Notice2022-02432
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq MRX, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Proposed Rule Change To Update the Obvious Error Rule
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
February 7, 2022
Issuing agencies
Securities and Exchange Commission
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 25 (Monday, February 7, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 25 (Monday, February 7, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6906-6910]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02432]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-94117; File No. SR-MRX-2022-02]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq MRX, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Proposed Rule
Change To Update the Obvious Error Rule
February 1, 2022.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on January 26, 2022, Nasdaq MRX, LLC (``MRX'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III, below,
which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
\2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change
The Exchange proposes to amend Options 3, Section 20 (Nullification
and Adjustment of Options Transactions including Obvious Errors).
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at <a href="https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/mrx/rules">https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/mrx/rules</a>, 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, the Proposed Rule Change
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.
A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change
1. Purpose
The purpose of this proposed rule change is to amend Options 3,
Section 20 (Nullification and Adjustment of Options Transactions
including Obvious Errors) to improve the operation of the Rule.
Following discussions with other exchanges and a cross-section of
industry participants and in coordination with the Listed Options
Market Structure Working Group (``LOMSWG'') (collectively, the
``Industry Working Group''), the Exchange proposes: (1) To amend
section (b)(3) of the Rule to permit the Exchange to determine the
Theoretical Price of a Customer option transaction in a wide market so
long as a narrow market exists at any point during the 10-second period
after an opening or re-opening; and (2) to amend section (c)(4)(B) of
the Rule to adjust, rather than nullify, Customer transactions in
Obvious Error situations, provided the adjustment does not violate the
limit price. The foregoing changes are based on the recently amended
rules of NYSE Arca, Inc. (``Arca'').\3\ Further, the Exchange proposes
to make non-substantive, corrective changes. Each change is discussed
in detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Arca Rule 6.87-O. See also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 93818 (December 17, 2021), 86 FR 73009 (December 23,
2021) (SR-NYSEArca-2021-91) (Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change
to Amend Rule 6.87-O).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Change to Section (b)(3)
Options 3, Section 20 has been part of various harmonization
efforts by the Industry Working Group.\4\ These efforts have often
centered around the Theoretical Price for which an options transaction
should be compared to determine whether an Obvious Error has occurred.
For instance, all options exchanges have adopted language comparable to
Supplementary Material .06,\5\ which explains how an exchange is to
determine Theoretical Price at the open, when there are no valid
quotes, and when there is a wide quote. This includes at times the use
of a singular
[[Page 6907]]
third-party vendor, known as a TP Provider (currently CBOE Livevol,
LLC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Exchange's application for registration as a national
securities exchange, as approved by the Commission, incorporated the
changes made previously by the other options exchanges. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76998 (January 29, 2016); 81 FR
6066 (Feb. 4, 2016).
\5\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81353 (August
8, 2017), 82 FR 37926 (August 14, 2017) (SR-MRX-2017-16).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, section (b)(3) of Options 3, Section 20 was previously
harmonized across all options exchanges to handle situations where
executions occur in markets that are wide (as set forth in the
rule).\6\ Under that section, the Exchange determines the Theoretical
Price if the NBBO for the subject series is wide immediately before
execution and a narrow market (as set forth in the rule) existed
``during the 10 seconds prior to the transaction.'' The rule goes on to
clarify that, should there be no narrow quotes ``during the 10 seconds
prior to the transaction,'' the Theoretical Price for the affected
series is the NBBO that existed at the time of execution (regardless of
its width).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In recent discussions, the Industry Working Group has identified
proposed changes to section (b)(3) of Options 3, Section 20 that would
improve the Rule's functioning. Currently, section (b)(3) does not
permit the Exchange to determine the Theoretical Price unless there is
a narrow quote 10 seconds prior to the transaction. However, in the
first seconds of trading, there is no 10-second period ``prior to the
transaction.'' Further, the Industry Working Group has observed that
prices in certain series can be disjointed at the start of trading.
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to provide additional protections to
trading in certain circumstances immediately after the opening before
liquidity has had a chance to enter the market. The Exchange proposes
to amend section (b)(3) to allow the Exchange to determine the
Theoretical Price in a wide market so long as a narrow market exists at
any point during the 10-second period after an opening or reopening.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes that the existing text of
section (b)(3) would become sub-section (A). The Exchange proposes to
add the following heading and text as sub-section (B):
(B) Customer Transactions Occurring Within 10 Seconds or Less
After an Opening or Re-Opening:
(i) The Exchange will determine the Theoretical Price if the
bid/ask differential of the NBB and NBO for the affected series just
prior to the Customer's erroneous transaction was equal to or
greater than the Minimum Amount set forth in paragraph (A) above and
there was a bid/ask differential less than the Minimum Amount during
the 10 seconds prior to the transaction.
(ii) If there was no bid/ask differential less than the Minimum
Amount during the 10 seconds prior to the transaction, then the
Exchange will determine the Theoretical Price if the bid/ask
differential of the NBB and NBO for the affected series just prior
to the Customer's erroneous transaction was equal to or greater than
the Minimum Amount set forth in paragraph (A) above and there was a
bid/ask differential less than the Minimum Amount anytime during the
10 seconds after an opening or re-opening.
(iii) If there was no bid/ask differential less than the Minimum
Amount during the 10 seconds following an Opening or Re-Opening,
then the Theoretical Price of an option series is the last NBB or
NBO just prior to the Customer transaction in question, as set forth
in paragraph (b) above.
(iv) Customer transactions occurring more than 10 seconds after
an opening or re-opening are subject to paragraph (A) above.
The following examples illustrate the functioning of the proposed
rule change. Consider that the NBBO of a series opens as $0.01 at
$4.00. A marketable limit order to buy one contract arrives one second
later and is executed at $4.00. In the third second of trading, the
NBBO narrows from $0.01 at $4.00 to $2.00 at $2.10. While the execution
occurred in a market with wide widths, there was no tight market within
the 10 seconds prior to execution. Accordingly, under the current rule,
the trade would not qualify for obvious error review, in part due to
the fact that there was only a single second of trading before the
execution. Under the proposal, since a tight market existed at some
point in the first 10 seconds of trading (i.e., in the third second),
the Exchange would be able to determine the Theoretical Price as
provided in Supplementary Material .06.
As another example, the NBBO for a series opens as $0.01 at $4.00.
In the seventh second of trading, a marketable limit order is received
to buy one contract and is executed at $4.00. Five seconds later (i.e.,
in the twelfth second of trading), the NBBO narrows from $0.01 at $4.00
to $2.00 at $2.10. While the execution occurred in a market with wide
widths, there was no tight market within 10 seconds prior to execution.
Accordingly, under the current rule, the trade would not qualify for
obvious error review. Under the proposal, since no tight market existed
at any point during the first 10 seconds of trading (i.e., the narrow
market occurred in the twelfth second), the trade would not qualify for
obvious error review.
The proposed rule change would also better harmonize section (b)(3)
with section
(b)(1) of the Rule. Under section (b)(1), the Exchange is permitted
to determine the Theoretical Price for transactions occurring as part
of the opening rotation (as defined in Options 3, Section 8) if there
is no NBB or NBO for the affected series just prior to the erroneous
transaction. However, under the current version of section (b)(3), a
transaction during regular trading hours could occur in the same wide
market but the Exchange would not be permitted to determine the
Theoretical Price. Consider an example where one second after the
Exchange opens a selected series, the NBBO is $1.00 at $5.00. At
9:30:03, a customer submits a marketable buy order to the Exchange and
pays $5.00. At 9:30:03, a different exchange runs an opening auction
that results in a customer paying $5.00 for the same selected series.
At 9:30:06, the NBBO changes from $1.00 at $5.00 to $1.35 at $1.45.
Under the current version of section (b)(3), the Exchange would not be
able to determine the Theoretical Price for the trade occurring during
regular trading hours. However, the trade on the other exchange could
be submitted for review under (b)(1) and that exchange would be able to
determine the Theoretical Price. If the proposed change to section
(b)(3) were approved, both of the trades occurring at 9:30:03 (on the
Exchange during regular trading and on another exchange via auction)
would also be entitled to the same review regarding the same
Theoretical Price based upon the same time.
The proposal would not change any obvious error review beyond the
first 10 seconds of an opening or re-opening.
Proposed Change to Section (c)(4)(B)
The Exchange proposes to amend section (c)(4)(B)--the ``Adjust or
Bust'' rule for Customer transactions in Obvious Error situations--to
adjust rather than nullify such orders, provided the adjustment does
not violate the Customer's limit price. Currently, the Rule provides
that in Obvious Error situations, transactions involving non-Customers
should be adjusted, while transactions involving Customers are
nullified, unless a certain condition applies.\7\ The Industry Working
Group has concluded that the treatment of these transactions should be
harmonized under the Rule, such that transactions involving Customers
may benefit from adjustment, just as non-Customer transactions
currently do, except where such adjustment would violate the Customer's
limit price; in that instance, the trade would be nullified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Specifically, the current Rule provides at section (c)(4)(C)
that if a Member has 200 or more Customer transactions under review
concurrently and the orders resulting in such transactions were
submitted during the course of 2 minutes or less, where at least one
party to the Obvious Error is a non-Customer, then the Exchange will
apply the non-Customer adjustment criteria found in section
(c)(4)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 6908]]
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend the text of section
(c)(4)(B) to add that where at least one party to the Obvious Error is
a Customer, ``the execution price of the transaction will be adjusted
by the Official pursuant to the table immediately above. Any Customer
Obvious Error exceeding 50 contracts will be subject to the Size
Adjustment Modifier defined in sub-paragraph (a)(4) above. However, if
such adjustment(s) would result in an execution price higher (for buy
transactions) or lower (for sell transactions) than the Customer's
limit price,'' the trade will be nullified. The ``table immediately
above'' referenced in the proposed text refers to the table at current
Section (c)(4)(A), which provides for the adjustment of prices a
specified amount away from the Theoretical Price, rather than adjusting
the Theoretical Price.
Non-Substantive Amendment
The Exchange proposes non-substantive changes to update the rule
citations to Supplementary Material .04 throughout Options 3, Section
20 to Supplementary Material .06, which contains provisions relating to
how the Theoretical Price will be determined.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Specifically, the Exchange will make the corrective changes
in Options 3, Section 20(b) and in Supplementary Material .06 to
Options 3, Section 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Implementation Date
The proposed rule change will become operative no sooner than six
months following the approval of the Arca proposal to coincide with
implementation on other options exchanges.\9\ The Exchange will
announce the effective date of the proposed changes in an alert
distributed to all Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Statutory Basis
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\10\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\11\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public
interest and because it is not designed to permit unfair discrimination
between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
\11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange believes that the proposed change to section (b)(3) of
the Rule would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general,
protect investors and the public interest because it provides a method
for addressing Obvious Error Customer transactions that occur in a wide
market at the opening of trading. Generally, a wide market is an
indication of a lack of liquidity in the market such that the market is
unreliable. Current section (b)(3) recognizes that a persistently wide
quote (i.e., more than 10 seconds) should be considered the reliable
market regardless of its width, but does not address transactions that
occur in a wide market in the first seconds of trading, where there is
no preceding 10-second period to reference. Accordingly, in the first
10 seconds of trading, there is no opportunity for a wide quote to have
persisted for a sufficiently lengthy period such that the market should
consider it a reliable market for the purposes of determining an
Obvious Error transaction.
The proposed change would rectify this disparity and permit the
Exchange to consider whether a narrow quote is present at any time
during the 10-second period after an opening or re-opening. The
presence of such a narrow quote would indicate that the market has
gained sufficient liquidity and that the previous wide market was
unreliable, such that it would be appropriate for the Exchange to
determine the Theoretical Price of an Obvious Error transaction. In
this way, the proposed rule harmonizes the treatment of Customer
transactions that execute in an unreliable market at any point of the
trading day, by making them uniformly subject to Exchange determination
of the Theoretical Price.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change to section (c)(4)(B)
of the Rule would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system and enhance the
protection of investors by harmonizing the treatment of non-Customer
transactions and Customer transactions under the Rule. Under the
current Rule, Obvious Error situations involving non-Customer
transactions are adjusted, while those involving Customer transactions
are generally nullified, unless they meet the additional requirements
of section (c)(4)(C) (i.e., where a Member has 200 or more Customer
transactions under review concurrently and the orders resulting in such
transactions were submitted during the course of 2 minutes or less).
The proposal would harmonize the treatment of non-Customer and Customer
transactions by providing for the adjustment of all such transactions,
except where such adjustment would violate the Customer's limit price.
When it proposed the current rule in 2015, the Exchange believed
there were sound reasons for treating non-Customer transactions and
Customer transactions differently. At the time, the Exchange stated its
belief that ``Customers are not necessarily immersed in the day-to-day
trading of the markets, are less likely to be watching trading activity
in a particular option throughout the day, and may have limited funds
in their trading accounts,'' and that nullifying Obvious Error
transactions involving Customers would give Customers ``greater
protections'' than adjusting such transactions by eliminating the
possibility that a Customer's order will be adjusted to a significantly
different price. The Exchange also noted its belief that ``Customers
are . . . less likely to have engaged in significant hedging or other
trading activity based on earlier transactions, and thus, are less in
need of maintaining a position at an adjusted price than non-
Customers.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those assumptions about Customer trading and hedging activity no
longer hold. The Exchange and the Industry Working Group believe that
over the course of the last five years, Customers that use options have
become more sophisticated, as retail broker-dealers have enhanced the
trading tools available. Pursuant to OCC data, volumes clearing in the
Customer range have expanded from 12,022,163 ADV in 2015 to 35,081,130
ADV in 2021. This increase in trading activity underscores the greater
understanding of options by Customers as a trading tool and its use in
the markets. Customers who trade options today largely are more
educated, have better trading tools, and have better access to
financial news than any time prior.\13\ The proposed rule would extend
the hedging protections currently enjoyed by non-Customers to
Customers, by allowing them to maintain an option position at an
adjusted price, which would in turn prevent a cascading effect by
maintaining the hedge relationship between the option transaction and
any other transactions in a related security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See ``Retail Traders Adopt Options En Masse'' by Dan Raju,
available at <a href="https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/retail-traders-adopt-options-en-masse-2020-12-08">https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/retail-traders-adopt-options-en-masse-2020-12-08</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange believes that extending such hedging protections to
Customer transactions would remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and
[[Page 6909]]
enhance the protection of investors by providing greater certainty of
execution for all participants to options transactions. Under the
current Rule, a Customer that believes its transaction was executed
pursuant to an Obvious Error may be disincentivized from submitting the
transaction for review, since during the review process, the Customer
would be uncertain whether the trade would be nullified, and if so,
whether market conditions would still permit the opportunity to execute
a related order at a better price after the nullification ruling is
finalized. In contrast, under the proposed rule, the Customer would
know that the only likely outcomes of submitting a trade to Obvious
Error review would be that the trade would stand or be re-executed at a
better price; the trade would only be nullified if the adjustment would
violate the order's limit. Similarly, under the current Rule, during
the review period, a market maker who traded contra to the Customer
would be uncertain if it should retain any position executed to hedge
the original trade, or attempt to unwind it, possibly at a significant
loss. Under the proposed rule change, this uncertainty is largely
eliminated, and the question would be whether the already-executed and
hedged trade would be adjusted to a better price for the Customer, or
if it would stand as originally executed. In this way, the proposed
rule enhances the protection of investors and removes impediments to
and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system.
The proposed rule also addresses the concern the Exchange cited in
its 2015 filing that adjusting, rather than nullifying, Customer
transactions could lead to a Customer's order being adjusted to a
significantly different price. To address that concern, the proposed
rule would prevent Customer transactions from being adjusted to a price
that violates the order's limit; if the adjustment would violate a
Customer's limit, the trade would instead be nullified. The Exchange
believes it is in the best interest of investors to expand the
availability of adjustments to Customer transactions in all Obvious
Error situations except where the adjustment would violate the
Customer's limit price.
Further, the Exchange believes that, with respect to such proposed
adjustments to Customer transactions, it is appropriate to use the same
form of adjustment as is currently in place with respect to non-
Customer transactions as laid out in the table in section (c)(4)(A).
That is, the Exchange believes that it is appropriate to adjust to
prices a specified amount away from the Theoretical Price rather than
to adjust the Theoretical Price, even though the Exchange has
determined a given trade to be erroneous in nature, because the parties
in question should have had some expectation of execution at the price
or prices submitted. Also, it is common that by the time it is
determined that an Obvious Error has occurred, additional hedging and
trading activity has already occurred based on the executions that
previously happened. The Exchange believes that providing an adjustment
to the Theoretical Price in all cases would not appropriately
incentivize market participants to maintain appropriate controls to
avoid potential errors, while adjusting to prices a specified amount
away from the Theoretical Price would incentivize such behavior.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is not designed to permit
unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
The proposed change to section (b)(3) would apply to all instances of a
wide market occurring within the first 10 seconds of trading followed
by a narrow market at any point in the subsequent 10-second period,
regardless of the types of market participants involved in such
transactions. The proposed change to section (c)(4)(B) would harmonize
the treatment of Obvious Error transactions involving Customers and
non-Customers, no matter what type of market participants those parties
may be.
Lastly, the Exchange believes that the non-substantive corrections
to update the rule cites from Supplementary Material .04 to .06 is
consistent with the Act because it will bring greater transparency to
the Rulebook and reduce potential confusion by investors.
For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is
consistent with the Act.
B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange anticipates that
the other options exchanges will adopt substantively similar proposals,
such that there would be no burden on intermarket competition from the
Exchange's proposal. Accordingly, the proposed change is not meant to
affect competition among the options exchanges. For these reasons, the
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this
competitive environment and does not impose any undue burden on
intermarket competition.
C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others
No written comments were either solicited or received.
III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \14\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
\15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
IV. Solicitation of Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:
Electronic Comments
<bullet> Use the Commission's internet comment form (<a href="http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml">http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml</a>); or
<bullet> Send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#047671686129676b6969616a7077447761672a636b72"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4d3f382128602e2220202823393e0d3e282e632a223b">[email protected]</span></a>. Please include
File Number SR-MRX-2022-02 on the subject line.
Paper Comments
<bullet> Send paper comments in triplicate to Vanessa Countryman,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission,
[[Page 6910]]
100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MRX-2022-02. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (<a href="http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml">http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml</a>).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-MRX-2022-02 and should be submitted on
or before February 28, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-02432 Filed 2-4-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on February 7, 2022.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.