Notice2024-09069
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fees Schedule Related to Physical Port Fees
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
April 29, 2024
Issuing agencies
Securities and Exchange Commission
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 83 (Monday, April 29, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 83 (Monday, April 29, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33407-33411]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-09069]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-100012; File No. SR-C2-2024-005]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Its Fees Schedule Related to Physical Port Fees
April 23, 2024.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on April 9, 2024, Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``C2'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
\2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change
Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``C2 Options'')
proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. The text of the proposed rule
change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's
[[Page 33408]]
website (<a href="http://markets.cboe.com/us/options/regulation/rule_filings/ctwo/">http://markets.cboe.com/us/options/regulation/rule_filings/ctwo/</a>), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.
II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.
A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change
1. Purpose
The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule relating to
physical connectivity fees.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Exchange initially filed the proposed fee changes on
July 3, 2023 (SR-C2-2023-014). On September 1, 2023, the Exchange
withdrew that filing and submitted SR-C2-2023-020. On September 29,
2023, the Securities and Exchange Commission issued a Suspension of
and Order Instituting Proceedings to Determine whether to Approve or
Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change to Amend its Fees Schedule Related
to Physical Port Fees (the ``OIP''). On September 29, 2023, the
Exchange filed the proposed fee change (SR-C2-2023-021). On October
13, 2023, the Exchange withdrew that filing and submitted SR-C2-
2023-022. On December 12, 2023, the Exchange withdrew that filing
and submitted SR-C2-2023-025. On February 9, 2024, the Exchange
withdrew that filing and submitted SR-C2-2024-004. On April 9, 2024,
the Exchange withdrew that filing and submitted this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By way of background, a physical port is utilized by a Member or
non-Member to connect to the Exchange at the data centers where the
Exchange's servers are located. The Exchange currently assesses the
following physical connectivity fees for Trading Permit Holders
(``TPHs'') and non-TPHs on a monthly basis: $2,500 per physical port
for a 1 gigabit (``Gbps'') circuit and $7,500 per physical port for a
10 Gbps circuit. The Exchange proposes to increase the monthly fee for
10 Gbps physical ports from $7,500 to $8,500 per port. The Exchange
notes the proposed fee change better enables it to continue to maintain
and improve its market technology and services and also notes that the
proposed fee amount, even as amended, continues to be in line with, or
even lower than, amounts assessed by other exchanges for similar
connections.\4\ The physical ports may also be used to access the
Systems for the following affiliate exchanges and only one monthly fee
currently (and will continue) to apply per port: Cboe BZX Exchange,
Inc. (options and equities platforms), Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.
(options and equities platforms), Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc., and Cboe
EDGA Exchange, Inc., (``Affiliate Exchanges'').\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See e.g., The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq''), General
8, Connectivity to the Exchange. Nasdaq and its affiliated exchanges
charge a monthly fee of $15,000 for each 10Gbps Ultra fiber
connection to the respective exchange, which is analogous to the
Exchange's 10Gbps physical port. See also New York Stock Exchange
LLC, NYSE American LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc., NYSE Chicago Inc., NYSE
National, Inc. Connectivity Fee Schedule, which provides that 10
Gbps LX LCN Circuits (which are analogous to the Exchange's 10 Gbps
physical port) are assessed $22,000 per month, per port.
\5\ The Affiliate Exchanges are also submitting contemporaneous
identical rule filings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Statutory Basis
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of section 6(b) of the Act.\6\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
section 6(b)(5) \7\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
section 6(b)(5) \8\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers. The Exchange also believes the proposed rule
change is consistent with section 6(b)(4) \9\ of the Act, which
requires that Exchange rules provide for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its TPHs and other
persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
\7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
\8\ Id.
\9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange believes the proposed fee change is reasonable as it
reflects a moderate increase in physical connectivity fees for 10 Gbps
physical ports. Further, the current 10 Gbps physical port fee has
remained unchanged since June 2018.\10\ Since its last increase over 5
years ago however, there has been notable inflation. Particularly, the
dollar has had an average inflation rate of 3.9% per year between 2018
and today, producing a cumulative price increase of approximately 21.1%
inflation since the fee for the 10 Gbps physical port was last
modified.\11\ Moreover, the Exchange historically does not increase
fees every year, notwithstanding inflation. Accordingly, the Exchange
believes the proposed fee is reasonable as it represents only an
approximate 13% increase from the rates adopted five years ago,
notwithstanding the cumulative rate of 21.1%. The Exchange is also
unaware of any standard that suggests any fee proposal that exceeds a
certain yearly or cumulative inflation rate is unreasonable, and in any
event, in this instance the increase is well below the cumulative rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Securities and Exchange Release No. 83455 (June 15,
2018), 83 FR 28892 (June 21, 2018) (SR-C2-2018-014).
\11\ See <a href="https://www.officialdata.org/us/inflation/2010?amount=1">https://www.officialdata.org/us/inflation/2010?amount=1</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed fee increase is
reasonable in light of recent and anticipated connectivity-related
upgrades and changes. The Exchange and its affiliated exchanges
recently launched a multi-year initiative to improve Cboe Exchange
Platform performance and capacity requirements to increase
competitiveness, support growth and advance a consistent world class
platform. The goal of the project, among other things, is to provide
faster and more consistent order handling and matching performance for
options, while ensuring quicker processing time and supporting
increasing volumes and capacity needs. For example, the Exchange
recently performed switch hardware upgrades. Particularly, the Exchange
replaced existing customer access switches with newer models, which the
Exchange believes resulted in increased determinism. The recent switch
upgrades also increased the Exchange's capacity to accommodate more
physical ports by nearly 50%. Network bandwidth was also increased
nearly two-fold as a result of the upgrades, which among other things,
can lead to reduce message queuing. The Exchange also believes these
newer models result in less natural variance in
[[Page 33409]]
the processing of messages. The Exchange notes that it incurred costs
associated with purchasing and upgrading to these newer models, of
which the Exchange has not otherwise passed through or offset.
As of April 1, 2024, market participants also having the option of
connecting to a new data center (i.e., Secaucus NY6 Data Center
(``NY6'')), in addition to the current data centers at NY4 and NY5. The
Exchange made NY6 available in response to customer requests in
connection with their need for additional space and capacity. In order
to make this space available, the Exchange expended significant
resources to prepare this space, and will also incur ongoing costs with
respect to maintaining this offering, including costs related to power,
space, fiber, cabinets, panels, labor and maintenance of racks. The
Exchange also incurred a large cost with respect to ensuring NY6 would
be latency equalized, as it is for NY4 and NY5.
The Exchange also has made various other improvements since the
current physical port rates were adopted in 2018. For example, the
Exchange has updated its customer portal to provide more transparency
with respect to firms' respective connectivity subscriptions, enabling
them to better monitor, evaluate and adjust their connections based on
their evolving business needs. The Exchange also performs proactive
audits on a weekly basis to ensure that all customer cross connects
continue to fall within allowable tolerances for Latency Equalized
connections. Accordingly, the Exchange expended, and will continue to
expend, resources to innovate and modernize technology so that it may
benefit its Members and continue to compete among other options
markets. The ability to continue to innovate with technology and offer
new products to market participants allows the Exchange to remain
competitive in the options space which currently has 17 options markets
and potential new entrants.
The Exchange also believes the proposed fee is reasonable as it is
still in line with, or even lower than, amounts assessed by other
exchanges for similar connections.\12\ Indeed, the Exchange believes
assessing fees that are a lower rate than fees assessed by other
exchanges for analogous connectivity (which were similarly adopted via
the rule filing process and filed with the Commission) is reasonable.
As noted above, the proposed fee is also the same as is concurrently
being proposed for its Affiliate Exchanges. Further, TPHs are able to
utilize a single port to connect to any of the Affiliate Exchanges with
no additional fee assessed for that same physical port. Particularly,
the Exchange believes the proposed monthly per port fee is reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as it is assessed only once,
even if it connects with another affiliate exchange since only one port
is being used and the Exchange does not wish to charge multiple fees
for the same port. Indeed, the Exchange notes that several ports are in
fact purchased and utilized across one or more of the Exchange's
affiliated Exchanges (and charged only once).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See e.g., The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq''), General
8, Connectivity to the Exchange. Nasdaq and its affiliated exchanges
charge a monthly fee of $15,000 for each 10Gbps Ultra fiber
connection to the respective exchange, which is analogous to the
Exchange's 10Gbps physical port. See also New York Stock Exchange
LLC, NYSE American LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc., NYSE Chicago Inc., NYSE
National, Inc. Connectivity Fee Schedule, which provides that 10
Gbps LX LCN Circuits (which are analogous to the Exchange's 10 Gbps
physical port) are assessed $22,000 per month, per port.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange also believes that the proposed fee change is not
unfairly discriminatory because it would be assessed uniformly across
all market participants that purchase the physical ports. The Exchange
believes increasing the fee for 10 Gbps physical ports and charging a
higher fee as compared to the 1 Gbps physical port is equitable as the
1 Gbps physical port is \1/10\th the size of the 10 Gbps physical port
and therefore does not offer access to many of the products and
services offered by the Exchange (e.g., ability to receive certain
market data products). Thus, the value of the 1 Gbps alternative is
lower than the value of the 10 Gbps alternative, when measured based on
the type of Exchange access it offers. Moreover, market participants
that purchase 10 Gbps physical ports utilize the most bandwidth and
therefore consume the most resources from the network. The Exchange
also anticipates that firms that utilize 10 Gb ports will benefit the
most from the Exchange's investment in offering NY6 as the Exchange
anticipates there will be much higher quantities of 10 Gb physical
ports connecting from NY6 as compared to 1 Gb ports. Indeed, the
Exchange notes that 10 Gb physical ports account for approximately 90%
of physical ports across the NY4, NY5, and NY6 data centers, and to
date, 80% of new port connections in NY6 are 10 Gb ports. As such, the
Exchange believes the proposed fee change for 10 Gbps physical ports is
reasonably and appropriately allocated.
The Exchange also notes TPHs and non-TPHs will continue to choose
the method of connectivity based on their specific needs and no broker-
dealer is required to become a TPH of, let alone connect directly to,
the Exchange. There is also no regulatory requirement that any market
participant connect to any one particular exchange. Market participants
may voluntarily choose to become a member of one or more of a number of
different exchanges, of which, the Exchange is but one choice.
Additionally, any Exchange member that is dissatisfied with the
proposal is free to choose not to be a member of the Exchange and send
order flow to another exchange. Moreover, direct connectivity is not a
requirement to participate on the Exchange. The Exchange also believes
substitutable products and services are available to market
participants, including, among other things, other options exchanges
that a market participant may connect to in lieu of the Exchange and/or
trading of any options product, such as within the Over-the-Counter
(OTC) markets which do not require connectivity to the Exchange.
Indeed, there are currently 17 registered options exchanges that trade
options (13 of which are not affiliated with Cboe), some of which have
similar or lower connectivity fees.\13\ Based on publicly available
information, no single options exchange has more than approximately 19%
of the market share.\14\ Further, low barriers to entry mean that new
exchanges may rapidly enter the market and offer additional substitute
platforms to further compete with the Exchange and the products it
offers. For example, there are 4 exchanges that have been added in the
U.S. options markets in the last 5 years (i.e., Nasdaq MRX, LLC, MIAX
Pearl, LLC, MIAX Emerald LLC, and most recently, MEMX LLC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Id.
\14\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Options Market Volume Summary
(April 8, 2024), available at <a href="https://markets.cboe.com/us/options/market_statistics/">https://markets.cboe.com/us/options/market_statistics/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted above, there is no regulatory requirement that any market
participant connect to any one options exchange, nor that any market
participant connect at a particular connection speed or act in a
particular capacity on the Exchange, or trade any particular product
offered on an exchange. Moreover, membership is not a requirement to
participate on the Exchange. Indeed, the Exchange is unaware of any one
options exchange whose membership includes every registered broker-
dealer. By way of example, while the Exchange has 52
[[Page 33410]]
TPHs, Cboe BZX has 61 members that trade options, and Cboe EDGX has 51
members that trade options. There is also no firm that is a Member of
C2 Options only. Further, based on publicly available information
regarding a sample of the Exchange's competitors, NYSE American Options
has 71 members,\15\ and NYSE Arca Options has 69 members,\16\ MIAX
Options has 46 members \17\ and MIAX Pearl Options has 40 members.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See <a href="https://www.nyse.com/markets/american-options/membership#directory">https://www.nyse.com/markets/american-options/membership#directory</a>.
\16\ See <a href="https://www.nyse.com/markets/arca-options/membership#directory">https://www.nyse.com/markets/arca-options/membership#directory</a>.
\17\ See <a href="https://www.miaxglobal.com/sites/default/files/page-files/MIAX_Options_Exchange_Members_April_2023_04282023.pdf">https://www.miaxglobal.com/sites/default/files/page-files/MIAX_Options_Exchange_Members_April_2023_04282023.pdf</a>.
\18\ See <a href="https://www.miaxglobal.com/sites/default/files/page-files/MIAX_Pearl_Exchange_Members_01172023_0.pdf">https://www.miaxglobal.com/sites/default/files/page-files/MIAX_Pearl_Exchange_Members_01172023_0.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vigorous competition among national securities exchanges provides
many alternatives for firms to voluntarily decide whether direct
connectivity to the Exchange is appropriate and worthwhile, and as
noted above, no broker-dealer is required to become a Member of the
Exchange, let alone connect directly to it. In the event that a market
participant views the Exchange's proposed fee change as more or less
attractive than the competition, that market participant can choose to
connect to the Exchange indirectly or may choose not to connect to that
exchange and connect instead to one or more of the other 13 non-Cboe
affiliated options markets. Indeed, market participants are free to
choose which exchange to use to satisfy their business needs. Moreover,
if the Exchange charges excessive fees, it may stand to lose not only
connectivity revenues but also revenues associated with the execution
of orders routed to it, and, to the extent applicable, market data
revenues. The Exchange believes that this competitive dynamic imposes
powerful restraints on the ability of any exchange to charge
unreasonable fees for connectivity. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the
Exchange still believes that the proposed fee increase is reasonable,
equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory, even for market
participants that determine to connect directly to the Exchange for
business purposes, as those business reasons should presumably result
in revenue capable of covering the proposed fee.
The Exchange lastly notes that it is not required by the Exchange
Act, nor any other rule or regulation, to undertake a cost-of-service
or rate-making approach with respect to fee proposals. Moreover,
Congress's intent in enacting the 1975 Amendments to the Act was to
enable competition--rather than government order--to determine prices.
The principal purpose of the amendments was to facilitate the creation
of a national market system for the trading of securities. Congress
intended that this ``national market system evolve through the
interplay of competitive forces as unnecessary regulatory restrictions
are removed.'' \19\ Other provisions of the Act confirm that intent.
For example, the Act provides that an exchange must design its rules
``to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.'' \20\ Likewise, the Act grants the
Commission authority to amend or repeal ``[t]he rules of [an] exchange
[that] impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of this chapter.'' \21\ In short, the
promotion of free and open competition was a core congressional
objective in creating the national market system.\22\ Indeed, the
Commission has historically interpreted that mandate to promote
competitive forces to determine prices whenever compatible with a
national market system. Accordingly, the Exchange believes it has met
its burden to demonstrate that its proposed fee change is reasonable
and consistent with the immediate filing process chosen by Congress,
which created a system whereby market forces determine access fees in
the vast majority of cases, subject to oversight only in particular
cases of abuse or market failure. Lastly, and importantly, the Exchange
believes that, even if it were possible as a matter of economic theory,
cost-based pricing for the proposed fee would be so complicated that it
could not be done practically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See H.R. Rep. No. 94-229, at 92 (1975) (Conf. Rep.)
(emphasis added)
\20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
\21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(8).
\22\ See also 15 U.S.C. 78k-l(a)(1)(C)(ii) (purposes of Exchange
Act include to promote ``fair competition among brokers and dealers,
among exchange markets, and between exchange markets and markets
other than exchange markets''); Order, 73 FR at 74781 (``The
Exchange Act and its legislative history strongly support the
Commission's reliance on competition, whenever possible, in meeting
its regulatory responsibilities for overseeing the SROs and the
national market system.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed fee change will
not impact intramarket competition because it will apply to all
similarly situated TPHs equally (i.e., all market participants that
choose to purchase the 10 Gbps physical port). Additionally, the
Exchange does not believe its proposed pricing will impose a barrier to
entry to smaller participants and notes that its proposed connectivity
pricing is associated with relative usage of the various market
participants. For example, market participants with modest capacity
needs can continue to buy the less expensive 1 Gbps physical port
(which cost is not changing). While pricing may be increased for the
larger capacity physical porfts, such options provide far more capacity
and are purchased by those that consume more resources from the
network. Accordingly, the proposed connectivity fees do not favor
certain categories of market participants in a manner that would impose
a burden on competition; rather, the allocation reflects the network
resources consumed by the various size of market participants--lowest
bandwidth consuming members pay the least, and highest bandwidth
consuming members pays the most.
The Exchange's proposed fee is also still lower than some fees for
similar connectivity on other exchanges and therefore may stimulate
intermarket competition by attracting additional firms to connect to
the Exchange or at least should not deter interested participants from
connecting directly to the Exchange. Further, if the changes proposed
herein are unattractive to market participants, the Exchange can, and
likely will, see a decline in connectivity via 10 Gbps physical ports
as a result. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in
which market participants can determine whether or not to connect
directly to the Exchange based on the value received compared to the
cost of doing so. Indeed, market participants have numerous alternative
venues that they may participate on and direct their order flow,
including 13 non-Cboe affiliated options markets, as well as off-
exchange venues, where competitive products are available for trading.
Moreover, the Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for
competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices,
products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically, in
Regulation NMS, 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
[[Page 33411]]
been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its
broader forms that are most important to investors and listed
companies.'' \23\ The fact that this market is competitive has also
long been recognized by the courts. In NetCoalition v. Securities and
Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit stated as follows: ``[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'. . . .''.\24\ Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe its
proposed change imposes any burden on competition that is not necessary
or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
\24\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 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)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.
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) of the Act \25\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \26\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
\26\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Solicitation of Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:
Electronic Comments
<bullet> Use the Commission's internet comment form (<a href="https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml">https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml</a>); or
<bullet> Send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#245651484109474b4949414a5057645741470a434b52"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7a080f161f57191517171f140e093a091f19541d150c">[email protected]</span></a>. Please include
file number SR-C2-2024-005 on the subject line.
Paper Comments
<bullet> Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to file number SR-C2-2024-005. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (<a href="https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml">https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml</a>). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not
include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We
may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted
material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All
submissions should refer to file number SR-C2-2024-005 and should be
submitted on or before May 20, 2024.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-09069 Filed 4-26-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on April 29, 2024.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.