Futures Industry Association, International Swaps and Derivatives
Association, and Securities Industry and Financial Markets
Association (May 4, 2011), File No. S7-27-10, at 5 (noting that
``[l]egal documentation, treatment of collateral, margin
requirements, account setup, and fee negotiations * * * between Swap
clearing houses and their clearing members will take significant
time.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, in the Cross-Border Rules, the Commission intends to
address the extent to which non-U.S. SB swap market participants would
be subject to the SBSD and MSBSP registration and regulatory
requirements. Such market participants would need time to consider the
extent to which these requirements apply to their SB swap business.
(ii) Other Timing Issues and Expiration of the Exemption Granted
Pursuant to the Effective Date Order
    There are additional timing issues that are relevant regardless of
whether a conditional registration process is employed. Upon
registration, SBSDs and MSBSPs would be required to adhere to certain
self-operating provisions of section 15F of the Exchange Act,\152\
specifically, the requirement to designate a chief compliance officer
pursuant to section 15F(k)(1) of the Exchange Act \153\ and the
obligation of the chief compliance officer to adhere to the duties set
forth in section 15F(k)(2) of the Exchange Act.\154\ However, the chief
compliance officer may not be required to prepare and submit annual
reports to the Commission pursuant to section 15F(k)(3) of the Exchange
Act, as the process for doing so is subject to rulemaking by the
Commission \155\ and such rules may not have been adopted by the
Commission and/or require compliance at that time.\156\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \152\ SB Swap Participant Registration Proposing Release at
65787.
    \153\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-10(k)(1).
    \154\ Id. at 78o-10(k)(2).
    \155\ See id. at 78o-10(k)(3)(A).
    \156\ These rules have been proposed as part of the Business
Conduct Standards Proposing Release. See proposed rule 15Fk-1(c),
Business Conduct Standards Proposing Release at 42459.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Effective Date Order granted a temporary exemption from
compliance with section 3E(f) of the Exchange Act, which requires SBSDs
and MSBSPs to segregate initial margin amounts delivered by their
counterparties in uncleared SB swaps if requested to do so by such
counterparties.\157\ This temporary exemption will expire on the date
upon which the rules adopted by the Commission to register SBSDs and
MSBSPs become effective.\158\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \157\ 15 U.S.C. 78c-5(f).
    \158\ Effective Date Order at 36294.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the Commission adopts a conditional SBSD and MSBSP registration
process and this temporary exemption expires, SBSDs and MSBSPs would be
required to segregate initial margin amounts delivered by their
counterparties in uncleared SB swaps before the capital, margin, and
segregation rules are adopted or before compliance with such rules is
required. However, the Commission believes it would not be appropriate
to require SBSDs and MSBSPs to comply with Exchange Act section 3E(f)
before the Commission adopts and requires compliance with the rules
pertaining to the segregation of margin pursuant to section 3E of the
Exchange Act.\159\ Given this, if the Commission determines to adopt a
conditional registration regime, the Commission will consider whether
it is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, and consistent
with the protection of investors, to extend the exemption from
compliance with section 3E(f) of the Exchange Act until the later of:
(1) The date upon which SBSDs and MSBSPs are required to register with
the Commission; and (2) the last compliance date of any of the final
rules to be adopted under sections 3E and 15F of the Exchange Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \159\ 15 U.S.C. 78c-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(iii) Request for Comment
     Should the registration of SBSDs and MSBSPs be required
before compliance with some, but not all, of the rules to be adopted
under sections 3E and 15F of the Exchange Act is required? Why or why
not? If yes, what would the impact of doing so be upon the goals of
Title VII's reforms of the SB swap market?
     What would be the advantages and disadvantages of
requiring SBSDs and MSBSPs to register with the Commission prior to the
compliance date of the capital, margin, and segregation requirements?
If there are potential disadvantages, what steps could be taken to
mitigate them? Would SBSDs and MSBSPs be subject to additional costs or
other burdens if the Commission were to require such persons to
register with the Commission prior to the compliance date for the
capital, margin, and segregation requirements? Why or why not? What
would the impact of doing so be upon the goals of Title VII's reforms
of the SB swap market?
     In determining when SBSDs and MSBPs should be required to
register with the Commission, should the Commission take into account
the CFTC's timing for its parallel requirement and/or the timing of
other jurisdictions? Why or why not? If so, what is the most
appropriate manner of sequencing in relation to those potentially
differing timelines? What would the potential advantages and
disadvantages of doing so be? If there are potential disadvantages,
what steps could be taken to mitigate them?
     What would be the advantages and disadvantages of
requiring SBSDs and MSBSPs to comply with final rules resulting from
the Business Conduct Standards Proposing Release prior to the
compliance date of the capital, margin, and segregation requirements
and vice versa? If there are potential disadvantages, what steps could
be taken to mitigate them? Would SBSDs and MSBSPs be subject to
additional costs or other burdens if the Commission were to require
compliance with final rules resulting from the Business Conduct
Standards Proposing Release prior to the compliance date of the
capital, margin, and segregation requirements? Why or why not? What
would the impact of doing so be upon the goals of Title VII's reforms
of the SB swap market?
     Would SBSDs and MSBSPs be subject to additional costs or
other burdens if the Commission were to require compliance with the
capital, margin, and segregation requirements prior to the compliance
date of the business conduct standards? Why or why not? What would the
impact of doing so be upon the goals of Title VII's reforms of the SB
swap market?
     Should compliance with the final rules to be adopted under
sections 3E and 15F of the Exchange Act be further sequenced in some
manner beyond the

estimated amount of time needed for compliance, such as by SB swap
market participant type (i.e., SBSD or MSBSP)? If so, how? Are there
other factors that should be considered in establishing the compliance
dates for these rules?
     In determining when SBSDs and MSBPs should be subject to
the final rules to be adopted under sections 3E and 15F of the Exchange
Act, should the Commission take into account the CFTC's timing for its
parallel requirements and/or the timing of other jurisdictions? Why or
why not? If so, what is the most appropriate manner of sequencing in
relation to those potentially differing timelines? What would the
potential advantages and disadvantages of doing so be? If there are
potential disadvantages, what steps could be taken to mitigate them?
     Should the Commission phase the introduction of the SB
swap trade documentation and margining requirements by type of SB swap
market participant? For example, should the Commission phase these
requirements in the manner proposed by the CFTC in its Trading
Documentation and Margining Implementation Proposal? \160\ What would
the potential advantages and disadvantages of doing so be? If there are
potential disadvantages, what steps could be taken to mitigate them?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \160\ See supra note 53 and the accompanying text for a
discussion of the CFTC Clearing and Trade Execution Implementation
Proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. SB SEF Registration and Regulation and the Mandatory Trade Execution
Requirement

    The following section discusses timing issues pertaining to the
implementation of the registration requirements and core principles
applicable to SB SEFs as set forth in section 3D of the Exchange Act
\161\ and the mandatory trade execution requirement as set forth in
section 3C(h) of the Exchange Act.\162\ This section also discusses the
timing of the compliance dates of final rules resulting from Proposed
Regulation MC that would be applicable to SB SEFs and the sequencing of
the mandatory trade execution requirement as it relates to both the
mandatory clearing requirement and the exception from the mandatory
trade execution requirement for any SB swap that is not made available
to trade by an exchange or SB SEF. Finally, this section discusses the
timing of the expiration of the temporary exemptions granted in the
Effective Date Order \163\ and the Exchange Act Exemptive Order \164\
that permit certain persons that engage in SB swap activities to
continue to do so until the earliest compliance date set forth in any
final rules regarding the registration of SB SEFs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \161\ 15 U.S.C. 78c-4.
    \162\ Id. at 78c-3(h). See section II.E.(iii) infra for a
discussion of the mandatory trade execution requirement set forth in
section 3C(h) of the Exchange Act.
    \163\ See supra note 34.
    \164\ See supra note 36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(i) SB SEF Registration and Core Principles
    The Dodd-Frank Act amended the Exchange Act to add new section
3D.\165\ Section 3D(a)(1) provides that no person may operate a
facility for the trading or processing of SB swaps, unless the facility
is registered as an SB SEF or as a national securities exchange.\166\
Section 3(a)(77) of the Exchange Act defines ``security-based swap
execution facility'' as a trading system or platform in which multiple
participants have the ability to execute or trade SB swaps by accepting
bids and offers made by multiple participants in the facility or
system, through any means of interstate commerce, including any trading
facility that (A) facilitates the execution of SB swaps between
persons; and (B) is not a national securities exchange. Thus, the
Commission has proposed to interpret these two provisions, taken
together, to require registration as a SB SEF or a national securities
exchange for any entity that meets the definition of SB SEF in section
3(a)(77) of the Exchange Act.\167\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \165\ See Public Law 111-203, section 763(c) (adding section 3D
of the Exchange Act).
    \166\ Id.
    \167\ See SB SEF Proposing Release at 10959 n.62.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To facilitate the start of organized trading of SB swaps, the
Commission proposed rule 801(c) of proposed Regulation SB SEF, which
would provide a method for the Commission to grant temporary
registration to an applicant to become a registered SB SEF.\168\ For
any application for registration as a SB SEF filed with the Commission
on or before July 31, 2014, for which the applicant indicates that it
would like to be considered for temporary registration, the Commission
proposed to grant such temporary registration as long as certain
requirements were met. The Commission believes a temporary (or similar)
registration process for prospective SB SEFs would serve as a useful
tool during the initial implementation period to allow an applicant to
operate as a SB SEF for a period of time while the Commission reviews
its SB SEF registration application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \168\ See proposed rule 801(c) of proposed Regulation SB SEF, SB
SEF Proposing Release at 11054.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the SB SEF Proposing Release, the Commission stated that when
considering whether to grant a request for temporary registration, the
Commission would review the information provided by the applicant that
the Commission believes to be relevant, including, but not limited to:
whether the applicant's trading system satisfies the definition of a
``security-based swap execution facility'' in section 3(a)(77) of the
Exchange Act and any Commission rules, interpretations or guidelines
regarding such definition; any access requirements or limitations
imposed by the SB SEF; the ownership and voting structure of the
applicant; and any certifications made by the applicant, including with
respect to its capacity to function as a SB SEF and its compliance with
the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder.\169\
Temporary registration would expire on the earlier of: (1) The date
that the Commission grants or denies the applicant's registration as a
SB SEF; or (2) the date that the Commission rescinds the applicant's
temporary registration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \169\ SB SEF Proposing Release at 10999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed further below, the Commission has exempted entities
that meet the definition of ``security-based swap execution facility''
from having to comply with the registration requirements set forth in
section 3D(a)(1) of the Exchange Act until the compliance date set
forth in the final rules pertaining to the registration of SB SEFs. The
Commission expects to set forth in any future release adopting final SB
SEF rules the timing for compliance with the registration requirements
(including any temporary registration requirements), the core
principles and the rules thereunder.
(ii) Proposed Regulation MC
    Proposed Regulation MC would apply governance requirements and
ownership and voting limitations to SB SEFs as a means to mitigate
conflicts of interest for SB SEFs.\170\ The Commission may, taking into
account comments received, consider taking final action on the
conflicts of interest proposals relating to SB SEFs that are set forth
in proposed Regulation MC as part of any final rules the Commission may
adopt that relate to the regulation and registration of SB SEFs. The
Commission preliminarily believes the

proposed rules for SB SEFs contained in Proposed Regulation MC \171\
align in scope with proposed Rule 820 implementing Core Principle 11,
as set forth in proposed Regulation SB SEF,\172\ because both proposals
include rules that are designed to minimize and resolve conflicts of
interest with respect to SB SEFs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \170\ See Proposed Regulation MC, supra note 27. Proposed
Regulation MC also would apply governance requirements and ownership
and voting limitations on national securities exchanges that post or
make available for trading SB swaps.
    \171\ Proposed Regulation MC at 65890-12, 65931-2.
    \172\ SB SEF Proposing Release at 11064.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(iii) Statutory Sequencing of the SB Swap Mandatory Trade Execution
Requirement
    Section 3C(h) of the Exchange Act requires that transactions in SB
swaps that are subject to the clearing requirement of section 3C(a)(1)
of the Exchange Act must be executed on an exchange or on a SB SEF
registered with the Commission (or a SB SEF exempt from registration),
unless no exchange or SB SEF makes the SB swap available to trade
(referred to as the ``mandatory trade execution requirement'') or the
SB swap transaction is subject to the clearing exception in section
3C(g) of the Exchange Act.\173\ The Commission believes this section
provides a certain sequencing of the SB swap mandatory trade execution
requirement, as it states that only a SB swap that has been determined
by the Commission to be required to be cleared, and that has been made
available to trade on an exchange or registered SB SEF, must be
executed on an exchange or registered SB SEF.\174\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \173\ 15 U.S.C. 78c-3(h).
    \174\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in section II.C above, the Commission anticipates that
SB swap transactions that the Commission determines are subject to
mandatory clearing would not be required to be cleared until the later
of: (1) The compliance date of certain of the final rules to be adopted
pursuant to the Clearing Agency Standards Proposing Release; (2) the
compliance date of the final rules adopted pursuant to the End-User
Exception Proposing Release; and (3) the Commission determining whether
to propose amendments to the existing net capital and customer
protection requirements applicable to broker-dealers with regard to SB
swap clearing through such broker-dealers and whether to address
portfolio margining with swaps. The Commission expects there would be
no mandatory exchange or SB SEF trading of SB swap transactions (thus
allowing such SB swap transactions to continue to trade OTC) before
compliance is required with any final rules adopted pursuant to the
Clearing Agency Standards Proposing Release and the End-User Exception
Proposing Release and before the Commission considers appropriate steps
to address potential issues relating to the existing broker-dealer net
capital and customer protection requirements and portfolio margining
with swaps, as SB swaps would not be required to be cleared until the
Commission has determined that SB swaps are required to be cleared and
the clearing requirement has become operative.
    The Dodd-Frank Act additionally provides that SB swaps that are
subject to mandatory clearing but that have not been made available to
trade by an exchange or SB SEF would not be subject to the mandatory
trade execution requirement.\175\ In the SB SEF Proposing Release, the
Commission proposed to interpret the phrase ``made available to trade''
to mean something more than the decision to simply trade an SB swap on
a SB SEF or an exchange, and that SB swaps subject to mandatory
clearing would not be subject to mandatory exchange or SB SEF trading
simply because they are listed on a SB SEF or exchange.\176\ The
Commission further proposed that the determination as to when a SB swap
would be considered to be ``made available to trade'' on an exchange or
a SB SEF be made pursuant to objective measures established by the
Commission, rather than by one or a group of SB SEFs.\177\ The
Commission further noted that it did not, at that time, have sufficient
data to propose standards pursuant to which a determination of whether
an SB swap is ``made available to trade'' should be made, and requested
that commenters provide suggestions as to those objective standards
that would be appropriate.\178\ The Commission is reviewing comments
received on its proposal relating to the determination of when a SB
swap should be ``made available to trade''. If the Commission adopts
its interpretation of ``made available to trade'' as proposed, the
Commission anticipates that it would ultimately adopt standards for
determining when a SB swap has been ``made available to trade.'' Thus,
if the Commission adopts the proposed interpretation, the Commission
expects that there would be no mandatory exchange or SB SEF trading of
SB swaps (and thus such SB swaps may continue to trade OTC) before: (1)
Any such standards have been finalized; (2) a SB swap has been
determined to be ``made available to trade'' pursuant to such
standards; and (3) such ``made available to trade'' determination has
become effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \175\ Exchange Act section 3C(h)(2), 15 U.S.C. 78c-3(h)(2).
    \176\ SB SEF Proposing Release at 10969.
    \177\ Id.
    \178\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the specific compliance dates for the core
principles applicable to SB SEFs as set forth in the Exchange Act, and
any final rules relating to SB SEFs that are adopted by the Commission,
including registration rules, will be addressed in any release adopting
such final rules. The Commission understands that some entities that
intend to seek to register with the Commission as an SB SEF or to be
exempt from such registration would do so as soon as possible, which
likely would be, as discussed above, before the mandatory trade
execution requirement becomes operational.\179\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \179\ See, e.g., letter from Tradeweb Markets LLC (Apr. 4,
2011), File No. S7-06-11, at 1; letter from MarketAxess Corporation
(Apr. 4, 2011), File No. S7-06-11, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based upon Commission staff conversations with industry
participants, the Commission believes that some entities that meet the
definition of an SB SEF may seek to register with the Commission (or be
exempt from such registration) before the mandatory trade execution
requirement becomes operational.
(iv) Expiration of Exemptions and Exceptions Granted Pursuant to the
Effective Date Order and the Exchange Act Exemptive Order
    The compliance dates of certain of the rules pertaining to SB SEFs
will result in the expiration of certain of the temporary exemptions
and exceptions granted pursuant to the Effective Date Order and the
Exchange Act Exemptive Order. Specifically, the following temporary
exemptions granted pursuant to the Effective Date Order will expire
upon the earliest compliance date set forth in any of the final rules
pertaining to the registration of SB SEFs:
     The exemption from compliance with section 3D(a)(1) of the
Exchange Act's prohibition against any person operating a facility for
the trading or processing of SB swaps unless the facility is registered
as a SB SEF or as a national securities exchange; \180\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \180\ Effective Date Order at 36306.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The exemption from compliance with section 3D(c) of the
Exchange Act's requirement that a national securities exchange (to the
extent that it also operates a SB SEF and uses the same electronic
trade execution system for listing and executing trades of SB swaps on
or through the exchange and the facility) identify whether electronic
trading of SB swaps is taking place on

or through the national securities exchange or the SB SEF.\181\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \181\ Id. at 36306.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also upon the earliest compliance date set forth in the any of the
final rules pertaining to the registration of SB SEFs, the temporary
exceptions from the following Exchange Act requirements will expire:
     The temporary exemption from Exchange Act sections 5 and
6; \182\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \182\ Exchange Act Exemptive Order at 39939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The exemption applicable to any person other than a
clearing agency acting as a central counterparty in SB swaps from the
requirements to register as a national securities exchange under
sections 5 and 6 of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder solely in connection with the person's activities involving
SB swaps; \183\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \183\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The exemption applicable to broker-dealers from section 5
of the Exchange Act solely in connection with the broker's or dealer's
activities involving SB swaps that it effects or reports on an exchange
that is exempted from registration pursuant to the Exchange Act
Exemptive Order's temporary exemption from Exchange Act sections 5 and
6; \184\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \184\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The exemption applicable to credit default swap central
counterparties from the requirements of sections 5 and 6 of the
Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder solely in
connection with their calculation of mark-to-market prices for opened
positions in cleared credit default swaps; \185\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \185\ Id. at 39939-40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The exemption applicable to any member of a credit default
swap central counterparty from the requirements of section 5 of the
Exchange Act solely to the extent such member uses any transactions in
cleared credit default swaps to effect any transaction in cleared
credit default swaps, or to report any such transaction, in connection
with the credit default swap central counterparty's clearance and risk
management process for cleared credit default swaps.\186\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \186\ Id. at 39940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission granted the foregoing exemptions in the Exchange Act
Exemptive Order because certain persons, particularly those that would
meet the statutory definition of ``security-based swap execution
facility,'' may be engaging in activities that would subject them to
the restrictions and requirements of Sections 5 and 6 of the Exchange
Act as of the Effective Date. In setting the compliance dates for the
final rules pertaining to the registration and regulation of SB SEFs,
the Commission intends to consider whether it is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, and consistent with the protection
of investors, to take further action with regard to any of the above-
described temporary exemptions.
(v) Request for Comment
     Pursuant to the sequencing described herein, rules
implementing the regulation and registration of SB SEFs would be
sequenced later in the process than other rules implementing SB swap
provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act. Do commenters believe this sequencing
is appropriate or should any final rules governing SB SEFs be
considered at an earlier point in time? Why or why not? How would this
sequencing affect the goals of Title VII's reforms of the SB swap
market?
     Should an SB SEF be required to comply with all duties,
core principles and other requirements upon receiving approval of its
registration with the Commission or should compliance with some of
these requirements be delayed until a later point in time? Why or why
not? If so, for which requirements and until what point in time should
compliance be delayed? What factors, if any, should be considered in
establishing the compliance dates for any SB SEF requirements that
should be subject to delayed or phased-in compliance, and why should
such factors be considered? How would such a delay or phasing in affect
the goals of Title VII's reforms of the SB swap market? Would there be
potential advantages and disadvantages of such a delay or phasing in?
If so, what would they be? If there are potential disadvantages, what
steps could be taken to mitigate them?
     In the SB SEF Proposing Release, the Commission proposed a
rule that would permit applicants to apply for temporary registration
as a SB SEF.\187\ The Commission believes temporary registration for SB
SEFs could serve as a useful tool during the initial implementation
period and should provide the Commission sufficient time to review an
application more thoroughly when considering an application for
registration that is not limited in duration.\188\ Should the
Commission consider granting an exemption from section 3D of the
Exchange Act or extending the current exemption from section 3D in the
Effective Date Order for any entity that submits an application for
temporary SB SEF registration to permit it to operate as a SB SEF
pending submission of an application for permanent SB SEF registration,
or pending Commission approval or disapproval of its permanent
application? If so, should the Commission condition such extension or
granting of an exemption on the prospective SB SEF complying with
certain conditions such as, for example, meeting the Commission's
interpretation of the definition of SB SEF, satisfying any requirements
relating to fair access, and providing the Commission with access to
its books and records? Why or why not? If so, which conditions should
the Commission impose on the SB SEF's operations prior to the
Commission taking action on its application for registration, and why?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \187\ See SB SEF Proposing Release at 10999-11000; see also
section II.E.(i) supra.
    \188\ See SB SEF Proposing Release at 11000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     If the Commission were to permit entities to submit
applications for temporary SB SEF registration prior to their permanent
SB SEF applications, how soon after an entity submitted its application
for temporary SB SEF registration should it be required to submit its
application for permanent SB SEF registration? For example, would 360
days be sufficient? Should a shorter or longer time period be applied?
If so, what is an appropriate time period and why?
     In the SB SEF Proposing Release, the Commission proposed
an initial implementation phase for the registration of SB SEFs, which
phase would begin on the date of Regulation SB SEF's effectiveness and
end on July 31, 2014.\189\ Based upon the sequencing of the compliance
dates of the final rules described herein that would result in the
regulation and registration of SB SEFs later in the implementation
process, is this time period initially proposed to implement the
registration of SB SEFs appropriate? Why or why not? If not, what would
be a more appropriate time period?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \189\ See id. at 10998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     In determining when to require SB SEFs to register with
the Commission, should the Commission take into account the CFTC's
timing for its parallel requirement and/or the timing of other
jurisdictions? Why or why not? If so, what is the most appropriate
manner of sequencing in relation to those potentially differing
timelines? What would the advantages and disadvantages of doing so be?
If there are potential disadvantages, what steps could be taken to
mitigate them?

     Should the Commission consider a delayed implementation
schedule for any conflicts of interest rules that it may adopt for SB
SEFs? Why or why not? How would such a delayed implementation schedule
affect the goals of Title VII's reforms of the SB swap market? Would
there be potential advantages and disadvantages of doing so? If so,
what would they be? If there are potential disadvantages, what steps
could be taken to mitigate them?
     Are there other rules or sets of rules with which
compliance should be required, or which must be effective, before SB
swaps subject to the mandatory trade execution requirement are required
to be traded? If so, which ones, and why?
     Should the Commission phase in compliance with the
mandatory trade execution requirement by type of market participant?
For example, should the Commission phase in this requirement by market
participant type in the manner proposed by the CFTC in its Clearing and
Trade Execution Implementation Proposal? \190\ Why or why not? What
would the advantages and disadvantages of doing so be? If there are
potential disadvantages, what steps could be taken to mitigate them?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \190\ See supra note 53 and accompanying text for a discussion
of the CFTC's proposals to phase in compliance with the swap
clearing, trading, trade documentation, and margining requirements
arising under Subtitle A of Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act by
category of market participant. See also supra note 59 and
accompanying text noting that, in the CFTC Clearing and Trade
Execution Implementation Proposal, the CFTC stated that before the
mandatory clearing of swaps begins, the product and entity
definitions, the end-user exception from mandatory clearing, and the
rules pertaining to the segregation of customer collateral must be
adopted and that before swap market participants could be required
to comply with a trade execution requirement, the CFTC must adopt
final rules related to swap execution facilities and designated
contract markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     In determining when to require compliance with the
mandatory trade execution requirement, should the Commission take into
account the CFTC's timing for its parallel requirement and/or the
timing of other jurisdictions? Why or why not? If so, what is the most
appropriate manner of sequencing in relation to those potentially
differing timelines? What would the advantages and disadvantages of
doing so be? If there are potential disadvantages, what steps could be
taken to mitigate them?

III. Solicitation of Comments

    The Commission intends to monitor closely the imposition of the new
regulatory regime upon SB swaps and SB swap market participants to
determine to what extent, if any, additional regulatory action may be
necessary. The Commission is soliciting comment on all aspects of this
Statement and the guidance it provides regarding compliance dates for
the rules to be adopted under Subtitle B of Title VII. Comments
received will be addressed in the relevant final rulemakings to which
they pertain.

    By the Commission.

    Dated: June 11, 2012.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-14576 Filed 6-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 151 (Wednesday, August 5, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47369-47370]
[FR Doc No: 2020-17075]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
    Docket Numbers: RP19-343-000.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
    Description: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP submits tariff filing
per 154.501: TETLP Base Rate Refund Report to be effective N/A under
RP19-343.
    Filed Date: 6/12/20.
    Accession Number: 20200612-5143.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 08/6/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-943-003.
    Applicants: Vector Pipeline L.P.
    Description: Vector Pipeline L.P. submits tariff filing per
154.203: Substitute Tariff Sheets for Non-Conforming Agreements--Errata
to be effective 6/1/2016 under RP16-943.
    Filed Date: 07/17/2020.
    Accession Numbers: 20200717-5065.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 08/6/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-1033-000.
    Applicants: Great Lakes Gas Transmission Limited Partnership.
    Description: Great Lakes Gas Transmission Limited Partnership
submits tariff filing per 154.203: Semi-Annual Transporter's Use Report
July 2020 to be effective N/A under RP20-1033.
    Filed Date: 07/22/2020.
    Accession Numbers: 20200722-5127.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/3/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-1043-000.
    Applicants: Dauphine Island.
    Description: 2020 Cash Out Report of Dauphin Island Gathering
Partners under RP20-1043.
    Filed Date: 07/27/2020.
    Accession Numbers: 20200727-5058.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/10/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-467-002.
    Applicants: Dominion Energy Cove Point LNG, LP.
    Description: Compliance filing DECP--2020 Rate Case Motion Filing
(Revised Tariff Records) to be effective 8/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 7/29/20.
    Accession Number: 20200729-5121.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/10/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-1047-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Update (Conoco
Aug 20) to be effective 8/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 7/29/20.
    Accession Number: 20200729-5050.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/10/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-1048-000.
    Applicants: Big Sandy Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing Big Sandy Fuel Filing effective 9/1/
2020 to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 7/29/20.
    Accession Number: 20200729-5104.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/10/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-1049-000.
    Applicants: Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Vol. 2- Negotiated Rate
Agreements--Sequent, Spotlight, Tenaska, Conexus to be effective 7/29/
2020.
    Filed Date: 7/29/20.
    Accession Number: 20200729-5138.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/10/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-1050-000.
    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates--Various
Releases eff 8-1-2020 to be effective 8/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 7/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200730-5002.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/11/20.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/

docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866)
208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 30, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-17075 Filed 8-4-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 6, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39399-39400]
[FR Doc No: 2011-16729]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0850; FRL-8878-9]

Chlorpyrifos Registration Review; Preliminary Human Health Risk
Assessment; Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of EPA's preliminary
human health risk assessment for the registration review of
chlorpyrifos and opens a public comment period on this document.
Registration review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide registrations
to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the statutory
standard for registration, that is, the pesticide can perform its
intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human health
or the environment. As part of the registration review process, the
Agency has completed a comprehensive preliminary human health risk
assessment for all chlorpyrifos uses. After reviewing comments received
during the public comment period, EPA will issue a revised risk
assessment, explain any changes to the preliminary risk assessment, and
respond to comments and may request public input on risk mitigation
before completing a proposed registration review decision for
chlorpyrifos. Through this program, EPA is ensuring that each
pesticide's registration is based on current scientific and other
knowledge, including its effects on human health and the environment.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 6, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments identified by the docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0850, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to the docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OPP-2008-0850. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the docket without change and may be made available on-line
at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of
operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For pesticide specific information
contact: Tom Myers, Chemical Review Manager, Pesticide Re-evaluation
Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-
mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general questions on the registration review program, contact:
Kevin Costello, Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (7508P), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, farm worker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry;
pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale,
distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be
interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific
entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult the chemical review manager listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

 B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides
discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

II. Authority

    EPA is conducting its registration review of chlorpyrifos pursuant
to section 3(g) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA) and the Procedural Regulations for Registration Review at
40 CFR part 155, subpart C. Section 3(g) of FIFRA provides, among other
things, that the registrations of pesticides are to be reviewed every
15 years. Under FIFRA, a pesticide product may be registered or remain
registered only if it meets the statutory standard for registration
given in FIFRA section 3(c)(5). When used in accordance with widespread
and commonly recognized practice, the pesticide product must perform
its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on the
environment; that is, without any unreasonable risk to man or the
environment, or a human dietary risk from residues that result from the
use of a pesticide in or on food.

III. Registration Reviews

 A. What action is the agency taking?

    As directed by FIFRA section 3(g), EPA is reviewing the pesticide
registration for chlorpyrifos to ensure that it continues to satisfy
the FIFRA standard for registration--that is, that chlorpyrifos can
still be used without unreasonable adverse effects on human health or
the environment. Chlorpyrifos is an organophosphate insecticide,
acaricide, and miticide used to control a variety of insects on food
and feed crops, golf course turf, greenhouses, nonstructural wood
treatments (such as utility poles and fence posts), ant bait stations,
and as an adult mosquitocide. EPA has completed a comprehensive
preliminary human health risk assessment for all chlorpyrifos uses.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.53(c), EPA is providing an opportunity,
through this notice of availability, for interested parties to provide
comments and input concerning the Agency's preliminary human health
risk assessment for chlorpyrifos. EPA acknowledged its intent to issue
this assessment for public comment in a December 21, 2010, Stipulation
and Order issued by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York in Natural Resources Defense Council, et al. v. EPA, No. 10
Civ. 5590. Comments and input could address, among other things, the
Agency's risk assessment methodologies and assumptions, as applied to
this preliminary risk assessment. The Agency will consider all comments
received during the public comment period and make changes, as
appropriate, to the preliminary human health risk assessment. EPA will
then issue a revised risk assessment, explain any changes to the
preliminary risk assessment, and respond to comments. In the Federal
Register notice announcing the availability of the revised risk
assessment, if the revised risk assessment indicates risks of concern,
the Agency may provide a comment period for the public to submit
suggestions for mitigating the risk identified in the revised risk
assessment before developing a proposed registration review decision on
chlorpyrifos.
    1. Other related information. Additional information on
chlorpyrifos is available on the Pesticide Registration Review Status
webpage for this pesticide, http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/chlorpyrifos/index.htm. Information on the Agency's registration
review program and its implementing regulation is available at http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review.
    2. Information submission requirements. Anyone may submit data or
information in response to this document. To be considered during a
pesticide's registration review, the submitted data or information must
meet the following requirements:
     To ensure that EPA will consider data or information
submitted, interested persons must submit the data or information
during the comment period. The Agency may, at its discretion, consider
data or information submitted at a later date.
     The data or information submitted must be presented in a
legible and useable form. For example, an English translation must
accompany any material that is not in English and a written transcript
must accompany any information submitted as an audiographic or
videographic record. Written material may be submitted in paper or
electronic form.
     Submitters must clearly identify the source of any
submitted data or information.
     Submitters may request the Agency to reconsider data or
information that the Agency rejected in a previous review. However,
submitters must explain why they believe the Agency should reconsider
the data or information in the pesticide's registration review.
    As provided in 40 CFR 155.58, the registration review docket for
each pesticide case will remain publicly accessible through the
duration of the registration review process; that is, until all actions
required in the final decision on the registration review case have
been completed.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Chlorpyrifos, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: June 22, 2011.
Richard P. Keigwin, Jr.,
Director, Pesticide Re-evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2011-16729 Filed 7-5-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 11, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21766-21767]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8731]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003-0004; FRL-9344-4]

Access to Confidential Business Information by CGI Federal Inc.

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has authorized its contractor, CGI Federal Inc. (CGI) of
Fairfax, VA, to access information which has been submitted to EPA
under all sections of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Some of
the information may be claimed or determined to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI).

DATES: Access to the confidential data occurred on or about March 26,
2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact:
Pamela Moseley, Information Management Division (7407M), Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 564-8956; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this notice apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may,
however, be of interest to all who manufacture, process, or distribute
industrial chemicals. Since other entities may also be interested, the
Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may
be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003-0004. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPPT
Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) at
Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC.
The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the OPPT Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Docket visitors
are required to show photographic identification, pass through a metal
detector, and sign the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are processed
through an X-ray machine and subject to search. Visitors will be
provided an EPA/DC badge that must be visible at all times in the
building and returned upon departure.

II. What action is the agency taking?

    Under EPA Contract Number GS00Q09BGD0022, Order Number EP-G11H-
00154, contractor CGI of 12601 Fair Lakes Circle, Fairfax, VA will
assist the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) in
developing, migrating and integrating various OPPT systems to support
the collection, routing and analysis of TSCA CBI data. The full scope
of the Central Data Exchange (CDX) is to enable fast, efficient and
more accurate environmental data submissions from state and local
governments, industry and tribes to EPA and participating program
offices. EPA's CDX is the point of entry on the Environmental
Information Exchange Network for environmental data submissions to the
Agency. CDX will work with both EPA program offices looking for a way
to better manage incoming data, and stakeholders looking

for a way to reduce time and money spent to meet EPA reporting
requirements.
    In accordance with 40 CFR 2.306(j), EPA has determined that under
EPA Contract Number GS00Q09BGD0022, Order Number EP-G11H-00154, CGI
will require access to CBI submitted to EPA under all sections of TSCA
to perform successfully the duties specified under the contract. CGI's
personnel will be given access to information submitted to EPA under
all sections of TSCA. Some of the information may be claimed or
determined to be CBI.
    EPA is issuing this notice to inform all submitters of information
under all sections of TSCA that EPA may provide CGI access to these CBI
materials on a need-to-know basis only. All access to TSCA CBI under
this contract will take place at EPA Headquarters in accordance with
EPA's TSCA CBI Protection Manual.
    Access to TSCA data, including CBI, will continue until January 1,
2017. If the contract is extended, this access will also continue for
the duration of the extended contract without further notice.
    CGI's personnel have been required to sign nondisclosure agreements
and have been briefed on appropriate security procedures before they
are permitted access to TSCA CBI.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Confidential business information.

    Dated: March 29, 2012.
 Matthew G. Leopard,
Director, Information Management Division, Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics.
[FR Doc. 2012-8731 Filed 4-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 238 (Friday, December 11, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76894-76897]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31182]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[EPA-R02-OAR-2015-0755, FRL-9940-00-Region 2]

Approval and Promulgation of State Plans for Designated
Facilities; Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve the State plan submitted by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to
implement and enforce the Emission Guidelines (EG) for existing sewage
sludge incineration (SSI) units. Puerto Rico's plan is consistent with
the EG promulgated by the EPA on March 21, 2011. Puerto Rico's plan
establishes emission limits and other requirements for the purpose of
reducing toxic air emissions and other air pollutants from existing SSI
units throughout the Commonwealth. At the request of Puerto Rico, the
EPA is proposing not to take action on a provision of its SSI plan
allowing for affirmative defenses of Clean Air Act violations in the
case of malfunctions. Puerto Rico submitted its plan to fulfill the
requirements of sections 111(d) and 129 of the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before January 11, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R02-OAR-2015-0755 by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: EPA-R02-OAR-2015-0755, Richard Ruvo, Chief, Air
Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290
Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866.
     Hand Delivery: Richard Ruvo, Chief, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th
Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional
Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30
a.m. to 4:00 p.m. excluding federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R02-OAR-
2015-0755. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change, and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov
or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an email comment directly to EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov your email address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or
CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not
be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use
of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any
defects or viruses. For additional information about the EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket materials are available at
www.regulations.gov or at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2
Office, Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New
York 10007-1866. The EPA requests, if at all possible, that you contact
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
view the hard copy of the docket. The Regional Office's official hours
of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.,
excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony (Ted) Gardella
(Gardella.anthony@epa.gov), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2
Office, Air Programs Branch,

290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866, (212) 637-
3892.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following table of contents describes
the format for the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section:

I. EPA Action
    A. What action is the EPA proposing today?
    B. Which provision of the Puerto Rico State sewage sludge
incineration (SSI) plan is the EPA not taking action on?
     C. What is the background for Puerto Rico's request that EPA
not take action on the affirmative defense provision?
     D. Why is the EPA taking this action?
     E. Who is affected by Puerto Rico's State SSI plan?
 II. Background
     A. What is a State plan?
     B. What is a State SSI plan?
     C. Why is the EPA requiring Puerto Rico to submit a State SSI
plan?
     D. What are the requirements for a State SSI plan?
 III. Puerto Rico's State SSI Plan
     A. What is contained in the Puerto Rico State SSI plan?
     B. What approval criteria did the EPA use to evaluate Puerto
Rico's State SSI plan?
 IV. What is the EPA's conclusion?
 V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. EPA Action

A. What action is the EPA proposing today?

    The EPA is proposing to approve Puerto Rico's State plan, submitted
on July 30, 2014, for the control of air emissions from existing SSI
units throughout the Commonwealth. Puerto Rico submitted its SSI plan
to fulfill the requirements of sections 111(d) and 129 of the Clean Air
Act (CAA). The Puerto Rico State SSI plan adopts and implements the
Emission Guidelines (EG) applicable to existing SSI units, and
establishes emission limits and other requirements for SSI units
constructed on or before October 14, 2010.
    As explained below, Puerto Rico requested in its July 30, 2014
submittal, that the EPA not take any action on a provision of the
Puerto Rico State SSI plan allowing for affirmative defenses of CAA
violations in the case of malfunctions. Therefore, the EPA is not
taking any proposed action on the affirmative defense provision portion
of Puerto Rico's State SSI plan.

B. Which provision of the Puerto Rico State sewage sludge incineration
(SSI) plan is the EPA not taking action on?

    Puerto Rico is requesting that the EPA not take any action on a
provision in Puerto Rico's State SSI plan that allows for an
affirmative defense by an owner/operator of an SSI unit for violations
of air emissions or other requirements of Puerto Rico's plan in the
event of malfunction(s) of a covered SSI unit. With the exception of
the affirmative defense provision in Puerto Rico's State SSI plan, the
EPA's proposed approval, once finalized and effective, will make Puerto
Rico's rules included in Puerto Rico's State SSI plan federally
enforceable.

C. What is the background for Puerto Rico's request that EPA not take
action on the affirmative defense provision?

    In an April 18, 2014 opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit Court) vacated an
affirmative defense in one of the EPA's Section 112 regulations.
Natural Resources Defense Council v. Environmental Protection Agency,
749 F.3d 1055 (D.C. Cir., 2014) (vacating affirmative defense
provisions in Section 112 rule establishing emission standards for
Portland cement kilns). The court found that the EPA lacked authority
to establish an affirmative defense for private civil suits and held
that under the CAA, the authority to determine civil penalty amounts in
such cases lies exclusively with the courts, not the EPA. The Office of
General Counsel determined that EPA policy should reflect the court's
decision. The vacated affirmative defense provision in the EPA's
Portland cement MACT rule is identical to the affirmative defense
provision in the EPA's SSI EG, promulgated on March 21, 2011, under
sections 111(d) and 129 of the CAA, at Sec.  60.5181 (``How do I
establish an affirmative defense for exceedance of an emission limit or
standard during a malfunction?''). Puerto Rico's State SSI plan adopted
all the applicable requirements of the EPA's SSI EG, including the
affirmative defense provisions at Sec.  60.5181, into its State plan at
Rule 405(d) of the Regulation for the Control of Atmospheric Pollution
(RCAP). Specifically, Puerto Rico requests that the EPA not include the
following affirmative defense provisions in Puerto Rico's Rule 405(d):
(d)(2)(E), (d)(2)(E)(i) and (d)(2)(E)(ii) in Puerto Rico's State plan.
    Because of the April 2014 D.C. Circuit Court's vacatur referred to
above, Puerto Rico, in its July 30, 2014 submittal letter to the EPA,
requested that the EPA not take action on the affirmative defense
provision included in Puerto Rico's State SSI plan submitted to the EPA
for approval on July 30, 2014.\1\ Consequently, the EPA is proposing to
not take any action on that particular provisions of Puerto Rico's
State SSI plan as discussed herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA has proposed a Federal SSI plan which would apply to SSI
units that are not covered by an approved and effective state plan.
The proposed federal plan does not include an affirmative defense to
violations that result from malfunctions. 80 FR 23402, 23407 (Apr.
27, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Why is the EPA taking this action?

    EPA has evaluated Puerto Rico's State SSI plan for consistency with
the CAA, EPA guidelines and policy. The EPA has determined that Puerto
Rico's State SSI plan meets all applicable requirements and therefore,
the EPA is proposing to approve Puerto Rico's State plan to implement
and enforce the EG applicable to existing SSI units, except that, as
requested by Puerto Rico, the EPA is proposing not to take action on
the affirmative defense provisions of Puerto Rico's SSI State plan for
the reasons discussed above.

E. Who is affected by Puerto Rico's State SSI plan?

    Puerto Rico's State plan regulates all the units designated by the
EG for existing SSI units which commenced construction on or before
October 14, 2010 and which are located at a wastewater treatment
facility designed to treat domestic sewage sludge. If the owner or
operator of an SSI unit made changes after September 21, 2011, that
meet the definition of modification (see Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, section 60.5250 (40 CFR 60.5250)), the SSI unit becomes
subject to subpart LLLL (New Source Performance Standards for New
Sewage Sludge Incineration Units) of 40 CFR part 60, and the State plan
no longer applies to that unit.

II. Background

A. What is a State plan?

    Section 111 of the CAA, ``Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources,'' authorizes EPA to set air emissions standards for
certain categories of sources. These standards are called New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS). When a NSPS is promulgated for new
sources, section 111(d) also requires that EPA publish an EG applicable
to control the same pollutants from existing (or designated)
facilities. States \2\ with designated facilities must then develop a
State plan to adopt the EG into the State's body of regulations. States
must also include in their State plan other requirements, such as
inventories, legal authority, reporting and recordkeeping, and public
participation documentation, to

demonstrate their ability to enforce the State plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Section 302(d) of the CAA includes the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico in the definition of the term ``State.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 129 of the CAA requires EPA to establish performance
standards and emission guidelines for various types of new and existing
solid waste incineration units. Section 129(b)(2) requires States to
submit to EPA for approval section 111(d)/129 plans that implement and
enforce the promulgated EG. Section 129(b)(3) requires EPA to
promulgate a Federal plan (FP) within two years from the date on which
the EG, or when revision to the EG, is promulgated. The FP is
applicable to affected facilities when the state has failed to receive
EPA approval of the section 111(d)/129 plan. The FP remains in effect
until the state submits and receives EPA approval of its section
111(d)/129 plan.
    State plan submittals under CAA sections 111(d) and 129 must be
consistent with the relevant EG, in this instance 40 CFR part 60,
subpart MMMM, and the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart B and
part 62, subpart A. Section 129 of the CAA regulates air pollutants
that include organics (dioxins/furans), carbon monoxide, metals
(cadmium, lead, and mercury), acid gases (hydrogen chloride, sulfur
dioxide, and nitrogen oxides), particulate matter, and opacity (as
appropriate).

B. What is a State SSI plan?

    A State SSI plan is a State plan, as described above, that controls
air pollutant emissions from existing sewage sludge incinerators
located at a wastewater treatment facility designed to treat domestic
sewage sludge and that commenced construction on or before October 14,
2010. The applicable types of SSI units include fluidized bed and
multiple hearth incinerators.

C. Why is the EPA requiring Puerto Rico to submit a State SSI plan?

    When the EPA developed the NSPS for SSI units, we simultaneously
developed the EG to control air emissions from existing SSI units (see
76 FR 15371, March 21, 2011). Under section 129 of the CAA, the EG is
not federally enforceable; therefore, section 129 of the CAA also
requires states to submit to EPA for approval State plans that
implement and enforce the EG. Under section 129 of the CAA, these State
plans must be at least as protective as the EG, and they become
federally enforceable upon approval by EPA.
    The procedures for adopting and submitting State plans are located
in 40 CFR part 60, subpart B. If a state fails to have an approvable
plan in place by March 21, 2013, the EPA is required to promulgate a
federal plan to establish requirements for those sources not under an
EPA-approved State plan. The procedures for EPA's approval and
disapproval of State plans are located in 40 CFR part 62, subpart A.
The EPA is proposing to approve Puerto Rico's State SSI plan, except,
as discussed above, for the affirmative defense provisions, since its
SSI plan is deemed at least as protective as the standards set in the
EG. Puerto Rico has developed and submitted a State plan, as required
by sections 111(d)/129 of the CAA, to gain federal approval to
implement and enforce the EG for existing SSI units.

D. What are the requirements for a State SSI plan?

    A section 111(d) State plan submittal must meet the requirements of
40 CFR part 60, subpart B, sections 60.23 through 60.26, and the EG
found at 40 CFR part 60, subpart MMMM (see 76 FR 15371, March 21,
2011). Subpart B contains the procedures for the adoption and submittal
of State plans. This subpart addresses public participation, legal
authority, emission standards and other emission limitations,
compliance schedules, emission inventories, source surveillance, and
compliance assurance and enforcement requirements.
    EPA promulgated the EG at 40 CFR part 60, subpart MMMM on March 21,
2011. Subpart MMMM contains guidelines to the states for submittal of
plans that address existing SSI units. In addition, subpart MMMM
contains the technical requirements for existing SSI units located at a
wastewater treatment plant designed to treat domestic sewage sludge and
applies to SSI units that commenced construction on or before October
14, 2010. A state can address the SSI technical requirements by
adopting its own regulation that includes all the applicable
requirements of subpart MMMM or by adopting by reference subpart MMMM.
The section 111(d) State plan is required to be submitted within one
year of the EG promulgation date, i.e., by March 21, 2012. Prior to
submittal to EPA, the State must make available to the public the State
plan and provide opportunity for public comment, including a public
hearing.

III. Puerto Rico's State SSI Plan

A. What is contained in the Puerto Rico State SSI plan?

    On July 30, 2014 \3\, the Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board
submitted its section 111(d) State plan for implementing EPA's EG for
existing SSI units located in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In emails dated 6/04/2015, 8/10/2015 and 11/10/2015, Puerto
Rico responded to EPA's requests to provide clarifying information
concerning Puerto Rico's State SSI plan. This clarifying information
also is available in EPA's docket at www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Puerto Rico amended Rule 102, entitled ``Definitions of the
Regulation for the Control of Atmospheric Pollution (RCAP),'' and
incorporated Rule 405(d), entitled ``Emission Guidelines and Compliance
Times for Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Units (SSI),'' to include
the requirements for implementing the SSI EG covered under Sections
111(d) and 129 of the CAA, and codified in 40 CFR part 60, subpart
MMMM. Revisions to Puerto Rico's Rules became effective on July 13,
2014.
    Section 60.5015 of the EG describes all of the required elements
that must be included in a state's plan for SSI units. Puerto Rico's
State SSI plan includes all of the required elements described in
section 60.5015 of the EG, as summarized herein:
    (1) A demonstration by the Attorney General of the Puerto Rico
Department of Justice of the Commonwealth's legal authority to
implement the sections 111(d) and 129 State SSI plan;
    (2) State Rules 102 and 405(d) adopted into RCAP as the mechanism
for implementing and enforcing the State SSI plan;
    (3) An inventory of one known SSI facility, including one SSI unit,
along with an inventory of estimated air pollutant emissions (see
sections VI of Puerto Rico's State plan as well as the clarifying
information submitted by Puerto Rico \4\). The affected SSI unit is a
fluidized bed combustor, identified in the inventory as `Sludge
Incinerator,' and is located at the Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer
Authority (PRASA) facility in Puerto Nuevo;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In an email dated 11/10/2015, Puerto Rico provided
additional emissions inventory data for the one known SSI unit in
the Commonwealth. This information is available in the EPA's docket
at www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (4) Emission limits, emission standards, operator training and
qualification requirements, and operating limits that are as protective
as the EG;
    (5) Enforceable compliance schedules incorporated into Rule 405(d),
as follows: if an owner of an affected SSI unit plans to achieve
compliance more than one year following the effective date of state
plan approval the owner must (1) submit a final control plan to Puerto
Rico by September 21, 2014, and (2) achieve final compliance by March
21, 2016 (see section (d)(7) of Puerto Rico's State plan);

    (6) Testing, monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping requirements
for the designated facilities;
    (7) Records of the public hearing on the State SSI plan; and,
    (8) Provisions for annual state progress reports to EPA on
implementation of the State plan.
    The EPA proposes to determine that Puerto Rico's State SSI plan for
existing SSI units includes all the required State plan elements
described in section 60.5015 of the EG.

B. What approval criteria did the EPA use to evaluate Puerto Rico's
State SSI plan?

    The EPA reviewed Puerto Rico's State SSI plan for approval against
the following criteria: 40 CFR 60.23 through 60.26, ``Subpart B--
Adoption and Submittal of State Plans for Designated Facilities;'' and
40 CFR 60.5000 through 60.5250, ``Subpart MMMM--Emission Guidelines and
Compliance Times for Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Units;'' and
40 CFR 62, subpart A, ``General Provisions'' for ``Approval and
Promulgation of State Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants.''

IV. What is the EPA's Conclusion?

    The EPA has determined that Puerto Rico's State SSI plan meets all
the applicable approval criteria as discussed above and, therefore, the
EPA is proposing to approve Puerto Rico's sections 111(d) and 129 State
plan for existing sewage sludge incineration units. As explained above,
at the request of Puerto Rico, the EPA is proposing to not take any
action on the affirmative defense provisions in Puerto Rico's State SSI
plan.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a 111(d)/
129 plan submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 40 CFR 62.04. Thus, in reviewing
111(d)/129 plan submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The 111(d)/129 plan is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
Nation Land, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Aluminum, Fertilizers, Fluoride,
Intergovernmental relations, Paper and paper products industry,
Phosphate, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Sulfur acid plants, waste treatment and disposal.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: November 30, 2015.
 Judith A. Enck,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2015-31182 Filed 12-10-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: November 28, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 228)]
[Notices]
[Page 68871-68872]
[DOCID:fr28no06-100]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54784; File No. SR-OCC-2006-17]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Definition
of Fund Share and Options on Commodity Pool ETFs

 November 20, 2006.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ notice is hereby given that on September 21, 2006, 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
primarily 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change would permit OCC to issue, clear, and
settle options on equity interests issued by exchange-traded funds
(``ETFs'') that trade directly or indirectly in commodity futures
products and are therefore subject to regulation by the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission (``CFTC'') as commodity pools.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, OCC included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A),
(B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Commission has modified parts of these statements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change would amend the definition of ``fund
share'' to include options on equity interests issued by ETFs that
trade directly or indirectly in commodity futures products and are
therefore subject to regulation by the CFTC as commodity pools. The
Commission recently approved a proposed rule change filed by the
American Stock Exchange to list and trade options on (1) interests
(``Interests'') issued by the DB Commodity Index Tracking Fund (``DBC
Fund''), whose value is intended to track the performance of the
``Deutsche Bank Liquid Commodity IndexTM--Excess Return''
(``Index''),\3\ and (2) units (``Units'') issued by the United States
Oil Fund, L.P. (``Oil Fund''), whose value is intended to track the
spot price of West Texas Intermediate light, sweet crude oil delivered
to Cushing, Oklahoma, less Oil Fund expenses (``Benchmark'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54450 (September 14,
2006) 71 FR 55230 (September 21, 2006)[File No. SR-AMEX-2006-44].
    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53582 (March 31, 2006)
71 FR 17510 (April 6, 2006) [File No. SR-AMEX-2005-127].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The DBC Fund is a ``feeder fund'' that invests substantially all of
its assets in the DB Commodity Index Tracking Master Fund (``Master
Fund''), and the Master Fund in turn maintains a portfolio of exchange-
traded futures on aluminum, gold, corn, wheat, heating oil and light,
sweet crude oil. The Index is derived from the prices of those futures
contracts. The Master Fund's portfolio is managed on an ongoing basis
by DB Commodity Services LLC, a registered commodity pool operator and
commodity trading advisor so that the

value of the portfolio closely tracks the value of the Index over time.
    Unlike the DBC Fund, the Oil Fund does not invest through a master
fund but rather trades directly in futures on crude and heating oil,
natural gas, gasoline, and other petroleum-based fuels; in options on
such futures contracts; in forward contracts for oil; and in other
over-the-counter derivatives based on the price of oil, other
petroleum-based fuels, the futures contracts described above, and
indexes based on any of the foregoing. The Oil Fund's portfolio is
managed by Victoria Bay Asset Management LLC with the aim of tracking
the Benchmark.
    The Interests and the Units are freely transferable and may be
bought and sold like any other ETF interest or other exchange-listed
security. In addition to options on the Interests and the Units, there
may be other similar options on ETFs regulated as commodity pools
(``Pool ETFs'') that OCC may be asked to issue, clear, and settle in
the future.
    The proposed rule change is needed to permit OCC to issue, clear,
and settle options on Pool ETFs. The definition of ``fund share'' in
Article I of OCC's By-Laws is currently limited to shares in entities
``holding portfolios or baskets of securities.'' However, the Oil Fund
invests directly in commodity futures contracts. Additionally, although
as a technical matter the DBC Fund invests exclusively in securities
(the units issued by the Master Fund), entities such as the DBC Fund
that invest in the securities issued by a commodity pool are themselves
deemed to be commodity pools because they represent an indirect
investment in commodity futures contracts. OCC is therefore proposing
to amend the definition of ``fund share'' in Article I of its By-Laws
to specifically refer to interests in an entity that is a commodity
pool. The definition would also be revised to make it clear that (i) it
includes entities with actively managed portfolios, (ii) it includes
feeder funds, and (iii) it applies only to entities principally engaged
in holding portfolios or baskets of securities or currencies and not
entities that do so as an incident to some other business.
    The proposed rule change will not be implemented until definitive
copies of an appropriate supplement to the options disclosure document,
Characteristics and Risks of Standardized Options, are available for
distribution.
    OCC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
purposes and requirements of Section 17A of the Act, because it is
designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in the clearance and settlement of such transactions,
to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a national system
for the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of such
transactions, and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest. The proposed rule change is not inconsistent with the
existing rules of OCC, including any other rules proposed to be
amended.

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

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

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

    Written comments 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 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date 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 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-OCC-2006-17 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2006-17. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of OCC and on OCC's
Web site at http://www.optionsclearing.com.

    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-2006-17
and should be submitted on or before December 19, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\5\
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-20049 Filed 11-27-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P