[Federal Register: June 16, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 115)]
[Notices]
[Page 34213]
[DOCID:fr16jn10-128]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Solicitation of Applications and Notice of Funding Availability
for the FRA Railroad System Issues Research and Development Program

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of funding availability; extension of deadline on
solicitation for applications.

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

SUMMARY: Under a notice published in the Federal Register on May 13,
2010 (75 FR 27112), the FRA sought applications from interested and
responsible parties for two grants: to conduct a Locomotive Biofuel
Study, and to conduct a Study of the Use of Bio-based Technologies
(Lubricants) that can be used in locomotives, rolling stock and other
rail equipment. The application deadline was June 7, 2010. FRA is
extending the deadline until June 21, 2010 to give applicants
additional time to complete the application process and submit
applications.

DATES: FRA will accept applications for these grant opportunities until
June 21, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Applications must be submitted electronically to http://
www.grants.gov (``Grants.gov''). Grants.gov allows organizations
electronically to find and apply for competitive grant opportunities
from all Federal grant-making agencies. Any entity wishing to submit an
application pursuant to this notice should immediately initiate the
process of registering with Grants.gov at http://www.grants.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Shurland, Office of Research
and Development, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or Jennifer
Capps, Grants Officer, Office of Acquisition and Grants Services,
Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590. Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice simply extends the application
deadline for the two grant programs: (1) To conduct a Locomotive
Biofuel Study, and (2) to conduct a Study of the Use of Bio-based
Technologies (Lubricants) that can be used in locomotives, rolling
stock and other rail equipment. The new application deadline is June
21, 2010. Interested applicants should consult the notice published on
May 13, 2010 in the Federal Register (75 FR 27112) for additional
details about the program and the application process.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 10, 2010.
Mark Yachmetz,
Associate Administrator, Office of Railroad Policy and Development.
[FR Doc. 2010-14478 Filed 6-11-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


Dearborn County Wind Rose Analysis   2002 Wind Speed and Wind Direction on 8 hour Ozone Exceedance Days   Taken from Indiana Michigan Electric Met. Tower Maximum 8 hour ozone concentration of 87 ppb ( Butler Co.) Maximum 8 hour ozone concentration of 113 ppb ( Butler Co.)

Maximum 8 hour ozone concentration of 105 ppb ( Butler Co.) Maximum 8 hour Ozone concentration of 105 ppb ( Butler Co.) Maximum 8 hour ozone concentration of 87 ppb ( Montgomery Co.) Maximum 8 hour Ozone concentration of 91 ppb ( Butler and Greene Co.)

Maximum 8 hour ozone concentration of 88 ppb ( Warren Co.) Maximum 8 hour Ozone concentration of 85 ppb ( Clinton Co.) Maximum 8 hour ozone concentration of 95 ppb ( Butler Co.) Maximum 8 hour Ozone concentration of 112 ppb ( Clinton Co.)

Maximum 8 hour ozone concentration of 103 ppb ( Clinton Co.) Maximum 8 hour Ozone concentration of 99 ppb ( Clermont and Clinton Co.) Maximum 8 hour ozone concentration of 113 ppb ( Clermont Co.) Maximum 8 hour Ozone concentration of 99 ppb ( Clinton Co.)

Maximum 8 hour ozone concentration of 94 ppb ( Warren Co.) Maximum 8 hour Ozone concentration of 97 ppb ( Hamilton Co.) Maximum 8 hour ozone concentration of 101 ppb ( Hamilton Co.) Maximum 8 hour Ozone concentration of 99 ppb ( Butler Co.)

Maximum 8 hour ozone concentration of 101 ppb ( Clermont Co.) Maximum 8 hour Ozone concentration of 101 ppb ( Hamilton Co.) Maximum 8 hour ozone concentration of 90 ppb ( Montgomery Co.) Maximum 8 hour Ozone concentration of 117 ppb ( Hamilton Co.)

Maximum 8 hour ozone concentration of 87 ppb ( Clinton Co.) Maximum 8 hour Ozone concentration of 89 ppb ( Clinton Co.) Maximum 8 hour ozone concentration of 86 ppb ( Clermont Co.) Maximum 8 hour Ozone concentration of 85 ppb ( Butler Co.)

Maximum 8 hour ozone concentration of 99 ppb ( Butler Co.) Maximum 8 hour Ozone concentration of 95 ppb ( Preble Co.) Maximum 8 hour ozone concentration of 98 ppb ( Clinton Co.) Maximum 8 hour Ozone concentration of 98 ppb ( Clermont Co.)


[Federal Register: April 1, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 62)]
[Notices]
[Page 16453-16454]
[DOCID:fr01ap10-58]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Docket No. DI10-9-000

Domtar Maine LLC; Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order and
Soliciting Comments, Protests, and/or Motions To Intervene

March 25, 2010.
    Take notice that the following application has been filed with the
Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Petition for Declaratory Order.
    b. Docket No.: DI10-9-000.
    c. Date Filed: March 5, 2010.
    d. Applicant: Domtar Maine LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Forest City (FERC No. 2660), Vanceboro (FERC
No. 2492), and West Branch (FERC No. 2618).
    f. Location: East Branch of the St. Croix River, in Washington and
Aroostook Counties, Maine; at the outlet of Spednick Lake near
Vanceboro, Maine; and West Branch of St. Croix River in Washington,
Hancock, and Penobscot Counties, Maine, respectively.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act, 16
U.S.C. 817(b).
    h. Applicant Contact: Matthew D. Manahan, One Monument Square,
Portland, ME 04101; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone: (207)
791-1189; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed
to Henry Ecton,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and/or motions: April
26, 2010.
    All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site at http://www.ferc.gov under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to
be filed electronically, documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file,
an original and eight copies should be filed with: Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426. For more information on how to submit these types of filings,
please go to the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp.
    Please include the docket number (DI10-9-000) on any comments,
protests, and/or motions filed.
    k. Description of Project: The existing Forest City Project (P-
2660) consists of all United States portions of the following project
works: (1) Forest City Dam, a 16-foot-high, 500-foot-long earth
embankment dam, containing a gated timber spillway structure 65 feet
wide, with 3 gates and a fish passage facility; (2) a reservoir (East
Grand Lake) with a surface area of 16,070 acres at elevation 434.94
feet m.s.l., and storage capacity of 205,300 acre-feet; and (3) other
appurtenances.
    The existing Vanceboro Project (P-2492) consists of: (1) A concrete
section approximately 69 feet long, including a spillway section with
two tainter gates (each about 22.5 feet long), and a

fishway about 8 feet wide; (2) earth embankment at each end (total
length approximately 400 feet); (3) a reservoir (the portion of
Spednick Lake within the United States); and (4) appurtenant
facilities.
    The existing West Branch Project (P-2618) consists of:
    (A) West Grand Lake development: (1) West Grand Lake Dam, earth
embankment and gravel-filled timber crib structure, 485 feet long and
13 feet high, containing a gated spillway structure, 77 feet wide with
5 gates and a fish passage facility 24 feet wide; (2) a reservoir with
surface area of 23.825 acres at elevation 301.43 feet m.s.l. and
storage capacity of 160,000 acre-feet; and (3) other appurtenances; and
    (B) Sysladobsis Lake development: (1) Sysladobsis Lake Dam, an
earth embankment structure, 250 feet long and 5.5 feet high, with a
concrete cut-off wall and rock masonry downstream face, containing a
gated spillway structure 23 feet wide with 2 gates, and a fish passage
facility 7 feet wide; (2) a reservoir with surface area of 5,400 acres
at elevation 305.62 feet m.s.l., and storage capacity of 25,000 acre-
feet; and (3) other appurtenances.
    The above-referenced reservoirs supply water to three downstream
generating facilities: Grand Falls, Woodland, and Milltown. These three
generating facilities do not require licensing by the Commission
because they were authorized by a 1916 Act of Congress that predated
the 1920 enactment of what is now part I of the Federal Power Act. The
issue raised by Domtar Maine LLC's petition is whether the above-
referenced storage reservoirs are required to be licensed under section
23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act. Domtar Maine LLC states that the
projects are not required to be licensed because they contribute only a
de minimis amount to power generated at the downstream generating
projects, and they are not connected to a FERC-licensed project.
    When a Petition for Declaratory Order is filed with the Commission,
requesting a jurisdictional determination for an existing project, a
review is begun to determine if the interests of interstate or foreign
commerce are affected by the project. The Commission also determines
whether or not the project: (1) Is located on a navigable waterway; (2)
is occupying or affecting public lands or reservations of the United
States; (3) is utilizing surplus water or water power from a government
dam; or (4) if applicable, has undertaken any construction subsequent
to 1935 that may have increased the project's head or generating
capacity, or has otherwise significantly modified the project's pre-
1935 design or operation.
    l. Locations of the Application: Copies of this filing are on file
with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This
filing may be viewed on the Web at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also
register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to
be notified via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also available for inspection
and reproduction at the address in item (h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene--Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents--Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTESTS'', AND/
OR ``MOTIONS TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the Docket Number of
the particular application to which the filing refers. A copy of any
motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the
Applicant specified in the particular application.
    p. Agency Comments--Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-7293 Filed 3-31-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 81 (Friday, April 26, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24697-24700]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09853]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 162

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0027]
RIN 1625-AB84

Inland Waterways Navigation Regulations

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to exempt vessels under 20 meters (65
feet) in length operating in the St. Marys River along Michigan's
eastern Upper Peninsula from certain speed rules. Exempting such
vessels from these rules is necessary because enforcement is
impractical and the rules impeded the operations of public response
vessels.

DATES: Comments and related materials must reach the Coast Guard on or
before June 10, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2013-0027 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S. Department of
Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one of the
following methods:
    (1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Mail: 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.
    (3) Hand delivery: Room W12-140 on the Ground Floor of the West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email CDR Nicholas Wong, Prevention Chief, Sector Sault
Sainte Marie, 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:

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. We have an agreement with the
Department of Transportation (DOT) to use the Docket Management
Facility. Please see DOT's ``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2013-0027), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each
comment. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address,
an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so
that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail,
fax, or delivery to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
ADDRESSES; but please submit your comments and material by only one
means. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an
unbound format, no larger than 8[frac12] by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit them 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. We may change this
proposed rule in view of them.

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 at any time. Enter the docket number for
this rulemaking (USCG-2013-0027) in the ``Search'' box and click
``Search.'' You may also visit either the Docket Management Facility in
Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays; or the U.S. Coast Guard
Sector Sault Sainte Marie, 337 E. Water Street, Sault Sainte Marie, MI
49783-2021, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of all 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 the Department of
Transportation's Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
ADDRESSES explaining why one 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.

Basis and Purpose

    33 CFR 162.117 prescribes inland navigation rules for the St. Marys
River along Michigan's eastern Upper Peninsula. These rules include
speed limits for stretches of the St. Marys River demarcated by lights.
The table below from 162.117(g) depicts these speed rules.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26AP13.004

These speed rules apply to all vessels transiting the St. Marys River
between the points in table 162.117(g).
     U.S. Coast Guard Vessel Traffic Services (VTS) St. Mary's River
monitors and directs vessel traffic movement within the VTS St. Marys
River area through a Vessel Movement Reporting System (VMRS). This VTS
area overlaps the length of the St. Marys River governed by the speed
rules in Sec.  162.117(g). The VMRS requires users, generally including
commercial vessels of 20 meters or more, to report information,
including their position, course, and speed. These users report their
information through radio communications and Automatic Identification
System (AIS). Because VTS St. Marys River tracks speed for VMRS users,
it can and does enforce the speed rules in Sec.  162.117(g) on these
users.
    Many non-VMRS vessels transit the length of the St. Marys River
governed by the speed rules in Sec.  162.117(g). These vessels
generally include private vessels under 20 meters. As non-VMRS users,
these vessels are not required to report their speed to the VTS St.
Marys River. Additionally, unlike commercial vessels of 20 meters or
more, these vessels are not required to operate with AIS, the prevalent
means of reporting location, course, and speed to VTS St. Marys River.
Because the VTS St. Marys River cannot track these non-VMRS vessels, it
cannot and does not enforce the speed rules in Sec.  162.117(g) on
them.
    The speed rules in Sec.  162.117(g) also impact the operational
effectiveness of public response vessels in the St. Marys River. These
vessels include small boats, generally under 20 meters, operated by the
U.S. Coast Guard and

federal, Canadian, state, and local partners. These small boats respond
to pollution incidents, marine casualties, and perform search and
rescue and law enforcement operations throughout the St. Marys River.
These operations require public vessels to deploy and be on-scene
rapidly. The speed rules impede response times and degrade operational
effectiveness to the detriment of the boating public and industry.
    Because the speed rules in 162.117(g) are not enforceable on non-
VMRS users and impact operational effectiveness of public response
boats, this rule proposes to exempt vessels under 20 meters (65 feet)
from these speed rules.
    This proposed exemption is not anticipated to impact the St. Marys
River VTS, VMRS, or its users. Additionally, it is not intended to
relieve vessels under 20 meters from the responsibility to boat safely
and exercise good seamanship.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    Because the Ninth Coast Guard District Commander has determined
that the speed rules in 33 CFR 162.117(g), as currently written, are
too broad and unnecessarily restrict public vessel operations, this
rule proposes to amend these rules. Specifically, this rule proposes to
exempt vessels under 20 meters (65 feet) from the speed rules in Sec.
162.117(g).

D. 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 Regulations and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under Sec.  6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
Sec.  1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget
has not reviewed it under that Order.
    We conclude that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory
action because we anticipate that it will not adversely affect the
economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely
alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise
any novel legal or policy issues. Rather, permitting vessels under 20
meters to operate free of the speed rules in 33 CFR 162.117(g) will
lessen restrictions on the public and enable public vessels to engage
unimpeded in response operations.

2. Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000.
    This proposed rule will affect the following entities, some of
which might be small entities: The owners and operators of vessels
intending to transit between the length of the St. Marys River governed
by the speed rules in 33 CFR 162.117(g).
    The proposed exemption for vessels under 20 meters to the speed
rules in 33 CFR 162.117(g) will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities for the following reason:
This proposed amendment will lessen navigation restrictions on the
public and private businesses.
    Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that
this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. If you think that your business,
organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity
and that this proposed 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 so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
If this proposed rule would affect your small business, organization,
or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its
provisions or options for compliance, please contact CDR Nicholas Wong,
Prevention Chief, Sector Sault Sainte Marie, Coast Guard; telephone
(906) 635-3220, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The Coast Guard will
not retaliate against small entities that question or object to this
proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for no 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
have determined that it 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 expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this proposed
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

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,

Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This proposed 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

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

13. Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    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 Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-
01, 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 amendments to navigation regulations and thus, is
categorically excluded under paragraph 34(i) of the Commandant
Instruction. A preliminary Categorical Exclusion Determination (CED)
and a preliminary environmental analysis checklist 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 33 CFR Part 162

    Navigation (water), Waterways.
    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 162 as follows:

PART 162--INLAND WATERWAYS NAVIGATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 162 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

Sec.  162.117  [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  162.117, revise paragraph (g)(1) to read as follows:

Sec.  162.117  St. Marys River, Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan.

* * * * *
    (g) Speed Rules. (1) The following speed limits indicate speed over
the ground. Vessels, other than those under 20 meters (65 feet) in
length, must adhere to the following speed limits.
* * * * *

    Dated: April 5, 2013.
M.N. Parks,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2013-09853 Filed 4-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 130 (Monday, July 12, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 36545]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14720]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AC21-141-000]

Duke Energy Florida, LLC ; Notice of Petition for Limited Waiver

    Take notice that on July 1, 2021, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(5) of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules and
Regulations,\1\ Duke Energy Florida, LLC filed a petition for a limited
duration waiver of Distribution Expense Account 593, Maintenance of
overhead lines (Major only) of the Commission's Uniform System of
Accounts, as more fully explained in the petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2) (2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Petitioner.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically may mail
similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in
docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on July 16, 2021.

    Dated: July 6, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-14720 Filed 7-9-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: June 20, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 120)]
[Notices]
[Page 35146-35147]
[DOCID:fr20jn08-69]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1766-DR]

Indiana; 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 State of Indiana (FEMA-1766-DR), dated June 8, 2008,
and related determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 8, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472,
(202) 646-2705.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated June 8, 2008, the President declared a major disaster under the
authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act), as follows:

I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of
Indiana resulting from severe storms and flooding beginning on June
6, 2008, and continuing, is 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. 5121-5206
(the Stafford Act). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster
exists in the State of Indiana.

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), limited to direct Federal assistance, under
the Public Assistance program in the designated areas and any other
forms of assistance under the Stafford Act that you deem appropriate
subject to completion of Preliminary Damage Assessments (PDAs),
unless you determine that the incident is of such unusual severity
and magnitude that PDAs are not required to determine the need for
supplemental Federal assistance pursuant to 44 CFR 206.33(d).

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, except for any particular projects that are eligible
for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the FEMA Public
Assistance Pilot Program instituted pursuant to 6 U.S.C. 777. If
Other Needs Assistance and Hazard Mitigation are later warranted,
Federal funding under these programs will also be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs.

Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration 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, Department
of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Michael
H. Smith, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating
Officer for this declared disaster.
    I do hereby determine the following areas of the State of Indiana
to have been affected adversely by this declared major disaster:

    Bartholomew, Boone, Brown, Clay, Daviess, Dearborn, Decatur,
Franklin, Greene, Henry, Jackson, Jefferson, Jennings, Johnson,
Lawrence, Madison, Monroe, Morgan, Ohio, Owen, Randolph, Ripley,
Rush, Shelby, Sullivan, Union, Vermillion, Vigo, and Wayne Counties
for emergency protective measures (Category B), limited to direct
Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034,
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management
Assistance; 97.048, Individual and Household Housing; 97.049,
Individual and Household Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050,
Individual and Household Program--Other Needs; 97.036, Public
Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E8-13939 Filed 6-19-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12780-12781]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5142]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64010; File No. SR-Phlx-2011-26]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Inactive Nominee Fee

March 2, 2011.
    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 22, 2011, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to memorialize its
Inactive Nominee \3\ Fee. The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's Web site at http://nasdaqtrader.com/micro.aspx?id=PHLXfilings, at the principal office of the Exchange, on
the Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``inactive nominee'' means a natural person
associated with and designated as such by a member organization and
who has been approved for such status and is registered as such with
the Membership Department. An inactive nominee shall have no rights
or privileges under a permit unless and until said inactive nominee
becomes admitted as a member of the Exchange pursuant to the By-Laws
and Rules of the Exchange. An inactive nominee merely stands ready
to exercise rights under a permit upon notice by the member
organization to the Membership Department on an expedited basis. See
Exchange Rule 1(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to memorialize the
Inactive Nominee Fee in the Exchange's Fee Schedule.
    The Exchange currently assesses a member organization an Inactive
Nominee Fee of $500 to maintain an individual's inactive nominee status
for a six month period, as provided for in Exchange By-Law Article XII,
Section 12-10.\4\ The member organization is required to pay a fee for
the privilege of maintaining the inactive nominee status of an
individual.\5\ An inactive nominee's status terminates after six months
unless it has been reaffirmed in writing by the Member Organization or
is terminated sooner.\6\ An inactive nominee is assessed the $500 fee
every time the status is reaffirmed.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Pursuant to Exchange By-Law Article XII, Section 12-10, a
member organization may designate an individual as an inactive
nominee. To be eligible to be an inactive nominee an individual must
be approved as eligible to hold a permit in accordance with the
Exchange's By-Laws and Rules. An inactive nominee has no rights and
privileges of a permit holder until the inactive nominee becomes an
effective permit holder and all applicable Exchange fees are paid.
See By-Law Article XII, Section 12-10.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 39851 (April 10,
1998), 63 FR 19282 (April 17, 1998) (SR-Phlx-97-35) (a rule change
which subjected inactive nominees to the membership application
process, including fees, including a fee for the privilege of
maintaining an inactive nominee status).
    \6\ See By-Law Article XII, Section 12-10.
    \7\ An inactive nominee is also assessed the Application and
Initiation Fees when such person applies to be an inactive nominee.
Such fees are reassessed if there is a lapse in the inactive
nominee's membership status. However, an inactive nominee would not
be assessed the Application and Initiation Fees if such inactive
nominee applied for membership without a lapse in that individual's
association with a particular member organization. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 63780 (January 26, 2011), 76 FR 5846
(February 2, 2011) (SR-Phlx-2011-07). See also By-Law Article XII,
Section 12-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has assessed the Inactive Nominee Fee of $500 since
the inception of the inactive nominee category.\8\ This fee was
administered pursuant to By-Law Article XII, Section 12-10, and never
appeared in the Exchange's Fee Schedule. In recent years, the Exchange
has memorialized additional fees within the Fee Schedule to create a
centralized location for fees. The Exchange desires to memorialize this
fee in the Fee Schedule and to make clear which membership fees an
Inactive Nominee Fee [sic] would be assessed and when an inactive
nominee would be assessed such fees by adding explanatory text to the
Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Originally, the inactive nominee was defined in Exchange
Rule 21, but the definition was later moved to the definitions
section in Rule 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \9\ in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \10\ in particular, in
that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees and other charges
among Exchange members and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to memorialize the
Inactive Nominee Fee on the Exchange's Fee Schedule so the fee is
transparent to all members. While the Exchange has been assessing the
Inactive Nominee Fee since 1998, the fee was administered pursuant to
By-Law Article XII, Section 12-10 and was not located on the Fee
Schedule. The Exchange believes that placing the fee on the Fee
Schedule would summarize all the membership fees in one location and
clarify all the fees an individual is subject to for the privilege of
maintain [sic] an inactive nominee status.
    The Exchange believes that it is equitable to place the Inactive
Nominee Fee on the Fee Schedule because it uniformly impacts all
inactive nominees as they are all subject to the Inactive Nominee Fee.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate 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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\11\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2011-26 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-Phlx-2011-26. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for 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
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; 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-Phlx-2011-26 and should be
submitted on or before March 29, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[FR Doc. 2011-5142 Filed 3-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 42 (Monday, March 6, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12587-12588]
[FR Doc No: 2017-04306]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP17-60-000]

Guthrie Natural Gas; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on February 13, 2017, Guthrie Natural Gas
(Guthrie), 110 Kendall St., Guthrie, Kentucky 42234, filed an
application pursuant to section 7(f) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA)
requesting a service area determination within which it may enlarge or
expand its natural gas distribution facilities without further
Commission authorization. Guthrie also requests a determination that it
qualifies as a local distribution company for purposes of section 311
of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (NGPA) and a waiver of all
accounting and reporting requirements and other regulatory requirements
ordinarily applicable to natural gas companies under the NGA and the
NGPA, all as more fully described in the application which is on file
with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also
be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Dwight Luton, Kentucky Energy Systems, LLC, P.O. Box 632, Guthrie,
Kentucky 42234, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 7 copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission
and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing

comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests
only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on March 21, 2017.

    Dated: February 28, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-04306 Filed 3-3-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 41 (Wednesday, March 2, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11542-11545]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4690]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63961; File No. SR-FINRA-2010-059]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Adopt FINRA
Rule 4360 (Fidelity Bonds) in the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook

February 24, 2011.

I. Introduction

    On November 10, 2010, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority,
Inc., (``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'') pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed
rule change to adopt NASD Rule 3020 (Fidelity Bonds) with certain
changes into the consolidated FINRA rulebook as FINRA Rule 4360
(Fidelity Bonds). The proposed rule change was published for comment in
the Federal Register on November 26, 2010.\3\ The Commission received
three comment letters on the proposed rule change.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Exchange Act Release No. 63331 (Nov. 17, 2010), 75 FR
72850 (Nov. 26, 2010) (``Notice'').
    \4\ See Letters from Richard M. Garone, Travelers, dated Dec.
16, 2010 (``Travelers''); Letter from Robert J. Duke, The Surety &
Fidelity Association of America, dated Dec. 17, 2010 (``SFAA''); and
Letter from Albert Kramer, Kramer Securities Corporation, dated Dec.
31, 2010 (``Kramer'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of Proposed Rule Change

A. Summary

    FINRA is proposing to adopt NASD Rule 3020 (Fidelity Bonds) with
certain changes into the consolidated FINRA rulebook as FINRA Rule 4360
(Fidelity Bonds), taking into account Incorporated NYSE Rule 319
(Fidelity Bonds) and its Interpretation. NASD Rule 3020 and NYSE Rule
319 (and its Interpretation) generally require members to maintain
minimum amounts of fidelity bond coverage for officers and employees,
and that such coverage address losses incurred due to certain specified
events. The purpose of a fidelity bond is to protect a member against
certain types of losses, including, but not limited to, those caused by
the malfeasance of its officers and employees, and the effect of such
losses on the member's capital.

B. Description of Proposed Rule Change

1. General Provision
    NASD Rule 3020(a) generally provides that each member required to
join the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (``SIPC'') that has
employees and that is not a member in good standing of one of the
enumerated national securities exchanges must maintain fidelity bond
coverage; NYSE Rule 319(a) generally requires member organizations
doing business with the public to carry fidelity bonds. Proposed FINRA
Rule 4360 would require each member that is required to join SIPC to
maintain blanket fidelity bond coverage with specified amounts of
coverage based on the member's net capital requirement, with certain
exceptions.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Notice, supra note 3, for a more detailed discussion of
the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASD Rule 3020(a)(1) requires members to maintain a blanket
fidelity bond in a form substantially similar to the standard form of
Brokers Blanket Bond promulgated by the Surety Association of America.
Under NYSE Rule 319(a), the Stockbrokers Partnership Bond and the
Brokers Blanket Bond approved by the NYSE are the only bond forms that
may be used by a member organization; NYSE approval is required for any
variation from such forms. Proposed FINRA Rule 4360 would require
members to maintain fidelity bond coverage that provides for per loss
coverage without an aggregate limit of liability.
    Under proposed FINRA Rule 4360, a member's fidelity bond must
provide against loss and have Insuring Agreements covering at least the
following: Fidelity, on premises, in transit, forgery and alteration,
securities and counterfeit currency. The proposed rule change modifies
the descriptive headings for these Insuring Agreements, in part, from
NASD Rule 3020(a)(1) and NYSE Rule 319(d) to align them with the
headings in the current bond forms available to broker-dealers.
    Proposed FINRA Rule 4360 would also eliminate the specific coverage
provisions in NASD Rule 3020(a)(4) and (a)(5), and NYSE Rule
319(d)(ii)(B) and (C), and (e)(ii)(B) and (C), that permit less than
100 percent of coverage for certain Insuring Agreements (i.e.,
fraudulent trading and securities forgery) to require that coverage for
all Insuring Agreements be equal to 100 percent of the firm's minimum
required bond coverage.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Members may elect to carry additional, optional Insuring
Agreements not required by proposed FINRA Rule 4360 for an amount
less than 100 percent of the minimum required bond coverage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As currently provided in NASD Rule 3020 and NYSE Rule 319, proposed
FINRA Rule 4360 would require that a member's fidelity bond include a
cancellation rider providing that the insurer will use its best efforts
to promptly notify FINRA in the event the bond is cancelled, terminated
or ``substantially modified.'' Also, the proposed rule change would
adopt the definition of ``substantially modified'' in NYSE Rule 319 and
would incorporate NYSE Rule 319.12's standard that a firm must
immediately advise FINRA in writing if its fidelity bond is cancelled,
terminated or substantially modified.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ NYSE Rule 319 defines the term ``substantially modified'' as
any change in the type or amount of fidelity bonding coverage, or in
the exclusions to which the bond is subject, or any other change in
the bond such that it no longer complies with the requirements of
the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA is proposing to add supplementary material to proposed FINRA
Rule 4360 that would require members that do not qualify for a bond
with per loss coverage without an aggregate limit of liability to
secure alternative coverage. Specifically, a member that does not
qualify for blanket fidelity bond coverage as required by proposed
FINRA Rule 4360(a)(3) would be required to maintain substantially
similar fidelity bond coverage in compliance with all other provisions
of the proposed rule, provided that the member maintains written
correspondence from two insurance providers stating that the member
does not qualify for the coverage required by proposed FINRA Rule
4360(a)(3).
2. Minimum Required Coverage
    Proposed FINRA Rule 4360 would require each member to maintain, at
a minimum, fidelity bond coverage for any person associated with the
member, except directors or trustees of a member who are not performing
acts within the scope of the usual duties of an officer or employee. As
further detailed below, the proposed rule change would eliminate the
exemption in NASD Rule 3020 for sole stockholders and sole proprietors.
    The proposed rule change would increase the minimum required
fidelity bond coverage for members, while continuing to base the
coverage on a member's net capital requirement. To that end, proposed
FINRA Rule 4360 would require a member with a net capital requirement
that is less than $250,000 to maintain minimum coverage of the greater
of 120 percent of the firm's required net capital under Exchange Act
Rule 15c3-1 or $100,000. The increase to $100,000 would modify the
present minimum requirement of $25,000.
    Under proposed FINRA Rule 4360, members with a net capital
requirement of at least $250,000 would use a table in the rule to
determine their minimum fidelity bond coverage requirement. The

table is a modified version of the tables in NASD Rule 3020(a)(3) and
NYSE Rule 319(e)(i). The identical NASD and NYSE requirements for
members that have a minimum net capital requirement that exceeds $1
million would be retained in proposed FINRA Rule 4360; however, the
proposed rule would adopt the higher requirements in NYSE Rule
319(e)(i) for a member with a net capital requirement of at least
$250,000, but less than $1 million.
    Under the proposed rule, the entire amount of a member's minimum
required coverage must be available for covered losses and may not be
eroded by the costs an insurer may incur if it chooses to defend a
claim. Specifically, any defense costs for covered losses must be in
addition to a member's minimum coverage requirements. A member may
include defense costs as part of its fidelity bond coverage, but only
to the extent that it does not reduce a member's minimum required
coverage under the proposed rule.
3. Deductible Provision
    Under current NASD Rule 3020(b), a deductible provision may be
included in a member's bond of up to $5,000 or 10 percent of the
member's minimum insurance requirement, whichever is greater. If a
member desires to maintain coverage in excess of the minimum insurance
requirement, then a deductible provision may be included in the bond of
up to $5,000 or 10 percent of the amount of blanket coverage provided
in the bond purchased, whichever is greater. The excess of any such
deductible amount over the maximum permissible deductible amount based
on the member's minimum required coverage must be deducted from the
member's net worth in the calculation of the member's net capital for
purposes of Exchange Act Rule 15c3-1. Where the member is a subsidiary
of another member, the excess may be deducted from the parent's rather
than the subsidiary's net worth, but only if the parent guarantees the
subsidiary's net capital in writing.
    Under NYSE Rule 319(b), each member organization may self-insure to
the extent of $10,000 or 10 percent of its minimum insurance
requirement as fixed by the NYSE, whichever is greater, for each type
of coverage required by the rule. Self-insurance in amounts exceeding
the above maximum may be permitted by the NYSE provided the member or
member organization certifies to the satisfaction of the NYSE that it
is unable to obtain greater bonding coverage, and agrees to reduce its
self-insurance so as to comply with the above stated limits as soon as
possible, and appropriate charges to capital are made pursuant to
Exchange Act Rule 15c3-1. This provision also contains identical
language to the NASD rule regarding net worth deductions for
subsidiaries.
    Proposed FINRA Rule 4360 would provide for an allowable deductible
amount of up to 25 percent of the fidelity bond coverage purchased by a
member. Any deductible amount elected by the firm that is greater than
10 percent of the coverage purchased by the member \8\ would be
deducted from the member's net worth in the calculation of its net
capital for purposes of Exchange Act Rule 15c3-1.\9\ Like the NASD and
NYSE rules, if the member is a subsidiary of another FINRA member, this
amount may be deducted from the parent's rather than the subsidiary's
net worth, but only if the parent guarantees the subsidiary's net
capital in writing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ FINRA notes that a member may elect, subject to
availability, a deductible of less than 10 percent of the coverage
purchased.
    \9\ NASD Rule 3020 bases the deduction from net worth for an
excess deductible on a firm's minimum required coverage, while
proposed FINRA Rule 4360 would base such deduction from net worth on
coverage purchased by the member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Annual Review of Coverage
    Consistent with NASD Rule 3020(c) and NYSE Rule 319.10, proposed
FINRA Rule 4360 would require a member (including a firm that signs a
multi-year insurance policy), annually as of the yearly anniversary
date of the issuance of the fidelity bond, to review the adequacy of
its fidelity bond coverage and make any required adjustments to its
coverage, as set forth in the proposed rule. Under proposed FINRA Rule
4360(d), a member's highest net capital requirement during the
preceding 12-month period, based on the applicable method of computing
net capital (dollar minimum, aggregate indebtedness or alternative
standard), would be used as the basis for determining the member's
minimum required fidelity bond coverage for the succeeding 12-month
period. The ``preceding 12-month period'' includes the 12-month period
that ends 60 days before the yearly anniversary date of a member's
fidelity bond. This would give a firm time to determine its required
fidelity bond coverage by the anniversary date of the bond.
    Proposed FINRA Rule 4360 would allow a member that has only been in
business for one year and elected the aggregate indebtedness ratio for
calculating its net capital requirement to use, solely for the purpose
of determining the adequacy of its fidelity bond coverage for its
second year, the 15 to 1 ratio of aggregate indebtedness to net capital
in lieu of the 8 to 1 ratio (required for broker-dealers in their first
year of business) to calculate its net capital requirement.
Notwithstanding the above, such member would not be permitted to carry
less minimum fidelity bond coverage in its second year than it carried
in its first year.
5. Exemptions
    Based in part on NASD Rule 3020(a), proposed FINRA Rule 4360 would
exempt from the fidelity bond requirements members in good standing
with a national securities exchange that maintain a fidelity bond
subject to the requirements of such exchange that are equal to or
greater than the requirements set forth in the proposed rule.
Additionally, consistent with NYSE Rule Interpretation 319/01, proposed
FINRA Rule 4360 would continue to exempt from the fidelity bond
requirements any firm that acts solely as a Designated Market Maker
(``DMM''),\10\ floor broker or registered floor trader and does not
conduct business with the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Exchange Act Release No. 58845 (Oct. 24, 2008), 73 FR
64379 (Oct. 29, 2008) (Order Approving File No. SR-NYSE-2008-46). In
this rule filing, the role of the specialist was altered in certain
respects and the term ``specialist'' was replaced with the term
``Designated Market Maker.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed FINRA Rule 4360 would not maintain the exemption in NASD
Rule 3020(e) for a one-person firm.\11\ Historically, a sole proprietor
or sole stockholder member was excluded from the fidelity bond
requirements based upon the assumption that such firms were one-person
shops and, therefore, could not obtain coverage for their own acts.
FINRA has determined that sole proprietors and sole stockholder firms
can and often do acquire fidelity bond coverage, even though it is
currently not required, since all claims (irrespective of firm size)
are likely to be paid or denied on a facts-and-circumstances basis.
Also, certain coverage areas of the fidelity bond benefit a one-person
shop (e.g., those covering customer property lost in transit).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ A one-person member (that is, a firm owned by a sole
proprietor or stockholder that has no other associated persons,
registered or unregistered) has no ``employees'' for purposes of
NASD Rule 3020, and therefore such a firm currently is not subject
to the fidelity bonding requirements. Conversely, a firm owned by a
sole proprietor or stockholder that has other associated persons has
``employees'' for purposes of NASD Rule 3020, and currently is, and
will continue to be, subject to the fidelity bonding requirements.

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

III. Summary of Comments

    The Commission received three comment letters in response to the
proposed rule change addressing different aspects of the proposal.\12\
FINRA submitted a response to these comment letters.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See supra note 4.
    \13\ See Letter from Erika L. Lazar, Counsel, FINRA, to
Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated February 23, 2010
(``FINRA Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Elimination of the Exemption in NASD Rule 3020 for Sole Proprietors
and Sole Stockholders

    All three commenters oppose the proposed elimination of the
exemption from the fidelity bond requirements in NASD Rule 3020 for
sole proprietors and sole stockholders.\14\ One commenter believes that
it is irresponsible to require one-person shops to maintain a fidelity
bond that would provide little, if any, true coverage and that a one-
person shop should be allowed to decide if they want to self-insure in
other areas that would not invoke the alter-ego concept.\15\ Another
commenter requests that the proposed rule change not be approved
without an exemption for sole proprietors and sole stockholders and
notes that maintaining a fidelity bond will be a great financial burden
for small firms.\16\ The third commenter agrees with the premise that
sole proprietors and sole stockholders may rely on certain Insuring
Agreements in a fidelity bond.\17\ However, two commenters, including
the third commenter referenced above, are concerned that Insuring
Agreement A--Fidelity as required by the proposed rule, is not
available in the market for a sole proprietor or sole stockholder
because the sole owner is considered an alter-ego of the company and
dishonesty of a sole owner cannot be underwritten prudently.\18\ One
commenter suggests language that would exclude sole proprietors and
sole stockholders from Insuring Agreement A--Fidelity coverage and
believes that the rule filing does not accurately describe Insuring
Agreement A--Fidelity because it uses the term ``malfeasance.''\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Kramer, SFAA and Travelers.
    \15\ See Travelers.
    \16\ See Kramer.
    \17\ See SFAA.
    \18\ See SFAA and Travelers.
    \19\ See SFAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its response to comments, FINRA notes that a one-person member
has no ``employees'' for purposes of the rule, and therefore such a
firm currently is not subject to the fidelity bonding requirements.\20\
However, a firm owned by a sole proprietor or stockholder that has
other associated persons has ``employees'' for purposes of current NASD
Rule 3020, and currently is, and will continue to be, subject to
fidelity bonding requirements.\21\ FINRA further disputes the claim
that sole proprietors and sole stockholder firms cannot obtain fidelity
bond coverage. Specifically, FINRA has determined that sole proprietors
and sole stockholder firms can and do acquire fidelity bond coverage,
even though it is not currently required under the NASD rule.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See FINRA Letter.
    \21\ Id.
    \22\ See Notice, supra note 3; see also FINRA Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA further provides that Insuring Agreements B through F in the
proposed rule are all premised on losses suffered by the insured based
on the acts of another person; such persons do not have to be an
``employee'' of the firm and therefore sole proprietor and sole
stockholder firms can obtain fidelity coverage through these
agreements.\23\ FINRA notes that the term ``employee'' currently is
defined in the Securities Dealer Blanket Bond to include, among others,
an officer or other employee of the insured, while employed in, at or
by any of the insured's offices or premises, an attorney retained by
the insured while performing legal services for the insured and any
natural person performing acts coming with the scope of the usual
duties of an officer or employee of the insured, including any persons
provided by an employment contractor. FINRA believes that while a sole
proprietor or sole stockholder may not have other associated persons or
registered persons, it may have ``employees'' for purposes of a
fidelity bond and therefore may benefit from Fidelity coverage.\24\
FINRA believes that requiring all SIPC member firms, regardless of
size, to maintain fidelity bond coverage promotes investor protection
objectives and protects firms from unforeseen losses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See FINRA Letter.
    \24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the comment that the rule filing inaccurately
describes Insuring Agreement A--Fidelity by using the term
``malfeasance,'' FINRA responds that the term ``malfeasance'' was used
as part of a description of the purpose of the fidelity bond in general
and does not aim to impose additional requirements beyond what is
covered by the proposed rule.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Requirement for Per Loss Coverage Without an Aggregate Limit of
Liability

    One commenter notes that the proposed rule change, which would
require members to maintain fidelity bond coverage that provides for
per loss coverage without an aggregate limit of liability, will
significantly modify the Financial Institutional Form 14 Bond (``Form
14'') by creating a competitive disadvantage to underwriters that do
not offer this type of coverage.\26\ The commenter further stated that
only two underwriting firms offer this type of coverage and therefore
the proposed rule change would increase costs to members.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Travelers. Furthermore, Travelers argues that this
proposed change would remove the industry standard aggregate limit
of liability.
    \27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA argues that a member's fidelity bond coverage should not
include an aggregate limit of liability to prevent a member's coverage
from being eroded by covered losses within the bond period.\28\ FINRA
further states that it was advised by industry representatives that
Form 14 could be revised to provide this type of coverage and that it
could be offered by a firm that offers the current Form 14.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See FINRA Letter.
    \29\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Proposed Changes to the Deductible Provision

    One commenter opposes provision (c) in proposed FINRA Rule 4360
that would require a deduction from net capital in the case of certain
deductible levels.\30\ This commenter supported the increased maximum
permissible deductible of 25% of the coverage purchased by a member,
but believes that the net capital deduction that the broker-dealer
would be required to take for any deductible greater than 10% of their
fidelity bond limit could provide a strong disincentive for any firm to
consider a higher deductible. The commenter believes that this could
lead to higher premium costs for members.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Travelers.
    \31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, FINRA notes the difference between the deduction
linked to the current NASD rule and what is proposed. Specifically, the
proposed rule eliminates the current concept of an ``excess
deductible'' linked to a member's required minimum bond requirement and
instead proposed Rule 4360 would only be subject to a deduction from
net capital in the amount of any deductible over 10% of the coverage
purchased by the member. Therefore, FINRA does not believe that the
proposed deductible provision will result in a higher premium costs
than the current rule. Rather, FINRA argues that the option for a
deductible of up to 25% of the coverage purchased and any

deductible amount elected by the member that is greater than 10% of the
coverage purchased must be deduced from the member's net worth in the
calculation of its net capital for purposes of Exchange Act Rule 15c3-
1.

IV. Discussion

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
association.\32\ In particular, the Commission believes the proposal is
consistent with the requirements of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\33\
which requires, among other things, that the Association's rules 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. The Commission believes that
FINRA adequately addressed the comments raised in response to the
notice of this proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ In approving this rule proposal, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \33\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that FINRA's proposed Rule 4360 (Fidelity
Bond) will update and clarify the requirements governing fidelity bonds
for adoption in the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook. The Commission
believes that the proposed requirements of FINRA Rule 4360, including,
but not limited to, requiring each member that is required to join SIPC
to maintain blanket fidelity bond coverage, increasing the minimum
requirement fidelity bond coverage and maintaining a fidelity bond that
provides for per loss coverage without an aggregate limit of liability
promotes investor protection by protecting firms from unforeseen
losses.

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\34\ that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2010-059) is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-4690 Filed 3-1-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P