Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 177 / Thursday, September 12, 2024 / Notices 74321 

25 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

3The Exchange initially filed the proposed fee 

change on January 2, 2024 (SR–CboeEDGX–2024– 

006). On March 1, 2024, the Exchange withdrew 

that filing and submitted SR–CboeEDGX–2024–017. 

On April 30, 2024, the Exchange withdrew that 

filing and submitted SR–CboeEDGX–2024–023. On 

June 28, 2024, the Exchange will be withdrawing 

that filing and submitting SR–CboeEDGX–2024–040 

On August 26, the Exchange withdrew that filing 

and submitted this filing. 

4Logical Ports include FIX and BOE ports (used 

for order entry), drop logical port (which grants 

users the ability to receive and/or send drop copies) 

and ports that are used for receipt of certain market 

data feeds. 

5Spin Ports and GRP Ports are used to request 

and receive a retransmission of data from the 

Exchange’s Multicast PITCH data feeds. 

6Bulk Quoting Capabilities Ports provide users 

with the ability to submit and update multiple bids 

and offers in one message through logical ports 

enabled for bulk-quoting. 

7See Cboe Options Exchange Fee Schedule, 

Logical Connectivity Fees, which assesses a 

monthly fee between $750–$800 per port for Logical 

Ports, Spin Ports, $750 per port for GRP Ports and 

between $1,500–$3,000 per port for Bulk Ports and 

see Cboe BZX Options Exchange Fee Schedule, 

Options Logical Port Fees and Cboe Exchange Fees 

Schedule, Logical Connectivity Fees, which 

assesses a monthly fee of $750 per port for Logical 

Ports, Spin Ports and GRP Ports and between 

$1,500–$2,500 per port for Bulk Ports. 

8See, e.g., The Nasdaq Stock Market Options 

Pricing Schedule, Section 3 Nasdaq Options 

Market—Ports and Other Services, which assesses 

a monthly fee of $650 per port for FIX Ports, which 

is analogous to the Exchange’s Logical Ports, up to 

$1,500 per port for SQF Ports which are similar 

functionality as the Exchange’s Bulk Ports. See also 

BOX Exchange LLC (‘‘BOX’’) Fee Schedule, Section 

III, B. (Technology Fees), which assesses up to $500 

per port per month for FIX Ports which are 

analogous to the Exchange’s Logical Ports and 

$1,000 for Market Making SOLA Access 

Information Language (‘‘SAIL’’) Ports which are 

analogous to the Exchange’s Bulk Ports. 

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

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

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–NYSEARCA–2024–71 and should be 

submitted on or before October 3, 2024. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.25

Sherry R. Haywood, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2024–20639 Filed 9–11–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–100959; File No. SR– 

CboeEDGX–2024–055] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe 

EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing 

and Immediate Effectiveness of a 

Proposed Rule Change to Amend its 

Fee Schedule 

September 6, 2024. 

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 August 

26, 2024, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. 

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

the Securities and Exchange 

Commission (the ‘‘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 

Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the 

‘‘Exchange’’ or ‘‘EDGX Options’’) 

proposes to amend its Fee Schedule. 

The text of the proposed rule change is 

provided in Exhibit 5. 

The text of the proposed rule change 

is also available on the Exchange’s 

website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/

options/regulation/rule_filings/edgx/), 

at the Exchange’s Office of the 

Secretary, and at the Commission’s 

Public Reference Room. 

II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

In its filing with the Commission, the 

Exchange included statements 

concerning the purpose of and basis for 

the proposed rule change and discussed 

any comments it received on the 

proposed rule change. The text of these 

statements may be examined at the 

places specified in Item IV below. The 

Exchange has prepared summaries, set 

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

the most significant aspects of such 

statements. 

A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

1. Purpose 

The Exchange proposes to amend its 

fee schedule for its equity options 

platform (‘‘EDGX Options’’) relating to 

logical connectivity fees.3

By way of background, the Exchange 

offers a variety of logical ports, which 

provide users with the ability within the 

Exchange’s System to accomplish a 

specific function through a connection, 

such as order entry, data receipt or 

access to information. The Exchange 

currently assesses, among other things, 

the following logical port connectivity 

fees on a monthly basis: $500 per port 

for Logical Ports; 4 $500 per port for 

Multicast PITCH Spin Server Ports 

(‘‘Spin Ports’’) and GRP Ports; 5 and 

$600 per port for Ports with Bulk 

Quoting Capabilities 6 (‘‘Bulk Ports’’). 

The Exchange proposes to increase the 

monthly fees for the forgoing ports to 

the following rates: $750 per port for 

Logical Ports, Spin Ports and GRP Ports 

and $1,000 per port for Bulk Ports. The 

Exchange notes the proposed fee change 

better enables it to continue to maintain 

and improve its market technology and 

services. Additionally, the proposed fee 

amounts for Logical Ports, Spin Ports 

and GRP Ports are the same as the fees 

assessed on two of the Exchange’s 

affiliated options exchanges for the 

same corresponding logical connectivity 

and the proposed fee amount for Bulk 

Ports is even lower than the fees 

assessed by the same affiliated options 

exchanges for the same corresponding 

Bulk Port connectivity.7 The proposed 

fees are also in line with amounts 

assessed by other exchanges for similar 

connections, including the Exchange’s 

affiliated options exchanges.8

2. Statutory Basis 

The Exchange believes the proposed 

rule change is consistent with the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 

‘‘Act’’) and the rules and regulations 

thereunder applicable to the Exchange 

and, in particular, the requirements of 

Section 6(b) of the Act.9 Specifically, 

the Exchange believes the proposed rule 

change is consistent with the Section 

6(b)(5) 10 requirements that the rules of 

an exchange be designed to prevent 

fraudulent and manipulative acts and 

practices, to promote just and equitable 

principles of trade, to foster cooperation 

and coordination with persons engaged 

in regulating, clearing, settling, 

processing information with respect to, 

and facilitating transactions in 

securities, to remove impediments to 

and perfect the mechanism of a free and 

open market and a national market 

system, and, in general, to protect 

investors and the public interest. 

Additionally, the Exchange believes the 

proposed rule change is consistent with 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
74322 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 177 / Thursday, September 12, 2024 / Notices 

11 Id. 

12 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). 

13Supra notes 7 and 8. 

14See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Options Market 

Volume Summary (August 20, 2024), available at 

https://markets.cboe.com/us/options/market_

statistics/. For example, the Exchange’s affiliate 

Cboe BZX Options Exchange represents 

approximately 4% of the market share, BOX 

Options has a market share of approximately 6% 

and Nasdaq Options Market has a market share of 

approximately 5% compared to the Exchange’s 

approximate 7% market share. 

15Supra note 7 and 8. See also NYSE American 

Options Fee Schedule, Section V (Technology and 

System Access Fees), which has a similar market 

share of 6% and offers lower fees for analogous 

Logical Ports than proposed by the Exchange. 

16See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Options Market 

Volume Summary (August 20, 2024), available at 

https://markets.cboe.com/us/options/market_

statistics/. 

the Section 6(b)(5) 11 requirement that 

the rules of an exchange not be designed 

to permit unfair discrimination between 

customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. 

The Exchange also believes the 

proposed rule change is consistent with 

Section 6(b)(4) 12 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. 

The Exchange believes the proposed 

fees are reasonable as they are the same, 

or even lower than, the amounts 

assessed by affiliated options exchanges 

for the same functionality (and which 

were similarly adopted via the rule 

filing process and filed with the 

Commission). The proposed fees are 

also in line with fees assessed by other 

exchanges, for analogous connections.13

Further, the Exchange notes that an 

affiliated options exchange and other 

exchanges that offer similar pricing for 

similar or the same connections have a 

comparable, or even lower, market share 

as the Exchange.14

Additionally, the Exchange believes 

the proposed fee increase is reasonable 

in light of recent and anticipated 

connectivity-related upgrades and 

changes. The Exchange and its affiliated 

exchanges recently launched a multiyear initiative to improve Cboe 

Exchange Platform performance and 

capacity requirements, including for its 

U.S. options markets, to increase 

competitiveness, support growth and 

advance a consistent world class 

platform. The goal of the project, among 

other things, is to provide faster and 

more consistent order handling and 

matching performance for options, 

while ensuring quicker processing time 

and supporting increasing volumes. For 

example, the Exchange is currently 

performing order handler and matching 

engine hardware upgrades across its 

markets to advance this goal. The 

Exchange anticipates that upgrades to 

its matching engines may result in a 

latency reduction up to 40% to 50% on 

the Exchange and that upgrades to its 

order handlers may offer lower 

variability in the processing of message, 

which can reduce the time a message 

takes to get to the matching engine. The 

Exchange expended, and will continue 

to expend, resources to innovate and 

modernize technology so that it may 

benefit its Members and continue to 

compete among other options markets. 

The Exchange also notes that neither 

it—nor its options exchange affiliates— 

have passed through or offset current or 

projected costs associated with these 

upgrades. The ability to continue to 

innovate with technology and offer new 

products to market participants allows 

the Exchange to remain competitive in 

the options space which currently has 

18 options markets and potential new 

entrants. The Exchange also notes 

market participants may 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. There is also no 

regulatory requirement that any market 

participant connect to any one 

particular exchange. Market participants 

may voluntarily choose to become a 

member of one or more of a number of 

different exchanges, of which, the 

Exchange is but one choice. 

Additionally, any Exchange member 

that is dissatisfied with the proposal is 

free to choose not to be a member of the 

Exchange and send order flow to 

another exchange. Moreover, direct 

connectivity is not a requirement to 

participate on the Exchange. The 

Exchange also believes substitutable 

products and services are available to 

market participants, including, among 

other things, other options exchanges to 

which a market participant may connect 

in lieu of the Exchange and/or trading 

of any options product, such as within 

the Over-the-Counter (OTC) markets, 

which do not require connectivity to the 

Exchange. Indeed, there are currently 18 

registered options exchanges that trade 

options (14 of which are not affiliated 

with Cboe), some of which have similar 

or lower connectivity fees.15 Based on 

publicly available information, no single 

options exchange has more than 

approximately 19% of the market share 

and currently the Exchange represents 

only approximately 7% of the market 

share.16 Further, low barriers to entry 

mean that new exchanges may rapidly 

enter the market and offer additional 

substitute platforms to further compete 

with the Exchange and the products it 

offers. For example, there are 5 

exchanges that have been added in the 

U.S. options markets in the last 5 years 

(i.e., Nasdaq MRX, LLC, MIAX Pearl, 

LLC, MIAX Emerald LLC, MEMX LLC 

and most recently MIAX Sapphire LLC). 

As for market participants that 

determine to continue to maintain 

membership or to join the Exchange for 

business purposes, those business 

reasons presumably result in revenue 

capable of covering the proposed fee. 

Further, for such market participants 

that choose to connect to the Exchange, 

the Exchange believes the proposed fees 

continue to provide flexibility with 

respect to how to connect to the 

Exchange based on each market 

participants’ respective business needs. 

For example, the amount and type of 

logical ports are determined by factors 

relevant and specific to each market 

participant, including its business 

model, costs of connectivity, how its 

business is segmented and allocated and 

volume of messages sent to the 

Exchange. Moreover, the Exchange 

notes that it does not have unlimited 

system capacity and the proposed fees 

are also designed to encourage market 

participants to be efficient with their 

respective logical port usage and 

discourage the purchasing of large 

amounts of superfluous ports. There is 

also no requirement that any market 

participant maintain a specific number 

of logical ports and a market participant 

may choose to maintain as many or as 

few of such ports as each deems 

appropriate. Further, market 

participants may reduce or discontinue 

use of these ports in response to the 

proposed fees. Indeed, when the 

Exchange last increased pricing for 

logical ports in 2018, the Exchange 

observed within the first two months 

that market participants did in fact 

reduce the number of logical ports they 

maintained. Particularly, Logical Port 

quantities were reduced by 

approximately 20%. The Exchange 

similarly saw a decline in logical port 

quantities after the current proposed 

rate change in January 2024. 

Specifically, as of May 2024, Logical 

Port quantities have been reduced by 

approximately 8% since the 

announcement of the proposed fee 

change. This demonstrates that market 

participants can and do choose to 

disconnect, or reduce, their connectivity 

from the Exchange, including in 

response to fee increases. The Exchange 

also does not assess any termination fee 

for a market participant to drop its 

connectivity or membership, nor is the 

Exchange aware of any other costs that 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 177 / Thursday, September 12, 2024 / Notices 74323 

17See https://www.nyse.com/markets/americanoptions/membership#directory. 18See https://www.nyse.com/markets/arcaoptions/membership#directory. 19See https://www.miaxglobal.com/sites/default/ 

files/page-files/MIAX_Options_Exchange_

Members_April_2023_04282023.pdf. 20See https://www.miaxglobal.com/sites/default/

files/page-files/MIAX_Pearl_Exchange_Members_

01172023_0.pdf. 21See H.R. Rep. No. 94–229, at 92 (1975) (Conf. 

Rep.) (emphasis added) 

22 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 23 15 U.S.C. 78f(8). 24See also 15 U.S.C. 78k–l(a)(1)(C)(ii) (purposes 

of Exchange Act include to promote ‘‘fair 

competition among brokers and dealers, among 

exchange markets, and between exchange markets 

and markets other than exchange markets’’); Order, 

73 FR 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.’’). 

25See, e.g., 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. (‘‘Virtu’’), 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). 

would be incurred by a market 

participant to do so. 

As noted above, there is no regulatory 

requirement that any market participant 

connect to any one options exchange, 

nor that any market participant connect 

at a particular connection speed or act 

in a particular capacity on the 

Exchange, or trade any particular 

product offered on an exchange. 

Moreover, membership is not a 

requirement to participate on the 

Exchange. Indeed, the Exchange is 

unaware of any one options exchange 

whose membership includes every 

registered broker-dealer. By way of 

example, while the Exchange has 51 

members that trade options, Cboe BZX 

has 61 members that trade options, and 

Cboe C2 has 52 Trading Permit Holders 

(‘‘TPHs’’) (i.e., members). There is also 

no firm that is a Member of EDGX 

Options only. Further, based on 

previously publicly available 

information regarding a sample of the 

Exchange’s competitors, NYSE 

American Options has 71 members,17

and NYSE Arca Options has 69 

members,18 MIAX Options has 46 

members 19 and MIAX Pearl Options has 

40 members.20 Accordingly, excessive 

fees would simply serve to reduce 

demand for these products, which 

market participants are under no 

regulatory obligation to utilize. 

The Exchange lastly notes that it is 

not required by the Exchange Act, nor 

any other rule or regulation, to 

undertake a cost-of-service or ratemaking approach with respect to fee 

proposals. Moreover, Congress’s intent 

in enacting the 1975 Amendments to the 

Act was to enable competition—rather 

than government order—to determine 

prices. The principal purpose of the 

amendments was to facilitate the 

creation of a national market system for 

the trading of securities. Congress 

intended that this ‘‘national market 

system evolve through the interplay of 

competitive forces as unnecessary 

regulatory restrictions are removed.’’ 21

Other provisions of the Act confirm that 

intent. For example, the Act provides 

that an exchange must design its rules 

‘‘to remove impediments to and perfect 

the mechanism of a free and open 

market and a national market system, 

and, in general, to protect investors and 

the public interest.’’ 22 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.’’ 23 In short, 

the promotion of free and open 

competition was a core congressional 

objective in creating the national market 

system.24 Indeed, the Commission has 

historically interpreted that mandate to 

promote competitive forces to determine 

prices whenever compatible with a 

national market system. Accordingly, 

the Exchange believes it has met its 

burden to demonstrate that its proposed 

fee change is reasonable and consistent 

with the immediate filing process 

chosen by Congress, which created a 

system whereby market forces 

determine access fees in the vast 

majority of cases, subject to oversight 

only in particular cases of abuse or 

market failure. The Exchange also 

believes that, even if it were possible as 

a matter of economic theory, cost-based 

pricing for the proposed fee would be so 

complicated that it could not be done 

practically. Indeed, the Exchange 

believes that classification of costs 

could likely not be done without ongoing debate over formulas for 

allocation,25 continual auditing, and 

considerable expense. The Exchange 

also believes cost-based analysis could 

create disincentives to reduce costs 

through efficient operation or 

innovation. Moreover, the industry 

could experience frequent rate increases 

based on escalating expense levels. 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 the 

Commission has historically sought to 

avoid. 

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 respective 

logical ports. All Members have the 

option to select any connectivity option, 

and there is no differentiation among 

Members with regard to the fees charged 

for the services offered by the Exchange. 

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Burden on Competition 

The Exchange does not believe that 

the proposed rule change will impose 

any burden on competition that is not 

necessary or appropriate in furtherance 

of the purposes of the Act. The 

Exchange believes the proposed fee 

change will not impact intramarket 

competition because it will apply to all 

similarly situated market participants 

equally (i.e., all market participants that 

choose to purchase the relevant logical 

ports). 

The Exchange believes the proposed 

fees will not impact intermarket 

competition because they are also in 

line with, or even lower than some fees 

for similar connectivity on other 

exchanges, and therefore may stimulate 

intermarket competition by attracting 

additional firms to connect to the 

Exchange or at least should not deter 

interested participants from connecting 

directly to the Exchange. Further, if the 

changes proposed herein are 

unattractive to market participants, the 

Exchange can, and likely will, see a 

decline in usage of these ports as a 

result. The Exchange operates in a 

highly competitive market in which 

market participants can determine 

whether or not to connect directly to the 

Exchange based on the value received 

compared to the cost of doing so. 

Indeed, market participants have 

numerous alternative venues that they 

may participate on and direct their 

order flow, including 13 (soon to be 14) 

non-Cboe affiliated options markets, as 

well as off-exchange venues, where 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
74324 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 177 / Thursday, September 12, 2024 / Notices 

26See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 

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

27NetCoalition 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)). 

28 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 

29 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f). 

30 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

1 15 U.S.C. 7217(b). 

2 15 U.S.C. 78s(b). 

3See Public Company Accounting Oversight 

Board; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rules on A 

Firm’s System of Quality Control and Related 

Amendments to PCAOB Standards, Release No. 34– 

100277 (June 5, 2024) [89 FR 49588 (June 11, 2024)] 

(‘‘Notice of Filing of Proposed Rules’’), available at 

https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/pcaob/2024/34- 

100277.pdf. 

4 Id. 

competitive products are available for 

trading. Moreover, the Commission has 

repeatedly expressed its preference for 

competition over regulatory 

intervention in determining prices, 

products, and services in the securities 

markets. Specifically, in Regulation 

NMS, the Commission highlighted the 

importance of market forces in 

determining prices and SRO revenues 

and, also, recognized that current 

regulation of the market system ‘‘has 

been remarkably successful in 

promoting market competition in its 

broader forms that are most important to 

investors and listed companies.’’ 26 The 

fact that this market is competitive has 

also long been recognized by the courts. 

In NetCoalition v. Securities and 

Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit 

stated as follows: ‘‘[n]o one disputes 

that competition for order flow is 

‘fierce.’ . . . As the SEC explained, ‘[i]n 

the U.S. national market system, buyers 

and sellers of securities, and the brokerdealers that act as their order-routing 

agents, have a wide range of choices of 

where to route orders for execution’; 

[and] ‘no exchange can afford to take its 

market share percentages for granted’ 

because ‘no exchange possesses a 

monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in 

the execution of order flow from broker 

dealers’ . . . .’’.27 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. 

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Comments on the 

Proposed Rule Change Received From 

Members, Participants, or Others 

The Exchange neither solicited nor 

received comments on the proposed 

rule change. 

III. Date of Effectiveness of the 

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for 

Commission Action 

The foregoing rule change has become 

effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) 

of the Act 28 and paragraph (f) of Rule 

19b–4 29 thereunder. At any time within 

60 days of the filing of the proposed rule 

change, the Commission summarily may 

temporarily suspend such rule change if 

it appears to the Commission that such 

action is necessary or appropriate in the 

public interest, for the protection of 

investors, or otherwise in furtherance of 

the purposes of the Act. If the 

Commission takes such action, the 

Commission will institute proceedings 

to determine whether the proposed rule 

change should be approved or 

disapproved. 

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– 

CboeEDGX–2024–055 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–2024–055. 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–CboeEDGX–2024–055 and 

should be submitted on or before 

October 3, 2024. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.30

Sherry R. Haywood, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2024–20633 Filed 9–11–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–100968; File No. PCAOB– 

2024–002] 

Public Company Accounting Oversight 

Board; Order Granting Approval of QC 

1000, A Firm’s System of Quality 

Control, and Related Amendments to 

PCAOB Standards, Rules, and Forms 

September 9, 2024. 

I. Introduction 

On May 24, 2024, the Public 

Company Accounting Oversight Board 

(the ‘‘Board’’ or the ‘‘PCAOB’’) filed 

with the Securities and Exchange 

Commission (the ‘‘Commission’’), 

pursuant to Section 107(b) 1 of the 

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (‘‘SOX’’) 

and Section 19(b) 2 of the Securities 

Exchange Act of 1934 (the ‘‘Exchange 

Act’’), a proposal to adopt Quality 

Control (‘‘QC’’) 1000, A Firm’s System of 

Quality Control (‘‘QC 1000’’), and 

supersede existing PCAOB QC 

standards; adopt EI 1000, Integrity and 

Objectivity, and supersede existing ET 

102, Integrity and Objectivity; and 

amend several other related existing 

auditing standards, rules, and forms 

(collectively, the ‘‘Amendments’’).3

The Amendments were published for 

comment in the Federal Register on 

June 11, 2024.4 On July 1, 2024, the 

Commission extended the public 

comment period until July 16, 2024, and 

extended the date by which the 

Commission shall either approve or 

disapprove, or institute proceedings to 

determine whether to approve or 

disapprove, the Amendments to August 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1