Home/Federal/Federal Register/2024-15503

Notice2024-15503

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Options 7, Section 9

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 57967-57971]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-15503]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-100489; File No. SR-Phlx-2024-29]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Options 7,
Section 9

July 10, 2024.
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, Nasdaq PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' 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 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 7, Section 9.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at <a href="https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/phlx/rules">https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/phlx/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 9, B, Port Fees,
to increase the SQF Port \3\ Fee cap for

[[Page 57968]]

certain Market Makers.\4\ Today, Phlx assesses $1,250 per port, per
month up to a maximum of $42,000 per month for an SQF Port that
receives inbound quotes at any time within that month.\5\ Today, Market
Makers are not assessed an active SQF Port Fee for additional ports
acquired for ten business days for the purpose of transitioning
technology.\6\ The Exchange proposes to add the words ``active port''
in parenthesis at the end of the description of SQF Port Fee to tie the
definition of an active port to the description for the port.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ ``Specialized Quote Feed'' or ``SQF'' is an interface that
allows Lead Market Makers, Streaming Quote Traders (``SQTs'') and
Remote Streaming Quote Traders (``RSQTs'') to connect, send, and
receive messages related to quotes, Immediate-or-Cancel Orders, and
auction responses into and from the Exchange. Features include the
following: (1) options symbol directory messages (e.g., underlying
and complex 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; (8) opening imbalance
messages; (9) auction notifications; and (10) auction responses. The
SQF Purge Interface only receives and notifies of purge requests
from the Lead Market Maker, SQT or RSQT. Lead Market Makers, SQTs
and RSQTs 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, the Market Order Spread Protection,
or Size Limitation in Options 3, Section 15(a)(1), (a)(2) and
(b)(2), respectively. See Options 3, Section 7(a)(i)(B).
\4\ The term ``Market Maker'' is defined in Options 1, Section
1(b)(28) as a member of the Exchange who is registered as an options
Market Maker pursuant to Options 2, Section 12(a). A Market Maker
includes SQTs and RSQTs as well as Floor Market Makers. See Options
7, Section 1(c). The term ``Floor Market Maker'' is a Market Maker
who is neither an SQT or an RSQT. A Floor Market Maker may provide a
quote in open outcry. See Options 8, Section 2(a)(4).
\5\ An active port shall mean that the port was utilized to
submit a quote to the System during a given month. See Options 7,
Section 9, B.
\6\ The member organization is required to provide the Exchange
with written notification of the transition and all additional
ports, provided at no cost, will be removed at the end of the ten
business days. See Options 7, Section 9, B.
\7\ The Exchange also proposes a technical amendment to add a
comma between ``per port'' and ``per month'' for the SQF Port Fee in
Options 7, Section 9, B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

At this time, the Exchange proposes to increase the monthly maximum
SQF Port Fee Cap of $42,000 per month for certain Market Makers based
on the size of the Market Maker on Phlx. The Exchange is determining
the size of the Market Maker based on the amount of transactional
volume executed on Phlx in a given month. The Exchange proposes to take
each Market's Maker's electronic monthly transactional volume via SQF
on Phlx and divide that number by the sum of all Market Maker
electronic monthly transactional volume via SQF on Phlx
(``Transactional Volume''). All SQF interest would be considered. Each
Market Maker would then be classified on Phlx, for the purpose of the
SQF Port Fee Cap, as a ``small,'' ``medium,'' or ``large'' Market Maker
based on their Transactional Volume on Phlx to determine the applicable
cap in a given month. Market Makers that qualify as ``small'' would
continue to be subject to the current $42,000 per month cap on SQF Port
Fees. Market Makers that qualify as ``medium'' would be subject to an
increased monthly cap of $46,000 for SQF Port Fees. Finally, Market
Makers that qualify as ``large'' would be subject to an increased
monthly cap of $50,000 for SQF Port Fees.
As is the case today, the Exchange would not assess a Market Maker
an SQF Port Fee beyond the monthly cap once the Market Maker has
exceeded the monthly cap for the respective month. Despite increasing
the maximum SQF Port Fees for Market Makers that qualify as ``medium''
and ``large,'' the Exchange will continue to offer all Market Makers
the opportunity to cap their SQF Port Fees to limit their costs as they
would not be assessed an SQF Port Fee beyond the applicable cap each
month.
A Phlx Market Maker requires only one SQF Port to submit quotes in
its assigned options series into Phlx. A Phlx Market Maker may submit
all quotes through one SQF Port. While a Phlx Market Maker may elect to
obtain multiple SQF Ports to organize its business,\8\ only one SQF
Port is necessary for a Phlx Market Maker to fulfill its regulatory
quoting obligations.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ For example, a Phlx 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 member organization.
\9\ Phlx Market Makers have various regulatory requirements as
provided for in Options 2, Section 4. Additionally, Phlx 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 Phlx and only
Market Makers may utilize SQF Ports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\11\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
\11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ For example, a Phlx 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 member organization.
\13\ Phlx Market Makers have various regulatory requirements as
provided for in Options 2, Section 4. Additionally, Phlx 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 Phlx 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. Phlx must manage the
security and message traffic, among other things, for each port.
Utilizing the various caps 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 issued on Phlx. The various
SQF Port Fee Caps were determined based on the level of Transactional
Volume on Phlx in 2024 for Market Makers. The Exchange assessed each
level of Market Maker an increased cap of $4,000 based on size, as
reflected by Transactional Volume, to reflect the various sizes of
Market Makers present on Phlx at this time. By capping the SQF Ports 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. The SQF Port Fee Caps 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.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ 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.

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

[[Page 57969]]

Second, the Exchange notes that multiple SQF Ports are not
necessary, however, to the extent that some Market Makers elect to
obtain multiple SQF Ports, the Exchange is offering to cap their total
port cost. Phlx believes that the existence of a cap based on ``size''
of the Market Maker 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
Phlx. Further, the existence of an SQF Port Fee Cap allows for
efficiencies and permits Market Makers to increase their number of
ports beyond the cap. The cap levels the playing field by allowing
various types of Market Makers that want to obtain a larger number of
ports to do so with the certainty of a fee cap. Without the SQF Fee
Cap, Phlx Market Makers may pay more to obtain multiple SQF Ports on
Phlx. Other market 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.\15\ 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.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ See BOX's Fee Schedule.
\16\ 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 proposed pricing change to increase the SQF Fee Cap for Market
Makers that qualify as ``medium'' from $42,000 to $46,000 per month for
SQF Port Fees, and for Market Makers that qualify as ``large'' from
$42,000 to $50,000 per month for SQF Port Fees, is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange is offering different
sizes of Market Makers, based on Transactional Volume executed on Phlx,
the ability to cap their costs at different levels and potentially
obtain some SQF Ports at no cost. 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 Fees for Market Makers that qualify as
``small'' in a given month. To the extent that a Market Maker qualifies
in a given month as a ``medium'' Market Maker the Exchange proposes to
increase the cap from $42,000 to $46,000 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 cap, by setting different fee caps 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 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 the cap
from $42,000 to $50,000 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 cap, by setting different fee
caps 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. The Exchange would uniformly
apply the appropriate Market Maker cap to each Market Maker group based
on the same volume calculation. Also, Market Makers who exceed their
applicable cap would uniformly not be assessed any fee for SQF Ports
beyond the applicable maximum amount.
Market Makers are the only market participants that are assessed
SQF Port Fees because they are the only market participants that are
permitted to quote on the Exchange. SQF Ports are only utilized in the
Market Maker's assigned options series. Unlike other market
participants, Market Makers are subject to market making and quoting
obligations.\17\ These liquidity providers are critical market
participants in that they are the only market participants that provide
liquidity to Phlx on a continuous basis. In addition, the Exchange
notes that Lead Market Makers are required to submit quotes in the
Opening Process to open an options series.\18\ Market Makers are
subject to a number of fees, unlike other market participants. Market
Makers pay separate permit fees,\19\ and Streaming Quote Trader
Fees,\20\ in addition to other fees paid by other market participants.
Providing all Market Makers a means to cap their cost related to
quoting at a rate that reflects their ``size'' and enabling all Market
Makers to acquire SQF Ports at no cost beyond the applicable cap
enables these market participants to provide the necessary liquidity to
Phlx at lower costs. Therefore, because 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 Fee Cap is designed to continue to incent all
Market Makers to quote on Phlx, thereby promoting liquidity, quote
competition, and trading opportunities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ See Options 2, Sections 4 and 5.
\18\ See Options 3, Section 8.
\19\ See Options 7, Section 8, A.
\20\ See Options 7, Section 8, B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 2022, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'') proposed to restructure
fees relating to OTPs for Market Makers.\21\ In that rule change,\22\
NYSE Arca argued that,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ 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.
\22\ 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,\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ 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),

[[Page 57970]]

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 ability to cap SQF Ports
Fees is constrained by competitive forces and that its proposed
modifications to the SQF Port Fee cap is reasonably designed in
consideration of the competitive environment in which the Exchange
operates, by balancing the value of the enhanced benefits available to
all Market Makers, based on their transactional volume and presumed
``size.'' At the same time, the Exchange believes the proposed fees
will 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 proposed pricing change to increase the SQF Fee Cap for Market
Makers that qualify as ``medium'' from $42,000 to $46,000 per month for
SQF Port Fees, and for Market Makers that qualify as ``large'' from
$42,000 to $50,000 per month for SQF Port Fees does not impose an undue
burden on competition because the Exchange is offering different sizes
of Market Makers, based on Transactional Volume executed on Phlx, the
ability to cap their costs at different levels and potentially obtain
some SQF Ports at no cost. 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 the extent that a Market Maker qualifies
in a given month as a ``medium'' Market Maker the Exchange proposes to
increase the cap from $42,000 to $46,000 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 cap, by setting different fee caps 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 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 the cap
from $42,000 to $50,000 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 cap, by setting different fee
caps 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. The Exchange would uniformly
apply the appropriate Market Maker cap to each Market Maker group based
on the same volume calculation. Also, Market Makers who exceed their
applicable cap would uniformly not be assessed any fee for SQF Ports
beyond the applicable maximum amount.
Market Makers are the only market participants that are assessed
SQF Port Fees because they are the only market participants that are
permitted to quote on the Exchange. SQF Ports are only utilized in the
Market Maker's assigned options series. Unlike other market
participants, Market Makers are subject to market making and quoting
obligations.\24\ These liquidity providers are critical market
participants in that they are the only market participants that provide
liquidity to Phlx on a continuous basis. In addition, the Exchange
notes that Lead Market Makers are required to submit quotes in the
Opening Process to open an options series.\25\ Market Makers are
subject to a number of fees, unlike other market participants. Market
Makers pay separate permit fees,\26\ and Streaming Quote Trader
Fees,\27\ in addition to other fees paid by other market participants.
Providing all Market Makers a means to cap their cost related to
quoting at a rate that reflects their ``size'' and enabling all Market
Makers to acquire SQF Ports at no cost beyond the applicable cap,
enables these market participants to provide the necessary liquidity to
Phlx at lower costs. Therefore, because 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 Fee Cap is designed to continue to incent all
Market Makers to quote on Phlx, thereby promoting liquidity, quote
competition, and trading opportunities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ See Options 2, Sections 4 and 5.
\25\ See Options 3, Section 8.
\26\ See Options 7, Section 8, A.
\27\ See Options 7, Section 8, B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\28\ 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:

[[Page 57971]]

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#f183849d94dc929e9c9c949f8582b1829492df969e87"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="740601181159171b1919111a0007340711175a131b02">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>. Please include
file number SR-Phlx-2024-29 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-Phlx-2024-29. 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-Phlx-2024-29 and should be
submitted on or before August 6, 2024.

For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\29\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-15503 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.