Notice2026-05946
Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSEArca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt a New Methodology for Assessment and Collection of the Options Regulatory Fee (ORF)
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
March 27, 2026
Issuing agencies
Securities and Exchange Commission
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 59 (Friday, March 27, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 59 (Friday, March 27, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14888-14892]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-05946]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-105070; File No. SR-NYSEARCA-2026-30]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSEArca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt a New
Methodology for Assessment and Collection of the Options Regulatory Fee
(ORF)
March 24, 2026.
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 March 16, 2026, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') a proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
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 the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule
(``Fee Schedule'') regarding the Options Regulatory Fee (``ORF''). 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 \4\ to amend its
methodology of assessment and collection of the ORF to assess ORF only
for options transactions that occur on the Exchange and that are
cleared in the Customer range at The Options Clearing Corporation
(``OCC''), in alignment with new ORF methodology proposed by other
options exchanges.\5\ Consistent with that methodology, the Exchange
intends to collect ORF under its current methodology until at least
June 30, 2026. The Exchange is prepared to implement the new ORF
methodology, as proposed in this filing, effective July 1, 2026,
provided that all U.S. options exchanges charging an ORF have filed to
modify their current methodologies of assessing ORF to limit the fee to
transactions occurring on their respective exchange by April 1,
2026.\6\ If all other options exchanges have not filed to adopt a
similar methodology by such date, the Exchange will delay
implementation commensurate with the additional time required for other
options exchanges to adopt a similar method for collection and
assessment of ORF (and will continue collecting ORF under its current
methodology until such time that the new ORF methodology is
implemented).\7\ In this
[[Page 14889]]
filing, the Exchange proposes only to amend the method by which it will
assess and collect ORF as of July 1, 2026. The Exchange will file a
separate rule filing with the ORF rate that would take effect on July
1, 2026, in advance of assessing and collecting ORF under the new
methodology. As is the case today, the Exchange will provide at least
30 days' notice of the applicable rate by Trader Update.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Exchange previously filed to amend the Fee Schedule on
March 2, 2026 (SR-NYSEARCA-2026-24) and withdrew such filing on
March 16, 2026.
\5\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 103558 (July
28, 2025), 90 FR 36080 (July 31, 2025) (SR-ISE-2025-20) (Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Amend the Methodology for Its Options Regulatory Fee (ORF) as of
January 2, 2026); 104417 (December 17, 2025) (SR-CBOE-2025-086)
(Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule
Change to Adopt a New Methodology for Assessment and Collection of
the Options Regulatory Fee (ORF)); 104707 (January 28, 2026), 90 FR
4754 (February 2, 2026) (SR-MIAX-2026-01) (Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt a New
Methodology for Assessment and Collection of the Options Regulatory
Fee (ORF)); 104745 (January 29, 2026), 90 FR 4985 (February 3, 2026)
(SR-MEMX-2026-02) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Exchange's Fee Schedule To Adopt a
New Methodology for Assessment and Collection of the Options
Regulatory Fee (ORF)).
\6\ The Exchange notes that, as of the date of this filing, all
U.S. options exchanges have filed proposed rule changes to adopt
similar new ORF methodology.
\7\ The Exchange may also delay implementation if certain
currently unresolved operational issues remain so and impact the
industry's ability to transition to the new methodology on July 1,
2026, commensurate with any additional time required to resolve such
issues (and will continue collecting ORF under its current
methodology until such time that the new ORF methodology is
implemented).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background
As a general matter, the Exchange may only use regulatory funds
such as the ORF ``to fund the legal, regulatory, and surveillance
operations'' of the Exchange.\8\ More specifically, the ORF is designed
to recover a material portion, but not all, of the Exchange's costs for
the supervision and regulation of OTP Holders' and OTP Firms'
(collectively, ``OTP Holders'') Customer options business, including
the Exchange's regulatory program and legal expenses associated with
Customer options regulation, such as the costs related to in-house
staff, third-party service providers, and technology that facilitate
regulatory functions such as surveillance, investigation, examinations,
and enforcement (collectively, the ``ORF Costs''). ORF Costs may also
include indirect expenses such as human resources and other
administrative costs related to the supervision and regulation of
Customer activity. The Exchange monitors the amount of ORF collection
to ensure that this amount, in combination with other regulatory fees
and fines, does not exceed regulatory costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The Exchange considers surveillance operations part of
regulatory operations. The limitation on the use of regulatory funds
also provides that they shall not be distributed. See Bylaws of NYSE
Arca, Inc., Art. II, Sec. 2.03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, the ORF is assessed on OTP Holders for options transactions
that are cleared by the OTP Holder through the OCC in the Customer
range regardless of the exchange on which the transaction occurs and is
collected from OTP Holder clearing firms by the OCC on behalf of NYSE
Arca.\9\ All options transactions must clear via a clearing firm, and
such clearing firms can then choose to pass through all, a portion, or
none of the cost of the ORF to its Customers, i.e., the entering firms.
The Exchange notes that the costs relating to monitoring OTP Holders
with respect to Customer trading activity are generally higher than the
costs associated with monitoring OTP Holders that do not engage in
Customer trading activity, which tends to be more automated and less
labor-intensive. By contrast, regulating OTP Holders that engage in
Customer trading activity is generally more labor-intensive and
requires a greater expenditure of human and technical resources as the
Exchange needs to review not only the trading activity on behalf of
Customers, but also the OTP Holder's relationship with its Customers
via more labor-intensive exam-based programs.\10\ As a result, the
costs associated with administering the Customer component of the
Exchange's overall regulatory program are materially higher than the
costs associated with administering the non-Customer component (e.g.,
OTP Holder proprietary transactions) of its regulatory program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Fee Schedule, NYSE Arca GENERAL OPTIONS and TRADING
PERMIT (OTP) FEES, Regulatory Fees, Options Regulatory Fee
(``ORF''), available here, <a href="https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/arca-options/NYSE_Arca_Options_Fee_Schedule.pdf">https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/arca-options/NYSE_Arca_Options_Fee_Schedule.pdf</a>. The
Exchange uses reports from OCC when assessing and collecting the
ORF. The ORF is not assessed on outbound linkage trades. An OTP
Holder is not assessed the fee until it has satisfied applicable
technological requirements necessary to commence operations on NYSE
Arca. See id.
\10\ The Exchange notes that many of the Exchange's market
surveillance programs require the Exchange to look at and evaluate
activity across all options markets, such as surveillance for
position limit violations, manipulation, front-running, and contrary
exercise advice violations/expiring exercise declarations. The
Exchange and other options SROs are parties to a 17d-2 agreement
allocating among the SROs regulatory responsibilities relating to
compliance by the common members with rules for expiring exercise
declarations, position limits, OCC trade adjustments, and Large
Option Position Report reviews. See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 85097 (February 11, 2019), 84 FR 4871 (February 19,
2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the ORF is based on options transactions volume, the amount
of ORF collected is variable. For example, if options transactions
reported to OCC in a given month increase, the ORF collected from OTP
Holders will likely increase as well. Similarly, if options
transactions reported to OCC in a given month decrease, the ORF
collected from OTP Holders will likely decrease as well. Accordingly,
the Exchange monitors the amount of ORF collected to ensure that it
does not exceed a material portion of ORF Costs. If the Exchange
determines the amount of ORF collected exceeds or may exceed a material
portion of ORF Costs, the Exchange will, as appropriate, adjust the ORF
by submitting a fee change filing to the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission''). Exchange rules establish that market
participants must be notified of any change in the ORF via Trader
Update at least 30 calendar days prior to the effective date of the
change.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Fee Schedule, note 9, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To illustrate how the ORF, which is currently set at $0.0026 per
contract,\12\ is currently assessed and collected, the Exchange
provides the following set of scenarios.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 104362 (December
11, 2025), 90 FR 58336 (December 16, 2025) (SR-NYSEARCA-2025-82)
(Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule
Change To Lower the Options Regulatory Fee (ORF)). The Exchange also
proposes in this filing to delete language in the Fee Schedule
describing an ORF waiver period that has elapsed, as well as now-
extraneous language specifying that the current ORF rate took effect
on January 1, 2026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scenario 1
Executing (or Give-Up) Firm is not an OTP Holder. The Executing
Firm does not ``give-up'' or ``CMTA'' the transaction to another
clearing firm.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ A CMTA or Clearing Member Trade Assignment is an agreement
by which an investor may enter derivative trades with a limited
number of different brokers and later consolidate these trades with
one brokerage house for clearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No ORF is assessed.
Scenario 2
Executing Firm is an OTP Holder. The Executing Firm ``give-ups'' or
``CMTAs'' the transaction to another clearing firm that is not an OTP
Holder.
No ORF is assessed.
Scenario 3
The Executing (or Give-Up) Firm is an OTP Holder. The Executing
Firm does not ``give-up'' or ``CMTA'' the transaction to another
clearing firm.
ORF is assessed on the self-clearing Executing Firm.
Scenario 4
The Executing (or Give-Up) Firm is an OTP Holder. The Executing
Firm ``give-ups'' or ``CMTAs'' the transaction to another clearing firm
that is also an OTP Holder.
ORF is assessed on the CMTA (clearing) firm.
Scenario 5
The Executing (or Give-Up) Firm is not an OTP Holder. The Executing
Firm ``give-ups'' or ``CMTAs'' the transaction to another clearing firm
that is an OTP Holder.
ORF is assessed on the CMTA (clearing) firm.
As illustrated above, the Exchange does not assess the ORF on non-
OTP Holders that self-clear transactions, even if the executing firm is
an OTP Holder; the Exchange likewise does not impose the ORF if both
the executing firm and the firm that clears the transaction on its
behalf are non-OTP Holders.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Although the Exchange believes that its broad regulatory
responsibilities would support applying the ORF to transactions that
are executed (even if not ultimately cleared) by an OTP Holder, the
Exchange only imposes the ORF on transactions ultimately cleared by
OTP Holders at this time. The Exchange's regulatory responsibilities
are the same regardless of whether an OTP Holder enters a
transaction or clears a transaction. The Exchange regularly reviews
all such activities, including monitoring surveillance for position
limit violations, manipulation, front-running, contrary exercise
advice violations and insider trading. These activities span across
multiple exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 14890]]
Proposed Rule Change
The Exchange proposes to adopt a new methodology for assessing and
collecting ORF that would align with the methodology proposed by other
options exchanges, effective July 1, 2026.\15\ As noted above, this
rule filing sets forth the proposed method by which it will assess and
collect ORF as of July 1, 2026, and the Exchange will file a separate
rule filing with the ORF rate that would take effect on July 1, 2026 at
least 30 days prior to such date. The Exchange proposes to continue to
assess ORF for options transactions cleared by OCC in the Customer
range, but ORF would be assessed only for executions that occur on the
Exchange. Specifically, the ORF would be collected by OCC on behalf of
the Exchange from OTP Holders and non-OTP Holders for all Customer
transactions executed on the Exchange. ORF would be assessed and
collected on all ultimately cleared Customer contracts, taking into
account adjustments for CMTA that were provided to the Exchange the
same day as the trade.\16\ Further, the Exchange would bill ORF
according to the clearing instructions provided on the execution. The
Exchange proposes to assess ORF based on the clearing instruction
provided on the execution on trade date and would not take into
consideration CMTA changes or transfers that occur at OCC.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See note 5, supra.
\16\ Adjustments to CMTA that occur at OCC would not be taken
into account. CMTA transfers that occur at OCC do not necessarily
contain reliable information regarding the exchange on which the
original transaction occurred, and without specific information as
to where such transaction occurred, the Exchange would not be able
to accurately account for CMTA transfers that occur at OCC.
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to only account for CMTAs that
occur on the Exchange and exclude CMTAs occurring at OCC, consistent
with other options exchanges' proposals.
\17\ Adjustments that were made the same day as the trade on the
Exchange will be taken into account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To illustrate how the ORF would be assessed and collected under the
proposed methodology, the Exchange provides the following set of
scenarios.
Scenario 1
An OTP Holder executes a Customer transaction on the Exchange and
is the clearing member on record on the transaction on the Exchange.
ORF will be assessed to the OTP Holder.
Scenario 2
An OTP Holder executes a Customer transaction on the Exchange and a
different OTP Holder is the clearing member on record on the
transaction on the Exchange.
ORF will be assessed to and collected from the OTP Holder that is
the clearing member on record on the transaction and not the OTP Holder
that executes the transaction.
Scenario 3
An OTP Holder executes a Customer transaction on the Exchange, and
a non-OTP Holder is the clearing member on record on the transaction on
the Exchange.
ORF will be assessed to the non-OTP Holder who is the clearing
member on record on the transaction and not the OTP Holder who executes
the transaction.
Scenario 4
An OTP Holder executes a Customer transaction on another exchange
(i.e., not NYSE Arca).
No ORF is assessed, regardless of how the transaction is cleared.
As is the case today, OCC will collect ORF from OCC clearing
members on behalf of the Exchange based on the Exchange's instructions.
Consistent with current practice, the Exchange will continue to
monitor the amount of ORF collected to ensure that it, in combination
with other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed a material
portion of ORF Costs. If the Exchange determines the amount of ORF
collected exceeds or may exceed a material portion of ORF Costs, the
Exchange will, as appropriate, adjust the ORF by submitting a fee
change filing to the Commission and, as is the case today, provide OTP
Holders with 30 days' advance notice. The Exchange will notify OTP
Holders of this proposed change by Trader Update at least 30 calendar
days prior to the effective date.
2. Statutory Basis
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6(b) \18\ of the Act, in general, and
Section 6(b)(4) and (5) \19\ of the Act, in particular, in that it is
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members and other persons using its
facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
\19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange believes the proposed new ORF methodology to be
assessed effective July 1, 2026 is reasonable, equitable, and not
unfairly discriminatory for various reasons. First, the Exchange
believes that continuing to assess ORF only on Customer transactions is
reasonable because Customer transactions account for a material portion
of ORF Costs. A large portion of ORF Costs relate to Customer activity
because obtaining Customer information may be more time-intensive. For
example, non-Customer market participants are subject to various
regulatory and reporting requirements which provides the Exchange
certain data with respect to these market participants. In contrast,
Customer information is known by OTP Holders of the Exchange, but is
not readily available to the Exchange. Accordingly, the Exchange may
have to take additional steps to understand the facts surrounding
particular trades involving a Customer, which may require requesting
such information from a broker-dealer. Further, Customers require more
Exchange regulatory services based on the amount of options business
they conduct. For example, there are costs associated with main office
and branch office examinations (e.g., staff expenses), as well as
investigations into Customer complaints and the terminations of
registered persons. As a result, ORF Costs associated with
administering the Customer component of the Exchange's overall
regulatory program are materially higher than those associated with
administering the non-Customer component when coupled with the amount
of volume attributed to such Customer transactions.
Under the Exchange's proposal, the amount of ORF Costs allocated to
on-exchange Customer transactions is significant. Also, with respect to
Customer transactions, options volume continues to surpass volume from
other options participants. Additionally, the Exchange has rules that
deal exclusively with Customer transactions, such as rules involving
doing business with a Customer, which would not apply to Non-Customer
transactions.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See, e.g., Section 7. Conduct of Accounts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the Exchange acknowledges that there is a cost to regulate
Market Makers, unlike other market participants, Market Makers are
subject to different Exchange fees (such as application fees, permit
fees, and connectivity fees) and have various
[[Page 14891]]
regulatory requirements with respect to quoting. Specifically, Market
Makers have certain quoting requirements with respect to their assigned
options series as provided in Rule 6.37AP-O (Market Maker Quotations).
In addition, unlike other market participants, Market Makers have
obligations to compete with other Market Makers to improve the market
in all series of options classes to which the Market Maker is appointed
and to update market quotations in response to changed market
conditions in all series of options classes to which the Market Maker
is appointed.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See Rule 6.35-O (Appointment of Market Makers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange similarly acknowledges that there is a cost to
regulate Firm and Broker Dealer transactions, but notes that these
market participants' transactions do not involve significant volume
when compared to Customer transactions. The Exchange further notes that
Firm and Broker Dealer market participants tend to be more
sophisticated than Customers and do not require the same protections as
Customer transactions do. Accordingly, the regulation of Firm and
Broker Dealer transactions is less resource-intensive than the
regulation of Customer transactions and accounts for a smaller
percentage of ORF Costs.
Finally, the Exchange believes that assessing ORF on Customer
executions that occur on the Exchange is reasonable, equitable, and not
unfairly discriminatory because it will avoid overlapping ORFs that
would otherwise be assessed by the Exchange and other options exchanges
that also assess an ORF. With this proposal, Customer executions that
occur on other exchanges would no longer be subject to an ORF assessed
by the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that its proposal continues to ensure that
ORF collection, in combination with other regulatory fees and fines,
does not exceed ORF Costs. Fines collected by the Exchange in
connection with a disciplinary matter will continue to offset ORF Cost.
The Exchange will, under the new ORF methodology, continue to monitor
and review ORF collection and, if the Exchange determines the amount of
ORF collected exceeds or may exceed a material portion of ORF Costs,
the Exchange will, as appropriate, adjust the ORF (via a rule change
filed with the Commission).
B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change to adopt a new
methodology for the assessment and collection of ORF does not impose an
undue burden on intermarket competition because ORF is a regulatory fee
that supports regulation in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The
Exchange notes, however, the proposed change is not designed to address
any competitive issues. The Exchange is obligated to ensure that the
amount of ORF collected, in combination with its other regulatory fees
and fines, does not exceed ORF Costs. Continuing to assess ORF only on
Customer executions that occur on the Exchange does not impose an undue
burden on intramarket competition. Customer transactions account for a
large portion of the Exchange's ORF Costs. With respect to Customer
transactions, options volume continues to surpass volume from other
options participants. Additionally, the Exchange has rules that deal
exclusively with Customer transactions, such as rules involving doing
business with a Customer, which would not apply to non-Customer
transactions.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See, e.g., Section 7. Conduct of Accounts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these reasons, regulating Customer trading activity is more
labor-intensive and therefore, more costly. Further, the Exchange
believes that a large portion of the ORF Costs relate to Customer
allocation because obtaining Customer information may be more time-
intensive. For example, non-Customer market participants are subject to
various regulatory and reporting requirements which provides the
Exchange certain data with respect to these market participants. In
contrast, Customer information is known by OTP Holders and is not
readily available to the Exchange.\23\ The Exchange may have to take
additional steps to understand the facts surrounding particular trades
involving a Customer which may require requesting such information from
a broker-dealer. Further, Customers require more Exchange regulatory
services based on the amount of options business they conduct. For
example, there are ORF Costs associated with main office and branch
office examinations (e.g., staff expenses), as well as investigations
into Customer complaints and the terminations of registered persons. As
a result, the ORF Costs associated with administering the Customer
component of the Exchange's overall regulatory program are materially
higher than the ORF Costs associated with administering the non-
Customer component when coupled with the amount of volume attributed to
such Customer transactions. Not attributing significant ORF Costs to
Customers for activity that may occur across options markets does not
impose an undue burden on intra-market competition because the
Exchange's Customer regulation occurs to a large extent on Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Know Your Customer or ``KYC'' provision is the obligation
of the broker-dealer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange believes that not assessing ORF on Market Makers does
not impose an undue burden on intramarket competition because these
liquidity providers are critical market participants required to
provide liquidity to the Exchange and necessary for opening the market.
Excluding Market Maker transactions from ORF does not impose an
intramarket burden on competition, and instead allows these market
participants to manage their costs and consequently their business
model more effectively, thereby enabling them to better allocate
resources to, for example, technologies that allow them to manage risk
and capacity to ensure their continued ability to compete effectively
on the Exchange to provide displayed liquidity. Unlike other market
participants, Market Makers have various regulatory requirements with
respect to quoting. Specifically, Market Makers have certain quoting
requirements with respect to their assigned options series as provided
in Rule 6.37AP-O (Market Maker Quotations). Further, unlike other
market participants, Market Makers have obligations to compete with
other Market Makers to improve the market in all series of options
classes to which the Market Maker is appointed and to update market
quotations in response to changed market conditions in all series of
options classes to which the Market Maker is appointed.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See Rule 6.35-O (Appointment of Market Makers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange believes that not assessing ORF on Firm and Broker
Dealer market participants does not impose an undue burden on
intramarket competition because the regulation of Firm and Broker
Dealer transactions is less resource-intensive than the regulation of
Customer transactions. The volume generated from Firm and Broker Dealer
transactions is not significant when compared to Customer transactions.
Therefore, excluding Firm and Broker Dealer transactions from ORF does
not impose an undue burden on intramarket competition, as
[[Page 14892]]
Customer transactions account for a material portion of the Exchange's
ORF Costs.\25\ The Exchange's proposal to assess ORF only on Customer
executions that occur on the Exchange does not impose an intramarket
burden on competition because the amount of activity surveilled across
exchanges is small when compared to the overall number of Exchange
rules that are surveilled by the Exchange for on-Exchange activity.
Limiting the amount of ORF assessed to activity that occurs on the
Exchange avoids overlapping ORFs that would otherwise be assessed by
the Exchange and other options exchanges that also assess an ORF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ The Exchange notes that the regulatory costs relating to
monitoring OTP Holders with respect to Customer trading activity are
generally higher than the regulatory costs associated with OTP
Holders that do not engage in Customer trading activity, which tends
to be more automated and less labor-intensive. By contrast,
regulating OTP Holders that engage in Customer trading activity is
generally more labor-intensive and requires a greater expenditure of
human and technical resources because the Exchange needs to review
not only the trading activity on behalf of Customers, but also the
OTP Holders' relationship with its Customers via more labor-
intensive exam-based programs. As a result, the costs associated
with administering the Customer component of the Exchange's overall
regulatory program are materially higher than the costs associated
with administering the non-Customer component of the regulatory
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, the proposed ORF does not impose an intra-market burden on
competition as this collection accounts for the collection only on
Customer executions. The Exchange will monitor and review ORF
collection and amend the ORF if it finds that ORF collection exceeds
its projections.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ The Exchange would submit a rule change to the Commission
to amend ORF rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.
III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \27\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \28\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
\28\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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#1765627b723a74787a7a727963645764727439707861"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="750700191058161a1818101b0106350610165b121a03">[email protected]</span></a>. Please include
file number SR-NYSEARCA-2026-30 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-2026-30. 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-NYSEARCA-2026-30 and should be submitted
on or before April 17, 2026.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2026-05946 Filed 3-26-26; 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 March 27, 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.