Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 23 / Friday, February 5, 2021 / Notices 8413 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

Agency name Organization name Position title Authorization 

No. Effective date 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 

(Legislative Affairs).

Special Advisor (2) ......................... DY200032 

DY200021 

01/24/2020 

12/19/2019 

Special Assistant ............................ DY190091 07/29/2019 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 

(Public Affairs).

Confidential Assistant .....................

Director of Public Affairs (Digital 

Strategies).

DY190101 

DY190090 

08/26/2019 

07/29/2019 

Director, Public Affairs (Terrorism 

and Financial Intelligence).

DY200014 11/20/2019 

Public Affairs Specialist .................. DY200090 05/13/2020 

Senior Advisor ................................ DY190100 08/21/2019 

Special Assistant for Public Affairs DY200091 05/13/2020 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 

(Tax Policy).

Senior Advisor for Tax Policy ......... DY200094 05/13/2020 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 

for Financial Institutions.

Senior Advisor for Financial Institutions.DY200101 05/31/2020 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 

for Financial Markets.

Special Advisor for Financial Markets.DY200093 05/13/2020 

Special Advisor ............................... DY200005 10/29/2019 

Office of the General Counsel ....... Special Assistant ............................ DY200017 12/03/2019 

Secretary of the Treasury .............. Advance Representative ................ DY200030 01/10/2020 

Associate Director of Scheduling 

and Advance.

DY190086 07/11/2019 

Special Advisor (2) ......................... DY200078 

DY200012 

04/13/2020 

11/12/2019 

Special Assistant (2) ...................... DY200041 

DY200075 

01/30/2020 

04/02/2020 

White House Liaison ...................... DY200073 03/23/2020 

Treasurer of the United States ....... Senior Advisor ................................ DY200033 01/16/2020 

Office of the Under Secretary for 

International Affairs.

Special Assistant ............................

Special Advisor ...............................

DY190102 

DY190120 

08/26/2019 

10/01/2019 

Office of the Under Secretary for 

Terrorism and Financial Intelligence.

Special Assistant ............................ DY200042 01/22/2020 

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION.Office of the Chairman ................... Confidential Assistant ..................... TC190006 08/06/2019 

Office of Commissioner Johanson Staff Assistant ................................ TC190005 08/07/2019 

Office of Commissioner Stayin ....... Staff Assistant (Legal) .................... TC200001 10/22/2019 

Office of Commissioner 

Schmidtlein.

Staff Assistant (Legal) .................... TC200003 10/22/2019 

Office of Commissioner Karpel ...... Staff Assistant (Legal) .................... TC200006 12/03/2019 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS.

Board of Veterans’ Appeals ...........

Office of Public Affairs ....................

Senior Advisor ................................

Press Secretary ..............................

DV200060 

DV190078 

05/12/2020 

07/23/2019 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 

for Congressional and Legislative Affairs.

Special Advisor ............................... DV200048 03/18/2020 

Special Assistant ............................ DV200011 11/20/2019 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 

for Public and Intergovernmental 

Affairs.

Director of Media Affairs ................ DV190086 09/30/2019 

Office of the General Counsel ....... Special Assistant (Attorney Advisor).DV200003 10/11/2019 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 3301 and 3302; 

E.O.10577, 3 CFR, 1954–1958 Comp., p.218. 

Office of Personnel Management. 

Alexys Stanley, 

Regulatory Affairs Analyst. 

[FR Doc. 2021–02257 Filed 2–4–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6325–39–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–91028; File No. SR–CBOE– 

2021–008] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe 

Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and 

Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed 

Rule Change To Amend Its Fee 

Schedule 

February 1, 2021. 

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 January 

19, 2021, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the 

‘‘Exchange’’ or ‘‘Cboe Options’’) filed 

with the Securities and Exchange 

Commission (‘‘SEC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) 

the proposed rule change as described 

in Items I, II, and III below, which Items 

have been prepared by the Exchange. 

The Commission is publishing this 

notice to solicit comments on the 

proposed rule change from interested 

persons. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
8414 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 23 / Friday, February 5, 2021 / Notices 

3See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88447 

(March 20, 2020), 85 FR 17129 (March 26, 2020) 

(CBOE–2020–023). 

4See Cboe Options Fees Schedule, ‘‘Rate Table— 

Underlying Symbol List A’’, which assesses an SPX 

Execution Surcharge of $0.21 per contract and a 

SPXW Execution Surcharge of $0.13 per contract for 

non-Market Maker orders in SPX and SPXW, 

respectively. 

5See Securities Exchange Act Release No. [sic] 

6See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89768 

(September 4, 2020), 85 FR 55869 (September 10, 

2020) (SR–CBOE–2020–060). 

7Footnote 12 also provides that contracts 

executed as an RFC order during a time when the 

Exchange operates in a screen-based only 

environment will not count towards the 1,000 

contract thresholds for the SPX/SPXW, VIX and 

RUT Tier Appointment Fees. The Exchange notes 

that the proposed rule change does not amend this 

exclusion applicable during which the trading floor 

may be inoperable because if the trading floor 

become inoperable then a TPH would only have the 

option of using electronic RFC orders, which may 

cause a TPH to hit the Electronic Tier Appointment 

surcharge where a TPH may not have hit the 

threshold before when using the trading floor to 

execute RFC orders. 

8The proposed rule change appends footnote 21 

to the RFC Execution Surcharge Fee in the ‘‘Rate 

Table—Underlying Symbol List A’’ section of the 

Fees Schedule. 

9The proposed rule change appends footnote 25 

to the RFC Execution Surcharge Fee in the ‘‘Rate 

Table—Underlying Symbol List A’’ section of the 

Fees Schedule. 

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Terms of Substance of 

the Proposed Rule Change 

Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ‘‘Exchange’’ 

or ‘‘Cboe Options’’) proposes to amend 

its Fees Schedule. The text of the 

proposed rule change is provided in 

Exhibit 5. 

The text of the proposed rule change 

is also available on the Exchange’s 

website (http://www.cboe.com/ 

AboutCBOE/ 

CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at 

the Exchange’s Office of the Secretary, 

and at the Commission’s Public 

Reference Room. 

II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

In its filing with the Commission, the 

Exchange included statements 

concerning the purpose of and basis for 

the proposed rule change and discussed 

any comments it received on the 

proposed rule change. The text of these 

statements may be examined at the 

places specified in Item IV below. The 

Exchange has prepared summaries, set 

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

the most significant aspects of such 

statements. 

A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

1. Purpose 

The Exchange proposes to amend its 

Fees Schedule in connection with 

Related Future Cross (‘‘RFC’’) orders, 

effective January 19, 2021. 

By way of background, from March 16 

to June 12, 2020, the Exchange closed its 

trading floor in response to the 

coronavirus pandemic. As a result, the 

Exchange operated in an all-electronic 

configuration. Because the trading floor 

was closed during this time, floor 

brokers could not execute crosses of 

option combos (i.e., synthetic futures) 

on the trading floor on behalf of market 

participants who were exchanging 

futures contracts in either VIX or SPX 

for related options positions in order to 

swap related exposures, and there was 

no means to electronically pair and 

execute the options legs of these 

transactions on the Exchange. To enable 

Trading Permit Holders (‘‘TPHs’’) to 

execute the options part of these 

transactions when the floor was closed, 

the Exchange adopted the electronic 

RFC order type for when the trading 

floor facilities were inoperable.3

Footnote 12 of the Fees Schedule was 

also amended to, among other things, (1) 

provide a waiver for SPX/SPXW 

Execution Surcharges 4 for RFC orders, 

and (2) adopt an RFC Execution 

Surcharge for all SPX/SPXW and VIX 

initiating orders, applicable while the 

trading floor remained inoperable.5

More specifically, pursuant to the 

Underlying Symbol List A Rate Table in 

the Fees Schedule, a $0.05 per contract 

fee is assessed for SPX and SPXW RFC 

initiating orders and a $0.04 per 

contract fee is assessed for VIX RFC 

initiating orders while the trading floor 

is inoperable. 

After the Exchange reopened its 

trading floor, the Exchange submitted a 

rule filing which permanently adopted 

RFC orders for trading in the Exchange’s 

normal hybrid trading environment 

under Rule 5.33(b)(5).6 The Exchange 

plans to launch the RFC order type for 

its normal hybrid trading environment 

on January 19, 2021. For purposes of 

electronic trading, an RFC order is an 

SPX or VIX complex order comprised of 

an option combo order coupled with a 

contra-side order or orders totaling an 

equal number of option combo orders. 

For purposes of open outcry trading, an 

RFC order is an SPX or VIX complex 

order comprised of an option combo 

that may execute against a contra-side 

RFC order or orders totaling an equal 

number of option combo orders. An RFC 

order must be identified to the Exchange 

as being part of an exchange of option 

contracts for related futures positions. 

The Exchange proposes to amend the 

Fees Schedule in light of the adoption 

of RFC orders on a permanent basis. As 

noted above, footnote 12 currently 

provides that the SPX and SPXW 

Execution Surcharges will be waived for 

SPX/SPXW RFC orders, and that the 

RFC Execution Surcharge for SPX/ 

SPXW and VIX will apply to all SPX/ 

SPXW and VIX RFC initiating orders, 

only when the trading floor is 

inoperable.7 The proposed rule change 

removes the SPX/SPXW Execution 

Surcharge waiver language in 

connection with RFC orders from 

footnote 12 and relocates it to footnote 

21, which footnote sets forth other 

exceptions to the SPX and SPXW 

Execution Surcharges.8 Particularly, the 

Exchange proposes to relocate the 

language as the waiver will now apply 

at all times (once the RFC order type is 

implemented on the Exchange), as RFC 

orders will be available at all times 

rather than only when the trading floor 

is inoperable. Additionally, the 

Exchange believes it is appropriate to 

include the waiver language in a 

footnote that already contains other 

exceptions to the SPX and SPXW 

Execution Surcharges. Specifically, 

footnote 25 as proposed provides that 

all electronic executions in SPX, SPXW 

and SPESG shall be assessed the SPX, 

SPXW and SPESG Execution Surcharge, 

respectively, except that this fee shall 

not apply to SPX/SPXW Related Future 

Cross (‘‘RFC’’) orders (among the current 

list of other orders). Likewise, the 

proposed rule change also removes the 

language from footnote 12 providing 

that the RFC Execution Surcharge for 

SPX/SPXW and VIX RFC initiating 

orders will apply to all SPX/SPXW and 

VIC RFC initiating orders, and relocates 

it to new footnote 25, as the RFC 

Execution Surcharges will now apply at 

all times.9 As a result of the proposed 

relocation of the RFC execution 

surcharge language from footnote 12 to 

footnote 25, the proposed rule change 

also removes footnote 12 appended to 

the RFC Execution Surcharge Fee in the 

‘‘Rate Table—Underlying Symbol List 

A’’ section of the Fees Schedule. The 

Exchange notes that the proposed rule 

change does not alter the current waiver 

language or surcharge rates already in 

place pursuant to footnote 12 for 

transactions in temporary RFC orders 

(while the Exchange’s trading floor was 

inoperable), but merely removes the 

applicable RFC waiver and execution 

surcharge language in footnote 12 and 

relocates it to footnotes 21 and 25, 

respectively so that the same waiver and 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 23 / Friday, February 5, 2021 / Notices 8415 

10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 

11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 

12 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). 

13See Cboe Options Fees Schedule, ‘‘Rate Table— 

Underlying Symbol List A’’, which assesses a VIX 

Customer Priority Surcharge of $0.20 per contract, 

and AIM Surcharge fees (while the trading floor is 

operating in an all-electronic environment) ranging 

between $0.04 and $0.10 per contract depending on 

the type of AIM order and options class (i.e., SPX, 

SPXW, SPESG or VIX). 

14 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 15 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f). 

surcharge rates may apply to permanent 

RFC orders trading in the Exchange’s 

normal hybrid environment. 

2. Statutory Basis 

The Exchange believes the proposed 

rule change is consistent with the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 

‘‘Act’’) and the rules and regulations 

thereunder applicable to the Exchange 

and, in particular, the requirements of 

Section 6(b) of the Act.10 Specifically, 

the Exchange believes the proposed rule 

change is consistent with the Section 

6(b)(5) 11 requirements that the rules of 

an exchange be designed to prevent 

fraudulent and manipulative acts and 

practices, to promote just and equitable 

principles of trade, to foster cooperation 

and coordination with persons engaged 

in regulating, clearing, settling, 

processing information with respect to, 

and facilitating transactions in 

securities, to remove impediments to 

and perfect the mechanism of a free and 

open market and a national market 

system, and, in general, to protect 

investors and the public interest. 

Additionally, the Exchange believes the 

proposed rule change is consistent with 

Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,12 which 

requires that Exchange rules provide for 

the equitable allocation of reasonable 

dues, fees, and other charges among its 

Trading Permit Holders and other 

persons using its facilities. 

The Exchange believes the proposed 

rule change is consistent with the Act, 

in that, it is reasonable, equitable and 

not unfairly discriminatory. The 

proposed rule change is reasonable 

because it does not alter the SPX/SPXW 

Execution Surcharge fee waiver and 

SPX/SPXW and VIX RFC Execution 

Surcharges currently applicable to RFC 

orders (while the trading floor may be 

inoperable), but merely updates the 

waiver and surcharge language to 

appropriately reflect its application to 

the permanent RFC orders recently 

adopted by the Exchange. The Exchange 

believes that, generally, the SPX/SPXW 

Execution Surcharge waiver in place for 

RFC orders is reasonable and equitable 

because it will encourage market 

participants to submit volume executed 

as RFC orders both electronically and on 

the trading floor, assisting the Exchange 

in maintaining a robust hybrid 

environment. Also, the Exchange 

believes that, generally, the RFC 

Execution Surcharges currently in place 

are reasonable and equitable, as they are 

generally in line with or lower than 

other execution surcharges assessed 

under the Fees Schedule,13 and are less 

than the SPX/SPXW Execution 

Surcharges ($0.21 and $0.13, 

respectively) that will ultimately be 

waived for RFC transactions. Finally, 

the Exchange believes that the proposed 

rule change is equitable and not unfairly 

discriminatory because the SPX/SPXW 

Execution Surcharge waiver and the 

RFC Execution Surcharge will continue 

to apply in the same uniform manner for 

the same transactions, both 

electronically and in open outcry, for all 

TPHs that submit RFC orders to the 

Exchange. 

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 intramarket or 

intermarket competition that is not 

necessary or appropriate in furtherance 

of the purposes of the Act. 

The Exchange does not believe that 

the proposed rule change will impose 

any burden on intramarket competition 

that is not necessary or appropriate in 

furtherance of the purposes of the Act 

because the SPX/SPXW Execution 

Surcharge waiver and the RFC 

Execution Surcharges will continue to 

apply to all TPHs that submit RFC 

orders to the Exchange as it does today, 

and will uniformly apply to RFC orders 

executed electronically and in open 

outcry. The Exchange does not believe 

that the proposed rule change will 

impose any burden on intermarket 

competition that is not necessary or 

appropriate in furtherance of the 

purposes of the Act because the 

transaction fee waiver will continue to 

apply to RFC orders available only for 

Exchange proprietary products, SPX/ 

SPXW and VIX. 

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Comments on the 

Proposed Rule Change Received From 

Members, Participants, or Others 

The Exchange neither solicited nor 

received comments on the proposed 

rule change. 

III. Date of Effectiveness of the 

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for 

Commission Action 

The foregoing rule change has become 

effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) 

of the Act 14 and paragraph (f) of Rule 

19b–4 15 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– 

CBOE–2021–008 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–2021–008. This file 

number should be included on the 

subject line if email is used. To help the 

Commission process and review your 

comments more efficiently, please use 

only one method. The Commission will 

post all comments on the Commission’s 

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

rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the 

submission, all subsequent 

amendments, all written statements 

with respect to the proposed rule 

change that are filed with the 

Commission, and all written 

communications relating to the 

proposed rule change between the 

Commission and any person, other than 

those that may be withheld from the 

public in accordance with the 

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

available for website viewing and 

printing in the Commission’s Public 

Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20549 on official 

business days between the hours of 

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

filing also will be available for 

inspection and copying at the principal 

offices of the Exchange. All comments 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
8416 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 23 / Friday, February 5, 2021 / Notices 

16 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

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

2 15 U.S.C. 78a. 

3 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

4See Rule 6.86–O. See also Securities Exchange 

Act Release No. 55156 (January 23, 2007), 72 FR 

4759 (February 21, 2007) (SR–NYSEArca–2006–73) 

(order approving the Rule). 

5A series may be considered ‘‘active’’ on an 

intraday basis if: (i) The series trades at any options 

exchange; (ii) NYSE Arca receives an order in the 

series; or (iii) NYSE Arca receives a request for 

quote from a customer in that series.’’ See 

Commentary .03 to Rule 6.86–O. 

6See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54590 

(October 12, 2006), 71 FR 61525 (October 18, 2006) 

(SR–NYSEArca-2006–73) (notice regarding 

proposed adoption of the Rule) (‘‘Notice’’). See also 

Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88532 (April 

1, 2020), 85 FR 19545 (April 7, 2020) (File No. 4– 

443) (order approving Amendment No. 5 to the Plan 

for the Purpose of Developing and Implementing 

Procedures to Facilitate the Listing and Trading of 

Standardized Options). 

7See id., Notice, 71 FR at 61527. For example, in 

2006–2007, OPRA had the capacity to process 

360,000 message per second and, at its peak 

message rate, the Exchange accounted for 15% of 

OPRA capacity, sending 55, 248 message per 

second for active series. 

8OPRA has delegated certain functions pertaining 

to planning the capacity of the OPRA System to an 

Independent System Capacity Advisor (‘‘ISCA’’) 

that ‘‘may provide less than all of the capacity that 

has been requested if it determines (a) that the 

capacity requests of one or more of the parties are 

unreasonable, or (b) that it is not reasonable to 

develop or maintain a System that has capacity 

sufficient to satisfy the requests of the parties.’’ See 

the OPRA Capacity Guidelines, at p. 1, available 

here, https://assets.website-files.com/ 

5ba40927ac854d8c97bc92d7/ 

5bf419b52de21fff3e88107f_capacity_guidelines.pdf. 

The Exchange has never been informed by the ISCA 

that the capacity it has requested cannot be met for 

any reason, including because the ISCA had 

deemed the request to be unreasonable. Thus, the 

Exchange believes that any increase in quote traffic 

that might be sent to OPRA as a result of the current 

proposal should not impact any other exchange’s 

capacity at OPRA. 

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–2021–008, and 

should be submitted on or before 

February 26, 2021. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.16

J. Matthew DeLesDernier, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2021–02396 Filed 2–4–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–91038; File No. SR– 

NYSEArca–2021–09] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE 

Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed 

Rule Change To Amend Rule 6.86–O 

To Eliminate the Use of Dark Series on 

the Exchange 

February 1, 2021. 

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

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 

‘‘Act’’) 2 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,3

notice is hereby given that, on January 

26, 2021, NYSE Arca, Inc. (‘‘NYSE 

Arca’’ or the ‘‘Exchange’’) 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 self-regulatory 

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 

Rule 6.86–O (Firm Quotes) to eliminate 

the use of dark series on the Exchange. 

The proposed 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 rule change is to 

eliminate the exclusion of inactive or 

‘‘dark’’ series (as described below) from 

the requirements of Rule 6.86–O (Firm 

Quotes) and to delete in its entirety 

Commentary .03 to Rule 6.86–O in its 

entirety. 

Rule 6.86–O describes the obligations 

of the Exchange to collect, process and 

make available to quotation vendors the 

best bid and best offer for each option 

series that is a reported security.4

However, under Commentary .03 to 

Rule 6.86–O, the only quote messages 

that the Exchange sends to Options 

Price Reporting Authority (‘‘OPRA’’) are 

quotes for ‘‘active’’ series, which are 

defined as any series that: (i) Has traded 

on any options exchange in the previous 

14 calendar days; (ii) is solely listed on 

the Exchange; (iii) has been trading ten 

days or less; or (iv) is a series in which 

the Exchange has an order.5 Any 

options series that falls outside of the 

above categories of ‘‘active’’ series are 

deemed inactive or ‘‘dark’’ series. As 

such, under the Rule, the Exchange still 

accepts quotes from OTP Holders in 

these series; however, such quotes are 

not disseminated to OPRA. The 

Exchange proposes to modify Rule 6.86– 

O and to delete Commentary. 03 to Rule 

6.86–O to eliminate the use of ‘‘dark’’ 

series. 

By way of background, Commentary 

.03 to Rule 6.86 was adopted over a 

decade ago in connection with the 

Penny Pilot Program, which has since 

been made permanent.6 At that time, 

there were five options exchanges and 

an industry-wide concern about 

‘‘capacity issues related to excessive 

quoting rates.’’ 7 However, since that 

time, 11 new exchanges launched, 

resulting in a total 16 options 

exchanges. With the increase in the 

number of exchanges, and associated 

quote traffic, OPRA capacity has been 

increased without issue. 

As discussed further below, the 

Exchange believes that OPRA has the 

capacity to accommodate any increase 

in quote traffic from the Exchange 

arising from the publication of quotes in 

‘‘dark series.’’ As an OPRA participant, 

the Exchange makes capacity requests to 

OPRA. Notwithstanding Commentary 

.03 to Rule 6.86–O, when the Exchange 

makes capacity requests to OPRA, it has 

always factored the total quote traffic it 

receives from Market Makers, including 

quotes in dark series.8 In other words, 

the Exchange presumes that all series 

will be active and therefore requests 

capacity to accommodate sending 

quotes for all series to OPRA. As such, 

the Exchange does not believe the 

proposed rule change would impact or 

change its capacity requests to OPRA. 

Nor would it change the total amount of 

capacity needed at OPRA to 

accommodate quotes in dark series from 

the Exchange because those series have 

already been factored into the 

Exchange’s capacity requests to OPRA. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES