90812 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2024 / Notices 

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

2 15 U.S.C. 78a. 

3 17 CFR 240.19b 4. 

4Through its Fixed Income and Data Services 

(‘‘FIDS’’) (previously ICE Data Services) business, 

Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. (‘‘ICE’’) operates the 

MDC. The Exchange and NYSE American LLC, 

NYSE Arca, Inc., NYSE Chicago, Inc. and NYSE 

National, Inc. (together, the ‘‘Affiliate SROs’’) are 

indirect subsidiaries of ICE. 

5For purposes of the Exchange’s colocation 

services, a ‘‘User’’ means any market participant 

that requests to receive colocation services directly 

from the Exchange. See Securities Exchange Act 

Release No. 76008 (September 29, 2015), 80 FR 

60190 (October 5, 2015) (SR–NYSE–2015–40). As 

specified in the Fee Schedule, a User that incurs 

colocation fees for a particular colocation service 

pursuant thereto would not be subject to colocation 

fees for the same colocation service charged by the 

Affiliate SROs. Each Affiliate SRO has submitted 

substantially the same proposed rule change to 

propose the change described herein. See SR– 

NYSEAMER–2024–64, SR–NYSEARCA–2024–91, 

SR–NYSECHX–2024–31, and SR–NYSENAT–2024– 

28. 

6See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80311 

(March 24, 2017), 82 FR 15741 (March 30, 2017) 

(SR–NYSE–2016–45). 

7Telecommunication service providers that 

choose to provide circuits at the MDC are referred 

to as ‘‘Telecoms.’’ Telecoms are licensed by the 

Federal Communications Commission (‘‘FCC’’) and 

are not required to be, or be affiliated with, a 

member of the Exchange or an Affiliate SRO. 

8The ‘‘Optic Low Latency’’ circuits are lower 

latency. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 

99165 (December 13, 2023), 88 FR 87832 (December 

19, 2023) (SR–NYSE–2023–48). 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–101582; File No. SR–NYSE– 

2024–69] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New 

York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of 

Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of 

Proposed Rule Change To Amend the 

Service for Virtual Control Circuits in 

the Connectivity Fee Schedule 

November 12, 2024. 

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

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

(‘‘Act’’) 2 and Rule 19b 4 thereunder,3

notice is hereby given that on October 

30, 2024, New York Stock Exchange 

LLC (‘‘NYSE’’ or the ‘‘Exchange’’) filed 

with the Securities and Exchange 

Commission (the ‘‘Commission’’) the 

proposed rule change as described in 

Items I and II below, which Items have 

been prepared by the self-regulatory 

organization. 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 

service for virtual control circuits in the 

Connectivity Fee Schedule. The 

proposed rule change is available on the 

Exchange’s website at www.nyse.com, 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 

self-regulatory organization 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 those 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 parts of such 

statements. 

A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and the 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

1. Purpose 

The Exchange proposes to amend the 

existing service for virtual control 

circuits (‘‘VCCs’’) in the Connectivity 

Fee Schedule. 

A VCC (previously called a ‘‘peer to 

peer’’ connection) is a unicast 

connection through which two 

participants can establish a connection 

between two points over dedicated 

bandwidth, to be used for any purpose. 

At the Mahwah, New Jersey data center 

(‘‘MDC’’) 4 the Exchange offers VCCs 

between two Users.5 The recurring 

monthly fees are based upon the 

bandwidth requirements per VCC 

connection between two Users.6

However, not all VCCs are between 

two Users in the MDC. Although all 

VCCs have at least one end that is a User 

inside the MDC, the other party may be 

a non-User outside of the MDC at a 

remote access center, or the VCC can be 

between a User in the MDC and the 

same User outside of the MDC at a 

remote access center. A VCC that goes 

outside of the MDC herein is called a 

‘‘MDC VCC.’’ 

Accordingly, the Exchange proposes 

to amend the Connectivity Fee Schedule 

to delete ‘‘between two Users’’ after 

‘‘Virtual Control Circuit.’’ Fees for the 

service would not change and, as now, 

connectivity to a VCC would require the 

permission of the non-billed party 

before the Exchange would establish the 

connection. 

As background, Users require wired 

circuits to connect into and out of the 

MDC. A User’s equipment in the MDC’s 

colocation hall connects to a circuit 

leading out of the MDC, which connects 

to the User’s equipment in their back 

office or another data center. 

Before 2013, all such circuits were 

provided by ICE’s predecessor, NYSE 

Euronext. In response to customer 

demand for more connectivity options, 

in 2013, the MDC opened two ‘‘meetme-rooms’’ to telecommunications 

service providers (‘‘Telecoms’’),7 to 

enable Telecoms to offer circuits into 

the MDC in competition with NYSE 

Euronext. Currently, 16 Telecoms 

operate in the meet-me-rooms and 

provide circuit options to Users 

requiring connectivity into and out of 

the MDC. 

In addition, FIDS provides two 

different types of circuits, Optic Low 

Latency and Optic Access. Optic 

Access,8 which is more similar to the 

MDC VCC, is a circuit between the MDC 

and the FIDS access centers at five 

third-party owned data centers: (1) 111 

Eighth Avenue, New York, NY; (2) 32 

Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY; 

(3) 165 Halsey, Newark, NJ; (4) 

Secaucus, NJ; and (5) Carteret, NJ. 

Ultimately, the MDC VCCs are similar 

to the Optic Access FIDS circuits in 

that, like Optic Access, the MDC VCCs 

run between the MDC and five FIDS 

access centers as well as, in the case of 

the MDC VCCs, additional U.S. FIDS 

access centers. They are smaller than 

the Optic Access FIDS circuits, 

however. While the Exchange has no 

visibility into how a User utilizes its 

connections, the Exchange believes that 

the Optic Access FIDS circuit is used for 

items that require more bandwidth, like 

market data, while the MDC VCCs are 

used for items that require smaller 

amounts of bandwidth, such as 

messaging, pre- and post-trade data, or 

clearing information, as determined by 

the User. Accordingly, if a User wants 

a smaller connection to a U.S. access 

center, or wants to reach an access 

center that Optic Access does not reach, 

the MDC VCCs are a viable option. 

General 

The proposed rule change would not 

apply differently to distinct types or 

sizes of market participants. Rather, it 

would apply to all Users equally. As is 

currently the case, the Fee Schedule 

would be applied uniformly to all Users. 

FIDS does not expect that the proposed 

rule change will result in new Users. 

The proposed change is not otherwise 

intended to address any other issues 

relating to co-location services and/or 

related fees, and the Exchange is not 

aware of any problems that customers 

would have in complying with the 

proposed change. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2024 / Notices 90813 

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

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

11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). 

12Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90209 

(October 15, 2020), 85 FR 67044, 67049 (October 21, 

2020) (Order Granting Accelerated Approval to 

Establish a Wireless Fee Schedule Setting Forth 

Available Wireless Bandwidth Connections and 

Wireless Market Data Connections) (SR–NYSE– 

2020–05, SR–NYSEAMER–2020–05, SR– 

NYSEArca–2020–08, SR–NYSECHX–2020–02, SR– 

NYSENAT–2020–03, SR–NYSE–2020–11, SR– 

NYSEAMER–2020–10, SR–NYSEArca–2020–15, 

SR–NYSECHX–2020–05, SR–NYSENAT–2020–08) 

(‘‘Wireless Approval Order’’), citing Securities 

Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2, 

2008), 73 FR 74770, 74781 (December 9, 2008) 

(‘‘2008 ArcaBook Approval Order’’). See 

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

13Wireless Approval Order, supra note 12, at 

67049, citing 2008 ArcaBook Approval Order, supra 

note 12, at 74781. 

14See 2008 ArcaBook Approval Order, supra note 

12, at 74789 and note 295 (recognizing that 

products need not be identical to be substitutable). 

15The specifications of FIDS’s competitors’ 

circuits are not publicly known. The Exchange 

understands that FIDS has gleaned any information 

it has about its competitors through anecdotal 

communications, by observing customers’ 

purchasing choices in the competitive market, and 

from its own experience as a purchaser of circuits 

from telecommunications providers to build FIDS’s 

own networks. 

16Note that in the case of wireless connectivity, 

a User in colocation still requires a fiber circuit to 

transport data. If a Telecom is used, the data is 

transmitted wirelessly to the relevant pole, and then 

from the pole to the meet-me-room using a fiber 

circuit. 

2. Statutory Basis 

The Exchange believes that the 

proposed rule change is consistent with 

Section 6(b) of the Act,9 in general, and 

furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) 

of the Act,10 in particular, because it is 

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 and because it is not 

designed to permit unfair 

discrimination between customers, 

issuers, brokers, or dealers. The 

Exchange further believes that the 

proposed rule change is consistent with 

Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,11 because it 

provides for the equitable allocation of 

reasonable dues, fees, and other charges 

among its members and issuers and 

other persons using its facilities and 

does not unfairly discriminate between 

customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. 

The Proposed Change Is Reasonable 

The Exchange believes that the 

proposed rule change is reasonable. 

Although all VCCs have at least one 

end that is a User inside the MDC, the 

other party may be a non-User outside 

of the MDC at a remote access center, or 

the VCC can be between a User in the 

MDC and the same User outside of the 

MDC at a remote access center. 

Accordingly, the proposed change is 

reasonable because it would make the 

Connectivity Fee Schedule more 

accurately reflect the usage of VCCs. It 

would ensure that the description of 

VCCs was complete, accessible and 

transparent, and thereby provide market 

participants with greater clarity. 

In considering the reasonableness of 

proposed services and fees, the 

Commission’s market-based test 

considers ‘‘whether the exchange was 

subject to significant competitive forces 

in setting the terms of its proposal 

. . . , including the level of any 

fees.’’ 12 If the Exchange meets that 

burden, ‘‘the Commission will find that 

its proposal is consistent with the Act 

unless ‘there is a substantial 

countervailing basis to find that the 

terms’ of the proposal violate the Act or 

the rules thereunder.’’ 13 Here, the 

Exchange is subject to significant 

competitive forces in setting the terms 

on which it offers its proposal, in 

particular because substantially similar 

substitutes are available, and the thirdparty vendors are not at a competitive 

disadvantage created by the Exchange. 

MDC VCCs would compete with 

circuits currently offered by the 16 

third-party Telecoms that have installed 

their equipment in the MDC’s two meetme-rooms. The Telecom circuits are 

reasonable substitutes for the MDC 

VCCs. The Commission has recognized 

that products do not need to be identical 

to be considered substitutable; it is 

sufficient that they be substantially 

similar.14 The MDC VCCs, the FIDS 

circuits, and the circuits provided by 

the Telecoms all perform the same 

function: connecting into and out of the 

MDC. The providers of the MDC VCCs, 

VCCs between Users, FIDS circuits and 

Telecom circuits design them to perform 

with particular combinations of latency, 

bandwidth, price, termination point, 

and other factors that they believe will 

attract Users, and Users choose from 

among these competing services on the 

basis of their business needs. 

The MDC VCCs are sufficiently 

similar substitutes to the circuits offered 

by the 16 Telecoms even though the 

MDC VCCs all terminate in one of the 

U.S. remote access centers, while 

circuits from the 16 Telecoms could 

terminate in those locations or 

additional locations. While neither the 

Exchange nor FIDS knows the end point 

of any particular Telecom circuit, the 

Exchange understands that the 

Telecoms can offer circuits terminating 

in any location, including the remote 

access centers where the MDC VCCs 

would terminate. Moreover, the 

Telecoms may offer smaller circuits that 

are the same as or similar size to the 

MDC VCCs. Ultimately, Users can 

choose to configure their pathway 

leading out of colocation in the way that 

best suits their business needs, which 

may include connecting to the User’s 

equipment at one of the U.S. remote 

access center locations that serve as 

termination points for MDC VCCs, or 

connecting first to one of those remote 

access centers with a FIDS- or Telecomsupplied circuit and then further 

connecting to another remote location 

using a telecommunication providersupplied circuit. 

Neither the MDC VCCs, Optic Access 

circuits, nor the Optic Low Latency 

circuits have a distance or latency 

advantage over the Telecoms’ circuits 

within the MDC. FIDS has normalized 

(a) the distance between the meet-merooms and the colocation halls and (b) 

the distance between the rooms where 

the FIDS circuits and the MDC VCCs 

exit the MDC and the colocation halls. 

As a result, a User choosing whether to 

use the MDC VCCs or Telecom circuits 

does not face any difference in the 

distances or latency within the MDC. 

The Exchange also believes that the 

MDC VCCs do not have any latency or 

bandwidth advantage over the 

Telecoms’ circuits outside of the MDC. 

The Exchange believes that the 

Telecoms operating in the meet-merooms offer circuits with a variety of 

latency and bandwidth specifications, 

some of which may exceed the 

specifications of the proposed MDC 

VCCs.15 The Exchange believes that 

Users consider these latency and 

bandwidth factors—as well as other 

factors, such as price and termination 

point—in determining which offerings 

will best serve their business needs. 

In sum, the Exchange does not believe 

that there is anything about the MDC 

VCCs that would make the Telecoms’ 

circuits inadequate substitutes. 

Nor does the Exchange have a 

competitive advantage over any thirdparty competitors by virtue of the fact 

that it owns and operates the MDC’s 

meet-me-rooms. In most cases, circuits 

coming out of the MDC are provided by 

the Telecoms.16 Currently, 16 Telecoms 

operate in the meet-me-rooms and 

provide a variety of circuit choices. It is 

in the Exchange’s best interest to set the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
90814 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2024 / Notices 

17See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 97998 

(July 26, 2023), 88 FR 50238 (August 1, 2023) (SR– 

NYSE–2023–27). 

18See id. at 50241. Importantly, the Exchange is 

prevented from making any alteration to its meetme-room services or fees without filing a proposal 

for such changes with the Commission. 

19 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8). 

20 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). 

21 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). 

22 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b– 

4(f)(6) requires the Exchange to give the 

Commission written notice of its intent to file the 

proposed rule change, along with a brief description 

and text of the proposed rule change, at least five 

business days prior to the date of filing of the 

proposed rule change, or such shorter time as 

designated by the Commission. The Exchange has 

satisfied this requirement. 

fees that Telecoms pay to operate in the 

meet-me-rooms at a reasonable level 17

so that market participants, including 

Telecoms, will maximize their use of 

the MDC. By setting the meet-me-room 

fees at a reasonable level, the Exchange 

encourages Telecoms to participate in 

the meet-me-rooms and to sell circuits 

to Users for connecting into and out of 

the MDC. These Telecoms then compete 

with each other by pricing such circuits 

at competitive rates. These competitive 

rates for circuits help draw in more 

Users and Hosted Customers to the 

MDC, which directly benefits the 

Exchange by increasing the customer 

base to whom the Exchange can sell its 

colocation services, which include 

cabinets, power, ports, and connectivity 

to many third-party data feeds, and 

because having more Users and Hosted 

Customers leads, in many cases, to 

greater participation on the Exchange. In 

this way, by setting the meet-me-room 

fees at a level attractive to 

telecommunications firms, the Exchange 

spurs demand for all of the services it 

sells at the MDC, while setting the meetme-room fees too high would negatively 

affect the Exchange’s ability to sell its 

services at the MDC.18 Accordingly, 

there are real constraints on the meetme-room fees the Exchange charges, 

such that the Exchange does not have an 

advantage in terms of costs when 

compared to third parties that enter the 

MDC through the meet-me-rooms to 

provide services to compete with the 

Exchange’s services. 

If the Exchange were to set the price 

of the MDC VCCs too high, Users would 

likely respond by choosing one of the 

many alternative options offered by the 

16 Telecoms. Conversely, if the 

Exchange were to offer the MDC VCCs 

at prices aimed at undercutting 

comparable Telecom circuits, the 

Telecoms might reassess whether it 

makes financial sense for them to 

continue to participate in the MDC’s 

meet-me-rooms. Their departure might 

negatively impact User participation in 

colocation and on the Exchange. As a 

result, the Exchange is not motivated to 

undercut the prices of Telecom circuits. 

For these reasons, the proposed 

change is reasonable. 

The Proposed Change Is Equitable 

The Exchange believes that the 

proposed change provides for the 

equitable allocation of reasonable dues, 

fees, and other charges among its 

members and issuers and other persons 

using its facilities and does not unfairly 

discriminate between customers, 

issuers, brokers, or dealers because it is 

not designed to permit unfair 

discrimination between market 

participants. The proposed change 

would apply equally to all types and 

sizes of market participants. It would 

clarify that all VCCs, irrespective of 

whether between two Users, a User and 

non-User outside of the VCC, or the 

same User, are subject to the same size 

and cost provisions. In addition, the 

Exchange believes that the proposal is 

equitable because only market 

participants that voluntarily select to 

receive MDC VCCs would be charged for 

them. 

Moreover, the proposed change would 

ensure that the Connectivity Fee 

Schedule accurately reflects the usage of 

VCCs. It would ensure that the 

description of VCCs was complete, 

accessible and transparent, and provide 

market participants with greater clarity. 

The Proposed Change Is Not Unfairly 

Discriminatory 

The Exchange believes its proposal is 

not unfairly discriminatory. The 

proposed change does not apply 

differently to distinct types or sizes of 

market participants. Rather, it applies to 

all market participants equally. The 

purchase of any proposed service is 

completely voluntary and the Fee 

Schedule will be applied uniformly to 

all market participants. 

In addition, the Exchange believes 

that the proposal is equitable because 

only market participants that 

voluntarily select to receive MDC VCCs 

would be charged for them. The MDC 

VCCs are available to all market 

participants on an equal basis, and all 

market participants that voluntarily 

choose to purchase a MDC VCC are 

charged the same amount as all other 

market participants purchasing that type 

of MDC VCC. 

For the reasons above, the proposed 

change does not unfairly discriminate 

between or among market participants 

that are otherwise capable of satisfying 

any applicable co-location fees, 

requirements, terms, and conditions 

established from time to time by the 

Exchange. 

For these reasons, the Exchange 

believes that the proposal is consistent 

with the Act. 

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Burden on Competition 

The Exchange believes that the 

proposal will not impose any burden on 

competition that is not necessary or 

appropriate in furtherance of the 

purposes of Section 6(b)(8) of the Act.19

The proposed rule change is designed to 

ensure that the provision on VCCs 

clarifies that all VCCs, irrespective of 

whether between two Users, a User and 

non-User outside of the VCC, or the 

same User, are subject to the same size 

and cost provisions. It is not meant to 

address intramarket or intermarket 

competition. 

The proposed change would enhance 

competition in the market for circuits 

transmitting data into and out of 

colocation at the MDC by adding VCCs, 

in addition to the 16 Telecoms that also 

sell circuits to Users and the FIDS 

circuits. The MDC VCCs do not have 

any latency, bandwidth, or other 

advantage over the Telecoms’ circuits. 

The proposal would not burden 

competition in the sale of such circuits, 

but rather, enhance it by providing 

Users with an additional choice for their 

circuit needs. 

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Comments on the 

Proposed Rule Change Received From 

Members, Participants, or Others 

No written comments were solicited 

or received with respect to the proposed 

rule change. 

III. Date of Effectiveness of the 

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for 

Commission Action 

The Exchange has filed the proposed 

rule change pursuant to Section 

19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 20 and Rule 

19b–4(f)(6) thereunder.21 Because the 

proposed rule change does not: (i) 

significantly affect the protection of 

investors or the public interest; (ii) 

impose any significant burden on 

competition; and (iii) become operative 

prior to 30 days from the date on which 

it was filed, or such shorter time as the 

Commission may designate, if 

consistent with the protection of 

investors and the public interest, the 

proposed rule change has become 

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

of the Act and Rule 19b–4(f)(6)(iii) 

thereunder.22

At any time within 60 days of the 

filing of such proposed rule change, the 

Commission summarily may 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2024 / Notices 90815 

23 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B). 24 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

1The verified notice was initially filed on 

October 28, 2024. On October 29, 2024, CSXT filed 

a supplement to correct a typo regarding the 

mileage in Exhibit A. Accordingly, the verified 

notice of exemption will be deemed to have been 

filed on October 29, 2024. 

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 

under Section 19(b)(2)(B) 23 of the Act 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– 

NYSE–2024–69 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–NYSE–2024–69. 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–NYSE–2024–69 and should be 

submitted on or before December 9, 

2024. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.24

Sherry R. Haywood, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2024–26749 Filed 11–15–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 

[Disaster Declaration #20701 and #20702; 

NORTH CAROLINA Disaster Number NC– 

20007] 

Presidential Declaration Amendment of 

a Major Disaster for the State of North 

Carolina 

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business 

Administration. 

ACTION: Amendment 3. 

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the 

Presidential declaration of a major 

disaster for the State of North Carolina 

(FEMA–4827–DR), dated September 28, 

2024. 

Incident: Tropical Storm Helene. 

DATES: Issued on November 13, 2024. 

Incident Period: September 25, 2024, 

and continuing. 

Physical Loan Application Deadline 

Date: January 7, 2025. 

Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan 

Application Deadline Date: June 30, 

2025. 

ADDRESSES: Visit the MySBA Loan 

Portal at https://lending.sba.gov to 

apply for a disaster assistance loan. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alan Escobar, Office of Disaster 

Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small 

Business Administration, 409 3rd Street 

SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, 

(202) 205–6734. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice 

of the President’s major disaster 

declaration for the State of North 

Carolina, dated September 28, 2024, is 

hereby amended to extend the deadline 

for filing applications for physical 

damages as a result of this disaster to 

January 7, 2025. 

All other information in the original 

declaration remains unchanged. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Number 59008) 

Alejandro Contreras, 

Acting Deputy Associate Administrator, 

Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience. 

[FR Doc. 2024–26810 Filed 11–15–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8026–09–P 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD 

[Docket No. AB 55 (Sub-No. 818X)] 

CSX Transportation, Inc.— 

Abandonment Exemption—in Marion 

County, Ind. 

CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT), has 

filed a verified notice of exemption 1

under 49 CFR part 1152 subpart F— 

Exempt Abandonments to abandon an 

approximately 1.8-mile rail line that 

runs between Lat/Long (39.74752, 

¥86.18469) and Lat/Long (39.7294, 

¥86.20626) on its Northeast Great Lakes 

Division, Indianapolis Terminal 

Subdivision, Craven Industrial track in 

Marion County, Ind. (the Line). The 

Line traverses U.S. Postal Service Zip 

Codes 46221 and 46251. 

CSXT has certified that: (1) no local 

rail traffic has moved over the Line 

during the past two years; (2) any 

overhead traffic on the Line can be and 

has been rerouted over other lines; (3) 

no formal complaint filed by a user of 

rail service on the Line (or by a state or 

local government on behalf of such user) 

regarding cessation of service over the 

Line is pending with either the Surface 

Transportation Board (Board) or any 

U.S. District Court or has been decided 

in favor of a complainant within the 

two-year period; and (4) the 

requirements at 49 CFR 1105.7(b) and 

1105.8(c) (notice of environmental and 

historic reports), 49 CFR 1105.12 

(newspaper publication), and 49 CFR 

1152.50(d)(1) (notice to government 

agencies) have been met. 

As a condition to this exemption, any 

employee adversely affected by the 

abandonment shall be protected under 

Oregon Short Line Railroad— 

Abandonment Portion Goshen Branch 

Between Firth & Ammon, in Bingham & 

Bonneville Counties, Idaho, 360 I.C.C. 

91 (1979). To address whether this 

condition adequately protects affected 

employees, a petition for partial 

revocation under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) 

must be filed. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1