105654 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Notices 

22 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 

23 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f). 

24 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

3Capitalized terms used but not defined herein 

have the meanings specified in the End-of-Day Price 

Discovery Policies and Procedures (‘‘EOD 

Procedures’’) as applicable. 

4Securities Exchange Act Release No. 101489 

(Oct. 31, 2024), 89 FR 88094 (Nov. 6, 2024) (File 

No. SR–ICC–2024–012) (‘‘Notice’’). 

5Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein 

have the meanings assigned to them in EOD 

Procedures, as applicable. 

6Notice, 89 FR 88095. 

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 22 and paragraph (f) of Rule 

19b–4 23 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– 

CboeBZX–2024–128 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-CboeBZX–2024–128. 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–CboeBZX–2024–128 and should be 

submitted on or before January 17, 2025. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.24

J. Matthew DeLesDernier, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2024–31092 Filed 12–26–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–101970; File No. SR–ICC– 

2024–012] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE 

Clear Credit LLC; Order Approving 

Proposed Rule Change Relating to the 

ICC End-of-Day Price Discovery 

Policies and Procedures 

December 19, 2024. 

I. Introduction 

On October 21, 2024, ICE Clear Credit 

LLC (‘‘ICC’’) filed with the Securities 

and Exchange Commission (the 

‘‘Commission’’), pursuant to Section 

19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act 

of 1934 (the ‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 

thereunder,2 a proposed rule change to 

revise ICC’s End-of-Day Price Discovery 

Policies and Procedures.3 The proposed 

rule change was published for comment 

in the Federal Register on November 6, 

2024.4 The Commission did not receive 

comments regarding the proposed rule 

change. For the reasons discussed 

below, the Commission is approving the 

proposed rule change. 

II. Description of the Proposed Rule 

Change 

A. Background 

ICC is registered with the Commission 

as a clearing agency for the purpose of 

clearing Credit Default Swap (‘‘CDS’’) 

contracts.5 ICC’s EOD Procedures set out 

ICC’s end-of-day (‘‘EOD’’) price 

discovery process, which provides 

prices for cleared contracts using 

submissions made by Clearing 

Participants. ICC uses its EOD price 

discovery process to provide marketdriven prices for cleared CDS 

instruments and cleared derivatives of 

CDS instruments. ICC uses the resulting 

EOD prices for risk management 

purposes and distributes them to 

Clearing Participants and their clients. 

ICC also publishes a subset of EOD 

prices on its public website. 

ICC proposes to revise the EOD 

Procedures. The primary purpose of the 

proposed revisions is to address 

Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission (‘‘CFTC’’) exam findings.6

The proposed revisions clarify the 

meanings of certain terms used in the 

EOD Procedures, specifically MostActively-Traded-Instrument; MostActively-Traded-Coupon; and bid-offer 

widths. The proposed changes also 

make other miscellaneous updates to 

the EOD Procedures. 

B. Most-Actively-Traded-Instrument 

The term Most-Actively-TradedInstrument (‘‘MATI’’) is used by ICC 

throughout the EOD Procedures to refer 

to the most-liquid instrument in a 

specified group of instruments. Because 

the most-liquid instrument in a given 

group of instruments will depend on the 

specific group of instruments at issue, 

the MATI varies. Currently, Section 

1.2.3 of the EOD Procedures, titled 

Most-Actively-Traded Instrument, 

defines the term MATI as ‘‘the mostliquid instrument in the group of 

instruments’’ and specifies the typical 

MATI for index risk sub factors and 

corporate single name risk sub factors. 

To highlight the context-dependent 

nature of the term MATI, the proposed 

rule change would modify the definition 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Notices 105655 

7Under applicable ISDA Credit Derivatives 

Definitions, ‘XR14’ references no restructuring 

under the 2014 ISDA Definitions. 

of MATI and provide examples of a 

typical MATI for a given risk factor 

rather than identifying a specific MATI. 

The proposed examples would illustrate 

the specific contexts in which the term 

MATI is most commonly used. 

Specifically, ICC would strike a 

statement that the term MATI is 

‘‘defined’’ as ‘‘the most-liquid 

instrument in the group of instruments’’ 

and replace it with a statement that ICC 

uses the term MATI ‘‘to refer to the 

most-liquid instrument in a specified 

group of instruments.’’ 

Similarly, with regard to the specific 

contexts in which the term MATI is 

most commonly used, the proposed rule 

change would strike two statements 

describing the ‘‘typical’’ MATI for 

‘‘index risk sub factors’’ and 

‘‘investment grade North American and 

European corporate [single name] risk 

sub factors.’’ The statement regarding 

index risk sub factors would be replaced 

with an example of the MATI for ‘‘an 

index risk factor,’’ which typically is the 

contract with a scheduled termination 

date corresponding to the 5-year ‘‘tenor’’ 

and being the most recent series and 

version of the applicable cleared CDS 

index instrument. The current statement 

regarding single name risk factors would 

be replaced with an example of the 

MATI for a single name risk factor ‘‘for 

investment grade North American 

corporate SN risk factors,’’ which 

typically is the contract with a 

scheduled termination date 

corresponding to the 5-year ‘‘tenor,’’ 

having U.S. Dollar as the currency of 

denomination, having a coupon of 100 

basis points, referencing deliverable 

obligations having a senior debt tier, 

and having an ‘‘XR14’’ restructuring 

clause.7

The examples in subsection 1.2.3 

would further be expanded to include 

examples of the MATI for ‘‘a SN risk 

sub-factor and the MATI for ‘‘a specific 

coupon within a SN risk sub-factor,’’ 

which typically would be the most 

actively traded coupon and scheduled 

termination date in the group of single 

name instruments sharing the same 

reference entity, currency of 

denomination, reference entity debt tier, 

and restructuring clause, and the most 

actively traded schedule termination 

date (i.e., tenor) in the group of single 

name instruments sharing the same 

reference entity, currency of 

denomination, reference entity debt tier, 

restructuring clause, and coupon, 

respectively. 

C. Most Actively Traded Coupon 

Subsection 1.2.3 also currently 

defines the term Most-Actively-Traded 

Coupon (‘‘MATC’’) as the coupon 

associated with a single name risk sub 

factor’s MATI. ICC proposes additional 

clarifying revisions to this provision of 

subsection 1.2.3. Specifically, the 

current statement that ‘‘ICC further 

defines the coupon associated with a SN 

risk sub-factor’s MATI as the mostactively traded coupon (‘‘MATC’’) for 

that risk sub-factor’’ would be replaced 

with a statement that ‘‘ICC uses the 

term’’ MATC to refer to the coupon of 

the MATI for a SN risk factor, or SN risk 

sub-factor, depending on the stated 

context. 

D. Bid-Offer Widths 

Section 2 of the EOD Procedures 

addresses ICC’s methodology for 

producing EOD prices. ICC is proposing 

to make changes to clarify the use of 

bid-offer widths (‘‘BOW’’) in Section 2 

of the EOD Procedures. 

ICC proposes revisions to subsection 

2.1.2, which addresses consensus 

BOWs, to clarify the definition and use 

of consensus BOWs. BOWs are 

estimates of the bid-offer widths for the 

two-way market available for each 

clearing-eligible instrument at a specific 

time on each business day. ICC proposes 

to amend subsection 2.1.2 to describe a 

consensus BOW as the estimate of the 

prevailing market BOW during a given 

period. The revisions would further 

clarify that ICC determines a consensus 

BOW for each on-the-run index and for 

all single name benchmark-instruments 

at the appropriate EOD BOW execution 

time. ICC also proposes to add further 

detail to subsection 2.1.2 with respect to 

ICC’s estimates of consensus BOWs to 

add that such estimations are performed 

with respect to each index risk factor 

MATI. With respect to consensus BOWs 

for single name instruments, ICC 

proposes to add additional detail to 

subsection 2.1.2 to clarify that ICC 

estimates a consensus BOW from 

Clearing Participant-submitted midprices for all single name benchmarkinstruments. 

ICC proposes to revise subsection 

2.1.4, which covers EOD BOWs, to 

describe the calculation of EOD BOWs 

more accurately. The EOD BOW is the 

BOW calculated for each clearingeligible instrument at the applicable end 

of the clearing day. ICC calculates the 

EOD BOW by first determining a 

consensus BOW for an instrument. 

Subsection 2.1.4.a describes how ICC 

determines EOD BOWs for index 

instruments. Section 2.1.4.a currently 

includes a statement that ‘‘ICC compares 

the consensus BOW to the three 

predefined BOWs.’’ The proposed rule 

change would revise that statement to 

clarify that ‘‘ICC compares the 

consensus BOW established for that 

instrument to the three predefined 

BOWS.’’ 

ICC also proposes to revise subsection 

2.1.4.b, which describes the process for 

calculating EOD BOWs for single name 

instruments. In the description of the 

factors ICC applies to each consensus 

BOW, the proposed revisions clarify 

that such list of factors includes 

observed intraday price variability. The 

proposed revisions also add a statement 

that the benchmark-instrument BOW 

resulting after applying the listed factors 

to the benchmark-instrument consensus 

BOW is referred to in the EOD 

Procedures as the benchmarkinstrument ‘‘systematic’’ BOW. Finally, 

ICC proposes to add to subsection 

2.1.4.b details related to ICC’s 

determination of the systematic BOW 

for each benchmark instrument for nonMATC coupons. These proposed 

changes clarify that ICC’s calculation 

involves use of the benchmarkinstrument consensus BOW established 

for non-MATC benchmark instruments 

belonging to the given single name risk 

sub-factor. 

E. Other Updates 

Within Section 2, ICC proposes to 

amend subsection 2.1.3 and 2.1.4, 

which covers variability bands and EOD 

BOWs respectively. The proposed 

amendments modify the titles of Table 

2, Table 4, and Table 6, and clarify the 

uses of the tables. The titles of Table 2 

and Table 4 are currently ‘‘Assignment 

of Index Risk Factors to Market Proxy 

Groups.’’ ICC proposes to expand the 

title of Table 2 to include a statement 

that the table is used for the purpose of 

determining the variability band for 

each market proxy group. ICC proposes 

to add language to the caption for Table 

4 to clarify that the table is used for the 

purpose of selecting which market 

proxy groups variability band to apply 

to each index risk factor. ICC also 

proposes to revise the content of Table 

4 to remove obsolete references to the 

CDX–NAIGHVOL and iTraxx HiVol 

index risk factors, as those index types 

are no longer clearing eligible at ICC. 

The title of Table 6 is currently 

‘‘Assignment of SN Risk Factors to 

Market Proxy Groups.’’ ICC proposes to 

expand the title of Table 6 to include a 

statement that the table is used for the 

purpose of selecting which marketproxy groups variability band to apply 

to the benchmark instruments 

associated with each given risk factor. 

ICC also proposes to update the content 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES
105656 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Notices 

8Notice, 89 FR 88096. 

9 Id. 

10 Id. 

11 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C). 

12Rule 700(b)(3), Commission Rules of Practice, 

17 CFR 201.700(b)(3). 

13 Id. 

14 Id. 

15Susquehanna Int’l Group, LLP v. Securities and 

Exchange Commission, 866 F.3d 442, 447 (D.C. Cir. 

2017). 

16 15 U.S.C. 78q–1(b)(3)(F). 

17 17 CFR 240.17Ad–22(e)(6)(iv) and (e)(18). 

18 15 U.S.C. 78q–1(b)(3)(F). 

19 15 U.S.C. 78q–1(b)(3)(F). 

20 17 CFR 240.17Ad–22(e)(6)(iv). 

21 17 CFR 240.17Ad–22(e)(2)(v). 

of Table 6 to clarify that both the 

Standard Latin American and Standard 

Australian single name risk factors 

include not only sovereign single 

instruments, but also corporate 

instruments, to more accurately reflect 

the single name risk factors currently 

cleared at ICC. Specifically, ICC 

proposes to append the phrase ‘‘& 

Corporates’’ to the current bullets for 

‘‘Standard Australia Sovereign’’ and 

‘‘Standard Asia Sovereign.’’ 

ICC proposes to revise subsection 2.5, 

which addresses distribution of EOD 

prices, to revise the instruments for 

which ICC publishes daily EOD prices 

on the Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. 

(‘‘ICE, Inc.’’) website. With respect to 

index instruments, ICC currently 

publishes EOD prices for a subset of 

cleared index instruments to the 

website. The proposed rule change 

would modify this practice such that 

ICC would instead publish EOD prices 

for every clearing eligible index 

instrument as required by the CFTC.8

With respect to single name 

instruments, the proposed rule change 

would not substantively modify the 

EOD prices that ICC publishes on the 

ICE, Inc. Website, but rather would 

revise subsection 2.5 to clarify the 

description of the single name 

instruments for which it publishes daily 

EOD prices on the website. Specifically, 

subsection 2.5 currently states that ICC 

publishes prices for every listed risk 

sub-factor. The proposed rule change 

would clarify this description to state 

that, for every single name risk subfactor, ICC publishes the price of all 

MATI for each clearable coupon. In 

ICC’s view, this is a more accurate 

description of the daily single name 

settlement prices ICC publishes on the 

ICE, Inc. Website.9 ICC believes the 

proposed daily publication of settlement 

prices for all clearing eligible index 

instruments will improve pricing 

transparency to market participants and 

the public.10

Finally, ICC proposes other drafting 

clarifications and conforming changes to 

the EOD Procedures, such as updating 

the use of relevant defined terms, 

section cross-references, and other nonsubstantive drafting improvements. The 

amendments would also update the 

revision history section of the EOD 

Procedures. 

III. Discussion and Commission 

Findings 

Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act requires 

the Commission to approve a proposed 

rule change of a self-regulatory 

organization if it finds that the proposed 

rule change is consistent with the 

requirements of the Act and the rules 

and regulations thereunder applicable to 

the organization.11 Under the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice, the 

‘‘burden to demonstrate that a proposed 

rule change is consistent with the 

Exchange Act and the rules and 

regulations issued thereunder . . . is on 

the self-regulatory organization [‘SRO’] 

that proposed the rule change.’’ 12

The description of a proposed rule 

change, its purpose and operation, its 

effect, and a legal analysis of its 

consistency with applicable 

requirements must all be sufficiently 

detailed and specific to support an 

affirmative Commission finding,13 and 

any failure of an SRO to provide this 

information may result in the 

Commission not having a sufficient 

basis to make an affirmative finding that 

a proposed rule change is consistent 

with the Exchange Act and the 

applicable rules and regulations.14

Moreover, ‘‘unquestioning reliance’’ on 

an SRO’s representations in a proposed 

rule change is not sufficient to justify 

Commission approval of a proposed rule 

change.15

After carefully considering the 

proposed rule change, the Commission 

finds that the proposed rule change is 

consistent with the requirements of the 

Act and the rules and regulations 

thereunder applicable to ICC. More 

specifically, for the reasons given below, 

the Commission finds that the proposed 

rule change is consistent with Section 

17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act 16 and Rule 

17Ad–22(e)(6)(iv).17

A. Consistency With Section 

17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act 

Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act 

requires, among other things, that the 

rules of ICC be designed to promote the 

prompt and accurate clearance and 

settlement of securities transactions.18

As discussed above, the proposed rule 

change would clarify ICC’s EOD pricing 

methodology, including that ICC 

determines a consensus BOW for each 

on-the-run index and for all single name 

benchmark instruments at the 

appropriate EOD BOW execution time. 

The proposed rule change would also 

more accurately describe the calculation 

of EOD BOW and require that ICC 

publish EOD prices for every clearing 

eligible index instrument instead of just 

a subset of them. These changes would 

clarify ICC’s methodology for EOD and 

BOW calculations, thereby enhancing 

ICC’s ability to calculate accurate EOD 

prices. Further, EOD prices are 

distributed to Clearing Participants and 

their clients. Enhancing ICC’s ability to 

calculate accurate EOD prices is critical 

to ICC’s ability to manage the risks of 

clearing and settling CDS given that ICC 

bases margin and guaranty fund 

requirements on these prices. Moreover, 

ensuring that ICC’s Clearing 

Participants, their clients, and other 

market participants have correct pricing 

information for the instruments that ICC 

clears would promote the prompt and 

accurate clearance and settlement of 

CDS transactions by reducing the 

chance there are inaccuracies in the 

settlement of such transactions. 

Accordingly, the proposed rule change 

would promote the prompt and accurate 

clearance and settlement of transactions 

at ICC, consistent with Section 

17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.19

B. Consistency With Rule 17Ad– 

22(e)(6)(iv) 

Rule 17Ad–22(e)(6)(iv) requires that 

ICC establish, implement, maintain, and 

enforce written policies and procedures 

reasonably designed to cover its credit 

exposures to its participants by 

establishing a risk-based margin system 

that, among other things, uses reliable 

sources of timely price data and uses 

procedures and sound valuation models 

for addressing circumstances in which 

pricing data are not readily available or 

reliable.20 As discussed above, the 

proposed rule change would clarify how 

ICC’s price data—EOD BOWs—are 

calculated, and how consensus BOWs 

are defined and calculated. The 

proposed rule change also would 

require that ICC publish EOD prices for 

every clearing eligible index instrument 

rather than just a subset of them, as is 

ICC’s current practice. Clarifying ICC’s 

EOD pricing methodology and ensuring 

that EOD prices for all clearing eligible 

index instruments are published will 

help ICC ensure that the sources for its 

price data are both timely and reliable, 

which in turn will support and enhance 

ICC’s risk-based margin system. 

Accordingly, the proposed rule change 

is consistent with Rule 17Ad– 

22(e)(6)(iv).21


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Notices 105657 

22 15 U.S.C. 78q–1(b)(3)(F). 

23 17 CFR 240.17Ad–22(e)(2)(v). 

24 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 

25 In approving the proposed rule change, the 

Commission considered the proposal’s impact on 

efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 

U.S.C. 78c(f). 

26 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

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

4 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(2). 

5The Exchange initially filed the proposed 

pricing change on June 3, 2024 (SR–BOX–2024–13). 

On June 18, 2024, the Exchange withdrew that 

filing and submitted SR–BOX–2024–16. On August 

16, 2024, the Exchange withdrew SR–BOX–2024–16 

and submitted SR–BOX–2024–19. On October 10, 

2024, the Exchange withdrew SR–BOX–2024–19 

and submitted SR–BOX–2024–24. On October 24, 

2024, the Exchange withdrew SR–BOX–2024–24 

and submitted SR–BOX–2024–26. The instant filing 

replaces SR–BOX–2024–26, which was withdrawn 

on December 17, 2024. 

6 If the Exchange intends to increase or decrease 

fees for Connectivity and Ports in the future, the 

Exchange would be required to file a proposed rule 

change with the Commission under Section 19(b) of 

the Act to amend its Fee Schedule. 

IV. Conclusion 

On the basis of the foregoing, the 

Commission finds that the proposed 

rule change is consistent with the 

requirements of the Act, and in 

particular, with the requirements of 

Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act 22 and 

Rule 17Ad–22(e)(6)(iv) 23 thereunder. 

It is therefore ordered pursuant to 

Section 19(b)(2) of the Act 24 that the 

proposed rule change (SR–ICC–2024– 

012) be, and hereby is, approved.25

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.26

J. Matthew DeLesDernier, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2024–30778 Filed 12–26–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–101979; File No. SR–BOX– 

2024–30] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX 

Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and 

Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed 

Rule Change To Amend the Fee 

Schedule relating to BOX Connectivity 

Fees and Port Fees for Trading on the 

BOX Options Market LLC Facility 

December 19, 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 December 

17, 2024, BOX Exchange LLC (the 

‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the Securities 

and Exchange Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule 

change as described in Items I, II, and 

III, below, which Items have been 

prepared by the Exchange. The 

Exchange filed the proposed rule change 

pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the 

Act,3 and Rule 19b–4(f)(2) thereunder,4

which renders the proposal effective 

upon filing with the Commission. 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 the Substance 

of the Proposed Rule Change 

The Exchange is filing with the 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) a proposed rule change 

to amend the Fee Schedule relating to 

BOX Connectivity Fees and Port Fees on 

the BOX Options Market LLC (‘‘BOX’’) 

options facility. The text of the 

proposed rule change is available from 

the principal office of the Exchange, at 

the Commission’s Public Reference 

Room and also on the Exchange’s 

internet website at https://

rules.boxexchange.com/rulefilings. 

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 the 

Fee Schedule to increase Connectivity 

Fees for 10 gigabit (‘‘Gb’’) Connections, 

Non-10 Gb Connections, Financial 

Information Exchange (‘‘FIX’’) Ports, 

SOLA® Access Information Language 

(‘‘SAIL’’) Ports, Drop Copy Ports, and 

High Speed Vendor Feed (‘‘HSVF’’) 

Ports (collectively ‘‘Connectivity and 

Ports’’).5 Specifically, the Exchange 

proposes a one-time 6 increase to its fees 

for Connectivity and Ports in Sections 

III.A.2 and III.B of the Fee Schedule. 

By way of background, a physical 

connection is utilized by a Participant 

or non-Participant to connect to BOX at 

the datacenters where BOX’s servers are 

located. BOX currently assesses the 

following physical connectivity fees for 

Participants and non-Participants on a 

monthly basis: $1,000 per connection 

for a Non-10 Gb Connection and $5,000 

per connection for a 10 Gb Connection. 

The Exchange proposes to increase, on 

a one-time basis, the monthly fee for 

Non-10 Gb Connections from $1,000 to 

$1,080 per connection and from $5,000 

to $5,400 monthly fee for each 10 Gb 

Connection. The Exchange notes the 

proposed fee changes better enable BOX 

to continue to maintain and improve its 

market technology and services. 

Further, BOX currently provides four 

types of ports, including: (i) the FIX 

Port, which allows Participants to 

electronically send orders in all 

products traded on BOX; (ii) the SAIL 

Port, which allows Market Makers to 

submit electronic quotes and orders and 

other Participants to submit orders to 

BOX; (iii) the Drop Copy Port, which 

provides a real-time feed containing 

trade execution, trade correction, trade 

cancellation and trade allocation for 

regular and complex orders on BOX for 

Participants; and (iv) the HSVF Port, 

which provides a BOX market data feed 

for both Participants and nonParticipants. The Exchange notes that 

Participants must connect to a 

minimum of one port via FIX or SAIL 

and that there is no minimum or 

maximum number of ports required for 

the Drop Copy Port or the HSVF Port. 

Current FIX Port fees are as follows: 

FIX ports BOX monthly port fees 

1st FIX Port .................... $500 per port per month. 

FIX Ports 2 through 5 ..... $250 per port per month. 

Additional FIX Ports over 

5.

$150 per port per month. 

Current SAIL Port fees are as follows: 

SAIL ports BOX monthly port fees 

Market Making ................ $1,000 per month for all 

Ports. 

Order Entry ..................... $500 per month per port 

(1–5 Ports). 

$150 per month for each 

additional Port. 

The Exchange proposes to increase 

FIX Port fees on a one-time basis as 

follows: 

FIX ports BOX monthly port fees 

1st FIX Port .................... $540 per port per month. 

FIX Ports 2 through 5 ..... $270 per port per month. 

Additional FIX Ports over 

5.

$162 per port per month. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES