[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 126 (Monday, July 1, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31385-31388]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-13924]



[[Page 31385]]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-86194; File No. SR-BX-2019-011]


Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Order Granting 
Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by 
Amendment No. 1, To Make Permanent the Pilot Program for the Exchange's 
Retail Price Improvement Program, Rule 4780, Which Is Set To Expire on 
June 30, 2019, Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1, and Order Granting 
Limited Exemption Pursuant to Rule 612(c) of Regulation NMS

June 25, 2019.

I. Introduction

    On April 26, 2019, Nasdaq BX, Inc. (``Exchange'') 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 make permanent 
Exchange Rule 4780, governing the Exchange's Retail Price Improvement 
Program (``Program'').\3\ The proposed rule change was published for 
comment in the Federal Register on May 15, 2019.\4\ The Commission has 
not received any comment letters regarding the proposed rule change. On 
June 21, 2019, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule 
change.\5\ In connection with the proposed rule change, as modified by 
Amendment No. 1, the Exchange requests exemptive relief from Rule 612 
of Regulation NMS,\6\ which, among other things, prohibits a national 
securities exchange from accepting or ranking orders priced greater 
than $1.00 per share in an increment smaller than $0.01 (``Sub-Penny 
Rule'').\7\ The Commission is issuing this order approving the proposed 
rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated basis, 
soliciting comments on Amendment No. 1 from interested persons, and 
issuing an order granting to the Exchange limited exemptive relief 
pursuant to Rule 612(c) of Regulation NMS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ In November 2014, the Commission approved the Program on a 
pilot basis. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73702 (November 
28, 2014), 79 FR 72049 (December 4, 2014) (SR-BX-2014-048) (``RPI 
Approval Order'').
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85811 (May 9, 2019), 
84 FR 21868 (``Notice'').
    \5\ Amendment No. 1, which is discussed further below, is a 
partial amendment in which the Exchange adds further analysis to 
support its conclusion that the Program did not have a negative 
impact on market quality. Amendment No. 1 may be found at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-bx-2019-011/srbx2019011-5723206-186048.pdf.
    \6\ 17 CFR 242.612(c).
    \7\ See note 12 infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment 
No. 1

    The Exchange proposes to make the Program permanent. In the Notice 
and Amendment No. 1, the Exchange set forth and discussed its analysis 
of the Program and basis for proposing permanent approval.

Overview of the Program

    The stated purpose of the Program is to attract retail order flow 
to the Exchange with the potential of such order flow receiving price 
improvement.\8\ All Regulation NMS securities traded on the Exchange 
are eligible for the RPI Program. The Program is limited to trades 
occurring at prices equal to or greater than $1.00 per share.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 21868.
    \9\ See Exchange Rule 4780(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Exchange Rule 4780 sets forth the rules governing the Program. 
Exchange Rule 4780(a) contains the defined terms for the Program. It 
defines a ``Retail Member Organization'' (or ``RMO'') as a Member (or a 
division thereof) that has been approved by the Exchange to submit 
Retail Orders. Under Exchange Rule 4780(b)(1), to qualify as an RMO, a 
Member of the Exchange must conduct a retail business or route retail 
orders on behalf of another broker-dealer. Exchange Rule 4780(b)(2) 
sets forth the process for a Member to apply to become an RMO, which 
includes an attestation from the Member that substantially all orders 
that it submits as Retail Orders will qualify as such. Exchange Rule 
4780(c) sets forth when and how the Exchange would remove a Member's 
RMO Status (i.e., disqualification), and Exchange Rule 4780(d) sets 
forth the process for a Member to appeal a disapproval of its RMO 
application or an RMO disqualification under Exchange Rule 4780(c).
    Exchange Rule 4780(a) references the Exchange's order type rules 
under Exchange Rule 4702 to define the terms ``Retail Order'' \10\ and 
``Retail Price Improvement Order'' (``RPI Order'' or collectively, 
``RPI Interest'').\11\ Both Retail Orders and RPI Orders are non-
display orders. A Retail Order must be submitted by an RMO, and an RPI 
Order must provide price improvement of at least $0.001 to Retail 
Orders. RPI Orders may only execute against Retail Orders, and an RPI 
Order may only execute against a Retail Order if it provides price 
improvement of at least $0.001 better than the national best bid or 
offer (NBBO).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Under Exchange Rule 4702(b)(6), a ``Retail Order'' is 
defined as an order type with a non-display order attribute 
submitted to the Exchange by an RMO. A Retail Order must be an 
agency Order, or riskless principal Order that satisfies the 
criteria of FINRA Rule 5320.03. The Retail Order must reflect 
trading interest of a natural person with no change made to the 
terms of the underlying order of the natural person with respect to 
price (except in the case of a market order that is changed to a 
marketable limit order) or side of market and that does not 
originate from a trading algorithm or any other computerized 
methodology.
    \11\ Under Exchange Rule 4702(b)(5), an RPI Order is defined as 
an order type with a non-display attribute that is held on the 
Exchange Book in order to provide liquidity at a price at least 
$0.001 better than the NBBO through a special execution process 
described in Rule 4780. A Retail Price Improving Order may be 
entered in price increments of $0.001.
    \12\ In the RPI Approval Order, the Commission also granted the 
Exchange's request for exemptive relief from the Sub-Penny Rule. See 
RPI Approval Order, supra note 3, at 72053. In conjunction with this 
proposal to make the Program Permanent, the Exchange has submitted a 
separate written request for exemptive relief from the Sub-Penny 
Rule. See Letter from Jeffrey S. Davis, Vice President and Deputy 
General Counsel, Exchange, to Eduardo A. Aleman, Deputy Secretary, 
Commission dated April 26, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under Exchange Rule 4780(e), BX disseminates an identifier when RPI 
interest priced at least $0.001 better than the Exchange's Protected 
Bid or Protected Offer for a particular security is available in the 
System (``Retail Liquidity Identifier''). The Retail Liquidity 
Identifier is disseminated through consolidated data streams (i.e., 
pursuant to the Consolidated Tape Association Plan/Consolidated 
Quotation System, or CTA/CQS, for Tape A and Tape B securities, and The 
Nasdaq Stock Market, LLC (``Nasdaq'') UTP Plan for Tape C securities) 
as well as through proprietary Exchange data feeds. The Retail 
Liquidity Identifier reflects the symbol and the side (buy or sell) of 
the RPI interest, but does not include the price or size of the RPI 
interest.
    Under Exchange Rule 4780(f), an RMO can designate how a Retail 
Order interacts with available contra-side interest as provided in the 
order type Exchange Rule 4702. Under Exchange Rule 4702(b)(6), Retail 
Orders can be designated as either Type-1 or Type-2. A Type 1-
designated Retail Order will attempt to execute against RPI Orders and 
any other orders on the Exchange Book with a price that is (i) equal to 
or better than the price of the Type-1 Retail Order and (ii) at least 
$0.001 better than the NBBO. A Type-1 Retail Order is not routable and 
will thereafter be cancelled. A Type 2-designated Retail Order will 
first attempt to execute

[[Page 31386]]

against RPI Orders and any other orders on the Exchange Book with a 
price that is (i) equal to or better than the price of the Type-2 
Retail Order and (ii) at least $0.001 better than the NBBO and will 
then attempt to execute against any other order on the Exchange Book 
with a price that is equal to or better than the price of the Type-2 
Retail Order, unless such executions would trade through a Protected 
Quotation. A Type-2 Retail Order may be designated as routable.
    Exchange Rule 4780(g) sets forth the priority and order allocation 
rules for how RPI Orders are ranked against both RPI and non-RPI orders 
when the Exchange receives a contra-side Retail Order. Competing RPI 
Orders in the same security are ranked and allocated according to price 
then time of entry into the Exchange's System, and . Executions occur 
in price/time priority in accordance with Exchange Rule 4757. When an 
RPI executes against a Retail Order, any remaining unexecuted RPI 
interest will be available to interact with other incoming Retail 
Orders if such interest is at an eligible price, but any remaining 
unexecuted portion of the Retail Order will cancel or execute in 
accordance with its Retail Order designation under Exchange Rule 
4780(f).
    Exchange Rule 4780(h) currently provides that the program is a 
pilot set to expire the earlier of approval of this proposal or June 
30, 2019. The Exchange proposes to eliminate this provision of the rule 
and make the Program permanent based on its analysis of the Program.

Analysis of the Program

    As more fully set forth in the Notice, the Exchange submitted data 
and analysis to support its proposal for making the Program 
permanent.\13\ The Exchange stated that the Program provided $4.3 
million in price improvement to retail investors between December 1, 
2014 (the start of the program) and May 2018.\14\ The Exchange also 
asserted that the segmentation of retail order flow on BX increased 
competition for retail order flow, which in turn increased retail order 
flow to BX and creates additional price improvement opportunities for 
retail investors.\15\ Furthermore, the Exchange concluded that it found 
no data or that it received no customer feedback indicating a negative 
impact of the Program on overall market quality or for retail 
investors.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 21872-21888.
    \14\ See id. at 21872.
    \15\ See id. at 21887.
    \16\ See id. at 21875.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange undertook a difference-in-difference 
(``DID'') analysis to analyze the Program's impact on the broader 
market.\17\ The Exchange noted that the Program was not initially 
designed to produce a DID analysis because all stocks traded on BX were 
eligible to receive price improvement under the Program from the 
start.\18\ To account for this, the Exchange identified stocks with 
relatively high levels of participation in the Program for use as the 
``treatment'' group, and used stocks with low participation in the 
Program as the ``control'' group.\19\ The Exchange sought to enhance 
the validity of the DID analysis by otherwise making the treatment 
group and the control group as similar as possible. The Exchange 
divided the analysis into two parts: Active securities and less active 
securities. The active securities consist of stocks with consolidated 
average daily volume (``CADV'') of 500,000 shares or more. The less 
active securities consist of stocks with CADV of between 50,000 and 
500,000 shares.\20\ Within each subgroup, the Exchange conducted what 
it describes as a ``matched pair'' process to identify a smaller set of 
treatment and control groups that are as similar as possible across 
three market quality statistics: (i) Consolidated average daily share 
volume; (ii) average price; and (iii) average time-weighted quoted NBBO 
in dollars and basis points (bps).\21\ To conduct the analysis of the 
Program's effect on overall market quality, the Exchange compared those 
statistics during a pre-treatment period (September 2014 to November 
2014) against those statistics during calendar year 2015 and calendar 
years 2017-18, obtaining a set of four DID regression analyses.\22\ The 
Exchange did not see sufficient consistency across the four DID 
regressions to conclude that the introduction of the Program caused 
spreads to widen.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ A DID statistical technique allows studying the 
differential effect of a treatment on data measured between a 
treatment group and a control group. The two groups are measured 
during two or more different time periods, usually a period before 
``treatment'' and at least one time period after ``treatment,'' that 
is, a time period after which the treatment group is impacted but 
the control group is not. For each group, the difference between a 
measure in the pre-treatment and the treatment period is computed. 
Those differences for a measure for the two groups are then compared 
to each other by taking the difference between them.
    \18\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 21876.
    \19\ See id. at 21876-21879 for a full description of the 
Exchange's methodology.
    \20\ See id.
    \21\ See id.
    \22\ See id., at 21878-21886 (Regression Results, Analysis 
Sample Table, and Tables 1A-4B).
    \23\ Id., at 21879.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on results for each sample group in the Exchange's regression 
analysis, the Exchange concluded that the overall results were not 
statistically significant to support a conclusion that the introduction 
of the Program caused spreads to widen.\24\ The Exchange's regressions 
suggested some increases in spreads of the treatment stocks between the 
pretreatment period and the post treatment periods.\25\ In Amendment 
No. 1, however, the Exchange provided more depth to its regression 
analysis by noting that a single treatment stock's bps spread increased 
twelvefold while its price dropped by 25% during the treatment 
period.\26\ The Exchange represented that when this stock and its 
matched-sample control were removed from the treatment group, the 
difference in spreads demonstrated by the regression analysis is not 
statistically significant and demonstrated how sensitive the data 
sample is to a single outlier data point.\27\ Based on a lack of 
consistent statistical evidence of any impact and the small size of the 
Program, the Exchange concluded that the Program did not have a 
negative impact on market quality.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See id.
    \25\ See id., at 21878.
    \26\ See Amendment No. 1.
    \27\ In addition, in Amendment No. 1, the Exchange noted that 
one of the analyses indicated increases in dollar quoted and 
effective spreads of about 1\1/2\ cents that were statistically 
significant (as compared to relative (bps) spreads increases that 
did not meet the standards of statistical significance). Noting that 
an increase in dollar spreads without an increase in bps spreads 
implies a general increase in the average price level of the sample 
stocks during the post period, the Exchange concluded that the 
increase in dollar spreads may be attributed to a factor unrelated 
to Program participation.
    \28\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the Exchange's 
proposal, as modified by Amendment No. 1, to make permanent the 
Program, Exchange Rule 4780, is consistent with the requirements of the 
Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national 
securities exchange.\29\ In particular, the Commission finds that the 
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent 
with Sections 6(b)(5) \30\ and 6(b)(8) \31\ of the Act. Section 6(b)(5) 
of the Act requires that the rules of a national securities exchange be 
designed, among other things, to promote just and equitable

[[Page 31387]]

principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism 
of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, 
to protect investors and the public interest, and not be designed to 
permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or 
dealers. Section 6(b)(8) of the Act requires that the rules of a 
national securities exchange not impose any burden on competition that 
is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the 
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ In approving this proposed rule change, as modified by 
Amendment No. 1, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's 
impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 
U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission approved the Program on a pilot basis to allow the 
Exchange and market participants to gain valuable practical experience 
with the Program during the pilot period, and to allow the Commission 
to determine whether modifications to the Program were necessary or 
appropriate prior to any Commission decision to approve or disapprove 
the Program on a permanent basis. The Program's pilot period was 
originally scheduled to end on December 1, 2015, and the Exchange filed 
to extend the operation of the pilot on several occasions.\32\ The 
pilot is now set to expire on June 30, 2019, and the Exchange proposes 
to make the Program permanent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 76490 (November 
20, 2015), 80 FR 74165 (November 27, 2015) (SR-BX-2015-073); 79446 
(December 1, 2016), 81 FR 88290 (December 7, 2016) (SR-BX-2016-065); 
82192 (December 1, 2017), 82 FR 57809 (December 7, 2017) (SR-BX-
2017-055); 83539 (June 28, 2018), 83 FR 31203 (July 3, 2018) (SR-BX-
2018-026); and 84847 (Dec. 18, 2018), 83 FR 66326 (Dec. 26, 2018) 
(SR-BX-2018-063).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As set forth in the RPI Approval Order, the Exchange agreed to 
provide the Commission with a significant amount of data to assist the 
Commission's evaluation of the Program prior to any permanent approval 
of the Program.\33\ Specifically, the Exchange represented that it 
would ``produce data throughout the pilot, which will include 
statistics about participation, the frequency and level of price 
improvement provided by the Program, and any effects on the broader 
market structure.'' \34\ The Commission expected the Exchange to 
monitor the scope and operation of the Program and study the data 
produced during that time with respect to such issues.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See RPI Approval Order, supra note 3, at 72053.
    \34\ See id.
    \35\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After careful consideration, the Commission believes that the 
Exchange's Program data and analysis about price improvement for retail 
investors and the DID analysis, as supplemented by Amendment No. 1, 
support the Exchange's conclusion that the Program provides meaningful 
price improvement to retail investors on a regulated exchange venue and 
has not demonstrably caused harm to the broader market. As noted above, 
the Exchange demonstrated that during the operation of the Program, 
retail orders received price improvement on the Exchange. Furthermore, 
in undertaking the DID analysis, the Exchange concluded that the 
spreads on the Exchange did not widen to the detriment of the broader 
market.\36\ Based on the foregoing, and after careful consideration of 
the Exchange's analysis of the data generated by the Program, the 
Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by 
Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the requirements of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ The Commission notes that it recently approved on a 
permanent basis another exchange's substantially similar retail 
price improvement program based on a similar type of DID analysis. 
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85160 (February 15, 2019), 
84 FR 5754 (February 22, 2019) (SR-NYSE-2018-28) (approving the New 
York Stock Exchange's Retail Liquidity Program on a permanent basis 
and granting a limited exemption to the Sub-Penny Rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments on Amendment No. 1

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and 
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether Amendment No. 1 
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 protected]. Please include 
File Number SR-BX-2019-011 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-BX-2019-011. 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 this filing will also 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-BX-2019-011 and should be submitted on 
or before July 22, 2019.

V. Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by 
Amendment No. 1

    The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule 
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, prior to the 30th day after the 
date of publication of notice of Amendment No. 1 in the Federal 
Register. Amendment No. 1 supplements the proposal by providing 
additional analysis of Exchange's Program data to support its 
conclusion that there was no harm to the overall market structure. 
Specifically, in Amendment No. 1, the Exchange supplements text in the 
original notice to further explain its regression analysis results for 
the DID. In the Notice, the Exchange noted that the regression analysis 
demonstrated that there were some increase in spreads of the treatment 
stocks, but the Exchange concluded, among other things, that the 
results were neither statistically significant or consistent enough 
across the sample groups to conclude that the introduction of the 
Program caused spreads to widen. In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange 
provided a more in-depth analysis by noting that a single treatment 
stock's bps spread increased twelvefold while its price dropped by 25% 
during the treatment period. The Exchange represented that when this 
stock and its matched-sample control were removed from the treatment 
group, difference in spreads demonstrated by the regression analysis is 
not statistically significant. Amendment No. 1 does not contain any 
proposed revisions to the Program itself or its rule text.

[[Page 31388]]

    The Exchange's DID analysis, as supplemented by Amendment No. 1, 
assisted the Commission in evaluating the Program's impact and in 
determining that permanent approval of the Program, Exchange Rule 4780. 
The Commission finds that Amendment No. 1 is reasonably designed to 
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and the national market 
system, protect investors and the public interest, and not be unfairly 
discriminatory, or impose an unnecessary or inappropriate burden on 
competition. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\37\ 
the Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule change, as 
modified by Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Limited Exemption From the Sub-Penny Rule

    Pursuant to its authority under Rule 612(c) of Regulation NMS,\38\ 
the Commission hereby grants the Exchange a limited exemption from the 
Sub-Penny Rule to operate the Program. For the reasons discussed below, 
the Commission determines that such action is necessary or appropriate 
in the public interest, and is consistent with the protection of 
investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 17 CFR 242.612(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the Commission adopted the Sub-Penny Rule in 2005, the 
Commission identified a variety of problems caused by sub-pennies that 
the Sub-Penny Rule was designed to address:
     If investors' limit orders lose execution priority for a 
nominal amount, investors may over time decline to use them, thus 
depriving the markets of liquidity.
     When market participants can gain execution priority for a 
nominal amount, important customer protection rules such as exchange 
priority rules and the Manning Rule \39\ could be undermined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Rule 5320 
(Prohibition Against Trading Ahead of Customer Orders).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Flickering quotations that can result from widespread sub-
penny pricing could make it more difficult for broker-dealers to 
satisfy their best execution obligations and other regulatory 
responsibilities.
     Widespread sub-penny quoting could decrease market depth 
and lead to higher transaction costs.
     Decreasing depth at the inside could cause institutions to 
rely more on execution alternatives away from the exchanges, 
potentially increasing fragmentation in the securities markets.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 
2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the limited exemption granted today 
should continue to promote competition between exchanges and OTC market 
makers in a manner that is reasonably designed to minimize the problems 
that the Commission identified when adopting the Sub-Penny Rule. Under 
the Program, sub-penny prices will not be disseminated through the 
consolidated quotation data stream, which should avoid quote flickering 
and its reduced depth at the inside quotation.
    Furthermore, the Commission does not believe that granting this 
limited exemption and approving the proposal would reduce incentives 
for market participants to display limit orders. As noted in the RPI 
Approval Order, market participants that displayed limit orders at the 
time were not able to interact with marketable retail order flow 
because that order flow was almost entirely routed to internalizing OTC 
market makers that offered sub-penny executions,\41\ and, as noted by 
the Exchange, the Program has attracted a small volume from the OTC 
market makers.\42\ As a result, enabling the Exchange to continue to 
compete for retail order flow through the Program should not materially 
detract from the current incentives to display limit orders, while 
potentially resulting in greater order interaction and price 
improvement for marketable retail orders on a public national 
securities exchange. To the extent that the Program may raise Manning 
and best execution issues for broker-dealers, these issues are already 
presented by the existing practices of OTC market makers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See RPI Approval Order, supra note 3, at 72053.
    \42\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 21872-86.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This permanent and limited exemption from the Sub-Penny Rule is 
limited solely to the operation of the Program by the Exchange. This 
exemption does not extend beyond the scope of Exchange Rule 4780. In 
addition, this exemption is conditioned on the Exchange continuing to 
conduct the Program, in accordance with Exchange Rule 4780 and any 
other Exchange Rules referenced therein, and substantially as described 
in the Exchange's request for exemptive relief and the proposed rule 
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1.\43\ Any changes in Exchange 
Rule 4780 may cause the Commission to reconsider this exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See supra Section III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the 
Act,\44\ that the proposed rule change (SR-BX-2019-011), as modified by 
Amendment No. 1, be, and it hereby is, approved on an accelerated 
basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is further ordered that, pursuant to Rule 612(c) under 
Regulation NMS, that the Exchange shall be exempt from Rule 612(a) of 
Regulation NMS with respect to the operation of the Program as set 
forth in Exchange Rule 4780 as described herein.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12) and 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(83).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-13924 Filed 6-28-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P