[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 214 (Friday, November 4, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 76954]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26725]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4286-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2016-0001]

South Carolina; Amendment No. 5 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of South Carolina (FEMA-4286-DR), dated October 11, 2016,
and related determinations.

DATES: Effective October 25, 2016.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of South Carolina is hereby amended to include the
following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely
affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his
declaration of October 11, 2016.

    Berkeley County for Individual Assistance (already designated
for Public Assistance).
    Charleston County for Individual Assistance (already designated
for assistance for debris removal and emergency protective measures
[Categories A and B], including direct federal assistance, under the
Public assistance program).
    Chesterfield County for Individual Assistance.
    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. 2016-26725 Filed 11-3-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 53 (Tuesday, March 21, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14499-14500]
[FR Doc No: 2017-05488]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 171, 172, 173, 174, 177, 178, 179, and 180

[Docket No. PHMSA-2016-0077 (HM-251D)]
RIN 2137-AF24

Hazardous Materials: Volatility of Unrefined Petroleum Products
and Class 3 Materials

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM); Extension of
comment period.

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

SUMMARY: PHMSA is extending the comment period for an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking that was published in the Federal Register on

January 18, 2017. In response to stakeholder requests, the comment
period will be extended for an additional 60 days, from March 20, 2017
to May 19, 2017.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 19, 2017. To the
extent possible, PHMSA will consider late-filed comments during the
next stage of the rulemaking process.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Docket No. PHMSA-2016-
0077 by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Operations, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Routing
Symbol M-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: To Docket Operations, Room W12-140 on the
ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number for this rulemaking at the beginning of the comment. Note
that all comments received will be posted without change to the docket
management system, including any personal information provided.
    Docket: For access to the dockets to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov, or DOT's Docket
Operations Office (see ADDRESSES).
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lad Falat, Director, Engineering and
Research,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety,
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department
of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-
0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On January 18, 2017, PHMSA published an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPRM) titled, ``Hazardous Materials: Volatility of
Unrefined Petroleum Products and Class 3 Materials,'' addressing the
volatility of unrefined petroleum products and potentially all Class 3
flammable liquids transported by means other than pipeline. See (82 FR
5499). The ANPRM informed stakeholders of a possible change to the
Hazardous Materials Regulations based on a petition for rulemaking
submitted by the Attorney General of the State of New York regarding
vapor pressure limits for crude oil.
    The ANPRM posed 39 questions on a wide variety of topics ranging
from sampling and testing, proper classification, and numerous
characteristics of crude oil relevant to its unique hazards.
Specifically, PHMSA sought comments on whether there should be national
vapor pressure standards for petroleum products and/or other Class 3
hazardous materials and, if so, recommendations for such thresholds. It
was the intent of the ANPRM to obtain the views of those affected by
the North Dakota Industrial Commission (NDIC) Order, as well as those
who are likely to be impacted by the changes proposed in the petition
P-1669 (as discussed in detail in the January 18, 2017 ANPRM),
including those who are likely to benefit from, be adversely affected
by, or potentially be subject to additional regulation.
    PHMSA sought comment on the ANPRM to assist in:
    1. Determining the best metric or combination of metrics (vapor
pressure or other metric) for measuring and controlling fire and
explosion risk in crude oil transport;
    2. Quantifying the improvement in safety if any, due to risk
reduction from implementation of vapor pressure thresholds at varying
levels;
    3. Identifying offerors' compliance strategies and market impacts
with Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) standards at varying levels of
stringency, and estimating their economic costs and environmental
impacts;
    4. Identifying other regulations and industry practices, such as
volatile organic compound emissions standards imposed through the Clean
Air Act, or State regulations, or pipeline operator RVP standards,
potentially affecting compliance strategies and costs, and safety
benefits;
    5. Evaluating the extent to which use of DOT Specification 117 tank
cars mitigates the risk of transporting crude oil;
    6. Comparing compliance costs of mitigation strategies with risk
reduction from adoption of the petition; and
    7. Balancing the benefits and costs in setting the level of the
chosen metric.

II. Comment Period Extension

    PHMSA received an initial request from the American Petroleum
Institute (API) to extend the comment period for the ANPRM by 30 days.
API indicated in their request that industry needs extra time to obtain
information on experiences with classification, testing, sampling, and
packaging of unrefined petroleum products. Because of the number of
questions posted, the technical nature of the questions, and the
potentially broad implications to operations throughout the supply
chain, API believes the opportunity for a thorough review before
responding to PHMSA is crucial for any future rulemaking. Subsequent to
the API request, PHMSA has received additional requests from other
entities to extend the comment period. For instance, the North Dakota
Petroleum Council also requests an extension; however, they have
requested a 60-day extension.
    PHMSA provided an initial 60-day comment period to the ANPRM.
However, due to our desire to collect meaningful input from a number of
potentially affected stakeholders and to the demand by various
entities, we agree with the requests to extend the comment period to
allow further time for public input. Given the number and variety of
requests, PHMSA is extending the comment period by 60 days.

    Issued in Washington, DC on March 15, 2017, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
William S. Schoonover,
Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 2017-05488 Filed 3-20-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register: October 20, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 202)]
[Notices]
[Page 61163]
[DOCID:fr20oc05-79]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-52603; File No. SR-NASD-2005-082]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1
Thereto To Clarify the Listing Standards Applicable to Companies in
Bankruptcy Proceedings

October 13, 2005.
    On June 22, 2005, the National Association of Securities Dealers,
Inc. (``NASD''), through its subsidiary, The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc.
(``Nasdaq''), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to clarify the listing standards applicable to
companies in bankruptcy proceedings. On August 23, 2005, Nasdaq filed
Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\3\ The proposed rule
change was published for comment in the Federal Register on September
13, 2005.\4\ The Commission received no comments on the proposal. This
order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ In Amendment No. 1, Nasdaq made typographical corrections to
the rule text and a correction to the stated purpose of the proposed
rule change.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52385 (September 7,
2005), 70 FR 54096.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is
consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
association,\5\ the requirements of Section 15A of the Act,\6\ in
general, and Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\7\ in particular, which
requires, among other things, that NASD's rules be designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The
Commission believes the proposed rule change may remove ambiguity
surrounding the standards applicable to companies involved in
bankruptcy proceedings and may require such companies to meet
heightened initial inclusion standards upon emerging from bankruptcy,
thereby protecting investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\8\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NASD-2005-082), as amended,
is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-5787 Filed 10-19-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 3 (Tuesday, January 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 568-570]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30897]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 73961; File No. SR-OCC-2014-23]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Clarify That OCC Would
Not Treat a Futures Transaction That Is an Exchange-for-Physical or
Block Trade as a Non-Competitively Executed Trade If the Exchange on
Which Such Trade Is Executed has Provided OCC With Representations That
it Has Policies or Procedures Requiring That Such Trades Be Executed at
Reasonable Prices and That Such Price Is Validated by the Exchange

December 30, 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 December 19, 2014, The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') 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 OCC. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    OCC proposes to amend its Rules to permit OCC to add an
interpretation and policy clarifying that OCC would not treat a futures
transaction that is an exchange-for-physical or block trade as a non-
competitively executed trade, and therefore subject to delayed
acceptance for clearing, if the exchange on which such trade is
executed has provided OCC with representations satisfactory to OCC that
it has policies and procedures requiring such trades to be executed at
reasonable prices and that such prices are validated by the exchange.

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
    OCC is proposing to modify its By-Laws to add an interpretation and
policy to Section 7 of Article XII of the By-Laws to clarify that OCC
would not treat a futures transaction that is an exchange-for-physical
(``EFP'') \3\ or block trade \4\ as a non-competitively executed trade,
and therefore subject to delayed novation, if the exchange on which the
futures EFP or block trade is executed has provided OCC with
representations that it has rules, policies or procedures requiring
that such trades be executed at reasonable prices and that such prices
are validated by the exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ An EFP is a transaction between two parties in which a
futures contract on a commodity or security is exchanged for the
actual physical good.
    \4\ A block trade is a trade involving a large number of shares
being traded at an arranged price between parties, outside of the
open markets, in order to lessen the impact of such a large trade
being made public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    Under OCC's By-Laws, the novation of confirmed trades (i.e.,
transactions in options, futures, or other ``cleared contracts''
effected through an exchange and submitted to OCC for clearing) occurs
at the ``commencement time'' for such transactions.\5\ The
``commencement time'' for most confirmed trades is when daily position
reports are made available to clearing members.\6\ However,
transactions in certain cleared products and certain types of
transactions, including non-competitively executed EFP and block
trades, have delayed commencement times that are tailored to address
risks specific to such products or transactions,\7\ such as the risks
presented by off-market transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Cleared Contracts and Commencement Time are defined terms
set forth in Article 1, Section 1 of OCC's By-Laws.
    \6\ See OCC's By-Laws Article VI, Section 5. In a practical
sense, however, most trades are novated upon proper submission to
OCC for clearing since OCC's By-Laws, with limited exception, do not
permit OCC to reject any confirmed trade due to the failure of the
purchasing clearing member to pay any amount due to OCC at or before
the settlement time. See also Securities Exchange Act Release No.
65990 (December 16, 2011), 76 FR 79731 (December 22, 2011) (SR-OCC-
2011-17).
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When OCC began clearing EFP and block transactions, it established
that the commencement time for such transactions is expressly
conditioned upon the receipt by OCC of variation payments due from
purchasing and selling clearing members because EFP and block trades
could be executed away from the market and be executed at other than
market prices. These factors were viewed as creating heightened
exposure to OCC if a clearing member defaults on a trade executed at an
off-market price and, as a result, Article XII, Section 7 of OCC's By-
Laws establishes that the commencement time for a futures transaction
that is identified as an EFP or block trade is the time of the first
variation payment after the trade is reported to OCC (typically 9:00
a.m. Central Time the following business day).\8\ OCC delays its
novation of these non-competitively executed futures trades because OCC
is bound to pay the first variation settlement amount to the
counterparty once novation has occurred, and if the agreed-upon price
at which the trade is entered differs from the competitive market
price, there is an increased likelihood that OCC may experience a loss
if it is required to close out a defaulting purchaser's position.
Accordingly, OCC does not novate, and thereby become a counterparty to,
a non-competitively executed trade if OCC fails to receive the first
variation payment when due.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44727 (August 20,
2001), 66 FR 45351 (August 28, 2001) (SR-OCC-2001-07).

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

EFP and Block Trades Subject to Price Checks
    In the time since OCC adopted Article XII, Section 7 of its By-
Laws, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (``CFTC'') has adopted
Regulation 1.73, which requires clearing futures commission merchants
(``FCMs'') to establish certain risk controls, including risk based
limits for bilaterally executed transactions and for block trades.\9\
In light of this requirement and other proposed regulatory developments
that may affect EFP and block trades in futures,\10\ certain exchanges
that permit such transactions have requested that OCC review its By-
Laws regarding delayed novation of futures EFP and block trades
(hereinafter, ``Block Trades''). Specifically, such exchanges have
implemented rules, supported by policies and procedures, which require
their market participants to execute Block Trades at reasonable prices
that are verified by the exchange. These rules, policies and procedures
leverage risk controls implemented by FCMs, as applicable. These
exchanges have inquired as to whether Block Trades continue to present
the same risk to OCC as they did before such rules, policies or
procedures were in place. OCC reviewed its practices with respect to
delayed novation of Block Trades and determined that it will novate
Block Trades when daily position reports are made available provided
that the exchange that submitted such Block Trades to OCC represents to
OCC that the exchange has in place rules, policies and procedures to
verify the reasonableness of the price of Block Trades it submits to
OCC for clearance and settlement, and that such price is validated by
the exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See 17 CFR 1.73. Specifically, Regulation 1.73 requires FCMs
to: (1) Establish risk-based limits in the proprietary account and
in each customer account based on position size, order size, margin
requirements, or similar factors; (2) screen orders for compliance
with the risk-based limits; and (3) monitor for adherence to the
risk based limits intra-day and overnight.
    \10\ Specifically, the CFTC has proposed regulations requiring
Designated Contract Markets (i.e., futures exchanges) to determine
whether or not the price of a block trade is fair and reasonable
considering: (1) The size of the block trade, (2) the price and size
of other block trades in any relevant markets at the applicable
time, and (3) the circumstances of the market or the parties to the
block trade. See proposed CFTC Regulation 38.503. 75 FR 80572,
80592. See also proposed Appendix B of part 38 of the CFTC's
proposed regulations concerning Core Principle 9. 75 FR 80572,
80630. The CFTC has also proposed to adopt similar regulations
concerning EFP trades. See proposed CFTC Regulation 38.505. 75 FR
80572, 80593.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC has determined that Block Trades that are subject to price
reasonability checks do not present the same settlement risks discussed
above in relation to non-competitively executed Block Trades.
Specifically, should a clearing member that executed a reasonably
priced Block Trades fail to pay its first variation payment to OCC in
respect such trade, OCC expects to liquidate the futures positions at
the prevailing market price and likely obtain sufficient funds, or have
sufficient funds in its clearing fund, to pay, or reimburse itself for,
the first variation settlement to the counterparty to the trade. This
is the same risk management methodology OCC uses for all other
competitively executed trades in cleared contracts that OCC accepts for
clearance and settlement on a daily basis. Accordingly, OCC proposes to
exclude Block Trades from the delayed novation provisions of Article
XII, Section 7 by adding an interpretation and policy thereto that
provides for the treatment of Block Trades as competitively executed
trades provided that the Block Trades are reported by an exchange that
represents to OCC that it performs a price reasonableness check on the
trade, and that such price is validated by the exchange.
Verification of Exchange Rules, Policies and Procedures Related to
Price Reasonableness
    Before permitting an exchange to submit Block Trades that will not
be subject to delayed novation, OCC will require an exchange to provide
OCC with a certification that the exchange has rules, policies or
procedures as they relate to verifying the reasonableness of the price
of the Block Trade. Specifically, OCC will require an exchange to
certify that its rules, policies or procedures provide that the price
at which a Block Trade is executed must be fair and reasonable in light
of: (i) The size of the Block Trade; (ii) the prices and sizes of other
transactions in the same contract at the relevant time; and (iii) the
prices and sizes of transactions in other relevant markets, including,
without limitation, the underlying cash market or related futures
markets, at the relevant time.\11\ An exchange will also have to
certify that its rules, policies or procedures require one or both
parties to a Block Trade to report the trade details of the Block Trade
to the exchange within a reasonable period of time (i.e., within 10
minutes of the time of execution or, if the Block Trade is executed
outside of regular trading hours, within 15 minutes of the commencement
of trading on the next business day). OCC believes that it is
appropriate to rely on price reasonableness checks performed by
exchanges trading futures because they are self-regulatory
organizations subject to regulatory oversight, including routine
examinations. Moreover, OCC will presume that all Block Trades
submitted by an exchange that represents that it has price
reasonableness rules, policies or procedures in place will submit to
OCC Block Trades that have undergone a price reasonableness check.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For example, OneChicago LLC (``OCX'') Rule 417 governs
Block Trades executed on OCX and provides that such trades be
executed on a designated trading platform that will automatically
verify that Block Trades were executed at competitive prices by
price verification software for price reasonableness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to exchanges implementing rules, policies or procedures
regarding the price reasonableness checks for Block Trades, exchanges
are able to use existing authority to notify OCC to disregard, pursuant
to Article VI, Section 7(c) of OCC's By-Laws, any Block Trade submitted
to OCC that was executed at an unreasonable price, since such a trade
could not be properly cleared under the proposed interpretation but
instead would fall within the non-competitively executed category and
therefore be subject to delayed novation. Such a notification would be
delivered to OCC along with other trades ``busted'' by an exchange and
in accordance with an operational process that currently occurs every
day before daily position reports are distributed. OCC believes that
this measure appropriately protects OCC in the event OCC receives a
Block Trade at an unreasonable price. Moreover, OCC and the exchanges
maintain an informal ongoing dialogue about operational matters, which
OCC will use to confirm the continued application of price
reasonableness controls.
2. Statutory Basis
    OCC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act,\12\ because the proposed rule change
will ensure that the rules of OCC are designed to promote the prompt
and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions as
well as remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a national
system for the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions. As described above, the proposed rule change
implements an Interpretation and Policy that sets forth the specific
criteria that must be met by a futures exchange before OCC would
consider a Block Trade submitted to OCC by such

exchange to not be subject to the delayed novation time set forth in
Article XII, Section 7 of OCC's By-Laws. The proposed rule change
therefore ensures that OCC's rules explain the time at which OCC would
novate Block Trades and thereby promotes the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities transactions. In addition, as a
result of OCC novating certain Block Trades at commencement time, the
proposed rule change removes impediments to and perfects the mechanisms
of a national system for the prompt and accurate clearance and
settlement of securities transactions because the time at which OCC
novates trades submitted by exchanges for clearance and settlement will
be more uniform across different product types. The proposed rule
change is not inconsistent with the existing rules of OCC, including
any other rules proposed to be amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    OCC does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any
burden on competition.\13\ The proposed rule change will provide that
Block Trades executed at reasonable prices will not be subject to
delayed novation by OCC. The proposed rule change would not unfairly
inhibit access to OCC's services or disadvantage or favor any
particular user in relationship to another user because the proposed
rule change would be applied uniformly to all Block Trade transactions,
regardless of the identity of the clearing member for whose account the
trade was reported and the exchange through which the trade is reported
to OCC. Moreover, the proposed interpretation to Article XII, Section 7
will apply uniformly to all futures exchanges that submit trades to OCC
for clearance and settlement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

(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

    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.

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-2014-23 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2014-23. 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 the 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_23.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-2014-23 and should be submitted on or before January
27, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-30897 Filed 1-5-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 239 (Friday, December 12, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 73872]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29144]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2005-TX-0002; FRL-9920-33-Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Texas; Repeal of Lead Emission Rules for Stationary Sources in El Paso
and Dallas County

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for Texas
which repeals lead emission rules which cover stationary sources in El
Paso and Dallas county that are no longer in existence. This action is
being taken under section 110(k) and part D of the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Written comments should be received on or before January 12,
2015.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air
Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Comments may also be
submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following
the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final
rule located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth W. Boyce,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal repealing lead
emission rules which cover stationary sources that are no longer
operating in both El Paso County and Dallas County. We are taking this
action as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency
views this as a noncontroversial action and anticipates no adverse
comments. A detailed rationale for the proposed approval is set forth
in the direct final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received
in response to this action no further activity is contemplated. If EPA
receives relevant adverse comments, the direct final rule will be
withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a
subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not
institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting
on this action should do so at this time.
    For additional information, see the direct final rule which is
located in the rules section of this Federal Register and the
electronic docket found in the www.regulations.gov Web site (Docket ID
No. EPA-R06-OAR-2005-TX-0002).

    Dated: November 19, 2014.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2014-29144 Filed 12-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P