[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 90 (Friday, May 9, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26750-26751]
[FR Doc No: 2014-10681]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9014-8]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements
Filed 04/28/2014 through 05/02/2014 Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

EIS No. 20140132, Final EIS, FHWA, TX, Grand Parkway Segments H and I-
1, Review Period Ends: 06/09/2014, Contact: Gregory S. Punske 512-536-
5900.
EIS No. 20140133, Final EIS, FERC, LA, Cameron Liquefaction Project,
Review Period Ends: 06/09/2014, Contact: Danny Laffoon<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20140134, Draft Supplement, BPA, ID, Hooper Springs
Transmission Project, Comment Period Ends: 08/07/2014, Contact: Tish
Eaton<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20140135, Draft EIS, RUS, SC, McClellanville 115 kV
Transmission Project, Comment Period Ends: 06/23/2014, Contact: Lauren
McGee Rayburn<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20140136, Draft EIS, FTA, WA, Link Light Rail Operations and
Maintenance Satellite Facility, Comment Period Ends: 06/23/2014,
Contact: James Saxton<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20140137, Draft Supplement, BLM, ID, Cottonwood Resource
Management Plan Amendment for Domestic Sheep Grazing, Comment Period
Ends: 08/07/2014, Contact: Scott Pavey<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20140138, Final EIS, FHWA, OH, Cleveland Opportunity Corridor,
Contact: Naureen Dar<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Under MAP-21 section 1319, FHWA has issued a single FEIS and ROD.
Therefore, the 30-day wait/review period under NEPA does not apply to
this action.
EIS No. 20140139, Draft EIS, USAF, FL, Gulf Regional Airspace Strategic
Initiative Landscape Initiative, Comment Period Ends: 06/23/2014,
Contact: Michael Spaits<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20140140, Draft EIS, CALTRANS, CA, Centennial Corridor Project,
Comment Period Ends: 07/08/2014, Contact: Jennifer Taylor<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20140141, Final EIS, NPS, NJ, Gateway National Recreation Area
Final General Management Plan, Review Period Ends: 06/09/2014, Contact:
Jennifer Nersesian<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20140142, Draft Supplement, STB, UT, Six County Association of
Governments Proposed Rail Line between Levan and Salina, Comment Period
Ends: 06/23/2014, Contact: Phillis Johnson-Ball<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20140143, Draft EIS, BR, CA, Contra Loma Reservoir and
Recreation Area Resource Management Plan, Comment Period Ends: 07/02/
2014, Contact: David Woolley<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20140144, Draft EIS, USMC, BR, CA, Santa Margarita River
Conjunctive Use Project, Comment Period Ends: 06/23/2014, Contact:
Kristin Thomas<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    The U.S. Department of Defense's Marine Corps and the U.S.
Department of the Interior's Bureau of Reclamation are joint lead
agencies for the above project.

EIS No. 20140145, Final EIS, USFS, CO, Cumbres Vegetation Management
Project, Review Period Ends: 06/20/2014, Contact: Diana McGinn 719-852-
6241.

Amended Notices

EIS No. 20140086, Draft EIS, USFS, ID, Upper North Fork HFRA Ecosystem
Restoration Project, Comment Period Ends: 05/05/2014, Contact: Maggie
Seaberg<PHONE_NUMBER>. Revision to FR Notice Published 3/21/2014;
Extending Comment Period from 5/5/2014 to 5/19/2014.
EIS No. 20140087, Final EIS, FHWA, TX, Trinity Parkway, From IH-35E/SH-
183 to US-17/SH-310, Review Period Ends: 05/09/2014, Contact: Salvador
Deocampo<PHONE_NUMBER>. Revision to the FR Notice Published 3/21/2014;
Extending Review Period from 05/05/2014 to 05/09/2014.

    Dated: May 6, 2014.
Cliff Rader,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2014-10681 Filed 5-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


June 20, 2019

                       Comments from Jennifer Sass, PhD             Natural Resources Defense Council, Senior Scientist and                 Part-time faculty George Washington University,                Environmental and Occupational Health Department                                                To the US EPA TSCA Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC)                                                     TSCA SACC Website: http://www.epa.gov/tsca-peer-review                     Docket No. EPA - HQ - OPP - 2018 - 0604

White House E.O. (June 14th) slashing federal advisory committees by at least one-third by September 30th. You may have thought that this SACC was the first meeting of such a committee after the order was issued, but I think that honor may go to a committee that I am on   -  the NIEHS NTP-BSC  -  whose meeting started Monday of this week. In any case, this makes your task all the more important.

Scientific peer review is the cornerstone of scientific activities, and carries all the responsibilities that go with such an important task. Rush Holt, chief executive of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, was reported in TIME magazine a few days ago as saying , "he was concerned about the move to cut back on advisory panels, especially ones involved with health and the environment (underline not in original). `Advisory committees help the government become better informed, and making smart decisions should not be seen as optional or dispensable'." I agree.

The work of this advisory committee is so important because EPA is setting an important precedent with its risk evaluation of Pigment Violet 29 (CAS 81-33-4), and  -  most distressing  -  with its determination of `no unreasonable risk' to human health or the environment. EPA determined that PV29, under all conditions of use, poses a low hazard to human health and environmental receptors, low solubility, low vapor pressure, low bioaccumulation potential, low absorption, limited environmental releases and low potential for resulting exposures. None of these findings is adequately supported by data  -  and several of the conclusions reached by EPA were done so by ignoring the Agency's own risk assessment methods and guidelines. Due to the lack of reliable data, the European assessment recently concluded that, "a reliable conclusion on the bioavailability of this substance is not possible based on the currently available data." (see blog by Dr. Richard Denison for a discussion of the details). The SACC should similarly advise EPA that it cannot make a `no unreasonable risk' determination based on the current database and that it needs to obtain credible data in a number of areas, over the next year, before it finalizes its risk evaluation.

EPA's finding is based on two-dozen industry-sponsored studies that have not been made public (in violation of TSCA Section 14(b) requiring disclosure of health and safety studies), most of them incompletely reported out and some having substantial portions withheld from the public. There are no verifiable exposure or monitoring data, no hazard study lasting 90 days or longer, no reliable inhalation toxicity studies, and no reliable solubility information.

The lack of chronic hazard data is particularly disturbing. Using acute and sub-chronic data to predict chronic effects, particularly to sensitive or vulnerable populations, cannot be done with scientific confidence. It would be like trying to predict hyponatremia by extrapolating from drowning  -  both can kill you, but you couldn't predict one from observing the other.

There are approximately 40 thousand chemicals in commerce, with about 3,300 (excluding polymers) of them high production volume chemicals, like PV29, used and /or imported at over 1 million pounds annually in the US. Less than 1 percent (several hundred) have been fully tested for toxicity. Amended TSCA was passed by Congress to address exactly that problem. And, PV29 is the first  -  and therefore the most important and precedent setting  -  test case. That's why the work you do on this committee matters so much  -  it matters for the other 39 thousand chemicals, most of which will be like PV29 with very little toxicity data.

In yesterday's meeting, in response to a query from a committee member, EPA stated that it has `lots of experience' using read-across, bridging, and QSAR methods to fill data gaps. While EPA is correct that it has plenty of experience in filling data gaps without data  -  largely in its New Chemicals Program  -  EPA has no evidence that its efforts result in a correct outcome. How would it know, since it never tracks or reviews its approvals? We only learn about problems when things go terribly wrong like with Dupont's GenX Chemicals which EPA approved in 2008 through its New Chemicals Program based on industry-sponsored studies. Now, EPA says, "Animal studies have shown health effects in the kidney, blood, immune system, developing fetus, and especially in the liver following oral exposure. The data are suggestive of cancer." Too bad for about all the people who have now been exposed to PFAS in their drinking water. Wouldn't it have been smarter to get those animal studies before approving it for food containers and other consumer products? Amended TSCA gives EPA the authority to request these data for PV29 and other chemicals  -  Congress intended for EPA to obtain these data  -  the SACC should direct them to do so, before making a risk determination.

A determination of no unreasonable risk under TSCA must be supported by substantial evidence establishing that exposure to a substance will not result in adverse human or environmental effects under its conditions of use. Such determinations should be based on multiple lines of evidence from well-designed and well-conducted studies of adequate statistical power, adequate time to follow up (latency period), sufficiently sensitive life-stages, and sensitive species and strains of animal models in both sexes. Conjecture or limited data are not enough to support this determination. Instead, EPA must make an affirmative showing that no unreasonable risk exists.

You are the Agency's scientific peer reviewers. The public, workers and organized labor, consumers, parents, and environmental advocates are looking to you to be thorough, thoughtful, rigorous, and scientifically accurate in your response to EPA.

Dr. Lorenzo Tomatis, former Director of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, warned that serious public health consequences may follow if chemicals are misclassified as less toxic or non-toxic based on untested mechanistic hypotheses, poorly validated tests, or incomplete data sets. Retired NIEHS toxicologist Dr. Ron Melnick wrote that, "declaring a chemical as not hazardous, or reducing a level of health protection, should require validation, not speculation".

The SACC should direct EPA that it cannot make a `no unreasonable risk' determination without a substantial, reliable, defensible database. This is not simply a matter of how one sees the color purple  -  it is about how EPA will address the tens of thousands of chemicals that will follow.

Thank you,


[Federal Register: November 9, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 217)]
[Notices]
[Page 63576-63577]
[DOCID:fr09no07-61]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD07-13-000]

Conference on Enforcement Policy; Third Notice of Conference

November 2, 2007.
    As announced in the ``First Notice of Conference on Enforcement,''
issued on July 11, 2007, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) will hold a conference on November 16, 2007, to examine
the implementation of its enforcement authority as expanded by the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005).\1\ The conference will be held
in the Commission Meeting Room at the Commission's headquarters located
at 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Hearing Room 1 will be
available for over flow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Pub. L. 109-58, 119 Stat. 594 (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in the previous notices, the purpose of the conference is
to assess the enforcement program implemented by the Commission during
the first two years after passage of EPAct 2005 primarily as it
pertains to the additional subject matter authority and the expanded
civil penalty authority in Part II of the Federal Power Act \2\ and the
Natural Gas Act.\3\ Standards of conduct, market monitoring,
transparency, and market manipulation will not be discussed as they are
involved in or implicated by pending Commission proceedings. The
Commission will accept comments filed within 30 days after the
conference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 16 U.S.C. 791a et seq. (2000).
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 717 et seq. (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As indicated in the Second Notice of Conference, issued on October
4, 2007 (Second Notice), this further notice sets forth the final
conference format and schedule. The agenda has changed slightly from
the concept described in the Second Notice.\4\ To begin the conference,
we have added a presentation by the staff from the Office of
Enforcement. This presentation will present an overview of the
Commission's actions and related enforcement activities during the
first two years of EPAct Enforcement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Attached agenda.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the staff panel, the second panel, consisting of former
members of the Commission, will focus on an overview of enforcement
from a broad policy perspective as well as from their perspectives of
advising clients on how to comply with the Commission's rules and
regulations. The discussion will examine how the Commission can best
achieve compliance with regulatory requirements, and how it evaluates
enforcement cases, including self-reported violations and matters that
result in no penalty, and how companies subject to investigation can
best respond to the Commission.
    The third panel will address similar topics, but from the more
specific perspective of energy practitioners. Since the key goal of
enforcement is to encourage compliance, the panel will discuss the
challenges of working with clients to comply with the Commission's
regulations. In that regard, the panel will include a presentation from
a representative of a company that, pursuant to a stipulation and
agreement with Commission staff, developed and implemented a ``best in
class'' model for regulatory compliance.\5\ In addition, the Commission
would like to hear how practitioners counsel clients on how to respond
to the Commission's enforcement staff during an investigation,
including the factors weighed in the decision to self report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Coral Energy Resources, L.P., 110 FERC ] 61,205, at P14
(2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The fourth panel will focus on reliability issues and includes
representatives from the Electric Reliability Organization (the North
American Electric Reliability Corporation), regional entities, and a
utility. This discussion will look at how

the Regional Entities and the Electric Reliability Organization are
processing self-reported violations and other compliance matters, as
well as provide a utility perspective regarding compliance with the new
mandatory reliability standards. The panel will address emerging
practical issues of enforcement as well as the Commission's own
authority to enforce mandatory reliability standards and its interest
in the most effective way to achieve compliance with the standards.
    As previously noted, all interested persons are invited to attend
the conference, and there is no registration fee to attend. The
conference will not be transcribed but will be web cast. A free web
cast of this event will be available through http://www.ferc.gov.

Anyone with Internet access who desires to view this event can do so by
navigating to http://www.ferc.gov's Calendar of Events and locating

this event in the Calendar. The event will contain a link to its web
cast. The Capitol Connection provides technical support for the web
casts and offers access to the meeting via phone bridge for a fee. If
you have any questions, you may visit http://www.CapitolConnection.org

or contact Danelle Perkowski or David Reininger at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC conferences and meetings are accessible under section 508 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please
send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free (866) 208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a fax to<PHONE_NUMBER> with
the required accommodations.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.

Agenda

9-9:15 a.m. Opening Remarks by Members of the Commission.
9:15-9:45 Panel I: The First Two Years of EPAct Enforcement.

    Susan J. Court, Director, Office of Enforcement. Anna V. Cochrane,
Deputy Director, Office of Enforcement. Robert Pease, Director,
Division of Investigations. Lee Ann Watson, Deputy Director, Division
of Investigations. Stephen J. Harvey, Director, Division of Energy
Market Oversight. Bryan K. Craig, Director, Division of Audits.

9:45-11 a.m. Panel II: Enforcement Policy--Broad Policy Perspective.

    William L. Massey, Covington and Burling LLP. Clifford (Mike) M.
Naeve, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. Donald F. Santa,
President, Interstate Natural Gas Association of America.

11-11:10 Break.
11:10-12:45 Panel III: Enforcement Policy--the Practitioners' View.

    Mark Hanafin, CEO, Shell Energy North America. Barbara K.
Heffernan, Schiff Hardin LLP. Paul Korman, Van Ness Feldman. Richard
Meyer, Senior Regulatory Counsel, National Rural Electric Cooperative
Association. Mark Perlis, Dickstein Shapiro LLP. Andrea Wolfman, Thelen
Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner LLP.

12:45-1:45 Lunch Break.
1:45-3:15 Panel IV: Enforcement of Reliability Standards.

    David W. Hilt, Vice President and Director of Compliance, North
American Electric Reliability Corporation. Louise McCarren, CEO,
Western Electricity Coordinating Council. Raymond J. Palmieri, Vice
President & Director--Compliance, ReliabilityFirst Corporation. Robert
S. (Scott) Henry, Vice President, Electric System Operations, Duke
Energy.

3:15-3:30 Closing Remarks by Members of the Commission.

[FR Doc. E7-22028 Filed 11-8-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 117 (Monday, June 18, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28274-28277]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12931]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83415; File No. SR-CBOE-2018-042]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
the Position Limit for SPY Options

June 12, 2018.
    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 June 4, 2018, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe
Options'') 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. 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)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 4.11 to amend the position
limit for options on SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (``SPY'').
    (additions are italicized; deletions are [bracketed])
* * * * *

Cboe Exchange, Inc.

Rules

* * * * *
Rule 4.11. Position Limits
    (No change).
    . . . Interpretations and Policies:
    .01-.06 (No change).
    .07 The position limits under Rule 4.11 applicable to options on
shares or other securities that represent interests in registered
investment companies (or series thereof) organized as open-end
management investment companies, unit investment trusts or similar
entities that satisfy the criteria set forth in Interpretation and
Policy .06 under Rule 5.3 shall be the same as the position limits
applicable to equity options under Rule 4.11 and Interpretations and
Policies thereunder; except that the position limits under Rule 4.11
applicable to option contracts on the securities listed in the below
chart are as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Security underlying option                                     Position limit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The DIAMONDS Trust (DIA)...................................  300,000 contracts.
The Standard and Poor's Depositary Receipts Trust (SPY)....  [None] 1,800,000 contracts.
The iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM).........................  1,000,000 contracts.
The PowerShares QQQ Trust (QQQQ)...........................  1,800,000 contracts.
The iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (EEM)................  1,000,000 contracts.
iShares China Large-Cap ETF (``FXI'')......................  500,000 contracts.
iShares MSCI EAFE ETF (``EFA'')............................  500,000 contracts.
iShares MSCI Brazil Capped ETF (``EWZ'')...................  500,000 contracts.
iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond Fund ETF (``TLT'')..........  500,000 contracts.
iShares MSCI Japan ETF (``EWJ'')...........................  500,000 contracts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [Position limits for SPY options are subject to a pilot program
through July 12, 2018.]
    .08 No change.
* * * * *
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    Rule 4.11 establishes position limits for aggregate positions in
option contracts traded on the Exchange. Interpretation and Policy .07
to Rule 4.11 lists specific position limits for certain select
underlying securities.\5\ SPY is among the certain select underlying
securities listed in that Rule. Currently, the Rule provides that there
is no position limit (or exercise limit) on options overlying SPY
pursuant to a pilot program, which is scheduled to expire on July 12,
2018 (``SPY Pilot Program'').\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Pursuant to Rule 4.12, Interpretation and Policy .02, the
exercise limits for options on those securities are the same as the
position limits set forth in Rule 4.11, Interpretation and Policy
.07.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 67937 (September
27, 2012), 77 FR 60489 (October 3, 2012) (SR-CBOE-2012-091); 70878
(November 14, 2013), 78 FR 69737 (November 20, 2013) (SR-CBOE-2013-
106); 74149 (January 27, 2015), 80 FR 5606 (February 2, 2015) (SR-
CBOE-2015-008); 75381 (July 7, 2015), 80 FR 40111 (July 13, 2015)
(SR-CBOE-2015-065); 78131 (June 22, 2016), 81 FR 42011 (June 28,
2016) (SR-CBOE-2016-052); and 81017 (June 26, 2017), 82 FR 29960
(June 30, 2017) (SR-CBOE-2017-050).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 4.11, Interpretation and Policy
.07 to allow the SPY Pilot Program to terminate on July 12, 2018, the
current expiration date of the SPY Pilot Program. In lieu of extending
the SPY Pilot Program another year, the Exchange proposes to allow the
SPY Pilot Program to terminate and to establish position (and exercise)
limits of 1,800,000 contracts for options on SPY, with such change
becoming operative on July 12, 2018, so that there is no lapse in time
between termination of the SPY Pilot Program and the establishment of
the new limits. Furthermore, as a result of the termination of the SPY
Pilot Program, the Exchange does not believe it is necessary to submit
a SPY Pilot Program Report at the end of the SPY Pilot Program. Based
on the prior SPY Pilot Program Reports provided to the Commission,\7\
the Exchange believes it is appropriate to terminate the SPY Pilot
Program and that permanent position (and exercise) limits should be
established for SPY.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Position limits are designed to address potential manipulative
schemes and adverse market impact surrounding the use of options, such
as disrupting the market in the security underlying the options. The
potential manipulative schemes and adverse market impact are balanced
against the potential of setting the limits so low as to discourage
participation in the options market. The level of those position limits
must be balanced between curtailing potential manipulation and the cost
of preventing potential hedging activity that could be used for
legitimate economic purposes.
    The SPY Pilot Program was established in 2012 in order to eliminate
the position (and exercise) limit for physically-settled SPY
options.\8\ In 2005, the position (and exercise) limit for SPY options
was increased from 75,000 contracts to 300,000 contracts on the same
side of the market.\9\ In July 2011, the position limit (and exercise)
for these options was again increased from 300,000 contracts to 900,000
contracts on the same side of the market.\10\ Then, in 2012, the
position (and exercise) limit for SPY options were eliminated as part
of the SPY Pilot Program.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 67672 (August 15,
2012), 77 FR 50750 (August 22, 2012) (SR-NYSEAmex-2012-29); and
67937 (September 27, 2012), 77 FR 60489 (October 3, 2012) (SR-CBOE-
2012-091).
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51041 (January 14,
2005), 70 FR 3408 (January 24, 2005) (SR-CBOE-2005-06).
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64928 (July 20,
2011), 76 FR 44633 (July 26, 2011) (SR-CBOE-2011-065).
    \11\ See supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The underlying SPY tracks the performance of the S&P 500 Index and
the Exchange notes that the SPY and SPY options have deep, liquid
markets that reduce concern regarding manipulation and disruption in
the underlying markets. In support of this proposed rule change, the
Exchange has collected the following trading statistics for SPY and SPY
options: (1) The average daily volume (``ADV'') to date (as of May 15,
2018) for SPY is 108.32 million shares; (2) the ADV to date in 2018 for
SPY options is 3.9 million contracts per day; (3) the total shares
outstanding for SPY are 965.43 million; and (4) the fund market cap for
SPY is 261.65 billion. The Exchange represents further that there is
tremendous liquidity in the securities that make up the S&P 500 Index.
    Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 4.11,
Interpretation and Policy .07 to set forth that the position limit for
options on SPY would be 1,800,000 contracts on the same side of the
market.\12\ This position (and exercise) limit equal the current
position (and exercise) limit for options on QQQ, which the Commission
previously approved to be increased from 900,000 contracts on the same
side of the market to 1,800,000 contracts on the same side of the
market.\13\ The Exchange notes that SPY is more liquid than QQQ.\14\
The Exchange believes that establishing a position (and exercise) limit
for the SPY options in the amount of 1,800,000 contracts on the same
side of the market subject to this proposal would allow for the
maintenance of the liquid and competitive market environment for these
options, which will benefit customers interested in these products.
Under the proposal, the reporting requirement for the options would be
unchanged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Pursuant to Rule 4.12, Interpretation and Policy .02, the
exercise limit for options on SPY would be 1,800,000 contracts on
the same side of the market.
    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82770 (February 23,
2018), 83 FR 8907 (March 1, 2018) (SR-CBOE-2017-057).
    \14\ From the beginning of the year, through May 15, 2018, the
ADV for SPY was 108.32 million shares while the ADV for QQQ was
46.64 million shares (calculated using data from Yahoo Finance as of
May 15, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\15\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \16\ requirements that the rules of

an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in 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.
Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \17\ requirement that the rules of
an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes that establishing a permanent
position (and exercise) limit for SPY options subject to this proposal
will encourage Market Makers to continue to provide sufficient
liquidity in SPY options on the Exchange, which will enhance the
process of price discovery conducted on the Exchange. The proposal will
also benefit institutional investors as well as retail traders, and
public customers, by continuing to provide them with an effective
trading and hedging vehicle. In addition, the Exchange believes that
the structure of the SPY options subject to this proposal and the
considerable liquidity of the market for those options diminishes the
opportunity to manipulate this product and disrupt the underlying
market that a lower position limit may protect against.
    Increased position limits for select actively traded options, such
as that proposed herein (increased as compared to the 900,000 limit in
place prior to the SPY Pilot Program),\18\ is not novel and has been
previously approved by the Commission. For example, the Commission has
previously approved a rule change permitting the Exchange to double the
position (and exercise) limits for FXI, EEM, IWM, EFA, EWZ, TLT, QQQ,
and EWJ.\19\ Furthermore, as previously mentioned, the Commission
specifically approved a proposal by the Exchange to increase the
position (and exercise) limit for options on QQQ from 900,000 contracts
on the same side of the market to 1,800,000 contracts on the same side
of the market; similar to the current proposal for options on SPY.\20\
The Exchange also notes that SPY is more liquid than QQQ.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See supra note 10.
    \19\ See supra note 13.
    \20\ Id.
    \21\ See supra note 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, the Commission expressed the belief that implementing a
higher position (and exercise) limit may bring additional depth and
liquidity without increasing concerns regarding intermarket
manipulation or disruption of the options or the underlying
securities.\22\ The Exchange's existing surveillance and reporting
safeguards are designed to deter and detect possible manipulative
behavior which might arise from increasing the position (and exercise)
limit (increased as compared to the 900,000 limit in place prior to the
SPY Pilot Program).\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See supra note 13.
    \23\ See supra note 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Cboe Options 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. The Exchange believes the
entire proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act \24\ in
that it does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary
or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. On the
contrary, the Exchange believes the proposal promotes competition
because it will enable the option exchanges to attract additional order
flow from the over-the-counter market, which in turn compete for those
orders. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will result
in continued opportunities to achieve the investment and trading
objectives of market participants seeking efficient trading and hedging
vehicles, to the benefit of investors, market participants, and the
marketplace in general. The Exchange believes this proposed rule change
is necessary to permit fair competition among the options exchanges and
to establish uniform position limits for additional multiply listed
option classes. Another options exchange recently filed a similar
proposal,\25\ and the Exchange believes that the other options
exchanges will file similar proposals with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \25\ See SR-MIAX-2018-11 (May 24, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \26\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
\27\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \27\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2018-042 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2018-042. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the

submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with
respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission,
and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change
between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be
withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
552, will be available for website viewing and printing in the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2018-042 and should be submitted on
or before July 9, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-12931 Filed 6-15-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 63 (Wednesday, April 2, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18571-18572]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07412]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2008-0010]

Board of Visitors for the National Fire Academy

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Committee Management; Notice of Open Federal Advisory Committee
Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Board of Visitors for the National Fire Academy (Board)
will meet via teleconference on Thursday, April 17, 2014. The meeting
will be open to the public.

DATES: The meeting will take place on Thursday, April 17, 3:00 to 4:30
p.m. Eastern Daylight Time. Please note that the meeting may close
early if the Board has completed its business.

ADDRESSES: Members of the public who wish to participate in the
teleconference should contact Cindy Wivell as listed below in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by close of business April 15,
2014, to obtain the call-in number and access code. For information on
services for individuals with disabilities or to request special
assistance, contact Cindy Wivell as soon as possible.
    To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment
on the issues to be considered by the Board as listed in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. Comments must be submitted in
writing no later than April 15, 2014, and must be identified by Docket
ID FEMA-2008-0010 and may be submitted by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail/Hand Delivery: Cindy Wivell, 16825 South Seton
Avenue, Emmitsburg, Maryland 21727.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the words
``Department of Homeland Security'' and the Docket ID for this action.
Comments received will be posted without alteration at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received by the National Fire Academy Board of Visitors, go to
http://www.regulations.gov, click on ``Advanced Search,'' then enter
``FEMA-2008-0010'' in the ``By Docket ID'' box, then select ``FEMA''
under ``By

Agency,'' and then click ``Search.'' Prior to the meeting, handouts for
the meeting will be posted at http://www.usfa.fema.gov/nfa/bov.shtm by
April 9, 2014.
    There will be a 10-minute public comment period. Each speaker will
be given no more than 2 minutes to speak. Please note that the public
comment period may end before the time indicated, following the last
call for comments. Contact Cindy Wivell to register as a speaker.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Alternate Designated Federal Officer: Denis G. Onieal, telephone (301)
447-1117.
Logistical Information: Cindy Wivell, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax
(301) 447-1834, and email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Board of Visitors for the National Fire
Academy (Board) will meet via teleconference on Thursday, April 17,
2014. The meeting will be open to the public. Notice of this meeting is
given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (Pub. L.
92-463).

Purpose of the Board

    The purpose of the Board is to review annually the programs of the
National Fire Academy (NFA) and advise the Administrator of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), through the United States Fire
Administrator, of the operation of the NFA and any improvements therein
that the Board deems appropriate. In carrying out its responsibilities,
the Board examines NFA programs to determine whether these programs
further the basic missions that are approved by the Administrator of
FEMA, examines the physical plant of the NFA to determine the adequacy
of the NFA's facilities, and examines the funding levels for NFA
programs. The Board submits a written annual report, through the United
States Fire Administrator, to the Administrator of FEMA. The report
provides detailed comments and recommendations regarding the operation
of the NFA.

Agenda

    At its December 2013 meeting, the Board recommended establishing a
two-year NFA Managing Officer Program designed to enhance the
management and leadership skills of first-line to mid-level managers in
their fire and emergency medical service organizations. Two
subcommittees were established by the Designated Federal Officer to
review curriculum and admissions and final project guidelines. The
Board will review reports from these subcommittees, deliberate, and
develop recommendations for presentation to the FEMA Administrator
through the U.S. Fire Administrator.

    Dated: March 26, 2014.
Denis G. Onieal,
Superintendent, National Fire Academy, United States Fire
Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2014-07412 Filed 4-1-14; 8:45 m]
BILLING CODE 9111-45-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 230 (Wednesday, November 30, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 86329]
[FR Doc No: 2016-28767]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER17-383-000]

CED Ducor Solar 2, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding
CED Ducor Solar 2, LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is December 12, 2016.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 22, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-28767 Filed 11-29-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 24 (Friday, February 4, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6633-6637]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02312]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-94096; File No. SR-Phlx-2022-04]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Proposed Rule
Change To Update the Obvious Error Rule

January 31, 2022.
    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 January 26, 2022, Nasdaq PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III, below,
which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Options 3, Section 20 (Nullification
and Adjustment of Options Transactions including Obvious Errors).
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/phlx/rules, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
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 Options 3,
Section 20 (Nullification and Adjustment of Options Transactions
including Obvious Errors) to improve the operation of the Rule.
Following discussions with other exchanges and a cross-section of
industry participants and in coordination with the Listed Options
Market Structure Working Group (``LOMSWG'') (collectively, the
``Industry Working Group''), the Exchange proposes: (1) To amend
section (b)(3) of the Rule to permit the Exchange to determine the
Theoretical Price of a Customer option transaction in a wide market so
long as a narrow market exists at any point during the 10-second period
after an opening or re-opening; and (2) to amend section (c)(4)(B) of
the Rule to adjust, rather than nullify, Customer transactions in
Obvious Error situations, provided the adjustment does not violate the
limit price. The foregoing changes are based on the recently amended
rules of NYSE Arca, Inc. (``Arca'').\3\ The Exchange further proposes
to make a non-substantive, corrective change. Each change is discussed
in detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Arca Rule 6.87-O. See also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 93818 (December 17, 2021), 86 FR 73009 (December 23,
2021) (SR-NYSEArca-2021-91) (Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change
to Amend Rule 6.87-O).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Change to Section (b)(3)
    Options 3, Section 20 has been part of various harmonization
efforts by the Industry Working Group.\4\ These efforts

have often centered around the Theoretical Price for which an options
transaction should be compared to determine whether an Obvious Error
has occurred. For instance, all options exchanges have adopted language
comparable to Supplementary Material .05,\5\ which explains how an
exchange is to determine Theoretical Price at the open, when there are
no valid quotes, and when there is a wide quote. This includes at times
the use of a singular third-party vendor, known as a TP Provider
(currently CBOE Livevol, LLC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 74919 (May
8, 2015), 80 FR 27766 (May 14, 2015) (SRP-hlx-2015-43); 80431 (April
11, 2017), 82 FR 18182 (April 17, 2017) (SRP-hlx-2017-27).
    \5\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81352 (August
8, 2017), 82 FR 37949 (August 14, 2017) (SRP-hlx-2017-66).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, section (b)(3) of Options 3, Section 20 was previously
harmonized across all options exchanges to handle situations where
executions occur in markets that are wide (as set forth in the
rule).\6\ Under that section, the Exchange determines the Theoretical
Price if the NBBO for the subject series is wide immediately before
execution and a narrow market (as set forth in the rule) existed
``during the 10 seconds prior to the transaction.'' The rule goes on to
clarify that, should there be no narrow quotes ``during the 10 seconds
prior to the transaction,'' the Theoretical Price for the affected
series is the NBBO that existed at the time of execution (regardless of
its width).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 74919 (May
8, 2015), 80 FR 27766 (May 14, 2015) (SR-Phlx-2015-43).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In recent discussions, the Industry Working Group has identified
proposed changes to section (b)(3) of Options 3, Section 20 that would
improve the Rule's functioning. Currently, section (b)(3) does not
permit the Exchange to determine the Theoretical Price unless there is
a narrow quote 10 seconds prior to the transaction. However, in the
first seconds of trading, there is no 10-second period ``prior to the
transaction.'' Further, the Industry Working Group has observed that
prices in certain series can be disjointed at the start of trading.
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to provide additional protections to
trading in certain circumstances immediately after the opening before
liquidity has had a chance to enter the market. The Exchange proposes
to amend section (b)(3) to allow the Exchange to determine the
Theoretical Price in a wide market so long as a narrow market exists at
any point during the 10-second period after an opening or reopening.
    Specifically, the Exchange proposes that the existing text of
section (b)(3) would become sub-section (A). The Exchange proposes to
add the following heading and text as sub-section (B):

    (B) Customer Transactions Occurring Within 10 Seconds or Less
After an Opening or Re-Opening:
    (i) The Exchange will determine the Theoretical Price if the
bid/ask differential of the NBB and NBO for the affected series just
prior to the Customer's erroneous transaction was equal to or
greater than the Minimum Amount set forth in paragraph (A) above and
there was a bid/ask differential less than the Minimum Amount during
the 10 seconds prior to the transaction.
    (ii) If there was no bid/ask differential less than the Minimum
Amount during the 10 seconds prior to the transaction, then the
Exchange will determine the Theoretical Price if the bid/ask
differential of the NBB and NBO for the affected series just prior
to the Customer's erroneous transaction was equal to or greater than
the Minimum Amount set forth in paragraph (A) above and there was a
bid/ask differential less than the Minimum Amount anytime during the
10 seconds after an opening or re-opening.
    (iii) If there was no bid/ask differential less than the Minimum
Amount during the 10 seconds following an Opening or Re-Opening,
then the Theoretical Price of an option series is the last NBB or
NBO just prior to the Customer transaction in question, as set forth
in paragraph (b) above.
    (iv) Customer transactions occurring more than 10 seconds after
an opening or re-opening are subject to paragraph (A) above.

    The following examples illustrate the functioning of the proposed
rule change. Consider that the NBBO of a series opens as $0.01 at
$4.00. A marketable limit order to buy one contract arrives one second
later and is executed at $4.00. In the third second of trading, the
NBBO narrows from $0.01 at $4.00 to $2.00 at $2.10. While the execution
occurred in a market with wide widths, there was no tight market within
the 10 seconds prior to execution. Accordingly, under the current rule,
the trade would not qualify for obvious error review, in part due to
the fact that there was only a single second of trading before the
execution. Under the proposal, since a tight market existed at some
point in the first 10 seconds of trading (i.e., in the third second),
the Exchange would be able to determine the Theoretical Price as
provided in Supplementary Material .05.
    As another example, the NBBO for a series opens as $0.01 at $4.00.
In the seventh second of trading, a marketable limit order is received
to buy one contract and is executed at $4.00. Five seconds later (i.e.,
in the twelfth second of trading), the NBBO narrows from $0.01 at $4.00
to $2.00 at $2.10. While the execution occurred in a market with wide
widths, there was no tight market within 10 seconds prior to execution.
Accordingly, under the current rule, the trade would not qualify for
obvious error review. Under the proposal, since no tight market existed
at any point during the first 10 seconds of trading (i.e., the narrow
market occurred in the twelfth second), the trade would not qualify for
obvious error review.
    The proposed rule change would also better harmonize section (b)(3)
with section(b)(1) of the Rule. Under section (b)(1), the Exchange is
permitted to determine the Theoretical Price for transactions occurring
as part of the Opening Process (as defined in Options 3, Section 8) if
there is no NBB or NBO for the affected series just prior to the
erroneous transaction. However, under the current version of section
(b)(3), a transaction during regular trading hours could occur in the
same wide market but the Exchange would not be permitted to determine
the Theoretical Price. Consider an example where one second after the
Exchange opens a selected series, the NBBO is $1.00 at $5.00. At
9:30:03, a customer submits a marketable buy order to the Exchange and
pays $5.00. At 9:30:03, a different exchange runs an opening auction
that results in a customer paying $5.00 for the same selected series.
At 9:30:06, the NBBO changes from $1.00 at $5.00 to $1.35 at $1.45.
Under the current version of section (b)(3), the Exchange would not be
able to determine the Theoretical Price for the trade occurring during
regular trading hours. However, the trade on the other exchange could
be submitted for review under (b)(1) and that exchange would be able to
determine the Theoretical Price. If the proposed change to section
(b)(3) were approved, both of the trades occurring at 9:30:03 (on the
Exchange during regular trading and on another exchange via auction)
would also be entitled to the same review regarding the same
Theoretical Price based upon the same time.
    The proposal would not change any obvious error review beyond the
first 10 seconds of an opening or re-opening.
Proposed Change to Section (c)(4)(B)
    The Exchange proposes to amend section (c)(4)(B)--the ``Adjust or
Bust'' rule for Customer transactions in Obvious Error situations--to
adjust rather than nullify such orders, provided the adjustment does
not violate the Customer's limit price. Currently, the Rule provides
that in Obvious Error situations, transactions involving non-Customers
should be adjusted, while transactions involving Customers are
nullified, unless a certain

condition applies.\7\ The Industry Working Group has concluded that the
treatment of these transactions should be harmonized under the Rule,
such that transactions involving Customers may benefit from adjustment,
just as non-Customer transactions currently do, except where such
adjustment would violate the Customer's limit price; in that instance,
the trade would be nullified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Specifically, the current Rule provides at section (c)(4)(C)
that if a member or member organization has 200 or more Customer
transactions under review concurrently and the orders resulting in
such transactions were submitted during the course of 2 minutes or
less, where at least one party to the Obvious Error is a non-
Customer, then the Exchange will apply the non-Customer adjustment
criteria found in section (c)(4)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend the text of section
(c)(4)(B) to add that where at least one party to the Obvious Error is
a Customer, ``the execution price of the transaction will be adjusted
by the Official pursuant to the table immediately above. Any Customer
Obvious Error exceeding 50 contracts will be subject to the Size
Adjustment Modifier defined in sub-paragraph (a)(4) above. However, if
such adjustment(s) would result in an execution price higher (for buy
transactions) or lower (for sell transactions) than the Customer's
limit price,'' the trade will be nullified. The ``table immediately
above'' referenced in the proposed text refers to the table at current
Section (c)(4)(A), which provides for the adjustment of prices a
specified amount away from the Theoretical Price, rather than adjusting
the Theoretical Price.
Non-Substantive Amendment
    The Exchange proposes a non-substantive change in Options 3,
Section 20(j) to update the reference to the definition of Plan therein
to Options 3, Section 1(n) to Options 5, Section 1(n).
Implementation Date
    The proposed rule change will become operative no sooner than six
months following the approval of the Arca proposal to coincide with
implementation on other options exchanges.\8\ The Exchange will
announce the effective date of the proposed changes in an alert
distributed to all Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\9\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public
interest and because it is not designed to permit unfair discrimination
between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed change to section (b)(3) of
the Rule would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general,
protect investors and the public interest because it provides a method
for addressing Obvious Error Customer transactions that occur in a wide
market at the opening of trading. Generally, a wide market is an
indication of a lack of liquidity in the market such that the market is
unreliable. Current section (b)(3) recognizes that a persistently wide
quote (i.e., more than 10 seconds) should be considered the reliable
market regardless of its width, but does not address transactions that
occur in a wide market in the first seconds of trading, where there is
no preceding 10-second period to reference. Accordingly, in the first
10 seconds of trading, there is no opportunity for a wide quote to have
persisted for a sufficiently lengthy period such that the market should
consider it a reliable market for the purposes of determining an
Obvious Error transaction.
    The proposed change would rectify this disparity and permit the
Exchange to consider whether a narrow quote is present at any time
during the 10-second period after an opening or re-opening. The
presence of such a narrow quote would indicate that the market has
gained sufficient liquidity and that the previous wide market was
unreliable, such that it would be appropriate for the Exchange to
determine the Theoretical Price of an Obvious Error transaction. In
this way, the proposed rule harmonizes the treatment of Customer
transactions that execute in an unreliable market at any point of the
trading day, by making them uniformly subject to Exchange determination
of the Theoretical Price.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change to section (c)(4)(B)
of the Rule would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system and enhance the
protection of investors by harmonizing the treatment of non-Customer
transactions and Customer transactions under the Rule. Under the
current Rule, Obvious Error situations involving non-Customer
transactions are adjusted, while those involving Customer transactions
are generally nullified, unless they meet the additional requirements
of section (c)(4)(C) (i.e., where a member or member organization has
200 or more Customer transactions under review concurrently and the
orders resulting in such transactions were submitted during the course
of 2 minutes or less). The proposal would harmonize the treatment of
non-Customer and Customer transactions by providing for the adjustment
of all such transactions, except where such adjustment would violate
the Customer's limit price.
    When it proposed the current rule in 2015, the Exchange believed
there were sound reasons for treating non-Customer transactions and
Customer transactions differently. At the time, the Exchange stated its
belief that ``Customers are not necessarily immersed in the day-to-day
trading of the markets, are less likely to be watching trading activity
in a particular option throughout the day, and may have limited funds
in their trading accounts,'' and that nullifying Obvious Error
transactions involving Customers would give Customers ``greater
protections'' than adjusting such transactions by eliminating the
possibility that a Customer's order will be adjusted to a significantly
different price. The Exchange also noted its belief that ``Customers
are . . . less likely to have engaged in significant hedging or other
trading activity based on earlier transactions, and thus, are less in
need of maintaining a position at an adjusted price than non-
Customers.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 74919 (May 8,
2015), 80 FR 27766 (May 14, 2015) (SR-Phlx-2015-43).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Those assumptions about Customer trading and hedging activity no
longer hold. The Exchange and the Industry Working Group believe that
over the course of the last five years, Customers that use options have
become more sophisticated, as retail broker-dealers have enhanced the
trading tools available. Pursuant to OCC data, volumes clearing in the
Customer range have expanded from 12,022,163 ADV in 2015 to 35,081,130
ADV in 2021. This increase in trading activity underscores the greater
understanding of options by Customers as a trading tool and its use in
the markets. Customers who trade options today largely are more
educated, have better trading tools, and have better access to
financial news than any

time prior.\12\ The proposed rule would extend the hedging protections
currently enjoyed by non-Customers to Customers, by allowing them to
maintain an option position at an adjusted price, which would in turn
prevent a cascading effect by maintaining the hedge relationship
between the option transaction and any other transactions in a related
security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See ``Retail Traders Adopt Options En Masse'' by Dan Raju,
available at https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/retail-traders-adopt-options-en-masse-2020-12-08.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that extending such hedging protections to
Customer transactions would remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and
enhance the protection of investors by providing greater certainty of
execution for all participants to options transactions. Under the
current Rule, a Customer that believes its transaction was executed
pursuant to an Obvious Error may be disincentivized from submitting the
transaction for review, since during the review process, the Customer
would be uncertain whether the trade would be nullified, and if so,
whether market conditions would still permit the opportunity to execute
a related order at a better price after the nullification ruling is
finalized. In contrast, under the proposed rule, the Customer would
know that the only likely outcomes of submitting a trade to Obvious
Error review would be that the trade would stand or be re-executed at a
better price; the trade would only be nullified if the adjustment would
violate the order's limit. Similarly, under the current Rule, during
the review period, a market maker who traded contra to the Customer
would be uncertain if it should retain any position executed to hedge
the original trade, or attempt to unwind it, possibly at a significant
loss. Under the proposed rule change, this uncertainty is largely
eliminated, and the question would be whether the already-executed and
hedged trade would be adjusted to a better price for the Customer, or
if it would stand as originally executed. In this way, the proposed
rule enhances the protection of investors and removes impediments to
and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system.
    The proposed rule also addresses the concern the Exchange cited in
its 2015 filing that adjusting, rather than nullifying, Customer
transactions could lead to a Customer's order being adjusted to a
significantly different price. To address that concern, the proposed
rule would prevent Customer transactions from being adjusted to a price
that violates the order's limit; if the adjustment would violate a
Customer's limit, the trade would instead be nullified. The Exchange
believes it is in the best interest of investors to expand the
availability of adjustments to Customer transactions in all Obvious
Error situations except where the adjustment would violate the
Customer's limit price.
    Further, the Exchange believes that, with respect to such proposed
adjustments to Customer transactions, it is appropriate to use the same
form of adjustment as is currently in place with respect to non-
Customer transactions as laid out in the table in section (c)(4)(A).
That is, the Exchange believes that it is appropriate to adjust to
prices a specified amount away from the Theoretical Price rather than
to adjust the Theoretical Price, even though the Exchange has
determined a given trade to be erroneous in nature, because the parties
in question should have had some expectation of execution at the price
or prices submitted. Also, it is common that by the time it is
determined that an Obvious Error has occurred, additional hedging and
trading activity has already occurred based on the executions that
previously happened. The Exchange believes that providing an adjustment
to the Theoretical Price in all cases would not appropriately
incentivize market participants to maintain appropriate controls to
avoid potential errors, while adjusting to prices a specified amount
away from the Theoretical Price would incentivize such behavior.
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is not designed to permit
unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
The proposed change to section (b)(3) would apply to all instances of a
wide market occurring within the first 10 seconds of trading followed
by a narrow market at any point in the subsequent 10-second period,
regardless of the types of market participants involved in such
transactions. The proposed change to section (c)(4)(B) would harmonize
the treatment of Obvious Error transactions involving Customers and
non-Customers, no matter what type of market participants those parties
may be.
    Lastly, the Exchange believes that the non-substantive correction
to update the rule cite within Options 3, Section 20(j) is consistent
with the Act because it will bring greater transparency to the Rulebook
and reduce potential confusion by investors.
    For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is
consistent with the Act.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange anticipates that
the other options exchanges will adopt substantively similar proposals,
such that there would be no burden on intermarket competition from the
Exchange's proposal. Accordingly, the proposed change is not meant to
affect competition among the options exchanges. For these reasons, the
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this
competitive environment and does not impose any undue burden on
intermarket competition.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
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)(iii) of the Act \13\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2022-04 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2022-04. 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. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2022-04 and should be submitted on
or before February 25, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-02312 Filed 2-3-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P