[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 5, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15907-15915]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-04548]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-99620; File No. SR-CBOE-2024-008]


Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of 
Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt a New Rule Regarding Order 
and Execution Management Systems (``OEMS'')

February 28, 2024.
    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 13, 2024, 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 adopt a new rule regarding order and execution management systems 
(``OEMS''). 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 adopt a rule regarding OEMSs. An OEMS is a 
software product that market participants may install on their computer 
systems \3\ and use to enter and route orders to trade securities (and 
non-securities) \4\ for execution as well as manage their executions 
and perform other tasks related to their trading activities.\5\ OEMSs 
generally permit users to route orders to other market participants 
that use the same OEMS platform or directly to trading venues. OEMS 
platforms generally provide their users with the capability to create 
orders, route them for execution, and input parameters to control the 
size, timing, and other variables of their trades. OEMSs may also 
provide users with access to real-time options and stock market data, 
as well as certain historical data. Additionally, OEMSs may offer their 
users a variety of other tools to manage their trading, such as risk 
management tools, analytics, and algorithms. OEMS platforms generally 
consist of a ``front-end'' order execution and management trading 
platform. These platforms may also include a ``back-end'' platform that 
provides a connection to the infrastructure network of the OEMS (and 
thus permits users to send orders to other users of that OEMS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For example, the Silexx front-end and back-end platforms 
constitute a software application that is installed locally on a 
user's desktop.
    \4\ Many OEMSs provide execution and management functionality 
for multiple asset classes, including U.S. securities, non-U.S. 
securities, and non-securities. This filing focuses on OEMS 
functionality related to U.S. securities, which are within the 
jurisdiction of the Act and the Securities and Exchange Commission 
(the ``Commission'').
    \5\ This additional functionality is not subject to rule filing 
requirements of section 19(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 
(the ``Act''). See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 82088 
(November 15, 2017), 82 FR 55443, 55444 at note 8 (November 21, 
2017) (SR-CBOE-2017-068) (``Silexx Approval Order''); and 75302 
(June 25, 2015), 80 FR 37685, 37687 at note 10 (July 1, 2015) (SR-
CBOE-2015-062) (``Livevol Approval Order''). The Exchange notes any 
real-time or other market data that is subject to these rule filing 
requirements is purchased by the OEMS provider in accordance with 
the Exchange's (or other national securities exchanges') fees 
schedules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An OEMS is designed generally to permit a user to route orders 
through the platform (1) to an executing broker of that user's choice 
with connectivity to the platform, which broker may then send the 
orders to any U.S. exchange or trading center of which it is a member, 
including Cboe Options (if the broker is a Trading Permit Holder 
(``TPH'')); or (2) to any U.S. exchange or trading center of which the 
user is a member and to which it has established direct connectivity. 
On the Exchange, a TPH user may only establish this direct connectivity 
if it separately purchased a port from the Exchange pursuant to the 
Exchange's Fees Schedule.\6\ An OEMS is merely software that a TPH can 
install on its computer system and use to route orders to ports it 
purchases separately from the Exchange--this software is not integrated 
with ports, or any other part of the Exchange's trading systems. Thus,

[[Page 15908]]

if [sic]TPH user wants to send an order to the Exchange for execution 
from an OEMS platform, it can only do so if it purchases a port from 
the Exchange. If a user that is not a broker or TPH wants to send an 
order for execution at the Exchange through an OEMS, the user must 
route its order from its OEMS software to a broker that is also a TPH, 
which broker can then route the order to the Exchange for execution--
either through the same OEMS or a different OEMS. This is true for 
OEMSs in general, regardless of whether an OEMS is offered by an 
Exchange affiliate or a third-party OEMS. Specifically, if a non-TPH 
market participant wants to send an order from its OEMS software, which 
happens to be offered by an Exchange affiliate, for execution at the 
Exchange, that market participant must route the order to a TPH, which 
TPH can then route the order to the Exchange for execution using its 
OEMS platform, which may or may not be the same OEMS platform as used 
by the initial market participant, through its separately purchased 
port.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For example, the Financial Information eXchange (``FIX'') 
protocol is a vendor-neutral electronic communications protocol for 
the exchange of securities order and transaction messages. A TPH may 
establish direct connectivity to the Exchange by purchasing a FIX 
port or Binary Order Entry (``BOE'') port, depending on the 
connection type of its OEMS. The Silexx platform currently permits 
connection to an exchange, including Cboe Options, via FIX ports. A 
Silexx user that is a member of another securities exchange may 
separately purchase a FIX port from that exchange and directly send 
orders from its Silexx software to that exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There is a variety of OEMS software for securities available in the 
industry, which may be offered by technology vendors, broker-dealers, 
or national securities exchanges (or their affiliates).\7\ The Exchange 
does not require the use of any specific OEMS to access the 
Exchange.\8\ TPHs and other market participants may use any OEMS 
software to send orders to the Exchange for execution and manage those 
orders. The Exchange handles all orders it receives in the same manner, 
regardless of how those orders were sent to the Exchange. As noted 
above, TPHs may send orders in the form of FIX or BOE messages. Once 
the Exchange's system receives an order (regardless of whether it is in 
FIX or BOE form), the Exchange's system (including the ports through 
which orders are routed to the Exchange for execution) is unable to 
identify in what manner the order was sent. For example, if a TPH 
submits an order from its OEMS platform, even if such OEMS platform is 
offered by an Exchange affiliate, the Exchange's system has no way to 
identify what OEMS(s) was used to submit that order to the Exchange. 
The Exchange's system only sees orders as BOE or FIX messages.\9\ The 
Exchange handles all orders in a nondiscretionary manner and in 
accordance with its Rules as required by the Act.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For example, Cboe Silexx, LLC (``Cboe Silexx''), which is a 
wholly owned, direct subsidiary of Cboe Global Markets, Inc. 
(``CGM'') (of which the Exchange is also a wholly owned subsidiary) 
develops, offers, and maintains an OEMS platform. CGM owns or has 
owned or contracted with entities that offered OEMSs (such as 
Livevol and PULSe) for which it submitted rule filings. See, e.g., 
Silexx Approval Order; Livevol Approval Order; and Securities 
Exchange Act Release no. 62286 (June 11, 2010), 75 FR 34799 (June 
18, 2010) (SR-CBOE-2010-051) (``PULSe Approval Order''). The 
Exchange is aware of only one other national securities exchange 
that offers an OEMS. See Nasdaq Precise, information available at 
Nasdaq Precise [verbar] Nasdaq. Examples of non-U.S. securities 
exchange affiliated providers (the majority of which are broker-
dealers) of OEMSs that compete with Cboe Silexx include SS&C 
Technologies (Eze), FlexTrade Systems (FlexTRADER and other 
products), TS Imagine (TS One and TradeSmart), LSEG Data & Analytics 
(formerly Refinitiv) (REDI), Bloomberg (execution management 
system), Factset (formerly Portware) (execution management system), 
Neovest (execution management systems), Dash Financial 
Technologies(execution management systems), and Wolverine Execution 
Services (WEX Trading Platform).
    \8\ For example, use of the Silexx platform (and prior OEMSs 
offered by Exchange affiliates) is optional and completely within 
the discretion of the user and is not required to access the 
Exchange.
    \9\ For example, orders submitted to the Exchange via Silexx are 
handled in the same manner by the Exchange as orders submitted to 
the Exchange via any other OEMS platform. All OEMSs that offer the 
ability to establish connectivity to the Exchange use the same 
technical specifications to submit messages through those 
connections. See Cboe US Options FIX Specification, available at: US 
Options FIX Specification (cboe.com); and Cboe Options Exchange 
Binary Order Entry Specification, available at: US Options BOE 
Specification (cboe.com). Per these specifications, FIX and BOE 
messages contain no fields or indicators for which OEMS platform was 
used to send the order to the Exchange.
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.3b-16(a)(2). What OEMS platform was used to 
generate and send an order for execution is unrelated to how that 
order will be handled and executed on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OEMSs are generally not subject to the rule filing requirements 
under section 19(b) of the Act.\11\ Historically, however, when CGM (or 
its predecessor) acquired entities or assets that have included OEMS 
platforms (such as Silexx and Livevol)--thus causing those entities or 
assets to become owned by the Exchange or an Exchange affiliate--
Commission staff advised the Exchange that affiliation with those 
entities caused the OEMSs to be considered ``facilities'' under the Act 
because it could be used to route orders to the Exchange and thus 
subject to the rule filing requirements under section 19(b) of the 
Act.\12\ Consideration of such platforms as facilities solely because 
of Exchange affiliation causes the providers of the these platforms to 
operate at a competitive disadvantage compared to other OEMS providers 
that are not subject to section 6(b) or 19(b) of the Act, despite 
offering substantially similar products and services, connecting to the 
Exchange in the same manner, and receiving no benefits or advantages 
from the Exchange despite its affiliation.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For example, prior to their acquisitions by CGM (or its 
predecessor) in 2015 and 2017, the Livevol and Silexx platforms, 
respectively, were offered in substantially the same manner as they 
are offered as part of the CGM organization. However, the prior 
owners of those platforms did not have to submit rule filings to 
operate or enhance those platforms and were not otherwise subject to 
the requirements of the Act.
    \12\ See, e.g., Silexx Approval Order and Livevol Approval 
Order.
    \13\ The Exchange notes it currently offers certain port fee 
waivers to users of the Silexx platform and different pricing for 
certain functionality to TPHs and non-TPHs. Because the Commission 
has required the Exchange to submit rule filings regarding the 
Silexx platform due to the Commission's view that it is a facility 
of the Exchange, Cboe Silexx operated at a competitive disadvantage 
compared to its competitors as a result of it being subject to rule 
filing requirements. At the Commission's request, in connection with 
representations Cboe Options made in prior rule filings, Cboe 
Options and Cboe Silexx adopted procedures and internal controls 
reasonably designed to prevent Cboe Silexx from unfairly receiving 
an advantage due to receipt of confidential information as a result 
of its relationship with Cboe Options in connection with the 
platform or any other business activities. Therefore, despite being 
a facility of the Exchange, Cboe Silexx was still required to be on 
the same footing as a similarly situated third-party vendor with 
respect to things such as system updates. To offset this competitive 
disadvantage, the Exchange adopted port fee waivers. While the 
Exchange acknowledges the ability to provide this pricing may 
demonstrate that the Exchange's ability to act with Cboe Silexx, the 
Exchange notes affiliation is not required to offer such pricing, as 
it would be technologically possible to provide port fee waivers to 
users of any OEMS, as the Exchange could request what type of OEMS 
would be connected to a port when such port is purchased in the same 
manner it did to determine that a port was for a Silexx platform 
(such pricing would subject to Commission review in the same manner 
as the Silexx pricing was). However, as discussed below, if the 
Exchange adopted procedures and internal controls in accordance with 
proposed Rule 3.66, those barriers would prevent Cboe Silexx or any 
other Exchange-affiliated OEMS to adopt such fees without submission 
of a rule filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on its review of relevant facts and circumstances, and as 
discussed further below, the Exchange believes an OEMS platform offered 
by an Exchange affiliate or pursuant to a contractual relationship 
(such as a joint venture) but that is ultimately operated as a separate 
business from the Exchange, and thus is operated with respect to the 
Exchange on the same terms as third-party OEMSs, is not a facility of 
the Exchange within the meaning of the Act and, thus, is not subject to 
the rule filing requirement.\14\ The Exchange believes the rules and 
fees related to such an OEMS platform are not the ``rules of an 
exchange'' \15\ required to be filed with the Commission under the Act. 
Such an OEMS platform receives no advantage over other OEMS platforms 
as a result of its affiliation with the Exchange and orders from such 
an OEMS are handled by the Exchange pursuant to its Rules in

[[Page 15909]]

the same manner as orders from any other OEMSs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(1) and (2) (definitions of 
``exchange'' and ``facility'').
    \15\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(27) (definition of ``rules of an 
exchange'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To provide clarity and transparency within its Rulebook, the 
Exchange proposes to adopt Rule 3.66 to provide that an OEMS platform 
operated in a manner independent from the Exchange despite affiliation 
with the Exchange will not be deemed a facility of the Exchange. 
Specifically, proposed Rule 3.66 provides that for so long as the 
Exchange provides or is affiliated with any entity that provides, or 
the Exchange or an affiliate has a contractual relationship with any 
entity that provides, an OEMS platform, such OEMS will not be regulated 
as a facility of the Exchange (as defined in section 3(a)(2) of the 
Act) and thus not subject to section 6 of the Act if:
    (a) use of the OEMS is voluntary (i.e., solely within the 
discretion of a TPH) and not required for a TPH to access to the 
Exchange (i.e., the OEMS is a nonexclusive means of access to the 
Exchange);
    (b) if a TPH using the OEMS establishes a direct connection to the 
Exchange via an Exchange port, that connection is established in the 
same manner and in accordance with the same terms, conditions, and fees 
as any third-party OEMS as set forth in the Exchange's Rules, technical 
specifications, and Fees Schedule;
    (c) the OEMS (or the entity that owns the OEMS) is not a registered 
broker-dealer;
    (d) for any orders ultimately routed through the OEMS to the 
Exchange:
    (1) users and their brokers are solely responsible for routing 
decisions; and
    (2) the Exchange processes those orders in the same manner as any 
other orders received by the Exchange (i.e., orders submitted through 
the OEMS to the Exchange receive no preferential treatment on the 
Exchange);
    (e) any fees charged to a user of the OEMS are unrelated to that 
user's Exchange activity or to Exchange fees set forth on the 
Exchange's fees schedule;
    (f) the OEMS and its users use any premises or service from the 
Exchange that is a facility, such as market data, pursuant to the same 
terms, conditions, and fees as any other user of Exchange premises and 
services as set forth in the Exchange's Rules, technical 
specifications, and Fees Schedule;
    (g) a third-party not required to register as a national securities 
exchange under section 6 of the Act can offer a similar OEMS; and
    (h) the Exchange has established and maintains procedures and 
internal controls reasonably designed to prevent the OEMS from 
receiving any competitive advantage or benefit as a result of its 
affiliation/relationship with the Exchange, including the provision of 
information to the entity or personnel operating the OEMS regarding 
updates to the System (such as technical specifications) until such 
information is available generally to similarly situated market 
participants.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ This proposed rule change refers to any OEMS that satisfies 
the criteria of proposed Rule 3.66 as a (``Rule 3.66 OEMS''). If the 
Commission approves this rule filing, the Exchange intends to 
propose in a separate rule filing to delete the Silexx Fee Schedule 
from its Rules, as the Exchange believes the Silexx platform is a 
Rule 3.66 OEMS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes proposed Rule 3.66 will provide clarity 
regarding when an OEMS platform does not constitute a facility of the 
Exchange in a manner that ensures an OEMS platform (and orders its[sic] 
ends[sic] to the Exchange) would receive no advantage over any other 
OEMS platform (and orders send[sic] from that platform to the 
Exchange), regardless of its affiliation or relationship with the 
Exchange.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The Exchange notes it may be possible for an OEMS platform 
provided by an Exchange affiliate or an entity with which the 
Exchange has a business relationship to satisfy a subset of these 
criteria or a different set of criteria and still not be a facility 
of the Exchange. However, the proposed rule provides certainty with 
respect to the non-facility status of an OEMS provided by an 
Exchange affiliate or an entity with which the Exchange has a 
business relationship that meets this set of criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with 
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the 
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of section 6(b) of the 
Act.\18\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change 
is consistent with the section 6(b)(5) \19\ 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) \20\ requirement that the rules of 
an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between 
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes proposed Rule 3.66 is 
consistent with the Act, because it promotes just and equitable 
principles of trade and removes impediments to and perfects the 
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system. It 
will permit substantially similar OEMS platforms in the industry to 
compete on equal footing if they operate with respect to securities 
exchanges in the same manner, regardless of their affiliation or other 
relationship with a securities exchange. While the rules of an exchange 
generally impose requirements on its members and not itself, the 
Exchange believes it is appropriate to adopt proposed Rule 3.66, 
despite it describing circumstances in which the Exchange will not 
submit rule filings.\21\ The Exchange believes it is appropriate to 
adopt Rule 3.66 as a stated interpretation of the Exchange, as it will 
provide transparency and certainty regarding when an OEMS platform 
offered by an affiliate or otherwise by the Exchange is not a facility 
of the exchange. The Exchange believes[sic] will benefit the public as 
it will contribute to the provision of a competitive market for these 
important tools used by market participants, thus making it appropriate 
to be filed as a rule of the Exchange.\22\ Similarly, the Exchange 
believes descriptions of functionality and fees regarding Rule 3.66 
OEMSs, despite their relationship with the Exchange, do not constitute 
``rules of an exchange,'' \23\ as such OEMSs are not facilities of an 
exchange and thus are not subject to regulation by the Commission under 
section 6(b)(5) or section 19(b) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Other Rules impose certain restrictions on the Exchange, 
including with respect to permissible affiliations. See, e.g., Rule 
3.62 (which restricts the Exchange's ability to acquire or maintain 
an interest in a TPH).
    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(27) (defines the term ``rules of an 
exchange'' to include, among other things, the ``stated policies, 
practices, and interpretations of such exchange . . . as the 
Commission, by rule, may determine to be necessary or appropriate in 
the public interest or for the protection of investors to be deemed 
to be rules of such exchange . . . .'').
    \23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D.C. Circuit Test
    Based on the Exchange's review of relevant facts and circumstances, 
the Exchange has concluded that a Rule 3.66 OEMS would not be a 
facility that is part of the Exchange, and thus is not subject to the 
SRO rule filing requirements under the Act. To determine whether a 
service or property is a facility of the Exchange subject to the rule 
filing requirements of section 19(b) of the Act, it must be determined

[[Page 15910]]

whether the service or property satisfies a two-pronged test (``D.C. 
Circuit Test''):
    1. the service or property must fall within the definition of 
``facility'' in section 3(a)(2) of the Act; and
    2. the service or property must be the type of facility that is 
part of the definition of ``exchange'' in section 3(a)(1) of the 
Act.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Intercontinental Exch., Inc. (ICE), et al. v. SEC, 23 F.4th 
1013, 1024 (D.C. Cir. 2022) (``. . . only the rules of an SRO are 
subject to a filing requirement, and the rules of a facility are not 
rules of an SRO unless that facility is part of an SRO.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D.C. Circuit Test Prong 1: A Rule 3.66 OEMS Does Not Fall Within the 
Definition of ``Facility''
    Pursuant to the first prong of the D.C. Circuit Test, the Exchange 
first considers whether a Rule 3.66 OEMS fits within the definition of 
a facility. Section 3(a)(2) of the Act defines ``facility'' as follows:

    The term ``facility'' when used with respect to an exchange 
includes its premises, tangible or intangible property whether on 
the premises or not, any right to the use of such premises or 
property or any service thereof for the purpose of effecting or 
reporting a transaction on an exchange (including, among other 
things, any system of communication to or from the exchange, by 
ticker or otherwise, maintained by or with the consent of the 
exchange), and any right of the exchange to the use of any property 
or service.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Exchange Has No Right To Use a Rule 3.66 OEMS for Purposes of 
Effecting or Reporting a Transaction
    The Exchange asserts that it does not have any right to use a Rule 
3.66 OEMS for the purpose of effecting or reporting a transaction on an 
exchange nor is a Rule 3.66 OEMS a system of communication to or from 
the Exchange maintained by or with the consent of the Exchange. As 
discussed above, one main function of an OEMS platform is for market 
participants to use it to create, enter, and route orders to trade 
securities (and non-securities) for execution (either directly to 
trading venues or to other market participants).\26\ Market 
participants may, among other things, use OEMS platforms to enter and 
route orders for ultimate execution at a trading venue, which may cause 
an OEMS to be deemed to be used for the ``purpose of effecting or 
reporting a transaction on an exchange'' under the facility definition. 
However, the Exchange has no right to use a Rule 3.66 OEMS (or any 
OEMS) for that purpose. Use of an OEMS for purposes of effecting or 
reporting a transaction to the Exchange (or any exchange) is solely 
within the discretion of the OEMS user. The Exchange does not handle 
any orders for the purpose of execution until those orders are received 
by its order handler and matching engine system. As further discussed 
below, this happens after an order message passes through an Exchange 
port and into the Exchange's core trading system. Such an order message 
has no indication of from which OEMS the order message originated, 
including if it was from a Rule 3.66 OEMS, and thus the Exchange's 
handling an execution of the message occurs in accordance with its 
Rules. As proposed in Rule 3.66, a Rule 3.66 OEMS would have in place 
procedures and internal controls that would prevent the OEMS from 
receiving any competitive advantage as a result of its affiliation or 
relationship with the Exchange.\27\ Because the Exchange (as further 
discussed below) handles and executes all orders its receives in a 
nondiscretionary manner pursuant to its Rules, the Exchange has no 
influence over or right to use a Rule 3.66 OEMS for purposes of 
effecting or reporting transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ As noted above, OEMS platform provides users with 
additional functionality.
    \27\ The Exchange notes Silexx and other OEMS previously 
operated by an affiliate of the Exchange have adopted information 
barriers that satisfy this proposed requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Rule 3.66 OEMS Is Not a System of Communication Maintained by or With 
the Consent of the Exchange
    Similarly, the Exchange notes that a Rule 3.66 OEMS is not a system 
of communication to or from the Exchange maintained by or with the 
consent of the Exchange. As noted above, users of OEMS platforms \28\ 
may establish direct connectivity from the computer systems on which 
those platforms reside to the Exchange--only after separately 
purchasing a port from the Exchange and connecting their systems on 
which the OEMSs lie to that port. While it is possible this may cause 
the OEMS to be deemed part of a ``system of communication to or from 
the exchange,'' a Rule 3.66 OEMS is still not maintained with the 
consent of the Exchange, as required by the facility definition. Such 
an OEMS is not a system of communication to or from the Exchange 
provided for the purpose of executing and managing securities trades on 
the Exchange,\29\ but rather on an exchange (or other trading venue). 
As required by proposed Rule 3.66(a), a Rule 3.66 OEMS (and OEMS 
platform, for that matter) is a voluntary, nonexclusive means of access 
to the Exchange. Market participants may or may not use a specific 
OEMS, including a Rule 3.66 OEMS, to submit orders for execution at the 
Exchange. For example, it is possible that a user of a Rule 3.66 OEMS 
never has a single order it sends from that OEMS execute on the 
Exchange. Additionally, use of a Rule 3.66 OEMS (or any OEMS for that 
matter) is not required to access the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ This includes Silexx as well as third-party OEMSs that have 
no affiliation or contractual relationship with the Exchange.
    \29\ See ICE, 23 F.4th at 1023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Use of a Rule 3.66 OEMS Is Not Required To Access the Exchange
    Use of a Rule 3.66 OEMS does not require the user to establish a 
direct connection to the Exchange or any other trading venue. In fact, 
many users of a Rule 3.66 OEMS may not establish a direct connection to 
the Exchange \30\ and instead will use an OEMS platform to route orders 
to other market participants (such as brokers) for ultimate routing for 
execution, which may be done through the same or different OEMS 
platform.\31\ In this case, the OEMS platform would have no 
connectivity in any form to the Exchange's core trading system and thus 
does not fall within the definition of a facility.\32\ Unlike what is 
required for a product or service to be considered a facility, with 
respect to execution of orders, the purpose of providing an OEMS 
platform (including a Rule 3.66 OEMS) is not to effect a transaction on 
the Exchange specifically; the primary

[[Page 15911]]

purpose instead is to effect a transaction at any applicable trading 
venue. Moreover, the market for OEMS platforms is diverse enough such 
that, even if the Exchange did not submit rule filings related to a 
Rule 3.66 OEMS (such as for fees to use the OEMS), the Exchange would 
not be able to exploit its control over the marketplace for OEMS 
platforms to increase the costs of or limit access to the Exchange. 
Market participants would be able to use other OEMSs to access the 
Exchange in the same manner as a Rule 3.66 OEMS.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ In other words, users of a Rule 3.66 OEMS may decide to not 
purchase a port from the Exchange, which is required to submit an 
order to the Exchange for execution. Purchase of a port from the 
Exchange is a separate from and unliked[sic] to the purchase of a 
Rule 3.66 OEMS. Additionally, only a TPH may purchase a port from 
the Exchange, so users of an OEMS that are not TPHs may never 
establish direct connectivity to the Exchange.
    \31\ The SEC previously determined that a neutral communications 
service that allows an exchange's members to and non-members to 
route orders to one another and to execute orders they receive 
through that system as they deem fit, but which service does not 
effect trade executions or report executed trades to the 
consolidated tape[sic]. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 
56237 (August 9, 2007), 72 FR 46118 (August 16, 2007) (SR-NASDAQ-
2007-043) (the Commission noted that it was ``not possible for an 
order to be routed to the Nasdaq Market Center via the ACES 
system''). Any OEMS user that does not establish direct connectivity 
to an Exchange (which is the case for the vast majority of current 
Silexx users) would thus be using that OEMS merely to route orders, 
which according to the Commission would cause the OEMS to not be a 
facility of the Exchange. See id. The Exchange notes that as of 
January 30, 2024, of the approximately 700 Silexx platform user log-
ins, only 275 of those users have access to a FIX port that connects 
to the Exchange, and thus the majority of Silexx platform users are 
able to use Silexx only as a communications service to route orders 
to other users, which use the Commission has already deemed to be 
outside the definition of a facility of an Exchange.
    \32\ See id.
    \33\ Contrast with SEC Reply Brief, ICE v. SEC at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Even if a TPH using a Rule 3.66 OEMS purchases a port from the 
Exchange and establishes a direct connection between its computer 
systems on which the OEMS platform has been installed and the Exchange, 
the Rule 3.66 OEMS is still not connected to the Exchange's core 
trading system (see diagram below). Instead, the connection occurs at 
the Exchange customer switch. It is at this switch where TPHs may 
purchase and obtain access to ports from the Exchange, through which 
order messages are sent into the Exchange's order handler and matching 
engine. A port ultimately creates a connection between two separate 
systems--the TPH's system on which an OEMS may reside and the 
Exchange's core trading system. If a TPH has a Rule 3.66 OEMS installed 
on its computer system, the TPH could determine to separately purchase 
a port and connect that port to that computer system. The port is a 
system of communications to the Exchange that transmits messages from 
the connecting TPH's system (on which an OEMS platform may be 
installed) to the Exchange's order handler and matching engine, where 
orders are actually handled and executed, which port is maintained with 
the consent of the Exchange and thus constitutes a facility of the 
Exchange.\34\ On the other hand, the OEMS platform (which software was 
installed on the TPH's computer system--a non-Exchange system) that 
connects to the port (i.e., an Exchange-maintained system of 
communication) does not cause the OEMS software (including if a Rule 
3.66 OEMS) to become integrated with (and thus part of) that system of 
communication. As discussed above, ports receive and route to the 
appropriate place within the Exchange's core trading system FIX or BOE 
messages that contain no information identifying from what OEMS the 
messages originated. In other words, ports are Exchange-provided 
conduits through which messages are sent from a non-Exchange system 
(the TPH's system, which may contain an OEMS platform, including a Rule 
3.66 OEMS platform) to an Exchange system (the Exchange's order handler 
and matching engine system). A Rule 3.66 OEMS and an Exchange port are 
independently maintained and operated systems--the port by the Exchange 
and the Rule 3.66 OEMS by the OEMS provider \35\ and OEMS user. Any TPH 
may establish direct connectivity to the Exchange by obtaining a port 
and connecting at the customer switch, regardless of what OEMS or other 
product it uses to submit orders to the Exchange. While the connection 
must occur with the consent of the Exchange, because a TPH must 
purchase a port from the Exchange, and the Exchange must then assist 
with establishing the physical connection at the customer switch, any 
TPH that purchases a port establishes this physical connection at the 
same place and in the same manner (and subject to the same fees set 
forth in the Exchange's Fees Schedule), regardless of the OEMS that TPH 
uses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See Cboe Fees Schedule (which contains fees for various 
ports).
    \35\ As required by proposed Rule 3.66, the Exchange would have 
in place procedures and internal controls that would prevent it from 
providing an affiliated OEMS provider with any competitive advantage 
over other OEMS providers. Additionally, proposed Rule 3.66 would 
codify that users and their brokers are solely responsible for 
routing decisions of orders through a Rule 3.66 OEMS (this is true 
today of any OEMS) and that the Exchange processes all orders it 
receives in the same manner (which is also true today).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the purchase of a port from the Exchange is a 
separate transaction from the purchase of a Rule 3.66 OEMS log-in.\36\ 
The port itself is a facility of the Exchange (and thus subject to rule 
filings), but a port and a computer system on which an OEMS is 
installed that connects to the customer switch to access a port are 
completely separate systems, as demonstrated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ As the Commission previously stated, it would be possible 
to tie fees of a non-facility to fees for, or usage of, any Exchange 
services, which fees would then be subject to the rule filing 
requirements of section 19(b) of the Act. See id. at 46119. 
Therefore, the fact that, for example, the Exchange adopted fees 
that tied the Silexx platform to an Exchange usage fee (as noted 
above) does not on its face cause the Silexx platform to become a 
facility of the Exchange. Rather, it would just require the Exchange 
to file the fee with the Commission.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05MR24.005

    The port is ultimately an Exchange-provided conduit through which 
messages a TPH wants to send to the Exchange (including order messages 
sent for execution on the Exchange) travel. The Exchange takes no part 
in the creation or submission of those messages, which is within the 
TPH's sole discretion. In this sense, a TPH using a Rule 3.66 OEMS 
connects to the Exchange's trading system with the Exchange's consent, 
but it does so in the same way that a TPH using any OEMS platform 
connects to the Exchange with its consent and is untethered to the 
TPH's usage of an OEMS.\37\ The systems on which OEMS platforms reside 
are outside of the Exchange's trading systems and infrastructure. 
Ultimately, the Exchange's consent to sell a port to a TPH is what 
permits a TPH to establish a connection to the Exchange's core trading 
system, which consent is unrelated to any software (including a Rule 
3.66 OEMS) or hardware the TPH uses to submit an order to the Exchange 
through that port. While a system does not need to be directly 
connected to the Exchange's matching engine to be deemed a facility, it 
needs to be part of a necessary link in the chain of communication that 
facilitates access to, and trading activity on, the Exchange.\38\ An 
OEMS platform, including a Rule 3.66 OEMS, is not a necessary link in 
this chain, as it is not required to access the Exchange or engage in 
trading on the Exchange. Instead, a Rule 3.66 OEMS (or any OEMS for 
that matter) is one possible means for a TPH to access the chain of 
communication that facilitates access to, and trading activity on, the 
Exchange. A market participant's purchase of an OEMS log-in, even if a 
Rule 3.66 OEMS, is unrelated to whether the market participant intends 
to engage in trading options on the Exchange. Unlike an Exchange port, 
which a TPH likely purchases for the specific reason of submitting 
orders to the Exchange for execution (as the port

[[Page 15912]]

would serve no purpose other than for the TPH to submit orders to the 
Exchange), a TPH (or any market participant) purchases an OEMS log-in 
for the specific reason of creating and submitting securities orders 
(as well as non-securities), which orders may execute only after being 
routed to a broker or with submission into a separately purchased 
exchange port--the OEMS can serve this purpose for any execution venue 
and not solely the Exchange. In the chain of communication that 
facilitates access to, and trading activity on, the Exchange, an 
Exchange-provided port is the first necessary link in this chain. No 
OEMS platform is required to access the Exchange and thus is not a 
necessary link in this chain, even an OEMS platform happens to be 
offered by an Exchange affiliate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See proposed Rule 3.66(b).
    \38\ See SEC Reply Brief, ICE v. SEC at 33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, because any Rule 3.66 OEMS would not be a registered 
broker-dealer,\39\ any order submitted for execution from an OEMS 
platform would need to be handled and submitted to the Exchange for 
execution only by a TPH (which must be a broker-dealer). Many OEMS 
users are non-brokers, which would require an interim step for those 
users' orders to take before those orders could possibly end up at the 
Exchange for execution. Additionally, only a TPH may submit an order 
into the Exchange for execution, which could create an additional step 
that needs to be taken before an order can ultimately end up at the 
Exchange.\40\ The OEMS user and its broker, if applicable, that 
ultimately routes an order for execution have sole responsible for any 
routing decision for that order, including the decision regarding to 
where the orders should be routed for execution (to the Exchange or 
elsewhere).\41\ Entry into an OEMS is merely one of many steps in an 
order's path to ultimate execution at a trading venue, which occurs 
outside of the Exchange's core system and outside the data centers at 
which the Exchange's system equipment resides (such as NY4).\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See proposed Rule 3.66(c).
    \40\ For example, suppose a non-broker customer uses an OEMS 
(including a an OEMS offered by an Exchange affiliate, such as 
Silexx). If that customer wanted to execute an order on the 
Exchange, it would first need to route the order from its OEMS to 
its broker. At that point, the broker, if a TPH that has established 
connectivity to the Exchange, can route the order to the Exchange 
(through the same or different or another OEMS); if not a TPH, the 
broker must route the order to a TPH (through the same or another 
OEMS), which TPH can then submit the order for execution on the 
Exchange (through the same or another OEMS).
    \41\ See proposed Rule 3.66(d).
    \42\ Compare with SEC Reply Brief, ICE v. SEC at 31 (stating 
that the exchanges and its affiliates together provide the 
infrastructure at the exchanges' data centers that facilitate 
interactions between buyers and sellers). A Rule 3.66 OEMS is 
operated outside of the Exchange's data center, the ``nerve center'' 
of the Exchange's operations. See id. at 38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While purchase of an Exchange port by a TPH using a Rule 3.66 OEMS 
would establish a connection from that TPH's computer system operating 
the OEMS software to the Exchange's trading system, it is not required 
or vital and is in fact explicitly not required to access the 
Exchange's trading system.\43\ Any TPH that establishes a direct 
connection between its computer systems operating any OEMS does so only 
upon purchase of a port from the Exchange with the Exchange's consent, 
in the same manner, and at the same customer-facing location within the 
Exchange's data center cage (the customer switch). Purchase of a log-in 
for a Rule 3.66 OEMS does not on its own establish access to the 
Exchange's trading system. A TPH using a Rule 3.66 OEMS would need to 
receive separately from the Exchange the same consent (i.e., sale of a 
port) to establish this connection as a TPH using any other OEMS. 
Additionally, a Rule 3.66 OEMS could exist without the consent of an 
Exchange and does not owe its existence to the consent of the 
Exchange.\44\ For example, if CGM sold Cboe Silexx, it would have no 
material impact on how the Silexx platform is operated or maintained. 
Further, if the Exchange shutdown, the Silexx platform would continue 
to be used in the same manner as it is today, with one fewer ultimate 
execution venue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See ICE, 23 F.4th at 1023 (finding that a connection being 
a ``vital and proximate link in a system of communication'' is a 
factor as to whether the functionality is a facility of the 
exchange).
    \44\ See id. This is evidenced by the fact that OEMSs provided 
by entities that became affiliated with the Exchange (such as Silexx 
and Livevol) due to acquisition by the Exchange's parent company 
operated in a substantially similar manner after such acquisition as 
they did prior to such acquisition (when they were unaffiliated with 
the Exchange). Any upgrades made to those platforms after becoming 
affiliated with the Exchange, such as added functionality, could 
have occurred in the same manner if the Exchange's parent company 
had never purchased the entities providing those OEMSs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D.C. Circuit Test Prong 2: A Rule 3.66 OEMS Does Not Fall Within the 
Definition of ``Exchange''
    Even if it is determined that an OEMS fits within the statutory 
definition of ``facility,'' ``satisfying the statutory definition of 
`facility' in Section 3(a)(2) [of the Act] is . . . not sufficient to 
subject a facility to the jurisdiction of the Commission; it must also 
be the type of facility that section 3(a)(1) [of the Act] includes in 
the term `exchange.' '' \45\ section 3(a)(1) of the Act defines 
``exchange'' as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See id. at 1024.

    The term ``exchange'' means any organization, association, or 
group of persons, whether incorporated or unincorporated, which 
constitutes, maintains, or provides a market place or facilities for 
bringing together purchasers and sellers of securities or for 
otherwise performing with respect to securities the functions 
commonly performed by a stock exchange as that term is generally 
understood, and includes the market place and the market facilities 
maintained by such exchange.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(1).

    Rule 3b-16 under the Act provides further clarity regarding what 
does and does not constitute an exchange for purposes of the Act. It 
states that ``[a]n organization, association, or group of persons shall 
be considered to constitute, maintain, or provide `a market place or 
facilities for bringing together purchasers and sellers of securities 
or for otherwise performing with respect to securities the functions 
commonly performed by a stock exchange,' as those terms are used in 
[S]ection 3(a)(1) of the Act . . . if such organization, association, 
or group of persons: (1) [b]rings together the orders for securities of 
multiple buyers and sellers; and (2) [u]ses established, non-
discretionary methods (whether by providing a trading facility or by 
setting rules) under which such orders interact with each other, and 
the buyers and sellers entering such orders agree to the terms of a 
trade.'' \47\ It goes on to state that ``[a]n organization, 
association, or group of persons shall not be considered to constitute, 
maintain, or provide `a market place or facilities for bringing 
together purchasers and sellers of securities or for otherwise 
performing with respect to securities the functions commonly performed 
by a stock exchange,' solely because such organization . . . [r]outes 
orders to a national securities exchange . . . .'' \48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ 17 CFR 240.3b-16(a).
    \48\ 17 CFR 240.3b-16(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes a Rule 3.66 OEMS is outside the definition of 
an exchange, as (1) Rule 3b-16 explicitly excludes OEMS functionality 
from that definition and (2) the provider of such an OEMS (Cboe Silexx 
or otherwise) and the Exchange together do not constitute a ``group of 
persons'' that is providing a marketplace for the purpose of ``bringing 
together purchasers and sellers of securities or for otherwise 
performing with respect to securities the functions commonly performed 
by a stock exchange . . . .'' \49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ As noted above, Cboe Silexx is an affiliate of the Exchange 
that offers and operates the Silexx platform. However, the Exchange 
is not arguing that being owned and operated by an entity separate 
from the Exchange is sufficient reason for an OEMS to not be 
considered a facility of an exchange. The Exchange is arguing, 
rather, that an entity operates an OEMS that satisfies the specified 
proposed criteria is not part of a group of persons with the 
Exchange.

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

[[Page 15913]]

A Rule 3.66 OEMS Is Excluded From the Definition of Exchange
    The Exchange asserts that OEMS functionality is excluded from the 
definition of an Exchange. First, the development, maintenance, and 
sale of an OEMS does not fit within the definition of an exchange. An 
OEMS does not bring together purchasers and sellers of securities. 
Rather, market participants use an OEMS to route their securities 
orders (directly or indirectly) for execution at a facility that can 
match those purchasers and sellers (such as the Exchange, another 
national securities exchange, or trading venue). As discussed above, an 
order submitted through an OEMS may need to go through multiple steps 
and handled by multiple parties (including through a broker and TPH) 
before it may be executed on the Exchange, and such execution may 
ultimately take place on any exchange. If one market participant 
submits a buy order for a security and another market participant 
submits a sell order for the same security that is marketable with the 
buy order, despite those two orders being within the same OEMS network, 
the OEMS cannot bring those orders together for execution; instead, the 
OEMS sends those orders to trading venues (in accordance with the 
instructions of the users and their brokers), where the buy order is 
matched with a sell order and the sell order is matched with a buy 
order in accordance with the exchange's nondiscretionary methods used 
to match buyers and sellers.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ As set forth in proposed Rule 3.66(d)(2), the Exchange's 
system processes all orders it receives in the same manner, 
regardless of the OEMS used to submit the orders (the Exchange's 
order handler and matching engine are unable to distinguish from 
which OEMS and order was submitted, as order messages are submitted 
in the same format).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the Act recognizes that order entry and routing to a 
national securities exchange for execution is not a function commonly 
performed by [an exchange]. As noted above, Rule 3b-16 under the Act 
states that an organization is not considered to provide a marketplace 
or facility for bringing together purchasers and sellers of securities 
or for otherwise performing with respect to securities the functions 
commonly performed by a stock exchange ``solely because such 
organization . . . [r]outes orders to a national securities exchange . 
. . .'' \51\ An OEMS platform's interaction with the Exchange is solely 
its ability to route orders to the Exchange (and can only route orders 
directly to the Exchange if the TPH separately purchased an Exchange 
port, as discussed above). The Act explicitly excludes this function 
from the definition of an exchange, demonstrating the Commission's 
intent that systems whose purpose was to route orders to an exchange 
should not be subject to the rule filing process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ 17 CFR 240.3b-16(b) (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Rule 3.66 OEMS Provider Is Not Part of a Group of Persons With the 
Exchange
    The Exchange also asserts that a Rule 3.66 OEMS is not part of a 
group of persons with the Exchange that together is performing and 
facilitating exchange functions and thus is not considered an exchange. 
An entity does not automatically become part of a group of persons with 
an exchange because such entity is affiliated with the exchange. As 
noted above, Commission staff previously advised the Exchange that its 
parent's acquisitions of entities that offered OEMS platforms was 
sufficient for those OEMS platforms to become Exchange facilities, 
despite those acquisitions resulting in no material changes to the 
operation of those platforms, and thus subjected to regulation by and 
the submission of rule filings to the Commission.\52\ However, 
corporate affiliation is not determinative of what constitutes a 
``group of persons''; instead, the facts and circumstances around the 
relationship must be considered.\53\ A Rule 3.66 OEMS is not maintained 
by the Exchange and is not part of a group of persons with the 
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ Prior to their acquisitions by CGM's predecessor in 2015 
and 2017, Livevol and Silexx, respectively, each were operated by a 
third-party entity in substantially the same manner as they were 
operated after the acquisitions (the Exchange notes it no longer 
offers a Livevol OEMS). The Exchange began filing rules for these 
OEMSs solely because their operated became affiliated with the 
Exchange. See Livevol Approval Order and Silexx Approval Order.
    \53\ ``Unaffiliated entities engaged in join ventures or other 
concerted activity may or may not, depending upon the circumstances, 
be considered a `group of persons' . . . . On the other hand, one 
corporation that is affiliated with but not controlled by another 
may or may not, depending upon the circumstances, be considered a 
`group of persons' . . . .'' See ICE, 23 F.4th at 1024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From a business perspective, an OEMS and the Exchange have 
different primary goals and thus a lack of unity of interests.\54\ 
Despite being owned by the same parent, the Exchange and a Rule 3.66 
OEMS are not closely connected, as they have different principal 
functions. Specifically, the Exchange's principal function is to 
operate its market in accordance with the Act while a Rule 3.66 OEMS's 
function is to develop, maintain, and sell the OEMS platform for market 
participants (both TPHs and non-TPHs) to execute orders at one of many 
trading venues, which may or may not include the Exchange. The 
Exchange's business benefits from increased volume on its market (due 
to transaction fees), while an OEMS's business benefits from increased 
numbers of users (a user's executed volume generally has no impact on 
fees that user pays to the OEMS, which fees are generally based on log-
ins and add-on functionality). While it is possible an increase in a 
Rule 3.66 OEMS users could lead to increased volume on the Exchange, it 
is also possible that such an increase in users results in no increase 
in volume on the Exchange.\55\ Use of a Rule 3.66 OEMS would not be 
Exchange-specific, as users can ultimately send orders from a Rule 3.66 
OEMS to execute on any exchange or trading venue. For example, if a 
market participant uses a Rule 3.66 OEMS, that market participant has 
the discretion to ultimately send no orders to the Exchange for 
execution. Additionally, proposed Rule 3.66 would require that any fees 
charged to a user of the OEMS are unrelated to that user's Exchange 
activity or to Exchange fees set forth in the Exchange's Fees Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ See ICE, 23 F.4th at 1024-1025 (finding that a unity of 
interests between the affiliates was an important component of the 
finding that the affiliates were acting as a group of persons).
    \55\ As noted above, the Exchange's system has no way to 
determine how many orders it receives from a specific OEMS, and the 
user of an OEMS may ultimately send no orders to the Exchange for 
execution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, as noted above and as set forth in proposed Rule 3.66, use 
of a Rule 3.66 OEMS would be voluntary and not required to access the 
Exchange (as discussed above). The act of entering an order into and 
sending an order from a Rule 3.66 OEMS for execution would be one of 
many steps an order must take before potential execution at the 
Exchange (and one within sole discretion of the OEMS user and its 
broker), and that step often precedes other steps that other parties 
and other systems must take before ultimate execution at the Exchange. 
This is true even if the Rule 3.66 OEMS user is a TPH that has 
purchased a port to access the Exchange; market participants often 
connect to multiple trading venues, particularly brokers who need to 
seek best execution for their customers. The different primary business 
functions between the Exchange and a Rule 3.66 OEMS are ultimately not 
aligned and

[[Page 15914]]

thus demonstrate a lack of unity of interests between the Exchange and 
an OEMS affiliate. Under these circumstances, a Rule 3.66 OEMS would 
not be an integral part of the Exchange's system and, in fact, would be 
merely one of many options available for customers to use for execution 
and management of orders for securities.
    Pursuant to proposed Rule 3.66, a Rule 3.66 OEMS would operate on a 
level-playing field with other OEMSs. Specifically:
     a user of a Rule 3.66 OEMS would establish connectivity to 
the Exchange in the same manner as a user of another OEMS;
     to the extent an order entered into a Rule 3.66 OEMS 
ultimately executes on the Exchange, the Exchange would process that 
order in the same manner as all other orders (the Exchange's order 
handling system and matching engine have no way to determine through 
what OEMS an order was entered);
     fees charged to the user of a Rule 3.66 OEMS would be 
unrelated to activity on the Exchange;
     access to Exchange market data through the OEMS would 
occur in accordance with the same terms and conditions applicable to 
any other user of that market data; and
     the Exchange would adopt information barriers designed to 
prevent the Rule 3.66 OEMS from receiving a competitive advantage or 
benefit based on its affiliation or relationship with the Exchange.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ See proposed Rule 3.66(b), (d)-(f), and (h). Information 
barriers are generally viewed as sufficient for TPHs to maintain 
different businesses. See, e.g., Rule 8.10 (which requires TPHs to 
establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures 
reasonably designed to prevent the misuse of material, nonpublic 
information by such TPH or persons associated with such TPH). The 
Exchange notes it already has such information barriers in place 
with respect to Silexx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed criteria set forth in proposed Rule 3.66 would prevent 
the Exchange from acting in concert with a Rule 3.66 OEMS.\57\ Despite 
being under the same corporate umbrella, these vastly different 
businesses would not be acting in concert, as they have completely 
different objectives.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ If the Commission approves this proposed rule change, Rule 
3.66 would be subject to SEC oversight. As a result, the Commission 
would have the ability to confirm that the Exchange is complying 
with the requirements set forth in Rule 3.66 with respect to any 
affiliated OEMSs and thus ensure that the Exchange is operating with 
respect to such OEMSs in the same manner as it would with respect to 
any third-party OEMS.
    \58\ See ICE, 23 F.4th at 1024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elimination of Unfair Discrimination
    Finally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is designed 
to prevent unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, 
and dealers. As noted above, requiring the Exchange to submit rule 
filings for a Rule 3.66 OEMS causes operation of the OEMS to operate at 
a competitive disadvantage within the market. Elimination of this rule 
filing requirement will eliminate this discrimination against such an 
OEMS operator to the benefit of OEMS customers based on nothing more 
than corporate affiliation, despite such OEMS interacting with the 
Exchange in the same manner as any other OEMS that is subject to no 
rule filing requirement. The Exchange would ultimately treat a Rule 
3.66 OEMS operator (and any messages it receives from that OEMS) in the 
same manner as any other OEMS operator.

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 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, as it has no impact on TPHs' or any market 
participants' ability to submit and execute orders on the Exchange. 
Market participants that are users of a Rule 3.66 OEMS would be able to 
use that platform in the same manner as they would if the OEMS were 
otherwise deemed a facility. As set forth in proposed Rule 3.66, the 
Exchange will handle all orders it receives in a nondiscretionary 
manner as set forth in its Rules, regardless of through which OEMSs the 
orders were submitted to the Exchange. Only TPHs will continue to be 
able to submit orders directly to the Exchange (using any OEMSs they 
choose) by purchasing ports in the same manner and in accordance with 
the Exchange Fees Schedule to establish a direct connection to the 
Exchange.
    The Exchange does not believe 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, as the Exchange 
believes it would improve competition among OEMSs and permit similarly 
situated products to compete on equal footing, ultimately benefitting 
all market participants that use these important tools. Other exchanges 
may adopt similar rules to establish the same clarity regarding 
affiliated OEMSs. This would ensure that all exchanges with affiliated 
OEMSs will be subject to the same rule filing, or lack of rule filing, 
requirements.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will relieve 
any burden on, or otherwise promote, competition. Other market 
participants (such as broker-dealers and market participants) generally 
offer OEMS platforms in the market. If an OEMS platform is deemed a 
facility of the Exchange solely because of its affiliation or 
relationship with the Exchange but is otherwise operating on equal 
terms as other OEMS platforms available in the market, that facility 
determination ultimately burdens competition within the OEMS market. 
The Exchange would be required to submit rule filings with respect to 
the OEMS platform's functionality and fees despite receiving no benefit 
from its relationship with the OEMS platform nor having any right to 
use the OEMS platform. However, other providers of OEMS platforms that 
compete with the Exchange-affiliated OEMS platform would not be subject 
to rule filing requirements or the other obligations to which exchanges 
are subject. The Exchange believes this competitive disadvantage for 
Exchange-affiliated OEMS platforms harms competition within the OEM 
market to the detriment of customers of these products. The Exchange 
believes the proposed rule change will level the playing field among 
OEMS platforms that are operating with respect to the Exchange in 
accordance with the same terms and conditions, which ultimately 
benefits customers.

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 written comments on the 
proposed rule change.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the 
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the 
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be 
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to 
which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:
    A. by order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule 
change should be disapproved.

[[Page 15915]]

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 (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include 
file number SR-CBOE-2024-008 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-2024-008. 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 post all comments on 
the Commission's internet website (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all 
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are 
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to 
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other 
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the 
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and 
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, 
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for 
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not 
include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should 
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We 
may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted 
material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All 
submissions should refer to file number SR-CBOE-2024-008 and should be 
submitted on or before March 26, 2024.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-04548 Filed 3-4-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P