Home/Federal/Federal Register/2024-15502

Notice2024-15502

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Options 7, Section 3

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

July 16, 2024

Issuing agencies

Securities and Exchange Commission

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 136 (Tuesday, July 16, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 136 (Tuesday, July 16, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57978-57982]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-15502]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-100488; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2024-036]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Options 7, Section 3

DATES:
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 July 1, 2024, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The

[[Page 57979]]

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 The Nasdaq Options Market LLC's
(``NOM'') Rules at Options 7, Section 3, Nasdaq Options Market--Ports
and Other Services.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at <a href="https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/nasdaq/rules">https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/nasdaq/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 Exchange proposes to amend Options 7, Section 3, Nasdaq Options
Market--Ports and Other Services. Specifically, the Exchange proposes
to amend Options 7, Section 3(i) to increase the per port, per month
SQF Port \3\ and SQF Purge \4\ Port Fees for all ports over 20 ports
(21 and above).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ ``Specialized Quote Feed'' or ``SQF'' is an interface that
allows Market Makers to connect, send, and receive messages related
to quotes and Immediate-or-Cancel Orders into and from the Exchange.
Features include the following: (1) options symbol directory
messages (e.g., underlying instruments); (2) system event messages
(e.g., start of trading hours messages and start of opening); (3)
trading action messages (e.g., halts and resumes); (4) execution
messages; (5) quote messages; (6) Immediate-or-Cancel Order
messages; (7) risk protection triggers and purge notifications; and
(8) opening imbalance messages. The SQF Purge Interface only
receives and notifies of purge requests from the Market Maker.
Market Makers may only enter interest into SQF in their assigned
options series. Immediate-or-Cancel Orders entered into SQF are not
subject to the Order Price Protection, Market Order Spread
Protection, or Size Limitation in Options 3, Section 15(a)(1) and
(a)(2), and (b)(2), respectively. See Options 3, Section 7(e)(1)(B).
\4\ SQF Purge is a specific port for the SQF interface that only
receives and notifies of purge requests from the NOM Market Maker.
\5\ The Exchange also proposes a technical amendment to remove
an extraneous period in Options 7, Section 3 in the second
paragraph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Today, NOM assesses SQF Ports and SQF Purge Ports a per port, per
month fee based on a tiered fee schedule. Specifically, NOM assesses an
SQF Port and an SQF Purge Port fee of $1,500 per port, per month for
the first 5 ports (1-5), a $1,000 per port, per month fee for the next
15 ports (6-20), and a $750 per port, per month fee for all ports over
20 ports (21 and above).
At this time, the Exchange proposes to increase the per port, per
month fee for SQF Ports and SQF Ports above 20 ports (21 and above) for
Market Makers based on the size of the Market Maker on NOM. The
Exchange is determining the size of the Market Maker based on the
amount of transactional volume executed on NOM in a given month. The
Exchange proposes to take each Market's Maker's electronic monthly
transactional volume via SQF on NOM and divide that number by the sum
of all Market Maker electronic monthly transactional volume via SQF on
NOM (``Transactional Volume''). All SQF interest would be considered.
Each Market Maker would then be classified on NOM, for the purpose of
the SQF Port Fee and SQF Purge Port Fee, as a ``small,'' ``medium,'' or
``large'' Market Maker based on their Transactional Volume on NOM to
determine the applicable fee in a given month for all SQF Ports and SQF
Purge Ports over 20 ports. Market Makers that qualify as ``medium''
would be subject to an increased monthly fee of $625 per port for all
SQF Ports and SQF Purge Ports over 20 ports. Market Makers that qualify
as ``large'' would be subject to an increased monthly fee of $750 per
port for all SQF Ports and SQF Purge Ports over 20 ports. Market Makers
that qualify as ``small'' would continue to pay a monthly fee of $500
per port for all SQF Port and SQF Purge Port Fees for all ports over 20
ports.
The Exchange believes that these increased SQF Port and SQF Purge
Port Fees for all ports over 20 ports for Market Maker that qualify as
``medium'' and ``large,'' will offer a level playing field related to
pricing when acquiring a larger amount of ports.
A NOM Market Maker requires only one SQF Port to submit quotes in
its assigned options series into NOM. A NOM Market Maker may submit all
quotes through one SQF Port and utilize one SQF Purge Port to view its
purge requests. While a NOM Market Maker may elect to obtain multiple
SQF Ports and SQF Purge Ports to organize its business,\6\ only one SQF
Port and SQF Purge Port is necessary for a NOM Market Maker to fulfill
its regulatory quoting obligations.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ For example, a NOM Market Maker may desire to utilize
multiple SQF Ports for accounting purposes, to measure performance,
for regulatory reasons or other determinations that are specific to
that NOM Participant. The Exchange notes that 78% of NOM Market
Makers pay the $1,000 per port, per month fee for 6-20 ports and 39%
pay the proposed $750 per port, per month fee for over 20 ports.
\7\ NOM Market Makers have various regulatory requirements as
provided for in Options 2, Section 4. Additionally, NOM Market
Makers have certain quoting requirements with respect to their
assigned options series as provided in Options 2, Section 5. The
Exchange notes that SQF Ports are the only quoting protocol
available on NOM and only NOM Market Makers may utilize SQF Ports.
The same is true for SQF Purge Ports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\8\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among members and issuers and other persons using any facility,
and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
\9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 57980]]

as ``medium'' and ``large'' will offer a level playing field related to
pricing when acquiring a larger amount of ports. A NOM Market Maker
requires only one SQF Port to submit quotes in its assigned options
series into NOM. A NOM Market Maker may submit all quotes through one
SQF Port and utilize one SQF Purge Port to view its purge requests.
While a Market Maker may elect to obtain multiple SQF Ports and SQF
Purge Ports to organize its business,\10\ only one SQF Port and SQF
Purge Port is necessary for a Market Maker to fulfill its regulatory
quoting obligations.\11\ Members may choose a greater number of SQF
Ports or SQF Purge Ports, beyond one port, depending on that Member's
particular business model. Additionally, the Exchange believes that the
caps are reasonable for two reasons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ For example, a Market Maker or may desire to utilize
multiple SQF Ports for accounting purposes, to measure performance,
for regulatory reasons or other determinations that are specific to
that Member.
\11\ GEMX Market Makers have various regulatory requirements as
provided for in Options 2, Section 4. Additionally, GEMX Market
Makers have certain quoting requirements with respect to their
assigned options series as provided in Options 2, Section 5. SQF
Ports are the only quoting protocol available on GEMX and only
Market Makers may utilize SQF Ports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

First, SQF Ports are a secure method for Market Makers to submit
quotes into the Exchange's match engine and for the Exchange to send
messages related to those quotes to Market Makers. NOM must manage the
security and message traffic, among other things, for each port.
Utilizing a methodology based on the ``size'' of the Market Maker as
determined by Transactional Volume, provides every Market Maker the
ability to manage cost. Additionally, the Exchange would have the
ability to manage the quantity of SQF Ports and SQF Purge Ports issued
by the Exchange. The various SQF Port and SQF Purge Port Fees were
determined based on the level of Transactional Volume on NOM in 2024
for Market Makers. The Exchange assessed each level of Market Maker an
increased fee based on size, as reflected by Transactional Volume, to
reflect the various sizes of Market Makers present on the Exchange at
this time. By establishing different SQF Ports and SQF Purge Port Fees
at different levels based on ``size,'' the Exchange is considering the
message traffic and message rates generated by the various ``sizes'' of
Market Makers and the Exchange's ability to process messages from all
SQF Ports and SQF Purge Ports. The SQF Port and SQF Purge Port Fees
would allow the Exchange to scale its needs with respect to processing
messages in an efficient manner. The Exchange notes that Cboe Exchange,
Inc. (``Cboe'') limits usage on each port and assesses fees for
incremental usage.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ Each Cboe Binary Order Entry (``BOE'') or FIX Logical Port
incur the logical port fee indicated when used to enter up to 70,000
orders per trading day per logical port as measured on average in a
single month. For each incremental usage of up to 70,000 per day per
logical port will incur an additional logical port fee of $800 per
month. BOE or FIX Logical Ports provide users the ability to enter
order/quotes. See Cboe's Fees Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Second, the Exchange notes that multiple ports are not necessary,
however, to the extent that some Market Makers elect to obtain multiple
SQF Ports and SQF Purge Ports, the Exchange is offering different
prices for over 20 ports. NOM believes that this methodology of
utilizing Transactional Volume on NOM for purposes of considering the
``size'' of the Market Maker to create certain SQF Port and SQF Purge
Port Fees will level the playing field. The Exchange believes that this
approach enables various types of Market Makers to effectively limit
costs based on their executed Transactional Volume on the Exchange.
Further, this methodology allows for efficiencies and permits Market
Makers to increase their number of ports at varying fee levels. The
various SQF Ports and SQF Purge Port Fees for over 20 ports levels the
playing field by allowing various types of Market Makers that want to
obtain a larger number of ports to do so with different cost structures
to account for their relative size. Other markets tier port fees. BOX
Exchange LLC (``BOX'') assesses $1,000 per month for all SAIL Ports for
Market Making and $500 per month per port up to 5 ports for order entry
and $150 per month for each additional port.\13\ Miami International
Securities Exchange, LLC's (``MIAX'') MIAX Express Interface (``MEI'')
Fee levels are based on a tiered fee structure based on the Market
Maker's total monthly executed volume during the relevant month.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ See BOX's Fee Schedule.
\14\ MEI is a connection to MIAX systems that enables Market
Makers to submit simple and complex electronic quotes to MIAX. MIAX
caps its MEI Ports. For these Monthly MIAX MEI Fees levels, if the
Market Maker's total monthly executed volume during the relevant
month is less than 0.060% of the total monthly executed volume
reported by OCC in the market maker account type for MIAX-listed
option classes for that month, then the fee will be $14,500 instead
of the fee otherwise applicable to such level. See MIAX's Fee
Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Exchange believes that increasing the fee for SQF Ports and SQF
Purge Ports over 20 ports (21 and above) for Market Makers that qualify
as ``medium'' from $500 to $625 per month, and to increase the SQF Port
Fee and SQF Purge Port Fee Cap for Market Makers that qualify as
``large'' from $500 to $750 per month, is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the Exchange is offering different sizes of
Market Makers, based on Transactional Volume executed on the Exchange,
the ability pay different fees for some SQF Ports and SQF Purge Ports
above 20 ports. The proposal recognizes that some Market Makers may be
deemed ``small'' and may not be able to achieve the same cap as other
Market Makers. To this end, the Exchange proposes not to increase SQF
Port and SQF Purge Port Fees for over 20 ports for Market Makers that
qualify as ``small.'' To the extent that a Market Maker qualifies in a
given month as a ``medium'' Market Maker the Exchange proposes to
increase SQF Port and SQF Purge Port Fees from $500 to $625 per month.
This fee presumes to place a Market Maker that qualifies as ``medium''
on equal footing with a Market Maker that qualifies as a ``small''
Market Maker in terms of the fee, by setting different fees for each
group. The proposal presumes that based on Transactional Volume, these
Market Makers that qualify as ``medium'' have a greater ability to
obtain a greater amount of SQF Ports and SQF Purge Ports as compared to
Market Makers that qualify as ``small.'' Finally, to the extent that a
Market Maker qualifies in a given month as a ``large'' Market Maker the
Exchange proposes to increase SQF Port and SQF Purge Port Fees from
$500 to $750 per month. This fee presumes to place a Market Maker that
qualifies as ``large'' on equal footing with a Market Maker that
qualifies as a ``small'' Market Maker, and a Market Maker that
qualifies as ``medium'' in terms of the fee, by setting different fees
for each group. The proposal presumes that based on Transactional
Volume these Market Makers that qualify as ``large'' have the ability
to obtain the largest amount of SQF Ports and SQF Purge Ports. The
Exchange would uniformly apply the appropriate SQF Port and SQF Purge
Port Fee to each Market Maker group based on the same volume
calculation. Also, Market Makers would uniformly be assessed fees for
SQF Ports and SQF Purge Ports based on the proposed methodology.
NOM Market Makers are the only market participants that are
assessed SQF Port and SQF Purge Port fees because they are the only
market participants that are permitted to quote on the Exchange. SQF
Ports and SQF Purge Ports are only utilized in the Market Maker's
assigned options series. Unlike other market participants, NOM Market
Makers are subject to market

[[Page 57981]]

making and quoting obligations.\15\ These liquidity providers are
critical market participants in that they are the only market
participants that provide liquidity to NOM on a continuous basis.
Providing NOM Market Makers a means to manage their cost by applying
different fees for SQF Ports and SQF Purge Ports beyond 20 ports
enables these market participants to provide the necessary liquidity to
NOM at lower costs relative to their size. Therefore, because NOM
Market Makers fulfill a unique role on the Exchange, are the only
market participant required to submit quotes as part of their
obligations to operate on the Exchange, and, in light of that role,
they are eligible for certain incentives. The proposed SQF Port and SQF
Purge Fee cap is designed to continue to incent NOM Market Makers to
quote on NOM, thereby promoting liquidity, quote competition, and
trading opportunities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ See Options 2, Sections 4 and 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 2022, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'') proposed to restructure
fees relating to OTPs for Market Makers.\16\ In that rule change,\17\
NYSE Arca argued that,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 95412 (June 23,
2022), 87 FR 38786 (June 29, 2022) (SR-NYSEArca-2022-36). NYSE Arca
proposed to increase both the monthly fee per Market Maker OTP and
the number of issues covered by each additional OTP because, among
other reasons, the number of issues traded on the Exchange has
increased significantly in recent years.
\17\ Id at 38788.

Market Makers serve a unique and important function on the
Exchange (and other options exchanges) given the quote-driven nature
of options markets. Because options exchanges rely on actively
quoting Market Makers to facilitate a robust marketplace that
attracts order flow, options exchanges must attract and retain
Market Makers, including by setting competitive Market Maker permit
fees. Stated otherwise, changes to Market Maker permit fees can have
a direct effect on the ability of an exchange to compete for order
flow. The Exchange also believes that the number of options
exchanges on which Market Makers can effect option transactions also
ensures competition in the marketplace and constrains the ability of
exchanges to charge supracompetitive fees for access to its market
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Market Makers.

Further, NYSE ARCA noted that,\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ Id at 38790.

The Exchange further believes that its ability to set Market
Maker permit fees is constrained by competitive forces based on the
fact that Market Makers can, and have, chosen to terminate their
status as a Market Maker if they deem Market Maker permit fees to be
unreasonable or excessive. Specifically, the Exchange notes that a
BOX participant modified its access to BOX in connection with the
implementation of a proposed change to BOX's Market Maker permit
fees. The Exchange has also observed that another options exchange
group experienced decreases in market share following its proposed
modifications of its access fees (including Market Maker trading
permit fees), suggesting that market participants (including Market
Makers) are sensitive to changes in exchanges' access fees and may
respond by shifting their order flow elsewhere if they deem the fees
to be unreasonable or excessive.
There is no requirement, regulatory or otherwise, that any
Market Maker connect to and access any (or all of) the available
options exchanges. The Exchange also is not aware of any reason why
a Market Maker could not cease being a permit holder in response to
unreasonable price increases. The Exchange does not assess any
termination fee for a Market Maker to drop its OTP, nor is the
Exchange aware of any other costs that would be incurred by a Market
Maker to do so.

The Exchange likewise believes that its lower SQF Ports and SQF
Purge Port monthly fees beyond 20 ports is constrained by competitive
forces and that its proposed modifications to the SQF Port and SQF
Purge Fees is reasonably designed in consideration of the competitive
environment in which the Exchange operates, by balancing the value of
the enhanced benefits available to Market Makers due to the current
level of activity on the Exchange with a fee structure that will
continue to incent Market Makers to support increased liquidity, quote
competition, and trading opportunities on the Exchange, for the benefit
of all market participants.

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.
Intermarket Competition
The proposal does not impose an undue burden on intermarket
competition. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust
its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges. Because
competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because
market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices,
the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this
market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
Intramarket Competition
The Exchange believes that increasing the fee for SQF Ports and SQF
Purge Ports over 20 ports (21 and above) for Market Makers that qualify
as ``medium'' from $500 to $625 per month, and to increase the SQF Port
Fee and SQF Purge Port Fee Cap for Market Makers that qualify as
``large'' from $500 to $750 per month, does not impose an undue burden
on competition because the Exchange is offering different sizes of
Market Makers, based on Transactional Volume executed on the Exchange,
the ability pay different fees for some SQF Ports and SQF Purge Ports
above 20 ports. The proposal recognizes that some Market Makers may be
deemed ``small'' and may not be able to achieve the same cap as other
Market Makers. To this end, the Exchange proposes not to increase SQF
Port and SQF Purge Port Fees for over 20 ports for Market Makers that
qualify as ``small.'' To the extent that a Market Maker qualifies in a
given month as a ``medium'' Market Maker the Exchange proposes to
increase SQF Port and SQF Purge Port Fees from $500 to $625 per month.
This fee presumes to place a Market Maker that qualifies as ``medium''
on equal footing with a Market Maker that qualifies as a ``small''
Market Maker in terms of the fee, by setting different fees for each
group. The proposal presumes that based on Transactional Volume, these
Market Makers that qualify as ``medium'' have a greater ability to
obtain a greater amount of SQF Ports and SQF Purge Ports as compared to
Market Makers that qualify as ``small.'' Finally, to the extent that a
Market Maker qualifies in a given month as a ``large'' Market Maker the
Exchange proposes to increase SQF Port and SQF Purge Port Fees from
$500 to $750 per month. This fee presumes to place a Market Maker that
qualifies as ``large'' on equal footing with a Market Maker that
qualifies as a ``small'' Market Maker, and a Market Maker that
qualifies as ``medium'' in terms of the fee, by setting different fees
for each group. The proposal presumes that based on Transactional
Volume these Market Makers that qualify as ``large'' have the ability
to obtain the largest amount of SQF Ports and SQF Purge Ports. The
Exchange would uniformly apply the appropriate SQF Port and SQF Purge
Port Fee to each Market Maker group based on the same volume
calculation. Also, Market Makers would uniformly be assessed fees for
SQF Ports and SQF Purge Ports based on the proposed methodology.
NOM Market Makers are the only market participants that are
assessed

[[Page 57982]]

SQF Port and SQF Purge Port fees because they are the only market
participants that are permitted to quote on the Exchange. SQF Ports and
SQF Purge Ports are only utilized in the Market Maker's assigned
options series. Unlike other market participants, NOM Market Makers are
subject to market making and quoting obligations.\19\ These liquidity
providers are critical market participants in that they are the only
market participants that provide liquidity to NOM on a continuous
basis. Providing NOM Market Makers a means to manage their cost by
applying different fees for SQF Ports and SQF Purge Ports beyond 20
ports enables these market participants to provide the necessary
liquidity to NOM at lower costs relative to their size. Therefore,
because NOM Market Makers fulfill a unique role on the Exchange, are
the only market participant required to submit quotes as part of their
obligations to operate on the Exchange, and, in light of that role,
they are eligible for certain incentives. The proposed SQF Port and SQF
Purge Fee cap is designed to continue to incent NOM Market Makers to
quote on NOM, thereby promoting liquidity, quote competition, and
trading opportunities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ See Options 2, Sections 4 and 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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: (i)
necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) 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="https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml">https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml</a>); or
<bullet> Send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5123243d347c323e3c3c343f2522112234327f363e27"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f486819891d9979b9999919a8087b4879197da939b82">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>. Please include
file number SR-NASDAQ-2024-036 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

<bullet> Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to file number SR-NASDAQ-2024-036. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (<a href="https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml">https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml</a>). Copies of the 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
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not
include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We
may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted
material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All
submissions should refer to file number SR-NASDAQ-2024-036 and should
be submitted on or before August 6, 2024.

For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-15502 Filed 7-15-24; 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>

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on July 16, 2024.

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.