[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 200 (Tuesday, October 18, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63119-63131]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-22557]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-96046; File No. SR-MRX-2022-20]


Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq MRX, LLC; Notice of Filing 
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend MRX's 
Pricing Schedule at Options 7, Section 6

October 12, 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 October 11, 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 MRX's Pricing Schedule at Options 7, 
section 6.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's 
website at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/mrx/rules, 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
    MRX proposes to amend its Pricing Schedule at Options 7, section 6, 
Ports and Other Services, to assess port fees, which were not assessed 
until this year. Prior to this year, MRX did not assess its Members any 
port fees. MRX launched its options market in 2016 \3\ And Members did 
not pay any port fees until 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange initially filed the proposed pricing changes on 
May 2, 2022 (SR-MRX-2022-04) instituting fees for membership, ports 
and market data. On June 29, 2022, the Exchange withdrew that 
filing, and submitted separate filings for membership, ports and 
market data. SR-MRX-2022-06 replaced the port fees set forth in SR-
MRX-2022-04. SR-MRX-2022-06 was withdrawn on July 1, 2022 and 
replaced with SR-MRX-2022-09. On August 25, 2022. SR-MRX-2022-09 
which was withdrawn and replaced with SR-MRX-2022-12. The instant 
filing replaces SR-MRX-2022-12 which was withdrawn on October 11, 
2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed changes are designed to update fees for MRX's services 
to reflect their current value--rather than their value when it was 
established six years ago--based on MRX's ability to deliver

[[Page 63120]]

value to its customers through technology, liquidity and functionality. 
Newly-opened exchanges often charge no fees for certain services, such 
as ports, in order to attract order flow to an exchange, and later 
amend their fees to reflect the true value of those services.\4\ 
Allowing newly-opened exchanges time to build and sustain market share 
before charging non-transactional fees encourages market entry and 
promotes competition. The proposed port fees within Options 7, section 
6, Ports and Other Services, are described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No 90076 (October 
2, 2020), 85 FR 63620 (October 8, 2020) (Notice of Filing and 
Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt the 
Initial Fee Schedule and Other Fees for MEMX LLC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposal reflects MRX's assessment that it has gained 
sufficient market share to compete effectively against the other 15 
options exchanges without waiving fees for ports. These types of fees 
are assessed by options exchanges that compete with MRX in the sale of 
exchange services--indeed, as of the date of the initial filing of 
these port fees, MRX was the only options exchange (out of the 16 
current options exchanges) not assessing port fees. New exchanges 
commonly waive connectivity fees to attract market participants, 
facilitating their entry into the market and, once there is sufficient 
depth and breadth of liquidity, ``graduate'' to compete against 
established exchanges and charge fees that reflect the value of their 
services.\5\ If MRX is incorrect in this assessment, that error will be 
reflected in MRX's ability to compete with other options exchanges.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For example, MIAX Emerald commenced operations as a national 
securities exchange registered on March 1, 2019. See Securities 
Exchange Act Release No. 84891 (December 20, 2018), 83 FR 67421 
(December 28, 2018) (File No. 10-233) (order approving application 
of MIAX Emerald, LLC for registration as a national securities 
exchange). MIAX Emerald filed to adopt its transaction fees and 
certain of its non-transaction fees in its filing SR-EMERALD-2019-
15. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85393 (March 21, 2019), 
84 FR 11599 (March 27, 2019) (SR-EMERALD-2019-15) (Notice of Filing 
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Establish 
the MIAX Emerald Fee Schedule). MIAX Emerald waived its one-time 
application fee and monthly Trading Permit Fees assessable to EEMs 
and Market Makers among other fees within SR-EMERALD-2019-15.
    \6\ Nasdaq announced that, beginning in 2022, it plans to 
migrate its North American markets to Amazon Web Services in a 
phased approach, starting with MRX. The MRX migration will take 
place in November 2022. The proposed fee changes are entirely 
unrelated to this effort.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend fees for the following ports within 
Options 7, section 6: (1) FIX,\7\ (2) SQF; \8\ (3) SQF Purge; \9\ (4) 
OTTO; \10\ (5) CTI; \11\ (6) FIX DROP; \12\ and Disaster Recovery 
Ports.\13\ Currently, no fees are being assessed for these ports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ ``Financial Information eXchange'' or ``FIX'' is an 
interface that allows Members and their Sponsored Customers to 
connect, send, and receive messages related to orders and auction 
orders to the Exchange. Features include the following: (1) 
execution messages; (2) order messages; (3) risk protection triggers 
and cancel notifications; and (4) post trade allocation messages. 
See Supplementary Material .03(a) to Options 3, section 7.
    \8\ ``Specialized Quote Feed'' or ``SQF'' is an interface that 
allows Market Makers to connect, send, and receive messages related 
to quotes, Immediate-or-Cancel Orders, and auction responses to 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 Market Maker. 
Market Makers may only enter interest into SQF in their assigned 
options series. See Supplementary Material .03(c) to Options 3, 
section 7.
    \9\ SQF Purge is a specific port for the SQF interface that only 
receives and notifies of purge requests from the Market Maker. 
Dedicated SQF Purge Ports enable Market Makers to seamlessly manage 
their ability to remove their quotes in a swift manner.
    \10\ ``Ouch to Trade Options'' or ``OTTO'' is an interface that 
allows Members and their Sponsored Customers to connect, send, and 
receive messages related to orders, auction orders, and auction 
responses to 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) order 
messages; (6) risk protection triggers and cancel notifications; (7) 
auction notifications; (8) auction responses; and (9) post trade 
allocation messages. See Supplementary Material .03(b) to Options 3, 
section 7.
    \11\ Clearing Trade Interface (``CTI'') is a real-time cleared 
trade update message that is sent to a Member after an execution has 
occurred and contains trade details specific to that Member. The 
information includes, among other things, the following: (i) The 
Clearing Member Trade Agreement (``CMTA'') or The Options Clearing 
Corporation (``OCC'') number; (ii) badge or mnemonic; (iii) account 
number; (iv) information which identifies the transaction type 
(e.g., auction type) for billing purposes; and (v) market 
participant capacity. See Options 3, section 23(b)(1).
    \12\ FIX DROP is a real-time order and execution update message 
that is sent to a Member after an order been received/modified or an 
execution has occurred and contains trade details specific to that 
Member. The information includes, among other things, the following: 
(i) executions; (ii) cancellations; (iii) modifications to an 
existing order; and (iv) busts or post-trade corrections. See 
Options 3, section 23(b)(3).
    \13\ Disaster Recovery ports provide connectivity to the 
Exchange's disaster recovery data center, to be utilized in the 
event the Exchange should failover during a trading day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to assess no fee for the first FIX Port 
obtained by an Electronic Access Member \14\ or the first SQF Port 
obtained by a Market Maker.\15\ The Exchange proposes to assess a FIX 
Port Fee of $650 per port, per month, per account number \16\ for each 
subsequent port beyond the first port. The Exchange proposes to assess 
an SQF Port Fee of $1,250 per port, per month for each subsequent port 
beyond the first port.\17\ The Exchange proposes to assess an SQF Purge 
Port Fee of $1,250 per port, per month. The Exchange proposes to assess 
an OTTO Port Fee of $650 per port, per month, per account number. The 
Exchange proposes to assess a CTI Port Fee and a FIX Drop Port Fee of 
$650 per port, per month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The first FIX Port would be provided to each Electronic 
Access Member. The term ``Electronic Access Member'' or ``EAM'' 
means a Member that is approved to exercise trading privileges 
associated with EAM Rights. See General 1, section 1(a)(6). Also, 
the first SQF Port would be provided to each Market Maker. The term 
``Market Makers'' refers to ``Competitive Market Makers'' and 
``Primary Market Makers'' collectively. See Options 1, section 
1(a)(21). The term ``Competitive Market Maker'' means a Member that 
is approved to exercise trading privileges associated with CMM 
Rights. See Options 1, section 1(a)(12). The term ``Primary Market 
Maker'' means a Member that is approved to exercise trading 
privileges associated with PMM Rights. See Options 1, section 
1(a)(35).
    \15\ The first SQF Port would be provided to each Market Maker. 
The term ``Market Makers'' refers to ``Competitive Market Makers'' 
and ``Primary Market Makers'' collectively. See Options 1, section 
1(a)(21). The term ``Competitive Market Maker'' means a Member that 
is approved to exercise trading privileges associated with CMM 
Rights. See Options 1, section 1(a)(12). The term ``Primary Market 
Maker'' means a Member that is approved to exercise trading 
privileges associated with PMM Rights. See Options 1, section 
1(a)(35).
    \16\ An ``account number'' shall mean a number assigned to a 
Member. Members may have more than one account number. See Options 
1, section 1(a)(1). Account numbers are free on MRX.
    \17\ SQF's Port Fees are assessed a higher dollar fee as 
compared to FIX and OTTO ports ($1,250 vs. $650) because the 
Exchange has to maintain options assignments within SQF and manage 
quoting traffic. Market Makers may utilize SQF Ports in their 
assigned options series. Market Maker badges are assigned to 
specific SQF ports to manage the option series in which a Market 
Maker may quote. Additionally, because of quoting obligations 
provided for within Options 2, section 5, Market Makers are required 
to provide liquidity in their assigned options series which 
generates quote traffic. The Exchange notes because of the higher 
fee, SQF ports are billed per port, per month while FIX and OTTO 
ports are billed per port, per month, per account number. Members 
may have more than one account number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to assess no fee for the first FIX Disaster 
Recovery Port obtained by an Electronic Access Member \18\ or the first 
SQF Disaster

[[Page 63121]]

Recovery Port obtained by a Market Maker.\19\ The Exchange proposes to 
assess each additional FIX Disaster Recovery Port and each additional 
SQF Disaster Recovery Port a fee of $50 per port, per month, per 
account number. Additionally, the Exchange proposes to assess a 
Disaster Recovery Fee for SQF Purge and OTTO Ports of $50 per port, per 
month, per account number. Finally, the Exchange proposes to assess a 
Disaster Recovery Fee for CTI Ports and FIX DROP Ports of $50 per port, 
per month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The first FIX Port would be provided to each Electronic 
Access Member. The term ``Electronic Access Member'' or ``EAM'' 
means a Member that is approved to exercise trading privileges 
associated with EAM Rights. See General 1, section 1(a)(6). Also, 
the first SQF Port would be provided to each Market Maker. The term 
``Market Makers'' refers to ``Competitive Market Makers'' and 
``Primary Market Makers'' collectively. See Options 1, section 
1(a)(21). The term ``Competitive Market Maker'' means a Member that 
is approved to exercise trading privileges associated with CMM 
Rights. See Options 1, section 1(a)(12). The term ``Primary Market 
Maker'' means a Member that is approved to exercise trading 
privileges associated with PMM Rights. See Options 1, section 
1(a)(35).
    \19\ The first SQF Port would be provided to each Market Maker. 
The term ``Market Makers'' refers to ``Competitive Market Makers'' 
and ``Primary Market Makers'' collectively. See Options 1, section 
1(a)(21). The term ``Competitive Market Maker'' means a Member that 
is approved to exercise trading privileges associated with CMM 
Rights. See Options 1, section 1(a)(12). The term ``Primary Market 
Maker'' means a Member that is approved to exercise trading 
privileges associated with PMM Rights. See Options 1, section 
1(a)(35).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The OTTO Port, CTI Port, FIX Port, FIX Drop Port and all Disaster 
Recovery Ports \20\ are available to all Electronic Access Members, and 
will be subject to a monthly cap of $7,500.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ This includes FIX, SQF, SQF Purge, OTTO, CTI and FIX Drop 
Disaster Recovery Ports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SQF Port and the SQF Purge Port are available to all Market 
Makers, and will be subject to a monthly cap of $17,500.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Only Market Makers may quote on MRX. The Exchange is 
proposing non-substantive technical amendments to add commas within 
the ``Production'' column of the proposed rule text to separate 
terms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is not amending the TradeInfo MRX Interface \22\ or 
the Nasdaq MRX Depth of Market, Nasdaq MRX Order Feed, Nasdaq MRX Top 
Quote Feed, Nasdaq MRX Trades Feed, or Nasdaq MRX Spread Feed Ports; 
all of these aforementioned ports will continue to be assessed no fees. 
Additionally, as is the case today, the Disaster Recovery Ports for 
TradeInfo and the Nasdaq MRX Depth of Market, Nasdaq MRX Order Feed, 
Nasdaq MRX Top Quote Feed, Nasdaq MRX Trades Feed and Nasdaq MRX Spread 
Feed Ports will not be assessed a fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ TradeInfo is a user interface that permits a Member to: (i) 
search all orders submitted in a particular security or all orders 
of a particular type, regardless of their status (open, canceled, 
executed, etc.); (ii) view orders and executions; and (iii) download 
orders and executions for recordkeeping purposes. TradeInfo users 
may also cancel open orders at the order, port or firm mnemonic 
level through TradeInfo. See Options 3, section 23(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Order and Quote Entry Protocols

    Only one order protocol is required for an MRX Member to submit 
orders into MRX. The Exchange will provide each Electronic Access 
Member the first FIX Port at no cost to submit orders into MRX. Only 
one account number is necessary to transact an options business on MRX 
and account numbers are available to Members at no cost. Only one quote 
protocol is required for an MRX Market Maker to submit quotes into MRX. 
The Exchange will provide each Market Maker the first SQF Port at no 
cost to submit quotes into MRX. A quoting protocol, such as SQF, is 
only required to the extent an MRX Member has been appointed as a 
Market Maker in an options series pursuant to Options 2, section 1.
    Only MRX Members may utilize ports on MRX. Any market participant 
that sends orders to a Member would not need to utilize a port. The 
Member can send all orders, proprietary and agency, through one port to 
MRX. Members may elect to obtain multiple account numbers to organize 
their business, however only one account number and one port for orders 
and one port for quotes is necessary for a Member to trade on MRX.
    MRX also offers an OTTO protocol. Unlike FIX, which offers routing 
capability, OTTO does not permit routing. Depending on a Member's 
business model, Members may elect to purchase an OTTO Port in addition 
to the first FIX Port offered at no cost. Members may prefer one 
protocol as compared to another protocol, for example, the ability to 
route may cause a Member to utilize FIX and a Member that desires to 
execute an order locally may utilize OTTO. Also, the OTTO Port offers 
lower latency as compared to the FIX Port, which may be attractive to 
Members depending on their trading behavior. MRX Members utilizing the 
first FIX Port offered at no cost do not need to purchase an OTTO Port. 
However, Members may elect to utilize both order entry protocols, 
depending on how they organize their business. Because the Exchange is 
providing the first FIX Port at no cost, the use of an OTTO Port is 
optional. OTTO provides MRX Members with an additional choice as to the 
type of protocol that they may use to submit orders to the Exchange. 
Today, Nasdaq Phlx LLC (``Phlx'') and Nasdaq BX, Inc. (``BX'') offer 
only a FIX Port to submit orders on those options markets.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Phlx and BX Options 3, section 7 for a list of 
protocols.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, while only one protocol is necessary to submit orders into 
MRX, Members may choose to purchase a greater number of order entry 
ports, depending on that Member's business model.\24\ To the extent 
that Electronic Access Members chose to utilize more than one FIX Port, 
the Electronic Access Member would be assessed $650 per port, per 
month, per account number for each subsequent optional port beyond the 
first port. To the extent that Market Makers chose to utilize more than 
one SQF Port, the Market Maker would be assessed $1,250 per port, per 
month for each subsequent optional port beyond the first port. 
Additionally, to the extent a Member expended more than $7,500 for FIX 
Ports or more than $17,500 for SQF Ports, the Exchange would not charge 
an MRX Member for additional FIX or SQF Ports, respectively, beyond the 
cap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ For example, a Member may desire to utilize multiple FIX or 
OTTO Ports for accounting purposes, to measure performance, for 
regulatory reasons or other determinations that are specific to that 
Member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other Protocols

    The Exchange's proposal to offer an SQF Purge Port for $1,250 per 
port, per month is optional. The SQF Purge Port is designed to assist 
Market Makers in the management of, and risk control over, their 
quotes. Market Makers may utilize a purge port to reduce uncertainty 
and to manage risk by purging all quotes in their assigned options 
series. Of note, Market Makers may only enter interest into SQF in 
their assigned options series. Additionally, the SQF Purge Port may be 
utilized by a Market Maker in the event that the Member has a system 
issue and determines to purge its quotes from the order book. The SQF 
Purge Port is optional as Market Makers have various ways of purging 
their quotes from the order book. First of all, a Market Maker may 
cancel quotes through SQF in their assigned option series.\25\ Second, 
a Member may cancel any bids or offers in any series of options by 
requesting MRX Market Operations staff to effect such cancellation as 
per the instructions of the Member.\26\ Third, in the event of a loss 
of communication with the Exchange, MRX offers the ability to cancel 
all of a Member's open quotes via a cancel-on-disconnect control.\27\ 
Fourth, MRX offers Market Makers the ability, with respect to quotes, 
to establish pre-determined levels of risk exposure which would be 
utilized to automatically remove quotes in all

[[Page 63122]]

series of an options class.\28\ Accordingly, the Exchange believes that 
the SQF Purge Port provides an efficient option to other available 
services which allow a Market Maker to cancel quotes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ SQF Purge Ports, similar to SQF Ports, allow Market Makers 
to mass cancel quotes.
    \26\ See Options 3, section 19, Mass Cancellation of Trading 
Interest.
    \27\ See MRX Options 3, section 18, Detection of Loss. This risk 
protection is free.
    \28\ See MRX Options 3, section 15(a)(3)(B). Thresholds may be 
set by Members based on percentage, volume, delta or vega. This risk 
protection is free.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CTI Ports and FIX DROP Ports are optional as Members have multiple 
ways of receiving information concerning open orders and executed 
transactions. First, FIX and OTTO protocols provide Members with real-
time order execution messages similar to the Clearing Trade Interface 
and FIX DROP. Second, TradeInfo provides Members with the ability to 
query open orders and order executions real-time, at no cost, similar 
to the Clearing Trade Interface and FIX DROP. Third, Members receive 
free daily reports listing open orders and trade executions from the 
Exchange. While not real-time, the Open Orders Report and Trade Detail 
Report provide Members with information similar to the Clearing Trade 
Interface and FIX DROP.

Disaster Recovery

    With respect to Disaster Recovery Ports, the Exchange proposes to 
assess no fee for the first FIX Disaster Recovery Port obtained by an 
Electronic Access Member or the first SQF Disaster Recovery Port 
obtained by a Market Maker. The Exchange proposes to assess no fees for 
these ports to provide Members with continuous access to MRX in the 
event of a failover at no cost. Electronic Access Members only require 
one FIX Disaster Recovery Port to submit orders in the event of a 
failover. Market Makers only require one SQF Disaster Recovery Port to 
submit quotes in the event of a failover. Electronic Access Members may 
elect to purchase additional optional FIX Disaster Recovery Ports for 
$50 per port, per month, per account number. Market Makers may elect to 
purchase additional optional SQF Disaster Recovery Ports for $50 per 
port, per month, per account number. The additional FIX and SQF 
Disaster Recovery Ports are not necessary to connect to the Exchange in 
the event of a failover because the Exchange has provided Members with 
a FIX Disaster Recovery Port and an SQF Disaster Recovery Port at no 
cost.
    Further, the Exchange's proposal to offer Disaster Recovery Ports 
for SQF Purge Ports and OTTO Ports for $50 per port, per month, per 
account number and Disaster Recovery Ports for CTI Ports and FIX DROP 
Ports for $50 per port, per month is optional. As noted herein, today, 
there are other alternatives for these ports. The purchase of an SQF 
Purge Port, OTTO Port, CTI Port, and FIX DROP Port in production are 
optional and, therefore, so is the purchase of Disaster Recovery Ports 
for these ports. The proposed Disaster Recovery Port fees are intended 
to encourage Members to be efficient when purchasing Disaster Recovery 
Ports. Similar to all other ports, Disaster Recovery Ports need to be 
maintained by the Exchange.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ The Exchange maintains ports in a number of ways to ensure 
that ports are properly connected to the Exchange at all times. This 
includes offering testing, ensuring all ports are up-to-date with 
the latest code releases, as well as ensuring that all ports meet 
the Exchange's information security specifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, in the event that an MRX Member elects to subscribe to 
multiple ports, the Exchange offers a monthly cap beyond which a Member 
would be assessed no additional port fees in a given month. As noted 
above, the SQF Port and the SQF Purge Port are subject to a monthly cap 
of $17,500 and the OTTO Port, CTI Port, FIX Port, FIX Drop Port and all 
Disaster Recovery Ports are subject to a monthly cap of $7,500.
    As noted herein, these different protocols are not all necessary to 
conduct business on MRX; a Member may choose among protocols based on 
their business workflow. The proposed port fees are similar to fees 
assessed today by GEMX.\30\ The Exchange's proposal to offer the first 
FIX and SQF Port at no cost as well as the first FIX and SQF Disaster 
Recovery Ports at no cost would allow MRX Members to submit orders and 
quotes into MRX at no cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See GEMX Options 7, section 6.C. (Ports and Other 
Services).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with section 
6(b) of the Act,\31\ in general, and furthers the objectives of 
sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\32\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \32\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed changes to the Pricing Schedule are reasonable in 
several respects. As a threshold matter, the Exchange is subject to 
significant competitive forces in the market for order flow, which 
constrains its pricing determinations. The fact that the market for 
order flow is competitive has long been recognized by the courts. In 
NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit 
stated, ``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is 
`fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market 
system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that 
act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of 
where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to 
take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange 
possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of 
order flow from broker dealers' . . . .'' \33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See NetCoalition, 615 F.3d at 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (quoting 
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2, 2008), 73 FR 
74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their 
preference for competition over regulatory intervention to determine 
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation 
NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market 
model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in 
determining prices and SRO revenues, and also recognized that current 
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in 
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most 
important to investors and listed companies.'' \34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting 
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Congress directed the Commission to ``rely on `competition, 
whenever possible, in meeting its regulatory responsibilities for 
overseeing the SROs and the national market system.' '' \35\ As a 
result, the Commission has historically relied on competitive forces to 
determine whether a fee proposal is equitable, fair, reasonable, and 
not unreasonably or unfairly discriminatory. ``If competitive forces 
are operative, the self-interest of the exchanges themselves will work 
powerfully to constrain unreasonable or unfair behavior.'' \36\ 
Accordingly, ``the existence of significant competition provides a 
substantial basis for finding that the terms of an exchange's fee 
proposal are equitable, fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably or 
unfairly discriminatory.'' \37\ In its 2019 guidance

[[Page 63123]]

on fee proposals, Commission staff indicated that they would look at 
factors beyond the competitive environment, such as cost, only if a 
``proposal lacks persuasive evidence that the proposed fee is 
constrained by significant competitive forces.'' \38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See NetCoalition, 615 F.3d at 534-35; see also H.R. Rep. 
No. 94-229 at 92 (1975) (``[I]t is the intent of the conferees that 
the national market system evolve through the interplay of 
competitive forces as unnecessary regulatory restrictions are 
removed.'').
    \36\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2, 
2008), 73 FR 74,770 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-21).
    \37\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

History of MRX Operations

    Over the years, MRX has amended its transactional pricing to remain 
competitive and attract order flow to the Exchange.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, ``Staff 
Guidance on SRO Rule filings Relating to Fees'' (May 21, 2019), 
available at https://www.sec.gov/tm/staff-guidance-sro-rule-filings-fees.
    \39\ See e.g. Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 77292 (March 
4, 2016), 81 FR 12770 (March 10, 2016) (SR-ISEMercury-2016-02) 
(Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule 
Change To Establish the Schedule of Fees); 77409 (March 21, 2016), 
81 FR 16240 (March 25, 2016) (SR-ISEMercury-2016-05) (Notice of 
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend 
the Schedule of Fees); 81 FR 16238 (March 21, 2016), 81 FR 16238 
(March 25, 2016) (SR-ISEMercury-2016-06) (Notice of Filing and 
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the 
Schedule of Fees); 77841 (May 16, 2016), 81 FR 31986 (SR-ISEMercury-
2016-11) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed 
Rule Change To Amend the Schedule of Fees); 82537 (January 19, 
2018), 83 FR 3784 (January 26, 2018) (SR-MRX-2018-01) (Notice of 
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend 
the Schedule of Fees To Introduce a New Pricing Model); 82990 (April 
4, 2018), 83 FR 15434 (April 10, 2018) (SR-MRX-2018-10) (Notice of 
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend 
Chapter IV of the Exchange's Schedule of Fees); 28677 (June 14, 
2018), 83 FR 28677 (June 20, 2018) (SR-MRX-2018-19) (Notice of 
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To 
Increase Certain Route-Out Fees Set Forth in section II.A of the 
Schedule of Fees); 84113 (September 13, 2018), 83 FR 47386 
(September 19, 2018) (SR-MRX-2018-27) (Notice of Filing and 
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Relocate the 
Exchange's Schedule of Fees); 85143 (February 14, 2019), 84 FR 5508 
(February 21, 2019) (SR-MRX-2019-02) (Notice of Filing and Immediate 
Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Pricing 
Schedule at Options 7, section 3); 85313 (March 14, 2019), 84 FR 
10357 (March 20, 2019) (SR-MRX-2019-05) (Notice of Filing and 
Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to PIM 
Fees and Rebates); 86326 (July 8, 2019), 84 FR 33300 (July 12, 2019) 
(SR-MRX-2019-14) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a 
Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Complex Order Pricing); 88022 (January 
23, 2020), 85 FR 5263 (January 29, 2020) (SR-MRX-2020-02) (Notice of 
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend 
MRX Pricing Schedule); 89046 (June 11, 2020), 85 FR 36633 (June 17, 
2020) (SR-MRX-2020-11) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness 
of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Pricing Schedule at Options 7); 
89320 (July 15, 2020), 85 FR 44135 (July 21, 2020) (SR-MRX-2020-14) 
(Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule 
Change To Amend Its Pricing Schedule at Options 7, section 5, Other 
Options Fees and Rebates, in Connection With the Pricing for Orders 
Entered Into the Exchanges Price Improvement Mechanism); 90503 
(November 24, 2020), 85 FR 77317 (December 1, 2020) (SR-MRX-2020-18) 
(Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule 
Change To Amend Its Pricing Schedule at Options 7 for Orders Entered 
Into the Exchange's Price Improvement Mechanism); 90434 (November 
16, 2020), 85 FR 74473 (November 20, 2020) (SR-MRX-2020-19) (Notice 
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To the 
Exchange's Pricing Schedule at Options 7 To Amend Taker Fees for 
Regular Orders); 90455 (November 18, 2020), 85 FR 75064 (November 
24, 2020) (SR-MRX-2020-21) (Notice of Filing and Immediate 
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Pricing 
Schedule); and 91687 (April 27, 2021), 86 FR 23478 (May 3, 2021) 
(SR-MRX-2021-04) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of 
Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Exchange's Pricing Schedule at 
Options 7). Note that ISE Mercury is an earlier name for MRX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In June 2019, MRX commenced offering complex orders.\40\ With the 
addition of complex order functionality, MRX offered Members certain 
order types, an opening process, auction capabilities and other trading 
functionality that was nearly identical to functionality available on 
ISE.\41\ By way of comparison, ISE assessed fees for ports \42\ in 2019 
while offering the same suite of functionality as MRX, with a limited 
exception.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 86326 (July 8, 
2019), 84 FR 33300 (July 12, 2019) (SR-MRX-2019-14) (Notice of 
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to 
Adopt Complex Order Pricing).
    \41\ One distinction is that ISE offered its Members access to 
Nasdaq Precise in 2019 and since that time. MRX has never offered 
Precise. ``Nasdaq Precise'' or ``Precise'' is a front-end interface 
that allows EAMs and their Sponsored Customers to send orders to the 
Exchange and perform other related functions. Features include the 
following: (1) order and execution management: enter, modify, and 
cancel orders on the Exchange, and manage executions (e.g., parent/
child orders, inactive orders, and post-trade allocations); (2) 
market data: access to real-time market data (e.g., NBBO and 
Exchange BBO); (3) risk management: set customizable risk parameters 
(e.g., kill switch); and (4) book keeping and reporting: 
comprehensive audit trail of orders and trades (e.g., order history 
and done away trade reports). See ISE Supplementary Material .03(d) 
of Options 3, section 7. Precise is also available on GEMX.
    \42\ Since 2019, ISE has assessed the following port fees: a FIX 
Port Fee of $300 per port, per month, per mnemonic, an SQF Port Fee 
and SQF Purge Port Fee of $1,100 per port, per month, an OTTO Port 
Fee of $400 per port, per month, per mnemonic with a monthly cap of 
$4,000, a CTI Port Fee and FIX DROP Port Fee of $500 per port, per 
month, per mnemonic. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82568 
(January 23, 2018), 83 FR 4086 (January 29, 2018) (SR-ISE-2018-07) 
(Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule 
Change To Assess Fees for OTTO Port, CTI Port, FIX Port, FIX Drop 
Port and Disaster Recovery Port Connectivity). Of note, ISE assessed 
port fees prior to 2019 as well.
    \43\ See note 41, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ports Are Subject to Significant Substitution-Based Competitive Forces

    An exchange can show that a product is ``subject to significant 
substitution-based competitive forces'' by introducing evidence that 
customers can substitute the product for products offered by other 
exchanges.
    Chart 1 below shows the January 2022 market share for multiply-
listed options by exchange. Of the 16 operating options exchanges, none 
currently has more than a 13.1% market share, and MRX has the smallest 
market share at 1.8%. Customers widely distribute their transactions 
across exchanges according to their business needs and the ability of 
each exchange to meet those needs through technology, liquidity and 
functionality. Average market share for the 16 options exchanges is 
6.26 percent, with the median at 5.8, and a range between 1.8 and 13.1 
percent.

[[Page 63124]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN18OC22.021

    Market share is the percentage of volume on a particular exchange 
relative to the total volume across all exchanges, and indicates the 
amount of order flow directed to that exchange. High levels of market 
share enhance the value of trading and ports.
    As described in detail below, only one order protocol is required 
to submit orders to MRX. Quoting protocols are only required to the 
extent an MRX Member has been appointed as a Market Maker in an options 
series pursuant to Options 2, section 1, and only one quoting protocol 
is necessary to quote on MRX. Members may choose a greater number of 
order or quote entry ports, beyond the first FIX Port and the first SQF 
Port which are proposed to be offered at no cost, depending on that 
Member's particular business model.\44\ However, Members do not need 
more than one order entry port (and account number) and one quote port 
to submit interest to MRX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ For example, a Member may desire to utilize multiple FIX 
ports for accounting purposes, to measure performance, for 
regulatory reasons or other determinations that are specific to that 
Member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The experience of MRX's affiliates shows that the number of ports 
that members choose to purchase varies widely. For example, a review of 
the Phlx exchange in April 2022 shows that, among its member 
organizations that purchase ports, approximately 26 percent purchased 1 
SQF or FIX port, another 26 percent purchased between 2 and 5 ports, 21 
percent purchased between 6 and 10 ports, and 28 percent purchased more 
than 11 ports. This means that any MRX Member may enter all of their 
interest (orders or quotes) with only one order and one quote port and 
remain competitive.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ As noted above, one port would be required to submit orders 
and one port would be required to submit quotes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By way of comparison, the number of ports that MRX Members 
purchased in April 2022 also varied widely.

[[Page 63125]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN18OC22.022

    Chart 2 indicates the number of FIX and SQF Ports, respectively, 
that MRX Members were subscribed to in April 2022. Chart 2 shows that 1 
MRX Member only subscribed to 1 SQF Port and 3 MRX Members subscribed 
to 1 FIX Port.
    Further, approximately 23 percent of MRX Members purchased 1 SQF, 
FIX or OTTO Port,\46\ another 43 percent purchased between 2 and 5 
ports, 13 percent purchased between 6 and 10 ports, and 20 percent 
purchased more than 11 ports. MRX Members, similar to Phlx member 
organizations, have the option of reducing their port purchases without 
purchasing a substitute product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Phlx only offers FIX and SQF ports while MRX offers FIX, 
OTTO and SQF ports for order and quote entry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All of these statistics must be viewed in the context of a field 
with relatively low barriers to entry. MRX, like many new entrants to 
the field, offered ports for free to establish itself and gain market 
share. As new entrants enter the field, MRX can also expect competition 
from these new entrants. Those new entrants, like MRX, are likely to 
set port, or other fees to zero, increasing marketplace competition.
    The Exchange notes that one MRX Member cancelled 1 SQF Port and 1 
OTTO Port to avoid being assessed an SQF Port fee as of May 2, 
2022.\47\ As of July 1, 2022, the Exchange did not assess MRX Members 
for their first SQF Port. MRX port fees are subject to significant 
substitution-based competitive forces due to its consistently low 
percentage of market share, the relatively small number of purchasers 
for each product, and the purchasers that either cancelled or are 
reviewing their subscriptions. Implementation of the proposed fees is 
therefore consistent with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ MRX originally filed to assess a fee for all FIX Ports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fees for Ports

    The proposed port fees described below are in line with those of 
other markets. Setting a fee above competitors is likely to drive away 
customers, so the most efficient price-setting strategy is to set 
prices at the same level as other firms.
    As noted above, market participants may choose to become a member 
of one or more options exchanges based on the market participant's 
business model. The Exchange believes that there are many factors that 
may cause a market participant to decide to become a member of a 
particular exchange dependent upon their business model. A very small 
number of market participants choose to become a member of all sixteen 
options exchanges. It is not a requirement for market participants to 
become members of all options exchanges, in fact, certain market 
participants conduct an options business as a member of only one 
options market.\48\ Most firms that actively trade on options markets 
are not currently Members of MRX and do not purchase port services at 
MRX. Ports are only available to MRX Members or service bureaus, and 
only an MRX Member may utilize a port.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ BOX Exchange LLC (``BOX'') amended its fees on January 3, 
2022 to adopt an electronic market maker trading permit fee. See 
Securities and Exchange Release No. 94894 (May 11, 2022), 87 FR 
29987 (May 17, 2022) (SR-BOX-2022-17) (Notice of Filing and 
Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fee 
Schedule on the BOX Options Market LLC Facility To Adopt Electronic 
Market Maker Trading Permit Fees). In the BOX-2022-17 rule change, 
BOX stated that, ``. . . it is not aware of any reason why Market 
Makers could not simply drop their access to an exchange (or not 
initially access an exchange) if an exchange were to establish 
prices for its non-transaction fees that, in the determination of 
such Market Maker, did not make business or economic sense for such 
Market Maker to access such exchange. The Exchange again notes that 
no market makers are required by rule, regulation, or competitive 
forces to be a Market Maker on the Exchange.'' Further, in 2022, 
MEMX LLC (``MEMX'') established a monthly membership fee. See 
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 93927 (January 7, 2022), 87 FR 
2191 (January 13, 2022) (SR-MEMX-2021-19). The Monthly Membership 
Fee is assessed to each active Member at the close of business on 
the first day of each month. MEMX reasoned in MEMX-2022-19 that that 
there is value in becoming a member of the exchange. MEMX stated 
that it believed that its proposed membership fee ``is not unfairly 
discriminatory because no broker-dealer is required to become a 
member of the Exchange.'' Moreover, ``neither the trade-through 
requirements under Regulation NMS nor broker-dealers' best execution 
obligations require a broker-dealer to become a member of every 
exchange.'' The Exchange notes that neither BOX-2022-17 or MEMX-
2022-19 were suspended.
    \49\ Service bureaus may obtain ports on behalf of Members. The 
Exchange would only assign a badge and/or mnemonic to a Member to be 
utilized to submit quotes and/or orders to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using options markets that Nasdaq operates as points of comparison, 
less

[[Page 63126]]

than a third of the firms that are members of at least one of the 
options markets that Nasdaq operates are also Members of MRX 
(approximately 29%). MRX, like other options markets, has a mix of 
market participants as Members. Chart 3 below displays the percentage 
of Electronic Access Members, Market Makers and Clearing Firms on 
MRX.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Of note, Nasdaq Execution Services, LLC (``NES''), a Nasdaq 
affiliate, is a Member of MRX. NES is a broker-dealer and the 
Routing Facility of the Exchange. NES routes orders in options 
listed and open for trading on the System to away markets either 
directly or through one or more third-party unaffiliated routing 
broker-dealers pursuant to Exchange Rules on behalf of the Exchange. 
NES is subject to regulation as a facility of the Exchange, 
including the requirement to file proposed rule changes under 
section 19 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN18OC22.023

    The percentages in Chart 3 represent percentages of the total 
number of MRX Members. Some Members have dual representations (e.g., a 
Market Maker and Electronic Access Member) as reflected in Chart 2.
    The Exchange notes that no firm is a Member of MRX only. Few, if 
any, firms have purchased port services at MRX, notwithstanding the 
fact that ports are currently free, because MRX currently has less 
liquidity than other options markets. As explained above, MRX has the 
smallest market share of the 16 options exchanges, representing only 
approximately 1.8% of the market, and, for certain market participants, 
the current levels of liquidity may be insufficient to justify the 
costs associated with becoming a Member and connecting to the Exchange, 
notwithstanding the fact that ports are currently free.
    The decision to become a member of an exchange, particularly for 
registered market makers, is complex, and not solely based on the non-
transactional costs assessed by an exchange. As noted herein, specific 
factors include, but are not limited to: (i) an exchange's available 
liquidity in options series; (ii) trading functionality offered on a 
particular market; (iii) product offerings; (iv) customer service on an 
exchange; and (v) transactional pricing. Becoming a member of the 
exchange does not ``lock'' a potential member into a market or diminish 
the overall competition for exchange services. The decision to become a 
member of an exchange is made at the beginning of the relationship, and 
is no less subject to competition than trading fees or ports.
    In lieu of becoming a member at each options exchange, a market 
participant may join one exchange and elect to have their orders routed 
in the event that a better price is available on an away market. 
Nothing in the Order Protection Rule requires a firm to become a Member 
at MRX.\51\ If MRX is not at the NBBO, MRX will route an order to any 
away market that is at the NBBO to prevent a trade-through and also 
ensure that the order was executed at a superior price.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ See Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Market Plan 
(August 14, 2009), available at https://www.theocc.com/getmedia/7fc629d9-4e54-4b99-9f11-c0e4db1a2266/options_order_protection_plan.pdf.
    \52\ MRX Members may elect to not route their orders by marking 
an order as ``do-not-route.'' In this case, the order would not be 
routed. See Options 3, section 7(m).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the submission of orders, Members may also choose 
not to purchase any port at all from the Exchange, and instead rely on 
the port of a third party to submit an order.\53\ For example, a third-
party broker-dealer Member of MRX may be utilized by a retail investor 
to submit orders into an Exchange. An institutional investor may 
utilize a broker-dealer, a service bureau,\54\ or request sponsored 
access \55\ through a member of an exchange in order to submit a trade 
directly to an options exchange.\56\ A market participant may either 
pay the costs associated with becoming a member of an exchange or, in 
the alternative, a market participant may elect to pay commissions to a 
broker-dealer, pay fees

[[Page 63127]]

to a service bureau to submit trades, or pay a member to sponsor the 
market participant in order to submit trades directly to an exchange. 
Market participants may elect any of the above models and weigh the 
varying costs when determining how to submit trades to an exchange. 
Depending on the number of orders to be submitted, technology, ability 
to control submission of orders, and projected revenues, a market 
participant may determine one model is more cost efficient as compared 
to the alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ Market Makers on MRX are required to obtain one SQF port to 
submit quotes into MRX.
    \54\ Service bureaus provide access to market participants to 
submit and execute orders on an exchange. On MRX, a Service Bureau 
may be a Member. Some MRX Members utilize a Service Bureau for 
connectivity and that Service Bureau may not be a Member. Some 
market participants utilize a Service Bureau who is a Member to 
submit orders. As noted herein only MRX Members may submit orders or 
quotes through ports.
    \55\ Sponsored Access is an arrangement whereby a member permits 
its customers to enter orders into an exchange's system that bypass 
the member's trading system and are routed directly to the Exchange, 
including routing through a service bureau or other third-party 
technology provider.
    \56\ This may include utilizing a Floor Broker and submitting 
the trade to one of the five options trading floors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Only if a market participant elects to become a Member of MRX will 
the market participant need to utilize a port to submit orders and/or 
quotes into MRX. Once an applicant is approved for membership on MRX 
and becomes a Member, the Exchange assigns the Member a badge \57\ and/
or mnemonic \58\ to submit quotes and/or orders to the Exchange through 
the applicable port. An MRX Member may have one or more accounts 
numbers and may assign badges or mnemonics to those account 
numbers.\59\ Membership approval grants a Member a right to exercise 
trading privileges on MRX, which includes the submission of orders and/
or quotes into the Exchange through a secure port by utilizing the 
badge and/or mnemonic assigned to a specific Member by the Exchange. 
The Exchange utilizes ports as a secure method for Members to submit 
orders and/or quotes into the Exchange's match engine and for the 
Exchange to send messages related to those orders and/or quotes to its 
Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ A ``badge'' shall mean an account number, which may contain 
letters and/or numbers, assigned to Market Makers. A Market Maker 
account may be associated with multiple badges. See MRX Options 1, 
section 1(a)(5).
    \58\ A ``mnemonic'' shall mean an acronym comprised of letters 
and/or numbers assigned to Electronic Access Members. An Electronic 
Access Member account may be associated with multiple mnemonics. See 
MRX Options 1, section 1(a)(23).
    \59\ The Exchange provides account numbers, badges and mnemonics 
at no cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MRX is obligated to regulate its Members and secure access to its 
environment. In order to properly regulate its Members and secure the 
trading environment, MRX takes measures to ensure access is monitored 
and maintained with various controls. Ports are a method utilized by 
the Exchange to grant Members secure access to communicate with the 
Exchange and exercise trading rights. When a market participant elects 
to be a Member of MRX, and is approved for membership by MRX, the 
Member is granted trading rights to enter orders and/or quotes into MRX 
through secure ports.
    As noted herein, there is no legal or regulatory requirement that a 
market participant become a Member of MRX, or, if it is a Member, to 
purchase port services beyond the one quoting protocol or one order 
entry protocol necessary to quote or submit orders on MRX. The Exchange 
proposes to offer the first FIX and SQF Port at no cost in addition to 
the first FIX Disaster Recovery Port and the first SQF Disaster 
Recovery Port at no cost.\60\ As noted above, Members may freely choose 
to rely on one or many ports, depending on their business model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ Only Members and service bureaus may request ports on MRX, 
and only Members may utilize ports on MRX through their assigned 
badge or mnemonic. See Options 1, section 1(a)(5) and (23).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to amend port fees is reasonable, equitable 
and not unfairly discriminatory as MRX is providing MRX Electronic 
Access Members the first FIX Port to submit orders and MRX Market 
Makers the first SQF Port to submit quotes to MRX, at no cost, in 
addition to providing the first FIX Disaster Recovery Port and the 
first SQF Disaster Recovery Port at no cost; all other ports offered by 
MRX are optional and not necessary to trade options on the Exchange.
    The proposed fees reflect the ongoing services provided to maintain 
and support the ports. In order to submit orders into MRX, only one 
order protocol is required, and MRX is providing Electronic Access 
Members the first FIX Port at no cost. Quoting protocols are only 
required to the extent an MRX Member has been appointed as a Market 
Maker in an options series pursuant to Options 2, section 1. Similarly, 
only one quoting protocol is necessary to quote on MRX and MRX is 
providing Market Makers the first SQF Port at no cost. As noted above, 
only Members may utilize ports. A Member can send all orders, 
proprietary and agency, through one port to MRX and all quotes through 
one port. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, it is reasonable to 
assess no fee for the first FIX Port obtained by an Electronic Access 
Member or the first SQF Port obtained by a Market Maker. Further it is 
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess no fee for the 
first FIX Port to Electronic Access Members as all Electronic Access 
Members would be entitled to the first FIX Port at no cost. Also, it is 
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess no fee for the 
first SQF Port to Market Makers as all Market Makers would be entitled 
to the first SQF Port at no cost. With this proposal, MRX Members may 
organize their business in such a way as to submit orders and/or quotes 
continuously to MRX at no cost.
    The Exchange's proposal to assess Members $650 per port, per month, 
per account number for FIX Ports beyond the first port and $1,250 per 
port, per month for SQF Ports beyond the first port is reasonable 
because these ports are optional and Members only require one FIX Port 
to submit orders to MRX and one SQF Port to submit quotes to MRX. 
Members electing to subscribe to more than one FIX or SQF Port are 
choosing the additional ports to accommodate their business model. 
Additionally, to the extent a Member expended more than $7,500 for FIX 
Ports or more than $17,500 for SQF Ports, the Exchange would not charge 
an MRX Member for additional FIX or SQF Ports beyond the cap. The fees 
for the proposed additional FIX and SQF Ports are equitable and not 
unfairly discriminatory because any Member may elect to subscribe to 
additional ports. Electronic Access Members would be subject to the 
same fees for FIX Ports and Market Makers would be subject to the same 
fees for SQF Ports. Unlike other market participants, Market Makers are 
required to provide continuous two-sided quotes on a daily basis,\61\ 
and are subject to various obligations associated with providing 
liquidity.\62\ Also, as noted herein, account numbers are available on 
MRX at no cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ See MRX Options 2, section 5.
    \62\ See MRX Options 2, section 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to assess $650 per port, per month, per 
account number for an OTTO Port is reasonable because OTTO is optional. 
The Exchange is offering the first FIX Port at no cost to submit orders 
to MRX. In addition to the FIX Port, all Members may elect to purchase 
OTTO to submit orders to MRX. Unlike FIX, which offers routing 
capability, OTTO does not permit routing. Depending on a Member's 
business model, Members may elect to purchase an OTTO Port in addition 
to the FIX Port, which is being provided at no cost. Members may prefer 
one protocol as compared to another protocol. For example, the ability 
to route may cause a Member to utilize FIX and a Member that desires to 
execute an order locally may utilize OTTO. Also, the OTTO Port offers 
lower latency as compared to the FIX Port, which may be attractive to 
Members depending on their trading behavior. MRX Members utilizing the 
FIX Port, which is offered at no cost, do not need to utilize OTTO. 
Members may elect to utilize both order entry protocols, depending on 
how they organize their

[[Page 63128]]

business. OTTO provides MRX Members with an additional choice as to the 
type of protocol that they may use to submit orders to the Exchange. 
Today, Phlx and BX offer only a FIX Port to submit orders on those 
options markets.\63\ The proposed OTTO fee is equitable and not 
unfairly discriminatory because any Member may elect to purchase an 
optional OTTO Port and would be subject to the same fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ See Phlx and BX Options 3, section 7 for a list of 
protocols.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to offer an SQF Purge Port for $1,250 per 
port, per month is reasonable because this port is optional. The SQF 
Purge Port is designed to assist Market Makers in the management of, 
and risk control over, their quotes. Market Makers may utilize a purge 
port to reduce uncertainty and to manage risk by purging all quotes in 
their assigned options series. Of note, Market Makers may only enter 
interest into SQF in their assigned options series. Additionally, the 
SQF Purge Port may be utilized by a Market Maker in the event that the 
Member has a system issue and determines to purge from the order book. 
The SQF Purge Port is optional as Market Makers have various ways of 
purging their quotes from the order book. First of all, a Market Maker 
may cancel quotes through SQF in their assigned options series in the 
same manner as they may cancel quotes with an SQF Purge Port.\64\ 
Second, a Member may cancel any bids or offers in any series of options 
by requesting MRX Market Operations staff to effect such cancellation 
as per the instructions of the Member.\65\ Third, in the event of a 
loss of communication with the Exchange, MRX offers the ability to 
cancel all of a Member's open quotes via a cancel-on-disconnect 
control.\66\ Fourth, MRX offers Market Makers the ability, with respect 
to simple orders, to establish pre-determined levels of risk exposure 
which would be utilized to automatically remove quotes in all series of 
an options class.\67\ Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the SQF 
Purge Port provides an efficient alternative to other available 
services which allow a Market Maker to cancel quotes. The proposed SQF 
Purge Port is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because any 
Member may elect to purchase an optional SQF Purge Port and would be 
subject to the same fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ SQF Purge Ports, similar to SQF Ports, allow Market Makers 
to mass cancel quotes.
    \65\ See Options 3, section 19, Mass Cancellation of Trading 
Interest.
    \66\ See MRX Options 3, section 18, Detection of Loss. This risk 
protection is free.
    \67\ See MRX Options 3, section 15(a)(3)(B). Thresholds may be 
set by Members based on percentage, volume, delta or vega. This risk 
protection is free.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to assess $650 per port, per month for CTI 
Ports and FIX DROP Ports is reasonable because these ports are optional 
because Members have various ways of receiving information concerning 
open orders and executed transactions. First, FIX and OTTO provide 
Members with real-time order executions similar to the Clearing Trade 
Interface and FIX DROP. Second, TradeInfo provides Members with the 
ability to query open orders and order executions real-time, at no 
cost, similar to the Clearing Trade Interface and FIX DROP. Third, 
Members receive free daily reports listing open orders and trade 
executions from the Exchange. While not real-time, the Open Orders 
Report and Trade Detail Report provide Members with information similar 
to the Clearing Trade Interface and FIX DROP. The proposed CTI and FIX 
DROP Ports are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because any 
Member may elect to purchase an optional CTI Port or FIX DROP Port and 
would be subject to the same fee.
    The Exchange's proposal to assess no fee for the first FIX Disaster 
Recovery Port or the first SQF Disaster Recovery Port is reasonable 
because it will provide Members with continuous access to MRX in the 
event of a failover, at no cost. Further it is equitable and not 
unfairly discriminatory to assess no fee for the first FIX Disaster 
Recovery Port to Electronic Access Members as all Electronic Access 
Members would be entitled to the first FIX Disaster Recovery Port at no 
cost. Also, it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess 
no fee for the first SQF Disaster Recovery Port to Market Makers as all 
Market Makers would be entitled to the first SQF Disaster Recovery Port 
at no cost.
    The Exchange's proposal to assess Members $50 per port, per month, 
per account number for optional FIX Disaster Recovery Ports beyond the 
first port offered at no cost and $50 per port, per month, per account 
number for optional SQF Disaster Recovery Ports beyond the first port 
offered at no cost is reasonable because these ports are optional and 
Members only require one FIX Disaster Recovery Port to submit orders to 
MRX in the event of a failover and one SQF Disaster Recovery Port to 
submit quotes to MRX in the event of a failover. Additionally, to the 
extent a Member expended more than $7,500 for Disaster Recovery Ports, 
the Exchange would not charge an MRX Member for additional Disaster 
Recovery Ports beyond the cap. The fees for the proposed additional FIX 
and SQF Disaster Recovery Ports are equitable and not unfairly 
discriminatory because any Member may elect additional ports and would 
be subject to the same fees.
    The Exchange's proposal to offer Disaster Recovery Ports for SQF 
Purge Ports, and OTTO Ports at $50 per port, per month, per account 
number and CTI Ports, and FIX DROP Ports for $50 per port, per month is 
reasonable because these ports are optional. As noted herein, there are 
other alternatives for all of these ports today, the purchase of an SQF 
Purge Port, OTTO Port, CTI Port, and FIX DROP Port in production is 
optional and, therefore, so is the purchase of Disaster Recovery Ports 
for these ports. The proposed Disaster Recovery Port fees are intended 
to encourage Members to be efficient when purchasing Disaster Recovery 
Ports. The proposed Disaster Recovery Ports are equitable and not 
unfairly discriminatory because any Member may elect to purchase an 
optional Disaster Recovery Port and would be subject to the same fee, 
depending on the port.
    Finally, in the event that an MRX Member elects to subscribe to 
multiple ports, the Exchange offers a monthly cap beyond which a Member 
would be assessed no additional fees for month. As noted above, the SQF 
Port and the SQF Purge Port are subject to a monthly cap of $17,500 and 
the OTTO Port, CTI Port, FIX Port, FIX Drop Port and all Disaster 
Recovery Ports are subject to a monthly cap of $7,500. These caps are 
reasonable because they allow Members to limit their fees beyond a 
certain level if they elect to purchase multiple ports in a given 
month. The caps are also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory 
because any Member will be subject to the cap, provided they exceeded 
the appropriate dollar amount in a given month.
    The proposed port fees are similar to the fees assessed by 
GEMX.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ See GEMX Options 7, section 6.C. (Ports and Other 
Services).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After 6 years, MRX proposes to commence assessing port fees, just 
as all other options exchanges while offerings its Members the ability 
to submit orders and quotes to the Exchange at no cost. The 
introduction of these fees will not impede a Member's access to MRX, 
but rather will allow MRX to continue to compete and grow its 
marketplace so that it may continue to offer a robust trading 
architecture, a quality opening process, an array of simple and complex 
order types and auctions, and competitive transaction pricing. If MRX 
is incorrect in its assessment of the

[[Page 63129]]

value of its services, that assessment will be reflected in MRX's 
ability to compete with other options exchanges.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will 
impose any intermarket burden on competition not necessary or 
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
    The Exchange believes its proposal to offer the first FIX and SQF 
Ports for free, as well as the first Disaster Recovery version of these 
ports, positions MRX as a competitive market among other options 
exchanges, all of which assess fees for the first order and/or quote 
protocols. MRX's offering would permit Electronic Access Members and 
Market Makers the ability to submit orders and quote to MRX at no cost. 
The remainder of the port offerings are optional. The Exchange believes 
that the optional port offerings permit MRX to remain competitive with 
other options markets in its offerings.
    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, or rebate 
opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. 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.
    By way of example, today, with the exception of Precise, ISE has 
identical functionality to MRX. Market participants may elect to become 
members of ISE instead of MRX if those market participants believe that 
the order flow on ISE provides more value than the order flow on MRX. 
ISE has more market share (6.2%) as compared to MRX (1.8%). A market 
participant may evaluate the fees assessed by ISE, its market share, 
and proprietary products, among other things, and determine to become a 
member of ISE instead of MRX if it determines the proposed fees to be 
unreasonable. Additionally, the proposed port fees are similar to port 
fees assessed by GEMX \69\ for similar connectivity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ See GEMX Options 7, section 6.C. (Ports and Other 
Services).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, in connection with a technology migration, Cboe Exchange, 
Inc. (``Cboe'') amended access and connectivity fees, including port 
fees.\70\ Specifically, Cboe adopted certain logical ports to allow for 
the delivery and/or receipt of trading messages--i.e., orders, accepts, 
cancels, transactions, etc. Cboe established tiered pricing for BOE and 
FIX logical ports, tiered pricing for BOE Bulk ports, and flat prices 
for DROP, Purge Ports, GRP Ports and Multicast PITCH/Top Spin Server 
Ports. Cboe argued in its fee proposal that the proposed pricing more 
closely aligned its access fees to those of its affiliated exchanges, 
and reasonably so, as the affiliated exchanges offer substantially 
similar connectivity and functionality and are on the same platform 
that Cboe migrated to.\71\ Cboe also justified its proposal by stating 
that, `` . . . the Exchange believes substitutable products and 
services are in fact available to market participants, including, among 
other things, other options exchanges a market participant may connect 
to in lieu of the Exchange, indirect connectivity to the Exchange via a 
third-party reseller of connectivity and/or trading of any options 
product, including proprietary products, in the Over-the-Counter (OTC) 
markets.'' \72\ Cboe stated in its proposal that,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90333 (November 4, 
2020), 85 FR 71666 (November 10, 2020) (SR-CBOE-2020-105).
    \71\ Id. at 71676.
    \72\ Id. at 71676.

The rule structure for options exchanges are also fundamentally 
different from those of equities exchanges. In particular, options 
market participants are not forced to connect to (and purchase 
market data from) all options exchanges. For example, there are many 
order types that are available in the equities markets that are not 
utilized in the options markets, which relate to mid-point pricing 
and pegged pricing which require connection to the SIPs and each of 
the equities exchanges in order to properly execute those orders in 
compliance with best execution obligations. Additionally, in the 
options markets, the linkage routing and trade through protection 
are handled by the exchanges, not by the individual members. Thus 
not connecting to an options exchange or disconnecting from an 
options exchange does not potentially subject a broker-dealer to 
violate order protection requirements. Gone are the days when the 
retail brokerage firms (such as Fidelity, Schwab, and eTrade) were 
members of the options exchanges--they are not members of the 
Exchange or its affiliates, they do not purchase connectivity to the 
Exchange, and they do not purchase market data from the Exchange. 
Accordingly, not only is there not an actual regulatory requirement 
to connect to every options exchange, the Exchange believes there is 
also no ``de facto'' or practical requirement as well, as further 
evidenced by the recent significant reduction in the number of 
broker-dealers that are members of all options exchanges.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ Id. at 71677.

    The proposal also referenced the National Market System Plan 
Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail (``CAT NMS Plan''),\74\ wherein 
the Commission discussed the existence of competition in the 
marketplace generally, and particularly for exchanges with unique 
business models. The Commission acknowledged that, even if an exchange 
were to exit the marketplace due to its proposed fee-related change, it 
would not significantly impact competition in the market for exchange 
trading services because these markets are served by multiple 
competitors.\75\ Further, the Commission explicitly stated that 
``[c]onsequently, demand for these services in the event of the exit of 
a competitor is likely to be swiftly met by existing competitors.'' 
\76\ Finally, the Commission recognized that while some exchanges may 
have a unique business model that is not currently offered by 
competitors, a competitor could create similar business models if 
demand were adequate, and if a competitor did not do so, the Commission 
believes it would be likely that new entrants would do so if the 
exchange with that unique business model was otherwise profitable.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 86901 (September 9, 
2019), 84 FR 48458 (September 13, 2019) (File No. S7-13-19).
    \75\ Id.
    \76\ Id.
    \77\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Cboe concluded that the Exchange is subject to significant 
substitution-based competitive forces in pricing its connectivity and 
access fees.\78\ Cboe stressed that the proof of competitive 
constraints does not depend on showing that members walked away, or 
threatened to walk away, from a product due to a pricing change. 
Rather, the very absence of such negative feedback (in and of itself, 
and particularly when coupled with positive feedback) is indicative 
that the proposed fees are, in fact, reasonable and consistent with the 
Exchange being subject to competitive forces in setting fees.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ Id. at 71679.
    \79\ Id. at 71680.

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

[[Page 63130]]

    Cboe also filed to establish a monthly fee for Certification 
Logical Ports of $250 per Certification Logical Port.\80\ Cboe reasoned 
that purchasing additional Certification Logical Ports, beyond the one 
Certification Logical Port per logical port type offered in the 
production environment free of charge, is voluntary and not required in 
order to participate in the production environment, including live 
production trading on the Exchange.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94512 (March 24, 
2002), 87 FR 18425 (March 30, 2022) (SR-Cboe-2022-011). Cboe offers 
BOE and FIX Logical Ports, \BOE\ Bulk Logical Ports, \Drop\ Logical 
Ports, Purge Ports, GRP Ports and Multicast PITCH/Top Spin Server 
Ports. For each type of the aforementioned logical ports that are 
used in the production environment, the Exchange also offers 
corresponding ports which provide Trading Permit Holders and non-
TPHs access to the Exchange's certification environment to test 
proprietary systems and applications (i.e., ``Certification Logical 
Ports'').
    \81\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94512 (March 24, 
2002), 87 FR 18425 (March 30, 2022) (SR-Cboe-2022-011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its statutory basis, Cboe justified the new port fee by stating 
that it believed the Certification Logical Port fee were reasonable 
because while such ports were no longer completely free, TPHs and non-
TPHs would continue to be entitled to receive free of charge one 
Certification Logical Port for each type of logical port that is 
currently offered in the production environment.\82\ Cboe noted that 
other exchanges assess similar fees and cited to Nasdaq Stock Market 
LLC and MIAX Options Exchange.\83\ Cboe also noted that the decision to 
purchase additional ports is optional and no market participant is 
required or under any regulatory obligation to purchase excess 
Certification Logical Ports in order to access the Exchange's 
certification environment.\84\ Finally, similar proposals to adopt a 
Certification Logical Port monthly fee were filed by Cboe BYX Exchange, 
Inc.,\85\ Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.,\86\ and Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ Id. at 18426.
    \83\ Id. at 18426.
    \84\ Id. at 18426.
    \85\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94507 (March 24, 
2002), 87 FR 18439 (March 30, 2022) (SR-CboeBYX-2022-004).
    \86\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94511 (March 24, 
2002), 87 FR 18411 (March 30, 2022) (SR-CboeBZX-2022-021).
    \87\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94517 (March 25, 
2002), 87 FR 18848 (March 31, 2022) (SR-CboeBZX-2022-021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Cboe fee proposals described herein were filed subsequent to 
the D.C. Circuit decision in Susquehanna Int'l Grp., LLC v. SEC, 866 
F.3d 442 (D.C. Cir. 2017), meaning that such fee filings were subject 
to the same (and current) standard for SEC review and approval as SR-
MRX-2022-12[sic]. In summary, MRX requests the Commission apply the 
same standard of review to SR-MRX-2022-12[sic] which was applied to the 
various Cboe and Cboe affiliated markets' filings with respect to port 
fees. If the Commission were to apply a different standard of review to 
MRX-2022-12[sic] than it applied to other exchange fee filings it would 
create a burden on competition such that it would impair MRX's ability 
to compete among other options markets.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will 
impose any intramarket burden on competition not necessary or 
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Only one order 
protocol is required to submit orders to MRX, and the Exchange proposes 
to offer the first FIX Port and the first FIX Disaster Recovery Port to 
Electronic Access Members at no cost. This would provide Members with 
the ability to continuously submit orders to MRX, even in the event of 
a failover. Likewise, only one quoting protocol is required to submit 
quotes to MRX, and the Exchange proposes to offer the first SQF Port 
and the first SQF Disaster Recovery Port to Market Makers at no cost. 
This would provide Market Makers with the ability to continuously 
submit quotes to MRX, even in the event of a failover. Only one account 
number is necessary per Member and account numbers are free.
    As noted above, the remainder of the proposed port fees are for 
optional ports (additional FIX and SQF Ports, additional FIX and SQF 
Disaster Recovery Ports, SQF Purge Port, OTTO Port, CTI Port, FIX DROP 
Port and Disaster Recovery Ports for SQF Purge Ports, OTTO Ports, CTI 
Ports, and FIX DROP Ports). These different protocols are not all 
necessary to conduct business on MRX. Members choose among the 
protocols based on their business workflow. The proposed fees do not 
impose an undue burden on competition because the Exchange would 
uniformly assess the port fees to all Members and would uniformly apply 
monthly caps. Market participants may also connect to third parties 
instead of directly to the Exchange.
    With respect to the higher fees assessed for SQF Ports and SQF 
Purge Ports, the Exchange notes that only Market Makers may utilize 
these ports. Market Makers are required to provide continuous two-sided 
quotes on a daily basis,\88\ and are subject to various obligations 
associated with providing liquidity.\89\ As a result of these quoting 
obligations, the SQF Port and SQF Purge Port are designed to handle 
higher throughput to permit Market Makers to bundle orders to meet 
their obligations. The technology to permit Market Makers to submit a 
greater number of quotes, in addition to the various risk protections 
\90\ afforded to these market participants when quoting, accounts for 
the higher SQF Port and SQF Purge Port fees. Greater liquidity benefits 
all market participants by providing more trading opportunities and 
attracting greater participation by Market Makers. Also, an increase in 
the activity of Market Makers in turn facilitates tighter spreads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ See MRX Options 2, section 5.
    \89\ See MRX Options 2, section 4.
    \90\ See MRX Options 3, section 15(a)(3). Market Makers are 
offered risk protections to permit them to manage their risk more 
effectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.\91\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include 
File Number SR-MRX-2022-20 on the subject line.

[[Page 63131]]

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MRX-2022-20. 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 (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). 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-2022-20 and should be 
submitted on or before November 8, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-22557 Filed 10-17-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P