Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 23, 2020 / Notices 84065 

16 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 

17 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(2). 

18 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

with other exchanges. For the reasons 

described above, the Exchange believes 

that the proposed rule change reflects 

this competitive environment. 

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 not 

necessary or appropriate in furtherance 

of the purposes of the Act. The 

Exchange believes that the proposed 

changes to the Facilitation and 

Solicitation Transaction fees will not 

impose a burden on competition among 

various Exchange Participants. Rather, 

BOX believes that the change will result 

in the Participants being charged 

appropriately for these transactions and 

are designed to enhance competition in 

the Facilitation and Solicitation 

mechanisms. Submitting an order is 

entirely voluntary and Participants can 

determine which order type they wish 

to submit, if any, to the Exchange. 

Further, the Exchange believes that this 

proposal will enhance competition 

between exchanges because it is 

designed to allow the Exchange to better 

compete with other exchanges for order 

flow. The Exchange does not believe 

that the proposed change will burden 

competition by creating a disparity 

between the fees an initiator pays and 

the fees a competitive responder pays 

that would result in certain Participants 

being unable to compete with initiators. 

In fact, the Exchange believes that these 

changes will not impair these 

Participants from adding liquidity and 

competing in the Facilitation and 

Solicitation mechanisms, and will help 

promote competition by providing 

incentives for market participants to 

submit Facilitation and Solicitation 

Orders, and thus benefit all Participants 

trading on the Exchange by attracting 

customer order flow. 

Lastly, the Exchange believes that 

eliminating the Liquidity Fees and 

Credits for Facilitation and Solicitation 

Transactions will not burden 

competition as the proposed change 

applies to all market participants. As 

discussed above, the Exchange believes 

that eliminating the Liquidity Fees and 

Credits for Facilitation and Solicitation 

Transactions is reasonable as the 

Exchange, pursuant to this proposal, has 

eliminated Facilitation and Solicitation 

Order fees. Therefore, the credit for 

removing liquidity is no longer needed 

to incentivize Participants to submit 

order flow to the Facilitation and 

Solicitation auction mechanisms. 

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Comments on the 

Proposed Rule Change Received From 

Members, Participants, or Others 

No written comments were either 

solicited or received. 

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)(ii) of the Exchange Act 16

and Rule 19b–4(f)(2) thereunder,17

because it establishes or changes a due, 

or fee. 

At any time within 60 days of the 

filing of the proposed rule change, the 

Commission summarily may 

temporarily suspend the rule change if 

it appears to the Commission that the 

action is necessary or appropriate in the 

public interest, for the protection of 

investors, or would otherwise further 

the purposes of the Act. If the 

Commission takes such action, the 

Commission shall institute proceedings 

to determine whether the proposed rule 

should be approved or disapproved. 

IV. Solicitation of Comments 

Interested persons are invited to 

submit written data, views, and 

arguments concerning the foregoing, 

including whether the proposed rule 

change is consistent with the Act. 

Comments may be submitted by any of 

the following methods: 

Electronic Comments 

• Use the Commission’s internet 

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

rules/sro.shtml); or 

• Send an email to rule-comments@

sec.gov. Please include File Number SR– 

BOX–2020–39 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–BOX–2020–39. This file 

number should be included on the 

subject line if email is used. To help the 

Commission process and review your 

comments more efficiently, please use 

only one method. The Commission will 

post all comments on the Commission’s 

internet website (http://www.sec.gov/ 

rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the 

submission, all subsequent 

amendments, all written statements 

with respect to the proposed rule 

change that are filed with the 

Commission, and all written 

communications relating to the 

proposed rule change between the 

Commission and any person, other than 

those that may be withheld from the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be 

available for website viewing and 

printing in the Commission’s Public 

Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20549 on official 

business days between the hours of 

10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such 

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–BOX–2020–39, and should 

be submitted on or before January 13, 

2021. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.18

J. Matthew DeLesDernier, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2020–28305 Filed 12–22–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–90713; File No. SR– 

CboeEDGX–2020–063] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe 

EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing 

and Immediate Effectiveness of a 

Proposed Rule Change To Amend 

EDGX Rule 11.8(g), Which Describes 

the Handling of MidPoint Discretionary 

Orders Entered on the Exchange 

December 17, 2020. 

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 

‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2

notice is hereby given that on December 

15, 2020, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. 

(the ‘‘Exchange’’ or ‘‘EDGX’’) filed with 

the Securities and Exchange 

Commission (the ‘‘Commission’’) the 

proposed rule change as described in 

Items I, II, and III below, which Items 

have been prepared by the Exchange. 

The Exchange filed the proposal as a 

‘‘non-controversial’’ proposed rule 

change pursuant to Section 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
84066 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 23, 2020 / Notices 

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

4 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). 

5 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6)(iii). 

6QDP is an optional instruction that a User may 

include on an MDO to limit the order’s ability to 

exercise discretion in certain circumstances. See 

EDGX Rule 11.9(g)(10). 

7See EDGX Rule 11.8(g). 

8 Id. 

9See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89007 

(June 4, 2020), 85 FR 35454 (June 10, 2020) (SR– 

CboeEDGX–2020–010). 

10See EDGX Rule 11.8(g). 

11The Exchange’s Super Aggressive and NDS 

instructions allow orders entered with those 

instructions to trade as the remover of liquidity 

with orders that are designated to act solely as the 

liquidity provider. See EDGX Rules 11.6(n)(2),(7). 

12See EDGA Rule 11.8(e). 

13A User would be able to instruct the Exchange 

to limit the order to providing liquidity either on 

an order-by-order basis, or through the use of a port 

setting. 

19(b)(3)(A)(iii) 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 

change from interested persons. 

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Terms of Substance of 

the Proposed Rule Change 

Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (‘‘EDGX’’ 

or the ‘‘Exchange’’) is filing with the 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

(the ‘‘Commission’’) a proposed rule 

change to amend EDGX Rule 11.8(g), 

which describes the handling of 

MidPoint Discretionary Orders entered 

on the Exchange.5 The text of the 

proposed rule change is provided in 

Exhibit 5. 

The text of the proposed rule change 

is also available on the Exchange’s 

website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/ 

options/regulation/rule_filings/edgx/), 

at the Exchange’s Office of the 

Secretary, and at the Commission’s 

Public Reference Room. 

II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

In its filing with the Commission, the 

Exchange included statements 

concerning the purpose of and basis for 

the proposed rule change and discussed 

any comments it received on the 

proposed rule change. The text of these 

statements may be examined at the 

places specified in Item IV below. The 

Exchange has prepared summaries, set 

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

the most significant aspects of such 

statements. 

A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

1. Purpose 

The purpose of the proposed rule 

change is to amend EDGX Rule 11.8(g) 

to allow Users that enter MidPoint 

Discretionary Orders (‘‘MDOs’’) with a 

Quote Depletion Protection (‘‘QDP’’) 

instruction 6 to also include an optional 

instruction to allow the MDO to remove 

liquidity. An MDO is a Limit Order that 

when resting on the EDGX Book is 

pegged to the NBB for an order to buy 

or the NBO for an order to sell, with or 

without an offset, with discretion to 

execute at prices to and including the 

midpoint of the NBBO.7 MDOs entered 

on the Exchange today are designed to 

only act as the provider of liquidity, 

including when resting on the EDGX 

Book and on entry.8 On June 4, 2020, 

the Exchange received approval to 

introduce a new QDP instruction that 

Users can include on their MDOs to 

limit the order’s ability to exercise 

discretion in certain circumstances 

where applicable market conditions 

indicate that it may be less desirable to 

execute within the order’s discretionary 

range.9 QDP is designed to enable 

market participants to enter orders that 

may exercise discretion to trade at more 

aggressive prices up to the midpoint of 

the NBBO, while providing additional 

protection to those orders at times 

where the market for the security may 

be about to transition to a worse price 

from the perspective of the MDO. As 

proposed, Users that enter an MDO with 

a QDP instruction would be permitted 

to include an optional instruction to 

allow the MDO to remove liquidity, 

thereby facilitating the ability of such 

orders to aggressively seek an execution 

on entry and when posted to the EDGX 

Book. 

Currently, an MDO entered on the 

Exchange will only act as a liquidity 

provider once resting on the EDGX 

Book, and will only execute on entry in 

limited circumstances where the resting 

order includes a Super Aggressive or 

Non-Displayed Swap (‘‘NDS’’) 

instruction that allows for a liquidity 

swap with the incoming MDO.10 As a 

result, MDOs entered on the Exchange 

will only act as liquidity provider—i.e., 

either as the resting order, or by 

liquidity swapping with a resting order 

that is willing to assume the role of the 

liquidity remover in exchange for 

obtaining an execution.11 By contrast, 

MDOs entered on the Exchange’s 

affiliate, Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. 

(‘‘EDGA’’), are allowed to remove 

liquidity.12 Although the Exchange 

believes that certain Users will continue 

to prefer to act solely as a liquidity 

provider, additional flexibility may be 

beneficial to market participants, 

particularly those that have begun 

entering MDOs with the recentlyintroduced QDP instruction. Indeed, the 

Exchange has received feedback from 

Users that utilize the QDP instruction 

on their MDOs indicating that they 

appreciate the protective features 

provided by QDP, but that it would also 

be valuable to improve fill rates by 

permitting such orders to remove 

liquidity. The Exchange is thus 

proposing to amend its rules such that 

Users would have the flexibility to 

allow such orders to remove liquidity. 

MDOs entered with both a QDP 

instruction and an instruction to allow 

the order to remove liquidity would be 

handled in the same manner as MDOs 

entered with a QDP instruction on 

EDGA today, thereby providing a 

consistent and familiar experience for 

market participants. 

In addition, since the Exchange 

believes that Users utilizing the MDO 

order type with a QDP instruction are 

more concerned with potential adverse 

selection risks, and would generally 

prefer to be able to secure an execution 

when possible at times that the QDP 

indicator does not predict a potential 

adverse price change, i.e., regardless of 

whether adding or removing liquidity, 

the Exchange proposes to make the 

ability to remove liquidity the default 

instruction for such orders. However, 

the Exchange would also retain the 

current functionality that allows MDOs 

to be entered that will only act as the 

provider of liquidity. This functionality 

would continue to apply to all MDOs 

entered without a QDP instruction, as 

well as to MDOs entered with a QDP 

instruction if the User affirmatively 

instructs the Exchange limit the order to 

providing liquidity.13 Thus, Users that 

prefer to only have their MDOs execute 

exclusively as the provider of liquidity 

would be able to continue to do so in 

the same manner that they do today. 

Introducing the ability for MDOs 

entered with a QDP instruction to 

remove liquidity, while retaining 

current functionality, would therefore 

provide additional flexibility to market 

participants without impacting order 

handling for Users that prefer the 

current functionality. 

The Exchange also proposes also 

make certain conforming and nonsubstantive changes to EDGX Rule 

11.8(g). Specifically, to increase the 

readability of the MDO rule, the 

Exchange proposes to move all rule 

language associated with posting 

instructions to EDGX Rule 11.8(g)(5), 

labelled ‘‘routing/posting.’’ Currently, 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 23, 2020 / Notices 84067 

14See EDGA Rule 11.8(e)(2). 

15 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 

16 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 

this subparagraph only references the 

fact that MDOs are not eligible for 

routing to other national securities 

exchanges, and does not reference order 

handling related to posting 

instructions—i.e., whether and when an 

MDO is allowed to remove or add 

liquidity. As proposed, EDGX Rule 

11.8(g)(5) would incorporate language 

currently included in the main section 

of the MDO rule that describes how 

such orders are handled consistent with 

an instruction to only act as the 

liquidity provider. 

First, the current rule provides that 

upon entry, an MDO will only execute 

against resting orders that include a 

Super Aggressive instruction priced at 

the MDO’s pegged price if the MDO also 

contains a Displayed instruction and 

against orders with an NDS instruction 

priced at the MDO’s pegged price or 

within its discretionary range. The 

Exchange proposes to move this 

discussion to EDGX Rule 11.8(g)(5) 

along with other language that addresses 

order handling related to routing and 

posting. Given the proposed ability for 

such orders to remove liquidity in 

certain circumstances, the Exchange has 

proposed to preface this language in the 

rule with language that explains that it 

only applies to MDOs that do not 

include instructions that permit the 

removal of liquidity. Thus, as proposed, 

EDGX Rule 11.8(g)(5) would provide 

that if the instructions included on an 

MDO do not permit the order to remove 

liquidity, the MDO will only execute on 

entry against resting orders that include 

a Super Aggressive instruction priced at 

the MDO’s pegged price if the MDO also 

contains a Displayed instruction, and 

against orders with an NDS instruction 

priced at the MDO’s pegged price or 

within its discretionary range. As 

discussed, this functionality is the same 

as currently applied to MDOs entered 

on the Exchange. 

Second, the current rule provides that 

should a resting contra-side order 

within the MDO’s discretionary range 

not include an NDS instruction, the 

incoming MDO will be placed on the 

EDGX Book and its discretionary range 

shortened to equal the limit price of the 

contra-side resting order. Similar to the 

above, the Exchange proposes to move 

this discussion to EDGX Rule 11.8(g)(5), 

and would make minor non-substantive 

changes to the language to account for 

the ability of certain MDOs to remove 

liquidity under the proposal. Thus, as 

proposed, EDGX Rule 11.8(g)(5) would 

provide that if a resting contra-side 

order that does not include an NDS 

instruction is priced within the 

discretionary range of an incoming 

MDO that is not permitted to remove 

liquidity, the incoming MDO will be 

placed on the EDGX Book and its 

discretionary range will be shortened to 

equal the limit price of the resting 

contra-side order. This language relates 

specifically to incoming MDOs that do 

not remove liquidity and are therefore 

not able to trade on entry with certain 

orders that are unwilling to perform a 

liquidity swap. The proposed edits to 

the language would therefore make clear 

that this handling does not apply in 

circumstances where an MDO is entered 

with instructions that permit liquidity 

removal. 

Third, the current rule provides that 

where an incoming order with a Post 

Only instruction does not remove 

liquidity on entry pursuant to Rule 

11.6(n)(4) against a resting MDO, the 

discretionary range of the resting MDO 

will be shortened to equal the limit 

price of the incoming contra-side order 

with a Post Only instruction. The 

Exchange also proposes to move this 

language to Rule 11.8(g)(5) as it relates 

to relates generally to posting 

instructions. However, since this 

handling does not depend on whether 

the MDO is only allowed to add 

liquidity, or can both add or remove 

liquidity, the Exchange is not proposing 

to edit this language when moving it to 

this subsection of the MDO rule. 

Finally, in addition to the proposed 

changes described above, the Exchange 

also proposes to amend EDGX Rule 

11.8(g)(2) to allow MDOs to be entered 

for an odd lot size. Currently, EDGX 

Rule 11.8(g)(2) specifies that MDOs may 

be entered as a round lot or mixed lot 

only, and the Exchange does not permit 

Users odd lots to be entered using the 

MDO order type. By contrast, the 

Exchange’s affiliate, EDGA, does not 

have a similar restriction, and MDOs 

entered on that exchange may therefore 

be entered for an odd lot size.14 The 

Exchange is proposing to similarly 

permit odd lot MDOs to be entered on 

the EDGX Book, which would allow 

market participants trading on the 

Exchange to similarly utilize MDOs for 

smaller order sizes. 

2. Statutory Basis 

The Exchange believes that its 

proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) 

of the Act,15 in general, and furthers the 

objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,16

in particular, in that it is designed to 

promote just and equitable principles of 

trade, 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. 

Specifically, the Exchange believes that 

the proposed rule change is consistent 

with the protection of investors and the 

public interest as it would enable Users 

that enter MDOs with a QDP instruction 

to optionally remove liquidity, similar 

to the current handling on its affiliate, 

EDGA, which allows such orders to 

remove liquidity today. In addition, the 

proposed rule change would allow 

Users to enter MDOs for an odd lot 

quantity, which is similarly consistent 

with the operation of MDOs entered on 

EDGA. 

Although MDOs are currently 

designed to only act as the provider of 

liquidity, the Exchange believes that 

Users that enter MDOs with a QDP 

instruction may benefit from the ability 

to trade more aggressively as the 

remover of liquidity. The Exchange is 

therefore proposing to allow MDOs 

entered with a QDP instruction to 

remove liquidity, by default, while 

allowing Users to alternatively select to 

have such orders limited to providing 

liquidity. MDOs that are not entered 

with a QDP instruction, and MDOs 

entered with a QDP instruction where 

the User chooses to opt out of the ability 

to remove liquidity, would be handled 

in the same manner as they are today, 

thereby allowing Users to properly 

reflect their trading intent with their 

choice of instruction. As discussed, 

MDOs entered on the Exchange 

currently only act as the provider of 

liquidity, both on entry and upon 

posting to the EDGX Book. By contrast, 

the Exchange’s affiliate, EDGA, allows 

such orders to both provide and remove 

liquidity. The Exchange believes that 

allowing MDOs entered with a QDP 

instruction to optionally act as liquidity 

remover, similar to the current handling 

on its affiliate, EDGA, would remove 

impediments to and perfect the 

mechanism of a free and open market 

and a national market system. 

With the recent introduction of the 

QDP instruction, the Exchange has 

decided to revisit whether these orders 

should be allowed to remove liquidity, 

and has determined that such handling 

would be generally beneficial to market 

participants trading on the Exchange as 

it would increase the probability of such 

orders obtaining an execution. This 

change is consistent with customer 

feedback as some Users have indicated 

that they would prefer the ability to 

remove liquidity in order to boost fill 

rates for MDOs entered with a QDP 

instruction. At the same time, the 

Exchange understands that certain 

market participants may wish to 

continue to have these orders act solely 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
84068 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 23, 2020 / Notices 

17 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 

18 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). 

as a liquidity provider. The proposed 

rule change would therefore give Users 

the flexibility to determine whether an 

MDO entered with a QDP instruction 

should act solely as a liquidity provider, 

i.e., the current functionality, or 

whether such orders should instead be 

allowed to also remove liquidity. The 

Exchange believes that this change will 

benefit market participants by offering 

functionality similar to that currently 

offered by its affiliate, while providing 

additional flexibility with respect to 

how MDOs are handled by the 

Exchange. 

In addition, the Exchange believes 

that the proposed non-substantive 

changes to its MDO rule are consistent 

with just and equitable principles of 

trade as these changes are designed to 

increase transparency around the 

operation of the Exchange. As proposed, 

the Exchange would move certain 

language included in the MDO rule to 

the subsection of the rule that 

addressees routing and posting. The 

proposed language to be included in 

that subsection is substantively the 

same as the language currently included 

in the main text of the MDO rule, with 

a handful of minor changes to reflect the 

fact that certain MDOs may be permitted 

to remove liquidity based on User 

instructions. The Exchange believes that 

consolidating all of this language in the 

subsection on routing and posting 

would increase the readability of the 

rule, and the proposed edits to the 

language included in that subsection are 

merely designed to highlight where the 

language is applicable specifically to 

MDOs entered with instructions that 

require that the order act as the provider 

of liquidity. These changes are being 

proposed to ensure that the language 

remains accurate in light of the changes 

to allow certain MDOs to remove 

liquidity. As such, the Exchange 

believes that those edits would increase 

transparency around the operation of 

the MDO order type in light of the other 

proposed changes addressed in this 

filing. 

Finally, the Exchange believes that 

allowing MDOs to be entered for an odd 

lot quantity would promote just and 

equitable principles of trade. As 

discussed, the Exchange’s affiliate, 

EDGA, similarly allows such orders to 

be entered for an odd lot size, and the 

Exchange believes that market 

participants that trade on the EDGX 

Book should similarly be able to enter 

odd lot MDOs. While the Exchange 

initially restricted MDOs to either round 

lots or mixed lots, the Exchange now 

believes that this limitation 

unnecessarily limits the availability of 

the MDO order type for market 

participants that are interested in 

trading smaller sized orders. Expanding 

MDOs to odd lot orders would therefore 

increase the ability for market 

participants to trade using this order 

type, including potentially benefiting 

Users of the recently introduced QDP 

instruction. 

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 not 

necessary or appropriate in furtherance 

of the purposes of the Act. The 

proposed changes would allow MDOs 

entered with a QDP instruction on 

EDGX to remove liquidity, which would 

increase flexibility offered by such 

orders. Although these orders do not 

remove liquidity today, the Exchange’s 

affiliate, EDGA, already permits such 

orders to do so. Thus, the proposed rule 

change would allow market participants 

that trade on EDGX to utilize similar 

functionality to those that trade on its 

affiliated exchange today. Further, the 

Exchange has proposed to introduce the 

ability to remove liquidity as the default 

instruction for such orders, while 

allowing Users that prefer the current 

functionality to continue to have their 

orders handled in the same manner as 

they are today—i.e., Users could chose 

to have these orders only add liquidity, 

as is the case with the current 

functionality. As a result, the Exchange 

does not believe that the proposed 

ability for these orders to remove 

liquidity would impose any significant 

burden on competition. Similarly, the 

Exchange notes that MDOs entered on 

the EDGA Book are permitted to be 

entered for an odd lot quantity. The 

Exchange believes that permitting odd 

lot MDOs on the EDGX Book would 

provide similar benefits to its Users by 

expanding the potential use of this order 

type, without imposing any significant 

burden on competition. 

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Comments on the 

Proposed Rule Change Received From 

Members, Participants, or Others 

No written comments were either 

solicited or received on the proposed 

rule change. 

III. Date of Effectiveness of the 

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for 

Commission Action 

Because the foregoing proposed rule 

change does not: 

A. Significantly affect the protection 

of investors or the public interest; 

B. impose any significant burden on 

competition; and 

C. 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 17 and Rule 19b–4(f)(6) 18

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. 

IV. Solicitation of Comments 

Interested persons are invited to 

submit written data, views, and 

arguments concerning the foregoing, 

including whether the proposed rule 

change is consistent with the Act. 

Comments may be submitted by any of 

the following methods: 

Electronic Comments 

• Use the Commission’s internet 

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

rules/sro.shtml); or 

• Send an email to rule-comments@

sec.gov. Please include File Number SR– 

CboeEDGX–2020–063 on the subject 

line. 

Paper Comments 

• Send paper comments in triplicate 

to Secretary, Securities and Exchange 

Commission, 100 F Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20549–1090. 

All submissions should refer to File 

Number SR–CboeEDGX–2020–063. This 

file number should be included on the 

subject line if email is used. To help the 

Commission process and review your 

comments more efficiently, please use 

only one method. The Commission will 

post all comments on the Commission’s 

internet website (http://www.sec.gov/ 

rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the 

submission, all subsequent 

amendments, all written statements 

with respect to the proposed rule 

change that are filed with the 

Commission, and all written 

communications relating to the 

proposed rule change between the 

Commission and any person, other than 

those that may be withheld from the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be 

available for website viewing and 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 23, 2020 / Notices 84069 

19 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

1 15 U.S.C. 78a. 

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

3Unless otherwise specified, capitalized terms 

used in this rule filing are defined as set forth in 

the Compliance Rule. 

4See Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 90223 

(October 19, 2020), 85 FR 67576 (October 23, 2020) 

(‘‘Allocation Exemptive Order’’). 

5Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan defines an 

‘‘Allocation Report’’ as ‘‘a report made to the 

Central Repository by an Industry Member that 

identifies the Firm Designated ID for any account(s), 

including subaccount(s), to which executed shares 

are allocated and provides the security that has 

been allocated, the identifier of the firm reporting 

the allocation, the price per share of shares 

allocated, the side of shares allocated, the number 

of shares allocated to each account, and the time of 

the allocation; provided for the avoidance of doubt, 

any such Allocation Report shall not be required to 

be linked to particular orders or executions.’’ 

6See letter from the Participants to Vanessa 

Countryman, Secretary, Commission, dated August 

27, 2020 (the ‘‘Exemption Request’’). 

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–CboeEDGX–2020–063 and 

should be submitted on or before 

January 13, 2021. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.19

J. Matthew DeLesDernier, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2020–28318 Filed 12–22–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

Sunshine Act Meeting; Cancellation 

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS

ANNOUNCEMENT: 85 FR 81999, December 

17, 2020. 

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF

THE MEETING: Monday, December 21, 

2020 at 10:00 a.m. 

CHANGES IN THE MEETING: The Open 

Meeting scheduled for Monday, 

December 21, 2020 at 10:00 a.m., has 

been cancelled. 

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 18, 2020. 

Vanessa A. Countryman, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2020–28521 Filed 12–21–20; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–90708; File No. SR– 

NYSECHX–2020–32] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE 

Chicago, Inc.; Notice of Filing and 

Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed 

Rule Change To Amend the Rule 

6.6800 Series 

December 17, 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 

4, 2020, the NYSE Chicago, Inc. (‘‘NYSE 

Chicago’’ or the ‘‘Exchange’’) 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 selfregulatory organization. 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 proposes to amend the 

Rule 6.6800 Series, the Exchange’s 

compliance rule (‘‘Compliance Rule’’) 

regarding the National Market System 

Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit 

Trail (the ‘‘CAT NMS Plan’’ or ‘‘Plan’’) 3

to be consistent with a conditional 

exemption granted by the Commission 

from certain allocation reporting 

requirements set forth in Sections 

6.4(d)(ii)(A)(1) and (2) of the CAT NMS 

Plan (‘‘Allocation Exemption’’).4 The 

proposed rule change is available on the 

Exchange’s website at www.nyse.com, at 

the principal office of the Exchange, 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 

self-regulatory organization 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 those 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 parts of such 

statements. 

A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and the 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

1. Purpose 

The purpose of this proposed rule 

change is to amend the Rule 6.6800 

Series to be consistent with the 

Allocation Exemption. The Commission 

granted the relief conditioned upon the 

Participants’ adoption of Compliance 

Rules that implement the alternative 

approach to reporting allocations to the 

Central Repository described in the 

Allocation Exemption (referred to as the 

‘‘Allocation Alternative’’). 

(1) Request for Exemptive Relief 

Pursuant to Section 6.4(d)(ii)(A) of the 

CAT NMS Plan, each Participant must, 

through its Compliance Rule, require its 

Industry Members to record and report 

to the Central Repository, if the order is 

executed, in whole or in part: (1) An 

Allocation Report; 5 (2) the SROAssigned Market Participant Identifier 

of the clearing broker or prime broker, 

if applicable; and the (3) CAT-Order-ID 

of any contra-side order(s). Accordingly, 

the Exchange and the other Participants 

implemented Compliance Rules that 

require their Industry Members that are 

executing brokers to submit to the 

Central Repository, among other things, 

Allocation Reports and the SROAssigned Market Participant Identifier 

of the clearing broker or prime broker, 

if applicable. 

On August 27, 2020, the Participants 

submitted to the Commission a request 

for an exemption from certain allocation 

reporting requirements set forth in 

Sections 6.4(d)(ii)(A)(1) and (2) of the 

CAT NMS Plan (‘‘Exemption 

Request’’).6 In the Exemption Request, 

the Participants requested that they be 

permitted to implement the Allocation 

Alternative, which, as noted above, is an 

alternative approach to reporting 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES