[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 164 (Friday, August 27, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48263-48267]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18464]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

[[Page 48264]]

    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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     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-broker-dealer 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 Market-Maker), N (for the account 
of a market-maker 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Rule 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 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

[[Page 48265]]

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 ``COA-
eligible'' 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See C2 Rule 5.34(d)(4) and EDGX Rule 21.20(d)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The proposed rule change clarifies in Rule 5.33(d)(4)(B) 
that COA Responses may be larger than the COA-eligible 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 COA-eligible 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Rule 5.6(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ C2 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Rule 5.33(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     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

[[Page 48266]]

System functionality and the remainder of paragraph (k).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The proposed rule change also adds a period after 
``suspended'' to prevent the amended sentence from being too long.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 48267]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \23\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \24\ For 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-18464 Filed 8-26-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


