[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 25, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18093-18099]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[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

[[Page 18094]]

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


[[Page 18095]]

    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

[[Page 18096]]

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

[[Page 18097]]

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

[[Page 18098]]

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.

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

[[Page 18099]]

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