Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Suspension of and Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Exchange's Fee Schedule Related to Physical Port Fees, 65469-65477 [2024-17698]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 154 / Friday, August 9, 2024 / Notices and (ii) Austin Gerig, Director/Chief Data Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Oluwaseun Ajayi, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or by sending an email to: PRA_Mailbox@ sec.gov. Dated: August 5, 2024. Sherry R. Haywood, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. 2024–17652 Filed 8–8–24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011–01–P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34–100651; File No. SR– CboeEDGX–2024–035] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Suspension of and Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Exchange’s Fee Schedule Related to Physical Port Fees August 5, 2024 I. Introduction On June 7, 2024, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ‘‘Exchange’’ or ‘‘EDGX’’) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (‘‘Commission’’ or ‘‘SEC’’), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (‘‘Exchange Act’’ or ‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2 a proposed rule change (File Number SR–CboeEDGX– 2024–035) to increase fees for 10 gigabit (‘‘Gb’’) physical ports (‘‘Proposal’’). The proposed rule change was immediately effective upon filing with the Commission pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act.3 The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on June 21, 2024.4 Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act,5 the Commission is hereby: (1) temporarily suspending the proposed rule change; and (2) instituting proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change. II. Background and Description of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule relating to physical ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). CFR 240.19b–4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). A proposed rule change may take effect upon filing with the Commission if it is designated by the exchange as ‘‘establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the self-regulatory organization on any person, whether or not the person is a member of the self-regulatory organization.’’ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 4 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 100343 (June 14, 2024), 89 FR 52109 (‘‘Notice’’). 5 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C). 2 17 VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:21 Aug 08, 2024 Jkt 262001 connectivity fees by increasing the monthly fee for 10 Gb physical ports from $7,500 to $8,500 per port.6 The Exchanges states that, 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.7 Prior to this proposed rule change, the Exchange assessed the following physical connectivity fees for Members and non-Members on a monthly basis: $2,500 per physical port for a 1 Gb circuit and $7,500 per physical port for a 10 Gb circuit.8 The Exchange states 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.9 The Exchange also states that a single 10 Gb physical port can be used to access the Systems of the following affiliate exchanges: the Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc., Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (options and equities platforms), Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc., and Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (‘‘Affiliate Exchanges’’).10 The Exchange states that only one monthly 6 See Notice, 89 FR at 52109. The Exchange initially filed the proposed fee changes on July 3, 2023 (SR–CboeEDGX–2023–044). On September 1, 2023, the Exchange withdrew that filing and submitted SR–CboeEDGX–2023–057. On September 29, 2023, the Exchange states that 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. See Notice, 89 FR at 52109 n.3. On September 29, 2023, the Exchange filed the proposed fee change (SR–CboeEDGX–2023–62). On October 13, 2023, the Exchange withdrew that filing and, on business day October 16, 2023, submitted SR–CboeEDGX–2023–065. On December 12, 2023, the Exchange withdrew that filing and submitted SR–CboeEDGX–2023–079. On December 20, 2023, the Exchange withdrew that filing and submitted SR–CboeBZX–2023–081. On February 12, 2024, the Exchange withdrew that filing and submitted SR– CboeEDGX–2024–013. On April 9, 2024, the Exchange withdrew that filing and submitted SR– CboeEDGX–2024–020. On June 7, 2024, the Exchange withdrew that filing and submitted SR– CboeEDGX–2024–035. 7 See Notice, 89 FR at 52109. 8 See Notice, 89 FR at 52109. 9 See Notice, 89 FR at 52109 (citing 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 10Gb Ultra fiber connection to the respective exchange, which is analogous to the Exchange’s 10Gb physical port. See also id. (citing New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE American LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc., NYSE Chicago Inc., NYSE National, Inc. Connectivity Fee Schedule, which provides that 10 Gb LX LCN Circuits (which are analogous to the Exchange’s 10 Gb physical port) are assessed $22,000 per month, per port.)). 10 See Notice, 89 FR at 52109. The Affiliate Exchanges are also submitted contemporaneous substantively similar rule filings. PO 00000 Frm 00158 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 65469 fee applies per 10 Gb physical port regardless of how many affiliated exchanges are accessed through that one port.11 III. Suspension of the Proposed Rule Change Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act,12 at any time within 60 days of the date of filing of an immediately effective proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Act,13 the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the change in the rules of a self-regulatory organization (‘‘SRO’’) 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. A temporary suspension of the proposed rule changes is necessary and appropriate to allow for additional analysis of the proposed rule change’s consistency with the Act and the rules thereunder. A. Exchange Statements In Support of the Proposal In support of the Proposal, the Exchange states that it believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.14 Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) 15 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.16 Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) requirement that the rules of an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between 11 See Notice, 89 FR at 52109. The Exchange states that conversely, other exchange groups charge separate port fees for access to separate, but affiliated, exchanges. See Notice, 89 FR at 52109 n.6 (citing Securities and Exchange Release No. 99822 (March 21, 2024), 89 FR 21337 (March 27, 2024) (SR–MIAX–2024–016)). 12 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C). 13 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 14 See Notice, 89 FR at 52109; 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 15 See Notice, 89 FR at 52109; 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 16 See Notice, 89 FR at 52109. E:\FR\FM\09AUN1.SGM 09AUN1 65470 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 154 / Friday, August 9, 2024 / Notices customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.17 The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, which requires that Exchange rules provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its Members and other persons using its facilities.18 The Exchange states that it operates in a highly competitive environment.19 The Exchange states that on May 21, 2019, the SEC Division of Trading and Markets issued non-rulemaking fee filing guidance titled ‘‘Staff Guidance on SRO Rule Filings Relating to Fees’’ (‘‘Fee Guidance’’), which provided, among other things, that in determining whether a proposed fee is constrained by significant competitive forces, the Commission will consider whether there are reasonable substitutes for the product or service that is the subject of a proposed fee.20 As described in further detail below, the Exchange believes substitutable products are in fact available to market participants, including by third-party resellers of the Exchange’s physical connectivity, and the availability to trade all of the products offered at the Exchange at one of the 16 other equities exchanges that trade equities or other off-exchange trading platforms.21 The Exchange states that the 2019 Fee Guidance also acknowledged that platform competition may demonstrate a competitive environment and therefore constrain aggregate returns, regardless of the pricing of individual products, and that platforms often have joint products.22 The Exchange states that exchanges themselves are platforms.23 Particularly, the Exchange states that exchanges are multi-sided platforms that facilitate interactions 17 See Notice, 89 FR at 52109; 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). Notice, 89 FR at 52110; 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). 19 See Notice, 89 FR at 52110. 20 See Notice, 89 FR at 52110. (citing Chairman Jay Clayton, Statement on Division of Trading and Markets Staff Fee Guidance, June 12, 2019). The Exchange states that the Fee Guidance also recognized that ‘‘products need to be substantially similar but not identical to be substitutable.’’ Id. 21 See Notice, 89 FR at 52110. The Exchanges states that a substitute, or substitutable good, in economics and consumer theory refers to a product or service that consumers see as essentially the same or similar-enough to another product. See id. at n.12 (citing https://www.investopedia.com/terms/ s/substitute.asp). 22 See Notice, 89 FR at 52110 (citing Fee Guidance). 23 See Notice, 89 FR at 52110. The Exchanges states that the Supreme Court in Ohio v. American Express Co. recognized that, as platforms facilitate transactions between two or more sides of a market, their value is dependent on attracting users to both sides of the platform (i.e., network effects). See id. at n.14 (citing Ohio v. American Express Co. 138 S. Ct. 2274, 585 U.S. 529 (2018)). ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1 18 See VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:21 Aug 08, 2024 Jkt 262001 between multiple sides of the market— buyers and sellers, companies and investors, and traders and market watchers—and their value is dependent on attracting users to the multiple sides of the platform.24 As described in further detail below, the Exchange believes that competition among exchanges as trading platforms (and between exchanges and alternative trading venues) constrain exchanges from charging excessive fees for any exchange products, including trading, listings, connectivity and market data. As such, fees need not be analyzed from only one side, but rather can, and should, be considered within the larger context of the platform to test for anticompetitive behavior.25 The Exchange states that nothing in the Exchange Act requires the individual examination of specific product fees in isolation.26 Rather, the Exchange states that the Act generally requires the rules of an exchange to provide for the ‘‘equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among members and issuers and other persons using its facilities.’’ 27 The Exchange believes the proposed fee change is reasonable as it reflects a moderate increase in physical connectivity fees for 10 Gb physical ports.28 Further, the Exchange states that the current 10 Gb physical port fee has remained unchanged since June 2018.29 The Exchange explains that since its last increase over 6 years ago however, there has been notable inflation.30 Particularly, the Exchange states that the dollar has had an average inflation rate of 3.76% per year between 2018 and today, producing a cumulative price increase of approximately 24.8% inflation since the fee for the 10 Gb physical port was last modified.31 Moreover, the Exchange states that it historically does not increase fees every year, notwithstanding inflation.32 Accordingly, the Exchange believes the proposed fee of $8,500 is reasonable as it only represents an approximate 13% increase from the rate adopted six years ago, notwithstanding the cumulative inflation rate of inflation of 24.8%.33 24 See Notice, 89 FR at 52110. Notice, 89 FR at 52110. 26 See Notice, 89 FR at 52110. 27 See Notice, 89 FR at 52110 (citing 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4)). 28 See Notice, 89 FR at 52110. 29 See Notice, 89 FR at 52110 (citing Securities and Exchange Release No. 83450 (June 15, 2018), 83 FR 28884 (June 21, 2018) (SR-CboeEDGX–2018– 016)). 30 See Notice, 89 FR at 52110. 31 See Notice, 89 FR at 52110 (citing https:// www.officialdata.org/us/inflation/2010?amount=1). 32 See Notice, 89 FR at 52110. 33 See Notice, 89 FR at 52110. 25 See PO 00000 Frm 00159 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 The Exchange states that were the Exchange to adjust fully for inflation, it would be proposing a monthly rate of $9,360, which is 10% more than the Exchange is actually proposing.34 To further demonstrate, the Exchange notes that $8,500 in 2024 is equivalent to approximately $6,800 in 2018, when adjusted for inflation.35 Accordingly, the Exchange believes the proposed rate is also reasonable as it is nearly 20% lower than the rate adopted in 2018 (i.e., $7,500) when adjusted for inflation.36 The Exchange states it 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.37 The Exchange also believes its offerings are more affordable as compared to similar offerings at competitor exchanges.38 The Exchange also notes Members and non-Members will continue to choose the method of connectivity based on their specific needs and no broker-dealer is required to become a Member of, let alone connect directly to, the Exchange.39 The Exchange states that there is also no regulatory requirement that any market participant connect to any one particular exchange.40 The Exchange explains that 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.41 Additionally, the Exchange states that 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.42 The Exchange states that, moreover, direct connectivity is not a requirement to participate on the Exchange.43 The Exchange also believes substitutable 34 See Notice, 89 FR at 52110. Notice, 89 FR at 52110. 36 See Notice, 89 FR at 52110. 37 See Notice, 89 FR at 52110. 38 See Notice, 89 FR at 52110. The Exchange states that 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. Id. (citing The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (‘‘Nasdaq’’), General 8, Connectivity to the Exchange). See also id. (citing 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). 39 See Notice, 89 FR at 52110. 40 See Notice, 89 FR at 52110. 41 See Notice, 89 FR at 52110. 42 See Notice, 89 FR at 52110. 43 See Notice, 89 FR at 52110. 35 See E:\FR\FM\09AUN1.SGM 09AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 154 / Friday, August 9, 2024 / Notices products and services are available to market participants, including, among other things, other equities exchanges that a market participant may connect to in lieu of the Exchange, indirect connectivity to the Exchange via a thirdparty reseller of connectivity, and/or trading of any equities product, such as within the Over-the-Counter (OTC) markets which do not require connectivity to the Exchange.44 The Exchange states that there are currently 16 registered equities exchanges that trade equities (12 of which are not affiliated with Cboe), some of which have similar or lower connectivity fees.45 The Exchange states that, based on publicly available information, no single equities exchange has more than approximately 15% of the market share.46 The Exchange states that 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.47 The Exchange explains that, for example, in 2020 alone, three new exchanges entered the market: Long Term Stock Exchange (LTSE), Members Exchange (MEMX), and Miami International Holdings (MIAX Pearl).48 The Exchange states that there is no regulatory requirement that any market participant connect to any one equities 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.49 The Exchange states that moreover, membership is not a requirement to participate on the Exchange.50 The Exchange states that it is unaware of any one equities exchange whose membership includes every registered broker-dealer.51 The Exchange explains, by way of example, that as of April 2024 Cboe BYX has 110 members that trade equities, Cboe EDGX has 124 members that trade equities, Cboe EDGA has 103 members and Cboe BZX has 132 members.52 The Exchange states that there is also no firm that is a Member of the Exchange only.53 The Exchange states that further, based on 44 See Notice, 89 FR at 52110. Notice, 89 FR at 52110. 46 See Notice, 89 FR at 52110 (citing Cboe Global Markets U.S. Equities Market Volume Summary (June 6, 2024), available at https://www.cboe.com/ us/equities/market_statistics/). 47 See Notice, 89 FR at 52110. 48 See Notice, 89 FR at 52110–11. 49 See Notice, 89 FR at 52111. 50 See Notice, 89 FR at 52111. 51 See Notice, 89 FR at 52111. 52 See Notice, 89 FR at 52111. 53 See Notice, 89 FR at 52111. ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1 45 See VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:21 Aug 08, 2024 Jkt 262001 publicly available information regarding a sample of the Exchange’s competitors, NYSE has 143 members, IEX has 129 members and MIAX Pearl has 51 members.54 The Exchange states that a market participant may also submit orders to the Exchange via a Member broker or a third-party reseller of connectivity.55 The Exchange notes that third-party non-Members also resell exchange connectivity.56 The Exchange explains that this indirect connectivity is another viable alternative for market participants to trade on the Exchange without connecting directly to the Exchange (and thus not pay the Exchange connectivity fees), which alternative is already being used by nonMembers and further constrains the price that the Exchange is able to charge for connectivity to its Exchange.57 The Exchange notes that it could, but chooses not to, preclude market participants from reselling its connectivity.58 Unlike other exchanges, the Exchange states that it also chooses not to adopt fees that would be assessed to third-party resellers on a per customer basis (i.e., fee based on number of Members that connect to the Exchange indirectly via the thirdparty).59 The Exchange states that these third-party resellers may purchase the 54 See Notice, 89 FR at 52111 (citing https:// www.nyse.com/markets/nyse/membership; https:// www.iexexchange.io/membership; https:// www.miaxglobal.com/sites/default/files/page-files/ 20230630_MIAX_Pearl_Equities_Exchange_ Members_June_2023.pdf). 55 See Notice, 89 FR at 52111. 56 See Notice, 89 FR at 52111. 57 See Notice, 89 FR at 52111. The Exchange states that third-party resellers of connectivity play an important role in the capital markets infrastructure ecosystem. For example, according to the Exchange, third-party resellers can help unify access for customers who want exposure to multiple financial markets that are geographically dispersed by establishing connectivity to all of the different exchanges, so the customers themselves do not have to. The Exchange further states that many of the third-party connectivity resellers also act as distribution agents for all of the market data generated by the exchanges as they can use their established connectivity to subscribe to, and redistribute, data over their networks. The Exchange explains that this may remove barriers that infrastructure requirements may otherwise pose for customers looking to access multiple markets and real-time data feeds. The Exchange further explains that this facilitation of overall access to the marketplace is ultimately beneficial for the entire capital markets ecosystem, including the Exchange, on which such firms transact business. See id. at n.24. 58 See Notice, 89 FR at 52111. 59 See Notice, 89 FR at 52111 (citing Nasdaq Price List—U.S. Direct Connection and Extranet Fees, available at, US Direct-Extranet Connection (nasdaqtrader.com); and Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 74077 (January 16, 2022), 80 FR 3683 (January 23, 2022) (SR–NASDAQ–2015–002); and 82037 (November 8, 2022), 82 FR 52953 (November 15, 2022) (SR–NASDAQ–2017–114)). PO 00000 Frm 00160 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 65471 Exchange’s physical ports and resell access to such ports either alone or as part of a package of services.60 The Exchange notes that multiple Members are able to share a single physical port (and corresponding bandwidth) with other non-affiliated Members if purchased through a third-party reseller.61 The Exchange explains that this allows resellers to mutualize the costs of the ports for market participants and provide such ports at a price that may be lower than the Exchange charges due to this mutualized connectivity.62 The Exchange states that these third-party sellers may also provide an additional value to market participants in addition to the physical port itself as they may also manage and monitor these connections, and clients of these thirdparties may also be able to connect from the same colocation facility either from their own racks or using the thirdparty’s managed racks and infrastructure which may provide further cost-savings.63 The Exchange believes such third-party resellers may also use the Exchange’s connectivity as an incentive for market participants to purchase further services such as hosting services.64 That is, the Exchange states, that even firms that wish to utilize a single, dedicated 10 Gb port (i.e., use one single 10 Gb port themselves instead of sharing a port with other firms), may still realize cost savings via a third-party reseller as it relates to a physical port because such reseller may be providing a discount on the physical port to incentivize the purchase of additional services and infrastructure support alongside the physical port offering (e.g., providing space, hosting, power, and other longhaul connectivity options).65 The Exchange explains that this is similar to cell phone carriers offering a new iPhone at a discount (or even at no cost) if purchased in connection with a new monthly phone plan.66 The Exchange states that these services may reevaluate reselling or offering Cboe’s direct connectivity if they deem the fees to be excessive.67 Further, as noted above, the Exchange does not receive any connectivity revenue when connectivity 60 See Notice, 89 FR at 52111. Notice, 89 FR at 52111. The Exchange states that for example, a third-party reseller may purchase one 10 Gb physical port from the Exchange and resell that connectivity to three different market participants who may only need 3 Gb each and leverage the same single port. Id. at n.26. 62 See Notice, 89 FR at 52111. 63 See Notice, 89 FR at 52111. 64 See Notice, 89 FR at 52111. 65 See Notice, 89 FR at 52111. 66 See Notice, 89 FR at 52111. 67 See Notice, 89 FR at 52111. 61 See E:\FR\FM\09AUN1.SGM 09AUN1 65472 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 154 / Friday, August 9, 2024 / Notices is resold by a third-party, which often is resold to multiple customers, some of whom are agency broker-dealers that have numerous customers of their own.68 The Exchange states, for example, there are approximately 12 third parties who resell Exchange connectivity across the 7 Affiliated Exchanges, which are all accessible on the same network.69 The Exchange explains that these third-party resellers collectively maintain approximately 48 physical ports from the Exchange, but have collectively almost 200 unique customers downstream, connected through these multi-Exchange ports.70 The Exchange states that therefore, given the availability of third-party providers that also offer connectivity solutions, the Exchange believes participation on the Exchange remains affordable (notwithstanding the proposed fee change) for all market participants, including trading firms that may be able to take advantage of lower costs that result from mutualized connectivity and/or from other services provided alongside the physical port offerings.71 The Exchange states that because third-party resellers also act as a viable alternative to direct connectivity to the Exchange, the price that the Exchange is able to charge for direct connectivity to its Exchange is constrained.72 The Exchange states that moreover, if the Exchange were to assess supracompetitve rates, members and non-members (such as third-party resellers) alike, may decide not to purchase, or to reduce its use of, the Exchange’s direct connectivity.73 The Exchange explains that disincentivizing market participants from purchasing Exchange connectivity would only serve to discourage participation on the Exchange which ultimately does not benefit the Exchange.74 Further, the Exchange believes its offerings are more affordable as compared to similar offerings at competitor exchanges.75 68 See Notice, 89 FR at 52111. Notice, 89 FR at 52111. 70 See Notice, 89 FR at 52111. 71 See Notice, 89 FR at 52111. 72 See Notice, 89 FR at 52111. 73 See Notice, 89 FR at 52111. 74 See Notice, 89 FR at 52111. 75 See Notice, 89 FR at 52111 (citing 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 id. (citing 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.)). ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1 69 See VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:21 Aug 08, 2024 Jkt 262001 Accordingly, the Exchange states that 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.76 The Exchange explains that 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 12 non-Cboe affiliated equities markets.77 The Exchange states that market participants are free to choose which exchange to use to satisfy their business needs.78 The Exchange states that, moreover, if the Exchange were to assess supracompetitve rates, members and non-members alike, may decide not to purchase, or to reduce their use of, the Exchange’s direct connectivity.79 The Exchange states that disincentivizing market participants from purchasing Exchange connectivity would only serve to discourage participation on the Exchange which ultimately does not benefit the Exchange.80 The Exchange states that, for example, 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.81 The Exchange believes that this competitive dynamic imposes powerful restraints on the ability of any exchange to charge unreasonable fees for connectivity.82 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.83 The Exchange states that additionally, in connection with a proposed amendment to the National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail (‘‘CAT NMS 76 See Notice, 89 FR at 52111–12. Notice, 89 FR at 52112. 78 See Notice, 89 FR at 52112. 79 See Notice, 89 FR at 52112. 80 See Notice, 89 FR at 52112. 81 See Notice, 89 FR at 52112. 82 See Notice, 89 FR at 52112. 83 See Notice, 89 FR at 52112. 77 See PO 00000 Frm 00161 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Plan’’) the Commission again discussed the existence of competition in the marketplace generally, and particularly for exchanges with unique business models.84 The Exchange states that 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.85 The Exchange states that, as noted above, exchanges also compete as platforms.86 The Exchange explains that in the context of the competition among platforms, different exchanges operate a variety of different business models.87 The Exchange further explains that, in fact, there are a number of ways an exchange can differentiate itself, such as by pricing structure, technology and functionality offerings, and products.88 The Exchange states that market participants can access the exchange without purchasing anything from an exchange, instead using third-party routers and data.89 The Exchange explains that for those whose business models necessitate the purchase of some mix of trading, connectivity, and data services, there are a variety of options at different price points, allowing market participants to exercise choice, and forcing exchanges to compete on their offerings and prices.90 The Exchange states that further, all elements of the platform—trade executions, market data, connectivity, membership, and listings—operate in concert.91 The Exchange explains that, for example, trade executions increase the value of market data; market data functions as an advertisement for on-exchange trading; listings increase the value of trade executions and market data; and greater liquidity on the exchange enhances the value of ports and connectivity services.92 As such, the Exchange states that demand for one set of platform services depends on the demand for other services and therefore to make its 84 See Notice, 89 FR at 52112 (citing Securities Exchange Act Release No. 86901 (September 9, 2019), 84 FR 48458 (September 13, 2019) (File No. S7–13–19)). 85 See Notice, 89 FR at 52112 (citing Securities Exchange Act Release No. 86901 (September 9, 2019), 84 FR 48458 (September 13, 2019) (File No. S7–13–19)). 86 See Notice, 89 FR at 52112. 87 See Notice, 89 FR at 52112. 88 See Notice, 89 FR at 52112. 89 See Notice, 89 FR at 52112. 90 See Notice, 89 FR at 52112. 91 See Notice, 89 FR at 52112. 92 See Notice, 89 FR at 52112. E:\FR\FM\09AUN1.SGM 09AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 154 / Friday, August 9, 2024 / Notices platform attractive to multiple constituencies, an exchange must consider inter-side externalities.93 The Exchange explains that in assessing competition for exchange services, exchanges must also consider not only explicit costs, such as fees for trading, market data, and connectivity, but the implicit costs, such as realized spreads, of trading on an exchange.94 The Exchange states that, when accounting for explicit and implicit costs, research has found that competition has largely equalized all-in trading costs to users across exchanges.95 The Exchange states that, for example, data has shown that venues with the highest explicit costs (typically inverted and fee-fee venues) have the lowest implicit costs from markouts 96 and vice versa.97 The Exchange states that implicit costs explain how venues with higher explicit costs manage to compete with seemingly much cheaper venues (and conversely, how exchanges with higher implicit costs use lower fees to compete).98 The Exchange further states that additional research also confirms that market participants route trades in a way that not only accounts for explicit and implicit costs—but also very efficiently values opportunity costs, like lower odds of getting a fill on inverted venues.99 As such, the Exchange believes the proposed fee change is reasonable as exchanges are constrained from charging excessive fees for any exchange product, including physical connectivity.100 The Exchange also believes the proposed fee increase is reasonable in light of recent and anticipated connectivity-related upgrades and 93 See Notice, 89 FR at 52112. Notice, 89 FR at 52112. 95 See Notice, 89 FR at 52112 (citing Mackintosh, Phil & Normyle, Michael. ‘‘How Exchanges Compete: An Economic Analysis of Platform Competition.’’ Nasdaq, March 2024, https:// www.nasdaq.com/How-Exchanges-Compete-AnEconomic-Analysis-of-Platform-Competition) (‘‘Mackintosh and Normyle’’). 96 The Exchange explains that per-trade markout is a measure of theoretical profitability from the perspective of a liquidity provider. See Notice, 89 FR at 52112 n.31. 97 See Notice, 89 FR at 52112 (citing Mackintosh and Normyle). 98 See Notice, 89 FR at 52112.The Exchange states that, for example, research by Nasdaq found that it is over 60% more expensive to trade on the costliest exchange than on the cheapest. According to the Exchange, such a sizeable disparity suggests that there is another factor that keeps these exchanges in competition. Specifically, the Exchange states that when implicit costs are considered, the difference in cost to trade is minimized. See id. 99 See Notice, 89 FR at 52112 (citing Bershova, Nataliya & Jaquet, Paul. (2019). Execution Quality and Fee Structure: Passive Lit Executions. Bernstein Electronic Trading, Execution Research). 100 See Notice, 89 FR at 52112. ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1 94 See VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:21 Aug 08, 2024 Jkt 262001 changes.101 The Exchange states that it 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.102 The Exchange explains that 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.103 The Exchange states that, for example, the Exchange recently performed switch hardware upgrades.104 The Exchange explains that, particularly, the Exchange replaced existing customer access switches with newer models, which the Exchange believes resulted in increased determinism, and the recent switch upgrades also increased the Exchange’s capacity to accommodate more physical ports by nearly 50%.105 The Exchange states that network bandwidth was also increased nearly two-fold as a result of the upgrades, which among other things, can lead to reduce message queuing.106 The Exchange also believes these newer models result in less natural variance in the processing of messages.107 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.108 The Exchange states that 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 NY5.109 The Exchange states that it made NY6 available in response to customer requests in connection with their need for additional space and capacity.110 The Exchange explains that 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.111 The Exchange states it also 101 See Notice, 89 FR at 52112. Notice, 89 FR at 52112. 103 See Notice, 89 FR at 52112. 104 See Notice, 89 FR at 52112. 105 See Notice, 89 FR at 52112. 106 See Notice, 89 FR at 52112. 107 See Notice, 89 FR at 52112. 108 See Notice, 89 FR at 52112. 109 See Notice, 89 FR at 52112–13. 110 See Notice, 89 FR at 52113. 111 See Notice, 89 FR at 52113. 102 See PO 00000 Frm 00162 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 65473 incurred a large cost with respect to ensuring NY6 would be latency equalized, as it is for NY4 and NY5.112 The Exchange states that it also has made various other improvements since the current physical port rates were adopted in 2018.113 The Exchanges states that, 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.114 The Exchange explains that it 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.115 Accordingly, the Exchange states that it has 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 equities markets.116 The Exchange explains that its ability to continue to innovate with technology and offer new products to market participants allows the Exchange to remain competitive in the equities space which currently has 16 equities markets and potential new entrants.117 The Exchange states that if the Exchange were not able to assess incrementally higher fees for its connectivity, it would effectively impact how the Exchange manages its technology and hamper the Exchange’s ability to continue to invest in and fund access services in a manner that allows it to meet existing and anticipated access demands of market participants.118 The Exchange explains that disapproval of fee changes such as the proposal herein, could also have the adverse effect of discouraging an exchange from improving its operations and implementing innovative technology to the benefit of market participants if it believes the Commission would later prevent that exchange from recouping costs and monetizing its operational enhancements, thus adversely impacting competition.119 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 112 See Notice, 89 FR at 52113. Notice, 89 FR at 52113. 114 See Notice, 89 FR at 52113. 115 See Notice, 89 FR at 52113. 116 See Notice, 89 FR at 52113. 117 See Notice, 89 FR at 52113. 118 See Notice, 89 FR at 52113. 119 See Notice, 89 FR at 52113. 113 See E:\FR\FM\09AUN1.SGM 09AUN1 65474 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 154 / Friday, August 9, 2024 / Notices ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1 for similar connections.120 Indeed, the Exchange believes assessing fees at 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.121 The Exchange states that the proposed fee is also the same as is concurrently being proposed for its Affiliate Exchanges.122 Further, the Exchange states that Members are able to utilize a single port to connect to all of its Affiliate Exchanges and will only be charged one single fee (i.e., a market participant will only be assessed the proposed $8,500 even if it uses that physical port to connect to the Exchange and another (or even all 6) of its Affiliate Exchanges).123 Particularly, the Exchange believes the proposed monthly per port fee is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory since as the Exchange has determined to not charge multiple fees for the same port.124 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).125 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. 126 The Exchange believes increasing the fee for 10 Gb physical ports and charging a higher fee as compared to the 1 Gb physical port is equitable as the 1 Gb physical port is 1/ 10th the size of the 10 Gb 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). 127 The Exchange explains that, thus, the value of the 1 Gb alternative is lower than the value of the 10 Gb alternative, when measured based on the type of Exchange access it offers.128 The Exchange states that, moreover, market 120 See Notice, 89 FR at 52113 (citing 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 10Gb Ultra fiber connection to the respective exchange, which is analogous to the Exchange’s 10Gb physical port. See also id. (citing New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE American LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc., NYSE Chicago Inc., NYSE National, Inc. Connectivity Fee Schedule, which provides that 10 Gb LX LCN Circuits (which are analogous to the Exchange’s 10 Gb physical port) are assessed $22,000 per month, per port.)). 121 See Notice, 89 FR at 52113. 122 See Notice, 89 FR at 52113. 123 See Notice, 89 FR at 52113. 124 See Notice, 89 FR at 52113. 125 See Notice, 89 FR at 52113. 126 See Notice, 89 FR at 52113. 127 See Notice, 89 FR at 52113. 128 See Notice, 89 FR at 52113. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:21 Aug 08, 2024 Jkt 262001 participants that purchase 10 Gb physical ports utilize the most bandwidth and therefore consume the most resources from the network.129 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.130 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.131 As such, the Exchange believes the proposed fee change for 10 Gb physical ports is reasonably and appropriately allocated.132 The Exchange states 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.133 The Exchange states that, moreover, Congress’s intent in enacting the 1975 Amendments to the Act was to enable competition—rather than government order—to determine prices.134 The Exchange explains that the principal purpose of the amendments was to facilitate the creation of a national market system for the trading of securities.135 The Exchange states that Congress intended that this ‘‘national market system evolve through the interplay of competitive forces as unnecessary regulatory restrictions are removed,’’ and that other provisions of the Act confirm that intent.136 The Exchange states that, 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.’’ 137 The Exchange further states that, 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 129 See Notice, 89 FR at 52113. Notice, 89 FR at 52113. 131 See Notice, 89 FR at 52113. 132 See Notice, 89 FR at 52113. 133 See Notice, 89 FR at 52113. 134 See Notice, 89 FR at 52113. 135 See Notice, 89 FR at 52113. 136 See Notice, 89 FR at 52113 (citing H.R. Rep. No. 94–229, at 92 (1975) (Conf. Rep.) (emphasis added)). 137 See Notice, 89 FR at 52113 (citing 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5)). 130 See PO 00000 Frm 00163 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 purposes of this chapter.’’ 138 The Exchange explains that, in short, the promotion of free and open competition was a core congressional objective in creating the national market system.139 The Exchange states that, indeed, the Commission has historically interpreted that mandate to promote competitive forces to determine prices whenever compatible with a national market system.140 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.141 The Exchange believes that, finally, and importantly, 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.142 Indeed, the Exchange believes that classification of costs could likely not be done without ongoing debate over formulas for allocation,143 continual auditing, and 138 See Notice, 89 FR at 52113 (citing 15 U.S.C. 78f(8)). 139 See Notice, 89 FR at 52113 (citing 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.’’)). 140 See Notice, 89 FR at 52113. 141 See Notice, 89 FR at 52113–14. 142 See Notice, 89 FR at 52114. 143 See Notice, 89 FR at 52114, n.40 (citing letter from Brian Sopinsky, General Counsel, Susquehanna International Group, LLP (‘‘SIG’’), to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Commission, dated February 7, 2023, letters from Gerald D. O’Connell, SIG, to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Commission, dated March 21, 2023, May 24, 2023, July 24, 2023 and September 18, 2023, and letters from John C. Pickford, SIG, to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Commission, dated January 4, 2024, and March 1, 2024 and letters from Thomas M. Merritt, Deputy General Counsel, Virtu Financial, Inc., to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Commission, dated November 8, 2023 and January 2, 2024. See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 93883 (December 30, 2021), 87 FR 523 (January 5, 2022) (SR–IEX–2021–14) (Suspension of and Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fee Schedule for Market Data Fees) and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94888 (May 11, 2022), 87 FR 29892 (May 17, 2022) (SR–PEARL– 2022–18) (Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the MIAX PEARL Options Fee Schedule To Increase Certain Connectivity Fees and To Increase the Monthly Fees for MIAX Express Network Full Service Port; Suspension of and Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove the Proposed Rule Change)). E:\FR\FM\09AUN1.SGM 09AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 154 / Friday, August 9, 2024 / Notices ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1 considerable expense.144 The Exchange also believes cost-based analysis could create disincentives to reduce costs through efficient operation or innovation.145 Moreover, the Exchange believes that the industry could experience frequent rate increases based on escalating expense levels.146 The Exchange lastly cautions that as disputes arise regarding the appropriate measure and calculation of relevant costs and allocation of common costs, the Commission could find itself engaging in the kind of rigid ratemaking not contemplated by Section 11A of the Exchange Act and which, according to the Exchange, the Commission has historically sought to avoid.147 The Exchange also 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.148 The Exchange states that the proposed fee change will not impact intramarket competition because it will apply to all similarly situated Members equally (i.e., all market participants that choose to purchase the 10 Gb physical port).149 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.150 For example, the Exchange states that market participants with modest capacity needs can continue to buy the less expensive 1 Gb physical port (which cost is not changing) or may choose to obtain access via a third-party re-seller.151 The Exchange states that while pricing may be increased for the larger capacity physical ports, such options provide far more capacity and are purchased by those that consume more resources from the network.152 Accordingly, the Exchange states that 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.153 144 See Notice, 89 FR at 52114. Notice, 89 FR at 52114. 146 See Notice, 89 FR at 52114. 147 See Notice, 89 FR at 52114. 148 See Notice, 89 FR at 52114. 149 See Notice, 89 FR at 52114. 150 See Notice, 89 FR at 52114. 151 See Notice, 89 FR at 52114. 152 See Notice, 89 FR at 52114. 153 See Notice, 89 FR at 52114. 145 See VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:21 Aug 08, 2024 Jkt 262001 The Exchange states that the 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.154 Further, if the changes proposed herein are unattractive to market participants, the Exchange states that it can, and likely will, see a decline in connectivity via 10 Gb physical ports as a result.155 The Exchange states that it 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.156 The Exchange states that market participants have numerous alternative venues that they may participate on and direct their order flow, including 12 non-Cboe affiliated equities markets, as well as off-exchange venues, where competitive products are available for trading.157 Moreover, the Exchange states that the Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets.158 Specifically, the Exchange states that 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 been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.’’ 159 The Exchange states that the fact that this market is competitive has also long been recognized by the courts.160 Accordingly, the Exchange does not 154 See Notice, 89 FR at 52114. Notice, 89 FR at 52114. 156 See Notice, 89 FR at 52114. 157 See Notice, 89 FR at 52114. 158 See Notice, 89 FR at 52114. 159 See Notice, 89 FR at 52114 (citing Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005)). 160 See Notice, 89 FR at 52114. The Exchange states that 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’. . . .’’ (citing 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))). 155 See PO 00000 Frm 00164 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 65475 believe its proposed change imposes any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.161 B. Suspension When exchanges file their proposed rule changes with the Commission, including fee filings like the Exchange’s present proposal, they are required to provide a statement supporting the proposal’s basis under the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the exchange.162 The instructions to Form 19b–4, on which exchanges file their proposed rule changes, specify that such statement ‘‘should be sufficiently detailed and specific to support a finding that the proposed rule change is consistent with [those] requirements.’’ 163 Section 6 of the Act, including Sections 6(b)(4), (5), and (8), requires the rules of an exchange to: (1) provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable fees among members, issuers, and other persons using the exchange’s facilities; 164 (2) perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, protect investors and the public interest, and not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers; 165 and (3) not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.166 In temporarily suspending the Exchange’s proposed rule change, the Commission intends to further consider whether the Proposal to increase its 10 Gb physical port connectivity fee is consistent with the statutory requirements applicable to a national securities exchange under the Act. The Commission will consider, among other things, whether the Exchange has provided sufficient information to demonstrate that the Exchange is subject to significant competitive forces when setting the proposed port connectivity fees. In particular, the Commission will consider whether the proposed rule change satisfies the standards under the Act and the rules thereunder requiring, among other things, that an exchange’s rules provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable fees among members, issuers, and other persons using its facilities; not permit unfair 161 See Notice, 89 FR at 52114. 17 CFR 240.19b–4 (Item 3 entitled ‘‘SelfRegulatory Organization’s Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change’’). 163 See id. 164 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). 165 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 166 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8). 162 See E:\FR\FM\09AUN1.SGM 09AUN1 65476 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 154 / Friday, August 9, 2024 / Notices discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers; and do not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.167 Therefore, the Commission finds that it is appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, and otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, to temporarily suspend the proposed rule change.168 IV. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove the Proposed Rule Changes ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1 In addition to temporarily suspending the Proposal, the Commission also hereby institutes proceedings pursuant to Sections 19(b)(3)(C) 169 and 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act 170 to determine whether the Exchange’s proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved. Institution of proceedings does not indicate that the Commission has reached any conclusions with respect to any of the issues involved. Rather, the Commission seeks and encourages interested persons to provide additional comment on the proposed rule change to inform the Commission’s analysis of whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,171 the Commission is providing notice of the grounds for possible disapproval under consideration: • Whether the Exchange has demonstrated how the proposed fee is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, which requires that the rules of a national securities exchange ‘‘provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities’’; 172 167 See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5), and (8), respectively. 168 For purposes of temporarily suspending the proposed rule change, the Commission has considered the proposed rule’s impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 169 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C). Once the Commission temporarily suspends a proposed rule change, Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that the Commission institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) to determine whether a proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved. 170 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B). 171 Id. Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act also provides that proceedings to determine whether to disapprove a proposed rule change must be concluded within 180 days of the date of publication of notice of the filing of the proposed rule change. See id. The time for conclusion of the proceedings may be extended for up to 60 days if the Commission finds good cause for such extension and publishes its reasons for so finding, or if the exchange consents to the longer period. See id. 172 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:21 Aug 08, 2024 Jkt 262001 • Whether the Exchange has demonstrated how the proposed fee is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, which requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange not be ‘‘designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers’’; 173 and • Whether the Exchange has demonstrated how the proposed fee is consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, which requires that the rules of a national securities exchange ‘‘not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of [the Act].’’ 174 As discussed in Section III above, the Exchange made various arguments in support of the Proposal. There are questions as to whether the Exchange has provided sufficient information to demonstrate that the proposed fee is consistent with the Act and the rules thereunder. The Commission will specifically consider, among other things, whether the Exchange has provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposed fee is reasonable and equitably allocated, is not unfairly discriminatory, and does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Under the Commission’s Rules of Practice, the ‘‘burden to demonstrate that a proposed rule change is consistent with the [Act] and the rules and regulations issued thereunder . . . is on the [SRO] that proposed the rule change.’’ 175 The description of a proposed rule change, its purpose and operation, its effect, and a legal analysis of its consistency with applicable requirements must all be sufficiently detailed and specific to support an affirmative Commission finding,176 and any failure of an SRO to provide this information may result in the Commission not having a sufficient basis to make an affirmative finding that a proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the applicable rules and regulations.177 The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional consideration and comment on the issues raised herein, including as to whether the proposed fee is consistent with the Act, and specifically, with its requirements that exchange fees be reasonable and equitably allocated, not be unfairly discriminatory, and not 173 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). U.S.C. 78f(b)(8). 175 17 CFR 201.700(b)(3). 176 See id. 177 See id. 174 15 PO 00000 Frm 00165 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.178 V. Commission’s Solicitation of Comments The Commission requests written views, data, and arguments with respect to the concerns identified above as well as any other relevant concerns. Such comments should be submitted by August 30, 2024. Rebuttal comments should be submitted by September 13, 2024. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b–4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.179 The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency and merit of the Exchange’s statements in support of the Proposal, in addition to any other comments they may wish to submit about the proposed rule changes. 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 SR– CboeEDGX–2024–035 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–CboeEDGX–2024–035. 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 178 See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5), and (8). U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). Section 19(b)(2) of the Act grants the Commission flexibility to determine what type of proceeding—either oral or notice and opportunity for written comments—is appropriate for consideration of a particular proposal by an SRO. See Securities Acts Amendments of 1975, Report of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs to Accompany S. 249, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 30 (1975). 179 15 E:\FR\FM\09AUN1.SGM 09AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 154 / Friday, August 9, 2024 / Notices 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–CboeEDGX–2024–035 and should be submitted on or before August 30, 2024. Rebuttal comments should be submitted by September 13, 2024. VI. Conclusion It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act,180 that File No. SR–CboeEDGX–2024–035, be and hereby is, temporarily suspended. In addition, the Commission is instituting proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.181 Sherry R. Haywood Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. 2024–17698 Filed 8–8–24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011–01–P SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD [Docket No. FD 36377 (Sub-No. 8)] ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1 BNSF Railway Company—Trackage Rights Exemption—Union Pacific Railroad Company BNSF Railway Company (BNSF), a Class I rail carrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(7) for its acquisition of restricted, local, trackage rights over two rail lines owned by Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) between: (1) UP 180 15 181 17 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C). CFR 200.30–3(a)(57). VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:21 Aug 08, 2024 Jkt 262001 milepost 93.2 at Stockton, Cal., on UP’s Oakland Subdivision, and UP milepost 219.4 at Elsey, Cal., on UP’s Canyon Subdivision, a distance of 126.2 miles; and (2) UP milepost 219.4 at Elsey and UP milepost 280.7 at Keddie, Cal., on UP’s Canyon Subdivision, a distance of 61.3 miles (collectively, the Lines). Pursuant to a written temporary trackage rights agreement, UP has agreed to grant restricted trackage rights to BNSF over the Lines. The purpose of this transaction is to permit BNSF to move empty and loaded ballast trains to and from the ballast pit at Elsey, which is adjacent to the Lines. The agreement provides that the trackage rights are temporary and scheduled to expire on December 31, 2024.1 The transaction may be consummated on or after August 25, 2024, the effective date of the exemption (30 days after the verified notice was filed). As a condition to this exemption, any employees affected by the acquisition of the trackage rights will be protected by the conditions imposed in Norfolk & Western Railway—Trackage Rights— Burlington Northern, Inc., 354 I.C.C. 605 (1978), as modified in Mendocino Coast Railway—Lease & Operate—California Western Railroad, 360 I.C.C. 653 (1980). If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the exemption. Petitions for stay must be filed no later than August 16, 2024 (at least seven days before the exemption becomes effective). All pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 36377 (Sub-No. 8), must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board either via e-filing on the Board’s website or in writing addressed to 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423–0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on BNSF’s representative, Peter W. Denton, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, 1330 Connecticut Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036. According to BNSF, this action is categorically excluded from environmental review under 49 CFR 1 BNSF states that, because the trackage rights are for local rather than overhead traffic, it has not filed under the Board’s class exemption for temporary overhead trackage rights under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(8). Instead, BNSF has filed under the trackage rights class exemption at § 1180.2(d)(7). BNSF concurrently filed a petition for partial revocation of this exemption, in Docket No. FD 36377 (SubNo. 9), to permit these proposed trackage rights to expire at midnight on December 31, 2024, as provided in the agreement. The petition for partial revocation will be addressed in a subsequent decision. PO 00000 Frm 00166 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 65477 1105.6(c)(3) and from historic preservation reporting requirements under 49 CFR 1105.8(b)(3). Board decisions and notices are available at www.stb.gov. Decided: August 6, 2024. By the Board, Scott M. Zimmerman, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings. Regena Smith-Bernard, Clearance Clerk. [FR Doc. 2024–17770 Filed 8–8–24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4915–01–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration [Docket No.: FAA–2024–1586] Draft Advisory Circular for the Type Certification of Powered-Lift Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of availability, request for comments; extension of comment period. AGENCY: On June 12, 2024, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of availability for draft Advisory Circular (AC) 21.17–04, ‘‘Type Certification of Powered-lift’’. The comment period for this document expires on August 12, 2024. By letter dated August 1, 2024, the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) requested that the FAA extend the public-comment period deadline to September 12, 2024. GAMA stated in their request that providing more time to comment would allow member organizations to conduct a more thorough review and contribute constructively to the proposed criteria facilitating the development of robust, harmonized standards that maximize safety for powered-lift operations. DATES: The comment period for the document published June 12, 2024, at 89 FR 50042, is extended. Comments should be received on or before September 12, 2024. ADDRESSES: Send comments identified with ‘‘Type Certification—Powered-lift’’ and docket number FAA–2024–1586 using any of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M–30; U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12–140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590–0001. SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\09AUN1.SGM 09AUN1

Agencies

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 154 (Friday, August 9, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65469-65477]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-17698]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-100651; File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2024-035]


Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; 
Suspension of and Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To 
Approve or Disapprove Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Exchange's Fee 
Schedule Related to Physical Port Fees

August 5, 2024

I. Introduction

    On June 7, 2024, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or 
``EDGX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission 
(``Commission'' or ``SEC''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'' or ``Act''),\1\ and 
Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change (File Number SR-
CboeEDGX-2024-035) to increase fees for 10 gigabit (``Gb'') physical 
ports (``Proposal''). The proposed rule change was immediately 
effective upon filing with the Commission pursuant to Section 
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act.\3\ The proposed rule change was published for 
comment in the Federal Register on June 21, 2024.\4\ Pursuant to 
Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act,\5\ the Commission is hereby: (1) 
temporarily suspending the proposed rule change; and (2) instituting 
proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed 
rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). A proposed rule change may take 
effect upon filing with the Commission if it is designated by the 
exchange as ``establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge 
imposed by the self-regulatory organization on any person, whether 
or not the person is a member of the self-regulatory organization.'' 
15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 100343 (June 14, 
2024), 89 FR 52109 (``Notice'').
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background and Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule relating to 
physical connectivity fees by increasing the monthly fee for 10 Gb 
physical ports from $7,500 to $8,500 per port.\6\ The Exchanges states 
that, 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.\7\ Prior to this proposed rule change, 
the Exchange assessed the following physical connectivity fees for 
Members and non-Members on a monthly basis: $2,500 per physical port 
for a 1 Gb circuit and $7,500 per physical port for a 10 Gb circuit.\8\ 
The Exchange states 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.\9\ The Exchange also states that a 
single 10 Gb physical port can be used to access the Systems of the 
following affiliate exchanges: the Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc., Cboe BZX 
Exchange, Inc. (options and equities platforms), Cboe EDGA Exchange, 
Inc., and Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (``Affiliate Exchanges'').\10\ The 
Exchange states that only one monthly fee applies per 10 Gb physical 
port regardless of how many affiliated exchanges are accessed through 
that one port.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52109. The Exchange initially filed the 
proposed fee changes on July 3, 2023 (SR-CboeEDGX-2023-044). On 
September 1, 2023, the Exchange withdrew that filing and submitted 
SR-CboeEDGX-2023-057. On September 29, 2023, the Exchange states 
that 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. See Notice, 89 FR at 52109 n.3. On September 
29, 2023, the Exchange filed the proposed fee change (SR-CboeEDGX-
2023-62). On October 13, 2023, the Exchange withdrew that filing 
and, on business day October 16, 2023, submitted SR-CboeEDGX-2023-
065. On December 12, 2023, the Exchange withdrew that filing and 
submitted SR-CboeEDGX-2023-079. On December 20, 2023, the Exchange 
withdrew that filing and submitted SR-CboeBZX-2023-081. On February 
12, 2024, the Exchange withdrew that filing and submitted SR-
CboeEDGX-2024-013. On April 9, 2024, the Exchange withdrew that 
filing and submitted SR-CboeEDGX-2024-020. On June 7, 2024, the 
Exchange withdrew that filing and submitted SR-CboeEDGX-2024-035.
    \7\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52109.
    \8\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52109.
    \9\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52109 (citing 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 10Gb Ultra fiber connection to the respective exchange, which 
is analogous to the Exchange's 10Gb physical port. See also id. 
(citing New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE American LLC, NYSE Arca, 
Inc., NYSE Chicago Inc., NYSE National, Inc. Connectivity Fee 
Schedule, which provides that 10 Gb LX LCN Circuits (which are 
analogous to the Exchange's 10 Gb physical port) are assessed 
$22,000 per month, per port.)).
    \10\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52109. The Affiliate Exchanges are 
also submitted contemporaneous substantively similar rule filings.
    \11\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52109. The Exchange states that 
conversely, other exchange groups charge separate port fees for 
access to separate, but affiliated, exchanges. See Notice, 89 FR at 
52109 n.6 (citing Securities and Exchange Release No. 99822 (March 
21, 2024), 89 FR 21337 (March 27, 2024) (SR-MIAX-2024-016)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Suspension of the Proposed Rule Change

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act,\12\ at any time within 
60 days of the date of filing of an immediately effective proposed rule 
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Act,\13\ the Commission 
summarily may temporarily suspend the change in the rules of a self-
regulatory organization (``SRO'') 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. A temporary suspension of the proposed rule changes is 
necessary and appropriate to allow for additional analysis of the 
proposed rule change's consistency with the Act and the rules 
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Exchange Statements In Support of the Proposal

    In support of the Proposal, the Exchange states that it believes 
the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and 
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, 
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\14\ Specifically, the 
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the 
Section 6(b)(5) \15\ 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.\16\ 
Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is 
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) requirement that the rules of an 
exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between

[[Page 65470]]

customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.\17\ The Exchange also believes 
the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, 
which requires that Exchange rules provide for the equitable allocation 
of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its Members and other 
persons using its facilities.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52109; 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \15\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52109; 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \16\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52109.
    \17\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52109; 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \18\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52110; 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange states that it operates in a highly competitive 
environment.\19\ The Exchange states that on May 21, 2019, the SEC 
Division of Trading and Markets issued non-rulemaking fee filing 
guidance titled ``Staff Guidance on SRO Rule Filings Relating to Fees'' 
(``Fee Guidance''), which provided, among other things, that in 
determining whether a proposed fee is constrained by significant 
competitive forces, the Commission will consider whether there are 
reasonable substitutes for the product or service that is the subject 
of a proposed fee.\20\ As described in further detail below, the 
Exchange believes substitutable products are in fact available to 
market participants, including by third-party resellers of the 
Exchange's physical connectivity, and the availability to trade all of 
the products offered at the Exchange at one of the 16 other equities 
exchanges that trade equities or other off-exchange trading 
platforms.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52110.
    \20\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52110. (citing Chairman Jay Clayton, 
Statement on Division of Trading and Markets Staff Fee Guidance, 
June 12, 2019). The Exchange states that the Fee Guidance also 
recognized that ``products need to be substantially similar but not 
identical to be substitutable.'' Id.
    \21\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52110. The Exchanges states that a 
substitute, or substitutable good, in economics and consumer theory 
refers to a product or service that consumers see as essentially the 
same or similar-enough to another product. See id. at n.12 (citing 
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/substitute.asp).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange states that the 2019 Fee Guidance also acknowledged 
that platform competition may demonstrate a competitive environment and 
therefore constrain aggregate returns, regardless of the pricing of 
individual products, and that platforms often have joint products.\22\ 
The Exchange states that exchanges themselves are platforms.\23\ 
Particularly, the Exchange states that exchanges are multi-sided 
platforms that facilitate interactions between multiple sides of the 
market--buyers and sellers, companies and investors, and traders and 
market watchers--and their value is dependent on attracting users to 
the multiple sides of the platform.\24\ As described in further detail 
below, the Exchange believes that competition among exchanges as 
trading platforms (and between exchanges and alternative trading 
venues) constrain exchanges from charging excessive fees for any 
exchange products, including trading, listings, connectivity and market 
data. As such, fees need not be analyzed from only one side, but rather 
can, and should, be considered within the larger context of the 
platform to test for anti-competitive behavior.\25\ The Exchange states 
that nothing in the Exchange Act requires the individual examination of 
specific product fees in isolation.\26\ Rather, the Exchange states 
that the Act generally requires the rules of an exchange to provide for 
the ``equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges 
among members and issuers and other persons using its facilities.'' 
\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52110 (citing Fee Guidance).
    \23\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52110. The Exchanges states that the 
Supreme Court in Ohio v. American Express Co. recognized that, as 
platforms facilitate transactions between two or more sides of a 
market, their value is dependent on attracting users to both sides 
of the platform (i.e., network effects). See id. at n.14 (citing 
Ohio v. American Express Co. 138 S. Ct. 2274, 585 U.S. 529 (2018)).
    \24\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52110.
    \25\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52110.
    \26\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52110.
    \27\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52110 (citing 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 Gb 
physical ports.\28\ Further, the Exchange states that the current 10 Gb 
physical port fee has remained unchanged since June 2018.\29\ The 
Exchange explains that since its last increase over 6 years ago 
however, there has been notable inflation.\30\ Particularly, the 
Exchange states that the dollar has had an average inflation rate of 
3.76% per year between 2018 and today, producing a cumulative price 
increase of approximately 24.8% inflation since the fee for the 10 Gb 
physical port was last modified.\31\ Moreover, the Exchange states that 
it historically does not increase fees every year, notwithstanding 
inflation.\32\ Accordingly, the Exchange believes the proposed fee of 
$8,500 is reasonable as it only represents an approximate 13% increase 
from the rate adopted six years ago, notwithstanding the cumulative 
inflation rate of inflation of 24.8%.\33\ The Exchange states that were 
the Exchange to adjust fully for inflation, it would be proposing a 
monthly rate of $9,360, which is 10% more than the Exchange is actually 
proposing.\34\ To further demonstrate, the Exchange notes that $8,500 
in 2024 is equivalent to approximately $6,800 in 2018, when adjusted 
for inflation.\35\ Accordingly, the Exchange believes the proposed rate 
is also reasonable as it is nearly 20% lower than the rate adopted in 
2018 (i.e., $7,500) when adjusted for inflation.\36\ The Exchange 
states it 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.\37\ The Exchange also believes its offerings 
are more affordable as compared to similar offerings at competitor 
exchanges.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52110.
    \29\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52110 (citing Securities and Exchange 
Release No. 83450 (June 15, 2018), 83 FR 28884 (June 21, 2018) (SR-
CboeEDGX-2018-016)).
    \30\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52110.
    \31\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52110 (citing https://www.officialdata.org/us/inflation/2010?amount=1).
    \32\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52110.
    \33\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52110.
    \34\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52110.
    \35\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52110.
    \36\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52110.
    \37\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52110.
    \38\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52110. The Exchange states that 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. Id. (citing The 
Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq''), General 8, Connectivity to the 
Exchange). See also id. (citing 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 notes Members and non-Members will continue to 
choose the method of connectivity based on their specific needs and no 
broker-dealer is required to become a Member of, let alone connect 
directly to, the Exchange.\39\ The Exchange states that there is also 
no regulatory requirement that any market participant connect to any 
one particular exchange.\40\ The Exchange explains that 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.\41\ Additionally, the Exchange states that 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.\42\ The 
Exchange states that, moreover, direct connectivity is not a 
requirement to participate on the Exchange.\43\ The Exchange also 
believes substitutable

[[Page 65471]]

products and services are available to market participants, including, 
among other things, other equities exchanges that 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 equities product, such as within the Over-the-Counter (OTC) markets 
which do not require connectivity to the Exchange.\44\ The Exchange 
states that there are currently 16 registered equities exchanges that 
trade equities (12 of which are not affiliated with Cboe), some of 
which have similar or lower connectivity fees.\45\ The Exchange states 
that, based on publicly available information, no single equities 
exchange has more than approximately 15% of the market share.\46\ The 
Exchange states that 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.\47\ The Exchange explains that, for example, in 2020 alone, 
three new exchanges entered the market: Long Term Stock Exchange 
(LTSE), Members Exchange (MEMX), and Miami International Holdings (MIAX 
Pearl).\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52110.
    \40\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52110.
    \41\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52110.
    \42\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52110.
    \43\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52110.
    \44\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52110.
    \45\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52110.
    \46\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52110 (citing Cboe Global Markets U.S. 
Equities Market Volume Summary (June 6, 2024), available at https://www.cboe.com/us/equities/market_statistics/).
    \47\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52110.
    \48\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52110-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange states that there is no regulatory requirement that 
any market participant connect to any one equities 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.\49\ The Exchange states that moreover, 
membership is not a requirement to participate on the Exchange.\50\ The 
Exchange states that it is unaware of any one equities exchange whose 
membership includes every registered broker-dealer.\51\ The Exchange 
explains, by way of example, that as of April 2024 Cboe BYX has 110 
members that trade equities, Cboe EDGX has 124 members that trade 
equities, Cboe EDGA has 103 members and Cboe BZX has 132 members.\52\ 
The Exchange states that there is also no firm that is a Member of the 
Exchange only.\53\ The Exchange states that further, based on publicly 
available information regarding a sample of the Exchange's competitors, 
NYSE has 143 members, IEX has 129 members and MIAX Pearl has 51 
members.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52111.
    \50\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52111.
    \51\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52111.
    \52\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52111.
    \53\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52111.
    \54\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52111 (citing https://www.nyse.com/markets/nyse/membership; https://www.iexexchange.io/membership; 
https://www.miaxglobal.com/sites/default/files/page-files/20230630_MIAX_Pearl_Equities_Exchange_Members_June_2023.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange states that a market participant may also submit 
orders to the Exchange via a Member broker or a third-party reseller of 
connectivity.\55\ The Exchange notes that third-party non-Members also 
resell exchange connectivity.\56\ The Exchange explains that this 
indirect connectivity is another viable alternative for market 
participants to trade on the Exchange without connecting directly to 
the Exchange (and thus not pay the Exchange connectivity fees), which 
alternative is already being used by non-Members and further constrains 
the price that the Exchange is able to charge for connectivity to its 
Exchange.\57\ The Exchange notes that it could, but chooses not to, 
preclude market participants from reselling its connectivity.\58\ 
Unlike other exchanges, the Exchange states that it also chooses not to 
adopt fees that would be assessed to third-party resellers on a per 
customer basis (i.e., fee based on number of Members that connect to 
the Exchange indirectly via the third-party).\59\ The Exchange states 
that these third-party resellers may purchase the Exchange's physical 
ports and resell access to such ports either alone or as part of a 
package of services.\60\ The Exchange notes that multiple Members are 
able to share a single physical port (and corresponding bandwidth) with 
other non-affiliated Members if purchased through a third-party re-
seller.\61\ The Exchange explains that this allows resellers to 
mutualize the costs of the ports for market participants and provide 
such ports at a price that may be lower than the Exchange charges due 
to this mutualized connectivity.\62\ The Exchange states that these 
third-party sellers may also provide an additional value to market 
participants in addition to the physical port itself as they may also 
manage and monitor these connections, and clients of these third-
parties may also be able to connect from the same colocation facility 
either from their own racks or using the third-party's managed racks 
and infrastructure which may provide further cost-savings.\63\ The 
Exchange believes such third-party resellers may also use the 
Exchange's connectivity as an incentive for market participants to 
purchase further services such as hosting services.\64\ That is, the 
Exchange states, that even firms that wish to utilize a single, 
dedicated 10 Gb port (i.e., use one single 10 Gb port themselves 
instead of sharing a port with other firms), may still realize cost 
savings via a third-party reseller as it relates to a physical port 
because such reseller may be providing a discount on the physical port 
to incentivize the purchase of additional services and infrastructure 
support alongside the physical port offering (e.g., providing space, 
hosting, power, and other long-haul connectivity options).\65\ The 
Exchange explains that this is similar to cell phone carriers offering 
a new iPhone at a discount (or even at no cost) if purchased in 
connection with a new monthly phone plan.\66\ The Exchange states that 
these services may reevaluate reselling or offering Cboe's direct 
connectivity if they deem the fees to be excessive.\67\ Further, as 
noted above, the Exchange does not receive any connectivity revenue 
when connectivity

[[Page 65472]]

is resold by a third-party, which often is resold to multiple 
customers, some of whom are agency broker-dealers that have numerous 
customers of their own.\68\ The Exchange states, for example, there are 
approximately 12 third parties who resell Exchange connectivity across 
the 7 Affiliated Exchanges, which are all accessible on the same 
network.\69\ The Exchange explains that these third-party resellers 
collectively maintain approximately 48 physical ports from the 
Exchange, but have collectively almost 200 unique customers downstream, 
connected through these multi-Exchange ports.\70\ The Exchange states 
that therefore, given the availability of third-party providers that 
also offer connectivity solutions, the Exchange believes participation 
on the Exchange remains affordable (notwithstanding the proposed fee 
change) for all market participants, including trading firms that may 
be able to take advantage of lower costs that result from mutualized 
connectivity and/or from other services provided alongside the physical 
port offerings.\71\ The Exchange states that because third-party 
resellers also act as a viable alternative to direct connectivity to 
the Exchange, the price that the Exchange is able to charge for direct 
connectivity to its Exchange is constrained.\72\ The Exchange states 
that moreover, if the Exchange were to assess supracompetitve rates, 
members and non-members (such as third-party resellers) alike, may 
decide not to purchase, or to reduce its use of, the Exchange's direct 
connectivity.\73\ The Exchange explains that disincentivizing market 
participants from purchasing Exchange connectivity would only serve to 
discourage participation on the Exchange which ultimately does not 
benefit the Exchange.\74\ Further, the Exchange believes its offerings 
are more affordable as compared to similar offerings at competitor 
exchanges.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52111.
    \56\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52111.
    \57\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52111. The Exchange states that third-
party resellers of connectivity play an important role in the 
capital markets infrastructure ecosystem. For example, according to 
the Exchange, third-party resellers can help unify access for 
customers who want exposure to multiple financial markets that are 
geographically dispersed by establishing connectivity to all of the 
different exchanges, so the customers themselves do not have to. The 
Exchange further states that many of the third-party connectivity 
resellers also act as distribution agents for all of the market data 
generated by the exchanges as they can use their established 
connectivity to subscribe to, and redistribute, data over their 
networks. The Exchange explains that this may remove barriers that 
infrastructure requirements may otherwise pose for customers looking 
to access multiple markets and real-time data feeds. The Exchange 
further explains that this facilitation of overall access to the 
marketplace is ultimately beneficial for the entire capital markets 
ecosystem, including the Exchange, on which such firms transact 
business. See id. at n.24.
    \58\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52111.
    \59\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52111 (citing Nasdaq Price List--U.S. 
Direct Connection and Extranet Fees, available at, US Direct-
Extranet Connection (nasdaqtrader.com); and Securities Exchange Act 
Release Nos. 74077 (January 16, 2022), 80 FR 3683 (January 23, 2022) 
(SR-NASDAQ-2015-002); and 82037 (November 8, 2022), 82 FR 52953 
(November 15, 2022) (SR-NASDAQ-2017-114)).
    \60\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52111.
    \61\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52111. The Exchange states that for 
example, a third-party reseller may purchase one 10 Gb physical port 
from the Exchange and resell that connectivity to three different 
market participants who may only need 3 Gb each and leverage the 
same single port. Id. at n.26.
    \62\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52111.
    \63\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52111.
    \64\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52111.
    \65\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52111.
    \66\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52111.
    \67\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52111.
    \68\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52111.
    \69\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52111.
    \70\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52111.
    \71\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52111.
    \72\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52111.
    \73\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52111.
    \74\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52111.
    \75\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52111 (citing 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 id. 
(citing 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.)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Exchange states that 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.\76\ The Exchange explains that 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 12 non-Cboe 
affiliated equities markets.\77\ The Exchange states that market 
participants are free to choose which exchange to use to satisfy their 
business needs.\78\ The Exchange states that, moreover, if the Exchange 
were to assess supracompetitve rates, members and non-members alike, 
may decide not to purchase, or to reduce their use of, the Exchange's 
direct connectivity.\79\ The Exchange states that disincentivizing 
market participants from purchasing Exchange connectivity would only 
serve to discourage participation on the Exchange which ultimately does 
not benefit the Exchange.\80\ The Exchange states that, for example, 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.\81\ The Exchange believes that this competitive dynamic 
imposes powerful restraints on the ability of any exchange to charge 
unreasonable fees for connectivity.\82\ 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.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52111-12.
    \77\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52112.
    \78\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52112.
    \79\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52112.
    \80\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52112.
    \81\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52112.
    \82\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52112.
    \83\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52112.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange states that additionally, in connection with a 
proposed amendment to the National Market System Plan Governing the 
Consolidated Audit Trail (``CAT NMS Plan'') the Commission again 
discussed the existence of competition in the marketplace generally, 
and particularly for exchanges with unique business models.\84\ The 
Exchange states that 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.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52112 (citing Securities Exchange Act 
Release No. 86901 (September 9, 2019), 84 FR 48458 (September 13, 
2019) (File No. S7-13-19)).
    \85\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52112 (citing Securities Exchange Act 
Release No. 86901 (September 9, 2019), 84 FR 48458 (September 13, 
2019) (File No. S7-13-19)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange states that, as noted above, exchanges also compete as 
platforms.\86\ The Exchange explains that in the context of the 
competition among platforms, different exchanges operate a variety of 
different business models.\87\ The Exchange further explains that, in 
fact, there are a number of ways an exchange can differentiate itself, 
such as by pricing structure, technology and functionality offerings, 
and products.\88\ The Exchange states that market participants can 
access the exchange without purchasing anything from an exchange, 
instead using third-party routers and data.\89\ The Exchange explains 
that for those whose business models necessitate the purchase of some 
mix of trading, connectivity, and data services, there are a variety of 
options at different price points, allowing market participants to 
exercise choice, and forcing exchanges to compete on their offerings 
and prices.\90\ The Exchange states that further, all elements of the 
platform--trade executions, market data, connectivity, membership, and 
listings--operate in concert.\91\ The Exchange explains that, for 
example, trade executions increase the value of market data; market 
data functions as an advertisement for on-exchange trading; listings 
increase the value of trade executions and market data; and greater 
liquidity on the exchange enhances the value of ports and connectivity 
services.\92\ As such, the Exchange states that demand for one set of 
platform services depends on the demand for other services and 
therefore to make its

[[Page 65473]]

platform attractive to multiple constituencies, an exchange must 
consider inter-side externalities.\93\ The Exchange explains that in 
assessing competition for exchange services, exchanges must also 
consider not only explicit costs, such as fees for trading, market 
data, and connectivity, but the implicit costs, such as realized 
spreads, of trading on an exchange.\94\ The Exchange states that, when 
accounting for explicit and implicit costs, research has found that 
competition has largely equalized all-in trading costs to users across 
exchanges.\95\ The Exchange states that, for example, data has shown 
that venues with the highest explicit costs (typically inverted and 
fee-fee venues) have the lowest implicit costs from markouts \96\ and 
vice versa.\97\ The Exchange states that implicit costs explain how 
venues with higher explicit costs manage to compete with seemingly much 
cheaper venues (and conversely, how exchanges with higher implicit 
costs use lower fees to compete).\98\ The Exchange further states that 
additional research also confirms that market participants route trades 
in a way that not only accounts for explicit and implicit costs--but 
also very efficiently values opportunity costs, like lower odds of 
getting a fill on inverted venues.\99\ As such, the Exchange believes 
the proposed fee change is reasonable as exchanges are constrained from 
charging excessive fees for any exchange product, including physical 
connectivity.\100\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52112.
    \87\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52112.
    \88\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52112.
    \89\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52112.
    \90\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52112.
    \91\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52112.
    \92\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52112.
    \93\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52112.
    \94\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52112.
    \95\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52112 (citing Mackintosh, Phil & 
Normyle, Michael. ``How Exchanges Compete: An Economic Analysis of 
Platform Competition.'' Nasdaq, March 2024, https://www.nasdaq.com/How-Exchanges-Compete-An-Economic-Analysis-of-Platform-Competition) 
(``Mackintosh and Normyle'').
    \96\ The Exchange explains that per-trade markout is a measure 
of theoretical profitability from the perspective of a liquidity 
provider. See Notice, 89 FR at 52112 n.31.
    \97\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52112 (citing Mackintosh and Normyle).
    \98\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52112.The Exchange states that, for 
example, research by Nasdaq found that it is over 60% more expensive 
to trade on the costliest exchange than on the cheapest. According 
to the Exchange, such a sizeable disparity suggests that there is 
another factor that keeps these exchanges in competition. 
Specifically, the Exchange states that when implicit costs are 
considered, the difference in cost to trade is minimized. See id.
    \99\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52112 (citing Bershova, Nataliya & 
Jaquet, Paul. (2019). Execution Quality and Fee Structure: Passive 
Lit Executions. Bernstein Electronic Trading, Execution Research).
    \100\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52112.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes the proposed fee increase is reasonable 
in light of recent and anticipated connectivity-related upgrades and 
changes.\101\ The Exchange states that it 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.\102\ The Exchange explains that 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.\103\ The Exchange states that, for example, the Exchange 
recently performed switch hardware upgrades.\104\ The Exchange explains 
that, particularly, the Exchange replaced existing customer access 
switches with newer models, which the Exchange believes resulted in 
increased determinism, and the recent switch upgrades also increased 
the Exchange's capacity to accommodate more physical ports by nearly 
50%.\105\ The Exchange states that network bandwidth was also increased 
nearly two-fold as a result of the upgrades, which among other things, 
can lead to reduce message queuing.\106\ The Exchange also believes 
these newer models result in less natural variance in the processing of 
messages.\107\ 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.\108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52112.
    \102\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52112.
    \103\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52112.
    \104\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52112.
    \105\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52112.
    \106\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52112.
    \107\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52112.
    \108\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52112.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange states that 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.\109\ The Exchange states that it made NY6 
available in response to customer requests in connection with their 
need for additional space and capacity.\110\ The Exchange explains that 
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.\111\ The Exchange states it also incurred a large 
cost with respect to ensuring NY6 would be latency equalized, as it is 
for NY4 and NY5.\112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52112-13.
    \110\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52113.
    \111\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52113.
    \112\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52113.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange states that it also has made various other 
improvements since the current physical port rates were adopted in 
2018.\113\ The Exchanges states that, 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.\114\ The Exchange explains that it 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.\115\ Accordingly, the Exchange states that it 
has 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 equities markets.\116\ The Exchange explains that 
its ability to continue to innovate with technology and offer new 
products to market participants allows the Exchange to remain 
competitive in the equities space which currently has 16 equities 
markets and potential new entrants.\117\ The Exchange states that if 
the Exchange were not able to assess incrementally higher fees for its 
connectivity, it would effectively impact how the Exchange manages its 
technology and hamper the Exchange's ability to continue to invest in 
and fund access services in a manner that allows it to meet existing 
and anticipated access demands of market participants.\118\ The 
Exchange explains that disapproval of fee changes such as the proposal 
herein, could also have the adverse effect of discouraging an exchange 
from improving its operations and implementing innovative technology to 
the benefit of market participants if it believes the Commission would 
later prevent that exchange from recouping costs and monetizing its 
operational enhancements, thus adversely impacting competition.\119\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52113.
    \114\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52113.
    \115\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52113.
    \116\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52113.
    \117\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52113.
    \118\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52113.
    \119\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52113.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 65474]]

for similar connections.\120\ Indeed, the Exchange believes assessing 
fees at 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.\121\ The 
Exchange states that the proposed fee is also the same as is 
concurrently being proposed for its Affiliate Exchanges.\122\ Further, 
the Exchange states that Members are able to utilize a single port to 
connect to all of its Affiliate Exchanges and will only be charged one 
single fee (i.e., a market participant will only be assessed the 
proposed $8,500 even if it uses that physical port to connect to the 
Exchange and another (or even all 6) of its Affiliate Exchanges).\123\ 
Particularly, the Exchange believes the proposed monthly per port fee 
is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory since as the 
Exchange has determined to not charge multiple fees for the same 
port.\124\ 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).\125\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52113 (citing 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 10Gb Ultra fiber connection to the respective exchange, which 
is analogous to the Exchange's 10Gb physical port. See also id. 
(citing New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE American LLC, NYSE Arca, 
Inc., NYSE Chicago Inc., NYSE National, Inc. Connectivity Fee 
Schedule, which provides that 10 Gb LX LCN Circuits (which are 
analogous to the Exchange's 10 Gb physical port) are assessed 
$22,000 per month, per port.)).
    \121\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52113.
    \122\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52113.
    \123\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52113.
    \124\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52113.
    \125\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52113.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. \126\ The 
Exchange believes increasing the fee for 10 Gb physical ports and 
charging a higher fee as compared to the 1 Gb physical port is 
equitable as the 1 Gb physical port is 1/10th the size of the 10 Gb 
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). \127\ The Exchange explains that, thus, 
the value of the 1 Gb alternative is lower than the value of the 10 Gb 
alternative, when measured based on the type of Exchange access it 
offers.\128\ The Exchange states that, moreover, market participants 
that purchase 10 Gb physical ports utilize the most bandwidth and 
therefore consume the most resources from the network.\129\ 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.\130\ 
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.\131\ As such, the Exchange believes the proposed fee change for 
10 Gb physical ports is reasonably and appropriately allocated.\132\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \126\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52113.
    \127\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52113.
    \128\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52113.
    \129\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52113.
    \130\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52113.
    \131\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52113.
    \132\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52113.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange states 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.\133\ The Exchange 
states that, moreover, Congress's intent in enacting the 1975 
Amendments to the Act was to enable competition--rather than government 
order--to determine prices.\134\ The Exchange explains that the 
principal purpose of the amendments was to facilitate the creation of a 
national market system for the trading of securities.\135\ The Exchange 
states that Congress intended that this ``national market system evolve 
through the interplay of competitive forces as unnecessary regulatory 
restrictions are removed,'' and that other provisions of the Act 
confirm that intent.\136\ The Exchange states that, 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.'' \137\ The Exchange further states that, 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.'' \138\ The Exchange explains that, in short, the promotion of 
free and open competition was a core congressional objective in 
creating the national market system.\139\ The Exchange states that, 
indeed, the Commission has historically interpreted that mandate to 
promote competitive forces to determine prices whenever compatible with 
a national market system.\140\ 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.\141\ The Exchange believes 
that, finally, and importantly, 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.\142\ 
Indeed, the Exchange believes that classification of costs could likely 
not be done without on-going debate over formulas for allocation,\143\ 
continual auditing, and

[[Page 65475]]

considerable expense.\144\ The Exchange also believes cost-based 
analysis could create disincentives to reduce costs through efficient 
operation or innovation.\145\ Moreover, the Exchange believes that the 
industry could experience frequent rate increases based on escalating 
expense levels.\146\ The Exchange lastly cautions that as disputes 
arise regarding the appropriate measure and calculation of relevant 
costs and allocation of common costs, the Commission could find itself 
engaging in the kind of rigid ratemaking not contemplated by Section 
11A of the Exchange Act and which, according to the Exchange, the 
Commission has historically sought to avoid.\147\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \133\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52113.
    \134\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52113.
    \135\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52113.
    \136\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52113 (citing H.R. Rep. No. 94-229, 
at 92 (1975) (Conf. Rep.) (emphasis added)).
    \137\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52113 (citing 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5)).
    \138\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52113 (citing 15 U.S.C. 78f(8)).
    \139\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52113 (citing 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.'')).
    \140\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52113.
    \141\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52113-14.
    \142\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52114.
    \143\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52114, n.40 (citing letter from Brian 
Sopinsky, General Counsel, Susquehanna International Group, LLP 
(``SIG''), to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Commission, dated 
February 7, 2023, letters from Gerald D. O'Connell, SIG, to Vanessa 
Countryman, Secretary, Commission, dated March 21, 2023, May 24, 
2023, July 24, 2023 and September 18, 2023, and letters from John C. 
Pickford, SIG, to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Commission, dated 
January 4, 2024, and March 1, 2024 and letters from Thomas M. 
Merritt, Deputy General Counsel, Virtu Financial, Inc., to Vanessa 
Countryman, Secretary, Commission, dated November 8, 2023 and 
January 2, 2024. See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 93883 
(December 30, 2021), 87 FR 523 (January 5, 2022) (SR-IEX-2021-14) 
(Suspension of and Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine 
Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its 
Fee Schedule for Market Data Fees) and Securities Exchange Act 
Release No. 94888 (May 11, 2022), 87 FR 29892 (May 17, 2022) (SR-
PEARL-2022-18) (Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend 
the MIAX PEARL Options Fee Schedule To Increase Certain Connectivity 
Fees and To Increase the Monthly Fees for MIAX Express Network Full 
Service Port; Suspension of and Order Instituting Proceedings To 
Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove the Proposed Rule 
Change)).
    \144\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52114.
    \145\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52114.
    \146\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52114.
    \147\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52114.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also 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.\148\ The 
Exchange states that the proposed fee change will not impact 
intramarket competition because it will apply to all similarly situated 
Members equally (i.e., all market participants that choose to purchase 
the 10 Gb physical port).\149\ 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.\150\ 
For example, the Exchange states that market participants with modest 
capacity needs can continue to buy the less expensive 1 Gb physical 
port (which cost is not changing) or may choose to obtain access via a 
third-party re-seller.\151\ The Exchange states that while pricing may 
be increased for the larger capacity physical ports, such options 
provide far more capacity and are purchased by those that consume more 
resources from the network.\152\ Accordingly, the Exchange states that 
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.\153\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \148\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52114.
    \149\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52114.
    \150\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52114.
    \151\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52114.
    \152\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52114.
    \153\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52114.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange states that the 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.\154\ Further, if 
the changes proposed herein are unattractive to market participants, 
the Exchange states that it can, and likely will, see a decline in 
connectivity via 10 Gb physical ports as a result.\155\ The Exchange 
states that it 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.\156\ The Exchange states that market participants have numerous 
alternative venues that they may participate on and direct their order 
flow, including 12 non-Cboe affiliated equities markets, as well as 
off-exchange venues, where competitive products are available for 
trading.\157\ Moreover, the Exchange states that the Commission has 
repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory 
intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the 
securities markets.\158\ Specifically, the Exchange states that 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 been remarkably 
successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that 
are most important to investors and listed companies.'' \159\ The 
Exchange states that the fact that this market is competitive has also 
long been recognized by the courts.\160\ 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.\161\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \154\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52114.
    \155\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52114.
    \156\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52114.
    \157\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52114.
    \158\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52114.
    \159\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52114 (citing Securities Exchange Act 
Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 
2005)).
    \160\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52114. The Exchange states that 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'. . . 
.'' (citing 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))).
    \161\ See Notice, 89 FR at 52114.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Suspension

    When exchanges file their proposed rule changes with the 
Commission, including fee filings like the Exchange's present proposal, 
they are required to provide a statement supporting the proposal's 
basis under the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable 
to the exchange.\162\ The instructions to Form 19b-4, on which 
exchanges file their proposed rule changes, specify that such statement 
``should be sufficiently detailed and specific to support a finding 
that the proposed rule change is consistent with [those] 
requirements.'' \163\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \162\ See 17 CFR 240.19b-4 (Item 3 entitled ``Self-Regulatory 
Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, 
the Proposed Rule Change'').
    \163\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 6 of the Act, including Sections 6(b)(4), (5), and (8), 
requires the rules of an exchange to: (1) provide for the equitable 
allocation of reasonable fees among members, issuers, and other persons 
using the exchange's facilities; \164\ (2) perfect the mechanism of a 
free and open market and a national market system, protect investors 
and the public interest, and not be designed to permit unfair 
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers; \165\ 
and (3) not impose any burden on competition not necessary or 
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\166\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \164\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \165\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \166\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In temporarily suspending the Exchange's proposed rule change, the 
Commission intends to further consider whether the Proposal to increase 
its 10 Gb physical port connectivity fee is consistent with the 
statutory requirements applicable to a national securities exchange 
under the Act. The Commission will consider, among other things, 
whether the Exchange has provided sufficient information to demonstrate 
that the Exchange is subject to significant competitive forces when 
setting the proposed port connectivity fees. In particular, the 
Commission will consider whether the proposed rule change satisfies the 
standards under the Act and the rules thereunder requiring, among other 
things, that an exchange's rules provide for the equitable allocation 
of reasonable fees among members, issuers, and other persons using its 
facilities; not permit unfair

[[Page 65476]]

discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers; and do 
not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in 
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\167\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \167\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5), and (8), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the Commission finds that it is appropriate in the 
public interest, for the protection of investors, and otherwise in 
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, to temporarily suspend the 
proposed rule change.\168\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \168\ For purposes of temporarily suspending the proposed rule 
change, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on 
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove the 
Proposed Rule Changes

    In addition to temporarily suspending the Proposal, the Commission 
also hereby institutes proceedings pursuant to Sections 19(b)(3)(C) 
\169\ and 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \170\ to determine whether the 
Exchange's proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved. 
Institution of proceedings does not indicate that the Commission has 
reached any conclusions with respect to any of the issues involved. 
Rather, the Commission seeks and encourages interested persons to 
provide additional comment on the proposed rule change to inform the 
Commission's analysis of whether to approve or disapprove the proposed 
rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \169\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C). Once the Commission temporarily 
suspends a proposed rule change, Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act 
requires that the Commission institute proceedings under Section 
19(b)(2)(B) to determine whether a proposed rule change should be 
approved or disapproved.
    \170\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,\171\ the Commission is 
providing notice of the grounds for possible disapproval under 
consideration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \171\ Id. Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act also provides that 
proceedings to determine whether to disapprove a proposed rule 
change must be concluded within 180 days of the date of publication 
of notice of the filing of the proposed rule change. See id. The 
time for conclusion of the proceedings may be extended for up to 60 
days if the Commission finds good cause for such extension and 
publishes its reasons for so finding, or if the exchange consents to 
the longer period. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether the Exchange has demonstrated how the proposed fee 
is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, which requires that the 
rules of a national securities exchange ``provide for the equitable 
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its 
members and issuers and other persons using its facilities''; \172\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \172\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether the Exchange has demonstrated how the proposed fee 
is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, which requires, among 
other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange not be 
``designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, 
brokers, or dealers''; \173\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \173\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether the Exchange has demonstrated how the proposed fee 
is consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, which requires that the 
rules of a national securities exchange ``not impose any burden on 
competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes 
of [the Act].'' \174\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \174\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in Section III above, the Exchange made various 
arguments in support of the Proposal. There are questions as to whether 
the Exchange has provided sufficient information to demonstrate that 
the proposed fee is consistent with the Act and the rules thereunder. 
The Commission will specifically consider, among other things, whether 
the Exchange has provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the 
proposed fee is reasonable and equitably allocated, is not unfairly 
discriminatory, and does not impose any burden on competition that is 
not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
    Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, the ``burden to 
demonstrate that a proposed rule change is consistent with the [Act] 
and the rules and regulations issued thereunder . . . is on the [SRO] 
that proposed the rule change.'' \175\ The description of a proposed 
rule change, its purpose and operation, its effect, and a legal 
analysis of its consistency with applicable requirements must all be 
sufficiently detailed and specific to support an affirmative Commission 
finding,\176\ and any failure of an SRO to provide this information may 
result in the Commission not having a sufficient basis to make an 
affirmative finding that a proposed rule change is consistent with the 
Act and the applicable rules and regulations.\177\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \175\ 17 CFR 201.700(b)(3).
    \176\ See id.
    \177\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional 
consideration and comment on the issues raised herein, including as to 
whether the proposed fee is consistent with the Act, and specifically, 
with its requirements that exchange fees be reasonable and equitably 
allocated, not be unfairly discriminatory, and not impose any burden on 
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the 
purposes of the Act.\178\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \178\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5), and (8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Commission's Solicitation of Comments

    The Commission requests written views, data, and arguments with 
respect to the concerns identified above as well as any other relevant 
concerns. Such comments should be submitted by August 30, 2024. 
Rebuttal comments should be submitted by September 13, 2024. Although 
there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or 
disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, 
data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 
19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral 
presentation.\179\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \179\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). Section 19(b)(2) of the Act grants 
the Commission flexibility to determine what type of proceeding--
either oral or notice and opportunity for written comments--is 
appropriate for consideration of a particular proposal by an SRO. 
See Securities Acts Amendments of 1975, Report of the Senate 
Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs to Accompany S. 249, 
S. Rep. No. 75, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency and 
merit of the Exchange's statements in support of the Proposal, in 
addition to any other comments they may wish to submit about the 
proposed rule changes.
    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-CboeEDGX-2024-035 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-CboeEDGX-2024-035. 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

[[Page 65477]]

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-CboeEDGX-2024-035 and should be 
submitted on or before August 30, 2024. Rebuttal comments should be 
submitted by September 13, 2024.

VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the 
Act,\180\ that File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2024-035, be and hereby is, 
temporarily suspended. In addition, the Commission is instituting 
proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be 
approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \180\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\181\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \181\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-17698 Filed 8-8-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.