Notice2023-28607
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fees Schedule Related to Physical Port Fees
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
December 28, 2023
Issuing agencies
Securities and Exchange Commission
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 248 (Thursday, December 28, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 248 (Thursday, December 28, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 89759-89763]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28607]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-99221; File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2023-080]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Its Fees Schedule Related to Physical Port Fees
December 21, 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 December 12, 2023, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``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 Options'')
proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. The text of the proposed rule
change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (<a href="http://markets.cboe.com/us/options/regulation/rule_filings/edgx/">http://markets.cboe.com/us/options/regulation/rule_filings/edgx/</a>), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.
II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.
A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change
1. Purpose
The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule for its equity
options platform (``EDGX Options'') relating to physical connectivity
fees.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Exchange initially filed the proposed fee changes on
July 3, 2023 (SR-CboeEDGX-2023-045). On September 1, 2023, the
Exchange withdrew that filing and submitted SR-CboeEDGX-2023-058. On
September 29, 2023, the Securities and Exchange Commission issued a
Suspension of and Order Instituting Proceedings to Determine whether
to Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change to Amend its Fees
Schedule Related to Physical Port Fees (the ``OIP''). On September
29, 2023, the Exchange filed the proposed fee change (SR-CboeEDGX-
2023-063). On October 13, 2023, the Exchange withdrew that filing
and submitted SR-CboeEDGX-2023-064. On December 12, 2023, the
Exchange withdrew that filing and submitted this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By way of background, a physical port is utilized by a Member or
non-Member to connect to the Exchange at the data centers where the
Exchange's servers are located. The Exchange currently assesses the
following physical connectivity fees for Members and non-Members on a
monthly basis: $2,500 per physical port for a 1 gigabit (``Gb'')
circuit and $7,500 per physical port for a 10 Gb circuit. The Exchange
proposes to increase the monthly fee for 10 Gb physical ports from
$7,500 to $8,500 per port. The Exchange notes the proposed fee change
better enables it to continue to maintain and improve its market
technology and services and also notes that the proposed fee amount,
even as amended, continues to be in line with, or even lower than,
amounts assessed by other exchanges for similar connections.\4\ The
physical ports may also be used to access the Systems for the following
affiliate exchanges and only one monthly fee currently (and will
continue) to apply per port: the Exchange's equities platform (EDGX
Equities), Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (options and equities platforms),
Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc., Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc., and Cboe C2
Exchange, Inc. (``Affiliate Exchanges'').\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See e.g., The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq''), General
8, Connectivity to the Exchange. Nasdaq and its affiliated exchanges
charge a monthly fee of $15,000 for each 10Gb Ultra fiber connection
to the respective exchange, which is analogous to the Exchange's
10Gb physical port. See also New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE
American LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc., NYSE Chicago Inc., NYSE National,
Inc. Connectivity Fee Schedule, which provides that 10 Gb LX LCN
Circuits (which are analogous to the Exchange's 10 Gb physical port)
are assessed $22,000 per month, per port.
\5\ The Affiliate Exchanges are also submitting contemporaneous
identical rule filings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.\6\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
section 6(b)(5) \7\ 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
[[Page 89760]]
the section 6(b)(5) \8\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not
be designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers. The Exchange also believes the proposed rule
change is consistent with section 6(b)(4) \9\ of the Act, which
requires that Exchange rules provide for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its Members and other
persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
\7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
\8\ Id.
\9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange believes the proposed fee change is reasonable as it
reflects a moderate increase in physical connectivity fees for 10 Gb
physical ports. Further, the current 10 Gb physical port fee has
remained unchanged since June 2018.\10\ Since its last increase 5 years
ago however, there has been notable inflation. Particularly, the dollar
has had an average inflation rate of 3.9% per year between 2018 and
today, producing a cumulative price increase of approximately 21.1%
inflation since the fee for the 10 Gb physical port was last
modified.\11\ Moreover, the Exchange historically does not increase
fees every year, notwithstanding inflation. Accordingly, the Exchange
believes the proposed fee is reasonable as it represents only an
approximate 13% increase from the rates adopted five years ago,
notwithstanding the cumulative rate of 21.1%. The Exchange is also
unaware of any standard that suggests any fee proposal that exceeds a
certain yearly or cumulative inflation rate is unreasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Securities and Exchange Release No. 83430 (June 14,
2018), 83 FR 28697 (June 20, 2018) (SR-CboeEDGX-2018-017).
\11\ See <a href="https://www.officialdata.org/us/inflation/2010?amount=1">https://www.officialdata.org/us/inflation/2010?amount=1</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange also believes the proposed fee is reasonable as it is
still in line with, or even lower than, amounts assessed by other
exchanges for similar connections.\12\ Indeed, the Exchange believes
assessing fees that are a lower rate than fees assessed by other
exchanges for analogous connectivity (which were similarly adopted via
the rule filing process and filed with the Commission) is reasonable.
As noted above, the proposed fee is also the same as is concurrently
being proposed for its Affiliate Exchanges. Further, Members are able
to utilize a single port to connect to any of the Affiliate Exchanges
with no additional fee assessed for that same physical port.
Particularly, the Exchange believes the proposed monthly per port fee
is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as it is
assessed only once, even if it connects with another affiliate exchange
since only one port is being used and the Exchange does not wish to
charge multiple fees for the same port. Indeed, the Exchange notes that
several ports are in fact purchased and utilized across one or more of
the Exchange's affiliated Exchanges (and charged only once).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See e.g., The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq''), General
8, Connectivity to the Exchange. Nasdaq and its affiliated exchanges
charge a monthly fee of $15,000 for each 10Gb Ultra fiber connection
to the respective exchange, which is analogous to the Exchange's
10Gb physical port. See also New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE
American LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc., NYSE Chicago Inc., NYSE National,
Inc. Connectivity Fee Schedule, which provides that 10 Gb LX LCN
Circuits (which are analogous to the Exchange's 10 Gb physical port)
are assessed $22,000 per month, per port.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange also believes that the proposed fee change is not
unfairly discriminatory because it would be assessed uniformly across
all market participants that purchase the physical ports. The Exchange
believes increasing the fee for 10 Gb physical ports and charging a
higher fee as compared to the 1 Gb physical port is equitable as the 1
Gb physical port is 1/10th the size of the 10 Gb physical port and
therefore does not offer access to many of the products and services
offered by the Exchange (e.g., ability to receive certain market data
products). Thus, the value of the 1 Gb alternative is lower than the
value of the 10 Gb alternative, when measured based on the type of
Exchange access it offers. Moreover, market participants that purchase
10 Gb physical ports utilize the most bandwidth and therefore consume
the most resources from the network. As such, the Exchange believes the
proposed fee change for 10 Gb physical ports is reasonably and
appropriately allocated.
The Exchange also notes Members and non-Members will continue to
choose the method of connectivity based on their specific needs and no
broker-dealer is required to become a Member of, let alone connect
directly to, the Exchange. There is also no regulatory requirement that
any market participant connect to any one particular exchange.
Moreover, direct connectivity is not a requirement to participate on
the Exchange. The Exchange also believes substitutable products and
services are available to market participants, including, among other
things, other options exchanges that a market participant may connect
to in lieu of the Exchange, indirect connectivity to the Exchange via a
third-party reseller of connectivity, and/or trading of any options
product, such as within the Over-the-Counter (OTC) markets which do not
require connectivity to the Exchange. Indeed, there are currently 17
registered options exchanges that trade options (13 of which are not
affiliated with Cboe), some of which have similar or lower connectivity
fees.\13\ Based on publicly available information, no single options
exchange has more than approximately 20% of the market share.\14\
Further, low barriers to entry mean that new exchanges may rapidly
enter the market and offer additional substitute platforms to further
compete with the Exchange and the products it offers. For example,
there are 3 exchanges that have been added in the U.S. options markets
in the last 5 years (i.e., Nasdaq MRX, LLC, MIAX Pearl, LLC, MIAX
Emerald LLC, and most recently MEMX LLC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Id.
\14\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Options Market Volume Summary
(October 13, 2023), available at <a href="https://markets.cboe.com/us/options/market_statistics/">https://markets.cboe.com/us/options/market_statistics/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted above, there is no regulatory requirement that any market
participant connect to any one options exchange, nor that any market
participant connect at a particular connection speed or act in a
particular capacity on the Exchange, or trade any particular product
offered on an exchange. Moreover, membership is not a requirement to
participate on the Exchange. Indeed, the Exchange is unaware of any one
options exchange whose membership includes every registered broker-
dealer. By way of example, while the Exchange has 51 members that trade
options, Cboe BZX has 61 members that trade options, and Cboe C2 has 52
Trading Permit Holders (``TPHs'') (i.e., members). There is also no
firm that is a Member of EDGX Options only. Further, based on publicly
available information regarding a sample of the Exchange's competitors,
NYSE American Options has 71 members,\15\ and NYSE Arca Options has 69
members,\16\ MIAX Options has 46 members \17\ and MIAX Pearl Options
has 40 members.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See <a href="https://www.nyse.com/markets/american-options/membership#directory">https://www.nyse.com/markets/american-options/membership#directory</a>.
\16\ See <a href="https://www.nyse.com/markets/arca-options/membership#directory">https://www.nyse.com/markets/arca-options/membership#directory</a>.
\17\ See <a href="https://www.miaxglobal.com/sites/default/files/page-files/MIAX_Options_Exchange_Members_April_2023_04282023.pdf">https://www.miaxglobal.com/sites/default/files/page-files/MIAX_Options_Exchange_Members_April_2023_04282023.pdf</a>.
\18\ See <a href="https://www.miaxglobal.com/sites/default/files/page-files/MIAX_Pearl_Exchange_Members_01172023_0.pdf">https://www.miaxglobal.com/sites/default/files/page-files/MIAX_Pearl_Exchange_Members_01172023_0.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A market participant may submit orders to the Exchange via a Member
broker or a third-party reseller of connectivity. The Exchange notes
that third-party non-Members also resell exchange connectivity. This
indirect connectivity is another viable alternative for market
participants to
[[Page 89761]]
trade on the Exchange without connecting directly to the Exchange (and
thus not pay the Exchange connectivity fees), which alternative is
already being used by non-Members and further constrains the price that
the Exchange is able to charge for connectivity to its Exchange.\19\
The Exchange notes that it could, but chooses not to, preclude market
participants from reselling its connectivity. Unlike other exchanges,
the Exchange also chooses not to adopt fees that would be assessed to
third-party resellers on a per customer basis (i.e., fee based on
number of Members that connect to the Exchange indirectly via the
third-party).\20\ Particularly, these third-party resellers may
purchase the Exchange's physical ports and resell access to such ports
either alone or as part of a package of services. The Exchange notes
that multiple Members are able to share a single physical port (and
corresponding bandwidth) with other non-affiliated Members if purchased
through a third-party re-seller.\21\ This allows resellers to mutualize
the costs of the ports for market participants and provide such ports
at a price that may be lower than the Exchange charges due to this
mutualized connectivity. These third-party sellers may also provide an
additional value to market participants in addition to the physical
port itself as they may also manage and monitor these connections, and
clients of these third-parties may also be able to connect from the
same colocation facility either from their own racks or using the
third-party's managed racks and infrastructure which may provide
further cost-savings The Exchange believes such third-party resellers
may also use the Exchange's connectivity as an incentive for market
participants to purchase further services such as hosting services.
That is, even firms that wish to utilize a single, dedicated 10 Gb port
(i.e., use one single 10 Gb port themselves instead of sharing a port
with other firms), may still realize cost savings via a third-party
reseller as it relates to a physical port because such reseller may be
providing a discount on the physical port to incentivize the purchase
of additional services and infrastructure support alongside the
physical port offering (e.g., providing space, hosting, power, and
other long-haul connectivity options). Further, as noted above, the
Exchange does not receive any connectivity revenue when connectivity is
resold by a third-party, which often is resold to multiple customers,
some of whom are agency broker-dealers that have numerous customers of
their own. Therefore given the availability of third-party providers
that also offer connectivity solutions, the Exchange believes
participation on the Exchange remains affordable (notwithstanding the
proposed fee change) for all market participants, including trading
firms that may be able to take advantage of lower costs that result
from mutualized connectivity and/or from other services provided
alongside the physical port offerings. Because third-party resellers
also act as a viable alternative to direct connectivity to the
Exchange, the price that the Exchange is able to charge for direct
connectivity to its Exchange is constrained. Moreover, if the Exchange
were to assess supracompetitve rates, members and non-members (such as
third-party resellers) alike, may decide not to purchase, or to reduce
its use of, the Exchange's direct connectivity. Disincentivizing market
participants from purchasing Exchange connectivity would only serve to
discourage participation on the Exchange which ultimately does not
benefit the Exchange. Further, the Exchange believes its offerings are
more affordable as compared to similar offerings at competitor
exchanges.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Third-party resellers of connectivity play an important
role in the capital markets infrastructure ecosystem. For example,
third-party resellers can help unify access for customers who want
exposure to multiple financial markets that are geographically
dispersed by establishing connectivity to all of the different
exchanges, so the customers themselves do not have to. Many of the
third-party connectivity resellers also act as distribution agents
for all of the market data generated by the exchanges as they can
use their established connectivity to subscribe to, and
redistribute, data over their networks. This may remove barriers
that infrastructure requirements may otherwise pose for customers
looking to access multiple markets and real-time data feeds. This
facilitation of overall access to the marketplace is ultimately
beneficial for the entire capital markets ecosystem, including the
Exchange, on which such firms transact business.
\20\ See, e.g., Nasdaq Price List--U.S. Direct Connection and
Extranet Fees, available at, US Direct-Extranet Connection
(<a href="http://nasdaqtrader.com">nasdaqtrader.com</a>); and Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 74077
(January 16, 2022), 80 FR 3683 (January 23, 2022) (SR-NASDAQ-2015-
002); and 82037 (November 8, 2022), 82 FR 52953 (November 15, 2022)
(SR-NASDAQ-2017-114).
\21\ For example, a third-party reseller may purchase one 10 Gb
physical port from the Exchange and resell that connectivity to
three different market participants who may only need 3 Gb each and
leverage the same single port.
\22\ See e.g., See e.g., The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC
(``Nasdaq''), General 8, Connectivity to the Exchange. Nasdaq and
its affiliated exchanges charge a monthly fee of $15,000 for each
10Gbps Ultra fiber connection to the respective exchange, which is
analogous to the Exchange's 10Gbps physical port. See also New York
Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE American LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc., NYSE Chicago
Inc., NYSE National, Inc. Connectivity Fee Schedule, which provides
that 10 Gbps LX LCN Circuits (which are analogous to the Exchange's
10 Gbps physical port) are assessed $22,000 per month, per port.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, the vigorous competition among national securities
exchanges provides many alternatives for firms to voluntarily decide
whether direct connectivity to the Exchange is appropriate and
worthwhile, and as noted above, no broker-dealer is required to become
a Member of the Exchange, let alone connect directly to it. In the
event that a market participant views the Exchange's proposed fee
change as more or less attractive than the competition, that market
participant can choose to connect to the Exchange indirectly or may
choose not to connect to that exchange and connect instead to one or
more of the other 13 non-Cboe affiliated options markets. Indeed,
market participants are free to choose which exchange or reseller to
use to satisfy their business needs. Moreover, if the Exchange charges
excessive fees, it may stand to lose not only connectivity revenues but
also revenues associated with the execution of orders routed to it,
and, to the extent applicable, market data revenues. The Exchange
believes that this competitive dynamic imposes powerful restraints on
the ability of any exchange to charge unreasonable fees for
connectivity. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Exchange still
believes that the proposed fee increase is reasonable, equitably
allocated and not unfairly discriminatory, even for market participants
that determine to connect directly to the Exchange for business
purposes, as those business reasons should presumably result in revenue
capable of covering the proposed fee.
The Exchange lastly notes that it is not required by the Exchange
Act, nor any other rule or regulation, to undertake a cost-of-service
or rate-making approach with respect to fee proposals. Moreover,
Congress's intent in enacting the 1975 Amendments to the Act was to
enable competition--rather than government order--to determine prices.
The principal purpose of the amendments was to facilitate the creation
of a national market system for the trading of securities. Congress
intended that this ``national market system evolve through the
interplay of competitive forces as unnecessary regulatory restrictions
are removed.'' \23\ Other provisions of the Act confirm that intent.
For example, the Act provides that an exchange must design its rules
``to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system,
[[Page 89762]]
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.'' \24\
Likewise, the Act grants the Commission authority to amend or repeal
``[t]he rules of [an] exchange [that] impose any burden on competition
not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of this
chapter.'' \25\ In short, the promotion of free and open competition
was a core congressional objective in creating the national market
system.\26\ Indeed, the Commission has historically interpreted that
mandate to promote competitive forces to determine prices whenever
compatible with a national market system. Accordingly, the Exchange
believes it has met its burden to demonstrate that its proposed fee
change is reasonable and consistent with the immediate filing process
chosen by Congress, which created a system whereby market forces
determine access fees in the vast majority of cases, subject to
oversight only in particular cases of abuse or market failure. Lastly,
and importantly, the Exchange believes that, even if it were possible
as a matter of economic theory, cost-based pricing for the proposed fee
would be so complicated that it could not be done practically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See H.R. Rep. No. 94-229, at 92 (1975) (Conf. Rep.)
(emphasis added).
\24\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
\25\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(8).
\26\ See also 15 U.S.C. 78k-l(a)(1)(C)(ii) (purposes of Exchange
Act include to promote ``fair competition among brokers and dealers,
among exchange markets, and between exchange markets and markets
other than exchange markets''); Order, 73 FR at 74781 (``The
Exchange Act and its legislative history strongly support the
Commission's reliance on competition, whenever possible, in meeting
its regulatory responsibilities for overseeing the SROs and the
national market system.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed fee change will
not impact intramarket competition because it will apply to all
similarly situated Members equally (i.e., all market participants that
choose to purchase the 10 Gb physical port). Additionally, the Exchange
does not believe its proposed pricing will impose a barrier to entry to
smaller participants and notes that its proposed connectivity pricing
is associated with relative usage of the various market participants.
For example, market participants with modest capacity needs can
continue to buy the less expensive 1 Gb physical port (which cost is
not changing) or may choose to obtain access via a third-party re-
seller. While pricing may be increased for the larger capacity physical
ports, such options provide far more capacity and are purchased by
those that consume more resources from the network. Accordingly, the
proposed connectivity fees do not favor certain categories of market
participants in a manner that would impose a burden on competition;
rather, the allocation reflects the network resources consumed by the
various size of market participants--lowest bandwidth consuming members
pay the least, and highest bandwidth consuming members pays the most.
The Exchange's proposed fee is also still lower than some fees for
similar connectivity on other exchanges and therefore may stimulate
intermarket competition by attracting additional firms to connect to
the Exchange or at least should not deter interested participants from
connecting directly to the Exchange. Further, if the changes proposed
herein are unattractive to market participants, the Exchange can, and
likely will, see a decline in connectivity via 10 Gb physical ports as
a result. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which
market participants can determine whether or not to connect directly to
the Exchange based on the value received compared to the cost of doing
so. Indeed, market participants have numerous alternative venues that
they may participate on and direct their order flow, including 13 non-
Cboe affiliated options markets, as well as off-exchange venues, where
competitive products are available for trading. Moreover, the
Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over
regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services
in the securities markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the
Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining
prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation
of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in promoting
market competition in its broader forms that are most important to
investors and listed companies.'' \27\ The fact that this market is
competitive has also long been recognized by the courts. In
NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit
stated as follows: ``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow
is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market
system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that
act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of
where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to
take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange
possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of
order flow from broker dealers' . . . .''.\28\ Accordingly, the
Exchange does not believe its proposed change imposes any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
\28\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-
21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.
III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \29\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \30\
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
\30\ 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
<bullet> Use the Commission's internet comment form (<a href="https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml">https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml</a>); or
<bullet> Send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#98eaedf4fdb5fbf7f5f5fdf6ecebd8ebfdfbb6fff7ee"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2b595e474e06484446464e455f586b584e48054c445d">[email protected]</span></a>. Please include
file number SR-CboeEDGX-2023-080 on the subject line.
Paper Comments
<bullet> Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange
[[Page 89763]]
Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to file number SR-CboeEDGX-2023-080. 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 (<a href="https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml">https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml</a>). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not
include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We
may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted
material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All
submissions should refer to file number SR-CboeEDGX-2023-080 and should
be submitted on or before January 18, 2024.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Z. Milnor,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-28607 Filed 12-27-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on December 28, 2023.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.