Notice2026-09857
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
May 18, 2026
Issuing agencies
Securities and Exchange Commission
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 95 (Monday, May 18, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 95 (Monday, May 18, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28690-28694]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-09857]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-105475; File No. SR-NYSEARCA-2026-46]
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
May 13, 2026.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that on May 1, 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\ 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 Equities Fees and
Charges (``Fee Schedule'') to adopt a new pricing tier, Retail Tier 6,
under the Retail Tiers pricing table. 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 to adopt a new
pricing tier, Retail Tier 6, under the Retail Tiers pricing table.
The proposed change responds 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 May 1,
2026.
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.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (File No. S7-10-04) (Final
Rule) (``Regulation NMS'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While Regulation NMS has enhanced competition, it has also fostered
a ``fragmented'' market structure where trading in a single stock can
occur across multiple trading centers. When multiple trading centers
compete for order flow in the same stock, the Commission has recognized
that ``such competition can lead to the fragmentation of order flow in
that stock.'' \5\ Indeed, equity trading is currently dispersed across
17 exchanges,\6\ numerous alternative trading systems,\7\ and broker-
dealer internalizers and wholesalers, all competing for order flow.
Based on publicly available information, no single exchange currently
has more than 20% market share.\8\ 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.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61358, 75 FR 3594,
3597 (January 21, 2010) (File No. S7-02-10) (Concept Release on
Equity Market Structure).
\6\ See Cboe U.S Equities Market Volume Summary, available at
<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>.
\7\ 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>.
\8\ 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>.
\9\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
move order flow, or discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of
products. While it is not possible to know a firm's reason for shifting
order flow, the Exchange believes that one such reason is because of
fee changes at any of the registered exchanges or non-exchange venues
to which 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 16 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
[[Page 28691]]
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 several Retail Tiers that 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. 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
The proposed rule change is designed to be available to all ETP
Holders on the Exchange and is intended to provide ETP Holders an
opportunity to receive enhanced rebates by quoting and trading more on
the Exchange.
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.\10\
Additionally, the Exchange currently charges a fee of $0.0025 per share
for Retail Orders with a time-in-force of Day that remove liquidity
under Retail Tier 1 and Retail Tier 2 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,\11\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Fee Schedule, Retail Tiers table under Section VII.
Tier Rates--Round Lots and Odd Lots (Per Share Price $1.00 or
Above).
\11\ 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 also currently charges 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 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, 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 if such ETP Holder is
registered as a Lead Market Maker (``LMM'') \12\ or Market Maker \13\
in at least 200 \14\ Less Active ETPs \15\ in which it meets at least
two Performance Metrics.\16\ 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 fee of $0.0025
per share.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 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.
\13\ 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.
\14\ The number of Less Active ETPs for a billing month is
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.
\15\ 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.
\16\ The applicable Performance Metrics are specified in Section
III under LMM Transaction Fees and Credits on the Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With this proposed rule change, the Exchange proposes to adopt a
new pricing tier, Retail Tier 6, which would provide a credit of
$0.0035 per share for Adding to ETP Holders that execute an ADV of
Retail Orders with a time-in-force of Day that add or remove liquidity
during the billing month that is equal to at least 0.075% of CADV
combined with Customer and Professional Customer Posting Volume by an
OTP Holder or OTP Firm affiliated with the ETP Holder that is equal to
at least 1.00% of TCADV in all options classes. The Exchange also
proposes to adopt a fee of $0.0025 per share under proposed Retail Tier
6 for Retail Orders with a time-in-force of Day that remove liquidity
except that the first 65 million shares of such orders in a billing
month would not be charged the fee.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Pursuant to footnote (d) under Retail Tiers, ETP Holders
that qualify for proposed Retail Tier 6 will not be charged a fee or
provided a credit for Retail Orders where each side of the executed
order (1) shares the same MPID and (2) is a Retail Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, assume in a month of 20 trading days where an ETP
Holder that meets the volume criteria and thus qualifies for the
proposed Retail Tier 6 executes 4 million shares of Retail Orders that
remove liquidity with a Time-in-force of Day every trading day. By day
17 of the billing month, the ETP Holder will have executed 68 million
shares that removed liquidity, thereby exceeding the proposed cap of 65
million shares. By the end of the billing month, or day 20, the ETP
Holder will have executed 80 million shares of Retail Orders, i.e., 15
million shares over the 65 million share cap. With this proposed rule
change, the ETP holder would not be charged the proposed fee for the
first 65 million shares of such Retail Orders with a Time-in-force of
Day that remove liquidity and would be charged the proposed $0.0025 per
share fee for the 15 million shares in excess of the cap.
With the proposed addition of the 65 million shares threshold
applicable to proposed Retail Tier 6, the Exchange proposes to reformat
the Retail Tiers pricing table. More specifically, the Exchange
proposes relocating the text referencing the current volume threshold
to qualify for the no fee exception from the Retail Tiers table to
current footnote (e), which would now provide the no fee exceptions
applicable to Retail Tier 1, Retail Tier 2, Retail Tier 3, Retail Tier
5 and proposed new Retail Tier 6. The Exchange also proposes to
relocate footnote (e), which is currently appended to the fee charged
under Retail Tier 3 and Retail Tier 5, to the new heading titled ``Up
to Free Remove Cap,'' with footnote (e) describing the no fee
exceptions applicable to Retail Tier 1, Retail Tier 2, Retail Tier 3,
Retail Tier 5 and proposed new Retail Tier 6.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to encourage greater
participation from ETP Holders, including on the Exchange's options
platform, and promote additional liquidity in Retail Orders. The
proposed
[[Page 28692]]
rule change also provides an alternate method to qualify to the credits
currently available under Retail Tier 5, except with a lower equities
volume threshold but a higher options volume requirement. As described
above, ETP Holders with retail day orders have a choice of where to
send those orders. The Exchange believes that the proposed new pricing
tier may encourage more ETP Holders to route their Retail Orders with a
time-in-force of Day to the Exchange rather than to a competing
exchange.
The Exchange believes that the proposed new pricing tier will
incentivize ETP Holders to route their liquidity-providing order flow
to the Exchange to qualify for the tier, which provides a higher credit
than that currently available under current Retail Tier 4. This in turn
would support the quality of price discovery on the Exchange and
provide additional price improvement opportunities for incoming orders.
The Exchange believes that by correlating the amount of the credit and
fee to the level of orders sent by an ETP Holder that add or remove
liquidity, the Exchange's fee structure would continue to incentivize
ETP Holders to submit more orders with a time-in-force of Day that add
liquidity to or remove liquidity from the Exchange, thereby increasing
the potential for price improvement to incoming marketable orders and
higher fill rates to resting limit orders on the Exchange.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change would continue to
encourage additional liquidity on the Exchange by providing additional
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.
2. Statutory Basis
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\18\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\19\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
\19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Proposal 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.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 such 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 17 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 the proposed change to adopt the Retail Tier
6 pricing tier is reasonable because it would provide ETP Holders with
an additional incentive to route their Retail Orders to the Exchange,
which would result in increased liquidity on the Exchange. 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.
The Exchange believes the proposed change is also reasonable
because the proposed credit would continue to encourage ETP Holders to
send Retail Orders to the Exchange to qualify for the proposed pricing
tier. As noted above, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive
environment, particularly for attracting Retail Order flow that
provides displayed liquidity on an exchange. The Exchange believes it
is reasonable to continue to provide credits for adding liquidity and
fees for removing liquidity, in general, and higher credits for Retail
Orders that provide liquidity and lower fees for removing liquidity if
an ETP Holder meets the requirement for the proposed pricing tier.
Further, given the competitive market for attracting Retail Orders,
the Exchange notes that with this proposed rule change, the Exchange's
pricing for Retail Orders would be comparable to credits currently in
place on other exchanges that the Exchange competes with for order
flow. For example, MEMX LLC (``MEMX'') provides its members with a
credit of $0.0037 per share if the member on that exchange has a Retail
Order ADAV equal to or greater than 0.20% of the TCV, or if the member
has a Retail Order ADAV equal to or greater than 1,000,000 share in the
Pre-Market Session and/or Post-Market Session.\21\ Additionally, MIAX
PEARL, LLC (``MIAX'') provides its member with a credit of $0.0037 per
share for Retail Orders that add liquidity to that market.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See, MEMX Fee Schedule, Retail Tier, at <a href="https://info.memxtrading.com/equities-trading-resources/us-equities-fee-schedule/">https://info.memxtrading.com/equities-trading-resources/us-equities-fee-schedule/</a>.
\22\ See, MIAX Fee Schedule, Transaction Rebates/Fees, Standard
rates, at <a href="https://www.miaxglobal.com/sites/default/files/fee_schedule-files/MIAX_Pearl_Equities_Fee_Schedule_10012025.pdf">https://www.miaxglobal.com/sites/default/files/fee_schedule-files/MIAX_Pearl_Equities_Fee_Schedule_10012025.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
and exceed a specified monthly shares threshold. The Exchange 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.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ 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 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.
The Proposed Fee Change Is an Equitable Allocation of Fees and Credits
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change to adopt new
Retail Tier 6 equitably allocates fees and credits among its market
participants because all ETP Holders that participate on the Exchange
would be subject to the
[[Page 28693]]
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 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.
Without having a view of activity on other markets and off-exchange
venues, the Exchange has no way of knowing whether this proposed rule
change would result in any ETP Holder qualifying for proposed Retail
Tier 6. While the Exchange has no way of predicting with certainty how
the proposed changes will impact ETP Holder activity, based on the
prior month's volume, the Exchange anticipates that at least 2 and as
many as 5 ETP Holders may be able to satisfy proposed Retail Tier 6.
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 adoption of Retail Tier 6
is also equitable because the magnitude of the proposed credit is not
unreasonably high relative to credits paid by other exchanges for
orders that provide additional liquidity in Retail Orders.\24\ The
Exchange believes the proposed rule change would improve market quality
for all market participants on the Exchange and, as a consequence,
attract more Retail Orders to the Exchange, thereby improving market-
wide quality and price discovery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See supra, notes 21-22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Exchange believes that the proposal is also equitable because
all ETP Holders would be subject to the same fee structure. Moreover,
the proposed requirement to qualify for the proposed new pricing tier
would be available to all ETP Holders to satisfy, including ETP Holders
that are affiliated with an NYSE Arca Options OTP Holder or OTP Firm.
ETP Holders that are not affiliated with an NYSE Arca Options OTP
Holder or OTP Firm would still be eligible for fees and credits by
means other than the proposed Retail Tier 6. Nasdaq similarly charges
certain fees based on both equity and options volume.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See Nasdaq Equity 7, Section 118. Nasdaq Market Center
Order Execution and Routing, at <a href="https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/nasdaq/rules/Nasdaq%20Equity%207#section_118_nasdaq_market_center_order_execution_and_routing">https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/nasdaq/rules/Nasdaq%20Equity%207#section_118_nasdaq_market_center_order_execution_and_routing</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Proposed Fee Change Is Not Unfairly Discriminatory
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change to adopt
proposed new Retail Tier 6 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 volume requirement to qualify for the proposed new Retail
Tier 6. 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.
As described above, in today's competitive marketplace, order flow
providers have a choice of where to direct order flow, and the Exchange
believes the proposed adoption of an increased credit under the
proposed new pricing tier will incentivize greater number of ETP
Holders to direct their order flow to the Exchange. Lastly, the
submission of Retail Orders is optional for ETP Holders in that they
could choose whether to submit Retail Orders and, if they do, the
extent of its activity in this regard.
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,\26\ 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.'' \27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
\27\ See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
In particular, the proposed change to adopt a new pricing tier would
apply to all ETP Holders equally in that all ETP Holders would be
eligible for the proposed pricing tier, have a reasonable opportunity
to meet the proposed pricing tier's criteria and would all receive the
proposed rebate if such criteria are met. The Exchange believes that
the new pricing tier 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 does not believe that the proposed
changes represent a significant departure from previous pricing offered
by the Exchange or its competitors. The proposed changes are designed
to attract additional retail order flow to the Exchange. 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.
Intermarket Competition. The Exchange believes the proposed rule
change does not impose any burden on intermarket competition that is
not
[[Page 28694]]
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 15%.
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,\28\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(2) thereunder \29\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
\29\ 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#2654534a430b45494b4b434852556655434508414950"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="82f0f7eee7afe1edefefe7ecf6f1c2f1e7e1ace5edf4">[email protected]</span></a>. Please include
file number SR-NYSEARCA-2026-46 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-2026-46. 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-2026-46 and should be submitted
on or before June 8, 2026.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2026-09857 Filed 5-15-26; 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 May 18, 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.