MEMORANDUM
TO: 		Air and Radiation Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0293
FROM: 		EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality
SUBJECT: 	Calls and Meetings with Global Clean Energy Holdings and Emerald Biofuels, LLC

This memorandum provides a record of conversations that EPA staff had with representatives of Global Clean Energy Holdings (GCEH) and/or Emerald Biofuels, LLC (Emerald) regarding their petition submitted pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416 requesting that EPA evaluate the lifecycle GHG emissions for the use of neat jatropha oil as a transportation fuel.

Date of Conversation
Topics Discussed
January 22, 2013
Status of petition review, including literature review
February 20, 2013
Status of petition review
April 4, 2013
Status of petition review
June 24, 2013
Status of petition review
September 12, 2013
Status of petition review
March 13, 2014
Status of petition review
November 6, 2014
Land used for Mexico plantation
April 6, 2015
Status of petition review
September 18, 2015
CBI claims associated with petition


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 163 (Friday, August 21, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51799-51807]
[FR Doc No: 2020-18343]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-89581; File No. SR-MEMX-2020-04]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; MEMX LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Various
Exchange Rules To Make Changes To Proposed Exchange System
Functionality Prior to the Launch of the Exchange

August 17, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on August 4, 2020, MEMX LLC (``MEMX'' or the ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the
proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule change pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\4\ The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change
to proposed rule change to amend various Exchange Rules to make changes
to proposed Exchange System \5\ functionality prior to the launch of
the Exchange.\6\ The text of the proposed rule change is provided in
Exhibit 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ As defined in Rule 1.5(gg), the Exchange's ``System'' is the
electronic communications and trading facility designated by the
Board through which securities orders of Users are consolidated for
ranking, execution and, when applicable, routing. As defined in Rule
1.5(jj), a ``User'' is a member of the Exchange (``Member'') or
sponsored participant of a Member who is authorized to obtain access
to the System pursuant to Rule 11.3. The Exchange notes that it
proposes to amend Rule 1.5 to designate the term ``Top of Book'' as
paragraph (ii), as there are currently two paragraphs labeled (jj).
As amended, the term User would continue to be labeled as paragraph
(jj).
    \6\ The Exchange's application to register as a national
securities exchange was approved in May of 2020. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 88806 (May 4, 2020), 85 FR 27451 (May 8,
2020). The Exchange currently anticipates launching in September of
2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 this proposed rule change is to amend various
Exchange Rules to make changes to proposed

functionality prior to the launch of the Exchange. Each change is based
upon a final review of functionality that the Exchange would like to
offer at the time of launch and is either intended to simplify the
operation of the System, to align with functionality offered on other
exchanges, or to make clear certain aspects of the operation of the
System that are not clear based on the Exchange's current Rules. These
changes are described in detail below and include amending: (i) Rules
1.5, 11.1, 11.6, 11.7, 11.8, and 11.16 in connection with the
elimination of the Exchange's Early Order Entry Session,\7\ Opening
Process,\8\ and Re-Opening Process \9\ and a related modification to
the operation of the System in the event of a trading halt; (ii) Rule
11.8 regarding certain details applicable to Market Orders \10\ and
Limit Orders; \11\ (iii) Rules 11.6 and 11.9 regarding the handling of
orders with a Primary Peg instruction \12\ or a Midpoint Peg
instruction; \13\ (iv) Rules 11.6 and 11.8 regarding the removal of
certain ``default'' instructions applicable to order types and order
type instructions; and (v) Rules 11.6, 11.8, 11.10 and 11.16 regarding
the handling of orders with certain attributes (i.e., Displayed
instruction,\14\ Non-Displayed instruction \15\ and Reserve Quantity
\16\) in specific circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ As defined in Rule 1.5(i), the Early Order Entry Session is
``the time between 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. Eastern Time.''
    \8\ As defined in Rule 1.5(t), the Opening Process is ``the
computations performed by the System as defined in Rule 11.7, which
begin at 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time.''
    \9\ As defined in Rule 1.5(cc), the Re-Opening Process is ``a
computation performed by the System as defined in Rule 11.7(e)
following a halt, suspension or pause.''
    \10\ Market Orders are the first of three primary order types
offered by the Exchange. Market Orders are described in Exchange
Rule 11.8(a) and generally defined as an order to buy or sell a
stated amount of a security that is to be executed at the NBBO or
better when the order reaches the Exchange.
    \11\ Limit Orders are the second of three primary order types
offered by the Exchange. Limit Orders are described in Exchange Rule
11.8(b) and generally defined as an order to buy or sell a stated
amount of a security at a specified price or better.
    \12\ A Primary Peg instruction is an instruction that may be
placed on a Pegged Order that instructs the Exchange to peg the
order to the NBB, for a buy order, or the NBO, for a sell order. See
Exchange Rule 11.6(h)(1). Pegged Orders are the third of three
primary order types offered by the Exchange. Pegged Orders are
described in Exchange Rules 11.6(h) and 11.8(c). Pegged Orders are
generally defined as an order that automatically re-prices in
response to changes in the NBBO.
    \13\ A Midpoint Peg instruction is an instruction that may be
placed on a Pegged Order that instructs the Exchange to peg the
order to midpoint of the NBBO. See Exchange Rule 11.6(h)(2).
    \14\ A Displayed instruction is an instruction a User may attach
to an order stating that the order is to be displayed by the System
on the MEMX Book. See Exchange Rule 11.6(c)(1).
    \15\ A Non-Displayed instruction is an instruction a User may
attach to an order stating that the order is not to be displayed by
the System on the MEMX Book. See Exchange Rule 11.6(c)(2).
    \16\ A 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 MEMX Book. See Exchange Rule 11.6(k).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elimination of the Early Order Entry Session, Opening Process, Re-
Opening Process and Related Changes
    The Exchange is proposing to make various changes to simplify the
way the Exchange opens for trading each day and re-opens in the event
of a trading halt. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the
Early Order Entry Session, the Opening Process and the Re-Opening
Process, and to modify the operation of the System in the event of a
trading halt, each as further described below.
    Currently, the Early Order Entry Session is described as a trading
session running from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. during which certain types
of orders could be submitted to and held by the Exchange but would not
be executed.\17\ Such orders would queue until the beginning of the
Pre-Market Session, at 7:00 a.m., at which time they would be handled
in time sequence, beginning with the order with the oldest timestamp,
and would be placed on the MEMX Book,\18\ routed, cancelled, or
executed in accordance with the terms of the order. The Exchange is
proposing to eliminate the Early Order Entry Session by deleting such
term from Rule 1.5(i) and removing the description of the handling of
orders during such trading session set forth in paragraphs (a) and
(a)(1) of Rule 11.1. As proposed, rather than offering a pre-opening
queuing session, the Exchange would instead commence operations each
day beginning with the Pre-Market Session, which begins at 7:00 a.m. At
the beginning of the Pre-Market Session, the Exchange would begin
accepting all orders that are eligible for the Pre-Market Session.\19\
In connection with these changes, the Exchange also proposes to amend
Rule 1.5(k), which presently defines Exchange Hours and Exchange
Operating Hours as the time between 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Eastern
Time. As amended, because of the elimination of the Early Order Entry
Session, the definition would refer instead to the time between 7:00
a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Rule 1.5(i) and Rule 11.1(a).
    \18\ As defined in Rule 1.5(q), the MEMX Book is the System's
electronic file of orders.
    \19\ See Rule 11.8(a)(4), which specifies that Market Orders are
not eligible for any session other than the Market Session. The
Market Session is the time between 9:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Eastern
Time. See also Rule 11.6(o)(5), which states that the TIF of RHO is
an instruction a User may attach to an order designating it for
execution only during Regular Trading Hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing the elimination of the Early Order Entry
Session because this change will reduce complexity with respect to the
functionality used to open the Exchange each trading day. At least upon
its initial launch, the Exchange does not anticipate having significant
volume in its Early Order Entry Session. Because the Exchange will
still offer the Pre-Market Session, Users will still be able to enter
orders into the Exchange prior to the commencement of the Market
Session. Further, not all exchanges offer a trading session equivalent
to the Early Order Entry Session.\20\ For the reasons stated above, the
Exchange does not believe the removal of the Early Order Entry Session
is a significant departure from its originally proposed operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See, e.g., IEX Rule 11.110, which lists the trading
sessions available on IEX as a Pre-Market Session, a Regular Market
Session and a Post-Market Session, which would be equivalent to the
three trading sessions offered by the Exchange. The Exchange notes
that its Pre-Market Session will begin one hour earlier than IEX, at
7:00 a.m. Eastern Time instead of 8:00 a.m. Eastern Time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to further simplify the operations of the
Exchange by eliminating the Opening Process and Re-Opening Process and
making conforming changes throughout the Exchange's Rules. The Opening
Process is described in Rule 11.7, which sets forth a variety of
computations performed by the Exchange beginning at the start of the
Market Session in order to match orders on the Exchange at the midpoint
of the national best bid and offer (``NBBO'') following the opening of
trading on the applicable primary listing market (i.e., the ``Opening
Match'' described in Rule 11.7(b)). Rule 11.7 further defines the types
of orders eligible to participate in the Opening Match, the methodology
used by the Exchange to determine when to process the Opening Match and
the methodology used by the Exchange to re-open a security that is
subject to a halt, suspension, or pause in trading. The Exchange
proposes to delete the definitions of Opening Match, Opening Process
and Re-Opening Process contained in Rule 1.5(s), Rule 1.5(t) and Rule
1.5(cc), respectively, as well as Rule 11.7 in its entirety.
Accordingly, rather than using an Opening Process and opening the
Market Session following a match of eligible orders at the midpoint of
the NBBO, the Exchange would instead immediately transition to the
Market Session at 9:30

a.m. Similarly, rather than using a Re-Opening Process to match
eligible orders following a halt, suspension, or pause in trading, the
Exchange would re-open and begin accepting and processing orders when
such halt, suspension, or pause in trading has been lifted.
    As noted above, the Exchange believes these changes will reduce
complexity with respect to the functionality used to open the Exchange
each trading day and following a halt, suspension, or pause in trading.
At least upon its initial launch, the Exchange does not anticipate
having significant volume in either the Opening Process or the Re-
Opening Process. The Exchange instead anticipates that Users will
participate in the applicable opening processes and re-opening
processes on other exchanges where they currently participate today.
For the reasons stated above, the Exchange does not believe the removal
of the Opening Process or Re-Opening Process is a significant departure
from its originally proposed operations.
    In connection with the changes described above, the Exchange
proposes to delete Rule 11.16(e)(6), which describes the process to re-
open following a trading pause pursuant to the Limit Up-Limit Down Plan
(``LULD Plan'') through a cross-reference to Rule 11.7(e) (as described
above, the Exchange has proposed to delete such provision). In order to
provide a general procedure for all types of trading halts, including
but not limited to trading pauses pursuant to the LULD Plan, the
Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 11.16(f). Rule 11.16(f) currently
states that when any trading halt occurs, except where a User has
designated that its orders be cancelled, all outstanding orders in the
System will remain on the MEMX Book. The Exchange proposes to amend
this Rule first by removing the optionality of the functionality (i.e.,
orders remain unless a User chooses to have them cancelled) and instead
cancelling all orders on the MEMX Book in the event of any trading
halt, including a trading pause pursuant to the LULD Plan. Thus, as
amended, in the event of any trading halt, all orders will be
cancelled. Further, the Exchange proposes to add language to Rule
11.16(f) to state that the Exchange will not accept any orders during a
halt, suspension, or pause in trading, and that it will begin accepting
orders again when the halt, suspension, or pause in trading has ended.
    In connection with the elimination of the Opening Process and Re-
Opening Process the Exchange proposes additional conforming changes in
Rules 11.6 and 11.8, as follows. First, the Exchange proposes to remove
language referring to the Opening Process and Re-Opening Process from
Rule 11.6(o)(5), which describes the Time-in-Force (``TIF'') of Regular
Hours Only (``RHO'') as an order designated for execution only during
Regular Trading Hours.\21\ Second, the Exchange proposes to modify Rule
11.8(a)(1) by removing reference to the handling of a Market Order with
a TIF of RHO following an Opening Process or Re-Opening Process. Third,
the Exchange proposes to modify Rule 11.8(c) to remove a description of
the System's handling of a Pegged Order with a Minimum Execution
Quantity instruction \22\ during the Opening Process. Without an
Opening Process or Re-Opening Process, none of these details are
necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The Exchange also proposes to update the description of the
RHO TIF to more closely mirror other TIF instructions, such as the
Day TIF instruction, and make clear that an order with a TIF of RHO
will expire at the end of Regular Trading Hours if not executed.
Further, the Exchange proposes to expressly state in Rule 11.6(o)(5)
that any order with a TIF instruction of RHO entered into the System
before the opening or after the closing of Regular Trading Hours
will be rejected.
    \22\ The Minimum Execution Quantity instruction is described in
Rule 11.6(f) and is generally defined as an instruction a User may
attach to an order with a Non-Displayed instruction or a Time-in-
Force of Immediate-or-Cancel instruction requiring the System to
execute the order only to the extent that a minimum quantity can be
satisfied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Market Order and Limit Order Functionality
    The Exchange also proposes minor changes to the current
descriptions of Market Orders and Limit Orders as further described
below.
    First, the Exchange proposes to make clear that a Market Order with
a TIF of Immediate or Cancel (``IOC'') can be routed away from the
Exchange to another Trading Center \23\ if the entering User instructs
the Exchange accordingly. The Exchange's current rules conflict on this
point. Current Rule 11.8(a)(1) states that a Market Order with a TIF
instruction of IOC that is not executed upon return to the System after
being routed to an away Trading Center will be cancelled. However,
current Rule 11.8(a)(5) states that a Market Order with a TIF
instruction of IOC is not eligible for routing. The Exchange proposes
to modify Rule 11.8(a)(1) by removing the sentence related to routed
orders with an IOC instruction and relocating it to Rule 11.8(a)(5),
which relates to routing generally, but without direct reference to the
TIF instruction of IOC. This new sentence would instead read that if a
Market Order is routed, any portion of the Market Order not executed
upon return to the System after being routed to an away Trading Center
will be cancelled. The Exchange proposes to further amend Rule
11.8(a)(5) by removing the reference to Market Orders with a TIF
instruction of IOC from the list of orders not eligible for routing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ As defined in Rule 11.6(p), the term Trading Center
includes other securities exchanges, facilities of securities
exchanges, automated trading systems, electronic communications
networks or other brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the Exchange proposes to add new provisions to the
descriptions of both Market Orders and Limit Orders that state that if
an order is received by the System when the NBBO is not available then
such order will be rejected back to the entering User. The applicable
provision would be added as Rule 11.8(a)(7) for Market Orders and Rule
11.8(b)(9) for Limit Orders.\24\ The language is based on language
applicable to Pegged Orders set forth in Rule 11.8(c)(7), which states
that a Pegged Order received by the System when the NBBO is not
available will be rejected or cancelled back to the entering User.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Due to the addition of new paragraph (b)(9) to Rule 11.8,
the Exchange proposes to re-number subsequent paragraphs of Rule
11.8(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Orders With a Primary Peg Instruction or Midpoint Peg Instruction
    The Exchange proposes to modify paragraphs (a)(2)(A) and (a)(2)(B)
of Rule 11.9 to separate orders with a Primary Peg instruction and
orders with a Midpoint Peg instruction from a priority perspective. The
Exchange currently has a single priority level for all Pegged Orders.
The Exchange believes that separation of the two types of Pegged Orders
will be more consistent with other exchanges \25\ and that orders with
a Primary Peg instruction should be afforded higher priority than
orders with a Midpoint Peg instruction because a Pegged Order with a
Primary Peg instruction is a more aggressive order type. For an order
with a Primary Peg instruction to be resting at the same price as an
order with a Midpoint Peg instruction the order with a Primary Peg
instruction must have an aggressive offset; depending on subsequent
price movements, such an order with a Primary Peg instruction might
provide price improvement from the applicable quote to which it is
pegged of a full penny or multiple pennies whereas a Midpoint Peg can
provide such price improvement under

certain circumstances but also may be executed in smaller increments of
$0.005. The Exchange is seeking to reward more aggressive order types,
even when not displayed, because such order types provide price
improvement to incoming orders and thus promote the operation of a fair
and orderly market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See, e.g., Cboe BZX Rule 11.12(a)(2), which places Non-
Displayed Pegged Orders above Mid-Point Peg Orders in the priority
list; see also Cboe EDGX Rule 11.9(a)(2)(B), which places Orders
with a Pegged instruction above MidPoint Peg Orders in the priority
list when both orders are at the midpoint of the NBBO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the change described above, the Exchange proposes
two minor changes to the description of the Primary Peg instruction set
forth in Rule 11.6(h)(1). First, the current rule states that a User
may, but is not required to, select an offset equal to or greater than
one Minimum Price Variation \26\ above or below the NBB or NBO that the
order is pegged to (``Primary Offset Amount''). The Exchange proposes
to limit the Primary Offset Amount to a $0.01 minimum. While the
Minimum Price Variation for securities priced below $1.00 is an
increment of $0.0001, the Exchange does not believe that orders with a
Primary Peg instruction will be commonly used in securities priced
below $1.00 or that allowing a more granular offset is necessary when
the Exchange could instead simplify its System's operation. The
Exchange notes that Users that wish to submit orders with a Primary Peg
instruction in a security priced below $1.00 can still submit such an
order with an offset in an increment of $0.01. If such an offset is not
sufficiently granular to meet the needs of a particular User, such User
would be able to submit priced Limit Orders in the standard MPV for a
security priced below $1.00 (i.e., in an increment of $0.0001). The
Exchange notes that it already maintains other exceptions for
securities trading below $1.00 to maintain the simplicity of the
System.\27\ Second, the Exchange proposes to make clear that a User
submitting a Pegged Order with a Primary Peg instruction may not
include a limit price on such order. This limitation is already
implied, as there is no language permitting the inclusion of a limit
price (and instead the Rule permits inclusion of an offset, as
described above). However, since the description of the Midpoint Peg
instruction does explicitly address the inclusion of a limit price on
such an order and such inclusion is permitted, the Exchange believes
that expressly stating that a limit price is not permitted for an order
with a Primary Peg instruction would help to avoid potential confusion
with the Exchange's Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The Minimum Price Variation is defined in Rule 11.6(g) and
provides the minimum increments for bids, offers, or orders in
securities traded on the Exchange.
    \27\ See, e.g., Rule 11.6(l)(2), which provides that orders with
a Post Only instruction priced below $1.00 will remove liquidity if
there is contra-side liquidity (i.e., the Post Only instruction is
effectively inapplicable). The Exchange also notes that other
exchanges appear to offer offsets in $0.01 increments. See, e.g.,
NYSE Pillar Gateway FIX Protocol Specification, at pages 24-25,
specifying the limit for a Market Peg order offset to a ``multiple
of .01''; available at: https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/NYSE_Pillar_Gateway_FIX_Protocol_Specification.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Removal of References to Default Instructions
    Next, the Exchange proposes to eliminate references throughout its
Rules 11.6 and 11.8 to certain ``default'' instructions. As currently
drafted, such default instructions are instructions that the Exchange
will infer with respect to certain order types and order type
instructions to the extent an order does not specify such details on
the order. The Exchange has determined not to offer default settings
for most order types and order type instructions, but rather, will
require a User to specify attributes on an order when entered. The
Exchange notes that its technical specifications delineate the required
fields for entering orders into the Exchange as well as the applicable
options for such fields.\28\ Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to
delete the following references to default settings:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ While the Exchange is removing most references to default
instructions, the Exchange notes that its specifications, in order
to align with current industry protocols, do permit some fields to
be left blank without rejecting an order. See infra notes 32 and 34-
36. While the Exchange may require certain fields to be completed on
all orders at some point in the future following proper notice to
Members and an update to its specifications, standard industry
protocols (i.e., the FIX protocol) currently dictate the Exchange's
implementation with respect to the certain instructions. The
Exchange also notes that many of the defaults the Exchange is
removing involve an optional functionality that, in turn, has
multiple variations. For instance, while the Exchange does not
require a User to submit an order with Reserve Quantity and thus, a
User could leave all relevant fields blank, if a User does submit an
order with a Reserve Quantity then the User must complete all of the
fields relevant to the handling of an order with Reserve Quantity,
as described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Rule 11.6(c)(1) with respect to display instructions--
rather than defaulting to a Displayed instruction, a User will need to
designate an order with either a Displayed or Non-Displayed
instruction;
     Rule 11.6(j)(1)(A)(iii) with respect to Display-Price
Sliding--rather than defaulting to Display-Price Sliding that only
reprices an order one time following initial placement on the MEMX
Book, a User will need to select either single or multiple price
sliding; \29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ The Exchange notes that it proposes to add the phrase
``single price sliding process'' to Rule 11.6(j)(1)(A)(iii) to be
consistent with an existing reference in such Rule to the Exchange's
``multiple price sliding process'', and proposes to expressly state
that a User that submits an order with a Display-Price Sliding
instruction must select either single or multiple price sliding. The
Exchange also proposes to eliminate the word ``optional'' from both
Rule 11.6(j)(1)(A)(iii) and Rule 11.16(e)(5)(B)(i) when referring to
the multiple price sliding process, as both the single price sliding
process and the multiple price sliding process are ``optional'', and
thus, the reference could be confusing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Rule 11.6(j)(2)(A) with respect to Re-Pricing Instructions
to Comply with Rule 201 of Regulation SHO (``Short Sale Price
Sliding'')--rather than defaulting to Short Sale Price Sliding that
only reprices an order one time following initial placement on the MEMX
Book, a User will need to select either single or multiple Short Sale
Price Sliding; \30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Consistent with the proposed changes to Rule
11.6(j)(1)(A)(iii) discussed immediately above, the Exchange
proposes to expressly state that a User that submits an order with a
short sale re-pricing instruction must select either single or
multiple price sliding. The Exchange proposes to use this
terminology throughout Rule 11.6(j)(2)(A) to describe the two
different options for short sale re-pricing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Rule 11.6(k)(1)(A) with respect to the Random
Replenishment instruction for orders with a Reserve Quantity
instruction--rather than defaulting to the immediate re-load of an
order with a Random Replenishment instruction, a User will need to
either select immediate replenishment or to have the time interval of
such re-load randomly set by the Exchange;
     Rule 11.8(a)(1) with respect to the TIF instruction for a
Market Order--rather than defaulting to a TIF instruction of Day, a
User will need to select the applicable TIF instruction; \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ In connection with this change, the Exchange proposes to
use language consistent with that used with respect to the TIF
options for a Limit Order, as set forth in Rule 11.8(b)(1), as
amended. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to state that a Market
order ``must have one of the following TIF instructions'', followed
by a list of the possible instructions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Rule 11.8(b)(1) with respect to the TIF instruction for a
Limit Order--rather than defaulting to a TIF instruction of Day, a User
will need to select the applicable TIF instruction;
     Rule 11.8(b)(3) with respect to the display instruction
for a Limit Order--rather than defaulting to a Limit Order with a
Displayed instruction, a User may include either a Displayed
instruction or a Non-Displayed instruction; \32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ The Exchange notes that, as set forth in its
specifications, Limit Orders without a Displayed instruction or Non-
Displayed instruction will not be rejected but instead, will be
accepted and handled in accordance with other instructions on the
applicable order. For instance, a Limit Order with a Minimum
Quantity instruction but no display instruction will be treated as
an order with a Non-Displayed instruction whereas a Limit Order with
no other special handling instructions will be treated as an order
with a Displayed instruction.

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

     Rule 11.8(b)(4) with respect to the replenishment
instruction for a Limit Order with a Reserve Quantity--rather than
defaulting to a Fixed Replenishment instruction, a User will need to
select the applicable replenishment instruction; \33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ The Exchange also proposes to make clear in Rule 11.8(b)(4)
that a Reserve Quantity will not be displayed by the System. While
this is already clear from Rule 11.6(k), the Exchange believes that
it is helpful to re-iterate in Rule 11.8(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Rule 11.8(b)(5) with respect to the TIF instruction for a
Limit Order with an Intermarket Sweep Order instruction--rather than
defaulting to a TIF instruction of Day, a User will need to select the
applicable TIF instruction;
     Rule 11.8(b)(10) with respect to the election of a
Display-Price Sliding instruction for a Limit Order--rather than
defaulting to a Display-Price Sliding instruction, a User may select
either Display-Price Sliding (either single or multiple) or Cancel
Back; \34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ The Exchange notes that, as set forth in its
specifications, Limit Orders without a Display-Price Sliding or
Cancel Back instruction will be accepted by the Exchange, however,
if a User wishes to use the Exchange's Display-Price Sliding
functionality, such User will need to indicate such election on its
orders and will need to specify the type of Display-Price Sliding
(either single or multiple).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Rule 11.8(b)(11) with respect to the election of a Short
Sale Price Sliding instruction for a Limit Order--rather than
defaulting to a Short Sale Price Sliding instruction, a User will need
to select either Short Sale Price Sliding (either single or multiple)
or Cancel Back; \35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ The Exchange notes that, as set forth in its
specifications, Limit Orders without a Short Sale Price Sliding or
Cancel Back instruction will be accepted by the Exchange, however,
if a User wishes to use the Exchange's Short Sale Price Sliding
functionality, such User will need to indicate such election on its
orders and will need to specify the type of Short Sale Price Sliding
(either single or multiple).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Rule 11.8(c)(3) with respect to the description of the
display instruction of a Pegged Order--rather than defaulting to a Non-
Displayed instruction, the Exchange proposes to simply state that a
Pegged Order is not eligible to have a Displayed instruction.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ The Exchange notes that, as set forth in its
specifications, Pegged Orders without a Displayed instruction or
Non-Displayed instruction will not be rejected but instead, will be
accepted and handled as orders with a Non-Displayed instruction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    None of the changes proposed above alter the behavior of the System
other than requiring applicable fields of an order to be specified
rather than defaulting to certain attributes or instructions to the
extent such fields are left blank.
Handling of Orders With Displayed, Non-Displayed and Reserve Quantity
Instructions in Specific Situations
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to modify the behavior of orders
with certain instructions in the situations specified below.
Orders With a Reserve Quantity When Replenished
    Current Rule 11.9(a)(6) states that the Reserve Quantity of an
order retains its original timestamp but the Exchange has determined
that the most efficient way to update orders with a Reserve Quantity
when replenishing the displayed portion is to handle such orders as new
orders, which will result in the displayed portion and the Reserve
Quantity each receiving a new timestamp and being placed back on the
MEMX Book. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.9(a)(6)
to state that the Reserve Quantity of an order receives a new timestamp
for the displayed portion as well as the Reserve Quantity of an order
each time it is replenished. The Exchange notes that this functionality
is identical to the functionality offered by Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.,
which also assigns a new timestamp to both the displayed portion and
Reserve Quantity each time an order is replenished.\37\ In connection
with this change, the Exchange proposes to make clear in Rule
11.6(k)(1) that when the System replenishes the displayed quantity of
an order with a Reserve Quantity, the order will be handled by the
System as a new order. Rule 11.6(k) already states that a new order
identification number will be created each time a displayed quantity is
replenished but the Exchange believes it is important to also
explicitly state that the order will be handled as a new order given
the implementation by the Exchange of the behavior necessary to
replenish orders with a Reserve Quantity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See Cboe EDGX Rule 11.9(a)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed change to provide new timestamps to both the displayed
portion and the Reserve Quantity of an order when an order is
replenished is intended to simplify the operation of the Exchange and
does allow for fair treatment of orders with Reserve Quantity for the
following reasons. The Exchange believes it will be rare for there to
be multiple orders with a Reserve Quantity at the same price on the
same side and in the same security, in which case, the proposed change
will not impact the handling of an order with a Reserve Quantity--i.e.,
although it will receive a new timestamp, it will still maintain the
same priority on the order book vis-[agrave]-vis other orders as it
would if the Reserve Quantity did not receive a new timestamp. Even if
there are multiple orders with a Reserve Quantity at the same price on
the same side and in the same security, the Exchange believes it is
fair to allow such orders to lose and regain queue position as they are
each individually replenished. As set forth in current Rule 11.9(a)(2),
the Reserve Quantity of Limit Orders is always last in the Exchange's
priority list, and thus Reserve Quantity is least likely to be executed
at any given time. As such, a User primarily concerned with queue
position could instead send any other type of order and receive a
higher position in the Exchange's priority queue than the Reserve
Quantity of such order will receive.
Orders With a Non-Displayed Instruction at Prices That Cross External
Quotations
    Exchange Rule 11.10(a)(2) currently states that to the extent an
order with a Non-Displayed instruction is resting on the MEMX Book,
such order will be cancelled if an incoming contra-side order that is
eligible for display on the MEMX Book is entered and such incoming
order would execute against the resting order with a Non-Displayed
instruction at a price that would constitute a trade-through of a
Protected Quotation \38\ displayed on another trading center. Thus,
according to the Exchange's current Rules, the Exchange would maintain
orders with a Non-Displayed instruction on its order book that cross
the prices displayed on other trading centers unless and until
execution of such an order would result in a trade-through.\39\ The
Exchange's original proposal in this regard was made to reduce
cancellations of orders with Non-Displayed instructions to the extent
such orders would ultimately be again executable based on changes to
the NBBO. However, as described below, the Exchange now proposes to
instead cancel an order with a Non-Displayed instruction as soon as it
is resting at a price that would be a trade-

through of a Protected Quotation--i.e., as soon as it is at a crossing
price. The Exchange proposes to remove the existing language from Rule
11.10(a)(2) regarding cancellation of an order when it would be a
trade-through and to modify Rules 11.8(b), regarding Limit Orders and
Rule 11.8(c), regarding Pegged Orders, as described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ As set forth in Rule 1.5(z), a Protected Quotation is a
quotation that is a Protected Bid or Protected Offer. In turn, a
Protected Bid or Protected Offer is a bid or offer in a stock that
is (i) displayed by an automated trading center; (ii) disseminated
pursuant to an effective national market system plan; and (iii) an
automated quotation that is the best bid or best offer of a national
securities exchange or association.
    \39\ The Exchange notes that when an order is not displayed,
ranking such an order at a crossing price is permissible, however,
execution of an order at such a price is generally not permissible
as it would constitute a trade-through of the Protected Quotation
that the order crosses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes adopting new paragraph (b)(8) regarding Limit
Orders to address the handling of orders with a Non-Displayed
instruction received or resting on the MEMX Book when the Limit Price
on such orders crosses the price of a Protected Quotation of another
Trading Center. Proposed paragraph (b)(8), titled Crossed Market, would
state that to the extent an incoming Limit Order with a Non-Displayed
instruction would be a Crossing Quotation if displayed at its limit
price, such order will execute against interest in the MEMX Book at
prices up to and including the Locking Price and will then be cancelled
by the System. Proposed paragraph (b)(8) would also state that a
resting Limit Order with a Non-Displayed instruction that would be a
Crossing Quotation if displayed at the price at which it is ranked will
be cancelled by the System.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Due to the addition of new paragraph (b)(8) to Rule 11.8,
the Exchange proposes to re-number subsequent paragraphs of Rule
11.8(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the Exchange proposes to modify existing paragraph
(c)(6) of Rule 11.8, which provides information regarding the handling
of Pegged Orders when the market is locked or crossed. Current
paragraph (c)(6) addresses the handling of Pegged Orders resting on the
MEMX Book when a Locking or Crossing Quotation exists and makes clear
that such orders are not executable at such times but again become
eligible for execution when a Locking or Crossing Quotation no longer
exists. The Exchange proposes to add language making clear that this
behavior applies to orders resting on the MEMX Book and to add a
provision addressing the handling of Pegged Orders that would be a
Crossing Quotation when initially received by the Exchange. Similar to
the handling of Limit Orders with a Non-Displayed instruction, the
Exchange proposes to execute interest to the extent permissible upon
receipt of a Pegged Order up to and including the Locking Price but
then to cancel such order. In contrast to a Pegged Order that is
already on the MEMX Book at a permissible price that is subsequently
locked or crossed, which the Exchange proposes to allow to rest in a
non-executable state while such condition exists, the Exchange does not
believe a Pegged Order received at a price that would cross a Protected
Quotation should be placed on the MEMX Book.
Orders With a Non-Displayed Instruction Subject to Rule 201 of
Regulation SHO
    Under the Exchange's current rules as further amended by the
proposals described above, the Exchange does not generally offer
functionality that moves orders with a Non-Displayed instruction to a
permissible price, instead opting to cancel such orders back to the
entering Users if the orders with a Non-Displayed instruction would be
ranked or are ranked at impermissible prices. Consistent with this
approach, rather than re-pricing to a permissible price, the Exchange
proposes to modify Rule 11.6(j)(2)(A) to state that in the event the
NBB changes such that the price of an order with a Non-Displayed
instruction subject to Rule 201 of Regulation SHO would be a Locking
Quotation or Crossing Quotation, the order will be cancelled. While
many other exchanges do offer re-pricing for non-displayed interest
that, if executed, would be a violation of Regulation SHO, the Exchange
does not believe it is required to do so and that, instead,
cancellation of resting hidden interest is an equally permissible
implementation in order to ensure that the Exchange does not execute
orders at prices prohibited by Rule 201 of Regulation SHO. The Exchange
notes other exchanges do cancel resting non-displayed interest under
the same circumstances to the extent members of such exchanges have
submitted orders that are ineligible for applicable price sliding
functionality.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See, e.g., Cboe Exchange Regulation SHO Amendment FAQ,
available at https://cdn.cboe.com/resources/membership/BATS_Exchange_Regulation_SHO_Amendment_FAQ.pdf (stating that if
price sliding is disabled a resting hidden short sale order will be
cancelled ``when a short sale circuit breaker goes into effect and
the hidden order locks or crosses the prohibited bid price'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Orders Priced Through Limit Up-Limit Down (``LULD'') Bands
    The Exchange proposes to make three changes to the description of
orders that are priced through applicable price bands under the LULD
Plan. First, the Exchange further proposes to modify Rule 11.16(e)(5)
to state that orders that are repriced by the Exchange due to
applicable LULD price bands will have priority behind resting interest
that was originally less aggressively priced but that was not re-
priced, as such orders will retain their original timestamps. The
Exchange originally proposed to maintain price priority for orders that
have been re-priced due to applicable LULD price bands, i.e., placing
such orders in front of orders that were originally less aggressively
priced. The Exchange believes that the System behavior necessary to
achieve this result is unnecessarily complicated as compared to the
benefit received from adopting such behavior. The Exchange does not
believe that market participants utilize LULD price bands, and
placement of orders at or near such bands, as an opportunity to achieve
queue position under normal conditions. Rather, the Exchange believes
that orders resting at or near applicable price bands and the re-
pricing of orders priced through such price bands is evidence of
unusual conditions and that the Exchange's functionality should be
focused on reducing risk in handling such situations. The Exchange also
notes that other exchanges have adopted similar order handling that
would provide new timestamps to orders that are re-priced.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See, e.g., IEX Rule 11.280(e)(5), which states that resting
orders that are re-priced due to applicable price bands receive new
timestamps (but does not say that resting orders that are not re-
priced also receive new timestamps); see also Nasdaq PSX Rule
3100(a)(2)(E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted in the sub-section immediately above, under the Exchange's
current rules (as further amended by the proposals described above),
the Exchange does not generally offer functionality that moves orders
with a Non-Displayed instruction to a permissible price, instead opting
to cancel such orders back to the entering Users if the orders with a
Non-Displayed instruction would be booked or are resting at
impermissible prices. The Exchange proposes to also adopt this logic in
the context of the Exchange's order handling to comply with the LULD
Plan (``LULD repricing''). Specifically, the Exchange proposes to
modify Rule 11.16(e)(5)(B)(i) to make a clear distinction between
orders with a Displayed instruction, which will continue to be eligible
for LULD re-pricing, and orders with a Non-Displayed instruction or a
portion of the order that is not displayed on the Exchange (i.e.,
orders with a Reserve Quantity), which will not be eligible for LULD
re-pricing. The Exchange proposes to cancel orders resting on the MEMX
Book with a Non-Displayed instruction or a Reserve Quantity that are
ranked at prices more aggressive than the applicable LULD price bands.
The Exchange believes this will further simplify the System and that
the change is consistent with the general principle of cancelling non-
displayed interest

resting on the Exchange at impermissible prices.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\43\ which require,
among other things, that the Exchange's rules must be designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest, and Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\44\
which requires that the Exchange's rules not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate. The proposed changes
are generally intended to simplify the operation of the System, to
align the System with functionality offered on other exchanges, or to
make clear certain aspects of the operation of the System that are not
clear based on the Exchange's current Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(6).
    \44\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, removal of the Early Order Entry Session and
Opening Process will reduce complexity with respect to the
functionality used to open the Exchange each trading day. Similarly,
cancelling orders in the event of a trading halt, not accepting orders
during a trading halt and removing the Re-Opening Process will simplify
the functionality used by the Exchange to re-open the market following
a trading halt. The Exchange does not anticipate having significant
volume that would be submitted during the Early Order Entry Session nor
does the Exchange anticipate having significant volume that would match
in its Opening Match or the corresponding match for the Re-Opening
Process. Thus, allowing orders to queue at the beginning of the day
through the Early Order Entry Session or leading up to the open of the
Market Session or allowing orders to remain on the Exchange during a
trading halt would complicate the market without much meaningful
benefit, and instead the Exchange believes simplification of its System
would be better, at least in connection with the initial launch of the
Exchange. The Exchange believes that these changes would foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities and would remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.
With respect to the Early Order Entry Session, the Exchange also notes
that the Exchange will still offer the Pre-Market Session, and thus,
Users will be able to enter orders into the Exchange prior to the
commencement of the Market Session. Further, not all exchanges offer a
trading session equivalent to the Early Order Entry Session.\45\ The
Exchange also believes that the minor proposed amendments to make
conforming changes to other Exchange Rules that reference the deleted
functionality will contribute to the protection of investors and the
public interest by making the Exchange's rules easier to understand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See supra note 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the clarifying changes to the
descriptions of Market Orders and Limit Orders are necessary and
consistent with the Act in that they provide additional clarity by
correcting the ambiguity in Exchange Rules that is already present with
respect to routing of Market Orders with a TIF of IOC or add
protections to the operation of the Exchange so that the Exchange is
not accepting or processing orders (of any type) when there is no NBBO.
The Exchange believes that the absence of an NBBO may be indicative of
a potential market problem. Further, without an NBBO, many of the
protections in place for the protection of investors would be absent,
and thus the Exchange believes that, at least in connection with the
launch of the Exchange, it should not accept orders when there is no
available NBBO in the applicable security. Thus, the Exchange believes
the proposed changes in this regard would promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, would protect investors and the
public interest.
    The proposed change to the Exchange's priority rule, Rule 11.9, to
separate orders with a Primary Peg instruction and orders with a
Midpoint Peg instruction and to afford a higher priority to orders with
a Primary Peg instruction, are based on the rules of another exchange
\46\ and are intended to provide higher priority to orders with a
Primary Peg instruction, which are more aggressive orders than orders
with a Midpoint Peg instruction, as described above. The Exchange is
seeking to reward more aggressive order types, even when not displayed,
because such order types provide price improvement to incoming orders
and thus promote the operation of a fair and orderly market and protect
investors and the public interest. With respect to the limitation of
the offset for Primary Peg Orders to an increment of $0.01, the
Exchange does not believe that orders with a Primary Peg instruction
will be commonly used in securities priced below $1.00 or that allowing
a more granular offset is necessary when the Exchange could instead
simplify its System's operation. The Exchange notes that Users that
wish to submit orders with a Primary Peg instruction in a security
priced below $1.00 can still submit such an order with an offset in an
increment of $0.01. If such an offset is not sufficiently granular to
meet the needs of a particular User, such User would be able to submit
its own priced Limit Orders in the standard MPV for a security priced
below $1.00 (i.e., in an increment of $0.0001). The Exchange also notes
that it already maintains other exceptions for securities trading below
$1.00 to maintain the simplicity of the System and that other exchanges
offer offsets in $0.01 increments.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See supra note 25.
    \47\ See supra note 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to remove certain default instructions
under which the Exchange would assume instructions for order entry
fields that have not been completed does not change any of the actual
functionality of the Exchange once orders are received, but rather,
modifies the order entry protocols required by the Exchange. As
proposed, all Users will need to complete most applicable order entry
fields when sending an order to the Exchange, rather than some fields
carrying particular meaning if such fields are left blank. The Exchange
believes that requiring most fields to be completed by a User rather
than applying Exchange-determined defaults to these fields will also
simplify the System and will help to ensure that Users have instructed
the Exchange with respect to order handling in a manner that directly
matches their intention. As these changes do not alter the ultimate
handling of orders with respect to matching engine handling, execution
or other processing by the Exchange, and instead provide Users with
more control and engagement with respect to their order handling, the
Exchange believes such changes promote just and equitable principles of
trade, and, in general, protect investors and the public interest.
    The Exchange believes that its handling of an order with a Reserve
Quantity as a new order when replenishing the displayed portion of such
an order is the most efficient way to operate the System. Also, the
Exchange's proposal to provide a new timestamp to both the displayed
portion and the Reserve Quantity is based on the rules of another
exchange.\48\ As described above, the Exchange believes that it will be
rare for there to be

multiple orders with a Reserve Quantity at the same price on the same
side and in the same security, in which case, the proposed change will
not impact the handling of an order with a Reserve Quantity. Even if
there are multiple orders with a Reserve Quantity at the same price on
the same side and in the same security, the Exchange believes it is
fair to allow such orders to lose and regain queue position as they are
each individually replenished. The Exchange also reiterates that the
Reserve Quantity of Limit Orders is always last in the Exchange's
priority list, and thus the purpose of such Reserve Quantity is not to
achieve the highest possible queue position, but instead, to have
sufficient interest that can be replenished and displayed by the
Exchange. Based on the foregoing, the Exchange believes that these
changes would foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged
in facilitating transactions in securities and would remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See supra note 37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to reject on entry any order with a Non-
Displayed instruction or any Pegged Order or to cancel any order with a
Non-Displayed instruction when an order is resting at a crossing price
is consistent with Regulation NMS, particularly Rule 611 thereof,\49\
which would prohibit execution of orders with a Non-Displayed
instruction on the Exchange as an impermissible trade-through to the
extent a Protected Quotation was being displayed by another market at a
crossing price. The Exchange also notes that its proposal is consistent
with the Exchange's current Rules, which would provide such
cancellation if the Exchange received an incoming order and sought to
execute against orders resting at a price that crosses a Protected
Quotation. The Exchange has also proposed to cancel resting orders with
a Short Sale instruction and Non-Displayed instruction if such order is
subject to Rule 201 of Regulation SHO,\50\ and would lock or cross the
price of the NBB. This change is consistent with Rule 201's prohibition
of executing an order with a Short Sale instruction at the price of the
NBB. The Exchange has also proposed to cancel rather than re-price any
resting interest with a Non-Displayed instruction or a Reserve Quantity
to the extent such interest is resting at a price that is through the
applicable LULD price bands. The Exchange believes this will further
simplify the System and that the change is consistent with the general
principle of cancelling non-displayed interest resting on the Exchange
at impermissible prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ 17 CFR 242.611.
    \50\ 17 CFR 242.201.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's Rules on each of the points described above would
have allowed additional interest to remain on the Exchange's book for
potential execution depending on later events. However, by instead
cancelling such orders in each of the scenarios described above the
Exchange will further simplify and reduce risk in connection with the
operation of the System. Users who have their orders cancelled will
receive immediate notification of such event and will be able to
determine the best way to re-enter their interest onto the Exchange if
they choose to do so. Thus, the Exchange also believes the proposal
promotes just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general,
protects investors and the public interest.
    Finally, as proposed the Exchange will not seek to maintain price
priority for orders that have been re-priced due to applicable LULD
price bands or re-price orders with a Non-Displayed instruction or
Reserve Quantity to permissible prices when such orders are priced
through a LULD price band. As noted above, the Exchange believes that
orders resting at or near applicable price bands and the re-pricing of
orders priced through such price bands is evidence of unusual
conditions and that the Exchange's functionality should be focused on
reducing risk in handling such situations. This change does reduce the
complexity of the System in connection with LULD repricing and thus,
the Exchange believes the proposal promotes just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, protects investors and the public
interest. The Exchange also notes that other exchanges have adopted
similar order handling that would provide new timestamps to orders that
are re-priced.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ See supra note 42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange
reiterates that the proposed rule change is being proposed in the
context of the launch of the Exchange and focuses on changes to the
proposed operation of the Exchange that further reduce complexity of
the System and/or the Exchange's Rules. The changes will allow the
Exchange to launch its platform with minor changes to the
implementation of certain Exchange operations, but without major
distinction from its proposed Rules or the rules of other national
securities exchanges already in operation today. Thus, the Exchange
believes this proposed rule change is necessary to permit fair
competition among national securities exchanges. In addition, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change will benefit Exchange
participants in that the changes will reduce complexity of the System
and/or the Exchange's Rules.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
    A. Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest;
    B. impose any significant burden on competition; and
    C. become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was
filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has
become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \52\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \53\ thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \53\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-MEMX-2020-04 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-MEMX-2020-04. 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; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MEMX-2020-04 and
should be submitted on or before September 11, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-18343 Filed 8-20-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 214 (Thursday, November 5, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68520-68521]
[FR Doc No: 2015-28207]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #3

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2985-017; ER10-3049-018; ER10-3051-018.
    Applicants: Champion Energy Marketing LLC, Champion Energy
Services, LLC, Champion Energy, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of the Champion Utilities.
    Filed Date: 10/29/15.
    Accession Number: 20151029-5444.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/19/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-90-000.
    Applicants: Golden Hills Interconnection, LLC.
    Description: Clarification to October 19, 2015 Golden Hills
Interconnection, LLC tariff filing under ER16-90.
    Filed Date: 10/28/15.
    Accession Number: 20151028-5399.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/12/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-131-000.
    Applicants: Heber Geothermal Company LLC.
    Description: Amendment to October 21, 2015 Heber Geothermal Company
LLC tariff filing.
    Filed Date: 10/29/15.
    Accession Number: 20151029-5307.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/12/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-164-000.
    Applicants: Wisconsin Power and Light Company.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: WPL Changes in
Depreciation & Amortization for Wholesale Production Service to be
effective 12/31/2015.
    Filed Date: 10/29/15.
    Accession Number: 20151029-5433.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/19/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-165-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to Clarify
Treatment of Point-To-Point Transmission Service Revenues to be
effective 1/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 10/29/15.
    Accession Number: 20151029-5442.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/19/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-166-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Entergy
Services, Inc.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 2015-10-29_EAI-AECC
Amended JPZ Agreement to be effective 1/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 10/29/15.
    Accession Number: 20151029-5445.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/19/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-167-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., New England Power Pool
Participants Committee.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Part 1 of Two-Part Filing
of Demand Response Changes to be effective 12/31/2015.
    Filed Date: 10/29/15.
    Accession Number: 20151029-5473.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/19/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-168-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: NYISO 205 filing re:
physical withholding & fuel costs in reference levels to be effective
12/28/2015.
    Filed Date: 10/29/15.
    Accession Number: 20151029-5482.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/19/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-169-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., New England Power Pool
Participants Committee.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Part 2 of Two-Part Filing
of Demand Response Changes to be effective 6/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 10/29/15.
    Accession Number: 20151029-5495.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/19/15.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern

time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but
intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 29, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-28207 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 28, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 73718-73719]
[FR Doc No: 2021-27934]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0558; FRL-9308-03-R6]

Finding of Failure To Attain the Primary 2010 One-Hour Sulfur
Dioxide Standard for the St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana Nonattainment
Area; Extension of Comment Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is extending the
comment period for the proposed rule ``Finding of Failure to Attain the
Primary 2010 One-Hour Sulfur Dioxide Standard for the St. Bernard
Parish, Louisiana Nonattainment Area'' that was published on December
7, 2021. The proposal provided for a public comment period ending
January 6, 2022. The EPA received a request from the public to extend
this comment period. The EPA is extending the comment period to January
13, 2022.

DATES: The comment period for the proposed rule published December 7,
2021 (86 FR 69210), is extended. Written comments must be received on
or before January 13, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2017-0558, at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov. While all documents in the
docket are listed in the index, some information may not be publicly
available due to docket file size restrictions or content (e.g., CBI).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karolina Ruan Lei, EPA Region 6
Office, SO2 and Regional Haze Section (R6-ARSH), 214-665-
7346, [email protected]. Out of an abundance of caution for
members of the public and our staff, the EPA Region 6 office will be
closed to the public to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19. We
encourage the public to submit comments via https://www.regulations.gov, as there will be a delay in processing mail and no
courier or hand deliveries will be accepted. Please call or email the
contact listed above if you need alternative access to material indexed
but not provided in the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.
    On December 7, 2021, we published in the Federal Register ``Finding
of Failure to Attain the Primary 2010 One-Hour Sulfur Dioxide Standard
for the St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana Nonattainment Area'', where we
proposed to determine that the St. Bernard Parish sulfur dioxide
(SO2) nonattainment area (``St. Bernard area'' or ``area'')
failed to attain the primary 2010 one-hour SO2 national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) under the Clean Air Act (CAA or
the Act) by the applicable attainment date of October 4, 2018 (86 FR
69210). We received a request for an extension of the comment period
and, in response, have decided to allow an additional 7 days for the
public to comment. We are extending the comment period to January 13,
2022. This action will allow interested

persons additional time to prepare and submit comments.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Pollution, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: December 20, 2021.
David Garcia,
Director, Air and Radiation Division, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2021-27934 Filed 12-27-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: March 21, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 54)]
[Notices]
[Page 14278-14279]
[DOCID:fr21mr06-132]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53487; File No. SR-NYSE-2006-21]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to the Extension of the Pilot Until March 24, 2006 To Put Into
Operation Phase 1 of the NYSE HYBRID MARKETSM

March 15, 2006.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'')\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on March 13, 2006, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. NYSE filed
the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\
and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal
effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NYSE proposes to extend the pilot which put into operation Phase 1
of the NYSE HYBRID MARKET\SM\ (``Hybrid Market'') initiative
(``Pilot'') \5\ proposed in SR-NYSE-2004-05 \6\ and amendments thereto
(``Hybrid Market filings'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52954 (December 14,
2005), 70 FR 75519 (December 20, 2005) (SR-NYSE-2005-87). See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53359 (February 24, 2006), 71 FR
10736 (March 2, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2006-09) (amending the Pilot to
provide for the automatic conversion of CAP-DI orders in certain
situations).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 50173 (August 10,
2004), 69 FR 50407 (August 16, 2004); 50667 (November 15, 2004), 69
FR 67980 (November 22, 2004); and 51906 (June 22, 2005), 70 FR 37463
(June 29, 2005). See also Amendment No. 6, filed on September 16,
2005 and Amendment No. 7, filed on October 11, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 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
    On December 14, 2005, the Commission approved the Pilot to put into
operation Phase 1 of the Hybrid Market initiative with respect to a
group of securities, known as Phase 1 Pilot securities (``Pilot
securities'').\7\ The approval provided that the Pilot would terminate
the earlier of: (1) March 14, 2006 or (2) Commission action on the
Hybrid Market proposal.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51906 (June 22,
2005), 70 FR 37463 (June 29, 2005) (Amendment No. 5 to SR-NYSE-2004-
05); see also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52954 (December
14, 2005), 70 FR 75519 (December 20, 2005) (SR-NYSE-2005-87).
    \8\ See Telephone conversation between Jeffrey Rosenstrock,
Principal Rule Counsel, NYSE, and Steve L. Kuan, Special Counsel,
Division of Market Regulation, Commission, on March 14, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to extend the Pilot through March 24, 2006,
while the Commission continues to review the Hybrid Market filings.
    The Exchange believes that an extension of the Pilot through March
24, 2006 will allow the Exchange to continue to conduct real-time
system and user testing of certain features of the Hybrid Market
filings in order to be in a position to comply with the implementation
of Regulation NMS.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the Pilot has proven beneficial from both a
technology and a training perspective. It has given the Exchange the
opportunity to identify and address any system problems and to identify
and incorporate beneficial system changes that become apparent as a
result of usage in real time and under real market conditions. The
ability to have such real time user interface is invaluable, as it is
impossible to accurately anticipate behavioral changes in a development
or mock-trading environment. In addition, the Pilot has allowed users
to gain essential practical experience with the new systems and
processes in a well-modulated way.
    The Pilot has operated with minimal problems given the amount and
degree

of testing and training that has occurred to date.\10\
    Therefore, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to extend the
Pilot through March 24, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Telephone conversation between Jeffrey Rosenstrock,
Principal Rule Counsel, NYSE, and Steve L. Kuan, Special Counsel,
Division of Market Regulation, Commission, on March 14, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \11\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \12\ in particular, in that it
is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is also designed to
support the principles of Section 11A(a)(1) of the Act \13\ in that it
seeks to assure economically efficient execution of securities
transactions, make it practicable for brokers to execute investors'
orders in the best market, and provide an opportunity for investors'
orders to be executed without the participation of a dealer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
the proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest; does not
impose any significant burden on competition; and by its terms, does
not become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed,
or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \14\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally may
not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \16\ permits the Commission to designate
a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the
Commission waive the five-day pre-filing notice requirement and the 30-
day operative delay and designate the proposed rule change immediately
operative upon filing. The Commission believes that waiver of the five-
day pre-filing notice requirement and the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because it would allow the Pilot to continue without interruption.
Accordingly, the Commission designates the proposal to be effective and
operative upon filing with the Commission.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \17\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-NYSE-2006-21 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2006-21. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 Web site (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 inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NYSE-2006-21 and should be submitted on or before April
11, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-4057 Filed 3-20-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P