360 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2025 / Notices 

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

2 15 U.S.C. 78a. 

3 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

4For 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. 76009 (September 29, 2015), 80 FR 

60213 (October 5, 2015) (SR–NYSEMKT–2015–67). 

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 

New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc., 

NYSE Chicago, Inc. and NYSE National, Inc. 

(together, the ‘‘Affiliate SROs’’). Each Affiliate SRO 

has submitted substantially the same proposed rule 

change to propose the change described herein. See 

SR–NYSE–2024–81, SR–NYSEARCA–2024–113, 

SR–NYSECHX–2024–37, and SR–NYSENAT–2024– 

33. 

5Through its Fixed Income and Data Services 

(‘‘FIDS’’) business, Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. 

(‘‘ICE’’) operates the MDC. The Exchange and the 

Affiliate SROs are indirect subsidiaries of ICE. 

6 Information flows over existing network 

connections in two formats: ‘‘unicast’’ format, 

which is a format that allows one-to-one 

communication, similar to a phone line, in which 

information is sent to and from the Exchange; and 

‘‘multicast’’ format, which is a format in which 

information is sent one-way from the Exchange to 

multiple recipients at once, like a radio broadcast. 

7See Connectivity Fee Schedule—A. Co-Location 

Fees. 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[SEC File No. 270–521, OMB Control No. 

3235–0579] 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request; Extension: 

Regulation BTR; Correction 

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange 

Commission. ACTION: Notice; 

correction. 

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange 

Commission published a notice 

document in the Federal Register on 

December 27, 2024, concerning a 

Submission for OMB Review; Comment 

Request; Extension: Regulation BTR. 

The document contained a 

typographical error. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Naomi P. Lewis, Securities and 

Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20549, (202) 551–5400. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Correction 

In the Federal Register of December 

27, 2024, in FR Doc. 2024–30768, at 89 

FR 105665, in the first column, in the 

last paragraph, on the 51st and 52nd 

lines, the reference to ‘‘https://

www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ 

PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=202412-3235- 

022’’ should be replaced with ‘‘https:// 

www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ 

PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=202412-3235- 

023’’. 

Dated: December 30, 2024. 

Stephanie J. Fouse, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2024–31577 Filed 1–2–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–102042; File No. SR– 

NYSEAMER–2024–80] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE 

American LLC; Notice of Filing of 

Proposed Change To Amend the 

Connectivity Fee Schedule 

December 27, 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 December 

17, 2024, NYSE American LLC (‘‘NYSE 

American’’ or ‘‘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 selfregulatory 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 

Connectivity Fee Schedule (‘‘Fee 

Schedule’’) to add connectivity to the 

New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE 

American, and NYSE Arca, Inc. trading 

floors. 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 

Fee Schedule to add connectivity to the 

New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE 

American, and NYSE Arca, Inc. trading 

floors (‘‘Trading Floors’’). 

A User 4 may wish to have a 

connection between the Mahwah, New 

Jersey data center (‘‘MDC’’) 5 and a 

Trading Floor. A connection between 

the MDC and a Trading Floor may be 

between the User and itself or between 

the User and a third party. The User 

may use such connection for receiving 

and transmitting trading-related data 

(including pre- and post-trade data and 

clearing information) or providing 

services to individuals physically 

located on the floor (including access to 

back-office systems), as determined by 

the User. 

The Exchange proposes to add an 

option for such a connection to the Fee 

Schedule. Specifically, the Exchange 

proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to 

add unicast connections through which 

a User can establish a connection 

between the MDC and a Trading Floor 

over dedicated bandwidth (‘‘TF 

Connections’’).6 Presently, a TF 

Connection can be in the form of a 

virtual control circuit between the MDC 

and a single Trading Floor (‘‘TF VCC’’), 

or a virtual routing and forwarding 

service between the MDC and one or 

more Trading Floors (‘‘TF VRF’’). A TF 

Connection may be used for any 

purpose: neither FIDS nor the Exchange 

has any visibility into a TF Connection. 

All TF Connections must be 

authorized by both parties to the 

connection before FIDS will establish a 

connection. Establishing a User’s TF 

Connection will not give FIDS or the 

Exchange any right to use the relevant 

exchange’s system. A TF Connection 

will not provide direct access or order 

entry to the Exchange’s execution 

system, and a User’s TF Connection will 

not be through the Exchange’s execution 

system. 

TF Connections are offered at a 

monthly fee based on bandwidth 

requirements, which fee is consistent 

with the monthly fees charged for VCC 

connections and the same as those 

charged for connectivity to Third Party 

Systems.7 When a User requests a TF 

Connection, it identifies the size of 

bandwidth connection it requires, and 

the monthly charge for the TF 

Connection varies based on the size of 

the bandwidth. The calculation of the 

monthly fee may differ based on 

whether the form chosen by the User is 

a TF VCC or TF VRF. This is because 

the TF VCC connects the MDC to one 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2025 / Notices 361 

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

9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 

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

11Securities 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). 

12Wireless Approval Order, supra note 11, at 

67049, citing 2008 ArcaBook Approval Order, supra 

note 11, at 74781. 

13Telecoms are licensed by the Federal 

Communications Commission and are not required 

to be, or be affiliated with, a member of the 

Exchange or an Affiliate SRO. 

14See 2008 ArcaBook Approval Order, supra note 

11, at 74789 and note 295 (recognizing that 

products need not be identical to be substitutable). 

Trading Floor, while the TF VRF may 

connect the MDC to more than one 

Trading Floor. Accordingly, the 

Exchange proposes to add a note to the 

Fee Schedule to clarify the difference. 

To make the change, the Exchange 

proposes to amend the Fee Schedule as 

follows (all text new): 

Type of service Description Amount of charge 

Connectivity to Trading Floor * ................................................................ 1Mb ................................................

3Mb ................................................

5Mb ................................................

10Mb ..............................................

25Mb ..............................................

50Mb ..............................................

100Mb ............................................

$200 monthly charge. 

400 monthly charge. 

500 monthly charge. 

800 monthly charge. 

1,200 monthly charge. 

1,800 monthly charge. 

2,500 monthly charge. 

* The amount of the charge for Connectivity to Trading Floor may differ based on the connectivity chosen: (a) a virtual control circuit between 

the Mahwah data center and a single Trading Floor (‘‘VCC’’), or (b) a virtual routing and forwarding service between the Mahwah data center and 

one or more Trading Floors (‘‘VRF’’). Specifically, if the User chooses VCCs or combination of a VCC and VRF for connectivity to several Trading Floors, it will be charged separately for each connection. If the User chooses one VRF for connectivity to multiple trading floors, the User will 

be charged for one connection. 

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. 

Use of the services proposed in this 

filing are completely voluntary and 

available to all Users on a nondiscriminatory basis. 

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,8 in general, and 

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

of the Act,9 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,10 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. 

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.’’ 11 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.’’ 12 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. 

In 2013 the MDC opened two meetme-rooms to telecommunications 

service providers (‘‘Telecoms’’),13 to 

enable Telecoms to offer circuits into 

the MDC. The TF Connections 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 (including any 

circuit-based network services a 

Telecom may offer) are reasonable 

substitutes for TF Connections. 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 Because Telecoms can 

connect to the Trading Floors, the TF 

Connections and the circuits provided 

by the Telecoms perform the same 

function: connecting into and out of the 

MDC and the Trading Floors. The 

providers of the TF Connection 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 TF Connections are sufficiently 

similar substitutes to the circuits offered 

by the 16 Telecoms even though the TF 

Connections all terminate on a Trading 

Floor while circuits from the 16 

Telecoms could terminate on a Trading 

Floor or other locations. While neither 

the Exchange nor FIDS knows the end 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
362 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2025 / Notices 

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 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. 97999 

(July 26, 2023), 88 FR 50190 (August 1, 2023) (SR– 

NYSEAmer–2023–36) (‘‘MMR Notice’’). 

18See id. at 50193. 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. 19See Wireless Approval Order, supra note 11. 

point of any particular Telecom circuit, 

the Exchange understands that the 

Telecoms can offer circuits terminating 

in any location, including the Trading 

Floors. Moreover, the Telecoms may 

offer smaller circuits that are the same 

as or similar size to the TF Connections. 

Ultimately, Users can choose to 

configure their pathway in the way that 

best suits their business needs. 

The TF Connections do not have a 

distance or latency advantage over the 

Telecoms’ circuits within the MDC. 

FIDS has normalized (a) the distance 

between the meet-me-rooms and the 

colocation halls and (b) the distance 

between the rooms where the FIDS 

circuits and the TF Connections exit the 

MDC and the colocation halls. As a 

result, a User choosing whether to use 

the TF Connections or Telecom circuits 

does not face any difference in the 

distances or latency within the MDC. 

The Exchange is not aware of any 

differences under its control that give 

the Exchange a latency advantage. 

The Exchange also believes that the 

TF Connections 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 TF Connections.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 is not aware of 

anything that would make the 

Telecoms’ circuits inadequate 

substitutes for the TF Connections. 

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 anything, the Exchange would be 

subject to a competitive disadvantage 

vis-a`-vis the Telecoms. They are not 

subject to the Commission’s filing 

requirements, and therefore can freely 

change their services and pricing in 

response to competitive forces. In 

contrast, the Exchange’s service and 

pricing would be standardized as set out 

in this filing, and the Exchange would 

be unable to respond to pricing pressure 

from its competitors without seeking a 

formal fee change in a filing before the 

Commission. 

If the Exchange were to set the price 

of the TF Connections at a level that 

Users found to be 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 TF 

Connections 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. 

In sum, because the Exchange is 

subject to significant competitive forces 

in setting the terms on which it offers 

its proposal, in particular because the 

Exchange believes that a substantially 

similar substitute for TF Connectivity is 

available, and the Exchange has not 

placed third-party vendors at a 

competitive disadvantage created by the 

Exchange, the proposed fees for the TF 

Connectivity are reasonable.19

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. Rather, it would apply to 

all market participants equally. 

In addition, the Exchange believes 

that the proposal is equitable because 

only Users that voluntarily select to 

receive TF Connectivity would be 

charged for it. The proposed TF 

Connectivity is available to all Users on 

an equal basis, and all Users that 

voluntarily choose to purchase TF 

Connectivity would be charged the same 

amount for that circuit as all other 

market participants purchasing that type 

of TF Connectivity. 

The Exchange believes that it is 

equitable that it offers two types of TF 

Connectivity: TF VCCs that may connect 

to one Trading Floor, and TF VRFs that 

may connect to one or more Trading 

Floors. By offering these varied 

technological options, FIDS provides 

potential Users more choices from 

which to choose the option that would 

work best for their specific needs. The 

Exchange proposes to add a note to the 

Fee Schedule to clarify the difference, 

thereby making it easier for potential 

purchasers of the service to assess what 

connectivity will best serve them. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2025 / Notices 363 

20 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8). 21 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

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 not unfairly 

discriminatory because only Users that 

voluntarily select to receive TF 

Connectivity would be charged for it. TF 

Connectivity is available to all market 

participants on an equal basis, and all 

Users that voluntarily choose to 

purchase TF Connectivity are charged 

the same amount as all other market 

participants purchasing that type of TF 

Connectivity. 

The Exchange believes that it is not 

unfairly discriminatory that it offers two 

types of TF Connectivity: TF VCCs that 

may connect to one Trading Floor, and 

TF VRFs that may connect to one or 

more Trading Floors. By offering these 

varied technological options, FIDS 

provides potential Users more choices 

from which to choose the option that 

would work best for their specific 

needs. The Exchange proposes to add a 

note to the Fee Schedule to clarify the 

difference, thereby making it easier for 

potential purchasers of the service to 

assess what connectivity will best serve 

them. 

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.20

The proposed change would not 

impose a burden on competition among 

national securities exchanges or among 

members of the Exchange. 

The proposed change would enhance 

competition in the market for circuits 

transmitting data into and out of 

colocation at the MDC to the Trading 

Floors, by adding TF Connectivity, in 

addition to the 16 Telecoms that also 

sell circuits to Users. TF Connectivity 

does 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. 

The Exchange believes that it would 

not be a burden on competition that it 

offers two types of TF Connectivity: TF 

VCCs that may connect to one Trading 

Floor, and TF VRFs that may connect to 

one or more Trading Floors. By offering 

these varied technological options, FIDS 

provides potential Users more choices 

from which to choose the option that 

would work best for their specific 

needs. The Exchange proposes to add a 

note to the Fee Schedule to clarify the 

difference, thereby making it easier for 

potential purchasers of the service to 

assess what connectivity will best serve 

them 

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 

Within 45 days of the date of 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register or within such longer period 

up to 90 days (i) as the Commission may 

designate if it finds such longer period 

to be appropriate and publishes its 

reasons for so finding or (ii) as to which 

the self-regulatory organization 

consents, the Commission will: 

(A) by order approve or disapprove 

the proposed rule change, or 

(B) institute proceedings to determine 

whether the proposed rule change 

should be 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– 

NYSEAMER–2024–80 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–NYSEAMER–2024–80. 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–NYSEAMER–2024–80 and should 

be submitted on or before January 24, 

2025. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.21

Vanessa A. Countryman, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2024–31504 Filed 1–2–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1