[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 222 (Monday, November 18, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63701-63709]
[FR Doc No: 2019-24862]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87495; File No. SR-CBOE-2019-106]

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

November 8, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 1, 2019, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'' or ``Cboe
Options'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe Options'') proposes
to amend its Fees Schedule in connection with migration. 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
    In 2016, the Exchange's parent company, Cboe Global Markets, Inc.
(formerly named CBOE Holdings, Inc.) (``Cboe Global''), which is also
the parent company of Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (``C2''), acquired Cboe
EDGA Exchange, Inc. (``EDGA''), Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX'' or
``EDGX Options''), Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX'' or ``BZX
Options''), and Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (``BYX'' and, together with
Cboe Options, C2, EDGX, EDGA, and BZX, the ``Cboe Affiliated
Exchanges''). Cboe Options intends to migrate its trading platform to
the same system used by the Cboe Affiliated Exchanges, and also migrate
its current billing system to a new billing system, on October 7, 2019
(the ``migration''). Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend
certain fees in the Fees Schedule in connection with the migration.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange initially filed the proposed fee changes on
October 4, 2019 (SR-CBOE-2019-097). On October 18, 2019, (but
business date October 21, 2019) the Exchange withdrew that filing
and replaced it with SR-CBOE-2019-101. On November 1, 2019, the
Exchange withdrew that filing and submitted this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consolidated Rate Tables
    First, the Exchange proposes to reorganize and rename its standard
transaction fee tables. Particularly, the Exchange proposes to
consolidate its current rate tables for equity, ETF and ETN, and Index
Products excluding Underlying Symbol List A into a single table and
relocate its transaction fees relating to Sector Indexes into that
table. As proposed, the Fees Schedule will consist of two transaction
fee tables renamed as: (1) ``Rate Table--All Products Excluding
Underlying Symbol List A'' and (2) ``Rate Table--Underlying Symbol List
A''. The Exchange also proposes to make other clarifying, non-
substantive changes such as: (i) Separating out Clearing Trading Permit
Holder Proprietary fees for Underlying Symbol List A into two line
items: (1) Underlying Symbol List A excluding VIX and (2) VIX and (ii)
consolidating and relocating fees for Broker-Dealer, Non-Trading Permit
Holder Market Maker, Professional and Joint Back Office orders in RUT,
RLG, RLV, RUI and UKXM into the section immediately above it (i.e., for
fees for Broker-Dealer, Non-Trading Permit Holder Market Maker,
Professional and Joint Back Office orders in OEX, XEO, SPX (incl SPXW)
and VIX). The Exchange also proposes to indicate in the rate table that
fees for RLG, RLV, RUI and UKXM are $0.00, as such fees are currently
waived.\4\ The Exchange notes the proposed consolidation and non-
substantive changes are intended to make the Fees Schedule easier to
read and not intended to change any fees other than what is discussed
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange notes such waiver is in place through December
31, 2019. See Cboe Options Footnote 40, which footnote is appended
to corresponding rates in the rate table as applicable. The proposed
addition of Fee Code WR in the rate table is not intended to make
such waiver permanent and Footnote 40 continues to apply.

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

Fee Codes
    The Exchange first proposes to adopt and codify in its Fees
Schedule fee codes for its standard transaction fees. The Exchange
notes that on the Affiliated Exchanges, rather than returning a
monetary value indicating the rebate or charge for an execution, a fee
code is utilized as an indication of a fee classification corresponding
to an item on the venue's fee schedule. Upon migration, the Exchange's
new billing system will also utilize various fee codes. The Exchange
believes incorporating these fee codes directly into the fees schedule
will provide clarity in the Fees Schedule and allow Trading Permit
Holders (``TPHs'') to more easily validate their bills on a monthly
basis.\5\ The Exchange notes that none of these changes substantively
amend any fee or rebate, nor do they alter the manner in which the
Exchange assesses fees or calculates rebates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange also proposes to publish a list of its fee
codes on its website. The list will include the fee or rebate, fee
code, and a description for each possible execution that could occur
on the Exchange. The Exchange notes that this table is merely a
consolidated table which lists each of the proposed fee codes that
will be incorporated directly into the Fees Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Linkage
    In addition to adopting fee codes for standard transaction fees,
the Exchange proposes to adopt fee codes for Linkage Routing Fees.
Currently, the Exchange's Fees Schedule provides generally that for
Customer orders, in addition to the customary Cboe Options execution
charges for each Customer order that is routed, the Exchange passes
through the actual transaction fee assessed by the exchange(s) to which
the order was routed plus an additional $0.15 per contract.\6\ The
Exchange also does not pass through or otherwise charge customer orders
(of any size) routed to other exchanges that were originally
transmitted to the Exchange from the trading floor through an Exchange-
sponsored terminal (e.g., PULSe Workstation). For Non-Customer Orders,
the Exchange assesses a $0.70 per contract routing fee in addition to
the customary Cboe Options execution charges. Effective, October 7,
2019, the Exchange proposes to specifically specify the exact charge
for linkage for each type of transaction and adopt a corresponding fee
code. Particularly, the Exchange will list the fee code and transaction
fee for routed (i) Customer orders routed to NYSE American, LLC
(``AMEX''), BOX Exchange LLC (``BOX''), NASDAQ BX, Inc. (``BX''), Cboe
EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX''), Nasdaq MRX, LLC (``MRX''), Miami
International Securities Exchange, LLC (``MIAX''), or Nasdaq PHLX LLC
(``PHLX'') for ETF orders equal to or greater than 100 contracts, (ii)
Customer orders routed to AMEX, BOX, BX, EDGX, MRX, MIAX, or PHLX for
ETF orders less than 100 contracts and equity options, (iii) Customer
orders routed to NYSE Arca, Inc. (``ARCA''), Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.,
(``BZX''), Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (``C2''), Nasdaq ISE, LLC (``ISE''),
Nasdaq GEMX, LLC (``GEMX''), MIAX Emerald, LLC (``Emerald''), MIAX
PEARL, LLC (``Pearl''), or Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``NOMX'') for ETF
orders equal to or greater than 100 contracts in Penny and Non-Penny
classes, (iv) Customer orders routed to ARCA, BZX, C2, ISE, GEMX,
Emerald, Pearl or NOMX for ETF orders less than 100 contracts and
equity options in Penny and Non-Penny classes, (v) and Non-Customer
Orders in Penny and Non-Penny classes. The proposed fees are as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Multiple orders from the same executing firm for itself or
for a CMTA or correspondent firm in the same series on the same side
of the market that are received within 500 milliseconds are
currently aggregated for purposes of determining the order quantity
and will continue to be aggregated post-migration.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Capacity                        Fee                            Description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Customer.................................           $0.33  Routed to AMEX, BOX, BX, EDGX, MRX, MIAX, PHLX, >=
                                                            100 contracts, ETF.
                                                     0.15  Routed to AMEX, BOX, BX, EDGX, MRX, MIAX, PHLX, < 100
                                                            contracts ETF, Equity.
                                                     0.83  Routed to ARCA, BZX, C2, ISE, GMNI, EMLD, PERL, NOMX,
                                                            >= 100 contracts ETF, Penny.
                                                     1.18  Routed to ARCA, BZX, C2, ISE, GMNI, EMLD, PERL, NOMX,
                                                            >= 100 contracts ETF, Non-Penny.
                                                     0.65  Routed to ARCA, BZX, C2, ISE, GMNI, EMLD, PERL, NOMX,
                                                            <100 contracts ETF, Equity, Penny.
                                                     1.00  Routed to ARCA, BZX, C2, ISE, GMNI, EMLD, PERL, NOMX,
                                                            <100 contracts ETF, Equity, Non-Penny.
Non-Customer.............................            1.17  Routed, Penny.
                                                     1.45  Routed, Non-Penny.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the linkage routing rates for (i) Non-
Customer Orders and (ii) Customer Orders routed to AMEX, BOX, BX, EDGX,
MRX, MIAX, and PHLX are not changing. Rather the Exchange is merely
expressing the fee as single rate for (1) Non-Customer orders by
combining the $0.70 per contract fee and the customary Cboe Options
execution charges (i.e., $0.47 per contract for Penny Classes and $0.75
per contract for Non-Penny Classes) and (2) for Customer Orders by
combining the $0.15 per contract fee plus the customary Cboe Options
execution charges (i.e., $0.00 for equity options and ETF orders less
than 100 contracts and $0.18 per contract for ETF orders equal to or
greater than 100 contracts) and the actual transaction fee assessed by
the Exchange to which the order was routed (i.e., $0.00 for AMEX, BOX,
BX, EDGX, MRX, MIAX, and PHLX .The Exchange notes that it is amending
the linkage fee with respect to any order routed to ARCA, BZX, C2, ISE,
GEMX, Emerald, Pearl and NOMX. Particularly, unlike orders routed to
AMEX, BOX, BX, EDGX, MRX, MIAX, and PHLX, which do not assess fees for
Customer orders, ARCA, BZX, C2, ISE, GEMX, Emerald, Pearl and NOMX each
assess slightly different fees for Customer orders. Instead of
assessing different and distinct fees for orders routed to each of
ARCA, BZX, C2, ISE GEMX, Emerald, Pearl and NOMX, the Exchange proposes
to simplify billing for these orders and instead assess the same
fee.\7\ Particularly, the Exchange proposes to assess the $0.15 per
routing contract fee plus the customary Cboe Options execution charges
(i.e., $0.00 for equity options and ETF orders less than 100 contracts
and $0.18 per contract for ETF orders equal to or greater than 100
contracts) and the $0.50 per contract for Penny Classes and $0.85 per
contract for Non-Penny Classes. The Exchange notes that other
exchanges, including two of its Affiliated Exchanges, assess linkage
fees expressed as a single fee for orders routed to these exchanges and
that the proposed fees are in line with, and in some instances

lower than, those fees.\8\ The Exchange lastly proposes to eliminate
the exception that the Exchange will not pass through or otherwise
charge customer orders (of any size) routed to other exchanges that
were originally transmitted to the Exchange from the trading floor
through an Exchange-sponsored terminal (e.g., PULSe Workstation). The
Exchange notes that it is not required to maintain such an exception
and that it expects the impact of the proposed change to be relatively
small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange notes that the range of standard fees assessed
by ARCA, BZX, C2, ISE, GEMX, Emerald, Pearl and NOMX for Customer
Orders in Penny Classes is between $0.41 per contract to $0.50 per
contract and in Non-Penny Classes is either $0.84 per contract or
$0.85 per contract.
    \8\ See Cboe BZX Options Exchange Fee Schedule and Cboe EDGX
Options Exchange Fee Schedule, which both assess for Routed Customer
Orders to ARCA, BZX, C2, ISE, GEMX, Emerald, Pearl and NOMX $0.85
per contract for penny classes and $1.25 per contract for non-penny
classes (yielding fee codes RQ and RR, respectively). See also MIAX
Options Fees Schedule which assess for Routed Customer Orders to
ARCA, BZX, C2, ISE, GEMX, Emerald, Pearl and NOMX $0.65 per contract
for penny classes and $1.00 per contract for non-penny classes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Capacity
    Recently, the Exchange filed to codify capacity codes in its
Rules.\9\ By way of background, the Exchange currently refers to
capacity as ``origin code'', which codes are used to specify which type
of market participant the order belongs to. Cboe Options origin codes
had previously been codified in Regulatory Circular RG13-038. The
recently codified Capacities (effective October 7, 2019), are the same
as the Exchange's current origin codes (prior to October 7, 2019),
except the proposed rule change replaces ``W'' with ``U'' and deletes
``Y'' (orders for the account of a specialist registered in the
underlying stock at the primary exchange for trading the stock), which
will not be available following migration. The Exchange's Fees Schedule
currently identifies market participant types by ``origin code''. In
light of the codified capacity codes in the Exchange Rules, the
Exchange proposes to update references to ``origin'' to ``capacity''
and also update the proposed corresponding codes. The codes are as
follows: B (account of a broker or dealer, including a Foreign Broker-
Dealer), C (Public Customer account), F (OCC clearing firm proprietary
account), J (joint back office account), L (non-Trading Permit Holder
affiliate account), M (Market-Maker account), N (market-maker or
specialist on another options exchange), U (Professional account).
Additionally, the Exchange proposes to eliminate all references to the
term ``Voluntary Professional'' as the Exchange is eliminating
Voluntary Professionals, effective October 7, 2019.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No 86173 (June 20, 2019)
84 FR 30267 (June 26, 2019) (SR-CBOE-2019-027).
    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Execution Surcharge
    The Exchange currently assesses an Execution Surcharge of $0.21 per
contract for SPX Customer and Non-Customer, Non-Market Maker orders
during the Regular Trading Hours (``RTH'') session only (i.e., the
surcharge does not apply during the Global Trading Hours (``GTH'')
session. Additionally, pursuant to Footnote 21 of the Fees Schedule,
the Surcharge does not apply to (i) orders in SPX or SPXW options in
the SPX electronic book for those SPX or SPXW options that are executed
during opening rotation on the final settlement date of VIX options and
futures which have the expiration that contribute to the VIX settlement
and (ii) orders executed by a floor broker using a PAR terminal. The
Exchange proposes to amend the Execution Surcharge in two ways.
    First, the Exchange notes that upon migration, the Exchange will
use the same Book for GTH and RTH (whereas today, each session has a
separate Book). As such, the Exchange proposes to apply the SPX
Execution Surcharge in both sessions. The Exchange notes that other
executions surcharges, such as the SPXW Execution Surcharge, are also
assessed in both RTH and GTH.
    Next, the Exchange proposes to amend one of the exceptions to the
SPX and SPXW Execution Surcharge. As noted above, the execution
surcharge is currently waived for all SPX and SPXW option series that
are (i) executed in the electronic book during opening rotation on the
final settlement date of VIX options and futures and (ii) which have
the expiration that is used to calculate the exercise or final
settlement value (``constituent options series''). While the Exchange
knows which expiration will be used to calculate the exercise or final
settlement value prior to the opening, the actual SPX and SPXW series
that the Exchange will use to calculate the exercise or settlement
value (``settlement strip'') are not known until after the opening. As
such, the current exception applies to all constituent options series,
as TPHs do not know which series in the constituent options series will
ultimately contribute to the VIX settlement. Upon migration however,
the Exchange will determine the settlement strip (i.e., series actually
used) pursuant to an algorithm prior to the opening and announce such
series.\11\ As such, the Exchange believes it's appropriate to limit
the current exception and apply it only to SPX/SPXW options that (i)
are executed in the electronic book during opening rotation on the
final settlement date of VIX options and futures and (ii) which have
the expiration that are used in the VIX settlement calculation (as
opposed to the constituent options series which encompasses series that
may not have ultimately contributed to the VIX settlement calculation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Exchange Rule 5.31(j)(1). The Exchange will disseminate
the highest call strike and the lowest put strike that establish the
strike range to all subscribers to the Exchange's data feeds that
deliver opening auction update messages, no later than 8:45 a.m.
Eastern Time on exercise settlement value determination days. The
Exchange may update this strike range until 9:15 a.m. Eastern Time,
and will disseminate any updates during that time period as soon as
reasonably possible. Therefore, the final strike range of the
settlement strip that the Exchange disseminates at 9:15 a.m. Eastern
Time to market participants will be identical to that which the
Exchange will use to calculate the VIX settlement value itself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CFLEX AIM Response
    The Exchange currently assesses a fee for CFLEX AIM Responses. More
specifically, the CFLEX AIM Response fee applies to all broker-dealer
and non-TPH Holder market-maker responses in all FLEX products, except
Sector Indexes and Underlying Symbol List A,\12\ executed in the FLEX
AIM or FLEX SAM auctions. This fee applies to such executions instead
of the applicable standard transaction fee. The Exchange notes that
currently FLEX Options trade on the Exchange's FLEX Hybrid Trading
System (``CFLEX''), which is the Exchange's trading platform that
allows FLEX Traders to submit electronic and open outcry request for
quotes (``RFQs''), FLEX quotes in response to those RFQs, and FLEX
Orders into the electronic book. Upon the Exchange's trading platform
migration, FLEX trading will occur on the same Exchange System \13\ as
all other options trading occurs on the Exchange.\14\ The Exchange
notes it intends to continue to offer a FLEX AIM and FLEX SAM process
to provide FLEX Orders with price improvement and electronic crossing
opportunities. As FLEX trading

(including FLEX AIM and SAM) will occur on the same trading platform as
all other options trading (including AIM and SAM), the Exchange no
longer wishes to maintain a distinct fee for FLEX AIM responses and
proposes to eliminate the separate fee for FLEX AIM responses. The
proposed change will result in FLEX AIM and FLEX SAM trades being
treated the same as all AIM and SAM executions (i.e., no fees assessed
for responses). In connection with the proposed change, the Exchange
also proposes to eliminate Footnote 20 which applies to the CFLEX AIM
Response Fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ As of October 7, 2019, Underlying Symbol List A includes:
OEX, XEO, RUT, RLG, RLV, RUI, UKXM, SPX (includes SPXw) and VIX. See
Cboe Options Fees Schedule, Footnote 34.
    \13\ The term ``System'' means the Exchange's hybrid trading
platform that integrates electronic and open outcry trading of
option contracts on the Exchange, and includes any connectivity to
the foregoing trading platform that is administered by or on behalf
of the Exchange, such as a communications hub.
    \14\ In connection with the transition of FLEX trading from the
CFLEX system to the same system all other trading will occur, the
Exchange proposes to eliminate references to ``CFLEX'' (and ``FLEX
Hybrid Trading System'') and replace it with references to ``FLEX''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Facilitation Waiver
    Pursuant to Footnote 11 of the Fees Schedule, the Exchange
currently waives Clearing Trading Permit Holder Proprietary (capacity
codes ``F'' and ``L'') transaction fees for (1) facilitation orders
executed in open outcry or as a CFLEX transaction for products other
than Sector Indexes and Underlying Symbol List A and (2) facilitation
orders executed in open outcry, or electronically via AIM or as a QCC
or CFLEX transactions orders in Sector Indexes.\15\ Footnote 11 also
currently defines ``Facilitation orders'' for this purpose as any order
in which a Clearing Trading Permit Holder (``F'' capacity code) or Non-
Trading Permit Holder Affiliate (``L'' capacity code) is contra to any
other capacity code, provided the same executing broker and clearing
firm are on both sides of the transaction (for open outcry) or both
sides of a paired. The Exchange proposes to update Footnote 11 to
provide that the current waivers for facilitation orders will apply
only to volume executed in open outcry. The Exchange believes the
proposed change would have a de minimis impact as historically there
have been very few facilitation orders executed electronically. Lastly,
in light of the proposed change, the Exchange proposes to eliminate
Footnote 12 in its entirety. Particularly, Footnote 12 currently
provides the Clearing Trading Permit Holder Proprietary Transaction Fee
shall be waived for Clearing Trading Permit Holders executing
facilitation orders in FLEX Options in all underlying symbols excluding
Underlying Symbol List A and Sector Indexes. In light of the proposal
to only waive fees for open outcry facilitation, this footnote would no
longer be true with respect to facilitation orders executed
electronically. The Exchange proposes to eliminate the footnote in its
entirety in lieu of updating the footnote as it believes the language
is redundant to Footnote 11, and is therefore not necessary to
maintain. FLEX open outcry facilitations will continue to be waived and
covered under Footnote 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Facilitation for Sector Indexes are currently only waived
through December 31, 2019. See Cboe Options Fees Schedule, Footnote
11. Open-outcry facilitation for Sector Indexes will continue to be
waived through December 31, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stock-Option Orders
    By way of background, stock-option orders are complex instruments
that constitute the purchase or sale of a stated number of units of an
underlying stock or a security convertible into the underlying stock
coupled with the purchase or sale of an option contract(s) on the
opposite side of the market and execute in the same manner as complex
orders. Currently, the stock portions of stock-option strategy orders
are electronically communicated by the Exchange to a designated broker-
dealer, who then manage the execution of such stock portions. In
connection with this functionality, the Exchange assesses a stock
handling fee of $0.0010 per share for the processing and routing by the
Exchange of the stock portion of stock-option strategy orders executed
through those mechanisms. A maximum of $50.00 per order is currently
assessed under this fee. The Exchange notes that it largely passes
through to TPHs the fees assessed to the Exchange by the designated
broker-dealer that manages the execution of the stock portions of
stock-option strategy orders. The Exchange also notes that the
designated broker-dealer that manages the execution of the stock
portions of stock-option strategy orders apply the $50 cap on a per
execution basis, instead of a per order basis (meaning the Exchange may
end up subsidizing certain orders depending on how they were
filled).\16\ Now that the Exchange is migrating to a new billing
system, the Exchange wishes to modify how the cap is applied in the
billing system. Particularly, the Exchange proposes to similarly cap
the stock option fee on a per execution basis instead of a per order
basis, which will more closely align to how the Exchange's designated
broker-dealer applies the cap. The Exchange notes another Exchange
similarly caps its stock option handling fee at $50 per trade (instead
of order).\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ For example, take an order that involves 60,000 shares of a
stock and is filled via two executions of 30,000 shares each. Under
the current per order cap, the Exchange can only assess $50.00 as
the fees for the original order is $60 which exceeds the cap (i.e.,
$0.0010 x 60,000 shares). The Exchange's designated broker-dealer
meanwhile bills the exchange for each execution, resulting in $60 to
the exchange (i.e., $0.0010 x 30,000 x 2). Under the proposed cap,
the Exchange would be able to pass through the full $60 charge as
neither execution of 30,000 contracts hit the $50 per execution cap.
    \17\ See NASDAQ ISE Options Pricing Schedule, Section 4.12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Inactive Nominee Stats Change (``Swap'') Fee
    Next the Exchange proposes to amend the Inactive Nominee Status
Change fees. Particularly, under the Fees Schedule, a fee is assessed
each time an inactive nominee swaps places with a nominee on a Trading
Permit. The amount of such fee varies depending on what time the
request for the swap occurs. Specifically, the Exchange assesses a fee
of $55 if the request is submitted prior to 4:00 p.m. CT on the day
prior to the effective date of the change; $110 if the request is
submitted after 4:00 p.m. CT on the day prior to the effective date of
the change and $220 if the request is submitted after 8:00 a.m. CT on
the effective date of change. The Exchange recently proposed to waive
these fees for the period of October 1-October 4, 2019 as the
Exchange's Trading Permit structure was being modified in connection
with migration.\18\ In order to simplify the fee structure and billing
process for these permit changes going forward, the Exchange proposes
to eliminate both the current waiver and fee structure and in its place
assess a flat fee of $100, regardless of when the request for such
change was submitted. The proposed change would therefore apply to all
TPHs uniformly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See SR-CBOE-2019-080.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subcabinet Trades
    Currently, Footnote 32 of the Fees Schedule provides that the
Exchange will assess no transaction fees or surcharges for subcabinet
trades (i.e., limit orders with a price of at least $0 but less than $1
per options contract, per current Exchange Rule 6.54, Interpretation
and Policy .03.) \19\ Additionally, the footnote provides that
subcabinet trades will not count towards any volume thresholds or
volume threshold calculations. To harmonize and simplify the Exchange's
billing, the Exchange proposes to treat subcabinet trades (now called
``sub-penny cabinet orders'') \20\ the same as cabinet trades (now
called penny

cabinet orders).\21\ That is, the Exchange proposes to eliminate
Footnote 32 in its entirety, which would result in normal transaction
fees and surcharges applying to sub-penny cabinet trades and for such
trades to be counted towards any volume thresholds or volume threshold
calculations, as cabinet trades are today. The Exchange would also
clarify in the Marketing Fee notes section that the Marketing Fee would
not apply to sub-penny cabinet trades (which is the case today), as
such exception also currently applies to cabinet trades.\22\ The [sic]
believes it's appropriate to treat subcabinet trades the same as
cabinet trades for billing purposes as both orders are similar in that
they are trades in listed options on the Exchange that are either
worthless or inactive or not actively traded. Additionally, the
Exchange believes the proposed change would have a de minimis impact as
historically there have been very few sub-penny cabinet trades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The Exchange notes it inadvertently failed to update the
Fees Schedule when Rule 6.54.03 was renumbered to 6.54.02. The
Exchange also notes that it recently submitted a rule filing to
relocate rules relating to both cabinet and subcabinet orders,
effective October 7, 2019. See SR-CBOE-2019-58.
    \20\ See Cboe Options Rule 5.85(h)(2). A sub-penny cabinet is a
limit order with a price less than $0.01 per contact. Bids and
offers for opening transactions for sub-penny cabinet orders are
only permitted to accommodate closing transactions.
    \21\ See Cboe Options Rule 5.12(h)(1). [sic] A penny cabinet is
a limit order with a price of $0.01 per contract.
    \22\ See Cboe Options Fees Schedule, Footnote 6. The Exchange
notes that it is relocating the language in current Footnote 6 which
governs the Marketing Fee program to the notes section of the
Marketing Fee table in an effort to consolidate the Fees Schedule
and make it easier to follow. The proposed clarification relating to
the exclusion of sub-penny cabinet trades from the Marketing Fee
program is therefore reflected in the new notes section and is not
marked in Footnote 6. The Exchange also proposes to reference
``penny cabinet trades'' in the notes section instead of referencing
``accommodation liquidations (cabinet trades)'' as it does currently
in Footnote 6. The Exchange notes the proposed reference is not a
substantive change, but rather conforms terminology to the
Exchange's rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exchange System Disruption
    Footnote 36 of the Fees Schedule currently provides that under the
Volume Incentive Program (``VIP''),\23\ the Exchange provides that in
the event of a Cboe Options System outage or other interruption of
electronic trading on Cboe Options, the Exchange will adjust the
national customer volume in all underlying symbols excluding Underlying
Symbol List A, Sector Indexes, MXEA, MXEF, MNX, NDX, DJX and XSP
(``National Customer Volume'') for the duration of the outage. In
connection with the migration, the Exchange wishes to conform how it
handles system disruptions to the way they are handled on its affiliate
exchanges, Cboe BZX and Cboe EDGX.\24\ Particularly, the Exchange
proposes to provide that in the event of a Cboe Options System outage
or other interruption of electronic trading on Cboe Options that lasts
longer than 60 minutes, the Exchange will adjust the national volume in
all underlying symbols excluding Underlying Symbol List A (34), Sector
Indexes (47), MXEA, MXEF, DJX and XSP for the entire trading day
(instead of the duration of the outage). The Exchange also notes that
currently, the Fees Schedule only explicitly addresses how it handles
exchange outages and interruptions for VIP and is silent as to if and
how it would adjust national volume in other incentive programs.\25\ In
order to clarify that the Exchange will apply the same approach to any
affected incentive program, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the
reference to exchange outages/interruptions in Footnote 36 and adopt in
its place new Footnote 6.\26\ Particularly, Footnote 6 will address how
the Exchange handles outages/interruptions for all incentive programs
that utilize national volume in determining certain tiers and
thresholds, including VIP, as described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Under VIP, the Exchange credits each TPH the per contract
amount set forth in the VIP table for Public Customer (origin code
``C'') orders transmitted by TPHs (with certain exceptions) and
executed electronically on the Exchange, provided the TPH meets
certain volume thresholds, in which volume for Professional
Customers and Voluntary Professionals (``Professional Customers'')
(origin code ``W''), Broker-Dealers (origin code ``B''), and Joint
Back-Offices (``JBO'') (origin code ``J'') orders are counted toward
reaching such thresholds. Specifically, the percentage thresholds
are calculated per month based on the percentage of national
customer volume in all underlying symbols entered and executed,
excluding those in Underlying Symbol List A, Sector Indexes, MXEA,
MXEF, MNX, NDX, DJX and XSP.
    \24\ See Cboe EDGX Options Fees Schedule and Cboe BZX Options
Fees Schedule. which provide volume is excluded from certain
calculations on any day that the Exchange's system experiences a
disruption that lasts more than 60 minutes during regular trading
hours.
    \25\ The Exchange notes that since the Fees Schedule never
explicitly specified how the Exchange would adjust national volume
in the event of an outage, no adjustments would have been made to
any calculations for any program other than VIP.
    \26\ The language under current Footnote 6 is relocating to the
Marketing Fee Program table as discussed above. The Exchange
proposes to therefore reuse Footnote 6 and adopt new language
relating to system outages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Large Trade Discount
    Next the Exchange proposes to amend the Customer Large Trade
Discount Program and a non-customer Large Trade Discount Program. By
way of background, the Customer Large Trade Discount Program caps fees
for customer orders of a certain size in VIX, SPX/SPXW, XSP, other
index options and ETF and ETN options. The Large Trade Discount Program
similarly caps fess for non-customer orders of a certain size in VIX
options. Both programs provide that for an order to be eligible to
qualify for the discount, the order in its entirety must be executed in
either Global Trading Hours GTH or RTH, but not both. The Exchange
notes that upon migration, the Book used during RTH will be the same
Book used during GTH (as compared to today where the Exchange maintains
separate Books for each session). As such it is possible for an order
to now be executed over both sessions and still otherwise qualify for
the caps under the programs. The Exchange therefore proposes to
eliminate the language in the notes section of both tables providing
that orders must be entirely executed in one session or another, but
not both.
AIM Contra Fee
    Currently, Footnote 18 of the Fees Schedule provides that the AIM
Contra Execution Fee applies to all orders (excluding facilitation
orders, per footnote 11) in all products, except Sector Indexes and
Underlying Symbol List A, executed in AIM, SAM FLEX AIM and FLEX SAM
auctions, that were initially entered as the contra party to an Agency/
Primary Order. Footnote 18 also provides that instead of the applicable
standard transaction fee, the AIM Contra Fee will apply to AIM Contra
executions except if the applicable standard transaction fee is lower
than $.07 per contract,\27\ in which case the applicable standard
transaction fee will apply. To simplify the billing process, the
Exchange proposes to eliminate this exception (i.e., the $0.07 per
contract AIM Contra Execution Fee will always apply to all orders
(excluding facilitation orders) in all products, except Sector Indexes
and Underlying Symbol List A, executed in AIM, SAM FLEX AIM and FLEX
SAM auctions, that were initially entered as the contra party to an
Agency/Primary Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ The Exchange notes that when the Exchange increased the AIM
Contra fee from $0.05 per contract to $0.07 per contract, it
inadvertently failed to update the increased amount in Footnote 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HAL to SUM
    As part of the migration, the Exchange is harmonizing its rules in
connection with routing services, including the Hybrid Agency Liaison
(``HAL'') and HAL on the Open (``HALO'') system, to that of the Cboe
Affiliated Exchanges. As part of the harmonization, the Exchange has
proposed to rename HAL and HALO to ``Step-Up Mechanism'' (or ``SUM'').
As such, the Exchange proposes to replace all references to the Hal
Agency Liaison, HAL, HAL on the Open or HALO, to ``Step-Up Mechanism''
or ``SUM'', as appropriate. The Exchange believes the proposed

change will provide consistency between the Exchange Rule Book and Fees
Schedule and alleviate potential confusion.
MNX and NDX
    The Exchange next proposes to amend the Fees Schedule to remove
references to MNX and NDX. The Exchange notes that it no longer lists
MNX and NDX options and as such proposes to eliminate such references
from the Fees Schedule, which will avoid potential confusion and
provide clarity in the rules. The Exchange also proposes to modify how
the percentage thresholds of National Customer Volume under VIP are
calculate with respect to MNX and NDX. Currently, MNX and NDX are
excluded from the National Customer Volume percentage thresholds, along
with the Exchange's other proprietary products. As the Exchange no
longer lists MNX and NDX, it believes it's appropriate to start
including MNX and NDX volume in the percentage thresholds of National
Customer Volume, as it does with volume from all other non-proprietary
products.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\28\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \29\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\30\ which requires that Exchange rules
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its Trading Permit Holders and other persons using
its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the Exchange believes that a number of its proposed changes
alleviate potential confusion and result in a Fees Schedule that is
clearer and easier to follow, thereby removing impediments to and
perfecting the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general, protecting investors and the public
interest. Particularly, the Exchange believes its proposal to
reorganize and consolidate its rate tables, along with its proposed
non-substantive, clarifying changes to the rate tables described above,
will result in a more transparent, simplified and easier to read Fees
Schedule. The Exchange also believes the proposal to adopt fee codes is
reasonable and equitable because the Exchange believes such fee codes
provides further clarity in the Fees Schedule and the fee codes do not
amend any fees or rebates that apply to trading activity on the
Exchange. Rather, the proposed fee codes allow TPHs to more easily
validate the bills that they receive from the Exchange, thus
alleviating potential confusion.
    The Exchange believes its proposal to (i) replace references to
origin codes with capacity and capacity codes and (ii) replace
references to ``Hybrid Agency Liaison'', ``HAL'' ``HAL on the Open''
and ``HALO'' with ``Step-Up Mechanism'' and ``SUM'' also provides
clarity in the Fees Schedule. Particularly, as noted above, the
Exchange is codifying in its rules the available capacity codes and
replacing references to ``Hybrid Agency Liaison'', ``HAL'' ``HAL on the
Open'' and ``HALO'' with ``Step-Up Mechanism'' and ``SUM''. The
proposed changes therefore maintains consistency between its Rulebook
and its Fees Schedule. Similarly, the Exchange believes it reduces
potential confusion to eliminate references to ``CFLEX'' as the
Exchange is transitioning its FLEX trading from the CFLEX platform to
the same system all other trading will occur on. Removing references to
MNX and NDX from the Fees Schedule also eliminates confusion as the
Exchange no longer lists these products. The proposal to include MNX
and NDX volume in the percentage thresholds under VIP is also
reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as the proposed
change applies to all TPHs and because MNX and NDX are no longer
proprietary products traded on the Exchange and should therefore be
treated the same as other non-proprietary products.
    The Exchange believes its proposed fees relating to linkage are
reasonable as the proposed fees continue to take into account routing
costs and are in line with amounts assessed by other exchanges,
including its Affiliated Exchanges.\31\ Moreover, the Exchange notes
that all linkage costs are staying the same with the exception of
orders routed to ARCA, BZX, C2, ISE GEMX, Emerald, Pearl and NOMX. The
Exchange believes the proposed fees for orders routed to ARCA, BZX, C2,
ISE GEMX, Emerald, Pearl and NOMX are reasonable as the fees are either
the same as, or in some instances even lower than, fees assessed by
other Exchanges when routed to these exchanges.\32\ Moreover, the
Exchange highlights that routing through the Exchange is voluntary and
also notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which
market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues
or providers of routing services if they deem fee levels to be
excessive. The Exchange also believes the proposed change is reasonable
as it simplifies billing for these orders. Furthermore, two of the
Exchange's affiliated exchanges similarly assess linkage fees expressed
as a single fee for orders routed to these exchanges and that the
proposed fees are lower than those fees.\33\ The Exchange believes its
proposal to eliminate the exception that the Exchange will not pass
through or otherwise charge customer orders (of any size) routed to
other exchanges that were originally transmitted to the Exchange from
the trading floor through an Exchange-sponsored terminal (e.g., PULSe
Workstation) is reasonable as the Exchange is not required to maintain
such an exception. Indeed, the Exchange is not aware of other Exchanges
with a trading floor that maintain a similar exception to routing fees.
The Exchange also expects the impact of the proposed change to be
relatively small. The Exchange believes the proposed changes to linkage
fees are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed
changes apply equally to all TPHs who chose to use the Exchange to
route orders to other exchanges. TPHs that do not favor the proposed
pricing can readily direct order flow directly to

those other exchanges or through competing venues or providers of
routing services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See e.g., See Cboe BZX Options Exchange Fee Schedule and
Cboe EDGX Options Exchange Fee Schedule. See also NYSE Arca Options
Fees and Charges, Routing Fees.
    \32\ See Cboe BZX Options Exchange Fee Schedule and Cboe EDGX
Options Exchange Fee Schedule, which both assess for Routed Customer
Orders to ARCA, BZX, C2, ISE, GEMX, Emerald, Pearl and NOMX $0.85
per contract for penny classes and $1.25 per contract for non-penny
classes (yielding fee codes RQ and RR, respectively). See also MIAX
Options Fees Schedule which assess for Routed Customer Orders to
ARCA, BZX, C2, ISE, GEMX, Emerald, Pearl and NOMX $0.65 per contract
for penny classes and $1.00 per contract for non-penny classes.
    \33\ See Cboe BZX Options Exchange Fee Schedule and Cboe EDGX
Options Exchange Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposal to apply the Execution Surcharge
to orders in both the RTH and GTH session is reasonable because the
amount of the surcharge will be the same for both the RTH and GTH
session. Additionally, post-migration, the Exchange will use the same
Book for GTH and RTH, as compared to today where each session has a
separate Book, and the Exchange therefore believes it's reasonable to
assess the fee to both sessions. Moreover, the Exchange believes the
proposed change is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory as other execution surcharges, such as the execution
surcharge for SPXW, also applies to orders in both RTH and GTH. The
Exchange believes the proposed change is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory as it applies uniformly to all TPHs.
    The Exchange believes the amendment to Footnote 21 regarding the
exception to the SPX and SPXW Execution Surcharges is reasonable as it
will result in market participants at times not being required to pay
these surcharges for SPX and/or SPXW transactions in the circumstances
described. Particularly, the Exchange notes that it had adopted the
exception in recognition that while liquidity is important to open all
series on the Exchange, given the potential impact on the exercise
settlement value determined for expiring volatility index derivatives,
it was important to encourage a fair and orderly opening of the series
that expire in the month used to calculate the final settlement value
of expiring VIX derivatives. As discussed, the Exchange currently only
applies such exception to constituent options series as only the
expiration month used to calculate the final settlement is known prior
to opening. Upon migration however, the Exchange (and TPHs) will know
which series will actually be used to calculate the exercise or final
settlement value prior to the opening. Accordingly, the Exchange does
not believe the exception should continue to be broadly applied to all
constituent options series, since only a subset of such series are used
in the settlement value calculation and since such subset will now be
known prior to opening. As such, the Exchange believes the proposed
rule change is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
and also notes it applies uniformly to all TPHs.
    The Exchange believes it's reasonable to eliminate the CFLEX AIM
Response fee as TPHs will no longer be subject to a fee for FLEX AIM
responses. Moreover, as discussed, CFLEX AIM will no longer operate on
a separate trading system upon migration. AIM (and SAM) for FLEX orders
will operate on the same system as AIM (and SAM) for all other orders
and the Exchange therefore believes it's reasonable to assess the same
fees for FLEX and non-FLEX AIM and SAM orders. The Exchange believes
the proposed change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because it applies uniformly to all TPHs.
    The Exchange believes it's reasonable to limit its waiver of
facilitation fees for orders executed in open-outcry only because the
Exchange is not required to maintain a facilitation fee waiver for any
transactions and notes that TPHs will still be eligible to receive the
waiver for open-outcry transactions. Additionally, as noted above there
have historically been very few electronic facilitation orders which
were eligible for the current waiver, as compared to open-outcry
facilitations which tend to be much more common. The Exchange therefore
also believes the impact of the proposed change is de minimis. The
Exchange believes the proposed change is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the proposed change applies uniformly to all
TPHs and treats all electronic facilitation orders equally.
    The Exchange believes its proposed change relating to how it caps
the stock-option order fee is reasonable because the Exchange is
capping the transactions the same way the Exchange's designated broker-
dealer that manages the execution of the stock portions of stock-option
strategy orders caps (and bills the Exchange) for these orders.
Specifically, the Exchange will merely no longer be subsidizing certain
stock-option order transactions and the modified cap which will more
closely align to how the Exchange's designated broker-dealer applies
the cap. The Exchange believes the proposed change is also reasonable
as it will not result in the Exchange collecting fees beyond what the
Exchange itself is billed for by its designated broker-dealer. The
Exchange notes another Exchange similarly caps its stock option
handling fee at $50 per trade (instead of order).\34\ The Exchange
believes the proposed change is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory as it will be applied to all TPHs uniformly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See NASDAQ ISE Options Pricing Schedule, Section 4.12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed change to the inactive nominee
swap fee is reasonable because the fee is similar to the fees that were
previously assessed for certain swaps. As discussed above, TPHs were
previously subject to an inactive nominee swap fee of $55, $110 or
$220, depending on the time they submitted their request for a swap.
The Exchange believes the proposed change provides for a simplified fee
and billing structure (i.e., maintaining a single fee vs multiple fees
based on time submissions). The proposed change is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory as it would apply to any TPH that is swapping
inactive nominees on a Trading Permit uniformly.
    The Exchange believes its proposed change relating to subcabinet
trades (now referred to as ``sub-penny cabinet trades'') is reasonable
as the proposed change results in sub-penny cabinet trades being
treated the same as cabinet trades (now called ``penny-cabinet
trades''). The believes it's appropriate to treat sub-penny and penny
cabinet trades the same as cabinet trades for billing purposes as both
orders are similar in that they are trades in listed options on the
Exchange that are either worthless or inactive or not actively traded
and are both reported and processed like all other open outcry trades.
The Exchange also believes the proposed change is reasonable, equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because it applies equally to all TPHs
and because the Exchange believes the proposed change would have a de
minimis impact as historically there have been very few sub-penny
cabinet trades.
    The Exchange believes its proposal to amend how it calculates
national volume in the event of a system outage or trading interruption
is reasonable as it conforms to the way the [sic] handles such outages
on its affiliate exchanges, Cboe BZX and Cboe EDGX.\35\ The Exchange
also notes that it may not be possible in all instances to adjust
national volume numbers for the period of the outage only. The Exchange
believes the proposed change also adds clarity to the Fees Schedule, as
the Fees Schedule is currently silent as to how it calculates certain
thresholds based on national volume for programs other than VIP. The
proposed change therefore makes clear how different incentive programs
are impacted in the event of a system outage or electronic trading

interruption. The proposed rule change also applies uniformly to all
TPHs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See Cboe EDGX Options Fees Schedule and Cboe BZX Options
Fees Schedule. [sic] which provide volume is excluded from certain
calculations on any day that the Exchange's system experiences a
disruption that lasts more than 60 minutes during regular trading
hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes its amendment to the Customer Large
Trade Discount Large Trade Discount Programs are reasonable, equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory. As discussed, the Book used during RTH
will be the same Book used during GTH upon migration (as compared to
today where each session has a separate Book). As such it will be
possible for an order to be executed over both sessions upon migration
and the Exchange therefore believes it's reasonable to eliminate
requirement that orders must be entirely executed in one session or
another, but not both. The Exchange believes the proposed change is
also reasonable as orders that may not have otherwise been eligible for
the discounts in the past because to [sic] this requirement may now be
eligible. The proposed rule change also applies uniformly to all TPHs.
    The Exchange believes its proposal to eliminate the exception to
the AIM Contra Fee is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because TPHs will still not be paying more than the
current AIM Contra Fee ($0.07) for AIM Contra orders that are subject
to the AIM Contra Fee pursuant to Footnote 18. The proposed change also
results in a simplified billing process and the Exchange notes that it
is not requirement to maintain the current exception to the AIM Contra
Fee. The Exchange believes the proposed change is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory as it will be applied to all TPHs uniformly.
    In sum, the Exchange believes the proposed changes described above
incorporate updates to the Fees Schedule in connection with the
migration of the Exchange's trading system and new billing system,
conform certain billing practices to practices on the Exchange's
affiliated exchanges, simplify billing practices and add clarity to the
Fees Schedule. For the reasons discussed above, the Exchange believes
the proposed changes are reasonable, equitable and unfairly
discriminatory will apply uniformly to similarly situated TPHs.
Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed fee schedule will be
easier to read for investors and will eliminate potential investor
confusion, thereby removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in
general, protecting investors and the public interest.

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. Specifically, the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed change will impose any burden on
intramarket competitions that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed changes
will be applied equally to all similarly situated TPHs. The Exchange
also operates in a highly competitive market in which market
participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they
deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or incentives to
be insufficient. The proposed rule change continues to reflect a
competitive pricing structure designed to incentivize market
participants to direct their order flow to the Exchange, which the
Exchange believes enhances market quality to the benefit of all TPHs.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange
also notes that the proposed rule changes are precipitated by its
upcoming migration of the Exchange's migration of its trading platform
and billing system and not intended to address competitive issues.
Rather, the proposed changes are generally being made in connection
with changes resulting from migration and/or are designed to simplify
the Exchange's billing processes post-migration.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \36\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \37\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \37\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2019-106 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-2019-106. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2019-106 and

should be submitted on or before December 9, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-24862 Filed 11-15-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 90 (Thursday, May 9, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20356-20357]
[FR Doc No: 2019-09490]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0008; FRL-9991-15]

Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of Applications for New
Uses

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has received applications to register new uses for
pesticide products containing currently registered active ingredients.
Pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to
comment on these applications.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 10, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by the Docket
Identification (ID) Number, and the File Symbol or EPA Registration
Number of interest as shown in the body of this document, by one of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. Additional
instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more
information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Goodis, Registration Division
(7505P), main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The mailing address for each contact person is:
Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. As part of the mailing
address, include the contact person's name, division, and mail code.
The division to contact is listed at the end of each application
summary.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI

information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside
of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within
the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In
addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain
the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

II. Registration Applications

    EPA has received applications to register new uses for pesticide
products containing currently registered active ingredients. Pursuant
to the provisions of FIFRA section 3(c)(4) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4)), EPA
is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on
these applications. Notice of receipt of these applications does not
imply a decision by the Agency on these applications.

III. New Uses

    1. EPA registration number(s): 100-1609, 100-1601, 100-1602, 100-
1603, 100-1605, and new seed treatment product 100-RAUI. Docket ID
number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0688. Applicant: Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC,
P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419. Active ingredient:
Pydiflumetofen. Product type: Fungicide. Proposed use(s): Foliar use
proposed on Berries, Low Growing Crop Subgroup 13-07G (except cranberry
and blueberry); Brassica Head and Stem Crop Group 5-16; Brassica Leafy
Greens Subgroup 4-16B; Bulb Vegetable Crop Group 3-07A; Bulb Vegetable
Crop Group 3-07B; Bushberry Crop Subgroup 13-07B; Citrus Crop Subgroup
10-10; Cottonseed Subgroup 20C; Edible-podded Legume Vegetables
Subgroup 6A; Leaves of Root and Tuber Vegetables, Crop Group 2;
Succulent Shelled Pea and Bean Subgroup 6B; Pome Fruit Crop Group 11-
10; Root Vegetable Crop Group 1A; Sorghum; Stone Fruit Crop Group 12-12
(Subgroups 12A, 12B and 12C); Sunflower, Oilseed Subgroup 20B; and Tree
Nuts Crop Group 14-12. Seed treatment proposed for use on Rapeseed
Subgroup 20A and soybean. Contact: RD.
    2. EPA registration number: 7969-262. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-
2019-0060. Applicant: BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Drive, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27709. Active ingredient: Topramezone. Product type:
Herbicide. Proposed use: African Marigold. Contact: RD.
    3. EPA registration number: 10163-357. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-
OPP-2017-0565. Applicant: Gowan Company LLC, P.O. Box 5569, Yuma, AZ
85366-5569. Active ingredient: Extract of Swinglea glutinosa. Product
type: Biochemical fungicide. Proposed use: Addition of aerial and
chemigation applications and residential uses. Contact: BPPD.
    4. EPA registration numbers: 67690-6 and 67690-78. Docket ID
number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0074. Applicant: SePRO Corporation, 11550 North
Meridian Street, Suite 600, Carmel, IN 46032. Active ingredient:
Fluridone. Product type: Herbicide. Proposed uses: Avocado, mandarin,
pistachio, pomegranate, and stone fruit crop group 12-12. Contact: RD.
    5. EPA registration number(s): 71512-2 and 71512-3. Docket ID
number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0832. Applicant: ISK Biosciences Corporation,
7470 Auburn Road, Suite A, Concord, OH 44077. Active ingredient:
Cyazofamid. Product type: Fungicide. Proposed use(s): New use on
ginseng and greenhouse cucumber; conversion from Brassica, leafy
greens, subgroup 5B to Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B;
conversion from leafy greens subgroup 4A to Leafy greens subgroup 4-
16A; conversion from Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A to Vegetable,
Brassica, head and stem group 5-16 and kohlrabi. Contact: RD

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: May 1, 2019.
Delores Barber,
Director, Information Technology and Resources Management Division,
Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2019-09490 Filed 5-8-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P