NYSE American Options Regulatory Fee Proposal

λ¯«·®»¼ º·»´¼- ¿®» -¸±©² ©·¬¸ §»´´±© ¾¿½µ¹®±«²¼- ¿²¼ ¿-¬»®·-µ-òп¹» ï ±ºöÍÛÝËÎ×Ì×ÛÍ ßÒÜ ÛÈÝØßÒÙÛ ÝÑÓÓ×ÍÍ×ÑÒÉßÍØ×ÒÙÌÑÒô ÜòÝò îðëìçÚ±®³ ïç¾óìíïÚ·´» Ò±ò ö ÍÎîðîêóöîîß³»²¼³»²¬ Ò±ò ø®»¯ò º±® ß³»²¼³»²¬-ö÷Ú·´·²¹ ¾§ÒÇÍÛ ß³»®·½¿² ÔÔÝЫ®-«¿²¬ ¬± Ϋ´» ïç¾óì «²¼»® ¬¸» Í»½«®·¬·»- Û¨½¸¿²¹» ß½¬ ±º ïçíìײ·¬·¿´ öß³»²¼³»²¬ öÉ·¬¸¼®¿©¿´ìÍ»½¬·±² ïçø¾÷øî÷ ö Í»½¬·±² ïçø¾÷øí÷øß÷ öÍ»½¬·±² ïçø¾÷øí÷øÞ÷ öìΫ´»Ð·´±¬Û¨¬»²-·±² ±º Ì·³» л®·±¼ º±®Ý±³³·--·±² ß½¬·±² öÜ¿¬» Û¨°·®»- öïç¾óìøº÷øï÷ìïç¾óìøº÷øî÷ïç¾óìøº÷øí÷ïç¾óìøº÷øì÷ïç¾óìøº÷øë÷ïç¾óìøº÷øê÷Ò±¬·½» ±º °®±°±-»¼ ½¸¿²¹» °«®-«¿²¬ ¬± ¬¸» п§³»²¬ô Ý´»¿®·²¹ô ¿²¼ Í»¬¬´»³»²¬ ß½¬ ±º îðïðÍ»½«®·¬§óÞ¿-»¼ Í©¿° Í«¾³·--·±² °«®-«¿²¬ ¬± ¬¸»Í»½«®·¬·»- Û¨½¸¿²¹» ß½¬ ±º ïçíìÍ»½¬·±² íÝø¾÷øî÷ öÍ»½¬·±² èðêø»÷øï÷ öÍ»½¬·±² èðêø»÷øî÷ öÛ¨¸·¾·¬ î Í»²¬ ß- п°»® ܱ½«³»²¬Û¨¸·¾·¬ í Í»²¬ ß- п°»® ܱ½«³»²¬Ü»-½®·°¬·±²Ð®±ª·¼» ¿ ¾®·»º ¼»-½®·°¬·±² ±º ¬¸» ¿½¬·±² ø´·³·¬ îë𠽸¿®¿½¬»®-ô ®»¯«·®»¼ ©¸»² ײ·¬·¿´ ·- ½¸»½µ»¼ ö÷òЮ±°±-¿´ ¬± ³±¼·º§ ¬¸» ÒÇÍÛ ß³»®·½¿² Ñ°¬·±²- Ú»» ͽ¸»¼«´»Ý±²¬¿½¬ ײº±®³¿¬·±²Ð®±ª·¼» ¬¸» ²¿³»ô ¬»´»°¸±²» ²«³¾»®ô ¿²¼ »ó³¿·´ ¿¼¼®»-- ±º ¬¸» °»®-±² ±² ¬¸» -¬¿ºº ±º ¬¸» -»´ºó®»¹«´¿¬±®§ ±®¹¿²·¦¿¬·±²°®»°¿®»¼ ¬± ®»-°±²¼ ¬± ¯«»-¬·±²- ¿²¼ ½±³³»²¬- ±² ¬¸» ¿½¬·±²òÚ·®-¬ Ò¿³»öÔ»óß²¸Ô¿-¬ Ò¿³» öÞ«·Ì·¬´» öÍ»²·±® ݱ«²-»´ô ÒÇÍÛ Ù®±«° ײ½òÛ󳿷´ öÔ»óß²¸òÞ«·à·½»ò½±³Ì»´»°¸±²» öøîðî÷ êêïóèçëíÚ¿¨ øîïî÷ êëêóèïðïÍ·¹²¿¬«®»Ð«®-«¿²¬ ¬± ¬¸» ®»¯«·®»³»²¬- ±º ¬¸» Í»½«®·¬·»- Û¨½¸¿²¹» ±º ïçíìô¸¿- ¼«´§ ½¿«-»¼ ¬¸·- º·´·²¹ ¬± ¾» -·¹²»¼ ±² ·¬- ¾»¸¿´º ¾§ ¬¸» «²¼»®-·¹²»¼ ¬¸»®»«²¬± ¼«´§ ¿«¬¸±®·¦»¼òÒÇÍÛ ß³»®·½¿² ÔÔÝÜ¿¬»ðíñïêñîðîêøÌ·¬´» ö÷ާܿª·¼ Ü» Ù®»¹±®·±ß--±½·¿¬» Ù»²»®¿´ ݱ«²-»´øÒ¿³» ö÷ÒÑÌÛæ Ý´·½µ·²¹ ¬¸» -·¹²¿¬«®» ¾´±½µ ¿¬ ®·¹¸¬ ©·´´ ·²·¬·¿¬» ¼·¹·¬¿´´§ -·¹²·²¹ ¬¸»º±®³ò ß ¼·¹·¬¿´ -·¹²¿¬«®» ·- ¿- ´»¹¿´´§ ¾·²¼·²¹ ¿- ¿ °¸§-·½¿´ -·¹²¿¬«®»ô ¿²¼±²½» -·¹²»¼ô ¬¸·- º±®³ ½¿²²±¬ ¾» ½¸¿²¹»¼òÜ¿ª·¼ ܻٮ»¹±®·±Ü·¹·¬¿´´§ -·¹²»¼ ¾§ Ü¿ª·¼ ܻٮ»¹±®·±Ü¿¬»æ îðîêòðíòïê ïìæðïæïðóðìùððù

λ¯«·®»¼ º·»´¼- ¿®» -¸±©² ©·¬¸ §»´´±© ¾¿½µ¹®±«²¼- ¿²¼ ¿-¬»®·½µ-òÍÛÝËÎ×Ì×ÛÍ ßÒÜ ÛÈÝØßÒÙÛ ÝÑÓÓ×ÍÍ×ÑÒÉßÍØ×ÒÙÌÑÒô ÜòÝò îðëìçÚ±®½±³°´»¬»Ú±®³ïç¾óì·²-¬®«½¬·±²-°´»¿-»®»º»®¬±¬¸»ÛÚÚÍ©»¾-·¬»òÚ±®³ ïç¾óì ײº±®³¿¬·±² ö̸» -»´ºó®»¹«´¿¬±®§ ±®¹¿²·¦¿¬·±² ³«-¬ °®±ª·¼» ¿´´ ®»¯«·®»¼ ·²º±®³¿¬·±²ô °®»-»²¬»¼ ·² ¿ ½´»¿® ¿²¼ ½±³°®»¸»²-·¾´»³¿²²»®ô ¬± »²¿¾´» ¬¸» °«¾´·½ ¬± °®±ª·¼» ³»¿²·²¹º«´ ½±³³»²¬ ±² ¬¸» °®±°±-¿´ ¿²¼ º±® ¬¸» ݱ³³·--·±² ¬± ¼»¬»®³·²»©¸»¬¸»®¬¸»°®±°±-¿´·-½±²-·-¬»²¬©·¬¸¬¸»ß½¬¿²¼¿°°´·½¿¾´»®«´»-¿²¼®»¹«´¿¬·±²-«²¼»®¬¸»ß½¬òß¼¼ λ³±ª»Ê·»©ïç¾óì ó ÒÇÍÛ ß³»®·½¿² Ñ°¬·±²- Ò»©Û¨¸·¾·¬ ï ó Ò±¬·½» ±º Ю±°±-»¼ Ϋ´»Ý¸¿²¹» ö̸» Ò±¬·½» -»½¬·±² ±º ¬¸·- Ú±®³ ïç¾óì ³«-¬ ½±³°´§ ©·¬¸ ¬¸» ¹«·¼»´·²»- º±® °«¾´·½¿¬·±² ·² ¬¸» Ú»¼»®¿´ λ¹·-¬»® ¿-©»´´ ¿- ¿²§ ®»¯«·®»³»²¬- º±® »´»½¬®±²·½ º·´·²¹ ¿- °«¾´·-¸»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» ݱ³³·--·±² ø·º ¿°°´·½¿¾´»÷ò ̸» Ѻº·½» ±º ¬¸»Ú»¼»®¿´ λ¹·-¬»® øÑÚÎ÷ ±ºº»®- ¹«·¼¿²½» ±² Ú»¼»®¿´ λ¹·-¬»® °«¾´·½¿¬·±² ®»¯«·®»³»²¬- ·² ¬¸» Ú»¼»®¿´ λ¹·-¬»®Ü±½«³»²¬ Ü®¿º¬·²¹ Ø¿²¼¾±±µô ѽ¬±¾»® ïççè λª·-·±²ò Ú±® »¨¿³°´»ô ¿´´ ®»º»®»²½»- ¬± ¬¸» º»¼»®¿´ -»½«®·¬·»- ´¿©-³«-¬ ·²½´«¼» ¬¸» ½±®®»-°±²¼·²¹ ½·¬» ¬± ¬¸» ˲·¬»¼ ͬ¿¬»- ݱ¼» ·² ¿ º±±¬²±¬»ò ß´´ ®»º»®»²½»- ¬± ÍÛÝ ®«´»- ³«-¬·²½´«¼» ¬¸» ½±®®»-°±²¼·²¹ ½·¬» ¬± ¬¸» ݱ¼» ±º Ú»¼»®¿´ λ¹«´¿¬·±²- ·² ¿ º±±¬²±¬»ò ß´´ ®»º»®»²½»- ¬± Í»½«®·¬·»-Û¨½¸¿²¹» ß½¬ λ´»¿-»- ³«-¬ ·²½´«¼» ¬¸» ®»´»¿-» ²«³¾»®ô ®»´»¿-» ¼¿¬»ô Ú»¼»®¿´ λ¹·-¬»® ½·¬»ô Ú»¼»®¿´ λ¹·-¬»®¼¿¬»ô ¿²¼ ½±®®»-°±²¼·²¹ º·´» ²«³¾»® ø»ò¹òô ÍÎóÅÍÎÑÃó¨¨ó¨¨÷ò ß ³¿¬»®·¿´ º¿·´«®» ¬± ½±³°´§ ©·¬¸ ¬¸»-» ¹«·¼»´·²»- ©·´´®»-«´¬ ·² ¬¸» °®±°±-»¼ ®«´» ½¸¿²¹» ¾»·²¹ ¼»»³»¼ ²±¬ °®±°»®´§ º·´»¼ò Í»» ¿´-± Ϋ´» ðóí «²¼»® ¬¸» ß½¬ øïé ÝÚÎîìðòðóí÷ß¼¼Î»³±ª» Ê·»©Û¨ò ï ÒÇÍÛ ß³»®·½¿² Ñ°¬·±²- Ò»©ÑÎÚ Û¨¸·¾·¬ ïß ó Ò±¬·½» ±º Ю±°±-»¼Î«´» ݸ¿²¹»ô Í»½«®·¬§óÞ¿-»¼ Í©¿°Í«¾³·--·±²ô ±® ß¼ª¿²½»¼ Ò±¬·½»¾§ Ý´»¿®·²¹ ß¹»²½·»- ö̸» Ò±¬·½» -»½¬·±² ±º ¬¸·- Ú±®³ ïç¾óì ³«-¬ ½±³°´§ ©·¬¸ ¬¸» ¹«·¼»´·²»- º±® °«¾´·½¿¬·±² ·² ¬¸» Ú»¼»®¿´ λ¹·-¬»® ¿-©»´´ ¿- ¿²§ ®»¯«·®»³»²¬- º±® »´»½¬®±²·½ º·´·²¹ ¿- °«¾´·-¸»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» ݱ³³·--·±² ø·º ¿°°´·½¿¾´»÷ò ̸» Ѻº·½» ±º ¬¸»Ú»¼»®¿´ λ¹·-¬»® øÑÚÎ÷ ±ºº»®- ¹«·¼¿²½» ±² Ú»¼»®¿´ λ¹·-¬»® °«¾´·½¿¬·±² ®»¯«·®»³»²¬- ·² ¬¸» Ú»¼»®¿´ λ¹·-¬»®Ü±½«³»²¬ Ü®¿º¬·²¹ Ø¿²¼¾±±µô ѽ¬±¾»® ïççè λª·-·±²ò Ú±® »¨¿³°´»ô ¿´´ ®»º»®»²½»- ¬± ¬¸» º»¼»®¿´ -»½«®·¬·»- ´¿©-³«-¬ ·²½´«¼» ¬¸» ½±®®»-°±²¼·²¹ ½·¬» ¬± ¬¸» ˲·¬»¼ ͬ¿¬»- ݱ¼» ·² ¿ º±±¬²±¬»ò ß´´ ®»º»®»²½»- ¬± ÍÛÝ ®«´»- ³«-¬·²½´«¼» ¬¸» ½±®®»-°±²¼·²¹ ½·¬» ¬± ¬¸» ݱ¼» ±º Ú»¼»®¿´ λ¹«´¿¬·±²- ·² ¿ º±±¬²±¬»ò ß´´ ®»º»®»²½»- ¬± Í»½«®·¬·»-Û¨½¸¿²¹» ß½¬ λ´»¿-»- ³«-¬ ·²½´«¼» ¬¸» ®»´»¿-» ²«³¾»®ô ®»´»¿-» ¼¿¬»ô Ú»¼»®¿´ λ¹·-¬»® ½·¬»ô Ú»¼»®¿´ λ¹·-¬»®¼¿¬»ô ¿²¼ ½±®®»-°±²¼·²¹ º·´» ²«³¾»® ø»ò¹òô ÍÎóÅÍÎÑÃó¨¨ó¨¨÷ò ß ³¿¬»®·¿´ º¿·´«®» ¬± ½±³°´§ ©·¬¸ ¬¸»-» ¹«·¼»´·²»- ©·´´®»-«´¬ ·² ¬¸» °®±°±-»¼ ®«´» ½¸¿²¹» ¾»·²¹ ¼»»³»¼ ²±¬ °®±°»®´§ º·´»¼ò Í»» ¿´-± Ϋ´» ðóí «²¼»® ¬¸» ß½¬ øïé ÝÚÎîìðòðóí÷ß¼¼Î»³±ª»Ê·»©Û¨¸·¾·¬ îó Ò±¬·½»-ô É®·¬¬»²Ý±³³»²¬-ôÌ®¿²-½®·°¬-ô Ѭ¸»® ݱ³³«²·½¿¬·±²-ݱ°·»- ±º ²±¬·½»-ô ©®·¬¬»² ½±³³»²¬-ô ¬®¿²-½®·°¬-ô ±¬¸»® ½±³³«²·½¿¬·±²-ò ׺ -«½¸ ¼±½«³»²¬- ½¿²²±¬ ¾» º·´»¼»´»½¬®±²·½¿´´§ ·² ¿½½±®¼¿²½» ©·¬¸ ײ-¬®«½¬·±² Úô ¬¸»§ -¸¿´´ ¾» º·´»¼ ·² ¿½½±®¼¿²½» ©·¬¸ ײ-¬®«½¬·±² Ùòß¼¼ λ³±ª»Ê·»©Û¨¸·¾·¬ Í»²¬ ß- п°»® ܱ½«³»²¬Û¨¸·¾·¬ í ó Ú±®³ô λ°±®¬ô ±®Ï«»-¬·±²²¿·®»Ý±°·»- ±º ¿²§ º±®³ô ®»°±®¬ô ±® ¯«»-¬·±²²¿·®» ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» -»´ºó®»¹«´¿¬±®§ ±®¹¿²·¦¿¬·±² °®±°±-»- ¬± «-» ¬± ¸»´°·³°´»³»²¬ ±® ±°»®¿¬» ¬¸» °®±°±-»¼ ®«´» ½¸¿²¹»ô ±® ¬¸¿¬ ·- ®»º»®®»¼ ¬± ¾§ ¬¸» °®±°±-»¼ ®«´» ½¸¿²¹»òß¼¼Î»³±ª»Ê·»©Û¨¸·¾·¬ Í»²¬ ß- п°»® ܱ½«³»²¬Û¨¸·¾·¬ ì ó Ó¿®µ»¼ ݱ°·»-̸» º«´´ ¬»¨¬ -¸¿´´ ¾» ³¿®µ»¼ô ·² ¿²§ ½±²ª»²·»²¬ ³¿²²»®ô ¬± ·²¼·½¿¬» ¿¼¼·¬·±²- ¬± ¿²¼ ¼»´»¬·±²- º®±³ ¬¸»·³³»¼·¿¬»´§ °®»½»¼·²¹ º·´·²¹ò ̸» °«®°±-» ±º Û¨¸·¾·¬ ì ·- ¬± °»®³·¬ ¬¸» -¬¿ºº ¬± ·¼»²¬·º§ ·³³»¼·¿¬»´§ ¬¸» ½¸¿²¹»-³¿¼» º®±³ ¬¸» ¬»¨¬ ±º ¬¸» ®«´» ©·¬¸ ©¸·½¸ ·¬ ¸¿- ¾»»² ©±®µ·²¹òß¼¼Î»³±ª»Ê·»©Û¨¸·¾·¬ ë ó Ю±°±-»¼ Ϋ´» Ì»¨¬Ì¸» -»´ºó®»¹«´¿¬±®§ ±®¹¿²·¦¿¬·±² ³¿§ ½¸±±-» ¬± ¿¬¬¿½¸ ¿- Û¨¸·¾·¬ ë °®±°±-»¼ ½¸¿²¹»- ¬± ®«´» ¬»¨¬ ·² °´¿½» ±º°®±ª·¼·²¹ ·¬ ·² ׬»³ × ¿²¼ ©¸·½¸ ³¿§ ±¬¸»®©·-» ¾» ³±®» »¿-·´§ ®»¿¼¿¾´» ·º °®±ª·¼»¼ -»°¿®¿¬»´§ º®±³ Ú±®³ ïç¾óìòÛ¨¸·¾·¬ ë -¸¿´´ ¾» ½±²-·¼»®»¼ °¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» °®±°±-»¼ ®«´» ½¸¿²¹»ß¼¼Î»³±ª»Ê·»©Û¨ò ë ó ÒÇÍÛ ß³»®·½¿² Ñ°¬·±²- Ò»©ÑÎÚ Ð¿®¬·¿´ ß³»²¼³»²¬×º ¬¸» -»´ºó®»¹«´¿¬±®§ ±®¹¿²·¦¿¬·±² ·- ¿³»²¼·²¹ ±²´§ °¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» ¬»¨¬ ±º ¿ ´»²¹¬¸§ °®±°±-»¼ ®«´» ½¸¿²¹»ô ·¬ ³¿§ô ©·¬¸¬¸» ݱ³³·--·±²ù- °»®³·--·±²ô º·´» ±²´§ ¬¸±-» °±®¬·±²- ±º ¬¸» ¬»¨¬ ±º ¬¸» °®±°±-»¼ ®«´» ½¸¿²¹» ·² ©¸·½¸ ½¸¿²¹»- ¿®»¾»·²¹ ³¿¼» ·º ¬¸» º·´·²¹ ø·ò»ò °¿®¬·¿´ ¿³»²¼³»²¬÷ ·- ½´»¿®´§ «²¼»®-¬¿²¼¿¾´» ±² ·¬- º¿½»ò Í«½¸ °¿®¬·¿´ ¿³»²¼³»²¬-¸¿´´¾» ½´»¿®´§ ·¼»²¬·º·»¼ ¿²¼ ³¿®µ»¼ ¬± -¸±© ¼»´»¬·±²- ¿²¼ ¿¼¼·¬·±²-òß¼¼ λ³±ª» Ê·»©

1. Text of the Proposed Rule Change(a) Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 (the “Act”)and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,NYSE American LLC (“NYSEAmerican” or the “Exchange”) proposes to amend the NYSE American OptionsFee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”) regarding the Options Regulatory Fee (“ORF”).A notice of the proposed rule change for publication in the Federal Register isattached hereto as Exhibit 1, and the text of the proposed rule change is attachedas Exhibit 5.(b) The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any directeffect, or any significant indirect effect, on any other Exchange rule in effect atthe time of this filing.(c) Not applicable.2. Procedures of the Self-Regulatory OrganizationSenior management has approved the proposed rule change pursuant to authoritydelegated to it by the Board of the Exchange. No further action is required under theExchange’s governing documents. Therefore, the Exchange’s internal procedures withrespect to the proposed rule change are complete.The persons on the Exchange staff prepared to respond to questions and comments on theproposed rule change are:3. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the(a) PurposeThe Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Scheduleto amend its methodology ofassessment and collection of the ORF to assess ORF only for options transactions thatoccur on the Exchange and that are cleared in the Customer range at The OptionsClearing Corporation (“OCC”), in alignment with new ORF methodology proposed by15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).The Exchange previously filed to amend the Fee Schedule on March 2, 2026 (SR-NYSEAMER-2026-16)and withdrew such filing on March 16, 2026.Le-Anh BuiSenior CounselNYSE Group, Inc.(202) 661- other options exchanges.Consistent with that methodology, the Exchange intends tocollect ORF under its current methodology until at least June 30, 2026. The Exchange isprepared to implement the new ORF methodology, as proposed in this filing, effectiveJuly 1, 2026, provided that all U.S. options exchanges charging an ORF have filed tomodify their current methodologies of assessing ORF to limit the fee to transactionsoccurring on their respective exchange by April 1, 2026.If all other options exchangeshave not filed to adopt a similar methodology by such date, the Exchange will delayimplementation commensurate with the additional time required for other optionsexchanges to adopt a similar method for collection and assessment of ORF (and willcontinue collecting ORF under its current methodology until such time that the new ORFmethodology is implemented).In this filing, the Exchange proposes only to amend themethod by which it will assess and collect ORF as of July 1, 2026. The Exchange willfile a separate rule filing with the ORF rate that would take effect on July 1, 2026, inadvance of assessing and collecting ORF under the new methodology. As is the casetoday, the Exchange will provide at least 30 days’ notice of the applicable rate by TraderUpdate.BackgroundAs a general matter, the Exchange may only use regulatory funds such as the ORF “tofund the legal, regulatory, and surveillance operations” of the Exchange.Morespecifically, the ORF is designed to recover a material portion, but not all, of theExchange’s costs for the supervision and regulation of ATP Holders’ Customer optionsbusiness, including the Exchange’s regulatory program and legal expenses associatedwith Customer options regulation, such as the costs related to in-house staff, third-partyservice providers, and technology that facilitate regulatory functions such as surveillance,investigation, examinations, and enforcement (collectively, the “ORF Costs”). ORF CostsSee, 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 theMethodology 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 Adopta 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 ImmediateEffectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt a New Methodology for Assessment and Collection ofthe 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 theExchange’s Fee Schedule To Adopt a New Methodology for Assessment and Collection of the OptionsRegulatory Fee (ORF)).The Exchange notes that, as of the date of this filing, all U.S. options exchanges have filed proposed rulechanges to adopt similar new ORF methodology.The Exchange may also delay implementation if certain currently unresolved operational issues remain soand impact the industry’s ability to transition to the new methodology on July 1, 2026, commensurate withany additional time required to resolve such issues (and will continue collecting ORF under its currentmethodology until such time that the new ORF methodology is implemented).The Exchange considers surveillance operations part of regulatory operations. The limitation on the use ofregulatory funds also provides that they shall not be distributed. See Thirteenth Amended and RestatedOperating Agreement of NYSE American LLC, Article IV, Section 4.05 and Securities Exchange ActRelease No. 87993 (January 16, 2020), 85 FR 4050 (January 23, 2020) (SR-NYSEAMER-2020-04).

may also include indirect expenses such as human resources and other administrativecosts related to the supervision and regulation of Customer activity. The Exchangemonitors the amount of ORF collection to ensure that this amount, in combination withother regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed regulatory costs.Today, the ORF is assessed on ATP Holders for options transactions that are cleared bythe ATP Holder through the OCC in the Customer range regardless of the exchange onwhich the transaction occurs and is collected from ATP Holder clearing firms by theOCC on behalf of NYSE American.All options transactions must clear via a clearingfirm, and such clearing firms can then choose to pass through all, a portion, or none ofthe cost of the ORF to its Customers, i.e., the entering firms. The Exchange notes thatthe costs relating to monitoring ATP Holders with respect to Customer trading activityare generally higher than the costs associated with monitoring ATP Holders that do notengage in Customer trading activity, which tends to be more automated and less labor-intensive. By contrast, regulating ATP Holders that engage in Customer trading activityis generally more labor-intensive and requires a greater expenditure of human andtechnical resources as the Exchange needs to review not only the trading activity onbehalf of Customers, but also the ATP Holder’s relationship with its Customers via morelabor-intensive exam-based programs.As a result, the costs associated withadministering the Customer component of the Exchange’s overall regulatory program arematerially higher than the costs associated with administering the non-Customercomponent (e.g., ATP Holder proprietary transactions) of its regulatory program.Because the ORF is based on options transactions volume, the amount of ORF collectedis variable. For example, if options transactions reported to OCC in a given monthincrease, the ORF collected from ATP Holders will likely increase as well. Similarly, ifoptions transactions reported to OCC in a given month decrease, the ORF collected fromATP Holders will likely decrease as well. Accordingly, the Exchange monitors theamount of ORF collected to ensure that it does not exceed a material portion of ORFCosts. If the Exchange determines the amount of ORF collected exceeds or may exceed amaterial portion of ORF Costs, the Exchange will, as appropriate, adjust the ORF bysubmitting a fee change filing to the Securities and Exchange Commission (the“Commission”). Exchange rules establish that market participants must be notified of anySee Fee Schedule, Section VII.A., Options Regulatory Fee (“ORF”), available at:https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/american-options/NYSE_American_Options_Fee_Schedule.pdf. The Exchange uses reports from OCC whenassessing and collecting the ORF. The ORF is not assessed on outbound linkage trades. An ATP Holder isnot assessed the fee until it has satisfied applicable technological requirements necessary to commenceoperations on NYSE American. See id.The Exchange notes that many of the Exchange’s market surveillance programs require the Exchange tolook 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. TheExchange and other options SROs are parties to a 17d–2 agreement allocating among the SROs regulatoryresponsibilities relating to compliance by the common members with rules for expiring exercisedeclarations, 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).

change in the ORF via Trader Update at least 30 calendar days prior to the effective dateof the change.To illustrate how the ORF, which is currently set at $0.0026 per contract,is currentlyassessed and collected, the Exchange provides the following set of scenarios.Executing (or Give-Up) Firm is not an ATP Holder. The Executing Firm does notExecuting Firm is an ATP Holder. The Executing Firm “give-ups” or “CMTAs”the transaction to another clearing firm that is not an ATP Holder.The Executing (or Give-Up) Firm is an ATP Holder. The Executing Firm does notORF is assessed on the self-clearing Executing Firm.The Executing (or Give-Up) Firm is an ATP Holder. The Executing Firm “give-ups” or “CMTAs” the transaction to another clearing firm that is also an ATPHolder.Scenario 5:See Fee Schedule, note 8, supra.See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 104361 (December 11, 2025), 90 FR 58361 (December 16, 2025)(SR-NYSEAMER-2025-70) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change ToLower the Options Regulatory Fee (ORF)). The Exchange also proposes in this filing to delete language inthe Fee Schedule describing an ORF waiver period that has elapsed, as well as now-extraneous languagespecifying that the current ORF rate took effect on January 1, 2026.A CMTA or Clearing Member Trade Assignment is an agreement by which an investor may enterderivative trades with a limited number of different brokers and later consolidate these trades with onebrokerage house for clearing.

The Executing (or Give-Up) Firm is not an ATP Holder. The Executing Firm“give-ups” or “CMTAs” the transaction to another clearing firm that is an ATPHolder.As illustrated above, the Exchange does not assess the ORF on non-ATP Holders thatself-clear transactions, even if the executing firm is an ATP Holder; the Exchangelikewise does not impose the ORF if both the executing firm and the firm that clears thetransaction on its behalf are non-ATP Holders.The Exchange proposes to adopt a new methodology for assessing and collecting ORFthat would align with the methodology proposed by other options exchanges, effectiveJuly 1, 2026.As noted above, this rule filing sets forth the proposed method by which itwill assess and collect ORF as of July 1, 2026, and the Exchange will file a separate rulefiling with the ORF rate that would take effect on July 1, 2026 at least 30 days prior tosuch date. The Exchange proposes to continue to assess ORF for options transactionscleared by OCC in the Customer range, but ORF would be assessed only for executionsthat occur on the Exchange. Specifically, the ORF would be collected by OCC on behalfof the Exchange from ATP Holders and non-ATP Holders for all Customer transactionsexecuted on the Exchange. ORF would be assessed and collected on all ultimately clearedCustomer contracts, taking into account adjustments for CMTA that were provided to theExchange the same day as the trade.Further, the Exchange would bill ORF according tothe clearing instructions provided on the execution. The Exchange proposes to assessORF based on the clearing instruction provided on the execution on trade date and wouldnot take into consideration CMTA changes or transfers that occur at OCC.To illustrate how the ORF would be assessed and collected under the proposedmethodology, the Exchange provides the following set of scenarios.Although the Exchange believes that its broad regulatory responsibilities would support applying the ORFto transactions that are executed (even if not ultimately cleared) by an ATP Holder, the Exchange onlyimposes the ORF on transactions ultimately cleared by ATP Holders at this time. The Exchange’sregulatory responsibilities are the same regardless of whether an ATP Holder enters a transaction or clearsa transaction. The Exchange regularly reviews all such activities, including monitoring surveillance forposition limit violations, manipulation, front-running, contrary exercise advice violations and insidertrading. These activities span across multiple exchanges.See note 4, supra.Adjustments to CMTA that occur at OCC would not be taken into account. CMTA transfers that occur atOCC do not necessarily contain reliable information regarding the exchange on which the originaltransaction occurred, and without specific information as to where such transaction occurred, the Exchangewould not be able to accurately account for CMTA transfers that occur at OCC. Accordingly, the Exchangeproposes to only account for CMTAs that occur on the Exchange and exclude CMTAs occurring at OCC,consistent with other options exchanges’ proposals.Adjustments that were made the same day as the trade on the Exchange will be taken into account.

An ATP Holder executes a Customer transaction on the Exchange and is the clearingmember on record on the transaction on the Exchange.ORF will be assessed to the ATP Holder.An ATP Holder executes a Customer transaction on the Exchange and a different ATPHolder is the clearing member on record on the transaction on the Exchange.ORF will be assessed to and collected from the ATP Holder that is the clearing memberon record on the transaction and not the ATP Holder that executes the transaction.An ATP Holder executes a Customer transaction on the Exchange, and a non-ATPHolder is the clearing member on record on the transaction on the Exchange.ORF will be assessed to the non-ATP Holder who is the clearing member on record onthe transaction and not the ATP Holder who executes the transaction.An ATP Holder executes a Customer transaction on another exchange (i.e., not NYSEAmerican).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 theExchange based on the Exchange’s instructions.Consistent with current practice, the Exchange will continue to monitor the amount ofORF collected to ensure that it, in combination with other regulatory fees and fines, doesnot exceed a material portion of ORF Costs. If the Exchange determines the amount ofORF collected exceeds or may exceed a material portion of ORF Costs, the Exchangewill, as appropriate, adjust the ORF by submitting a fee change filing to the Commissionand, as is the case today, provide ATP Holders with 30 days’ advance notice. TheExchange will notify ATP Holders of this proposed change by Trader Update at least 30calendar days prior to the effective date.(b) Statutory Basis

The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions ofSection 6(b)of the Act, in general, and Section 6(b)(4) and (5)of the Act, inparticular, 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 doesnot unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.The Exchange believes the proposed new ORF methodology to be assessed effective July1, 2026 is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory for various reasons.First, the Exchange believes that continuing to assess ORF only on Customer transactionsis reasonable because Customer transactions account for a material portion of ORF Costs.A large portion of ORF Costs relate to Customer activity because obtaining Customerinformation may be more time-intensive. For example, non-Customer market participantsare subject to various regulatory and reporting requirements which provides theExchange certain data with respect to these market participants. In contrast, Customerinformation is known by ATP Holders of the Exchange, but is not readily available to theExchange. Accordingly, the Exchange may have to take additional steps to understandthe facts surrounding particular trades involving a Customer, which may requirerequesting such information from a broker-dealer. Further, Customers require moreExchange regulatory services based on the amount of options business they conduct. Forexample, there are costs associated with main office and branch office examinations (e.g.,staff expenses), as well as investigations into Customer complaints and the terminationsof registered persons. As a result, ORF Costs associated with administering the Customercomponent of the Exchange’s overall regulatory program are materially higher than thoseassociated with administering the non-Customer component when coupled with theamount of volume attributed to such Customer transactions.Under the Exchange’s proposal, the amount of ORF Costs allocated to on-exchangeCustomer transactions is significant. Also, with respect to Customer transactions, optionsvolume continues to surpass volume from other options participants. Additionally, theExchange has rules that deal exclusively with Customer transactions, such as rulesinvolving doing business with a Customer, which would not apply to Non-Customertransactions.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 regulatoryrequirements with respect to quoting. Specifically, Market Makers have certain quotingrequirements with respect to their assigned options series as provided in Rule 925.1NYP(Market Maker Quotations). In addition, unlike other market participants, Market Makershave obligations to compete with other Market Makers to improve the market in all seriesof options classes to which the Market Maker is appointed and to update market15 U.S.C. 78f(b).15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).

quotations in response to changed market conditions in all series of options classes towhich the Market Maker is appointed.The Exchange similarly acknowledges that there is a cost to regulate Firm and BrokerDealer transactions, but notes that these market participants’ transactions do not involvesignificant volume when compared to Customer transactions. The Exchange further notesthat Firm and Broker Dealer market participants tend to be more sophisticated thanCustomers 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 smallerpercentage of ORF Costs.Finally, the Exchange believes that assessing ORF on Customer executions that occur onthe Exchange is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory because it willavoid overlapping ORFs that would otherwise be assessed by the Exchange and otheroptions exchanges that also assess an ORF. With this proposal, Customer executions thatoccur on other exchanges would no longer be subject to an ORF assessed by theExchange.The Exchange believes that its proposal continues to ensure that ORF collection, incombination with other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed ORF Costs. Finescollected by the Exchange in connection with a disciplinary matter will continue to offsetORF Cost. The Exchange will, under the new ORF methodology, continue to monitorand review ORF collection and, if the Exchange determines the amount of ORF collectedexceeds or may exceed a material portion of ORF Costs, the Exchange will, asappropriate, adjust the ORF (via a rule change filed with the Commission).4. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement on Burden on CompetitionThe Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden oncompetition 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 theassessment and collection of ORF does not impose an undue burden on intermarketcompetition because ORF is a regulatory fee that supports regulation in furtherance of thepurposes of the Act. The Exchange notes, however, the proposed change is not designedto address any competitive issues. The Exchange is obligated to ensure that the amount ofORF collected, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceedORF Costs. Continuing to assess ORF only on Customer executions that occur on theExchange does not impose an undue burden on intramarket competition. Customertransactions account for a large portion of the Exchange’s ORF Costs. With respect toCustomer transactions, options volume continues to surpass volume from other optionsparticipants. Additionally, the Exchange has rules that deal exclusively with Customertransactions, such as rules involving doing business with a Customer, which would not

apply to non-Customer transactions.For these reasons, regulating Customer trading activity is more labor-intensive andtherefore, more costly. Further, the Exchange believes that a large portion of the ORFCosts relate to Customer allocation because obtaining Customer information may bemore time-intensive. For example, non-Customer market participants are subject tovarious regulatory and reporting requirements which provides the Exchange certain datawith respect to these market participants. In contrast, Customer information is known byATP Holders and is not readily available to the Exchange.The Exchange may have totake additional steps to understand the facts surrounding particular trades involving aCustomer which may require requesting such information from a broker-dealer. Further,Customers require more Exchange regulatory services based on the amount of optionsbusiness they conduct. For example, there are ORF Costs associated with main office andbranch office examinations (e.g., staff expenses), as well as investigations into Customercomplaints and the terminations of registered persons. As a result, the ORF Costsassociated with administering the Customer component of the Exchange’s overallregulatory program are materially higher than the ORF Costs associated withadministering the non-Customer component when coupled with the amount of volumeattributed to such Customer transactions. Not attributing significant ORF Costs toCustomers for activity that may occur across options markets does not impose an undueburden on intra-market competition because the Exchange’s Customer regulation occursto a large extent on Exchange.The Exchange believes that not assessing ORF on Market Makers does not impose anundue burden on intramarket competition because these liquidity providers are criticalmarket participants required to provide liquidity to the Exchange and necessary foropening the market. Excluding Market Maker transactions from ORF does not impose anintramarket burden on competition, and instead allows these market participants tomanage their costs and consequently their business model more effectively, therebyenabling them to better allocate resources to, for example, technologies that allow themto manage risk and capacity to ensure their continued ability to compete effectively onthe Exchange to provide displayed liquidity. Unlike other market participants, MarketMakers have various regulatory requirements with respect to quoting. Specifically,Market Makers have certain quoting requirements with respect to their assigned optionsseries as provided in Rule 925.1NYP (Market Maker Quotations). Further, unlike othermarket participants, Market Makers have obligations to compete with other MarketMakers to improve the market in all series of options classes to which the Market Makeris appointed and to update market quotations in response to changed market conditions inall series of options classes to which the Market Maker is appointed.The Exchange believes that not assessing ORF on Firm and Broker Dealer marketparticipants does not impose an undue burden on intramarket competition because theKnow Your Customer or “KYC” provision is the obligation of the broker-dealer.

regulation of Firm and Broker Dealer transactions is less resource-intensive than theregulation of Customer transactions. The volume generated from Firm and Broker Dealertransactions is not significant when compared to Customer transactions. Therefore,excluding Firm and Broker Dealer transactions from ORF does not impose an undueburden on intramarket competition, as Customer transactions account for a materialportion of the Exchange’s ORF Costs.The Exchange’s proposal to assess ORF only onCustomer executions that occur on the Exchange does not impose an intramarket burdenon competition because the amount of activity surveilled across exchanges is small whencompared to the overall number of Exchange rules that are surveilled by the Exchange foron-Exchange activity. Limiting the amount of ORF assessed to activity that occurs on theExchange avoids overlapping ORFs that would otherwise be assessed by the Exchangeand other options exchanges that also assess an ORF.Further, the proposed ORF does not impose an intra-market burden on competition as thiscollection accounts for the collection only on Customer executions. The Exchange willmonitor and review ORF collection and amend the ORF if it finds that ORF collectionexceeds its projections.5. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule ChangeReceived from Members, Participants or OthersThe Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rulechange.6. Extension of Time Period for Commission ActionNot applicable.7. Basis for Summary Effectiveness Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3) or for AcceleratedEffectiveness Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) ofthe Actand subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4because it establishes a due, fee, orother charge imposed by the Exchange. At any time within 60 days of the filing of suchproposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such ruleThe Exchange notes that the regulatory costs relating to monitoring ATP Holders with respect to Customertrading activity are generally higher than the regulatory costs associated with ATP Holders that do notengage in Customer trading activity, which tends to be more automated and less labor-intensive. Bycontrast, regulating ATP Holders that engage in Customer trading activity is generally more labor-intensiveand requires a greater expenditure of human and technical resources because the Exchange needs to reviewnot only the trading activity on behalf of Customers, but also the ATP Holders’ relationship with itsCustomers via more labor-intensive exam-based programs. As a result, the costs associated withadministering the Customer component of the Exchange’s overall regulatory program are materially higherthan the costs associated with administering the non-Customer component of the regulatory program.The Exchange would submit a rule change to the Commission to amend ORF rates.15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).

change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in thepublic interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposesof the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall instituteproceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act to determine whether the proposed rulechange should be approved or disapproved.8. Proposed Rule Change Based on Rules of Another Self-Regulatory Organization or of theCommissionNot applicable.9. Security-Based Swap Submissions Filed Pursuant to Section 3C of the ActNot applicable.10. Advance Notices Filed Pursuant to Section 806(e) of the Payment, Clearing andSettlement Supervision ActNot applicable.11. ExhibitsExhibit 1 – Form of Notice of Proposed Rule Change for Publication in the FederalRegisterExhibit 5 – Amendment to the Exchange’s Fee Schedule15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).

EXHIBIT 1SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION(Release No. 34- ; File No. SR-NYSEAMER-2026-22)[Date]Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of Filing and ImmediateEffectiveness of Proposed Change to Amend the NYSE American Options Fee SchedulePursuant to Section 19(b)(1)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)and Rule19b-4 thereunder,notice is hereby given that, on March 16, 2026, NYSE American LLC(“NYSE American” or the “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Itemshave been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing thisnotice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement of the Terms of Substance of the ProposedRule ChangeThe Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE American Options Fee Schedule (“FeeSchedule”) regarding the Options Regulatory Fee (“ORF”). The proposed rule change isavailable on the Exchange’s website at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange,and at the Commission’s Public Reference Room.II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, theIn its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statementsconcerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any commentsit received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).15 U.S.C. 78a.

places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sectionsA, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement of the Purpose of, and the StatutoryBasis for, the Proposed Rule Change1. PurposeThe Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Scheduleto amend its methodology ofassessment and collection of the ORF to assess ORF only for options transactions that occur onthe 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.Consistent with that methodology, the Exchange intends to collect ORF under its currentmethodology until at least June 30, 2026. The Exchange is prepared to implement the new ORFmethodology, as proposed in this filing, effective July 1, 2026, provided that all U.S. optionsexchanges charging an ORF have filed to modify their current methodologies of assessing ORFto limit the fee to transactions occurring on their respective exchange by April 1, 2026.If allother options exchanges have not filed to adopt a similar methodology by such date, theExchange will delay implementation commensurate with the additional time required for otherThe Exchange previously filed to amend the Fee Schedule on March 2, 2026 (SR-NYSEAMER-2026-16)and withdrew such filing on March 16, 2026.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 theMethodology 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 Adopta 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 ImmediateEffectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt a New Methodology for Assessment and Collection ofthe 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 theExchange’s Fee Schedule To Adopt a New Methodology for Assessment and Collection of the OptionsRegulatory Fee (ORF)).The Exchange notes that, as of the date of this filing, all U.S. options exchanges have filed proposed rulechanges to adopt similar new ORF methodology.

options exchanges to adopt a similar method for collection and assessment of ORF (and willcontinue collecting ORF under its current methodology until such time that the new ORFmethodology is implemented).In this filing, the Exchange proposes only to amend the methodby which it will assess and collect ORF as of July 1, 2026. The Exchange will file a separate rulefiling with the ORF rate that would take effect on July 1, 2026, in advance of assessing andcollecting ORF under the new methodology. As is the case today, the Exchange will provide atleast 30 days’ notice of the applicable rate by Trader Update.BackgroundAs a general matter, the Exchange may only use regulatory funds such as the ORF “tofund the legal, regulatory, and surveillance operations” of the Exchange.More specifically, theORF is designed to recover a material portion, but not all, of the Exchange’s costs for thesupervision and regulation of ATP Holders’ Customer options business, including theExchange’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 thatfacilitate regulatory functions such as surveillance, investigation, examinations, and enforcement(collectively, the “ORF Costs”). ORF Costs may also include indirect expenses such as humanresources and other administrative costs related to the supervision and regulation of Customeractivity. The Exchange monitors the amount of ORF collection to ensure that this amount, incombination with other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed regulatory costs.The Exchange may also delay implementation if certain currently unresolved operational issues remain soand impact the industry’s ability to transition to the new methodology on July 1, 2026, commensurate withany additional time required to resolve such issues (and will continue collecting ORF under its currentmethodology until such time that the new ORF methodology is implemented).The Exchange considers surveillance operations part of regulatory operations. The limitation on the use ofregulatory funds also provides that they shall not be distributed. See Thirteenth Amended and RestatedOperating Agreement of NYSE American LLC, Article IV, Section 4.05 and Securities Exchange ActRelease No. 87993 (January 16, 2020), 85 FR 4050 (January 23, 2020) (SR-NYSEAMER-2020-04).

Today, the ORF is assessed on ATP Holders for options transactions that are cleared bythe ATP Holder through the OCC in the Customer range regardless of the exchange on which thetransaction occurs and is collected from ATP Holder clearing firms by the OCC on behalf ofNYSE American.All options transactions must clear via a clearing firm, and such clearingfirms can then choose to pass through all, a portion, or none of the cost of the ORF to itsCustomers, i.e., the entering firms. The Exchange notes that the costs relating to monitoringATP Holders with respect to Customer trading activity are generally higher than the costsassociated with monitoring ATP Holders that do not engage in Customer trading activity, whichtends to be more automated and less labor-intensive. By contrast, regulating ATP Holders thatengage in Customer trading activity is generally more labor-intensive and requires a greaterexpenditure of human and technical resources as the Exchange needs to review not only thetrading activity on behalf of Customers, but also the ATP Holder’s relationship with itsCustomers via more labor-intensive exam-based programs.As a result, the costs associatedwith administering the Customer component of the Exchange’s overall regulatory program arematerially higher than the costs associated with administering the non-Customer component(e.g., ATP Holder proprietary transactions) of its regulatory program.See Fee Schedule, Section VII.A., Options Regulatory Fee (“ORF”), available at:https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/american-options/NYSE_American_Options_Fee_Schedule.pdf. The Exchange uses reports from OCC whenassessing and collecting the ORF. The ORF is not assessed on outbound linkage trades. An ATP Holder isnot assessed the fee until it has satisfied applicable technological requirements necessary to commenceoperations on NYSE American. See id.The Exchange notes that many of the Exchange’s market surveillance programs require the Exchange tolook 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. TheExchange and other options SROs are parties to a 17d–2 agreement allocating among the SROs regulatoryresponsibilities relating to compliance by the common members with rules for expiring exercisedeclarations, 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 collectedis variable. For example, if options transactions reported to OCC in a given month increase, theORF collected from ATP Holders will likely increase as well. Similarly, if options transactionsreported to OCC in a given month decrease, the ORF collected from ATP Holders will likelydecrease as well. Accordingly, the Exchange monitors the amount of ORF collected to ensurethat it does not exceed a material portion of ORF Costs. If the Exchange determines the amountof ORF collected exceeds or may exceed a material portion of ORF Costs, the Exchange will, asappropriate, adjust the ORF by submitting a fee change filing to the Securities and ExchangeCommission (the “Commission”). Exchange rules establish that market participants must benotified of any change in the ORF via Trader Update at least 30 calendar days prior to theeffective date of the change.To illustrate how the ORF, which is currently set at $0.0026 per contract,is currentlyassessed and collected, the Exchange provides the following set of scenarios.Executing (or Give-Up) Firm is not an ATP Holder. The Executing Firm does notSee Fee Schedule, note 9, supra.See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 104361 (December 11, 2025), 90 FR 58361 (December 16, 2025)(SR-NYSEAMER-2025-70) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change ToLower the Options Regulatory Fee (ORF)). The Exchange also proposes in this filing to delete language inthe Fee Schedule describing an ORF waiver period that has elapsed, as well as now-extraneous languagespecifying that the current ORF rate took effect on January 1, 2026.A CMTA or Clearing Member Trade Assignment is an agreement by which an investor may enterderivative trades with a limited number of different brokers and later consolidate these trades with onebrokerage house for clearing.

Executing Firm is an ATP Holder. The Executing Firm “give-ups” or “CMTAs”the transaction to another clearing firm that is not an ATP Holder.The Executing (or Give-Up) Firm is an ATP Holder. The Executing Firm does notORF is assessed on the self-clearing Executing Firm.The Executing (or Give-Up) Firm is an ATP Holder. The Executing Firm “give-ups” or “CMTAs” the transaction to another clearing firm that is also an ATPHolder.Scenario 5:The Executing (or Give-Up) Firm is not an ATP Holder. The Executing Firm“give-ups” or “CMTAs” the transaction to another clearing firm that is an ATPHolder.As illustrated above, the Exchange does not assess the ORF on non-ATP Holders thatself-clear transactions, even if the executing firm is an ATP Holder; the Exchange likewise doesnot impose the ORF if both the executing firm and the firm that clears the transaction on itsbehalf are non-ATP Holders.Although the Exchange believes that its broad regulatory responsibilities would support applying the ORFto transactions that are executed (even if not ultimately cleared) by an ATP Holder, the Exchange onlyimposes the ORF on transactions ultimately cleared by ATP Holders at this time. The Exchange’sregulatory responsibilities are the same regardless of whether an ATP Holder enters a transaction or clears

The Exchange proposes to adopt a new methodology for assessing and collecting ORFthat would align with the methodology proposed by other options exchanges, effective July 1,2026.As noted above, this rule filing sets forth the proposed method by which it will assessand collect ORF as of July 1, 2026, and the Exchange will file a separate rule filing with theORF rate that would take effect on July 1, 2026 at least 30 days prior to such date. The Exchangeproposes to continue to assess ORF for options transactions cleared by OCC in the Customerrange, 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 ATP Holders and non-ATPHolders for all Customer transactions executed on the Exchange. ORF would be assessed andcollected on all ultimately cleared Customer contracts, taking into account adjustments forCMTA that were provided to the Exchange the same day as the trade.Further, the Exchangewould bill ORF according to the clearing instructions provided on the execution. The Exchangeproposes to assess ORF based on the clearing instruction provided on the execution on trade dateand would not take into consideration CMTA changes or transfers that occur at OCC.To illustrate how the ORF would be assessed and collected under the proposedmethodology, the Exchange provides the following set of scenarios.a transaction. The Exchange regularly reviews all such activities, including monitoring surveillance forposition limit violations, manipulation, front-running, contrary exercise advice violations and insidertrading. These activities span across multiple exchanges.See note 5, supra.Adjustments to CMTA that occur at OCC would not be taken into account. CMTA transfers that occur atOCC do not necessarily contain reliable information regarding the exchange on which the originaltransaction occurred, and without specific information as to where such transaction occurred, the Exchangewould not be able to accurately account for CMTA transfers that occur at OCC. Accordingly, the Exchangeproposes to only account for CMTAs that occur on the Exchange and exclude CMTAs occurring at OCC,consistent with other options exchanges’ proposals.Adjustments that were made the same day as the trade on the Exchange will be taken into account.

An ATP Holder executes a Customer transaction on the Exchange and is the clearingmember on record on the transaction on the Exchange.ORF will be assessed to the ATP Holder.An ATP Holder executes a Customer transaction on the Exchange and a different ATPHolder is the clearing member on record on the transaction on the Exchange.ORF will be assessed to and collected from the ATP Holder that is the clearing memberon record on the transaction and not the ATP Holder that executes the transaction.An ATP Holder executes a Customer transaction on the Exchange, and a non-ATPHolder is the clearing member on record on the transaction on the Exchange.ORF will be assessed to the non-ATP Holder who is the clearing member on record onthe transaction and not the ATP Holder who executes the transaction.An ATP Holder executes a Customer transaction on another exchange (i.e., not NYSEAmerican).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 theExchange based on the Exchange’s instructions.Consistent with current practice, the Exchange will continue to monitor the amount ofORF collected to ensure that it, in combination with other regulatory fees and fines, does notexceed 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, asappropriate, adjust the ORF by submitting a fee change filing to the Commission and, as is thecase today, provide ATP Holders with 30 days’ advance notice. The Exchange will notify ATPHolders of this proposed change by Trader Update at least 30 calendar days prior to the effectivedate.2. Statutory BasisThe Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions ofSection 6(b)of the Act, in general, and Section 6(b)(4) and (5)of the Act, in particular, in thatit is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other chargesamong its members and other persons using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminatebetween customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.The Exchange believes the proposed new ORF methodology to be assessed effective July1, 2026 is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory for various reasons. First, theExchange believes that continuing to assess ORF only on Customer transactions is reasonablebecause Customer transactions account for a material portion of ORF Costs. A large portion ofORF Costs relate to Customer activity because obtaining Customer information may be moretime-intensive. For example, non-Customer market participants are subject to various regulatoryand reporting requirements which provides the Exchange certain data with respect to thesemarket participants. In contrast, Customer information is known by ATP Holders of theExchange, but is not readily available to the Exchange. Accordingly, the Exchange may have totake additional steps to understand the facts surrounding particular trades involving a Customer,15 U.S.C. 78f(b).15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).

which may require requesting such information from a broker-dealer. Further, Customers requiremore Exchange regulatory services based on the amount of options business they conduct. Forexample, there are costs associated with main office and branch office examinations (e.g., staffexpenses), as well as investigations into Customer complaints and the terminations of registeredpersons. As a result, ORF Costs associated with administering the Customer component of theExchange’s overall regulatory program are materially higher than those associated withadministering the non-Customer component when coupled with the amount of volume attributedto such Customer transactions.Under the Exchange’s proposal, the amount of ORF Costs allocated to on-exchangeCustomer transactions is significant. Also, with respect to Customer transactions, options volumecontinues to surpass volume from other options participants. Additionally, the Exchange hasrules that deal exclusively with Customer transactions, such as rules involving doing businesswith a Customer, which would not apply to Non-Customer transactions.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 asapplication fees, permit fees, and connectivity fees) and have various regulatory requirementswith respect to quoting. Specifically, Market Makers have certain quoting requirements withrespect to their assigned options series as provided in Rule 925.1NYP (Market MakerQuotations). In addition, unlike other market participants, Market Makers have obligations tocompete with other Market Makers to improve the market in all series of options classes towhich 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.The Exchange similarly acknowledges that there is a cost to regulate Firm and BrokerDealer transactions, but notes that these market participants’ transactions do not involvesignificant volume when compared to Customer transactions. The Exchange further notes thatFirm and Broker Dealer market participants tend to be more sophisticated than Customers and donot require the same protections as Customer transactions do. Accordingly, the regulation ofFirm and Broker Dealer transactions is less resource-intensive than the regulation of Customertransactions and accounts for a smaller percentage of ORF Costs.Finally, the Exchange believes that assessing ORF on Customer executions that occur onthe Exchange is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory because it will avoidoverlapping ORFs that would otherwise be assessed by the Exchange and other optionsexchanges that also assess an ORF. With this proposal, Customer executions that occur on otherexchanges would no longer be subject to an ORF assessed by the Exchange.The Exchange believes that its proposal continues to ensure that ORF collection, incombination with other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed ORF Costs. Fines collected bythe Exchange in connection with a disciplinary matter will continue to offset ORF Cost. TheExchange will, under the new ORF methodology, continue to monitor and review ORFcollection and, if the Exchange determines the amount of ORF collected exceeds or may exceeda material portion of ORF Costs, the Exchange will, as appropriate, adjust the ORF (via a rulechange filed with the Commission).B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement on Burden on CompetitionThe 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 theassessment and collection of ORF does not impose an undue burden on intermarket competitionbecause ORF is a regulatory fee that supports regulation in furtherance of the purposes of theAct. The Exchange notes, however, the proposed change is not designed to address anycompetitive issues. The Exchange is obligated to ensure that the amount of ORF collected, incombination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed ORF Costs. Continuing toassess ORF only on Customer executions that occur on the Exchange does not impose an undueburden on intramarket competition. Customer transactions account for a large portion of theExchange’s ORF Costs. With respect to Customer transactions, options volume continues tosurpass volume from other options participants. Additionally, the Exchange has rules that dealexclusively with Customer transactions, such as rules involving doing business with a Customer,which would not apply to non-Customer transactions.For these reasons, regulating Customer trading activity is more labor-intensive andtherefore, more costly. Further, the Exchange believes that a large portion of the ORF Costsrelate to Customer allocation because obtaining Customer information may be more time-intensive. For example, non-Customer market participants are subject to various regulatory andreporting requirements which provides the Exchange certain data with respect to these marketparticipants. In contrast, Customer information is known by ATP Holders and is not readilyavailable to the Exchange.The Exchange may have to take additional steps to understand thefacts surrounding particular trades involving a Customer which may require requesting suchKnow Your Customer or “KYC” provision is the obligation of the broker-dealer.

information from a broker-dealer. Further, Customers require more Exchange regulatory servicesbased on the amount of options business they conduct. For example, there are ORF Costsassociated with main office and branch office examinations (e.g., staff expenses), as well asinvestigations 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 overallregulatory program are materially higher than the ORF Costs associated with administering thenon-Customer component when coupled with the amount of volume attributed to such Customertransactions. Not attributing significant ORF Costs to Customers for activity that may occuracross options markets does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition becausethe Exchange’s Customer regulation occurs to a large extent on Exchange.

The Exchange believes that not assessing ORF on Market Makers does not impose anundue burden on intramarket competition because these liquidity providers are critical marketparticipants 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 oncompetition, and instead allows these market participants to manage their costs and consequentlytheir business model more effectively, thereby enabling them to better allocate resources to, forexample, technologies that allow them to manage risk and capacity to ensure their continuedability to compete effectively on the Exchange to provide displayed liquidity. Unlike othermarket participants, Market Makers have various regulatory requirements with respect toquoting. Specifically, Market Makers have certain quoting requirements with respect to theirassigned options series as provided in Rule 925.1NYP (Market Maker Quotations). Further,unlike other market participants, Market Makers have obligations to compete with other MarketMakers to improve the market in all series of options classes to which the Market Maker isappointed and to update market quotations in response to changed market conditions in all seriesof options classes to which the Market Maker is appointed.The Exchange believes that not assessing ORF on Firm and Broker Dealer marketparticipants does not impose an undue burden on intramarket competition because the regulationof Firm and Broker Dealer transactions is less resource-intensive than the regulation of Customertransactions. The volume generated from Firm and Broker Dealer transactions is not significantwhen compared to Customer transactions. Therefore, excluding Firm and Broker Dealertransactions from ORF does not impose an undue burden on intramarket competition, as

Customer transactions account for a material portion of the Exchange’s ORF Costs.TheExchange’s proposal to assess ORF only on Customer executions that occur on the Exchangedoes not impose an intramarket burden on competition because the amount of activity surveilledacross exchanges is small when compared to the overall number of Exchange rules that aresurveilled by the Exchange for on-Exchange activity. Limiting the amount of ORF assessed toactivity that occurs on the Exchange avoids overlapping ORFs that would otherwise be assessedby the Exchange and other options exchanges that also assess an ORF.Further, the proposed ORF does not impose an intra-market burden on competition as thiscollection accounts for the collection only on Customer executions. The Exchange will monitorand review ORF collection and amend the ORF if it finds that ORF collection exceeds itsprojections.C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement on Comments on the Proposed RuleChange Received from Members, Participants, or OthersNo 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 ActionPursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereundertheExchange has designated this proposal as establishing or changing a due, fee, or other chargeThe Exchange notes that the regulatory costs relating to monitoring ATP Holders with respect to Customertrading activity are generally higher than the regulatory costs associated with ATP Holders that do notengage in Customer trading activity, which tends to be more automated and less labor-intensive. Bycontrast, regulating ATP Holders that engage in Customer trading activity is generally more labor-intensiveand requires a greater expenditure of human and technical resources because the Exchange needs to reviewnot only the trading activity on behalf of Customers, but also the ATP Holders’ relationship with itsCustomers via more labor-intensive exam-based programs. As a result, the costs associated withadministering the Customer component of the Exchange’s overall regulatory program are materially higherthan the costs associated with administering the non-Customer component of the regulatory program.The Exchange would submit a rule change to the Commission to amend ORF rates.15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).

imposed on any person, whether or not the person is a member of the self-regulatoryorganization, which renders the proposed rule change effective upon filing. At any time within60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarilysuspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary orappropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance ofthe purposes of the Act.IV. Solicitation of CommentsInterested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning theforegoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Commentsmay be submitted by any of the following methods:Electronic Comments: Use the Commission’s internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or Send an email to rule-comments@sec.gov. Please include file number SR-NYSEAMER-2026-22 on the subject line.Paper Comments: 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-NYSEAMER-2026-22. This file numbershould be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process andreview your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will postall comments on the Commission’s internet website (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).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 submitonly information that you wish to make available publicly. We may redact in part or withholdentirely from publication submitted material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection.All submissions should refer to file number SR-NYSEAMER-2026-22 and should be submittedon or before [INSERT DATE 21 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegatedauthority.Sherry R. Haywood,Assistant Secretary. 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

EXHIBIT 5Additions underscoredDeletions [bracketed]NYSE AMERICAN OPTIONS FEE SCHEDULENYSE American Options is the options trading facility of NYSE American LLCEffective as of March [12]16, 2026Section VII. Regulatory FeesA. Options Regulatory Fee (“ORF”). Effective through June 30, 2026: The ORF will be assessed to each ATP Holder for all options transactions that arecleared by the ATP Holder through the OCC in the customer range regardless ofthe exchange on which the transaction occurs. The Exchange uses reports fromOCC when assessing and collecting the ORF. The ORF is not assessed onoutbound linkage trades. The fee is collected from ATP Holder clearing firms bythe OCC on behalf of NYSE American. An ATP Holder shall not be assessedthe fee until it has satisfied applicable technological requirements necessary tocommence operations on NYSE American. The Exchange will notifyparticipants via a Trader Update of any change in the amount of the fee at least30 calendar days prior to the effective date of the change.Rate Per Contract[$0.0023, waived through December 31, 2025. Effective January 1, 2026, the ORF will be ]$0.0026[.]Effective July 1, 2026:The ORF is assessed by the Exchange for options transactions cleared by OCC inthe customer range for executions that occur on the Exchange. Specifically, theORF is collected by OCC on behalf of the Exchange from ATP Holders and non-ATP Holders for all customer transactions executed on the Exchange. TheExchange will notify participants via Trader Update of any change in the amountof the fee at least 30 calendar days prior to the effective date of the change.**