[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 222 (Friday, November 16, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68718-68721]
[FR Doc No: 2012-27814]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2012-0969]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone for Fireworks Display, Upper Potomac River,
Alexandria Channel; Washington, DC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone
encompassing certain waters of the Upper Potomac River. This action is
necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during
a fireworks display launched from a barge located within the Alexandria
Channel at Washington, DC. This safety zone is intended to protect the
maritime public in a portion of the Upper Potomac River.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before December 17, 2012. If finalized, this rule would be
effective from 10:30 p.m. on December 31, 2012 through 9 p.m. on
January 1, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number using
any one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail or Delivery: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Deliveries
accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
federal holidays. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for further instructions
on submitting comments. To avoid duplication, please use only one of
these three methods.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Mr. Ronald L. Houck, Sector Baltimore, Waterways
Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

1. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at
http://www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but
please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online, it
will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully
transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment,
it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when
it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you
include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a
telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact
you if we have questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number USCG-2012-0969 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on ``Submit a Comment'' on the line associated with
this rulemaking.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period and may change the rule
based on your comments.

2. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number (USCG-2012-0969) in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with
this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in
Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

3. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

4. Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one, using one of the methods specified under ADDRESSES.
Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If
we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a
time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

B. Regulatory History and Information

    This rule involves a New Years Eve fireworks display, an event that
takes place in Alexandria, Virginia each year on December 31st and
attracts thousands of spectators. This year, the launch site for the
annual fireworks display is being moved from land to a discharge barge
located on the Upper Potomac River. The permanent safety zone listed as
Number 21 in the Table to 33 CFR 165.506 does not apply to this event.

C. Basis and Purpose

    First Night Alexandria, of Alexandria, Virginia, will conduct a
fireworks display launched from a barge located on the Upper Potomac
River, near Alexandria, Virginia, scheduled on December 31, 2012 at
approximately 12 a.m. Midnight. If necessary, due to inclement weather,
the fireworks display may be re-scheduled to take place on January 1,
2013 at approximately 8 p.m.
    Fireworks displays are frequently held from locations on or near
the navigable waters of the United States. The potential hazards
associated with fireworks displays are a safety concern during such
events. The purpose of this rule is to promote public and maritime
safety during a fireworks display, and to protect mariners transiting
the area from the potential hazards associated with a fireworks
display, such as the accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous
projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. This rule is
needed to ensure safety on the waterway before, during and after the
scheduled event.

D. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    Through this regulation, the Coast Guard proposes to establish a
temporary safety zone. The proposed zone would encompass all waters of
the Upper Potomac River, Alexandria Channel, within a 200 yards radius
of a fireworks discharge barge in approximate position latitude
38[deg]48'40'' N, longitude 077[deg]02'07'' W, located near the
waterfront of Alexandria, Virginia. The temporary safety zone would be
enforced from 10:30 p.m. on December 31, 2012 through 1 a.m. on January
1, 2013 and, if necessary due to inclement weather, from 6:30 p.m.
through 9 p.m. on January 1, 2013.
    The effect of this temporary safety zone would be to restrict
navigation in the regulated area during, as well as the set up and take
down of, the fireworks display. Vessels would be allowed to transit the
waters of the Upper Potomac River outside the safety zone.
    This rule would require that entry into or remaining in this safety
zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the
Port Baltimore. Vessels already at berth, mooring, or anchor in the
safety zone at the time the safety zone is implemented would not have
to depart the zone. All vessels underway within this safety zone at the
time it is implemented would have to depart the zone. To seek
permission to transit the area of the safety zone, the Captain of the
Port Baltimore can be contacted at telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER> or on
Marine Band Radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Coast Guard vessels
enforcing the safety zone can be contacted on Marine Band Radio VHF-FM
channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Federal, state, and local agencies may assist
the Coast Guard in the enforcement of the safety zone. The Coast Guard
will issue notices to the maritime community to further publicize the
safety zone and notify the public of changes in the status of the zone.
Such notices will continue until the event is complete.

E. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on a number of these statutes or executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. There is no vessel
traffic associated with recreational boating and commercial fishing
expected during the effective period.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The
Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. This proposed rule would affect the following entities,
some of which might be small entities: the owners or operators of
vessels intending to operate or transit through or within the safety
zone during the enforcement period. Before the effective period,
maritime advisories will be widely available to the maritime community.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT, above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule will not call for a new collection of
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520.).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the ``For Further
Information Contact'' section to coordinate protest activities so that
your

message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of
people, places or vessels.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

12. Energy Effects

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' under
Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a
category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule
involves establishing a temporary safety zone. This rule is
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of
Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A preliminary environmental
analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical
Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to
the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed
rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

    1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703;
50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Add Sec.  165.T05-0969 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.0969  Safety Zone, Upper Potomac River, Alexandria Channel;
Washington, DC.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters of
the Upper Potomac River, Alexandria Channel, within a 200 yards radius
of a fireworks discharge barge in approximate position latitude
38[deg]48'40'' N, longitude 077[deg]02'07'' W, located near the
waterfront of Alexandria, Virginia. All coordinates refer to datum NAD
1983.
    (b) Regulations. The general safety zone regulations found in 33
CFR 165.23 apply to the safety zone created by this temporary section,
Sec.  165.T05.0969.
    (1) All persons are required to comply with the general regulations
governing safety zones found in 33 CFR 165.23.
    (2) Entry into or remaining in this zone is prohibited unless
authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Baltimore. Vessels
already at berth, mooring, or anchor at the time the safety zone is
implemented do not have to depart the safety zone. All vessels underway
within this safety zone at the time it is implemented are to depart the
zone.
    (3) Persons desiring to transit the area of the safety zone must
first obtain authorization from the Captain of the Port Baltimore or
his designated representative. To seek permission to transit the area,
the Captain of the Port Baltimore and his designated representatives
can be contacted at telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER> or on Marine Band
Radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). The Coast Guard vessels enforcing
this section can be contacted on Marine Band Radio VHF-FM channel 16
(156.8 MHz). Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel, or other
Federal, State, or local agency vessel, by siren, radio, flashing
light, or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as
directed. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply
with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Baltimore or his
designated representative and proceed at the minimum speed necessary to
maintain a safe course while within the zone.
    (4) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol
and enforcement of the zone by Federal, State, and local agencies.
    (c) Definitions. As used in this section:
    Captain of the Port Baltimore means the Commander, U.S. Coast Guard
Sector Baltimore, Maryland.
    Designated representative means any Coast Guard commissioned,
warrant, or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the
Port Baltimore to assist in enforcing the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section.
    (d) Effective period. This section will be enforced from 10:30 p.m.
on December 31, 2012 through 1 a.m. on January 1, 2013 and, if
necessary due to inclement weather, from 6:30 p.m. through 9 p.m. on
January 1, 2013.

    Dated: November 2, 2012.
Kevin C. Kiefer,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Baltimore.
[FR Doc. 2012-27814 Filed 11-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 101 (Tuesday, May 26, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31536-31537]
[FR Doc No: 2020-11175]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4506-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2020-0001]

Pennsylvania; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (FEMA-4506-DR), dated
March 30, 2020, and related determinations.

DATES: The declaration was issued March 30, 2020.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated March 30, 2020, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the emergency conditions in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania resulting from the Coronavirus Disease
2019 (COVID-19) pandemic beginning on January 20, 2020, and
continuing, are of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a
major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the
``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster
exists in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide assistance for emergency
protective measures (Category B), including direct Federal
assistance, under the Public Assistance program throughout the
Commonwealth. Consistent with the

requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal
funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance will be
limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

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

    Emergency protective measures (Category B) not authorized under
other Federal statutes, including direct Federal assistance, under
the Public Assistance program at 75 percent federal funding for all
areas in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Pete Gaynor,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2020-11175 Filed 5-22-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 30 (Thursday, February 13, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8760-8761]
[FR Doc No: 2014-03130]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71511; File No. SR-ICC-2014-01]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Implement
Collateral and Cash Management Fee Changes

February 7, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on February 3, 2014, ICE Clear Credit LLC (``ICC'') 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 ICC. ICC filed the proposal pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act,\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \4\ thereunder so that
the proposal was effective upon filing with the Commission. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to implement changes to
the method by which ICC charges Clearing Participants for collateral
and cash management services.

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

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

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

    The proposed revisions are intended to implement changes to the
method by which ICC charges Clearing Participants for collateral and
cash management services (e.g., custody services for collateral;
investment/placement of cash deposits; establishing prearranged and
highly reliable funding arrangements to allow conversion of non-cash
collateral into cash; and managing collateral deposits to ensure all
liquidity requirements are met). Such proposed fee changes are the
result of changes to ICC's collateral and cash management services that
were made in response to new U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission
(``CFTC'') regulations implementing international standards related to
liquidity requirements. The proposed changes are described in detail as
follows.
    With respect to collateral deposited by Clearing Participants with
ICC for the purposes of satisfying margin and Guaranty Fund
requirements, ICC will impose a 5 basis point (bp) fee (annualized) on
U.S. Treasury securities balances (based on par value). This fee will
be calculated and charged monthly. In addition, ICC will retain a
portion of interest earned on cash balances, net of cash management
expenses. The charges will apply to both house and client

accounts and ICC proposes to make such changes effective beginning on
February 3, 2014.
    ICC believes the proposed rule changes are consistent with the
requirements of the Act including Section 17A of the Act.\5\ More
specifically, the proposed rule changes establish or change a member
due, fee or other charge imposed by ICC under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii)
\6\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \7\ thereunder. ICC believes the
proposed rule changes are consistent with the requirements of the Act
and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to ICC, in
particular, to Section 17(A)(b)(3)(D),\8\ because the proposed
collateral and cash management fee changes apply equally to all market
participants and therefore the proposed changes provide for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among
participants. As such, the proposed changes are appropriately filed
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) \9\ of the Act and paragraph (f)(2) of
Rule 19b-4 thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(D).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    ICC does not believe the proposed rule change would have any
impact, or impose any burden, on competition. The proposed collateral
and cash management fee changes apply consistently across all market
participants and the implementation of the proposed collateral and cash
management fee changes does not preclude the implementation of similar
fee changes by other market participants. Therefore, ICC does not
believe the collateral and cash management fee changes impose any
burden on competition that is inappropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective upon filing pursuant
to Section 19(b)(3)(A) \10\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \11\
thereunder because, by implementing changes to the method by which ICC
charges Clearing Participants for collateral and cash management
services, ICC is establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge
applicable only to a member. At any time within 60 days of the filing
of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily
suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such
action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the
protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml), or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ICC-2014-01 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICC-2014-01. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filings also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of ICE Clear Credit
and on ICE Clear Credit's Web site at https://www.theice.com/notices/Notices.shtml?regulatoryFilings.
    All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICC-2014-01
and should be submitted on or before March 6, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-03130 Filed 2-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 73 (Thursday, April 16, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20515-20516]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08693]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copy Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549-2736.

Extension:
    Rules 8b-1 to 8b-33, SEC File No. 270-135, OMB Control No. 3235-
0176.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (``OMB'') a request for extension of the
previously approved collection of information discussed below.
    Rules 8b-1 to 8b-33 (17 CFR 270.8b-1 to 8b-33) under the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.) (``Investment Company
Act'') set forth the procedures for preparing and filing a registration
statement under the Investment Company Act. These procedures are
intended to facilitate the registration process. These rules generally
do not require respondents to report information.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Although the rules under Section 8(b) of the Investment
Company Act are generally procedural in nature, two of the rules
require respondents to disclose some limited information. Rule 8b-3
(17 CFR 270.8b-3) provides that whenever a registration form
requires the title of securities to be stated, the registrant must
indicate the type and general character of the securities to be
issued. Rule 8b-22 (17 CFR 270.8b-22) provides that if the existence
of control is open to reasonable doubt, the registrant may disclaim
the existence of control, but it must state the material facts
pertinent to the possible existence of control. The information
required by both of these rules is necessary to ensure that
investors have clear and complete information upon which to base an
investment decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that it is appropriate to estimate the
total respondent burden associated with preparing each registration
statement form rather than attempt to isolate the impact of the
procedural instructions under Section 8(b) of the Investment Company
Act, which impose burdens only in the context of the preparation of the
various registration statement forms. Accordingly, the Commission is
not submitting a separate burden estimate for rules 8b-1 through 8b-33,
but instead will include the burden for these rules in its estimates of
burden for each of the registration forms under the Investment Company
Act. The Commission is, however, submitting an hourly burden estimate
of one hour for administrative purposes.
    The collection of information under rules 8b-1 to 8b-33 is
mandatory. The information provided under rules 8b-1 to 8b-33 is not
kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person
is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    The public may view the background documentation for this
information collection at the following Web site, www.reginfo.gov.
Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30
days of this notice.

    Dated: April 10, 2015.
 Brent J. Fields,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-08693 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


MEMORANDUM

DATE:		September 16, 2014

TO:		Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR - 2013-0602

FROM:	Ray Saracino, EPA Region 9

SUBJECT:	September 11, 2014, Meeting with ADEQ Regarding Proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY

      A meeting was held between EPA and the attendees listed below on September 11, 2014 to discuss the proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants. The Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014 and published in the Federal Register on June 18, 2014.        ATTENDEES

External Stakeholders Steve Burr, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality

EPA  Gabrielle Stevens, EPA OAP Brian Fisher, EPA OAP Amy Zimpfer, EPA R9 Ben Machol, EPA R9 Anita Lee, EPA R9 Ray Saracino, EPA R9

Attachment


May 27, 2015

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Vocational Vehicle Aerodynamic Testing Program

FROM:	Lauren Steele, Environmental Engineer, OTAQ/ASD

TO:	Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles - Phase 2 - Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827

Introduction

      This memorandum describes a possible approach that EPA and NHTSA could use to recognize the fuel efficiency and GHG emission improvements from use of aerodynamic devices on vocational vehicles as part of the Phase 2 program.  The data summarized below are from work completed as of March 2015 under an agreement with the California Air Resource Board (ARB) the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL).  NREL performed a series of coastdown tests on heavy-duty vocational vehicles with and without aerodynamic improvement devices to assess their performance. Excerpts of progress reports from which this summary is derived are attached as an appendix to this memorandum.

      The devices tested were not intended to include all aerodynamic devices available for vocational vehicles, rather they are a sampling of the most common types of technologies that are currently commercially available.  Recognition of vocational aerodynamic technology within the Phase 2 GHG program would not need to be based solely on data obtained through this ARB-NREL agreement. Should other data become available, it would be taken into consideration as well.

Background

      The vast majority of aerodynamic improvement technologies that have been evaluated through U.S. EPA's SmartWay program and for compliance with the Phase 1 heavy-duty vehicle greenhouse gas standards have been devices primarily intended for heavy-duty Class 8 tractor-trailers. There is a data gap regarding the potential benefits of aerodynamic improvement technologies for use on heavy-duty vocational vehicles. ARB staff gathered information about aerodynamic controls for this vehicle category though literature reviews and stakeholder discussions prior to initiating the NREL study under ARB Agreement Number 11-600, NREL Contract Number FIA-12-1763. It is the intention of this current NREL study to complement previous work and explore the potential benefits of the most common aerodynamic improvement devices on box trucks using both coastdown and on-road steady-state techniques. The testing utilized two common vocational vehicle designs, a Class 4 and a Class 6 box truck, which often operate at duty cycles with sufficient high-speed operation where aerodynamic devices could provide significant fuel savings.  The overall intent of the NREL work is to estimate the expected benefits of several common types of vocational aerodynamic devices, as accurately as possible given limited test time and budget.

Summary of NREL Test Program

      Table 1 compares some features of the two heavy-duty vocational vehicles were that were tested and measured by NREL.

                          Table 1: Truck Descriptions
Vehicle Descriptor
Class 6 Box Truck
Class 4 Box Truck
Cab Style
Conventional
Low Cab Forward
GVWR
26,000 lbs
14,500 lbs
Nominal Box Length
26 feet
16 feet
Full Vehicle Length
37 feet
23 feet
Full Vehicle Height
12 ft 10 inches
11 feet
Average Width[a]
8 ft 4 inches
8 feet 1 inch
Minimum Ground Clearance
10 inches
5 inches
Note:
[a] This calculation made by EPA not NREL

      The NREL team evaluated the performance of three aerodynamic devices on the Class 6 truck and one device on the Class 4 truck, as shown in Table 2.  Images of aerodynamic devices tested can be found in the Appendix to this document.

             Table 2: Vocational Aerodynamic Technologies Assessed
VEHICLE
                              BOX CHASSIS SKIRTS
                             FRONT (ROOF) FAIRING
                                 REAR FAIRING
                                 WHEEL COVERS
Class 6 Box Truck
                                       X
                                       X

                                       X
Class 4 Box Truck

                                       X

Device Weight (lbs)
                                      101
                                      34
                                      109
                                       5

      Coastdown testing was performed following the guidelines from SAE J1263, "Road Load Measurement and Dynamometer Simulation Using Coastdown Techniques" and SAE J2263, "Road Load Measurement Using Onboard Anemometry and Coastdown Techniques" with the additional calculation step of normalizing the results to STP from 40 CFR §1066.310-4. Table 3 presents preliminary coastdown results, which have been corrected for road grade, headwind/tailwind, air temperature, and air pressure. The NREL results are preliminary, whereas planned future work under the ARB agreement includes repeated coastdown tests, steady-state tests, and further analysis of the data and refinement of the processing code.

                    Table 3: Preliminary Coastdown Results
                                 VEHICLE TYPE
                                 CONFIGURATION
                                  CD*A [m][a]
                               DELTA CD*A [m][b]
Class 6 Box Truck
Reference
Average 5.64
 -

With Chassis Skirt
4.86
0.82

With Front Fairing
5.24
0.52

With Chassis Skirt & Front Fairing
5.16
0.60

With Wheel Covers
5.34
0.03

With Chassis Skirt, Front Fairing, and Wheel Covers
5.25
0.49[c]
Class 4 Box Truck
Reference
5.28
 -

With Rear Fairing
5.01
0.27
     Notes:
     [a] Central values are presented for CDA and Delta CDA. See appendix for high/low estimates.
     [b] Changes in CDA (deltas) are determined for each device using separate baseline test runs, not the average of the reference runs shown here.
     [c] Crosswind conditions on this test date put these results in question.

Possible Phase 2 Approach to Vocational Aerodynamics

      The agencies are considering adopting provisions in the Phase 2 HD GHG program to enable chassis manufacturers to obtain credit for installation of aerodynamic devices on vocational vehicles. One potential approach is to offer delta CDA values as optional inputs in the GEM simulation tool associated with certain aerodynamic devices. Manufacturers who install (or instruct another entity to install) an eligible device on an eligible vehicle would select the appropriate input and GEM would apply the pre-defined delta CDA to the default CDA that is already programmed in GEM for the applicable vehicle weight class.

      For such an approach to be practical, the agencies believe this would require that the certifying manufacturer have knowledge of and some degree of control over the size and shape of the vehicle in its final built form.  To address cases where business relationships or other factors enable chassis manufacturers to do this, the agencies are proposing delegated assembly provisions in the regulations. See 40 CFR 1037.621.

      If the agencies were to adopt this approach based on the preliminary NREL results, it would likely be necessary to restrict eligibility of vocational vehicles that could be certified with an improved CDA in GEM to those meeting the characteristics described in Table 4 below.  If additional data become available to the agencies, quantifying the effect of changes in vehicle frontal area and/or length on delta CDA for specific devices, the vehicle size eligibility could be broadened.  To ensure that vehicles applying for this credit would be most likely to benefit from aerodynamic technology in the real world, the agencies may choose to restrict eligible vehicles to those that meet the segmentation criteria in 40 CFR 1037.510(c) specifying certification using the Regional duty cycle in GEM.
Table 4: Characteristics of Vehicles Potentially Eligible to Gain GEM Credit for Aerodynamics
                                 VEHICLE TYPE
                                     GVWR
                                CHASSIS LENGTH
                                 FRONTAL AREA
LOW CAB FORWARD Box Truck
                        10,001 to 19,500 lb (Class 3-5)
                                7 M (+- 0.3 m)
                            8.0 m[2] (+- 0.2 m[2])
CONVENTIONAL CAB BOX TRUCK
                      16,001 lb to 33,000 lb (Class 5-7)
                                11 m (+- 0.3 m)
                            9.3 m[2] (+- 0.2 m[2])

      The frontal areas in Table 4 are based on calculations using measurements of vehicle dimensions from NREL that are found in the appendix plus other dimensions transmitted to the ARB and EPA during this project.  The formula specified in SAE J1263 (used with light-duty vehicles) where frontal area is estimated by multiplying the total vehicle height and the maximum vehicle width by 80 percent, was not used.  If that protocol had been used, the resulting estimates of frontal area would have been 7.0 m[2] for the low cab forward truck and 8.1 m[2] for the conventional cab truck versus 8.0 m[2] and 9.3 m[2], respectively, from Table 4.

      Based on the preliminary NREL results, the agencies are considering a narrow range of eligible aerodynamic devices:  box chassis skirts and front (roof) fairings for larger trucks; and rear fairings (tails) for smaller trucks.  Depending on additional data that may become available to the agencies during the comment period, quantifying the effect of different devices on delta CDA for specific vehicles, the device eligibility could be broadened.  Table 5 presents some ranges of possible delta CDA values (derived from Table 3), which could be in the range of pre-defined technology improvement values made available in GEM under certain circumstances.

 Table 5: Possible Aerodynamic Technology Improvement Values (Delta CDA, m[2])
BOX CHASSIS SKIRTS
                                 FRONT FAIRING
                           FRONT FAIRING AND SKIRTS
                                 REAR FAIRING
Conventional Cab Box Truck (Class 5-7)
                                  0.6 to 0.9
                                  0.4 to 0.6
                                  0.5 to 1.0
                                       -
Low Cab Forward Box Truck (Class 3-5)
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                  0.1 to 0.4
Certification Conditions
               Regional duty cycle, Delegated assembly agreement

      To illustrate the effect on vehicle fuel efficiency reflected in GEM of changes in a vocational vehicle's CDA, the agencies have simulated some example effectiveness values for the following combinations of devices and vehicles: a LHD vocational vehicle with only a rear fairing and both a chassis skirt and a front fairing; and a MHD vocational vehicle with only a front fairing and both a chassis skirt and a front fairing. These cases are shown in Table 6.

                    Table 6: Vehicle Cases Simulated in GEM
VEHICLE
                                  TECHNOLOGY
                                 WEIGHT IN LBS
                           EXAMPLE DELTA CDA (m[2])
Light heavy-duty vocational vehicle  (Class 3-5)
                                 Rear Fairing
                                      109
                                      0.2

                      Chassis Skirts & Front Fairing
                                      135
                                      1.0
Medium heavy-duty vocational vehicle (Class 6-7)
                                 Front Fairing
                                      34
                                      0.4

                      Chassis Skirts & Front Fairing
                                      135
                                      1.0

      Each of these cases was run in GEM twice: once ignoring the added weight of the device and a second time adding the weight of the device, as reported by NREL.  This is done for illustrative purposes, to show the likely effects of added weight on the simulated vehicles in GEM.  Physics would suggest that added mass may cause the overall effectiveness of an aerodynamic device to be diminished by varying amounts depending on the driving patterns of a vehicle.

      The results in Table 7 represent technology effectiveness where the mass of the aerodynamic device has been disregarded.  The results in Table 8 represent technology effectiveness where the mass of the aerodynamic device has been taken into account by allocating half to the static test weight and half to a diminished payload.

      In the results presented below, some of the cases involve the same combination of technologies - chassis skirt and front fairing - on both a LHD vehicle and a MHD vehicle. The differences in these results reflect the differences in the vehicle parameters in GEM, including a different engine, transmission, chassis weight and payload.  In comparing these cases, it appears the LHD vehicle benefits more from the aerodynamic technology than the MHD vehicle does, though it also appears to be more sensitive to changes in weight.

                       Table 7: Example GEM Improvements
Vocational Aerodynamics Effectiveness
Disregarding Weight Effects
                               MEDIUM HEAVY-DUTY
                               LIGHT HEAVY-DUTY

Baseline
Front Fairing
Chassis Skirt & Front Fairing
Baseline
Rear Fairing
Chassis Skirt & Front Fairing
CDA
                                                                            5.4
                                                                              5
                                                                            4.4
                                                                            5.4
                                                                            5.2
                                                                            4.4
65mph CO2 Emission (g CO2/ton-mi)
                                                                            211
                                                                            201
                                                                            186
                                                                            401
                                                                            391
                                                                            353
55mph CO2 Emission (g CO2/ton-mi)
                                                                            171
                                                                            164
                                                                            153
                                                                            314
                                                                            308
                                                                            280
Transient CO2 Emission (g CO2/ton-mi)
                                                                            244
                                                                            243
                                                                            240
                                                                            367
                                                                            365
                                                                            358
Effectiveness over 65 mph

                                                                           4.5%
                                                                          11.8%

                                                                           2.4%
                                                                          12.0%
Effectiveness over 55 mph

                                                                           4.1%
                                                                          10.5%

                                                                           2.2%
                                                                          10.8%
Effectiveness over Transient

                                                                           0.6%
                                                                           1.8%

                                                                           0.5%
                                                                           2.4%
Regional Cycle Effectiveness
   (50% Transient, 28% 55 mph, 22% 65 mph)

                                                                           2.3%
                                                                           5.8%

                                                                           1.3%
                                                                           6.7%
Multi-Purpose Cycle Effectiveness
   (82% Transient, 15% 55 mph, 3% 65 mph)

                                                                           1.2%
                                                                           3.0%

                                                                           0.8%
                                                                           3.7%
Urban Cycle Effectiveness
   (94% Transient, 6% 55 mph)

                                                                           0.8%
                                                                           2.1%

                                                                           0.6%
                                                                           2.7%

              Table 8: Example GEM Improvements with Added Weight
Vocational Aerodynamics Effectiveness
With Added Device Weight
                               MEDIUM HEAVY-DUTY
                               LIGHT HEAVY-DUTY

Baseline
Front Fairing
Chassis Skirt & Front Fairing
Baseline
Rear Fairing
Chassis Skirt & Front Fairing
CDA
                                                                            5.4
                                                                              5
                                                                            4.4
                                                                            5.4
                                                                            5.2
                                                                            4.4
Static Test Weight (kg)
                                                                        11,408
                                                                        11,416
                                                                        11,439
                                                                         7,257
                                                                         7,282
                                                                         7,288
Payload (tons)
                                                                           5.60
                                                                           5.59
                                                                           5.57
                                                                           2.85
                                                                           2.82
                                                                           2.82
65mph CO2 Emission (g CO2/ton-mi)
                                                                            211
                                                                            201
                                                                            187
                                                                            401
                                                                            395
                                                                            357
55mph CO2 Emission (g CO2/ton-mi)
                                                                            171
                                                                            164
                                                                            154
                                                                            314
                                                                            311
                                                                            284
Transient CO2 Emission (g CO2/ton-mi)
                                                                            244
                                                                            243
                                                                            242
                                                                            367
                                                                            369
                                                                            363
Effectiveness over 65 mph

                                                                           4.5%
                                                                          11.2%

                                                                           1.4%
                                                                          10.9%
Effectiveness over 55 mph

                                                                           4.1%
                                                                           9.9%

                                                                           1.2%
                                                                           9.7%
Effectiveness over Transient

                                                                           0.6%
                                                                           1.1%

                                                                          -0.6%
                                                                           1.1%
Regional Cycle Effectiveness
   (50% Transient, 28% 55 mph, 22% 65 mph)

                                                                           2.1%
                                                                           5.1%

                                                                           0.3%
                                                                           5.4%
Multi-Purpose Cycle Effectiveness
   (82% Transient, 15% 55 mph, 3% 65 mph)

                                                                           1.0%
                                                                           2.2%

                                                                          -0.3%
                                                                           2.4%
Urban Cycle Effectiveness
   (94% Transient, 6% 55 mph)

                                                                           0.7%
                                                                           1.4%

                                                                          -0.6%
                                                                           1.4%

                                   APPENDIX

Aerodynamic Drag Reduction Technologies for Heavy-Duty Vocational Vehicles  -  Preliminary Coastdown Results

                                                     January and February, 2015

Aerodynamic Drag Reduction Technologies for Heavy-Duty Vocational Vehicles  -  Preliminary Coastdown Results

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) under ARB Agreement Number 11-600, NREL Contract Number FIA-11-1763 has performed a series of coastdown tests on heavy-duty vocational vehicles with and without aerodynamic improvement devices to assess their performance. These results are preliminary and future work under this agreement will include additional repeats and steady-state tests to help refine these results at a later date.  The procedure used for coastdown testing followed the general guidelines outlined in SAE J1263 and SAE J2263 and uses calculation from CFR 1066.310 where applicable.
Coastdown Track
The current coastdown track is located at the Front Range Airport east of Denver, CO. The east runway, which runs in a north-south direction, has an access road along the east side of it. A portion of that road, as seen by the red line in Figure 1, is used for coastdowns. The track runs in a north-south direction. The southern end of the track has an average grade of 0.4%.

Track Profile

                              North end of track
                                Avg. 0.4% grade
Data Processing
Data is collected at 5Hz during the coastdown. An ISAAC data recorder monitors OBD information as well as logging velocity from a Garmin 18x-5Hz which is used in the data post processing. Since the track has a slight grade the north and south profiles differ.
                                     South
                                     North
The following road load equation is used to describe the behavior of the vehicle:
F-mg∆h∆x= μmg+ 12ρACdV2
At each time step interval the total force on the vehicle can be calculated using the following equation:
F=ma
Fi= meVi-Vi-1∆t
The effective mass (me) was calculated for the class 6 box truck by adding 56.7 kg to the measured vehicle mass for each tire making road contact. For the class 4 city van the ratio of rotating mass to measured vehicle mass was kept the same. After correcting for elevation change using the road grade survey each interval point in plotted and a least-squares regression is used to determine the coefficients.

In the polynomial fit the `B' term is fixed at zero and `A' and `C' coefficients are assigned as follows
A= μmg
C=D= 12ρACd
Then `D' term can be corrected for standard conditions as follows
Dadj=DT29398.21P
The Vehicles

The Aerodynamic Devices
                                    Device
                                    Vehicle
                                 Total Weight
                                 Wheel Covers
                                26' Box Truck
                               2.2 kg (4.8 lbs)
                                 Front Fairing
                                26' Box Truck
                              15.5 kg (34.1 lbs)
                                  Side Skirts
                                26' Box Truck
                               45.9 kg (101 lbs)
                                 Rear Fairing
                                16' LCF Truck
                               49.5 kg (109 lbs)

Preliminary Results
All error estimates shown are 95% confidence intervals.

                   Observed Change Without Wind Correction

                     Observed Change With Wind Correction

Discussion
These results are preliminary and planned future work includes additional repeats and steady-state tests. Also, data analysis efforts and refinement of the processing code are ongoing and may also affect future results. Under the test condition of "All* (see note)" please note that changing wind conditions shown in the weather conditions table for this test, predominately the eastern crosswind which increased dramatically between the baseline (all), and the test condition. This may have significantly affected this data point and the condition will be repeated once weather permits.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 10 (Wednesday, January 15, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2741-2745]
[FR Doc No: 2014-00581]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71272; File No. SR-FINRA-2013-056]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend FINRA Rule 2251 (Forwarding of Proxy and
Other Issuer-Related Materials), Which Includes Fees for Processing and
Forwarding Proxy and Other Issuer Communications to Beneficial Owners,
and Establish a Fee Under Certain Conditions for an Enhanced Brokers'
Internet Platform

January 9, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act,'' ``SEA'' or ``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that, on December 30, 2013,
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by FINRA. FINRA has designated the proposed rule
change as constituting a ``non-controversial'' rule change under
paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 under the Act,\3\ which renders the
proposal effective upon receipt of this filing by the Commission. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA is proposing to amend the provisions of FINRA Rule 2251
(Forwarding of Proxy and Other Issuer-Related Materials) relating to
rates of reimbursement for expenses incurred in forwarding proxy and
other issuer-related material, to establish a five-year fee for the
development of an enhanced brokers internet platform and to make
miscellaneous conforming revisions.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web
site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    FINRA Rule 2251 requires FINRA members to transmit proxy materials
and other communications to beneficial owners of securities and limits
the circumstances in which FINRA members may vote proxies without
instructions from those beneficial owners.\4\ The Supplementary
Material under FINRA Rule 2251 (FINRA Rule 2251.01) sets forth the rate
reimbursement provisions pursuant to which FINRA members are entitled
to receive fees in connection with the rule's forwarding obligations.
FINRA has previously indicated that, in the interest of ensuring
regulatory clarity and harmonization with respect to proxy rate
reimbursement, it intends to conform the rate reimbursement provisions
of FINRA Rule 2251 with the New York Stock Exchange (``NYSE'')
provisions in this area.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ FINRA Rule 2251 was adopted as a consolidation of former
NASD Rule 2260 and IM-2260 as part of FINRA's rulebook consolidation
process. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61052 (November 23,
2009), 74 FR 62857 (December 1, 2009) (Order Granting Approval of
Proposed Rule Change; File No. SR-FINRA-2009-066).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47392 (February 21,
2003), 68 FR 9730 (February 28, 2003) (Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change; File No. SR-NASD-
2003-019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 1, 2013, NYSE filed with the Commission a proposed rule
change \6\ to amend the provisions set forth under NYSE Rules 451 and
465, and the related provisions of Section 402.10 of the NYSE Listed
Company Manual, for the reimbursement of expenses by issuers to NYSE
member organizations for the processing and transmission of proxy
materials and

other issuer communications, and to establish a specified success fee
for the development of qualified internet platforms for proxy voting
purposes (the ``Enhanced Brokers' Internet Platform'' or ``EBIP''). The
SEC approved NYSE's proposed rule change on October 18, 2013 (for
purposes of this filing, referred to as the ``new NYSE proxy rate
rules'').\7\ Consistent with the NYSE action, FINRA is proposing to
amend FINRA Rule 2251 to establish, in language virtually identical to
the corresponding provisions under the new NYSE proxy rate rules, the
same rate reimbursement provisions that have been adopted by the NYSE,
including the specified success fee for the development of EBIPs, and
to delete the provisions under FINRA Rule 2251 that are rendered
obsolete by the NYSE rule change, as described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68936 (February 15,
2013), 78 FR 12381 (February 22, 2013) (Notice of Filing of Proposed
Rule Change; File No. SR-NYSE-2013-07).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70720 (October 18,
2013), 78 FR 63530 (October 24, 2013) (Order Granting Approval of
Proposed Rule Change; File No. SR-NYSE-2013-07) (the ``Approval
Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Processing Unit Fees: Proposed FINRA Rule 2251.01(a)(1)(B)
\8\ establishes, for each set of proxy material, i.e., proxy statement,
form of proxy and annual report when processed as a unit, a Processing
Unit Fee based on the following schedule according to the number of
nominee \9\ accounts through which the issuer's securities are
beneficially owned:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Proposed FINRA Rule 2251.01(a)(1)(B) corresponds to NYSE
Rule 451.90(1)(b).
    \9\ Proposed FINRA Rule 2251.01(a)(1)(A)(i) defines ``nominee''
to mean a broker or bank subject to SEA Rule 14b-1 or Rule 14b-2,
respectively. This provision corresponds with NYSE Rule
451.90(1)(a)(i). The new rule, in combination with proposed new
FINRA Rule 2251.01(a)(1)(A)(ii) as set forth in note 10 below,
replaces current FINRA Rule 2251.01(a)(1)(A) [sic]. The Commission
notes that it is proposed FINRA Rule 2251.01(a)(1)(B)(i) that
replaces current FINRA Rule 2251.01(a)(1)(A) and current FINRA Rule
2251 does not define ``nominee.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     50 cents for each account up to 10,000 accounts;
     47 cents for each account above 10,000 accounts, up to
100,000 accounts;
     39 cents for each account above 100,000 accounts, up to
300,000 accounts;
     34 cents for each account above 300,000 accounts, up to
500,000 accounts;
     32 cents for each account above 500,000 accounts.
    The proposed rule change provides that, under the above schedule, a
member may charge the issuer the tier one rate for the first 10,000
accounts, or portion thereof, with decreasing rates applicable only on
additional accounts in the additional tiers. The proposed rule change
provides that references in the Supplementary Material to the number of
accounts means the number of accounts holding securities of the issuer
at any nominee that is providing distribution services without the
services of an intermediary, or when an intermediary \10\ is involved,
the aggregate number of nominee accounts with beneficial ownership in
the issuer served by the intermediary. Further, the proposed rule
change provides that, in the case of a meeting for which an opposition
proxy has been furnished to security holders, the Processing Unit Fee
shall be $1.00 per account, in lieu of the fees in the above schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Proposed FINRA Rule 2251.01(a)(1)(A)(ii) defines
``intermediary'' to mean a proxy service provider that coordinates
the distribution of proxy or other materials for multiple nominees.
This provision corresponds to NYSE Rule 451.90(1)(a)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Intermediaries: Proposed FINRA Rule 2251.01(a)(1)(C) \11\
establishes the following supplemental fees for intermediaries:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Proposed FINRA Rule 2251.01(a)(1)(C) corresponds to NYSE
Rule 451.90(1)(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     $22.00 for each nominee served by the intermediary that
has at least one account beneficially owning shares in the issuer;
     an Intermediary Unit Fee for each set of proxy material,
based on the following schedule according to the number of nominee
accounts through which the issuer's securities are beneficially owned:
     14 cents for each account up to 10,000 accounts;
     13 cents for each account above 10,000 accounts, up to
100,000 accounts;
     11 cents for each account above 100,000 accounts, up to
300,000 accounts;
     9 cents for each account above 300,000 accounts, up to
500,000 accounts;
     7 cents for each account above 500,000 accounts.
    The proposed rule change provides that, under the above schedule, a
member may charge the issuer the tier one rate for the first 10,000
accounts, or portion thereof, with decreasing rates applicable only on
additional accounts in the additional tiers. For special meetings, the
proposed rule change provides that the Intermediary Unit Fee shall be
based on the following schedule, in lieu of the fees described in the
schedule above:
     19 cents for each account up to 10,000 accounts;
     18 cents for each account above 10,000 accounts, up to
100,000 accounts;
     16 cents for each account above 100,000 accounts, up to
300,000 accounts;
     14 cents for each account above 300,000 accounts, up to
500,000 accounts;
     12 cents for each account above 500,000 accounts.
    The proposed rule change provides that, under the above schedule, a
member may charge the issuer the tier one rate for the first 10,000
accounts, or portion thereof, with decreasing rates applicable only on
additional accounts in the additional tiers. For purposes of the
proposed rule, a special meeting is a meeting other than the issuer's
meeting for the election of directors. Further, the proposed rule
change provides that, in the case of a meeting for which an opposition
proxy has been furnished to security holders, the Intermediary Unit Fee
shall be 25 cents per account, with a minimum fee of $5,000 per
soliciting entity, in lieu of the fees described in the two schedules
given in this paragraph above, as the case may be. Where there are
separate solicitations by management and an opponent, the opponent is
to be separately billed for the costs of its solicitation.
     Proxy Follow-up Material: The proposed rule change revises
FINRA Rule 2251.01(a)(2) \12\ (Charges for Proxy Follow-Up Mailings) to
establish, for each set of proxy follow-up material, a Processing Unit
Fee of 40 cents per account, except for those relating to an issuer's
annual meeting for the election of directors, for which the Processing
Unit Fee shall be 20 cents per account. The proposed rule change
revises the header of FINRA Rule 2251.01(a)(2) to read ``Charges for
Proxy Follow-Up Material'' and deletes the current text under that rule
provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ FINRA Rule 2251.01(a)(2), as revised by the proposed rule
change, corresponds to NYSE Rule 451.90(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Beneficial Ownership Information: Current FINRA Rule
2251.01(a)(3) \13\ (Charge for Providing Beneficial Ownership
Information) establishes a rate of six and one-half cents per name of
non-objecting beneficial owner (``NOBO'') provided to the issuer
pursuant to the issuer's request. The proposed rule change revises Rule
2251.01(a)(3) to provide that, where the non-objecting beneficial
ownership information is not furnished directly to the issuer by the
member, but is furnished through an agent designated by the member, the
issuer will be expected to pay in addition the

following fee to the agent, with a minimum fee of $100 per requested
list:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ FINRA Rule 2251.01(a)(3), as revised by the proposed rule
change, corresponds to NYSE Rule 451.92.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     10 cents per name for the first 10,000 names or portion
thereof;
     5 cents per name for additional names up to 100,000 names;
and
     4 cents per name above 100,000.
    The rule currently provides that any member that designates an
agent for the purpose of furnishing requesting issuers with beneficial
ownership information pursuant to SEA Rule 14b-1(c) and thereafter
cancels that designation or appoints a new agent for such purpose
should promptly inform interested issuers. The proposed rule change
retains this language and provides that, when an issuer requests
beneficial ownership information as of a date which is the record date
for an annual or special meeting or a solicitation of written
shareholder consent, the issuer may ask to eliminate names holding more
or less than a specified number of shares, or names of shareholders
that have already voted, and the issuer may not be charged a fee for
the NOBO names so eliminated. In all other cases the issuer may be
charged for all the names in the NOBO list.
     Interim Report, Post Meeting Report and Other Material:
The proposed rule change revises FINRA Rule 2251.01(a)(4) \14\ (Charges
for Interim Report, Post Meeting Report and Other Material Mailings) to
establish for interim reports, annual reports if processed separately,
post meeting reports, or other material, a Processing Unit Fee of 15
cents per account. The proposed rule change revises the header of FINRA
Rule 2251.01(a)(4) to read ``Charges for Interim Report, Post Meeting
Report and Other Material.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ FINRA Rule 2251.01(a)(4), as revised by the proposed rule
change, corresponds to NYSE Rule 451.90(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Preference Management Fees: The proposed rule change
deletes the current text under FINRA Rule 2251.01(a)(5) \15\ (Incentive
Fees) and establishes, with respect to each account for which the
nominee has eliminated the need to send materials in paper format
through the mails (or by courier service), a Preference Management Fee
in the following amount:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ FINRA Rule 2251.01(a)(5), as revised by the proposed rule
change, corresponds to NYSE Rule 451.90(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     32 cents for each set of proxy material described in
proposed FINRA Rule 2251.01(a)(1)(B); provided, however, that if the
account is a Managed Account (as defined in proposed FINRA Rule
2251.01(a)(7), below), the Preference Management Fee shall be 16 cents.
     10 cents for each set of material described in either
FINRA Rule 2251.01(a)(2) or (a)(4), as discussed above.
    The proposed rule change provides that the Preference Management
Fee is in addition to, and not in lieu of, the other fees set forth
under FINRA Rule 2251.01 as revised by the rule change. The proposed
rule change revises the header of FINRA Rule 2251.01(a)(5) to read
``Preference Management Fees.''
     Notice and Access Fees: Proposed FINRA Rule 2251.01(a)(6)
\16\ (Notice and Access Fees) provides that, when an issuer elects to
utilize Notice and Access for a proxy distribution, there is an
incremental fee based on all nominee accounts through which the
issuer's securities are beneficially owned as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Proposed FINRA Rule 2251.01(a)(6) corresponds to NYSE Rule
451.90(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     25 cents for each account up to 10,000 accounts;
     20 cents for each account over 10,000 accounts, up to
100,000 accounts;
     15 cents for each account over 100,000 accounts, up to
200,000 accounts;
     10 cents for each account over 200,000 accounts, up to
500,000 accounts;
     5 cents for each account over 500,000 accounts.
    The proposed rule change provides that, under the above schedule, a
member may charge the issuer the tier one rate for the first 10,000
accounts, or portion thereof, with decreasing rates applicable only on
additional accounts in the additional tiers. The proposed rule change
further provides that follow up notices will not incur an incremental
fee for Notice and Access. In addition, no incremental fee will be
imposed for fulfillment transactions (i.e., a full package sent to a
notice recipient at the recipient's request), although out of pocket
costs such as postage will be passed on as in ordinary distributions.
     Managed Accounts: Proposed FINRA Rule 2251.01(a)(7) \17\
(Fee Exclusion in Certain Circumstances) provides that, notwithstanding
any other provision under the rule, no fee shall be imposed for a
nominee account that is a Managed Account and contains five or fewer
shares or units of the security involved. The proposed rule defines
``Managed Account'' to mean an account at a nominee which is invested
in a portfolio of securities selected by a professional adviser, and
for which the account holder is charged a separate asset-based fee for
a range of services which may include ongoing advice, custody and
execution services. The adviser can be either employed by or affiliated
with the nominee, or a separate investment advisor contracted for the
purpose of selecting investment portfolios for the managed account.
Requiring that investments or changes to the account be approved by the
client shall not preclude an account from being a ``Managed Account,''
nor shall the fact that commissions or transaction-based charges are
imposed in addition to the asset-based fee. Proposed FINRA Rule
2251.01(a)(7) further provides that, notwithstanding any other
provision under the rule, no fee shall be imposed for any nominee
account which contains only a fractional share, i.e., less than one
share or unit of the security involved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Proposed FINRA Rule 2251.01(a)(7) corresponds to NYSE Rule
451.90(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     EBIP Fee: Proposed FINRA Rule 2251.01(a)(8) \18\ (Enhanced
Brokers' Internet Platform Fee) provides that, during the period ending
December 31, 2018, there shall be a supplemental fee of 99 cents for
each new account that elects, and each full package recipient among a
brokerage firm's accounts that converts to, electronic delivery while
having access to an EBIP. The proposed rule change provides that this
fee does not apply to electronic delivery consents captured by issuers
(for example, through an open-enrollment program), nor to positions
held in Managed Accounts (as defined in proposed FINRA Rule
2251.01(a)(7)) nor to accounts voted by investment managers using
electronic voting platforms.\19\ The proposed rule change provides that
this is a one-time fee, meaning that an issuer may be billed this fee
by a particular member only once for each account covered by this rule.
Further, billing for this fee should be separately indicated on the
issuer's invoice and must await the next proxy or consent solicitation
by the issuer that follows the triggering election of electronic
delivery by an eligible account. Accounts receiving a notice pursuant
to the use of notice and access by the issuer, and accounts to which
mailing is suppressed by householding, will not trigger the fee under
the proposed rule change. The proposed rule change further provides:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Proposed FINRA Rule 2251.01(a)(8) corresponds to NYSE Rule
451.90(7).
    \19\ FINRA notes that the EBIP fee does not apply to accounts
that converted to electronic delivery prior to January 1, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     To qualify under the rule, an EBIP must provide notices of
upcoming corporate votes (including record and shareholder meeting
dates) and the

ability to access proxy materials and a voting instruction form, and
cast the vote, through the investor's account page on the member's Web
site without an additional log-in.
     Any member that is not also a member of the NYSE with a
qualifying EBIP must provide notice thereof to FINRA,\20\ including the
date such EBIP became operational, and any limitations on the
availability of the EBIP to its customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Under the new NYSE proxy rate rules, the notification
applies to NYSE member organizations as to the NYSE. To avoid
regulatory duplication, the proposed rule change applies the EBIP
notification requirement only to FINRA members that are not NYSE
members. However, as noted below, all FINRA members would need to
maintain, and would be subject to requests by FINRA for, the
specified EBIP tracking information and records.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Conversions to electronic delivery by accounts with access
to an EBIP need to be tracked for the purpose of reporting the activity
to FINRA when requested, as do records of marketing efforts to
encourage account holders to use the EBIP. In addition, records need to
be maintained and reported to FINRA when requested regarding the
proportion of non-institutional accounts that vote proxies after being
provided access to an EBIP.
     Miscellaneous Revisions: The proposed rule change revises
the header of FINRA Rule 2251.01(a)(1) to read ``Basic Processing and
Intermediary Unit Fees.'' To reflect the use of the term ``process''
throughout the new NYSE proxy rate rules, the proposed rule change
revises ``forward,'' ``forwarding'' and ``transmit'' throughout FINRA
Rule 2251 to read ``process and forward,'' ``processing and
forwarding'' and ``process and transmit,'' respectively.
    FINRA notes that the guidance applicable to the new NYSE proxy rate
rules as set forth in the Commission's Approval Order shall apply to
Rule 2251 as revised by the proposed rule change.
    FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate
effectiveness and has requested that the SEC waive the requirement that
the proposed rule change not become operative for 30 days after the
date of the filing, so FINRA can implement the proposed rule change on
January 1, 2014.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\21\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. FINRA believes that, by conforming the rate
reimbursement provisions under FINRA Rule 2251 with the new NYSE proxy
rate rules, the proposed rule change helps to ensure regulatory clarity
and harmonization with respect to proxy rate reimbursement, thereby
facilitating the processing and transmittal of proxy and other issuer-
related materials to investors and conducing to the orderly
administration of the Commission's proxy rules. Further, for the
reasons set forth in the Approval Order, the Commission found that the
new NYSE proxy rate rules are consistent with the requirements of
Section 6(b)(4),\22\ Section 6(b)(5) \23\ and Section 6(b)(8) \24\ of
the Act. Because the proposed rule change conforms with the new NYSE
proxy rate rules, FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the corresponding provisions under Section
15A(b)(5),\25\ Section 15A(b)(6) \26\ and Section 15A(b)(9) \27\ of the
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). Section 6(b)(4) requires that an
exchange have rules that provide for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its members, issuers
and other persons using its facilities.
    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). Section 6(b)(5) requires that the
rules of an exchange be designed, among other things, to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system
and, in general to protect investors and the public interest, and
not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers or dealers.
    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8). Section 6(b)(8) prohibits any exchange
rule from imposing any burden on competition that is not necessary
or appropriate in furtherance of the Act.
    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(5). Section 15A(b)(5) requires that
FINRA rules provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among members and issuers and other persons
using any facility or system that FINRA operates or controls.
Relatedly, SEA Rule 14b-1 conditions a broker-dealer's obligation to
forward issuer proxy materials to beneficial owners on the issuer's
assurance that it will reimburse the broker-dealer's reasonable
expenses, both direct and indirect, incurred in connection with
performing that obligation. See 17 CFR 240.14b-1.
    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. FINRA believes that, by
conforming the rate reimbursement provisions under FINRA Rule 2251 with
the new NYSE proxy rate rules, the proposed rule change helps to ensure
regulatory clarity and harmonization with respect to proxy rate
reimbursement. FINRA believes that this will help FINRA members avoid
conflicting requirements and related burdens that would otherwise
result in the absence of the proposed rule change.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \28\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \29\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and the text of the proposed rule change,
at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. FINRA has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \30\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\31\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. FINRA has asked the
Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so FINRA can implement
the proposed rule change on January 1, 2014, in alignment with the
implementation date of the new NYSE proxy rate rules. The Commission
believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest because it will allow
FINRA to harmonize its rules with the new NYSE proxy rate rules, which
should reduce the potential for investor confusion regarding the
applicable proxy fees. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the 30-
day operative delay and

designates the proposal operative upon filing.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \31\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \32\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2013-056 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2013-056. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA. 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-FINRA-2013-056 and should be
submitted on or before February 5, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-00581 Filed 1-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P