Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 20 / Tuesday, February 2, 2021 / Notices 7909 

9See supra note 4. 10See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 

(June 9, 2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005). 11NetCoalition 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)). 

12 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 

13 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(2). 

14 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B). 

15 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

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

2 15 U.S.C. 78a. 

3 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

The Exchange again notes that orders 

that meet the specifications to which fee 

codes 8 or MX would currently apply, 

will yield the same fee codes and be 

assessed the same corresponding rates 

that are already in place in the Fee 

Schedule for routed orders generally, as 

previously filed with the Commission. 

Also, as previously discussed, the 

Exchange operates in a highly 

competitive market. Members have 

numerous alternative venues that they 

may participate on and director their 

order flow, including 15 other options 

exchanges and off-exchange venues. 

Additionally, the Exchange represents a 

small percentage of the overall market. 

Based on publicly available information, 

no single options exchange has more 

than 16% of the market share.9

Therefore, no exchange possesses 

significant pricing power in the 

execution of option order flow. Indeed, 

participants can readily choose to send 

their orders to other exchange and offexchange venues if they deem fee levels 

at those other venues to be more 

favorable. 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.’’ 10 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’. . . .’’.11 Accordingly, the 

Exchange does not believe its proposed 

fee change imposes 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 is effective 

upon filing pursuant to Section 

19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 12 and 

subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b–4 

thereunder,13 because it establishes a 

due, fee, or other charge imposed by the 

Exchange. 

At any time within 60 days of the 

filing of such 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 shall institute proceedings 

under Section 19(b)(2)(B) 14 of the Act 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– 

CboeBZX–2021–010 on the subject line. 

Paper Comments 

• Send paper comments in triplicate 

to Secretary, Securities and Exchange 

Commission, 100 F Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20549–1090. 

All submissions should refer to File 

Number SR–CboeBZX–2021–010. 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–CboeBZX–2021–010, and 

should be submitted on or before 

February 23, 2021. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.15

J. Matthew DeLesDernier, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2021–02116 Filed 2–1–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–91000; File No. SR– 

CboeEDGA–2021–003] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe 

EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing 

and Immediate Effectiveness of a 

Proposed Rule Change To Amend the 

Fee Schedule 

January 27, 2021. 

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) 1 of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 

‘‘Act’’),2 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,3

notice is hereby given that on January 

13, 2021, Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. 

(the ‘‘Exchange’’ or ‘‘EDGA’’) filed with 

the Securities and Exchange 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
7910 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 20 / Tuesday, February 2, 2021 / Notices 

4The Exchange initially filed the proposed fee 

changes January 4, 2021 (SR–CboeEDGA–2021– 

001). On January 13, 2021, the Exchange withdrew 

that filing and submitted this proposal. 

5See Cboe Global Markets, U.S. Equities Market 

Volume Summary, Month-to-Date (December 29, 

2020), available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/ 

equities/market_statistics/. 

6The ROUC routing strategy is a routing strategy 

under which an order checks the System for 

available shares and then is sent to destinations on 

the System routing table, Nasdaq OMX BX, and 

NYSE. See Rule 11.11(g)(1); see also Cboe Routing 

Strategies, FIX/BOE Routing Tags and Instructions, 

available at: https://cdn.cboe.com/resources/ 

features/Cboe_USE_RoutingStrategies.pdf. 

7The ROBB and ROCO routing strategies are 

routing strategies which check the System for 

available shares and then are sent to destinations 

on the System routing table. See Rule 11.11(g)(3); 

see also Cboe Routing Strategies, FIX/BOE Routing 

Tags and Instructions, available at: https://

cdn.cboe.com/resources/features/Cboe_USE_

RoutingStrategies.pdf. 

8The Exchange notes that there are other fee 

codes that apply to certain other routing 

specifications, however, those routed orders not 

otherwise specified in such other routing fee code 

descriptions yield the general routing fee codes 7 

or X. 

9Fee code 7 is currently appended to all routed 

orders in the pre- or post-market session that 

remove liquidity. The proposed rule change 

updates the description associated with fee code 7 

to clarify in the description that such orders remove 

liquidity. This update does not alter the orders to 

which fee code 7 currently applies but merely 

makes it clear in the Fee Schedule that fee code 7 

applies to qualifying routed orders that remove 

liquidity. 

Commission (the ‘‘Commission’’) the 

proposed rule change as described in 

Items I and II below, which Items have 

been prepared by the self-regulatory 

organization. The Commission is 

publishing this notice to solicit 

comments on the proposed rule change 

from interested persons. 

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Terms of Substance of 

the Proposed Rule Change 

Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. (the 

‘‘Exchange’’ or ‘‘EDGA’’) is filing with 

the Securities and Exchange 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) a 

proposed rule change to amend the fee 

schedule applicable to Members and 

non-Members of the Exchange pursuant 

to EDGA Rules 15.1(a) and (c). Changes 

to the fee schedule pursuant to this 

proposal are effective upon filing. 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/edga/), 

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 

self-regulatory organization included 

statements concerning the purpose of, 

and basis for, the proposed rule change 

and discussed any comments it received 

on the proposed rule change. The text 

of those statements may be examined at 

the places specified in Item IV below. 

The Exchange has prepared summaries, 

set forth in sections A, B, and C below, 

of the most significant parts of such 

statements. 

A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

1. Purpose 

The Exchange proposes to amend its 

fee schedule by (1) eliminating certain 

routing fee codes and (2) amending an 

Add/Remove Volume Tier.4

The Exchange first 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 registered equities exchanges, as well 

as a number of alternative trading 

systems and other off-exchange venues 

that do not have similar self-regulatory 

responsibilities under the Exchange Act, 

to which market participants may direct 

their order flow. Based on publicly 

available information,5 no single 

registered equities exchange has more 

than 16% of the market share. Thus, in 

such a low-concentrated and highly 

competitive market, no single equities 

exchange possesses significant pricing 

power in the execution of order flow. 

The Exchange believes that the evershifting 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. 

Proposal To Remove Certain Routing 

Fee Codes 

The Exchange assesses fees in 

connection with orders routed away to 

various exchanges. As a result of 

minimal use in the last months, the 

Exchange proposes to eliminate the 

following routing fee codes currently 

under the Fee Codes and Associated 

Fees section of the Fee Schedule: 

• Fee code 8, which is appended to 

Members’ orders routed to NYSE 

American that adds liquidity and 

assesses a charge of $0.00020 per 

contract for orders in securities priced at 

or above $1.00 and assesses no charge 

for orders in securities priced below 

$1.00; 

• Fee code K, which is appended to 

Members’ orders routed to PSX using 

the ROUC6 routing strategy and assesses 

a charge of $0.00290 per contract for 

orders in securities priced at or above 

$1.00 and assesses a charge of 30% of 

the dollar value per contract for orders 

in securities priced below $1.00; and 

• Fee code MX, which is appended to 

Members’ orders routed to NYSE 

American using the ROBB, ROCO 7 or 

ROUC routing strategy and assesses a 

charge of $0.00020 per contract for 

orders in securities priced at or above 

$1.00 and assesses no charge for orders 

in securities priced below $1.00. 

The Exchange has observed a minimal 

amount of volume in recent months in 

orders yielding fee codes 8, K or MX. In 

particular, over the last six months the 

Exchange observed that orders yielding 

fee code MX accounted for 

approximately only 0.80% of all routed 

order volume, orders yielding fee code 

K accounted for approximately only 

0.01% of all routed order volume, and 

there was only one contract executed 

from an order yielding fee code 8. The 

Exchange believes that, because so few 

Users elect to route their orders with 

specifications to which fee codes 8, K or 

MX, the current demand does not 

warrant the infrastructure and ongoing 

Systems maintenance required to 

support these separate fee codes. 

Therefore, the Exchange now proposes 

to delete fee codes 8, K and MX in the 

Fee Schedule. The Exchange notes that 

Users will continue to be able to choose 

to route their orders with the same 

specifications to which fee codes 8, K 

and MX currently apply—such orders 

will simply be assessed the fees 

currently in place for routed orders 

generally.8 That is, if any of the routed 

orders to which fee code K or MX 

currently apply are submitted in the 

pre- or post-market sessions that remove 

liquidity,9 then fee code 7 will apply, 

which is appended to Members’ routed 

orders in the pre- or post-market 

sessions and assesses a charge of 

$0.00300 per contract for orders in 

securities priced at or above $1.00 and 

assesses a charge of 30% of the dollar 

value per contract for orders in 

securities priced below $1.00. Fee code 

X will be appended to routed orders not 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 20 / Tuesday, February 2, 2021 / Notices 7911 

10Appended to orders that add liquidity to 

EDGA, pre and post market (Tapes A or C) and 

assesses a standard fee of $0.00300. 

11Appended to orders that add liquidity to 

EDGA, pre and post market (Tape B) and assesses 

a standard fee of $0.00300. 

12Appended to orders that add liquidity to EDGA 

(Tape B) and assesses a standard fee of $0.00300. 

13Appended to orders that add liquidity to EDGA 

(Tape A) and assesses a standard fee of $0.00300. 

14Appended to orders that add liquidity to EDGA 

(Tape C) and assesses a standard fee of $0.00300. 

15ADV means daily volume calculated as the 

number of shares added to, removed from, or routed 

by, the Exchange, or any combination or subset 

thereof, per day. ADV is calculated on a monthly 

basis. 

16TCV means total consolidated volume 

calculated as the volume reported by all exchanges 

and trade reporting facilities to a consolidated 

transaction reporting plan for the month for which 

the fees apply. 

17 15 U.S.C. 78f. 

18 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). 

19 15 U.S.C. 78f.(b)(5). 20See supra note 8. 

submitted during the pre- or postmarket sessions to which fee code K or 

MX currently apply and to routed orders 

to which fee code 8 currently applies. 

Fee code X currently assesses a charge 

of $0.00300 per contract for orders in 

securities priced at or above $1.00 and 

assesses a charge of 30% of the dollar 

value per contract for orders in 

securities priced below $1.00. The 

Exchange notes that rates applicable to 

orders yielding fee codes 7 and X are the 

standard routing fees pursuant to the 

Standard Rates section of the Fee 

Schedule. 

Proposal To Amend Add/Remove 

Volume Tier 

In response to the competitive 

environment described above, the 

Exchange offers tiered pricing which 

provides Members opportunities to 

qualify for higher rebates or reduced 

fees where certain volume criteria and 

thresholds are met. Tiered pricing 

provides incremental incentives for 

Members to strive for higher or different 

tier levels by offering increasingly 

higher discounts or enhanced benefits 

for satisfying increasingly more 

stringent criteria or different criteria. 

Competing equity exchanges offer 

similar tiered pricing structures, 

including schedules of rebates and fees 

that apply based upon members 

achieving certain volume and/or growth 

thresholds, as well as assess similar fees 

or rebates for similar types of orders, to 

that of the Exchange. These competing 

pricing schedules, moreover, are 

presently comparable to those that the 

Exchange provides. 

The Exchange currently provides for 

such tiers pursuant to footnote 7 of the 

fee schedule, which currently offers 

various different Add/Remove Volume 

Tiers. Specifically, Tier 2 provides an 

opportunity for Members to receive 

reduced fee of $0.0016 per contract for 

qualifying liquidity adding orders (i.e., 

yielding fee codes 3,10 4,11 B,12 V,13 and 

Y 14), where a Member adds or removes 

an ADV 15 of greater than or equal to 

65% of TCV.16 The Exchange proposes 

to amend Add/Remove Volume Tier 2 to 

reduce the ADV percentage of TCV from 

65% to 60%. By reducing the 

percentage of ADV over TCV that a 

Member must meet to receive a reduced 

fee under Tier 2, the proposed change 

eases the difficulty of the tier’s criteria 

by a modest amount, which, the 

Exchange believes will incentive 

Members to increase their overall order 

flow, both adding and removing orders, 

in order to achieve the criteria under 

Tier 2 and receive the current reduced 

fee, which is remaining unchanged. The 

Exchange believes this may further 

incentivize liquidity adding Members 

on the Exchange to contribute to a 

deeper, more liquid market, and 

liquidity executing Members on the 

Exchange to increase transactions and 

take execution opportunities provided 

by such increased liquidity. The 

Exchange believes that this, in turn, 

benefits all Members by contributing 

towards a robust and well-balanced 

market ecosystem. The Exchange notes 

the proposed tier continues to be 

available to all Members and is 

competitively achievable for all 

Members that submit add and/or 

remove order flow, in that, all firms that 

submit the requisite order flow may 

compete to meet the tier. 

2. Statutory Basis 

The Exchange believes that the 

proposed rule change is consistent with 

the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,17

in general, and furthers the objectives of 

Section 6(b)(4),18 in particular, as it is 

designed to provide for the equitable 

allocation of reasonable dues, fees and 

other charges among its Members and 

issuers and other persons using its 

facilities. The Exchange also believes 

that the proposed rule change is 

consistent with the objectives of Section 

6(b)(5) 19 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, and, 

particularly, is not designed to permit 

unfair discrimination between 

customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. 

The Exchange again 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. The 

proposed rule change reflects a 

competitive pricing structure designed 

to incentivize market participants to 

direct their order flow to the Exchange, 

which the Exchange believes would 

enhance market quality to the benefit of 

all Members. 

In particular, the Exchange believes 

the proposed rule change to remove fee 

codes 8, K and MX is reasonable as the 

Exchange has observed a minimal 

amount of volume in orders yielding 

these fee codes and, therefore, the 

continuation of these fee codes does not 

warrant the infrastructure and ongoing 

Systems maintenance required to 

support separate fee codes for specific 

routed orders. As such, the Exchange 

also believes that is reasonable and 

equitable to assess routed orders which 

meet the specifications to which fee 

codes 8, K and MX are currently 

applicable the slightly higher standard 

routing fee currently in place for all 

other routed orders—via fee codes 7 or 

X, as applicable. The Exchange believes 

that the proposed rule change is 

equitable and not unfairly 

discriminatory because Members will 

continue to have the option to elect to 

route their orders in the same manner 

(i.e., routed to NYSE American that add 

liquidity, routed to PSX using the ROUC 

routing strategy, routed to NYSE 

American using the ROBB, ROCO or 

ROUC routing strategy) will be 

automatically and uniformly assessed 

the applicable standard rates in place 

for generally all other routed orders.20

Further, if members do not favor the 

Exchange’s pricing for routed orders, 

they can send their routable orders 

directly to away markets instead of 

using routing functionality provided by 

the Exchange. Routing through the 

Exchange is optional, and the Exchange 

operates in a competitive environment 

where market participants can readily 

direct order flow to competing venues 

or providers of routing services if they 

deem fee levels to be excessive. 

The Exchange believes the proposed 

rule change to amend the criteria in 

Add/Remove Volume Tier 2 is 

reasonable, equitable and not unfairly 

discriminatory. The Exchange believes 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
7912 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 20 / Tuesday, February 2, 2021 / Notices 

21See supra note 8. 

22See supra note 5. 

23See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 

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

24NetCoalition 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)). 

25 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 

26 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(2). 

that easing the difficulty in reaching the 

criteria by a modest amount is 

reasonably designed to provide further 

incentive for Members to submit both 

adding and removing order flow to the 

Exchange in order to receive the 

reduced fee currently offered under Tier 

2. The Exchange notes that the amount 

of the reduced fee offered is not 

changing. The Exchange believes the 

slight decrease in criteria difficulty 

under Tier 2 may further incentivize 

liquidity adding Members on the 

Exchange to contribute to a deeper, 

more liquid market, and liquidity 

executing Members on the Exchange to 

increase transactions and take execution 

opportunities provided by such 

increased liquidity. The Exchange 

believes that this, in turn, benefits all 

Members by contributing towards a 

robust and well-balanced market 

ecosystem. The Exchange believes that 

the proposed rule change is equitable 

and not unfairly discriminatory because 

all Members will continue to be eligible 

for the Add/Remove Volume Tier 2 and 

will continue to have the opportunity to 

meet the tier’s criteria and receive the 

current reduced fee if such criteria is 

met. Without having a view of activity 

on other markets and off-exchange 

venues, the Exchange has no way of 

knowing whether this proposed rule 

change would definitely result in any 

Members qualifying for Add/Remove 

Volume Tier 2, as amended. While the 

Exchange has no way of predicting with 

certainty how the proposed tier will 

impact Member activity, the Exchange 

does not anticipate that the proposed 

criteria would impact any of the 

Members that are currently able to 

compete for and reach Tier 2 and would 

merely provide the opportunity for 

additional Members to be able to 

compete for and reach the proposed tier. 

The Exchange also notes that proposed 

Add/Remove Volume Tier 2 will not 

adversely impact any Member’s pricing 

or their ability to qualify for other 

reduced fee or enhanced rebate tiers. 

Should a Member not meet the 

proposed criteria under the proposed 

tier, the Member will merely not receive 

that reduced fee. As stated, the reduced 

fee offered under Tier 2 remains 

unchanged and it will continue to 

uniformly apply to all Members that 

meet the required criteria, as amended, 

under Tier 2. 

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 

Exchange does not believe the proposed 

rule change to remove fee codes 8, K or 

MX will impose any burden on 

intramarket competition because all 

Members orders that would yield 

current fee codes 8, K or MX, will 

automatically and uniformly be assessed 

the fees already in place for routed 

orders generally,21 as applicable (i.e., fee 

codes 7 or X). Further, the Exchange 

does not believe that the proposed rule 

change to amend Add/Remove Volume 

Tier 2 will impose any burden on 

intramarket competition that is not 

necessary or appropriate in furtherance 

of the purposes of the Act because the 

proposed change applies to all Members 

equally in that all Members will 

continue to be eligible for the proposed 

Add/Remove Volume Tier 2, have a 

reasonable opportunity to meet the tier’s 

criteria, as amended, and will all receive 

the current reduced fee if such criteria 

is met. As describe above, the proposed 

Tier 2 criteria is designed to attract 

additional order flow to the Exchange, 

incentivizing market participants to 

direct liquidity and executing order 

flow to the Exchange, bringing with it 

improved price transparency and more 

trading opportunities to the benefit of 

all market participants on the Exchange. 

The Exchange does not believe that 

the proposed rule change will impose 

any burden on intermarket competition 

that is not necessary or appropriate in 

furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 

The Exchange again notes that orders 

that meet the specifications to which fee 

codes 8, K or MX would currently 

apply, will yield the same fee codes and 

be assessed the same corresponding 

rates that are already in place in the Fee 

Schedule for routed orders generally, as 

previously filed with the Commission. 

In addition to this, the Exchange also 

notes again that competing equity 

exchanges offer similar tiered pricing 

structures, including schedules of 

rebates and fees that apply based upon 

members achieving certain volume and/ 

or growth thresholds, as well as assess 

similar fees or rebates for similar types 

of orders, to that of the Exchange. Also, 

as previously discussed, the Exchange 

operates in a highly competitive market. 

Members have numerous alternative 

venues that they may participate on and 

director their order flow, including 15 

other options exchanges and offexchange venues. Additionally, the 

Exchange represents a small percentage 

of the overall market. Based on publicly 

available information, no single options 

exchange has more than 16% of the 

market share.22 Therefore, no exchange 

possesses significant pricing power in 

the execution of option order flow. 

Indeed, participants can readily choose 

to send their orders to other exchange 

and off-exchange venues if they deem 

fee levels at those other venues to be 

more favorable. 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.’’ 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 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’. . . .’’.24 Accordingly, the 

Exchange does not believe its proposed 

fee change imposes 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 is effective 

upon filing pursuant to Section 

19(b)(3)(A) 25 of the Act and 

subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b–4 26

thereunder, because it establishes a due, 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 20 / Tuesday, February 2, 2021 / Notices 7913 

27 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B). 28 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

fee, or other charge imposed by the 

Exchange. 

At any time within 60 days of the 

filing of such 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 shall institute proceedings 

under Section 19(b)(2)(B) 27 of the Act 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– 

CboeEDGA–2021–003 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–CboeEDGA–2021–003. 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–CboeEDGA–2021–003, and 

should be submitted on or before 

February 23, 2021. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.28

J. Matthew DeLesDernier, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2021–02118 Filed 2–1–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[SEC File No. 270–177, OMB Control No. 

3235–0177] 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

Upon Written Request, Copies Available 

From: Securities and Exchange 

Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 

100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 

20549–2736 

Extension: 

Rule 6e–2 and Form N–6EI–1 

Notice is hereby given that, pursuant 

to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities 

and Exchange Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) has submitted to the 

Office of Management and Budget a 

request for extension of the previously 

approved collection of information 

discussed below. 

Rule 6e–2 (17 CFR 270.6e–2) under 

the Investment Company Act of 1940 

(‘‘Act’’) (15 U.S.C. 80a) is an exemptive 

rule that provides separate accounts 

formed by life insurance companies to 

fund certain variable life insurance 

products, exemptions from certain 

provisions of the Act, subject to 

conditions set forth in the rule. 

Rule 6e–2 provides a separate account 

with an exemption from the registration 

provisions of section 8(a) of the Act if 

the account files with the Commission 

Form N–6EI–1 (17 CFR 274.301), a 

notification of claim of exemption. 

The rule also exempts a separate 

account from a number of other sections 

of the Act, provided that the separate 

account makes certain disclosure in its 

registration statements (in the case of 

those separate account that elect to 

register), reports to contract holders, 

proxy solicitations, and submissions to 

state regulatory authorities, as 

prescribed by the rule. 

Since 2008, there have been no filings 

of Form N–6EI–1 by separate accounts. 

Therefore, there has been no cost or 

burden to the industry since that time. 

The Commission requests authorization 

to maintain an inventory of one burden 

hour for administrative purposes. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid 

control number. 

The public may view the background 

documentation for this information 

collection at the following website, 

www.reginfo.gov. Comments should be 

directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the 

Securities and Exchange Commission, 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget, Room 10102, New Executive 

Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, 

or by sending an email to: 

Lindsay.M.Abate@omb.eop.gov; and (ii) 

David Bottom, Director/Chief 

Information Officer, Securities and 

Exchange Commission, c/o Cynthia 

Roscoe, 100 F Street NE, Washington, 

DC 20549 or send an email to: PRA_

Mailbox@sec.gov. Written comments 

and recommendations for the proposed 

information collection should be sent 

within 30 days of publication of this 

notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ 

PRAMain. Find this particular 

information collection by selecting 

‘‘Currently under 30-day Review—Open 

for Public Comments’’ or by using the 

search function. 

Dated: January 27, 2021. 

J. Matthew DeLesDernier, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2021–02123 Filed 2–1–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 10923/January 28, 2021; 

Release No. 91004/January 28, 2021] 

Securities Act of 1933; Securities 

Exchange Act of 1934; Order 

Regarding Review of Financial 

Accounting Standards Board (FASB) 

Accounting Support Fee for 2021 

Under Section 109 of the SarbanesOxley Act of 2002 

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 

(‘‘SOX’’ or the ‘‘Act’’) provides that the 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES