Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 240 / Friday, December 15, 2023 / Notices 87009 

153See letter from Brian Sopinsky, General 

Counsel, Susquehanna International Group, LLP 

(‘‘SIG’’), to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, 

Commission, dated February 7, 2023, and 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. 

154See letter from Thomas M. Merritt, Deputy 

General Counsel, Virtu Financial, Inc. (‘‘Virtu’’), to 

Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Commission, dated 

November 8, 2023. 

155 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 

156 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(2). 

157 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

In conclusion, as discussed 

thoroughly above, the Exchange 

regrettably believes that the application 

of the Revised Review Process and Staff 

Guidance has adversely affected intermarket competition among legacy and 

non-legacy exchanges by impeding the 

ability of non-legacy exchanges to adopt 

or increase fees for their market data 

and access services (including 

connectivity and port products and 

services) that are on parity or 

commensurate with fee levels 

previously established by legacy 

exchanges. Since the adoption of the 

Revised Review Process and Staff 

Guidance, and even more so recently, it 

has become extraordinarily difficult to 

adopt or increase fees to generate 

revenue necessary to invest in systems, 

provide innovative trading products and 

solutions, and improve competitive 

standing to the benefit of non-legacy 

exchanges’ market participants. 

Although the Staff Guidance served an 

important policy goal of improving 

disclosures and requiring exchanges to 

justify that their market data and access 

fee proposals are fair and reasonable, it 

has also negatively impacted non-legacy 

exchanges in particular in their efforts 

to adopt or increase fees that would 

enable them to more fairly compete with 

legacy exchanges, despite providing 

enhanced disclosures and rationale 

under both competitive and cost basis 

approaches provided for by the Revised 

Review Process and Staff Guidance to 

support their proposed fee changes. 

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Comments on the 

Proposed Rule Change Received From 

Members, Participants, or Others 

The Exchange received one comment 

letter on the Initial Proposal, one 

comment letter on the Second Proposal, 

one comment letter on the Third 

Proposal, one comment letter on the 

Fourth Proposal, one comment letter on 

the Fifth Proposal, and one comment 

letter on the Sixth Proposal, all from the 

same commenter.153 In their letters, the 

sole commenter seeks to incorporate 

comments submitted on previous 

Exchange proposals to which the 

Exchange has previously responded. 

The Exchange also received one 

comment letter from a separate 

commenter on the Sixth Proposal.154

The Exchange believes issues raised by 

each commenters are not germane to 

this proposal in particular, but rather 

raise larger issues with the current 

environment surrounding exchange 

non-transaction fee proposals that 

should be addressed by the Commission 

through rule making, or Congress, more 

holistically and not through an 

individual exchange fee filings. Among 

other things, the commenters are 

requesting additional data and 

information that is both opaque and a 

moving target and would constitute a 

level of disclosure materially over and 

above that provided by any competitor 

exchanges. 

III. Date of Effectiveness of the 

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for 

Commission Action 

The foregoing rule change has become 

effective pursuant to Section 

19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,155 and Rule 

19b–4(f)(2) 156 thereunder. At any time 

within 60 days of the filing of the 

proposed rule change, the Commission 

summarily may temporarily suspend 

such rule change if it appears to the 

Commission that such action is 

necessary or appropriate in the public 

interest, for the protection of investors, 

or otherwise in furtherance of the 

purposes of the Act. If the Commission 

takes such action, the Commission shall 

institute proceedings to determine 

whether the proposed rule should be 

approved or disapproved. 

IV. Solicitation of Comments 

Interested persons are invited to 

submit written data, views, and 

arguments concerning the foregoing, 

including whether the proposed rule 

change is consistent with the Act. 

Comments may be submitted by any of 

the following methods: 

Electronic Comments 

• Use the Commission’s internet 

comment form (https://www.sec.gov/ 

rules/sro.shtml); or 

• Send an email to rule-comments@

sec.gov. Please include file number SR– 

MIAX–2023–48 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–MIAX–2023–48. This file 

number should be included on the 

subject line if email is used. To help the 

Commission process and review your 

comments more efficiently, please use 

only one method. The Commission will 

post all comments on the Commission’s 

internet website (https://www.sec.gov/ 

rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the 

submission, all subsequent 

amendments, all written statements 

with respect to the proposed rule 

change that are filed with the 

Commission, and all written 

communications relating to the 

proposed rule change between the 

Commission and any person, other than 

those that may be withheld from the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be 

available for website viewing and 

printing in the Commission’s Public 

Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20549, on official 

business days between the hours of 10 

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–MIAX–2023–48 and should be 

submitted on or before January 5, 2024 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.157

Sherry R. Haywood, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2023–27529 Filed 12–14–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–99130; File No. SR–MRX– 

2023–24] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq 

MRX, LLC; Notice of Filing and 

Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed 

Rule Change To Amend Its GPS 

Antenna Fees at General 8, Section 1 

December 11, 2023. 

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

(‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
87010 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 240 / Friday, December 15, 2023 / Notices 

3The Exchange initially filed the proposed 

pricing changes on September 29, 2023 with an 

effective date of October 1, 2023 (SR–MRX–2023– 

19). On November 15, 2023, the Exchange withdrew 

SR–MRX–2023–19 and replaced with SR–MRX– 

2023–21. The instant filing replaces SR–MRX– 

2023–21, which was withdrawn on November 29, 

2023. 

4The Exchange offers customers the opportunity 

to co-locate their servers and equipment within the 

Exchange’s primary data center, located in Carteret, 

New Jersey. 

5See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81907 

(October 19, 2017), 82 FR 49447 (October 25, 2017) 

(SR–MRX–2017–21). 

6NYSE provides a similar service for a $3,000 

initial charge plus a $400 monthly charge. See 

https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/Wireless_

Connectivity_Fees_and_Charges.pdf. 7For example, Pico, Guava Tech, and SFTI 

provide time synchronization services. 

notice is hereby given that on November 

29, 2023, Nasdaq MRX, LLC (‘‘MRX’’ or 

‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the Securities 

and Exchange Commission (‘‘SEC’’ or 

‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule 

change as described in Items I, II, and 

III, below, which Items have been 

prepared by the Exchange. The 

Commission is publishing this notice to 

solicit comments on the proposed rule 

change from interested persons. 

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Terms of Substance of 

the Proposed Rule Change 

The Exchange proposes to amend the 

Exchange’s GPS antenna fees at General 

8, Section 1, as described further below. 

The text of the proposed rule change is 

available on the Exchange’s website at 

https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/ 

rulebook/mrx/rules, at the principal 

office of the Exchange, and at the 

Commission’s Public Reference Room. 

II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

In its filing with the Commission, the 

Exchange included statements 

concerning the purpose of and basis for 

the proposed rule change and discussed 

any comments it received on the 

proposed rule change. The text of these 

statements may be examined at the 

places specified in Item IV below. The 

Exchange has prepared summaries, set 

forth in sections A, B, and C below, of 

the most significant aspects of such 

statements. 

A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

1. Purpose 3

The Exchange offers a GPS antenna, 

which allows co-location customers 4 to 

synchronize their time recording 

systems to the U.S. Government’s Global 

Positioning System (‘‘GPS’’) network 

time (the ‘‘Service’’). The Exchange 

proposes to modify its monthly fees for 

the Service at General 8, Section 1(d). 

GPS network time is the atomic time 

scale implemented by the atomic clocks 

in the GPS ground control stations and 

GPS satellites. Each GPS satellite 

contains multiple atomic clocks that 

contribute precise time data to the GPS 

signals. GPS receivers decode these 

signals, synchronizing the receivers to 

the atomic clocks. A GPS antenna serves 

as a time signal receiver and feeds a 

primary clock device the GPS network 

time using precise time data. Firms can 

use the precise time data provided by 

the GPS antenna to time-stamp 

transactional information. 

Time synchronization services are 

well established in the U.S. and utilized 

in many areas of the U.S. economy and 

infrastructure. The Service is not novel 

to the securities markets, or to the 

Exchange. 

The Exchange offers connectivity to a 

GPS antenna via two options, over 

shared infrastructure or a dedicated 

antenna. If a firm wishes to connect via 

a dedicated connection, it must supply 

the antenna hardware. 

The Exchange currently charges a 

monthly fee of $200 for the Service, 

which applies to both the shared 

infrastructure option and the dedicated 

antenna option. The Exchange proposes 

to increase the monthly fee to $600 for 

the Service, which would apply to both 

the shared infrastructure option and the 

dedicated antenna option. As such, the 

Exchange proposes to amend its fee 

schedule at General 8, Section 1(d) to 

reflect the increased monthly fee for the 

GPS antenna. The Exchange has not 

raised such price since the monthly fee 

of $200 was adopted.5 In addition, the 

Exchange charges a higher monthly fee 

of $350 for cross-connections to 

approved telecommunication carriers in 

the data center and for inter-cabinet 

connections to other co-location 

customers in the data center, despite the 

fact that the Service not only provides 

connectivity (like the crossconnections), but also provides data 

(i.e., the network time) to co-location 

customers. 

In addition, the Exchange’s fee 

schedule at General 8, Section 1(d) 

currently states that the installation fee 

for the GPS antenna is installation 

specific. The Exchange proposes to add 

specific installation amounts for the 

Service within the fee schedule, 

providing greater transparency to 

market participants. Specifically, the 

Exchange proposes to charge an 

installation fee of $900 for connectivity 

to a GPS antenna over shared 

infrastructure and $1,500 for 

connectivity to a GPS antenna over a 

dedicated antenna.6 The difference in 

installation costs reflects the differing 

levels of complexity. For the dedicated 

antenna option, installation involves 

installing an antenna on the roof 

whereas the shared option involves 

extending a cable from a device located 

inside the data center. 

The Service is an optional product 

available to any firm that chooses to 

subscribe. Firms may cancel their 

subscription at any time. The Service 

simply provides time synchronization 

that may be utilized by firms to adjust 

their own time systems and time-stamp 

transactional information. The GPS 

antenna is offered on a completely 

voluntary basis. No customer is required 

to purchase the GPS antenna. Potential 

subscribers may subscribe to the Service 

only if they voluntarily choose to do so. 

It is a business decision of each firm 

whether to subscribe to the Service or 

not. Furthermore, firms have an array of 

options for time synchronization. Firms 

may purchase the Service (or enhanced 

time synchronization services) from 

other vendors.7 Customers do not 

receive an advantage by purchasing the 

Service from the Exchange rather than 

another provider. The Exchange is 

merely providing access to GPS signals, 

which can also be accessed via other 

providers. 

In addition to cost, a firm’s decision 

regarding which, if any, time 

synchronization option to purchase may 

depend, among other factors, on 

whether it wants to build or buy a time 

feed as well as the design of a firm’s 

systems. A firm may prefer to build out 

its own time feed using GPS network 

time (as provided by the Exchange or a 

third-party vendor) or purchase a time 

synchronization service that handles the 

time feed for them. Examples of 

enhanced time synchronization include 

Precision Time Protocol (‘‘PTP’’), Pulse 

Per Second Time Synchronization 

Protocol (‘‘PPS’’), and Network Time 

Protocol (‘‘NTP’’), each of which are 

feeds that a client can consume rather 

than creating a feed itself. Such a choice 

may depend on a firm’s desire for 

control of the feed, time sensitivity, and 

trade strategy, including whether a firm 

uses such time information to trigger 

trading decisions, as well as other 

considerations such as cost and 

convenience. In addition, with respect 

to the design of a firm’s systems, a firm 

may choose to have its time 

synchronization equipment centralized 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 240 / Friday, December 15, 2023 / Notices 87011 

8As needed, firms and vendors use latency 

between the data centers to adjust their time 

synchronization. 

9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 

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

11See NetCoalition, 615 F.3d at 539 (D.C. Cir. 

2010) (quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 

59039 (December 2, 2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782–83 

(December 9, 2008) (SR–NYSEArca–2006–21)). 

12See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 

(June 9, 2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) 

(‘‘Regulation NMS Adopting Release’’). 

13See NetCoalition, 615 F.3d at 534–35; see also 

H.R. Rep. No. 94–229 at 92 (1975) (‘‘[I]t is the intent 

of the conferees that the national market system 

evolve through the interplay of competitive forces 

as unnecessary regulatory restrictions are 

removed.’’). 

14See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 

(December 2, 2008), 73 FR 74770 (December 9, 

2008) (SR–NYSEArca–2006–21). 

15 Id. 

16See U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 

‘‘Staff Guidance on SRO Rule filings Relating to 

Fees’’ (May 21, 2019), available at https://

www.sec.gov/tm/staff-guidance-sro-rule-filings-fees. 

17Of the Exchange’s co-location customers that 

subscribe to the Service, approximately 9% of such 

co-location customers purchase both the dedicated 

and the shared options of the Service. 

18 In offering the Service as a convenience to 

firms, the Exchange incurs certain costs, including 

costs related to the data center facility, hardware 

and equipment, and personnel. 

or in multiple locations. Third-party 

vendors may be situated in Carteret or 

other New York metro financial data 

centers. Clients and vendors alike can 

produce a time feed in Carteret or any 

of the other locations.8

Approximately 59% of the Exchange’s 

co-location customers subscribe to the 

Service, most of which opt for the 

shared option. The fact that 

approximately 41% of the Exchange’s 

co-location customers do not subscribe 

to the Service demonstrate that there are 

alternative options available. 

If the Exchange is incorrect in its 

determination that the proposed fees 

reflect the value of the GPS antenna, 

customers will not purchase the product 

or will seek other options at their 

disposal, such as purchasing time 

synchronization services from thirdparty vendors. 

2. Statutory Basis 

The Exchange believes that its 

proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) 

of the Act,9 in general, and furthers the 

objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) 

of the Act,10 in particular, in that it 

provides for the equitable allocation of 

reasonable dues, fees and other charges 

among members and issuers and other 

persons using any facility, and is not 

designed to permit unfair 

discrimination between customers, 

issuers, brokers, or dealers. 

The proposed change to the pricing 

schedule is reasonable in several 

respects. As a threshold matter, the 

Exchange is subject to significant 

competitive forces in the market for 

order flow, which constrains its pricing 

determinations. The fact that the market 

for order flow is competitive has long 

been recognized by the courts. In 

NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange 

Commission, the D.C. Circuit stated, 

‘‘[n]o one disputes that competition for 

order flow is ‘fierce.’ . . . As the SEC 

explained, ‘[i]n the U.S. national market 

system, buyers and sellers of securities, 

and the broker-dealers that act as their 

order-routing agents, have a wide range 

of choices of where to route orders for 

execution’; [and] ‘no exchange can 

afford to take its market share 

percentages for granted’ because ‘no 

exchange possesses a monopoly, 

regulatory or otherwise, in the execution 

of order flow from broker 

dealers’. . . .’’ 11

The Commission and the courts have 

repeatedly expressed their preference 

for competition over regulatory 

intervention to determine prices, 

products, and services in the securities 

markets. In Regulation NMS, while 

adopting a series of steps to improve the 

current market model, the Commission 

highlighted the importance of market 

forces in determining prices and SRO 

revenues, and also recognized that 

current regulation of the market system 

‘‘has been remarkably successful in 

promoting market competition in its 

broader forms that are most important to 

investors and listed companies.’’ 12

Congress directed the Commission to 

‘‘rely on ‘competition, whenever 

possible, in meeting its regulatory 

responsibilities for overseeing the SROs 

and the national market system.’ ’’ 13 As 

a result, the Commission has 

historically relied on competitive forces 

to determine whether a fee proposal is 

equitable, fair, reasonable, and not 

unreasonably or unfairly discriminatory. 

‘‘If competitive forces are operative, the 

self-interest of the exchanges themselves 

will work powerfully to constrain 

unreasonable or unfair behavior.’’ 14

Accordingly, ‘‘the existence of 

significant competition provides a 

substantial basis for finding that the 

terms of an exchange’s fee proposal are 

equitable, fair, reasonable, and not 

unreasonably or unfairly 

discriminatory.’’ 15 In its 2019 guidance 

on fee proposals, Commission staff 

indicated that they would look at factors 

beyond the competitive environment, 

such as cost, only if a ‘‘proposal lacks 

persuasive evidence that the proposed 

fee is constrained by significant 

competitive forces.’’ 16

The proposed fees are reasonable and 

unlikely to burden the market because 

the purchase of the Service is optional 

for all categories of co-location 

customers. No firms are required to 

purchase the Service. Though many 

firms use GPS network time to 

synchronize their internal primary clock 

devices, firms can purchase time sync 

services from third-party vendors. Firms 

are also free to utilize other services that 

may assist them in enhanced time 

synchronization of their systems by 

consuming time feeds, such as PTP, 

PPS, and NTP. As noted above, 

approximately 59% of the Exchange’s 

co-location customers subscribe to the 

Service, most of which opt for the 

shared option. The fact that 

approximately 41% of the Exchange’s 

co-location customers do not subscribe 

to the Service demonstrate that there are 

alternative options available. Firms may 

choose to purchase multiple time 

synchronization services for resiliency 

or otherwise.17 For example, a decision 

to purchase multiple synchronization 

services could be based on client 

strategy, as some strategies require more 

precise time than others. As described 

above, in addition to cost, a firm’s 

decision regarding which, if any, time 

synchronization option to purchase may 

depend, among other factors, on 

whether a firm wishes to build or buy 

a time feed, the design of a firm’s 

systems, including whether a firm 

chooses to have its time synchronization 

equipment centralized or in multiple 

locations, a firm’s time sensitivity, a 

firm’s trading strategy, including 

whether it uses such time information to 

trigger trading decisions, and a firm’s 

desire for control of the time feed. 

The Exchange offers the Service as a 

convenience to firms to provide them 

with the ability to synchronize their 

own primary clock devices to the GPS 

network time and time-stamp 

transactional information.18 Customers 

do not receive an advantage by 

purchasing the Service from the 

Exchange rather than another provider. 

The Exchange is merely providing 

access to GPS signals, which can also be 

accessed via other providers. Firms that 

choose to subscribe to the Service may 

discontinue the use of the Service at any 

time if they determine that the time 

synchronization services provided via 

the GPS antenna are no longer useful. In 

sum, co-location customers can 

discontinue the use of the Service at any 

time, decide not to subscribe, or use a 

third-party vendor for time 

synchronization services, for any 

reason, including the fees. 

The optional Service is available to all 

co-location customers that choose to 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
87012 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 240 / Friday, December 15, 2023 / Notices 

19 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 

20 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

subscribe. The proposed fees would 

apply to all co-location customers on a 

non-discriminatory basis, and therefore 

are not designed to permit unfair 

discrimination between customers, 

issuers, brokers, or dealers. 

The Exchange also believes that the 

proposed changes to include specific 

installation fees promote just and 

equitable principles of trade and remove 

impediments to and perfect the 

mechanism of a free and open market 

and a national market system because 

the proposed rule changes will provide 

greater clarity to Members and the 

public regarding the Exchange’s fees. It 

is in the public interest for rules to be 

accurate and transparent so as to 

eliminate the potential for confusion. 

If the Exchange is incorrect in its 

determination that the proposed fees 

reflect the value of the GPS antenna, 

customers will not purchase the product 

or will seek other options at their 

disposal, such as purchasing time 

synchronization services from thirdparty vendors. 

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Burden on Competition 

The Exchange does not believe that 

the proposed rule change will impose 

any burden on competition not 

necessary or appropriate in furtherance 

of the purposes of the Act. 

In terms of inter-market competition 

(the competition among self-regulatory 

organizations), the Exchange notes that 

it operates in a highly competitive 

market in which market participants can 

readily favor competing venues if they 

deem fee levels at a particular venue to 

be excessive. In such an environment, 

the Exchange must continually adjust its 

fees to remain competitive with other 

exchanges and with alternative trading 

systems that have been exempted from 

compliance with the statutory standards 

applicable to exchanges. Because 

competitors are free to modify their own 

fees in response, the Exchange believes 

that the degree to which fee changes in 

this market may impose any burden on 

competition is extremely limited. 

Approval of the proposal does not 

impose any burden on the ability of 

other exchanges to compete. As noted 

above, time synchronization services are 

offered by other vendors and any 

exchange has the ability to offer such 

services if it so chooses. 

Nothing in the proposal burdens 

intra-market competition (the 

competition among consumers of 

exchange data) because the GPS antenna 

is available to any co-location customer 

under the same fees as any other colocation customer, and any co-location 

customer that wishes to purchase a GPS 

antenna can do so on a nondiscriminatory basis. 

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Comments on the 

Proposed Rule Change Received From 

Members, Participants, or Others 

No written comments were either 

solicited or received. 

III. Date of Effectiveness of the 

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for 

Commission Action 

The foregoing rule change has become 

effective pursuant to Section 

19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.19 At any time 

within 60 days of the filing of the 

proposed rule change, the Commission 

summarily may temporarily suspend 

such rule change if it appears to the 

Commission that such action is: (i) 

necessary or appropriate in the public 

interest; (ii) for the protection of 

investors; or (iii) otherwise in 

furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 

If the Commission takes such action, the 

Commission shall institute proceedings 

to determine whether the proposed rule 

should be approved or disapproved. 

IV. Solicitation of Comments 

Interested persons are invited to 

submit written data, views and 

arguments concerning the foregoing, 

including whether the proposed rule 

change is consistent with the Act. 

Comments may be submitted by any of 

the following methods: 

Electronic Comments 

• Use the Commission’s internet 

comment form (https://www.sec.gov/ 

rules/sro.shtml); or • Send an email to 

rule-comments@sec.gov. Please include 

file number SR–MRX–2023–24 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–MRX–2023–24. This file 

number should be included on the 

subject line if email is used. To help the 

Commission process and review your 

comments more efficiently, please use 

only one method. The Commission will 

post all comments on the Commission’s 

internet website (https://www.sec.gov/ 

rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the 

submission, all subsequent 

amendments, all written statements 

with respect to the proposed rule 

change that are filed with the 

Commission, and all written 

communications relating to the 

proposed rule change between the 

Commission and any person, other than 

those that may be withheld from the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be 

available for website viewing and 

printing in the Commission’s Public 

Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20549, on official 

business days between the hours of 10 

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–MRX–2023–24 and should be 

submitted on or before January 5, 2024. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.20

Sherry R. Haywood, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2023–27526 Filed 12–14–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–99132; File No. SR– 

CboeEDGX–2023–078] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe 

EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing 

and Immediate Effectiveness of a 

Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its 

Fee Schedule 

December 11, 2023. 

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 

‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2

notice is hereby given that on December 

8, 2023, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. 

(‘‘Exchange’’ or ‘‘EDGX’’) filed with the 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule 

change as described in Items I, II, and 

III below, which Items have been 

prepared by the Exchange. The 

Commission is publishing this notice to 

solicit comments on the proposed rule 

change from interested persons. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1