[Federal Register: July 16, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 135)]
[Notices]
[Page 34602-34603]
[DOCID:fr16jy09-83]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold Open Meetings on Monday, July 20,
2009 at 2 p.m. and Tuesday, July 21, 2009 at 10 a.m., in the
Auditorium, Room L-002.
    The subject matter of the July 20, 2009 Open Meeting will be:
    The Commission will hear oral argument in an appeal by Joseph John
VanCook from the decision of an administrative law judge. The law judge
found that VanCook, a registered representative formerly associated
with Pritchard Capital Partners, LLC, willfully violated Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5 by
orchestrating a fraudulent scheme involving material misrepresentations
to permit his clients to ``late trade'' shares of certain registered
investment companies. The law judge also found that VanCook aided and
abetted and willfully caused Pritchard Capital's clearing broker to
violate Rule 22c-1 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The law judge
further found that VanCook aided and abetted and willfully caused
Pritchard Capital to violate Exchange Act Section 17(a)(1) and Exchange
Act Rule 17a-3(a)(6) for failing to make and keep current certain books
and records. For these violations, the law judge barred VanCook from
association with any broker or dealer or investment company, imposed a
cease-and-desist order against him, ordered disgorgement of
$538,565.70, plus prejudgment interest, and assessed a $100,000 third-
tier civil money penalty.
    Among the issues likely to be argued are whether VanCook's conduct
was fraudulent, whether he aided and abetted and/or caused a violation
of Rule 22c-1, whether he aided and abetted and/or caused his firm to
fail to make and keep accurate books and records, and, if so, whether
and to what extent sanctions should be imposed on him.
    The subject matter of the July 21, 2009 Open Meeting will be:
    The Commission will hear oral argument in an appeal by the Division
of Enforcement from the decision of an administrative law judge in a
proceeding brought pursuant to Commission Rule of Practice 102(e). The
law judge found that the conduct of Kevin Hall, CPA and Rosemary Meyer,
CPA, in connection with the fiscal year (``FY'') 1999 audit of the
financial statements of U.S. Foodservice, Inc. (``USF'') and the
interim review of USF's second quarter FY 2000 financial statements,
was not improper under the Rule.
    Among the issues likely to be argued are whether Hall and Meyer
failed to exercise due professional care in the planning and
performance of the audit, failed to obtain sufficient competent
evidential matter to afford a reasonable basis for an opinion regarding
the financial statements under audit, and failed to act in accordance
with professional standards in connection with the interim review. The
parties may also address whether and to what extent Hall and Meyer
should be sanctioned if they are found to have engaged in improper
professional conduct.
    The Commission also will hear oral argument in an appeal by Gregory
O. Trautman from the decision of an administrative law judge. The law
judge found that Trautman, co-founder, president, and chief executive
officer of Trautman Wasserman & Company, willfully violated Section
17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5 by engaging in a
scheme to defraud mutual funds and their shareholders through late
trading and deceptive market timing. The law judge also found that
Trautman willfully aided and abetted, and was a cause of, Trautman
Wasserman & Company's violations of Exchange Act Section 15(c) and
Exchange Act Rule 10b-3, and willfully aided and abetted, and was a
cause of, Trautman Wasserman & Company's clearing firm's violations of
Rule 22c-1 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. For these violations,
the law judge barred Trautman from association with any broker or
dealer, prohibited him from serving or acting in various capacities
with respect to a registered investment company, imposed a cease-and-
desist order, ordered disgorgement of $1,373,799.75, plus prejudgment
interest, and assessed a $500,000 third-tier civil money penalty.
    Among the issues likely to be argued are whether Trautman's conduct
was fraudulent, whether he aided and abetted and/or caused a violation
of Investment Company Act Rule 22c-1, whether he aided and abetted and/
or caused his firm's violations, and, if so, whether and to what extent
sanctions should be imposed on him.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 13, 2009.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-17000 Filed 7-15-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 30 (Thursday, February 13, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8777-8778]
[FR Doc No: 2014-03127]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71505; File No. SR-OCC-2014-02]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
To Accommodate the Clearing of Physically-Settled Single Stock Futures
for Which Delivery Would Occur on the First Business Day After the
Maturity Date

February 7, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on January 28, 2014, The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared primarily by OCC. OCC has filed the proposal as a
``non-controversial'' rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of
the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the rule change from
interested parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 87s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), OCC provided the Commission with written notice of its
intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief
description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least five
business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed change, or
such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    This proposed rule change would accommodate the clearing of
physically-settled single stock futures (``SSFs'') for which delivery
would occur on the first, rather than the third, business day after the
maturity date of each such SSF.
    Initially, OneChicago, LLC (``OCX'') is proposing to list SSFs for
which delivery would occur on the first business day after maturity. In
connection therewith, OCC is proposing to enter into an amendment (the
``Amendment'') to the Amended and Restated Security Futures Agreement
for Clearing and Settlement Services dated May l5, 2012, between OCC
and OCX (the ``Clearing Agreement''), in order to provide for OCX's
indemnification of OCC for claims arising from representations OCX may
make to buyers and sellers of security futures contracts, including
SSFs, regarding the tax treatment of their purchase or sale.

II. Clearing Agency'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) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose

Proposed Changes to OCC's Rules

    OCC is proposing to modify its rules to accommodate the clearing of
a physically-settled SSF for which the delivery date would be the first
business day following the maturity date (``T+1 SSFs'') rather than the
third business day following the maturity date (``T+3 SSFs'').
Currently, OCC only clears T+3 SSFs. In order to accommodate this
different delivery schedule, OCC proposes to amend the definition of
delivery date in Rule 1302 for physically-settled stock futures as well
as to modify references to the timing of the delivery date for security
futures in the broker-to-broker settlement procedures in Rule 903.
    Settlement of physically-settled SSFs is ordinarily effected
through the National Securities Clearing Corporation (``NSCC''),
pursuant to NSCC's rules and OCC Rule 901 regarding transactions in
physically-settled stock futures. OCC has confirmed with NSCC that NSCC
can operationally accommodate T+1 SSFs.\5\ As is the case for stock
futures already cleared by OCC for which NSCC provides physical
delivery settlement services, and in accordance with OCC Rule 601, OCC
will collect risk margin from its clearing members on deliveries of T+1
SSFs for one business day following the maturity date and release such
risk margin to its clearing members on the second business day
following the maturity date. OCC understands that, consistent with
NSCC's rules, NSCC would also collect margin based on the mark-to-
market of the unsettled stock in the morning of the first business day
following maturity in connection with receipt of the stock trade from
OCC. This will result in a temporary double-margining of T+1 SSFs. As
with existing physically-settled SSFs cleared by OCC, T+1 SSFs are
futures and therefore not covered by the Third Amended and Restated
Options Exercise Settlement Agreement dated as of February 16, 1995,
between OCC and NSCC. OCC and NSCC will have no obligation to turn over
to the other margin deposited by a clearing member that has been
suspended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In the event the security underlying a T+1 SSF is not
eligible for physical delivery settlement at NSCC--for example, due
to trading suspensions or delistings--OCC would instruct physical
delivery settlement to occur on a broker-to-broker basis in
accordance with the applicable provisions of Chapter IX of its
Rules. As noted above, OCC proposes to modify Rule 903 to
accommodate the one-day delivery date for T+1 SSFs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

OCX's New Product and Amendment to the Clearing Agreement

OCX's New Product

    OCX is proposing to list weekly maturity T+1 SSFs [sic].\6\ OCX has
de-listed its weekly maturity T+3 SSFs prior to the launch of weekly
maturity T+1 SSFs, and will initially list weekly maturity T+1 SSFs on
five to ten underlyings.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Commission Staff notes that this filing (SR-OCC-2014-02)
does not encompass any proposal by OCX's to list weekly maturity T+1
SSFs.
    \7\ OCC understands that OCX's monthly maturity SSFs will
continue to be T+3 SSFs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment to the Clearing Agreement

    OCC performs the clearing function for OCX pursuant to the Clearing
Agreement, under which OCX agrees to indemnify and hold harmless OCC
against any and all liabilities and costs in settlement in connection
with any proceeding that arises out of, or is based upon, any violation
or alleged violation by OCX of any law or governmental regulation. OCC
and OCX have agreed to the proposed Amendment, which expands and
clarifies this indemnification to include OCX's indemnification of OCC
for claims that arise from any representations that OCX makes regarding
the tax treatment of any futures product cleared pursuant to the
Clearing Agreement, including SSFs.
    OCC believes the additional indemnification described above is
appropriate because OCX has designed its proposed weekly maturity T+1
SSFs with the intention that investors may enter into an ``exchange for
physical'' transaction involving weekly maturity T+1 SSFs and receive
the same tax treatment as parties to a stock loan transaction under
Section 1058 of the Internal Revenue Code (the ``Code''). While stock
loan transactions involve the transfer of a stock, which potentially
could trigger recognition of a gain or

loss under the Code, under Code Section 1058 a transfer of securities
under a stock lending arrangement satisfying certain conditions is
generally not considered a recognition event. The Amendment is intended
to provide for OCX's indemnification of OCC for any claims arising from
the representations, if any, that OCX may make regarding the SSFs'
eligibility for this tax treatment.
    Prior to the launch of the T+1 SSFs, OCC will send to clearing
members and also post on its public Web site an Information Memo
describing the features of T+1 SSFs, as described above.
2. Statutory Basis
    OCC believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section
17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act,\8\ because it will modify OCC's Rules in a
manner that will promote the prompt and accurate clearance and
settlement of derivative agreements for which OCC is responsible. By
amending its rules to accommodate T+1 SSFs, in addition to T+3 SSFs,
OCC will be able to clear and facilitate settlement of SSFs that will
settle more promptly than SSFs currently cleared by OCC, thereby
reducing systemic risk. In addition, and also consistent with Section
17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act, the proposed rule change will continue to
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in the
clearance and settlement of securities transactions \9\ because, as
with T+3 SSFs, both OCC and NSCC will facilitate the settlement of T+1
SSFs. The proposed rule change is not inconsistent with the existing
rules of OCC, including any other rules proposed to be amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    OCC does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\10\ With respect to any burden
on competition among clearing agencies, OCC is the only registered
clearing agency that performs central counterparty services for the
security futures markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Changes to the rules of a clearing agency may have an impact on the
participants in a clearing agency and the markets that the clearing
agency serves. This proposed rule change primarily affects security
futures clearing members and OCC believes that the proposed
modifications would not unfairly inhibit access to OCC's services, or
disadvantage or favor any particular user in relationship to another
user, because the changes will affect all clearing members equally, T+1
SSFs will be cleared using existing systems and T+1 SSFs will be
margined similarly to existing products.
    For the foregoing reasons, OCC believes that the proposed rule
change is in the public interest, would be consistent with the
requirements of the Act applicable to clearing agencies, and would not
impose a burden on competition that is unnecessary or inappropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments on the proposed rule change were not and are not
intended to be solicited with respect to the proposed rule change and
none have been received.

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

    Because the foregoing rule change does not (i) significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest, the proposed change has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). Notwithstanding the foregoing,
OCC has indicated that implementation of this rule change will be
delayed until this rule change is deemed certified under CFTC
Regulation Sec.  40.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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.

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-OCC-2014-02 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-2014-02. 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 of submission. 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 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will
be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of OCC
and on OCC's Web site at http://www.theocc.com/components/docs/legal/rules_and_bylaws/sr_occ_14_02.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-2014-02 and
should be submitted on or before March 6, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated Authority.\13\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-03127 Filed 2-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 82 (Tuesday, April 29, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 23926]
[FR Doc No: 2014-09746]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket ID FEMA-2014-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1021]

Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations for Dona Ana County, New
Mexico and Incorporated Areas

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is withdrawing
its proposed rule concerning proposed flood elevation determinations
for Dona Ana County, New Mexico and Incorporated Areas.

DATES: This withdrawal is effective on April 29, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-
1021, to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal
Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
(email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 24, 2008, FEMA published a
proposed rulemaking at 73 FR 70948, proposing flood elevation
determinations along one or more flooding sources in Dona Ana County,
New Mexico. Because FEMA has or will be issuing a Revised Preliminary
Flood Insurance Rate Map, and if necessary a Flood Insurance Study
report, featuring updated flood hazard information, the proposed
rulemaking is being withdrawn. A Notice of Proposed Flood Hazard
Determinations will be published in the Federal Register and in the
affected community's local newspaper.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 4104; 44 CFR 67.4.

    Dated: April 14, 2014.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2014-09746 Filed 4-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P