[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 39 (Wednesday, February 27, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6445-6450]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-03332]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-85169; File No. SR-CBOE-2019-012]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating
To Amend its Fees Schedule
February 21, 2019.
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 11, 2019, 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
Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe Options'') proposes
to amend its fees schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is
provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also 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.
[[Page 6446]]
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 make a number of changes to its Fees
Schedule, effective February 1, 2019.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Exchange initially filed the proposed fee changes on
February 1, 2019 (SR-CBOE-2019-009). On business date February 4,
2019, the Exchange withdrew that filing and submitted SR-CBOE-2019-
010. On business date February 11, 2019, the Exchange withdrew that
filing and submitted this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volume Incentive Program
The Exchange first proposes to amend the Volume Incentive Program
(``VIP''). By way of background, under VIP, the Exchange credits each
Trading Permit Holder (``TPH'') the per contract amount set forth in
the VIP table for Public Customer orders (``C'' origin code)
transmitted by that TPH (with certain exceptions) which is executed
electronically on the Exchange, provided the TPH meets certain volume
thresholds in a month.\4\ The Exchange proposes to amend the volume
thresholds for Tiers 4 and 5. The proposed change is as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Cboe Options Fees Schedule, Volume Incentive Program.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage Thresholds of National
Customer Volume in All Underlying
Symbols Excluding Underlying Symbol
List A, Sector Indexes, DJX, MXEA,
Tier MXEF, MNX, NDX, XSP and XSPAM
(Monthly)
---------------------------------------
Current Proposed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................... 0.00%-0.75%....... No change.
2............................... Above 0.75% to No change.
2.00%.
3............................... Above 2.00% to No change.
3.00%.
4............................... Above 3.00% to Above 3.00% to
4.00%. 3.75%.
5............................... Above 4.00%....... Above 3.75%.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The purpose of these changes is to adjust for current volume trends
while maintaining an incremental incentive for TPHs to strive for the
highest tier level.
RUT Transaction Fee
The Exchange next proposes to increase the transaction fee for
Market-Maker orders in RUT options. Currently, the Exchange charges
$0.20 per contract for Market-Makers' RUT orders. The Exchange proposes
to increase the transaction rate to $0.30 per contract. The Exchange
notes the proposed rate change is less than the amount assessed for
similar transactions on another Exchange and is also similar to Market-
Maker fees assessed for other proprietary products.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Cboe BZX Fees Schedule. See also Cboe Options Fees
Schedule, SPX Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ETF and ETN Options Transaction Fee
The Exchange proposes to amend the fees for electronic Customer
orders (origin code ``C'') for ETF and ETN options. Currently the
Exchange waives transaction fees for (1) all customer orders executed
in open outcry or AIM, and (2) customer electronic executions of 249
contracts or less in ETF and ETN options in Penny and Non-Penny
classes. The Exchange proposes to amend the transaction fee for
Customer electronic executions in ETF and ETN options such that it will
waive the transaction fees for all Customer electronic executions that
add liquidity (i.e., ``Maker'' transactions). The Exchange will charge
$0.18 per contract on all Customer electronic executions if the
original order size is 100 contracts or greater and if it removes
liquidity (i.e., ``Taker'' transactions) in ETF and ETN options.
The Exchange also proposes to amend Footnote 9 to make
corresponding changes to the footnote text regarding the proposed
change described above and also explicitly make clear what transactions
the Exchange would consider to be Maker (and therefore have no fees
assessed) and Taker (and therefore be assessed $0.18 per contract, if
equal to or greater than 100 contracts). Particularly, the Exchange
proposes to provide that the Taker fee applies to electronic volume
only, but is not applied to the following: (i) Trades on the open and
(ii) QCC orders. The Taker fees would apply to the following volume:
(i) Volume resulting from a Customer's orders and/or quotes removing
other market participants' resting orders and/or quotes and (ii) volume
resulting from a Customer's primary orders in (i) unpaired auctions
(i.e., Hybrid Agency Liaison (``HAL'') and HAL on the Open (``HALO''))
and (ii) Complex Order Auction (COA)). The Maker fee waiver would apply
to the following volume: (i) Volume resulting from executions against a
Customer's resting orders and/or quotes and (ii) volume resulting from
a Customer's responses to auctions (i.e., HAL, HALO and COA responses).
The Exchange notes it similarly has clarified what volume is considered
Taker versus Maker in Footnote 44 of the Fees Schedule which relates to
the Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale Adjustment Table.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Cboe Options Fees Schedule, Footnote 44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPXW Priority Surcharge
The Exchange proposes to amend the Customer Priority Surcharge for
SPXW (``SPXW Surcharge''). Currently, the Exchange assesses a SPXW
Surcharge of $0.10 per contract for Customer orders in SPXW that are
executed electronically (with some exceptions).\7\ The Exchange
proposes to extend the SPXW Surcharge to all market participants other
than Market-Makers, which aligns its applicability to the same market
participants as the SPX Hybrid Execution Surcharge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Cboe Options Fees Schedule, Footnote 31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In connection with the proposed change, and in order to make the
Fees Schedule easier to read, the Exchange proposes to relocate the
SPXW Surcharge to its own line item grouped together with the SPX
Hybrid Execution Surcharge and rename the SPX Hybrid Execution
Surcharge, such that both
[[Page 6447]]
surcharges will be grouped together as the ``Execution Surcharge'' (one
for SPX and one for SPXW). The Exchange also proposes to (i) update
Footnote 31 of the Fees Schedule, which is currently appended to the
SPXW Surcharge, to eliminate references to the SPXW Customer Priority
Surcharge and (ii) in its place, append Footnote 21 to the SPXW
surcharge (and add references to ``SPXW Execution Surcharge'' in
Footnote 21). The Exchange also proposes to amend Footnote 21 to
eliminate the second and third surcharge exemptions listed relating to
Market-Maker transactions. Particularly, Footnote 21 provides, among
other things, that the SPX Execution Surcharge will not apply to (i)
executions by Market-Makers against orders in the complex order auction
(COA) and Simple Auction Liaison (SAL) systems in their appointed
classes and (ii) executions by Market-Makers against orders in the
electronic book, Hybrid Agency Liaison (HAL) and the complex order book
in their appointed classes. The Exchange notes that since neither the
SPX Execution Surcharge nor SPXW Execution Surcharge, even as amended,
apply to Market-Maker orders, this language is moot and obsolete. The
Exchange therefore proposes to eliminate it from the Fees Schedule to
avoid confusion. The Exchange notes that the remaining two exemptions
set forth under Footnote 21 of the Fees Schedule currently apply to
both the SPX and SPXW Execution Surcharges.
Supplemental VIX Total Firm Discount
The Exchange next proposes to eliminate its Supplemental VIX Total
Firm Volume Discount (``Supplemental VIX Discount''). The Supplemental
VIX Discount allows VIX options transaction fees for Clearing TPHs'
(including its Non-TPH Affiliates) proprietary orders to be discounted
provided a Clearing TPH reaches certain VIX firm volume percentage
thresholds during a calendar month. The Exchange no longer wishes to
offer the Supplement VIX Discount program and therefore proposes to
eliminate it from its Fees Schedule.
Trading Permits Sliding Scale Program
The Exchange proposes to amend its Market Maker and Floor Broker
Trading Permit Sliding Scale Programs (``TP Sliding Scales''). The TP
Sliding Scales allow Market Makers and Floor Brokers to pay reduced
rates for their Trading Permits if they commit in advance to a specific
tier that includes a minimum number of eligible Market Maker and Floor
Broker Trading Permits, respectively, for each calendar year. The
Exchange notes that in October 2019, it is migrating the current Cboe
Options trading platform onto new technology and in connection with
such migration, is anticipating a new Trading Permit structure. As
such, the Exchange proposes to provide that any commitment to Trading
Permits under the TP Sliding Scales shall be in place through September
2019, instead of the calendar year, and proposes to update Footnotes 24
and 25 accordingly.
Facility Fees
The Exchange next proposes to amend certain facility fees. First,
the Exchange proposes to increase fees for access badges. Currently,
the Exchange charges $120 per Floor Manager Badge and $60 per Clerk
Badge. The Exchange proposes to increase the Floor Manager Badge to
$130 per badge and the Clerk Badge to $70 per badge. The Exchange notes
these fees have not been raised in several years. The Exchange also
proposes to eliminate the following Badge-related fees which are
assessed per occurrence: Badge Issuance, Replacement Badge, Unreturned
Security Access Badge, Temporary Badge--Non Trading Permit Holder,
Temporary Badge--Trading Permit Holder, and Unreturned Temporary Badge.
The Exchange is also proposing to eliminate the fees relating to
coat room services, as such service will be eliminated as of February
1, 2019. Particularly, the $25 per month for Coat Room Checking and $15
per Occurrence for Lost or Damaged Trading Jackets fees will be
eliminated.
VIX and Sector License Index Surcharge
The Exchange proposes to extend the current waiver of the VIX and
Sector Index License Surcharge of $0.10 per contract for Clearing
Trading Permit Holder Proprietary (``Firm'') (origin codes ``F'' or
``L'') VIX and Sector Index orders that have a premium of $0.10 or
lower and have series with an expiration of seven (7) calendar days or
less. The Exchange adopted the current waiver to reduce transaction
costs on expiring, low-priced VIX options as well as Sector Index
options, which the Exchange believed would encourage Firms to seek to
close and/or roll over such positions, including facilitating customers
to do so, in order to free up capital and encourage additional trading.
The Exchange had proposed to waive the surcharge through December 31,
2018, at which time the Exchange had stated that it would evaluate
whether the waiver has in fact prompted Firms to close and roll over
these positions as intended. The Exchange believes the waiver
encourages Firms to do so and as such, proposes to renew the waiver of
the surcharge through June 30, 2019, at which time the Exchange will
again reevaluate whether the waiver has continued to prompt Firms to
close and roll over these positions. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes
to delete the reference to the current waiver period of December 31,
2018 from the Fees Schedule and replace it with June 30, 2019.
Global Trading Hour Fees
In order to promote and encourage trading during the Global Trading
Hours (``GTH'') session, the Exchange previously waived GTH 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. The Exchange notes that waiver expired December 31, 2018. The
Exchange also waived fees through December 31, 2018 for a CMI and FIX
login ID if the CMI and/or FIX login ID is related to a waived GTH
Trading Permit and/or waived Bandwidth packet. In order to continue to
promote trading during GTH, the Exchange wishes to renew these waivers
through June 30, 2019.
RLG, RLV, RUI, AWDE, FTEM, FXTM and UKXM Transaction Fees
In order to promote and encourage trading of seven FTSE Russell
Index products (i.e., Russell 1000 Growth Index (``RLG''), Russell 1000
Value Index (``RLV''), Russell 1000 Index (``RUI''), FTSE Developed
Europe Index (``AWDE''), FTSE Emerging Markets Index (``FTEM''), China
50 Index ``(FXTM'') and FTSE 100 Index (``UKXM'')), the Exchange had
waived all transaction fees (including the Floor Brokerage Fee, Index
License Surcharge and CFLEX Surcharge Fee) for each of these products.
This waiver expired December 31, 2018. To continue promoting the
trading of these options classes, the Exchange proposes to renew the
fee waiver through June 30, 2019.
UKXM DPM Payment
The Exchange previously offered a compensation plan to the
Designated Primary Market-Maker(s) (``DPM(s)'') appointed in UKXM to
offset its DPM costs. Specifically, the Fees Schedule provides that
DPM(s) appointed for an entire month in UKXM will receive a payment of
$5,000 per month, through December 31, 2018. The Exchange proposes to
renew the compensation plan through June 30, 2019 to continue to
incentivize the DPM(s) to continue to serve as a DPM in this product.
[[Page 6448]]
Footnote 42 References
The Exchange lastly proposes to delete all appended references to
Footnote 42. The Exchange notes that effective, July 2, 2018, the
Exchange eliminated the FLEX Asian & Cliquet FLEX Trader Incentive
Program, which program was described in Footnote 42 of the Fees
Schedule.\8\ Although, the program was eliminated (along with the
contents of Footnote 42), the Exchange inadvertently omitted to delete
appended references to Footnote 42 in the Fees Schedule. The Exchange
proposes to correct that oversight and delete such references, which
will avoid potential confusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83587 (July 3,
2018), 83 FR 31810 (July 9, 2018) (SR-CBOE-2018-051).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.\9\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \10\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\11\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
\10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
\11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, the Exchange believes adjusting the VIP volume thresholds
for Tiers 4 and 5 is reasonable because it adjusts for the current
volume trends and makes it slightly easier for TPHs to meet the
qualifying criteria to achieve the highest tier, Tier 5. The Exchange
also notes that the credits offered under VIP are not changing. Rather,
the rebalance of tiers still allows the Exchange to maintain an
incremental incentive for TPHs to strive for the highest tier level,
which provides increasingly higher credits. The Exchange believes it is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed changes
to the qualifying volume thresholds apply to all TPHs uniformly.
The Exchange believes increasing the fee for Market-Maker
executions in RUT is reasonable because the proposed rate change is
less than the amount assessed for similar transactions on another
Exchange and is also similar to Market-Maker fees assessed for other
proprietary products.\12\ The Exchange believes that this proposed
change is also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the
proposed changes will apply equally to all Market-Makers uniformly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Cboe BZX Fees Schedule. See also Cboe Options Fees
Schedule, SPX Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change to waive fees for
Customer electronic executions in ETF and ETN options that add
liquidity, but assess $0.18 per contract for such executions that
remove liquidity and are of an order size of 100 contracts or greater,
is reasonable because Customers will pay nothing for these executions
where they add liquidity and will be paying the same rate as is
currently provided for under the fees schedule (i.e., $0.18 per
contract) when they remove liquidity. The Exchange believes the
proposed rule change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because the proposed rule change applies to all Customers equally.
Additionally, the proposed rule change is designed to encourage posted
liquidity to the Exchange. Particularly, the Exchange believes it's
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess this fee for orders
that remove liquidity and not orders that add liquidity because the
Exchange wants to encourage market participation and price improvement.
The Exchange believes the proposed updates to Footnote 9 provide
clarity in the Fees Schedule and alleviates potential confusion as to
what volume would be considered ``Taker'' vs ``Maker'' for purposes of
this fee. The alleviation of confusion removes impediments to and
perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, protects investors and the public interest.
The Exchange believes extending the applicability of the SPXW
Execution Surcharge to all market participants other than Market-Makers
is reasonable as it aligns the applicability of the surcharge to the
same market participants subject to the SPX Hybrid Execution Surcharge
and because the surcharge amount is not changing. The Exchange believes
it's equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to apply the SPXW
Execution Surcharge to all market participants other than Market-Makers
because Market-Makers, unlike other market participants, take on a
number of obligations, including quoting obligations, that other market
participants do not have. The Exchange believes the proposed updates to
Footnotes 21 and 31 in connection with the proposed SPXW Execution
Surcharge change provides clarity in the Fees Schedule and alleviates
potential confusion, thereby removing impediments to and perfecting the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, protecting investors and the public interest.
The Exchange believes it's reasonable to eliminate the Supplemental
VIX Discount because it is not required to provide such a discount.
Additionally, the Exchange notes that Clearing TPHs have other
opportunities to obtain a discount on VIX executions, such as via the
Cboe Proprietary Product Sliding Scale programs. The Exchange believes
it's equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it applies
uniformly to all Clearing TPHs.
The Exchange believes amending the TP Sliding Scales to provide
that any commitment to Trading Permits under the TP Sliding Scales
shall be in place through September 2019, instead of the calendar year,
is reasonable because the discounted Trading Permit rates and tier
levels are not changing. The Exchange believes this proposed rule
change is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because, as discussed above, the Exchange anticipates modifying the
current Trading Permit structure upon the migration of its trading
system in October 2019. The Exchange notes that through September 2019,
Floor Brokers and Market-Makers are still eligible to take advantage of
these sliding scale programs, which offer discounts on Trading Permits.
Additionally, the proposed rule change applies to all Markets-Makers
and Floor Brokers uniformly.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change to eliminate per
occurrence badge issuance fees and coat room services fees are
reasonable as TPHs will no longer be subject to these fees.
Additionally, with respect to the coat room service fees, the Exchange
notes such services will be eliminated as of February 1, 2019.
Additionally, the proposed elimination applies to all TPHs. The
Exchange believes the proposed increases to the Floor Manager and Clerk
Badge fees are reasonable
[[Page 6449]]
because they are a moderate increase, these fees have not been
increased in several years, and other badge-related fees are being
eliminated. Additionally the proposed fee increases applies to all TPHs
who need to avail themselves of these badges.
The Exchange believes it's appropriate to continue to waive the VIX
and Sector Index License Surcharge for Clearing Trading Permit Holder
Proprietary Sector Index and VIX orders that have a premium of $0.10 or
lower and have series with an expiration of 7 calendar days or less
because the Exchange wants to continue encouraging Firms to roll and
close over these positions. Particularly, the Exchange believes it's
reasonable to waive the entire $0.10 per contract surcharge because
without the waiver of the surcharge, firms are less likely to engage in
these transactions, as opposed to other VIX and Sector Index
transactions, due to the associated transaction costs. The Exchange
believes it's equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to limit the
waiver to Clearing Trading Permit Holder Proprietary orders because
they contribute capital to facilitate the execution of Sector Index
customer orders and VIX customer orders with a premium of $0.10 or
lower and series with an expiration of 7 calendar days or less.
Finally, the Exchange believes it's reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory to provide that the surcharge will be waived
through June 30, 2019, as it gives the Exchange additional time to
evaluate if the waiver is continuing to have the desired effect of
encouraging these transactions.
The Exchange believes renewing the waiver of GTH Trading Permit and
Bandwidth Packet fees for one of each type of Trading Permit and
Bandwidth Packet, per affiliated TPH through June 30, 2019 is
reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory, because those
respective fees would be waived in their entirety, which promotes and
encourages trading during the GTH session and applies to all GTH TPHs.
The Exchange believes it's also 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
ongoing participation in GTH and also applies to all GTH TPHs.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to renew the waiver of all transaction fees for RLG,
RLV, RUI, AWDE, FTEM, FXTM and UKXM transactions, including the Floor
Brokerage fee, the License Index Surcharge and CFLEX Surcharge Fee,
because the respective fees are being waived in their entirety, which
promotes and encourages trading of these products which are still
relatively new and applies to all TPHs.
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory to renew the compensation plan to the DPM
appointed in UKXM to continue to offset its ongoing DPM costs and
continue to incentivize the DPM to continue to serve as a DPM in this
product.
Lastly, the Exchange believes eliminating references to Footnote 42
(which footnote does not currently contain any language and is
obsolete) alleviates potential confusion. The alleviation of confusion
removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general, protects
investors and the public interest.
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 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 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).
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
proposed changes are intended to promote competition and better improve
the Exchange's competitive position and make Cboe Options a more
attractive marketplace in order to encourage market participants to
bring increased volume to the Exchange (while still covering costs as
necessary). Further, the proposed changes only affect trading on the
Exchange. To the extent that the proposed changes make Cboe Options a
more attractive marketplace for market participants at other exchanges,
such market participants are welcome to become Cboe Options 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 \13\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \14\
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
\14\ 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 [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2019-012 on the subject line.
[[Page 6450]]
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-2019-012. 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-2019-012 and should be submitted on
or before March 20, 2019.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-03332 Filed 2-26-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P