Document ID: SEC-2020-0265-0001
Agency: sec
Document Type: Notice
Title: Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Cboe Exchange, Inc.
Posted Date: 2020-02-25T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 37 (Tuesday, February 25, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10760-10765]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-03646]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88243; File No. SR-CBOE-2020-011]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of 
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend 
the Fees Schedule

February 19, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given 
that on February 6, 2020, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or 
``Cboe Options'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission 
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, 
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The 
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the 
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance 
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's 
website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), 
at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's 
Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and 
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements 
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and 
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The 
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in 
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in 
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such 
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and 
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule to (1) amend 
certain SPX fees, (2) amend the standard transaction fee for Clearing 
Trading Permit Holder Proprietary orders in Underlying Symbol List A, 
(3) amend certain VIX fees, (4) adopt fee codes for waived linkage 
transactions, (5) re-adopt the Clearing Trading Permit Holder position 
re-assignment rebate, (6) clarify that Network Access Ports will be 
available for physical connections to PULSe through February 29, 2020, 
and (7) reduce the rebate under the GTH SPX/SPXW LLM program.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange initially filed the proposed fee changes on 
February 3, 2020 (SR-CBOE-2020-008). On February 4, 2020, the 
Exchange withdrew that filing and submitted SR-CBOE-2020-009. On 
February 6, 2020, the Exchange withdrew that filing and submitted 
this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SPX Fees
Standard Transaction Fees
    The Exchange first proposes to adopt modest fee increases for SPX 
and SPXW transactions. With respect to Customer orders (capacity ``C'') 
in SPX and SPXW, the Exchange proposes to increase transaction fees by 
$0.01 per contract. More specifically, the Exchange proposes to 
increase Customer transaction fees for SPX/SPXW orders with a premium 
of (1) $0.00-$0.10 and $0.11-$0.99 from $0.35 per contract to $0.36 per 
contract and (2) $1.00 or more from $0.44 per contract to $0.45 per 
contract. The Exchange next proposes to increase transaction fees for 
Broker-Dealer (capacity ``B''), Joint Back-Office (capacity ``J''), 
Non-Trading Permit Holder (``TPH'') Market-Maker (capacity ``N''), and 
Professional (capacity ``U'') orders in SPX and SPXW from $0.40 per 
contract to $0.42 \4\ per contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange proposes to adopt new fee code BT for Non-
Customer, Non-Market-Maker SPX and SPXW orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SPX Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale
    The Exchange proposes to amend its sliding scale for Market-Maker 
transaction fees in SPX and SPXW (``SPX Liquidity Provider Sliding 
Scale''). Currently, Market-Makers' transaction fees in SPX and SPXW 
are determined by their average monthly contracts in SPX and SPXW. The 
SPX Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale currently provides for five tiers. 
The Exchange proposes to increase the transaction fees under Tiers 4 
and 5 of the SPX Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale by $0.01 per contract 
(and thereby lessen the current discount). More specifically, the 
Exchange proposes to increase the transaction rate under Tier 4 \5\ 
from $0.22 per contract to $0.23 per contract, and the transaction rate 
under Tier 5 \6\ from $0.20 per contract to $0.21 per contract. The 
Exchange believes that

[[Page 10761]]

notwithstanding the proposed transaction fee increase under Tiers 4 and 
5, the SPX Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale will continue to provide 
incremental incentives for Market-Makers to reach the highest tier 
level and encourage trading of SPX options, as it continues to provide 
progressively lower rates if increased volume thresholds in SPX 
(including SPXW) options are attained during a month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The volume threshold for Tier 4 is 9.00%-$15.00%.
    \6\ The volume threshold for Tier 5 is above 15.00%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SPXW Execution Surcharge
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Execution Surcharge for SPXW 
(``SPXW Surcharge''). Currently, the Exchange assesses a SPXW Surcharge 
of $0.10 per contract for non-Market-Maker orders in SPXW that are 
executed electronically (with some exceptions).\7\ The Exchange 
proposes to increase the Execution Surcharge for SPXW to $0.13 per 
contract. The Exchange notes the proposed SPXW Surcharge is still less 
than the Execution Surcharge assessed for SPX transactions.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Cboe Options Fees Schedule, Footnote 21.
    \8\ See Cboe Options Fees Schedule, Rate Table--Underlying 
Symbol List A, Execution Surcharge, SPX only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SPX Index License Surcharge
    The Exchange proposes to increase the Index License Surcharge Fee 
for SPX (including SPXW) (the ``SPX Surcharge'') from $0.16 per 
contract to $0.17 per contract. The Exchange licenses from S&P Dow 
Jones Indices (``SPDJI'') (the ``SPDJI License'') the right to offer an 
index option product based on the S&P 500 index (that product being SPX 
and other SPX-based index option products). In order to offset the 
costs associated with the SPDJI License, the Exchange assesses the SPX 
Surcharge. The Exchange therefore proposes to increase the SPX 
Surcharge from $0.16 per contract to $0.17 per contract in order to 
offset more of the costs associated with the SPX license.
Clearing Trading Permit Holder Proprietary Fees
    The Exchange proposes to increase the standard transaction fee for 
Clearing Trading Permit Holders and for Non-Clearing Trading Permit 
Holder Affiliates (``Firms'') (capacities ``F'' and ``L'', 
respectively) in Underlying Symbol List A \9\ (excluding VIX) by $0.01. 
Specifically the Exchange proposes to increase the fee from $0.25 per 
contract to $0.26 per contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Underlying Symbol List A currently includes OEX, XEO, RUT, 
RLG, RLV, RUI, UKXM, SPX (includes SPXw) and VIX. See Cboe Options 
Fees Schedule, Footnote 34.
    \10\ The Exchange assesses $0.18 per contract for customer ETF 
orders that are >=100 contracts, and customer orders in multi-listed 
index products. See Cboe Options Fees Schedule, Rate Table--All 
Products Excluding Underlying Symbol List A.
    \11\ The Exchange does not assess a fee for customer ETF orders 
that are <100 contracts or for customer orders in equity options. 
See Cboe Options Fees Schedule, Rate Table--All Products Excluding 
Underlying Symbol List A.
    \12\ The Exchange assesses a $0.04 per contract fee for customer 
XSP orders. See Cboe Options Fees Schedule, Rate Table--All Products 
Excluding Underlying Symbol List A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIX Fees
    The Exchange next proposes to amend standard Customer (capacity 
``C'') transaction fees for VIX transactions. First the Exchange 
proposes to decrease certain VIX transaction fees, adopt separate fees 
for simple versus complex VIX transactions, and adopt a new fee for VIX 
orders with a premium of $2.00 or more, along with the noted fee codes, 
as follows:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                   Proposed
             Current premium                     Proposed premium            Current         Proposed simple fees     Fee code   complex fees   Fee code
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$0.00-$0.10..............................  $0.00-$0.10.................           $0.10  No change..................         CV          $0.05         CZ
$0.11-$0.99..............................  $0.11-$0.99.................            0.25  No change..................         CW           0.17       DA
Greater than $1.00.......................  $1.00-$1.99.................            0.45  $0.40......................         CX           0.30       DB
N/A......................................  $2.00 and above.............             N/A  $0.45......................         CY           0.45        DC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to reduce fees for Customer simple orders 
with a premium between $1.00-$1.99 to incentivize the sending of more 
orders within this premium range. Similarly, the Exchange proposes to 
adopt reduced fees for Customer complex VIX orders in order to 
encourage the sending of additional complex VIX orders. The Exchange 
did not believe it was necessary to assess different fees for simple 
and complex VIX orders with a premium of $2.00 or greater. The Exchange 
notes that Customer VIX orders with a premium of $2.00 or greater 
account for a very small percentage of overall VIX trading.
Linkage Waiver
    The Exchange proposes to adopt fee codes for linkage transactions 
for which away transaction fees are waived. More specifically, the 
Exchange currently provides that it will not pass through or otherwise 
charge customer orders (of any size) routed to other exchanges that 
were originally transmitted to the Exchange from the trading floor 
through an Exchange[hyphen]sponsored terminal (e.g. a PULSe 
Workstation). Currently, this waiver is implemented manually. Beginning 
February 3, 2020, this waiver will be automated and the Exchange 
therefore proposes to adopt specific fee codes for such transactions. 
Particularly, the Exchange proposes to adopt the following fee codes 
for customer orders (of any size) routed to other exchanges that were 
originally transmitted to the Exchange from the trading floor through 
an Exchange-sponsored terminal:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Fee Code                                              Rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TD........................  Routed to AMEX, BOX, BX,          \10\ $0.18
                             EDGX, MERC, MIAX, PHLX,
                             >=100 contracts, ETF.
TE........................  Routed to AMEX, BOX, BX,           \11\ 0.00
                             EDGX, MERC, MIAX, PHLX,
                             <100 contracts ETF, Equity.
TF........................  Routed to ARCA, BZX, C2,                0.18
                             ISE, GMNI, EMLD, PERL,
                             NOMX, >=100 contracts ETF,
                             Penny.
TG........................  Routed to ARCA, BZX, C2,                0.18
                             ISE, GMNI, EMLD, PERL,
                             NOMX, >=100 contracts ETF,
                             Non-Penny.
TH........................  Routed to ARCA, BZX, C2,                0.00
                             ISE, GMNI, EMLD, PERL,
                             NOMX, <100 contracts ETF,
                             Equity, Penny.
TI........................  Routed to ARCA, BZX, C2,                0.00
                             ISE, GMNI, EMLD, PERL,
                             NOMX, <100 contracts ETF,
                             Equity, Non-Penny.
TS........................  Routed, Index...............            0.18
TX........................  Routed, XSP, originating on        \12\ 0.04
                             Exchange-sponsored terminal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 10762]]

    The Exchange notes the proposed fee codes do not represent a 
substantive change, but are being adopted merely in light of the 
Exchange's automation of a current waiver.
Clearing Trading Permit Holder Position Re-Assignment Rebate
    The Exchange proposes to adopt a rebate for transaction fees 
assessed to a Clearing Trading Permit Holder who, as a result of a 
trade adjustment on any business day following the original trade, re-
assigns a position established by the initial trade to a different 
Clearing Trading Permit Holder. In such a circumstance, the Exchange 
will rebate, for the party for whom the position is being re-assigned, 
that party's transaction fees from the original transaction as well as 
the transaction in which the position is re-assigned. In all other 
circumstances, including corrective transactions, in which a 
transaction is adjusted on any day after the original trade date, 
regular Exchange fees will be assessed. The Exchange notes that the 
proposed rebate is not novel. Indeed, the Exchange's Fees Schedule had 
included the proposed rebate prior to the migration to a new billing 
system on October 7, 2019, but had eliminated the rebate upon 
migration.\13\ After further evaluation, the Exchange now wishes to re-
adopt the proposed rebate. The Exchange lastly notes that because the 
Exchange may not always be able to automatically identify these 
situations, in order to receive a rebate, the Fees Schedule will also 
provide that a written request in a form and manner prescribed by the 
Exchange must be submitted within 3 business days of the original 
transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 87303 (October 
15, 2019), 84 FR 56276 (October 21, 2019) (SR-CBOE-2019-080).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Network Access Ports
    By way of background, a physical port is utilized by a TPH or non-
TPH to connect to the Exchange at the data centers where the Exchange's 
servers are located. Prior to migration of its trading platform to a 
new system on October 7, 2019, the Exchange utilized Network Access 
Ports for these physical connections to the Exchange. Upon migration, 
the TPHs and non-TPHs had the option to alternatively elect to connect 
to Cboe Options via new latency equalized Physical Ports. The Exchange 
had noted in its Fees Schedule that through January 31, 2020, Cboe 
Options market participants would continue to have the ability to 
connect to Cboe Options' trading system via the current Network Access 
Ports. The Exchange notes that all Network Access Ports have been 
decommissioned as of January 31, 2020, with the exception of a couple 
Network Access Ports used solely to connect to PULSe. The Exchange 
notes that although the new latency equalized Physical Ports became 
available on October 7, 2019, the new Physical Ports were not 
originally able to be utilized to send orders to PULSe. Accordingly, 
users who wished to route orders to PULSe via the Exchange's physical 
ports had to maintain and use a legacy Network Access Fee Port and 
could not use any of the new Physical Ports for such purpose. The 
Exchange notes that although the new Physical Ports are now able to be 
used to connect to PULSe, a couple of TPHs have not yet made the 
transition from the Exchange's legacy Network Access Ports to the new 
Physical Ports for purposes of connecting to PULSe. As such, the 
Exchange proposes to amend the Fees Schedule to clarify that Network 
Access Ports will be available through February 29, 2020 to connect to 
PULSe. The fee waiver for Network Access Ports used solely to access 
PULSe will continue to remain in place.
GTH SPX/SPXW LMM Incentive Program
    Pursuant to the Fees Schedule, a LMM in SPX/SPXW will receive a 
pro-rata share of a compensation pool for SPX equal to $15,000 times 
the number of LMMs appointment in SPX and if the LMM meets the 
heightened quoting standard described below for SPXW, the LMM will 
receive an additional pro-rata share of a compensation pool for SPXW 
equal to $15,000 times the number of LMMs in that class (for a total of 
$30,000 per month for meeting the standard for both SPX and SPXW) if 
the LMM(s) provide continuous electronic quotes that meet or exceed the 
following heightened quoting standards in at least 99% of each of SPX 
and SPXW series 90% of the time in a given month during GTH:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Premium                                 Expiring                Near term               Mid term                Long term
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              7 days or less         8 days to 60 days      61 days to 270 days     271 days or greater
                          Level                          -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Width       Size        Width       Size        Width       Size        Width       Size
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$0-$5.00................................................       $0.50          10       $0.40          25       $0.60          15       $1.00          10
$5.01-$15.00............................................        2.00           7        1.60          18        2.40          11        4.00           7
$15.01-$50.00...........................................        5.00           5        4.00          13        6.00           8       10.00           5
$50.01-$100.00..........................................       10.00           3        8.00           8       12.00           5       20.00           3
$100.01-$200.00.........................................       20.00           2       16.00           5       24.00           3       40.00           2
Greater Than $200.00....................................       30.00           1       24.00           3       36.00           1       60.00           1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A GTH LMM in SPX/SPXW is not currently obligated to satisfy the 
heightened quoting standards described in the table above. Rather, an 
LMM is eligible to receive the rebate if they satisfy the heightened 
quoting standards above. The Exchange now proposes to amend the rebate 
available to LMM(s) under the program. Specifically, the Exchange 
proposes to eliminate the current compensation pool structure and 
reduce a straight rebate per product per LMM. More specifically, the 
Exchange proposes to provide that if a GTH SPX/SPXW LMM meets the 
proposed heightened quoting standard described above, it will receive 
$10,000 per product. As is the case today, SPX/SPXW GTH LMM(s) will 
still not be obligated to satisfy the amended heightened quoting 
standard. The Exchange believes the program, as amended, will continue 
to encourage SPX/SPXW GTH LMM(s) to provide liquidity in SPX/SPXW 
during GTH. Additionally, the Exchange notes that a SPX/SPXW GTH LMM 
may need to undertake expenses to be able to quote at a significantly 
heightened standard in SPX/SPXW, such as purchase more logical 
connectivity based on its increased capacity needs.

[[Page 10763]]

    The Exchange also proposes to eliminate (1) the example of how the 
compensation pool works as it is no longer necessary given the 
elimination of the compensation pool structure, and (2) obsolete 
language regarding how the program was billed for October 2019.
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.\14\ Specifically, the 
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the 
Section 6(b)(5) \15\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be 
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to 
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation 
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, 
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating 
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the 
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, 
in general, to protect investors and the public interest, and does not 
unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers. 
Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is 
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\16\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed increases to Customer SPX 
transaction fees are reasonable as the proposed increases are modest 
and modifies fees that have not been otherwise amended in well over 10 
years.\17\ The Exchange notes the proposed fees are also in line with 
customer transaction fees assessed in other index products.\18\ 
Similarly, the Exchange believes the proposed fee increase for Broker-
Dealer, Joint Back-Office, Non-TPH Market-Maker and Professional SPX/
SPX orders is reasonable as it too is a modest increase to a fee that 
has not been modified in over ten years.\19\ The Exchange notes the 
proposed fee is still in line with transaction fees assessed in other 
index products.\20\ The Exchange believes the proposed standard 
transaction fee increases are also equitable and not unfairly 
discriminatory because the changes apply to similarly situated market 
participants uniformly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55193 (January 30, 
2007) 72 FR 5476 (February 6, 2007) (SR-CBOE-2006-111) and 
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57191 (January 24, 2008) 73 FR 
5611 (January 30, 2008) (SR-CBOE-2007-150).
    \18\ See e.g., Cboe Options Fees Schedule, Rate Table--
Underlying Symbol List A, customer transaction fees.
    \19\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55193 (January 30, 
2007) 72 FR 5476 (February 6, 2007) (SR-CBOE-2006-111).
    \20\ See e.g., Cboe Options Fees Schedule, Rate Table--
Underlying Symbol List A, Broker-Dealer, Joint Back-Office, Non-TPH 
Market-Maker and Professional fees for RUT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed amendment to the discounted 
Market-Maker fees in Tiers 4 and 5 of the SPX Liquidity Provider 
Sliding Scale is reasonable because Market-Makers are still eligible to 
receive discounted fees for satisfying the corresponding criteria 
(albeit less of a discount). The Exchange believes that notwithstanding 
the proposed transaction fee increase under Tiers 4 and 5, the SPX 
Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale will continue to provide incremental 
incentives for Market-Makers to reach the highest tier level and 
encourage trading of SPX options, as it continues to provide 
progressively lower rates if increased volume thresholds in SPX 
(including SPXW) options are attained during a month. The Exchange also 
believes the rebates, as amended, are still commensurate with the 
difficultly level of satisfying the respective tier's criteria. The 
Exchange believes the proposed fee change is equitable and not unfairly 
discriminatory as it applies uniformly to all Market-Makers.
    The Exchange believes amending the Execution Surcharge for SPXW 
Surcharge is reasonable as such fee is still lower than the Execution 
Surcharge for SPX transactions.\21\ Additionally, the proposed increase 
helps to ensure that there is reasonable cost equivalence between the 
primary execution channels for SPXW. More specifically, the SPXW 
Surcharge was adopted to minimize the cost differentials between manual 
and electronic executions, which is in the interest of the Exchange as 
it must both maintain robust electronic systems as well as provide for 
economic opportunity for floor brokers to continue to conduct business, 
as they serve an important function in achieving price discovery and 
customer executions.\22\ The Exchange believes the proposed change is 
also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as it applies uniformly 
to all similarly situated market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Cboe Options Fees Schedule, Rate Table, Underlying 
Symbol List A, which provides for a $0.21 per contract Execution 
Surcharge for SPX orders.
    \22\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71295 (January 14, 
2014) 79 FR 3443 (January 21, 2014) (SR-CBOE-2013-129).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Increasing the SPX Surcharge is reasonable because the Exchange 
still pays more for the SPX license than the amount of the proposed SPX 
Surcharge (meaning that the Exchange is, and will still be, subsidizing 
the costs associated with the SPX license). This increase is equitable 
and not unfairly discriminatory because the increased amount will be 
assessed to all market participants to whom the SPX Surcharge applies.
    The Exchange believes the proposed increase to the standard Firm 
transaction fee in Underlying Symbol List A (excluding VIX) orders is 
reasonable as the proposed increase is modest and modifies a fee that 
has not been amended in over 9 years.\23\ The Exchange notes the 
proposed fees are also in line with customer transaction fees assessed 
in other index products.\24\ The Exchange also notes that Firms 
continue to have an opportunity to earn a discounted fee via the 
Clearing Trading Permit Holder Proprietary Products Sliding Scale. The 
Exchange believes the proposed fee increase is also equitable and not 
unfairly discriminatory because the change applies to Firms uniformly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63701 (January 11, 
2011) 76 FR 2934 (January 18, 2011) (SR-CBOE-2010-116).
    \24\ See, e.g., Cboe Options Fees Schedule, Rate Table--
Underlying Symbol List A, customer transaction fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange next believes its proposed change to reduce certain 
VIX transaction fees is reasonable as Customers will be paying lower 
fees for such transactions. The Exchange notes the proposed changes to 
VIX Customer transaction fees are designed to encourage the sending of 
additional VIX orders, including complex orders. The Exchange notes the 
proposed change is also in line with other fee programs that are 
designed to incentivize the sending of complex orders to the Exchange. 
For example, the Exchange provides higher rebates under the Volume 
Incentive Program for complex orders as compared to simple orders.\25\ 
The Exchange believes the proposed fee changes are also equitable and 
not unfairly discriminatory because they apply to all Customers 
uniformly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Cboe Options Fees Schedule, Volume Incentive Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes adopting fee codes for waived linkage 
transactions is reasonable and equitable because the Exchange believes 
such fee codes provide further clarity in the Fees

[[Page 10764]]

Schedule and the fee codes do not amend the current linkage fees or fee 
waiver. Rather, the Exchange is merely adopting fee codes in light of 
the transition from manual processing of the current linkage waiver to 
automated processing. Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed 
fee codes allow TPHs to more easily validate the bills they receive 
from the Exchange, thus alleviating potential confusion.
    The Exchange believes it is reasonable to offer a rebate when a 
Clearing Trading Permit Holder re-assigns a position, as the Clearing 
Trading Permit Holder may not have elected to take that position in the 
first place (and may just have been erroneously listed as a party to 
the transaction). The Exchange believes that this change is equitable 
and not unfairly discriminatory for the same reason; it is equitable to 
rebate fees to a Clearing Trading Permit Holder that was assessed fees 
for taking a position from a transaction to which that Clearing Trading 
Permit Holder was not a party. Otherwise, the Exchange believes it is 
equitable for a party that made an error reporting a transaction to be 
responsible for paying the fees associated with making that error. 
Further, the proposed changes will apply equally to all market 
participants. The Exchange also notes that the proposed rebate is not 
novel. Indeed, the Exchange's Fees Schedule had included the proposed 
rebate prior to the migration to a new billing system on October 7, 
2019, but had eliminated the rebate upon migration.\26\ After further 
evaluation, the Exchange now wishes to re-adopt the proposed rebate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 87303 (October 
15, 2019), 84 FR 56276 (October 21, 2019) (SR-CBOE-2019-080).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposal to allow TPHs to continue to 
utilize legacy Network Access Ports through February 29, 2020 is 
reasonable as a few TPHs have not yet been able to transition from the 
Network Access Ports to the new Physical Ports with respect to their 
connection to PULSe. Any remaining Network Access ports would be 
configured to only allow routing of orders to PULSe, The Exchange 
believes updating the notes section for Network Access Ports provides 
further clarity in the rules as to the availability of such ports. The 
Exchange believes its proposal to eliminate obsolete language in the 
notes section of the Network Access Ports also alleviates potential 
confusion.
    The Exchange believes the amount of the amended rebate for SPX/SPXW 
GTH LMMs ($10,000 per product) is reasonable because it continues to 
provide a rebate (albeit a reduced rebate) for meeting the heightened 
quoting standard and takes into consideration additional costs an LMM 
may incur. Particularly, the Exchange believes the proposed amount is 
such that it will still incentivize an appointed LMM to meet the GTH 
quoting standards for SPX and SPXW, thereby protecting investors and 
the public interest. Additionally, if an LMM does not satisfy the 
heightened quoting standard, then it will simply not receive the 
rebate. The Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly 
discriminatory to only offer the rebate to SPX/SPXW LMMs because GTH 
LMMs provide a crucial role in providing quotes and the opportunity for 
market participants to trade during GTH, which can lead to increased 
volume, thereby providing a robust market. The Exchange also notes that 
the GTH LMM may have added costs each month that it needs to undertake 
in order to satisfy that heightened quoting standard (e.g., having to 
purchase additional logical connectivity).

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will 
impose any burden on intramarket or intermarket competition that is not 
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 
First, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change does impose any 
burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate 
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Particularly, the proposed 
changes as described above apply to all similarly situated TPHs in a 
uniform manner. Additionally, 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, Market-Makers, including Lead Market-Makers 
play a crucial role in providing active and liquid markets in their 
appointed products, thereby providing a robust market which benefits 
all market participants. Such Market-Makers also have obligations and 
regulatory requirements that other participants do not have. There is 
also 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 Exchange fees and rebates, both current and those proposed 
to be changed, are intended to encourage market participants to bring 
increased volume to the Exchange (which benefits all market 
participants), while still covering Exchange costs (including those 
associated with the upgrading and maintenance of Exchange systems).
    Next, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not 
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or 
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. First, changes 
relating to the Exchange's proprietary products only affect trading on 
Cboe Options, as such products are exclusively listed on Cboe Options. 
Next, the Exchange notes it operates in a highly competitive market. In 
addition to Cboe Options, TPHs have numerous alternative venues that 
they may participate on and director their order flow, including 15 
options exchanges, as well as off-exchange venues. Based on publicly 
available information, no single options exchange has more than 22% of 
the market share of executed volume of options trades.\27\ Therefore, 
no exchange possesses significant pricing power in the execution of 
option order flow. Moreover, the Commission has repeatedly expressed 
its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in 
determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. 
Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the 
importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, 
also, recognized that current regulation of the market system ``has 
been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its 
broader forms that are most important to investors and listed 
companies.'' \28\ The fact that this market is competitive has also 
long been recognized by the courts. In NetCoalition v. Securities and 
Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit stated as follows: ``[n]o one 
disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC 
explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of 
securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing 
agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for 
execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share 
percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly, 
regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker

[[Page 10765]]

dealers'. . . .''.\29\ Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe its 
proposed changes to extend the above-mentioned fee waivers and 
incentive programs impose any burden on competition that is not 
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Cboe Global Markets, U.S. Options Market Volume Summary 
by Month (February 3, 2020) available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/options/market_share/.
    \28\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
    \29\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010) 
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2, 
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-
21).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed 
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the 
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for 
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \30\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \31\ 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \31\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and 
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule 
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of 
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to rule-comments@sec.gov. Please include 
File Number SR-CBOE-2020-011 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities 
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2020-011. This file 
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help 
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, 
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on 
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). 
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written 
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with 
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed 
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those 
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions 
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in 
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection 
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments 
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are 
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying 
information from comment submissions. You should submit only 
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions 
should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2020-011 and should be submitted on 
or before March 17, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\32\
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-03646 Filed 2-24-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P