[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 105 (Thursday, June 1, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35980-35988]
[FR Doc No: 2023-11613]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-97587; File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2023-037]

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

May 25, 2023.
    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 May 15, 2023, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'' or ``EDGX'')
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 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 EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``EDGX'') proposes to
update its Fees Schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is
provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/options/regulation/rule_filings/edgx/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Market Data section of its Fees
Schedule.\3\ Particularly, the Exchange proposes to (i) adopt a New
External Credit applicable to EDGX Options Top, (ii) adopt a credit
towards the monthly Distribution fees for EDGX Options Top, (iii)
modify the EDGX Options Top Enterprise Fee; and (iv) establish fees for
Cboe One Options Feed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange initially filed the proposed fee changes on
March 1, 2023 (SR-CboeEDGX-2023-017). On March 3, 2023, the Exchange
withdrew that filing and submitted SR-CboeEDGX-2023-018. On March
10, 2023, the Exchange withdrew that filing and submitted SR-
CboeEdgx-2023-021. On March 16, 2023, the Exchange withdrew that
filing and submitted SR-CboeEDGX-2023-022. On May 15, 2023, the
Exchange withdrew that filing and submitted this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EDGX Top Data
    By way of background, the Exchange offers the EDGX Options Top Data
feed, which is an uncompressed data feed that offers top-of-book
quotations and last sale information based on options orders entered
into the Exchange's System. The EDGX Options Top Data feed benefits
investors by facilitating their prompt access to real-time top-of-book
information contained in EDGX Options Top Data. The Exchange's
affiliated options exchanges (i.e., Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe
Options''), Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX Options''), and Cboe C2
Exchange, Inc. (``C2 Options'') (collectively, ``Affiliates'' and
together with the Exchange, ``Cboe Options Exchanges'') also offer
similar top-of-book data feeds.\4\ Particularly, each of the Exchange's
Affiliates offer top-of-book quotation and last sale information based
on their own quotation and trading activity that is substantially
similar to the information provided by the Exchange through the EDGX
Options Top. The Exchange proposes to make the following fee changes
relating to EDGX Options Top.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Cboe Options Fees Schedule, C2 Options Fees Schedule,
and BZX Rule 21.15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

New External Distributor Credit
    The Exchange first proposes to adopt a New External Distributor
Credit which will provide that new External Distributors of the EDGX
Options Top feed will not be charged an External Distributor Fee for
their first three (3) months in order to incentivize External
Distributors to enlist new users to receive EDGX Options Top feed.\5\
The

Exchange notes that other exchanges, including the Exchange's
affiliated equities exchanges, offer similar credits for similar market
data products. For example, Cboe's equities exchanges currently offer a
one (1) month New External Distributor Credit applicable to External
Distributors of top-of-book data feeds.\6\ They also offer a three (3)
month new External Credit applicable to External Distributors of
summary depth-of-book feeds.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Any applicable User fees will continue to apply during this
three-month period. The New External Distributor Credit will not
apply during an External Distributor's trial usage period for EDGX
Options Top. External Distributors who receive EDGX Options Top on a
trial basis are still eligible for the New Distributor Credit
thereafter.
    \6\ See e.g., EDGX Equities Exchange Fees Schedule, Market Data
Fees.
    \7\ See e.g., EDGX Equities Exchange Fees Schedule, Market Data
Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Distributor Fee Credit
    The Exchange also proposes to provide that each External
Distributor will receive a credit against its monthly Distributor Fee
for the EDGX Options Top equal to the amount of its monthly User Fees
up to a maximum of the Distributor Fee for the EDGX Options Top
feed.\8\ The proposed Enterprise Fees discussed below would also be
counted towards the Distributor Fee credit, equal to the amount of an
External Distributor's monthly EDGX Options Top External Distribution
fee. For example, an External Distributor will be subject to a $500
monthly Distributor Fee where they elect to receive the EDGX Options
Top. If that External Distributor reports User quantities totaling $500
or more of monthly usage of the EDGX Options Top, it will pay no net
Distributor Fee, whereas if that same External Distributor were to
report User quantities totaling $400 of monthly usage, it will pay a
net of $100 for the Distributor Fee. External Distributors will remain
subject to the per User fees applicable to EDGX Options Top. External
Distributors who choose to purchase an Enterprise license as an
alternative to paying User Fees will get a credit in the amount of the
External Distribution Fee, which is currently $500 since the proposed
Enterprise Fees are in excess of the External Distribution fee. In
every case the Exchange will receive at least $500 in connection with
the distribution of the EDGX Options Top (through a combination of the
External Distribution Fee and per User Fees or Enterprise Fees, as
applicable). The Exchange notes that its affiliated equities exchanges
offer a similar credit for a similar market data product.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Distributor Fee Credit does not apply during any such
time that an External Distributor is receiving the New External
Distributor Credit or during a trial usage period for EDGX Options
Top.
    \9\ See e.g., EDGX Equities Exchange Fees Schedule, Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Enterprise Fee Tiers
    The Exchange currently offers Distributors the ability to purchase
a monthly (and optional) Enterprise license to receive the EDGX Options
Top Feed for distribution to an unlimited number of Professional \10\
and Non-Professional \11\ Users. The Enterprise Fee is an alternative
to Professional and Non-Professional User fees and permits a
Distributor to pay a flat fee for an unlimited number of Professional
and Non-Professional Users and is in addition to the Distribution fees.
The Exchange currently assesses a flat monthly Enterprise fee of
$20,000. The Exchange proposes to modify the current Enterprise Fee and
adopt a tiered structure based on the number of Users a Distributor
has. The Exchange proposes to adopt the following monthly Enterprise
Fees: $20,000 for up to 1,500,000 Users (Tier 1), $40,000 for 1,500,001
to 2,500,000 Users (Tier 2) and $60,000 for 2,500,001 or greater Users
(Tier 3). The proposed fees are non-progressive (e.g., if a Distributor
has 2,000,000 Users, it will be subject to $40,000 for Tier 2). The
Enterprise Fee may provide an opportunity to reduce fees. For example,
if a Distributor has 1 million Non-Professional Users who each receive
EDGX Options Top at $0.10 per month, then that Distributor will pay
$100,000 per month in Non-Professional Users fees. If the Distributor
instead were to purchase the proposed Enterprise license (tier 1), it
would alternatively pay a flat fee of $20,000 for up to 1.5 million
Professional and Non-Professional Users. A Distributor that pays the
Tier 1 or Tier 2 Enterprise Fee will have to report its number of such
Users on a monthly basis. A Distributor that pays the Tier 3 Enterprise
Fee will only have to report the number of its Users every six
months.\12\ The Exchange notes that if the reported number of Users
exceed the Enterprise Tier a Distributor has purchased, the higher Tier
will apply (e.g., if a Distributor purchases Tier 1, but reports
1,600,000 Users for a month, the Distributor will be assessed the Tier
2 fee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ A Professional User [sic] A Professional User of an
Exchange Market Data product is any User other than a Non-
Professional User.
    \11\ A ``Non-Professional User'' of an Exchange Market Data
product is a natural person or qualifying trust that uses Data only
for personal purposes and not for any commercial purpose and, for a
natural person who works in the United States, is not: (i)
registered or qualified in any capacity with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, any
state securities agency, any securities exchange or association, or
any commodities or futures contract market or association; (ii)
engaged as an ``investment adviser'' as that term is defined in
Section 202(a)(11) of the Investment Advisors Act of 1940 (whether
or not registered or qualified under that Act); or (iii) employed by
a bank or other organization exempt from registration under federal
or state securities laws to perform functions that would require
registration or qualification if such functions were performed for
an organization not so exempt; or, for a natural person who works
outside of the United States, does not perform the same functions as
would disqualify such person as a Non-Professional User if he or she
worked in the United States.
    \12\ See Cboe Global Markets north American Data Policies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to allow Distributors to purchase the
Enterprise Fee on a monthly or annual basis. Annual licenses will
receive a 5% discount off the applicable Enterprise Tier fee.\13\ The
Exchange notes that the purchase of an Enterprise license is voluntary,
and a firm may elect to instead use the per User structure and benefit
from the proposed per User Fees described above. For example, a firm
that does not have a sufficient number of Users to benefit from
purchase of a license need not do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The discount will be taken off the Enterprise Tier fee
assessed each fee [sic]. For example, if a Distributor elects to
purchase an annual license and is in Tier 1 for any 9 months of the
year and Tier 2 for any 3 months of the year, the total amount of
fees paid for one year will be $285,000 ($20,000-5% x 9 months +
$40,000-5% x 3 months) as compared to $300,000 ($20,000 x 9 months +
$40,000 x 3 months).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cboe One Options Feed
    By way of background, the Exchange recently adopted a new market
data product called Cboe One Options Feed, which is launching March 1,
2023.\14\ Cboe One Options Feed will provide top-of-book quotation and
last sale information based on the quotation and trading activity on
the Exchange and each of its Affiliates, which the Exchange believes
offers a comprehensive and highly representative view of US options
pricing to market participants. More specifically, Cboe One Options
Feed will contain the aggregate best bid and offer (``BBO'') of all
displayed orders for options traded on the Exchange and its Affiliates,
as well as individual last sale information and volume, which includes
the price, time of execution and individual Cboe options exchange on
which the trade was executed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See SR-CboeEDGX-2023-013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Cboe One Options Feed will also consist of Symbol Summary,\15\
Market

Status,\16\ Trading Status,\17\ and Trade Break \18\ messages for the
Exchange and each of its Affiliates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The Symbol Summary message will include the total executed
volume across all Cboe Options Exchanges.
    \16\ The Market Status message is disseminated to reflect a
change in the status of one of the Cboe Options Exchanges. For
example, the Market Status message will indicate whether one of the
Cboe Options Exchanges is experiencing a systems issue or disruption
and quotation or trade information from that market is not currently
being disseminated via the Cboe One Options Feed as part of the
aggregated BBO. The Market Status message will also indicate when a
Cboe Options Exchange is no longer experiencing a systems issue or
disruption to properly reflect the status of the aggregated BBO.
    \17\ The Trade Break message will indicate when an execution on
a Cboe Options Exchange is broken in accordance with the individual
Cboe Options Exchange's rules (e.g., Cboe Options Rule 6.5, C2
Option Rule 6.5, BZX Options Rule 20.6, EDGX Options Rule 20.6).
    \18\ The Trading Status message will indicate the current
trading status of an option contract on each individual Cboe Options
Exchange. A Trading Status message will also be sent whenever a
security's trading status changes. For example, a Trading Status
message will be sent when a symbol is open for trading or when a
symbol is subject to a trading halt or when it resumes trading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange will use the following data feeds to create the Cboe
One Options Feed, each of which is available to other vendors and/or
distributors: Cboe Options Top Data, C2 Options Top Data, EDGX Options
Top and BZX Options Top. A vendor and/or distributor that wishes to
create a product like the Cboe One Options Feed could instead subscribe
to each of the aforementioned data feeds. Any entity that receives, or
elects to receive, the individual data feeds or the feeds that may be
used to create a product like the Cboe One Options Feed would be able
to, if it so chooses, to create a data feed with the same information
included in the Cboe One Options Feed and sell and distribute it to its
clients so that it could be received by those clients as quickly as the
Cboe One Options Feed would be received by those same clients.
    The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule to incorporate fees
related to the Cboe One Options Feed. The Exchange has taken into
consideration its affiliated relationship with its Affiliates in its
design of the Cboe One Options Feed to assure that vendors \19\ would
be able to offer a similar product on the same terms as the Exchange
from a cost perspective. Although Cboe Options Exchanges are the
exclusive distributors of the individual data feeds from which certain
data elements would be taken to create the Cboe One Options Feed, the
Exchange would not be the exclusive distributor of the aggregated and
consolidated information that compose the proposed Cboe One Options
Feed. Distributors and/or vendors would be able, if they chose, to
create a data feed with the same information as the Cboe One Options
Feed and distribute it to their clients on a level-playing field with
respect to latency and cost as compared to the Exchange's proposed Cboe
One Options Feed. The pricing the Exchange proposes to charge for the
Cboe One Options Feed, as described more fully below, is not lower than
the cost to a distributor or vendor to obtain the underlying data
feeds. In fact, the Distribution and User (Professional and Non-
Professional) fees, as well as the optional Enterprise Fees, that the
Exchange proposes to adopt for the Cboe One Options Feed are equal to
the respective combined fees for subscribing to each individual data
feed. The Exchange also proposes to adopt a ``Data Consolidation Fee,''
which would reflect the value of the aggregation and consolidation
function the Exchange performs in creating the Cboe One Options Feed.
Therefore, Distributors would be enabled to create a competing product
based on the individual data feeds and charge their clients a fee that
they believe reflects the value of the aggregation and consolidation
function that is competitive with Cboe One Options Feed pricing. For
these reasons, the Exchange believes that Distributors, including
vendors, could readily offer a product similar to the Cboe One Options
Feed on a competitive basis at a similar cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ For purposes of this filing, a ``vendor'', which is a type
of distributor, will refer to any entity that receives an exchange
market data product directly from the exchange or indirectly from
another entity (for example, from an extranet) and then resell that
data to a third-party customer (e.g., a data provider that resells
exchange market data to a retail brokerage firm). The term
``distributor'' herein, will refer to any entity that receives an
exchange market data product, directly from the exchange or
indirectly from another entity (e.g., from a data vendor) and then
distributes to individual internal or external end-users (e.g., a
retail brokerage firm who distributes exchange data to its
individual employees and/or customers). An example of a vendor's
``third-party customer'' or ``customer'' is an institutional broker
dealer or a retail broker dealer, who then may in turn distribute
the data to their customers who are individual internal or external
end-users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed Cboe One Options Feed fees include the following, each
of which are described in further detail below: (i) Distributor Fees;
(ii) User Fees for both Professional and Non-Professional Users; (iii)
Enterprise Fees; and (iv) a Data Consolidation Fee. The Exchange also
proposes to adopt a New External Distributor credit and a credit
against the monthly External Distribution Fee equal to the amount of
monthly User Fees or Enterprise Fees up to a maximum of the External
Distributor Fee. To ensure consistency across the Cboe Options
Exchanges, Cboe Options, C2 Options, and BZX Options will be filing
companion proposals to reflect this proposal in their respective fee
schedules.
Distributor Fees
    As proposed, each Internal Distributor that receives the Cboe One
Options Feed shall pay a fee of $15,000 per month. The proposed
Internal Distribution Fee equals the combined monthly Internal
Distribution fees for the underlying individual data feeds of the Cboe
Options Exchanges (i.e., the monthly Internal Distribution fees are
$3,000 for BZX Options Top, $500 for EDGX Options Top, $2,500 for C2
Options Top and $9,000 for Cboe Options Top). The Exchange also
proposes to assess External Distributors a monthly fee of $10,000. The
proposed External Distribution fee equals the combined monthly External
Distribution fees for the underlying individual data feeds of the Cboe
Options Exchanges (i.e., the monthly External Distribution fees are
$5,000 per month for the Cboe Options Top, $2,500 per month for C2
Options Top, $2,000 per month for BZX Options Top, and $500 for EDGX
Options Top). As noted above, the Exchange is proposing to charge
Internal Distributors an Internal Distribution Fee, and External
Distributors an External Distribution Fee, that equals the combined
respective Distribution fees of each individual Top feed to ensure that
vendors could compete with the Exchange by creating the same product as
the Cboe One Options Feed to sell to their clients.
User Fees
    In addition to Internal and External Distributor Fees, the Exchange
proposes to assess Professional User and Non-Professional User Fees.
The proposed monthly Professional User fee for the Cboe Options
Exchanges is $30.50 per Professional User, which equals the combined
monthly Professional User fees of the underlying individual Cboe
Options Exchanges Top feeds (i.e., $15.50 per Professional User for the
Cboe Options Top, $5 per Professional User for C2 Options Top, $5 per
Professional User for BZX Options Top, and $5 per Professional User for
EDGX Options Top). The Exchange also proposes to adopt a monthly Non-
Professional User fee of $0.60 per Non-Professional User, which
similarly represents the combined total Non-Professional User fee for
the individual data feeds of the Cboe Options (i.e., $0.30 per Non-
Professional User for Cboe Options Top, $0.10 per Non-Professional User
for C2 Options Top, $0.10 per Non-Professional User for

BZX Options Top, and $0.10 per Non-Professional User for EDGX Options
Top). Similar to the individual underlying feeds, Distributors that
receive Cboe One Options Feed will be required to count Professional
and Non-Professional Users to which they provide the data feed. The
Exchange is proposing to charge Professional and Non-Professional User
fees that equal the combined respective Professional and Non-
Professional User fees of each individual Top feed to ensure that
vendors could compete with the Exchange by creating the same product as
the Cboe One Options Feed to sell to their clients.
Enterprise Fees
    The Exchange also proposes to establish Enterprise Fees that will
permit a Distributor to purchase a monthly (and optional) Enterprise
license to receive the Cboe One Options Feed for distribution to a
specified number of Professional and Non-Professional Users. The
Enterprise Fee will be an alternative to Professional and Non-
Professional User fees and will permit a Distributor to pay a flat fee
to receive the data for a specified number of Professional and Non-
Professional Users, which the Exchange proposes to make clear in the
Fee Schedule. Like User fees, the Enterprise Fee would be assessed in
addition to the Distribution Fees. The Exchange proposes to adopt the
following monthly Enterprise Fees: $350,000 for up to 1,500,000 Users
(Tier 1), $550,000 for 1,500,001 to 2,500,000 Users (Tier 2) and
$750,000 for 2,500,001 or greater Users (Tier 3). The proposed fee
amounts for each Tier equals the combined Enterprise Fees for the
respective tiers for the underlying individual Cboe Options Exchanges
Top feeds (i.e., $300,000, $450,000 and $600,000 for Tiers 1, 2 and 3
respectively for the Cboe Options Top; $10,000, $20,000 and $30,000 for
Tiers 1, 2 and 3 respectively for C2 Options Top; $20,000, $40,000 and
$60,000 for Tiers 1, 2 and 3 respectively for BZX Options Top; and
$20,000, $40,000 and $60,000 for Tiers 1, 2 and 3 respectively for EDGX
Options Top). The proposed fees are non-progressive (e.g., if a
Distributor has 2,000,000 Users, it will be subject to $550,000 for
Tier 2). The Enterprise Fee may provide an opportunity to reduce fees.
For example, if a Distributor has 1 million Non-Professional Users who
each receive Cboe One Options Feed at $0.60 per month (as proposed),
then that Distributor will pay $600,000 per month in Non-Professional
Users fees. If the Distributor instead were to purchase the proposed
Enterprise license (Tier 1), it would alternatively pay a flat fee of
$350,000 for up to 1.5 million Professional and Non-Professional Users.
A Distributor must pay a separate Enterprise Fee for each entity that
controls the display of Cboe One Options Feed if it wishes for such
Users to be covered by an Enterprise Fee rather than by per User
fees.\20\ A Distributor that pays the Tier 1 or Tier 2 Enterprise Fee
will have to report its number of such Users on a monthly basis. A
Distributor that pays the Tier 3 Enterprise Fee will only have to
report the number of its Users every six months.\21\ The Exchange notes
that if the reported number of Users exceed the Enterprise Tier a
Distributor has purchased, the higher Tier will apply (e.g., if a
Distributor purchases Tier 1, but reports 1,600,000 Users for a month,
the Distributor will be assessed the Tier 2 fee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ For example, if a Distributor that distributes EDGX Options
Top to Retail Brokerage Firm A and Retail Brokerage Firm B and
wishes to have the Users under each firm covered by an Enterprise
license, the Distributor would be subject to two Enterprise Fees.
    \21\ See Cboe Global Markets north American Data Policies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to allow Distributors to purchase the
Enterprise Fee on a monthly or annual basis. Annual licenses will
receive a 5% discount off the applicable Enterprise Fee tier.\22\ The
Exchange notes that the purchase of an Enterprise license is voluntary,
and a firm may elect to instead use the per User structure and benefit
from the proposed per User Fees described above. For example, a firm
that does not have a sufficient number of Users to benefit from
purchase of a license need not do so. The Exchange is proposing to
charge Enterprise Fees that equal the combined respective Enterprise
Fees of each individual Top feed and to adopt a 5% discount to those
that purchase an Annual license to ensure that vendors could compete
with the Exchange by creating the same product as the Cboe One Options
Feed to sell to their clients.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The discount will be taken off the Enterprise Tier fee
assessed each fee [sic]. For example, if a Distributor elects to
purchase an annual license and is in Tier 1 for any 9 months of the
year and Tier 2 for any 3 months of the year, the total amount of
fees paid for one year will be $4,560,00 ($350,000-5% x 9 months +
$550,000-5% x 3 months) as compared to $4,800,000 ($350,000 x 9
months + $550,000 x 3 months). 3150000 [sic]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

New External Distributor Credit
    The Exchange proposes to adopt a New External Distributor Credit
which would provide that new External Distributors of the Cboe One
Options Feed will not be charged an External Distributor Fee for their
first three (3) months in order to incentivize them to enlist new Users
to receive the Cboe One Options Feed.\23\ The Exchange notes that other
exchanges, including the Exchange's affiliated equities exchanges offer
similar credits for similar market data products. For example, Cboe's
equities exchanges currently offer a one (1) month New External
Distributor Credit applicable to the Cboe One Summary Feed and a three
(3) month New External Distributor Credit applicable to the
distribution of the Cboe One Premium Feed.\24\ To alleviate any
competitive issues that may arise with a vendor seeking to offer a
product similar to the Cboe One Options Feed based on the underlying
data feeds, the Exchange is proposing, as discussed above, to also
adopt a three-month New External Distributor Credit for the underlying
top-of-book data feeds for the Cboe Options Exchanges. The respective
proposals to adopt a three-month credit ensures the proposed New
External Distributor Credit for Cboe One Options will not cause the
combined cost of subscribing to Cboe Options, C2 Options, BZX Options
and EDGX Options Top feeds for new External Distributors to be greater
than those that would be charged to subscribe to the Cboe One Options
feed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Any applicable User fees will continue to apply during this
three-month period. The New External Distributor Credit will not
apply during an External Distributor's trial usage period for Cboe
One Options. External Distributors who receive Cboe One Options on a
trial basis are still eligible for the New Distributor Credit
thereafter.
    \24\ See e.g., EDGX Equities Exchange Fees Schedule, Market Data
Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Distributor Fee Credit
    The Exchange also proposes to provide that each External
Distributor will receive a credit against its monthly Distributor Fee
for the Cboe One Options Feed equal to the amount of its monthly User
Fees up to a maximum of the Distributor Fee for the Cboe One Options
Feed.\25\ The proposed Enterprise Fees discussed above would also be
counted towards the Distributor Fee credit, equal to the amount of its
monthly Cboe One Options External Distribution fee. For example, an
External Distributor will be subject to a $10,000 monthly Distributor
Fee where they elect to receive the Cboe One Options Feed. If that
External Distributor reports User quantities totaling $10,000 or more
of monthly User fees of the Cboe Options One Feed, it will pay no net
Distributor Fee,

whereas if that same External Distributor were to report User
quantities totaling $9,000 of monthly usage, it will pay a net of
$1,000 for the Distributor Fee. External Distributors will remain
subject to the per User fees discussed above. External Distributors who
choose to purchase an Enterprise license as an alternative to paying
User Fees will get a credit in the amount of the External Distribution
Fee, which is currently $10,000, since the proposed Enterprise Fees are
in excess of the External Distribution fee. In every case the Exchange
will receive at least $10,000 in connection with the distribution of
the Cboe One Options Feed (through a combination of the External
Distribution Fee and per User Fees or the Enterprise Fees, as
applicable). The Exchange notes that its affiliated equities exchanges
offer a similar credit for a similar market data product.\26\ The
proposal to adopt a Distributor Fee Credit for Cboe One Options Feed
ensures the proposed credit for Cboe One Options will not cause the
combined cost of subscribing to Cboe Options, C2 Options, BZX Options
and EDGX Options Top feeds for External Distributors to be greater than
the amount that would be charged to subscribe to the Cboe One Options
feed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ The Distributor Fee Credit does not apply during any such
time that an External Distributor is receiving the New External
Distributor Credit or during a trial usage period for Cboe One
Options.
    \26\ See e.g., EDGX Equities Exchange Fees Schedule, Market Data
Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Data Consolidation Fee
    The Exchange also proposes to charge Distributors of the Cboe One
Options Feed a separate Data Consolidation Fee, which reflects the
value of the aggregation and consolidation function the Exchange
performs in creating the Cboe One Options Feed. As stated above, the
Exchange creates the Cboe One Options Feed from data derived from the
Cboe Options Top, C2 Options Top, BZX Options Top, and EDGX Options Top
Feeds. Distributors (including vendors) could similarly create a
competing product to the Cboe One Options Feed based on these
individual data feeds offered by the Exchanges, and could charge its
clients a fee that it believes reflects the value of the aggregation
and consolidation function. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that
vendors could readily offer a product similar to the Cboe One Options
Feed on a competitive basis at a similar cost.
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.\27\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \28\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers. The Exchange also believes this proposal is
consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, which requires that the
rules of an exchange not impose any burden on competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\29\
In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 11(A) of the Act as it supports (i) fair
competition among brokers and dealers, among exchange markets, and
between exchange markets and markets other than exchange markets, and
(ii) the availability to brokers, dealers, and investors of information
with respect to quotations for and transactions in securities.\30\ The
Exchange also believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\31\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly competitive
environment. Indeed, there are currently 16 registered options
exchanges that trade options. Based on publicly available information,
no single options exchange has more than 18% of the market share.\32\
The Exchange believes top-of-book quotation and transaction data is
highly competitive as national securities exchanges compete vigorously
with each other to provide efficient, reliable, and low-cost data to a
wide range of investors and market participants. Indeed, there are
several competing products offered by other national securities
exchanges today, not counting products offered by the Exchange's
affiliates, and each of the Exchange's affiliated U.S. options
exchanges also offers similar top-of-book data.\33\ Each of those
exchanges offer top-of-book quotation and last sale information based
on their own quotation and trading activity that is substantially
similar to the information provided by the Exchange through the EDGX
Options Top Data Feed. Further, the quote and last sale data contained
in the EDGX Data Feed is identical to the data sent to OPRA for
redistribution to the public.\34\ Accordingly, Exchange top-of-book
data is widely available today from a number of different sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Options Market Month-to-Date
Volume Summary (April 24, 2023), available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/options/market_statistics/.
    \33\ See e.g., NYSE Arca Options Proprietary Market Data Fees
Schedule, MIAX Options Exchange, Fee Schedule, Section 6 (Market
Data Fees), Nasdaq PHLX Options 7 Pricing Schedule, Section 10
(Proprietary Data Feed Fees) and Cboe Data Services, LLC Fees
Schedule.
    \34\ The Exchange makes available the top-of-book data and last
sale data that is included in the EDGX Options Top Data Feed no
earlier than the time at which the Exchange sends that data to OPRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, the EDGX Options Top Data Feed and Cboe One Options Feeds
are distributed and purchased on a voluntary basis, in that neither the
Exchange nor market data distributors are required by any rule or
regulation to make these data products available. Accordingly,
Distributors (including vendors) and Users can discontinue use at any
time and for any reason, including due to an assessment of the
reasonableness of fees charged. Further, the Exchange is not required
to make any proprietary data products available or to offer any
specific pricing alternatives to any customers. Moreover, persons
(including broker-dealers) who subscribe to any exchange proprietary
data feed must also have equivalent access to consolidated Options
Information \35\ from OPRA for the same

classes or series of options that are included in the proprietary data
feed, and proprietary data feeds cannot be used to meet that particular
requirement.\36\ As such, all proprietary data feeds are optional.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ ``Consolidated Options Information'' means consolidated
Last Sale Reports combined with either consolidated Quotation
Information or the BBO furnished by OPRA. Access to consolidated
Options Information is deemed ``equivalent'' if both kinds of
information are equally accessible on the same terminal or work
station. See Limited Liability Company Agreement of Options Price
Reporting Authority, LLC (``OPRA Plan''), Section 5.2(c)(iii). The
Exchange notes that this requirement under the OPRA Plan is also
reiterated under the Cboe Global Markets Global Data Agreement and
Cboe Global Markets North American Data Policies, which subscribers
to any exchange proprietary product must sign and are subject to,
respectively. Additionally, the Exchange's Data Order Form (used for
requesting the Exchange's market data products) requires
confirmation that the requesting market participant receives data
from OPRA.
    \36\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for
competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices,
products, and services in the securities markets. Particularly, in
Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market
forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized
that current regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably
successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that
are most important to investors and listed companies.'' \37\ Making
similar data products available to market participants fosters
competition in the marketplace, and constrains the ability of exchanges
to charge supracompetitive fees. In the event that a market participant
views one exchange's data product as more or less attractive than the
competition they can and do switch between similar products. The
proposed fees are a result of the competitive environment, as the
Exchange seeks to adopt fees to attract purchasers of EDGX Options Top
Data and Cboe One Options Feed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has also taken into consideration its affiliated
relationship with its Affiliates in its design of the Cboe One Options
Feed to ensure that vendors would be able to offer a similar product on
the same terms as the Exchange from a cost perspective. While the Cboe
Options Exchanges are the exclusive distributors of the individual data
feeds from which certain data elements may be taken to create the Cboe
One Options Feed, they are not the exclusive distributors of the
aggregated and consolidated information that comprises the Cboe One
Options Feed. Any entity that receives, or elects to receive, the
individual data feeds would be able to, if it so chooses, to create a
data feed with the same information included in the Cboe One Options
Feed and sell and distribute it to its clients so that it could be
received by those clients as quickly as the Cboe One Options Feed would
be received by those same clients with no greater cost than the
Exchange.
    In addition, vendors and Distributors that do not wish to purchase
the Cboe One Options Feed may separately purchase the individual
underlying products, and if they so choose, perform a similar
aggregation and consolidation function that the Exchange performs in
creating the Cboe One Options Feed. To enable such competition, the
Exchange is offering the Cboe One Options Feed on terms that a vendor
of those underlying feeds could offer a competing product if it so
chooses.
    In addition, the fees that are the subject of this rule filing are
constrained by competition. Particularly, the Exchange competes with
other exchanges (and their affiliates) that may choose to offer similar
market data products. If another exchange (or its affiliate) were to
charge less to consolidate and distribute a similar product than the
Exchange charges to consolidate and distribute the Cboe One Options
Feed, prospective Users likely could choose to not subscribe to, or
would cease subscribing to, the Cboe One Options Feed. In addition, the
Exchange would compete with unaffiliated market data vendors who would
be in a position to consolidate and distribute the same data that
comprises the Cboe One Options Feed into the vendor's own comparable
market data product. If the third-party vendor is able to provide the
exact same data for a lower cost, prospective Users would avail
themselves of that lower cost and elect not to take the Cboe One
Options Feed.
    For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees are
reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory.
    User Fees. The Exchange believes that the proposed Professional and
Non-Professional User fees for the Cboe One Options Feed are reasonable
because they represent the combined monthly fees for Professional and
Non-Professional User fees, respectively for the underlying individual
data feeds, which have previously been filed with the Commission. The
Exchange believes that the proposed fees are equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because they will be charged uniformly to Distributors.
Combining the Professional and Non-Professional User fees, of each
individual Top feed, respectively, further ensures vendors can compete
with the Exchange by creating the same product as the Cboe One Options
Feed to sell to their clients. Moreover, the proposed fee structure of
differentiated Professional and Non-Professional fees that are paid by
both Internal and External Distributors has long been used by other
exchanges, including the Exchange, for their proprietary data products,
and by the OPRA plan in order to reduce the price of data to retail
investors and make it more broadly available.\38\ The Exchange also
believes offering Cboe One Options Feed to Non-Professional Users at a
lower cost than Professional Users results in greater equity among data
recipients, as Professional Users are categorized as such based on
their employment and participation in financial markets, and thus, are
compensated to participate in the markets. Although Non-Professional
Users too can receive significant financial benefits through their
participation in the markets, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to
charge more to those Users who are more directly engaged in the
markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59544 (March
9, 2009), 74 FR 11162 (March 16, 2009) (SR-NYSE-2008-131)
(establishing the $15 Non-Professional User Fee (Per User) for NYSE
OpenBook); See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67589
(August 2, 2012), 77 FR 47459 (August 8, 2012) (revising OPRA's
definition of the term ``Nonprofessional''); and See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 70683 (October 15, 2013), 78 FR 62798
(October 22, 2013) (SR-CBOE-2013-087) (establishing Professional and
Non-Professional User fees for Cboe Options COB Data Feed).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Enterprise Fee. The Exchange believes the proposed Enterprise Fees
for the Cboe One Options Feed and proposed changes to the Enterprise
Fee for the EDGX Options Top feed are reasonable as the fees proposed
could result in a fee reduction for Distributors of the respective
products with a large number of Professional and Non-Professional
Users. If a Distributor has a smaller number of Professional Users of
the Cboe One Options Feed or EDGX Options Top Feed, then it may
continue using the per User structure and benefit from the per User Fee
reductions for each respective product. By reducing prices for
Distributors with a large number of Professional and Non-Professional
Users, the Exchange believes that more firms may choose to receive and
to distribute the Cboe One Options or EDGX Options Top feeds, thereby
expanding the distribution of this market data for the benefit of
investors. The Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory to assess incrementally higher fees for higher
tiers, because such tier covers a higher number of users (and indeed
for those in Tier 3, an unlimited number of users). Also as described
above, the Enterprise Fees are entirely optional. A firm that does not
have a sufficient number of Users to benefit from purchase of a
license, or purchase of a specific tier level, need not do so. The
Exchange believes the proposed discount for an Annual license is also
reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as it

provides Distributors an opportunity to be assessed lower fees and is
available to any Distributor who chooses to make a one-year commitment
via the Annual license. The Exchange lastly notes that the proposed
Enterprise Fees for Cboe One Options and the proposed 5% discount for
an Annual license equal the combined respective Enterprise Fees and
discount, respectively, of each individual Top feed, thereby ensuring
that vendors can compete with the Exchange by creating the same product
as the Cboe One Options Feed to sell to their clients.
    Distributor Fees. The Exchange believes that the proposed
Distributor fees for the Cboe One Options Feed are reasonable because
they represent the combined monthly fees for Internal and External
Distributor fees, respectively for the underlying individual data
feeds, which have previously been filed with the Commission. The
Exchange believes that the proposed fees are equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because they will be charged uniformly to Internal and
External Distributors. The Exchange believes that it is also fair and
equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory to charge different fees for
internal and external distribution of the Cboe One Options Feed.
Although the proposed distribution fee charged to External Distributors
will be lower than the existing [sic] distribution fee charged to
Internal Distributors, External Distributors are subject to Non-
Professional user fees to which Internal Distributors are not subject,
in addition to Professional User fees (or alternatively the proposed
Enterprise Fee). The Exchange also notes that Cboe One Options Feed,
like the underlying top-of-book feeds, are more likely to be
distributed externally as such data is expected to be used more
frequently by Non-Professional Users who, by definition, do not receive
the data for commercial purposes (e.g., retail investors) and are
therefore not internal. The Exchange therefore believes that the
proposed reduced fee for External Distributors is reasonable because it
may encourage more distributors to choose to offer the Cboe One
Options, thereby expanding the distribution of this market data for the
benefit of investors, and particularly retail investors.
    The proposed Distributor Fees for the Cboe One Options Feed are
also designed to ensure that vendors could compete with the Exchange by
creating a similar product as the Cboe One Options Feed. The Exchange
believes that the proposed Distributor Fees are equitable and
reasonable as they equal the combined fee of subscribing to each
individual data feed of the Cboe Options Exchanges, which have been
previously published by the Commission.
    In addition, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to not charge
External Distributors of EDGX Options Top and Cboe One Options Feed a
Distribution Fee during their first three (3) months because such
Distributors will not be subject to any External Distribution fees for
those months. Additionally, the Exchange's affiliated equities
exchanges offer a similar credit for a similar market data product.\39\
The proposed credit is also intended to incentivize new External
Distributors to enlist Users to subscribe to the EDGX Options Top or
Cboe One Options feeds in an effort to broaden the products'
distribution. While this incentive is not available to Internal
Distributors of these products, the Exchange believes it is appropriate
as Internal Distributors have no Users outside of their own firm.
Furthermore, External Distributors are subject to higher risks of
launch as the data is provided outside their own firm. For these
reasons, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to provide this
incentive so that External Distributors have sufficient time to test
the data within their own systems prior to going live externally. The
Exchange also does not believe this would inhibit a vendor from
creating a competing product and offer a similar free period as the
Exchange. Specifically, a vendor seeking to create the Cboe One Options
Feed could do so by subscribing to the underlying individual data
feeds, all of which will also include a New External Distributor Credit
identical to that proposed for the Cboe One Options Feed. As a result,
a competing vendor would incur similar costs as the Exchange in
offering such free period for a competing product and may do so on the
same terms as the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See e.g., EDGX Equities Exchange Fees Schedule, Market Data
Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Distributor Fee Credit
    The Exchange believes the proposal to provide External Distributors
a credit against their monthly External Distribution Fee equal to the
amount of its monthly Usage Fee or Enterprise Fees, is reasonable as it
could result in the External Distributor paying a discounted, or no,
External Distribution fee once such Distributor's free three-month
period has ended. The Exchange notes that its affiliated equities
exchanges offer a similar credit for a similar market data product.\40\
Further, in every case the Exchange will receive at least the amount of
the External Distribution fee for EDGX Options Top or Cboe One Options,
as applicable, in connection with the distribution of each respective
feed (through a combination of the External Distribution Fee and per
User Fees or Enterprise Fees, as applicable). The Exchange believes it
is also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to apply the credit
to External Distributors only because, like the free three-month credit
described above, it is also intended to incentivize new External
Distributors to enlist Users, including Non-Profession Users such as
retail investors, to subscribe to the EDGX Options Top or Cboe One
Options Feed in an effort to broaden the products' distribution. While
this incentive is not available to Internal Distributors of these
products, the Exchange believes it is appropriate as Internal
Distributors have no Users outside of their own firm. Furthermore,
External Distributors are subject to higher risks of launch as the data
is provided outside their own firm. For these reasons, the Exchange
believes it is appropriate to provide this incentive to only External
Distributors. The proposal to adopt a Distributor Fee Credit for Cboe
One Options Feed in particular also ensures the proposed credit for
Cboe One Options will not cause the combined cost of subscribing to
Cboe Options, C2 Options, BZX Options and EDGX Options Top feeds for
External Distributors to be greater than the amount that would be
charged to subscribe to the Cboe One Options feed, thereby ensuring
that vendors can compete with the Exchange by creating the same product
as the Cboe One Options Feed to sell to their clients.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See e.g., EDGX Equities Exchange Fees Schedule, Market Data
Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Data Consolidation Fee. The Exchange believes that the proposed
$500 per month Data Consolidation Fee charged to Distributors
(including vendors) who receive the Cboe One Options Feed is reasonable
because it represents the value of the data aggregation and
consolidation function that the Exchange performs. The Exchange further
believes the proposed Data Consolidation Fee is not designed to permit
unfair discrimination because all Distributors who obtain the Cboe One
Options Feed will be charged the same fee. Accordingly, the Exchange
believes that Distributors could readily offer a product similar to the
Cboe One Options Feed on a competitive basis at a similar cost.
Therefore, the Exchange believes the proposed application of the Data
Consolidation Fee is reasonable would not permit unfair discrimination.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange
operates in a highly competitive environment, and its ability to price
top-of-book data is constrained by competition among exchanges that
offer similar data products to their customers. Top-of-book data is
broadly disseminated by competing U.S. options exchanges . In this
competitive environment potential Distributors are free to choose which
competing product to purchase to satisfy their respective needs for
market information. Often, the choice comes down to price, as market
data participants look to purchase cheaper data products, and quality,
as market participants seek to purchase data that represents
significant market liquidity.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed fees do not impose a burden
on competition or on other SROs that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In particular, market
participants are not forced to subscribe to EDGX Options Top, Cboe One
Options Feed or any of the Exchange's data feeds, as described above.
As noted, the quote and last sale data contained in the Exchange's EDGX
Options Top feed is identical to the data sent to OPRA for
redistribution to the public. Accordingly, Exchange top-of-book data is
widely available today from a number of different sources.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed fees do not put any market
participants at a relative disadvantage compared to other market
participants. As discussed, the proposed waiver, credits and Enterprise
Fees would apply to all similarly situated Distributors of EDGX Options
Top on an equal and non-discriminatory basis. Because market data
customers can find suitable substitute feeds, an exchange that
overprices its market data products stands a high risk that users may
substitute another product. These competitive pressures ensure that no
one exchange's market data fees can impose an undue burden on
competition, and the Exchange's proposed fees do not do so here.
    Additionally, the Cboe One Options Feed will enhance competition
because it provides investors with an alternative option for receiving
market data. Although the Cboe Options Exchanges are the exclusive
distributors of the individual data feeds from which certain data
elements would be taken to create the Cboe One Options Feed, the
Exchange would not be the exclusive distributor of the aggregated and
consolidated information that would compose the proposed Cboe One
Options Feed. Any entity that receives, or elects to receive, the
underlying data feeds would be able to, if it so chooses, to create a
data feed with the same information included in the Cboe One Options
Feed and sell and distribute it to its clients so that it could be
received by those clients as quickly as the Cboe One Options Feed would
be received by those same clients and at a similar cost.
    The proposed pricing the Exchange would charge for the Cboe One
Options Feed compared to the cost of the individual data feeds from the
Cboe Options Exchanges would enable a vendor to receive the underlying
individual data feeds and offer a similar product on a competitive
basis and with no greater cost than the Exchange. The pricing the
Exchange proposes to charge for the Cboe One Options Feed is not lower
than the cost to a vendor of receiving the underlying data feeds.
Indeed, the proposed pricing equals the combined costs of the
respective fees, and the proposed waivers are also being proposed for
the underlying individual feeds as well, thereby enabling a vendor to
receive the underlying data feeds and offer a similar product on a
competitive basis and with no greater cost than the Exchange.
    The Exchange further believes that its proposed monthly Data
Consolidation Fee would be pro-competitive because a vendor could
create a competing product, perform a similar aggregating and
consolidating function, and similarly charge for such service. The
Exchange notes that a competing vendor might engage in a different
analysis of assessing the cost of a competing product. For these
reasons, the Exchange believes the proposed pricing, fee waiver and
credit, would enable a vendor to create a competing product based on
the individual data feeds and charge its clients a fee that it believes
reflects the value of the aggregation and consolidation function that
is competitive with Cboe One Options Feed pricing.
    In establishing the proposed fees, the Exchange considered the
competitiveness of the market for proprietary data and all of the
implications of that competition. The Exchange believes that it has
considered all relevant factors and has not considered irrelevant
factors in order to establish fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably
discriminatory fees and an equitable allocation of fees among all
users.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any written comments from members or other interested parties.

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 \41\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \42\
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \42\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2023-037 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-CboeEDGX-2023-037. 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. Do not include personal identifiable
information in submissions; you should submit only information that you
wish to make available publicly. We may redact in part or withhold
entirely from publication submitted material that is obscene or subject
to copyright protection. All submissions should refer to File Number
SR-CboeEDGX-2023-037 and should be submitted on or before June 22,
2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-11613 Filed 5-31-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 82 (Friday, April 27, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 18491]
[FR Doc No: 2018-08871]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 110

[Docket Number USCG-2016-0916]
RIN 1625-AA01

Anchorages; Captain of the Port Puget Sound Zone, WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is withdrawing its notice of proposed
rulemaking entitled ``Anchorages; Captain of the Port Puget Sound Zone,
WA'' that we published on February 10, 2017. The Coast Guard is
withdrawing this rulemaking in response to public comments and to
better analyze potential impacts to tribal treaty rights, especially
treaty fishing rights.

DATES: The notice of proposed rulemaking is withdrawn on April 27,
2018.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this withdrawn rulemaking is available by
searching docket number USCG-2016-0916 using the Federal portal at
http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notice of inquiry, call or email LCDR Christina Sullivan, U.S. Coast
Guard Sector Puget Sound; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

II. Background

    We published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal
Register on February 10, 2017 (82 FR 10313), entitled ``Anchorages;
Captain of the Port Puget Sound Zone, WA.'' In the NPRM, we proposed
the creation of several new anchorages, holding areas, and a non-
anchorage area as well as the expansion of one existing general
anchorage in the Puget Sound area, as detailed in the proposed
regulatory text. The Coast Guard received feedback from concerned
citizens, commercial entities, environmental groups, and from Indian
Tribal Governments and tribal officials regarding the proposed
rulemaking. These comments were made available in the docket. Based on
the information received from the tribes in the docket, the Coast Guard
is withdrawing the proposed rulemaking at this time so as to better
analyze tribal impacts before conducting further rulemaking on
anchorages in Puget Sound. The Coast Guard actively exercises its
authority to manage vessel traffic in the Puget Sound in a safe and
effective manner, both historically and at present. The Coast Guard is
committed to improving the navigational safety of all Puget Sound
waterway users, and is continually engaged in efforts to improve safety
through coordination with waterways users.
    The Coast Guard provided notice of its intent to withdraw the
rulemaking and also its intent not to schedule consultation with the
tribes on the proposed rulemaking in light of the withdrawal. In that
published notification (82 FR 54307, November 17, 2017), the Coast
Guard requested comment on whether or not withdrawal is appropriate,
and also if tribal consultation was still necessary in light of the
Coast Guard's stated intent to withdraw the proposed rule.

III. Discussion of Comments

    The Coast Guard received nine written submissions in response to
its request for comment on its intent to withdraw the proposed rule;
six concerned citizens, two on behalf of coalitions of environmental
groups, and one from a federally recognized tribe. Of the nine
commenters, one commenter supported the withdrawal, three commenters
indicated that withdrawal is not supported without an environmental
impact statement being done, one commenter supported continuing with
the rule so long as an environmental impact study is conducted, and
four commenters made no affirmative or negative comment on withdrawal
of the proposed rule, but requested an environmental impact statement.
The Coast Guard is withdrawing its proposed rulemaking based on the
comments received and in order to better analyze the impacts to tribal
treaty rights, especially treaty fishing rights.
    All commenters requested or emphasized the importance of an
environmental impact statement. The Coast Guard will follow all
applicable laws and regulations, including the National Environmental
Policy Act, with respect to any anchorages rulemaking in the Puget
Sound that may be conducted in the future.
    Two commenters requested the Coast Guard conduct an environmental
impact statement on the use of uncodified anchorages before withdrawing
the current proposed rule. The Coast Guard's withdrawal of the proposed
anchorage rule is not a government action for which an environmental
impact statement on the uncodified anchorages is required.
    Two commenters indicated that tribal consultation is appropriate
within the proposal area with respect to the proposed rule, two
commenters deferred to tribal governments on the issue of whether
tribal consultation on this rule is appropriate, and one tribe
commented that it had previously engaged with the Coast Guard on a
government-to-government basis and submitted comments on the proposed
rule. The Coast Guard is committed to upholding its responsibilities as
the federal trustee of the tribes' interests, and will conduct formal
government-to-government consultation when required under Executive
Order 13175. The Coast Guard is withdrawing the current proposed
rulemaking and has engaged with the tribes to address broader treaty
rights issues in processes outside this rulemaking. As a result of the
above actions, the Coast Guard will not conduct consultation on this
specific rulemaking.

IV. Withdrawal

    The Coast Guard has determined that withdrawing the proposed rule
is appropriate based on the new information received from the tribes in
the docket. Accordingly, the Coast Guard is withdrawing the
``Anchorages; Captain of the Port Puget Sound Zone, WA'' proposed
rulemaking announced in an NPRM published February 10, 2017 (82 FR
10313). As noted, the Coast Guard has the authority and ability to
manage vessel traffic in the Puget Sound in a safe and effective
manner. We are committed to improving the navigational safety of all
Puget Sound waterway users, and will continually consider ways to do so
in an effective and least burdensome manner consistent with tribal
treaty fishing rights.

    Dated: April 23, 2018.
David G. Throop,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Thirteenth Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2018-08871 Filed 4-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: April 4, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 64)]
[Notices]
[Page 16344]
[DOCID:fr04ap07-53]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2107-016--CA]

Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Notice of Availability of Final
Environmental Assessment

March 29, 2007.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission)
regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office
of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for license for the Poe
Hydroelectric Project, located on the North Fork Feather River in Butte
County, California, and has prepared a final environmental assessment
(EA) for the project. A draft EA was prepared and issued for public
comment on August 2, 2006. The project occupies 144 acres of lands of
the United States, which are administered by the Forest Supervisor of
the Plumas National Forest.
    The final EA contains the staff's analysis of the potential
environmental impacts of the project and alternatives and concludes
that licensing the project, with appropriate environmental protective
measures, would not constitute a major federal action that would
significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
    A copy of the final EA is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site
at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket

number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,

(202) 502-8659.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp
 to be notified via e-mail of new filings and

issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    For further information, contact John Mudre at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-6207 Filed 4-3-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P