[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 83 (Monday, April 29, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33407-33411]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-09069]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-100012; File No. SR-C2-2024-005]


Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc.; Notice of 
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend 
Its Fees Schedule Related to Physical Port Fees

April 23, 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 C2 Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``C2'') 
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 C2 Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``C2 Options'') 
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

[[Page 33408]]

website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/options/regulation/rule_filings/ctwo/), 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-C2-2023-014). On September 1, 2023, the Exchange 
withdrew that filing and submitted SR-C2-2023-020. 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 September 29, 2023, the 
Exchange filed the proposed fee change (SR-C2-2023-021). On October 
13, 2023, the Exchange withdrew that filing and submitted SR-C2-
2023-022. On December 12, 2023, the Exchange withdrew that filing 
and submitted SR-C2-2023-025. On February 9, 2024, the Exchange 
withdrew that filing and submitted SR-C2-2024-004. 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 Trading Permit Holders 
(``TPHs'') and non-TPHs on a monthly basis: $2,500 per physical port 
for a 1 gigabit (``Gbps'') circuit and $7,500 per physical port for a 
10 Gbps circuit. The Exchange proposes to increase the monthly fee for 
10 Gbps 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 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: Cboe BZX Exchange, 
Inc. (options and equities platforms), Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. 
(options and equities platforms), Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc., and Cboe 
EDGA 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 10Gbps Ultra fiber 
connection to the respective exchange, which is analogous to the 
Exchange's 10Gbps 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 
Gbps LX LCN Circuits (which are analogous to the Exchange's 10 Gbps 
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 TPHs 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 Gbps 
physical ports. Further, the current 10 Gbps 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 Gbps 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. 83455 (June 15, 
2018), 83 FR 28892 (June 21, 2018) (SR-C2-2018-014).
    \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

[[Page 33409]]

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 options 
markets. The ability to continue to innovate with technology and offer 
new products to market participants allows the Exchange to remain 
competitive in the options space which currently has 17 options 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, TPHs are able to 
utilize a single port to connect to any of the Affiliate 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 10Gbps Ultra fiber 
connection to the respective exchange, which is analogous to the 
Exchange's 10Gbps 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 
Gbps LX LCN Circuits (which are analogous to the Exchange's 10 Gbps 
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 Gbps physical ports and charging a 
higher fee as compared to the 1 Gbps physical port is equitable as the 
1 Gbps physical port is \1/10\th the size of the 10 Gbps 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 Gbps alternative is 
lower than the value of the 10 Gbps alternative, when measured based on 
the type of Exchange access it offers. Moreover, market participants 
that purchase 10 Gbps 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 Gbps physical ports is 
reasonably and appropriately allocated.
    The Exchange also notes TPHs and non-TPHs will continue to choose 
the method of connectivity based on their specific needs and no broker-
dealer is required to become a TPH 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 options exchanges 
that a market participant may connect to in lieu of the Exchange and/or 
trading of any options product, such as within the Over-the-Counter 
(OTC) markets which do not require connectivity to the Exchange. 
Indeed, there are currently 17 registered options exchanges that trade 
options (13 of which are not affiliated with Cboe), some of which have 
similar or lower connectivity fees.\13\ Based on publicly available 
information, no single options exchange has more than approximately 19% 
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, there are 4 exchanges that have been added in the 
U.S. options markets in the last 5 years (i.e., Nasdaq MRX, LLC, MIAX 
Pearl, LLC, MIAX Emerald LLC, and most recently, MEMX LLC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Id.
    \14\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Options Market Volume Summary 
(April 8, 2024), available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/options/market_statistics/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, there is no regulatory requirement that any market 
participant connect to any one options 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 
options exchange whose membership includes every registered broker-
dealer. By way of example, while the Exchange has 52

[[Page 33410]]

TPHs, Cboe BZX has 61 members that trade options, and Cboe EDGX has 51 
members that trade options. There is also no firm that is a Member of 
C2 Options only. Further, based on publicly available information 
regarding a sample of the Exchange's competitors, NYSE American Options 
has 71 members,\15\ and NYSE Arca Options has 69 members,\16\ MIAX 
Options has 46 members \17\ and MIAX Pearl Options has 40 members.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See https://www.nyse.com/markets/american-options/membership#directory.
    \16\ See https://www.nyse.com/markets/arca-options/membership#directory.
    \17\ See https://www.miaxglobal.com/sites/default/files/page-files/MIAX_Options_Exchange_Members_April_2023_04282023.pdf.
    \18\ See https://www.miaxglobal.com/sites/default/files/page-files/MIAX_Pearl_Exchange_Members_01172023_0.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 13 non-Cboe 
affiliated options 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.'' \19\ 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 the mechanism of a free and open 
market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect 
investors and the public interest.'' \20\ 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.'' \21\ In short, the 
promotion of free and open competition was a core congressional 
objective in creating the national market system.\22\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See H.R. Rep. No. 94-229, at 92 (1975) (Conf. Rep.) 
(emphasis added)
    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(8).
    \22\ 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 TPHs equally (i.e., all market participants that 
choose to purchase the 10 Gbps 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 Gbps physical port 
(which cost is not changing). While pricing may be increased for the 
larger capacity physical porfts, 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 Gbps 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 13 non-Cboe affiliated options 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

[[Page 33411]]

been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its 
broader forms that are most important to investors and listed 
companies.'' \23\ 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'. . . .''.\24\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
    \24\ 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 \25\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \26\ 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \26\ 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-C2-2024-005 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-C2-2024-005. 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-C2-2024-005 and should be 
submitted on or before May 20, 2024.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-09069 Filed 4-26-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P