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
48264 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 164 / Friday, August 27, 2021 / Notices 

5See C2 Rule 5.33(a) (definition of complex 

strategy, which permits the Exchange to limit the 

number of new complex strategies that may be in 

the System or entered for any EFID (which EFID 

limit would be the same for all Users) at a particular 

time). 

6See C2 Rule 5.33(a) (definition of SNBBO, 

which states that the NBBO for each component of 

a complex strategy establishes the best net bid and 

offer for a complex strategy). 

7Rule 1.5 states the Exchange announces to TPHs 

all determinations it makes pursuant to the Rules 

via specifications, notices, or regulatory circulars 

with appropriate advanced notice, which are posted 

on the Exchange’s website or as otherwise provided 

in the Rules, among other manners of 

announcement. 

The text of the proposed rule change 

is also available on the Exchange’s 

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

AboutCBOE/CBOELegal

RegulatoryHome.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 

Rule 5.33 regarding complex orders. 

Specifically, the proposed rule change 

makes certain clarifying changes to add 

detail to the Rule and nonsubstantive 

changes, including to make certain 

provisions plain English and to conform 

certain language in the rule to that in 

corresponding rules of its affiliated 

options exchanges, Cboe EDGX 

Exchange, Inc. (‘‘EDGX’’) Rule 21.20 and 

Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (‘‘C2’’) Rule 

5.33. 

First, the Exchange proposes to make 

the following clarifying or codifying 

changes: 

• The definition of ‘‘complex 

strategy’’ in Rule 5.33(a) currently 

provides that the Exchange may limit 

the number of new complex strategies 

that may be in the System at a particular 

time. The proposed rule change codifies 

that the Exchange may also limit the 

number of new complex strategies that 

may be entered for any EFID (which 

EFID limit would be the same for all 

users) at a particular time. This 

proposed change is identical to the 

definition of ‘‘complex strategy’’ in C2 

Rule 5.33(a).5 Similar to the authority 

for the Exchange to limit the number of 

new complex strategies that may be in 

the System, the proposed rule change 

codifies another manner in which the 

Exchange may limit complex strategies 

in the System at a particular time. The 

Exchange believes limiting complex 

strategies per EFID will allow the 

Exchange to manage System capacity in 

a fair and reasonable manner by limiting 

each EFID to the same number of 

complex strategies they may have in the 

System at one time. 

• The proposed rule change specifies 

in the definition of each of ‘‘synthetic 

best bid or offer’’ (‘‘SBBO’’) and 

‘‘synthetic national best bid or offer’’ 

(‘‘SNBBO’’) that each is comprised of 

the best ‘‘net’’ bid and ‘‘net’’ offer (on 

the Exchange or nationally, 

respectively). The SBBO and SNBBO 

each use the BBO or NBBO, 

respectively, of each component to 

determine the best synthetic bid or offer, 

which is done by calculating the best 

net bid or offer. The proposed rule 

change merely clarifies that ‘‘netting’’ 

the BBOs or NBBOs, as applicable, is 

how the SBBO or SNBBO, respectively, 

is calculated. This proposed change is 

identical to the definition of ‘‘SNBBO’’ 

in C2 Rule 5.33(a).6

• In Rule 5.33(b)(2), the proposed rule 

change deletes the parenthetical after 

the term ‘‘Capacities,’’ which 

parenthetical states that Capacities 

means, in other words, non-brokerdealer customers, broker-dealers that are 

not maker-makers on an options 

exchange, or market-makers on an 

options exchange. The Rule does permit 

the Exchange to determine which 

Capacities are eligible for the complex 

order auction (‘‘COA’’) or for entry into 

the COB, but this parenthetical is not 

consistent with the definition of 

Capacities. Rule 1.1 defines ‘‘Capacity’’ 

as the capacity in which a user submits 

an order, which the user specifies by 

applying the corresponding code to the 

order. The Capacity codes available are: 

B (for the account of a broker or dealer), 

C (for the account of a public customer), 

F (for an OCC clearing member firm 

proprietary account), J (for a joint back 

office account), L (for the account of a 

non-Trading Permit Holder (‘‘TPH’’) 

affiliate), M (for the account of a MarketMaker), N (for the account of a marketmaker on another options exchange), 

and U (for the account of a 

professional). However, there is no 

Capacity code for the three categories 

listed in the parenthetical in Rule 

5.33(b)(2), so the proposed rule change 

deletes the inaccurate parenthetical to 

maintain consistency throughout the 

Rules. As noted above, the Exchange 

does determine which Capacities are 

eligible for COA or entry into the COB 

(which the Exchange previously 

announced to TPHs in accordance with 

Rule 1.5 7), so the proposed rule change 

has no impact on trading. 

• The proposed rule change changes 

the term ‘‘Queuing Period’’ to ‘‘order 

entry period’’ in Rule 5.33(c)(1). 

‘‘Queuing Period’’ is a defined term 

used for the Opening Process for simple 

orders set forth in Rule 5.31. The 

Queuing Period, as defined, is the time 

period prior to the initiation of an 

opening rotation during which the 

System accepts simple orders and 

quotes in the book for participation in 

the opening rotation for the applicable 

trading session—in other words, the 

order entry period. However, the COB 

Opening Process described in Rule 

5.33(c) differs from the Opening Process 

for simple orders described in Rule 

5.31—for example, there is no rotation 

(i.e., auction)—and does not use the 

same terminology. The proposed rule 

change merely updates Rule 5.33(c)(1) 

to use the appropriate terminology (as 

used in the heading for that 

subparagraph) for the COB Opening 

Process. 

• The proposed rule change amends 

Rule 5.33(d)(3)(B) and (C) (which 

describe certain circumstances that will 

cause the Response Time Interval of a 

COA to terminate early) to clarify that 

subparagraph (B) applies to the receipt 

of a non-Priority Customer Order in a 

leg of the complex order that would 

improve the SBBO on the same side as 

the COA-eligible order that initiated the 

COA. Subparagraph (C) explicitly 

applies to the receipt of a Priority 

Customer Order that would improve (or 

join) the SBBO on the same side as the 

COA-eligible order that initiated the 

COA. Currently, subparagraph (B) only 

references receipt of an order, but 

receipt of a Priority Customer Order is 

covered by subparagraph (C) and thus 

the intent of subparagraph (B) was to 

apply only to non-Priority Customer 

Orders. Additionally, because a COA 

will terminate early when the System 

receives a non-Priority Customer Order 

in a leg that would improve the SBBO 

on the same side as the COA-eligible 

order that initiated the COA, it would 

only do so if the price was better than 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 164 / Friday, August 27, 2021 / Notices 48265 

8See C2 Rule 5.34(d)(4) and EDGX Rule 

21.20(d)(4). 9See Rule 5.6(c). 

10C2 Rule 5.33(f)(2)(A)(v) provides that 

improvement of one component must be by at least 

$0.01, which is the minimum increment for all 

complex orders on C2. The proposed rule change 

uses the term ‘‘minimum increment’’ as Rule 5.4(b) 

permits the Exchange to designate the minimum 

increment for complex orders by class, and thus the 

minimum increment may not be $0.01 on the 

Exchange. 

11See Rule 5.33(c). 

12The proposed rule change also adds a period 

after ‘‘suspended’’ to prevent the amended sentence 

from being too long. 

the COA price, not equal to or better 

than the COA price, so the proposed 

rule change deletes ‘‘equal to or’’ prior 

to better in subparagraph (B). This is 

consistent with the definition of ‘‘COAeligible’’ order in Rule 5.33(b)(5), which 

provides that a COA-eligible order may 

initiate a COA if it has a price equal to 

or better than the SBBO. In other words, 

a COA-eligible order may execute at a 

price equal to the SBBO (as long as there 

is no Priority Customer Order on a leg 

of the SBBO) and thus a COA should 

not terminate if non-Priority Customer 

Order is received at a price equal to the 

COA-eligible order. However, if an order 

is received during a COA that is better 

than the COA price, it is appropriate to 

terminate the COA because that COA 

would not have been able to begin at the 

COA price had that new order been on 

the book at the time the COA-eligible 

order was received by the System. This 

is consistent with how the System 

functions today and merely adds clarity 

to the Rules. The proposed rule change 

also adds to subparagraph (d)(3)(C) that 

it applies when the System receives a 

Priority Customer Order ‘‘in a leg of the 

complex order,’’ which is consistent 

with the language in subparagraph (B) 

and implied by the fact it would join or 

improve the SBBO (and thus it must 

relate to a simple order in the book, as 

simple orders in the book in the legs of 

the complex order are used to calculate 

the SBBO). The proposed rule change 

also changes the phrase ‘‘COA in 

progress’’ to ‘‘COA-eligible order that 

initiated the COA’’ to conform to the 

language in subparagraph (B). 

• The proposed rule change adds 

‘‘during the Response Time Interval’’ to 

the end of the penultimate sentence of 

the introductory paragraph of Rule 

5.33(d)(4). This is consistent with the 

definition of Response Time Interval, 

which Rule 5.33(d)(3) defines as the 

period of time during which users may 

submit COA responses. This change 

merely adds detail to the rule that is 

consistent with the current rule and 

conforms the language to corresponding 

provisions in the C2 and EDGX Rules.8

• The proposed rule change clarifies 

in Rule 5.33(d)(4)(B) that COA 

Responses may be larger than the COAeligible order. This is identical to C2 

Rule 5.33(d)(4)(B) and is implied by the 

current provision, which states that the 

System caps the size of aggregated COA 

Responses at the EFID-level (which cap 

would apply if an EFID submitted a 

single COA Response larger than the 

COA-eligible order). This merely 

codifies current functionality in the 

Rules, which functionality is consistent 

with the remainder of the rule 

provision. Current Rule 5.33(d)(5)(B) 

states that the System routes to PAR for 

manual handling any COA-eligible 

order (or unexecuted portion) that does 

not execute at the end of the COA if not 

eligible for entry in the COB or in 

accordance with the User’s instructions. 

The proposed rule change amends this 

provision to provide that the System (i) 

routes to PAR for manual handling or 

(ii) cancels or rejects any COA-eligible 

order (or unexecuted portion) that does 

not execute at the end of the COA if not 

eligible for entry into the COB, subject 

to the user’s instructions. Similarly, 

current Rule 5.33(e) states that the 

System routes to PAR for manual 

handling any complex order (or 

unexecuted portion) that does not 

execute upon entry and is not eligible 

for entry into the COB, subject to the 

User’s instructions. The proposed rule 

change amends this provision to 

provide that the System (i) routes to 

PAR for manual handling or (ii) cancels 

or rejects any complex order (or 

unexecuted portion) that does not 

execute upon entry and is not eligible 

for entry into the COB, subject to the 

user’s instructions. The addition of the 

language to each of these provisions that 

the System may cancel or reject such 

COA-eligible order or do-not-COA 

order, respectively (or unexecuted 

portion), is consistent with the end of 

each provision that states how the 

System handles an order is subject to a 

user’s instructions and the definitions of 

such instructions. While orders on the 

Exchange are primarily ‘‘Default’’ 

orders, which are orders designated for 

electronic processing and are routed to 

PAR for manual handling if not eligible 

for electronic processing, users may also 

designate orders as ‘‘Electronic Only,’’ 

which are orders designated for 

electronic processing but do not route to 

PAR for manual handling if not eligible 

for electronic processing (and thus 

would be cancelled if not executed 

electronically).9 Therefore, if a COAeligible or do-not-COA order, as 

applicable, was designated as Electronic 

Only, the System would cancel that 

order (or unexecuted portion) if it did 

not execute at the end of the COA or 

upon entry, respectively, and was not 

eligible for COB entry, as instructed by 

the user. The proposed rule change 

merely adds this clarifying detail to the 

Rule, which is consistent with the Rules 

and current System functionality. 

• The proposed rule change clarifies 

in Rule 5.33(f)(2)(A)(v) that the System 

does not execute a complex order at a 

net price that would cause any 

component of the complex strategy to be 

executed at a price ahead of a priority 

customer order resting in the Simple 

Book without improving the BBO of at 

least one component of the complex 

strategy ‘‘by at least one minimum 

increment.’’ This is merely a 

clarification, as trades may only occur 

in the permissible minimum increment, 

so improvement of one component of 

the complex strategy would have to be 

by at least one minimum increment. 

This is consistent with language in C2 

Rule 5.33(f)(2)(A)(v).10

• The proposed rule change clarifies 

in Rule 5.33(i) that the System evaluates 

incoming complex orders upon receipt 

‘‘after the open of trading’’ to determine 

whether it is a COA-eligible order or a 

do-not-COA order (and thus how to 

process it). This is merely a clarification 

and consistent with the System, as prior 

to the opening, there is no need to 

conduct such evaluation since orders 

entered during the complex order entry 

period prior to the open rest in the COB 

until the COB opening process, during 

which all complex orders received 

during the order entry period are 

eligible to be matched.11 This is merely 

clarifying language that is consistent 

with current System functionality and 

C2 Rule 5.33(i). 

• The proposed rule change amends 

Rule 5.33(k)(1) to clarify that when 

trading in a complex strategy is 

suspended, the System queues a user’s 

complex orders ‘‘during a halt for 

participation in the COB Opening 

process’’ as set forth in Rule 5.33(k)(3).12

This language is consistent with the 

language in Rule 5.33(k)(3) and identical 

to C2 Rule 5.33(k)(1). The proposed rule 

change also clarifies in subparagraph 

(k)(1) that the COB remains available for 

users to enter and manage complex 

orders ‘‘that are not cancelled,’’ which 

is consistent with the prior sentence, 

pursuant to which users may cancel 

complex orders upon a trading halt. 

This language is also identical to C2 

Rule 5.33(k)(1). These proposed rule 

changes are not substantive but rather 

make clarifications to subparagraph 

(k)(1) that are consistent with current 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
48266 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 164 / Friday, August 27, 2021 / Notices 

13The phrase ‘‘all trading sessions’’ would 

incorporate both RTH and GTH—currently the only 

two trading sessions on the Exchange—so it is 

unnecessary to list both of those in the definition. 

See Rule 1.1 (definition of ‘‘trading session’’). 

Additionally, the definition implies that the COB is 

maintained by the Exchange’s trading system and 

is a single book because it is an ‘‘electronic book,’’ 

making the language proposed to be deleted 

unnecessary. 

14The proposed rule change makes a 

nonsubstantive change to proposed subparagraph 

(3) (current subparagraph (2) to move the word 

‘‘resting’’ after the term ‘‘complex order’’ rather 

than before. 

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

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

17 Id. 

System functionality and the remainder 

of paragraph (k). 

Second, the Exchange proposes to 

make the following other 

nonsubstantive changes: 

• Currently, Rule 5.33(a) states the 

term ‘‘complex order’’ has the meaning 

set forth in Rule 1.1. The proposed rule 

change amends this definition to state 

that the term ‘‘complex order’’ is 

defined in Rule 1.1 to make the 

provision plain English and to conform 

the language to that in other definitions 

in the Exchange’s rulebook. 

• Currently, Rule 5.33(a) defines the 

complex order book (‘‘COB’’) as the 

Exchange’s electronic book of complex 

orders maintained by the System, which 

single book is used during both the 

Regular Trading Hours (‘‘RTH’’) and 

Global Trading Hours (‘‘GTH’’) trading 

sessions. The proposed rule change 

defines COB as the Exchange’s 

electronic book of complex orders used 

for all trading sessions. The Exchange 

believes this proposed change 

streamlines the definition and 

eliminates unnecessary terminology.13

• The proposed rule change amends 

the definitions of ‘‘All Sessions,’’ ‘‘MTP 

Modifiers,’’ and ‘‘RTH Only’’ in Rule 

5.33(b)(5) and applicable provisions in 

Rule 5.33(d)(2)(A), (3), (3)(B), and (3)(C), 

(5), (5)(A)(i) and (ii), and (5)(B), (e), 

(e)(1) and (2), (f)(2)(A)(v) and (2)(B), (g), 

(i) and (i)(3)(C), (j)(3), and (k)(2) to state 

that orders ‘‘rest in’’ or are otherwise 

‘‘in’’ the simple book or COB rather than 

‘‘on’’ the simple book or COB. The 

majority of the provisions in Rule 5.33 

state that orders are ‘‘in’’ the book or 

COB, so the Exchange proposes to 

amend these provisions to maintain 

consistency throughout Rule 5.33. 

• The proposed rule change amends 

the definitions of ‘‘Book Only’’ and 

‘‘Post Only’’ in Rule 5.33(b)(5) to state 

that the order is ‘‘subject to a user’s 

instructions’’ rather than ‘‘in accordance 

with the user’s instructions.’’ The 

phrases mean the same thing in the 

context of these rule provisions, but the 

majority of Rule 5.33 uses the phrase 

‘‘subject to a user’s instructions,’’ so the 

Exchange proposes to amend these 

provisions to maintain consistency 

throughout Rule 5.33. 

• The proposed rule change proposes 

to delete the term ‘‘complex order’’ prior 

to ‘‘Capacities’’ in the definition of 

‘‘Complex Only’’ in Rule 5.33(a). Rule 

5.33 relates solely to the trading of 

complex orders and generally does not 

specify that certain terms relate to 

complex orders (for example, just prior 

to Capacities, the term ‘‘Times-in-Force’’ 

is not qualified to be complex order 

‘‘Times-in-Force’’). Therefore, the 

proposed rule change deletes ‘‘complex 

order’’ prior to ‘‘Capacities,’’ as it is 

redundant and unnecessary. 

• The proposed rule change amends 

Rule 5.33(d)(2)(A) to use the term 

‘‘subparagraph’’ rather than ‘‘paragraph’’ 

for the cross-reference to subparagraph 

(d)(3) in that provision. This merely 

conforms to terminology used 

throughout the Rules. 

• The proposed rule change amends 

Rule 5.33(d)(3)(A) through (C) and (j)(3) 

to replace ‘‘posts’’ with ‘‘enters’’ when 

describing an order entering into the 

COB or the Book. This merely changes 

the term used to describe an order 

entering a book to conform to the 

terminology used elsewhere in the 

Rules. 

• The proposed rule change deletes 

an inadvertent grammatically incorrect 

comma after ‘‘EFID’’ in Rule 

5.33(d)(4)(B), after ‘‘class in Rule 

5.33(d)(5)(A)(ii), after the second 

parenthetical in Rule 5.33(d)(5)(B), and 

after the second parenthetical in the last 

paragraph of Rule 5.33(e). 

• The proposed rule change deletes 

inadvertent extra spaces prior to the 

hyphen in the term ‘‘contra-side’’ in 

Rule 5.33(d)(5)(A) and (e). 

• The proposed rule change replaces 

‘‘pursuant to’’ with ‘‘which the System 

allocates in accordance with’’ in Rule 

5.33(d)(5)(A)(ii) and (e)(2). The 

provision has the same meaning, but the 

new language is consistent with 

language used in the remainder of Rule 

5.33. The proposed rule change also 

adds ‘‘as’’ prior to ‘‘determined’’ at the 

end of Rule 5.33(d)(A)(ii) to similarly be 

consistent with language used in the 

remainder of Rule 5.33. 

• The proposed rule change replaces 

‘‘if eligible to rest’’ with ‘‘if eligible for 

entry’’ in Rule 5.33(d)(5)(B), the last 

paragraph of Rule 5.33(e), and (k)(1) and 

(2). This is consistent with the language 

in Rule 5.33(b)(2) regarding the 

Exchange’s authority to determine 

which Capacities are eligible for entry 

into the Book. 

• The proposed rule change amends 

the heading of Rule 5.33(g) to be 

‘‘Legging’’ rather than ‘‘Legging 

Restrictions,’’ as the Exchange believes 

it to be more appropriate given that 

paragraph (g) describes how a complex 

order may leg into the simple book, in 

addition to certain restrictions that 

apply to legging. 

• The proposed rule change adds 

subheading names to subparagraphs 

(h)(1) through (3) to be consistent with 

the remainder of Rule 5.33, as 

subparagraphs in the rule generally have 

subheadings. The proposed rule change 

also moves current subparagraph (2) to 

proposed subparagraph (3) 14 and 

renumbers current subparagraph (3) as 

subparagraph (2). 

• The proposed rule change amends 

the last to sentences of Rule 5.33(k)(1) 

to eliminate the passive voice in each 

sentence, thus making each sentence 

more plain English. 

The proposed rule change adds a 

heading to Interpretation and Policy .03 

to be consistent with the other 

Interpretations and Policies in Rule 

5.33. 

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.15 Specifically, 

the Exchange believes the proposed rule 

change is consistent with the Section 

6(b)(5) 16 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 

the Section 6(b)(5) 17 requirement that 

the rules of an exchange not be designed 

to permit unfair discrimination between 

customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. 

In particular, the Exchange believes 

the proposed rule change will protect 

investors and the public interest by 

adding clarifications and detail to the 

Rules, as well as conforming and 

simplifying certain rule provisions. The 

proposed clarifying and nonsubstantive 

rule changes will have no impact on 

trading, as they codify or are otherwise 

consistent with current functionality 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 164 / Friday, August 27, 2021 / Notices 48267 

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

19 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). 

20 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 

21 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b– 

4(f)(6)(iii) requires the Exchange to give the 

Commission written notice of the Exchange’s intent 

to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief 

description and text of the proposed rule change, 

at least five business days prior to the date of filing 

of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time 

as designated by the Commission. The Exchange 

has satisfied this requirement. 

22 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). 

23 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6)(iii). 

24For purposed only of waiving the 30-day 

operative delay, the Commission has considered the 

proposed rule’s impact on efficiency, competition, 

and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 25 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

and rules. The Exchange also believes 

that the proposed rule change will 

remove impediments to and perfect the 

mechanism of a free and open market 

and a national market system, as several 

proposed changes are based on 

corresponding complex order rules of 

Cboe Options’ affiliated exchanges, C2 

and EDGX (as described above). The 

Exchange believes greater 

harmonization of Rules of affiliated 

exchanges that describe the same 

functionality will simplify the rulebook 

for users of the Exchange that are also 

participants on Cboe affiliated 

exchanges, thus benefiting investors. 

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 that is not 

necessary or appropriate in furtherance 

of the purposes of the Act. The 

proposed rule change will not burden 

intramarket competition because it will 

apply in the same manner to all TPHs 

that submit complex orders to the 

Exchange. The proposed rule change 

will not burden intermarket competition 

because it is not intended to be a 

competitive filing but is rather intended 

to add clarity and detail to the Rules, as 

well as harmonize the Exchange’s rules 

regarding complex orders with those of 

its affiliated exchanges, C2 and EDGX. 

The proposed rule changes, as described 

above, are consistent with current rules 

and functionality and will have no 

impact on trading on the Exchange. 

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 Exchange has filed the proposed 

rule change pursuant to Section 

19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 18 and Rule 

19b–4(f)(6) thereunder.19 Because the 

proposed rule change does not: (i) 

Significantly affect the protection of 

investors or the public interest; (ii) 

impose any significant burden on 

competition; and (iii) become operative 

prior to 30 days from the date on which 

it was filed, or such shorter time as the 

Commission may designate, if 

consistent with the protection of 

investors and the public interest, the 

proposed rule change has become 

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

of the Act 20 and Rule 19b–4(f)(6)(iii) 

thereunder.21

A proposed rule change filed under 

Rule 19b–4(f)(6) 22 normally does not 

become operative prior to 30 days after 

the date of the filing. However, pursuant 

to Rule 19b–4(f)(6)(iii),23 the 

Commission may designate a shorter 

time if such action is consistent with the 

protection of investors and the public 

interest. The Exchange has asked the 

Commission to waive the 30-day 

operative delay so that the proposal may 

become operative immediately upon 

filing. As discussed above, Cboe states 

that the proposal makes non-substantive 

changes that clarifying Cboe’s rules or 

harmonize Cboe’s rules with those of its 

affiliated exchanges. The Commission 

believes that waiver of the 30-day 

operative delay is consistent with the 

protection of investors and the public 

interest because the proposed changes 

do not raise novel issues and are 

designed to clarify the Exchange’s rules 

and enhance their internal consistency, 

correct inaccurate terminology, and 

conform the Exchange’s rules to the 

rules of its affiliated exchanges. 

Accordingly, the Commission hereby 

waives the 30-day operative delay and 

designates the proposal operative upon 

filing.24

At any time within 60 days of the 

filing of this 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–2021–047 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–2021–047. 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 

Number SR–CBOE–2021–047, and 

should be submitted on or before 

September 17, 2021. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.25

Jill M. Peterson, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2021–18464 Filed 8–26–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1