[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 90 (Tuesday, May 10, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27035-27037]
[FR Doc No: 2011-11319]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER09-36-002.
    Applicants: Prairie Wind Transmission LLC.
    Description: Prairie Wind Transmission submits their Compliance
filing in accordance with the Commission's December 2, 2008 Order.
    Filed Date: 05/02/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110502-5408.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 23, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2275-003.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Compliance Filing of Midwest Independent Transmission
System Operator, Inc.
    Filed Date: 05/02/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110502-5546.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 23, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2906-001.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: New York Independent System Operator, Inc. submits
tariff filing per 35: Compliance Filing to Define ACL Baseline
Methodology for SCRs to be effective 4/11/2011.
    Filed Date: 05/02/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110502-5185.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 23, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3484-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Company submits tariff
filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: Amend Eldorado Sytm Optng Agmt, Amend NV
Connect Agmt, Submit Mohave Switchyd Agmt to be effective 4/30/2011.
    Filed Date: 05/02/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110502-5000.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 23, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3485-000.
    Applicants: ArcelorMittal USA LLC.
    Description: ArcelorMittal USA LLC submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: AMU MBRA ETariff Rev 1 to be effective 4/30/2011.
    Filed Date: 05/02/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110502-5003.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 23, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3486-000.
    Applicants: Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc.
    Description: Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc. submits
tariff filing per 35: 2011 Annual Update to be effective 1/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 05/02/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110502-5162.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 23, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3487-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: 1148R13 American Electric Power Service Corp. NITSA
NOA to be effective 4/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 05/02/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110502-5197.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 23, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3488-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: 2199 Grand River Dam Authority Point to Point to be
effective 4/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 05/02/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110502-5199.

    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 23, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3489-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: 1628R2 Western Farmers Electric Cooperative NITSA NOA
to be effective 4/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 05/02/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110502-5237.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 23, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3490-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc. submits tariff filing per
35: Compliance Revisions to Entergy Seams Agreement Protocols in ER10-
941-002, -003 to be effective 5/2/2011.
    Filed Date: 05/02/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110502-5248.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 23, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3491-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: Termination of PJM-FE Interregional Trans. Congestion
Mgmt. in PJM's Tariff & OA to be effective 7/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 05/02/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110502-5334.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 23, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3492-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (``PJM'') submits a filing
to cancel the Redispatch Agreement between First Energy Solutions Corp.
(``First Energy'') and PJM, effective July 1, 2004 filed as FERC Rate
Schedule No. 4.
    Filed Date: 05/02/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110502-5383.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 23, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3493-000.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Arizona Public Service Company submits tariff filing
per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: Amendment to Rate Schedule No. 217 to be effective
7/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 05/02/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110502-5385.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 23, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3494-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: 2198 Kansas Power Pool NITSA NOA to be effective 4/1/
2011.
    Filed Date: 05/02/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110502-5388.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 23, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3495-000.
    Applicants: Central Maine Power Company.
    Description: Central Maine Power Company submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: Central Maine Power Company--Spruce Mountain Wind, LLC
Interconnection Agrmt to be effective 4/8/2011.
    Filed Date: 05/02/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110502-5394.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 23, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3496-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: V1-026 and V1-027 Interim ISA--Original Service
Agreement No. 2860 to be effective 4/4/2011.
    Filed Date: 05/02/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110502-5395.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 23, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3497-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.
    Description: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(1): Revisions to RS No. 273 NCEMC Catawba IA to be effective
1/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 05/02/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110502-5398.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 23, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3498-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: 2207 WindFarm 66 LLC GIA to be effective 4/18/2011.
    Filed Date: 05/02/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110502-5401.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 23, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3499-000.
    Applicants: Florida Power Corporation.
    Description: Florida Power Corporation submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: Annual update of cost factors for Florida Power Corp.
Interchange Agreements to be effective 5/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 05/02/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110502-5402.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 23, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3500-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: PacifiCorp submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii:
Deseret TSOA to be effective 6/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 05/02/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110502-5403.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 23, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3501-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc. submits tariff filing per
35: Order No. 890-A Compliance Filing from Docket No. OA08-104 to be
effective 7/26/2010.
    Filed Date: 05/02/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110502-5404.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 23, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3502-000.
    Applicants: Tampa Electric Company.
    Description: Notice of Cancellation of Tampa Electric Company
Service Schedule J with Reedy Creek Improvement District.
    Filed Date: 05/02/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110502-5548.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 23, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3503-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.'s Notice of Cancellation.
    Filed Date: 05/02/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110502-5549.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 23, 2011.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following land
acquisition reports:

    Docket Numbers: LA11-1-000.
    Applicants: Goshen Phase II LLC.
    Description: Quarterly Land Acquisition Report of Goshen Phase II
LLC.
    Filed Date: 05/02/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110502-5200.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 23, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: LA11-1-000.
    Applicants: BP Energy Company, BP West Coast Products LLC, Cedar
Creek Wind Energy, LLC, Cedar Creek II LLC, Flat Ridge Wind Energy,
LLC, Fowler Ridge II Wind Farm LLC, Fowler Ridge III Wind Farm LLC,
Fowler Ridge Wind Farm LLC, Rolling Thunder I Power Partners, LLC,
Watson Cogeneration Company, Whiting Clean Energy, Inc.
    Description: Quarterly Land Acquisition Report of BP Energy
Company, et al. under LA11-1.
    Filed Date: 05/02/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110502-5201.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 23, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: LA11-1-000.
    Applicants: CalPeak Power LLC, CalPeak Power--Panoche LLC, CalPeak
Power--Vaca Dixon LLC, CalPeak Power--El Cajon LLC, CalPeak Power--
Enterprise LLC, CalPeak Power--Border LLC, Tyr Energy, LLC,
Commonwealth Chesapeake Company, LLC, Fox Energy Company, LLC, Kansas
Energy, LLC.
    Description: CalPeak Power LLC, CalPeak Entities, Tyr Energy, LLC,
Commonwealth Chesapeake Company, LLC, Fox Energy Company, LLC, and
Kansas Quarterly Report of Acquisition of Sites.
    Filed Date: 05/02/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110502-5202.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 23, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: LA11-1-000.
    Applicants: Arlington Valley, LLC, Bluegrass Generation Company,
L.L.C., DeSoto County Generating Company, LLC, Griffith Energy LLC, Las
Vegas Power Company, LLC, LSP University Park, LLC, LSP Safe Harbor
Holdings, LLC, LS Power Marketing, LLC, Renaissance Power, L.L.C.,
Riverside Generating Company, L.L.C., Rocky Road Power, LLC, Tilton
Energy LLC, Wallingford Energy LLC.
    Description: Quarterly Land Aquisition Report of Bluegrass
Generation Company, L.L.C., et al.
    Filed Date: 05/02/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110502-5346.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 23, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: LA11-1-000.
    Applicants: ANP Blackstone Energy Company, LLC, ANP Bellingham
Energy Company, LLC, ANP Funding I, LLC, Armstrong Energy Limited
Partnership, L.L.L.P., Calumet Energy Team LLC, Choctaw Gas Generating
LLC, Choctaw Generation Limited Partnership, FirstLight Hydro
Generating Corporation, FirstLight Power Resources Management, LLC, GDF
SUEZ Energy Marketing NA, Inc., Hopewell Cogeneration Limited
Partnership, Hot Spring Power Company, LLC, IPA Trading, Inc., Milford
Power Limited Partnership, Mt. Tom Generating Company, LLC,
Northeastern Power Company, Pinetree Power--Tamworth, Inc., Pleasants
Energy, LLC, Syracuse Energy Corporation, Troy Energy, LLC, Waterbury
Generation LLC.
    Description: GDF SUEZ MBR Sellers' Quarterly Land Acquisition
Report under LA11-1.
    Filed Date: 05/02/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110502-5533.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 23, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: LA11-1-000.
    Applicants: J. Aron & Company, Power Receivable Finance, LLC.
    Description: Land Acquisition Report of J. Aron & Company and Power
Receivable Finance, LLC under LA11-1.
    Filed Date: 05/02/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110502-5534.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 23, 2011.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    As it relates to any qualifying facility filings, the notices of
self-certification [or self-recertification] listed above, do not
institute a proceeding regarding qualifying facility status. A notice
of self-certification [or self-recertification] simply provides
notification that the entity making the filing has determined the
facility named in the notice meets the applicable criteria to be a
qualifying facility. Intervention and/or protest do not lie in dockets
that are qualifying facility self-certifications or self-
recertifications. Any person seeking to challenge such qualifying
facility status may do so by filing a motion pursuant to 18 CFR
292.207(d)(iii). Intervention and protests may be filed in response to
notices of qualifying facility dockets other than self-certifications
and self-recertifications.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 03, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-11319 Filed 5-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 71 (Thursday, April 15, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19912-19917]
[FR Doc No: 2021-07676]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-91523; File No. SR-IEX-2021-06]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Investors Exchange LLC; Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Enhance the IEX Retail Price
Improvement Program for the Benefit of Retail Investors

April 9, 2021.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on April 1, 2021, the Investors Exchange LLC (``IEX'' 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 self-regulatory
organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) under the Act,\4\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\5\ IEX is filing with the Commission a
proposed rule change to enhance its Retail Price Improvement Program
for the benefit of retail investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
website at www.iextrading.com, at the principal office of the Exchange,
and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
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 purpose of the proposed rule change is to enhance the
Exchange's Retail Price Improvement Program for the benefit of retail
investors. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to make the following
four changes: (i) Revise the definition of Retail order \6\ in IEX Rule
11.190(b)(15) to apply only to the trading interest of a natural person
that does not place more than 390 equity orders per day on average
during a calendar month for its own beneficial account(s); \7\ (ii)
provide Order Book \8\ priority to Retail Liquidity Provider (``RLP'')
orders \9\ at the Midpoint Price \10\ ahead of other non-displayed
orders priced to execute at the Midpoint Price; (iii) disseminate a
``Retail Liquidity Identifier'' through the Exchange's proprietary
market data feeds and the appropriate securities information processor
(``SIP'') when RLP order interest aggregated to form at least one round
lot for a particular security is available in the System,\11\ provided
that the RLP order interest is resting at the Midpoint Price and is
priced at least $0.001 better than the NBB \12\ or NBO; \13\ and (iv)
amend the definition of RLP orders so such orders can only be midpoint
peg orders,\14\ cannot be Discretionary Peg orders,\15\ and cannot
include a minimum quantity restriction.\16\ The proposed changes are
designed to further support and enhance the ability of non-professional
retail investors to obtain meaningful price improvement by
incentivizing market participants to compete to provide such price
improvement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See IEX Rules 11.190(b)(15) and 11.232(a)(2).
    \7\ The existing restrictions applicable to a Retail order, that
it must reflect trading interest of a natural person with no change
made to the terms of the underlying order of the natural person with
respect to price (except in the case of a market order that is
changed to a marketable limit order) or side of market and that does
not originate from a trading algorithm or any other computerized
methodology, will continue to apply.
    \8\ See IEX Rule 1.160(p).
    \9\ See IEX Rules 11.190(b)(14) and 11.232(a)(3).
    \10\ The term ``Midpoint Price'' means the midpoint of the NBBO.
See IEX Rule 1.160(t). The term ``NBBO'' means the national best bid
or offer, as set forth in Rule 600(b) of Regulation NMS under the
Act, determined as set forth in IEX Rule 11.410(b).
    \11\ See IEX Rule 1.160(nn).
    \12\ See IEX Rule 1.160(u).
    \13\ See IEX Rule 1.160(u).
    \14\ See IEX Rule 11.190(b)(9).
    \15\ See IEX Rule 11.190(b)(10).
    \16\ See IEX Rule 11.190(b)(11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    In 2019 the Commission approved IEX's Retail Price Improvement
Program (``Retail Program''),\17\ which is designed to provide retail
investors with meaningful price improvement opportunities through
trading at the Midpoint Price or better.\18\ As currently structured,
Members \19\ that qualify as Retail Member Organizations (``RMOs'')
\20\ are eligible to submit Retail orders to the Exchange. Any Member
is able to provide price improvement to Retail orders through orders
priced to execute at the Midpoint Price or better, including RLP orders
that are only eligible to execute against a Retail order at the
Midpoint Price and execute in price-time priority after other orders
resting on the Order Book priced to trade at the Midpoint Price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 86619 (August 9,
2019), 84 FR 41769 (August 15, 2019) (SR-IEX-2019-05) (SEC order
approving IEX's Retail Program).
    \18\ On March 1, 2021, IEX filed an immediately effective rule
change proposal to provide that, in addition to executing at the
Midpoint Price, a Retail order can execute against a displayed
unprotected odd lot order that is resting on the Order Book at a
price more aggressive than the Midpoint Price (i.e., above the
Midpoint Price in the case of an odd lot buy order and below the
Midpoint Price in the case of an odd lot sell order). Executing
against such an odd lot order thus provides more price improvement
to the Retail order than executing at the Midpoint Price. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 91324 (March 15, 2021), 86 FR
15015 (March 19, 2021) (SR-IEX-2021-03).
    \19\ See IEX Rule 1.160(s).
    \20\ See IEX Rule 11.232(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As IEX noted in its Retail Program rule filing,\21\ the Commission
has consistently emphasized the importance of continued broad, long-
term retail participation in our capital markets. In its Strategic Plan
for fiscal years 2018-2022, the Commission highlighted its vision to
``promote capital markets that inspire public confidence and provide a
diverse array of financial opportunities to retail and institutional
investors, entrepreneurs, public companies, and other market
participants'', with its first goal to focus on the long-term interests
of Main Street (i.e., retail) investors.\22\ Against this backdrop, the
Retail Program is designed to provide retail

investors with access to the Exchange's deep pool of midpoint
liquidity, including RLP orders, thereby providing enhanced
opportunities for meaningful price improvement at the Midpoint Price.
The Exchange believes the Retail Program has provided retail investors
with better execution quality than they are currently able to obtain
through existing exchange and over-the-counter (``OTC'') order retail
programs, by attracting counterparty liquidity to the Exchange from
Members and their clients seeking to interact with retail
liquidity.\23\ The Retail Program is therefore consistent with the
goals of the Commission to encourage markets that are structured to
benefit ordinary investors.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See supra note 17. See also Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 86241 (June 28, 2019), 84 FR 32238 (July 5, 2019) (SR-IEX-2019-
05) (IEX rule filing proposing Retail Program).
    \22\ See U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Strategic
Plan, Fiscal Years 2018-2022, available at https://www.sec.gov/files/SEC_Strategic_Plan_FY18-FY22_FINAL_0.pdf (``Commission
Strategic Plan'').
    \23\ See discussion infra on the desirability of interacting
with retail liquidity.
    \24\ See supra note 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the current Retail Program, the term ``Retail order'' is
defined as an agency or riskless principal order that satisfies the
criteria of Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'')
Rule 5320.03, which is submitted by a RMO, designated with a ``Retail
order'' modifier, and reflects trading interest of a natural person,
with no change made to the terms of the underlying order of the natural
person with respect to price (except in the case of a market order that
is changed to a marketable limit order) or side of market, and that
does not originate from a trading algorithm or any other computerized
methodology.\25\ Retail orders may either be Discretionary Peg or
midpoint peg orders with a Time-in-Force of IOC or FOK, and are only
eligible to trade at the Midpoint Price or better.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See supra note 6. An order from a natural person can
include orders submitted on behalf of accounts that are held in a
corporate legal form--such as an Individual Retirement Account,
Corporation, or a Limited Liability Company--that have been
established for the benefit of an individual or group of related
family members, provided that the order is submitted by an
individual.
    \26\ See IEX Rule 11.232(a)(2). As with all pegged orders,
Retail orders may only trade during the Regular Market Session. See
IEX Rule 11.190(a)(3)(E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An RMO is an IEX Member (or division thereof) that has been
approved by the Exchange to submit Retail orders.\27\ Pursuant to IEX
Rules 11.232(a)(1) and (b), which describe the qualification and
application process for becoming an RMO, any Member may qualify as an
RMO if it conducts a retail business or routes Retail orders on behalf
of another broker-dealer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See IEX Rule 11.232(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An RLP order is currently a Discretionary Peg order that is only
eligible to execute against Retail orders through the execution process
described in IEX Rule 11.232(e).\28\ Any Member can submit RLP orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See IEX Rule 11.232(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the Retail Program rule filing,\29\ IEX's Retail
Program is a simple approach designed to provide retail investors with
the opportunity for meaningful price improvement (by executing at the
Midpoint Price or better), by attracting counterparty liquidity to the
Exchange from Members and their clients seeking to interact with retail
liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See supra note 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IEX's Retail Program leverages IEX's market structure to provide
enhanced price improvement opportunities for retail customers by
incentivizing Members and their clients to provide liquidity to the
orders of retail investors, while enabling such investors to obtain
materially better price improvement than may otherwise be available, in
a way that is mutually beneficial for retail investors and Members
providing liquidity. Based on experience with the Retail Program, IEX
believes that the four proposed changes, noted above and described in
detail below, would further enhance the Retail Program.
Proposal
    IEX proposes four enhancements to the Retail Program, as described
below.
Retail Order Definition
    IEX proposes to revise the definition of Retail order in IEX Rule
11.190(b)(15) so that it is limited to retail investors who do not
appear to be engaged in trading activity akin to that of a
professional. Specifically, the definition of Retail order would be
amended to apply only to the trading interest of a natural person that
does not place more than 390 equity orders per day on average during a
calendar month for its own beneficial account(s). All other existing
criteria specified in IEX Rule 11.190(b)(15) would continue to apply.
    IEX Rule 11.190(b)(15) currently provides that a Retail order means
an order submitted by a Retail Member Organization (as defined in IEX
Rule 11.232) and designated with a ``Retail order'' modifier. A Retail
order must be an agency order, or riskless principal order that
satisfies the criteria of FINRA Rule 5320.03. A Retail order must
reflect trading interest of a natural person with no change made to the
terms of the underlying order of the natural person with respect to
price (except in the case of a market order that is changed to a
marketable limit order) or side of market and that does not originate
from a trading algorithm or any other computerized methodology, which
will now be defined as a ``retail customer'' for clarity. An order from
a retail customer can include orders submitted on behalf of accounts
that are held in a corporate legal form--such as an Individual
Retirement Account, Corporation, or a Limited Liability Company--that
have been established for the benefit of an individual or group of
related family members, provided that the order is submitted by an
individual. IEX proposes to add new language to IEX Rule 11.190(b)(15)
to specify that a Retail order may only be submitted on behalf of a
retail customer that does not place more than 390 equity orders per day
on average during a calendar month for its own beneficial account(s).
    In addition, IEX proposes to add Supplementary Material .01 to IEX
Rule 11.190(b) specifying how to determine whether the 390 equity
orders per day on average threshold has been reached. Specifically, the
Supplementary Material would provide that a ``parent'' order that is
broken into multiple ``child'' orders by a broker or dealer, or by an
algorithm housed at a broker or dealer or by an algorithm licensed from
a broker or dealer, but which is housed with the customer, counts as
one order even if the ``child'' orders are routed across multiple
exchanges. In addition, any order that cancels and replaces an existing
order would count as a separate order; except that an order that
cancels and replaces any ``child'' order resulting from a ``parent''
order that is broken into multiple ``child'' orders, does not count as
a new order.
    IEX also proposes to add Supplementary Material .02 to IEX Rule
11.190(b) to address the reasonable policies and procedures that an RMO
must have in place to ensure that Retail orders are appropriately
represented on the Exchange. Specifically, such policies and procedures
should provide for a review of retail customers' activity on at least a
quarterly basis. Further, Retail orders for any retail customer that
had an average of more than 390 equity orders per day during any month
of a calendar quarter are not eligible to be entered as Retail orders
for the next calendar quarter. Retail Member Organizations must conduct
a quarterly review and make any appropriate changes to the way in which
they are representing orders within five business days after the end of
each calendar quarter. In addition, if during a quarter the Exchange
identifies a retail customer for which orders are being represented as
Retail orders but that has averaged more than 390 equity orders per day
during a month, the Exchange will

notify the RMO, and the RMO will be required to change the manner in
which it is representing the retail customer's orders within five
business days.
    As noted above, the Exchange believes that the price improvement
benefits that accrue to Retail orders on IEX should be limited to
retail customers who do not appear to be engaged in trading activity
akin to that of a professional. IEX notes that the 390-order limitation
is a threshold used by various options exchanges to distinguish
professional customers from retail customers, so that a customer that
is not a broker-dealer but enters more than 390 options orders per day
(on average during a calendar month) is classified as a Professional
Customer and does not receive customer execution priority.\30\ The 390-
order threshold is also used by Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX'')
with respect to its equity market to delineate Retail Priority Orders,
which receive execution priority, from other retail customers. EDGX
Retail Priority Orders may only be entered on behalf of a person that
does not place more than 390 equity orders per day on average during a
calendar month for its own beneficial account(s).\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See, e.g., Nasdaq Stock Market LLC Options 1, Section
1(a)(47); NYSE Arca, Inc. (``Arca'') Rule 6.1A-O(a)(4A).
    \31\ See EDGX Rule 11.9 Interpretations and Policies .01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EDGX and the options exchanges apply a comparable methodology and
supervisory requirements to determine whether the 390-order threshold
has been reached as is proposed by IEX in this proposal.\32\ IEX
understands that the impetus for EDGX's and options exchanges' use of
the 390-order threshold is to limit priority benefits and assist in
ensuring that these benefits flow only to retail investors that are not
engaged in a significant amount of trading activity akin to that of a
professional.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See EDGX Rule 11.9 Interpretations and Policies .02.
    \33\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87200 (October 2,
2019), 84 FR 53788, 53791 (October 8, 2019) (SR-CboeEDGX-2019-012)
(order approving EDGX Retail Priority Orders); see also Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 89991 (September 24, 2020), 85 FR 61782,
61783 (September 30, 2020) (SR-MIAX-2020-31) (giving priority to
orders submitted on behalf of non-professional customers who submit
less than 390 orders per day).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IEX believes that similarly restricting Retail orders to non-
professional customers will expand the pool of market participants
willing to provide contra-side liquidity to trade with Retail orders
because the limitations will narrow the pool of Retail orders to those
from customers who are less likely to be professional market
participants. By expanding the pool of market participants willing to
compete for providing price improvement to Retail orders, IEX believes
that more Retail orders will be able to obtain meaningful price
improvement for their orders. IEX also notes that 390 orders per day
represents an order entered each minute during regular trading hours--
from 9:30 a.m. eastern time to 4:00 p.m. eastern time--which IEX
believes is a reasonable and not overly restrictive limitation in that
it contemplates active trading but not at the level of a professional
trader.\34\ IEX believes that limiting the pool of customers eligible
to enter Retail orders, as proposed, will incentivize additional
resting liquidity seeking to trade against such Retail orders (and
provide price improvement) because of their non-professional
characteristics.\35\ Thus, to the extent the proposed change is
successful in increasing the pool of RLP and other contra-side
liquidity it will benefit Retail orders by increasing execution
opportunities and price improvement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ For example, an analysis of orders sent to IEX by Members
and customers conducting a proprietary trading business indicates
that many of such Members and customers typically send millions of
orders per day and even the less active send thousands of orders per
day.
    \35\ This approach was supported by Citadel Securities in a
comment letter on EDGX's retail priority proposal. Citadel
Securities notes that ``[t]he market's experience with [retail
programs] evidences the failure of an overly broad definition of
`Retail Order'. [Retail programs] have not gained traction in the
market, precisely because the [retail programs'] definition of
`Retail Order' includes orders from both retail investors as well as
active professional traders. To the extent that the `Retail Order'
flow routed to [retail programs] includes orders from active
professional traders and is thus not as attractive to other market
participants, those market participants will simply elect not to
post [retail] liquidity and fill-rates for [retail] routes will be
low.'' See Letter dated April 26, 2019 from Stephen John Berger,
Citadel, to Eduardo A. Aleman, Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

RLP Order Book Priority
    IEX proposes to provide Order Book priority to RLP orders ahead of
other non-displayed orders priced to execute at the Midpoint Price.
Currently, IEX Rule 11.232(e)(3)(A)(iv) provides that RLP orders are
prioritized after all other non-displayed orders priced to trade at the
Midpoint Price. This approach was adopted by IEX originally because RLP
orders were a new order type and are only eligible to trade against
Retail orders. However, IEX now believes that RLP orders should have
higher priority than other non-displayed orders priced to trade at the
Midpoint Price in order to provide additional incentives for the entry
of RLP orders and concomitant provision of price improvement to Retail
orders. The Exchange notes that other exchanges that offer retail
programs enable retail liquidity providing orders that provide
immaterial sub-penny price improvement to achieve queue priority by
providing a retail order type that trades first with retail liquidity
providing orders before trading with other similarly priced orders.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See, e.g., Arca Rule 7.44-E(k) (Retail orders trade first
with retail price improvement orders (akin to IEX's RLP orders), and
then with all other orders to sell (buy) with a working price below
(above) the NBO (NBB)); See also BYX Rule 11.24(f); and Nasdaq BX,
Inc. (``Nasdaq BX'') Rule 4702(b)(6)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, as proposed, IEX Rule 11.232(e)(3)(A) would be amended to
provide that a Retail order to buy (sell) shall execute upon entry
against sell (buy) orders resting on the Order Book in the following
order:

    (i) Displayed sell (buy) orders at the NBO (NBB) during a locked
or crossed market;
    (ii) displayed sell (buy) odd lot orders priced to trade between
the NBB (NBO) and the MidPoint Price;
    (iii) Retail Liquidity Provider orders priced to trade at the
Midpoint Price; and
    (iv) nondisplayed orders priced to trade at the Midpoint Price.
Retail Liquidity Identifier
    IEX proposes to disseminate a Retail Liquidity Identifier through
the Exchange's proprietary market data feeds, TOPS \37\ and DEEP,\38\
and the appropriate SIP when RLP order interest aggregated to form at
least one round lot for a particular security is available in the
System, provided that the RLP order interest is resting at the Midpoint
Price and is priced at least $0.001 better than the NBB or NBO (``RLP
Interest''). The purpose of the Retail Liquidity Identifier is to
provide relevant market information to RMOs that there is RLP Interest
on IEX, thereby incentivizing them to send Retail orders to IEX. The
Exchange does not believe that such market information constitutes a
``quote'' within the meaning of Regulation NMS because it would not
include a specific price or size of the interest.\39\ The Retail
Liquidity Identifier will reflect the symbol and the side (buy or sell)
of the RLP Interest but will not include the price or size. While an
explicit price will not be disseminated, because RLP orders are only
eligible to trade at the Midpoint Price, dissemination will thus
reflect the

availability of price improvement at the Midpoint Price. A number of
other exchanges that offer retail programs also disseminate a Retail
Liquidity Identifier on their proprietary market data feeds and the
appropriate SIP if such interest would provide at least $0.001 of price
improvement.\40\ IEX's proposal is comparable, but (as discussed below)
because the RLP orders will be resting at the Midpoint Price, IEX's
Retail Liquidity Indicator will reflect at least $0.005 of price
improvement for any orders priced at or above $1.00 per share unless
the NBBO is locked or crossed. The Exchange believes that it is
appropriate to limit dissemination of the Retail Liquidity Identifier
to those cases when at least one round lot of RLP order interest is
available in order to limit dissemination to cases in which there is a
material amount of RLP trading interest available on the IEX Order
Book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See IEX Rule 11.330(a)(1).
    \38\ See IEX Rule 11.330(a)(3).
    \39\ The Exchange plans to submit a letter requesting that the
staff of the Division of Trading and Markets not recommend any
enforcement action under Rule 602 of Regulation NMS (``Quote Rule'')
based on the Exchange's and its Members' participation in the Retail
Program.
    \40\ See, e.g., BYX Rule 11.24(e); Nasdaq BX Rule 4780(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed, IEX would only disseminate the Retail Liquidity
Identifier when the RLP order interest is resting at the Midpoint Price
and is priced at least $0.001 better than the NBB or NBO, consistent
with the rules of the other exchanges that disseminate Retail Liquidity
Identifiers \41\ as well as the SIP Plans' requirements.\42\ Because
RLP orders are proposed to be only midpoint peg orders, they will
always represent at least $0.001 price improvement over the NBB or NBO,
with two exceptions: (i) Locked or crossed markets and (ii) sub-dollar
quotes when the security's spread is less than $0.002.\43\ When the
market is locked, under IEX Rule 11.190(h)(3)(C) the Exchange considers
the Midpoint Price to be equal to the locking price and when the market
is crossed, under IEX Rule 11.190(h)(3)(D) the Exchange considers the
Midpoint Price to be indeterminable. In these situations, RLP orders
are repriced as specified in the applicable rule provision and would
not provide any price improvement to an incoming Retail order, and
therefore will not comprise RLP Interest for purposes of the Retail
Liquidity Indicator. Similarly, when a particular security is priced
less than $1.00 per share, its MPV is $0.0001, so the Midpoint Price
will not always represent at least $0.001 in price improvement.\44\
Therefore, IEX will only disseminate RLP Interest for sub-dollar
securities if the spread in the security is greater than or equal to
$0.002, meaning the Midpoint Price represents at least $0.001 price
improvement over the NBB or NBO. With respect to the requirement that
an RLP order must be resting at the Midpoint Price in order to be
included in the RLP Interest to be disseminated, the Exchange notes
that an RLP order could have a limit price less aggressive than the
Midpoint Price in which case it would not be eligible to trade with an
incoming Retail order and therefore should not be included in the
Retail Liquidity Identifier dissemination since it would not reflect
interest available to trade with Retail orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See supra note 40.
    \42\ See January 26, 2021 CQS Participant Input Binary
Specification Version 2.6a, available at https://www.ctaplan.com/publicdocs/ctaplan/CQS_Pillar_Input_Specification.pdf and May 2020
UTP Data Feed Services Specification Version 1.5, available at
https://www.utpplan.com/DOC/UtpBinaryOutputSpec.pdf.
    \43\ The minimum price variant (``MPV'') for bids, offers, or
indications of interest priced less than $1.00 per share is $0.0001.
See IEX Rule 11.210(a)(2).
    \44\ For example, if a security's NBB is $0.505 and NBO is
$0.506, the Midpoint Price would be $0.5055, which is $0.0005 more
than the NBB and less than NBO, so it would not represent at least
$0.001 price improvement over the NBB or NBO, and therefore will not
comprise RLP Interest for purposes of the Retail Liquidity
Indicator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

RLP Order Type Definition
    IEX proposes to amend the definition of RLP orders so such orders
can only be midpoint peg orders, instead of Discretionary Peg orders,
and cannot include a minimum quantity condition. Currently an RLP order
is a Discretionary Peg order that is only eligible to execute against
Retail orders through the execution process described in IEX Rule
11.232(e).
    In connection with the proposed changes, described above, to
disseminate a Retail Liquidity Identifier and provide enhanced priority
to RLP orders, IEX believes that it is appropriate that RLP orders be
midpoint peg orders. Specifically, IEX notes that midpoint peg orders
post on the Order Book at the Midpoint Price while Discretionary Peg
orders post on the Order Book at the less aggressive of the order's
limit price or a price one minimum price variation less aggressive than
the NBB or NBO (as applicable) and exercise price discretion to the
Midpoint Price except during periods of quote instability when
Discretionary Peg orders are not permitted to trade at a price more
aggressive than their resting price.\45\ Thus, disseminating a Retail
Liquidity Identifier of RLP Interest at the Midpoint Price would be
unnecessarily complicated if RLP orders were to continue to be
Discretionary Peg orders since they do not explicitly post to the Order
Book at the Midpoint Price. Additionally, IEX's rules provide that
Discretionary Peg orders are prioritized behind any non-displayed
interest at the discretionary price (in this case the Midpoint
Price),\46\ so it would be inconsistent with the priority rules for RLP
Discretionary Peg orders to have priority over non-RLP midpoint peg
orders that do rest at the Midpoint Price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See IEX Rule 11.190(g).
    \46\ See IEX Rule 11.220(a)(1)(C)(vii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, permitting an RLP order to include a minimum quantity
condition would reduce the determinism of the order's availability to
trade at the Midpoint Price. IEX also believes that the protections
that Discretionary Peg orders receive because they do not exercise
price discretion to the Midpoint Price during periods of quote
instability, or by utilizing a minimum quantity condition to avoid
potential information leakage, are less necessary when trading against
Retail orders. Moreover, IEX believes that the proposed changes will
increase execution rates for Retail orders because RLP orders will not
be subject to contingencies based on quote instability or minimum
quantity requirements.
Implementation
    If the Commission approves this proposed rule change, the Exchange
will implement it within 90 days of approval and provide at least ten
(10) days' notice to Members and market participants of the
implementation timeline.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Act,\47\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5),\48\ in particular, in that it is 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 facilitating transactions in securities, and 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \48\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has consistently emphasized that the U.S. capital
markets should be structured with the interests of retail investors in
mind \49\ and the enhancements to the Retail Program proposed in this
rule change proposal are explicitly designed with that goal in mind.
The four proposed enhancements to the Retail Program are individually
and collectively designed

to benefit retail investors by providing enhanced opportunities for
such investors to obtain meaningful price improvement. The four
enhancements are designed to work in tandem to narrow the pool of
market participants eligible to enter Retail orders to those who are
less likely to be professional traders and thereby attract increased
contra-side liquidity seeking to trade against and provide meaningful
price improvement to such Retail orders, as well as to publicize when
there is non-trivial contra-side price improving interest available,
and fine tune the requirements applicable to such interest so that it
is more deterministic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See supra note 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the protection of investors because it is designed to
increase competition among execution venues by enhancing IEX's Retail
Program which offers the potential for meaningful price improvement to
orders of retail investors, including through incentivizing market
participants to provide additional liquidity to execute against the
orders of retail investors.
    Specifically, the Exchange believes that limiting the use of Retail
orders to only those retail investors who do not appear to be engaged
in trading activity akin to that of a professional is consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest because it is
designed to enable the benefits of the Retail Program to accrue to less
sophisticated market participants that may be underserved by existing
trading alternatives. Moreover, as discussed in the Purpose section and
above, limiting the use of Retail orders in this manner is designed to
incentivize additional resting liquidity seeking to trade against and
provide price improvement to Retail orders.
    Further, the Exchange believes that using a threshold of 390 orders
per day on average during a calendar month (which is equivalent to one
order per minute during the trading day) is a reasonable way to
differentiate between less active retail investors and those that are
more akin to market professionals. IEX believes that it is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest to treat an
investor that enters more than one order per minute as a professional
trader, and notes that this threshold is used to differentiate between
priority and professional customers in the options industry and by EDGX
for its retail priority program. Thus, identifying Retail orders based
on the average number of orders entered for a beneficial account is a
familiar and objective approach to distinguish ordinary retail
investors from active traders akin to professionals.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ This approach was suggested by Citadel Securities in a
comment letter on the EDGX retail priority proposal which did not
initially include the 390 orders per day on average limitation. In
its comment letter, Citadel Securities noted that the definition of
``Retail Order'' used by various equities exchanges does not
adequately distinguish retail investors' orders from those of active
professional traders. Citadel went on to suggest that EDGX leverage
the definition of ``professional customer'' used by various options
exchanges that is defined as a trader who places ore than 390 orders
in listed options per day on average during a calendar month for
their own beneficial account. See Letter dated April 26, 2019 from
Stephen John Berger, Citadel, to Eduardo A. Aleman, Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the counting methodology and
additional policies and procedures that RMOs must comply with to
reasonably ensure that Retail orders are appropriately represented on
the Exchange are consistent with the Act. In this regard IEX notes that
such methodology and policies and procedures are substantially
identical to those in place at EDGX. The Exchange has a robust
regulatory program, including an exam process implemented by FINRA, in
place to monitor for compliance with existing RMO requirements, which
will be enhanced for this proposal.
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to narrow the definition of
Retail order is not unfairly discriminatory but rather is designed to
promote a competitive process for retail executions while providing
retail investors with the potential to receive meaningful price
improvement. All retail programs, including IEX's, provide for
differentiation of retail orders from other orders. The proposed
changes are merely incremental, designed to enhance IEX's ability to
compete for retail order flow and retail liquidity and thereby provide
benefits to retail investors from the better price that liquidity
providers are willing to give their orders.
    The Exchange also believes that providing Order Book priority to
RLP orders ahead of other non-displayed orders priced to execute at the
Midpoint Price is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest because it is designed to provide additional incentives
for the entry of RLP orders and concomitant provision of price
improvement to Retail orders, as discussed in the Purpose section. The
Exchange also notes that Retail orders will still be able to execute
against other orders priced to execute at the Midpoint Price so the
proposed changes is not creating a segmented liquidity pool.
Additionally, the Exchange believes that providing Order Book priority
to RLP orders is not unfairly discriminatory since any Member can enter
an RLP order. Further, as discussed in the Purpose section, this
proposed change is consistent with the approach of several other
exchanges that provide immaterial sub-penny price improvement to
achieve queue priority by providing a retail order type that trades
first with retail liquidity providing orders before trading with other
similarly priced orders.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ See supra note 36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange believes that it is consistent with the
Act to disseminate a Retail Liquidity Identifier, as described in the
Purpose section. The purpose of the Retail Liquidity Identifier is to
provide relevant market information to RMOs that there is RLP Interest
on IEX. The dissemination is thus designed to augment the total mix of
information available to RMOs that may benefit Retail orders they
represent. The Exchange notes that other exchanges disseminate
comparable information regarding available contra-side liquidity
available to execute against retail orders, as noted in the Purpose
section.
    Further, the Exchange believes it is consistent with the Act to
amend the definition of RLP orders to make them midpoint peg orders
instead of Discretionary Peg orders, so that the availability of such
orders to trade at the Midpoint Price is more deterministic, as
described in the Purpose section. IEX also believes that the proposed
changes will benefit Retail orders to the extent that their execution
rates, and resulting price improvement, increase.
    The Commission consistently highlights the need to ensure that the
U.S. capital markets are structured with the interests of retail
investors in mind, and recently highlighted its focus on the ``long-
term interest of Main Street Investors'' as its number one strategic
goal for fiscal years 2018 to 2022.\52\ The Exchange believes the
proposed enhancements to its Retail Program will better serve the
retail investing public by providing them with expanded opportunities
for meaningful price improvement on eligible trades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See supra note 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. To the contrary, IEX
believes that the proposed enhancements to our Retail Program would
continue to enhance competition

and execution quality for retail customers.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on intermarket competition since competing venues
have and can continue to adopt similar retail programs, subject to the
SEC rule change process. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can easily direct their orders to
competing venues, including off-exchange venues.
    The Exchange also does not believe that the proposed rule change
will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary
or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. While orders
submitted by some Members will be treated differently, as described in
the Purpose section, those differences are not based on the type of
Member entering orders but on whether the order is for a retail
customer, and there is no restriction on whether a Member can handle
retail customer orders. Further, any Member can enter an RLP order.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission will: (a) By order approve
or disapprove such proposed rule change, or (b) institute proceedings
to determine whether the proposed rule change should be 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<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-IEX-2021-06 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-IEX-2021-06. 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-IEX-2021-06 and should be submitted on
or before May 6, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-07676 Filed 4-14-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 76 (Wednesday, April 20, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22010-22011]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9381]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2010-1172; Airspace Docket No. 10-ACE-14]

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Point Lookout, MO

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class E airspace at Point Lookout, MO, to
accommodate new Area Navigation (RNAV) Standard Instrument Approach
Procedures at M. Graham Clark--Taney Field Airport, Point Lookout, MO.
The FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety and management of
Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) operations at the airport.

DATES: Effective date: 0901 UTC, June 30, 2011. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone (817) 321-
7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On December 28, 2010, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Class E airspace for Point
Lookout, MO, creating additional controlled airspace at M. Graham
Clark--Taney Field Airport (75 FR 81514) Docket No. FAA-2010-1172.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No
comments were received. Class E airspace designations are published in
paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9U dated August 18, 2010, and
effective September 15, 2010, which is incorporated by reference in 14
CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document
will be published subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

    This action amends title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by creating Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface to accommodate new standard instrument approach
procedures at M. Graham Clark--Taney Field Airport, Point Lookout, MO.
This action is necessary for the safety and management of IFR
operations at the airport.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, section 106, describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
subtitle VII, part A, subpart I, section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it creates controlled airspace at M. Graham Clark--Taney Field
Airport, Point Lookout, MO.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9U, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15,
2010, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface.

* * * * *

ACE MO E5 Point Lookout, MO [Amended]

Point Lookout, M. Graham Clark--Taney County Airport, MO
    (Lat. 36[deg]37'33'' N., long. 93[deg]13'44'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile

radius of M. Graham Clark--Taney County Airport, and within 3.1
miles each side of the 119[deg] bearing from the airport extending
from the 6.5-mile radius to 9.7 miles southeast of the airport, and
within 3.9 miles each side of the 299[deg] bearing from the airport
extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 10.6 miles southeast of the
airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on April 7, 2011.
Richard J. Kervin, Jr.,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2011-9381 Filed 4-19-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P