[Federal Register: October 3, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 191)]
[Notices]
[Page 56427-56429]
[DOCID:fr03oc07-117]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56541; File No. SR-Phlx-2007-63]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Short Interest
Reporting

September 26, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\, and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that on August 16, 2007, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.
(``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission''), and on September 20, 2007
amended, the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III
below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Phlx. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change, as amended, 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 Phlx, pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4 thereunder,\4\ proposes to make a technical amendment to the text of
Phlx Rule 786, Supplementary Material .01, changing the reference to
Rule 200 of Regulation SHO to Rule 200(a) of Regulation SHO. In
addition, Phlx proposes to add a new Supplementary Material section to
Rule 786 to amend the exceptions to the short interest reporting
requirement for certain transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The text of the amended Phlx Rule is set forth below. Underlining
indicates additions; brackets indicate deletions.
* * * * *

Rule 786.

Periodic Reports

    Member organizations shall submit, as required by the Exchange,
periodic reports with respect to short positions in securities.
    Supplementary Material: * * *
    .01 Short Positions--Member organizations for which the Exchange is
the designated examining authority (``DEA'') are required to report
short positions, including odd-lots, in each stock or warrant traded on
the Exchange, and in each other stock or warrant not traded on the
Exchange for which short positions are not otherwise reported to
another United States securities exchange or association, using such
automated format and methods as prescribed by the Exchange. Such
reports must include customer and proprietary positions and must be
made at such times and covering such time period as may be designated
by the Exchange. Member organizations whose short positions have
properly been reported to, and are carried by, a non-member clearing
organization will be in compliance with this rule if adequate
arrangements have been made providing for the clearing organization to
properly report such positions to the Exchange or to another United
States securities exchange or association.
     ``Short'' positions to be reported are those resulting
from ``short'' sales as defined in Securities and Exchange Commission
Rule 200(a) of Regulation SHO, but excluding sales that meet an
exception in .02 below[marked ``sell short exempt'' pursuant to Rule
200(g) of Regulation SHO]. Also, to be excluded are ``short'' positions
carried for other members and member organizations reporting for
themselves.
    Only one report should be made for each stock or warrant for which
there is a short position, if more than one ``account'' has a short
position in the same stock or warrant, the combined aggregate should be
reported.
    Member organizations for which the Exchange is not the DEA must
report short positions to its DEA if such DEA has a requirement for
such reports. If the DEA does not have such a reporting requirement,
then such member organization must comply with the provisions of this
rule.

.02 Exceptions

    (a) Any sale by any person, for an account in which he has an
interest, if such person owns the security sold and intends to deliver
such security as soon as is possible without undue inconvenience or
expense.
    (b) Any sale of a security covered by a short sale rule on a
national securities exchange (except a sale to a stabilizing bid
complying with Rule 104 of Regulation M) effected with the approval of
such exchange which is necessary to equalize the price of such security
thereon with the current price of such security on another national
securities exchange which is the principal exchange market for such
security.
    (c) Any sale of a security for a special arbitrage account by a
person who then owns another security by virtue of which he is, or
presently will be, entitled to acquire an equivalent number of
securities of the same class as the securities sold; provided such
sale, or the purchase which such sale offsets, is effected for the bona
fide purpose of profitting from a current difference between the price
of security sold and the security owned and that such right of
acquisition was originally attached to or represented by another
security or was issued to all the holders of any such class of
securities of the issuer.
    (d) Any sale of a security registered on, or admitted to unlisted
trading privileges on, a national securities exchange effected for a
special international arbitrage account for the bona fide purpose of
profitting from a current difference between the price of such security
on a securities market not within or subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States and on a securities market subject to the jurisdiction of
the United States; provided the seller at the time of such sale knows
or, by virtue of information currently received, has reasonable grounds
to believe that an offer enabling him to cover such sale is then
available to him such foreign securities market and intends to accept
such offer immediately.

    (e) Any sale by an underwriter, or any member of a syndicate or
group participating in the distribution of a security, in connection
with an over-allotment of securities, or any lay-off sale by such a
person in connection with a distribution of securities through rights
or a standby underwriting commitment.
* * * * *

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 Phlx 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 Phlx 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 conform Phlx Rule 786
to other proposed rule changes that other self-regulatory organizations
(``SROs'') have filed and will soon file that will implement uniform
changes to the short interest reporting requirements across SROs. The
purpose of this Amendment No. 1, which replaces the original proposed
rule change in its entirety, is to make clarifying changes to the
original proposed rule change.
    First, Phlx proposes to make a technical change to the text of Phlx
Rule 786, Supplementary Material .01. Phlx Rule 786, Supplementary
Material .01 provides that, subject to certain limited exceptions,
short positions required to be reported under the rule are those
resulting from short sales as the term is defined in Rule 200 of
Regulation SHO. The term ``short sale'' is actually defined in Rule
200(a) of Regulation SHO.\5\ Therefore, Phlx is proposing to amend the
text of Phlx Rule 786, Supplementary Material .01 to reference Rule
200(a) of Regulation SHO, not Rule 200 of Regulation SHO to eliminate
any confusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 242.200(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, Phlx proposes to add Supplementary Material .02, and
conforming language in Supplementary Material .01, which adopts
exceptions to the short interest reporting requirement. Currently, any
transaction that is marked ``sell short exempt'' is exempt from the
reporting requirement. Beginning on July 6, 2007, the ``short exempt''
marking requirement was eliminated by the Commission.\6\ Therefore,
beginning on July 6, 2007, all transactions marked short will be
covered by Phlx's reporting requirement. However, other SROs are
modifying their short interest reporting rules to exclude five specific
transactions, which were previously contained in the now eliminated
Rule 10a-1 under the Act.\7\ The proposed change should conform Phlx's
reporting requirement to those of other SROs and increase uniformity
for broker-dealers as they comply with various rules across SROs, which
should reduce costs and increase efficiency for those broker-dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55970 (June 28,
2007), 72 FR 36348 (July 3, 2007).
    \7\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56300 (August
22, 2007) (NYSEArca-2007-63), 72 FR 49342 (August 28, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \8\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \9\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which Phlx consents, the Commission shall: (a) By order approve such
proposed rule change, or (b) institute proceedings to determine whether
the proposed rule change should be 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-Phlx-2007-63 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2007-63. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Phlx. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2007-63 and should be
submitted on or before October 24, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-19487 Filed 10-2-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 3, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 252-254]
[FR Doc No: 2017-28429]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 64

[Docket ID FEMA-2017-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-8513]

Suspension of Community Eligibility

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule identifies communities where the sale of flood
insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP) that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates
listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain
management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the community has
adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the
effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not
occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the
Federal Register on a subsequent date. Also, information identifying
the current participation status of a community can be obtained from
FEMA's Community Status Book (CSB). The CSB is available at https://www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-program-community-status-book.

DATES: The effective date of each community's scheduled suspension is
the third date (``Susp.'') listed in the third column of the following
tables.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you want to determine whether a
particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for
further information, contact Adrienne L. Sheldon, PE, CFM, Federal
Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP enables property owners to purchase
Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from
private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer
local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new
construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale
of NFIP flood

insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain
management measures with effective enforcement measures. The
communities listed in this document no longer meet that statutory
requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR part 59.
Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the effective date in
the third column. As of that date, flood insurance will no longer be
available in the community. We recognize that some of these communities
may adopt and submit the required documentation of legally enforceable
floodplain management measures after this rule is published but prior
to the actual suspension date. These communities will not be suspended
and will continue to be eligible for the sale of NFIP flood insurance.
A notice withdrawing the suspension of such communities will be
published in the Federal Register.
    In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that
identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities.
The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the
fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance
(except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be
provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified
SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for
more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having
flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act
of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against
certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the
communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The
Administrator finds that notice and public comment procedures under 5
U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and unnecessary because communities
listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.
    Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification
letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the
community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management
measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these
notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less
than 30 days.
    National Environmental Policy Act. FEMA has determined that the
community suspension(s) included in this rule is a non-discretionary
action and therefore the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) does not apply.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Administrator has determined that
this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended,
Section 1315, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless
an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management
measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no
longer comply with the statutory requirements, and after the effective
date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the communities
unless remedial action takes place.
    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant
regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This rule involves no policies
that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule meets the
applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.
    Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule does not involve any collection
of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64

    Flood insurance, floodplains.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:

PART 64--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for Part 64 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp.; p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp.; p. 376.

Sec.  64.6   [Amended]

0
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  64.6 are amended
as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Effective date
                                                authorization/
                                  Community     cancellation of    Current effective map   Date certain Federal
      State and location             No.         sale of flood             date            assistance no longer
                                                 insurance in                               available in SFHAs
                                                   community
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Region II

New York:
    Amsterdam, City of,               360440  May 19, 1975,       January 19, 2018......  January 19, 2018.
     Montgomery County.                        Emerg; July 16,
                                               1984, Reg;
                                               January 19, 2018,
                                               Susp.
    Amsterdam, Town of,               360441  July 16, 1975,      ......do*.............   Do.
     Montgomery County.                        Emerg; December
                                               1, 1987, Reg;
                                               January 19, 2018,
                                               Susp.
    Canajoharie, Town of,             360442  June 13, 1975,      ......do..............   Do.
     Montgomery County.                        Emerg; January 6,
                                               1983, Reg;
                                               January 19, 2018,
                                               Susp.
    Canajoharie, Village of,          360443  July 26, 1974,      ......do..............   Do.
     Montgomery County.                        Emerg; November
                                               3, 1982, Reg;
                                               January 19, 2018,
                                               Susp.
    Florida, Town of,                 360445  July 22, 1975,      ......do..............   Do.
     Montgomery County.                        Emerg; December
                                               1, 1987, Reg;
                                               January 19, 2018,
                                               Susp.
    Fort Johnson, Village of,         360447  July 22, 1975,      ......do..............   Do.
     Montgomery County.                        Emerg; January
                                               19, 1983, Reg;
                                               January 19, 2018,
                                               Susp.
    Fultonville, Village of,          360449  January 17, 1975,   ......do..............   Do.
     Montgomery County.                        Emerg; October
                                               15, 1982, Reg;
                                               January 19, 2018,
                                               Susp.
    Glen, Town of, Montgomery         361295  February 10, 1977,  ......do..............   Do.
     County..                                  Emerg; February
                                               19, 1986, Reg;
                                               January 19, 2018,
                                               Susp.
    Hagaman, Village of,              360450  June 18, 1975,      ......do..............   Do.
     Montgomery County.                        Emerg; March 18,
                                               1986, Reg;
                                               January 19, 2018,
                                               Susp.
    Minden, Town of,                  360451  November 10, 1975,  ......do..............   Do.
     Montgomery County.                        Emerg; January
                                               19, 1983, Reg;
                                               January 19, 2018,
                                               Susp.

    Mohawk, Town of,                  360452  July 18, 1975,      ......do..............   Do.
     Montgomery County.                        Emerg; August 5,
                                               1985, Reg;
                                               January 19, 2018,
                                               Susp.
    Palatine, Town of,                361413  March 8, 1977,      ......do..............   Do.
     Montgomery County.                        Emerg; May 4,
                                               1987, Reg;
                                               January 19, 2018,
                                               Susp.
    Root, Town of, Montgomery         360455  November 3, 1975,   ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; April 1,
                                               1988, Reg;
                                               January 19, 2018,
                                               Susp.
    Saint Johnsville, Town of,        360456  March 9, 1977,      ......do..............   Do.
     Montgomery County.                        Emerg; March 16,
                                               1983, Reg;
                                               January 19, 2018,
                                               Susp.
    Saint Johnsville, Village         360457  October 23, 1974,   ......do..............   Do.
     of, Montgomery County.                    Emerg; February
                                               19, 1986, Reg;
                                               January 19, 2018,
                                               Susp.

           Region IV

Florida: Fanning Springs, City        120146  August 22, 1975,    ......do..............   Do.
 of, Gilchrist and Levy                        Emerg; September
 Counties.                                     5, 1984, Reg;
                                               January 19, 2018,
                                               Susp.

           Region VI

Texas:
    Dayton Lakes, City of,            481593  August 12, 1985,    January 19, 2018......  January 19, 2018.
     Liberty County.                           Emerg; November
                                               15, 1989, Reg;
                                               January 19, 2018,
                                               Susp.
    Hardin, City of, Liberty          481270  June 1, 1976,       ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; April 9,
                                               1985, Reg;
                                               January 19, 2018,
                                               Susp.
    Kenefick, City of, Liberty        481523  N/A, Emerg; June    ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   20, 2008, Reg;
                                               January 19, 2018,
                                               Susp.
Region X

Oregon:
    Eagle Point, City of,             410093  June 5, 1974,       ......do..............   Do.
     Jackson County.                           Emerg; September
                                               30, 1980, Reg;
                                               January 19, 2018,
                                               Susp.
    Jackson County,                   415589  December 31, 1970,  ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                     Emerg; April 1,
                                               1982, Reg;
                                               January 19, 2018,
                                               Susp.
    Shady Cove, City of,              410099  August 23, 1974,    ......do..............   Do.
     Jackson County.                           Emerg; September
                                               30, 1980, Reg;
                                               January 19, 2018,
                                               Susp.
Washington: Camas, City of,           530026  April 24, 1974,     ......do..............   Do.
 Clark County                                  Emerg; February
                                               18, 1981, Reg;
                                               January 19, 2018,
                                               Susp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* do = Ditto.
Code for reading third column: Emerg. --Emergency; Reg. --Regular; Susp. --Suspension.

    Dated: December 21, 2017.
Eric Letvin,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Mitigation, Federal Insurance and
Mitigation Administration, Department of Homeland Security, Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2017-28429 Filed 1-2-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 83 (Tuesday, April 30, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18281-18282]
[FR Doc No: 2019-08718]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0677; FRL-9993-07-OMS]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Storage Vessels for Petroleum
Liquids for Which Construction, Reconstruction or Modification
Commenced After June 11, 1973 and Prior to May 19, 1978 (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), NSPS for Storage Vessels for
Petroleum Liquids for Which Construction, Reconstruction or
Modification Commenced After June 11, 1973 and Prior to May 19, 1978
(EPA ICR Number 1797.08, OMB Control Number 2060-0442) to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with
the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR,
which is currently approved through June 30, 2019. Public comments were
previously requested via the Federal Register on May 30, 2018 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
not conduct or 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 May 30, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2012-0677 to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by email to [email protected], 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 protected]. 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:
(202) 564-0050; email address: [email protected].

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, EPA 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: The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for the
regulations published at 40 CFR part 60, subpart K were proposed on
June 11, 1973, and promulgated on March 8, 1974. These regulations
apply to existing facilities and new facilities that store petroleum
liquids in storage vessels with a storage capacity greater than 151,416
liters (40,000 gallons), including: Storage vessels with capacity
greater than 151,416 liters (40,000 gallons), but not exceeding 246,052
liters (65,000 gallons). New facilities include those that commenced
construction, modification after the date of proposal. This information
is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart K.
    In general, all NSPS standards require initial notifications,
performance tests, and periodic reports by the owners/operators of the
affected facilities. They are also required to maintain 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 notifications, reports, and
records are essential in determining compliance, and are required of
all affected facilities subject to NSPS.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Refineries.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory.
    Estimated number of respondents: 69 (total).
    Frequency of response: Initially and occasionally.
    Total estimated burden: 321 hours (per year). Burden is defined at
5 CFR 1320.3(b).

    Total estimated cost: $36,500 (per year), includes $0 annualized
capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the estimates: There is no change in the burden in this
ICR compared to the previous ICR. This is due to two considerations.
First, the regulations have not changed over the past three years and
are not anticipated to change over the next three years. Secondly, the
growth rate for the industry is very low, negative or non-existent, so
there is no significant change in the overall burden. There is an
adjustment increase in labor costs; the increase is due to updated
labor rates, which increases the hourly labor cost. There are no
capital or operating and maintenance costs associated with this rule.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2019-08718 Filed 4-29-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 25, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18093-18099]
[FR Doc No: 2018-08615]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83065; File No. SR-NYSEAMER-2018-14]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Modify
Rule 904, Commentary .07 To Expand Position Limits for Options on
Certain Exchange-Traded Funds

April 19, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on April 6, 2018, NYSE American LLC (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE American'') 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 self-regulatory
organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to modify Rule 904 (Position Limits),
Commentary .07 to expand position limits for options on certain
Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs). The proposed rule change is available on
the Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, 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 self-regulatory organization
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 those 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 parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 904, Commentary .07 to expand
position limits for options on certain ETFs. Specifically, the Exchange
proposes to expand the position limits for options on the following
ETFs: iShares China Large-Cap ETF (``FXI''), iShares MSCI EAFE ETF
(``EFA''), iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (``EEM''), iShares Russell
2000 ETF (``IWM''), iShares MSCI Brazil Capped ETF (``EWZ''), iShares
20+ Year Treasury Bond Fund ETF (``TLT''), PowerShares QQQ Trust
(``QQQQ''), and iShares MSCI Japan ETF (``EWJ''). This is a competitive
filing that is based on a proposal recently submitted by the Chicago
Board Options Exchange Incorporated (``Cboe'') and approved by the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82770 (February 23,
2018), 83 FR 8907 (March 1, 2018) (Order Granting Accelerated
Approval SR-SR-CBOE-2017-057) (the ``Cboe Approval Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Position Limit Increase
    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 Rule 904,
and vary according to the number of outstanding shares and the trading
volume of the underlying stocks or ETFs over the past six-months.
Pursuant to Rule 904, 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 Rule 904.\5\ Rule 904, Commentary .07 sets forth
separate position limits for options on specific ETFs as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See https://www.theocc.com/webapps/delo-search.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Options on EEM are 500,000 contracts;
     Options on IWM are 500,000 contracts; and
     Options on QQQQ are 900,000 contracts.
    The purpose of this proposal is to amend Rule 904, Commentary .07
to double the position and exercise limits for FXI, EEM, IWM, EFA, EWZ,
TLT, QQQQ, and EWJ.\6\ The Exchange notes

that it also proposes to make non-substantive changes corrections to
the names of IWM and EEM (replacing ``Index Fund with ETF'') and to
assign letters (a)--(f) to the paragraphs in current Commentary .07 to
the Rule to make it easier to follow (and reference).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ By virtue of Rule 905 (Exercise Limits), which is not being
amended by this filing, the exercise limit for FXI, EEM, IWM, EFA,
EWZ, TLT, QQQQ, and EWJ options would be similarly increased. The
Exchange notes that it also proposes to make non-substantive changes
corrections to the names of IWM and EEM and to assign letters (a)-
(f) to the paragraphs in current Commentary .07 to the Rule to make
it easier to follow (and reference). See proposed Commentary .07(a)-
(f) to Rule 904. The Exchange does not propose to alter the
substances of new paragraphs (a)-(e) of the Commentary. Proposed
changes to paragraph (f) are discussed herein. See proposed
Commentary .07(f) to Rule 904.
    \7\ See proposed Commentary .07(a)-(f) to Rule 904. The Exchange
does not propose to alter the substances of new paragraphs (a)-(e)
of the Commentary. Proposed changes to paragraph (f) are discussed
herein. See proposed Commentary .07(f) to Rule 904.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As such, options on FXI, EFA, EWZ, TLT, and EWJ would no longer be
subject to the standard position limits set forth under Rule 904.
Accordingly, Commentary .07(f) would be amended to set forth that the
position limits for options on FXI, EFA, EWZ, TLT, and EWJ would be
500,000 contracts. These position limits equal the current position
limits for option on IWM and EMM and are similar to the current
position limit for options on QQQQ set forth in Rule 904, Commentary
.07. Further, Rule 904 would also be amended to increase the position
limits for the remaining options subject to this proposal as follows:
     The position limits for options on EEM would be increased
from 500,000 contracts to 1,000,000 contracts;
     The position limits on options on IWM would be increased
from 500,000 contracts to 1,000,000 contracts;
     The position limits on options on QQQQ would be increased
from 900,000 contracts to 1,800,000 contracts.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See proposed Commentary .07(f) to Rule 904.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In support of this proposal, the Exchange represents that the above
listed ETFs qualify for either: (i) The initial listing criteria set
forth in Rule 915, Commentary .06(b) 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.\9\ FXI
tracks the performance of the FTSE China 50 Index, which is composed of
the 50 largest Chinese stocks.\10\ EEM tracks the performance of the
MSCI Emerging Markets Index, which is composed of approximately 800
component securities.\11\ ``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.'' \12\ IWM tracks the performance
of the Russell 2000 Index, which is composed of 2,000 small-cap
domestic stocks.\13\ EFA tracks the performance of MSCI EAFE Index,
which has over 900 component securities.\14\ ``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.'' \15\ EWZ tracks the
performance of the MSCI Brazil 25/50 Index, which is composed of shares
of large and mid-size companies in Brazil.\16\ TLT tracks the
performance of ICE U.S. Treasury 20+ Year Bond Index, which is composed
of long-term U.S. Treasury bonds.\17\ QQQQ 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'').\18\ EWJ tracks the MSCI Japan Index, which
tracks the performance of large and mid-sized companies in Japan.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 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 Rule 915, Commentary .06(b)(ii)(A); Rule 915,
Commentary .06.
    \10\ See https://www.ishares.com/us/products/239536/ishares-china-largecap-etf.
    \11\ See http://us.ishares.com/productinfo/fund/overview/EEM.htm.
    \12\ See http://www.msci.com/products/indices/tools/index.html#EM.
    \13\ See https://www.ishares.com/us/products/239710/ishares-russell-2000-etf.
    \14\ See https://www.ishares.com/us/products/239623/.
    \15\ See https://www.msci.com/eafe.
    \16\ See https://www.ishares.com/us/products/239612/ishares-msci-brazil-capped-etf.
    \17\ See https://www.ishares.com/us/products/239454.
    \18\ See https://www.invesco.com/portal/site/us/financial-professional/etfs/productdetail?productId=QQQ&ticker=QQQ&title=powershares-qqq.
    \19\ See https://www.ishares.com/us/products/239665/EWJ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange 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.\20\ 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.\21\ 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.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Rule 915, Commentary .06.
    \21\ See Rule 915, Commentary .06(b)(ii)(A).
    \22\ See Rule 915, Commentary .06(b)(ii)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In seeking to expand position limits for the same ETFs at issue in
this proposal, Cboe represented that market participants have increased
their demand for options on FXI, EFA, EWZ, TLT, and EWJ for hedging and
trading purposes and, in support of this claim, presented the trading
statistics set forth in the table below.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Cboe Approval Order, supra note 4.
    \24\ SPDR S&P 500 ETF (``SPY'') is included here for comparison
purposes.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     2017 ADV         Shares
                       ETF                           2017 ADV         (option       outstanding    Fund  market
                                                   (Mil. shares)    contracts)        (Mil.)       cap  ($Mil.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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          1178.4        78,870.3
EWZ.............................................           17.08          95,152           159.4         6,023.4
TLT.............................................            8.53          80,476            60.0         7,442.4
QQQQ............................................           26.25         579,404           351.6        50,359.7
EWJ.............................................            6.06           4,715           303.6        16,625.1
SPY 24..........................................           64.63       2,575,153          976.23       240,540.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange agrees and believes the current position limits are
too low and may be a deterrent to successful trading of options on
these securities. The analysis that follows was likewise conducted by
Cboe in support of its proposal. The Exchange agrees with Cboe's
analysis discussed below.
    In support of its proposal to increase the position limits for QQQQ
to 1,800,000 contracts, Cboe compared the trading characteristics of
QQQQ to that of SPY, which has no position limits. As shown in Cboe's
above table, the average daily trading volume through August 14, 2017
for QQQQ was 26.25 million shares compared to 64.63 million shares for
SPY. The total shares outstanding for QQQQ are 351.6 million compared
to 976.23 million for SPY. The fund market cap for QQQQ is $50,359.7
million compared to $240,540 million for SPY. SPY is one of the most
actively trading ETFs and is subject to no position limits. QQQQ is
also very actively traded, and while not to the level of SPY, should be
subject to the proposed higher position limits based its trading
characteristics when compared to SPY. The proposed position limit
coupled with QQQQ's trading behavior would continue to address
potential manipulative schemes and adverse market impact surrounding
the use of options and trading in securities underlying the options.
    In support of its proposal to increase the position limits for EEM
and IWM from 500,000 contracts to 1,000,000 contracts, Cboe also
compared the trading characteristics of EEM and IWM to that of QQQQ,
which currently has a position limit of 900,000 contracts. As shown in
the above table, the average daily trading volume through July 31, 2017
for EEM was 52.12 million shares and IWM was 27.46 million shares
compared to 26.25 million shares for QQQQ. The total shares outstanding
for EEM are 797.4 million and for IWM are 253.1 million compared to
351.6 million for QQQQ. The fund market cap for EEM is $34,926.1
million and IWM is $35,809 million compared to $50,359.7 million for
QQQQ. EEM, IWM and QQQQ have similar trading characteristics and
subjecting EEM and IWM to the proposed higher position limit would
continue be designed to address potential manipulative schemes that may
arise from trading in the options and their underlying securities.
These above trading characteristics for QQQQ when compared to EEM and
IWM also justify increasing the position limit for QQQQ. QQQQ has a
higher options ADV than EEM and IWM, a higher number of shares
outstanding than IWM and a much higher market cap than EEM and IWM
which justify doubling the position limit for QQQQ. Based on these
statistics, and as stated above, the proposed position limit coupled
with QQQQ's trading behavior would continue to address potential
manipulative schemes and adverse market impact surrounding the use of
options and trading in the securities underlying the options.
    In support of its proposal to increase the position limits for FXI,
EFA, EWZ, TLT, and EWJ from 250,000 contracts to 500,000 contracts,
Cboe compared the trading characteristics of FXI, EFA, EWZ, TLT and EWJ
to that of EEM and IWM, both of which currently have a position limit
of 500,000 contracts. As shown in the above table, the average daily
trading volume through July 31, 2017 for FXI is 15.08 million shares,
EFA is 19.42 million shares, EWZ is 17.08 million shares, TLT is 8.53
million shares, and EWJ is 6.06 million shares compared to 52.12
million shares for EEM and 27.46 million shares for IWM. The total
shares outstanding for FXI is 78.6 million, EFA is 1178.4 million, EWZ
is 159.4 million, TLT is 60 million and EWJ is 303.6 million compared
to 797.4 million for EEM and 253.1 million for IWM. The fund market cap
for FXI is $3,343.6 million, EFA is $78,870.3 million, EWZ is $6,023.4
million, TLT is $7,442.4 million, and EWJ is $16,625.1 million compared
to $34,926.1 million for EEM and $35,809.1 million for IWM. The above
trading characteristics of FXI, EFA, EWZ, TLT and EWJ is either similar
to that of EEM and IWM or sufficiently active enough so that the
proposed limit would continue to address potential manipulation that
may arise. EFA has far more shares outstanding and a larger fund market
cap than EEM, IWM, and QQQQ. EWJ has a more shares outstanding than IWM
and only slightly less shares outstanding than QQQQ.
    On the other hand, while FXI, EWZ, and TLT do not exceed EEM, IWM
or QQQQ in any of the specified areas, they are all actively trading so
that market participant's trading activity has been impacted by them
being restricted by the current position limits. The Exchange believes
that the trading activity and these securities being based on a broad
basket of underlying securities alleviates any potential manipulative
activity that may arise. In addition, as discussed in more detail
below, the Exchange's existing surveillance procedures and reporting
requirements at the Exchange, other options exchanges, and at several
clearing firms are capable of properly identifying unusual and/or
illegal trading activity.
    According to Cboe, market participants' trading activity has been
adversely impacted by the current position limits for FXI, EFA, EWZ,
TLT, and EWJ and such limits have caused options trading in these
symbols to move from exchanges to the over-the-counter market.\25\ The
Exchange understands that certain market participants wishing to make
trades involving a large number of options contracts in the symbols
subject to the 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See SR-CBOE-2017-057, Partial Amendment No. 1 (November 22,
2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.\26\ The Exchange notes
that the Commission has generally looked through to the liquidity of
securities comprising an index in establishing position limits for
cash-settled index options. The Exchange further notes that options on
certain broad-based security indexes have no position limits. Likewise,
the Commission has recognized the liquidity of the securities
comprising the underlying interest of SPY in permitting no position
limits on SPY options since 2012,\27\ and expanded position limits for
options on EEM, IWM, and QQQQ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See supra nn. 9-18 (providing trading statistics for each
ETF at issue in this proposal).
    \27\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67672 (August 15,
2012), 77 FR 50750 (August 22, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed position limits set forth in the 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 lessen 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. 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 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.
    Some of the ETFs underlying options subject to the 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
the 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.\28\ 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 asset 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 are
part of the creation/redemption process to address supply and demand or
to mitigate the price movement the price of the ETF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Rule 904C(b) (Position Limits) (describing position
limits for Broad Stock Index Group).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

QQQQ
    For example, the PowerShares QQQ Trust or QQQQ 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 the
standard position limit of 25,000 contracts for broad-based index
options but share similar trading characteristics as QQQQ.\29\ Based on
QQQQ's share price of $154.54 \30\ and NDX's index level of 6,339.14,
approximately 40 contracts of QQQQ equals one contract of NDX. Based on
the above comparison of notional values, this would result in a
position limit equivalent to 1,000,000 contracts for QQQQ as NDX's
analogue. NDX is subject to the standard position limit of 25,000
contracts for broad-based index options and has an average daily
trading volume of 15,300 contracts. QQQQ 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 QQQQ 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 QQQQ. The Exchange notes that other exchanges allow
no position limits for NDX,\31\ although it has a much lower average
daily trading volume than its analogue, the QQQQ. Therefore, the
Exchange believes it is reasonable to increase the position limit for
options on the QQQQ from 900,000 to 1,800,000 contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See id.
    \30\ All share prices used herein are based on the closing price
of the security on November 16, 2017. Source: Yahoo Finance.
    \31\ See Cboe Rule 24.4 sets forth position limits for broad-
based index options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IWM
    The iShares Russell 2000 ETF or IWM, is an ETF that also tracks the
Russell 2000 Index or RUT, which is an index that composed of 2,000
small-cap domestic companies in the Russell 3000 index. Options on RUT
are currently subject to the standard position limit of 25,000
contracts for broad-based index options but share similar trading
characteristics as IWM.\32\ 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. 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. The Exchange notes that at other exchanges
RUT is not subject to position limits and has an average daily trading
volume of 66,200 contracts.\33\ 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. As mentioned above, other exchanges have
no position limits for RUT,\34\ 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
cause 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Rule 904C(b) (Position Limits) (describing position
limits for Broad Stock Index Group).
    \33\ See Cboe Rule 24.4.
    \34\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EEM
    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 comparison 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. MXEF is currently subject to the standard
position limit of 25,000 contracts for Broad Stock Index Group options
under Rule 904C(b). 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 cause 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
    EFA tracks the performance of 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, Australasia 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. MXEA is currently subject to the standard position limit of
25,000 contracts for Broad Stock Index Group options under Rule
904C(b). 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 the
EEM. 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
    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 cause 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 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
    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 cause
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
    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 cause by a large trade in TLT. Therefore, the potential
for manipulation will not increase solely due 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 the TLT from 250,000 to 500,000 contracts.
EWJ
    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 contracts.
Exchange Analysis and Conclusions
    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 this product. Under the proposal, the reporting
requirement for the above options would be unchanged. Thus, the
Exchange would still require that each ATP Holder 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, 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 \35\ 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.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ A Market Maker ``A Market Maker is an ATP Holder that is
registered with the Exchange for the purpose of making transactions
as a dealer-specialist on the Floor of the Exchange or for the
purpose of submitting quotes electronically and making transactions
as a dealer specialist through the System. A Market Maker submitting
quotes remotely is not eligible to participate in trades affected in
open outcry except to the extent that such Market Maker's quotation
represents the BBO. Market Makers are designated as specialists on
the Exchange for all purposes under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and the Rules and Regulations thereunder.'' See Rule 920(a).
    \36\ See Rule 906 (Reporting of Options Positions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \37\ These procedures have been effective for the surveillance
of trading the options subject to this proposal and will continue to
be employed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, large stock holdings must be disclosed to the
Commission by way of Schedules 13D or 13G.\38\ 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 ATP Holders 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 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 an ATP Holder 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 an ATP Holder must maintain for a large
position held by itself or by its customer.\39\ In addition, Rule 15c3-
1 \40\ imposes a capital charge on ATP Holders to the extent of any
margin deficiency resulting from the higher margin requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See Rule 462 (Minimum Margins).
    \40\ 17 CFR 240.15c3-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act \41\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\42\ in that 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 regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms 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) requirement that the rules of an exchange not be designed to
permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \42\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \43\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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
ETFs subject to this proposal and the considerable liquidity of the
market for options on those ETFs 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, 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 SPY.\44\ Additionally, the Commission
has approved similar proposed rule changes to increase position limits
for options on highly liquid, actively-traded ETFs,\45\ 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.\46\ In approving the
permanent elimination of position and exercise limits, the Commission
relied heavily upon Cboe's surveillance capabilities, the Commission
expressed trust in the enhanced surveillance and reporting safeguards
that Cboe took in order to detect and deter possible manipulative
behavior which might arise from eliminating position and exercise
limits.\47\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 67937 (September
27, 2012), 77 FR 60489 (October 3, 2012) (SR-CBOE-2012-091); 67936
(September 27, 2012), 77 FR 60491 (October 3, 2012) (SR-BOX-2012-
013); 68001 (October 5, 2012), 77 FR 62303 (October 12, 2012) (SR-
NYSEArca-2012-112); 67672 (August 15, 2012), 77 FR 50750 (August 22,
2012) (SR-NYSEAmex-2012-29).
    \45\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 68086 (October 23,
2012), 77 FR 65600 (October 29, 2012) (SR-CBOE-2012-066); 64928
(July 20, 2011), 76 FR 44633 (July 26, 2011) (SR-CBOE-2011-065);
64695 (June 17, 2011), 76 FR 36942 (June 23, 2011) (SR-PHLX-2011-
58); and 55155 (January 23, 2007), 72 FR 4741 (February 1, 2017)
(SR-CBOE-2007-008).
    \46\ 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'').
    \47\ See id., NDX Approval, 70 FR 62147, at 62149.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.\48\ The Exchange's enhanced
surveillance and reporting safeguards continue to be designed to deter
and detect possible manipulative behavior which might arise from
eliminating position and exercise limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 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.
    Further, the Exchange notes that the rule change is being proposed
as a competitive response to a filing submitted by Cboe that was
recently approved by the Commission.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See supra note 4.

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

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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 \50\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \51\ 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 \52\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \53\ 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 will ensure
fair competition among the exchanges by allowing the Exchange to
immediately increase the position limits for the products subject to
this proposal, which the Exchange believes will provide consistency for
ATP Holders that are also members at CBOE where these increased
position limits are currently in place. 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.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \53\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \54\ 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-NYSEAMER-2018-14 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-NYSEAMER-2018-14. 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-NYSEAMER-2018-14, and should be
submitted on or before May 16, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-08615 Filed 4-24-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P