Self-Regulatory Organizations: MIAX PEARL, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the MIAX Pearl Options Fee Schedule To Adjust the Options Regulatory Fee, 58360-58364 [2021-22943]

Download as PDF 58360 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 201 / Thursday, October 21, 2021 / Notices 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,17 and Rule 19b–4(f)(2) 18 thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission 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 (https://www.sec.gov/ rules/sro.shtml); or • Send an email to rule-comments@ sec.gov. Please include File No. SR– MIAX–2021–48 on the subject line. jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1 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–2021–48. 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 (https://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–2021–48, and should be submitted on or before November 12, 2021. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.19 J. Matthew DeLesDernier, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. 2021–22942 Filed 10–20–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011–01–P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34–93369; File No. SR– PEARL–2021–48] Self-Regulatory Organizations: MIAX PEARL, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the MIAX Pearl Options Fee Schedule To Adjust the Options Regulatory Fee October 15, 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 October 7, 2021, MIAX PEARL, LLC (‘‘MIAX Pearl’’ 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 19 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 17 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 18 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(2). VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Oct 20, 2021 1 15 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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 Pearl 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 https://www.miaxoptions.com/rulefilings/pearl at MIAX Pearl’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 $0.0028 per contract side. The Exchange proposes to reduce the amount of ORF from $0.0028 per contract side to $0.0018 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– PEARL–2021–37) and withdrew such filing on August 12, 2021. The Exchange refiled this proposal on August 12, 2021 (SR–PEARL–2021–38) and withdrew such filing on October 7, 2021. The Exchange proposes to implement this fee change effective October 7, 2021. Collection of ORF Currently, the Exchange assesses the per-contract ORF to each Member 3 for 3 The term ‘‘Member’’ means an individual or organization that is registered with the Exchange pursuant to Chapter II of Exchange Rules for E:\FR\FM\21OCN1.SGM 21OCN1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 201 / Thursday, October 21, 2021 / Notices jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1 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 purposes of trading on the Exchange as an ‘‘Electronic Exchange Member’’ or ‘‘Market Maker.’’ Members are deemed ‘‘members’’ under the Exchange Act. See the Definitions Section of the Fee Schedule and Exchange Rule 100. 4 Exchange 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. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Oct 20, 2021 Jkt 256001 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, Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC (‘‘MIAX’’) 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 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 6 See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 85162 (February 15, 2019), 84 FR 5783 (February 22, 2019) (SR–MIAX–2019–01); 85251 (March 6, 2019), 84 FR 8931 (March 12, 2019) (SR–EMERALD–2019–01). PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 58361 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 50% of the total regulatory costs for 2021. Thus, direct expenses are estimated to be approximately 50% 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 7 See 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%). E:\FR\FM\21OCN1.SGM 21OCN1 58362 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 201 / Thursday, October 21, 2021 / Notices regulation of its members, including performing routine surveillances, investigations, examinations, financial monitoring, and policy, rulemaking, interpretive, and enforcement activities. jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1 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 $0.0028 per contract side to $0.0018 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 8 See https://www.miaxoptions.com/sites/default/ files/circular-files/MIAX_Pearl_Options_RC_2021_ 29.pdf. 9 See 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. 10 The 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. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Oct 20, 2021 Jkt 256001 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 Pearl regulatory costs and revenues at a minimum on a semiannual 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. In connection with this filing, the Exchange notes that its affiliates, MIAX and MIAX Emerald, will also be adjusting the ORF fees that each of those exchanges charge. 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. 11 The 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. 12 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 13 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). 14 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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 E:\FR\FM\21OCN1.SGM 21OCN1 jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 201 / Thursday, October 21, 2021 / Notices 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 $0.0028 to $0.0018 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, with an exception.15 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, 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’’) 16 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. 15 When 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). 16 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. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Oct 20, 2021 Jkt 256001 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 PO 00000 Frm 00117 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 58363 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,17 and Rule 19b–4(f)(2) 18 thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission 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 (https://www.sec.gov/ rules/sro.shtml); or • Send an email to rule-comments@ sec.gov. Please include File No. SR– PEARL–2021–48 on the subject line. 17 15 18 17 E:\FR\FM\21OCN1.SGM U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). CFR 240.19b–4(f)(2). 21OCN1 58364 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 201 / Thursday, October 21, 2021 / Notices 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–PEARL–2021–48. 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 (https://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–PEARL–2021–48, and should be submitted on or before November 12, 2021. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.19 J. Matthew DeLesDernier, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. 2021–22943 Filed 10–20–21; 8:45 am] jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1 BILLING CODE 8011–01–P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34–93362; File No. SR–MEMX– 2021–14] Self-Regulatory Organizations; MEMX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Pilot Related to the Market Wide Circuit Breaker Until March 18, 2022 October 15, 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 October 14, 2021, MEMX LLC (‘‘MEMX’’ or the ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ‘‘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 as a ‘‘non-controversial’’ proposed rule change 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 The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change to extend the pilot related to the marketwide circuit breaker in Rule 11.16 to the close of business on March 18, 2022. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5. 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. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). CFR 240.19b–4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). 4 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). 2 17 19 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Oct 20, 2021 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Exchange proposes to extend the pilot related to the market-wide circuit breaker in Rule 11.16 to the close of business on March 18, 2022. Background The Market-Wide Circuit Breaker (‘‘MWCB’’) rules, which for the Exchange are contained in Exchange Rule 11.16, provide an important, automatic mechanism that is invoked to promote stability and investor confidence during periods of significant stress when cash equities securities experience extreme market-wide declines. The MWCB rules are designed to slow the effects of extreme price declines through coordinated trading halts across both cash equity and equity options securities markets. The cash equities rules governing MWCBs were first adopted in 1988 and, in 2012, all U.S. cash equity exchanges and FINRA amended their cash equities uniform rules on a pilot basis (the ‘‘Pilot Rules,’’ i.e., Rule 11.16 (a)–(d)).5 The Pilot Rules currently provide for trading halts in all cash equity securities during a severe market decline as measured by a single-day decline in the S&P 500 Index (‘‘SPX’’).6 Under the Pilot Rules, a market-wide trading halt will be triggered if SPX declines in price by specified percentages from the prior day’s closing price of that index. The triggers are set at three circuit breaker thresholds: 7% (Level 1), 13% (Level 2), and 20% (Level 3). A market decline that triggers a Level 1 or Level 2 halt after 9:30 a.m. and before 3:25 p.m. would halt market-wide trading for 15 minutes, while a similar market decline at or after 3:25 p.m. would not halt market-wide trading. (Level 1 and Level 2 halts may occur only once a day.) A market decline that triggers a Level 3 halt at any time during the trading day would halt market-wide trading for the remainder of the trading day. The Commission approved the Pilot Rules, the term of which was to 5 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67090 (May 31, 2012), 77 FR 33531 (June 6, 2012) (SR– BATS–2011–038; SR–BYX–2011–025; SR–BX– 2011–068; SR–CBOE–2011–087; SR–C2–2011–024; SR–CHX–2011–30; SR–EDGA–2011–31; SR–EDGX– 2011–30; SR–FINRA–2011–054; SR–ISE–2011–61; SR–NASDAQ–2011–131; SR–NSX–2011–11; SR– NYSE–2011–48; SR–NYSEAmex–2011–73; SR– NYSEArca–2011–68; SR–Phlx–2011–129) (‘‘Pilot Rules Approval Order’’). 6 The rules of the equity options exchanges similarly provide for a halt in trading if the cash equity exchanges invoke a MWCB Halt. See, e.g., NYSE Arca Rule 6.65–O(d)(4). E:\FR\FM\21OCN1.SGM 21OCN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 201 (Thursday, October 21, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58360-58364]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-22943]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-93369; File No. SR-PEARL-2021-48]


Self-Regulatory Organizations: MIAX PEARL, LLC; Notice of Filing 
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the MIAX 
Pearl Options Fee Schedule To Adjust the Options Regulatory Fee

October 15, 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 October 7, 2021, MIAX PEARL, LLC (``MIAX Pearl'' 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Pearl 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 https://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings/pearl at MIAX 
Pearl'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 $0.0028 per 
contract side. The Exchange proposes to reduce the amount of ORF from 
$0.0028 per contract side to $0.0018 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-PEARL-2021-37) and withdrew such filing on August 12, 
2021. The Exchange refiled this proposal on August 12, 2021 (SR-PEARL-
2021-38) and withdrew such filing on October 7, 2021. The Exchange 
proposes to implement this fee change effective October 7, 2021.
Collection of ORF
    Currently, the Exchange assesses the per-contract ORF to each 
Member \3\ for

[[Page 58361]]

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

    \3\ The term ``Member'' means an individual or organization that 
is registered with the Exchange pursuant to Chapter II of Exchange 
Rules for purposes of trading on the Exchange as an ``Electronic 
Exchange Member'' or ``Market Maker.'' Members are deemed 
``members'' under the Exchange Act. See the Definitions Section of 
the Fee Schedule and Exchange Rule 100.
    \4\ Exchange 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 non-Member 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 double-billing 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, Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC 
(``MIAX'') and MIAX Emerald, LLC (``MIAX Emerald'').\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 85162 (February 15, 
2019), 84 FR 5783 (February 22, 2019) (SR-MIAX-2019-01); 85251 
(March 6, 2019), 84 FR 8931 (March 12, 2019) (SR-EMERALD-2019-01).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 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 50% of the total regulatory costs for 
2021. Thus, direct expenses are estimated to be approximately 50% 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 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%).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ORF is designed to recover a material portion of the costs to 
the Exchange of the supervision and

[[Page 58362]]

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 
$0.0028 per contract side to $0.0018 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See https://www.miaxoptions.com/sites/default/files/circular-files/MIAX_Pearl_Options_RC_2021_29.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \9\ See data from OCC at: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210504005178/en/OCC-April-2021-Total-Volume-Up-29.7-Percent-from-a-Year-Ago, https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210602005174/en/OCC-May-2021-Total-Volume-Up-32.7-Percent-from-a-Year-Ago, and https://apnews.com/press-release/business-wire/778385e696f4407590cc6ff9cb64db03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \10\ The 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 non-
regulatory purposes.
    \11\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Pearl 
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.
    In connection with this filing, the Exchange notes that its 
affiliates, MIAX and MIAX Emerald, will also be adjusting the ORF fees 
that each of those exchanges charge.
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
non-Member 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

[[Page 58363]]

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 $0.0028 to 
$0.0018 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, with an 
exception.\15\ 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 non-customer 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, 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'') \16\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ When 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).
    \16\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 non-customer 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,\17\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \18\ thereunder. 
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, 
the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it 
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate 
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise 
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such 
action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether 
the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include 
File No. SR-PEARL-2021-48 on the subject line.

[[Page 58364]]

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-PEARL-2021-48. 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 (https://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-PEARL-2021-48, and should be submitted on 
or before November 12, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-22943 Filed 10-20-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.