Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Notices 81961 

1 15 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)(6). 

5See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82377 

(December 21, 2017), 82 FR 61617 (December 28, 

2017) (SR–DTC–2017–004; SR–NSCC–2017–005; 

SR–FICC–2017–008 (‘‘Initial Filing’’). 

6See 17 CFR 240.17Ad–22(e)(7)(i), (ii), and (iv) 

through (ix). 

7 Id. 

States to the International Atomic 

Energy Agency. Submission or retention 

of the information is mandatory for 

persons subject to the requirements. 

Dated: December 14, 2020. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

David C. Cullison, 

NRC Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2020–27743 Filed 12–16–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

Sunshine Act Meetings 

TIME AND DATE: 11:00 a.m. on Monday, 

December 21, 2020. 

PLACE: The meeting will be held via 

remote means and/or at the 

Commission’s headquarters, 100 F 

Street NE, Washington, DC 20549. 

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to 

the public. 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Commissioners, Counsel to the 

Commissioners, the Secretary to the 

Commission, and recording secretaries 

will attend the closed meeting. Certain 

staff members who have an interest in 

the matters also may be present. 

In the event that the time, date, or 

location of this meeting changes, an 

announcement of the change, along with 

the new time, date, and/or place of the 

meeting will be posted on the 

Commission’s website at https://

www.sec.gov. 

The General Counsel of the 

Commission, or his designee, has 

certified that, in his opinion, one or 

more of the exemptions set forth in 5 

U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) 

and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), 

(a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and 

(a)(10), permit consideration of the 

scheduled matters at the closed meeting. 

The subject matter of the closed 

meeting will consist of the following 

topics: Institution and settlement of 

injunctive actions; Institution and 

settlement of administrative 

proceedings; Resolution of litigation 

claims; and Other matters relating to 

enforcement proceedings; and 

Disclosure of non-public information. 

At times, changes in Commission 

priorities require alterations in the 

scheduling of meeting agenda items that 

may consist of adjudicatory, 

examination, litigation, or regulatory 

matters. 

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

For further information; please contact 

Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office 

of the Secretary at (202) 551–5400. 

Dated: December 14, 2020. 

Vanessa A. Countryman, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2020–27862 Filed 12–15–20; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–90649; File Nos. SR–DTC– 

2020–018; SR–FICC–2020–018; SR–NSCC– 

2020–021] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The 

Depository Trust Company; Fixed 

Income Clearing Corporation; National 

Securities Clearing Corporation; 

Notice of Filings and Immediate 

Effectiveness of Proposed Rule 

Changes To Amend the Clearing 

Agencies Liquidity Risk Management 

Framework 

December 11, 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 November 

30, 2020, The Depository Trust 

Company (‘‘DTC’’), Fixed Income 

Clearing Corporation (‘‘FICC’’), and 

National Securities Clearing Corporation 

(‘‘NSCC,’’ and collectively, the 

‘‘Clearing Agencies’’) filed with the 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule 

changes as described in Items I, II and 

III below, which Items have been 

primarily prepared by the Clearing 

Agencies. The Clearing Agencies filed 

the proposed rule changes pursuant to 

Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 3 and Rule 

19b–4(f)(6) thereunder.4 The 

Commission is publishing this notice to 

solicit comments on the proposed rule 

changes from interested persons. 

I. Clearing Agencies’ Statement of the 

Terms of Substance of the Proposed 

Rule Changes 

The proposed rule changes consist of 

amendments to the Clearing Agency 

Liquidity Risk Management Framework 

(‘‘Framework’’) of the Clearing 

Agencies. Specifically, the proposed 

rule changes would (1) reflect that a 

stress testing team (‘‘Stress Testing 

Team’’) has taken over certain 

responsibilities related to liquidity risk 

management; (2) simplify the 

description of the FICC qualifying 

liquidity resources, which are identical 

for each of its divisions; (3) reflect the 

inclusion of the proceeds of NSCC’s 

issuance and private placement of term 

debt as an additional NSCC liquidity 

resource; (4) revise the description of 

NSCC’s supplemental liquidity deposits 

to allow for future revisions to this 

requirement; (5) reflect the 

reclassification of a stress scenario that 

assumes the default of multiple 

participants as an informational stress 

scenario; and (6) make other revisions in 

order to clarify and simplify the 

descriptions within the Framework, as 

further described below. 

II. Clearing Agencies’ Statement of the 

Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the 

Proposed Rule Changes 

In their filings with the Commission, 

the Clearing Agencies included 

statements concerning the purpose of 

and basis for the proposed rule changes 

and discussed any comments they 

received on the proposed rule changes. 

The text of these statements may be 

examined at the places specified in Item 

IV below. The Clearing Agencies have 

prepared summaries, set forth in 

sections A, B, and C below, of the most 

significant aspects of such statements. 

(A) Clearing Agencies’ Statement of the 

Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the 

Proposed Rule Changes 

1. Purpose 

The Clearing Agencies adopted the 

Framework 5 to set forth the manner in 

which they measure, monitor and 

manage the liquidity risks that arise in 

or are borne by each of the Clearing 

Agencies, including (i) the manner in 

which each of the Clearing Agencies 

deploy their respective liquidity tools to 

meet their settlement obligations on an 

ongoing and timely basis, and (ii) each 

applicable Clearing Agencies’ use of 

intraday liquidity.6 In this way, the 

Framework describes the liquidity risk 

management of each of the Clearing 

Agencies and how the Clearing 

Agencies meet the applicable 

requirements of Rule 17Ad–22(e)(7).7

The Clearing Agencies are proposing 

changes to the Framework that would 

update, clarify and simplify the 

descriptions, but would not make any 

substantive revisions to how the 

Clearing Agencies manage their 

liquidity risks and comply with the 

applicable regulatory requirements. 

More specifically, the proposed changes 

would (1) reflect that the Stress Testing 

81962 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Notices 

8The parent company of the Clearing Agencies is 

The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation 

(‘‘DTCC’’). DTCC operates on a shared services 

model with respect to the Clearing Agencies and its 

other subsidiaries. Most corporate functions are 

established and managed on an enterprise-wide 

basis pursuant to intercompany agreements under 

which it is generally DTCC that provides a relevant 

service to a subsidiary, including the Clearing 

Agencies. 

9 17 CFR 240.17Ad–22(e)(7)(i). 

10 ‘‘Qualifying liquid resources’’ are defined in 

Rule 17Ad–22(a)(14). 17 CFR 240.17Ad–22(a)(14). 

11Rule 4, Section 5 (Use of Clearing Fund) of the 

Rulebook of GSD and Rule 4, Section 5 (Use of 

Clearing Fund) of the Clearing Rules of MBSD, 

available at http://dtcc.com/legal/rules-andprocedures. 

12Rule 22A, Section 2a (Liquidity Requirements 

of Netting Members) of the Rulebook of GSD and 

Rule 17, Section 2a (Capped Contingency Liquidity 

Facility) of the Clearing Rules of MBSD, available 

at http://dtcc.com/legal/rules-and-procedures. 

13Supra note 10. 

14See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88146 

(February 7, 2020), 85 FR 8046 (February 12, 2020) 

(SR–NSCC–2019–802). 

15Rule 4(A) of the NSCC Rules, available at 

http://dtcc.com/legal/rules-and-procedures. 

16Such proposed changes to Rule 4(A) of the 

NSCC Rules would be filed by NSCC pursuant to 

Section 19(b)(1) of the Act. 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 

17 17 CFR 240.17Ad–22(e)(7)(i) and (vi)(A). 

Team that has taken over certain 

responsibilities related to liquidity risk 

management; (2) simplify the 

description of the FICC qualifying 

liquidity resources, which are identical 

for each of its divisions; (3) reflect the 

inclusion of the proceeds of NSCC’s 

issuance and private placement of term 

debt as an additional NSCC liquidity 

resource; (4) revise the description of 

NSCC’s supplemental liquidity deposits 

to allow for future revisions to this 

requirement; (5) reflect the 

reclassification of a stress scenario that 

assumes the default of multiple 

participants as an informational stress 

scenario; and (6) make other revisions in 

order to clarify and simplify the 

descriptions within the Framework. 

Each of these proposed changes are 

described in greater detail below. 

i. Proposed Amendments To Reflect 

Creation of Stress Testing Team 

First, the proposed changes would 

reflect that the Stress Testing Team 

within the Group Chief Risk Office of 

DTCC (‘‘GCRO’’),8 which previously 

was responsible for market risk stress 

testing, took over stress testing and 

other responsibilities related to liquidity 

risk management in late 2019. This 

change was intended to centralize stress 

testing and related responsibilities 

under one team. Because this team has 

taken responsibility for certain actions 

described in the Framework, the 

proposed changes would identify this 

team as responsible for those actions. 

For example, the Stress Testing Team 

would be identified as responsible for 

performing daily stress testing of the 

qualifying liquid resources that are held 

by each of NSCC and FICC in 

compliance with Rule 17Ad–22(e)(7)(i), 

and as responsible for certain actions 

related to the development and 

maintenance of stress scenarios.9 The 

proposed changes would also identify 

the Stress Testing Working Group as 

responsible for reviewing and approving 

stress scenarios on a monthly basis to 

determine that they meeting regulatory 

requirements. 

In connection with this proposed 

change, the Clearing Agencies are also 

proposing to include a general statement 

in Section 1 (Executive Summary) of the 

Framework, that, unless otherwise 

specified, actions in the Framework 

related to stress testing are performed by 

the Stress Testing Team and all other 

actions described in the Framework are 

the responsibility of the Liquidity 

Product Risk Unit. The proposed 

changes would also revise descriptions 

of certain actions to remove references 

to the group that is responsible for those 

actions. These proposed changes would 

simplify the description of these 

actions, while clarifying the teams 

responsible for conducting these actions 

in a general statement within the 

Framework. 

ii. Proposed Amendments To Simplify 

the Description of FICC’s Liquidity 

Resources 

Second, the proposed changes would 

consolidate Sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 (in 

the proposed amended Framework, 

Section 5.2.2) to simplify the 

description of FICC’s qualifying 

liquidity resources, which are identical 

for its Government Securities Division 

(‘‘GSD’’) and Mortgage-Backed 

Securities Division (‘‘MBSD’’).10 The 

qualifying liquidity resources of both 

GSD and MBSD consist of deposits to 

their respective Clearing Funds, 

consisting of both cash and eligible 

securities,11 and funds available from 

their respective rules-based committed 

Capped Contingency Liquidity Facility 

programs.12 The proposed changes 

would simplify the Framework by 

consolidating two sections that 

currently describe identical resources 

for the two divisions of FICC. The 

proposed changes would also make 

conforming changes to section numbers, 

footnotes, and cross-references in 

Section 2 (Glossary of Key Terms). 

iii. Proposed Amendments To Include 

Term Debt as NSCC Liquidity Resource 

Third, the proposed changes would 

amend Section 5.2.3, which currently 

describes each of the qualifying 

liquidity resources of NSCC.13 NSCC 

recently began raising additional 

prefunded liquidity through the 

issuance and private placement of term 

debt in the form of medium- and longterm unsecured notes.14 The proposed 

changes would amend Section 5.2.3 to 

include a description of the proceeds of 

these debt issuances as an additional 

qualifying liquidity resource of NSCC. 

The proposed changes would update 

this section to accurately identify all 

qualifying liquidity resources of NSCC. 

iv. Proposed Amendments To Revise 

Description of NSCC Supplemental 

Liquidity Deposits 

Fourth, the proposed changes would 

also amend Section 5.2.3 (in the 

proposed amended Framework, Section 

5.2.2) to revise the description of the 

supplemental liquidity deposits, or 

‘‘SLD.’’ Under Rule 4(A) of the NSCC 

Rules & Procedures (‘‘NSCC Rules’’), 

Members whose default would pose the 

largest liquidity exposure to NSCC are 

required to make additional deposits to 

the NSCC Clearing Fund in the form of 

SLD to cover that liquidity exposure.15

The proposed changes to Section 5.2.3 

would remove references to certain 

aspects of the SLD requirements that 

NSCC is planning to amend pursuant to 

a separate proposed rule change to be 

filed.16 The proposed changes to 

Section 5.2.3 would remove these 

descriptions but would retain a 

complete and clear description of the 

SLD requirements for purposes of the 

Framework. The proposed changes 

would allow the Framework to 

accurately describe the SLD 

requirements, notwithstanding any 

future changes to those requirements. 

v. Proposed Amendments To Update the 

Multiple Member Default Stress 

Scenario 

Fifth, the proposed changes would 

update Sections 6.2.3 to reflect the 

recent reclassification of a stress 

scenario that assumes a simultaneous 

default of multiple unaffiliated 

participants or multiple Affiliated 

Families from a ‘‘Regulatory Level 3 

Scenario’’ to an ‘‘Informational Level 3 

Scenario.’’ Section 6.2 describes how 

FICC and NSCC measure the sufficiency 

of their respective qualifying liquid 

resources through daily liquidity 

studies, across a range of stress 

scenarios in compliance with the 

requirements under Rule 17Ad– 

22(e)(7)(i) and (vi)(A).17 One set of stress 

scenarios are categorized as Level 3 

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Notices 81963 

18 17 CFR 240.17Ad–22(e)(7)(vi)(A). 

19 Id. 

20 Id. 

21 15 U.S.C. 78q–1(b)(3)(F). 

22 Id. 

23 Id. 

24 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 

25 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). 

Scenarios, which are further identified 

as either (1) Regulatory Stress Scenarios, 

which are stress scenarios that meet the 

requirements set forth in Rule 17Ad– 

22(e)(7)(vi)(A),18 and (2) Informational 

Stress Scenarios, which are stress 

scenarios that are not designed to meet 

the requirements set forth in Rule 

17Ad–22(e)(7)(vi)(A),19 but are used for 

both informational and monitoring 

purposes. 

NSCC previously included a stress 

scenario that assumed the default of 

multiple participants as a Regulatory 

Level 3 Scenario, despite the fact that 

this scenario utilizes parameters and 

assumptions that exceed the 

requirements of Rule 17Ad– 

22(e)(7)(vi)(A).20 NSCC has reclassified 

this scenario as an Informational Level 

3 Scenario and, as such, it is utilized for 

informational and monitoring purposes 

only. The proposed changes would 

reflect this reclassification in Section 

6.2.3, where Level 3 Scenarios are 

described. 

vi. Proposed Amendments To Clarify 

and Simplify Descriptions in the 

Framework 

Finally, the proposed changes would 

make minor updates to certain 

descriptions in the Framework to clarify 

and simplify those descriptions. For 

example, the proposed changes would 

amend Section 2 (Glossary of Key 

Terms) to use the term ‘‘Group Chief 

Risk Office’’ in the definition of the 

Liquidity Product Risk Unit, instead of 

using the defined term ‘‘GCRO’’ which 

is not otherwise defined in the 

Framework. The proposed changes 

would also amend Section 2 to update 

the defined terms of ‘‘CP Program’’, 

‘‘Prefunded Liquidity’’, and ‘‘Term Debt 

Issuance’’ in connection with the 

proposed changes to include term debt 

as an NSCC liquidity resource, as 

described above. 

The proposed changes would also 

clarify the names of certain groups 

identified in the Framework. For 

example, the team that is responsible for 

market risk management would be 

referred to as ‘‘Market Risk 

Management’’ rather than the ‘‘Market 

Risk unit’’. 

These proposed changes would not 

make any substantive revisions to the 

amended descriptions in the Framework 

but would clarify and simplify those 

descriptions with immaterial updates. 

2. Statutory Basis 

The Clearing Agencies believe that the 

proposed changes are consistent with 

Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act, for the 

reasons described below.21

Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act 

requires, in part, that the rules of a 

registered clearing agency be designed 

to promote the prompt and accurate 

clearance and settlement of securities 

transactions, and to assure the 

safeguarding of securities and funds 

which are in the custody or control of 

the clearing agency or for which it is 

responsible, for the reasons described 

below.22 As described above, the 

proposed changes would update the 

Framework to (1) reflect a change in the 

teams responsible for certain actions, (2) 

include an additional liquidity resource 

at NSCC, and (3) reflect a change in the 

classification of one of the stress 

scenarios used by NSCC and FICC. The 

proposed changes would also simplify 

the description of the FICC qualifying 

liquidity resources, update the 

description of the NSCC SLD, and make 

other updates to clarify and simplify 

descriptions in the Framework. By 

updating the Framework to reflect these 

changes, and creating clearer, simpler 

descriptions, the Clearing Agencies 

believe the proposed changes would 

make the Framework more effective in 

describing liquidity risk management 

that is conducted by the Clearing 

Agencies, as described therein. 

The Framework describes how the 

Clearing Agencies carry out its liquidity 

risk management strategy such that, 

with respect to FICC and NSCC, they 

maintain liquid resources sufficient to 

meet the potential amount of funding 

required to settle outstanding 

transactions of a defaulting participant 

or family of affiliated participants in a 

timely manner, and with respect to 

DTC, it maintains sufficient available 

liquid resources to complete systemwide settlement on each business day, 

with a high degree of confidence and 

notwithstanding the failure to settle of 

the participant or affiliated family of 

participants with the largest settlement 

obligation. As such, the Clearing 

Agencies’ liquidity risk management 

strategies address the Clearing Agencies’ 

maintenance of sufficient liquid 

resources, which allow them to 

continue the prompt and accurate 

clearance and settlement of securities 

and can continue to assure the 

safeguarding of securities and funds 

which are in their custody or control or 

for which they are responsible 

notwithstanding the default of a 

participant or family of affiliated 

participants. 

The proposed changes to update the 

Framework and improve the clarity and 

accuracy of the descriptions of liquidity 

risk management functions within the 

Framework would assist the Clearing 

Agencies in carrying out these 

functions. Therefore, the Clearing 

Agencies believe the proposed changes 

are consistent with the requirements of 

Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.23

(B) Clearing Agencies Statement on 

Burden on Competition 

The Clearing Agencies do not believe 

the proposed changes to the Framework 

described above would have any 

impact, or impose any burden, on 

competition. As described above, the 

proposed changes would update the 

Framework, and would improve the 

clarity and accuracy of the descriptions 

of the Clearing Agencies’ liquidity risk 

management functions. Therefore, the 

proposed changes are technical and 

non-material in nature, relating mostly 

to the operation of the Framework rather 

than the liquidity risk management 

functions described therein. As such, 

the Clearing Agencies do not believe 

that the proposed rule changes would 

have any impact on competition. 

(C) Clearing Agencies’ Statement on 

Comments on the Proposed Rule 

Changes Received From Members, 

Participants, or Others 

The Clearing Agencies have not 

solicited or received any written 

comments relating to this proposal. The 

Clearing Agencies will notify the 

Commission of any written comments 

received by the Clearing Agencies. 

III. Date of Effectiveness of the 

Proposed Rule Changes, and Timing for 

Commission Action 

Because the foregoing proposed rule 

changes do not: 

(i) Significantly affect the protection 

of investors or the public interest; 

(ii) impose any significant burden on 

competition; and 

(iii) become operative for 30 days 

from the date on which it was filed, or 

such shorter time as the Commission 

may designate, it has become effective 

pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the 

Act 24 and Rule 19b–4(f)(6) 

thereunder.25

At any time within 60 days of the 

filing of the proposed rule changes, the 

Commission summarily may 

81964 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Notices 

26 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

3See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88993 

(June 2, 2020), 85 FR 35145 (June 8, 2020) (SR– 

EMERALD–2020–05) (Notice of Filing and 

Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change 

To Amend Exchange Rule 510, Minimum Price 

Variations and Minimum Trading Increments, To 

Conform the Rule to Section 3.1 of the Plan for the 

Purpose of Developing and Implementing 

Procedures Designed To Facilitate the Listing and 

Trading of Standardized Options). 

4See Cboe BZX Fee Schedule under ‘‘Fee Codes 

and Associated Fees.’’ 

temporarily suspend such rule changes 

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. 

IV. Solicitation of Comments 

Interested persons are invited to 

submit written data, views and 

arguments concerning the foregoing, 

including whether the proposed rule 

changes are consistent with the Act. 

Comments may be submitted by any of 

the following methods: 

Electronic Comments 

• Use the Commission’s internet 

comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ 

rules/sro.shtml); or 

• Send an email to rule-comments@

sec.gov. Please include File Numbers 

SR–DTC–2020–018, SR–FICC–2020– 

018, and SR–NSCC–2020–021 on the 

subject line. 

Paper Comments 

• Send paper comments in triplicate 

to Secretary, Securities and Exchange 

Commission, 100 F Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20549. 

All submissions should refer to File 

Numbers SR–DTC–2020–018, SR–FICC– 

2020–018, and SR–NSCC–2020–021. 

These file numbers should be included 

on the subject line if email is used. To 

help the Commission process and 

review your comments more efficiently, 

please use only one method. The 

Commission will post all comments on 

the Commission’s internet website 

(http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). 

Copies of the submission, all subsequent 

amendments, all written statements 

with respect to the proposed rule 

changes that are filed with the 

Commission, and all written 

communications relating to the 

proposed rule changes 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 Clearing Agencies and on 

DTCC’s website (http://dtcc.com/legal/ 

sec-rule-filings.aspx). 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 

Numbers SR–DTC–2020–018, SR–FICC– 

2020–018, and SR–NSCC–2020–021 and 

should be submitted on or before 

January 7, 2021. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.26

J. Matthew DeLesDernier, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2020–27728 Filed 12–16–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–90639; File No. SR– 

EMERALD–2020–19] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX 

Emerald, LLC; Notice of Filing and 

Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed 

Rule Change To Amend the Fee 

Schedule 

December 11, 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 December 

1, 2020, MIAX Emerald, LLC (‘‘MIAX 

Emerald’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) a 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. 

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Terms of Substance of 

the Proposed Rule Change 

The Exchange is filing a proposal to 

amend the MIAX Emerald Fee Schedule 

(the ‘‘Fee Schedule’’). 

The text of the proposed rule change 

is available on the Exchange’s website at 

http://www.miaxoptions.com/rulefilings/emerald, at MIAX Emerald’s 

principal office, and at the 

Commission’s Public Reference Room. 

II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

In its filing with the Commission, the 

Exchange included statements 

concerning the purpose of and basis for 

the proposed rule change and discussed 

any comments it received on the 

proposed rule change. The text of these 

statements may be examined at the 

places specified in Item IV below. The 

Exchange has prepared summaries, set 

forth in sections A, B, and C below, of 

the most significant aspects of such 

statements. 

A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

1. Purpose 

The Exchange proposes to amend the 

Fee Schedule to amend the exchange 

groupings of options exchanges within 

the routing fee table in Section 1)b) of 

the Fee Schedule. 

Currently, the Exchange assesses 

routing fees based upon (i) the origin 

type of the order, (ii) whether or not it 

is an order for standard option classes 

in the Penny Interval Program 3 (‘‘Penny 

classes’’) or an order for standard option 

classes which are not in the Penny 

Interval Program (‘‘Non-Penny classes’’) 

(or other explicitly identified classes), 

and (iii) to which away market it is 

being routed. This assessment practice 

is identical to the routing fees 

assessment practice currently utilized 

by the Exchange’s affiliates, Miami 

International Securities Exchange, LLC 

(‘‘MIAX’’) and MIAX PEARL, LLC 

(‘‘MIAX PEARL’’). This is also similar to 

the methodologies utilized by other 

competing options exchanges, such as 

the Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (‘‘Cboe 

BZX’’), in assessing routing fees. Cboe 

BZX has exchange groupings in its fee 

schedule, similar to those of the 

Exchange, whereby several exchanges 

are grouped into the same category, 

dependent on the order’s origin type 

and whether it is a Penny or Non-Penny 

class.4

As a result of conducting a periodic 

review of the current transaction fees 

and rebates charged by away markets, 

the Exchange has determined to amend 

the exchange groupings of options 

exchanges within the routing fee table to 

better reflect the associated costs of 

routing customer orders to those options 

exchanges for execution. In particular, 

the Exchange proposes to amend the 

seventh ‘‘Routed, Public Customer that