[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 80 (Thursday, April 27, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19426-19427]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08463]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80503; File No. SR-ICC-2017-004]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change, Security-Based Swap
Submission, or Advance Notice Relating to Clearance of Additional
Credit Default Swap Contracts

April 21, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934,\1\ and Rule 19b-4,\2\ notice is hereby given that on April 7,
2017, ICE Clear Credit LLC (``ICC'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared primarily by ICC. ICC
filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the
Act,\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4)(i) thereunder,\4\ so that the proposal was
effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, security-
based swap submission, or advance notice 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).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change, Security-Based Swap Submission, or Advance Notice

    The principal purpose of the proposed change is for ICC to provide
for the clearance of clearing participant (``CP'') single name credit
default swap contracts (``CDS'') referencing ICC clearing participants
(``CP CDS Contracts'').

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change, Security-Based Swap Submission, or
Advance Notice

    In its filing with the Commission, ICC included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change,
security-based swap submission, or advance notice and discussed any
comments it received on the proposed rule change, security-based swap
submission, or advance notice. The text of these statements may be
examined at the places specified in Item IV below. ICC 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, Security-Based Swap Submission, or
Advance Notice

    ICC plans to expand its product offering to include CP CDS
Contracts. ICC believes the addition of these contracts will benefit
the market for credit default swaps by providing market participants
the benefits of clearing, including reduction in counterparty risk and
safeguarding of margin assets pursuant to clearing house rules.
Clearing of the CP CDS Contracts will not require any changes to the
ICC Clearing Rules, ICC's Risk Management Framework, ICC's Risk
Management Model Description Document, or other policies and procedures
constituting rules within the meaning of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'').
    The CP CDS Contracts will be cleared pursuant to Subchapters 26B
(Standard North American Corporate (``SNAC'') Single Name) and 26H
(Standard European Financial Corporate (``STEFC'') Single Name) of the
ICC Clearing Rules. Furthermore, the General Wrong Way Risk (``GWWR'')
approach, set forth in the ICC Risk Management Model Description
Document,\5\ will apply to the CP CDS Contracts. This treatment is
consistent with ICC's current GWWR approach which applies to all
products cleared by ICC within the Sovereign and Banking sectors,
following the Bloomberg Industry Classification System (``BICS''), as
the CP CDS Contracts are included in the Banking sector, as defined by
the BICS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Such GWWR approach is described in rule filing SR-ICC-2015-
009. The text of rule filing SR-ICC-2015-009 can be found on ICC's
Web site at https://www.theice.com/clear-credit/regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \6\ requires, among other things,
that the rules of a clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt
and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and,
to the extent applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and
transactions and to comply with the provisions of the Act and the rules
and regulations thereunder. The CP CDS Contracts will be cleared
pursuant to ICC's existing clearing arrangements and related financial
safeguards, protections and risk management procedures. Clearing of the
CP CDS Contracts will allow market participants an increased ability to
manage risk and ensure the safeguarding of margin assets pursuant to
clearing house rules. ICC believes that acceptance of the CP CDS
Contracts, on the terms and conditions set out in the Rules, is
consistent with the prompt and accurate clearance of and settlement of
securities transactions and derivative agreements, contracts and
transactions cleared by ICC, the safeguarding of securities and funds
in the custody or control of ICC, and the protection of investors and
the public interest, within the meaning of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the
Act.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Clearing of the CP CDS Contracts will also satisfy the requirements
of Rule 17Ad-22.\8\ In particular, in terms of financial resources, ICC
will apply its existing initial margin methodology to the additional
contracts. ICC believes that this model will provide sufficient initial
margin requirements to cover its credit exposure to its clearing
members from clearing such contracts, consistent with the requirements
of Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2).\9\ In addition, ICC believes its Guaranty Fund,
under its existing methodology, will, together with the required
initial margin, provide sufficient financial resources to support the
clearing of the additional contracts consistent with the requirements
of Rule

17Ad-22(b)(3).\10\ ICC also believes that its existing operational and
managerial resources will be sufficient for clearing of the additional
contracts, consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(d)(4),\11\
as the new contracts are substantially the same from an operational
perspective as existing contracts. Similarly, ICC will use its existing
settlement procedures and account structures for the new contracts,
consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(d)(5), (12) and (15)
\12\ as to the finality and accuracy of its daily settlement process
and avoidance of the risk to ICC of settlement failures. ICC determined
to accept the CP CDS Contracts for clearing in accordance with its
governance process, which included review of the contracts and related
risk management considerations by the ICC Risk Committee and its Board.
These governance arrangements are consistent with the requirements of
Rule 17Ad-22(d)(8).\13\ Finally, ICC will apply its existing default
management policies and procedures for the CP CDS Contracts. ICC
believes that these procedures allow for it to take timely action to
contain losses and liquidity pressures and to continue meeting its
obligations in the event of clearing member insolvencies or defaults in
respect of the additional single names, in accordance with Rule 17Ad-
22(d)(11).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22.
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(2).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(3).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(4).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(5), (12) and (15).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(8).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The CP CDS Contracts will be available to all ICC participants for
clearing. The clearing of these CP CDS Contracts by ICC does not
preclude the offering of the CP CDS Contracts for clearing by other
market participants. Accordingly, ICC does not believe that clearance
of the CP CDS Contracts will impose any burden on competition not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change,
Security-Based Swap Submission, or Advance Notice Received From
Members, Participants or Others

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

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change, Security-Based
Swap Submission, or Advance Notice and Timing for Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and paragraph (f)(1) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.
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.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, security-based swap submission, or advance notice 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-ICC-2017-004 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-ICC-2017-004. 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, security-
based swap submission, or advance notice that are filed with the
Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change, security-based swap submission, or advance notice 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 filings will also be available for inspection and
copying at the principal office of ICE Clear Credit and on ICE Clear
Credit's Web site at https://www.theice.com/clear-credit/regulation.
    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-ICC-2017-004
and should be submitted on or before May 18, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
 Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-08463 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 April 18, 2006 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Incident Reports Associated with 2( Thiocyanomethylthio) benzothiazole ( TCMTB)

TO: Kathryn Avivah Jakob, Chemical Review Manager Mark Hartman, Branch Chief Regulatory Management Branch II Antimicrobials Division ( 7510C)

FROM: Jonathan Chen, Risk Assessment and Science Support Branch Antimicrobials Division ( 7510C)

THRU: Norm Cook, Branch Chief Risk Assessment and Science Support Branch Antimicrobials Division ( 7510C)

PC Code: 035603 Decision Number: 361478 Data Package Number: ( 328526) Page 2 of 6 1.0 INTRODUCTION The chemical 2( Thiocyanomethylthio) benzothiazole ( TCMTB) was first registered with the EPA on January 21, 1980. As an antimicrobial pesticide, TCMTB is used largely as a wood preservative. It is also used as a microbiocide/ microbiostat and bacteriocide/ bacteriostat in industrial processes and water systems, as well as in industrial materials as a preservative. As an agricultural pesticide TCMTB is used for seed treatment of crops, bulbs, and corn as well as treatment of flowers and seed and soil treatment of trees. The purpose of this chapter is to review the evidence of health effects in humans resulting from exposure to TCMTB.

Two approaches are used in this section:

1. The potential health effects of TCMTB in humans, reported as incident reports from different sources, are summarized.

2. A literature search of chronic health effects associated with TCMTB exposure, including results of epidemiological studies, is summarized.

2.0 INCIDENT REPORT DATA ASSOCIATED WITH HEALTH EFFECTS The following databases have been consulted for the poisoning incident data:

OPP Incident Data System ( IDS)  The Incident Data System of The Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP) of the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) contains reports of incidents from various sources, including registrants, other federal and state health and environmental agencies and individual consumers, submitted to OPP since 1992. Reports submitted to the Incident Data System represent anecdotal reports or allegations only, unless otherwise stated. Typically no conclusions can be drawn implicating the pesticide as a cause of any of the reported health effects. Nevertheless, sometimes with enough cases and/ or enough documentation, risk mitigation measures may be suggested.

Poison Control Centers  as the result of a data purchase by EPA, OPP received Poison Control Center data covering the years 1993 through 2003 for all pesticides. Most of the national Poison Control Centers ( PCCs) participate in a national data collection system, the Toxic Exposure Surveillance System, which obtains data from about 65 70 centers at hospitals and universities. PCCs provide telephone consultation for individuals and health care providers on suspected poisonings involving drugs, household products, pesticides, etc. Page 3 of 6 California Department of Pesticide Regulation  California has collected uniform data on suspected pesticide poisonings since 1982. Physicians are required, by statute, to report to their local health officer all occurrences of illness suspected of being related to exposure to pesticides. The majority of the incidents involve workers. Information on exposure ( worker activity), type of illness ( systemic, eye, skin, eye/ skin and respiratory), likelihood of a causal relationship, and number of days off work and in the hospital are provided.

National Pesticide Telecommunications Network ( NPTN)  NPTN is a toll free information service supported by OPP. A ranking of the top 200 active ingredients for which telephone calls were received during calendar years 1984 1991, inclusive, has been prepared. The total number of calls was tabulated for the categories human incidents, animal incidents, calls for information, and others.

Published Incident Reports  Some incident reports associated with TCMTB related human health hazards are published in the scientific literature.

2.1 OPP =

s Incident Data System ( IDS)

There are 21 incidences that have been reported in the OPP incident data system that are associated with TCMTB exposure.

The most common symptoms reported for cases of dermal exposure were skin irritation/ burning, rash, itching, skin discoloration/ redness, and blistering.

The most common symptoms reported for cases of inhalation exposure were respiratory irritation/ burning, irritation to mouth/ throat/ nose, coughing/ choking, shortness of breath, and sore throat.

There were three incidences that involved ingestion exposure to TCMTB, and the reported symptoms included irritation to mouth/ throat/ nose, abdominal pain, kidney failure, hypothermia and loss of consciousness.

2.2 Poison Control Center ( 1993   2003)

There is no reported TCMTB specific incident in the PCC's database. Page 4 of 6 2.3 California Data  1982 through 2003 There are 4 incidences that have been reported in the California Pesticide Surveillance Program Database ( 1982 2003) as possibly or probably TCMTB related ( Mehler, 2005). The descriptions of the four incidences are listed below. .

Case 1982 1631 concerns a man who filled new bags with treated seed, sewed the bags shut, and stacked them. The day was very hot ( temperature higher than 100 degrees), and he worked without a shirt. Two of the four workers doing this task developed rashes for which they sought medical advice. This worker's condition was described as " Rash, difficulty breathing, redness of arms, face, shoulders, feet, and his hair also turned purple." The worker developed " peeling and redness of both forearms" and a " mild bronchitis", and he was off work for a week.

Cases 1985 231 and 233 both occurred at a lumber planning mill, which had recently and inadequately installed equipment to treat their products with fungicide to reduce sapstain. The installation allowed back flow into the potable water supply, but no workers drank it because excessive iron levels had long made the water unpalatable. They drank bottled water. We do not know how they were exposed. A total of 103 employees were evaluated for the exposure, most of them asymptomatic so far as we know. The subject of case 1985 231 noticed blood in his urine ( not present at time of examination). The subject of case 1985 233 developed a rash on her chest and back.

Case 1989 2417 concerns a loader for an aerial applicator who had loaded nothing but treated wheat seed. He had no problems during his first nine days on the job, but on the tenth day he cleaned the aircraft with a solvent and developed an itchy rash on his hands and forearms. The investigation points out that the solvent seems the more likely cause, but we could not rule out a contribution from the seed treatment.

2.4 National Pesticide Telecommunications Network ( NPTN)

There is no incident reported in the NPTN database related to TCMTB exposure.

2.5 Incident Reports / Epidemiological Studies Published in Scientific Literature.

A cross sectional study was conducted to study the health effects associated with the use of TCMTB in the British Columbia sawmill industry ( Teschke, 1992). Workers in five costal sawmills were asked to complete a self administered questionnaire about symptoms considered potentially related and unrelated to fungicide exposure, and about injuries commonly reported in sawmills. The reported symptoms consistently found to be related to TCMTB mills included dry skin around the eyes, blood stained mucus from the nose, nose bleed, peeling skin, burning or itching skin, and skin redness or rash. Page 5 of 6 3.0 EPIDEMIOLOGICAL DATA ASSOCIATED WITH CHRONIC HEALTH EFFECTS There is no epidemiological data that can be located associated with the chronic health effects of TCMTB exposure.

4.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION There are incidences that have been reported associated with exposure to end use products containing TCMTB. Dermal and inhalation are the primary routes of exposure. Most of the incidences are related to irritation type reactions.

The most common symptoms reported for cases of dermal exposure were skin irritation/ burning, rash, itching, skin discoloration/ redness and blistering.

The most common symptoms reported for cases of ocular exposure were eye irritation/ burning. Eye pain and swelling of the eyes has also been reported in some instances.

The most common symptoms reported for cases of inhalation exposure were respiratory irritation/ burning, irritation to mouth/ throat/ nose, coughing/ choking, shortness of breath, and sore throat.

Although oral exposure is considered to be a minor route of exposure for TCMTB use, irritation to mouth/ throat/ nose, abdominal pain, kidney failure, hypothermia and loss of consciousness were reported in cases of ingestion. Page 6 of 6 5.0 REFERENCE Mehler, L. 2003. Personal Communication. California Department of Pesticide Regulation.

Teschke, K.; Hertzman, C.; Wlena, M.; Dimich Ward, H.; Hershier, R.; Ostry, A.; and Kelly, S. J. 1992. Recognizing Acute Health Effects of Substitute Fungicides: Are First Aid Reports Effective? American Journal of Industrial Medicine 21: 375 382.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 162 (Thursday, August 21, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49552-49554]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19808]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72855; File No. SR-CBOE-2014-064]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees Schedule

August 15, 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 August 6, 2014, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. 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. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's
Office of the Secretary, 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 aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule, to be effective
August 6, 2014. The Exchange's Volume Incentive Program (``VIP'')
credits each Trading Permit Holder (``TPH'') the per contract amount
resulting from each public customer (``Customer'') (``C'' origin code)
order transmitted by that TPH which is executed electronically on the
Exchange in all multiply-listed option classes (excluding RUT, mini-
options, QCC trades and executions related to contracts that are routed
to one or more exchanges in connection with the Options Order
Protection and Locked/Crossed Market Plan referenced in Rule 6.80),
provided the TPH meets certain percentage thresholds in a month as

described in the VIP table.\3\ Currently, the Exchange provides a VIP
credit for Customer to Customer complex orders transmitted and executed
electronically on the Exchange (such credits are provided on both sides
of the transaction, at a negative revenue situation for the Exchange).
The Exchange proposes to exclude from the VIP electronic executions
that occur when a Customer complex order executes against another
Customer complex order.\4\ The Exchange believes that electronic
Customer complex order to Customer complex order transactions are rare
and no longer believes that offering credits pursuant to the VIP for
this scenario (and the resulting negative revenue situation) is
necessary to attract Customer complex orders to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For more information on the VIP, including the amounts of
the credits provided at the specific tiers, see the VIP table of the
CBOE Fees Schedule.
    \4\ The Exchange's proposed first sentence of the Notes section
of the VIP table would therefore read: ``The Exchange shall credit
each Trading Permit Holder the per contract amount resulting from
each public customer (``C'' origin code) order transmitted by that
Trading Permit Holder which is executed electronically on the
Exchange in all multiply-listed option classes (excluding RUT, mini-
options, QCC trades, executions that occur when an electronically-
delivered Customer Complex Order executes against another
electronically-delivered Customer Complex Order, and executions
related to contracts that are routed to one or more exchanges in
connection with the Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed
Market Plan referenced in Rule 6.80), provided the Trading Permit
Holder meets certain percentage thresholds in a month as described
in the Volume Incentive Program (VIP) table.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\5\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\6\ which requires that Exchange rules provide for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges
among its Trading Permit Holders and other persons using its
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to not provide a VIP
credit for Customer to Customer complex orders transmitted and executed
electronically on the Exchange because the Exchange does not believe it
is necessary to provide a credit in the above-mentioned scenario in
order to attract Customer complex orders to the Exchange for execution.
Further, the instances of these executions are rare and the Exchange
believes it is reasonable to not incur negative revenue scenarios for
complex orders as would be the case with the above-described
transaction. Indeed, in circumstances in which a Customer complex order
executes electronically against another Customer complex order, the
Exchange currently provides a credit on both sides, and since the
Exchange does not believe offering a credit for such transactions
serves as a necessary incentive to attract Customer complex orders to
the Exchange, the Exchange has determined that, at the current time, it
is not economically desirable to offer a rebate on both sides of such
transactions. Also, the Exchange does not feel that the Customer rebate
incentive brings a greater number of Customer orders as a result of
this incentive and therefore desires to exclude these types of
transactions from the VIP. Finally, the Exchange believes that the
proposed exclusion is reasonable because it will merely remove a credit
on such transactions and not impose a greater fee.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed exclusion is equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory because the VIP credit only applies to
customers and therefore the elimination of the credit in the described
situation puts customers on the same competitive footing as other
market participants. As such, no market participant would be entitled
to a credit for these types of transactions. Additionally, another
exchange also has a similar exclusion for situations in which a
Customer complex order executes electronically against another Customer
complex order from its program that is similar to CBOE's VIP.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``PHLX'') Pricing Schedule, Section
B (``Customer Rebate Program'') and SR-PHLX-2014-52.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe
that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act because the VIP credit only applies to customers
and therefore the elimination of the credit in the described situation
puts customers on the same competitive footing as other market
participants. As such, no market participant would be entitled to a
credit for these types of transactions. The Exchange does not believe
that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act because the proposed change only applies to trading
on CBOE. Further, the Exchange believes that the VIP will continue to
encourage Customer order flow to be directed to the Exchange. While
market participants will be encouraged to transact a greater number of
Customer orders to qualify for a rebate, the Exchange does not believe
the current credit incentivizes a greater number of Customer complex
orders executing electronically against other electronic Customer
complex orders on CBOE.
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market, comprised of
many options exchanges, in which market participants can easily and
readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels
at a particular venue to be excessive or rebates to be inadequate.
Accordingly, the fees that are assessed and the rebates paid by the
Exchange described in the above proposal are influenced by these robust
market forces and therefore must remain competitive with fees charged
and rebates paid by other venues and therefore must continue to be
reasonable and equitably allocated to those TPHs that opt to direct
orders to the Exchange rather than competing venues.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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) of Rule 19b-4 \9\
thereunder. 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 will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule

change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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-CBOE-2014-064 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-CBOE-2014-064. 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 offices 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-CBOE-2014-064,
and should be submitted on or before September 11, 2014.

    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. 2014-19808 Filed 8-20-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 24, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 3343]
[FR Doc No: 2018-01250]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL18-25-000]

Calpine Bethlehem, LLC, Calpine Mid-Atlantic Generation, LLC,
Calpine Mid Merit, LLC, Calpine New Jersey Generation, LLC, Garrison
Energy Center LLC, Zon Energy LLC; Notice of Institution of Section 206
Proceeding and Refund Effective Date

    On January 18, 2018, the Commission issued an order in Docket No.
EL18-25-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16
U.S.C. 824e (2012), instituting an investigation into whether the rates
for Reactive Supply and Voltage Control Service (Reactive Service) of
Calpine Bethlehem, LLC, Calpine Mid-Atlantic Generation, LLC, Calpine
Mid Merit, LLC, Calpine New Jersey Generation, LLC, Garrison Energy
Center LLC, and Zion Energy LLC (collectively, Applicants) may be
unjust and unreasonable. Calpine Bethlehem, LLC, Calpine Mid-Atlantic
Generation, LLC, Calpine Mid Merit, LLC, Calpine New Jersey Generation,
LLC, Garrison Energy Center LLC, and Zion Energy LLC, 162 FERC ] 61,031
(2018).
    The refund effective date in Docket No. EL18-25-000, established
pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication
of this notice in the Federal Register.
    Any interested person desiring to be heard in Docket No. EL18-25-
000 must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as
appropriate, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rule 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214, within 21
days of the date of issuance of the order.

    Dated: January 18, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-01250 Filed 1-23-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US

04/30/2008 09:28 PM

To

"Lee, Amanda I."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> cc

Brian Heninger, darryl weatherhead<EMAIL_ADDRESS>"King, Heidi R." <EMAIL_ADDRESS>Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US@epa, Lydia Wegman<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@epa, <EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject

Fw: RIA, ch 4, defer comments to control strategy experts

Amanda, I have reviewed your chapter 4 comments.   I think that my control strategy experts can quickly review and address your comments.   I don't have the technical knowledge to address your questions but they should be able deal with them rapidly.

Ron Evans

Leader, Air Benefit & Cost Group

HEID/OAQPS/OAR/EPA

Mail Drop C-439-02

919-541-5488

919-541-0839 fax

----- Forwarded by Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US on 04/30/2008 09:22 PM -----

"Lee, Amanda I."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 04/30/2008 07:22 PM

To

Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject

RIA, ch 4


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 140 (Monday, July 24, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34321-34322]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15419]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2017-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1729]

Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard
determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any
Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the
supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities
listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek
general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and
where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and
FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the
community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in
effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS
report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to
calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings
and the contents of those buildings.

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before October 23, 2017.

ADDRESSES: The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report
for each community are available for inspection at both the online
location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in
the tables below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS
report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map
Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1729, to
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA proposes to make flood hazard
determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with
section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
    These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the
floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum
that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the
community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent
in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any
time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies
established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood
hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management
requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate
flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM
and FIS report become effective.
    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are
provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the
revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS
report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b)
is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard
determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report
become effective.
    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to
communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are
independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other
pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and
technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the
SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been
engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days
without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional
information regarding the SRP process can be found

online at http://floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_fact_sheet.pdf.
    The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables
below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each
community are available for inspection at both the online location and
the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables.
For communities with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies
can be identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM
date listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and
FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA
Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: June 16, 2017.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department
of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    I. Non-watershed-based studies:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Santa Barbara County, California and Incorporated Areas
      Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata preliminaryfloodhazarddata
        Project: 12-09-1163S Preliminary Date: December 15, 2016
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Carpinteria....................  Public Works Department, 5775
                                          Carpinteria Avenue,
                                          Carpinteria, CA 93013.
City of Goleta.........................  City Hall, Planning and
                                          Environmental Review
                                          Department, 130 Cremona Drive,
                                          Suite B, Goleta, CA 93117.
City of Santa Barbara..................  Community Development
                                          Department, Building and
                                          Safety Division, 630 Garden
                                          Street, Santa Barbara, CA
                                          93101.
Unincorporated Areas of Santa Barbara    Naomi Schwartz County Office
 County.                                  Building, 130 East Victoria
                                          Street, Suite 200, Santa
                                          Barbara, CA 93101.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Coos County, Oregon and Incorporated Areas
      Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata preliminaryfloodhazarddata
        Project: 16-10-0539S Preliminary Date: November 30, 2016
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Bandon.........................  City Hall, 555 Highway 101,
                                          Bandon, OR 97411.
City of Coos Bay.......................  City Hall, 500 Central Avenue,
                                          Coos Bay, OR 97420.
City of Coquille.......................  City Hall, 851 North Central
                                          Boulevard, Coquille, OR 97423.
City of Lakeside.......................  City Hall, 915 North Lake Road,
                                          Lakeside, OR 97449.
City of Myrtle Point...................  City Hall, 424 5th Street,
                                          Myrtle Point, OR 97458.
City of North Bend.....................  City Hall, 835 California
                                          Street, North Bend, OR 97459.
City of Powers.........................  City Hall, 275 Fir Street,
                                          Powers, OR 97466.
Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower       1245 Fulton Avenue, Coos Bay,
 Umpqua and Siuslaw.                      OR 97420.
Coquille Indian Tribe..................  Coquille Indian Tribe
                                          Administrative Building, 3050
                                          Tremont Avenue, North Bend, OR
                                          97459.
Unincorporated Areas of Coos County....  Coos County Courthouse, 250
                                          North Baxter Street, Coquille,
                                          OR 97423.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2017-15419 Filed 7-21-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 183 (Friday, September 24, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 53102]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20685]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4510-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

Hawaii; Amendment No. 6 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 Hawaii (FEMA-4510-DR), dated April 1, 2020, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued August 5, 2021.

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
dated April 1, 2020 for the State of Hawaii is hereby amended to
include the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    All areas within the State of Hawaii are eligible 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.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-20685 Filed 9-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


EPA Questions Asked in Consultation for the 6(a)(2) ICR:

Name:	John Wiegand			, Company:	Canberra Corporation

Date: 01/30/2014			, e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(1)	Publicly Available Data

Is the data that the Agency seeks available from any public source, or
already collected by another office at EPA or by another agency?  NO

If yes, where can you find the data?  (Does your answer indicate a true
duplication, or does the input indicate that certain data elements are
available, but that they don’t meet our data needs very well?)

(2)	 Frequency of Collection

Can the Agency collect the information less frequently and still produce
the same outcome?	ONLY THE AGENCY CAN ANSWER THIS

(3)	Clarity of Instructions

a)	The ICR is intended to require that respondents provide certain data
so that the Agency can utilize them.

Based on the instructions (regulations, PR Notices, etc.), is it clear
what you are required to do and how to submit such data?  If not, what
suggestions do you have to clarify the instructions?	YES –
INSTRUCTIONS ARE CLEAR

Do you understand that you are required to maintain records?  YES

Considering that there is no required submission format, is it difficult
to submit information in ways that are clear, logical and easy to
complete? NO – THE VOLUNTARY FORM SUFFICES FOR US.

Regarding the Voluntary Incident Reporting Forms, do you use them?  Are
they clear, logical, and easy to complete?  YES TO BOTH

(4)	Electronic Reporting and Record keeping

The Government Paperwork Elimination Act requires agencies make
available to the public electronic reporting alternatives to paper-based
submissions by 2003, unless there is a strong reason for not doing so.
The U.S. E.P.A. Office of Pesticide Programs has a program for
electronic study submissions, and is currently developing plans for
systems to support electronic incident reporting.  The Agency is also
concerned to protect FIFRA CBI as well as personal information.

What do you think about electronic alternatives to paper-based records
and data submissions?  WE APPROVE   Current electronic reporting
alternatives include the use of web forms/XML based submissions via the
Agency’s Internet site and magnetic media-based submissions, e.g.,
diskette, CD-ROM, etc.  Would you be interested in pursuing electronic
reporting?   YES  Are you keeping your records electronically? NOT YET -
WE WOULD USE PDF FILES  If yes, in what format?

Would you be more inclined to submit CBI on diskette, CD, or DVD, or via
web rather than on paper?  VIA WEB - CDX

What benefits would electronic submission bring you in terms of burden
reduction or greater efficiency in compiling the information?  - REDUCED
HOURLY BURDEN FOR FORM CREATION.

Burden and Costs

Are the labor rates accurate?  YES

The Agency assumes there is no capital cost associated with this
activity.  Is that correct?  YES

Bearing in mind that the burden and cost estimates include only burden
hours and costs associated with the paperwork involved with this ICR,
e.g., the ICR does not include estimated burden hours and costs for
conducting studies, are the estimated burden hours and labor rates
accurate?  If you provide burden and cost estimates that are
substantially different from EPA’s, please provide an explanation of
how you arrived at your estimates. YES

Are there other costs that should be accounted for that may have been
missed? NO

 PAGE

 PAGE   1


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 248 (Monday, December 28, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 84431-84434]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28522]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90730; File No. SR-NYSE-2020-87]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated
Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To
Amend Rule 7.31

December 18, 2020.

I. Introduction

    On October 20, 2020, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange'') 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 amend NYSE
Rule 7.31 to (1) cancel ALO Orders that lock displayed interest and (2)
add two new types of Self Trade Prevention (``STP'') modifiers. The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on November 6, 2020.\3\ On December 15, 2020, the Exchange filed
Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change, which replaced and
superseded the proposed rule change in its entirety.\4\ The Commission
has received no comments on the proposed rule change. This order
provides notice of the filing of Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule
change, and grants approval to the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90309 (November 2,
2020), 85 FR 71127 (November 6, 2020).
    \4\ In Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change, the Exchange
removed its proposal to cancel ALO Orders that lock displayed
interest, and now only proposes to add two new types of STP
modifiers to NYSE Rule 7.31. Amendment No. 1 is available on the
Commission's website at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nyse-2020-87/srnyse202087-8146047-226657.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment
No. 1

    The Exchange's proposal, as modified by Amendment No. 1, seeks to
amend NYSE Rule 7.31 to provide for two additional types of STP
modifiers. Currently, NYSE offers two versions of STP: STP Cancel
Newest (``STPN'') and STP Cancel Oldest (``STPO''), as described in
NYSE Rules 7.31(i)(2)(A) and 7.31(i)(2)(B), respectively. NYSE proposes
to expand its STP offerings to establish STP Decrement and Cancel
(``STPD'') and STP Cancel Both (``STPC''), which would be set forth in
proposed Rules 7.31(i)(2)(C) and 7.31(i)(2)(D), respectively. NYSE's
proposed STPD and STPC offerings are based in part on the STPD and STPC
offerings on NYSE's affiliates NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca''), NYSE
American LLC (``NYSE American''), NYSE Chicago, Inc. (``NYSE
Chicago''), and NYSE National, Inc. (``NYSE National'') (collectively,
the ``Affiliated Exchanges''),\5\ with differences to separately
describe order processing for orders that are allocated in price-time
priority and how STPD and STPC would function consistent with NYSE's
parity allocation model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See NYSE Arca Rule 7.31-E(i)(2); NYSE American Rule
7.31E(i)(2); NYSE National Rule 7.31(i)(2); and NYSE Chicago Rule
7.31(i)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For STPD, proposed NYSE Rule 7.31(i)(2)(C) would provide that an
incoming order to buy (sell) with an STPD modifier would not trade with
resting interest to sell (buy) marked with any of the STP modifiers
from the same Client ID,\6\ as outlined in proposed NYSE Rules
7.31(i)(2)(C)(i) and (ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ As specified in current NYSE Rule 7.31(i)(2)(D), for
purposes of STP, references to Client ID mean a Client ID when using
Pillar phase I protocols to communicate with NYSE or an MPID when
using Pillar phase II protocols to communicate with NYSE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed NYSE Rule 7.31(i)(2)(C)(i) would apply to resting orders
in a priority category that allocates orders on price-time priority. As
proposed, if both orders with an STP modifier are equivalent in size,
both orders would be canceled back to the originating member
organization. If the orders are not equivalent in size, the equivalent
size would be canceled back to the originating Client ID and the larger
order would be decremented by the size of the smaller order, with the
balance remaining on NYSE's Book. The Exchange states that this
proposed functionality is based on the STPD functionality available on
the Affiliated Exchanges.
    Proposed NYSE Rule 7.31(i)(2)(C)(ii) would address how STPD would
function for resting orders in a priority category that allocates
orders on parity. As proposed, if a resting order would have been
considered for an allocation, both the portion of the resting order
that would receive an allocation and the portion of the incoming order
marked with the STPD modifier that would be allocated to the resting
order would be canceled back to the originating member organization.
Resting orders with an STP modifier from the same Client ID that would
not have been eligible for a parity allocation would remain on NYSE's
Book. NYSE states that if a member organization designates an order
with an STPD modifier, that member organization has instructed NYSE to
cancel the equivalent portion of both the incoming order and resting
order with an STP modifier from the same Client ID, resulting in the
larger order being decremented by the size of the smaller order and
remaining on NYSE's Book. According to the Exchange, in the case of a
parity allocation, because resting orders are allocated based on their
position on an allocation wheel,\7\ it would be consistent with the
incoming order's decrementing instruction to provide a parity
allocation to an eligible resting order with an STP modifier from the
same Client ID and cancel both the portion of the resting order
corresponding to the allocation and the portion of the incoming order
that would have been allocated to the resting order. The Exchange
states that this proposed functionality is similar to how NYSE
currently processes STPO modifiers if a resting order with an STP
modifier from the same Client ID is in a priority category that
allocates orders on parity, as described in NYSE Rule
7.31(i)(2)(B)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See NYSE Rule 7.37(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For STPC, proposed NYSE Rule 7.31(i)(2)(D) would provide that an
incoming order to buy (sell) marked with the STPC modifier would not
trade with resting interest to sell (buy) marked with any of the STP
modifiers from the same Client ID, as outlined in proposed NYSE Rules
7.31(i)(2)(D)(i) and (ii).
    Proposed NYSE Rule 7.31(i)(2)(D)(i) would apply to resting orders
in a priority category that allocates orders on price-time priority. As
proposed, the entire size of both orders with an STP modifier would be
canceled back to the originating member organization. The Exchange
states that the proposed functionality is based on the STPC
functionality available on the Affiliated Exchanges.
    Proposed NYSE Rule 7.31(i)(2)(D)(ii) would address how STPC would
function for resting orders in a priority category that allocates
orders on parity. As proposed, if a resting order with an STP modifier
is in a priority category that allocates orders on parity and would
have been considered for an allocation against an incoming order with
an STPC modifier, none of the resting orders eligible for a parity
allocation in that priority category would receive an allocation. The
first resting order with an STP modifier eligible for a parity
allocation would be canceled back, as would the incoming order. NYSE
states that this proposed processing would be consistent with the
member organization's instruction that both the incoming order and
resting order with an STP modifier from the same Client ID be canceled
if there were a potential for an execution between the two orders. The
Exchange states that this proposed functionality is similar to how NYSE
currently processes STPN modifiers if a resting order with an STP
modifier from the same Client ID is in a priority category that
allocates orders on parity, as described in NYSE Rule
7.31(i)(2)(A)(ii).
    NYSE also proposes non-substantive changes to renumber current NYSE
Rules 7.31(i)(2)(C) and 7.31(i)(2)(D) as NYSE Rules 7.31(i)(2)(E) and
7.31(i)(2)(F) to accommodate the

addition of the proposed rules governing STPD and STPC. NYSE also
proposes a conforming change to current NYSE Rules 7.31(d)(4)(F) and
7.31(i)(2)(C) to clarify that D Orders could only be designated with an
STPN or STPO modifier (i.e., that the new STPD and STPC modifiers would
not be available for use with D Orders). NYSE also proposes to amend
current NYSE Rule 7.31(i)(2)(D) to specify that STPD and STPC modifiers
would only be available for use with Pillar phase II protocols.
    The Exchange states that, because of the technology changes
associated with this proposed rule change, it will announce the
implementation date by Trader Update. Subject to approval of the
proposed rule change, the Exchange anticipates that the proposed change
will be implemented in January 2021.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful consideration of the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment No. 1, the Commission finds that the Exchange's
proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules
and regulations thereunder applicable to national securities exchanges.
In particular, the Commission finds that the Exchange's proposal is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ which requires that the
rules of an exchange be designed, among other things, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest, and not
be designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    With respect to the proposed addition of STPD and STPC modifiers,
NYSE asserts that the proposed change would remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market by allowing member
organizations to better manage order flow and prevent executions with
themselves. NYSE asserts that because orders routed by the same member
organization via different connections may, in certain circumstances,
be eligible to trade against each other, its proposal to establish
additional STP modifiers would remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market, and serve to protect investors and
the public interest, by enhancing member organizations' ability to
prevent potentially undesirable trades and internalize order flow. NYSE
also asserts that the proposed rule change is designed 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 because the proposed changes are based on the
approved rules of its Affiliated Exchanges, with modifications to
address functionality specific to the NYSE's parity allocation model,
and aligning its STP modifiers with those offered by its Affiliated
Exchanges would promote consistency for member organizations that are
members of the Exchange and one or more other Affiliated Exchanges.
NYSE further asserts that the proposed differences to address how the
proposed STPD and STPC modifiers would function for resting orders that
are in a priority category that allocates orders on parity would remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market
because the proposed rules are designed to honor the STPD and STPC
instructions consistent with the NYSE's parity model. These proposed
rules are also similar to how NYSE currently processes STPN and STPO
modifiers for resting orders that are in a priority category that
allocates orders on parity.
    The Commission believes that the proposed rule change, as amended,
will make the Exchange's STP rules consistent with the existing rules
and functionalities of other exchanges. Accordingly, the Commission
believes that the proposal is reasonably designed to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination. Based on the foregoing, the
Commission therefore finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the Act.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments on Amendment No. 1

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether Amendment No. 1
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 No. SR-NYSE-2020-87 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 No. SR-NYSE-2020-87. The file
numbers should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make publicly available. All submissions
should refer to File No SR-NYSE-2020-87 and should be submitted on or
before January 19, 2021.

V. Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment No. 1

    The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, prior to the thirtieth day
after the date of publication of notice of the amended proposal in the
Federal Register. In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange removed its proposal
to cancel ALO Orders that lock displayed interest, and now only
proposes to add two new types of STP modifiers. Amendment No. 1 does
not change any substantive provisions of the latter part of the
proposed rule change regarding STP modifiers that were noticed for
public comment. As discussed above, the Exchange further states that
this proposed rule change will make its rules consistent with the rules
and

functionalities of other exchanges. Accordingly, the Commission finds
good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\10\ to approve the
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated
basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\11\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSE-2020-87), as modified
by Amendment No. 1, be, and hereby is, approved on an accelerated
basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id.
    \12\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-28522 Filed 12-23-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 91 (Friday, May 10, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20689-20690]
[FR Doc No: 2019-09630]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85779; File No. SR-OCC-2019-003]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Require That an Actionable
Identifier Be Included on Customer and Non-Customer Securities Options
Trades Other Than Market Maker Trades

May 6, 2019.

I. Introduction

    On March 20, 2019, the Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change SR-OCC-2019-003 (``Proposed Rule Change'')
pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder to propose changes
to amend OCC Rule 401 to require that an ``Actionable Identifier''
(described below) be included on certain securities options trades
submitted to OCC for processing.\3\ The Proposed Rule Change was
published for public comment in the Federal Register on April 3,
2019,\4\ and the Commission received no comments regarding the Proposed
Rule Change. This order approves the Proposed Rule Change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Notice of Filing infra note 4, 84 FR 13075.
    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85441 (Mar. 28, 2019),
84 FR 13075 (Apr. 3, 2019) (SR-OCC-2019-003) (``Notice of Filing'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

    OCC facilitates several processes by which a broker may
automatically transfer an executed trade into a Clearing Member's
accounts. Such transferred positions could, in certain circumstances,
affect the Clearing Member's margin requirements. Currently, such a
transfer may occur without the provision of information regarding the
person for whom such a trade was executed.
    First, OCC's Clearing Member Trade Assignment (``CMTA'') process
allows a Clearing Member that executes a securities options trade
(i.e., the Executing Clearing Member) to send the trade directly
through OCC to another Clearing Member for clearance and settlement
(i.e., the Carrying Clearing Member).\5\ Under the CMTA process, an
Executing Clearing Member may send options trades directly to a
Carrying Clearing Member's omnibus accounts at OCC for clearance and
settlement without providing information identifying the specific
accounts to which the trade should be assigned. Second, in the ``give-
up'' process, a broker may execute a transaction on an exchange and
then assign that transaction to a Clearing Member's omnibus account.
Specifically, for customer transactions, a broker who is not an OCC
Clearing Member may execute a customer's trade and then ``give-up'' the
trade to the customer's clearing broker, which must be an OCC Clearing
Member, without identifying the customer for whom the transaction was
executed. Similarly, a trading desk within a Clearing Member Group may
execute a non-customer trade and send it to a Clearing Member's omnibus
firm account without clearly identifying the account to which the trade
should be allocated.\6\ Finally, a broker-dealer who participates in a
joint back office arrangement with a Clearing Member could execute a
non-customer trade that then clears directly in a Clearing Member's
omnibus firm account. Transactions executed in this way, as part of a
joint back office arrangement with a Clearing Member, could result in a
Clearing Member's receipt of a non-customer trade in its omnibus firm
account without a clear indication of the account to which the Clearing
Member should assign the trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See OCC Rule 407. An ``Executing Clearing Member'' is
defined in Article I, Section 1.E.(12) of OCC's By-Laws as ``a
Clearing Member, on its own behalf or as the Clearing Member of an
Introducing Broker that has been authorized by a Carrying Clearing
Member to direct confirmed trades to be transferred to a designated
account of the Carrying Clearing Member pursuant to such Clearing
Members' CMTA arrangement.'' A ``Carrying Clearing Member'' is
defined in Article I, Section 1.C.(12) of OCC's By-Laws as ``a
Clearing Member that has authorized an Executing Clearing Member to
direct the transfer of a confirmed trade to a designated account of
such Carrying Clearing Member pursuant to a CMTA arrangement.''
    \6\ See Notice of Filing, 84 FR at 13077.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to OCC, Clearing Members have raised concerns regarding
the timely account identification for trades that a Clearing Member
receives through the CMTA, give-up, and joint back office processes.\7\
OCC proposes to require the inclusion of an ``Actionable Identifier''
for all transactions related to a customer account or a non-customer
account,

other than Market-Maker transactions,\8\ which OCC believes would allow
Clearing Members to more timely identify trades as attributable to a
particular customer or non-customer account.\9\ As defined in the
proposed amendment to Rule 401, the Actionable Identifier would consist
of either a name, series of numbers, or other identifying information
related to the account for which the transaction was executed. OCC
would also require that each Clearing Member establish and maintain
policies and procedures reasonably designed to include sufficient
information in the Actionable Identifier regarding the account that
originated the trade to allow the other Clearing Member to promptly
clear the transaction.\10\ OCC would enforce the Actionable Identifier
related requirements through: (1) an annual Clearing Member
certification process; and (2) a review of Actionable Identifier
policies and procedures during OCC's periodic Clearing Member
examinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Notice of Filing, 84 FR at 13076-77.
    \8\ OCC is not proposing the inclusion of an Actionable
Identifier for Market-Maker transactions because OCC understands
that such trades already include information that allows a Clearing
Member to assign the trades to individual Market-Maker accounts. See
Notice of Filing, 84 FR at 13076, n. 6.
    \9\ See Notice of Filing, 84 FR at 13078.
    \10\ OCC does not, however, propose to make the inclusion of an
Actionable Identifier a prerequisite for trade acceptance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its proposal, OCC described a three-phase implementation
schedule for changes pertaining to the Actionable Identifier.\11\
During the first 12 months after approval of the Proposed Rule Change,
the following would not constitute a violation of OCC's rules: (i)
Failure to include an Actionable Identifier for transactions, or (ii)
failure to maintain policies and procedures to provide that sufficient
information is included in the Actionable Identifier. Second, from 13
months to 18 months after approval of the Proposed Rule Change, failure
to maintain policies and procedures to provide that sufficient
information is included in the Actionable Identifier would not
constitute a violation of OCC's rules. Finally, beginning 19 months
after approval of the Proposed Rule Change, failure to comply with any
part of the rule would constitute a violation of OCC's rules, subject
to the manner in which OCC enforces such violations pursuant to Rule
1201.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Notice of Filing, 84 FR at 13078.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC also proposes three changes to improve the language of its Rule
401. First, OCC proposes to add the words ``in this rule'' to the last
sentence of paragraph (a) of Rule 401 to clarify the scope of the
sentence. Second, OCC proposes to replace the phrase ``the security
type'' with the ``the product type'' in paragraphs (a)(1)(G) and
(a)(2)(G) of Rule 401 to accurately describe the requirements of the
rule. Finally, OCC proposes to replace the phrase ``the Give-Up
Clearing Member'' with ``the Given-Up Clearing Member'' for consistency
with the definition provided in Article I, Section 1.G.(3) of OCC's By-
Laws.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Exchange Act directs the Commission to
approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it
finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to such organization.\12\ After carefully
considering the Proposed Rule Change, the Commission believes the
proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act and
the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to OCC. More
specifically, the Commission believes that the proposal is consistent
with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Consistency With Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act requires that the rules of
a clearing agency be designed to, among other things, (i) promote the
prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions, and (ii) foster cooperation and coordination with persons
engaged in the clearance and settlement of securities transactions, and
(iii) in general, to protect investors and the public interest.\14\
Based on its review of the record, the Commission believes that the
proposed rule changes related to the Actionable Identifier are designed
to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions and foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in the clearance and settlement of securities
transactions for the reasons set forth below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Actionable Identifier, as proposed, must include sufficient
information regarding the account that originated a trade to allow a
Clearing Member to promptly clear and settle the transaction in the
appropriate account. Additionally, the Actionable Identifier would
support the interactions between those firms executing transactions and
those firms clearing transactions by providing information about the
account to which such transactions are attributable. In this way, the
proposed rule changes are designed to promote the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities transactions and foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in the clearance and
settlement of securities transactions, consistent with Section
17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act.
    Further, the Commission believes that the proposed changes to
improve the language of its Rule 401 are designed to in general, to
protect investors and the public interest for the following reasons. As
a general matter, enhancing the clarity of a clearing agency's rules
would be in the public interest because doing so could provide
information that may facilitate public interaction with the clearing
agency. OCC's rules describe, in part, certain obligations of an
individual submitting a trade to OCC by defining, for example, the
information necessary for acceptance of such a trade. As described
above, OCC proposes to revise the language of its Rule 401 to clarify
the scope of the rule, more accurately state the requirements of the
rule, and ensure internal consistency across OCC's rules.
    Accordingly, and for the reasons stated above, the Commission
believes that the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with Section
17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
Proposed Rule Change is consistent with the requirements of the
Exchange Act, and in particular, the requirements of Section 17A of the
Exchange Act \16\ and the rules and regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ In approving this Proposed Rule Change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rules' impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Exchange Act,\17\ that the Proposed Rule Change (SR-OCC-2019-003) be,
and hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-09630 Filed 5-9-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P