Amended ORF Assessment Methodology for Options Transactions

14884

filing, the Exchange proposes only to A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. amend the method by which it will Statement of the Purpose of, and the Wesley W. Held, assess and collect ORF as of July 1, Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Policy Coordinator, Office of the Secretary. 2026. The Exchange will file a separate Change [FR Doc. 2026–06003 Filed 3–25–26; 4:15 pm] rule filing with the ORF rate that would 1. Purpose BILLING CODE 7590–01–P take effect on July 1, 2026, in advance The Exchange proposes to amend the of assessing and collecting ORF under Fee Scheduleto amend its the new methodology. As is the case 4SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE methodology of assessment and today, the Exchange will provide at least COMMISSION collection of the ORF to assess ORF only 30 days’ notice of the applicable rate by for options transactions that occur on Trader Update. [Release No. 34–105071; File No. SR– the Exchange and that are cleared in the NYSEAMER–2026–22] Background Customer range at The Options Clearing As a general matter, the Exchange Corporation (‘‘OCC’’), in alignment with Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE may only use regulatory funds such as new ORF methodology proposed by American LLC; Notice of Filing and the ORF ‘‘to fund the legal, regulatory, other options exchanges.Consistent Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed 5and surveillance operations’’ of the with that methodology, the Exchange Rule Change To Adopt a New Exchange. More specifically, the ORF intends to collect ORF under its current Methodology for Assessment and 8is designed to recover a material methodology until at least June 30, Collection of the Options Regulatory portion, but not all, of the Exchange’s 2026. The Exchange is prepared to Fee (ORF) costs for the supervision and regulation implement the new ORF methodology, of ATP Holders’ Customer options March 24, 2026. as proposed in this filing, effective July Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)of the business, including the Exchange’s 1, 2026, provided that all U.S. options 1Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the regulatory program and legal expenses exchanges charging an ORF have filed to ‘‘Act’’),and Rule 19b–4 thereunder, associated with Customer options modify their current methodologies of 23notice is hereby given that on March 16, regulation, such as the costs related to assessing ORF to limit the fee to 2026, NYSE American LLC (‘‘NYSE in-house staff, third-party service transactions occurring on their American’’ or the ‘‘Exchange’’) filed providers, and technology that facilitate respective exchange by April 1, 2026. 6with the Securities and Exchange regulatory functions such as If all other options exchanges have not surveillance, investigation, Commission (the ‘‘Commission’’) a filed to adopt a similar methodology by examinations, and enforcement proposed rule change as described in such date, the Exchange will delay (collectively, the ‘‘ORF Costs’’). ORF Items I and II below, which Items have implementation commensurate with the Costs may also include indirect been prepared by the Exchange. The additional time required for other expenses such as human resources and Commission is publishing this notice to options exchanges to adopt a similar other administrative costs related to the solicit comments on the proposed rule method for collection and assessment of supervision and regulation of Customer change from interested persons. ORF (and will continue collecting ORF activity. The Exchange monitors the under its current methodology until I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s amount of ORF collection to ensure that such time that the new ORF Statement of the Terms of Substance of this amount, in combination with other methodology is implemented).In this the Proposed Rule Change 7regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed regulatory costs. The Exchange proposes to amend the The Exchange previously filed to amend the Fee Today, the ORF is assessed on ATP NYSE American Options Fee Schedule 4Schedule on March 2, 2026 (SR–NYSEAMER– Holders for options transactions that are (‘‘Fee Schedule’’) regarding the Options 2026–16) and withdrew such filing on March 16, cleared by the ATP Holder through the Regulatory Fee (‘‘ORF’’). The proposed 2026. OCC in the Customer range regardless of See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. rule change is available on the 5103558 (July 28, 2025), 90 FR 36080 (July 31, 2025) the exchange on which the transaction Exchange’s website at www.nyse.com (SR–ISE–2025–20) (Notice of Filing and Immediate occurs and is collected from ATP and at the principal office of the Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Holder clearing firms by the OCC on Exchange. the Methodology for Its Options Regulatory Fee behalf of NYSE American. All options (ORF) as of January 2, 2026); 104417 (December 17, 9II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 2025) (SR–CBOE–2025–086) (Notice of Filing and transactions must clear via a clearing Statement of the Purpose of, and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change firm, and such clearing firms can then to Adopt a New Methodology for Assessment and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Collection of the Options Regulatory Fee (ORF)); Change 104707 (January 28, 2026), 90 FR 4754 (February 2, ORF under its current methodology until such time 2026) (SR–MIAX–2026–01) (Notice of Filing and In its filing with the Commission, the that the new ORF methodology is implemented). Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change The Exchange considers surveillance operations self-regulatory organization included 8To Adopt a New Methodology for Assessment and part of regulatory operations. The limitation on the statements concerning the purpose of, Collection of the Options Regulatory Fee (ORF)); use of regulatory funds also provides that they shall and basis for, the proposed rule change 104745 (January 29, 2026), 90 FR 4985 (February 3, not be distributed. See Thirteenth Amended and 2026) (SR–MEMX–2026–02) (Notice of Filing and and discussed any comments it received Restated Operating Agreement of NYSE American Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change LLC, Article IV, Section 4.05 and Securities on the proposed rule change. The text To Amend the Exchange’s Fee Schedule To Adopt Exchange Act Release No. 87993 (January 16, 2020), of those statements may be examined at a New Methodology for Assessment and Collection 85 FR 4050 (January 23, 2020) (SR–NYSEAMER– the places specified in Item IV below. of the Options Regulatory Fee (ORF)). 2020–04). The Exchange notes that, as of the date of this The Exchange has prepared summaries, See Fee Schedule, Section VII.A., Options 69filing, all U.S. options exchanges have filed Regulatory Fee (‘‘ORF’’), available at: https://set forth in sections A, B, and C below, proposed rule changes to adopt similar new ORF www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/american- of the most significant parts of such methodology. options/NYSEAmericanOptionsFeestatements. The Exchange may also delay implementation if Schedule.pdf. The Exchange uses reports from OCC 7certain currently unresolved operational issues when assessing and collecting the ORF. The ORF remain so and impact the industry’s ability to is not assessed on outbound linkage trades. An ATP 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). transition to the new methodology on July 1, 2026, Holder is not assessed the fee until it has satisfied 115 U.S.C. 78a. commensurate with any additional time required to applicable technological requirements necessary to 217 CFR 240.19b–4. resolve such issues (and will continue collecting commence operations on NYSE American. See id. 3

VerDate Sep<11>2014 01:37 Mar 27, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27MRN1.SGM 27MRN1

14885

least 30 calendar days prior to the the firm that clears the transaction on its choose to pass through all, a portion, or behalf are non-ATP Holders.effective date of the change. none of the cost of the ORF to its Customers, i.e., the entering firms. The To illustrate how the ORF, which is Proposed Rule Change Exchange notes that the costs relating to currently set at $0.0026 per contract, 12 The Exchange proposes to adopt a monitoring ATP Holders with respect to is currently assessed and collected, the new methodology for assessing and Customer trading activity are generally Exchange provides the following set of collecting ORF that would align with higher than the costs associated with scenarios. the methodology proposed by other monitoring ATP Holders that do not Scenario 1 options exchanges, effective July 1, engage in Customer trading activity, 2026. As noted above, this rule filing Executing (or Give-Up) Firm is not an which tends to be more automated and 15 sets forth the proposed method by ATP Holder. The Executing Firm does less labor-intensive. By contrast, which it will assess and collect ORF as not ‘‘give-up’’ or ‘‘CMTA’’ the regulating ATP Holders that engage in of July 1, 2026, and the Exchange will transaction to another clearing firm. Customer trading activity is generally 13 file a separate rule filing with the ORF more labor-intensive and requires a No ORF is assessed. rate that would take effect on July 1, greater expenditure of human and 2026 at least 30 days prior to such date. Scenario 2 technical resources as the Exchange The Exchange proposes to continue to Executing Firm is an ATP Holder. The needs to review not only the trading assess ORF for options transactions Executing Firm ‘‘give-ups’’ or ‘‘CMTAs’’ activity on behalf of Customers, but also cleared by OCC in the Customer range, the transaction to another clearing firm the ATP Holder’s relationship with its but ORF would be assessed only for that is not an ATP Holder. Customers via more labor-intensive executions that occur on the Exchange. exam-based programs.As a result, the No ORF is assessed. Specifically, the ORF would be 10costs associated with administering the collected by OCC on behalf of the Scenario 3 Exchange from ATP Holders and non- The Executing (or Give-Up) Firm is an ATP Holders for all Customer ATP Holder. The Executing Firm does materially higher than the costs transactions executed on the Exchange. not ‘‘give-up’’ or ‘‘CMTA’’ the associated with administering the non- ORF would be assessed and collected on transaction to another clearing firm. Customer component (e.g., ATP Holder all ultimately cleared Customer proprietary transactions) of its ORF is assessed on the self-clearing contracts, taking into account Executing Firm. adjustments for CMTA that were regulatory program. provided to the Exchange the same day Because the ORF is based on options Scenario 4 as the trade. Further, the Exchange transactions volume, the amount of ORF 16 would bill ORF according to the The Executing (or Give-Up) Firm is an collected is variable. For example, if clearing instructions provided on the ATP Holder. The Executing Firm ‘‘give- options transactions reported to OCC in execution. The Exchange proposes to ups’’ or ‘‘CMTAs’’ the transaction to a given month increase, the ORF assess ORF based on the clearing another clearing firm that is also an ATP collected from ATP Holders will likely instruction provided on the execution Holder. increase as well. Similarly, if options on trade date and would not take into ORF is assessed on the CMTA transactions reported to OCC in a given consideration CMTA changes or (clearing) firm. month decrease, the ORF collected from transfers that occur at OCC. 17ATP Holders will likely decrease as Scenario 5 To illustrate how the ORF would be well. Accordingly, the Exchange assessed and collected under the The Executing (or Give-Up) Firm is monitors the amount of ORF collected proposed methodology, the Exchange not an ATP Holder. The Executing Firm to ensure that it does not exceed a provides the following set of scenarios. ‘‘give-ups’’ or ‘‘CMTAs’’ the transaction material portion of ORF Costs. If the to another clearing firm that is an ATP Exchange determines the amount of Holder. Although the Exchange believes that its broad ORF collected exceeds or may exceed a 14 regulatory responsibilities would support applying ORF is assessed on the CMTA material portion of ORF Costs, the the ORF to transactions that are executed (even if (clearing) firm. not ultimately cleared) by an ATP Holder, the Exchange will, as appropriate, adjust the Exchange only imposes the ORF on transactions As illustrated above, the Exchange ORF by submitting a fee change filing to ultimately cleared by ATP Holders at this time. The does not assess the ORF on non-ATP the Securities and Exchange Exchange’s regulatory responsibilities are the same Holders that self-clear transactions, even Commission (the ‘‘Commission’’). regardless of whether an ATP Holder enters a if the executing firm is an ATP Holder; transaction or clears a transaction. The Exchange Exchange rules establish that market regularly reviews all such activities, including the Exchange likewise does not impose participants must be notified of any monitoring surveillance for position limit the ORF if both the executing firm and change in the ORF via Trader Update at violations, manipulation, front-running, contrary exercise advice violations and insider trading. These activities span across multiple exchanges. See Fee Schedule, note 9, supra. The Exchange notes that many of the See note 5, supra. 1110 15See Securities Exchange Act Release No. Exchange’s market surveillance programs require Adjustments to CMTA that occur at OCC would 12 16104361 (December 11, 2025), 90 FR 58361 the Exchange to look at and evaluate activity across not be taken into account. CMTA transfers that (December 16, 2025) (SR–NYSEAMER–2025–70) all options markets, such as surveillance for occur at OCC do not necessarily contain reliable (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a position limit violations, manipulation, front- information regarding the exchange on which the Proposed Rule Change To Lower the Options running, and contrary exercise advice violations/ original transaction occurred, and without specific Regulatory Fee (ORF)). The Exchange also proposes expiring exercise declarations. The Exchange and information as to where such transaction occurred, in this filing to delete language in the Fee Schedule other options SROs are parties to a 17d–2 agreement the Exchange would not be able to accurately describing an ORF waiver period that has elapsed, allocating among the SROs regulatory account for CMTA transfers that occur at OCC. as well as now-extraneous language specifying that responsibilities relating to compliance by the Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to only the current ORF rate took effect on January 1, 2026. account for CMTAs that occur on the Exchange and common members with rules for expiring exercise exclude CMTAs occurring at OCC, consistent with A CMTA or Clearing Member Trade declarations, position limits, OCC trade 13 other options exchanges’ proposals. adjustments, and Large Option Position Report Assignment is an agreement by which an investor reviews. See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release may enter derivative trades with a limited number Adjustments that were made the same day as 17No. 85097 (February 11, 2019), 84 FR 4871 of different brokers and later consolidate these the trade on the Exchange will be taken into (February 19, 2019). trades with one brokerage house for clearing. account.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 01:37 Mar 27, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27MRN1.SGM 27MRN1

14886

Scenario 1 is designed to provide for the equitable to different Exchange fees (such as allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and application fees, permit fees, and An ATP Holder executes a Customer other charges among its members and connectivity fees) and have various transaction on the Exchange and is the other persons using its facilities and regulatory requirements with respect to clearing member on record on the does not unfairly discriminate between quoting. Specifically, Market Makers transaction on the Exchange. customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. have certain quoting requirements with ORF will be assessed to the ATP The Exchange believes the proposed respect to their assigned options series Holder. new ORF methodology to be assessed as provided in Rule 925.1NYP (Market Scenario 2 effective July 1, 2026 is reasonable, Maker Quotations). In addition, unlike equitable, and not unfairly other market participants, Market An ATP Holder executes a Customer discriminatory for various reasons. First, Makers have obligations to compete transaction on the Exchange and a the Exchange believes that continuing to with other Market Makers to improve different ATP Holder is the clearing assess ORF only on Customer member on record on the transaction on the market in all series of options transactions is reasonable because the Exchange. classes to which the Market Maker is Customer transactions account for a ORF will be assessed to and collected appointed and to update market material portion of ORF Costs. A large from the ATP Holder that is the clearing quotations in response to changed portion of ORF Costs relate to Customer member on record on the transaction market conditions in all series of activity because obtaining Customer and not the ATP Holder that executes options classes to which the Market information may be more time- the transaction. Maker is appointed. 21 intensive. For example, non-Customer The Exchange similarly acknowledges Scenario 3 market participants are subject to that there is a cost to regulate Firm and various regulatory and reporting An ATP Holder executes a Customer Broker Dealer transactions, but notes requirements which provides the transaction on the Exchange, and a non- that these market participants’ Exchange certain data with respect to ATP Holder is the clearing member on transactions do not involve significant these market participants. In contrast, record on the transaction on the volume when compared to Customer Customer information is known by ATP Exchange. transactions. The Exchange further Holders of the Exchange, but is not ORF will be assessed to the non-ATP notes that Firm and Broker Dealer readily available to the Exchange. Holder who is the clearing member on market participants tend to be more Accordingly, the Exchange may have to record on the transaction and not the sophisticated than Customers and do take additional steps to understand the ATP Holder who executes the not require the same protections as facts surrounding particular trades transaction. Customer transactions do. Accordingly, involving a Customer, which may Scenario 4 require requesting such information the regulation of Firm and Broker Dealer from a broker-dealer. Further, transactions is less resource-intensive An ATP Holder executes a Customer Customers require more Exchange than the regulation of Customer transaction on another exchange (i.e., regulatory services based on the amount transactions and accounts for a smaller not NYSE American). of options business they conduct. For No ORF is assessed, regardless of how percentage of ORF Costs. example, there are costs associated with the transaction is cleared. Finally, the Exchange believes that main office and branch office As is the case today, OCC will collect assessing ORF on Customer executions examinations (e.g., staff expenses), as ORF from OCC clearing members on that occur on the Exchange is well as investigations into Customer behalf of the Exchange based on the reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly complaints and the terminations of Exchange’s instructions. discriminatory because it will avoid Consistent with current practice, the registered persons. As a result, ORF overlapping ORFs that would otherwise Exchange will continue to monitor the Costs associated with administering the be assessed by the Exchange and other amount of ORF collected to ensure that options exchanges that also assess an it, in combination with other regulatory ORF. With this proposal, Customer materially higher than those associated fees and fines, does not exceed a executions that occur on other with administering the non-Customer material portion of ORF Costs. If the exchanges would no longer be subject to component when coupled with the Exchange determines the amount of an ORF assessed by the Exchange. amount of volume attributed to such ORF collected exceeds or may exceed a The Exchange believes that its Customer transactions. material portion of ORF Costs, the proposal continues to ensure that ORF Under the Exchange’s proposal, the Exchange will, as appropriate, adjust the collection, in combination with other amount of ORF Costs allocated to on- ORF by submitting a fee change filing to regulatory fees and fines, does not exchange Customer transactions is the Commission and, as is the case exceed ORF Costs. Fines collected by significant. Also, with respect to today, provide ATP Holders with 30 the Exchange in connection with a Customer transactions, options volume days’ advance notice. The Exchange will disciplinary matter will continue to continues to surpass volume from other notify ATP Holders of this proposed offset ORF Cost. The Exchange will, options participants. Additionally, the change by Trader Update at least 30 under the new ORF methodology, Exchange has rules that deal exclusively calendar days prior to the effective date. continue to monitor and review ORF with Customer transactions, such as 2. Statutory Basis collection and, if the Exchange rules involving doing business with a determines the amount of ORF collected Customer, which would not apply to The Exchange believes that the exceeds or may exceed a material Non-Customer transactions. proposed rule change is consistent with 20 Although the Exchange acknowledges portion of ORF Costs, the Exchange will, the provisions of Section 6(b) of the 18 that there is a cost to regulate Market as appropriate, adjust the ORF (via a Act, in general, and Section 6(b)(4) and Makers, unlike other market rule change filed with the Commission). (5) of the Act, in particular, in that it 19 participants, Market Makers are subject

15 U.S.C. 78f(b). See Rule 923NY (Appointment of Market 18 2115 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5). See, e.g., Section 7. Conduct of Accounts. Makers). 19 20

VerDate Sep<11>2014 01:37 Mar 27, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27MRN1.SGM 27MRN1

14887

complaints and the terminations of transactions. Therefore, excluding Firm B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s registered persons. As a result, the ORF and Broker Dealer transactions from Statement on Burden on Competition Costs associated with administering the ORF does not impose an undue burden The Exchange does not believe that on intramarket competition, as the proposed rule change will impose Customer transactions account for a any burden on competition that is not materially higher than the ORF Costs material portion of the Exchange’s ORF necessary or appropriate in furtherance associated with administering the non- Costs. The Exchange’s proposal to of the purposes of the Act. 25Customer component when coupled assess ORF only on Customer The Exchange believes that the with the amount of volume attributed to executions that occur on the Exchange proposed change to adopt a new such Customer transactions. Not does not impose an intramarket burden methodology for the assessment and attributing significant ORF Costs to on competition because the amount of collection of ORF does not impose an Customers for activity that may occur activity surveilled across exchanges is undue burden on intermarket across options markets does not impose small when compared to the overall competition because ORF is a regulatory an undue burden on intra-market number of Exchange rules that are fee that supports regulation in competition because the Exchange’s surveilled by the Exchange for on- furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Customer regulation occurs to a large Exchange activity. Limiting the amount The Exchange notes, however, the extent on Exchange. of ORF assessed to activity that occurs proposed change is not designed to The Exchange believes that not on the Exchange avoids overlapping address any competitive issues. The assessing ORF on Market Makers does ORFs that would otherwise be assessed Exchange is obligated to ensure that the not impose an undue burden on by the Exchange and other options amount of ORF collected, in intramarket competition because these exchanges that also assess an ORF. combination with its other regulatory liquidity providers are critical market Further, the proposed ORF does not fees and fines, does not exceed ORF participants required to provide impose an intra-market burden on Costs. Continuing to assess ORF only on liquidity to the Exchange and necessary competition as this collection accounts Customer executions that occur on the for opening the market. Excluding for the collection only on Customer Exchange does not impose an undue Market Maker transactions from ORF executions. The Exchange will monitor burden on intramarket competition. does not impose an intramarket burden and review ORF collection and amend Customer transactions account for a on competition, and instead allows the ORF if it finds that ORF collection large portion of the Exchange’s ORF these market participants to manage exceeds its projections. Costs. With respect to Customer 26their costs and consequently their transactions, options volume continues C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s business model more effectively, to surpass volume from other options Statement on Comments on the thereby enabling them to better allocate participants. Additionally, the Exchange Proposed Rule Change Received From resources to, for example, technologies has rules that deal exclusively with Members, Participants, or Others that allow them to manage risk and Customer transactions, such as rules No written comments were solicited capacity to ensure their continued involving doing business with a or received with respect to the proposed ability to compete effectively on the Customer, which would not apply to rule change. Exchange to provide displayed non-Customer transactions. 22liquidity. Unlike other market For these reasons, regulating III. Date of Effectiveness of the participants, Market Makers have Customer trading activity is more labor- Proposed Rule Change and Timing for various regulatory requirements with intensive and therefore, more costly. Commission Action respect to quoting. Specifically, Market Further, the Exchange believes that a The foregoing rule change has become Makers have certain quoting large portion of the ORF Costs relate to effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) requirements with respect to their Customer allocation because obtaining of the Act and paragraph (f) of Rule assigned options series as provided in Customer information may be more 27 19b–4 thereunder. At any time within Rule 925.1NYP (Market Maker time-intensive. For example, non- 28 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule Quotations). Further, unlike other Customer market participants are change, the Commission summarily may market participants, Market Makers subject to various regulatory and temporarily suspend such rule change if have obligations to compete with other reporting requirements which provides it appears to the Commission that such Market Makers to improve the market in the Exchange certain data with respect all series of options classes to which the to these market participants. In contrast, Market Maker is appointed and to Customer information is known by ATP The Exchange notes that the regulatory costs 25 relating to monitoring ATP Holders with respect to update market quotations in response to Holders and is not readily available to Customer trading activity are generally higher than changed market conditions in all series the Exchange.The Exchange may have 23 the regulatory costs associated with ATP Holders of options classes to which the Market to take additional steps to understand that do not engage in Customer trading activity, Maker is appointed. the facts surrounding particular trades which tends to be more automated and less labor- 24The Exchange believes that not intensive. By contrast, regulating ATP Holders that involving a Customer which may engage in Customer trading activity is generally assessing ORF on Firm and Broker require requesting such information more labor-intensive and requires a greater Dealer market participants does not from a broker-dealer. Further, expenditure of human and technical resources impose an undue burden on intramarket Customers require more Exchange because the Exchange needs to review not only the competition because the regulation of trading activity on behalf of Customers, but also the regulatory services based on the amount ATP Holders’ relationship with its Customers via Firm and Broker Dealer transactions is of options business they conduct. For more labor-intensive exam-based programs. As a less resource-intensive than the example, there are ORF Costs associated result, the costs associated with administering the regulation of Customer transactions. The with main office and branch office Customer component of the Exchange’s overall volume generated from Firm and Broker regulatory program are materially higher than the examinations (e.g., staff expenses), as costs associated with administering the non- Dealer transactions is not significant well as investigations into Customer Customer component of the regulatory program. when compared to Customer The Exchange would submit a rule change to 26 the Commission to amend ORF rates. See, e.g., Section 7. Conduct of Accounts. 22 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). Know Your Customer or ‘‘KYC’’ provision is See Rule 923NY (Appointment of Market 272324the obligation of the broker-dealer. Makers). 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f). 28

VerDate Sep<11>2014 01:37 Mar 27, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27MRN1.SGM 27MRN1

14888

action is necessary or appropriate in the A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE public interest, for the protection of Statement of the Purpose of, and the COMMISSION Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule investors, or otherwise in furtherance of

Change the purposes of the Act. If the [Release No. 34–105070; File No. SR– Commission takes such action, the 1. Purpose NYSEARCA–2026–30] Commission shall institute proceedings The Exchange proposes to amend the to determine whether the proposed rule Self-Regulatory Organizations; to amend its Fee Schedulechange should be approved or 4NYSEArca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and methodology of assessment and disapproved. Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed collection of the ORF to assess ORF only Rule Change To Adopt a New IV. Solicitation of Comments for options transactions that occur on Methodology for Assessment and the Exchange and that are cleared in the Interested persons are invited to Collection of the Options Regulatory Customer range at The Options Clearing submit written data, views and Fee (ORF) Corporation (‘‘OCC’’), in alignment with arguments concerning the foregoing, new ORF methodology proposed by March 24, 2026. including whether the proposed rule other options exchanges. Consistent 5change is consistent with the Act. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)of the with that methodology, the Exchange 1Comments may be submitted by any of Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the intends to collect ORF under its current the following methods: methodology until at least June 30, ‘‘Act’’),and Rule 19b–4 thereunder, 232026. The Exchange is prepared to notice is hereby given that on March 16, Electronic Comments implement the new ORF methodology, 2026, NYSE Arca, Inc. (‘‘NYSE Arca’’ or • Use the Commission’s internet as proposed in this filing, effective July the ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the 1, 2026, provided that all U.S. options comment form (https://www.sec.gov/ Securities and Exchange Commission exchanges charging an ORF have filed to rules/sro.shtml); or (the ‘‘Commission’’) a proposed rule modify their current methodologies of change as described in Items I and II • Send an email to rule-comments@assessing ORF to limit the fee to below, which Items have been prepared sec.gov. Please include file number SR– transactions occurring on their by the Exchange. The Commission is NYSEAMER–2026–22 on the subject respective exchange by April 1, 2026. 6publishing this notice to solicit line. If all other options exchanges have not comments on the proposed rule change filed to adopt a similar methodology by Paper Comments from interested persons. such date, the Exchange will delay • Send paper comments in triplicate implementation commensurate with the I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s to Secretary, Securities and Exchange additional time required for other Statement of the Terms of Substance of Commission, 100 F Street NE, options exchanges to adopt a similar the Proposed Rule Change Washington, DC 20549–1090. method for collection and assessment of ORF (and will continue collecting ORF The Exchange proposes to amend the All submissions should refer to file under its current methodology until NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule (‘‘Fee number SR–NYSEAMER–2026–22. This such time that the new ORF Schedule’’) regarding the Options file number should be included on the methodology is implemented). In this Regulatory Fee (‘‘ORF’’). The proposed 7subject line if email is used. To help the rule change is available on the Commission process and review your Exchange’s website at www.nyse.com The Exchange previously filed to amend the Fee comments more efficiently, please use 4Schedule on March 2, 2026 (SR–NYSEARCA–2026– and at the principal office of the only one method. The Commission will 24) and withdrew such filing on March 16, 2026. Exchange. post all comments on the Commission’s See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 5103558 (July 28, 2025), 90 FR 36080 (July 31, 2025) internet website (https://www.sec.gov/ II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s (SR–ISE–2025–20) (Notice of Filing and Immediate rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the filing will Statement of the Purpose of, and Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend be available for inspection and copying the Methodology for Its Options Regulatory Fee Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule at the principal office of the Exchange. (ORF) as of January 2, 2026); 104417 (December 17, Change 2025) (SR–CBOE–2025–086) (Notice of Filing and Do not include personal identifiable Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change information in submissions; you should In its filing with the Commission, the to Adopt a New Methodology for Assessment and submit only information that you wish self-regulatory organization included Collection of the Options Regulatory Fee (ORF)); 104707 (January 28, 2026), 90 FR 4754 (February 2, to make available publicly. We may statements concerning the purpose of, 2026) (SR–MIAX–2026–01) (Notice of Filing and redact in part or withhold entirely from and basis for, the proposed rule change Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change publication submitted material that is and discussed any comments it received To Adopt a New Methodology for Assessment and obscene or subject to copyright Collection of the Options Regulatory Fee (ORF)); on the proposed rule change. The text 104745 (January 29, 2026), 90 FR 4985 (February 3, protection. All submissions should refer of those statements may be examined at 2026) (SR–MEMX–2026–02) (Notice of Filing and to file number SR–NYSEAMER–2026– the places specified in Item IV below. Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change 22 and should be submitted on or before To Amend the Exchange’s Fee Schedule To Adopt The Exchange has prepared summaries, April 17, 2026. a New Methodology for Assessment and Collection set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the Options Regulatory Fee (ORF)). of the most significant parts of such For the Commission, by the Division of The Exchange notes that, as of the date of this 6filing, all U.S. options exchanges have filed statements. Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated proposed rule changes to adopt similar new ORF authority. 29methodology. Sherry R. Haywood, The Exchange may also delay implementation if 7certain currently unresolved operational issues Assistant Secretary. remain so and impact the industry’s ability to [FR Doc. 2026–05947 Filed 3–26–26; 8:45 am] transition to the new methodology on July 1, 2026, commensurate with any additional time required to 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 1resolve such issues (and will continue collecting 15 U.S.C. 78a. ORF under its current methodology until such time 217 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 17 CFR 240.19b–4. that the new ORF methodology is implemented). 293

VerDate Sep<11>2014 01:37 Mar 27, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27MRN1.SGM 27MRN1