12680 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Notices 

34 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Comments on the 

Proposed Rule Change Received From 

Members, Participants, or Others 

No written comments were solicited 

or received with respect to the proposed 

rule change. 

III. Date of Effectiveness of the 

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for 

Commission Action 

Within 45 days of the date of 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register or within such longer period 

up to 90 days (i) as the Commission may 

designate if it finds such longer period 

to be appropriate and publishes its 

reasons for so finding or (ii) as to which 

the Exchange consents, the Commission 

will: 

A. by order approve or disapprove 

such proposed rule change, or 

B. institute proceedings to determine 

whether the proposed rule change 

should be disapproved. 

IV. Solicitation of Comments 

Interested persons are invited to 

submit written data, views, and 

arguments concerning the foregoing, 

including whether the proposed rule 

change is consistent with the Act. 

Comments may be submitted by any of 

the following methods: 

Electronic Comments 

• Use the Commission’s Internet 

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

rules/sro.shtml); or 

• Send an email to rule-comments@

sec.gov. Please include File Number SR– 

CBOE–2015–023 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–2015–023. 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 Web site (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 Web site 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 such 

filing also will be available for 

inspection and copying at the principal 

office of the CBOE. 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– 

2015–023 and should be submitted on 

or before March 31, 2015. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.34

Brent J. Fields, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2015–05477 Filed 3–9–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[File No. 500–1] 

Order of Suspension of Trading; In the 

Matter of Aspire International, Inc., 

Border Management, Inc., and 

Landmark Energy Enterprises, Inc. 

March 5, 2015. 

It appears to the Securities and 

Exchange Commission that there is a 

lack of current and accurate information 

concerning the securities of Aspire 

International, Inc. because it has not 

filed any periodic reports since the 

period ended December 31, 2010. 

It appears to the Securities and 

Exchange Commission that there is a 

lack of current and accurate information 

concerning the securities of Border 

Management, Inc. because it has not 

filed any periodic reports since the 

period ended September 30, 2011. 

It appears to the Securities and 

Exchange Commission that there is a 

lack of current and accurate information 

concerning the securities of Landmark 

Energy Enterprises, Inc. because it has 

not filed any periodic reports since the 

period ended July 31, 2012. 

The Commission is of the opinion that 

the public interest and the protection of 

investors require a suspension of trading 

in the securities of the above-listed 

companies. 

Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to 

Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange 

Act of 1934, that trading in the 

securities of the above-listed companies 

is suspended for the period from 9:30 

a.m. EST on March 5, 2015, through 

11:59 p.m. EDT on March 18, 2015. 

By the Commission. 

Jill M. Peterson, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2015–05516 Filed 3–6–15; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–74422; File No SR–CBOE– 

2015–020] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; 

Chicago Board Options Exchange, 

Incorporated; Notice of Filing and 

Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed 

Rule Change To Amend Its Fees 

Schedule To Adopt Fees for Extended 

Trading Hours 

March 4, 2015. 

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 February 

18, 2015, Chicago Board Options 

Exchange, Incorporated (the ‘‘Exchange’’ 

or ‘‘CBOE’’) filed with the Securities 

and Exchange Commission (the 

‘‘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. 

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Terms of Substance of 

the Proposed Rule Change 

The Exchange proposes to adopt fees 

for its Extended Trading Hours session. 

The text of the proposed rule change is 

available on the Exchange’s Web site 

(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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Notices 12681 

3Rule 1.1(qqq) defines ‘‘Regular Trading Hours’’ 

as the hours during which transactions in options 

may be made on the Exchange as set forth in Rule 

6.1 (which hours are from 8:30 a.m. to either. 3:00 

p.m. or 3:15 p.m. Chicago time). 

4As of the date of this filing, the Customer 

Priority Surcharge for VIX is waived for complex 

orders. This waiver will also apply during ETH and 

will remain in effect until and unless a rule filing 

is submitted reinstating the surcharge for VIX 

complex orders. See Exchange Fees Schedule, 

Customer Priority Surcharge. 

5See Exchange Fees Schedule, Proprietary Index 

Options Rate Table—Underlying Symbol List A. 

6As of the date of this filing, ‘‘Underlying Symbol 

List A’’ consists of OEX, XEO, SPX (including 

SPXW), SPXpm, SRO, VIX, VXST, Volatility 

Indexes and binary options. 

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 recently amended its 

rules to offer trading in two exclusively 

listed options (SPX, including SPXW, 

and VIX) during extended trading hours 

from 2:00 a.m. to 8:15 a.m. Chicago time 

Monday through Friday (‘‘Extended 

Trading Hours’’ or ‘‘ETH’’). The 

Exchange intends to commence trading 

in the ETH session on Monday, March 

2, 2015 for VIX and Monday, March 9, 

2015 for SPX/SPXW. As such, the 

Exchange proposes to establish fees for 

the trading of SPX, SPXW and VIX 

options during ETH (all fees referenced 

herein are per-contract unless otherwise 

stated). First, the Exchange proposes to 

adopt Footnote 37, which provides 

general information regarding the two 

trading sessions and indicates which 

products will be available in ETH. 

Transaction Fees 

The Exchange proposes to assess the 

same fees regarding SPX, SPXW and 

VIX in the ETH session as are assessed 

regarding SPX, SPXW and VIX in the 

Regular Trading Hours session 

(‘‘RTH’’) 3 (with a few exceptions, which 

shall be explained herein). As in RTH, 

the Proprietary Index Options Rate 

Table will apply during ETH. 

Transaction fees for SPX (including 

SPXW) options will be as follows (all 

listed rates are per contract): 

Customer (Premium > or = $1) ........ $0.44 

Customer (Premium <$1) ................. 0.35 

Clearing Trading Permit Holder Proprietary .......................................... 0.25 

CBOE Market-Maker/LMM ............... 0.20 

Joint Back-Office, Broker-Dealer, 

Non-Trading Permit Holder Market-Maker ...................................... 0.40 

Professional/Voluntary Professional 

(Premium > or = $1) ..................... 0.40 

Professional/Voluntary Professional 

(Premium <$1) .............................. 0.40 

Transaction fees for VIX options will 

be as follows (all listed rates are per 

contract): 

Customer (Premium > or = $1) ........ $0.48 

Customer (Premium $0.11–$.99) ..... 0.27 

Customer (Premium <$0.11) ............ 0.10 

Clearing Trading Permit Holder Proprietary .......................................... 0.25 

CBOE Market-Maker/LMM (Premium 

> or = $0.11) ................................. 0.23 

CBOE Market-Maker/LMM (Premium 

<$0.11) .......................................... 0.05 

Joint Back-Office, Broker-Dealer, 

Non-Trading Permit Holder Market-Maker ...................................... 0.40 

Professional/Voluntary Professional 0.40 

Surcharges 

The Exchange also proposes to apply 

in ETH, like RTH, an Index License 

Surcharge Fee of $0.13 per contract for 

SPX options, including SPXW, and 

$0.10 per contract for VIX options for all 

non-customer orders. The surcharges are 

assessed to help the Exchange recoup 

license fees the Exchange pays to index 

licensors for the right to list S&P 500 

Index-based products and volatility 

index options for trading. Additionally, 

in order to have consistency and to 

avoid a cost differential between the 

ETH and RTH sessions, the Exchange 

proposes to apply the Customer Priority 

Surcharges for VIX and SPXW in ETH. 

Specifically, as in RTH, all customer (C) 

contracts in VIX that have a premium of 

$0.11 or greater, are executed 

electronically and that are Maker nonTurner will be assessed a $0.10 

surcharge.4 As in RTH, all customer (C) 

contracts in SPXW executed 

electronically will be assessed a $0.05 

surcharge. The Exchange notes that as 

ETH opening trades will not affect the 

Index Settlement price for VXST, the 

exception from the SPXW Customer 

Priority Surcharge in RTH for SPXW 

options in the SPXW electronic book 

that are executed during opening 

rotation on the final settlement day of 

VXST options and futures and which 

have the expiration that contribute to 

the VXST settlement calculation will 

not exist in ETH. 

Exceptions 

All of the proposed transaction fees 

and surcharges listed above are the same 

amounts as those currently assessed for 

SPX, SPXW and VIX during RTH, with 

certain exceptions. The first exception 

relates to Professional/Voluntary 

Professional (‘‘W’’ origin code) fees.5

Particularly, the Exchange notes that 

SPX is traded on the Exchange’s Hybrid 

3.0 system (‘‘Hybrid 3.0’’) during RTH, 

and the Professional and Voluntary 

Professional designation is not available 

in Hybrid 3.0 classes. As such, 

Professionals and Voluntary 

Professionals trading SPX are currently 

assessed the same fee amounts as 

customers during RTH. During ETH 

however, SPX will be traded on the 

Hybrid Trading System (‘‘Hybrid’’), 

which recognizes the difference 

between Professionals/Voluntary 

Professionals and Customers. 

Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to 

assess to Professionals/Voluntary 

Professionals the same fee amount for 

SPX transactions during ETH as apply 

to the majority of other proprietary 

index options trading on Hybrid (i.e., 

$0.40 per contract). The Exchange also 

proposes to assess the Index License 

Surcharge to SPX orders with the ‘‘W’’ 

origin code during ETH. 

In order to have consistency between 

the two trading sessions, the Exchange 

also proposes to provide that SPX orders 

that have a Professional/Voluntary 

Professional designation (‘‘W’’ origin 

code) during RTH will be assessed the 

same transaction fees as apply to the 

other Underlying Symbol List A 6

Products (i.e., $0.40 per contract). The 

Exchange also proposes to apply the 

Index License Surcharge to SPX orders 

that have a Professional/Voluntary 

Professional designation during RTH 

(i.e., $0.13 per contract). The purpose of 

these proposed rule changes is to 

minimize cost differentials between the 

two trading sessions, as well as provide 

consistent fees for similar products. 

Specifically, similarly situated Trading 

Permit Holders (‘‘TPHs’’) (i.e., 

Professional/Voluntary Professionals) 

will be assessed the same transaction 

fees and Index License Surcharges 

regardless of session. 

Next, the Exchange notes that during 

RTH, the Automated Improvement 

Mechanism (‘‘AIM’’) is activated for VIX 

options, but not SPX (or SPXW) options. 

During ETH however, AIM will be 

activated for both VIX and SPX 

(including SPXW) options. As such, 

SPX and SPXW transactions executed 

via AIM during ETH will be assessed 

AIM Agency/Primary and AIM Contra 

fees based on an order’s origin code. As 

in RTH, the current AIM Agency/

Primary and AIM Contra fees for VIX 

options will apply during ETH. The 

Exchange also proposes to make a 

minor, non-substantive change to the 

title of the AIM fees column. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

12682 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Notices 

7See Exchange Fees Schedule, Trading Permit 

and Tier Appointment Fees Table. 

8See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34– 

73704 (November 28, 2014), 79 FR 233 (December 

4, 2014) (SR–CBOE–2014–062). 

9On September 22, 2014, the Exchange issued 

Regulatory Circular RG14–134 which announced 

that the Exchange had appointed 3 LMMs in SPX 

options and 3 LMMs in VIX options during ETH. 

The LMM appointments will be effective for a oneyear period, beginning on the launch date for ETH 

trading of the applicable class. 

10Rule 6.1A(e)(ii) provides that notwithstanding 

the 20% contract volume requirement in Rule 

8.7(d)(ii), Market-Makers with appointments during 

Extended Trading Hours must comply with the 

quoting obligations set forth in Rule 8.7(d)(ii) 

(except during ETH the Exchange may determine to 

have no bid/ask differential requirements as set 

forth in subparagraph (A) and there will be no open 

outcry quoting obligation as set forth in 

subparagraph (C)) and all other obligations set forth 

in Rule 8.7 during that trading session. 

Additionally, notwithstanding the 90-day and next 

calendar quarter delay requirements in Rule 8.7(d), 

a Market-Maker with an ETH appointment in a class 

must immediately comply with the quoting 

obligations in Rule 8.7(d)(ii) during ETH. 

11Rule 8.15A (and Rule 1.1(ccc)) requires LMMs 

to provide continuous electronic quotes in at least 

the lesser of 99% of the non-adjusted series or 

100% of the non-adjusted series minus one call-put 

pair within their appointed classes, with the term 

call-put pair referring to one call and one put that 

cover the same underlying instrument and have the 

same expiration date and exercise price, for 90% of 

the time. 

12Notwithstanding Rule 1.1(ccc), for purposes of 

subparagraph (C) of Rule 6.1A, an LMM is deemed 

to have provided ‘‘continuous electronic quotes’’ if 

the LMM provides electronic two-sided quotes for 

90% of the time during Extended Trading Hours in 

a given month. If a technical failure or limitation 

of a system of the Exchange prevents the LMM from 

maintaining, or prevents the LMM from 

communicating to the Exchange, timely and 

accurate electronic quotes in a class, the duration 

of such failure shall not be considered in 

determining whether the LMM has satisfied the 

90% quoting standard with respect to that option 

class. The Exchange may consider other exceptions 

to this quoting standard based on demonstrated 

legal or regulatory requirements or other mitigating 

circumstances. 

13SROs are currently excluded from the CBOE 

Proprietary Products Sliding Scale. See Exchange 

Fees Schedule, CBOE Proprietary Products Sliding 

Scale. 

Particularly, the Exchange notes that 

throughout the Fees Schedule, when 

listing proprietary products, ‘‘VIX’’ 

generally precedes ‘‘VXST.’’ To remain 

consistent, the Exchange proposes 

switching the order of these products in 

the AIM fees column. 

The Exchange next notes that the 

Hybrid 3.0 Execution Surcharge will not 

apply in ETH. As described above, 

while SPX is traded on Hybrid 3.0 

during RTH, SPX will be traded on 

Hybrid during ETH, and thus the Hybrid 

3.0 Execution Surcharge would not be 

applicable. Additionally, the Exchange 

notes that as the ETH session will not 

support trading in FLEX options, all fees 

relating to FLEX in RTH, would not 

apply in ETH. Finally, unlike RTH, the 

Exchange does not propose to assess a 

Tier Appointment Fee 7 to SPX/SPXW 

or VIX at this time, as the Exchange 

does not want to discourage MarketMakers from participating in ETH. 

LMM Rebate 

In the filing that adopted Extended 

Trading Hours, CBOE stated that it 

would submit a separate rule filing to 

adopt all fees applicable to Extended 

Trading Hours, including the amount of 

a rebate to be provided to Lead MarketMakers (‘‘LMMs’’) that satisfy a 

heightened quoting standard.8

Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to 

provide that LMM’s that meet a certain 

heightened quoting standard (which 

shall be explained herein), will receive 

a pro-rata share of a ‘‘compensation 

pool’’ equal to $25,000 times the 

number of LMMs in that class. 

By way of background, pursuant to 

subparagraph (e)(iii)(A) of Rule 6.1A, 

the Exchange may approve one or more 

Market-Makers to act as LMMs in each 

class during Extended Trading Hours in 

accordance with Rule 8.15A for terms of 

at least one month.9 However, to the 

extent the Exchange approves MarketMakers to act as LMMs during ETH, 

subparagraph (e)(iii)(B) of Rule 6.1A 

provides that LMMs must comply with 

the continuous quoting obligation and 

other obligations of Market-Makers 

described in subparagraph (ii) of Rule 

6.1A,10 but not the obligations set forth 

in Rule 8.15A 11 during Extended 

Trading Hours for their allocated 

classes. It further provides that LMMs 

do not receive a participation 

entitlement as set forth in Rules 6.45B 

and 8.15B during ETH. Rather, pursuant 

to subparagraph (e)(iii)(C) of Rule 6.1A, 

if an LMM (1) provides continuous 

electronic quotes in at least the lesser of 

99% of the non-adjusted series or 100% 

of the non-adjusted series minus one 

call-put pair in an ETH allocated class 

(excluding intra-day add-on series on 

the day during which such series are 

added for trading) during ETH in a 

given month and (2) ensures an opening 

of the same percentage of series by 2:05 

a.m. for at least 90% of the trading days 

during ETH in a given month, the LMM 

will receive a rebate for that month in 

an amount to be set forth in the Fees 

Schedule.12 Specifically, the Exchange 

proposes to provide in the Fees 

Schedule (new Footnotes 38) that if a 

LMM meets the heightened standard 

described above, the LMM will receive 

a pro-rata share of an LMM 

compensation pool totaling an amount 

of $25,000 per month, per LMM, per 

class. To clarify how the rebate will 

work, the Exchange proposes to include 

in the Fees Schedule the following 

example: ‘‘if three LMMs are appointed 

in SPX, a compensation pool will be 

established each month totaling 

$75,000. If each LMM meets the 

heightened continuous quoting standard 

in SPX during a month, each will 

receive $25,000. If two LMM’s meet the 

heightened continuous quoting standard 

in SPX during a month, those two 

LMM’s would each receive $37,500 and 

the third LMM would receive nothing. 

If only one LMM meets the heightened 

continuous quoting standard in SPX 

during a month, that LMM would 

receive $75,000 and the other two 

would receive nothing.’’ 

In establishing the rebate, the 

Exchange believed it was more fitting to 

implement an incentive program with a 

rebate during ETH, rather than the 

obligation/benefit structure that 

currently exists during RTH. LMMs will 

not be obligated to satisfy heightened 

continuous quoting and opening 

quoting standards during ETH. Instead, 

LMMs must satisfy a heightened 

standard to receive a rebate, which the 

Exchange believes will encourage LMMs 

to provide significant liquidity during 

ETH. Additionally, the Exchange notes 

that it expects that TPHs may need to 

undertake significant expenses to be 

able to quote at a significantly 

heightened standard during ETH, such 

as performing system work and adding 

personnel. The Exchange believes 

providing a rebate will incent appointed 

LMMs to increase liquidity during ETH, 

as the rebate could offset the costs that 

accompany providing quotes during 

ETH. 

CBOE Proprietary Products Sliding 

Scale 

Next, the Exchange proposes to apply 

the CBOE Proprietary Products Sliding 

Scale in ETH. The CBOE Proprietary 

Products Sliding Scale table provides 

that Clearing Trading Permit Holder 

Proprietary transaction fees and 

transaction fees for Non-Clearing 

Trading Permit Holder Affiliates in 

Underlying Symbol List A 13 are 

reduced provided a Clearing Trading 

Permit Holder (‘‘Clearing TPH’’) reaches 

certain average daily volume (‘‘ADV’’) 

thresholds in all underlying symbols 

excluding Underlying Symbol List A 

and mini-options on the Exchange in a 

month. The Exchange proposes to 

provide that if a TPH reaches these 

thresholds in RTH, that TPH would be 

entitled to reduced proprietary 

transaction fees during both RTH and 

ETH. Specifically, if a TPH meets the 

ADV thresholds in all underlying 

symbols excluding Underlying Symbol 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Notices 12683 

14For example, Clearing Trading Permit Holder A 

executes ADV of 25,000 options contracts on CBOE 

across all classes excluding Underlying Symbol List 

A and Mini-Options during RTH in March 2015. 

Clearing Trading Permit Holder A also executes a 

total of 600,000 Firm (F or L origin code) contracts 

in Underlying Symbol List A during RTH and 

200,000 Firm (F or L origin code) contracts in SPX 

and/or VIX during ETH in March 2015. In March 

2015, 7,605,000 total Firm (F or L origin code) 

options contracts in Underlying Symbol List A are 

executed on CBOE during RTH and 4,095,000 total 

Firm (F or L origin code) options contracts in SPX 

and VIX are executed during ETH (for a monthly 

total of 11,700,000 Firm contracts). Clearing 

Trading Permit Holder A’s total 800,000 contracts 

represents 6.84% of the total monthly Firm (F or 

L origin code) options contracts volume in 

Underlying Symbol List A. Trading Permit Holder 

A’s transaction fees for classes in Underlying 

Symbol List A for January 2015 are $0.20 per 

contract on the first 760,500 contracts (6.50% × 

11,700,000), or $152,100, and $0.10 per contract on 

the remaining 39,500 contracts, or $3,950, for a total 

of $156,050, or $0.195/contract. 

15See Exchange Fees Schedule, Market-Maker 

Trading Permit Sliding Scale. 

List A and mini-options, the Exchange 

would then calculate the proprietary 

product volume thresholds by 

aggregating VIX and SPX/SPXW volume 

in ETH with RTH volume in Underlying 

Symbol List A (i.e., a TPH’s total volume 

in Underlying Symbol List A during 

both RTH and ETH in a calendar month 

would be divided by the total volume in 

Underlying Symbol List A executed 

with an ‘‘F’’ or ‘‘L’’ origin code during 

both RTH and ETH in the same calendar 

month).14 The Exchange proposes to 

apply the Proprietary Products Sliding 

Scale during ETH in order to avoid a 

cost differential between the two 

sessions. Additionally, the Exchange 

believes applying the CBOE Proprietary 

Products Sliding Scale to the ETH 

session will encourage Clearing TPHs to 

provide liquidity during ETH. 

Customer Large Trade Discount 

The Customer Large Trade Discount 

program (the ‘‘Discount’’) provides a 

discount in the form of a cap on the 

quantity of customer (‘‘C’’ origin code’’) 

contracts that are assessed transactions 

fees in certain options classes. The 

Discount table currently in the Fees 

Schedule sets forth the quantity of 

contracts necessary for a large customer 

trade to qualify for the Discount, which 

varies by product. Currently, under the 

‘‘Products’’ section in the Discount 

table, the following S&P products for 

which the Discount is in effect are 

listed: ‘‘SPX, SPXw, SPXpm, SRO.’’ 

Customer transaction fees for each of 

these products are currently charged up 

to the first 15,000 contracts in a 

qualifying customer transaction. 

Additionally, the Fees Schedule 

currently provides that regular customer 

transaction fees will only be assessed for 

the first 10,000 VIX options contracts in 

a qualifying customer transaction. The 

Exchange proposes to apply the 

Discount in ETH, the same as RTH. The 

Exchange notes however, that as the 

trading sessions will have separate order 

books and require separate logins for 

access, and as there will be no ‘‘rolling’’ 

of orders by the Exchange between the 

two sessions, in order to be eligible to 

qualify for the Discount, an order must 

be executed in its entirety in either RTH 

or ETH, but not partly in both. As in 

many cases there will be separate 

personnel staffing the ETH and RTH 

sessions, with different logins, different 

systems and different customer 

relationships, and as orders entered into 

each session will have different Order 

Routing System (ORS) IDs, and as there 

will be no Floor Broker participants in 

ETH who, during a normal RTH session 

may need to execute a large and/or 

complex order using different means 

and mechanisms, the Exchange does not 

wish to offer a cross-session Discount 

program at this time. 

Trading Permits 

The Exchange next seeks to set forth 

the access fees for ETH Trading Permit 

types as well as a description of each 

Trading Permit type. Specifically, the 

Exchange proposes to charge $1,000 per 

month for each ETH Market-Maker 

Trading Permit and $500 per month for 

each ETH Electronic Access Trading 

Permit. The ETH Market-Maker Trading 

Permit will entitle the holder to act as 

a Market-Maker in ETH and will 

provide an appointment credit of 1.0, a 

quoting and order entry bandwidth 

allowance, and up to three logins. The 

ETH Electronic Access Permit will 

entitle the holder to electronic access to 

the Exchange during the ETH session. 

The Exchange notes that as during the 

RTH session, holders of an ETH 

Electronic Access Permit must be 

broker-dealers registered with the 

Exchange in one or more of the 

following capacities: (a) Clearing 

Trading Permit Holder; (b) TPH 

organization approved to transact 

business with the public; and (c) 

Proprietary Trading Permit Holder. 

Additionally, the Exchange notes that a 

Proprietary Trading Permit Holder is a 

Trading Permit Holder with electronic 

access to the Exchange to submit 

proprietary orders that are not MarketMaker orders (i.e., that are not M orders 

for the Proprietary Trading Permit 

Holder’s own account or an affiliated 

Market-Maker account). Finally, the 

ETH Electronic Access Permit provides 

an order entry bandwidth allowance 

and up to three logins. The Exchange 

notes, that similar to RTH, Trading 

Permits purchased for the ETH session 

will be renewed automatically for the 

next month unless the Trading Permit 

Holder submits written notification to 

the Registration Services Department by 

4:00 p.m. Central Standard Time on the 

second-to-last business day of the prior 

month to cancel the Trading Permit 

effective at or prior to the end of the 

applicable month. Additionally, if a 

Trading Permit is issued during a 

calendar month after the first trading 

day of the month, the access fee for the 

ETH Trading Permit for that calendar 

month is prorated based on the 

remaining trading days in the calendar 

month. Finally, the Exchange notes that 

as in RTH, Market-Maker Trading 

Permits in ETH will not be eligible for 

the the Market-Maker Trading Permit 

Sliding Scale, as the scale does not 

apply to Trading Permits used for 

appointments in SPX/SPXW and VIX.15

Bandwidth Packets 

The Exchange also proposes to 

establish fees for Bandwidth Packets 

that may be used during ETH. By way 

of background, each RTH and ETH 

Trading Permit entitles the holder to a 

maximum number of orders and quotes 

per second(s) as determined by the 

Exchange. Bandwidth Packets provide 

TPHs with additional bandwidth. As 

during RTH, Market-Makers in ETH will 

be provided the opportunity to purchase 

one or more Quoting and Order Entry 

Bandwidth Packets. Each Quoting and 

Order Entry Bandwidth Packet will 

entitle the TPH up to three additional 

logins and contain the standard MarketMaker quoting and order entry 

bandwidth allowance, which may then 

be added onto the total bandwidth pool 

for a Market-Maker’s acronym(s) and 

ETH Trading Permit(s) without the 

Market-Maker having to obtain 

additional ETH Trading Permits. 

Additionally, all TPHs will have the 

opportunity to purchase one or more 

Order Entry Bandwidth Packets. Each 

Order Entry Bandwidth Packet will 

entitle the TPH up to three additional 

logins and an order entry bandwidth 

allowance to use during the ETH 

session. The Exchange notes that 

Bandwidth Packets purchased for RTH 

may not be applied during ETH and 

Bandwidth Packets purchased for ETH 

may not be applied during RTH. Similar 

to RTH, Bandwidth Packets purchased 

for the ETH session will be renewed 

automatically for the next month unless 

the Trading Permit Holder submits 

written notification to the Registration 

Services Department by the last 

business day of the prior month to 

cancel the bandwidth packet effective at 

or prior to the end of the applicable 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

12684 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Notices 

16For example, if a TPH has 2 ETH Market-Maker 

Trading Permits and enables 5 logins, the CMI and/ 

or FIX Login IDs for the first 3 logins will be waived 

and the TPH will be assessed $1,000 per month for 

the logins associated with the second Trading 

Permit ($500 per login). 

17See Exchange Fees Schedule, Trading Permit 

Holder Transaction Fee Policies and Rebate 

Programs table. 

18See e.g., Exchange Fees Schedule, Liquidity 

Provider Sliding Scale, Marketing Fee, Clearing 

Trading Permit Holder Fee Cap, and Volume 

Incentive Program (‘‘VIP’’). 

19 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 

20 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 

month. Additionally, as in RTH, if a 

bandwidth packet is issued during a 

calendar month after the first trading 

day of the month, the bandwidth packet 

fee for that calendar month is prorated 

based on the remaining trading days in 

the calendar month. The Exchange notes 

that a TPH will only be able to request 

Bandwidth Packets during RTH. To 

request an additional Bandwidth Packet, 

a TPH must submit the ETH Trading 

Permit & Bandwidth Packet Additions/ 

Removals form indicating the date on 

which it intends to begin trading during 

ETH. 

Additionally, the Exchange notes that 

the Fees Schedule states that the 

quoting bandwidth allowance for a 

Market-Maker Trading Permit is 

equivalent to a maximum of 35,640,000 

quotes over the course of a trading day. 

The Exchange intends to amend the 

Fees Schedule to clarify that quoting 

bandwidth allowance for a MarketMaker Trading Permit is equivalent to a 

maximum of 35,640,000 quotes over the 

course of a trading session (i.e., a RTH 

and ETH Market-Maker Trading Permit 

each have a quoting bandwidth 

allowance of 35,640,000 quotes over the 

course of the RTH and ETH session, 

respectively). 

Waiver of Trading Permit and 

Bandwidth Packet Fees 

In order to promote and encourage 

trading during the ETH session, the 

Exchange proposes to waive ETH 

Trading Permit and Bandwidth Packet 

fees for one (1) of each initial Trading 

Permits and one (1) of each initial 

Bandwidth Packet, per affiliated TPH, 

through the first six (6) calendar months 

immediately following the 

implementation of ETH, including the 

month ETH is launched (i.e., August 31, 

2015). Any Trading Permits and 

Bandwidth Packets purchased in excess 

of one each, will be assessed the fees 

described above. 

Extra CAS Server Fees 

In order to connect to CBOE 

Command, which will allow a TPH to 

trade on the CBOE System during ETH, 

a TPH must connect via either a CMI or 

FIX interface (depending on the 

configuration of the TPH’s own 

systems). TPHs that connect via a CMI 

interface must use CMI CAS Servers. 

The Exchange proposes to provide that 

each TPH in ETH will receive one CAS 

Server (plus access to a pool of shared 

backup CAS Servers). If a TPH elects to 

connect via an extra CMI CAS Server (in 

order to segregate TPH users for 

business or availability purposes) 

beyond the one CAS server, the 

Exchange proposes to provide that the 

TPH will be assessed a fee of $10,000 

per month for each additional CMI CAS 

Server. The purpose of the fee for extra 

CMI CAS Servers is to cover the costs 

related to the provision, management 

and upkeep of such CMI CAS Servers 

for the ETH session. Additionally, the 

proposed change prevents the Exchange 

from being required to expend large 

amounts of resources (the provision and 

management of the CMI CAS Servers 

can be costly) in order to provide TPHs 

with an unlimited amount of CMI CAS 

Servers. 

CBOE Command Connectivity Charges 

By way of background, CBOE market 

participants can access the Exchange’s 

trading systems via Network Access 

Ports, and can elect for a Network 

Access Port (or Ports) of either 1 gigabit 

per second (‘‘Gbps’’) or 10 Gbps. 

Currently, the Exchange assesses a fee of 

$750 per month for a 1 Gbps Network 

Access Port and a fee of $3,500 per 

month for a 10 Gbps Network Access 

Port. The Exchange notes that these fees 

would also be applicable to a TPH that 

holds an ETH Trading Permit. More 

specifically, if a TPH that holds an ETH 

Trading Permit, also holds an RTH 

Trading Permit(s) and already is 

assessed this fee, it would not be 

charged twice. A TPH that holds only an 

ETH Trading Permit (or only an RTH 

Trading Permit) would be subject to 

these fees (i.e., any Trading Permit 

Holder that accesses the exchange via 

Network Access Ports would be subject 

to the fee). 

Additionally, the CMI Login ID and 

FIX Login ID fees, which are currently 

$500 per Login ID, per month, will also 

be applicable to ETH. However, the 

Exchange notes that the fees related to 

waived ETH trading permits and/or 

waived ETH bandwidth packets will 

also be waived through August 31, 

2015.16

PULSe Fees 

The Exchange currently charges a fee 

of $400 per month per PULSe TPH login 

ID for the first 15 login IDs and $100 per 

month for all subsequent login IDs. The 

Exchange anticipates making PULSe 

available during ETH. The Exchange 

notes that these fees would also be 

applicable to a TPH during ETH. 

Particularly, if a TPH is already being 

assessed the PULSe login ID fees during 

RTH, the TPH would not be charged 

again for using the same login ID during 

ETH. 

Miscellaneous Fees 

The Exchange notes that a number of 

fees apply the same in ETH as in RTH. 

For example, the fees set forth in the 

Trading Permit Holder Application Fees 

table are applicable for the ETH session 

(i.e., if a non-CBOE TPH seeks to 

become a CBOE TPH and hold an ETH 

Trading Permit only, the applicable 

application fees would apply). 

Similarly, Web CRD Fees would also 

apply to TPHs that hold ETH Trading 

Permits only to the extent applicable. 

The Trading Permit Holder Transaction 

Fee Policies and Rebate Programs table 

in the Fees Schedule will also apply 

during ETH.17

The Trade Processing Services fee 

will also be assessed during the ETH 

session. Currently, the Exchange 

assesses a $0.0025 fee per contract side 

for each matched trade. The Exchange 

notes that the Regulatory Fees also are 

applicable to TPHs who hold ETH 

Trading Permits. Specifically, the 

Options Regulatory Fee (‘‘ORF’’) will 

include options transactions executed or 

cleared by the TPH that are cleared by 

the Options Clearing Corporation (OCC) 

in the customer range during both RTH 

and ETH. The ‘‘DPM’s and Firm 

Designated Examining Authority Fee’’ 

will also continue to apply to applicable 

TPHs. 

The Exchange lastly notes that fees, 

rebates and programs that excluded 

SPX, SPXW and VIX during RTH will 

also not apply in ETH.18

The proposed changes are to take 

effect on March 2, 2015. 

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.19 Specifically, 

the Exchange believes the proposed rule 

change is consistent with the Section 

6(b)(5) 20 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Notices 12685 

21 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). 

in regulating, clearing, settling, 

processing information with respect to, 

and facilitation 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,21 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 proposed transaction fee amounts 

for SPX, SPXW and VIX orders during 

the ETH session are reasonable, 

equitable and not unfairly 

discriminatory because they are the 

same as the amounts of corresponding 

fees for SPX, SPXW and VIX orders 

during the RTH session, with the 

exception of the current Professional 

and Voluntary Professional fees and 

AIM Agency/Primary and Contra fees. 

The Exchange notes that the fee 

amounts for each separate type of 

market participant will be assessed 

equally for each product to all such 

market participants (i.e., all BrokerDealer orders will be assessed the same 

amount, all Joint Back-Office orders will 

be assessed the same amount, etc.). The 

Exchange believes it’s reasonable, 

equitable and not unfairly 

discriminatory to assess Professional/

Voluntary Professionals the same fee 

amounts, including the Index License 

Surcharge Fee, for SPX transactions 

during ETH as apply to the majority of 

other proprietary index options trading 

on Hybrid (including SPXW), because 

unlike RTH, SPX will trade on Hybrid 

and the Professional and Voluntary 

Professional designation exists on 

Hybrid. The Exchange also believes it’s 

reasonable, equitable and not unfairly 

discriminatory to assess the same fee 

amounts, including the Index License 

Surcharge Fee, for SPX transactions 

with a Professional/Voluntary 

Professional designation during RTH as 

apply to the majority of other 

proprietary index options, because it 

provides for consistent fees for similar 

products, as well as avoids a cost 

differential between the two trading 

sessions (i.e., orders with a ‘‘W’’ origin 

code will be treated the same during 

RTH and ETH). Applying the AIM 

Agency/Primary and Contra Fees to SPX 

and SPXW orders in RTH is reasonable, 

equitable and not unfairly 

discriminatory because the amount of 

the AIM Agency/Primary and Contra 

fees will be the same for SPX and SPXW 

orders as it is for non-AIM Agency/

Primary and Contra orders and because 

unlike, RTH, AIM will be active in SPX 

and SPXW during ETH. Not applying 

any RTH fees related to FLEX options in 

ETH is reasonable, equitable and not 

unfairly discriminatory because ETH 

will not support trading in FLEX 

options. 

Assessing the Index License 

Surcharge Fee of $0.13 per contract to 

SPX and SPXW and $0.10 per contract 

to VIX transactions during ETH is 

reasonable because the amounts are the 

same as the amounts of the 

corresponding surcharge for SPX, SPXW 

and VIX orders during RTH. The 

Surcharge fees are equitable and not 

unfairly discriminatory because they 

will be assessed to all market 

participants to whom the SPX, SPXW 

and VIX Surcharges apply and will 

apply in both RTH and ETH. Similarly, 

assessing the Customer Priority 

Surcharge of $0.05 per contract for 

SPXW and $0.10 per contract for VIX 

options that are Maker, non-Turner 

during ETH is also reasonable, equitable 

and not unfairly discriminatory because 

the surcharges are the same as the 

amounts of the Customer Priority 

Surcharges during RTH and will be 

assessed to all market participants to 

whom these surcharges apply. 

Additionally the Customer Priority 

Surcharges for SPXW and VIX will 

apply in both RTH and ETH. 

Not applying the SPX/SPXW and VIX 

Tier Appointment Fees as well as the 

Hybrid 3.0 Execution Fee is reasonable 

because market participants involved in 

the trading of SPX, SPXW and VIX will 

not have to pay such fees. Particularly, 

not applying Tier Appointment Fees 

during ETH, as compared to RTH is 

equitable and not unfairly 

discriminatory because ETH is a new 

trading session and the Exchange 

desires to encourage Market-Makers to 

register for SPX/SPXW and VIX tier 

appointments, and the more MarketMakers that do so, the more SPX/SPXW 

and VIX quoting there will be, which 

benefits all market participants. Not 

applying the Hybrid 3.0 Execution Fee 

during ETH is reasonable, equitable and 

not unfairly discriminatory because SPX 

will be not traded on Hybrid 3.0 during 

ETH. 

The Exchange believes it is 

reasonable, equitable and not unfairly 

discriminatory to offer LMM’s that meet 

a certain heightened quoting standard 

(described above) a pro-rata share of a 

compensation pool equal to $25,000 

times the number of LMMs in that class 

given the potential added costs that an 

LMM may undertake in order to satisfy 

that heightened quoting standard. 

Additionally, if an LMM does not satisfy 

the heightened quoting standard, then it 

will not receive the proposed rebate. 

The Exchange believes it is equitable 

and not unfairly discriminatory to only 

offer the rebate to LMMs because it 

benefits all market participants in ETH 

to encourage LMMs to satisfy the 

heightened quoting standards, which 

may increase liquidity during those 

hours and provide more trading 

opportunities and tighter spreads. The 

Exchange also believes it is more fitting, 

as well as equitable and not unfairly 

discriminatory to implement an 

incentive program with a rebate during 

ETH, rather than the obligation/benefit 

structure that exists during RTH. 

Particularly, the Exchange notes that 

creating an incentive program in which 

LMMs must satisfy a heightened 

standard to receive the rebate, 

encourages LMMs to provide significant 

liquidity during ETH, which is 

important as the Exchange expects 

lower trading liquidity and trading 

levels during ETH and thus fewer 

opportunities for an LMM to receive a 

participation entitlement (as they 

currently do during RTH). Without the 

possibility of receiving a participation 

entitlement on a sufficient volume of 

trades, there would not be sufficient 

incentive for Trading Permit Holders to 

undertake an obligation to quote at 

heightened levels, which could result in 

even lower levels of liquidity. 

Therefore, a rebate is more appropriate 

than imposing an obligation to receive 

a participation entitlement. The 

Exchange notes that offering a rebate 

during ETH is merely a different type of 

financial benefit that may be given to 

LMMs during ETH if it achieves a 

heightened quoting level. 

Applying to SPX, SPXW and VIX the 

CBOE Proprietary Products Sliding 

Scale and the Customer Large Trade 

Discount during ETH is reasonable, 

equitable and not unfairly 

discriminatory because these items 

apply to SPX, SPXW and VIX during 

RTH. Applying the CBOE Proprietary 

Products Sliding Scale during ETH 

avoids a cost differential between RTH 

and ETH. Moreover, the Exchange notes 

that all thresholds in the CBOE 

Proprietary Products Sliding Scale will 

be the same in ETH as it is in RTH. The 

Exchange believes requiring an order be 

executed in its entirety in either RTH or 

ETH, but not partly in both to qualify for 

the Customer Large Trade Discount is 

reasonable, equitable and not unfairly 

discriminatory because the RTH and 

ETH trading sessions will have separate 

order books and require separate logins 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

12686 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Notices 

22See e.g., Exchange Fees Schedule, Trading 

Permit Fees. Market-Maker Trading Permits during 

RTH are assessed $5,500 per month per permit 

while Electronic Access Permits during RTH are 

assessed $1,600 per month per permit. 

23See e.g., Exchange Fees Schedule, Bandwidth 

Packet Fees. 

24 If the Exchange changes its method of funding 

regulation or if circumstances otherwise change in 

the future, the Exchange may decide to modify the 

ORF or assess a separate regulatory fee on Trading 

Permit Holder proprietary transactions if the 

Exchange deems it advisable. 

for access, and as there will be no 

‘‘rolling’’ of orders by the Exchange 

between the two sessions. 

The Exchange believes the Trading 

Permit fees for Market-Maker and 

Electronic Access Trading Permits are 

reasonable as they are lower than the 

Trading Permit fees assessed during 

RTH. The Exchange believes it is 

equitable and not unfairly 

discriminatory to charge lower Trading 

Permit fees for ETH than RTH because 

ETH is a new trading session and the 

Exchange seeks to encourage market 

participants to participate in ETH. The 

Exchange notes that the more ETH 

Trading Permit Holders there are during 

ETH, the more liquidity there will be, 

which benefits all market participants. 

The Exchange also believes it is 

equitable to assess different access fees 

for trading permits that provide 

differential access as long as the same 

access fee is assessed to all Holders of 

the same type of Trading Permit. The 

Exchange notes that different types of 

Trading Permits during RTH are also 

assessed different amounts.22

The Exchange believes the proposed 

Bandwidth Packet fees are reasonable 

because they are within the range of the 

cost of Bandwidth Packet fees during 

RTH. The Exchange believes it is 

equitable and not unfairly 

discriminatory to charge lower fees for 

Bandwidth Packets during ETH than 

RTH because ETH is a new trading 

session and the Exchange seeks to 

encourage market participants to 

participate in ETH. The Exchange also 

believes it is equitable to assess different 

fees for different types of Bandwidth 

Packets as long as the same access fee 

is assessed to all Holders of the same 

type of Bandwidth Packet. Additionally, 

the Exchange believes it is equitable to 

assess higher Quoting and Order 

Bandwidth Packet fees than Order 

Bandwidth Packet fees, because Quoting 

and Order Bandwidth Packets provide 

quoting bandwidth in addition to order 

bandwidth. The Exchange notes that 

different types of Bandwidth Packets 

during RTH are also assessed different 

amounts.23 Finally, the Exchange 

believes amending the Fees Schedule to 

clarify that the maximum quoting 

bandwidth allowance of each MarketMaker Trading Permit is over the course 

of a trading session, instead of a trading 

day alleviates confusion, thereby 

removing impediments to and 

perfecting the mechanism of a free open 

market and a national market system, 

and, in general, protect investors and 

the public interest. 

The Exchange believes waiving ETH 

Trading Permit and Bandwidth Packet 

fees for one of each type of Trading 

Permit and Bandwidth Packet, per 

affiliated TPH through August 31, 2015 

is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly 

discriminatory, because it promotes and 

encourages trading during the ETH 

session and applies to all ETH TPHs. 

The Exchange believes the proposed 

monthly fee of $10,000 for each extra 

CMI CAS Server that a TPH requests is 

reasonable because it is necessary to 

recoup the costs related to the 

provision, maintenance and upkeep of 

such Servers, and is equitable and not 

unfairly discriminatory because the fee 

will be applied to all TPHs that request 

an extra CMI CAS Server to be used 

during ETH. Additionally, TPHs during 

RTH that request an additional CMI 

CAS Server are assessed the same 

monthly amount. 

The Exchange believes it is reasonable 

to apply the Network Access Port fees 

to the ETH session because the 

Exchange has expended significant 

resources setting up, providing and 

maintaining this connectivity and the 

Exchange seeks to recoup those costs. 

The Exchange believes it’s reasonable, 

equitable and not unfairly 

discriminatory to assess these costs per 

port regardless of session (i.e., not assess 

a TPH twice if using the same port for 

RTH and ETH), as the costs associated 

with using the port do not increase if a 

TPH uses that port for both sessions. 

Similarly, the Exchange believes it is 

reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly 

discriminatory to assess the same 

PULSe fees to the ETH session, but not 

charge a TPH twice if using the same 

PULSe login ID for both sessions, 

because the Exchange expended 

significant resources developing PULSe 

and desires to recoup some of those 

costs, but does not wish to charge TPHs 

twice if using the same login ID. 

The Exchange believes assessing the 

CMI Login ID and FIX Login ID fees to 

Login IDs for ETH is reasonable because 

the fee amounts are the same as in RTH. 

The Exchange believes it’s equitable and 

not unfairly discriminatory because all 

TPHs will be assessed the Login ID fees 

for each Login ID they have for both 

RTH and ETH. The Exchange believes 

it’s reasonable, equitable and not 

unfairly discriminatory to waive fees for 

Login IDs related to waived Trading 

Permits and/or Bandwidth Packets in 

order to promote and encourage initial 

participation in ETH. 

The Exchange believes it’s reasonable 

to assess a $0.0025 fee per contract side 

for each matched trade because the 

same fee amount is assessed during 

RTH. The Exchange believes it’s 

equitable and not unfairly 

discriminatory to assess such fee 

because it applies to all TPHs and 

applies in both RTH and ETH. 

The proposed ORF during the ETH 

session is reasonable, equitable and not 

unfairly discriminatory because it is the 

same amount assessed during the RTH 

session. The Exchange believes the ORF 

is equitable and not unfairly 

discriminatory in that it is charged to all 

TPHs during both sessions on all their 

transactions that clear in the customer 

range at the OCC. Moreover, the 

Exchange believes the ORF ensures 

fairness by assessing higher fees to those 

TPHs that require more Exchange 

regulatory services based on the amount 

of customer options business they 

conduct in each trading session. 

Regulating customer trading activity is 

much more labor intensive and requires 

greater expenditure of human and 

technical resources than regulating noncustomer trading activity, which tends 

to be more automated and less laborintensive. As a result, the costs 

associated with administering the 

customer component of the Exchange’s 

overall regulatory program are 

materially higher than the costs 

associated with administering the noncustomer component (e.g., Trading 

Permit Holder proprietary transactions) 

of its regulatory program.24

Having Trading Permit Holder 

Application fees, Web CRD fees Trading 

Permit Holder Transaction Fee Policies 

and Rebate Programs apply the same in 

ETH as RTH is reasonable, equitable and 

not unfairly discriminatory because the 

fees, rebates and programs are the same 

in both sessions and are based on a 

market participant’s status as a TPH and 

not based upon which trading session a 

TPH participates. 

Not applying in ETH fees, rebates and 

programs that exclude SPX, SPXW and 

VIX during RTH is reasonable because 

these fees rebates and programs will not 

apply to all TPHs and will be consistent 

across sessions. 

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Burden on Competition 

The Exchange does not believe that 

the proposed rule changes will impose 

any burden on competition that are not 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Notices 12687 

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

26 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f). 

27 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

3See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74017 

(January 8, 2015), 80 FR 1979 (‘‘Notice’’). 

4 In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange clarified 

that it believes that Market Maker bids should not 

be priced the same as or higher than the 

corresponding benchmark, which would be the 

price of the underlying security for call options and 

the strike price for put options. Amendment No. 1 

does not change any of the proposed rule text that 

was submitted in the original filing. Amendment 

No. 1 is technical in nature and, therefore, the 

Commission is not publishing it for comment. 

necessary or appropriate in furtherance 

of the purposes of the Act. The 

Exchange does not believe that the 

proposed rule change will impose any 

burden on intramarket competition that 

is not necessary or appropriate in 

furtherance of the purposes of the Act 

because, while different fees and rebates 

are assessed to different market 

participants in some circumstances, 

these different market participants have 

different obligations and different 

circumstances. For example, Clearing 

TPHs have clearing obligations that 

other market participants do not have. 

Market-Makers have quoting obligations 

that other market participants do not 

have. There is a history in the options 

markets of providing preferential 

treatment to Customers, as they often do 

not have as sophisticated trading 

operations and systems as other market 

participants, which often makes other 

market participants prefer to trade with 

Customers. Further, the proposed fees, 

rebates and programs for ETH are 

intended to encourage market 

participants to bring liquidity to the 

Exchange during ETH (which benefits 

all market participants), while still 

covering Exchange costs (including 

those associated with the upgrading and 

maintenance of Exchange systems). The 

Exchange does not believe that the 

proposed rule changes will impose any 

burden on intermarket competition that 

is not necessary or appropriate in 

furtherance of the purposes of the Act 

because the products offered during 

ETH (SPX, SPXW and VIX), are 

proprietary products that will only be 

traded on CBOE. To the extent that the 

proposed changes make CBOE a more 

attractive marketplace for market 

participants at other exchanges, such 

market participants are welcome to 

become CBOE market participants. 

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. 

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–2015–020 on the subject line. 

Paper Comments 

• Send paper comments in triplicate 

to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities 

and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street 

NE., Washington, DC 20549. 

All submissions should refer to File 

Number SR–CBOE–2015–020. 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 Web site (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 Web site 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 such 

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– 

2015–020 and should be submitted on 

or before March 31, 2015. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.27

Brent J. Fields, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2015–05476 Filed 3–9–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–74440; File No. SR– 

NYSEMKT–2014–116] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE 

MKT LLC; Order Granting Approval of 

a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified 

by Amendment No. 1, To Amend Rule 

967NY and To Adopt Rule 967.1NY To 

Provide Price Protection for Market 

Maker Quotes 

March 4, 2015. 

I. Introduction 

On December 29, 2014, NYSE MKT 

LLC (‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’), pursuant to section 

19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act 

of 1934 (‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 

thereunder,2 a proposed rule change to 

amend Exchange Rule 967NY (Price 

Protection) and to adopt Exchange Rule 

967.1NY to provide price protection for 

Market Maker quotes. The proposed rule 

change was published for comment in 

the Federal Register on January 14, 

2015.3 The Commission received no 

comment letters on the proposal. On 

March 2, 2015, the Exchange filed 

Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule 

change.4 This order approves the 

proposed rule change, as modified by 

Amendment No. 1 thereto. 

II. Description of the Proposal 

The Exchange proposed to amend 

Exchange Rule 967NY and to adopt 

Exchange Rule 967.1NY to provide price 

protection for Market Maker quotes. 

Exchange Rule 967NY currently applies 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES