[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 82 (Friday, April 26, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32503-32507]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-08945]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-100005; File No. SR-CboeBZX-2024-027]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Its Fees Schedule Related to Physical Port Fees
April 22, 2024.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on April 9, 2024, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``BZX'')
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 Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
\2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change
Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``BZX Equities'')
proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. The text of the proposed rule
change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/regulation/rule_filings/BZX/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.
II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.
A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change
1. Purpose
The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule relating to
physical connectivity fees.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Exchange initially filed the proposed fee changes on
July 3, 2023 (SR-CboeBZX-2023-046). On September 1, 2023, the
Exchange withdrew that filing and submitted SR-CboeBZX-2023-067. On
September 29, 2023, the Securities and Exchange Commission issued a
Suspension of and Order Instituting Proceedings to Determine whether
to Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change to Amend its Fees
Schedule Related to Physical Port Fees (the ``OIP''). On October 2,
2023, the Exchange filed the proposed fee change (SR-CboeBZX-2023-
080). On October 13, 2023, the Exchange withdrew that filing and on
business date October 16, 2023 submitted SR-CboeBZX-2023-084. On
December 12, 2023, the Exchange withdrew that filing and submitted
SR-CboeBZX-2023-103. On February 9, 2024, the Exchange withdrew that
filing and submitted SR-CboeBZX-2024-016. On April 9, 2024, the
Exchange withdrew that filing and submitted this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By way of background, a physical port is utilized by a Member or
non-Member to connect to the Exchange at the data centers where the
Exchange's servers are located. The Exchange currently assesses the
following physical connectivity fees for Members and non-Members on a
monthly basis: $2,500 per physical port for a 1 gigabit (``Gb'')
circuit and $7,500 per physical port for a 10 Gb circuit. The Exchange
proposes to increase the monthly fee for 10 Gb physical ports from
$7,500 to $8,500 per port. The Exchange notes the proposed fee change
better enables it to continue to maintain and improve its market
technology and services and also notes that the proposed fee amount,
even as amended, continues to be in line with, or even lower than,
amounts assessed by other exchanges for similar connections.\4\ The
physical ports may
[[Page 32504]]
also be used to access the Systems for the following affiliate
exchanges and only one monthly fee currently (and will continue) to
apply per port: the Exchange's options platform (BZX Options), Cboe
EDGX Exchange, Inc. (options and equities platforms), Cboe BYX
Exchange, Inc., Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc., and Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc.,
(``Affiliate Exchanges'').\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See e.g., The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq''), General
8, Connectivity to the Exchange. Nasdaq and its affiliated exchanges
charge a monthly fee of $15,000 for each 10Gb Ultra fiber connection
to the respective exchange, which is analogous to the Exchange's
10Gb physical port. See also New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE
American LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc., NYSE Chicago Inc., NYSE National,
Inc. Connectivity Fee Schedule, which provides that 10 Gb LX LCN
Circuits (which are analogous to the Exchange's 10 Gb physical port)
are assessed $22,000 per month, per port.
\5\ The Affiliate Exchanges are also submitting contemporaneous
identical rule filings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Statutory Basis
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\6\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \7\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \8\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers. The Exchange also believes the proposed rule
change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) \9\ of the Act, which
requires that Exchange rules provide for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its Members and other
persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
\7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
\8\ Id.
\9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange believes the proposed fee change is reasonable as it
reflects a moderate increase in physical connectivity fees for 10 Gb
physical ports. Further, the current 10 Gb physical port fee has
remained unchanged since June 2018.\10\ Since its last increase over 5
years ago however, there has been notable inflation. Particularly, the
dollar has had an average inflation rate of 3.9% per year between 2018
and today, producing a cumulative price increase of approximately 21.1%
inflation since the fee for the 10 Gb physical port was last
modified.\11\ Moreover, the Exchange historically does not increase
fees every year, notwithstanding inflation. Accordingly, the Exchange
believes the proposed fee is reasonable as it represents only an
approximate 13% increase from the rates adopted five years ago,
notwithstanding the cumulative rate of 21.1%. The Exchange is also
unaware of any standard that suggests any fee proposal that exceeds a
certain yearly or cumulative inflation rate is unreasonable, and in any
event, in this instance the increase is well below the cumulative rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Securities and Exchange Release No. 83442 (June 14,
2018), 83 FR 28675 (June 20, 2018) (SR-CboeBZX-2018-037).
\11\ See https://www.officialdata.org/us/inflation/2010?amount=1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed fee increase is
reasonable in light of recent and anticipated connectivity-related
upgrades and changes. The Exchange and its affiliated exchanges
recently launched a multi-year initiative to improve Cboe Exchange
Platform performance and capacity requirements to increase
competitiveness, support growth and advance a consistent world class
platform. The goal of the project, among other things, is to provide
faster and more consistent order handling and matching performance for
options, while ensuring quicker processing time and supporting
increasing volumes and capacity needs. For example, the Exchange
recently performed switch hardware upgrades. Particularly, the Exchange
replaced existing customer access switches with newer models, which the
Exchange believes resulted in increased determinism. The recent switch
upgrades also increased the Exchange's capacity to accommodate more
physical ports by nearly 50%. Network bandwidth was also increased
nearly two-fold as a result of the upgrades, which among other things,
can lead to reduce message queuing. The Exchange also believes these
newer models result in less natural variance in the processing of
messages. The Exchange notes that it incurred costs associated with
purchasing and upgrading to these newer models, of which the Exchange
has not otherwise passed through or offset.
As of April 1, 2024, market participants also having the option of
connecting to a new data center (i.e., Secaucus NY6 Data Center
(``NY6'')), in addition to the current data centers at NY4 and NY5. The
Exchange made NY6 available in response to customer requests in
connection with their need for additional space and capacity. In order
to make this space available, the Exchange expended significant
resources to prepare this space, and will also incur ongoing costs with
respect to maintaining this offering, including costs related to power,
space, fiber, cabinets, panels, labor and maintenance of racks. The
Exchange also incurred a large cost with respect to ensuring NY6 would
be latency equalized, as it is for NY4 and NY5.
The Exchange also has made various other improvements since the
current physical port rates were adopted in 2018. For example, the
Exchange has updated its customer portal to provide more transparency
with respect to firms' respective connectivity subscriptions, enabling
them to better monitor, evaluate and adjust their connections based on
their evolving business needs. The Exchange also performs proactive
audits on a weekly basis to ensure that all customer cross connects
continue to fall within allowable tolerances for Latency Equalized
connections. Accordingly, the Exchange expended, and will continue to
expend, resources to innovate and modernize technology so that it may
benefit its Members and continue to compete among other equities
markets. The ability to continue to innovate with technology and offer
new products to market participants allows the Exchange to remain
competitive in the equities space which currently has 16 equities
markets and potential new entrants. The Exchange also believes the
proposed fee is reasonable as it is still in line with, or even lower
than, amounts assessed by other exchanges for similar connections.\12\
Indeed, the Exchange believes assessing fees that are a lower rate than
fees assessed by other exchanges for analogous connectivity (which were
similarly adopted via the rule filing process and filed with the
Commission) is reasonable. As noted above, the proposed fee is also the
same as is concurrently being proposed for its Affiliate Exchanges.
Further, Members are able to utilize a single port to connect to any of
the Affiliate
[[Page 32505]]
Exchanges with no additional fee assessed for that same physical port.
Particularly, the Exchange believes the proposed monthly per port fee
is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as it is
assessed only once, even if it connects with another affiliate exchange
since only one port is being used and the Exchange does not wish to
charge multiple fees for the same port. Indeed, the Exchange notes that
several ports are in fact purchased and utilized across one or more of
the Exchange's affiliated Exchanges (and charged only once).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See e.g., The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq''), General
8, Connectivity to the Exchange. Nasdaq and its affiliated exchanges
charge a monthly fee of $15,000 for each 10Gb Ultra fiber connection
to the respective exchange, which is analogous to the Exchange's
10Gb physical port. See also New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE
American LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc., NYSE Chicago Inc., NYSE National,
Inc. Connectivity Fee Schedule, which provides that 10 Gb LX LCN
Circuits (which are analogous to the Exchange's 10 Gb physical port)
are assessed $22,000 per month, per port.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange also believes that the proposed fee change is not
unfairly discriminatory because it would be assessed uniformly across
all market participants that purchase the physical ports. The Exchange
believes increasing the fee for 10 Gb physical ports and charging a
higher fee as compared to the 1 Gb physical port is equitable as the 1
Gb physical port is 1/10th the size of the 10 Gb physical port and
therefore does not offer access to many of the products and services
offered by the Exchange (e.g., ability to receive certain market data
products). Thus, the value of the 1 Gb alternative is lower than the
value of the 10 Gb alternative, when measured based on the type of
Exchange access it offers. Moreover, market participants that purchase
10 Gb physical ports utilize the most bandwidth and therefore consume
the most resources from the network. The Exchange also anticipates that
firms that utilize 10 Gb ports will benefit the most from the
Exchange's investment in offering NY6 as the Exchange anticipates there
will be much higher quantities of 10 Gb physical ports connecting from
NY6 as compared to 1 Gb ports. Indeed, the Exchange notes that 10 Gb
physical ports account for approximately 90% of physical ports across
the NY4, NY5, and NY6 data centers, and to date, 80% of new port
connections in NY6 are 10 Gb ports. As such, the Exchange believes the
proposed fee change for 10 Gb physical ports is reasonably and
appropriately allocated.
The Exchange also notes Members and non-Members will continue to
choose the method of connectivity based on their specific needs and no
broker-dealer is required to become a Member of, let alone connect
directly to, the Exchange. There is also no regulatory requirement that
any market participant connect to any one particular exchange. Market
participants may voluntarily choose to become a member of one or more
of a number of different exchanges, of which, the Exchange is but one
choice. Additionally, any Exchange member that is dissatisfied with the
proposal is free to choose not to be a member of the Exchange and send
order flow to another exchange. Moreover, direct connectivity is not a
requirement to participate on the Exchange. The Exchange also believes
substitutable products and services are available to market
participants, including, among other things, other equities exchanges
that a market participant may connect to in lieu of the Exchange and/or
trading of any equities product, such as within the Over-the-Counter
(OTC) markets which do not require connectivity to the Exchange.
Indeed, there are currently 16 registered equities exchanges that trade
equities (12 of which are not affiliated with Cboe), some of which have
similar or lower connectivity fees.\13\ Based on publicly available
information, no single equities exchange has more than approximately
16% of the market share.\14\ Further, low barriers to entry mean that
new exchanges may rapidly enter the market and offer additional
substitute platforms to further compete with the Exchange and the
products it offers. For example, in 2020 alone, three new exchanges
entered the market: Long Term Stock Exchange (LTSE), Members Exchange
(MEMX), and Miami International Holdings (MIAX Pearl).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Id.
\14\ See Cboe Global Markets, U.S. Equities Market Volume
Summary, Month-to-Date (April 4, 2024), available at https://www.cboe.com/us/equities/_statistics/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted above, there is no regulatory requirement that any market
participant connect to any one equities exchange, nor that any market
participant connect at a particular connection speed or act in a
particular capacity on the Exchange, or trade any particular product
offered on an exchange. Moreover, membership is not a requirement to
participate on the Exchange. Indeed, the Exchange is unaware of any one
equities exchange whose membership includes every registered broker-
dealer. By way of example, while the Exchange has 132 members that
trade equities, Cboe EDGX has 124 members that trade equities, Cboe
EDGA has103 members and Cboe BYX has 110 members. There is also no firm
that is a Member of BZX Equities only. Further, based on publicly
available information regarding a sample of the Exchange's competitors,
NYSE has 143 members,\15\ IEX has 129 members,\16\ and MIAX Pearl has
51 members.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See https://www.nyse.com/markets/nyse/membership,.
\16\ See https://www.iexexchange.io/membership.
\17\ See https://www.miaxglobal.com/sites/default/files/page-files/20230630_MIAX_Pearl_Equities_Exchange_Members_June_2023.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vigorous competition among national securities exchanges provides
many alternatives for firms to voluntarily decide whether direct
connectivity to the Exchange is appropriate and worthwhile, and as
noted above, no broker-dealer is required to become a Member of the
Exchange, let alone connect directly to it. In the event that a market
participant views the Exchange's proposed fee change as more or less
attractive than the competition, that market participant can choose to
connect to the Exchange indirectly or may choose not to connect to that
exchange and connect instead to one or more of the other 12 non-Cboe
affiliated equities markets. Indeed, market participants are free to
choose which exchange to use to satisfy their business needs. Moreover,
if the Exchange charges excessive fees, it may stand to lose not only
connectivity revenues but also revenues associated with the execution
of orders routed to it, and, to the extent applicable, market data
revenues. The Exchange believes that this competitive dynamic imposes
powerful restraints on the ability of any exchange to charge
unreasonable fees for connectivity. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the
Exchange still believes that the proposed fee increase is reasonable,
equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory, even for market
participants that determine to connect directly to the Exchange for
business purposes, as those business reasons should presumably result
in revenue capable of covering the proposed fee.
The Exchange lastly notes that it is not required by the Exchange
Act, nor any other rule or regulation, to undertake a cost-of-service
or rate-making approach with respect to fee proposals. Moreover,
Congress's intent in enacting the 1975 Amendments to the Act was to
enable competition--rather than government order--to determine prices.
The principal purpose of the amendments was to facilitate the creation
of a national market system for the trading of securities. Congress
intended that this ``national market system evolve through the
interplay of competitive forces as unnecessary regulatory restrictions
are removed.'' \18\ Other provisions of the Act confirm that intent.
For example, the Act provides that an exchange must design its rules
``to remove impediments to and perfect
[[Page 32506]]
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system,
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.'' \19\
Likewise, the Act grants the Commission authority to amend or repeal
``[t]he rules of [an] exchange [that] impose any burden on competition
not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of this
chapter.'' \20\ In short, the promotion of free and open competition
was a core congressional objective in creating the national market
system.\21\ Indeed, the Commission has historically interpreted that
mandate to promote competitive forces to determine prices whenever
compatible with a national market system. Accordingly, the Exchange
believes it has met its burden to demonstrate that its proposed fee
change is reasonable and consistent with the immediate filing process
chosen by Congress, which created a system whereby market forces
determine access fees in the vast majority of cases, subject to
oversight only in particular cases of abuse or market failure. Lastly,
and importantly, the Exchange believes that, even if it were possible
as a matter of economic theory, cost-based pricing for the proposed fee
would be so complicated that it could not be done practically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See H.R. Rep. No. 94-229, at 92 (1975) (Conf. Rep.)
(emphasis added)
\19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
\20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(8).
\21\ See also 15 U.S.C. 78k-l(a)(1)(C)(ii) (purposes of Exchange
Act include to promote ``fair competition among brokers and dealers,
among exchange markets, and between exchange markets and markets
other than exchange markets''); Order, 73 FR at 74781 (``The
Exchange Act and its legislative history strongly support the
Commission's reliance on competition, whenever possible, in meeting
its regulatory responsibilities for overseeing the SROs and the
national market system.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed fee change will
not impact intramarket competition because it will apply to all
similarly situated Members equally (i.e., all market participants that
choose to purchase the 10 Gb physical port). Additionally, the Exchange
does not believe its proposed pricing will impose a barrier to entry to
smaller participants and notes that its proposed connectivity pricing
is associated with relative usage of the various market participants.
For example, market participants with modest capacity needs can
continue to buy the less expensive 1 Gb physical port (which cost is
not changing). While pricing may be increased for the larger capacity
physical ports, such options provide far more capacity and are
purchased by those that consume more resources from the network.
Accordingly, the proposed connectivity fees do not favor certain
categories of market participants in a manner that would impose a
burden on competition; rather, the allocation reflects the network
resources consumed by the various size of market participants--lowest
bandwidth consuming members pay the least, and highest bandwidth
consuming members pays the most.
The Exchange's proposed fee is also still lower than some fees for
similar connectivity on other exchanges and therefore may stimulate
intermarket competition by attracting additional firms to connect to
the Exchange or at least should not deter interested participants from
connecting directly to the Exchange. Further, if the changes proposed
herein are unattractive to market participants, the Exchange can, and
likely will, see a decline in connectivity via 10 Gb physical ports as
a result. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which
market participants can determine whether or not to connect directly to
the Exchange based on the value received compared to the cost of doing
so. Indeed, market participants have numerous alternative venues that
they may participate on and direct their order flow, including 12 non-
Cboe affiliated equities markets, as well as off-exchange venues, where
competitive products are available for trading. Moreover, the
Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over
regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services
in the securities markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the
Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining
prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation
of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in promoting
market competition in its broader forms that are most important to
investors and listed companies.'' \22\ The fact that this market is
competitive has also long been recognized by the courts. In
NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit
stated as follows: ``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow
is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market
system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that
act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of
where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to
take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange
possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of
order flow from broker dealers'. . . .''.\23\ Accordingly, the Exchange
does not believe its proposed change imposes any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
\23\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-
21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 \24\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \25\
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
\25\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 [email protected]. Please include
file number SR-CboeBZX-2024-027 on the subject line.
Paper Comments
Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange
[[Page 32507]]
Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to file number SR-CboeBZX-2024-027. 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-2024-027 and should
be submitted on or before May 17, 2024.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-08945 Filed 4-25-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P