[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 5 (Monday, January 9, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1107-1111]
[FR Doc No: 2012-112]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66090; File No. SR-OCC-2011-19]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Options Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No.
1 Thereto, Relating to the Clearance and Settlement of Over-the-Counter
Options

January 3, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder \2\ notice is hereby given that
on December 20, 2011, The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change. On January 3, 2012, OCC filed Amendment No. 1 to
the proposed rule change. The propose rule change as amended by
Amendment No. 1 is described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items
have been prepared primarily by OCC. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change and Amendment
No. 1 to the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The proposed rule change would allow OCC to provide central
clearing of OTC options beginning in the first quarter of 2012.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, OCC 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. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A),
(B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these
statements.

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

    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to allow OCC to provide
central clearing of OTC options beginning in the first quarter of 2012.
OCC will clear the proposed OTC options in a manner that is highly
similar to the manner in which it clears listed options, with only such
modifications as are appropriate to reflect the unique characteristics
of OTC options.
OTC Options
    The initial OTC options to be cleared by OCC will consist of
options on equity indices published by Standard & Poor's Financial
Services LLC (``S&P'').\3\ OCC has entered into a license agreement
with S&P that allows OCC to clear OTC options on the S&P 500 Index, the
S&P MidCap 400 Index and the S&P Small Cap 600 Index. OCC may clear OTC
options on other indices and on individual equity securities in the
future. OTC options will have predominantly common terms and
characteristics, but also include unique terms negotiated by the
parties. Transactions in OTC options will not be executed through the
facilities of any

exchange, but will instead be entered into bilaterally and submitted to
OCC for clearance through one or more providers of trade affirmation
services.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ OCC indicated that if it intends to clear additional non-S&P
OTC products it will file a proposed rule change with the Commission
pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act. Telephone conference
between Steve Szarmack, Vice President and Associate General
Counsel, OCC, and Pamela Kesner, Special Counsel, Securities and
Exchange Commission Division of Trading and Markets on December 22,
2011.
    \4\ The initial provider of the trade affirmation services in
connection with the OTC options will be MarkitServ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OTC options will be similar to exchange-traded standardized equity
index options called ``FLEX Options'' that are currently traded on
certain options exchanges.\5\ FLEX Options are exchange-traded put and
call options that allow for customization of certain terms. For
example, FLEX index Options traded on the Chicago Board Options
Exchange have six customizable terms: (1) underlying index, (2) put or
call, (3) expiration date, (4) exercise price, (5) American or European
exercise style, and (6) method of calculating settlement value. OCC is
the issuer and guarantor of FLEX Options and clears FLEX Options traded
on multiple exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Note that FINRA Rule 2360(a)(16) refers to FLEX Options as
``FLEX Equity Options'', which it defines as ``any options contract
issued, or subject to issuance by, The Options Clearing Corporation
whereby the parties to the transaction have the ability to negotiate
the terms of the contract consistent with the rules of the exchange
on which the options contract is traded.'' OCC does not believe this
definition would capture OTC options as they are not traded on any
exchange. Nevertheless, as discussed below, OCC is working with
FINRA to amend certain of FINRA's rules to clarify the proper
application of such rules to OTC options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similar to FLEX Options, a limited number of variable terms of OTC
options will be allowed for customization, with a specified range of
values that may be assigned to each, as agreed between the buyer and
seller. Parties submitting transactions in OTC options for clearing by
OCC will be able to customize six discrete terms: (1) Underlying index
\6\ (2) put or call; (3) exercise price; (4) expiration date; (5)
American or European exercise style; and (6) method of calculating
exercise settlement value on the expiration date.\7\ The variable terms
and permitted values will be specified in the proposed Section 6 of
Article XVII of the By-Laws. With respect to future OTC options
accepted for clearing, OCC intends that such future OTC options will
conform to the general variable terms and limits on the variable terms
set forth in proposed Section 6 of the By-Laws, and will either amend
the Interpretations and Policies thereunder to specify additional
requirements for specific OTC options or publish such requirements on
OCC's Web site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Initially, however, the S&P 500 Index will be the only
permitted underlying index.
    \7\ The expiration date of an OTC option must fall on a business
day. The method of determining the exercise settlement value of an
OTC option on its expiration date may be either the opening
settlement value or the closing settlement value of the underlying
index (calculated by S&P using the opening or closing price, as
applicable, in the primary market of each component security of the
underlying index on the specified expiration date), in each case as
reported to OCC by CBOE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clearing of OTC Options
    OCC proposes to clear OTC options subject to the same basic rules
and procedures used for the clearance of listed index options. The
proposed rules require that the counterparties to the OTC options must
be eligible contract participants (``ECPs''), as defined in Section
3a(65) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
``Exchange Act'') and Section 1a(18) of the Commodity Exchange Act, as
amended (the ``CEA'').\8\ Because an OTC option will be a ``security''
as defined in the Exchange Act of 1934, the proposed rules also require
that the transactions be cleared through a clearing member of OCC that
is registered with the Commission as a broker-dealer or one of the
small number of clearing members that are ``non-U.S. securities firms''
as defined in OCC's By-Laws.\9\ OCC is not proposing to require
clearing members to meet any different financial standards for clearing
OTC options. However, clearing members must be specifically approved by
OCC to clear OTC options in order to assure operational readiness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See proposed Section 6(f), Article XVII of the By-Laws.
    \9\ See proposed Interpretation and Policy .10 of Section 1,
Article V of the By-Laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Exercise of an OTC option will be settled by payment of cash by the
assigned writer and to the exercising holder through OCC's cash
settlement system on the business day following exercise in exactly the
same manner as is the case with exercise settlement of listed index
options. As in the case of listed index options, the exercise-
settlement amount will be equal to the difference between the current
value of the underlying interest and the exercise price of the OTC
option, times the multiplier that determines the size of the OTC
option. In the case of OTC index options on the S&P 500, the multiplier
will be fixed at 1. The multipliers for additional OTC index options
that OCC may in the future clear may be fixed at such value as OCC
determines and provides for in its By-Laws and Rules.
    OCC will calculate clearing margin for the OTC options using its
STANS margin system on the same basis as for listed index options.
Because OCC currently clears listed options on all three of the
underlying indexes on which OCC is currently licensed to clear OTC
options, and because the customizable terms of these OTC options are
relatively limited and the range of values that customizable terms may
be given is limited, OCC does not believe that valuation and risk
management for these OTC options present any difficult challenges.
Nevertheless, as discussed further below, OCC is proposing a special
close-out rule to be used in the unlikely event that OCC would be
unable to close out positions in OTC options of a failed clearing
member through existing procedures.
    OTC options may be carried in a clearing member's firm account, in
market-maker accounts or in its securities customers' account, as
applicable. Although customer positions in OTC options will be carried
in the securities customers' account (an omnibus account), OCC will use
a ``customer ID'' to identify positions of individual customers based
on information provided by clearing members.\10\ However, positions are
not presently intended to be carried in individual customer sub-
accounts, and positions in OTC options will be margined at OCC in the
omnibus customers' account on the same basis as listed options. If a
clearing member takes the other side of a transaction with its customer
in an OTC option, the transaction will result in the creation of a long
or short position (as applicable) in the clearing member's customers'
account and the opposite short or long position in the clearing
member's firm account. The positions could also be includable in the
internal cross-margining account, subject to any necessary regulatory
approvals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Such customer IDs are necessary in order to allow OCC to
comply with certain terms of OCC's license agreement with S&P. As
described further below, customer IDs will be used for other
purposes as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The trade data of an OTC option trade will be entered into the
system of MarkitSERV or another trade affirmation vendor approved by
OCC for this purpose (the ``OTC Trade Source''). OCC will permit
additional OTC Trade Sources in the future in response to sufficient
market demand from OCC's clearing members and subject to the ability of
any such OTC Trade Source to meet OCC's requirements for operational
readiness and interoperability with OCC's systems, as well as
requirements with respect to relevant business experience and
reputation, adequate personnel and expertise, financial qualification
and such other factors as OCC deems relevant. The trade may be affirmed
through one of two methods: (i) both

sides of the trade enter the trade details into the system of the OTC
Trade Source and the trade details are compared and matched by the OTC
Trade Source; or (ii) one party to the trade enters the trade details
into the system of the OTC Trade Source and the other party to the
trade then views the information and affirms it if it is correct.
Whichever method is used, OCC will receive a matched trade from the OTC
Trade Source. Note that, in either case, the OTC Trade Source merely
acts as a messaging system among the parties and OCC to affirm the
terms that are agreed to by the parties bilaterally and to transmit
that information to OCC. It will be permissible for parties to submit
trades for clearance that were entered into bilaterally at any time in
the past, provided that the eligibility for clearance will be
determined as of the date the trade is submitted to OCC for
clearance.\11\ The OTC Trade Source will process the trade and submit
it as a matched trade to OCC for clearing. If OCC accepts the trade,
OCC will so notify the OTC Trade Source, which will notify the
submitting parties. Customers of clearing members may have direct
access to the OTC Trade Source for purposes of entering or affirming
trade data and receiving communications regarding the status of
transactions, in which case mechanisms will be put in place for a
clearing member to authorize a customer to enter a trade for the
clearing member's customers' account or for the clearing member to
affirm a trade once entered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ OCC's license agreement with S&P imposes certain minimum
requirements relating to time remaining to expiration of the OTC
option, as detailed in proposed Interpretation and Policy .01 of
Section 6, Article XVII of the By-Laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order for a clearing member to be approved for clearing OTC
options, the clearing member must enter into a standard agreement with
MarkitServ (or another OTC Trade Source, if and when OCC enters into
arrangements with other OTC Trade Sources). At launch, OTC options will
not be subject to the same clearing member trade assignment rules and
procedures through which exchange-traded options can be cleared by a
clearing member other than the executing clearing member. This
functionality may be added at a later date. OCC and MarkitSERV will
adopt procedures to permit a customer that has an account with Clearing
Member A (``CM A'') to enter into an OTC option transaction with
Clearing Member B (``CM B'') and have the position included in its
account at CM A and cleared in CM A's customers' account at OCC.
    OTC options will be fungible with each other to the extent that
there are OTC options in the system with identical terms. However, OCC
will not treat OTC options as fungible with index options listed on any
exchange, even if an OTC option has terms identical to the terms of the
exchange-listed option.
    Clearing members that carry customer positions in cleared OTC
options will be subject to all OCC rules governing OCC-cleared options
generally, as well as all applicable rules of the SEC and of any self-
regulatory organization, including the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority (``FINRA''), of which they are a member.
Regulatory Status of the OTC Options
    An OTC option will be a ``security'' as defined in both the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the ``Securities Act'') and, as
noted above, the Exchange Act. OCC will be the ``issuer'' of the OTC
options. The OTC options will be neither ``swaps'' nor ``security-based
swaps'' for purposes of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act (``Dodd-Frank'').\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Section 1a(47)(A)(i) of CEA, as added by Section 721(a)(21)
of Dodd-Frank, defines ``swaps'' broadly to include options on
indices. However, Section 1a(47)(B)(iii) of the CEA excludes from
the ``swap'' definition any option on any index of securities that
is subject to the Securities Act and the Exchange Act. A contract
that is excluded from the definition of a ``swap'' under Section
1a(47)(B) (other than Section 1a(47)(B)(x)) is not a ``security-
based swap'' for purposes of Section 3a(68) of the Exchange Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most of OCC's clearing members are members of FINRA and subject to
FINRA's rules, which have different provisions for ``listed'' and ``OTC
options'' and contain various definitions distinguishing between the
two. In some cases, OTC options would fall into neither category under
FINRA's definitions and in other cases, they would fall within what OCC
perceives to be the wrong category. OCC has suggested to FINRA that it
amend certain of its rules to clarify the proper application of such
rules to cleared OTC options.
Proposed By-Law and Rule Changes
    The specific proposed changes to OCC's By-Laws and Rules to provide
for the clearing of OTC options relate primarily to: (i) Specification
of customizable terms; (ii) procedures for submission and acceptance of
trades for clearance; and (iii) specification of criteria for
eligibility of clearing members to clear transactions in OTC options
and limitation of the types of customers for whom clearing members may
effect transactions in OTC options. Otherwise, the currently proposed
OTC options will be cleared and settled under the same provisions
applicable to clearance of listed index options. Many of the proposed
amendments are self-explanatory, and we have therefore attempted to
confine the following discussion to a broad overview with specific
explanation only where the reasons for the change may be less obvious.
    Article I of the By-Laws contains defined terms used throughout the
By-Laws and Rules. OCC proposes to modify certain existing definitions
and include certain new definitions in order to incorporate OTC options
into existing rules and facilitate the creation of new provisions
unique to OTC options. Throughout the By-Laws and Rules, OCC proposes
to replace the term ``Exchange transaction,'' which is currently
defined in Article I, in relevant part, as ``a transaction on or
through the facilities of an exchange for the purchase, writing or sale
of a cleared contract'' with the term ``matched trade'' so as to make
the relevant portions of the By-Laws and Rules applicable to
transactions in OTC options as well as listed options. ``Matched
trade'' is proposed to be defined in Article I to include transactions
``effected on or through the facilities of an exchange'' or ``affirmed
through the facilities of an OTC Trade Source'' in order to include
transactions in both listed options and OTC options. The current
definition of ``matched trade'' in Rule 101 is proposed to be deleted
as unnecessary given the new definition. Much of the length of this
rule filing is attributable to the fact that the term ``Exchange
transaction'' is used so many places in the rules. OCC has entered into
agreements in the past which reference the term ``Exchange
transaction'' or ``exchange transaction.'' OCC is also proposing to add
an Interpretation and Policy to the new definition of ``matched trade''
in order to avoid any ambiguity concerning how such terms should be
interpreted in any such agreement.
    OCC proposes to add a new Interpretation and Policy .10 to Section
1 of Article V of the By-Laws, providing the additional criteria that
must be met by a Clearing Member in order to clear OTC index options.
Among these new criteria are that Clearing Member seeking to clear OTC
index options on underlying indices published by Standard & Poor's
Financial Services LLC (``S&P'') must execute and maintain in effect a
short-form license agreement in such form as specified from time to
time by S&P. The current form of S&P

short-form index license agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
    The Interpretations and Policies under Section 1, Article VI allow
clearing members to adjust their positions with OCC for certain
enumerated reasons. OCC proposes to amend the Interpretations and
Policies to clarify that, consistent with industry conventions in the
OTC markets, adjustment of positions in OTC options will be effected
through a manual process (as opposed to the electronic process
available to post-trade adjustments in listed options), to the extent
permitted by OCC. For the same reason, OCC is proposing to amend Rule
403 to prohibit clearing member trade assignment (``CMTA'')
transactions in OTC options. Trade ``give-ups'' that are effected
through the CMTA process in the case of listed options will, in the
case of OTC options, be effected through MarkitSERV before the trades
are submitted to OCC for clearing.
    Article XVII of the By-Laws governs index options in general and
OCC is proposing amendments to Article XVII in order to set forth the
terms applicable to the initial OTC options proposed to be cleared by
OCC--options on equity indices published by S&P--and to differentiate
OTC index options from other index options cleared by OCC. For example,
certain amendments to the definitions are necessary because OTC options
will be permitted to have a much wider range of expiration dates and
expiration times than exchange-traded options. Additional definitional
amendments ensure that OTC index options will constitute a separate
class of options from other cash-settled index options even if both
index options have the same terms and cover the same underlying
interest.
    Section 3 of Article XVII provides for adjustment of the terms of
outstanding index options as necessary to reflect possible changes in
the underlying index--such as those creating a discontinuity in the
level of the index--that could theoretically make an adjustment
necessary to protect the legitimate expectations of holders and writers
of options on the index. Pursuant to paragraph (g) of Section 3, most
but not all such adjustments would be made, in the case of listed index
options, by an adjustment panel consisting of representatives of the
exchanges on which the options are traded. In the case of OTC options,
any such adjustments will be made by OCC in its sole discretion.
However, in exercising that discretion, OCC may take into consideration
adjustment made by the adjustment panel with respect to exchange-traded
options covering the same underlying index.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Because index options, unlike options on individual stocks,
rarely, if ever, require adjustments, allocation of the adjustment
authority may have little practical significance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC proposes to add a new Section 6 to Article XVII to set forth
certain provisions unique to OTC index options, including the variable
terms allowed for OTC index options and the general limitations on such
variable terms. In general, all OTC index options must conform to the
terms and limitations set forth in Section 6, and additional specific
requirements applicable to specific OTC index options will either be
set forth in the Interpretations and Policies under Section 6 or
published separately on OCC's Web site. Section 6 also makes clear that
although OTC index options are not fungible with exchange-traded index
options, OTC index options of the same series (i.e., options having
identical terms) will be fungible with each other. In addition to the
terms and limitations applicable to OTC index options, Section 6 will
establish that clearing members will be deemed to have made a number of
representations and warranties in connection with their activities in
OTC options each time they affirm a matched trade entered into an OTC
Trade Source.
    Chapter IV of the Rules sets forth the requirements for reporting
of matched trades to OCC, and Rule 401 thereunder governs reporting of
transactions in listed options by participant Exchanges. OCC is
proposing to add new Rule 404 to govern the details of reporting of
matched trades in OTC options by an OTC Trade Source.
    As discussed above, positions in OTC options will generally be
margined in the same manner as positions in listed options using STANS
and pursuant to Chapter VI of the Rules. However, OCC proposes to amend
Rule 611 to establish different procedures for the segregation of long
positions in OTC options for margining purposes. Long positions in
listed options are held in a clearing member's customers' account or
firm non-lien account and by default are deemed to be ``segregated,''
meaning that they are not subject to OCC's lien and are given no
collateral value when determining the margin requirement in the
account. Such positions may be unsegregated only when a clearing member
instructs OCC to unsegregate a long position and represents to OCC that
the long position is part of a spread transaction carried for a single
customer whose margin requirement on the corresponding short position
has been reduced in recognition of the spread. OCC will then
unsegregate the long position and so reduce OCC's margin requirement.
However, in case of long positions in OTC options that are carried in a
clearing member's customers' account and for which OCC has received a
customer ID, OCC proposes that it will automatically unsegregate such
long positions if OCC identifies a qualifying short position in OTC
options carried under the same customer ID. Clearing members will not
be required to give an affirmative instruction to OCC to unsegregate a
long position in OTC options or make a separate representation
regarding the spread transaction. Instead, by carrying a qualifying
spread position in a customer account, clearing members are deemed to
have represented to OCC that the customer's margin has been reduced in
recognition of the spread. Based on discussion with the clearing
members, it is OCC's understanding that, in practice, broker-dealers
reduce customers' margin requirements to reflect spread positions.
Therefore, OCC believes that automatic recognition of such spreads by
OCC together with the deemed representation will greatly increase
operational efficiency while providing equal assurance that long
positions in OTC options will be unsegregated only if an identified
customer will receive the benefit of the reduced margin required for
spread transactions.
    Rule 1001 sets forth the amount of the contribution that each
clearing member is required to make to the clearing fund. OCC proposes
to amend Rule 1001(c) so that, for purposes of calculating the daily
average number of cleared contracts held by a clearing member in open
positions with OCC during a calendar month (which number is used in
turn to determine the clearing member's contribution to the clearing
fund), open positions in OTC options will be adjusted as needed to
account for any differences between the multiplier or unit of trading
with respect to OTC options relative to non-OTC options covering the
same underlying index or interest so that OTC options and non-OTC
options are given comparable weight in the computation.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For example, the index multiplier applicable to OTC index
options on the S&P 500 Index will be fixed at 1. See proposed
Interpretation and Policy .01 of Section 6, Article XVII of the By-
Laws. In comparison, the index multiplier applicable to listed index
options is 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In general, the rules in Chapter XI governing the suspension of a
clearing member will apply equally to clearing members that transact in
OTC options. Rule 1106 provides broad authority for

OCC to close out open positions in options carried by a suspended
clearing member ``in the most orderly manner practicable.'' OCC is
proposing to amend Rule 1106 to add an additional provision with
respect to positions in OTC options. The Commission has recently
approved an OCC rule change providing OCC the authority to use an
auction process as one of the means by which OCC may close out open
positions in listed options carried by a suspended clearing member.\15\
OCC anticipates it will use this auction process for OTC options as
well. As an additional protection, however, OCC is proposing to amend
Rule 1106 to give OCC the authority, in extraordinary circumstances, to
fix a liquidation value for open OTC options positions of a suspended
clearing member if OCC determines that fixing a close-out value is the
most orderly manner of closing out such positions. This procedure would
mean that one or more clearing members having the opposite side of
options of the same series as those held by the defaulting clearing
member could have their positions involuntarily closed out and would be
required to accept or pay the close-out value of the positions as
determined by OCC. OCC anticipates that the likelihood of having to
exercise this authority is small, and that the authority would only be
exercised in the event that OCC is unable to find a counterparty
willing to purchase, or assume the obligations of, open long and short
positions of the suspended clearing member at an appropriate value
either through the regular OTC market or through the auction process.
Nevertheless, in view of the fact that positions in OTC index options
are expected to be large and that there may be no active trading market
in options with terms precisely identical to the terms of the OTC index
options in question, OCC believes that this is an appropriate failsafe
provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release 65654 (October 28,
2011), 76 FR 68238 (November 3, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC believes that the proposed changes to OCC's By-Laws are
consistent with the purposes and requirements of Section 17A of the
Exchange Act because they are designed to permit OCC to perform
clearing services for products that are subject to the jurisdiction of
the CFTC without adversely affecting OCC's obligations with respect to
the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions or the protection of securities investors and the public
interest. The proposed rule change is not inconsistent with any rules
of OCC.

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    OCC does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any
burden on competition.

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

    Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been
solicited or received. OCC will notify the Commission of any written
comments received by OCC.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commissions Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml) or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-OCC-2011-19 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2011-19. 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 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 Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filings will also be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of OCC and on OCC's Web
site at http://www.optionsclearing.com/components/docs/legal/rules_and_bylaws/sr_occ_11_19_a_1.pdf. 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-OCC-2011-19 and should be submitted on
or before January 30, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-112 Filed 1-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION III 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 2029 SUBJECT: Site Visit to Virginia Project XL Bioreactor Landfills DATE: 4/ 8/ 02 FROM: Steven J. Donohue, Environmental Scientist/ Project Manager Office of Environmental Innovation (3EI00)

TO: File On April 3 and 4, 2002 I visited the two Virginia Project XL bioreactor landfills and met with representatives of Waste Management and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. Under the terms of a Project XL Final Project Agreement, a Proposed Site Specific Rule published in the Federal Register on December 22, 2001, as well as VADEQ solid waste and air permits, one 10 acre test cell at each of the Virginia Project XL landfills will be operated as a bioreactor.

Maplewood Landfill On April 3, 2002 I toured the Maplewood Landfill in Amelia County, Virginia with Waste Management (WM) Representatives; Jim Stenborg, Project Manager, Brian McClung, Landfill Manager and Patrick McCann, Landfill Gas Technician. After the tour I met with the WM representatives and Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) representatives, E. Paul Farrell, Environmental Engineer, and Robert Timmons, Waste Compliance Manager. During the tour I made note of the following features at the Maplewood Landfill. The side slopes of the landfill were well vegetated with several different species of native and cool seasons grasses. The side slopes on the west, south and east sides of the Phase 1 and 2 test cells consist of a 4 to 1 slope. This slope is broken by a flat, approximately 30 foot, bench located about halfway up the side of the landfill.

There are a double riser extending from the primary leachate collection layer up to the sump houses which are located at the toe of the eastern side slope of the landfill. This double risers provides redundant access to the leachate collection pipe under each cell of the landfill. WM representatives stated that each cell has an individual leachate collection pipe and there is an approximately 4 foot high berm between cells to hydraulically separate them. WM representatives stated that if the leachate pipe were to become clogged the stone would act as a redundant conduit for removing leachate from the cell. The leachate lines from the sump of each cell are connected to a common subsurface leachate collection line that runs to two large leachate storage tanks that I observed at the Site. WM reported that the storage capacity of the leachate tanks at the Maplewood Landfill is approximately 500,000 gallons.

I noted the presence of the landfill gas collection system which was in operation at the landfill. Gas was being collected from wells located on the top of the landfill and from the leachate collection system where negative pressure was maintained on the riser pipes to prevent gas buildup in the sump house area. Landfill gas lines run across the surface of the landfill from west to east and connect to individual stickups from the gas wells. The gas pipelines are sloped so that any condensate flows downslope to the leachate collection sump house areas for collection. A subsurface landfill gas line at the toe of the landfill collects the individual lines coming down the slope and runs to a flare and power plant located on the site. A series of engines in the power plant can be run on diesel and/ or landfill gas and can utilize all or a portion of the landfill gas to generate power. Any landfill gas not utilized by the power plant is automatically sent to a flare for combustion. I observed a large vacuum pump that pulls the gas to the flare and power plant. WM representatives stated that the contract with the power generating company is structured to encourage them to utilize as much landfill gas as possible for power generation.

On the top surface of the landfill, I noted the presence of three well stickups that were nested together (i. e. in close proximity to each other) at several locations in the test cells. WM representatives stated that there nested stickups marked the locations where borings were made into the landfill to collection baseline samples of waste and obtain waste density. After the drilling was completed, wells were constructed at three different depths in the hole left by the boring into the waste. Temperature probes were installed in the wells and they will be monitored during the project. WM stated that from the known volume of the boring and measurement of the mass of the waste removed from the hole they were able to calculate an in place density of the waste at different locations in the landfill. WM reported that the density at Maplewood was .75 tons per cubic yard.

Following the tour, EPA and WM discussed issues including compaction, increased density during testing, waste stability and the possibility of leachate seeps in the side walls during the project. WM stated that the total volume of waste in the test area at the Maplewood Landfill was approximately 2.2 million cubic yards (MCY). The depth of the landfill in the foot print of the 10 acre test cell is approximately 80 feet. Therefore, a conservative volume of waste in the 10 acre foot print where liquid is proposed to be injected is approximately 1. 3 MCY. Multiplying 1. 3 MCY times the calculated density of waste of .75 tons per cubic yard yields a value of 975,000 tons of waste in the 10 acre test area footprint.

The volume of leachate proposed to be added to the waste each year is 3 4 million gallons. Assuming it is 4 million gallons and the leachate has the same weight as water (8. 3 lbs/ gallon), this would be the equivalent of adding 33. 2 million pounds or 16, 600 tons of leachate a year. This annual mass of leachate represents an approximately 1.7% increase in total mass of waste in the test cell. According to Reinhart and Ham 1974 between 25,000 and 50,000 gallons of liquid per 1,000 tons of waste is needed to make the waste achieve field capacity. The proposed addition of liquid to Maplewood is approximately 4,102 gallons of liquid per 1,000 tons of waste per year.

In the meeting WM agreed to monitor the liquid levels in the landfill gas extraction wells during the project as an additional safe guard against liquid buildup in the landfill and the possibility of surface seeps. WM also will be monitoring gas production and if liquid levels rise into the wells this can cut the production of landfill gas.

King George Landfill On April 4, 2002 I met with WM representatives; Jim Stenborg, Project Manager, Howard Burns, Landfill Manager and Patrick McCann, Landfill Gas Technician and VADEQ representatives; E. Paul Farrell, Environmental Engineer, and Tammy Gumbita, Senior Compliance Specialist and toured the King George Landfill in King George County, Virginia. WM confirmed the side slopes of the King George Landfill were 3: 1 slope. Test Cell 3 where liquid is proposed to be injected is bounded on the north, east and west by cells 5, 4 and 1, respectively. These cells would buttress or support and provide an additional buffer against seepage in the side slopes. The only area where Cell 3 is exposed directly to a 3: 1 slope is an approximately 450 foot distance along the southern side slope of the landfill. I noted the presence of two benches set into the 3: 1 side slope in this area.

The leachate sumps are located at the toe of the southern side slope of the landfill. As was the case at the Maplewood Landfill, there is a double riser extending from the primary leachate collection layer up to the sump house building. This provides redundant access to the leachate collection pipe under each cell of the landfill. There is an approximately 5 6 foot berm between cells to hydraulically separate them. The leachate lines from the sump of each cell are connected to a common subsurface leachate collection line that runs to two large leachate storage tanks I noted on the site. WM stated the storage capacity of the leachate tanks at the King George Landfill is approximately 500,000 gallons. WM reported that the landfill is producing approximately 1,000 gallons of leachate per day.

As was the case at Maplewood, the gas collection system was in operation at the landfill. Gas was being collected from wells on top of the landfill and from the leachate collection system where negative pressure was maintained on the riser pipes to prevent gas buildup in the sump area. Landfill gas lines on top of King George Landfill are buried beneath the surface and run from north to south and collect gas from individual well stickups in the landfill. The lines were sloped so that any gas condensate flows downslope to the leachate collection sump housing areas for collection. A subsurface landfill gas line runs to a vacuum pump and flare. According to instruments monitoring the gas flow at the flare 1200 cubic feet per minute of landfill gas was being flared at the time of my visit. WM stated they are negotiating with the Birchwood Power Station, which is directly adjacent to and clearly visible from the landfill property, for the beneficial reuse of the landfill gas. This facility currently burns coal to produce power but could utilize landfill gas in their boilers.

I noted the presence of four nested well stickups on the surface of the King George landfill at several locations in the test cells. WM representatives stated that these stickups marked to location of borings that were made into the landfill to collection baseline samples of waste and obtain in place density measurements. After the drilling was completed wells were constructed at four different depths in the hole left by the boring. Temperature probes were installed in the wells and they will be monitored during the project. WM stated, based on the volume of the boring and the mass of the waste removed from the hole, they calculated an in place density of the waste at the King George Landfill of .8 tons per cubic yard.

WM stated that the total volume of waste in the test cells at the King George Landfill was calculated by a surveying to be approximately the same as in the test cell at Maplewood or 2. 2 million cubic yards (MCY). However, the depth of the King George landfill under the foot print of the 10 acre test cell is approximately 100 feet. Therefore, a conservative volume of waste in the 10 acre foot print where liquid is proposed to be injected is approximately 1.6 MCY. Multiplying 1.6 MCY times the calculated density of waste of .80 tons per cubic yard yields a value of 1, 280,000 tons of waste in the 10 acre test area footprint at King George.

The volume of leachate proposed to be added to the waste each year at King George Landfill is 7 8 million gallons. Assuming that it is 8 million gallons and the leachate has the same weight as water (8. 3 lbs/ gallon), this would be the equivalent of adding 66. 4 million pounds or 33, 200 tons of leachate a year. This annual mass of leachate represents an approximately 2.6% increase in total mass of waste in the test cell. The proposed annual addition of liquid to King George is approximately 5,000 gallons of liquid per 1,000 tons of waste or an order of magnitude less than the high end of the range of the total amount of liquid that Reinhart and Ham 1974 found to be necessary to achieve field capacity.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 45 (Friday, March 7, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 13051]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04963]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER14-1373-000]

Energy Utility Group, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Energy Utility Group, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is March 21, 2014.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 28, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-04963 Filed 3-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 26, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 88915-88919]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28299]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2023-0312; FRL 11015-01-OCSPP]

4,4'-Methylene bis(2-chloroaniline); Request Under the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA) for Records and Reports of Significant
Adverse Reactions to Health or the Environment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Through this notice, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
is requiring manufacturers (including importers) and processors of the
chemical substance 4,4'-methylene bis(2-chloroaniline) to submit the
records and reports of allegations that this chemical substance causes
significant adverse reactions to health or the environment that they
are required to maintain and submit to EPA when requested under the
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Information submitted to the
Agency in response to this notice will help inform future EPA
activities regarding this chemical, including aiding EPA activities
related to this chemical substance having been identified as a
candidate for designation as a High-Priority Substance for TSCA risk
evaluation.

DATES: Records must be received by EPA on or before February 26, 2024.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA HQ-OPPT-2023-0312, is available online
at https://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket) in the Environmental
Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC). Additional instructions on
visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets
generally, are available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Barone, Data Gathering and
Analysis Division (7406M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Executive Summary

A. What action is the Agency taking?

    EPA is requiring submission of TSCA section 8(c) records of
allegations of significant adverse reactions to health or

the environment for the listed chemical. Regulations specifying TSCA
section 8(c) recordkeeping and reporting requirements are codified at
40 CFR part 717. Pursuant to TSCA section 8(c) and 40 CFR 717.17(b),
each person who is required to maintain records under TSCA section 8(c)
and implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 717 shall submit copies of
such records to EPA upon request. EPA is issuing this TSCA section 8(c)
action so that the health and environmental risks from exposure to this
chemical substance can be evaluated. The submitted information is
expected to be used to corroborate suspected adverse health or
environmental effects of the chemical under review and to help identify
trends of adverse effects across the industry that may not be apparent
to any one chemical company.
    EPA has initiated the prioritization process for this chemical
substance as a candidate for designation as a High-Priority Substance
for risk evaluation. EPA plans to use data received through this
request to support the prioritization process to better understand
suspected adverse health or environmental effects of the chemical.
Further, should EPA finalize the designation of this chemical as a
high-priority substance for risk evaluation, then gathering this type
of data before EPA initiates such a risk evaluation could help make the
risk evaluation process more efficient and focused. EPA anticipates
issuing additional TSCA section 8(c) submission requirements for other
chemical substances identified as candidates for prioritization. EPA is
using this TSCA section 8(c) submission requirement as a first pilot
step in making use of the TSCA section 8(c) data gathering authority as
part of the general candidate selection process to be used by EPA for
TSCA section 6 prioritization activities.

B. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    Under TSCA section 8(c), chemical manufacturers (including
importers) and processors must maintain records of significant adverse
reactions to health or the environment alleged to have been caused by
chemical substances or mixtures and, upon request, submit or make the
records available to the Agency. Significant adverse reactions are
reactions that may indicate a substantial impairment of normal
activities or long-lasting or irreversible damage to health or the
environment. Regulations implementing TSCA section 8(c) appear in 40
CFR part 717.

C. Does this action apply to me?

    This action may potentially affect you if you manufacture (defined
under TSCA to include import) or process the chemical substance
described by this document. The following list of North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes is neither intended to be
exhaustive nor indicate expected reporting from a given industry sector
but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this
document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
     Manufacturing (NAICS codes 31-33), and/or
     Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers
(NAICS code 424690).
    Other types of entities not included could also be affected. To
determine whether your entity is affected by this action, you should
carefully examine the applicability criteria found in 40 CFR part 717.
If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity or information regarding additional entities that may
not be listed in this Notice, please consult the person listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

D. What is 4,4'-methylene bis(2-chloroaniline) (MBOCA)?

    MBOCA is used as a curing agent for liquid polyurethane elastomers.
These elastomers have been used to produce shoe soles; rolls for
postage stamp machines; cutting bars in plywood manufacturing; rolls
and belt drives in cameras, computers, and reproducing equipment; and
pulleys for escalators and elevators. Animal studies have reported
effects on the lung, liver, and kidney from chronic oral exposure to
MBOCA. Animal studies have reported that MBOCA produces tumors of the
liver, lung, urinary bladder, and mammary glands from oral exposure.
EPA has classified MBOCA as a Group B2, probable human carcinogen.

II. Request for TSCA Section 8(c) Records

A. Who must submit records?

    This requirement to submit TSCA section 8(c) allegation records
applies to persons who manufacture (defined under TSCA to include
import) or process MBOCA, and who are subject to TSCA section 8(c)
recordkeeping requirements pursuant to 40 CFR 717.5.
    The regulations provide limited exemptions from recordkeeping and
reporting requirements for certain manufacturers and sites of
manufacture, as described at 40 CFR 717.5(a)(1) and 717.7(a). Persons
or site activities are exempt pursuant to 40 CFR 717.7(a)(1) if the
means by which they manufacture a chemical substance solely involves
mining or other solely extractive functions, e.g., those companies or
sites within a company whose sole function is to mine mineral ores,
extract petroleum or natural gas, quarry non-metallic minerals
(including extraction of salts from seawater or brines), mine or
otherwise extract coal, or separate gases from the atmosphere. In
addition, the regulations exempt persons whose only manufacturing act
is to produce a substance coincidentally under specific circumstances,
as described in 40 CFR 717.7(a)(2).
    Two types of processors (who are not also manufacturers) are
subject to TSCA section 8(c) recordkeeping under the regulations at 40
CFR 717.5(b)(1) and to reporting under this notice: those who produce
and market chemical mixtures (including solutions) and those who
repackage chemical substances or mixtures.
    A person solely engaged in the distribution of chemical substances
is exempt from TSCA section 8(c) recordkeeping and reporting pursuant
to 40 CFR 717.7(c) unless such person is also a manufacturer or
processor subject to the regulations. For example, a ``distributor''
who repackages chemical substances or mixtures is considered to be a
processor and, thus, is not a sole distributor.
    Similarly, pursuant to 40 CFR 717.7(d), a person who is a retailer
is exempt from TSCA section 8(c) recordkeeping and reporting unless
such person is also a manufacturer or a processor subject to this
request.

B. What types of records must be submitted?

    TSCA section 8(c) requires any manufacturer, processor, or
distributor of a chemical substance or mixture to keep records of
``significant adverse reactions'' to health or the environment, as
determined by rule, alleged to have been caused by the chemical
substance or mixture. Implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 717
describe the types of records that must be kept and are briefly
summarized here.
    A ``significant adverse reactions'' is defined in 40 CFR 717.3(i)
as reactions that may indicate a substantial impairment of normal
activities, or long-lasting or irreversible damage to health or the
environment. Allegations subject to the recordkeeping requirement are
described at 40 CFR 717.10. ``Allegation'' is defined at 40 CFR
717.3(a) to mean a statement, made without formal proof or regard for

evidence, that a chemical substance or mixture has caused a significant
adverse reaction to health or the environment.
    Significant adverse reactions to human health that must be recorded
could include, but are not limited to, birth defects, impairment of
bodily functions, or impairment of normal activities, as described at
40 CFR 717.12(a). TSCA section 8(c) allegations may focus on serious
health effects, but they can also report lesser effects experienced by
a group of individuals or repeatedly by an individual. Allegations that
do not meet the definition of a ``significant adverse reaction'' should
not be reported to EPA in the TSCA section 8(c) call-in. Additionally,
the regulation at 40 CFR 717.12(b) exempts ``known human effects'' from
this recordkeeping requirement. The definition of ``known human
effects'' at 40 CFR 717.3(c) covers commonly recognized human health
effects resulting from exposure to a substance as described in publicly
available sources such as Safety Data Sheets (SDS), product labeling,
or scientific literature, including, but not limited to, information
found at the Agency for Toxic Substances Disease Registry website
available at https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/index.html and EPA's Integrated
Risk Management System available at https://www.epa.gov/iris. However,
pursuant to 40 CFR 717.3(c)(2), the exemption does not apply if the
reaction was a significantly more severe toxic effect than previously
described, or if the reaction resulted from a lower exposure level, a
significantly shorter exposure period, or a different exposure route
than previously described.
    Significant adverse reactions to the environment must also be
recorded even if restricted to the environment surrounding a plant or
disposal site. Pursuant to 40 CFR 717.12(c), such reactions could
include but are not limited to: gradual or sudden changes to
composition of animal or plant life, deaths of organisms such as fish
kills, reduction of reproductive success of species, changes in
behavior or distribution of species, loss of agricultural productivity,
and irreversible contamination of the environment.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 717.12(d), a significant adverse reaction to the
environment is not required to be recorded if the alleged cause is
directly attributable to an incident of environmental contamination
that has already been reported to the Federal government under any
applicable authority.
    EPA is requiring submission of all TSCA section 8(c) records that
fall within the record retention period described in TSCA section 8(c)
and 40 CFR 717.15(d). Accordingly, this request for records includes:
     Records of significant adverse reactions to the health of
employees first reported to or known by the person maintaining such
records within the past 30 years, including employee health-related
allegations arising from any employment-related exposure, whether or
not such allegation was submitted by or on the behalf of that
recordkeeper's own employee.
     Any other record of significant adverse reactions first
reported to or known by the person maintaining the record within the
past five years.

C. What information must be included with a submission?

    Manufacturers of the chemical substance listed in this notice must
submit any records kept pursuant to 40 CFR part 717 of significant
adverse reactions alleged to have been caused by the chemical
substance. Under the regulations, a manufacturer is responsible for
collecting allegations regarding substances it manufactures, as well as
allegations regarding certain chemical processing and distribution
activities it may carry out. Accordingly, as provided in 40 CFR
717.5(a)(2), manufacturers of the listed chemical substance must submit
records of any collected allegations that:
     Identify the listed chemical substance or identify
operations used in the manufacture of the chemical substance;
     Identify any of the manufacturer's own processing or
distribution in commerce activities with respect to the chemical
substance;
     Identify emissions, effluents, or other discharges from
activities described in this paragraph; and
     Identify a substance produced coincidentally during
processing, use, storage or disposal of a chemical substance it
manufactures, where either the coincidentally produced chemical
substance or the originally manufactured chemical substance is listed
in this notice.
    Processors of the chemical substance listed in this notice who are
subject to TSCA section 8(c) recordkeeping requirements (i.e., persons
who process chemical substances to produce mixtures, or repackage
chemical substances or mixtures) must also submit any records kept
pursuant to 40 CFR part 717 of significant adverse reactions alleged to
have been caused by the chemical substance. As provided by 40 CFR
717.5(b)(2), this includes allegations that:
     Identify any mixture the processor produces and
distributes in commerce containing the listed chemical substance, or
identify the listed chemical substance or mixture containing the listed
chemical substance that the processor repackages and distributes in
commerce;
     Identify any of the processor's own further processing or
distribution in commerce activities of such products;
     Identify emissions, effluents, or other discharges from
activities described in this paragraph;
     Identify a substance produced coincidentally during the
processing, use, storage, or disposal of any mixture the processor
produces and distributes in commerce or any chemical substance or
mixture it repackages and distributes in commerce, where either the
coincidentally produced chemical substance or the processed chemical
substance is listed in this notice.
    As provided by 40 CFR 717.15(b), in addition to the original
allegation as received, TSCA section 8(c) reported allegation records
must contain the name and address of the site that received the
allegation; the date the allegation was received; the implicated
chemical substance, mixture, article, company process or operation, or
site discharge; a description of the alleger; and a description of the
alleged health effect(s) and/or environmental effect(s).
    Additionally, the submission must include the results of any self-
initiated investigation with respect to an allegation and copies of any
further required records or reports relating to the allegation, as
described at 40 CFR 717.15(b)(3) and (4)).
    EPA encourages respondents to conduct a thorough review of their
TSCA 8(c) records, including a search for all known synonyms and trade
names associated with the listed chemical. Alternative identifiers can
be found through many sources, including PubChem, an open chemistry
database operated by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) at https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, EPA's CompTox Chemical Dashboard website at
https://comptox.epa.gov/dashboard and EPA's Substance Registry Service
(SRS) at https://cdxapps.epa.gov/oms-substance-registry-services/search.

D. How does this request for allegation records differ from TSCA
section 8(e) reporting?

    TSCA section 8(e) requires manufacturers, processors, and
distributors of a chemical substance or mixture to notify EPA
immediately of

information that reasonably supports the conclusion that such substance
or mixture presents a substantial risk of injury to health or the
environment, unless that person knows that EPA has already been
informed. EPA published a TSCA section 8(e) Policy Statement and
Guidance on June 3, 2003 (68 FR 33129 (FRL-7287-4)), which defines
``substantial-risk information'' as information which reasonably
supports the conclusion that a chemical substance or mixture presents a
substantial risk of injury to health or the environment, and
``substantial risk of injury to health or the environment'' as a risk
of considerable concern because of the seriousness of the effect, and
the fact or probability of its occurrence--without consideration for
economic or social benefits of use or costs of restricting use.
Information related to serious toxic effects should be reported
regardless of exposure. Unlike records maintained under TSCA section
8(c), which need only be submitted to EPA upon request, TSCA requires
that information required by TSCA section 8(e) be reported
``immediately'' (i.e., within 30 days of obtaining the information).
    The source of the information handled under TSCA sections 8(c) and
8(e) is also different. While allegations recorded pursuant to TSCA
section 8(c) are likely to be received directly from workers,
consumers, and plant neighbors, TSCA section 8(e) submissions usually
result from designed, controlled studies and reports strongly
implicating a chemical. TSCA section 8(e) health effects submissions
focus on new serious health effects. TSCA section 8(e) reporting
requirements are also triggered by information about significant
changes in exposure circumstances with a recognized hazardous
substance, which may be identified through monitoring studies or other
means. TSCA section 8(c) allegations may focus on serious health
effects, but they can also report lesser effects experienced by a group
of individuals, or repeatedly by an individual.

E. How to report?

    All submitters must report TSCA section 8(c) data electronically,
using the CSPP: Submissions for Chemical Safety and Pesticide Programs
software (CSPP Software) accessible via EPA's Central Data Exchange
(CDX) system available at https://cdx.epa.gov/. The CSPP Software
provides a TSCA Communications application that a registered CDX user
will access to submit TSCA section 8(c) records. Guidance on how to
submit TSCA section 8(c) data is available in the docket (EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2023-0312) and via EPA's TSCA section 8(c) web page for this action at
https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/tsca-8c-reporting-44-methylene-bis2-chloroaniline-mboca. You may also obtain
help by contacting EPA's TSCA Hotline at [email protected] or 202-
554-1404. For help with accessing your CDX account, please contact the
CDX help desk at https://cdx.epa.gov/contact or<PHONE_NUMBER> (for
international callers:<PHONE_NUMBER>).

F. How to submit confidential business information?

    Any person submitting copies of records may assert a business
confidentiality claim covering all or part of the submitted information
in accordance with the procedures described in 40 CFR part 703 (88 FR
37155, June 7, 2023 (FRL-8223-02-OCSPP)).
    Requirements for asserting and maintaining confidentiality claims
are described in 40 CFR 703.5. Such claim must be made concurrent with
submission of the information. If no such claim accompanies the
submission, EPA will not recognize a confidentiality claim, and the
information in that submission may be made available to the public
without further notice. Confidentiality claims must be substantiated at
the time of submission to EPA pursuant to the requirements of 40 CFR
703.5(b). To assert a claim of confidentiality for information
contained in a submitted record, the respondent must submit two copies
of the document. One copy must be complete. In that copy, the
respondent must indicate what information, if any, is claimed as
confidential by marking the specific information on each page with a
label such as ``confidential'', ``proprietary'', or ``CBI.'' The other
copy must be a public version of the submission and attachments, with
all information that is claimed as confidential removed. See 40 CFR
703.5(c). Both the copy containing information claimed as CBI and the
``sanitized'' copy must be submitted electronically, as discussed in
Unit II.F. The TSCA Communications Tool incorporates many of the
requirements for asserting CBI claims, including substantiation
questions, a required certification statement, and prompts to provide a
sanitized copy. Further details regarding the requirements for
confidentiality claims can be found in 40 CFR part 703.

G. When is reporting not required?

    As provided by 40 CFR part 717, reporting is not required by
certain persons for certain types of activities involving the chemical,
including:
     Entities considered manufacturers solely due to mining or
other resource extraction activities are not required to report (40 CFR
717.7(a)(1));
     Persons whose sole manufacturing is due to the incidental
or coincidental production of chemical substances in certain
circumstances are not required to report (40 CFR 717.7(a)(2)(i)-(v));
     Processors are required to report only if they process
chemical substances to produce mixtures or repackage chemical
substances or mixtures (40 CFR 717.5(b)(1));
     A person solely engaged in the distribution of chemical
substances is exempt from 8(c) reporting, unless such person is also a
manufacturer or processor subject to 8(c) requirements (40 CFR
717.7(c)); and
     A person who is a retailer is exempt from 8(c) reporting
unless such person is also a manufacturer or a processor subject to
8(c) requirements (40 CFR 717.7(d)).
    Known human effects (i.e., commonly recognized human health effects
in literature or product labels/SDS) need not be reported unless the
effect is significantly more severe, occurred after a significantly
shorter exposure period or lower exposure level, or occurred due to a
different exposure route than previously described (see 40 CFR
717.12(b) and 717.3(c) for details).
    Additionally, firms are not required to record a significant
adverse reaction to the environment if the alleged cause of that
significant adverse reaction can be directly attributable to an
accidental spill or other accidental discharge, emission exceeding
permitted limits, or other incident of environmental contamination that
has been reported to the Federal Government under any applicable
authority (40 CFR 717.12(d)).

III. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    According to PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., an agency may not conduct
or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information that requires Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
approval under the PRA, unless it has been approved by OMB and displays
a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal
Register, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and included on the related
collection instrument or form, if applicable.

    The information collection requirements associated with records of
allegations of significant adverse reactions to human health or the
environment under TSCA section 8(c) are contained in 40 CFR part 717
(OMB Control No. 2070-0224; EPA ICR No. 2703.01) approved by OMB on
November 23, 2022. This action does not impose any burden requiring
additional OMB approval. The annual paperwork burden per respondent is
estimated to be 12.25 hours. This burden estimate includes the time
needed to maintain records of allegations of significant adverse
reactions, submit copies of these allegation records when required by
EPA, and review of the Federal Register notice. For additional details,
please see the Information Collection Request document that is
available in the docket.
    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2607(c).

    Dated: December 19, 2023.
Michal Freedhoff,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2023-28299 Filed 12-22-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77548-77550]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30124]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73881; File No. SR-BYX-2014-040]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to
Fees for Use of BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.

December 18, 2014.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b 4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on December 12, 2014, BATS Y-Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BYX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one establishing or
changing a member due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange
under section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposed rule change effective upon
filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to make several non-substantive
amendments to the fee schedule applicable to Members \5\ and non-
members of the Exchange pursuant to BYX Rules 15.1(a) and (c). Changes
to the fee schedule pursuant to this proposal are effective upon
filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A Member is defined as ``any registered broker or dealer
that has been admitted to membership in the Exchange.'' See Exchange
Rule 1.5(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.batstrading.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 Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant 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 make a number of clarifying, non-
substantive changes to its fee schedule in order to convert the
existing fee schedule into a chart format, including eliminating
certain redundancies from and providing additional clarity to the
language in the existing fee schedule. The Exchange believes that these
changes will provide greater transparency to Members about how the
Exchange assesses fees and calculates rebates, as well as allowing
Members to more easily validate their bills on a monthly basis. The
Exchange notes that none of these changes substantively amend any fee
or rebate, nor do they alter the manner in which the Exchange assesses
fees or calculates rebates. Specifically, the Exchange is proposing the
following:
     To make clear that rebates are indicated by parentheses.
     To state the following: The rates listed in the Standard
Rates table apply unless a Member's transaction is assigned a fee code
other than a standard fee code. If a Member's transaction is assigned a
fee code other than a standard fee code, the rates listed in the Fee
Codes table will apply. Footnotes provide further explanatory text or,
where annotated to fee codes, indicate variable rate changes, provided
the conditions in the footnote are met. Unless otherwise noted, all
routing fees or rebates in the Fee Codes and Associated Fees table are
for removing liquidity from the destination venue.
     To add a section and chart titled ``Standard Rates,''
which will include the standard fees and rebates for securities priced
both at or above $1.00 and below $1.00 for adding liquidity, removing
liquidity, and routing and removing liquidity from another venue as
well as the standard fee codes associated with these rates.
     To add a section titled ``Fee Codes and Associated Fees,''
which will include the fee or rebate, the fee code, and a description
for each possible execution that could occur on the Exchange or on
another venue.
     To add a section titled ``Definitions,'' which will
include definitions that are defined in the current fee schedule. The
Exchange also notes that ``Other Non-Displayed Liquidity'' will not be
included in ``Definitions'' because, as proposed, it is captured in the
section titled ``Fee Codes and Associated Fees.'' These

include the definitions listed below, which are identical to
definitions contained on the Exchange's current fee schedule. All
references to ``per share'' mean ``per share executed.'' ``ADAV'' means
average daily volume calculated as the number of shares added per day
on a monthly basis. The Exchange excludes from its calculation of ADAV
shares added on any day that the Exchange's system experiences a
disruption that lasts for more than 60 minutes during regular trading
hours (``Exchange System Disruption''), on any day with a scheduled
early market close and on the last Friday in June (the ``Russell
Reconstitution Day''). Routed shares are not included in ADAV
calculation. With prior notice to the Exchange, a Member may aggregate
ADAV with other Members that control, are controlled by, or are under
common control with such Member (as evidenced on such Member's Form
BD). ``TCV'' means total consolidated volume calculated as the volume
reported by all exchanges and trade reporting facilities to a
consolidated transaction reporting plan for the month for which the
fees apply. The Exchange excludes from its calculation of TCV volume on
any day that the Exchange experiences an Exchange System Disruption, on
any day with a scheduled early market close and the Russell
Reconstitution Day.
     To add a section titled ``General Notes,'' that will
include the following notes: Unless otherwise indicated, rebates and
charges for adding, removing or routing liquidity are listed as per
share rebates and charges; the Exchange notes that to the extent a
Member does not qualify for any of the tiers listed below, the rates
listed in the above section titled ``Fee Codes and Associated Fees''
will apply; to the extent a Member qualifies for higher rebates and/or
lower fees than those provided by a tier for which such Member
qualifies, the higher rebates and/or lower fees shall apply; and
variable rates provided by tiers apply only to executions in securities
priced at or above $1.00.
     To add a series of footnotes describing already existing
enhanced rebates including Add Volume Tier, Mid-Point Peg Tier, and
NBBO Setter Tier that are not covered in the Fee Codes and Associated
Fees section described above.
     To add a series of footnotes describing all fees and
rebates for securities priced below $1.00 that either execute on the
Exchange or another venue, to the extent applicable.
     To add new sections and charts titled ``Logical Port
Fees'' and ``Market Data Fees,'' which, other than being in chart form,
will be identical to the current fee schedule.
     To eliminate the lead-in text that reads ``The following
is the Schedule of Fees (pursuant to Rule 15.1(a) and (c)) for BATS Y-
Exchange, Inc. (``BYX Exchange'' or ``BYX'').''
    The Exchange proposes to implement the amendments to its fee
schedule effective immediately.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and,
in particular, with the requirements of section 6 of the Act.\6\
Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with sections 6(b)(4) of the Act and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\
in that it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among members and other persons using any
facility or system which the Exchange operates or controls. The
Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which
market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues
if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes are reasonable and
equitable because they are non-substantive and the Exchange is not
changing any fees or rebates that apply to trading activity on the
Exchange or routed executions. Further, the changes are designed to
make the fee schedule easier to read and for Members to validate the
bills that they receive from the Exchange. The Exchange also believes
that the proposal is non-discriminatory because it applies uniformly to
all Members, and again, the Exchange is not making any changes to
existing fees and rebates. Finally, the Exchange believes that the
proposed fee schedule will be clearer and less confusing for investors
and will eliminate potential investor confusion, thereby removing
impediments to and perfecting the mechanism of a free and open market
and a national market system, and, in general, protecting investors and
the public interest.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. To
the contrary, the Exchange believes that the changes will both make the
fee schedule easier to read and simultaneously provide Members with an
easier way to validate their bills on a monthly basis, both of which
the Exchange believes are important components of customer service and
which will allow the Exchange to better compete for order flow. The
Exchange reiterates that the changes are only to the format of the fee
schedule and are entirely non-substantive. As stated above, the
Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which
market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues
if the [sic] deem fee structures to be unreasonable or excessive.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any written comments from members or other interested parties.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and paragraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\9\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BYX-2014-040 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BYX-2014-040. 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 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 Web site 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; 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-BYX-2014-040 and should be
submitted on or before January 14, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-30124 Filed 12-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 196 (Thursday, October 12, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47500-47501]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22001]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP17-409-000]

DTE Midstream Appalachia, LLC; Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review of the Birdsboro Pipeline Project

    On May 1, 2017, DTE Midstream Appalachia, LLC (DTE) filed an
application in Docket No. CP17-409-000 requesting a Certificate of
Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to Section 7(c) of the
Natural Gas Act to construct and operate certain natural gas pipeline
facilities. The proposed project is known as the Birdsboro Pipeline
Project (Project), and would provide approximately 79 million cubic
feet per day of firm transportation service from an interconnect with
the Texas Eastern Transmission Company pipeline system to the Birdsboro
Power Facility in Birdsboro, Pennsylvania.
    On May 9, 2017, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Application for the Project.
Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing federal
authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and
to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization
within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's
Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Project. This instant notice
identifies the FERC staff's planned schedule for the completion of the
EA for the Project.

Schedule for Environmental Review

Issuance of EA--November 15, 2017
90-day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline--February 13, 2018

    If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be
provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the
Project's progress.

Project Description

    DTE is seeking to construct and operate approximately 13.2 miles of
12-inch-diameter natural gas transmission pipeline in Berks County,
Pennsylvania. The Project would also involve construction of a new
meter station and appurtenant facilities. The Project would deliver
firm transportation service from an interconnect with the Texas Eastern
Transmission Company pipeline system in Rockland Township to the
Birdsboro Power Facility in the Borough of Birdsboro.

Background

    On January 18, 2017, the Commission issued a Notice of Intent to
Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Planned Birdsboro Pipeline
Project, and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice
of Public Scoping Session (NOI). The NOI was issued during the pre-
filing review of the Project in Docket No. PF17-1-000 and was sent to
affected landowners; federal, state, and local government agencies;
elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native
American tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and
newspapers. In response to the NOI, the Commission received comments
from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, the Stockbridge Munsee Tribal Historic Preservation
Officer, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, the
Pennsylvania Game Commission, Berks County, and multiple non-
governmental organizations and members of the public. The primary
issues raised by the commentors are cultural and historic resources,
including the Oley Township Historic District; construction of the non-
jurisdictional Birdsboro Power Plant; geologic concerns, including
karst terrain and blasting at an existing quarry; and impacts on
streams, wetlands, and wildlife habitat.
    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency are cooperating agencies in the preparation of the
EA.

Additional Information

    In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to
keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets,
the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This can
reduce the amount of time you

spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the
FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov). Using the eLibrary link, select General
Search from the eLibrary menu, enter the selected date range and Docket
Number excluding the last three digits (i.e., CP17-409), and follow the
instructions. For assistance with access to eLibrary, the helpline can
be reached at<PHONE_NUMBER>, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The eLibrary link on the FERC Web site also
provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the
Commission, such as orders, notices, and rule makings.

    Dated: October 5, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-22001 Filed 10-11-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 154 (Thursday, August 9, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47655-47656]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19552]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4072-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2012-0002]

Virginia; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the Commonwealth of Virginia (FEMA-4072-DR), dated July
27, 2012, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: July 27, 2012.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated July 27, 2012, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the
Commonwealth of Virginia resulting from severe storms and straight-
line winds during the period of June 29 to July 1, 2012, is of
sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster
declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in
the Commonwealth of Virginia.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the Commonwealth.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Donald L. Keldsen, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the Commonwealth of Virginia have been
designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    The counties of Albemarle, Alleghany, Amelia, Amherst,
Appomattox, Arlington, Augusta, Bath, Bedford, Bland, Botetourt,
Buckingham, Campbell, Carroll, Charlotte, Clarke, Craig, Culpeper,
Cumberland, Dinwiddie, Fauquier, Floyd, Fluvanna, Frederick, Giles,
Greene, Halifax, Highland, Louisa, Lunenburg, Madison, Nelson, New
Kent, Nottoway, Orange, Page, Pittsylvania, Powhatan, Prince Edward,
Pulaski, Rappahannock, Roanoke, Rockbridge, Rockingham, Shenandoah,
Tazewell, and Warren and the independent cities of Bedford,
Charlottesville, Covington, Danville, Fairfax, Fredericksburg,
Lexington, Lynchburg, Manassas Park, Martinsville, Radford, Roanoke,
Salem, Staunton, and Winchester for Public Assistance.
    All counties and independent cities within the Commonwealth of
Virginia are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,

Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2012-19552 Filed 8-8-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P