[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 8, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8325-8329]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-02602]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-96793; File No. SR-CBOE-2023-008]


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

February 2, 2023.
    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 January 20, 2023, 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.

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 modify the fee 
for the SPX (and SPXW) Floor Market-Maker Tier Appointment Fee.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange initially filed the proposed fee change, among 
other changes, on June 1, 2022 (SR-CBOE-2022-026). On June 10, 2022, 
the Exchange withdrew that filing and submitted SR-CBOE-2022-029. On 
August 5, 2022, the Exchange withdrew that filing and submitted SR-
CBOE-2022-042. On September 26, 2022, the Exchange withdrew that 
filing and submitted SR-CBOE-2022-050 to address the proposed fee 
change relating to the SPX/SPXW Floor Market-Maker Tier Appointment 
Fee. On November 23, 2022, the Exchange advised of its intent to 
withdraw that filing and submitted SR-CBOE-2022-060. On January 20, 
2023, the Exchange withdrew SR-CBOE-2022-060 and submitted this 
filing. No comment letters were received in connection with any of 
the foregoing rule filings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By way of background, Exchange Rule 5.50(g)(2) provides that the 
Exchange may establish one or more types of tier appointments and 
Exchange Rule 5.50(g)(2)(B) provides such tier appointments are subject 
to such fees and charges the Exchange may establish. In 2010, the 
Exchange established the SPX Tier Appointment and adopted an initial 
fee of $3,000 per Market-Maker trading permit, per month.\4\ The SPX 
(and SPXW) Tier Appointment fee for Floor Market-Makers currently 
applies to any Market-Maker that executes any contracts in SPX and/or 
SPXW on the trading floor.\5\ The Exchange now seeks to increase the 
fee for the SPX/SPXW Floor Market-Maker Tier Appointment from $3,000 
per Market-Maker Floor Trading Permit to $5,000 per Market-Maker Floor 
Trading Permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62386 (June 25, 
2010), 75 FR 38566 (July 2, 2010) (SR-CBOE-2010-060).
    \5\ The Exchange notes that the fee is not assessed to a Market-
Maker Floor Permit Holder who only executes SPX (including SPXW) 
options transactions as part of multi-class broad-based index spread 
transactions. See Cboe Options Fees Schedule, Market-Maker Tier 
Appointment Fees, Notes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In connection with the proposed change, the Exchange also proposes 
to update Footnote 24 in the Fees Schedule, as well as remove the 
reference to Footnote 24 in the Market-Maker Tier Appointment Fee 
Table. By way of background, in June 2020, the Exchange adopted 
Footnote 24 to describe pricing changes that would apply for the 
duration of time the Exchange trading floor was being operated in a 
modified manner in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic.\6\ Among 
other changes, Footnote 24 provided that the monthly fee for the SPX/
SPXW Floor Market-Maker Tier Appointment Fee was to be increased to 
$5,000 per Trading Permit from $3,000 per Trading Permit. As the 
Exchange now proposes to maintain the $5,000 rate on a permanent basis 
(i.e., regardless of whether the Exchange is operating in a modified 
state due to COVID-19 pandemic), the Exchange proposes to eliminate the 
reference to the SPX/SPXW Floor Market-Maker Tier Appointment Fee in 
Footnote 24.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89189 (June 30, 
2020), 85 FR 40344 (July 6, 2020) (SR-CBOE-2020-058).
    \7\ The Exchange notes that since its transition to a new 
trading floor facility on June 6, 2022, it has not been operating in 
a modified manner. As such Footnote 24 (i.e., the modified fee 
changes it describes) does not currently apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.\8\ Specifically, the 
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the 
Section 6(b)(5) \9\ 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 the 
Section 6(b)(5) \10\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be 
designed

[[Page 8326]]

to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or 
dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment. The SEC 
Division of Trading and Markets' Fee Guidance provides that in 
determining whether a proposed fee is constrained by significant 
competitive forces, the Commission will consider whether there are 
reasonable substitutes for the product or service that is the subject 
of a proposed fee.\11\ As described in further detail below, the 
Exchange believes substitutable products are in fact available to 
market participants, including in the Over-the-Counter (OTC) markets. 
Indeed, there are currently 16 registered options exchanges that trade 
options, with a 17th options exchange expected to launch in 2023. Based 
on publicly available information, no single options exchange has more 
than 17% of the market share as of January 19, 2023.\12\ Further, low 
barriers to entry mean that new exchanges may rapidly and inexpensively 
enter the market and offer additional substitute platforms to further 
compete with the Exchange and the products it offers, including 
exclusively listed products as discussed further below. For example, 
there are 3 exchanges that have been added in the U.S. options markets 
in the last 5 years (i.e., Nasdaq MRX, LLC, MIAX Pearl, LLC, and MIAX 
Emerald LLC) and one additional options exchange that is expected to 
launch in 2023 (i.e., MEMX LLC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Chairman Jay Clayton, Statement on Division of Trading 
and Markets Staff Fee Guidance, June 12, 2019.
    \12\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Options Market Volume Summary 
(January 19, 2023), available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/options/market_statistics/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that competition in the marketplace 
constrains the ability of exchanges to charge supracompetitive fees for 
access to its products exclusive to that market (``proprietary 
products''). Notably, just as there is no regulatory requirement to 
become a member of any one options exchange, there is also no 
regulatory requirement for any market participant to participate on the 
Exchange in any particular capacity nor trade any particular product. 
Additionally, there is no requirement that any Exchange create or 
indefinitely maintain any particular product.\13\ The Exchange also 
highlights that market participants may trade an exchange's proprietary 
products through a third-party without directly or indirectly 
connecting to the exchange. Further, market participants, including 
Market-Makers, may trade the Exchange's products, including proprietary 
products, on or off the Exchange's trading floor (i.e., all products 
are available both electronically and via open outcry on the Exchange's 
trading floor). Indeed, market participants are not obligated to trade 
on the Exchange's trading floor and therefore a market participant, 
including Market-Makers, can choose to trade a product electronically 
instead of on the Exchange's trading floor at any time and for any 
reason, including due to an assessment of the reasonableness of fees 
charged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ If an option class is open for trading on another national 
securities exchange, the Exchange may delist such option class 
immediately. For proprietary products, the Exchange may determine to 
not open for trading any additional series in that option class; may 
restrict series with open interest to closing transactions, provided 
that, opening transactions by Market-Makers executed to accommodate 
closing transactions of other market participants and opening 
transactions by TPH organizations to facilitate the closing 
transactions of public customers executed as crosses pursuant to and 
in accordance with Rule 6.74(b) or (d) may be permitted; and may 
delist the option class when all series within that class have 
expired. See Cboe Rule 4.4, Interpretations and Policies .11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, market participants may trade any options product, 
including proprietary products, in the unregulated Over-the-Counter 
(OTC) markets for which there is no requirement for fees related to 
those markets to be public. Given the benefits offered by trading 
options on a listed exchange, such as increased market transparency and 
heightened contra-party creditworthiness due to the role of the Options 
Clearing Corporation as issuer and guarantor, the Exchange generally 
seeks to incentivize market participants to trade options on an 
exchange, which further constrains fees that an Exchange may assess. 
Market participants may also access other exchanges to trade other 
similar or competing proprietary or multi-listed products. Alternative 
products to the Exchange's proprietary products may include other 
options products, including options on ETFs or options futures, as well 
as particular ETFs or futures. Particularly, exclusively listed SPX 
options (i.e., a proprietary product) may compete with the following 
products traded on other markets: multiply-listed SPY options (options 
on the ETF), E-mini S&P 500 Options (options on futures), and E-Mini 
S&P 500 futures (futures on index). Indeed, as a practical matter, 
investors utilize SPX and SPY options and their respective underlying 
instruments and futures to gain exposure to the same benchmark index: 
the S&P 500.
    Notably, the Commission itself has affirmed that notwithstanding 
the exclusive nature of SPX options, alternatives to this product exist 
in the marketplace. Particularly, in approving SPXPM (the PM-settled 
S&P 500 cash settled contract) on its affiliate exchange Cboe C2 
Exchange, Inc. (which product was later transferred to the Exchange), 
the Commission stated that it ``recognizes the potential impact on 
competition resulting from the inability of other options exchanges to 
list and trade SPXPM. In acting on this proposal, however, the 
Commission has balanced the potentially negative competitive effects 
with the countervailing positive competitive effects of C2's proposal. 
The Commission believes that the availability of SPXPM on the C2 
exchange will enhance competition by providing investors with an 
additional investment vehicle, in a fully-electronic trading 
environment, through which investors can gain and hedge exposure to the 
S&P 500 stocks. Further, this product could offer a competitive 
alternative to other existing investment products that seek to allow 
investors to gain broad market exposure. Also, we note that it is 
possible for other exchanges to develop or license the use of a new or 
different index to compete with the S&P 500 index and seek Commission 
approval to list and trade options on such index.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65256 (September 2, 
2011), 76 FR 55969 (September 9, 2011) (SR-C2-2011-008). The 
Exchanges notes SPXPM was later transferred to the Exchange, where 
it currently remains listed. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 
68888 (February 8, 2013), 78 FR 10668 (February 14, 2013) (SR-CBOE-
2012-120).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The economic equivalence of SPX and SPY options was further 
acknowledged and cited as a basis for the elimination of position 
limits for SPY options across the industry not long after the 
Commission's findings above in 2011.\15\ Moreover, other exchanges have 
acknowledged that SPY options are considered to be an economic 
equivalent to SPX options.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67936 
(September 27, 2012), 77 FR 60491 (October 3, 2012) (SR-BOX-2012-
013). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67999 (October 5, 
2012), 77 FR 62295 (October 12, 2012) (SR-Phlx-2012-122).
    \16\ NYSE Euronext, on behalf of its subsidiary options 
exchanges, NYSE Arca Inc. and NYSE Amex LLC, commented on a Nasdaq 
OMX PHLX LLC (``PHLX'') proposal to increase the position limits for 
SPY options, noting ``. . . when a contract that is considered by 
many to be economically equivalent to SPY options--namely SPX 
options . . .'' See (http://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-phlx-2011-58/phlx201158-1.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, in connection with a previous proposed amendment to 
the National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail 
(``CAT

[[Page 8327]]

NMS Plan''),\17\ the Commission again discussed the existence of 
competition in the marketplace generally, and particularly for 
exchanges with unique business models. Similar to, and consistent with, 
its findings in approving SPXPM, the Commission recognized that while 
some exchanges may have a unique business model that is not currently 
offered by competitors, a competitor could create similar business 
models if demand were adequate, and if a competitor did not do so, the 
Commission believes it would be likely that new entrants would do so if 
the exchange with that unique business model was otherwise 
profitable.\18\ Accordingly, although the Exchange may have proprietary 
products not offered by other competitors, not unlike unique business 
models, a competitor could create similar products to an existing 
proprietary product if demand were adequate. As an illustration of this 
point, MIAX created its exclusive product SPIKES specifically to 
compete against VIX options, another product exclusive to the 
Exchange.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 86901 (September 9, 
2019), 84 FR 48458 (September 13, 2019) (File No. S7-13-19).
    \18\ Id.
    \19\ MIAX has described SPIKES options as ``designed 
specifically to compete head-to-head against Cboe's proprietary 
VIX[supreg] product.'' See MIAX Press Release, SPIKES Options 
Launched on MIAX, February 21, 2019, available at https://www.miaxoptions.com/sites/default/files/press_release-files/MIAX_Press_Release_02212019.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, if a market participant views the Exchange's 
proprietary products, including SPX and SPXW, as more or less 
attractive than the competition they can switch between similar 
products. As such, the Exchange is subject to competition and does not 
possess anti-competitive pricing power, even with its offering of 
proprietary products such as SPX.
    The Exchange also believes the proposed fee is reasonable as the 
Exchange believes it remains commensurate with the value of operating 
as a Market-Maker on the Exchange's trading floor in the SPX pit. For 
example, the Exchange recently transitioned from its previous trading 
floor, which it had occupied since the 1980s, to a brand new, modern 
and upgraded trading floor facility. The Exchange believes customers 
continue to find value in open outcry trading and rely on the floor for 
price discovery and the deep liquidity provided by floor Market-Makers. 
The build out of a new modern trading floor reflects the Exchange's 
commitment to open outcry trading and focus on providing the best 
possible trading experience for its customers, including Market-Makers. 
For example, the new trading floor provides a state-of-the-art 
environment and technology and more efficient use of physical space, 
which the Exchange believes better reflects and supports the current 
trading environment. The Exchange also believes the new infrastructure 
provides a cost-effective, streamlined, and modernized approach to 
floor connectivity. For example, the new trading floor has more than 
330 individual kiosks, equipped with top-of-the-line technology, that 
enable floor participants to plug in and use their devices with greater 
ease and flexibility. It also provides floor Market-Makers with more 
space and increased capacity to support additional floor-based traders 
on the trading floor.
    Indeed, notwithstanding the proposed fee change, Market-Maker 
presence on the new trading floor in SPX and SPXW has increased. 
Particularly, as of December 30, 2022, there are 12 additional Market-
Makers trading SPX and SPXW on the trading floor as compared to May 
2022 (which was the month prior to the proposed fee change being 
implemented on a permanent basis and transition to the new trading 
floor).\20\ Further, in June 2022, the month in which the proposed fee 
change took effect on the new trading floor on a permanent basis, there 
were 5 additional Market-Makers trading SPX and SPXW on the trading 
Floor as compared to May 2022. Further, as of December 30, 2022, there 
are 4 additional Market-Makers trading SPX and SPXW on the trading 
floor as compared to March 2020, which was the last month the Exchange 
assessed $3,000 for the SPX and SPXW Floor Market Maker Tier 
Appointment fee. The Exchange believes the increasing SPX and SPXW 
Market-Maker presence on the trading floor since the last time the 
Exchange assessed $3,000 for the SPX and SPXW Floor Market Maker Tier 
Appointment fee (i.e., March 2020) and since the time the current 
proposal was submitted (i.e., June 2020) speaks not only to the value 
Market-Makers find in participating as a Market-Maker in SPX and SPXW 
on the (new and improved) trading floor, but also to the reasonableness 
of the fee. Moreover, as established above, if a Market-Maker viewed 
trading SPX and SPXW as less attractive than competitive products, 
including those described above, they can switch between such similar 
products and choose not to remain as a Market-Maker trading SPX and SPX 
on the trading floor. As such, the Exchange is subject to competition 
and does not possess anti-competitive pricing power, even with its 
offering of proprietary products such as SPX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ As noted above, the Exchange has been assessing $5,000 for 
the SPX and SPXW Floor Market Maker Tier Appointment fee since June 
2020 as the Exchange was operating in a modified state until its 
transition to the new trading floor in June 2022, at which time the 
Exchange submitted this proposal to make such increase permanent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also, as noted above, market participants are not obligated to 
trade on the Exchange's trading floor and therefore a market 
participant, including Market-Makers, can choose to trade a product 
electronically instead of on the Exchange's trading floor at any time 
and for any reason, including due to an assessment of the 
reasonableness of fees charged. In particular, SPX and SPXW open outcry 
volume currently accounts for only approximately 26% of total SPX and 
SPXW volume (i.e., approximately 74% is traded electronically). 
Accordingly, Market-Makers may also choose to trade SPX and SPXW 
electronically should they deem fees associated with trading on the 
trading floor as unreasonable, further demonstrating that the Exchange 
is constrained from imposing unreasonable and supracompetitive fees.
    The Exchange finally believes its proposal to increase the SPX (and 
SPXW) Floor Market-Maker Tier Appointment fee is reasonable because the 
proposed amount is not significantly higher than was previously 
assessed (and is the same amount that has been assessed under Footnote 
24 for the last two years). Additionally, the Exchange believes its 
proposal to increase the fee is reasonable as the fee amount has not 
been increased since it was adopted over 12 years ago in July 2010.\21\ 
Particularly, since its adoption 12 years ago, there has been notable 
inflation. Indeed, the dollar has had an average inflation rate of 2.6% 
per year between 2010 and today, producing a cumulative price increase 
of approximately 37% inflation since 2010, when the SPX and SPXW Floor 
Market-Maker Tier Appointment was first adopted.\22\ Additionally, for 
nearly ten years, Market-Makers were only subject to the original rate 
that was adopted in 2010 (i.e., $3,000) notwithstanding an average 
inflation rate of 2.64% per year. The Exchange acknowledges its 
proposed fee exceeds 37%. However, the Exchange believes such increase 
is reasonable given many Market-Makers for nearly 10 years did not have 
to pay increased fees notwithstanding yearly inflation. For

[[Page 8328]]

example, by not increasing the fee each year to correspond to the 
average per year inflation rate of 2.6%, Market-Makers trading SPX on 
the trading floor since 2011 through 2020 (when then Exchange 
originally increased the fee due to the COVID-19 pandemic) have saved 
nearly $10,000. The Exchange therefore believes that proposing a fee in 
excess of the cumulative 37% inflation rate is still reasonable, 
especially when considered in conjunction with all of the additional 
and further rationale discussed above. The Exchange is also unaware of 
any standard that suggests any fee proposal that exceeds a yearly or 
cumulative inflation rate is unreasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62386 (June 25, 
2010), 75 FR 38566 (July 2, 2010) (SR-CBOE-2010-060).
    \22\ See https://www.officialdata.org/us/inflation/2010?amount=1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed change is also equitable and not unfairly 
discriminatory as it applies to all Market-Makers that trade SPX on the 
trading floor uniformly. The Exchange believes it's reasonable 
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to increase the SPX/SPXW 
floor Market-Maker Tier Appointment fee and not the SPX/SPXW electronic 
Market-Maker Tier Appointment fee, as Floor Market-Makers are not 
subject to other costs that electronic Market-Makers are subject to. 
For example, while all Floor Market-Makers automatically have an 
appointment to trade open outcry in all classes traded on the Exchange 
and at no additional cost per appointment, electronic Market-Makers 
must select an appointment in a class (such as SPX) to make markets 
electronically and such appointments are subject to fees under the 
Market-Maker Electronic Appointments Sliding Scale.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Cboe Options Rules 5.50(a) and (e). See also Cboe 
Options Fees Schedule, Market-Maker EAP Appointments Sliding Scale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will 
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate 
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not 
believe that the proposed rule changes will impose any burden on 
intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in 
furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed changes 
would be applied in the same manner to all Floor Market-Makers that 
trade SPX (and/or SPXW). As noted above, the Exchange believes it's 
reasonable to increase the SPX/SPWX Tier Appointment Fee for only Floor 
Market-Makers only as opposed to electronic Market-Makers, because 
electronic Market-Makers are subject to costs Floor Market-Makers are 
not, such as the fees under Market-Maker EAP Appointments Sliding 
Scale.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will 
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or 
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the 
proposed rule changes apply only to a fee relating to a product 
exclusively listed on the Exchange. Additionally, the Exchange operates 
in a highly competitive market. In addition to Cboe Options, TPHs have 
numerous alternative venues that they may participate on (which, as 
described above, list products that compete with SPX options) and 
direct their order flow, including 15 other options exchanges (four of 
which also maintain physical trading floors), as well as off-exchange 
venues, where competitive products are available for trading. Based on 
publicly available information, no single options exchange has more 
than 17% of the market share of executed volume of options trades.\24\ 
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.'' \25\ 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 
dealers' . . . .''.\26\ Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe its 
proposed changes to the incentive programs impose any burden on 
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the 
purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Cboe Global Markets, U.S. Options Market Volume Summary 
by Month (January 19, 2023), available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/options/market_share/.
    \25\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
    \26\ 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 \27\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \28\ 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \28\ 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-2023-008 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-2023-008. 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

[[Page 8329]]

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-2023-008 and should be submitted on or before March 1, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-02602 Filed 2-7-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P