48260 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 164 / Friday, August 27, 2021 / Notices 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

3The term ‘‘Member’’ means an individual or 

organization approved to exercise the trading rights 

associated with a Trading Permit. Members are 

deemed ‘‘members’’ under the Exchange Act. See 

Exchange Rule 100. 

4Exchange participants must record the 

appropriate account origin code on all orders at the 

time of entry in order. The Exchange represents that 

it has surveillances in place to verify that Members 

mark orders with the correct account origin code. 

5 ‘‘CMTA’’ or Clearing Member Trade Assignment 

is a form of ‘‘give-up’’ whereby the position will be 

assigned to a specific clearing firm at OCC. 

6See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 85163 

(February 15, 2019), 84 FR 5798 (February 22, 2019) 

(SR–PEARL–2019–01); 85251 (March 6, 2019), 84 

FR 8931 (March 12, 2019) (SR–EMERALD–2019– 

01). 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–92725; File No. SR–MIAX– 

2021–38] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations: Miami 

International Securities Exchange LLC; 

Notice of Filing and Immediate 

Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule 

Change To Amend Its Fee Schedule To 

Adjust the Options Regulatory Fee 

August 23, 2021. 

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 August 

12, 2021, Miami International Securities 

Exchange LLC (‘‘MIAX’’ or ‘‘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 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 Options Fee Schedule 

(the ‘‘Fee Schedule’’) to adjust the 

Options Regulatory Fee (‘‘ORF’’). 

The text of the proposed rule change 

is available on the Exchange’s website at 

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

Currently, the Exchange assesses ORF 

in the amount of $0.0029 per contract 

side. The Exchange proposes to reduce 

the amount of ORF from $0.0029 per 

contract side to $0.0019 per contract 

side in order to help ensure that revenue 

collected from the ORF, in combination 

with other regulatory fees and fines, 

does not exceed the Exchange’s total 

regulatory costs. The Exchange’s 

proposed change to the ORF should 

balance the Exchange’s regulatory 

revenue against the anticipated 

regulatory costs. The Exchange initially 

filed this proposal on July 30, 2021 (SR– 

MIAX–2021–36) and withdrew such 

filing on August 12, 2021. The Exchange 

proposes to implement the fee change 

effective August 12, 2021. 

Collection of ORF 

Currently, the Exchange assesses the 

per-contract ORF to each Member 3 for 

all options transactions, including Mini 

Options, cleared or ultimately cleared 

by the Member, which are cleared by 

the Options Clearing Corporation 

(‘‘OCC’’) in the ‘‘customer’’ range,4

regardless of the exchange on which the 

transaction occurs. The ORF is collected 

by OCC on behalf of the Exchange from 

either: (1) A Member that was the 

ultimate clearing firm for the 

transaction; or (2) a non-Member that 

was the ultimate clearing firm where a 

Member was the executing clearing firm 

for the transaction. The Exchange uses 

reports from OCC to determine the 

identity of the executing clearing firm 

and ultimate clearing firm. 

To illustrate how the Exchange 

assesses and collects ORF, the Exchange 

provides the following set of examples. 

For a transaction that is executed on the 

Exchange and the ORF is assessed, if 

there is no change to the clearing 

account of the original transaction, then 

the ORF is collected from the Member 

that is the executing clearing firm for 

the transaction (the Exchange notes that, 

for purposes of the Fee Schedule, when 

there is no change to the clearing 

account of the original transaction, the 

executing clearing firm is deemed to be 

the ultimate clearing firm). If there is a 

change to the clearing account of the 

original transaction (i.e., the executing 

clearing firm ‘‘gives-up’’ or ‘‘CMTAs’’ 5

the transaction to another clearing firm), 

then the ORF is collected from the 

clearing firm that ultimately clears the 

transaction—the ‘‘ultimate clearing 

firm.’’ The ultimate clearing firm may be 

either a Member or non-Member of the 

Exchange. If the transaction is executed 

on an away exchange and the ORF is 

assessed, then the ORF is collected from 

the ultimate clearing firm for the 

transaction. Again, the ultimate clearing 

firm may be either a Member or nonMember of the Exchange. The Exchange 

notes, however, that when the 

transaction is executed on an away 

exchange, the Exchange does not assess 

the ORF when neither the executing 

clearing firm nor the ultimate clearing 

firm is a Member (even if a Member is 

‘‘given-up’’ or ‘‘CMTAed’’ and then 

such Member subsequently ‘‘gives-up’’ 

or ‘‘CMTAs’’ the transaction to another 

non-Member via a CMTA reversal). 

Finally, the Exchange does not assess 

the ORF on outbound linkage trades, 

whether executed at the Exchange or an 

away exchange. ‘‘Linkage trades’’ are 

tagged in the Exchange’s system, so the 

Exchange can readily tell them apart 

from other trades. A customer order 

routed to another exchange results in 

two customer trades, one from the 

originating exchange and one from the 

recipient exchange. Charging ORF on 

both trades could result in doublebilling of ORF for a single customer 

order; thus, the Exchange does not 

assess ORF on outbound linkage trades 

in a linkage scenario. This assessment 

practice is identical to the assessment 

practice currently utilized by the 

Exchange’s affiliates, MIAX PEARL, LLC 

(‘‘MIAX Pearl’’) and MIAX Emerald, 

LLC (‘‘MIAX Emerald’’).6

As a practical matter, when a 

transaction that is subject to the ORF is 

not executed on the Exchange, the 

Exchange lacks the information 

necessary to identify the order-entering 

member for that transaction. There are 

a multitude of order-entering market 

participants throughout the industry, 

and such participants can make changes 

to the market centers to which they 

connect, including dropping their 

connection to one market center and 

establishing themselves as participants 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 164 / Friday, August 27, 2021 / Notices 48261 

7See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 91418 

(March 26, 2021), 86 FR 17254 (April 1, 2021) (SR– 

Phlx–2021–16) (reducing the Nasdaq PHLX LLC 

ORF and estimating direct expenses at 58% and 

indirect expenses at 42%); 91420 (March 26, 2021), 

86 FR 17223 (April 1, 2021) (SR–ISE–2021–04) 

(reducing the Nasdaq ISE, LLC ORF and estimating 

direct expenses at 58% and indirect expenses at 

42%). 

8See https://www.miaxoptions.com/sites/default/ 

files/circular-files/MIAX_Options_RC_2021_36.pdf. 

9See data from OCC at: https://

www.businesswire.com/news/home/ 

20210504005178/en/OCC-April-2021-TotalVolume-Up-29.7-Percent-from-a-Year-Ago, https://

www.businesswire.com/news/home/ 

20210602005174/en/OCC-May-2021-Total-VolumeUp-32.7-Percent-from-a-Year-Ago, and https://

apnews.com/press-release/business-wire/ 

778385e696f4407590cc6ff9cb64db03. 

10The Exchange notes that notwithstanding the 

potential excess ORF revenue the Exchange 

anticipates it would collect utilizing the current 

rate, it would not use such revenue for nonregulatory purposes. 

11The Exchange notes that its regulatory 

responsibilities with respect to Member compliance 

with options sales practice rules have been 

allocated to the Financial Industry Regulatory 

Authority (‘‘FINRA’’) under a 17d–2 Agreement. 

The ORF is not designed to cover the cost of options 

sales practice regulation. 

on another. For these reasons, it is not 

possible for the Exchange to identify, 

and thus assess fees such as ORF, on 

order-entering participants on away 

markets on a given trading day. Clearing 

members, however, are distinguished 

from order-entering participants because 

they remain identified to the Exchange 

on information the Exchange receives 

from OCC regardless of the identity of 

the order-entering participant, their 

location, and the market center on 

which they execute transactions. 

Therefore, the Exchange believes it is 

more efficient for the operation of the 

Exchange and for the marketplace as a 

whole to collect the ORF from clearing 

members. 

ORF Revenue and Monitoring of ORF 

The Exchange monitors the amount of 

revenue collected from the ORF to 

ensure that it, in combination with other 

regulatory fees and fines, does not 

exceed regulatory costs. In determining 

whether an expense is considered a 

regulatory cost, the Exchange reviews 

all costs and makes determinations if 

there is a nexus between the expense 

and a regulatory function. The Exchange 

notes that fines collected by the 

Exchange in connection with a 

disciplinary matter offset ORF. 

As discussed below, the Exchange 

believes it is appropriate to charge the 

ORF only to transactions that clear as 

customer at the OCC. The Exchange 

believes that its broad regulatory 

responsibilities with respect to a 

Member’s activities supports applying 

the ORF to transactions cleared but not 

executed by a Member. The Exchange’s 

regulatory responsibilities are the same 

regardless of whether a Member enters 

a transaction or clears a transaction 

executed on its behalf. The Exchange 

regularly reviews all such activities, 

including performing surveillance for 

position limit violations, manipulation, 

front-running, contrary exercise advice 

violations and insider trading. These 

activities span across multiple 

exchanges. 

Revenue generated from ORF, when 

combined with all of the Exchange’s 

other regulatory fees and fines, is 

designed to recover a material portion of 

the regulatory costs to the Exchange of 

the supervision and regulation of 

Members’ customer options business 

including performing routine 

surveillances, investigations, 

examinations, financial monitoring, and 

policy, rulemaking, interpretive, and 

enforcement activities. Regulatory costs 

include direct regulatory expenses and 

certain indirect expenses in support of 

the regulatory function. The direct 

expenses include in-house and third 

party service provider costs to support 

the day-to-day regulatory work such as 

surveillances, investigations and 

examinations. The indirect expenses 

include support from such areas as the 

Office of the General Counsel, 

technology, and internal audit. Indirect 

expenses are estimated to be 

approximately 48% of the total 

regulatory costs for 2021. Thus, direct 

expenses are estimated to be 

approximately 52% of total regulatory 

costs for 2021. The Exchange notes that 

its estimated direct and indirect expense 

percentages are in the range and similar 

to those at other options exchanges.7

The ORF is designed to recover a 

material portion of the costs to the 

Exchange of the supervision and 

regulation of its members, including 

performing routine surveillances, 

investigations, examinations, financial 

monitoring, and policy, rulemaking, 

interpretive, and enforcement activities. 

Proposal 

Based on the Exchange’s most recent 

review, the Exchange proposes to 

reduce the amount of ORF that will be 

collected by the Exchange from $0.0029 

per contract side to $0.0019 per contract 

side. The Exchange issued an Options 

Regulatory Fee Announcement on July 

2, 2021, indicating the proposed rate 

change for August 1, 2021.8

The proposed decrease is based on 

recent options volumes, which included 

an increase in retail investors. With 

respect to options volume, the 

Exchange, and the options industry as a 

whole, experienced a significant 

increase between 2020 and 2021. For 

example, total options contract volumes 

in April, May and June 2021 were 

29.7%, 32.7% and 25.6% higher than 

the total options contract volumes in 

April, May and June 2020, respectively.9

There can be no assurance that the 

Exchange’s final costs for 2021 will not 

differ materially from these 

expectations, nor can the Exchange 

predict with certainty whether options 

volume will remain at the current level 

going forward. The Exchange notes 

however, that when combined with 

regulatory fees and fines, the revenue 

being generated utilizing the current 

ORF rate may result in revenue that will 

run in excess of the Exchange’s 

estimated regulatory costs for the year.10

Particularly, as noted above, the options 

market has seen a substantial increase in 

volume throughout 2020 and 2021, due 

in large part to the extreme volatility in 

the marketplace as a result of the 

COVID–19 pandemic. This 

unprecedented spike in volatility 

resulted in significantly higher volume 

than was originally projected by the 

Exchange (thereby resulting in 

substantially higher ORF revenue than 

projected). The Exchange therefore 

proposes to decrease the ORF in order 

to ensure it does not exceed its 

regulatory costs for the year. 

Particularly, the Exchange believes that 

decreasing the ORF when combined 

with all of the Exchange’s other 

regulatory fees and fines, would allow 

the Exchange to continue covering a 

material portion of its regulatory costs, 

while lessening the potential for 

generating excess revenue that may 

otherwise occur using the current rate.11

The Exchange will continue to 

monitor the amount of revenue 

collected from the ORF to ensure that it, 

in combination with its other regulatory 

fees and fines, does not exceed the 

Exchange’s total regulatory costs. The 

Exchange will continue to monitor 

MIAX regulatory costs and revenues at 

a minimum on a semi-annual basis. If 

the Exchange determines regulatory 

revenues exceed or are insufficient to 

cover a material portion of its regulatory 

costs, the Exchange will adjust the ORF 

by submitting a fee change filing to the 

Commission. The Exchange will notify 

Members of adjustments to the ORF via 

regulatory circular at least 30 days prior 

to the effective date of the change. 

In connection with this filing, the 

Exchange notes that its affiliates, MIAX 

Pearl and MIAX Emerald, will also be 

adjusting the ORF fees that each of those 

exchanges charge. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
48262 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 164 / Friday, August 27, 2021 / Notices 

12 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 13 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). 

14 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 

15 If the OCC clearing member is an Exchange 

Member, ORF is assessed and collected on all 

cleared customer contracts (after adjustment for 

CMTA); and if the OCC clearing member is not an 

Exchange Member, ORF is collected only on the 

cleared customer contracts executed at the 

Exchange, taking into account any CMTA 

instructions which may result in collecting the ORF 

from a non-Member. 

16When a transaction is executed on an away 

exchange, the Exchange does not assess the ORF 

when neither the executing clearing firm nor the 

ultimate clearing firm is a Member (even if a 

Member is ‘‘given-up’’ or ‘‘CMTAed’’ and then such 

Member subsequently ‘‘gives-up’’ or ‘‘CMTAs’’ the 

transaction to another non-Member via a CMTA 

reversal). 

2. Statutory Basis 

The Exchange believes that its 

proposal to amend its Fee Schedule is 

consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 12

in general, and furthers the objectives of 

Section 6(b)(4) of the Act 13 in 

particular, in that it is an equitable 

allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and 

other charges among its members and 

issuers and other persons using its 

facilities. The Exchange also believes 

the proposal furthers the objectives of 

Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 14 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 and is not designed to 

permit unfair discrimination between 

customers, issuers, brokers and dealers. 

The Exchange believes the proposed 

fee change is reasonable because 

customer transactions will be subject to 

a lower ORF fee than the current rate. 

Moreover, the proposed reduction is 

necessary in order for the Exchange to 

not collect revenue in excess of its 

anticipated regulatory costs, in 

combination with other regulatory fees 

and fines, which is consistent with the 

Exchange’s practices. 

The ORF is designed to recover a 

material portion of the costs of 

supervising and regulating Members’ 

customer options business including 

performing routine surveillances and 

investigations, as well as policy, 

rulemaking, interpretive and 

enforcement activities. The Exchange 

will monitor the amount of revenue 

collected from the ORF to ensure that it, 

in combination with its other regulatory 

fees and fines, does not exceed the 

Exchange’s total regulatory costs. The 

Exchange has designed the ORF to 

generate revenues that, when combined 

with all of the Exchange’s other 

regulatory fees, will be less than or 

equal to the Exchange’s regulatory costs, 

which is consistent with the 

Commission’s view that regulatory fees 

be used for regulatory purposes and not 

to support the Exchange’s business side. 

In this regard, the Exchange believes 

that the proposed decrease to the fee is 

reasonable. 

The Exchange believes that 

continuing to limit changes to the ORF 

to twice a year on specific dates with 

advance notice is reasonable because it 

gives participants certainty on the 

timing of changes, if any, and better 

enables them to properly account for 

ORF charges among their customers. 

The Exchange believes that continuing 

to limit changes to the ORF to twice a 

year on specific dates is equitable and 

not unfairly discriminatory because it 

will apply in the same manner to all 

Members that are subject to the ORF and 

provide them with additional advance 

notice of changes to that fee. 

The Exchange believes that collecting 

the ORF from non-Members when such 

non-Members ultimately clear the 

transaction (that is, when the nonMember is the ‘‘ultimate clearing firm’’ 

for a transaction in which a Member 

was assessed the ORF) is an equitable 

allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and 

other charges among its members and 

issuers and other persons using its 

facilities. The Exchange notes that there 

is a material distinction between 

‘‘assessing’’ the ORF and ‘‘collecting’’ 

the ORF. The ORF is only assessed to 

a Member with respect to a particular 

transaction in which it is either the 

executing clearing firm or ultimate 

clearing firm. The Exchange does not 

assess the ORF to non-Members. Once, 

however, the ORF is assessed to a 

Member for a particular transaction, the 

ORF may be collected from the Member 

or a non-Member, depending on how 

the transaction is cleared at OCC. If 

there was no change to the clearing 

account of the original transaction, the 

ORF would be collected from the 

Member. If there was a change to the 

clearing account of the original 

transaction and a non-Member becomes 

the ultimate clearing firm for that 

transaction, then the ORF will be 

collected from that non-Member. The 

Exchange believes that this collection 

practice continues to be reasonable and 

appropriate, and was originally 

instituted for the benefit of clearing 

firms that desired to have the ORF be 

collected from the clearing firm that 

ultimately clears the transaction. 

The Exchange designed the ORF so 

that revenue generated from the ORF, in 

combination with its other regulatory 

fees and fines, does not exceed 

regulatory costs, which is consistent 

with the view of the Commission that 

regulatory fees be used for regulatory 

purposes and not to support the 

Exchange’s business operations. As 

discussed above, however, after review 

of its regulatory costs and regulatory 

revenues, which includes revenues from 

ORF and other regulatory fees and fines, 

the Exchange determined that absent a 

reduction in ORF, it may be collecting 

revenue in excess of its regulatory costs. 

Indeed, the Exchange notes that when 

taking into account the recent options 

volume, which included an increase in 

customer options transactions, it 

estimates the ORF will generate 

revenues that may cover more than the 

approximated Exchange’s projected 

regulatory costs. Moreover, when 

coupled with the Exchange’s other 

regulatory fees and revenues, the 

Exchange estimates ORF to generate 

over 100% of the Exchange’s projected 

regulatory costs. As such, the Exchange 

believes it is reasonable and appropriate 

to decrease the ORF amount from 

$0.0029 to $0.0019 per contract side. 

The Exchange also believes the 

proposed fee change is equitable and 

not unfairly discriminatory in that it is 

charged to all Members on all their 

transactions that clear in the customer 

range at the OCC,15 with an exception.16

The Exchange believes the ORF ensures 

fairness by assessing higher fees to those 

members that require more Exchange 

regulatory services based on the amount 

of customer options business they 

conduct. Regulating customer trading 

activity is much more labor intensive 

and requires greater expenditure of 

human and technical resources than 

regulating non-customer trading 

activity, which tends to be more 

automated and less labor-intensive. For 

example, there are costs associated with 

main office and branch office 

examinations (e.g., staff expenses), as 

well as investigations into customer 

complaints and the terminations of 

registered persons. As a result, the costs 

associated with administering the 

customer component of the Exchange’s 

overall regulatory program are 

materially higher than the costs 

associated with administering the noncustomer component (e.g., member 

proprietary transactions) of its 

regulatory program. Moreover, the 

Exchange notes that it has broad 

regulatory responsibilities with respect 

to activities of its Members, irrespective 

of where their transactions take place. 

Many of the Exchange’s surveillance 

programs for customer trading activity 

may require the Exchange to look at 

activity across all markets, such as 

reviews related to position limit 

violations and manipulation. Indeed, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 164 / Friday, August 27, 2021 / Notices 48263 

17 ISG is an industry organization formed in 1983 

to coordinate intermarket surveillance among the 

SROs by cooperatively sharing regulatory 

information pursuant to a written agreement 

between the parties. The goal of the ISG’s 

information sharing is to coordinate regulatory 

efforts to address potential intermarket trading 

abuses and manipulations. 

18 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 

19 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(2). 

20 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

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

4 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). 

the Exchange cannot effectively review 

for such conduct without looking at and 

evaluating activity regardless of where it 

transpires. In addition to its own 

surveillance programs, the Exchange 

also works with other SROs and 

exchanges on intermarket surveillance 

related issues. Through its participation 

in the Intermarket Surveillance Group 

(‘‘ISG’’) 17 the Exchange shares 

information and coordinates inquiries 

and investigations with other exchanges 

designed to address potential 

intermarket manipulation and trading 

abuses. Accordingly, there is a strong 

nexus between the ORF and the 

Exchange’s regulatory activities with 

respect to customer trading activity of 

its Members. 

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. This 

proposal does not create an unnecessary 

or inappropriate intra-market burden on 

competition because the ORF applies to 

all customer activity, thereby raising 

regulatory revenue to offset regulatory 

expenses. It also supplements the 

regulatory revenue derived from noncustomer activity. The Exchange notes, 

however, the proposed change is not 

designed to address any competitive 

issues. Indeed, this proposal does not 

create an unnecessary or inappropriate 

inter-market burden on competition 

because it is a regulatory fee that 

supports regulation in furtherance of the 

purposes of the Act. The Exchange is 

obligated to ensure that the amount of 

regulatory revenue collected from the 

ORF, in combination with its other 

regulatory fees and fines, does not 

exceed regulatory costs. 

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Comments on the 

Proposed Rule Change Received From 

Members, Participants, or Others 

Written comments were neither 

solicited nor 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 Act,18 and Rule 

19b–4(f)(2) 19 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 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 No. SR– 

MIAX–2021–38 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 No. 

SR–MIAX–2021–38. 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 

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 No. 

SR–MIAX–2021–38, and should be 

submitted on or before September 17, 

2021. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.20

Jill M. Peterson, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2021–18461 Filed 8–26–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–92729; File No. SR–CBOE– 

2021–047] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe 

Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and 

Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed 

Rule Change Relating To Amend Rule 

5.33 

August 23, 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 August 

10, 2021, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the 

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

with the Securities and Exchange 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) the 

proposed rule change as described in 

Items I and II below, which Items have 

been prepared by the Exchange. The 

Exchange filed the proposal pursuant to 

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

or ‘‘Cboe Options’’) proposes to amend 

Rule 5.33. The text of the proposed rule 

change is provided in Exhibit 5. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1