3f373c2621122137317c353d24"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6c1e190009410f0301010902181f2c1f090f420b031a">[email protected]</span></a>. Please include
file number SR-NYSEARCA-2026-18 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-NYSEARCA-2026-18. 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
[[Page 8937]]
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-NYSEARCA-2026-18 and
should be submitted on or before March 17, 2026.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2026-03606 Filed 2-23-26; 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 February 24, 2026.
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.