83 FR 6284 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Section VI. (Technology Fees) of the BOX Fee Schedule
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 30 (February 13, 2018)
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 30 (February 13, 2018)
| Page Range | 6284-6288 | |
| FR Document | 2018-02864 |
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 13, 2018)] [Notices] [Pages 6284-6288] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2018-02864] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-82654; File No. SR-BOX-2018-04] Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Section VI. (Technology Fees) of the BOX Fee Schedule February 7, 2018. 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 31, 2018, BOX Options Exchange LLC (the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. 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. \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of the Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule change to amend Section VI. (Technology Fees) of the BOX Fee Schedule. While changes to the fee schedule pursuant to this proposal will be effective upon filing, the changes will become operative on February 1, 2018. The text of the proposed rule change is available from the principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's internet website at http://boxexchange.com. 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 [[Page 6285]] 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 Section VI (Technology Fees) in the Fee Schedule. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Section VI.B. (High Speed Vendor Feed (``HSVF'')) in the BOX Fee Schedule to revise the fee charged per month for all market participants for receiving the HSVF. The Exchange's proprietary HSVF is currently available to all market participants at a fee of $750.00 per month; however, the Exchange now proposes to increase the fee to $1,500.00 per month for all market participants who receive the HSVF. This fee will be payable by any market participant that receives the HSVF through a direct connection to BOX and will be assessed once per market participant. In February 2013, the Exchange made its proprietary direct market data product, the HSVF, available to all market participants at no cost.\5\ In August 2016, the Exchange established a fee of $750 per month for the HSVF for all market participants.\6\ The Exchange now proposes to raise the monthly fee for the HSVF. The BOX HSVF is a proprietary product that provides: (i) Trades and trade cancelation information; (ii) best-ranked price level to buy and the best-ranked price level to sell; (iii) instrument summaries (including information such as high, low, and last trade price and traded volume); (iv) the five best limit prices for each option instrument; (v) request for Quote messages; \7\ (vi) PIP Order, Improvement Order and Block Trade Order (Facilitation and Solicitation) information; \8\ (vii) orders exposed at NBBO; \9\ (viii) instrument dictionary (e.g., strike price, expiration date, underlying symbol, price threshold, and minimum trading increment for instruments traded on BOX); (ix) options class and instrument status change notices (e.g., whether an instrument or class is in pre-opening, continuous trading, closed, halted, or prohibited from trading); and (x) options class opening time. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68833 (February 5, 2013), 78 FR 9758 (February 11, 2013) (SR-BOX-2013-04). \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78565 (August 18 [sic], 2016), 81 FR 55251 (August 3 [sic], 2016) (SR-BOX-2016-40). \7\ See Exchange Rules 100(a)(57), 7070(h) and 8050. \8\ As set forth in Exchange Rules 7150 and 7270, respectively. \9\ As set forth in Exchange Rules 7130(b)(3) and 8040(d)(6), respectively. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Exchange notes that data connection fees are charged by other options markets such as Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX''), Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX''), Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe''), Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (``C2''), Nasdaq BX, Inc. (``BX''), The Nasdaq Options Market (``NOM''), and Nasdaq PHLX LLC (``PHLX'').\10\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\ See the BZX Fee Schedule, available at: http:// markets.;cboe.com/us/options/membership/fee_schedule/bzx/, the EDGX Fee Schedule, available at: http://markets.cboe.com/us/options/membership/fee_schedule/edgx/, the Cboe Fee Schedule, available at http://www.cboe.com/publish/feeschedule/CBOEFeeSchedule.pdf and the Cboe Data Services Fee Schedule, available at https://www.cboe.org/publish/mdxfees/cboe-cds-fees-schedule-for-cboe-datafeeds.pdf, the C2 Fee Schedule, available at: http://www.cboe.com/publish/C2FeeSchedule/C2FeeSchedule.pdf and the C2 Data Services Fee Schedule, available at: https://www.cboe.org/publish/mdxfees/c2-cds-fees-schedule.pdf, the BX Fee Schedule, available at: http://nasdaqomxbx.cchwallstreet.com/NASDAQBXTools/PlatformViewer.asp?selectednode=chp_1_2_15&manual=%2FNASDAQOMXBX%2Fmain%2Fbx-eq-rules%2F; the NOM Fee Schedule, available at: http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com/NASDAQTools/PlatformViewer.asp?selectednode=chp_1_1_15_1_2&manual=%2Fnasdaq%2Fmain%2Fnasdaq-optionsrules%2F, the PHLX Fee Schedule, available at: http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com/NASDAQPHLXTools/PlatformViewer.asp?selectednode=chp_1_4_2&manual=%2Fnasdaqomxphlx%2Fphlx%2Fphlx-rulesbrd%2F, and the NASDAQ U.S. Derivatives Data Price List, available at: http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=DPPriceListOptions. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,\11\ in general, and Section 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\12\ in particular, in that it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among BOX Participants and other persons using the Exchange's facilities and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination among them. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and self-regulatory organization (``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.'' \13\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \13\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting Release''). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Likewise, in NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission \14\ (``NetCoalition'') the D.C. Circuit upheld the Commission's use of a market-based approach in evaluating the fairness of market data fees against a challenge claiming that Congress mandated a cost-based approach.\15\ As the court emphasized, the Commission ``intended in Regulation NMS that `market forces, rather than regulatory requirements' play a role in determining the market data. . . . to be made available to investors and at what cost.'' \16\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \14\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 2010). \15\ See NetCoalition, at 534-535. \16\ Id. at 537. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Further, ``[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.' . . .'' \17\ Although the court and the SEC were discussing the cash equities markets, the Exchange believes that these views apply with equal force to the options markets. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \17\ Id. at 539 (quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2, 2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-21)). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- BOX believes that the allocation of the proposed fee is fair and equitable in accordance with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, and not unreasonably discriminatory in accordance with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act. As described in greater detail below, if BOX has calculated improperly and the market deems the proposed fees to be unfair, inequitable, or unreasonably discriminatory, firms can discontinue the use of their data because the proposed product is entirely optional to all parties. Firms are not required to purchase data and BOX is not required to make data available or to offer specific pricing alternatives for potential purchases. BOX can discontinue offering a pricing alternative (as it has in the past) and firms can discontinue their use at any time and for any reason (as they often do), including due to their assessment of the reasonableness of fees [[Page 6286]] charged. BOX continues to establish and revise pricing policies aimed at increasing fairness and equitable allocation of fees among subscribers. The Exchange's proprietary HSVF is currently available to all market participants at a fee of $750.00 per month; however, the Exchange now proposes to increase the fee to $1,500.00 per month for all market participants who receive the HSVF. The Exchange believes that raising the HSVF fee to $1,500 per month per connection is reasonable and appropriate as it is within the connectivity fee range that is charged by other options exchanges.\18\ The Exchange believes comparing the HSVF to the data connectivity fees at other exchanges is appropriate as the Exchange currently assess [sic] the HSVF fee by connection to and not consumption of the data. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \18\ See supra, note 10. Cboe's and C2's data distributor CDS charges a $500 port fee per month; BZX and EDGX charge a connectivity fee between $250 and $14,500 a month for connectivity depending upon the data feed; BX charges a port fee between $500 and $650 per month depending upon the port; NOM charges a port fee between $650 and $750 a month depending upon the port, and PHLX charges a connectivity fee between $65 and $6,000 a month depending upon the data feed. The Exchange notes that the above mentioned exchanges charge these fees per port, while the Exchange proposes to assess the fee once per market participant. Furthermore, the Exchange notes that Cboe, C2, BZX, EDGX, NASDAQ BX, NOM, and PHLX charge the above mentioned connectivity fees in addition to data fees, which range from $1 to $14,500 depending upon the data feed and user type. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In addition, the Exchange believes that its fees are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all market participants are charged the same fee for access to the HSVF. Further, the Exchange notes that all market participants who wish to receive the feed may, as the feed is available to anyone willing to pay the proposed $1,500 monthly fee. B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change to the Fee Schedule will simply allow the Exchange to charge all market participants equally for the costs incurred by connecting to the BOX Network. The HSVF is similar to proprietary data products currently offered by other exchanges, and these other exchanges charge comparable monthly fees.\19\ While connection to the HSVF is required to receive the broadcasts for and participate in the Exchange's auction mechanisms,\20\ the Exchange does not believes [sic] the proposed monthly fee will impede competition within these auctions. As discussed above, the Exchange believes that fees for connectivity are constrained by the robust competition for order flow among exchanges and non- exchange markets. Further, excessive fees for connectivity would serve to impair [sic] ability to compete for order flow rather than burdening competition. As such, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \19\ Id. \20\ BOX's auction mechanisms include the Price Improvement Period (``PIP''), Complex Order Price Improvement Period (``COPIP''), Facilitation Auction and Solicitation Auction. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notwithstanding its determination that the Commission may rely upon competition to establish fair and equitably allocated fees for market data, the NetCoalition court found that the Commission had not, in that case, compiled a record that adequately supported its conclusion that the market for the data at issue in the case was competitive. BOX believes that a record may readily be established to demonstrate the competitive nature of the market in question. There is intense competition between trading platforms that provide transaction execution and routing services and proprietary data products. Transaction execution and proprietary data products are complementary in that market data is both an input and a byproduct of the execution service. In fact, market data and trade execution are a paradigmatic example of joint products with joint costs. Data products are valuable to many end subscribers only insofar as they provide information that end Subscribers expect will assist them or their customers in making trading decisions. The costs of producing market data include not only the costs of the data distribution infrastructure, but also the costs of designing, maintaining, and operating the exchange's transaction execution platform and the cost of regulating the exchange to ensure its fair operation and maintain investor confidence. The total return that a trading platform earns reflects the revenues it receives from both products and the joint costs it incurs. Moreover, an exchange's Participant's view the costs of transaction executions and of data as a unified cost of doing business with the exchange. A broker-dealer (``BD'') will direct orders to a particular exchange only if the expected revenues from executing trades on the exchange exceed net transaction execution costs and the cost of data that the BD chooses to buy to support its trading decisions (or those of its customers). The choice of data products is, in turn, a product of the value of the products in making profitable trading decisions. If the cost of the product exceeds its expected value, the BD will choose not to buy it. Moreover, as a BD chooses to direct fewer orders to a particular exchange, the value of the product to that BD decreases, for two reasons. First, the product will contain less information, because executions of the BD's orders will not be reflected in it. Second, and perhaps more important, the product will be less valuable to that BD because it does not provide information about the venue to which it is directing its orders. Data from the competing venue to which the BD is directing orders will become correspondingly more valuable. Thus, an increase in the fees charged for either transactions or data has the potential to impair revenues from both products. ``No one disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce'.'' NetCoalition at 24. However, the existence of fierce competition for order flow implies a high degree of price sensitivity on the part of BDs with order flow, since they may readily reduce costs by directing orders toward the lowest-cost trading venues. A BD that shifted its order flow from one platform to another in response to order execution price differentials would both reduce the value of that platform's market data and reduce its own need to consume data from the disfavored platform. Similarly, if a platform increases its market data fees, the change will affect the overall cost of doing business with the platform, and affected BDs will assess whether they can lower their trading costs by directing orders elsewhere and thereby lessening the need for the more expensive data. Analyzing the cost of market data distribution in isolation from the cost of all of the inputs supporting the creation of market data will inevitably underestimate the cost of the data. Thus, because it is impossible to create data without a fast, technologically robust, and well-regulated execution system, system costs and regulatory costs affect the price of market data. It would be equally misleading, however, to attribute all of the exchange's costs to the market data portion of an exchange's joint product. Rather, all of the exchange's costs are incurred for the unified purposes of attracting order flow, executing and/or routing orders, [[Page 6287]] and generating and selling data about market activity. The total return that an exchange earns reflects the revenues it receives from the joint products and the total costs of the joint products. Competition among trading platforms can be expected to constrain the aggregate return each platform earns from the sale of its joint products, but different platforms may choose from a range of possible, and equally reasonable, pricing strategies as the means of recovering total costs. Some exchanges pays rebates to attract orders, charges relatively low prices for market information and charges relatively high prices for accessing posted liquidity. Other platforms may choose a strategy of paying lower liquidity rebates to attract orders, setting relatively low prices for accessing posted liquidity, and setting relatively high prices for market information. Still others may provide most data free of charge and rely exclusively on transaction fees to recover their costs. Finally, some platforms may incentivize use by providing opportunities for equity ownership, which may allow them to charge lower direct fees for executions and data. In this environment, there is no economic basis for regulating maximum prices for one of the joint products in an industry in which suppliers face competitive constraints with regard to the joint offering. Such regulation is unnecessary because an ``excessive'' price for one of the joint products will ultimately have to be reflected in lower prices for other products sold by the firm, or otherwise the firm will experience a loss in the volume of its sales that will be adverse to its overall profitability. In other words, an increase in the price of data will ultimately have to be accompanied by a decrease in the cost of executions, or the volume of both data and executions will fall. The level of competition and contestability in the market is evident in the numerous alternative venues that compete for order flow, including eleven SRO markets, as well as internalizing BDs and various forms of alternative trading systems (``ATSs''), including dark pools and electronic communication networks (``ECNs''). Each SRO market competes to produce transaction reports via trade executions, and two FINRA-regulated TRFs compete to attract internalized transaction reports. It is common for BDs to further and exploit this competition by sending their order flow and transaction reports to multiple markets, rather than providing them all to a single market. Competitive markets for order flow, executions, and transaction reports provide pricing discipline for the inputs of proprietary data products. The large number of SROs, TRFs, BDs, and ATSs that currently produce proprietary data or are currently capable of producing it provides further pricing discipline for proprietary data products. Each SRO, TRF, ATS, and BD is currently permitted to produce proprietary data products, and many currently do or have announced plans to do so, including BOX, NYSE, NYSE MKT, NYSE Arca, and BATS/Direct Edge. Any ATS or BD can combine with any other ATS, BD, or multiple ATSs or BDs to produce joint proprietary data products. Additionally, order routers and market data vendors can facilitate single or multiple BDs' production of proprietary data products. The potential sources of proprietary products are virtually limitless. Notably, the potential sources of data include the BDs that submit trade reports to TRFs and that have the ability to consolidate and distribute their data without the involvement of FINRA or an exchange-operated TRF. The fact that proprietary data from ATSs, BDs, and vendors can by- pass SROs is significant in two respects. First, non-SROs can compete directly with SROs for the production and sale of proprietary data products, as BATS and NYSE Arca did before registering as exchanges by publishing proprietary book data on the internet. Second, because a single order or transaction report can appear in a core data product, a SRO proprietary product, and/or a non-SRO proprietary product, the data available in proprietary products is exponentially greater than the actual number of orders and transaction reports that exist in the marketplace. In addition to the competition and price discipline described above, the market for proprietary data products is also highly contestable because market entry is rapid, inexpensive, and profitable. The history of electronic trading is replete with examples of entrants that swiftly grew into some of the largest electronic trading platforms and proprietary data producers: Archipelago, Bloomberg Tradebook, Island, RediBook, Attain, TracECN, BATS Trading and BATS/Direct Edge. A proliferation of dark pools and other ATSs operate profitably with fragmentary shares of consolidated market volume. Regulation NMS, by deregulating the market for proprietary data, has increased the contestability of that market. While BDs have previously published their proprietary data individually, Regulation NMS encourages market data vendors and BDs to produce proprietary products cooperatively in a manner never before possible. Multiple market data vendors already have the capability to aggregate data and disseminate it on a profitable scale, including Bloomberg and Thomson Reuters. In Europe, Cinnober aggregates and disseminates data from over 40 brokers and multilateral trading facilities.\21\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \21\ See http://www.cinnober.com/boat-trade-reporting. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In this environment, a super-competitive increase in the fees charged for either transactions or data has the potential to impair revenues from both products. ``No one disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce'.'' NetCoalition I at 539. The existence of fierce competition for order flow implies a high degree of price sensitivity on the part of BDs with order flow, since they may readily reduce costs by directing orders toward the lowest-cost trading venues. A BD that shifted its order flow from one platform to another in response to order execution price differentials would both reduce the value of that platform's market data and reduce its own need to consume data from the disfavored platform. If a platform increases its market data fees, the change will affect the overall cost of doing business with the platform, and affected BDs will assess whether they can lower their trading costs by directing orders elsewhere and thereby lessening the need for the more expensive data. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others No written comments were either solicited or received. 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)(ii) of the Exchange Act \22\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\23\ because it establishes or changes a due, or fee. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). \23\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the rule change if it appears to the Commission that the action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or would otherwise further the purposes of the Act. If the [[Page 6288]] Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved. 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 CommentsUse 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-BOX-2018-04 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-BOX-2018-04. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such 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-BOX-2018-04, and should be submitted on or before March 6, 2018. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.\24\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \24\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. 2018-02864 Filed 2-12-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
![6284 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 13, 2018 / Notices
system, and, in general to protect including whether the proposed rule SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
investors and the public interest, by change is consistent with the Act. COMMISSION
removing an inappropriate and incorrect Comments may be submitted by any of
[Release No. 34–82654; File No. SR–BOX–
cross-reference to Rule 124(d) from Rule the following methods: 2018–04]
1092, thereby providing market
Electronic Comments
participants with a clearer description Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX
of the appropriate appeal process in • Use the Commission’s internet Options Exchange LLC; Notice of
Rule 1092. comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of
rules/sro.shtml); or a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s • Send an email to rule-comments@
Statement on Burden on Competition Section VI. (Technology Fees) of the
sec.gov. Please include File Number SR–
BOX Fee Schedule
The Exchange does not believe that Phlx–2018–15 on the subject line.
the proposed rule change will impose February 7, 2018.
any burden on competition not Paper Comments
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
necessary or appropriate in furtherance • Send paper comments in triplicate Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
of the purposes of the Act. The to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities ‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2
enhanced clarity of Rule 1092 resulting and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street notice is hereby given that on January
from this proposed rule change will NE, Washington, DC 20549–1090. 31, 2018, BOX Options Exchange LLC
benefit all market participants equally. All submissions should refer to File (the ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the
C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Number SR–Phlx–2018–15. This file Securities and Exchange Commission
Statement on Comments on the number should be included on the (‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule
Proposed Rule Change Received From subject line if email is used. To help the change as described in Items I, II, and
Members, Participants, or Others Commission process and review your III below, which Items have been
comments more efficiently, please use prepared by the Exchange. The
No written comments were either only one method. The Commission will Exchange filed the proposed rule change
solicited or received. post all comments on the Commission’s pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the
III. Date of Effectiveness of the internet website (http://www.sec.gov/ Act,3 and Rule 19b–4(f)(2) thereunder,4
Proposed Rule Change and Timing for rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the which renders the proposal effective
Commission Action submission, all subsequent upon filing with the Commission. The
amendments, all written statements Commission is publishing this notice to
Because the foregoing proposed rule
with respect to the proposed rule solicit comments on the proposed rule
change does not: (i) Significantly affect
change that are filed with the change from interested persons.
the protection of investors or the public
Commission, and all written
interest; (ii) impose any significant I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
communications relating to the
burden on competition; and (iii) become Statement of the Terms of the Substance
proposed rule change between the
operative for 30 days from the date on of the Proposed Rule Change
Commission and any person, other than
which it was filed, or such shorter time
those that may be withheld from the The Exchange is filing with the
as the Commission may designate, it has
public in accordance with the Securities and Exchange Commission
become effective pursuant to Section
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be (‘‘Commission’’) a proposed rule change
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 6 and
available for website viewing and to amend Section VI. (Technology Fees)
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b–4
printing in the Commission’s Public of the BOX Fee Schedule. While
thereunder.7
At any time within 60 days of the Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, changes to the fee schedule pursuant to
filing of the proposed rule change, the Washington, DC 20549 on official this proposal will be effective upon
Commission summarily may business days between the hours of filing, the changes will become
temporarily suspend such rule change if 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such operative on February 1, 2018. The text
it appears to the Commission that such filing also will be available for of the proposed rule change is available
action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in inspection and copying at the principal from the principal office of the
the public interest; (ii) for the protection office of the Exchange. All comments Exchange, at the Commission’s Public
of investors; or (iii) otherwise in received will be posted without change. Reference Room and also on the
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Persons submitting comments are Exchange’s internet website at http://
If the Commission takes such action, the cautioned that we do not redact or edit boxexchange.com.
Commission shall institute proceedings personal identifying information from
II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
to determine whether the proposed rule comment submissions. You should
Statement of the Purpose of, and
should be approved or disapproved. submit only information that you wish
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule
to make available publicly. All
IV. Solicitation of Comments Change
submissions should refer to File
Interested persons are invited to Number SR–Phlx–2018–15, and should In its filing with the Commission, the
submit written data, views, and be submitted on or before March 6, Exchange included statements
arguments concerning the foregoing, 2018. concerning the purpose of and basis for
the proposed rule change and discussed
For the Commission, by the Division of
6 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated
any comments it received on the
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
7 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b–
authority.8 proposed rule change. The text of these
4(f)(6) requires a self-regulatory organization to give
Eduardo A. Aleman,
statements may be examined at the
the Commission written notice of its intent to file places specified in Item IV below. The
the proposed rule change, along with a brief Assistant Secretary.
description and text of the proposed rule change, [FR Doc. 2018–02860 Filed 2–12–18; 8:45 am] 1 15
at least five business days prior to the date of filing U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.
of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time
3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
as designated by the Commission. The Exchange
has satisfied this requirement. 8 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 4 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(2).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 23:12 Feb 12, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00126 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13FEN1.SGM 13FEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_6314/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 13, 2018 / Notices 6285
Exchange has prepared summaries, set status change notices (e.g., whether an promoting market competition in its
forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of instrument or class is in pre-opening, broader forms that are most important to
the most significant aspects of such continuous trading, closed, halted, or investors and listed companies.’’ 13
statements. prohibited from trading); and (x) options Likewise, in NetCoalition v. Securities
class opening time. and Exchange Commission 14
A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s The Exchange notes that data (‘‘NetCoalition’’) the D.C. Circuit upheld
Statement of the Purpose of, and connection fees are charged by other the Commission’s use of a market-based
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule options markets such as Cboe BZX approach in evaluating the fairness of
Change Exchange, Inc. (‘‘BZX’’), Cboe EDGX market data fees against a challenge
1. Purpose Exchange, Inc. (‘‘EDGX’’), Cboe claiming that Congress mandated a cost-
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange, Inc. (‘‘Cboe’’), Cboe C2 based approach.15 As the court
Section VI (Technology Fees) in the Fee Exchange, Inc. (‘‘C2’’), Nasdaq BX, Inc. emphasized, the Commission ‘‘intended
Schedule. Specifically, the Exchange (‘‘BX’’), The Nasdaq Options Market in Regulation NMS that ‘market forces,
proposes to amend Section VI.B. (High (‘‘NOM’’), and Nasdaq PHLX LLC rather than regulatory requirements’
Speed Vendor Feed (‘‘HSVF’’)) in the (‘‘PHLX’’).10 play a role in determining the market
BOX Fee Schedule to revise the fee 2. Statutory Basis data. . . . to be made available to
charged per month for all market investors and at what cost.’’ 16
The Exchange believes that the Further, ‘‘[n]o one disputes that
participants for receiving the HSVF. The proposal is consistent with the
Exchange’s proprietary HSVF is competition for order flow is ‘fierce.’
requirements of Section 6(b) of the . . . As the SEC explained, ‘[i]n the U.S.
currently available to all market Act,11 in general, and Section 6(b)(4)
participants at a fee of $750.00 per national market system, buyers and
and (5) of the Act,12 in particular, in that sellers of securities, and the broker-
month; however, the Exchange now it provides for the equitable allocation
proposes to increase the fee to $1,500.00 dealers that act as their order-routing
of reasonable dues, fees, and other agents, have a wide range of choices of
per month for all market participants charges among BOX Participants and
who receive the HSVF. This fee will be where to route orders for execution’;
other persons using the Exchange’s [and] ‘no exchange can afford to take its
payable by any market participant that facilities and is not designed to permit
receives the HSVF through a direct market share percentages for granted’
unfair discrimination among them. because ‘no exchange possesses a
connection to BOX and will be assessed The Commission and the courts have
once per market participant. monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in
repeatedly expressed their preference
In February 2013, the Exchange made the execution of order flow from broker
for competition over regulatory
its proprietary direct market data dealers.’ . . .’’ 17 Although the court and
intervention in determining prices,
product, the HSVF, available to all the SEC were discussing the cash
products, and services in the securities
market participants at no cost.5 In equities markets, the Exchange believes
markets. In Regulation NMS, while
August 2016, the Exchange established that these views apply with equal force
adopting a series of steps to improve the
a fee of $750 per month for the HSVF current market model, the Commission to the options markets.
for all market participants.6 The BOX believes that the allocation of the
highlighted the importance of market
Exchange now proposes to raise the proposed fee is fair and equitable in
forces in determining prices and self-
monthly fee for the HSVF. The BOX accordance with Section 6(b)(4) of the
regulatory organization (‘‘SRO’’)
HSVF is a proprietary product that Act, and not unreasonably
revenues and, also, recognized that
provides: (i) Trades and trade current regulation of the market system discriminatory in accordance with
cancelation information; (ii) best-ranked ‘‘has been remarkably successful in Section 6(b)(5) of the Act. As described
price level to buy and the best-ranked in greater detail below, if BOX has
price level to sell; (iii) instrument 10 See the BZX Fee Schedule, available at: http:// calculated improperly and the market
summaries (including information such markets.;cboe.com/us/options/membership/fee_ deems the proposed fees to be unfair,
as high, low, and last trade price and schedule/bzx/, the EDGX Fee Schedule, available at: inequitable, or unreasonably
http://markets.cboe.com/us/options/membership/ discriminatory, firms can discontinue
traded volume); (iv) the five best limit fee_schedule/edgx/, the Cboe Fee Schedule,
prices for each option instrument; (v) available at http://www.cboe.com/publish/ the use of their data because the
request for Quote messages; 7 (vi) PIP feeschedule/CBOEFeeSchedule.pdf and the Cboe proposed product is entirely optional to
Order, Improvement Order and Block Data Services Fee Schedule, available at https:// all parties. Firms are not required to
www.cboe.org/publish/mdxfees/cboe-cds-fees- purchase data and BOX is not required
Trade Order (Facilitation and schedule-for-cboe-datafeeds.pdf, the C2 Fee
Solicitation) information; 8 (vii) orders Schedule, available at: http://www.cboe.com/ to make data available or to offer
exposed at NBBO; 9 (viii) instrument publish/C2FeeSchedule/C2FeeSchedule.pdf and the specific pricing alternatives for potential
dictionary (e.g., strike price, expiration C2 Data Services Fee Schedule, available at: https:// purchases. BOX can discontinue
www.cboe.org/publish/mdxfees/c2-cds-fees- offering a pricing alternative (as it has
date, underlying symbol, price schedule.pdf, the BX Fee Schedule, available at:
threshold, and minimum trading http://nasdaqomxbx.cchwallstreet.com/NASDAQ in the past) and firms can discontinue
increment for instruments traded on BXTools/PlatformViewer.asp?selectednode=chp_1_ their use at any time and for any reason
BOX); (ix) options class and instrument 2_15&manual=%2FNASDAQOMXBX%2F (as they often do), including due to their
main%2Fbx-eq-rules%2F; the NOM Fee Schedule, assessment of the reasonableness of fees
available at: http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com/
5 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68833
NASDAQTools/PlatformViewer.asp?selectednode=
(February 5, 2013), 78 FR 9758 (February 11, 2013) chp_1_1_15_1_2&manual=%2Fnasdaq%2Fmain
13 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808
(SR–BOX–2013–04). %2Fnasdaq-optionsrules%2F, the PHLX Fee (June 9, 2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005)
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
6 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78565
Schedule, available at: http://nasdaqomxphlx. (‘‘Regulation NMS Adopting Release’’).
(August 18 [sic], 2016), 81 FR 55251 (August 3 [sic], cchwallstreet.com/NASDAQPHLXTools/Platform 14 NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir.
2016) (SR–BOX–2016–40). Viewer.asp?selectednode=chp_1_4_2&manual=%2 2010).
7 See Exchange Rules 100(a)(57), 7070(h) and Fnasdaqomxphlx%2Fphlx%2Fphlx-rulesbrd%2F, 15 See NetCoalition, at 534–535.
8050. and the NASDAQ U.S. Derivatives Data Price List, 16 Id. at 537.
8 As set forth in Exchange Rules 7150 and 7270, available at: http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/ 17 Id. at 539 (quoting Securities Exchange Act
respectively. Trader.aspx?id=DPPriceListOptions. Release No. 59039 (December 2, 2008), 73 FR
9 As set forth in Exchange Rules 7130(b)(3) and 11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
74770, 74782–83 (December 9, 2008) (SR–
8040(d)(6), respectively. 12 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5). NYSEArca–2006–21)).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 23:12 Feb 12, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00127 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13FEN1.SGM 13FEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_6314/page/2.svg)
![6286 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 13, 2018 / Notices
charged. BOX continues to establish and Exchange’s auction mechanisms,20 the exchange only if the expected revenues
revise pricing policies aimed at Exchange does not believes [sic] the from executing trades on the exchange
increasing fairness and equitable proposed monthly fee will impede exceed net transaction execution costs
allocation of fees among subscribers. competition within these auctions. As and the cost of data that the BD chooses
The Exchange’s proprietary HSVF is discussed above, the Exchange believes to buy to support its trading decisions
currently available to all market that fees for connectivity are (or those of its customers). The choice
participants at a fee of $750.00 per constrained by the robust competition of data products is, in turn, a product of
month; however, the Exchange now for order flow among exchanges and the value of the products in making
proposes to increase the fee to $1,500.00 non-exchange markets. Further, profitable trading decisions. If the cost
per month for all market participants excessive fees for connectivity would of the product exceeds its expected
who receive the HSVF. The Exchange serve to impair [sic] ability to compete value, the BD will choose not to buy it.
believes that raising the HSVF fee to for order flow rather than burdening Moreover, as a BD chooses to direct
$1,500 per month per connection is competition. As such, the Exchange fewer orders to a particular exchange,
reasonable and appropriate as it is does not believe that the proposed rule the value of the product to that BD
within the connectivity fee range that is change will impose any burden on decreases, for two reasons. First, the
charged by other options exchanges.18 competition not necessary or product will contain less information,
The Exchange believes comparing the appropriate in furtherance of the because executions of the BD’s orders
HSVF to the data connectivity fees at purposes of the Act. will not be reflected in it. Second, and
other exchanges is appropriate as the Notwithstanding its determination perhaps more important, the product
Exchange currently assess [sic] the that the Commission may rely upon will be less valuable to that BD because
HSVF fee by connection to and not competition to establish fair and it does not provide information about
consumption of the data. equitably allocated fees for market data, the venue to which it is directing its
In addition, the Exchange believes the NetCoalition court found that the orders. Data from the competing venue
that its fees are equitable and not Commission had not, in that case, to which the BD is directing orders will
unfairly discriminatory because all compiled a record that adequately become correspondingly more valuable.
market participants are charged the supported its conclusion that the market Thus, an increase in the fees charged
same fee for access to the HSVF. for the data at issue in the case was for either transactions or data has the
Further, the Exchange notes that all competitive. BOX believes that a record potential to impair revenues from both
market participants who wish to receive may readily be established to products. ‘‘No one disputes that
the feed may, as the feed is available to demonstrate the competitive nature of competition for order flow is ‘fierce’.’’
anyone willing to pay the proposed the market in question. NetCoalition at 24. However, the
$1,500 monthly fee. There is intense competition between existence of fierce competition for order
trading platforms that provide flow implies a high degree of price
B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s transaction execution and routing sensitivity on the part of BDs with order
Statement on Burden on Competition services and proprietary data products. flow, since they may readily reduce
The Exchange does not believe that Transaction execution and proprietary costs by directing orders toward the
the proposed rule change will result in data products are complementary in that lowest-cost trading venues. A BD that
any burden on competition that is not market data is both an input and a shifted its order flow from one platform
necessary or appropriate in furtherance byproduct of the execution service. In to another in response to order
of the purposes of the Act. The fact, market data and trade execution are execution price differentials would both
proposed change to the Fee Schedule a paradigmatic example of joint reduce the value of that platform’s
will simply allow the Exchange to products with joint costs. Data products market data and reduce its own need to
charge all market participants equally are valuable to many end subscribers consume data from the disfavored
for the costs incurred by connecting to only insofar as they provide information platform. Similarly, if a platform
the BOX Network. The HSVF is similar that end Subscribers expect will assist increases its market data fees, the
to proprietary data products currently them or their customers in making change will affect the overall cost of
offered by other exchanges, and these trading decisions. doing business with the platform, and
other exchanges charge comparable The costs of producing market data affected BDs will assess whether they
include not only the costs of the data can lower their trading costs by
monthly fees.19 While connection to the
distribution infrastructure, but also the directing orders elsewhere and thereby
HSVF is required to receive the
costs of designing, maintaining, and lessening the need for the more
broadcasts for and participate in the
operating the exchange’s transaction expensive data.
Analyzing the cost of market data
18 See supra, note 10. Cboe’s and C2’s data execution platform and the cost of
distributor CDS charges a $500 port fee per month;
distribution in isolation from the cost of
regulating the exchange to ensure its fair
BZX and EDGX charge a connectivity fee between all of the inputs supporting the creation
operation and maintain investor
$250 and $14,500 a month for connectivity of market data will inevitably
depending upon the data feed; BX charges a port confidence. The total return that a underestimate the cost of the data. Thus,
fee between $500 and $650 per month depending trading platform earns reflects the because it is impossible to create data
upon the port; NOM charges a port fee between revenues it receives from both products
$650 and $750 a month depending upon the port, without a fast, technologically robust,
and PHLX charges a connectivity fee between $65
and the joint costs it incurs. Moreover, and well-regulated execution system,
and $6,000 a month depending upon the data feed. an exchange’s Participant’s view the system costs and regulatory costs affect
The Exchange notes that the above mentioned costs of transaction executions and of
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
exchanges charge these fees per port, while the
the price of market data. It would be
data as a unified cost of doing business equally misleading, however, to
Exchange proposes to assess the fee once per market
participant. Furthermore, the Exchange notes that
with the exchange. A broker-dealer attribute all of the exchange’s costs to
Cboe, C2, BZX, EDGX, NASDAQ BX, NOM, and (‘‘BD’’) will direct orders to a particular the market data portion of an exchange’s
PHLX charge the above mentioned connectivity fees joint product. Rather, all of the
in addition to data fees, which range from $1 to 20 BOX’s auction mechanisms include the Price
$14,500 depending upon the data feed and user Improvement Period (‘‘PIP’’), Complex Order Price
exchange’s costs are incurred for the
type. Improvement Period (‘‘COPIP’’), Facilitation unified purposes of attracting order
19 Id. Auction and Solicitation Auction. flow, executing and/or routing orders,
VerDate Sep<11>2014 23:12 Feb 12, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00128 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13FEN1.SGM 13FEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_6314/page/3.svg)
![6288 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 13, 2018 / Notices
Commission takes such action, the For the Commission, by the Division of II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Commission shall institute proceedings Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated Statement of the Purpose of, and
to determine whether the proposed rule authority.24 Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule
should be approved or disapproved. Eduardo A. Aleman, Change
Assistant Secretary.
IV. Solicitation of Comments In its filing with the Commission, the
[FR Doc. 2018–02864 Filed 2–12–18; 8:45 am]
Interested persons are invited to Exchange included statements
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
submit written data, views, and concerning the purpose of and basis for
arguments concerning the foregoing, the proposed rule change and discussed
including whether the proposed rule SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE any comments it received on the
change is consistent with the Act. COMMISSION proposed rule change. The text of these
Comments may be submitted by any of statements may be examined at the
the following methods: [Release No. 34–82652; File No. SR– places specified in Item IV below. The
CboeBZX–2018–009] Exchange has prepared summaries, set
Electronic Comments forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of
• Use the Commission’s internet Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe the most significant parts of such
comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing statements.
rules/sro.shtml); or and Immediate Effectiveness of a
A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
• Send an email to rule-comments@ Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees
Statement of the Purpose of, and
sec.gov. Please include File Number SR– for Use on the Exchange’s Equity
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule
BOX–2018–04 on the subject line. Options Platform
Change
Paper Comments February 7, 2018.
1. Purpose
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
• Send paper comments in triplicate
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the The Exchange proposes to amend its
to Secretary, Securities and Exchange
‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2 fee schedule for its equity options
Commission, 100 F Street NE,
notice is hereby given that on February platform (‘‘BZX Options’’) to make
Washington, DC 20549–1090.
1, 2018, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the certain changes to the following tiers: (i)
All submissions should refer to File ‘‘Exchange’’ or ‘‘BZX’’) filed with the Customer Penny Pilot Add Tiers under
Number SR–BOX–2018–04. This file Securities and Exchange Commission footnote 1; (ii) Quoting Incentive
number should be included on the (‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule Program (‘‘QIP’’) Tiers under footnote 5;
subject line if email is used. To help the change as described in Items I, II, and (iii) Market Maker Non-Penny Pilot Add
Commission process and review your III below, which Items have been Volume Tiers under footnote 7; and (iv)
comments more efficiently, please use prepared by the Exchange. The Away Market Maker Non-Penny Pilot
only one method. The Commission will Exchange has designated the proposed Add Volume Tiers under 11.
post all comments on the Commission’s rule change as one establishing or
internet website (http://www.sec.gov/ Customer Penny Pilot Add Tiers
changing a member due, fee, or other
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the charge imposed by the Exchange under The Exchange currently offers eight
submission, all subsequent Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 3 and Customer 6 Penny Pilot Add Tiers under
amendments, all written statements Rule 19b–4(f)(2) thereunder,4 which footnote 1, which provide an enhanced
with respect to the proposed rule renders the proposed rule change rebate ranging from $0.40 to $0.53 per
change that are filed with the effective upon filing with the contract for qualifying Customer orders
Commission, and all written Commission. The Commission is that add liquidity in Penny Pilot
communications relating to the publishing this notice to solicit Securities 7 and yield fee code PY. The
proposed rule change between the comments on the proposed rule change Exchange now proposes to modify Tier
Commission and any person, other than from interested persons. 1’s required criteria and rebate.
those that may be withheld from the Currently under Tier 1, a Member may
public in accordance with the I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement of the Terms of Substance of receive a rebate of $0.40 per contract
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be where they have an ADV 8 greater than
available for website viewing and the Proposed Rule Change
or equal to 0.05% of average OCV.9 As
printing in the Commission’s Public The Exchange filed a proposal to amended, a Member may receive a
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, amend the fee schedule applicable to rebate of $0.35 per contract where they
Washington, DC 20549 on official Members 5 and non-Members of the
business days between the hours of Exchange pursuant to BZX Rules 15.1(a) 6 ‘‘Customer’’ applies to any transaction identified
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such and (c). by a Member for clearing in the Customer range at
filing also will be available for The text of the proposed rule change the OCC, excluding any transaction for a Broker
inspection and copying at the principal is available at the Exchange’s website at Dealer or a ‘‘Professional’’ as defined in Exchange
office of the Exchange. All comments Rule 16.1. http://markets.cboe.com/us/options/
www.markets.cboe.com, at the principal membership/fee_schedule/bzx/.
received will be posted without change. office of the Exchange, and at the 7 ‘‘Penny Pilot Securities’’ are those issues quoted
Persons submitting comments are Commission’s Public Reference Room. pursuant to Exchange Rule 21.5, Interpretation and
cautioned that we do not redact or edit Policy .01. Id.
personal identifying information from 8 ‘‘ADV’’ means average daily volume calculated
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
24 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).
comment submissions. You should 1 15
as the number of contracts added or removed,
U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). combined, per day. Id.
submit only information that you wish 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.
9 ‘‘OCV’’ means the total equity and ETF options
to make available publicly. All 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
volume that clears in the Customer range at the
submissions should refer to File 4 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(2).
Options Clearing Corporation (‘‘OCC’’) for the
5 The term ‘‘Member’’ is defined as ‘‘any month for which the fees apply, excluding volume
Number SR–BOX–2018–04, and should
registered broker or dealer that has been admitted on any day that the Exchange experiences an
be submitted on or before March 6, to membership in the Exchange.’’ See Exchange Exchange System Disruption and on any day with
2018. Rule 1.5(n). a scheduled early market close. Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 23:12 Feb 12, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00130 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13FEN1.SGM 13FEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_6314/page/5.svg)
Document Created: 2018-02-13 02:32:40
Document Modified: 2018-02-13 02:32:40
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| FR Citation | 83 FR 6284 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR