                                Meeting Summary
         EPA Meeting with "Reach the Decision Makers" on Mancozeb
                                 May 29, 2014

Attendees
      USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs
      Pesticide Re-evaluation Division: Rick Keigwin, Michael Goodis, Patricia Parrott, Tracy Perry, Richard Dumas
      Health Effect Division:  Dana Vogel, Jess Rowland, Elizabeth Mendez, Michael Metzger, David Miller, Shanna Recore, Elizabeth Evans, Carol Christensen, Jeff Evans, Katelynn King
      Registration Division:  Cynthia Giles-Parker, Hope Johnson
      Field and External Affairs Division:  Kevin Keaney, Ashley Nelsen
      Office of General Counsel: Michelle Knorr (for FIFRA-related questions)

      Reach the Decision Makers (REACH) Team
      Jennifer Runkle, Postdoctoral Fellow, Emory University
      Joan Flocks, Director, Social Policy Division, Levin College of Law, University of Florida Anne Lang Dunlop, Associate Professor, Emory University
      Jeannie Economos, Pesticide Safety and Environmental Health Project Coordinator, Farmworker Association of Florida

Meeting Summary
   Representatives of the EPA Office of Pesticide Programs' Pesticide Re-evaluation Division, Health Effect Division, Registration Division, and Field and External Affairs Division met with a REACH team to discuss mancozeb.  The team presented their concerns regarding occupational exposure to mancozeb and potential developmental and reproductive effects.  This concern is based on the team's systematic review of mancozeb literature, which it will formally submit to the Agency for consideration in the registration review of mancozeb.  The public portion of the mancozeb registration review is scheduled to begin in June 2015, with the posting of the preliminary work plan and supporting documents for comment.

   The Agency noted that it would review the REACH team's findings during registration review and that it would add their policy brief/summary of scientific findings to the mancozeb registration review public docket.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 127 (Friday, July 1, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 43199]
[FR Doc No: 2016-15725]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0658; FRL--9946-74-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NSPS/NESHAP for Wool Fiberglass Insulation
Manufacturing Plants (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), ``NSPS/NESHAP for Wool Fiberglass
Insulation Manufacturing Plants (40 CFR part 60, subpart PPP and 40 CFR
part 63, subpart NNN) (Renewal)'' (EPA ICR No. 1160.13, OMB Control No.
2060-0114), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.). This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently
approved through June 30, 2016. Public comments were previously
requested via the Federal Register (80 FR 32116) on June 5, 2015 during
a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days
for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below,
including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An Agency may
neither conduct nor sponsor, and a person is not required to respond
to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid
OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before August 1,
2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2012-0658, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer
for EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Yellin, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: Owners and operators of affected facilities are required
to comply with reporting and record keeping requirements for the
general provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart A and 40 CFR part 60,
subpart A, as well as for the specific requirements at 40 CFR part 63,
subpart NNN and 40 CFR part 60 Subpart PPP. This includes submitting
initial notification reports, performance tests and periodic reports
and results, and maintaining records of the occurrence and duration of
any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected
facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is
inoperative. These reports are used by EPA to determine compliance with
these standards.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Facilities with wool fiberglass
insulation manufacturing lines.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subpart PPP and 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN).
    Estimated number of respondents: 42 (total).
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally and semiannually.
    Total estimated burden: 8,470 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $1,500,000 (per year), includes $622,000
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an adjustment decrease in the
total estimated respondent labor hours and number of responses. The
decrease occurred because the number of major sources subject to 40 CFR
part 63 Subpart NNN has decreased from 29 to 10 since the previous ICR.
    However, there is an increase in the total O&M costs as compared to
the most recently approved ICR. For Subpart PPP, the O&M cost increased
because this ICR corrects the number of respondents associated with PM
monitoring. For Subpart NNN, the O&M cost increased because this ICR
incorporates additional testing requirements associated with the 2015
amendment.

    Dated: June 23, 2016.
Matthew Leopard,
Director, Office of Information Collection.
[FR Doc. 2016-15725 Filed 6-30-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 124 (Thursday, July 1, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35106-35107]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14086]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4583-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

Maryland; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Maryland (FEMA-4583-DR), dated February 4, 2021, and
related determinations.

DATES: This change occurred on June 1, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Timothy S.
Pheil, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer
for this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of E. Craig Levy, Sr., as
Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance

(Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation
Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-14086 Filed 6-30-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: September 24, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 184)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 48647-48649]
[DOCID:fr24se09-1]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

========================================================================

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 30685 Amdt. No 3338]

Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums
and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports.
These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or
revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National
Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational
facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements.
These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the
navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under
instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES: This rule is effective September 24, 2009. The compliance date
for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the
amendatory provisions.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of September 24, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:
    For Examination--
    1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
    2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected
airport is located;
    3. The National Flight Procedures Office, 6500 South MacArthur
Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_
federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    Availability--All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available
online free of charge. Visit http://www.nfdc.faa.gov to register.
Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP copies may
be obtained from:
    1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building,
800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; or
    2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected
airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harry J. Hodges, Flight Procedure
Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Divisions,
Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd. Oklahoma City,
OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125)
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing,
amending, suspending, or revoking SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS.
The complete regulators description of each SIAP and its associated
Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form
documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5
U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA
Forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when
required by an entry on 8260-15A.
    The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, in addition
to their complex nature and the need for a special format make
publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical.
Furthermore, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs,
Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead refer to their depiction on
charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. The advantages
of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the
complete description of each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on
FAA forms is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR
sections and specifies the types of SIAPs and the effective dates of
the, associated Takeoff Minimums and ODPs. This amendment also
identifies the airport and its location, the procedure, and the
amendment number.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of
each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as contained in the
transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments
may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center
(FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate
flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The
circumstances which created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums
and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30
days. For the remaining SIAPS and Takeoff Minimums and ODPS, an
effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
    Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPS contained in this
amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for
Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPS and
Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the
conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of
the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and
public procedures before adopting these SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and
ODPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where
applicable, that good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in
less than 30 days.

Conclusion

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established

body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments
are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore--(1) is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866;
(2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,1979); and (3) does not warrant
preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so
minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

    Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, and
Navigation (air).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 4, 2009.
John M. Allen,
Director, Flight Standards Service.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code
of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by
establishing, amending, suspending, or revoking Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and/or Obstacle Departure
Procedures effective at 0902 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120,
44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

0
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:

* * * Effective 22 OCT 2009

Bethel, AK, Bethel, RNAV (GPS) RWY 1R, Orig-A
Kenai, AK, Kenai Muni, VOR RWY 19R, Amdt 18C
Florala, AL, Florala Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 22, Amdt 1
Greensboro, AL, Greensboro Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Orig, CANCELLED
Greensboro, AL, Greensboro Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Orig, CANCELLED
Greensboro, AL, Greensboro Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Orig, CANCELLED
Phoenix, AZ, Phoenix Sky Harbor Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 7L, Orig-A
Phoenix, AZ, Phoenix Sky Harbor Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 7R, Orig-A
Phoenix, AZ, Phoenix Sky Harbor Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 8, Orig-A
Phoenix, AZ, Phoenix Sky Harbor Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 25L, Orig-A
Phoenix, AZ, Phoenix Sky Harbor Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 25R, Orig-A
Phoenix, AZ, Phoenix Sky Harbor Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 26, Orig-A
Burbank, CA, Bob Hope, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 8, Orig-A
Ontario, CA, Ontario Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 8L, Orig-B
Ontario, CA, Ontario Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 26L, Orig-B
Ontario, CA, Ontario Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 26R, Orig-B
San Francisco, CA, San Francisco Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 28L, Amdt 1
San Francisco, CA, San Francisco Intl, RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 19L, Amdt 1
Santa Rosa, CA, Charles M. Schulz-Sonoma County, ILS OR LOC RWY 32,
Amdt 18
Ukiah, CA, Ukiah Muni, RNAV (GPS)-B, Orig
Ukiah, CA, Ukiah Muni, VOR-A, Amdt 4
Ukiah, CA, Ukiah Muni, VOR/DME RNAV OR GPS-B, Amdt 4A, CANCELLED
Pueblo, CO, Pueblo Memorial, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt
4
Miami, FL, Kendall-Tamiami Executive, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle
DP, Amdt 8
Palatka, FL, Palatka Muni-Lt Kay Larkin Field, Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle DP, Orig
Brunswick, GA, Brunswick Golden Isles, RNAV (GPS) RWY 7, Amdt 1
Brunswick, GA, Brunswick Golden Isles, RNAV (GPS) RWY 25, Amdt 1
Brunswick, GA, Brunswick Golden Isles, VOR/DME-B, Amdt 9
Claxton, GA, Claxton-Evans County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Amdt 1
Claxton, GA, Claxton-Evans County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Orig
Jasper, GA, Pickens County, NDB RWY 34, Orig, CANCELLED
Jekyll Island, GA, Jekyll Island, GPS RWY 36, Orig-B, CANCELLED
Jekyll Island, GA, Jekyll Island, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Orig
Jekyll Island, GA, Jekyll Island, VOR-A, Amdt 10
Thomaston, GA, Thomaston-Upson County, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle
DP, Amdt 2
Guam, GQ, Guam Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 6L, Orig-C
Guam, GQ, Guam Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 6R, Orig-B
Guam, GQ, Guam Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 24L, Orig-D
Guam, GQ, Guam Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 24R, Orig-B
Kahului, HI, Kahului, ILS OR LOC RWY 2, Amdt 24
Kahului, HI, Kahului, LOC/DME BC RWY 20, Amdt 14
Kapolei, Oahu Island, HI, Kalaeloa (John Rodgers Field), Takeoff
Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig
Kapolei, Oahu Island, HI, Kalaeloa (John Rodgers Field), VOR/DME RWY
4R, Amdt 1
Oskaloosa, IA, Oskaloosa Muni, NDB RWY 22, Amdt 4
Oskaloosa, IA, Oskaloosa Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Amdt 1
Oskaloosa, IA, Oskaloosa Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Amdt 1
Oskaloosa, IA, Oskaloosa Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Orig
Bloomington, IN, Monroe County, ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 35, Amdt 6
Bloomington, IN, Monroe County, VOR/DME RWY 6, Amdt 18
Bloomington, IN, Monroe County, VOR/DME RWY 24, Amdt 12
Pikeville, KY, Pike County-Hatcher Field, ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 27,
Amdt 1
Pikeville, KY, Pike County-Hatcher Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Amdt 1
Pikeville, KY, Pike County-Hatcher Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Amdt 1
Pontiac, MI, Oakland County Intl, LOC BC RWY 27L, Amdt 1
Pontiac, MI, Oakland County Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 9R, Orig
Pontiac, MI, Oakland County Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 5
Pontiac, MI, Oakland County Intl, VOR RWY 9R, Amdt 24
Pontiac, MI, Oakland County Intl, VOR RWY 27L, Amdt 15
Sault Ste Marie, MI, Chippewa County Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 16, Amdt 1
Sault Ste Marie, MI, Chippewa County Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 34, Amdt 1
Sault Ste Marie, MI, Chippewa County Intl, VOR-A, Amdt 7
Washington, MO, Washington Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 15, Amdt 2
Washington, MO, Washington Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 33, Amdt 2
Washington, MO, Washington Rgnl, Takeoff Minimum and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 1
Washington, MO, Washington Rgnl, VOR-A, Amdt 2
Fort Benton, MT, Fort Benton, RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Orig
Fort Benton, MT, Fort Benton, RNAV (GPS)-A, Orig, CANCELLED
Poplar, MT, Poplar, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig
Ronan, MT, Ronan, RNAV (GPS) RWY 16, Orig
Ronan, MT, Ronan, RNAV (GPS) RWY 34, Orig
Ronan, MT, Ronan, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig
Greensboro, NC, Piedmont Triad Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle
DP, Amdt 1
York, NE, York Muni, NDB RWY 17, Amdt 6
Fremont, OH, Fremont, RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Orig
Fremont, OH, Fremont, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2
Fremont, OH, Fremont, VOR RWY 9, Amdt 6
John Day, OR, Grant Co Rgnl/Ogilvie Field, RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 9, Orig
San Juan, PR, Luis Munoz Marin Intl, VOR OR TACAN RWY 8, Amdt 1
San Juan, PR, Luis Munoz Marin Intl, VOR OR TACAN RWY 10, Amdt 1
San Juan, PR, Luis Munoz Marin Intl, VOR OR TACAN RWY 26, Amdt 20
Spartanburg, SC, Spartanburg Downtown Memorial, Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle DP, Orig
Sumter, SC, Sumter, GPS RWY 23, Orig, CANCELLED
Sumter, SC, Sumter, NDB RWY 23, Amdt 3
Sumter, SC, Sumter, RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Orig

Sumter, SC, Sumter, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 23, Orig
Sumter, SC, Sumter, RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 23, Orig
Sumter, SC, Sumter, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1
Aberdeen, SD, Aberdeen Rgnl, VOR RWY 31, Amdt 21
Aberdeen, SD, Aberdeen Rgnl, VOR/DME RWY 13, Amdt 13
Rockwood, TN, Rockwood Muni, VOR/DME RWY 22, Amdt 6
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, Dallas-Fort Worth Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 13R,
Orig-B
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, Dallas-Fort Worth Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 31L,
Orig-B
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, Dallas-Fort Worth Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 31R,
Amdt 1A
Eagle Pass, TX, Maverick County Memorial Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 13,
Orig
Grand Praire, TX, Grand Praire Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle
DP, Amdt 4
Brigham City, UT, Brigham City, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 5
Huntington, UT, Huntington Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 2A
Eastsound, WA, Orcas Island, RNAV (GPS)-A, Orig
Eastsound, WA, Orcas Island, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig
Ellensburg, WA, Bowers Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 25, Amdt 1
Ellensburg, WA, Bowers Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 29, Amdt 1
Hoquiam, WA, Bowerman, ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 24, Amdt 3
Port Angeles, WA, William R. Fairchild Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 26, Orig

[FR Doc. E9-22059 Filed 9-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 60 (Wednesday, March 28, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13323-13329]
[FR Doc No: 2018-06139]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82931; File No. SR-MIAX-2018-10]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange Rule 307, Position Limits, and
Exchange Rule 309, Exercise Limits

March 22, 2018.
    Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice
is hereby given that on March 8, 2018, Miami International Securities
Exchange, LLC (``MIAX Options'' or the ``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule
change as described in Items I and II 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 the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend Exchange Rules 307,
Position Limits, Interpretations and Policies .01, and 309, Exercise
Limits, Interpretations and Policies .01, to increase the position and
exercise limits for options on the following exchange traded funds
(``ETFs''): iShares China Large-Cap ETF (``FXI''), iShares MSCI
Emerging Markets ETF (``EEM''), iShares Russell 2000 ETF (``IWM''),
iShares MSCI EAFE ETF (``EFA''), iShares MSCI Brazil Capped ETF
(``EWZ''), iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond Fund ETF (``TLT''),
PowerShares QQQ Trust (``QQQ''), and iShares MSCI Japan ETF (``EWJ'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings/ at MIAX Options'
principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend Exchange Rules
307, Position Limits, Interpretations and Policies .01, and 309,
Exercise Limits, Interpretations and Policies .01, to increase position
and exercise limits, respectively, for options on the following ETFs:
FXI, EEM, IWM, EFA, EWZ, TLT, QQQ, EWJ.
    Market participants' trading activity has been adversely impacted
by the current position limits as such limits have caused options
trading in the symbols subject to this proposal to move from exchanges
to the over-the-counter market. The Exchange submits this proposal with
the understanding that market participants' on-exchange activity has
been hindered by the existing position limits, causing them to be
unable to provide additional liquidity not just on the Exchange, but
also on other options exchanges on which they participate.\3\ The
Exchange understands that certain market participants wishing to make
trades involving a large number of options contracts in the symbols
subject to this proposal are opting to execute those trades in the
over-the-counter market. The over-the-counter transactions occur via
bi-lateral agreements, the terms of which are not publicly disclosed to
other market participants. Therefore, these large trades do not
contribute to the price discovery process performed on a lit market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Cboe has received approval from the Commission for its
proposed rule change to increase its position limits for the
following ETFs: FXI, EEM, IWM, EFA, EWZ, TLT, QQQ, EWJ. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82770 (February 23, 2018) (Order
Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified
by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2) (SR-CBOE-2017-057).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. Position limits for options on ETFs, such
as those subject to this proposal are determined pursuant to Exchange
Rule 307, and vary according to the number of outstanding shares and
the trading volume of the underlying stocks or ETFs over the past six-
months. The Exchange notes that the ETFs that underlie options subject
to this proposal are highly liquid, and are based on a broad set of
highly liquid securities and other reference assets. Likewise, the
Commission has recognized the liquidity of the securities comprising
the underlying interest of the SPDR S&P 500 ETF (``SPY'') in permitting
no position limits on SPY options since 2012,\4\ and expanded position
limits for options on EEM, IWM and QQQ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 67672 (August 15,
2012), 77 FR 50750 (August 22, 2012) (SR-NYSEAmex-2012-29); 67937
(September 27, 2012), 77 FR 60489 (October 3, 2012) (SR-CBOE-2012-
091).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The largest in capitalization and the most frequently traded stocks
and ETFs have an option position limit of 250,000 contracts (with
adjustments for splits, re-capitalizations, etc.) on the same side of
the market; and smaller capitalization stocks and ETFs have position
limits of 200,000, 75,000, 50,000 or 25,000 contracts (with adjustments
for splits, re-capitalizations, etc.) on the same side of the market.
Options on FXI, EFA, EWZ, TLT, and EWJ are currently subject to the
standard position limit of 250,000 contracts, as set forth in Exchange
Rule 307. Interpretation and Policy .01 of Exchange Rule 307 sets forth
separate position limits for options on specific ETFs as follows:
     Options on EEM are 500,000 contracts;

     Options on IWM are 500,000 contracts; and
     Options on QQQ are 900,000 contracts.
    Interpretation and Policy .01 of Exchange Rule 307 also sets forth
separate position limits for options on SPY (no limit) and options on
DIA (300,000 contracts). However, the Exchange is not proposing to
modify the position limits for options on SPY or DIA.
    The purpose of this proposal is to amend Rules 307, Position
Limits, Interpretations and Policies .01, and 309, Exercise Limits,
Interpretations and Policies .01 to double the position and exercise
limits for FXI, EEM, IWM, EFA, EWZ, TLT, QQQ, and EWJ. As such, options
on FXI, EFA, EWZ, TLT, and EWJ would no longer be subject to the
standard position and exercise limits as set forth under Exchange Rules
307 and 309. Accordingly, Interpretations and Policies .01 to Exchange
Rule 307 and Interpretations and Policies .01 to Exchange Rule 309
would be amended to set forth that the position and exercise limits for
options on FXI, EFA, EWZ, TLT, and EWJ would be 500,000 contracts.
These position and exercise limits equal the current position and
exercise limits for options on IWM and EEM and are similar to the
current position and exercise limits for options on QQQ, as set forth
in Interpretations and Policies .01 to Exchange Rule 307 and
Interpretations and Policies .01 to Exchange Rule 309.
    Interpretations and Policies .01 to Exchange Rule 307 and
Interpretations and Policies .01 to Exchange Rule 309 would be further
amended to increase the position and exercise limits for the remaining
options subject to this proposal as follows:
     The position and exercise limits for options on EEM would
be increased from 500,000 contracts to 1,000,000 contracts;
     The position and exercise limits for options on IWM would
be increased from 500,000 contracts to 1,000,000 contracts; and
     The position and exercise limits for options on QQQ would
be increased from 900,000 contracts to 1,800,000 contracts.
    The Exchange's proposal mirrors that of the Cboe Exchange, Inc.
(``Cboe''), which seeks to increase the position and exercise limits
for FXI, EEM, IWM, EFA, EWZ, TLT, QQQ, and EWJ which was filed by Cboe
on August, 15, 2017.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81483 (August 25,
2017), 82 FR 41457 (August 31, 2017) (SR-CBOE-2017-057 Notice of
Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Interpretation and Policy
.07 of Exchange Rule 4.11, Position Limits, To Increase the Position
Limits for Options on Certain ETFs). See also SR-CBOE-2017-057,
Partial Amendment No. 1 (November 22, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In support of this proposal, the Exchange represents that the
above-listed ETFs qualify for either: (i) The initial listing criteria
set forth in Exchange Rule 402(i)(E)(2) for ETFs holding non-U.S.
component securities; or (ii) for ETFs listed pursuant to generic
listing standards for series of portfolio depository receipts and index
fund shares based on international or global indexes under which a
comprehensive surveillance agreement (``CSA'') is not required.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Exchange notes that the initial listing criteria for
options on ETFs that hold non-U.S. component securities are more
stringent than the maintenance listing criteria for those same ETF
options. See Exchange Rule 402(i)(E)(2); Exchange Rule 403(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FXI tracks the performance of the FTSE China 50 Index, which is
composed of the 50 largest Chinese stocks.\7\ EEM tracks the
performance of the MSCI Emerging Markets Index, which is composed of
approximately 800 component securities.\8\ The MSCI Emerging Markets
Index consists of the following 21 emerging market country indices:
Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, Czech Republic, Egypt, Hungary, India,
Indonesia, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Peru, Philippines, Poland,
Russia, South Africa, Taiwan, Thailand, and Turkey.\9\ IWM tracks the
performance of the Russell 2000 Index, which is composed of 2,000
small-cap domestic stocks.\10\ EFA tracks the performance of MSCI EAFE
Index, which has over 900 component securities.\11\ The MSCI EAFE Index
is designed to represent the performance of large and mid-cap
securities across 21 developed markets, including countries in Europe,
Australasia and the Far East, excluding the U.S. and Canada.\12\ EWZ
tracks the performance of the MSCI Brazil 25/50 Index, which is
composed of shares of large and mid-size companies in Brazil.\13\ TLT
tracks the performance of ICE U.S. Treasury 20+ Year Bond Index, which
is composed of long-term U.S. Treasury bonds.\14\ QQQ tracks the
performance of the Nasdaq-100 Index, which is composed of 100 of the
largest domestic and international nonfinancial companies listed on the
Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'').\15\ EWJ tracks the MSCI Japan
Index, which tracks the performance of large and mid-sized companies in
Japan.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See https://www.ishares.com/us/products/239536/ishares-china-largecap-etf.
    \8\ See http://us.ishares.com/productinfo/fund/overview/EEM.htm.
    \9\ See http://www.msci.com/products/indices/tools/index.html#EM.
    \10\ See https://www.ishares.com/us/products/239710/ishares-russell-2000-etf.
    \11\ See https://www.ishares.com/us/products/239623/.
    \12\ See https://www.msci.com/eafe.
    \13\ See https://www.ishares.com/us/products/239612/ishares-msci-brazil-capped-etf.
    \14\ See https://www.ishares.com/us/products/239454/.
    \15\ See https://indexes.nasdaqomx.com/Index/Overview/NDX .
    \16\ See https://www.ishares.com/us/products/239665/EWJ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MIAX Options represents that more than 50% of the weight of the
securities held by the options subject to this proposal are also
subject to a CSA.\17\ Additionally, the component securities of the
MSCI Emerging Markets Index on which EEM is based for which the primary
market is in any one country that is not subject to a CSA do not
represent 20% or more of the weight of the MSCI Emerging Markets
Index.\18\ Finally, the component securities of the MSCI Emerging
Markets Index on which EEM is based, for which the primary market is in
any two countries that are not subject to CSAs do not represent 33% of
more of the weight of the MSCI Emerging Markets Index.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Exchange Rule 402(i)(E)(2)(ii).
    \18\ See Exchange Rule 402(i)(E)(2)(ii)(B).
    \19\ See Exchange Rule 402(i)(E)(2)(ii)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In support of this proposal, the following trading statistics have
been compiled.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Shares
                       ETF                           2017 ADV        2017 ADV       outstanding     Fund market
                                                                                (million)    cap ($million)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FXI.............................................           15.08          71,944            78.6         3,343.6
EEM.............................................           52.12         287,357           797.4        34,926.1
IWM.............................................           27.46         490,070           253.1        35,809.1
EFA.............................................           19.42          98,844         1,178.4        78,870.3
EWZ.............................................           17.08          95,152           159.4         6,023.4
TLT.............................................            8.53          80,476            60.0         7,442.4

QQQ.............................................           26.25         579,404           351.6        50,359.7
EWJ.............................................            6.06           4,715           303.6        16,625.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the liquidity in the underlying ETFs,
and the liquidity in the ETF options support its request to increase
the position limits for the options subject to this proposal. As to the
underlying ETF shares, through July 31, 2017, the year-to-date average
daily trading volume was: (i) FXI across all exchanges was 15.08
million shares; (ii) EEM across all exchanges was 52.12 million shares;
(iii) IWM across all exchanges was 27.46 million shares; (iv) EFA
across all exchanges was 19.42 million shares; (v) EWZ across all
exchanges was 17.08 million shares; (vi) TLT across all exchanges was
8.53 million shares; (vii) QQQ across all exchanges was 26.25 million
shares; and (vii) EWJ across all exchanges was 6.06 million shares.
    In proposing the increased position limits, the Exchange considered
the availability of economically equivalent products and their
respective position limits. For instance, some of the ETFs underlying
options subject to this proposal are based on broad-based indices that
underlie cash settled options that are economically equivalent to the
ETF options that are the subject of this proposal and have no position
limits. Other ETFs are based on broad-based indexes that underlie cash-
settled options with position limits reflecting notional values that
are larger than the current position limits for ETF analogues (EEM,
EFA). Where there was no approved index analogue, the Exchange
believes, based on the liquidity, breadth and depth of the underlying
market, that the index referenced by the ETF would be considered a
broad-based index.\20\ The Exchange argues that if certain position
limits are appropriate for the options overlying the same index or is
an analogue to the basket of securities that the ETF tracks, then those
same economically equivalent position limits should be appropriate for
the option overlying the ETF. In addition, the market capitalization of
the underlying index or reference is large enough to absorb any price
movements that may be caused by an oversized trade. Also, the
Authorized Participant or issuer may look to the stocks comprising the
analogous underlying index or reference asset when seeking to create
additional ETF shares which are part of the creation/redemption process
to address supply and demand or to mitigate the price movement of the
price of the ETF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Exchange Rule 1804 sets forth the position limits for
broad-based index options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, the PowerShares QQQ Trust or QQQ is an ETF that tracks
the Nasdaq 100 Index or NDX, which is an index composed of 100 of the
largest non-financial securities listed on the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC
(``Nasdaq''). Options on NDX are currently subject to no position
limits but share similar trading characteristics as QQQ.\21\ Based on
QQQ's share price of $154.54 \22\ and NDX's index level of 6,339.14,
approximately 40 contracts of QQQ equals one contract of NDX. Assume
that NDX was subject to the standard position limit of 25,000 contracts
for broad-based index options under Exchange Rule 1804(a). Based on the
above comparison of notional values, this would result in a position
limit equivalent to 1,000,000 contracts for QQQ as NDX's analogue.
However, NDX is not subject to position limits and has an average daily
trading volume of 15,300 contracts. QQQ is currently subject to a
position limit of 900,000 contracts but has a much higher average daily
trading volume of 579,404 contracts. Furthermore, NDX currently has a
market capitalization of $17.2 trillion and QQQ has a market
capitalization of $50,359.7 million, and the component securities of
NDX, in aggregate, have traded an average of 440 million shares per day
in 2017, both large enough to absorb any price movement caused by a
large trade in the QQQ. The Commission has also approved no position
limit for NDX, although it has a much lower daily trading volume than
its analogue, the QQQ. Therefore, the Exchange believes it is
reasonable to increase the position limit for options on the QQQ from
900,000 to 1,800,000 contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Id.
    \22\ All share prices used herein are based on the closing price
of the security on November 16, 2017. Source: Yahoo Finance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The iShare [sic] Russell 2000 ETF or IWM, is an ETF that also
tracks the Russell 2000 index or RUT, which is an index composed of
2,000 small-cap domestic companies in the Russell 3000 index. Options
on RUT are currently subject to no position limits but share similar
trading characteristics as IWM.\23\ Based on IWM's share price of
$144.77 and RUT's index level of 1,486.88, approximately 10 contracts
of IWM equals one contract of RUT. Assume that RUT was subject to the
standard position limit of 25,000 contracts for broad-based index
options under Exchange Rule 1804(a). Based on the above comparison of
notional values, this would result in a position limit equivalent to
250,000 contracts for IWM as RUT's analogue. However, RUT is not
subject to position limits and has an average daily trading volume of
66,200 contracts. IWM is currently subject to a position limit of
500,000 contracts but has a much higher average daily trading volume of
490,070 contracts. The Commission has approved no position limit for
RUT, although it has a much lower average daily trading volume than its
analogue, the IWM. Furthermore, RUT currently has a market
capitalization of $2.4 trillion and IWM has a market capitalization of
$35,809.1 million, and the component securities of RUT, in aggregate,
have traded an average of 270 million shares per day in 2017, both
large enough to absorb any price movement caused by a large trade in
the IWM. Therefore, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to increase
the position limit for options on the IWM from 500,000 to 1,000,000
contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See supra note 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EEM tracks the performance of the MSCI Emerging Markets Index or
MXEF, which is composed of approximately 800 component securities
following 21 emerging market country indices: Brazil, Chile, China,
Colombia, Czech Republic, Egypt, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Korea,
Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Russia, South
Africa, Taiwan, Thailand, and Turkey. Below makes the same notional
value comparisons as made above. Based on EEM's share price of $47.06
and MXEF's index level of 1,136.45, approximately 24 contracts of EEM
equals one contract of MXEF. Assume that MXEF was subject to the
standard position limit of 25,000 contracts for broad-based index
options under Exchange Rule 1804(a). Based on the above comparison of
notional values, this would result in a position limit economically
equivalent to 604,000 contracts for EEM as MXEF's

analogue. However, MXEF has an average daily trading volume of 180
contracts. EEM is currently subject to a position limit of 500,000
contracts but has a much higher average daily trading volume of 287,357
contracts. Furthermore, MXEF currently has a market capitalization of
$5.18 trillion and EEM has a market capitalization of $34,926.1
million, and the component securities of MXEF, in aggregate, have
traded an average of 33.6 billion shares per day in 2017, both large
enough to absorb any price movement caused by a large trade in the EEM.
Therefore, based on the comparison of average daily trading volume, the
Exchange believes it is reasonable to increase the position limit for
options on the EEM from 500,000 to 1,000,000 contracts.
    EFA tracks the performance of the MSCI EAFE Index or MXEA, which
has over 900 component securities designed to represent the performance
of large and mid-cap securities across 21 developed markets, including
countries in Europe, Australia and the Far East, excluding the U.S. and
Canada. Below makes the same notional value comparison as made above.
Based on EFA's share price of $69.16 and MXEA's index level of
1,986.15, approximately 29 contracts of EFA equals one contract of
MXEA. Assume MXEA was subject to the standard position limit of 25,000
contracts for broad-based index options under Exchange Rule 1804(a).
Based on the above comparison of notional values, this would result in
a position limit economically equivalent to 721,000 contracts for EFA
as MXEA's analogue. Furthermore, MXEA currently has a market
capitalization of $18.7 trillion and EFA has a market capitalization of
$78,870.3 million, and the component securities of MXEA, in aggregate,
have traded an average of 4.6 billion shares per day in 2017, both
large enough to absorb any price movement cause by a large trade in
EFA. However, MXEA has an average daily trading volume of 270
contracts. EFA is currently subject to a position limit of 250,000
contracts but has a much higher average daily trading volume of 98,844
contracts. Based on the above comparisons, the Exchange believes it is
reasonable to increase the position limit for options on the EFA from
250,000 to 500,000 contracts.
    FXI tracks the performance of the FTSE China 50 Index, which is
composed of the 50 largest Chinese stocks. There is currently no index
analogue for FXI approved for options trading. However, the FTSE China
50 Index currently has a market capitalization of $1.7 trillion and FXI
has a market capitalization of $2,623.18 million, both large enough to
absorb any price movement caused by a large trade in FXI. The
components of the FTSE China 50 Index, in aggregate, have an average
daily trading volume of 2.3 billion shares. FXI is currently subject to
a position limit of 250,000 contracts but has a much higher average
daily trading volume of 15.08 million shares. Based on the above
comparisons, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to increase the
position limit for options on the FXI from 250,000 to 500,000
contracts.
    EWZ tracks the performance of the MSCI Brazil 25/50 Index, which is
composed of shares of large and mid-size companies in Brazil. There is
currently no index analogue for EWZ approved for options trading.
However, the MSCI Brazil 25/50 Index currently has a market
capitalization of $700 billion and EWZ has a market capitalization of
$6,023.4 million, both large enough to absorb any price movement caused
by a large trade in EWZ. The components of the MSCI Brazil 25/50 Index,
in aggregate, have an average daily trading volume of 285 million
shares. EWZ is currently subject to a position limit of 250,000
contracts but has a much higher average daily trading volume of 17.08
million shares. Based on the above comparisons, the Exchange believes
it is reasonable to increase the position limit for options on the EWZ
from 250,000 to 500,000 contracts.
    TLT tracks the performance of ICE U.S. Treasury 20+ Year Bond
Index, which is composed of long-term U.S. Treasury bonds. There is
currently no index analogue for TLT approved for options trading.
However, the U.S. Treasury market is one of the largest and most liquid
markets in the world, with over $14 trillion outstanding and turnover
of approximately $500 billion per day. TLT currently has a market
capitalization of $7,442.4 million, both large enough to absorb any
price movement caused by a large trade in TLT. Therefore, the potential
for manipulation will not increase solely due to the increase in
position limits as set forth in this proposal. Based on the above
comparisons, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to increase the
position limit for options on TLT from 250,000 to 500,000 contracts.
    EWJ tracks the MSCI Japan Index, which tracks the performance of
large and mid-sized companies in Japan. There is currently no index
analogue for EWJ approved for options trading. However, the MSCI Japan
Index has a market capitalization of $3.5 trillion and EWJ has a market
capitalization of $16,625.1 million, and the component securities of
the MSCI Japan Index, in aggregate, have traded an average of 1.1
billion shares per day in 2017, both large enough to absorb any price
movement caused by a large trade in EWJ. EWJ is currently subject to a
position limit of 250,000 contracts and has an average daily trading
volume of 6.6 million shares. Based on the above comparisons, the
Exchange believes it is reasonable to increase the position limit for
options on EWJ from 250,000 to 500,000.
    The Exchange believes that increasing the position limits for the
options subject to this proposal would lead to a more liquid and
competitive market environment for these options, which will benefit
customers interested in these products. Under the proposal, the
reporting requirement for the above options would be unchanged. Thus,
the Exchange would still require that each Member that maintains a
position in the options on the same side of the market, for its own
account or for the account of a customer, to report certain information
to the Exchange. This information would include, but would not be
limited to, the options' position, whether such position is hedged and,
if so, a description of the hedge, and the collateral used to carry the
position, if applicable. Exchange Market Makers \24\ (including Primary
Lead Market-Makers) \25\ would continue to be exempt from this
reporting requirement, as Market Maker information can be accessed
through the Exchange's market surveillance systems. In addition, the
general reporting requirement for customer accounts that maintain an
aggregate position of 200 or more options contracts would remain at
this level for the options subject to this proposal.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The term ``Market Makers'' refers to ``Lead Market
Makers'', ``Primary Lead Market Makers'' and ``Registered Market
Makers'' collectively. See Exchange Rule 100.
    \25\ The term ``Primary Lead Market Maker'' means a Lead Market
Maker appointed by the Exchange to act as the Primary Lead Market
Maker for the purposes of making markets in securities traded on the
Exchange. See Exchange Rule 100.
    \26\ See Exchange Rule 310 for reporting requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the existing surveillance procedures and
reporting requirements at the Exchange, other options exchanges, and at
the several clearing firms are capable of properly identifying unusual
and/or illegal trading activity. In addition, routine oversight
inspections of the Exchange's regulatory programs by the Commission
have not uncovered any material inconsistencies or shortcomings in the
manner in which the Exchange's market surveillance is conducted. These
procedures utilize

daily monitoring of market movements via automated surveillance
techniques to identify unusual activity in both options and underlying
stocks.\27\ Furthermore, large stock holdings must be disclosed to the
Commission by way of Schedules 13D or 13G.\28\ The positions for
options subject to this proposal are part of any reportable positions
and, thus, cannot be legally hidden. Moreover, the Exchange's
requirement that Members file reports with the Exchange for any
customer who held aggregate large long or short positions of any single
class for the previous day will continue to serve as an important part
of the Exchange's surveillance efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ These procedures have been effective for the surveillance
of trading the options subject to this proposal and will continue to
be employed.
    \28\ 17 CFR 240.13d-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the current financial requirements
imposed by the Exchange and by the Commission adequately address
concerns that a Member or its customer may try to maintain an
inordinately large un-hedged position in the options subject to this
proposal. Current margin and risk-based haircut methodologies serve to
limit the size of positions maintained by any one account by increasing
the margin and/or capital that a Member must maintain for a large
position held by itself or by its customer.\29\ In addition, Rule 15c3-
1 \30\ imposes a capital charge on Members to the extent of any margin
deficiency resulting from the higher margin requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Exchange Rule 1502 for a description of margin
requirements.
    \30\ 17 CFR 240.15c3-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that
are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular,
with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\31\ Specifically, the
proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \32\ because it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to, and perfect the
mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The current
position limits for the options subject to this proposal have inhibited
the ability of Market Makers to make markets on the Exchange.
Specifically, the proposal is designed to encourage Market Makers to
shift liquidity from over the counter markets onto the Exchange, which
will enhance the process of price discovery conducted on the Exchange
through increased order flow. The proposal will also benefit
institutional investors as well as retail traders, and public
customers, by providing them with a more effective trading and hedging
vehicle. In addition, the Exchange believes that the structure of the
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Increased position limits for select actively traded options, such
as that proposed herein, is not novel and has been previously approved
by the Commission. For example, the Commission has previously approved,
on a pilot basis, eliminating position limits for options on the SPDR
S&P 500 ETF (``SPY'').\33\ Additionally, the Commission has approved
similar proposed rule changes by other exchanges to increase position
and exercise limits for options on highly liquid, actively-traded
ETFs,\34\ including a proposal to permanently eliminate the position
and exercise limits for options overlaying the S&P 500 Index, S&P 100
Index, Dow Jones Industrial Average, and Nasdaq 100 Index.\35\ In
approving the permanent elimination of position and exercise limits,
the Commission relied heavily upon the exchange's surveillance
capabilities, the Commission expressed trust in the enhanced
surveillance and reporting safeguards that the exchange took in order
to detect and deter possible manipulative behavior which might arise
from eliminating position and exercise limits.\36\ Furthermore, as
described more fully above, options on other ETFs have the position
limits proposed herein, but their trading volumes are significantly
lower than the ETFs subject to the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 67672 (August 15,
2012), 77 FR 50750 (August 22, 2012) (SR-NYSEAmex-2012-29); 67937
(September 27, 2012), 77 FR 60489 (October 3, 2012) (SR-CBOE-2012-
091).
    \34\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos . 68086 (October
23, 2012), 77 FR 65600 (October 29, 2012) (SR-CBOE-2012-066);
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68478 (December 19, 2012), 77 FR
76132 (December 26, 2012) (SR-BOX-2012-023); Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 68398 (December 11, 2012), 77 FR 74700 (December 17,
2012) (SR-ISE-2012-093); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68293
(November 27, 2012), 77 FR 71644 (December 3, 2012) (SR-Phlx-2012-
132); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68358 (December 5, 2012),
77 FR 73708 (December 11, 2012) (SR-NYSE MKT-2012-071); Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 68359 (December 5, 2012), 77 FR 73716
(December 11, 2012) (SR-NYSE Arca-2012-132); and .69457 (April 25,
2012), 78 FR 25502 (May 1, 2013) (SR-MIAX-2013-17).
    \35\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 44994 (October 26,
2001), 66 FR 55722 (November 2, 2001) (SR-CBOE-2001-22); 52650
(October 21, 2005), 70 FR 62147 (October 28, 2005) (SR-CBOE-2005-41)
(``NDX Approval'').
    \36\ See NDX Approval at 62149.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the proposed position limits set forth in this
proposal would continue to address potential manipulative activity
while allowing for potential hedging activity for appropriate economic
purposes. The creation and redemption process for these ETFs also
lessens the potential for manipulative activity. When an ETF company
wants to create more ETF shares, it looks to an Authorized Participant,
which is a market maker or other large financial institution, to
acquire the securities the ETF is to hold. For instance, IWM is
designed to track the performance of the Russell 2000 Index, the
Authorized Participant will purchase all the Russell 2000 constituent
securities in the exact same weight as the index, then deliver those
shares to the ETF provider. In exchange, the ETF provider gives the
Authorized Participant a block of equally valued ETF shares, on a one-
for-one fair value basis. The price is based on the net asset value,
not the market value at which the ETF is trading. The creation of new
ETF units can be conducted all trading day and is not subject to
position limits. This process can also work in reverse where the ETF
company seeks to decrease the number of shares that are available to
trade. The creation and redemption process, therefore, creates a direct
link to the underlying components of the ETF, and serves to mitigate
potential price impact of the ETF shares that might otherwise result
from increased position limits.
    The ETF creation and redemption seeks to keep ETF share prices
trading in line with the ETF's underlying net asset value. Because an
ETF trades like a stock, its price will fluctuate during the trading
day, due to simple supply and demand. If demand to buy an ETF is high,
for instance, the ETF's share price might rise above the value of its
underlying securities. When this happens, the Authorized Participant
believes the ETF may now be overpriced, and can buy the underlying
shares that compose the ETF and then sell the ETF shares on the open
market. This should help drive the ETF's share price back toward fair
value. Likewise,

if the ETF starts trading at a discount to the securities it holds, the
Authorized Participant can buy shares of the ETF and redeem them for
the underlying securities. Buying undervalued ETF shares should drive
the price of the ETF back toward fair value. This arbitrage process
helps to keep an ETF's price in line with the value of its underlying
portfolio.
    Lastly, the Commission expressed the belief that removing position
and exercise limits may bring additional depth and liquidity without
increasing concerns regarding intermarket manipulation or disruption of
the options or the underlying securities.\37\ The Exchange's existing
surveillance and reporting safeguards are designed to deter and detect
possible manipulative behavior which might arise from eliminating
position and exercise limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    MIAX 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 \38\ 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 listed option exchanges to attract
additional order flow from the over-the-counter market, who in turn
compete for those orders.\39\ The Exchange believes that the proposed
rule change will result in additional 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \39\ For example, Nasdaq position limits are determined by the
position limits established by the Exchange. See Nasdaq Rule Sec. 7
(Position Limits).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this regard and as indicated above, the Exchange notes that the
rule change is being proposed as a competitive response to changes put
in place at Cboe. MIAX Options 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.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the 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) of the Act \40\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \41\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the text of 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \42\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \43\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that
the proposed rule change may become operative upon filing. The Exchange
states that waiver of the operative delay would be consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest because it would allow
the Exchange to immediately increase its position and exercise limits
for the products subject to this proposal to those of Cboe, which the
Exchange believes will ensure fair competition among exchanges and
provide consistency and uniformity among members of both Cboe and MIAX
Options by subjecting members of both exchanges to the same position
and exercise limits for these multiply-listed options classes. The
Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the operative delay and
designates the proposal as operative upon filing.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \43\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \44\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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-MIAX-2018-10 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-MIAX-2018-10. 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 such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal

office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without
change. 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-MIAX-2018-10,
and should be submitted on or before April 18, 2018.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-06139 Filed 3-27-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P