ORF Fee Schedule Methodology Amendments

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

14889

filing, the Exchange proposes only to Customers, i.e., the entering firms. The To illustrate how the ORF, which is amend the method by which it will Exchange notes that the costs relating to currently set at $0.0026 per contract, assess and collect ORF as of July 1, monitoring OTP Holders with respect to is currently assessed and collected, the

1. The Exchange will file a separate Customer trading activity are generally Exchange provides the following set of rule filing with the ORF rate that would higher than the costs associated with scenarios. take effect on July 1, 2026, in advance monitoring OTP Holders that do not Scenario 1 of assessing and collecting ORF under engage in Customer trading activity, Executing (or Give-Up) Firm is not an the new methodology. As is the case which tends to be more automated and OTP Holder. The Executing Firm does today, the Exchange will provide at least less labor-intensive. By contrast, not ‘‘give-up’’ or ‘‘CMTA’’ the 30 days’ notice of the applicable rate by regulating OTP Holders that engage in Trader Update. transaction to another clearing firm. Customer trading activity is generally 13 No ORF is assessed. more labor-intensive and requires a Background greater expenditure of human and Scenario 2 As a general matter, the Exchange technical resources as the Exchange may only use regulatory funds such as Executing Firm is an OTP Holder. The needs to review not only the trading the ORF ‘‘to fund the legal, regulatory, Executing Firm ‘‘give-ups’’ or ‘‘CMTAs’’ activity on behalf of Customers, but also and surveillance operations’’ of the the transaction to another clearing firm the OTP Holder’s relationship with its Exchange. More specifically, the ORF that is not an OTP Holder. Customers via more labor-intensive 8is designed to recover a material No ORF is assessed. exam-based programs. As a result, the 10portion, but not all, of the Exchange’s costs associated with administering the Scenario 3 costs for the supervision and regulation of OTP Holders’ and OTP Firms’ The Executing (or Give-Up) Firm is an (collectively, ‘‘OTP Holders’’) Customer OTP Holder. The Executing Firm does materially higher than the costs options business, including the not ‘‘give-up’’ or ‘‘CMTA’’ the associated with administering the non- Exchange’s regulatory program and legal transaction to another clearing firm. Customer component (e.g., OTP Holder expenses associated with Customer ORF is assessed on the self-clearing proprietary transactions) of its options regulation, such as the costs Executing Firm. regulatory program. related to in-house staff, third-party Because the ORF is based on options Scenario 4 service providers, and technology that transactions volume, the amount of ORF facilitate regulatory functions such as The Executing (or Give-Up) Firm is an collected is variable. For example, if surveillance, investigation, OTP Holder. The Executing Firm ‘‘give- options transactions reported to OCC in examinations, and enforcement ups’’ or ‘‘CMTAs’’ the transaction to a given month increase, the ORF (collectively, the ‘‘ORF Costs’’). ORF another clearing firm that is also an OTP collected from OTP Holders will likely Costs may also include indirect Holder. increase as well. Similarly, if options expenses such as human resources and ORF is assessed on the CMTA transactions reported to OCC in a given other administrative costs related to the (clearing) firm. month decrease, the ORF collected from supervision and regulation of Customer Scenario 5 OTP Holders will likely decrease as activity. The Exchange monitors the well. Accordingly, the Exchange amount of ORF collection to ensure that The Executing (or Give-Up) Firm is monitors the amount of ORF collected this amount, in combination with other not an OTP Holder. The Executing Firm to ensure that it does not exceed a regulatory fees and fines, does not ‘‘give-ups’’ or ‘‘CMTAs’’ the transaction material portion of ORF Costs. If the exceed regulatory costs. to another clearing firm that is an OTP Exchange determines the amount of Today, the ORF is assessed on OTP Holder. ORF collected exceeds or may exceed a Holders for options transactions that are ORF is assessed on the CMTA material portion of ORF Costs, the cleared by the OTP Holder through the (clearing) firm. Exchange will, as appropriate, adjust the OCC in the Customer range regardless of As illustrated above, the Exchange ORF by submitting a fee change filing to the exchange on which the transaction does not assess the ORF on non-OTP the Securities and Exchange occurs and is collected from OTP Holders that self-clear transactions, even Commission (the ‘‘Commission’’). Holder clearing firms by the OCC on if the executing firm is an OTP Holder; Exchange rules establish that market behalf of NYSE Arca. All options the Exchange likewise does not impose 9 participants must be notified of any transactions must clear via a clearing the ORF if both the executing firm and change in the ORF via Trader Update at firm, and such clearing firms can then the firm that clears the transaction on its least 30 calendar days prior to the choose to pass through all, a portion, or behalf are non-OTP Holders. 14 effective date of the change. none of the cost of the ORF to its 11

See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 12104362 (December 11, 2025), 90 FR 58336 The Exchange considers surveillance operations The Exchange notes that many of the 810(December 16, 2025) (SR–NYSEARCA–2025–82) part of regulatory operations. The limitation on the Exchange’s market surveillance programs require (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a use of regulatory funds also provides that they shall the Exchange to look at and evaluate activity across Proposed Rule Change To Lower the Options not be distributed. See Bylaws of NYSE Arca, Inc., all options markets, such as surveillance for Regulatory Fee (ORF)). The Exchange also proposes Art. II, Sec. 2.03. position limit violations, manipulation, front- in this filing to delete language in the Fee Schedule running, and contrary exercise advice violations/ See Fee Schedule, NYSE Arca GENERAL 9describing an ORF waiver period that has elapsed, expiring exercise declarations. The Exchange and OPTIONS and TRADING PERMIT (OTP) FEES, as well as now-extraneous language specifying that other options SROs are parties to a 17d–2 agreement Regulatory Fees, Options Regulatory Fee (‘‘ORF’’), the current ORF rate took effect on January 1, 2026. allocating among the SROs regulatory available here, https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/ responsibilities relating to compliance by the A CMTA or Clearing Member Trade nyse/markets/arca-options/NYSEArcaOptions13common members with rules for expiring exercise Assignment is an agreement by which an investor FeeSchedule.pdf. The Exchange uses reports from declarations, position limits, OCC trade may enter derivative trades with a limited number OCC when assessing and collecting the ORF. The adjustments, and Large Option Position Report of different brokers and later consolidate these ORF is not assessed on outbound linkage trades. An trades with one brokerage house for clearing. reviews. See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release OTP Holder is not assessed the fee until it has No. 85097 (February 11, 2019), 84 FR 4871 satisfied applicable technological requirements Although the Exchange believes that its broad 14(February 19, 2019). necessary to commence operations on NYSE Arca. regulatory responsibilities would support applying

See Fee Schedule, note 9, supra. See id. Continued 11

VerDate Sep<11>2014 01:37 Mar 27, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27MRN1.SGM 27MRN1

14890

Proposed Rule Change clearing member on record on the other persons using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between transaction on the Exchange. The Exchange proposes to adopt a ORF will be assessed to the OTP customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. new methodology for assessing and The Exchange believes the proposed Holder. collecting ORF that would align with new ORF methodology to be assessed the methodology proposed by other Scenario 2 effective July 1, 2026 is reasonable, options exchanges, effective July 1, An OTP Holder executes a Customer equitable, and not unfairly 2026. As noted above, this rule filing 15 transaction on the Exchange and a discriminatory for various reasons. First, sets forth the proposed method by different OTP Holder is the clearing the Exchange believes that continuing to which it will assess and collect ORF as member on record on the transaction on assess ORF only on Customer of July 1, 2026, and the Exchange will transactions is reasonable because the Exchange. file a separate rule filing with the ORF ORF will be assessed to and collected rate that would take effect on July 1, from the OTP Holder that is the clearing material portion of ORF Costs. A large 2026 at least 30 days prior to such date. portion of ORF Costs relate to Customer member on record on the transaction The Exchange proposes to continue to activity because obtaining Customer and not the OTP Holder that executes assess ORF for options transactions information may be more time- the transaction. cleared by OCC in the Customer range, intensive. For example, non-Customer but ORF would be assessed only for Scenario 3 market participants are subject to executions that occur on the Exchange. An OTP Holder executes a Customer various regulatory and reporting Specifically, the ORF would be transaction on the Exchange, and a non- requirements which provides the collected by OCC on behalf of the OTP Holder is the clearing member on Exchange certain data with respect to Exchange from OTP Holders and non- record on the transaction on the these market participants. In contrast, OTP Holders for all Customer Exchange. Customer information is known by OTP transactions executed on the Exchange. ORF will be assessed to the non-OTP Holders of the Exchange, but is not ORF would be assessed and collected on Holder who is the clearing member on readily available to the Exchange. all ultimately cleared Customer record on the transaction and not the Accordingly, the Exchange may have to contracts, taking into account OTP Holder who executes the take additional steps to understand the adjustments for CMTA that were transaction. facts surrounding particular trades provided to the Exchange the same day involving a Customer, which may as the trade. Further, the Exchange Scenario 4 16 require requesting such information would bill ORF according to the An OTP Holder executes a Customer from a broker-dealer. Further, clearing instructions provided on the transaction on another exchange (i.e., Customers require more Exchange execution. The Exchange proposes to not NYSE Arca). regulatory services based on the amount assess ORF based on the clearing No ORF is assessed, regardless of how of options business they conduct. For instruction provided on the execution the transaction is cleared. example, there are costs associated with on trade date and would not take into As is the case today, OCC will collect main office and branch office consideration CMTA changes or ORF from OCC clearing members on examinations (e.g., staff expenses), as transfers that occur at OCC. 17 behalf of the Exchange based on the well as investigations into Customer To illustrate how the ORF would be Exchange’s instructions. complaints and the terminations of assessed and collected under the Consistent with current practice, the registered persons. As a result, ORF proposed methodology, the Exchange Exchange will continue to monitor the Costs associated with administering the provides the following set of scenarios. amount of ORF collected to ensure that Scenario 1 it, in combination with other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed a materially higher than those associated An OTP Holder executes a Customer material portion of ORF Costs. If the with administering the non-Customer transaction on the Exchange and is the Exchange determines the amount of component when coupled with the ORF collected exceeds or may exceed a amount of volume attributed to such the ORF to transactions that are executed (even if Customer transactions. material portion of ORF Costs, the not ultimately cleared) by an OTP Holder, the Under the Exchange’s proposal, the Exchange will, as appropriate, adjust the Exchange only imposes the ORF on transactions ultimately cleared by OTP Holders at this time. The amount of ORF Costs allocated to on- ORF by submitting a fee change filing to Exchange’s regulatory responsibilities are the same exchange Customer transactions is the Commission and, as is the case regardless of whether an OTP Holder enters a significant. Also, with respect to today, provide OTP Holders with 30 transaction or clears a transaction. The Exchange Customer transactions, options volume days’ advance notice. The Exchange will regularly reviews all such activities, including monitoring surveillance for position limit continues to surpass volume from other notify OTP Holders of this proposed violations, manipulation, front-running, contrary options participants. Additionally, the change by Trader Update at least 30 exercise advice violations and insider trading. Exchange has rules that deal exclusively calendar days prior to the effective date. These activities span across multiple exchanges. with Customer transactions, such as See note 5, supra. 15 2. Statutory Basis rules involving doing business with a Adjustments to CMTA that occur at OCC would 16not be taken into account. CMTA transfers that Customer, which would not apply to The Exchange believes that the occur at OCC do not necessarily contain reliable Non-Customer transactions. proposed rule change is consistent with 20information regarding the exchange on which the Although the Exchange acknowledges the provisions of Section 6(b) of the original transaction occurred, and without specific 18 that there is a cost to regulate Market Act, in general, and Section 6(b)(4) and information as to where such transaction occurred, the Exchange would not be able to accurately Makers, unlike other market (5) of the Act, in particular, in that it 19account for CMTA transfers that occur at OCC. participants, Market Makers are subject is designed to provide for the equitable Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to only to different Exchange fees (such as allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and account for CMTAs that occur on the Exchange and application fees, permit fees, and other charges among its members and exclude CMTAs occurring at OCC, consistent with other options exchanges’ proposals. connectivity fees) and have various Adjustments that were made the same day as 17 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). the trade on the Exchange will be taken into 18account. 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5). See, e.g., Section 7. Conduct of Accounts. 19 20

VerDate Sep<11>2014 01:37 Mar 27, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27MRN1.SGM 27MRN1

14891

regulatory requirements with respect to any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance quoting. Specifically, Market Makers materially higher than the ORF Costs of the purposes of the Act. have certain quoting requirements with associated with administering the non- The Exchange believes that the respect to their assigned options series Customer component when coupled proposed change to adopt a new as provided in Rule 6.37AP–O (Market with the amount of volume attributed to methodology for the assessment and Maker Quotations). In addition, unlike such Customer transactions. Not collection of ORF does not impose an other market participants, Market attributing significant ORF Costs to undue burden on intermarket Makers have obligations to compete Customers for activity that may occur competition because ORF is a regulatory with other Market Makers to improve across options markets does not impose fee that supports regulation in the market in all series of options an undue burden on intra-market furtherance of the purposes of the Act. classes to which the Market Maker is competition because the Exchange’s The Exchange notes, however, the Customer regulation occurs to a large appointed and to update market proposed change is not designed to extent on Exchange. quotations in response to changed address any competitive issues. The The Exchange believes that not market conditions in all series of Exchange is obligated to ensure that the assessing ORF on Market Makers does options classes to which the Market amount of ORF collected, in not impose an undue burden on Maker is appointed. 21 combination with its other regulatory intramarket competition because these The Exchange similarly acknowledges fees and fines, does not exceed ORF liquidity providers are critical market that there is a cost to regulate Firm and Costs. Continuing to assess ORF only on participants required to provide Broker Dealer transactions, but notes Customer executions that occur on the liquidity to the Exchange and necessary that these market participants’ Exchange does not impose an undue for opening the market. Excluding transactions do not involve significant burden on intramarket competition. Market Maker transactions from ORF volume when compared to Customer does not impose an intramarket burden transactions. The Exchange further large portion of the Exchange’s ORF on competition, and instead allows notes that Firm and Broker Dealer Costs. With respect to Customer these market participants to manage market participants tend to be more transactions, options volume continues their costs and consequently their sophisticated than Customers and do to surpass volume from other options business model more effectively, not require the same protections as participants. Additionally, the Exchange thereby enabling them to better allocate Customer transactions do. Accordingly, has rules that deal exclusively with resources to, for example, technologies the regulation of Firm and Broker Dealer Customer transactions, such as rules that allow them to manage risk and transactions is less resource-intensive involving doing business with a capacity to ensure their continued than the regulation of Customer ability to compete effectively on the Customer, which would not apply to transactions and accounts for a smaller Exchange to provide displayed non-Customer transactions. percentage of ORF Costs. 22 For these reasons, regulating liquidity. Unlike other market Finally, the Exchange believes that Customer trading activity is more labor- participants, Market Makers have assessing ORF on Customer executions intensive and therefore, more costly. various regulatory requirements with that occur on the Exchange is Further, the Exchange believes that a respect to quoting. Specifically, Market reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly large portion of the ORF Costs relate to Makers have certain quoting discriminatory because it will avoid Customer allocation because obtaining requirements with respect to their overlapping ORFs that would otherwise assigned options series as provided in Customer information may be more be assessed by the Exchange and other Rule 6.37AP–O (Market Maker time-intensive. For example, non- options exchanges that also assess an Quotations). Further, unlike other Customer market participants are ORF. With this proposal, Customer market participants, Market Makers subject to various regulatory and executions that occur on other have obligations to compete with other reporting requirements which provides exchanges would no longer be subject to Market Makers to improve the market in the Exchange certain data with respect an ORF assessed by the Exchange. all series of options classes to which the to these market participants. In contrast, The Exchange believes that its Market Maker is appointed and to Customer information is known by OTP proposal continues to ensure that ORF update market quotations in response to Holders and is not readily available to collection, in combination with other changed market conditions in all series the Exchange. The Exchange may have regulatory fees and fines, does not 23 of options classes to which the Market to take additional steps to understand exceed ORF Costs. Fines collected by Maker is appointed. the facts surrounding particular trades the Exchange in connection with a 24 The Exchange believes that not involving a Customer which may disciplinary matter will continue to assessing ORF on Firm and Broker require requesting such information offset ORF Cost. The Exchange will, Dealer market participants does not from a broker-dealer. Further, under the new ORF methodology, impose an undue burden on intramarket Customers require more Exchange continue to monitor and review ORF competition because the regulation of regulatory services based on the amount collection and, if the Exchange Firm and Broker Dealer transactions is of options business they conduct. For determines the amount of ORF collected less resource-intensive than the example, there are ORF Costs associated exceeds or may exceed a material regulation of Customer transactions. The with main office and branch office portion of ORF Costs, the Exchange will, volume generated from Firm and Broker examinations (e.g., staff expenses), as as appropriate, adjust the ORF (via a Dealer transactions is not significant well as investigations into Customer rule change filed with the Commission). when compared to Customer complaints and the terminations of B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s transactions. Therefore, excluding Firm registered persons. As a result, the ORF Statement on Burden on Competition and Broker Dealer transactions from Costs associated with administering the The Exchange does not believe that ORF does not impose an undue burden the proposed rule change will impose on intramarket competition, as

See, e.g., Section 7. Conduct of Accounts. 22See Rule 6.35–O (Appointment of Market Know Your Customer or ‘‘KYC’’ provision is See Rule 6.35–O (Appointment of Market 2123 24Makers). the obligation of the broker-dealer. Makers).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 01:37 Mar 27, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27MRN1.SGM 27MRN1

14892

Commission takes such action, the SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE material portion of the Exchange’s ORF Commission shall institute proceedings COMMISSION Costs.The Exchange’s proposal to to determine whether the proposed rule 25 [Release No. 34–105069; File No. SR–IEX– assess ORF only on Customer change should be approved or 2026–08] executions that occur on the Exchange disapproved. does not impose an intramarket burden Self-Regulatory Organizations; IV. Solicitation of Comments on competition because the amount of Investors Exchange LLC; Notice of activity surveilled across exchanges is Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Interested persons are invited to small when compared to the overall Proposed Rule Change To Amend IEX submit written data, views and number of Exchange rules that are Rules To Reflect the Name Change of arguments concerning the foregoing, surveilled by the Exchange for on- Nasdaq BX to Nasdaq Texas including whether the proposed rule Exchange activity. Limiting the amount change is consistent with the Act. of ORF assessed to activity that occurs March 24, 2026. Comments may be submitted by any of on the Exchange avoids overlapping Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the 1the following methods: ORFs that would otherwise be assessed Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the by the Exchange and other options ‘‘Act’’) and Rule 19b–4 thereunder, Electronic Comments 2 3exchanges that also assess an ORF. notice is hereby given that, on March Further, the proposed ORF does not • Use the Commission’s internet 16, 2026, the Investors Exchange LLC impose an intra-market burden on comment form (https://www.sec.gov/ (‘‘IEX’’ or the ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the competition as this collection accounts rules/sro.shtml); or Securities and Exchange Commission for the collection only on Customer (the ‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule • Send an email to rule-comments@executions. The Exchange will monitor change as described in Items I and II sec.gov. Please include file number SR– and review ORF collection and amend below, which Items have been prepared NYSEARCA–2026–30 on the subject the ORF if it finds that ORF collection by the self-regulatory organization. The line. exceeds its projections. Commission is publishing this notice to 26 solicit comments on the proposed rule Paper Comments C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s change from interested persons. Statement on Comments on the • Send paper comments in triplicate Proposed Rule Change Received From I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Members, Participants, or Others Statement of the Terms of Substance of Commission, 100 F Street NE, No written comments were solicited the Proposed Rule Change Washington, DC 20549–1090. or received with respect to the proposed Pursuant to the provisions of Section All submissions should refer to file rule change. 19(b)(1) under the Act, and Rule 19b– 4number SR–NYSEARCA–2026–30. This III. Date of Effectiveness of the 4 thereunder, the Exchange is filing 5file number should be included on the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for with the Commission a proposed rule to subject line if email is used. To help the Commission Action amend IEX Rules 2.220(a)(7) and Commission process and review your 11.410(a) to make conforming changes The foregoing rule change has become comments more efficiently, please use reflecting the name change of Nasdaq effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) only one method. The Commission will BX, Inc. (‘‘Nasdaq BX’’) to Nasdaq of the Actand paragraph (f) of Rule post all comments on the Commission’s 27 Texas, LLC (‘‘Nasdaq Texas’’), replace 19b–4thereunder. At any time within 28internet website (https://www.sec.gov/ obsolete references to ‘‘NASDAQ’’ with 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the filing will the current name ‘‘Nasdaq,’’ and make change, the Commission summarily may be available for inspection and copying a conforming change in Rule 2.220(a)(7). temporarily suspend such rule change if at the principal office of the Exchange. The Exchange has designated this rule it appears to the Commission that such Do not include personal identifiable change as ‘‘non-controversial’’ under action is necessary or appropriate in the information in submissions; you should Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and public interest, for the protection of 6 provided the Commission with the submit only information that you wish investors, or otherwise in furtherance of notice required by Rule 19b–4(f)(6) to make available publicly. We may the purposes of the Act. If the thereunder. redact in part or withhold entirely from 7 The text of the proposed rule change publication submitted material that is The Exchange notes that the regulatory costs is available at the Exchange’s website at 25obscene or subject to copyright relating to monitoring OTP Holders with respect to https://www.iexexchange.io/resources/ protection. All submissions should refer Customer trading activity are generally higher than regulation/rule-filings and at the the regulatory costs associated with OTP Holders to file number SR–NYSEARCA–2026–30 that do not engage in Customer trading activity, principal office of the Exchange. and should be submitted on or before which tends to be more automated and less labor- April 17, 2026. II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s intensive. By contrast, regulating OTP Holders that engage in Customer trading activity is generally Statement of the Purpose of, and the For the Commission, by the Division of more labor-intensive and requires a greater Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule expenditure of human and technical resources Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated Change because the Exchange needs to review not only the authority. 29trading activity on behalf of Customers, but also the In its filing with the Commission, the Sherry R. Haywood, OTP Holders’ relationship with its Customers via self-regulatory organization included more labor-intensive exam-based programs. As a Assistant Secretary. result, the costs associated with administering the [FR Doc. 2026–05946 Filed 3–26–26; 8:45 am] Customer component of the Exchange’s overall 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). regulatory program are materially higher than the 1BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 15 U.S.C. 78a. costs associated with administering the non- 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. Customer component of the regulatory program. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). The Exchange would submit a rule change to 426the Commission to amend ORF rates. 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 515 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 27 617 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f). 2829 7

VerDate Sep<11>2014 01:37 Mar 27, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27MRN1.SGM 27MRN1