SEC公告Nasdaq PHLX提高场内经纪人期权返佣Tier 1档位（每份合约$0.04→$0.07、$0.10→$0.18），属常规SRO费率备案

8011-01-P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-106666; File No. SR-PHLX-2026-61]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Amend the PHLX Pricing Schedule at Options 7,
Section 4 (Multiply Listed Options Fees)
October 14, 2026.
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 1, 2026, Nasdaq PHLX LLC (“PHLX”
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.
I.

Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed
Rule Change
The Exchange proposes to amend the PHLX Pricing Schedule at Options 7, Section 4

(Multiply Listed Options Fees).
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange’s website at
https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/phlx/rulefilings, and at the principal office of the
Exchange.
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

15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

17 CFR 240.19b-4.

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

PHLX proposes to amend its Pricing Schedule at Options 7, Section 4 (Multiply Listed
Options Fees).
Options 7, Section 4 (Multiply Listed Options Fees)
Currently, the Exchange offers a Floor Transaction (Open Outcry)3 Floor Broker
Incentive Program (“Program”). Under the Program, the following transactions are not
considered qualifying volume: (1) dividend, merger, short stock interest, reversal and
conversion, jelly roll, and box spread strategy executions as defined in Options 7, Section 4; (2)
Firm4 Floor Options Transactions for members executing facilitation orders5 pursuant to Options
8, Section 30 when such members are trading in their own proprietary account (including
Cabinet Options Transaction Charges); and (3) Customer6-to-Customer transactions.
Currently, rebates are paid on qualifying volume at each threshold level based on the
below schedule. Floor QCC Orders, as defined in Options 8, Section 30(e), and electronic QCC
Orders,7 as defined in Options 3, Section 12, are considered qualifying volume but are not paid
rebates based on the below schedule, rather Floor QCC Orders and electronic QCC Orders are

The term “floor transaction” is a transaction that is effected in open outcry on the Exchange’s Trading
Floor. See Options 7, Section 1(c).

The term “Firm” applies to any transaction that is identified by a member or member organization for
clearing in the Firm range at OCC. See Options 7, Section 1(c).

A facilitation order is a paired order entered into the Facilitation Mechanism as described in Options 3,
Section 11(b). See Options 3, Section 7(w).

The term “Customer” applies to any transaction that is identified by a member or member organization for
clearing in the Customer range at The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) which is not for the account
of a broker or dealer or for the account of a “Professional” (as that term is defined in Options 1, Section
1(b)(45)). See Options 7, Section 1(c).

A Qualified Contingent Cross (“QCC”) Order is comprised of an originating order to buy or sell at least
1000 contracts that is identified as being part of a qualified contingent trade, as that term is defined in
Supplementary Material .01 below, coupled with a contra-side order or orders totaling an equal number of
contracts. See Options 3, Section 7(j).

paid the QCC Rebates noted in Options 7, Section 4. A Floor Broker is paid a $0.20 per contract
rebate for open outcry floor executions that are contra a Lead Market Maker8 or Market Maker,9
in lieu of any Floor Broker Incentive Program rebate.
The current tiered of rebates under this program is as follows:

Qualifying Contracts
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
Tier 4

0 -500,000
500,001-5,000,000
5,000,001-10,000,000
Greater than 10,000,000

Per Contract
Rebate(Customer on one
side)
$0.04
$0.07
$0.09
$0.10

Per Contract Rebate
(Non-Customer on
both sides)
$0.10
$0.18
$0.18
$0.20

Currently, this tiered schedule of rebates is followed by five examples (labeled Example
1 through Example 5) that illustrate how the program works. Finally, rebates under this program
are currently capped at $2,000,000 per member or member organization in a given month.
First Change
The Exchange proposes to increase the Tier 1 Per Contract Rebate (when there is a
Customer on one side) from $0.04 to $0.07. This change will bring this Tier 1 rebate to the same
level as the Tier 2 rebate.

The term “Lead Market Maker” applies to transactions for the account of a Lead Market Maker (as defined
in Options 2, Section 12(a)). A Lead Market Maker is an Exchange member who is registered as an options
Lead Market Maker pursuant to Options 2, Section 12(a). An options Lead Market Maker includes a
Remote Lead Market Maker which is defined as an options Lead Market Maker in one or more classes that
does not have a physical presence on an Exchange floor and is approved by the Exchange pursuant to
Options 2, Section 11. See Options 7, Section 1(c).

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. The term “Streaming Quote Trader” or “SQT” is
defined in Options 1, Section 1(b)(55) as a Market Maker who has received permission from the Exchange
to generate and submit option quotations electronically in options to which such SQT is assigned. The term
“Remote Streaming Quote Trader” or “RSQT” is defined in Options 1, Section 1(b)(49) as a Market Maker
that is a member affiliated with an RSQTO with no physical trading floor presence who has received
permission from the Exchange to generate and submit option quotations electronically in options to which
such RSQT has been assigned. A Remote Streaming Quote Trader Organization or “RSQTO,” which may
also be referred to as a Remote Market Making Organization (“RMO”), is a member organization in good
standing that satisfies the RSQTO readiness requirements in Options 2, Section 1(a). See Options 7,
Section 1(c).

Second Change
The Exchange proposes to increase the Tier 1 Per Contract Rebate (when there are NonCustomers on both sides) from $0.10 to $0.18. This change will bring this Tier 1 rebate to the
same level as the Tier 2 rebate.10
Third Change
The Exchange proposes to make several changes to Examples 2,11 3, and 4 to reflect the
new rebate levels.
Fourth Change
The Exchange proposes to make a change to Example 4 to correct an oversight from a
prior filing,12 that had decreased the Tier 4 rebate (when there are Non-Customers on both sides)
from $0.22 to $0.20, but had not adjusted its corresponding example. This is not a substantive
change.
2.

Statutory Basis

The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,13 in
general, and furthers the objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,14 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.
The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference for
competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the

Even though the effect of the First and Second Changes is that the new rebate amounts for Tier 1 will be
identical to the current (and continuing) rebate amounts for Tier 2, at this moment the Exchange is
choosing not to formally collapse these tiers, as it may want to differentiate these tiers again in the future.

The Exchange is also replacing, in Example 2, two colons (“:”) with semicolons (“;”). This is simply a
typographical clean up.

See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 105913 (July 14, 2026), 91 FR 44933 (July 17, 2026) (File No.
SR-PHLX-2026-44).

15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).

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.”15
Likewise, in NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission16 (“NetCoalition”) the
D.C. Circuit upheld the Commission’s use of a market-based approach in evaluating the fairness
of market data fees against a challenge claiming that Congress mandated a cost-based
approach.17 As the court emphasized, the Commission “intended in Regulation NMS that
‘market forces, rather than regulatory requirements’ play a role in determining the market data . .
. to be made available to investors and at what cost.”18
Further, “[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 brokerdealers 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’….”19 Although the court and the SEC were discussing the
cash equities markets, the Exchange believes that these views apply with equal force to the
options markets.

Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005)
(“Regulation NMS Adopting Release”).

NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 2010).

See NetCoalition, at 534 - 535.

Id. at 537.

Id. at 539 (quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (Dec. 2, 2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83
(Dec. 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-21)).

First Change
The Exchange believes that its proposal to increase the Tier 1 Per Contract Rebate for
qualifying volume with a Customer on one side from $0.04 to $0.07 is reasonable. As discussed
above, this change is designed to increase the amount of the rebate available to Floor Brokers at
the entry-level tier of the Floor Broker Incentive Program, thereby providing a stronger incentive
for Floor Brokers to direct qualifying open outcry order flow with a Customer on one side to the
Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed increase will make the Floor Broker
Incentive Program more attractive at the entry level and will encourage additional Floor Brokers
to participate in the Program. Increased participation in the Program will bring additional
Customer order flow to the Exchange, which benefits all market participants by providing more
trading opportunities and deeper liquidity, particularly for open outcry executions on the
Exchange’s Trading Floor. The proposed Tier 1 rebate of $0.07 per contract is reasonable
because it is the same per contract rebate that the Exchange currently pays for qualifying volume
with a Customer on one side at the Tier 2 volume level. The proposed change is therefore
consistent with the rebate levels that the Exchange has previously determined to be reasonable
under this same Program.
The Exchange further believes that the proposed increase in the Tier 1 Per Contract
Rebate for qualifying volume with a Customer on one side is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the proposed rebate will apply uniformly to all Floor Brokers that satisfy
the Tier 1 volume threshold under the Floor Broker Incentive Program. Any Floor Broker is able
to qualify for the Tier 1 rebate by satisfying the objective, transparent volume threshold of up to
500,000 qualifying contracts, and all qualifying Floor Brokers will receive the same $0.07 per
contract rebate on qualifying volume with a Customer on one side within that threshold. The
Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to offer this rebate in respect of
qualifying volume with a Customer on one side because Customer liquidity benefits all market
participants by providing more trading opportunities, which attracts Market Makers. An increase

in the activity of these market participants in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an
additional corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
Second Change
The Exchange believes that its proposal to increase the Tier 1 Per Contract Rebate for
qualifying volume with Non-Customers on both sides from $0.10 to $0.18 is reasonable. As
discussed above, this change is designed to increase the amount of the rebate available to Floor
Brokers at the entry-level tier of the Floor Broker Incentive Program in respect of open outcry
executions with Non-Customers on both sides, thereby providing a stronger incentive for Floor
Brokers to direct such qualifying volume to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the
proposed increase will make the Program more attractive at the entry level and will encourage
additional Floor Brokers to participate in the Program. Increased participation in the Program
will bring additional order flow to the Exchange, which benefits all market participants by
providing more trading opportunities and deeper liquidity, particularly for open outcry
executions on the Exchange’s Trading Floor. The proposed Tier 1 rebate of $0.18 per contract is
reasonable because it is the same per contract rebate that the Exchange currently pays for
qualifying volume with Non-Customers on both sides at the Tier 2 volume level (and, indeed, at
the Tier 3 volume level). The proposed change is therefore consistent with the rebate levels that
the Exchange has previously determined to be reasonable under this same Program.
The Exchange further believes that the proposed increase in the Tier 1 Per Contract
Rebate for qualifying volume with Non-Customers on both sides is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the proposed rebate will apply uniformly to all Floor Brokers that satisfy
the Tier 1 volume threshold under the Floor Broker Incentive Program. Any Floor Broker is able
to qualify for the Tier 1 rebate by satisfying the objective, transparent volume threshold of up to
500,000 qualifying contracts, and all qualifying Floor Brokers will receive the same $0.18 per
contract rebate on qualifying volume with Non-Customers on both sides within that threshold.
The Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to offer this rebate in

respect of qualifying volume with Non-Customers on both sides because such open outcry
activity supports the price discovery and liquidity provision functions of the Exchange’s Trading
Floor, which benefits all market participants.
Third Change
The Exchange believes that its proposal to make conforming changes to Examples 2, 3,
and 4 to reflect the new Tier 1 rebate levels is consistent with the Act. This change is nonsubstantive and is designed to ensure that the illustrative examples that accompany the tiered
rebate schedule accurately reflect the operation of the Floor Broker Incentive Program under the
increased Tier 1 rebates proposed in the First and Second Changes. The Exchange believes that
making these conforming changes to the examples will make the Pricing Schedule easier to read
and will remove any potential confusion that could arise from having the examples reflect
outdated rebate amounts. This change protects investors and the public interest by ensuring that
the illustrative examples in the Pricing Schedule are accurate and consistent with the tiered
rebate schedule as modified by this filing.
The Exchange further believes that the proposed changes to Examples 2, 3, and 4 are
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they are non-substantive and do not alter the
fees or rebates available to any Floor Broker or category of Floor Brokers. The updated examples
will apply uniformly to all Floor Brokers and will continue to illustrate the operation of the
Program in the same manner for all similarly situated market participants.
Fourth Change
The Exchange believes that its proposal to correct Example 4 to reflect the currently
applicable Tier 4 Per Contract Rebate of $0.20 per contract for qualifying volume with NonCustomers on both sides is consistent with the Act. As discussed above, this change is nonsubstantive and is designed to correct an oversight from a prior filing that had decreased the Tier
4 rebate (when there are Non-Customers on both sides) but had not simultaneously adjusted the
corresponding figures in Example 4. The Exchange believes that correcting the example will

make the Pricing Schedule easier to read and will eliminate any potential confusion that could
arise from having the example reflect a rebate amount that is no longer in effect. This change
protects investors and the public interest by ensuring that the illustrative examples in the Pricing
Schedule are accurate and consistent with the tiered rebate schedule that is currently in effect.
The Exchange further believes that the proposed correction to Example 4 is equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory because it is non-substantive and does not alter the fees or rebates
available to any Floor Broker or category of Floor Brokers. The corrected example will apply
uniformly to all Floor Brokers and will continue to illustrate the operation of the Program in the
same manner for all similarly situated 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.
Inter-market Competition
The proposal does not impose an undue burden on inter-market competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes its
proposal remains competitive with other options markets and will offer market participants
another choice of where to transact options. 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. 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.

Intra-market Competition
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden
on intra-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.
First Change
The Exchange does not believe that its proposal to increase the Tier 1 Per Contract
Rebate for qualifying volume with a Customer on one side from $0.04 to $0.07 will impose any
undue burden on intra-market competition. The proposed increased rebate will apply uniformly
to all similarly situated market participants: any Floor Broker that satisfies the Tier 1 volume
threshold under the Floor Broker Incentive Program will receive the same $0.07 per contract
rebate on qualifying volume with a Customer on one side within that threshold. Any Floor
Broker is able to qualify for the Tier 1 rebate by satisfying the objective, transparent volume
threshold. The Exchange further believes that providing this rebate for qualifying volume with a
Customer on one side does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition because
Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more trading opportunities,
which attracts Market Makers. An increase in the activity of these market participants in turn
facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow
from other market participants. The proposed change is designed to enhance, rather than restrict,
competition among Floor Brokers for open outcry Customer order flow by increasing the amount
of the entry-level rebate available under the Program. To the extent Floor Brokers regard the
proposed Tier 1 rebate as insufficient, they may readily direct their order flow to any of the other
options exchanges that support open outcry executions.
Second Change
The Exchange does not believe that its proposal to increase the Tier 1 Per Contract
Rebate for qualifying volume with Non-Customers on both sides from $0.10 to $0.18 will
impose any undue burden on intra-market competition. The proposed increased rebate will apply

uniformly to all similarly situated market participants: any Floor Broker that satisfies the Tier 1
volume threshold under the Floor Broker Incentive Program will receive the same $0.18 per
contract rebate on qualifying volume with Non-Customers on both sides within that threshold.
Any Floor Broker is able to qualify for the Tier 1 rebate by satisfying the objective, transparent
volume threshold. The Exchange further believes that providing this rebate for qualifying
volume with Non-Customers on both sides does not impose an undue burden on intra-market
competition because open outcry activity on the Exchange’s Trading Floor supports the price
discovery and liquidity provision functions of the Trading Floor, which benefits all market
participants. The proposed change is designed to enhance, rather than restrict, competition
among Floor Brokers for open outcry order flow with Non-Customers on both sides by
increasing the amount of the entry-level rebate available under the Program. To the extent Floor
Brokers regard the proposed Tier 1 rebate as insufficient, they may readily direct their order flow
to any of the other options exchanges that support open outcry executions.
Third Change
The Exchange does not believe that its proposal to make conforming changes to
Examples 2, 3, and 4 will impose any burden on competition. As discussed above, this change is
non-substantive and is intended to conform the illustrative examples in the Pricing Schedule to
the increased Tier 1 rebates proposed in the First and Second Changes. Because the proposed
change does not alter the fees or rebates available to any Floor Broker or category of Floor
Brokers, and merely conforms the illustrative examples in the Pricing Schedule to the tiered
rebate schedule as modified by this filing, it does not impose any burden on either intra-market
or inter-market competition.
Fourth Change
The Exchange does not believe that its proposal to correct Example 4 will impose any
burden on competition. As discussed above, this change is non-substantive and is intended to
correct an oversight from a prior filing that had adjusted the Tier 4 Per Contract Rebate for

qualifying volume with Non-Customers on both sides but had not simultaneously updated the
corresponding figures in Example 4. Because the proposed change does not alter the fees or
rebates available to any Floor Broker or category of Floor Brokers, and merely conforms the
illustrative example to the tiered rebate schedule that is currently in effect, it does not impose any
burden on either intra-market or inter-market competition.
C.

Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule
Change Received from Members, Participants, or Others

No written comments were either solicited or received.
III.

Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the

Act.20
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission
summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such
action is: (i) necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or
(iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be
approved or disapproved.
IV.

Solicitation of Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the

foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments
may be submitted by any of the following methods:
Electronic Comments:
•

Use the Commission’s internet comment form
(https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

•

Send an email to rule-comments@sec.gov. Please include file number

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

SR-PHLX-2026-61 on the subject line.
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-PHLX-2026-61. 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 filing 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-2026-61 and should be submitted on or
before [INSERT DATE 21 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER].
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated
authority.21

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2026-21247 Filed: 10/16/2026 8:45 am; Publication Date: 10/19/2026]

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