Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 and Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, To Amend Rules 5.37 and 5.73 Related to the Solicitation of Market Makers for SPX Initiating Orders in the Automated Improvement Mechanism and FLEX Automated Improvement Mechanism, 53051-53054 [2020-18827]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 167 / Thursday, August 27, 2020 / Notices
to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File
Number SR–CBOE–2020–052, and
should be submitted on or before
September 17, 2020. Rebuttal comments
should be submitted by October 1, 2020.
For the Commission, by the Division of
Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated
authority.45
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020–18830 Filed 8–26–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
[Release No. 34–89635; File No. SR–CBOE–
2020–050]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe
Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of
Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 and Order
Instituting Proceedings To Determine
Whether To Approve or Disapprove a
Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, To Amend
Rules 5.37 and 5.73 Related to the
Solicitation of Market Makers for SPX
Initiating Orders in the Automated
Improvement Mechanism and FLEX
Automated Improvement Mechanism
August 21, 2020.
I. Introduction
On June 3, 2020, Cboe Exchange, Inc.
(‘‘Exchange’’ or ‘‘Cboe’’) filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission
(‘‘Commission’’), pursuant to Section
19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4
thereunder,2 a proposed rule change to
permit orders for the accounts of market
makers with an appointment in S&P
500® Index Options (‘‘SPX’’) to be
solicited for the initiating order
submitted for execution against an
agency order into an Automated
Improvement Mechanism (‘‘AIM’’)
auction or a FLEX AIM auction. The
proposed rule change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on
June 18, 2020.3 On July 2, 2020, the
Exchange submitted Amendment No. 1
to the proposed rule change, which
replaced and superseded the proposed
rule change in its entirety.4 On July 22,
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
45 17
CFR 200.30–3(a)(57).
U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.
3 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89062
(June 12, 2020), 85 FR 36907. Comments received
on the proposed rule change are available on the
Commission’s website at: https://www.sec.gov/
comments/sr-cboe-2020-050/srcboe2020050.htm.
4 In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange: (1) Limited
the scope of its original proposal, which would
have permitted orders for the accounts of market
1 15
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:09 Aug 26, 2020
Jkt 250001
2020, the Exchange submitted
Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule
change.5 On July 27, 2020, pursuant to
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,6 the
Commission designated a longer period
within which to approve the proposed
rule change, disapprove the proposed
rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether to disapprove the
proposed rule change.7 The Commission
is publishing this notice and order to
solicit comment on the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment
Nos. 1 and 2, from interested persons
and to institute proceedings pursuant to
Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act 8 to
determine whether to approve or
disapprove the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2.
II. Exchange’s Description of the
Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment Nos. 1 and 2
The Exchange proposes to permit
orders for the accounts of MarketMakers with an appointment in SPX to
be solicited for the Initiating Order 9
submitted for execution against an
Agency Order in SPX options into a
simple AIM Auction pursuant to Rule
5.37 or a simple FLEX AIM Auction
pursuant to Rule 5.73. The Exchange
does not generally activate AIM for SPX
options, and AIM for SPX options is
currently not activated.10 The
introductory paragraphs of Rules 5.37
and 5.73 prohibit orders for the
accounts of Market-Makers with an
appointment in the applicable class to
makers with an appointment in any class to be
solicited for the initiating order in an AIM or FLEX
AIM auction in that class, to only allow market
makers with an appointment in SPX to be solicited
for the initiating order in an AIM or FLEX AIM
auction in SPX; and (2) provided additional data,
justification, and support for its modified proposal.
The full text of Amendment No. 1 is available on
the Commission’s website at: https://www.sec.gov/
comments/sr-cboe-2020-050/srcboe20200507382058-218888.pdf.
5 In Amendment No. 2, the Exchange: (1)
Provided additional data, justification, and support
for its proposal; and (2) made technical corrections
and clarifications to the description of the proposal.
The full text of Amendment No. 2 is available on
the Commission’s website at: https://www.sec.gov/
comments/sr-cboe-2020-050/srcboe20200507464399-221161.pdf.
6 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
7 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89398,
85 FR 46197 (July 31, 2020). The Commission
designated September 16, 2020 as the date by which
the Commission shall approve or disapprove, or
institute proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove, the proposed rule change.
8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
9 The ‘‘Initiating Order’’ is the order comprised of
principal interest or a solicited order(s) submitted
to trade against the order the submitting Trading
Permit Holder (the ‘‘Initiating TPH’’ or ‘‘Initiating
FLEX Trader,’’ as applicable) represents as agent
(the ‘‘Agency Order’’).
10 FLEX AIM is generally activated, and currently
is activated, for FLEX SPX options.
PO 00000
Frm 00110
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
53051
be solicited to execute against the
Agency Order in a simple AIM or FLEX
AIM Auction, respectively. No similar
restriction applies to crossing
transactions in open outcry trading,
where a significant portion of SPX
options trade.11 As further discussed
below, brokers seeking liquidity to
execute against customer orders on the
trading floor regularly solicit appointed
SPX Market-Makers for this liquidity, as
they are generally the primary source of
pricing and liquidity for those options.
As of March 16, 2020, the Exchange
suspended open outcry trading to help
prevent the spread of the novel
coronavirus and began operating in an
all-electronic configuration.12 As a
result, the Exchange activated AIM for
SPX options for the first time to provide
market participants with a mechanism
to cross SPX options while the floor was
inoperable, which would otherwise not
be possible without open outcry trading
The Exchange adopted a temporary rule
change to permit Market-Makers to be
solicited for electronic crossing
transactions in its exclusively listed
index options (including SPX options)
when the Exchange’s trading floor was
inoperable. The Exchange believed this
would make the same sources of
liquidity for customer orders that are
generally available in open outcry
available for those orders in an
electronic-only environment.13 This was
particularly true for SPX options, for
which the Exchange enabled AIM for
the first time. The Exchange believed
not permitting Market-Makers to
participate as contras could have made
it difficult for brokers to find sufficient
liquidity to fill their customer orders,
which liquidity they generally solicited
from SPX Market-Makers on the trading
floor. For example, when the Exchange
operates in its a hybrid manner as it
currently is (with electronic and open
outcry trading), if a customer order is
not fully executable against electronic
bids and offers, a floor broker can
attempt to execute the order, or
remainder thereof, on the trading floor,
where the liquidity to trade with this
remainder is generally provided by
Market-Makers in the open outcry
trading crowd. Additionally, brokers
may solicit liquidity from upstairs
Market-Maker firms.
Upon the reopening of the trading
floor, the Exchange deactivated AIM for
SPX options. While AIM was activated
11 See
Rules 5.86 and 5.87.
Exchange continues to operate in an allelectronic environment, but currently plans to
reopen its trading floor on June 8, 2020.
13 See Rule 5.24(e)(1)(A); see also Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 88886 (May 15, 2020), 85
FR 31008 (May 21, 2020) (SR–CBOE–2020–047).
12 The
E:\FR\FM\27AUN1.SGM
27AUN1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
53052
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 167 / Thursday, August 27, 2020 / Notices
for SPX options, the Exchange observed
price improvement benefits AIM
auctions provided to smaller, retailsized SPX options.14 As a result, the
Exchange intends to reactivate AIM for
SPX options while the trading floor is
operable for orders up to a maximum
size to continue to provide these price
improvement opportunities for retailsized SPX orders.15 Regardless of
whether the trading floor is open, the
Exchange believes brokers will have
difficulty finding sufficient liquidity to
initiate AIM auctions from only market
participants that are not SPX MarketMakers. If the Exchange determines to
reactivate AIM for SPX options, the
Exchange believes it is appropriate to
permit orders for the account of an
appointed SPX Market-Maker to be
submitted as the contra order, as the
Exchange believes the liquidity
provided by SPX Market-Makers will
need to be available for brokers to
initiate AIM Auctions and create
potential price improvement
opportunities for those retail-sized
orders. Currently, there are 28 TPHs
with SPX appointments, which
represent a significant pool of SPX
liquidity that would be available to
participate in AIM Auctions through
both contra orders and auction
responses. To demonstrate the
importance of the liquidity provided by
SPX Market-Makers, in January and
February 2020, the percentage of smaller
simple Customer orders (20 or fewer)
that executed in open outcry against an
SPX Market-Maker as contra was
approximately 85%, and the percentage
of smaller simple Customer orders (20
or fewer) that executed electronically
against an SPX Market-Maker as contra
was approximately 87%. If SPX MarketMakers cannot be solicited for SPX AIM
Auctions, the Exchange believes brokers
may not be able to initiate as many AIM
Auctions for their retail orders as they
were able to do while the trading floor
was closed, which may reduce the price
improvement opportunities available for
those orders. While the trading floor
was closed, orders for the accounts of
SPX Market-Makers created
opportunities for customer orders to be
submitted in AIM Auctions and receive
price improvement. The Exchange
believes those SPX Market-Maker orders
should be permitted to be solicited at all
times for SPX AIM Auctions in order to
create similar price improvement
opportunities for those customer orders.
14 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89058
(June 12, 2020), 85 FR 36918 (June 18, 2020) (SR–
CBOE–2020–051).
15 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:09 Aug 26, 2020
Jkt 250001
In multi-list classes, many marketmakers serve as both appointed MarketMakers on the Exchange and as marketmakers on other options exchanges.
These firms, as a result, can use their
accounts for their away market-maker
activities for being solicited with respect
to AIM Auctions. In general, solicited
orders submitted as the Initiating Order
for AIM Auctions are almost always
comprised of orders for the accounts of
away market-makers. For example, in
April of 2020, approximately 99.6% of
the orders submitted into all AIM
Auctions had Initiating Orders
comprised of orders for accounts of
away market-makers, making up
approximately 86.2% of the volume
executed through AIM auctions.
However, SPX is an exclusively listed
class on the Exchange, so a firm cannot
serve as an SPX market-maker at
another options exchange. During April
and May 2020, when Initiating Orders
could be comprised of orders for
accounts of SPX Market-Makers
pursuant to a temporary rule,
approximately 22% of Initiating Orders
executed in SPX AIM Auctions were
comprised of orders for SPX MarketMakers, representing approximately
45% of SPX volume executed in AIM
Auctions. While approximately 76% of
Initiating Orders executed in SPX AIM
Auctions were comprised of orders for
accounts of away market-makers, those
orders represented only approximately
5% of the SPX volume executed through
AIM Auctions. The Exchange notes SPX
Market-Makers also executed
approximately 31% of SPX volume
executed through AIM Auctions with
auction responses. This demonstrates
the difficulty brokers may have to find
sufficient interest to fill customer orders
in SPX if the Exchange activates AIM for
SPX without permitting appointed
Market-Makers to be solicited. If brokers
may solicit primary liquidity providers
in SPX for electronic auctions,
regardless of whether the trading floor is
operational, the Exchange believes
brokers will be able to more efficiently
locate liquidity to initiate AIM Auctions
to fill their customer orders, particularly
during times of volatility, which may
create additional execution and price
improvement opportunities for
customers at all times. The Exchange
believes the proposed rule change will,
therefore, provide retail-sized orders
with similar price improvement
opportunities when AIM is activated
while the trading floor is open that
those orders realized while the trading
floor was closed.
Permitting SPX Market-Makers to
serve as contra parties to crossing
PO 00000
Frm 00111
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
transactions submitted into an AIM
Auction will also further align AIM
Auctions with SPX crossing executions
that occur on the trading floor. SPX
Market-Makers frequently serve as
contra parties to crossing transactions
on the trading floor. For example,
during February 2020 (when the trading
floor was open), approximately 76% of
SPX orders crossed on the trading floor
(consisting of 2,944,161 contracts)
included an order of an SPX MarketMaker one side of the transaction.
This further demonstrates the
importance of appointed SPX MarketMakers to the provision of liquidity in
the SPX market with respect to crossing
transactions, which liquidity would not
be available to initiate electronic
crossing transactions under the current
AIM rule. Therefore, the Exchange
believes the proposed rule change will
permit it to activate AIM in SPX in a
manner that aligns open outcry and
electronic crossing auctions, and thus
aligns the execution and price
improvement opportunities available in
both auctions, by permitting the same
participants to be solicited as contras in
both types of auctions in SPX at all
times.
While FLEX AIM is currently
available for SPX orders of all sizes, the
Exchange believes brokers currently
have similar difficulties locating
liquidity to initiate FLEX AIM Auctions
for SPX orders. Unlike in simple nonFLEX markets, FLEX Market-Makers
have no obligations to provide liquidity
to FLEX classes (and there is book into
which FLEX Market-Makers may submit
quotes to rest). Therefore, in FLEX
markets, appointed Market-Makers are
on equal footing with all other market
participants with respect to FLEX AIM
Auctions. Permitting FLEX MarketMakers to be solicited provides all
market participants with the
opportunity to provide liquidity to
execute against Agency Orders in FLEX
AIM Auctions in the same manner (both
through solicitation and responses). The
Exchange believes the proposed rule
change may result in additional FLEX
AIM auctions occurring in SPX, which
may create additional price
improvement opportunities for FLEX
SPX orders.16 The Exchange also
believes permitting FLEX SPX MarketMakers to be solicited for FLEX AIM
Auctions will provide consistency
among electronic crossing auctions for
SPX.
16 The Exchange notes Market-Makers are
currently able to be solicited for complex AIM and
complex FLEX AIM for similar reasons. See Rules
5.38 and 5.73.
E:\FR\FM\27AUN1.SGM
27AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 167 / Thursday, August 27, 2020 / Notices
The proposed rule change also
amends Rules 5.37(c)(5) and 5.73(c)(5)
to codify that any User or FLEX Trader,
respectively, other than the Initiating
TPH or FLEX Trader, respectively, may
submit responses to AIM and FLEX AIM
Auctions. As set forth in Rules 5.37(e)
and 5.73(e), the Initiating Order may
receive an entitlement of 40% or 50%
of the Agency Order. The Exchange
believes it is appropriate to not permit
the Initiating TPH or Initiating FLEX
Trader, as applicable, to also submit
responses in order to try to trade against
a larger percentage of the Agency Order.
This is consistent with allocation rules,
pursuant to which the Initiating Order
may only receive more than 40% or
50%, as applicable, of the Agency Order
if there are remaining contracts after all
other interest has executed.
The Rule change also notes that the
System will reject a response with the
same EFID 17 as the Initiating Order. The
Exchange notes that orders for the same
User may have different EFIDs.
However, the rule prohibits all
responses from the same User, even
with different EFIDs. The System is
currently only able to reject responses
with the same EFID as the Initiating
Order, which is why that is specified in
the proposed rule. If the same User
submits a response to an auction in
which that same User had an order
comprising the Initiating Order (even
with a different EFID), the Exchange
may take regulatory action against that
User for a violation of the proposed rule.
The Exchange currently applies this
restriction to simple AIM and FLEX
AIM Auctions, but it was inadvertently
omitted from the Rules, so the proposed
rule change adds transparency to the
Rules. This restriction is also currently
in the Rules related to AIM for complex
orders, so the proposed rule change
adds consistency to the rules of
Exchange auctions.18
III. Summary of the Comment Letters
Received
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
To date the Commission has received
two comment letters on the proposal.19
The commenters agreed with Cboe’s
assertions that the proposal would
increase liquidity for AIM auctions,
which could increase execution and
17 See Rule 1.1, which defines EFID as an
Executing Firm ID.
18 See Rule 5.38(c)(5).
19 See letters to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary,
Commission, from Richard J. McDonald,
Susquehanna International Group, LLP, dated July
8, 2020 (‘‘SIG Letter’’) and Ellen Greene, Managing
Director, Equities & Options Market Structure, The
Securities Industry and Financial Markets
Association, dated July 9, 2020 (‘‘SIFMA Letter’’).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:09 Aug 26, 2020
Jkt 250001
price improvement opportunities.20 One
commenter argued that removing the
market maker solicitation prohibition
would eliminate an inequity against
market makers that unduly curtails
liquidity to customer orders.21 This
commenter argued that, because Cboe’s
rules no longer restrict AIM and FLEX
AIM responses to appointed market
makers and trading permit holders
representing customer orders at the top
of the book, the market maker
solicitation prohibition is no longer
necessary.22 The commenters also
supported the proposal because it
would better align the execution and
price improvement opportunities in
electronic crossing auctions with those
available in open outcry trading, where
no similar solicitation prohibition
exists.23
IV. Proceedings To Determine Whether
To Approve or Disapprove SR–CBOE–
2020–050, as Modified by Amendment
Nos. 1 and 2, and Grounds for
Disapproval Under Consideration
The Commission is instituting
proceedings pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act 24 to determine
whether the proposed rule change
should be approved or disapproved.
Institution of such proceedings is
appropriate at this time in view of the
legal and policy issues raised by the
proposed rule change. Institution of
proceedings does not indicate that the
Commission has reached any
conclusions with respect to any of the
issues involved. Rather, as stated below,
the Commission seeks and encourages
interested persons to provide additional
comment on the proposed rule change,
as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and
2, to inform the Commission’s analysis
of whether to approve or disapprove the
proposed rule change.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the
Act,25 the Commission is providing
notice of the grounds for disapproval
under consideration. The Commission is
instituting proceedings to allow for
additional analysis of the proposed rule
change’s consistency with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act, which requires,
among other things, that the rules of a
national securities exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulate acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of
trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in
20 See SIG Letter, supra note 19, at 2 and SIFMA
Letter, supra note 19, at 3.
21 See SIG Letter, supra note 19, at 1.
22 See id. at 2.
23 See id.; SIFMA Letter, supra note 19, at 3.
24 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
25 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
PO 00000
Frm 00112
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
53053
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 to
protect investors and the public interest,
and not be designed to permit unfair
discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers; 26 and
Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, which
requires that the rules of the Exchange
do not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.27
Under the Commission’s Rules of
Practice, the ‘‘burden to demonstrate
that a proposed rule change is
consistent with the [Act] and the rules
and regulations issued thereunder . . .
is on the self-regulatory organization
that proposed the rule change.’’ 28 The
description of a proposed rule change,
its purpose and operation, its effect, and
a legal analysis of its consistency with
applicable requirements must all be
sufficiently detailed and specific to
support an affirmative Commission
finding,29 and any failure of a selfregulatory organization to provide this
information may result in the
Commission not having a sufficient
basis to make an affirmative finding that
a proposed rule change is consistent
with the Act and the applicable rules
and regulations.30
The Commission is instituting
proceedings to allow for additional
consideration and comment on the
issues raised herein, including as to
whether the proposal is consistent with
the Act.
V. Procedure: Request for Written
Comments
The Commission requests that
interested persons provide written
submissions of their views, data, and
arguments with respect to the issues
identified above, as well as any other
concerns they may have with the
proposal. In particular, the Commission
invites the written views of interested
persons concerning whether the
proposal is consistent with Sections
6(b)(5) and 6(b)(8), or any other
provision of the Act, or the rules and
regulations thereunder. Although there
do not appear to be any issues relevant
to approval or disapproval that would
be facilitated by an oral presentation of
26 15
U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
U.S.C. 89f(b)(8).
28 Rule 700(b)(3), Commission Rules of Practice,
17 CFR 201.700(b)(3).
29 See id.
30 See id.
27 15
E:\FR\FM\27AUN1.SGM
27AUN1
53054
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 167 / Thursday, August 27, 2020 / Notices
views, data, and arguments, the
Commission will consider, pursuant to
Rule 19b–4 under the Act,31 any request
for an opportunity to make an oral
presentation.32
Interested persons are invited to
submit written data, views, and
arguments regarding whether the
proposal should be approved or
disapproved by September 17, 2020.
Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal
to any other person’s submission must
file that rebuttal by October 1, 2020.
Commission may be submitted by any of
the following methods:
Electronic Comments
• Use the Commission’s internet
comment form (https://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml); or
• Send an email to rule-comments@
sec.gov. Please include File Number SR–
CBOE–2020–050 on the subject line.
Paper Comments
• Send paper comments in triplicate
to Secretary, Securities and Exchange
Commission, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549–1090.
All submissions should refer to File
Number SR–CBOE–2020–050. This file
number should be included on the
subject line if email is used. To help the
Commission process and review your
comments more efficiently, please use
only one method. The Commission will
post all comments on the Commission’s
internet website (https://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the
submission, all subsequent
amendments, all written statements
with respect to the proposed rule
change that are filed with the
Commission, and all written
communications relating to the
proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than
those that may be withheld from the
public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for website viewing and
printing in the Commission’s Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the
filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal
31 17
CFR 240.19b–4.
19(b)(2) of the Act, as amended by the
Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Public Law
94–29 (June 4, 1975), grants the Commission
flexibility to determine what type of proceeding—
either oral or notice and opportunity for written
comments—is appropriate for consideration of a
particular proposal by a self-regulatory
organization. See Securities Act Amendments of
1975, Senate Comm. on Banking, Housing & Urban
Affairs, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 30
(1975).
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
32 Section
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:09 Aug 26, 2020
Jkt 250001
office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change.
Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit
personal identifying information from
comment submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish
to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File
Number SR–CBOE–2020–050, and
should be submitted on or before
September 17, 2020. Rebuttal comments
should be submitted by October 1, 2020.
For the Commission, by the Division of
Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated
authority.33
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020–18827 Filed 8–26–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
[Release No. 34–89631; File No. SR–FICC–
2020–011]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed
Income Clearing Corporation; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of
a Proposed Rule Change To Clarify the
Government Securities Division
Schedule of Timeframes and Schedule
of GCF Repo® Timeframes and Make
Other Changes
August 21, 2020.
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 August
18, 2020, Fixed Income Clearing
Corporation (‘‘FICC’’) 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 clearing agency. FICC filed the
proposed rule change pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 3 and Rule
19b–4(f)(4) thereunder.4 The
Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule
change from interested persons.
I. Clearing Agency’s Statement of the
Terms of Substance of the Proposed
Rule Change
The proposed rule change consists of
amendments to the FICC Government
Securities Division (‘‘GSD’’) Rulebook
33 17
CFR 200.30–3(a)(57).
U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.
3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
4 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(4).
(‘‘Rules’’) 5 in order to (i) clarify that all
times set forth in the Schedule of
Timeframes and the Schedule of GCF
Repo Timeframes may be extended as
needed by FICC to (a) address
operational or other delays that would
reasonably prevent members or FICC
from meeting the deadline or timeframe,
as applicable or (b) allow FICC time to
operationally exercise its existing rights
under the Rules, (ii) revise specific
references to times in Section 6 of Rule
13 to reference the Schedule of
Timeframes, and (iii) make certain
technical and conforming changes, as
further described below.
II. Clearing Agency’s Statement of the
Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the
Proposed Rule Change
In its filing with the Commission, the
clearing agency 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
clearing agency has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B,
and C below, of the most significant
aspects of such statements.
(A) Clearing Agency’s Statement of the
Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the
Proposed Rule Change
1. Purpose
The purpose of the proposed rule
change is to (i) clarify that all times set
forth in the Schedule of Timeframes and
the Schedule of GCF Repo Timeframes
may be extended as needed by FICC to
(a) address operational or other delays
that would reasonably prevent members
or FICC from meeting the deadline or
timeframe, as applicable or (b) allow
FICC time to operationally exercise its
existing rights under the Rules, (ii)
revise specific references to times in
Section 6 of Rule 13 to reference the
Schedule of Timeframes, and (iii) make
certain technical and conforming
changes, as further described below.
(i) Clarify that all times set forth in the
Schedule of Timeframes and the
Schedule of GCF Repo Timeframes
may be extended as needed by FICC
to (a) address operational or other
delays that would reasonably prevent
members or FICC from meeting the
deadline or timeframe, as applicable
or (b) allow FICC time to operationally
exercise its existing rights under the
Rules
1 15
PO 00000
Frm 00113
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
5 Capitalized terms not defined herein are defined
in the Rules, available at https://www.dtcc.com/
legal/rules-and-procedures.
E:\FR\FM\27AUN1.SGM
27AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 167 (Thursday, August 27, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53051-53054]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-18827]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-89635; File No. SR-CBOE-2020-050]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing of Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 and Order Instituting Proceedings To
Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change, as
Modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, To Amend Rules 5.37 and 5.73
Related to the Solicitation of Market Makers for SPX Initiating Orders
in the Automated Improvement Mechanism and FLEX Automated Improvement
Mechanism
August 21, 2020.
I. Introduction
On June 3, 2020, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'' or ``Cboe'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to
permit orders for the accounts of market makers with an appointment in
S&P 500[supreg] Index Options (``SPX'') to be solicited for the
initiating order submitted for execution against an agency order into
an Automated Improvement Mechanism (``AIM'') auction or a FLEX AIM
auction. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on June 18, 2020.\3\ On July 2, 2020, the Exchange
submitted Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change, which replaced
and superseded the proposed rule change in its entirety.\4\ On July 22,
2020, the Exchange submitted Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule
change.\5\ On July 27, 2020, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\6\ the Commission designated a longer period within which to
approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change,
or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the
proposed rule change.\7\ The Commission is publishing this notice and
order to solicit comment on the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, from interested persons and to institute
proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \8\ to determine
whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, as modified
by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
\2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
\3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89062 (June 12,
2020), 85 FR 36907. Comments received on the proposed rule change
are available on the Commission's website at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-cboe-2020-050/srcboe2020050.htm.
\4\ In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange: (1) Limited the scope of
its original proposal, which would have permitted orders for the
accounts of market makers with an appointment in any class to be
solicited for the initiating order in an AIM or FLEX AIM auction in
that class, to only allow market makers with an appointment in SPX
to be solicited for the initiating order in an AIM or FLEX AIM
auction in SPX; and (2) provided additional data, justification, and
support for its modified proposal. The full text of Amendment No. 1
is available on the Commission's website at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-cboe-2020-050/srcboe2020050-7382058-218888.pdf.
\5\ In Amendment No. 2, the Exchange: (1) Provided additional
data, justification, and support for its proposal; and (2) made
technical corrections and clarifications to the description of the
proposal. The full text of Amendment No. 2 is available on the
Commission's website at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-cboe-2020-050/srcboe2020050-7464399-221161.pdf.
\6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
\7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89398, 85 FR 46197
(July 31, 2020). The Commission designated September 16, 2020 as the
date by which the Commission shall approve or disapprove, or
institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove, the
proposed rule change.
\8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Exchange's Description of the Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment Nos. 1 and 2
The Exchange proposes to permit orders for the accounts of Market-
Makers with an appointment in SPX to be solicited for the Initiating
Order \9\ submitted for execution against an Agency Order in SPX
options into a simple AIM Auction pursuant to Rule 5.37 or a simple
FLEX AIM Auction pursuant to Rule 5.73. The Exchange does not generally
activate AIM for SPX options, and AIM for SPX options is currently not
activated.\10\ The introductory paragraphs of Rules 5.37 and 5.73
prohibit orders for the accounts of Market-Makers with an appointment
in the applicable class to be solicited to execute against the Agency
Order in a simple AIM or FLEX AIM Auction, respectively. No similar
restriction applies to crossing transactions in open outcry trading,
where a significant portion of SPX options trade.\11\ As further
discussed below, brokers seeking liquidity to execute against customer
orders on the trading floor regularly solicit appointed SPX Market-
Makers for this liquidity, as they are generally the primary source of
pricing and liquidity for those options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The ``Initiating Order'' is the order comprised of principal
interest or a solicited order(s) submitted to trade against the
order the submitting Trading Permit Holder (the ``Initiating TPH''
or ``Initiating FLEX Trader,'' as applicable) represents as agent
(the ``Agency Order'').
\10\ FLEX AIM is generally activated, and currently is
activated, for FLEX SPX options.
\11\ See Rules 5.86 and 5.87.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As of March 16, 2020, the Exchange suspended open outcry trading to
help prevent the spread of the novel coronavirus and began operating in
an all-electronic configuration.\12\ As a result, the Exchange
activated AIM for SPX options for the first time to provide market
participants with a mechanism to cross SPX options while the floor was
inoperable, which would otherwise not be possible without open outcry
trading The Exchange adopted a temporary rule change to permit Market-
Makers to be solicited for electronic crossing transactions in its
exclusively listed index options (including SPX options) when the
Exchange's trading floor was inoperable. The Exchange believed this
would make the same sources of liquidity for customer orders that are
generally available in open outcry available for those orders in an
electronic-only environment.\13\ This was particularly true for SPX
options, for which the Exchange enabled AIM for the first time. The
Exchange believed not permitting Market-Makers to participate as
contras could have made it difficult for brokers to find sufficient
liquidity to fill their customer orders, which liquidity they generally
solicited from SPX Market-Makers on the trading floor. For example,
when the Exchange operates in its a hybrid manner as it currently is
(with electronic and open outcry trading), if a customer order is not
fully executable against electronic bids and offers, a floor broker can
attempt to execute the order, or remainder thereof, on the trading
floor, where the liquidity to trade with this remainder is generally
provided by Market-Makers in the open outcry trading crowd.
Additionally, brokers may solicit liquidity from upstairs Market-Maker
firms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The Exchange continues to operate in an all-electronic
environment, but currently plans to reopen its trading floor on June
8, 2020.
\13\ See Rule 5.24(e)(1)(A); see also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 88886 (May 15, 2020), 85 FR 31008 (May 21, 2020) (SR-
CBOE-2020-047).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upon the reopening of the trading floor, the Exchange deactivated
AIM for SPX options. While AIM was activated
[[Page 53052]]
for SPX options, the Exchange observed price improvement benefits AIM
auctions provided to smaller, retail-sized SPX options.\14\ As a
result, the Exchange intends to reactivate AIM for SPX options while
the trading floor is operable for orders up to a maximum size to
continue to provide these price improvement opportunities for retail-
sized SPX orders.\15\ Regardless of whether the trading floor is open,
the Exchange believes brokers will have difficulty finding sufficient
liquidity to initiate AIM auctions from only market participants that
are not SPX Market-Makers. If the Exchange determines to reactivate AIM
for SPX options, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to permit
orders for the account of an appointed SPX Market-Maker to be submitted
as the contra order, as the Exchange believes the liquidity provided by
SPX Market-Makers will need to be available for brokers to initiate AIM
Auctions and create potential price improvement opportunities for those
retail-sized orders. Currently, there are 28 TPHs with SPX
appointments, which represent a significant pool of SPX liquidity that
would be available to participate in AIM Auctions through both contra
orders and auction responses. To demonstrate the importance of the
liquidity provided by SPX Market-Makers, in January and February 2020,
the percentage of smaller simple Customer orders (20 or fewer) that
executed in open outcry against an SPX Market-Maker as contra was
approximately 85%, and the percentage of smaller simple Customer orders
(20 or fewer) that executed electronically against an SPX Market-Maker
as contra was approximately 87%. If SPX Market-Makers cannot be
solicited for SPX AIM Auctions, the Exchange believes brokers may not
be able to initiate as many AIM Auctions for their retail orders as
they were able to do while the trading floor was closed, which may
reduce the price improvement opportunities available for those orders.
While the trading floor was closed, orders for the accounts of SPX
Market-Makers created opportunities for customer orders to be submitted
in AIM Auctions and receive price improvement. The Exchange believes
those SPX Market-Maker orders should be permitted to be solicited at
all times for SPX AIM Auctions in order to create similar price
improvement opportunities for those customer orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89058 (June 12,
2020), 85 FR 36918 (June 18, 2020) (SR-CBOE-2020-051).
\15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In multi-list classes, many market-makers serve as both appointed
Market-Makers on the Exchange and as market-makers on other options
exchanges. These firms, as a result, can use their accounts for their
away market-maker activities for being solicited with respect to AIM
Auctions. In general, solicited orders submitted as the Initiating
Order for AIM Auctions are almost always comprised of orders for the
accounts of away market-makers. For example, in April of 2020,
approximately 99.6% of the orders submitted into all AIM Auctions had
Initiating Orders comprised of orders for accounts of away market-
makers, making up approximately 86.2% of the volume executed through
AIM auctions. However, SPX is an exclusively listed class on the
Exchange, so a firm cannot serve as an SPX market-maker at another
options exchange. During April and May 2020, when Initiating Orders
could be comprised of orders for accounts of SPX Market-Makers pursuant
to a temporary rule, approximately 22% of Initiating Orders executed in
SPX AIM Auctions were comprised of orders for SPX Market-Makers,
representing approximately 45% of SPX volume executed in AIM Auctions.
While approximately 76% of Initiating Orders executed in SPX AIM
Auctions were comprised of orders for accounts of away market-makers,
those orders represented only approximately 5% of the SPX volume
executed through AIM Auctions. The Exchange notes SPX Market-Makers
also executed approximately 31% of SPX volume executed through AIM
Auctions with auction responses. This demonstrates the difficulty
brokers may have to find sufficient interest to fill customer orders in
SPX if the Exchange activates AIM for SPX without permitting appointed
Market-Makers to be solicited. If brokers may solicit primary liquidity
providers in SPX for electronic auctions, regardless of whether the
trading floor is operational, the Exchange believes brokers will be
able to more efficiently locate liquidity to initiate AIM Auctions to
fill their customer orders, particularly during times of volatility,
which may create additional execution and price improvement
opportunities for customers at all times. The Exchange believes the
proposed rule change will, therefore, provide retail-sized orders with
similar price improvement opportunities when AIM is activated while the
trading floor is open that those orders realized while the trading
floor was closed.
Permitting SPX Market-Makers to serve as contra parties to crossing
transactions submitted into an AIM Auction will also further align AIM
Auctions with SPX crossing executions that occur on the trading floor.
SPX Market-Makers frequently serve as contra parties to crossing
transactions on the trading floor. For example, during February 2020
(when the trading floor was open), approximately 76% of SPX orders
crossed on the trading floor (consisting of 2,944,161 contracts)
included an order of an SPX Market-Maker one side of the transaction.
This further demonstrates the importance of appointed SPX Market-
Makers to the provision of liquidity in the SPX market with respect to
crossing transactions, which liquidity would not be available to
initiate electronic crossing transactions under the current AIM rule.
Therefore, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change will permit
it to activate AIM in SPX in a manner that aligns open outcry and
electronic crossing auctions, and thus aligns the execution and price
improvement opportunities available in both auctions, by permitting the
same participants to be solicited as contras in both types of auctions
in SPX at all times.
While FLEX AIM is currently available for SPX orders of all sizes,
the Exchange believes brokers currently have similar difficulties
locating liquidity to initiate FLEX AIM Auctions for SPX orders. Unlike
in simple non-FLEX markets, FLEX Market-Makers have no obligations to
provide liquidity to FLEX classes (and there is book into which FLEX
Market-Makers may submit quotes to rest). Therefore, in FLEX markets,
appointed Market-Makers are on equal footing with all other market
participants with respect to FLEX AIM Auctions. Permitting FLEX Market-
Makers to be solicited provides all market participants with the
opportunity to provide liquidity to execute against Agency Orders in
FLEX AIM Auctions in the same manner (both through solicitation and
responses). The Exchange believes the proposed rule change may result
in additional FLEX AIM auctions occurring in SPX, which may create
additional price improvement opportunities for FLEX SPX orders.\16\ The
Exchange also believes permitting FLEX SPX Market-Makers to be
solicited for FLEX AIM Auctions will provide consistency among
electronic crossing auctions for SPX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The Exchange notes Market-Makers are currently able to be
solicited for complex AIM and complex FLEX AIM for similar reasons.
See Rules 5.38 and 5.73.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 53053]]
The proposed rule change also amends Rules 5.37(c)(5) and
5.73(c)(5) to codify that any User or FLEX Trader, respectively, other
than the Initiating TPH or FLEX Trader, respectively, may submit
responses to AIM and FLEX AIM Auctions. As set forth in Rules 5.37(e)
and 5.73(e), the Initiating Order may receive an entitlement of 40% or
50% of the Agency Order. The Exchange believes it is appropriate to not
permit the Initiating TPH or Initiating FLEX Trader, as applicable, to
also submit responses in order to try to trade against a larger
percentage of the Agency Order. This is consistent with allocation
rules, pursuant to which the Initiating Order may only receive more
than 40% or 50%, as applicable, of the Agency Order if there are
remaining contracts after all other interest has executed.
The Rule change also notes that the System will reject a response
with the same EFID \17\ as the Initiating Order. The Exchange notes
that orders for the same User may have different EFIDs. However, the
rule prohibits all responses from the same User, even with different
EFIDs. The System is currently only able to reject responses with the
same EFID as the Initiating Order, which is why that is specified in
the proposed rule. If the same User submits a response to an auction in
which that same User had an order comprising the Initiating Order (even
with a different EFID), the Exchange may take regulatory action against
that User for a violation of the proposed rule. The Exchange currently
applies this restriction to simple AIM and FLEX AIM Auctions, but it
was inadvertently omitted from the Rules, so the proposed rule change
adds transparency to the Rules. This restriction is also currently in
the Rules related to AIM for complex orders, so the proposed rule
change adds consistency to the rules of Exchange auctions.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Rule 1.1, which defines EFID as an Executing Firm ID.
\18\ See Rule 5.38(c)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Summary of the Comment Letters Received
To date the Commission has received two comment letters on the
proposal.\19\ The commenters agreed with Cboe's assertions that the
proposal would increase liquidity for AIM auctions, which could
increase execution and price improvement opportunities.\20\ One
commenter argued that removing the market maker solicitation
prohibition would eliminate an inequity against market makers that
unduly curtails liquidity to customer orders.\21\ This commenter argued
that, because Cboe's rules no longer restrict AIM and FLEX AIM
responses to appointed market makers and trading permit holders
representing customer orders at the top of the book, the market maker
solicitation prohibition is no longer necessary.\22\ The commenters
also supported the proposal because it would better align the execution
and price improvement opportunities in electronic crossing auctions
with those available in open outcry trading, where no similar
solicitation prohibition exists.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See letters to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Commission,
from Richard J. McDonald, Susquehanna International Group, LLP,
dated July 8, 2020 (``SIG Letter'') and Ellen Greene, Managing
Director, Equities & Options Market Structure, The Securities
Industry and Financial Markets Association, dated July 9, 2020
(``SIFMA Letter'').
\20\ See SIG Letter, supra note 19, at 2 and SIFMA Letter, supra
note 19, at 3.
\21\ See SIG Letter, supra note 19, at 1.
\22\ See id. at 2.
\23\ See id.; SIFMA Letter, supra note 19, at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove SR-CBOE-
2020-050, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, and Grounds for
Disapproval Under Consideration
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \24\ to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be approved or disapproved. Institution of such
proceedings is appropriate at this time in view of the legal and policy
issues raised by the proposed rule change. Institution of proceedings
does not indicate that the Commission has reached any conclusions with
respect to any of the issues involved. Rather, as stated below, the
Commission seeks and encourages interested persons to provide
additional comment on the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, to inform the Commission's analysis of whether
to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,\25\ the Commission is
providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under consideration.
The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional
analysis of the proposed rule change's consistency with Section 6(b)(5)
of the Act, which requires, among other things, that the rules of a
national securities exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulate 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 to protect investors and the public interest, and
not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers; \26\ and Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
which requires that the rules of the Exchange do not impose any burden
on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
\26\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
\27\ 15 U.S.C. 89f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, the ``burden to
demonstrate that a proposed rule change is consistent with the [Act]
and the rules and regulations issued thereunder . . . is on the self-
regulatory organization that proposed the rule change.'' \28\ The
description of a proposed rule change, its purpose and operation, its
effect, and a legal analysis of its consistency with applicable
requirements must all be sufficiently detailed and specific to support
an affirmative Commission finding,\29\ and any failure of a self-
regulatory organization to provide this information may result in the
Commission not having a sufficient basis to make an affirmative finding
that a proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the
applicable rules and regulations.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Rule 700(b)(3), Commission Rules of Practice, 17 CFR
201.700(b)(3).
\29\ See id.
\30\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional
consideration and comment on the issues raised herein, including as to
whether the proposal is consistent with the Act.
V. Procedure: Request for Written Comments
The Commission requests that interested persons provide written
submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the
issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have
with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written
views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is
consistent with Sections 6(b)(5) and 6(b)(8), or any other provision of
the Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do not
appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would
be facilitated by an oral presentation of
[[Page 53054]]
views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to
Rule 19b-4 under the Act,\31\ any request for an opportunity to make an
oral presentation.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
\32\ Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, as amended by the Securities
Act Amendments of 1975, Public Law 94-29 (June 4, 1975), grants the
Commission flexibility to determine what type of proceeding--either
oral or notice and opportunity for written comments--is appropriate
for consideration of a particular proposal by a self-regulatory
organization. See Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Senate Comm. on
Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th Cong., 1st
Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments regarding whether the proposal should be approved or
disapproved by September 17, 2020. Any person who wishes to file a
rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by
October 1, 2020. Commission may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
Electronic Comments
Use the Commission's internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2020-050 on the subject line.
Paper Comments
Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2020-050. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2020-050, and should be submitted
on or before September 17, 2020. Rebuttal comments should be submitted
by October 1, 2020.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-18827 Filed 8-26-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
