Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 245 / Monday, December 21, 2020 / Notices 83115 

21Rule 700(b)(3), Commission Rules of Practice, 

17 CFR 201.700(b)(3). 

22See id. 

23Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, as amended by the 

Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Public Law 

94–29 (June 4, 1975), grants the Commission 

flexibility to determine what type of proceeding— 

either oral or notice and opportunity for written 

comments—is appropriate for consideration of a 

particular proposal by a self-regulatory 

organization. See Securities Act Amendments of 

1975, Senate Comm. on Banking, Housing & Urban 

Affairs, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 30 

(1975). 

24 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(57). 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

last minute shareholder redemptions by 

SPACs that are close to the minimum 

requirement. The Exchange also has not 

addressed the risk that, by waiting for 

SPACs to demonstrate compliance with 

the minimum number of holders 

requirements until after the closing of 

the business combination, noncompliant companies could be listed on 

the Exchange despite not meeting initial 

listing standards, and have their 

securities continue to trade until the 

delisting process has been completed. 

As a result, a SPAC could complete a 

business combination and very soon 

thereafter be subject to delisting 

proceedings, and during such time its 

securities may trade with a number of 

holders that is substantially less than 

the required minimum. The Exchange 

has not addressed the impact this could 

have on SPAC shareholders and other 

market participants, or explained why 

subjecting them to these risks is 

consistent with the protection of 

investors and the public interest, and 

the other requirements of Section 6(b)(5) 

of the Act. 

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.’’ 21 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, 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.22

For these reasons, the Commission 

believes it is appropriate to institute 

proceedings pursuant to Section 

19(b)(2)(B) of the Act to determine 

whether the proposal should be 

approved or disapproved. 

IV. Procedure: Request for Written 

Comments 

The Commission requests that 

interested persons provide written 

submissions of their views, data, and 

arguments with respect to the issues 

identified above, as well as any other 

concerns they may have with the 

proposal. In particular, the Commission 

invites the written views of interested 

persons concerning whether the 

proposal is consistent with Section 

6(b)(5) or any other provision of the Act, 

or the rules and regulations thereunder. 

Although there do not appear to be any 

issues relevant to approval or 

disapproval that would be facilitated by 

an oral presentation of views, data, and 

arguments, the Commission will 

consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any 

request for an opportunity to make an 

oral presentation.23

Interested persons are invited to 

submit written data, views, and 

arguments regarding whether the 

proposal should be approved or 

disapproved by January 11, 2021. Any 

person who wishes to file a rebuttal to 

any other person’s submission must file 

that rebuttal by January 25, 2021. The 

Commission asks that commenters 

address the sufficiency of the 

Exchange’s statements in support of the 

proposal, in addition to any other 

comments they may wish to submit 

about the proposed rule change. 

Comments may be submitted by any 

of the following methods: 

Electronic Comments 

• Use the Commission’s internet 

comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ 

rules/sro.shtml); or 

• Send an email to rule-comments@

sec.gov. Please include File Number SR– 

NASDAQ–2020–062 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–NASDAQ–2020–062. 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 (http://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 

10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the 

filing also will be available for 

inspection and copying at the principal 

office of the Exchange. All comments 

received will be posted without change. 

Persons submitting comments are 

cautioned that we do not redact or edit 

personal identifying information from 

comment submissions. You should 

submit only information that you wish 

to make available publicly. All 

submissions should refer to File 

Number SR–NASDAQ–2020–062 and 

should be submitted by January 11, 

2021. Rebuttal comments should be 

submitted by January 25, 2021. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.24

J. Matthew DeLesDernier, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2020–28066 Filed 12–18–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–90676; File No. SR–CBOE– 

2020–114] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe 

Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and 

Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed 

Rule Change Relating To Amend Its 

Fees Schedule 

December 15, 2020. 

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 

1, 2020, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the 

‘‘Exchange’’ or ‘‘Cboe Options’’) filed 

with the Securities and Exchange 

Commission (the ‘‘Commission’’) the 

proposed rule change as described in 

Items I and II below, which Items have 

been prepared by the Exchange. The 

Commission is publishing this notice to 

solicit comments on the proposed rule 

change from interested persons. 

83116 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 245 / Monday, December 21, 2020 / Notices 

3See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Options Monthly 

Market Volume Summary (November 23, 2020), 

available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/options/ 

market_statistics/. 

4See e.g., NYSE Arca Options Fees and Charges, 

‘‘Routing Fees’’, which provides routing fees of 

‘‘$0.11 per contract on orders routed and executed 

on another exchange, plus (i) any transaction fees 

assessed by the away exchange (calculated on an 

order-by-order basis since different away exchanges 

charge different amounts) or (ii) if the actual 

transaction fees assessed by the away exchange(s) 

cannot be determined prior to the execution, the 

highest per contract charge assessed by the away 

exchange(s) for the relevant option class and type 

of market participant (e.g., Customer, Firm, Broker/ 

Dealer, Professional Customer or Market Maker).’’ 

5The Exchange also updates fee codes RD and RF 

to make clear that ‘‘equity’’ options are included in 

the description. The System currently applies the 

applicable routing fee codes (RD, RE, RF, RG and 

RH) to both ETF and equity options. 

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Terms of Substance of 

the Proposed Rule Change 

Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ‘‘Exchange’’ 

or ‘‘Cboe 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 available on the Exchange’s website 

(http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/ 

CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), 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 

certain routing fees in connection with 

routed Customer orders in ETF and 

equity options, effective December 1, 

2020. 

The Exchange notes that it operates in 

a highly competitive market in which 

market participants can readily direct 

order flow to competing venues if they 

deem fee levels at a particular venue to 

be excessive or incentives to be 

insufficient. More specifically, the 

Exchange is only one of 16 options 

venues to which market participants 

may direct their order flow. Based on 

publicly available information, no single 

options exchange has more than 16% of 

the market share.3 Thus, in such a lowconcentrated and highly competitive 

market, no single options exchange 

possesses significant pricing power in 

the execution of option order flow. The 

Exchange believes that the ever-shifting 

market share among the exchanges from 

month to month demonstrates that 

market participants can shift order flow 

or discontinue to reduce use of certain 

categories of products in response to fee 

changes. Accordingly, competitive 

forces constrain the Exchange’s 

transaction fees, and market participants 

can readily trade on competing venues 

if they deem pricing levels at those 

other venues to be more favorable. In 

response to competitive pricing, the 

Exchange, like other options exchanges, 

offers rebates and assesses fees for 

certain order types executed on or 

routed through the Exchange. The 

Exchange notes too that other options 

exchanges currently approximate 

routing fees in a similar manner as the 

Exchange’s current approach to 

assessing approximate routing fees, as 

discussed below.4

The Exchange assesses fees in 

connection with orders routed away to 

various exchanges. Currently, under the 

Routing Fees table of the Fee Schedule, 

fee codes RD, RE, RF, RG, RH and RI are 

appended to certain Customer orders in 

ETF and Equity options, as follows: 

• Fee code RD is appended to 

Customer orders in ETF/Equity options 5

for greater than or equal to 100 contracts 

routed to NYSE American (‘‘AMEX’’), 

BOX Options Exchange (‘‘BOX’’), 

Nasdaq BX Options (‘‘BX’’), Cboe EDGX 

Exchange, Inc. (‘‘EDGX’’), ISE Mercury, 

LLC (‘‘MERC’’), MIAX Options 

Exchange (‘‘MIAX’’) or Nasdaq PHLX 

LLC (‘‘PHLX’’), and assesses a charge of 

$0.33 per contract; 

• fee code RE is appended to 

Customer orders in ETF/Equity options 

for less than 100 contracts routed to 

AMEX, BOX, BX, EDGX, MERC, MIAX 

or PHLX, and assesses a charge of $0.15 

per contract; 

• fee code RF is appended to 

Customer orders in ETF/Equity, Penny 

options for greater than or equal to 100 

contracts routed to NYSE Arca, Inc 

(‘‘ARCA’’), Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. 

(‘‘BZX’’), Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (‘‘C2’’), 

Nasdaq ISE (‘‘ISE’’), ISE Gemini, LLC 

(‘‘GMNI’’), MIAX Emerald Exchange 

(‘‘EMLD’’), MIAX Pearl Exchange 

(‘‘PERL’’) or Nasdaq Options Market 

LLC (‘‘NOMX), and assesses a charge of 

$0.83 per contract; 

• fee code RG is appended to 

Customer orders in ETF/Equity, NonPenny options for greater than or equal 

to 100 contracts routed to ARCA, BZX, 

C2, ISE, GMNI, EMLD, PERL or NOMX, 

and assesses a charge of $1.18 per 

contract; 

• fee code RH is appended to 

Customer orders in ETF/Equity, Penny 

options for less than 100 contracts 

routed to ARCA, BZX, C2, ISE, GMNI, 

EMLD, PERL or NOMX, and assesses a 

charge of $0.65 per contract; and 

• fee code RI is appended to 

Customer order in ETF/Equity, NonPenny options for less than 100 

contracts routed to ARCA, BZX, C2, ISE, 

GMNI, EMLD, PERL or NOMX, and 

assesses a charge of $1.00 per contract. 

The Exchange proposes to remove fee 

codes RE, RG and RH and amend fee 

codes RD, RF and RI by removing the 

100-contract size limit from each and 

updating the fees assessed to $0.25 per 

contract, $0.75 per contract and $1.25 

per contract, respectively. The Exchange 

believes that eliminating fee codes RE, 

RG and RH and the 100-contract 

contingency currently applicable to 

orders that yield fee codes RD, RF and 

RI will simplify and streamline the 

System’s billing process for routed 

Customer orders in ETF and equity 

options. By removing the size 

contingency, orders to which RE, RG 

and RH are currently applicable may 

then be absorbed into orders to which 

RD, RF and RI are currently applicable 

and the routing fees for Customer orders 

in ETF and equity options may be billed 

as one of three fee codes, instead of six. 

For example, fee code RG would, prior 

to this proposal, be appended to 

Customer orders in ETF/Equity NonPenny options for 100 contracts or more 

routed to ARCA, BZX, C2, ISE, GMNI, 

EMLD, PERL or NOMX. However, 

without the size contingency, RI will 

now be appended to all Customer orders 

in ETF/Equity Non-Penny options 

routed to the same away exchanges. 

Regarding the proposed rate changes for 

the remaining Customer ETF/Equity 

routing fee codes (RD, RF and RI), the 

Exchange notes that its current 

approach to routing fees is to set forth 

in a simple manner certain subcategories of fees that approximate the 

cost of routing to other options 

exchanges based on the cost of 

transaction fees assessed by each venue 

as well as a flat $0.15 assessment that 

covers costs to the Exchange for routing 

(i.e., clearing fees, connectivity and 

other infrastructure costs, membership 

fees, etc.) (collectively, ‘‘Routing 

Costs’’). The Exchange then monitors 

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 245 / Monday, December 21, 2020 / Notices 83117 

6See Nasdaq Phlx Options 7 Pricing Schedule, 

Section 3 ‘‘Rebates and Fees for Adding and 

Removing Liquidity in SPY’’, Part A. 

7The Exchange notes that SPY options are part 

of the Penny Program. 

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

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

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

the fees charged as compared to the 

costs of its routing services and adjusts 

its routing fees and/or sub-categories to 

ensure that the Exchange’s fees do 

indeed result in a rough approximation 

of overall Routing Costs, and are not 

significantly higher or lower in any area. 

As a result, the Exchange believes the 

proposed amended rates for RD, RF and 

RI are adjusted to reflect an appropriate, 

current approximation of the routing 

costs to the applicable sub-category 

group of away exchanges for ETF/Equity 

options of any order size, and these 

routing fee codes will absorb the orders 

to which RE, RG and RH are currently 

appended. The Exchange notes that 

routing through the Exchange is 

optional and that TPHs will continue to 

be able to choose where to route their 

Customer orders in ETF and equity 

options. 

The Exchange also proposes to update 

routing fee codes RD and RF in the 

Routing Fees table of the Fees Schedule 

connection with routed Customer orders 

in SPY options to Nasdaq PHLX LLC 

(‘‘PHLX’’). As described above, routing 

fee code RD is appended to Customer 

orders in ETF/Equity options routed to 

AMEX, BOX, BX, EDGX, MERC, MIAX 

or PHLX and assesses a charge of $0.25 

per contract (as proposed), and routing 

fee code RF is appended to Customer 

orders in ETF options in Penny classes 

routed to ARCA, BZX, C2, ISE, GMNI, 

EMLD, PERL, NOMX or PHLX and 

assesses a charge of $0.75 per contract 

(as proposed). Currently, PHLX assesses 

a charge of $0.42 per contract for 

Customer orders in SPY options that 

remove liquidity.6 As described above, 

the Exchange currently assesses a 

routing fee of $0.33 per contract for 

Customer orders routed to PHLX which 

yield fee code RP. This structure does 

not currently take into account, and 

approximately cover, the $0.42 per 

contract fee assessed by PHLX for 

Customer orders in SPY options. 

Therefore, in order to assess fees more 

in line with the Exchange’s current 

approach to routing fees, that is, in a 

manner that approximates the cost of 

routing Customer orders in SPY options 

to PHLX, along with other away options 

exchanges, based on the general cost of 

transaction fees assessed by the subcategory of away options exchanges for 

such orders (as well as the Exchange’s 

routing costs), the Exchange proposes to 

exclude Customer orders is SPY options 

routed to PHLX from orders that yield 

fee code RD and are assessed a charge 

of $0.25 per contract (as proposed) and, 

instead, add Customer orders routed to 

PHLX in SPY options only to orders that 

yield fee code RF 7 and are assessed a 

charge of $0.75 per contract (as 

proposed). 

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.8 Specifically, 

the Exchange believes the proposed rule 

change is consistent with the Section 

6(b)(5) 9 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 

Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,10 which 

requires that Exchange rules provide for 

the equitable allocation of reasonable 

dues, fees, and other charges among its 

Trading Permit Holders and other 

persons using its facilities. 

The Exchange believes that the 

proposed rule change to remove fee 

codes RE, RG and RH and remove the 

size contingency for fee codes RD, RF 

and RI is reasonable in that it is 

reasonably designed to simplify and 

streamline the System’s billing process 

for routed Customer orders in ETF and 

equity options. By removing the size 

contingency, orders to which fee codes 

RE, RG and RH are currently applicable 

may then be absorbed into the orders to 

which fee codes RD, RF and RI are 

applicable and the routing fees for 

Customer orders in ETF and equity 

options may be billed as one of three fee 

codes, instead of six. The Exchange also 

believes that it is reasonable to amend 

the rates that correspond to fee codes 

RD, RF and RI because the proposed 

rates are aligned with the Exchange’s 

current approach to approximating the 

cost of routing to other options 

exchanges based on the cost of 

transaction fees assessed by each venue 

as well as the Exchange’s Routing Cost. 

The Exchange believes the proposed 

amended rates for orders that yield fee 

codes RD, RF and RI are adjusted to 

reasonably reflect an appropriate, 

current approximation of the routing 

costs for ETF/Equity options of any 

order size to the sub-category group of 

away exchanges, and these routing fee 

codes will absorb the orders to which 

fee codes RE, RG and RH are currently 

appended. For example, routed 

Customer orders in ETF/Equity NonPenny options that yield fee code RG 

(greater than or equal to 100 contracts) 

are currently assessed a routing fee of 

$1.18 per contract, while routed 

Customer orders in ETF/Equity NonPenny options that yield fee code RH 

(less than 100 contracts) are currently 

assessed a routing fee of $1.00. 

However, upon the removal of fee code 

RG, those routed Customer orders in 

ETF/Equity Non-Penny options will 

yield fee code RH, which will assess a 

proposed fee of $1.25, which the 

Exchange believes is appropriately 

adjusted to reflect the current 

approximate cost of routing Customer 

orders in ETF/Equity Non-Penny 

options of all sizes to the same subcategory group of away exchanges. The 

Exchange notes that routing through the 

Exchange is optional and that TPHs will 

continue to be able to choose where to 

route their Customer orders in ETF and 

equity options in the same sub-category 

group of away exchanges as they 

currently may choose to route. The 

Exchange believes that the proposed 

rule change is equitable and not unfairly 

discriminatory because TPHs’ routed 

Customer orders in ETF/Equity options 

will continue to be automatically and 

uniformly assessed the applicable 

routing charges. 

The Exchange believes the proposed 

rule change to amend fee codes RD and 

RF to account for PHLX’s current 

assessment of fees for Customer orders 

in SPY options is reasonable because it 

is reasonably designed to assess routing 

fees in line with the Exchange’s current 

approach to routing fees. That is, the 

proposed rule change is intended to 

include Customer orders in SPY options 

routed to PHLX in the most appropriate 

sub-category of fees that approximates 

the cost of routing to a group of away 

options exchanges (including PHLX) 

based on the cost of transaction fees 

assessed by each venue as well as 

Routing Costs to the Exchange. The 

Exchange believes that the proposed 

rule change is equitable and not unfairly 

discriminatory because all TPHs’ 

Customer orders in SPY routed to PHLX 

will automatically yield fee code RQ 

83118 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 245 / Monday, December 21, 2020 / Notices 

11See supra note 4. 

12See supra note 3. 

13See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 

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

14NetCoalition 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)). 

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

16 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f). 17 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

and uniformly be assessed the 

corresponding fee. 

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 intramarket or 

intermarket competition that is not 

necessary or appropriate in furtherance 

of the purposes of the Act. 

The Exchange does not believe the 

proposed rule change to remove certain 

routing fee codes and to update other 

routing fee codes accordingly to apply 

instead, will impose any burden on 

intramarket competition because all 

TPHs’ routed Customer orders in ETF/ 

Equity options will continue to be able 

to route to the same sub-category group 

of away exchanges and will 

automatically and uniformly be assessed 

the applicable routing fees. Likewise, all 

TPH’s Customer orders in SPY options 

routed to PHLX will automatically yield 

fee code RF and uniformly be assessed 

the corresponding fee. 

The Exchange does not believe that 

the proposed rule changes in connection 

with routing fees will impose any 

burden on intermarket competition that 

is not necessary or appropriate in 

furtherance of the purposes of the Act 

because, as previously discussed, the 

Exchange operates in a highly 

competitive market. The Exchange notes 

that other options exchanges 

approximate routing costs in a similar 

manner as the Exchange’s current 

approach.11 Also, the Exchange notes 

that, in addition to Cboe Options, TPHs 

have numerous alternative venues that 

they may participate on and director 

their order flow, including 15 other 

options exchanges, as well as offexchange venues, where competitive 

products are available for trading. Based 

on publicly available information, no 

single options exchange has more than 

16% of the market share of executed 

volume of options trades.12 Therefore, 

no exchange possesses significant 

pricing power in the execution of option 

order flow. 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.’’ 13 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 brokerdealers 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’. . . .’’ 14 Accordingly, the 

Exchange does not believe its proposed 

changes to the incentive programs 

impose any burden on competition that 

is not necessary or appropriate in 

furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 

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 15 and paragraph (f) of Rule 

19b–4 16 thereunder, because it 

establishes a due, fee, or other charge 

imposed by the Exchange. 

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 (http://www.sec.gov/ 

rules/sro.shtml); or 

• Send an email to rule-comments@

sec.gov. Please include File Number SR– 

CBOE–2020–114 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–CBOE–2020–114. 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 (http://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 

10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the 

filing also will be available for 

inspection and copying at the principal 

office of the Exchange. All comments 

received will be posted without change; 

the Commission does not edit personal 

identifying information from 

submissions. You should submit only 

information that you wish to make 

available publicly. All submissions 

should refer to File Number SR–CBOE– 

2020–114 and should be submitted on 

or before January 11, 2021. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.17

J. Matthew DeLesDernier, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2020–28009 Filed 12–18–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P