Document ID: SEC-2023-1122-0001
Agency: sec
Document Type: Notice
Title: Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Cboe Exchange, Inc.
Posted Date: 2023-10-04T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 4, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68793-68798]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21940]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98596; File No. SR-CBOE-2023-038]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Suspension of 
and Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or 
Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fee Schedule Relating to 
the Options Regulatory Fee

September 28, 2023.

I. Introduction

    On August 1, 2023, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe'' or ``Exchange'') 
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``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 
(file number SR-CBOE-2023-038) to increase the

[[Page 68794]]

amount of its Options Regulatory Fee (``ORF'').\3\ The proposed rule 
change was immediately effective upon filing with the Commission 
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act.\4\ The proposed rule change 
was published for comment in the Federal Register on August 16, 
2023.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 98106 (August 10, 
2023), 88 FR 55796 (August 16, 2023) (``Notice'').
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). A proposed rule change may take 
effect upon filing with the Commission if it is designated by the 
exchange as ``establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge 
imposed by the self-regulatory organization on any person, whether 
or not the person is a member of the self-regulatory organization.'' 
15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \5\ See Notice, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act,\6\ the Commission is 
hereby: (1) temporarily suspending file number SR-CBOE-2023-038; and 
(2) instituting proceedings to determine whether to approve or 
disapprove file number SR-CBOE-2023-038.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to increase the amount of its ORF from 
$0.0017 to $0.0030 per contract.\7\ The Exchange assesses the ORF to 
each Trading Permit Holder (``TPH'') for options transactions cleared 
by the TPH that are cleared by the Options Clearing Corporation 
(``OCC'') in the ``customer'' range, regardless of the exchange on 
which the transaction occurs.\8\ The Exchange states that ``[r]evenue 
generated from ORF, when combined with all of the Exchange's other 
regulatory fees and fines, is designed to recover a material portion of 
the regulatory costs to the Exchange of the supervision and regulation 
of TPH customer option business. . . .'' \9\ Noting that it monitors 
the amount of ORF revenue it collects ``to ensure that it, in 
combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed 
the Exchange's total regulatory costs,'' the Exchange proposed to 
increase the amount of its ORF ``based on the Exchange's estimated 
projections for its regulatory costs, which have increased, coupled 
with a projected decrease in the Exchange's other non-ORF regulatory 
fees.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 55796.
    \8\ See id. The ORF is collected by OCC on behalf of the 
Exchange from either the Clearing Trading Permit Holder (``CTPH'') 
or the non-CTPH that ultimately clears the transaction. See id.
    \9\ Id. at 55796.
    \10\ Id. at 55797.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Suspension of the Proposed Rule Change

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act,\11\ at any time within 
60 days of the date of filing of an immediately effective proposed rule 
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Act,\12\ the Commission 
summarily may temporarily suspend the change in the rules of a self-
regulatory organization (``SRO'') 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. As discussed below, the Commission believes a temporary 
suspension of the proposed rule change is necessary or appropriate in 
the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in 
furtherance of the purposes of the Act to allow for additional analysis 
of the proposed rule change's consistency with the Act and the rules 
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When exchanges file their proposed rule changes with the 
Commission, including fee filings like the Exchange's present proposal, 
they are required to provide a statement supporting the proposal's 
basis under the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable 
to the exchange.\13\ The instructions to Form 19b-4, on which exchanges 
file their proposed rule changes, specify that such statement ``should 
be sufficiently detailed and specific to support a finding that the 
proposed rule change is consistent with [those] requirements.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See 17 CFR 240.19b-4 (Item 3 entitled ``Self-Regulatory 
Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, 
the Proposed Rule Change'').
    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 6 of the Act, including Sections 6(b)(4), (5), and (8), 
require the rules of an exchange to: (1) provide for the equitable 
allocation of reasonable fees among members, issuers, and other persons 
using the exchange's facilities; \15\ (2) perfect the mechanism of a 
free and open market and a national market system, protect investors 
and the public interest, and not be designed to permit unfair 
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers; \16\ 
and (3) not impose any burden on competition not necessary or 
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In justifying its proposal, the Exchange stated that its proposal 
``is reasonable because [the proposed increase] would help ensure that 
revenue collected from the ORF, in combination with other regulatory 
fees and fines, would help offset, but not exceed, the Exchange's total 
regulatory costs.'' \18\ According to the Exchange, its ORF is designed 
to ``generate revenues that would be less than or equal to 75% of the 
Exchange's regulatory costs.'' \19\ The Exchange stated that the 
proposed increase is reasonable based on ``recent options volumes, 
coupled with the anticipated regulatory fees and anticipated reductions 
in other regulatory fees.'' \20\ The Exchange further stated that 
``although recent options volumes have increased, it has not increased 
its ORF rate in four years'' and ``has reduced its ORF rates twice'' 
since 2019.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Notice, supra note 3, at 55797.
    \19\ Id.
    \20\ Id. (stating that ``the proposed change is reasonable as it 
would offset the anticipated increased regulatory costs, while still 
not exceeding 75% of the Exchange's total regulatory costs.'').
    \21\ Id. No exchange has increased its ORF rate since 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also asserted that the ORF is equitably allocated and 
not unfairly discriminatory because higher fees are assessed ``to those 
TPHs that require more Exchange regulatory services based on the amount 
of customer options business they conduct.'' \22\ In addition, the 
Exchange stated that ``[r]egulating customer trading activity is much 
more labor intensive and requires greater expenditure of human and 
technical resources than regulating non-customer trading activity, 
which tends to be more automated and less labor-intensive.'' \23\ 
Further, the Exchange stated that it has ``broad regulatory 
responsibilities with respect to its TPHs' activities, irrespective of 
where their transactions take place'' and therefore the surveillance 
programs for customer trading activity ``may require the Exchange to 
look at activity across all markets.'' \24\ Consequently, the Exchange 
imposes the ORF ``on all customer-range transactions cleared by a TPH, 
even if the transactions do not take place on the Exchange.'' \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Notice, supra note 3, at 55797.
    \23\ Id.
    \24\ Id.
    \25\ Id. at 55796.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In temporarily suspending the Exchange's proposed rule change, the 
Commission intends to further consider whether the proposal to increase 
the amount of the ORF is consistent with the statutory requirements 
applicable to a national securities exchange under the Act. In 
particular, the Commission will consider whether the proposed rule

[[Page 68795]]

change satisfies the standards under the Act and the rules thereunder 
requiring, among other things, that an exchange's rules provide for the 
equitable allocation of reasonable fees among members, issuers, and 
other persons using its facilities; not permit unfair discrimination 
between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers; and do not impose any 
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of 
the purposes of the Act.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5), and (8), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the Commission finds that it is necessary or appropriate 
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, and otherwise 
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, to temporarily suspend the 
proposed rule change.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ For purposes of temporarily suspending the proposed rule 
change, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on 
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove the 
Proposed Rule Change

    In addition to temporarily suspending the proposal, the Commission 
also hereby institutes proceedings pursuant to Sections 19(b)(3)(C) 
\28\ and 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \29\ to determine whether the 
Exchange's proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved. 
Institution of proceedings does not indicate that the Commission has 
reached any conclusions with respect to any of the issues involved. 
Rather, the Commission seeks and encourages interested persons to 
provide additional comment on the proposed rule change to inform the 
Commission's analysis of whether to approve or disapprove the proposed 
rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C). Once the Commission temporarily 
suspends a proposed rule change, Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act 
requires that the Commission institute proceedings under Section 
19(b)(2)(B) to determine whether a proposed rule change should be 
approved or disapproved.
    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,\30\ the Commission is 
providing notice of the grounds for possible disapproval under 
consideration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B). Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act also 
provides that proceedings to determine whether to disapprove a 
proposed rule change must be concluded within 180 days of the date 
of publication of notice of the filing of the proposed rule change. 
See id. The time for conclusion of the proceedings may be extended 
for up to 60 days if the Commission finds good cause for such 
extension and publishes its reasons for so finding, or if the 
exchange consents to the longer period. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether the Exchange has demonstrated how its proposed fee 
is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, which requires that the 
rules of a national securities exchange ``provide for the equitable 
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its 
members and issuers and other persons using its facilities'' \31\ 
(emphasis added);
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether the Exchange has demonstrated how its proposed fee 
is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, which requires, among 
other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange not be 
``designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, 
brokers, or dealers'' \32\ (emphasis added); and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether the Exchange has demonstrated how its proposed fee 
is consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, which requires that the 
rules of a national securities exchange ``not impose any burden on 
competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes 
of [the Act].'' \33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the proposal purports to increase the amount of the 
ORF in response to ``recent options volume'' \34\ and the Exchange's 
estimated projections for its regulatory costs and anticipated 
regulatory revenues in a manner that ``is designed to recover a 
material portion of the regulatory costs to the Exchange of the 
supervision and regulation of TPH customer options business. . . .'' 
\35\ However, those and other statements in support of its proposed 
regulatory fee increase are general in nature and lack sufficient 
detail and specificity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Notice, supra note 3, at 55797.
    \35\ Notice, supra note 3, at 55796.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, the Exchange does not discuss what ``recent options 
volume'' it considered or how that volume has impacted its regulatory 
expenses and regulatory revenues.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ In recent years, several options exchanges have filed 
proposed rule changes to reduce their respective ORF rates due to 
unanticipated and sustained growth in customer options volume. See, 
e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 98054 (August 4, 2023) 88 
FR 54362 (August 10, 2023) (SR-ISE-2023-14) (reducing ORF rate from 
$0.0014 to $0.0013 because of continued options volume growth in 
2023 and noting in particular that March 2023 options volume was 
higher than any month in 2022); 98056 (August 4, 2023), 88 FR 54381 
(August 10, 2023) (SR-GEMX-2023-09) (reducing ORF rate from $0.0013 
to $0.0012); and 94065 (January 26, 2023), 87 FR 5548 (February 1, 
2022) (SR-Phlx-2022-03) (reducing ORF rate from $0.0042 to $0.0034).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange does not elaborate on the ``material 
portion'' of options regulatory expenses that it seeks to recover from 
the ORF and why the threshold it selected (i.e., that ORF will ``not 
exceed more than 75% of total annual regulatory costs'') correlates to 
the degree of regulatory responsibility and expenses borne by the 
Exchange as it relates to the regulation of customer options 
transactions.\37\ For example, the Exchange has not provided any 
quantifiable information to support its assertion that regulating 
customer trading activity is ``much more labor-intensive'' and 
therefore, more costly. The Exchange does not claim in its filing that 
its regulation of customer activity consumes 75% of total regulatory 
costs nor does it assert that customer activity requires a level of 
effort that occupies 75% of the regulatory department's attention. The 
Exchange does not sufficiently analyze how funding 75% of its total 
regulatory costs (including direct and indirect expenses) from ORF, 
e.g., constitutes an equitable allocation of reasonable fees among 
members, and it does not provide sufficient detail to allow the 
Commission and commenters to consider those issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 55796.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange has not provided specific or detailed 
information regarding the regulatory cost associated with monitoring 
and surveilling exchange activity compared to off exchange activity. In 
particular, the Exchange collects ORF on executions that do not occur 
on the Exchange. With a market share under 20% based on matched volume, 
that means that the Exchange seeks to collect ORF on the over 80% of 
executions that happen elsewhere.\38\ However, the Exchange has not 
provided information or analysis in its filing to support the 
collection of ORF on away activity. The proposed ORF rate is the same 
for on-exchange and off-exchange activity, so the proposal would result 
in the Exchange funding a very significant portion of its total 
regulatory costs from a fee charged on contracts that execute away from 
the Exchange. The Exchange does not provide a sufficiently detailed 
analysis or present specific facts to show the level of regulatory 
effort and regulatory costs it expends on contracts that execute on 
other exchanges. Without more information in the filing on the 
Exchange's regulatory revenues, regulatory costs, and regulatory 
activities to supervise and regulate members, specifically, e.g., 
customer versus non-customer activity and on-exchange versus off-
exchange activity, the proposal lacks specific information that can 
speak to whether the proposed

[[Page 68796]]

ORF is reasonable, equitably allocated, and not unfairly 
discriminatory, particularly given that the ORF is assessed only on 
transactions that clear in the ``customer'' range and regardless of the 
exchange on which the transaction occurs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Market share statistic as reported by the Exchange on 
September 26, 2023, available at https://www.cboe.com/us/options/market_statistics/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, the ``burden to 
demonstrate that a proposed rule change is consistent with the [Act] 
and the rules and regulations issued thereunder . . . is on the [SRO] 
that proposed the rule change.'' \39\ The description of a proposed 
rule change, its purpose and operation, its effect, and a legal 
analysis of its consistency with applicable requirements must all be 
sufficiently detailed and specific to support an affirmative Commission 
finding,\40\ and any failure of an SRO to provide this information may 
result in the Commission not having a sufficient basis to make an 
affirmative finding that a proposed rule change is consistent with the 
Act and the applicable rules and regulations.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 17 CFR 201.700(b)(3).
    \40\ See id.
    \41\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained above, the Exchange's statements in support of the 
proposed rule change are general in nature and lack detail and 
specificity. The Commission cannot unquestionably rely on an exchange's 
statements and representations.\42\ Instead, the Commission needs 
sufficient information to support independent findings that a proposal 
is consistent with the requirements of the Act.\43\ Here, such an 
analysis includes, among other things, whether the proposed ORF is an 
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other changes among 
the Exchange's members, as well as whether the proposed ORF is 
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See Susquehanna Int'l Grp., LLP v. SEC, 866 F.3d 442, 447 
(August 8, 2017).
    \43\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission needs additional information from the Exchange to 
demonstrate how the proposal meets those and other applicable 
requirements of the Act, to assess whether the Exchange has established 
a sufficient nexus between the proposed ORF and the Exchange's 
regulation of customer trading activity both on and off exchange. While 
the Commission broadly solicits comment from all interested parties on 
the proposal, the Commission believes that the Exchange alone has 
access to much of the specific detail necessary to fully address these 
questions and concerns because these matters involve qualitative and 
quantitative information about the Exchange's operations. Specifically, 
among other things, the Commission asks that commenters address the 
sufficiency of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal 
contained in the Notice.\44\ In particular, the Commission seeks 
comment on the following aspects of the proposal and asks commenters to 
submit data where appropriate to support their views:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See Notice, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Information on the Exchange's Projected Regulatory Costs and 
Revenues. The Exchange states that its proposed ORF rate increase is 
reasonable after considering recent options volume, coupled with its 
projected increase in regulatory costs and anticipated reduction in 
non-ORF regulatory fees. The Exchange notes that its regulatory costs 
include direct regulatory expenses and certain indirect expenses for 
work ``allocated in support of the regulatory function.'' \45\ 
According to the Exchange, indirect regulatory expenses (including, 
among other things, human resources, legal, compliance, information 
technology, facilities and accounting) are estimated to be 
approximately 30% of the Exchange's total regulatory costs for 2023 and 
direct regulatory expenses are estimated to be approximately 70% of the 
Exchange's total regulatory costs for 2023. The Exchange did not 
provide in the filing any further analysis regarding its projected 
regulatory cost increases, its anticipated non-ORF regulatory revenue 
decreases or in what way recent options volume was considered. Do 
commenters believe the Exchange has provided adequate detail regarding 
these metrics? If not, what additional information should be provided 
to demonstrate how the proposal is consistent with the Act? How have 
recent options volumes impacted the Exchange's regulatory expenses and 
revenues? How should the Commission consider the Exchange's proposal in 
light of recent proposals from other exchanges to reduce their ORF on 
account of increasing customer options volume placing them at risk of 
over-collecting ORF in excess of their regulatory expenses?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 55796.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Information on the Exchange's Imposition of ORF on Customer 
Orders. The Exchange states that it is its ``practice that revenue 
generated from ORF not exceed more that 75% of total annual regulatory 
costs.'' \46\ Do commenters believe that the Exchange has sufficiently 
analyzed and justified its proposal to fund 75% of its total regulatory 
expenses from a fee imposed only on options transactions clearing in 
the customer-range, where those expenses include the regulation of 
transactions that clear in the non-customer-range (e.g., broker-dealer 
and market maker trades)? In addition, explaining that the proposed ORF 
would be charged to ``all TPHs on all their transactions that clear in 
the customer-range at the OCC,'' the Exchange states that such 
methodology ``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.'' \47\ The Exchange further 
asserts that ``[r]egulating customer trading activity is much more 
labor intensive and requires greater expenditure of human and technical 
resources than regulating non-customer trading activity, which tends to 
be more automated and less labor-intensive.'' \48\ According to the 
Exchange, ``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 non-customer 
component (e.g., TPH proprietary transaction) of its regulatory 
program.'' \49\ Do commenters believe that the Exchange has provided 
sufficiently detailed quantitative and qualitative evidence in support 
of this aspect of its proposal? Specifically, examples of information 
that would be helpful to demonstrate how the assessment of ORF only on 
orders that clear in the customer-range correlates to the level of 
effort and costs the Exchange expends to regulate customer options 
transactions include: (a) the percentage of volume that clears in the 
customer-range both on and off the Exchange compared to the percentage 
of volume that clears in a range other than customer both on and off 
Exchange; (b) the percentage of the Exchange's regulatory budget 
attributable to the regulation of orders that clear in the customer-
range compared to the percentage of the Exchange's regulatory budget 
attributable to orders that clear in a range other than customer; (c) 
the percentage of the Exchange's regulatory level of effort 
attributable to the regulation of orders that clear in the customer-
range compared to the percentage of the Exchange's regulatory level 
effort attributable to orders that clear in a range other than 
customer; and (d) the proportion of the Exchange's revenues, as 
reported in the most recent

[[Page 68797]]

annual financials it submitted on Form 1, represented by ORF revenue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See id.
    \47\ See id. at 55797.
    \48\ See id.
    \49\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Information on the Exchange's Assessment of ORF on Away-Market 
Activity. The Exchange states that ``it has broad regulatory 
responsibilities with respect to TPHs' activities, irrespective of 
where their transactions take place.'' \50\ The Exchange therefore 
believes that it is appropriate to impose the ORF on ``all customer-
range transactions cleared by a TPH, even if the transactions do not 
take place on the Exchange.'' \51\ Do commenters believe that the 
Exchange has provided sufficiently detailed quantitative and 
qualitative evidence in support of how the assessment of ORF on away-
market transactions correlates to the effort it expends on regulating 
away-market transactions compared to the level of effort the Exchange 
invests in regulating transactions on Exchange? Specifically, examples 
of information that would be helpful to assess the application of the 
ORF to executions that do not occur on the Exchange include: (a) the 
percentage of the Exchange's overall regulatory budget attributable to 
the regulation of away-market transactions compared to the percentage 
of the Exchange's overall regulatory budget allocated to regulating on-
Exchange transactions; (b) the percentage of the Exchange's regulatory 
level of effort attributable to the regulation of away-market 
transactions compared to the percentage of the Exchange's regulatory 
level of effort attributable to the regulation of orders that execute 
on the Exchange; (c) the percentage of ORF revenue that is derived from 
away-market transactions compared to the percentage of ORF revenue that 
is derived from executions on the Exchange; and (d) more detail on the 
regulatory activities the exchange performs for trades that do not 
occur on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ See id.
    \51\ See id. at 55796.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Information on the Exchange's Regulatory Program Concerning 
Clearing Brokers. The Exchange states that ORF is collected on 
``customer'' range options transactions cleared by a CTPH regardless of 
the exchange on which the transaction occurs, including from a non-
CTPH.\52\ Do commenters believe that the Exchange has provided 
sufficiently detailed quantitative and qualitative evidence in support 
of this aspect of its proposal? Specifically, examples of information 
that would be helpful to provide context for the collection of ORF from 
member and non-member clearing brokers and determine whether a 
sufficient nexus exists between the ORF and the Exchange's regulation 
of CTPH clearing activity, include: (a) the percentage of the 
Exchange's regulatory expenses and level of regulatory activity that 
pertain to clearance and settlement activity and the percentage this 
accounts for with respect to the Exchange's overall regulatory costs 
and regulatory activity, and if that differs depending on whether the 
CTPH is an Exchange member or not and whether the contract executes on 
the Exchange or not; (b) the number of CTPHs compared to the number of 
non-CTPHs from which ORF is collected on behalf of the Exchange; and 
(c) the percentage of ORF revenues collected from member CTPHs compared 
to the percentage of ORF revenue collected from non-members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See id. at 55796.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional 
consideration and comment on the issues raised herein, including as to 
whether the proposed fees are consistent with the Act, and 
specifically, with the requirements that exchange fees be reasonable, 
equitably allocated, and not unfairly discriminatory.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5), and (8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Commission's Solicitation of Comments

    The Commission requests written views, data, and arguments with 
respect to the concerns identified above as well as any other relevant 
concerns. Such comments should be submitted by October 25, 2023. 
Rebuttal comments should be submitted by November 8, 2023. Although 
there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or 
disapproval which would be facilitated by an oral presentation of 
views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to 
Rule 19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral 
presentation.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). Section 19(b)(2) of the Act grants the 
Commission flexibility to determine what type of proceeding--either 
oral or notice and opportunity for written comments--is appropriate 
for consideration of a particular proposal by an SRO. See Securities 
Acts Amendments of 1975, Report of the Senate Committee on Banking, 
Housing and Urban Affairs to Accompany S. 249, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th 
Cong., 1st Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency and 
merit of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, in 
addition to any other comments they may wish to submit about the 
proposed rule change.
    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and 
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule 
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of 
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include 
file number SR-CBOE-2023-038 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-2023-038. This file 
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help 
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, 
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on 
the Commission's internet website (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all 
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are 
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to 
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other 
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the 
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and 
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, 
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of 10 
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for 
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not 
include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should 
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We 
may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted 
material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All 
submissions should refer to file number SR-CBOE-2023-038 and should be 
submitted on or before October 25, 2023. Rebuttal comments should be 
submitted by November 8, 2023.

VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the 
Act,\55\ that file number SR-CBOE-2023-038, be and hereby is, 
temporarily suspended. In addition, the Commission is instituting 
proceedings to determine whether the

[[Page 68798]]

proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57) and (58).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-21940 Filed 10-3-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P