[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 17, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 8031]
[FR Doc No: 2016-03243]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket ID FEMA-2016-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1187

Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations for Gladwin County,
Michigan (All Jurisdictions)

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is withdrawing
its proposed rule concerning proposed flood elevation determinations
for Gladwin County, Michigan (All Jurisdictions).

DATES: This withdrawal is effective on February 17, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-
1187 to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal
Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
(email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 6, 2011 FEMA published a proposed
rule at 76 FR 19007, proposing flood elevation determinations along one
or more flooding sources in Gladwin County, Michigan (All
Jurisdictions). FEMA is withdrawing the proposed rule because FEMA has
or will be issuing a Revised Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map, and
if necessary a Flood Insurance Study report, featuring updated flood
hazard information. A Notice of Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations
will be published in the Federal Register and in the affected
community's local newspaper following issuance of the Revised
Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4104; 44 CFR 67.4.

    Dated: February 2, 2016.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department
of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2016-03243 Filed 2-16-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 131 (Tuesday, July 9, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32808-32816]
[FR Doc No: 2019-14490]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-86280 ; File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2019-012]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Instituting Proceedings To
Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove of a Proposed Rule Change,
as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Introduce Order Book Priority for
Equity Orders Submitted on Behalf of Retail Investors

July 2, 2019.
    On March 18, 2019, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'' or
``EDGX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to introduce order book priority for equity orders
submitted on behalf of retail investors. The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on April 5, 2019.\3\ The
Commission received four comment letters on the proposed rule
change.\4\ On May 16, 2019, the Commission extended the time period
within which to approve, disapprove the proposed rule change, or
institute proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the
proposed rule change to July 4, 2019.\5\ On June 18, 2019, the Exchange
filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85482 (April 2,
2019), 84 FR 13729 (``Notice'').
    \4\ See letters to Vanessa Countryman, Acting Secretary,
Commission, from Sean Paylor, Trader, AJO, L.P., dated April 25,
2019 (``AJO Letter''); Joseph Saluzzi and Sal Arnuk, Partners,
Themis Trading LLC, dated May 8, 2019 (``Themis Letter''); T. Sean
Bennett, Principal Associate General Counsel, Nasdaq, dated May 9,
2019 (``Nasdaq Letter''); letter to Eduardo A. Aleman, Deputy
Secretary, Commission from Stephen John Berger, Global Heady of
Government & Regulatory Policy, Citadel Securities, dated April 26,
2019 (``Citadel Letter''). All comments received by the Commission
on the proposed rule change are available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-cboeedgx-2019-012/srcboeedgx2019012.htm.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85879, 84 FR 23591
(May 16, 2019).
    \6\ Amendment No. 1 modifies the proposed rule change by: (1)
Adding a proposed definition of ``Retail Priority Order''; (2)
applying the proposed enhanced priority to ``Retail Priority
Orders'' instead of ``Retail Orders''; (3) imposing certain
requirements on Retail Member Organizations that enter ``Retail
Priority Orders''; (4) removing the proposed requirement that
``Retail Orders'' must be identified as such on the EDGX Book Feed;
and (5) requiring that all ``Retail Priority Orders'' be identified
as such on the EDGX Book Feed. Amendment No. 1 is available at:
https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-cboeedgx-2019-012/srcboeedgx2019012-5705327-185928.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is publishing this notice and to solicit comments on
the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, from
interested persons and to institute proceedings pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \7\ to determine whether to approve or
disapprove the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Exchange's Description of the Proposal, as Modified by Amendment No.
1

    The Exchange proposes to introduce order book priority for equity
orders submitted on behalf of retail investors.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/options/regulation/rule_filings/edgx/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to introduce order book
priority for equity orders submitted on behalf of retail investors.
Forty three million U.S. households hold a retirement or brokerage
account,\8\ and these investors are increasingly turning to the
equities markets to fund important life goals. It is therefore critical
that our markets are sensitive to the needs of the investing public.
The Exchange continuously strives to innovate and improve market
structure in ways that facilitate ordinary investors achieving their
investment goals. The proposed introduction of retail priority is
designed with this objective in mind. The Exchange believes that
introducing retail priority may provide retail investors with better
execution quality and better position the Exchange as the ``home'' for
retail limit orders. This, in turn, will further allow retail liquidity
to contribute to overall price formation and attract more market
participants to the Exchange, creating a richer and more diverse
ecosystem with deeper liquidity. Retail priority would therefore be
consistent with the goals of the Commission to encourage markets that
are structured to benefit ordinary investors,\9\ while facilitating
order interaction and price discovery to the benefit of all market
participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See The Evolving Market for Retail Investment Services and
Forward-Looking Regulation--Adding Clarity and Investor Protection
while Ensuring Access and Choice, Chairman Jay Clayton, Commission
(May 2, 2018), available at https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/speech-clayton-2018-05-02.
    \9\ See e.g., 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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    As defined in EDGX Rule 11.21, a ``Retail Order'' is an agency or
riskless principal order that meets the criteria of FINRA Rule 5320.03
\10\ that originates from a natural person and is submitted to the
Exchange by a Retail Member Organization, provided that no change is
made to the terms of the order with respect to price or side of market
and the order does not originate from a trading algorithm or any other
computerized methodology.\11\ A ``Retail Member Organization'' or
``RMO'' is a Member (or a division thereof) that has been approved by
the Exchange under EDGX Rule 11.21 to submit Retail Orders. Pursuant to
EDGX Rule 11.21(b), which describes the qualification and application
process for becoming a Retail Member Organization, any member may
qualify as a Retail Member Organization if it conducts a retail
business or routes retail orders on behalf of another broker-dealer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ FINRA Rule 5320.03 clarifies that an RMO may enter Retail
Orders on a riskless principal basis, provided that (i) the entry of
such riskless principal orders meet the requirements of FINRA Rule
5320.03, including that the RMO maintains supervisory systems to
reconstruct, in a time[hyphen]sequenced manner, all Retail Orders
that are entered on a riskless principal basis; and (ii) the RMO
submits a report, contemporaneously with the execution of the
facilitated order, that identifies the trade as riskless principal.
    \11\ Retail Member Organizations are able to designate their
orders as Retail Orders on either an order-by-order basis using FIX
ports or by designating certain of their FIX ports at the Exchange
as ``Retail Order Ports.'' Unless otherwise instructed by the Retail
Member Organization, a Retail Order will be identified as Retail
when routed to an away Trading Center. See EDGX Rule 11.21(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today, the Exchange operates based on a price/display/time priority
execution algorithm that is similar to those employed by most other
U.S. equities exchanges.\12\ As such, the first Displayed \13\ order
resting on the EDGX Book \14\ at a particular price has priority over
the next order and so on based on the time of order entry. Non-
Displayed \15\ orders at that price are further categorized into a
number of priority bands, with orders within each priority band
prioritized again based on the time of order entry, as provided in EDGX
Rule 11.9. The generally applicable allocation bands for orders
executed on the Exchange are described in EDGX Rule 11.9(a)(2)(A), and
similar allocation bands applicable to orders executed at the midpoint
of the NBBO are described in EDGX Rule 11.9(a)(2)(B).\16\ The price
time allocation model has provided significant benefits to the equities
markets as it encourages increased efficiency by rewarding market
participants that are the first to provide liquidity at a particular
price. At the same time, because this allocation methodology
preferences speed, retail investors may have a more limited ability to
secure an execution for their non-marketable orders under this model.
The Exchange believes that retail priority would improve trading
outcomes for retail investors and could perhaps encourage even more
retail order flow to be entered into the displayed market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See EDGX Rule 11.12.
    \13\ ``Displayed'' is an instruction the User may attach to an
order stating that the order is to be displayed by the System on the
EDGX Book. See EDGX Rule 11.6(e)(1).
    \14\ ``EDGX Book'' means the System's electronic file of orders.
See EDGX Rule 1.5(d)
    \15\ ``Non-Displayed'' is an instruction the User may attach to
an order stating that the order is not to be displayed by the System
on the EDGX Book. See EDGX Rule 11.6(e)(2).
    \16\ In addition, EDGX Rule 11.9(a)(2)(C) describes the sequence
in which orders are timestamped when re-ranked by the System upon
clearance of a locking quotation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Retail Priority Orders
    The Exchange would offer priority benefits exclusively to Retail
Orders that are entered on behalf of retail investors that enter a
limited number of equity orders each trading day. As such, the Exchange
would define a new term, ``Retail Priority Order'' to designate Retail
Orders that are eligible for priority on the EDGX Book. Specifically, a
``Retail Priority Order'' would be defined as a Retail Order, as
defined in Rule 11.21(a)(2), that is 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). The selected 390
orders per day threshold to qualify as a Retail Priority Order is
similarly used for the options industry Priority Customer
definition,\17\ and represents one order entered each minute during
regular trading hours--i.e., from 9:30 a.m. ET to 4:00 p.m. ET. All
orders entered on behalf of the retail customer would be counted to
determine whether a customer's Retail Orders could be identified as
Retail Priority Orders. This would therefore include both orders routed
to other exchanges and orders that are not entered as Retail Orders
(e.g., because the price of such orders is modified by a broker-dealer
algorithm). The Exchange believes that limiting the Retail Orders that
would be priority eligible, as described, would assist in ensuring that
these benefits flow only to retail investors that are not engaged in
trading activity akin to that of a professional.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See e.g., EDGX Rule 16.1(a)(46),(47).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similar to the rules of the Exchange's options trading platform
(``EDGX Options''),\18\ the EDGX Equities rules would describe how to
count parent/child orders and cancel/replace orders when determining
whether the 390 order per day threshold has been exceeded. As proposed,
parent/child orders would be counted as a single order--i.e., 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, would count as one order even if the ``child''
orders are routed across multiple exchanges. Similarly, with one
exception for parent/child orders, any order that cancels and replaces
an existing order would count as a separate order. An order that
cancels and replaces any ``child'' order resulting from a ``parent''
order that is broken into multiple ``child'' orders, would not count as
a new order. The Exchange believes that this guidance would assist RMOs
in determining whether Retail Orders entered on behalf of a particular
retail customer would qualify to be entered as Retail Priority Orders.
Similar to the implementation of the Priority Customer designation in
the options industry,\19\ RMOs that enter Retail Priority Orders would
also be required to have reasonable policies and procedures in place to
ensure that such orders are appropriately represented on the Exchange.
Such policies and procedures should provide for a review of retail
customers' activity on at least a quarterly basis. Retail Orders for
any retail customer that had an average of more than 390 orders per day
during any month of a calendar quarter would not be eligible to be
entered as Retail Priority Orders for the next calendar quarter. RMOs
would be required to 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. While
RMOs would only be required to review their accounts on a quarterly
basis, if during a quarter the Exchange identifies a retail customer
for which orders are being represented as Retail Priority Orders but
that has averaged more than 390 orders per day during a month, the
Exchange would notify the RMO, and the RMO would be required to change
the manner in which it is representing the retail customer's orders
within five business days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Interpretations and Policies .01 to EDGX Rule 16.1. Due
to differences between equities and options trading there are some
differences between the proposed methodology and the methodology
used by options exchanges. For example, EDGX Options rules contain
provisions related to complex orders and pegged orders, and
differentiate between parent orders that are broken up into multiple
child orders on the same side and series or both sides and/or
multiple series.
    \19\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78221 (July 1,
2016), 81 FR 44353 (July 7, 2016) (SR-BatsEDGX-2016-28).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Retail Priority Proposal
    The Exchange proposes to introduce retail priority in order to
ensure that non-marketable orders submitted on behalf of retail
investors can more readily compete for execution with orders entered by
sophisticated market participants that may be better equipped to
optimize their place in the intermarket queue. Retail priority would be
in place during all trading sessions, and would also be available to
orders entered for participation in the Exchange's opening process and
the re-opening process following a halt.
    As proposed, the portion of a Retail Priority Order with a
Displayed instruction would be given allocation priority ahead of all
other available interest on the EDGX Book. This would be true of both
orders executed pursuant to the regular priority bands described in
EDGX Rule 11.9(a)(2)(A), and orders priced at the midpoint of the NBBO
pursuant to EDGX Rule 11.9(a)(2)(B) where Retail Priority Orders
subject to Display-Price Sliding \20\ would have priority ahead of
limit orders entered with such an instruction as well as any other
orders resting at the midpoint of the NBBO.\21\ In addition, since
Reserve Orders contain a Displayed instruction but include both
Displayed and Non-Displayed shares, the Reserve Quantity \22\ of Retail
Priority Orders would be given priority ahead of the Reserve Quantity
of other limit orders on the EDGX Book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Display-Price Sliding is an order instruction provided for
compliance with Rule 610(d) of Regulation NMS. See EDGX Rule
11.6(l)(B). While a significant majority of Retail Orders are
entered into the EDGX Book with a routing instruction, an RMO may
choose to perform its own routing, in which case those orders may be
handled pursuant to the Display-Price Sliding process, which is the
default handling unless Price Adjust or Cancel Back is elected. See
EDGX Rule 11.8(b)(10).
    \21\ Orders entered with Display-Price Sliding are ranked at the
locking price and are therefore given priority when executed at the
midpoint of the NBBO pursuant to current EDGX Rule 11.9(a)(2)(B).
    \22\ ``Reserve Quantity'' is the portion of an order that
includes a Non-Displayed instruction in which a portion of that
order is also displayed on the EDGX Book. See EDGX Rule 11.6(m).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Retail Priority Orders that are not willing to be displayed, or are
only willing to be displayed at a less aggressive price than the
execution price, would not receive any special priority. For example, a
Retail Priority Order that is entered as a MidPoint Peg Order,\23\
which by definition is Non-Displayed, would be prioritized along with
all other MidPoint Peg Orders notwithstanding the fact that it is a
Retail Priority Order. Similarly, a MidPoint Discretionary Order
(``MDO'') \24\ executed within its Discretionary Range would receive
the same priority as other orders entered with a Discretionary Range
instruction, regardless of whether the MDO is displayed at its pegged
price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ A ``MidPoint Peg Order'' is a non-displayed Market Order or
Limit Order with an instruction to execute at the midpoint of the
NBBO, or, alternatively, pegged to the less aggressive of the
midpoint of the NBBO or one minimum price variation inside the same
side of the NBBO as the order. See EDGX Rule 11.8(d).
    \24\ A ``MidPoint Discretionary Order'' is a Limit Order that is
executable at the NBB for an order to buy or the NBO for an order to
sell while resting on the EDGX Book, with discretion to execute at
prices to and including the midpoint of the NBBO. See EDGX Rule
11.8(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following examples illustrate the proposed implementation of
retail priority: \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ In each example, orders are shown in the order in which
they are entered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Example 1: Displayed Retail Priority Order Has Priority at a Given
Price
NBBO: $10.00 x $10.10
Order 1: Buy 100 shares @$10.00--Displayed, Non-Retail Priority Order
Order 2: Buy 100 shares @$10.00--Displayed, Retail Priority Order
Order 3: Sell 100 shares @$10.00

    A Retail Priority Order entered with a Displayed instruction would
have priority over Non-Retail Priority Orders at the same price. As a
result, Order 3 would trade with Order 2 for 100 shares @$10.00,
securing a timely execution for the retail investor.
Example 2: Better Priced Non-Retail Priority Order Has Priority
NBBO: $10.00 x $10.10
Order 1: Buy 100 shares @$10.00--Retail Priority Order
Order 2: Buy 100 shares @$10.01--Non-Retail Priority Order
Order 3: Sell 100 shares @$10.00

    Allocations would continue to be prioritized based on price.
Although Retail Priority Orders entered with a Displayed instruction
would have priority over Non-Retail Priority Orders at the same price,
they would not have priority over Non-Retail Priority Orders at a
better price. As a result, Order 3 would trade with the better priced
Order 2 for 100 shares @$10.01.
Example 3: No Retail Priority for Non-Displayed Orders
NBBO: $10.00 x $10.10
Order 1: Buy 100 shares @$10.01--Non-Displayed, Non-Retail Priority
Order
Order 2: Buy 100 shares @$10.01--Non-Displayed, Retail Priority Order
Order 3: Sell 100 shares @$10.00

    A Retail Priority Order entered with a Non-Displayed instruction is
not eligible for retail priority. As a result, Order 3 trades with
Order 1 for 100 shares @$10.01 based on time priority. Retail Priority
Orders would need to be submitted with a Displayed or Reserve
instruction to qualify for the benefits of retail priority, which
should encourage displayed retail liquidity.
Example 4: No Retail Priority in Discretionary Range
NBBO: $10.00 x $10.10

Order 1: Buy 100 shares @$10.00 + $0.03 Discretion--Non-Retail Priority
Order
Order 2: Buy 100 shares @$10.00 + $0.03 Discretion--Retail Priority
Order
Order 3: Sell 100 shares @$10.02

    Retail Priority Orders would only have priority if willing to be
displayed at the execution price. Although orders entered with a
Discretionary Range instruction may be displayed at their ranked price,
the execution would occur at a non-displayed price within the
Discretionary Range. As a result, Order 3 trades with Order 1 for 100
shares @$10.02 based on time priority.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ If Order 3 was to sell 100 shares @$10.00 then retail
priority would be observed at the displayed price and Order 3 would
trade with Order 2 for 100 shares @$10.00.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Example 5: Retail Priority Reserve Order has Displayed and Non-
Displayed Priority
NBBO: $10.00 x $10.10
Order 1: Buy 500 @$10.00--Non-Retail Priority Reserve Order, 100 shares
displayed
Order 2: Buy 500 @$10.00--Retail Priority Reserve Order, 100 shares
displayed
Order 3: Sell 300 @$10.00

    A Retail Priority Order entered as a Reserve Order would have
retail priority for both displayed and non-displayed size. However, any
Reserve Quantity would be executed after other orders with a higher
priority, including the displayed size available from Non-Retail
Priority Orders. As a result, Order 3 would trade 100 shares @$10.00
with Order 2 based on retail priority, then would trade 100 shares
@$10.00 with Order 1. After exhausting the available displayed size,
Order 3 would trade the remaining 100 shares @$10.00 with Order 2 based
on retail priority.
Example 6: Display-Price Sliding Retail Priority Orders are Eligible
for Priority at Midpoint
NBBO: $10.00 x $10.01
EDGX BBO: $10.00 x $10.02
Order 1: Buy 100 shares @$10.01--Book Only, Display-Price Sliding, Non-
Retail Priority Order
Order 2: Buy 100 shares @$10.01--Book Only, Display-Price Sliding,
Retail Priority Order
Order 3: Sell 100 shares @$10.01--Post Only
Order 4: Sell 100 shares @$10.00

    Due to the Display-Price Sliding instruction, both Order 1 and
Order 2 are ranked at $10.01 and displayed at $10.00 to avoid locking
the National Best Offer at $10.01.\27\ Then, because of the Post Only
instruction, Order 3 posts and displays on the EDGX Book at $10.01.
Since there is displayed interest now resting on the same side of the
order book, Order 4 is eligible for execution on entry at the midpoint
price of $10.005--i.e., one-half minimum price variation better than
Order 3.\28\ At the midpoint of the NBBO, a Retail Priority Order
subject to Display-Price Sliding that is willing but unable to display
at or better than the execution price would have priority over other
orders. As a result, Order 4 would trade with Order 2 for 100 shares
@$10.005, securing a timely execution for the retail investor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ An order with a Display-Price Sliding instruction that
would be a locking quotation on entry is instead ranked at the
locking price and displayed at a price that is one minimum price
variation less aggressive than the locking price. See EDGX Rule
11.6(l)(B).
    \28\ See EDGX Rule 11.6(l)(1)(B)(v); EDGX Rule 11.10(a)(4)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Example 7: Reserve and Other Orders on EDGX Book
NBBO: $10.00 x $10.01
EDGX BBO: $10.00 x $10.02
Order 1: Buy 100 shares @$10.00--Non-Retail Priority Order
Order 2: Buy 500 @$10.00--Non-Retail Priority Reserve Order, 100 shares
displayed
Order 3: Buy 500 @$10.00--Retail Priority Reserve Order, 100 shares
displayed
Order 4: Buy 100 shares @$10.01--Book Only, Display-Price Sliding, Non-
Retail Priority Order
Order 5: Sell 500 shares @$10.00

    Due to the Display-Price Sliding instruction, Order 4 is displayed
at $10.00 to avoid locking the National Best Offer at $10.01, but
ranked and executable at its $10.01 limit price. Since allocations
would continue to be prioritized based on price, Order 5 would first
trade 100 shares @$10.01 with Order 4. At any given price, the
displayed size of a Retail Priority Order would have priority over Non-
Retail Priority Orders at the same price. As such, Order 5 would next
trade 100 shares @$10.00 with Order 3. Next, the displayed size of Non-
Retail Priority Orders would trade in time priority. Order 5 would
therefore trade 100 shares @$10.00 with Order 1, followed by 100 shares
@$10.00 with Order 2. Finally, after exhausting the available displayed
size, the Reserve Quantity of the remaining Reserve Orders would trade,
with Retail Priority Orders being eligible for retail priority. As a
result, Order 5 would trade the remaining 100 shares @$10.00 with Order
3.
Example 8: Display-Price Sliding and Midpoint Peg Orders on EDGX Book
NBBO: $10.00 x $10.01
EDGX BBO: $10.00 x $10.02
Order 1: Buy 100 shares @$10.01--Book Only, Display-Price Sliding, Non-
Retail Priority Order
Order 2: Buy 500 shares @$10.01--Book Only, Display-Price Sliding,
Retail Priority Reserve Order, 100 shares displayed
Order 3: Buy 100 shares @$10.01--MidPoint Peg, Non-Retail Priority
Order
Order 4: Sell 100 shares @$10.01--Post Only
Order 5: Sell 500 shares @$10.00

    Due to the Display-Price Sliding instruction, both Order 1 and
Order 2 are ranked at $10.01 and displayed at $10.00 to avoid locking
the National Best Offer at $10.01. Order 3, meanwhile is ranked at the
midpoint price of $10.005. Then, because of the Post Only instruction,
Order 4 posts and displays on the EDGX Book at $10.01. Since there is
displayed interest now resting on the same side of the order book,
Order 5 is eligible for execution on entry at the midpoint price of
$10.005--i.e., one-half minimum price variation better than Order 4. At
the midpoint of the NBBO, a Retail Priority Order subject to Display-
Price Sliding that is willing but unable to display at or better than
the execution price would have priority over other orders. As a result,
Order 5 would first trade with Order 2 for 100 shares @$10.005. Non-
Retail Priority Orders with Display-Price Sliding would be next in
priority, and Order 5 would therefore next trade 100 shares @$10.005
with Order 1. Finally, Order 5 would trade the remaining 300 shares
@10.005 with Order 2. Order 3 would not receive an execution since its
ranked price of $10.005 is worse than the ranked price of Orders 1 and
2, which are both ranked at the locking price of $10.01.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Pursuant to EDGA Rule 11.9(a)(1), the best-priced orders to
buy or sell have priority on the EDGA Book in all cases. Although
executable at the midpoint, Orders 1 and 2 are the highest-priced
buy orders based on the $10.01 ranked price. As such, the full size
of those orders would trade before orders that are both ranked and
executable at the midpoint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Retail Attribution
    A Retail Member Organization on EDGX has the option of designating
Retail Orders to be identified as such on the EDGX Book Feed,\30\ which
may increase potential execution opportunities for that order. Today,
pursuant to EDGX Rule 11.21(f), this designation may be made on either
an

order-by-order or port-by-port basis,\31\ thereby giving members
flexibility in how they would like their Retail Orders attributed on
the Exchange. To support the introduction of retail priority, the
Exchange proposes to provide that Retail Priority Orders will always be
designated as such on the EDGX Book Feed--i.e., Retail Priority Orders
would be identified as having been entered with a priority
designation.\32\ Retail Orders that are not designated as Retail
Priority Orders could continue to be attributed, or not, at the
discretion of the RMO entering the order. Although RMOs have the choice
to determine which Retail Orders would be marked as retail on market
data, the Exchange believes that it is important to ensure that Retail
Priority Orders would be attributable as priority eligible. Designating
Retail Priority Orders on the EDGX Book Feed will increase transparency
by informing market participants when there is priority eligible retail
investor interest available to trade on the Exchange, thereby allowing
market participants to make informed routing decisions, including the
decision to route contra-side interest to trade with such orders. Based
on the Exchange's experience with Retail Order attribution, this
approach has the potential to increase execution opportunities for
Retail Priority Orders (and other non-marketable orders) by encouraging
additional order flow to be routed to the Exchange to trade with
resting Retail Priority Orders.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See EDGX Rule 13.8.
    \31\ A Retail Member Organization that instructs the Exchange to
identify all its Retail Orders as Retail on a Retail Order Port is
able to override such setting and designate any individual Retail
Order from that port as Attributable or as Non-Attributable, as set
forth in Rule 11.6(a). See EDGX Rule 11.21(f).
    \32\ The retail indicator on the EDGX Book Feed would indicate
that the order is a Retail Priority Order and would not provide the
market participant identifier (``MPID'') of the entering firm.
Members may separately include an Attributable instruction on their
orders pursuant to Rule 11.6(a) if they would also like MPID
attribution.
    \33\ Prior to the original introduction of retail attribution,
the Exchange conducted a study that found that Retail Orders
received an 18% higher execution rate when members used Attributable
Orders to include their MPID in the published quote on the EDGX Book
Feed. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72016 (April 24,
2014), 79 FR 24463 (April 30, 2014) (SR-EDGX-2014-13).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, since only Retail Priority Orders would be required to
be attributed, RMOs would retain the option of not attributing Retail
Orders entered into the EDGX Book. While Retail Orders not entered with
the Retail Priority Order designation would not be eligible for
priority, they would retain all other benefits associated with Retail
Orders today, including the materially enhanced rebates that are made
available to such orders.\34\ The purpose of requiring attribution of
Retail Priority Orders is, first and foremost, to ensure that market
participants can ascertain their priority on the order book. Although
the Exchange believes that RMOs are comfortable attributing their
orders, if a specific RMO would prefer not to have one or more of their
orders attributed, the member would be able to choose not to enter such
orders as Retail Priority Orders without losing any of the benefits
that they are provided today. Customer indicators are widely-used in
the options industry, and the Exchange believes that they would be
equally appropriate on EDGX with the introduction of retail priority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ The equities industry is highly competitive, and
competition for retail order flow is particularly fierce as the
equities exchanges compete vigorously with each other, and with
wholesale market makers that execute this order flow off-exchange.
As a result, the Exchange provides a rebate of $0.0032 per share to
all Retail Orders. This rebate applies irrespective of whether the
RMO attributes Retail Orders on the EDGX Book Feed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,\35\ in general, and
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\36\ in particular, in that it is designed
to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest and not to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \36\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has consistently emphasized 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 the agency's number one
strategic goal for fiscal years 2018 to 2022.\37\ The Exchange believes
that retail priority is consistent with the goals of the Commission to
ensure that the equities markets continue to serve the needs of the
investing public. Specifically, introducing retail priority would
protect investors and the public interest by giving retail investors
the tools needed to compete for executions on non-marketable order flow
submitted to a national securities exchange. The Exchange is committed
to innovation that improves the quality of the equities markets, and
believes that retail priority may increase the attractiveness of the
Exchange for the execution of orders submitted on behalf of the
millions of ordinary investors that rely on these markets for their
investment needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See Commission Strategic Plan, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the Commission has approved other allocation methodologies
for equities trading,\38\ most equities exchanges, including EDGX,
continue to determine priority based on a price/display/time allocation
model today. This has contributed to deep and liquid markets for equity
securities as liquidity providers compete to be the first to establish
a particular price. At the same time, ordinary investors may not be
able to compete with market makers and other automated liquidity
providers to be the first to set a new price. Importantly, retail
investors, in contrast to their professional counterparts, tend to have
longer investment time horizons and are not in the business of
optimizing queue placement under a time based allocation model. Thus,
in order to facilitate the needs of these ordinary investors, the
Exchange believes that an alternative approach is needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Nasdaq PSX, for example, operates with a price setter pro
rata model that rewards liquidity providers that set the best price
and then rewards other market participants that enter larger sized
orders. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72250 (May 23,
2014), 79 FR 31147 (May 30, 2014) (SR-Phlx-2014-24).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed introduction of retail priority is designed, first and
foremost, to benefit retail investors by increasing both the likelihood
and speed with which their non-marketable orders are executed. Unlike
marketable retail order flow that is routinely executed in full on
entry at the national best bid or offer or better, non-marketable
retail order flow has to compete for execution with orders entered by
sophisticated market participants that may be quicker to establish a
new price. As shown in the chart below,\39\ the Exchange has found that
in 2018, of volume executed from retail limit orders, 28.3% joined the
national best bid or offer (``NBBO'') on entry, 17.8% were priced
better than the inside, and 49.4% were priced worse than the inside.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Based on Retail Orders entered by members that have
completed a retail attestation.

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09JY19.000

    Although potentially beneficial for all Retail Priority Orders that
do not trade immediately on entry, the Exchange believes that retail
priority would be particularly beneficial to Retail Priority Orders
that join the NBBO, as there would often already be a queue at this
price. Introducing retail priority would thus give retail investors the
ability to compete for an execution for these orders, and may therefore
improve trading outcomes. As such, the Exchange believes that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the goals of the Exchange, and
of the Commission, to ensure that market structure evolves in ways that
protect ordinary investors that participate in the capital markets.
Furthermore, since retail priority is designed to improve trading
outcomes for ordinary investors, the Exchange also believes that it may
encourage retail brokers to route additional non-marketable retail
order flow to the EDGX Book, which may broaden execution opportunities
for other market participants. If successful in attracting retail order
flow to the Exchange, the proposed rule change would benefit market
participants by increasing the diversity of order flow with which they
can interact on a national securities exchange, thereby increasing
order interaction and contributing to price formation.
    Giving queue priority to ordinary investors is not a novel concept
in the securities markets. In fact, customer priority has a long
tradition in the options market where orders entered on behalf of non-
broker dealer public customers have historically been afforded priority
over orders submitted by registered broker dealers. Today, most options
exchanges, including the Exchange's equity options platform (``EDGX
Options''),\40\ employ a customer priority execution algorithm where
orders submitted by a subset of public customers with more limited
trading activity (i.e., ``Priority Customers'') \41\ are provided order
book priority ahead of orders submitted by broker-dealers or other
market professionals at the same price. This allocation model, which
was first introduced by the International Securities Exchange LLC
(``ISE'') in its current retail focused form a decade ago,\42\ ensures
that orders from Priority Customers are executed ahead of similarly
priced interest from sophisticated market participants. The Exchange
believes that the time has come to introduce a similar concept for the
equities market in order to facilitate the needs of retail investors
that increasingly rely on these markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See EDGX Rule 21.8(d)(1).
    \41\ The term ``Priority Customer'' refers to any person or
entity that is not a broker or dealer in securities and does not
otherwise qualify as a ``Professional'' by virtue of placing more
than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a
calendar month for its own beneficial account(s). See e.g., EDGX
Rules 16.1(a)(46),(47).
    \42\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59287 (January 23,
2009), 74 FR 5694 (January 30, 2009) (SR-ISE-2006-26).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similar to the options market Priority Customer definition, the
Exchange proposes to introduce a new definition of ``Retail Priority
Orders'' that would allow the Exchange to differentiate between more
and less active retail investors. Although the Exchange currently has a
robust regulatory program for Retail Orders that includes a number of
safeguards to prevent misuse,\43\ some equities market participants
have expressed concerns that the current definition of Retail Order
could provide market structure advantages to a subset of investors that
are more akin to market professionals. The Exchange believes that
limiting retail priority to Retail Orders that are entered on behalf of
less active investors would alleviate any potential concerns while
ensuring that retail investors would be able to reap the proposed
priority benefits. As such, Retail Orders entered on the EDGX Book
would be priority eligible only if the end investor submits fewer than
390 orders per day on average, or the equivalent of one order per
minute during regular trading hours. The Exchange believes that this
approach is consistent with the public interest and the protection of
investors as an investor that enters more than one order per minute is
effectively engaged in active trading activity that is more akin to a
professional trader. A similar approach is used to differentiate
between Priority and Professional Customers in the options industry
today. Thus, identifying Retail Priority Orders based on the average
number of orders entered for a beneficial account

is both a familiar and appropriately objective approach that would
reasonably distinguish between ordinary retail investors from more
active traders that may compete with market professionals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ The current Retail Order definition is enforced through an
established process for approving the RMOs that are permitted to
enter Retail Orders; an attestation that such RMOs must provide
about the retail quality of their order flow; policies and
procedures to ensure the effectiveness of that attestation;
surveillance conducted by Exchange staff; and an exam process
implemented by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has approved other equities proposals to introduce
meaningful market structure benefits for retail investors in recent
years. For example, in 2012, the Commission approved proposals filed by
the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'') and its affiliate NYSE Amex
LLC (``Amex'') to introduce retail price improvement programs.\44\
Those programs were designed to provide price improvement opportunities
for retail investors on a national securities exchange by allowing
liquidity providers to give sub-penny price improvement to their orders
pursuant to an exemption granted from Rule 612 of Regulation NMS.
Similar programs now exist on a number of exchanges, including the
Exchange's affiliate, Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (``BYX''),\45\ and have
provided millions of dollars of price improvement to ordinary
investors.\46\ When approving such retail price improvement programs on
a pilot basis, the Commission consistently found that the pilots were
consistent with the Act because they were ``reasonably designed to
benefit retail investors'' and could ``promote competition for retail
order flow among execution venues.'' The benefits to retail investors
in the form of meaningful price improvement opportunities similarly
animated the Commission's recent approval of the NYSE retail liquidity
program on a permanent basis.\47\ Although retail priority is designed
to increase fill rates and speed of execution rather than price
improvement, the Exchange believes that it could have a similarly
meaningful impact on execution quality for ordinary investors that
trade in the public market. Furthermore, retail priority would
complement existing retail price improvement programs by offering
market structure benefits to non-marketable retail order flow that
cannot participate in those programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67347 (July 3,
2012), 77 FR 40673 (July 10, 2012) (SR-NYSE-2011-55; SR-NYSEAmex-
2011-84).
    \45\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68303 (November 27,
2012), 77 FR 71652 (December 3, 2012) (SR-BYX-2012-019). Nasdaq BX
Inc. (``BX'') similarly operates its own retail price improvement
program. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73702 (November 28,
2014), 79 FR 72049 (December 4, 2014) (SR-BX-2014-048).
    \46\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83831
(August 13, 2018), 83 FR 41128 (August 17, 2018) (SR-CboeBYX-2018-
014).
    \47\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85160 (February 15,
2019), 84 FR 5754 (February 22, 2019) (SR-NYSE-2018-28).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, in 2017, the Commission approved a proposed rule change
by The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'') to introduce the ``Extended
Life Priority Order Attribute'' for Retail Orders that were willing to
remain on the book unaltered for a period of one second (``Retail
Extended Life Order'' or ``Retail ELO'').\48\ As proposed, displayed
orders entered on Nasdaq with the Retail ELO attribute were to be
provided a higher priority than other orders resting on the Nasdaq
order book. When the Commission approved this proposed rule change, it
opined that the proposal ``should benefit retail investors by providing
enhanced order book priority to retail order flow that is not
marketable upon entry,'' and that ``[s]uch enhanced order book priority
could result in additional or more immediate execution opportunities on
the [e]xchange for resting retail orders that otherwise would be
farther down in the order book queue, and thereby enhance execution
opportunities for retail investors.'' \49\ The same is true of the
Exchange's retail priority proposal, which would provide similar
benefits to retail investors without the additional complexity of
requiring that the order be willing to exist unaltered on the order
book for a specified period of time. While the Exchange believes that
the majority of retail investors have a longer investment time horizon
and therefore do not actively manage their trading interest at sub-
second time intervals, the Exchange believes that giving retail
priority broadly to orders entered on behalf of less active retail
investors may be more effective in encouraging retail brokers to route
order flow to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81097 (July 7,
2017), 82 FR 32386 (July 13, 2017) (SR-NASDAQ-2016-161) (``Retail
ELO Approval''). Nasdaq ultimately decided not to implement Retail
ELO following Commission approval, and has since introduced a
``Midpoint Extended Life Order'' that is not limited to retail
participation.
    \49\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that it is appropriate and not unfairly
discriminatory to provide enhanced priority benefits solely to retail
investor orders as the proposal is designed specifically to ensure that
retail investors can compete for executions with sophisticated market
participants. In today's highly automated and efficient market, retail
investors have a more limited opportunity to compete for an execution
based purely on the time an order is placed. While sophisticated,
latency sensitive market participants can compete to be the first at
any particular price, retail investors with longer investment horizons
cannot compete in the same fashion. The proposed introduction of retail
priority would ensure that non-marketable Retail Priority Orders get
filled first when there is available contra-side interest, and thereby
improve investment outcomes for ordinary investors. The Commission has
consistently held that it is consistent with the Act to offer certain
advantages to retail customers,\50\ and the proposal follows a line of
other initiatives to improve the retail investor experience in the
public markets. The Exchange believes that it is an important goal of
both the Exchange and the Commission to ensure that our market
structure continues to benefit retail investors by providing the tools
that they need to invest in the capital markets. Although there are
many ways to achieve that goal, the Exchange believes that doing so
requires innovation in how retail investor orders are handled on the
national securities exchanges in order to attract that order flow back
to the displayed market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Where the interest of long-term investors, such as the
retail investors whose experience this filing is attempting to
improve, diverges from that of short-term professional traders, the
Commission ``repeatedly has emphasized that its duty is to uphold
the interests of long-term investors.'' See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 61358 (January 14, 2010), 75 FR 3593 (January 21, 2010)
(File No. S7-02-10) (``Concept Release on Equity Market
Structure'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that it is consistent with the public
interest and the protection of investors to provide retail priority
exclusively to those orders that contain a Displayed or Reserve
instruction. The goals of the proposed rule change are twofold. First,
the proposed change is designed to facilitate better trading outcomes
for retail investors, which may encourage retail brokers to send
additional retail order flow to the Exchange. Second, the proposed
change is designed to encourage additional displayed retail liquidity,
which could contribute to price discovery and encourage additional
order flow and liquidity from other market participants. Although the
first purpose could be achieved without limiting retail priority to
orders that contain a Displayed component at a particular price, the
second is only achieved when such orders are displayed to the broader
market. For that reason, recent priority enhancements for retail
investors, such as Nasdaq's Retail ELO, have also focused on displayed
interest that could improve quote quality and contribute to a vibrant
market.

    Finally, the Exchange believes that it is consistent with just and
equitable principles of trade to require that Retail Priority Orders be
attributable as this would allow other market participants to gauge the
available size in orders that would be eligible for retail priority.
Although RMOs would not have the option to submit eligible Retail
Priority Orders as non-attributable, the transparency achieved by so
designating these orders is important to the proper functioning of a
market where such orders would be eligible for priority. As explained
in the purpose section of this proposed rule change, RMOs would retain
the ability to enter an order without a priority designation, and in
doing so would ultimately retain the ability to control which orders
are publicly attributed to retail investors. Priority Customer orders
entered on the EDGX Options platform are similarly designated as such
on the Exchange's market data feeds today, and the Exchange believes
that this has contributed positively to the overall market environment.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Rather, the proposed rule
change is designed to increase inter-market competition for retail
order flow, and intra-market competition for orders as market
participants compete to transact with retail investor orders entered on
the EDGX Book. The proposed rule change represents an effort by the
Exchange to enhance the ability for retail investors to participate
effectively on a national securities exchange without unnecessarily
burdening competition. Although retail priority would be limited to
retail investors, the Exchange does not believe that this produces an
unnecessary burden on competition as these changes are necessary to
attract retail order flow to a national securities exchange where they
may interact with a wide range of market participants. If successful,
the Exchange believes that retail priority would enhance competition by
encouraging retail brokers to route increased order flow to the public
markets, creating a more vibrant and competitive trading environment
that benefits all market participants.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No comments were solicited or received on the proposed rule change.

III. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove SR-
CboeEDGX-2019-012 and Grounds for Disapproval Under Consideration

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \51\ to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be approved or disapproved. Institution of such
proceedings is appropriate at this time in view of the legal and policy
issues raised by the proposed rule change. Institution of proceedings
does not indicate that the Commission has reached any conclusions with
respect to any of the issues involved. Rather, as described below, the
Commission seeks and encourages interested persons to provide comments
on the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,\52\ the Commission is
providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under consideration.
The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional
analysis of the proposed rule change's consistency with Section 6(b)(5)
of the Act, which requires, among other things, that the rules of a
national securities exchange be ``designed to perfect the operation of
a free and open market and a national market system'' and ``protect
investors and the public interest,'' and not be ``designed to permit
unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers,'' \53\ and Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, which requires that the
rules of a national securities exchange ``not impose any burden on
competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes
of [the Act].'' \54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ Id.
    \53\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \54\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Procedure: Request for Written Comments

    The Commission requests that interested persons provide written
submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the
issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have
with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written
views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5), 6(b)(8) or any other provision of the
Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do not
appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would
be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments,
the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for
an opportunity to make an oral presentation.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, as amended by the Securities
Act Amendments of 1975, Public Law 94-29 (June 4, 1975), grants the
Commission flexibility to determine what type of proceeding--either
oral or notice and opportunity for written comments--is appropriate
for consideration of a particular proposal by a self-regulatory
organization. See Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Senate Comm. on
Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th Cong., 1st
Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments regarding whether the proposal should be approved or
disapproved by July 30, 2019. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal
to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by August 13,
2019. The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency of
the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, which are set
forth in Amendment No. 1,\56\ in addition to any other comments they
may wish to submit about the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ See supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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-CboeEDGX-2019-012 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-CboeEDGX-2019-012. 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-
CboeEDGX-2019-012 and should be submitted on or before July 30, 2019.
Rebuttal comments should be submitted by August 13, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12); 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-14490 Filed 7-8-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 55 (Tuesday, March 22, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15400-15401]
[FR Doc No: 2016-06320]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Request To Release Airport Property

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Intent to Rule on Request to Release Airport Property
at the Humboldt Municipal Airport, Humboldt, Iowa.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the
release of land at the Humboldt Municipal, Humboldt, Iowa, under the
provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 21, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to
the FAA at the following address: Lynn D. Martin, Airports Compliance
Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Division, ACE-
610C, 901 Locust Room 364, Kansas City, MO 64106.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be
mailed or delivered to: Humboldt Airport Commission, Dave Dodgen, City
of Humboldt, 29 Fifth Street South, Humboldt, IA 50548,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynn D. Martin, Airports Compliance
Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Division, ACE-
610C, 901 Locust, Room 364, Kansas City, MO 64106,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The request to release property may be reviewed,
by appointment, in person at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA invites public comment on the
request

to release approximately 3.82 acres of airport property at the Humboldt
Municipal Airport (0K7) under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2).
On January 18, 2016, the Airport Commission at the Humboldt Municipal
Airport requested from the FAA that approximately 3.82 acres of
property be released for sale to AP Air for use as a storage and
distribution facility. On March 10, 2016, the FAA determined that the
request to release property at the Humboldt Municipal Airport (0K7)
submitted by the Sponsor meets the procedural requirements of the
Federal Aviation Administration and the release of the property does
not and will not impact future aviation needs at the airport. The FAA
may approve the request, in whole or in part, no sooner than thirty
days after the publication of this Notice.
    The following is a brief overview of the request:
    Humboldt Municipal Airport (0K7) is proposing the release of one
parcel, of 3.82 acres, more or less. The release of land is necessary
to comply with Federal Aviation Administration Grant Assurances that do
not allow federally acquired airport property to be used for non-
aviation purposes. The sale of the subject property will result in the
land at the Humboldt Municipal Airport (0K7) being changed from
aeronautical to non-aeronautical use and release the lands from the
conditions of the Airport Improvement Program Grant Agreement Grant
Assurances. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 47107(c)(2)(B)(i) and (iii),
the airport will receive fair market value for the property, which will
be subsequently reinvested in another eligible airport improvement
project for general aviation facilities at the Humboldt Municipal
Airport.
    Any person may inspect, by appointment, the request in person at
the FAA office listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In
addition, any person may, upon appointment and request, inspect the
application, notice and other documents determined by the FAA to be
related to the application in person at the Humboldt Municipal Airport.

    Issued in Kansas City, MO, on March 11, 2016.
Jim A. Johnson,
Manager, Airports Division.
[FR Doc. 2016-06320 Filed 3-21-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 98 (Tuesday, May 21, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23052-23053]
[FR Doc No: 2019-10561]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0651; FRL-9993-39]

Product Cancellation Order for Certain Pesticide Registrations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA's order for the cancellations,
voluntarily requested by the registrants and accepted by the Agency, of
the products listed in Table 1 of Unit II, pursuant to the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
    This cancellation order follows an October 17, 2018 Federal
Register Notice of Receipt of Requests from the registrants listed in
Table 2 of Unit II, to voluntarily cancel these product registrations.
In the October 17, 2018 notice, EPA indicated that it would issue an
order implementing the cancellations, unless the Agency received
substantive comments within the 180-day comment period that would merit
its further review of these requests, or unless the registrants
withdrew their requests. The Agency did not receive any comments on the
notice. Further, the registrants did not withdraw their requests.
Accordingly, EPA hereby issues in this notice a cancellation order
granting the requested cancellations. Any distribution, sale, or use of
the products subject to this cancellation order is permitted only in
accordance with the terms of this order, including any existing stocks
provisions.

DATES: The cancellations are effective May 21, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Green, Information
Technology and Resources Management Division (7502P), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide
users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution,
or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency
has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be
affected by this action.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0651, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. What action is the Agency taking?

    This notice announces the cancellation, as requested by
registrants, of products registered under FIFRA section 3 (7 U.S.C.
136a). These registrations are listed in sequence by registration
number in Table 1 of this unit.

                                         Table 1--Product Cancellations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Registration No.           Company No.               Product name                  Active ingredients
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5481-602......................            5481  Squadron Herbicide..................  Pendimethalin & 3-
                                                                                Quinolinecarboxylic acid,
                                                                                2-(4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-
                                                                                (1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-
                                                                                imidazol-2-yl)-,
                                                                                monoammonium salt.
5481-605......................            5481  Steel Herbicide.....................  Imazethapyr; Pendimethalin
                                                                                & Imazaquin.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 2 of this unit includes the names and addresses of record for
all registrants of the products in Table 1 of this unit, in sequence by
EPA company number. This number corresponds to the first part of the
EPA registration numbers of the products listed in Table 1 of this
unit.

                                   Table 2--Registrants of Cancelled Products
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   EPA company No.                                     Company name and address
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5481................................................................................  AMVAC Chemical
                                                                                Corporation, 4695
                                                                                MacArthur Court, Suite
                                                                                1200, Newport Beach, CA
                                                                                92660-1706.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Public Comments Received and Agency Response to
Comments

    During the public comment period provided, EPA received no comments
in response to the October 17, 2018 Federal Register notice announcing
the Agency's receipt of the requests for voluntary cancellation of the
products listed in Table 1 of Unit II.

IV. Cancellation Order

    Pursuant to FIFRA section 6(f) (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)), EPA hereby
approves the requested cancellations of the registrations identified in
Table 1 of Unit II. Accordingly, the Agency hereby orders that the
product registrations identified in Table 1 of Unit II, are canceled.
The effective date of the cancellations that are the subject of this
notice is May 21, 2019. Any distribution, sale, or use of existing
stocks of the products identified in Table 1 of Unit II, in a manner
inconsistent with any of the provisions for disposition of existing
stocks set forth in Unit VI, will be a violation of FIFRA.

V. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)) provides that a
registrant of a pesticide product may at any time request that any of
its pesticide registrations be canceled or amended to terminate one or
more uses. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the request,
EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such request in the Federal
Register. Thereafter, following the public comment period, the EPA
Administrator may approve such a request. The notice of receipt for
this action was published for comment in the Federal Register of
October 17, 2018 (83 FR 52448) (FRL-9983-90). The comment period closed
on April 15, 2019.

VI. Provisions for Disposition of Existing Stocks

    Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products
which are currently in the United States and which were packaged,
labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the
cancellation action. The existing stocks provisions for the products
subject to this order are as follows.
    The registrants may continue to sell and distribute existing stocks
of products listed in Table 1 of Unit II, until May 21, 2020, which is
1 year after the publication of the Cancellation Order in the Federal
Register. Thereafter, the registrants are prohibited from selling or
distributing products listed in Table 1, except for export in
accordance with FIFRA section 17 (7 U.S.C. 136o), or proper disposal.
Persons other than the registrants may sell, distribute, or use
existing stocks of products listed in Table 1 of Unit II, until
existing stocks are exhausted, provided that such sale, distribution,
or use is consistent with the terms of the previously approved labeling
on, or that accompanied, the canceled products.

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: May 7, 2019.
Delores Barber,
Director, Information Technology and Resources Management Division,
Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2019-10561 Filed 5-20-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 22, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 205)]
[Notices]
[Page 62975-62976]
[DOCID:fr22oc08-44]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 785-018]

Consumers Energy Company; Notice Soliciting Scoping Comments

October 15, 2008.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: New License.
    b. Project No.: 785-018.
    c. Date filed: April 4, 2008.
    d. Applicant: Consumers Energy Company.
    e. Name of Project: Calkins Bridge Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the Kalamazoo River in Allegan County, Michigan.
The project does not affect federal lands.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: James R. Coddington, Consumers Energy
Company, One Energy Plaza, Jackson, MI 49201,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Timothy Konnert,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing scoping comments: November 14, 2008.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    k. This application has been accepted, but is not ready for
environmental analysis at this time.
    l. As licensed, the existing Calkins Bridge Project consists of a
42-foot-high, 1,330-foot-long dam, consisting of 1,100 feet of earth
embankment and a 230-foot concrete integral powerhouse-spillway
section, creating an 8.5-mile-long, 1,550-acre reservoir with a normal
water surface elevation of 615.0 feet above mean sea level, a
powerhouse containing three generating units with a total installed
capacity of 2,550 kilowatts, and appurtenant facilities.
    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-
866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also available for
inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above.
    n. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    o. Scoping Process
    The Commission staff intends to prepare a single environmental
assessment (EA) for the Calkins Bridge Hydroelectric Project in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. The EA will
consider both site-specific and cumulative environmental impacts and
reasonable alternatives to the proposed action.
    Commission staff does not propose to conduct any on-site scoping
meetings at this time. Instead, we are soliciting comments,
recommendations, and information on the scoping document issued on
October 15, 2008.
    Copies of the scoping document outlining the subject areas to be
addressed in the EA were distributed to the parties on the Commission's
mailing list and the applicant's distribution list. Copies of the
scoping document may be viewed on the Web at http://www.ferc.gov using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the

last three digits in the docket number field to access the document.
For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-25089 Filed 10-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P