90794 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2024 / Notices 

21 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 

22 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(2). 

23 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

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

2 15 U.S.C. 78a. 

3 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

with its other regulatory fees and fines, 

does not exceed regulatory costs. 

The Exchange’s ORF, as described 

herein, is lower than or comparable to 

fees charged by other options exchanges 

(though as noted above, some exchange 

groups do have options exchanges 

operating with a lower ORF on a 

standalone basis). 

The Exchange notes that while it does 

not believe that its ORF will impose any 

burden on inter-market competition, the 

Exchange being precluded from 

charging an ORF after October 31, 2024, 

while other options exchanges are 

permitted to continue to charge ORF 

would, in-fact, significantly burden the 

Exchange’s ability to assure adequate 

funding of its regulatory program. As 

noted above, the Exchange is a new 

entrant in the highly competitive 

environment for equity options trading. 

As also noted above, all seventeen (17) 

other registered options exchanges 

currently impose the ORF on their 

members, and such ORF fees imposed 

by other options exchanges currently do 

and will continue to extend to 

executions occurring on the Exchange. 

The Exchange believes that it is possible 

that it and other exchanges may adopt 

ORF fees based on the Nasdaq Proposals 

or based on an alternative model during 

the proposed sunset period, and the 

Exchange is not precluded from 

adopting said alternative during the 

proposed sunset period. However, in 

order to be treated similarly to these 

exchanges, it must, in fact, impose an 

ORF on its Members during this 

additional sunset period, and the 

inability to do so would result in an 

unfair disadvantage to the Exchange. 

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)(ii) of the Act 21 and Rule 

19b–4(f)(2) 22 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 

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– 

MEMX–2024–42 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–MEMX–2024–42. 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–MEMX–2024–42 and should be 

submitted on or before December 9, 

2024. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.23

Sherry R. Haywood, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2024–26754 Filed 11–15–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–101578; File No. SR– 

NYSENAT–2024–28] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE 

National, Inc.; 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, NYSE National, Inc. (‘‘NYSE 

National’’ 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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2024 / Notices 90795 

4Through its Fixed Income and Data Services 

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

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

MDC. The Exchange and the New York Stock 

Exchange LLC, NYSE American LLC, NYSE Arca, 

Inc., and NYSE Chicago, 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. 83351 (May 31, 2018), 83 FR 26314 at 

n.9 (June 6, 2018) (SR–NYSENAT–2018–07). 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. SeeSR– 

NYSE–2024–69, SR–NYSEAMER–2024–64, SR– 

NYSEARCA–2024–91, and SR–NYSECHX–2024– 

31. 

6See 83 FR 26314, supra note 5, at 26318. 

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. 

99168 (December 14, 2023), 88 FR 88152 (December 

20, 2023) (SR–NYSENAT–2023–29). 

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

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

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

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. 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
90796 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2024 / Notices 

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. 

17See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 98002 

(July 26, 2023), 88 FR 50232 (August 1, 2023) (SR– 

NYSENAT–2023–12). 

18See id. at 50235. 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. 

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 third-party 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 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2024 / Notices 90797 

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. 

23 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B). 

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 

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– 

NYSENAT–2024–28 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–NYSENAT–2024–28. 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
90798 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2024 / Notices 

24 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

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

2 15 U.S.C. 78a. 

3 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

4See proposed Fee Schedule, Sections III.E.1 and 

I.F. (providing, in relevant, part that Floor Broker 

credits paid for QCC trades and rebates paid 

through the Manual Billable Rebate Program shall 

not combine to exceed $2,500,000 per month per 

Floor Broker firm). The Exchange notes that the 

Manual Billable Rebate Program is available only to 

Floor Brokers that participate in the FB Prepay 

Program. See Fee Schedule, Section III.E.1. As such, 

the proposed increase to the QCC Cap would 

likewise encourage more Floor Brokers to 

participate in this Program. 

5The Exchange notes that the Manual Billable 

Rebate Program is available only to Floor Brokers 

that participate in the FB Prepay Program. See Fee 

Schedule, Section III.E.1. As such, the proposed 

increase to the QCC Cap would likewise encourage 

more Floor Brokers to participate in this Program. 

6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 

7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5). 

8See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 

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

(S7–10–04) (‘‘Reg NMS Adopting Release’’). 

9The OCC publishes options and futures volume 

in a variety of formats, including daily and monthly 

volume by exchange, available here: https://

www.theocc.com/Market-Data/Market-DataReports/Volume-and-Open-Interest/MonthlyWeekly-Volume-Statistics. 

10Based on a compilation of OCC data for 

monthly volume of equity-based options and 

monthly volume of equity-based ETF options, see 

id., the Exchanges market share in equity-based 

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–NYSENAT–2024–28 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. 2024–26747 Filed 11–15–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–101586; File No. SR– 

NYSEAMER–2024–66] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE 

American LLC; Notice of Filing and 

Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed 

Rule Change To Modify the NYSE 

American Options 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 

November 1, 2024, NYSE American LLC 

(‘‘NYSE American’’ 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 modify the 

NYSE American Options 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 purpose of this filing [sic] to 

amend the Fee Schedule to increase the 

maximum combined credits and rebates 

available to Floor Brokers for qualifying 

Qualified Contingent Cross Trades 

(‘‘QCCs’’). The Exchange proposes to 

implement the rule change on 

November 1, 2024. 

The Exchange proposes to modify 

Section I.F. and Section III.E.1. to 

increase the maximum combined Floor 

Broker credits and rebates paid through 

the Manual Billable Rebate Program, 

respectively, for qualifying QCCs to 

$2,750,000 per month per Floor Broker 

firm, an increase from the current 

monthly amount of 2,500,000 (the 

‘‘Maximum Combined Rebate/Credit’’ or 

‘‘QCC Cap’’).4 The proposed increase is 

designed to encourage Floor Broker 

firms to continue to direct transactions 

to the Exchange, despite increasing 

industry volumes making it less difficult 

to attain the maximum rebate. By 

increasing the QCC Cap, Floor Brokers 

are eligible to achieve more QCC credits 

and rebates, thus making the Exchange 

a more attractive venue for QCC 

transactions.5

2. Statutory Basis 

The Exchange believes that the 

proposed rule change is consistent with 

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

furthers the objectives of Sections 

6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,7 in particular, 

because it provides for the equitable 

allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and 

other charges among its members, 

issuers and other persons using its 

facilities and does not unfairly 

discriminate between customers, 

issuers, brokers or dealers. 

The proposed change [sic] to the Fee 

Schedule are reasonable, equitable, and 

not unfairly discriminatory. As a 

threshold matter, the Exchange is 

subject to significant competitive forces 

in the market for options securities 

transaction services that constrain its 

pricing determinations in that market. 

The Commission has repeatedly 

expressed its preference for competition 

over regulatory intervention in 

determining prices, products, and 

services in the securities markets. 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.’’ 8

There are currently 17 [sic] registered 

options exchanges competing for order 

flow. Based on publicly-available 

information, and excluding index-based 

options, no single exchange has more 

than 16% of the market share of 

executed volume of multiply-listed 

equity and ETF options trades.9

Therefore, currently no exchange 

possesses significant pricing power in 

the execution of multiply-listed equity & 

ETF options order flow. More 

specifically, in September of 2024, the 

Exchange had 7.64% market share of 

executed volume of multiply-listed 

equity & ETF options trades.10 In such 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1