870.4100a (870.4300) Chronic Toxicity  -  Rat

In a chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study (MRID 00162393 and 00162434), DOWCO(R) 290 (Clopyralid technical, 96.7% a.i.; lot number not reported) was administered in the diet to groups of 70 male and 70 female Fischer-344 rats at concentrations delivering doses of 0, 15, 150, or 1500 mg/kg/day. Groups of 10 rats per sex per dose were killed at 6 and 12 months for interim evaluations; the remaining 50 rats per sex per dose were maintained on treated or control diets for up to 24 months.

No treatment-related effects were observed on mortality or clinical signs of toxicity at any dose. Mean body weights were significantly decreased by 2-5% (p<=0.05) in male rats fed 1500 mg/kg/day and by 2-9% (p<=0.05) (except for an 11% decrease at last time point) in 1500 mg/kg/day group females compared with the weights of controls. Males in the 1500 mg/kg/day group gained 5% less weight than controls during the first year of the study and 7% less weight overall, whereas 1 500-mg/kg/day group females gained 11% less during the first year and 1:6% less weight overall. Food consumption by 1500 mg/kg/day group male and female rats was significantly decreased by as much as 8% and 7%, respectively, at sporadic time points during the study. No treatment-related effects were observed on body weights or food consumption in the 15 or 150 mg/kg/day groups.

Statistically significant changes were observed for hematologic parameters, serum chemistry parameters, and relative organ weights, but none were considered treatment related. The changes showed no dose-related trend, were transient in duration, or the magnitude of the change was not considered biologically significant.  The primary target for DOWCO(R) 290 was the limiting ridge of the stomach. No gross or microscopic lesions affecting the limiting ridge were observed in 15 mg/kg/day groups. Gross examination showed that the limiting ridge was increased in size in almost all male and female rats receiving 1500 mg/kg/day for 12 or 24 months. Microscopic examination showed epithelial hyperplasia of the limiting ridge in almost all 1500 mg/kg/day group male and female rats at 6, 12, and 24 months. The same lesion was observed in one or two male or female rats receiving 150 mg/kg/day for 6 and 12 months and in 52% of males and 42% of females at 24 months. The limiting ridge was thickened in two to seven male and female rats receiving 1500 mg/kg/day for 6 and 12 months and in 80% of males and 58% of females at 24 months. The limiting ridge was also thickened in one or two males or females receiving the 150 mg/kg/day dose for up to 24 months. Other treatment-related stomach lesions observed at 1500 mg/kg/day included chronic active inflammation in 6/10 males at 12 months compared with 0/10 in the control group, and mononuclear cell aggregates in the stomach mucosa in 23/50 (p>0.05) males and 25/50 (p<=0.05) females compared with 12/50 controls of each sex. In addition, a statistically significant increase in the incidence of mononuclear cell aggregates in the lacrimal/Harderian gland was observed in males receiving 1500 mg/kg/day (21/50 vs 9/50 for controls, p<=0.05).

The LOAEL is 150 mg/kg/day for male and female rats based on histopathologic findings in the stomach (epithelial hyperplasia and thickening of the limiting ridge). The corresponding NOAEL is 15 mg/kg/day.
There was no evidence of potential carcinogenicity of the test material at the doses given in this study. No neoplastic lesions occurred in treated groups at incidences significantly higher than the incidences in control animals. The doses administered were adequate for testing carcinogenicity as evidenced by histopathologic lesions in the stomach at the 150 and 1500 mg/kg/day doses. In addition, the high dose of 1500 mg/kg/day exceeded EPA's limit dose of 1000 mg/kg/day.

This chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study in the rat is Acceptable/Guideline and it satisfies the guideline requirement for a chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity oral study [OPPTS §870.4300] in rats. Deficiencies were noted, but none affected the interpretation of the results.

	870.4100b Chronic Toxicity - Dog

In a chronic oral feeding toxicity study (MRID 00158256), Clopyralid (Batch No. AGR 192532, 95.8% purity) was administered to groups of six male and six female beagle dogs for 52 weeks at doses of 0, 100, 320, or 1000 mg/kg/day in the diet.

No animals died as a result of treatment, and no treatment-related clinical signs of toxicity were observed. There were no treatment-related effects on mean body weight, body weight gain, or food consumption. Red blood cell count and its associated parameters showed a dose-related, statistically significant reduction in both sexes of mid- and high-dose dogs. These changes are judged to be adverse and toxicologically significant, based on their magnitude (10-28% reduction in RBCs). Clinical chemistry changes (decreased albumin, globulin, or serum protein at one or more sampling times) at the high dose in both sexes were highly statistically significant and considered treatment related. Highly significant increased absolute and relative liver weight in both sexes of high dose dogs and absolute liver weight in mid dose males was considered toxicologically significant although in the absence of associated findings.  Gross and histological changes seen in the lungs of treated dogs were evidently an inflammatory response to inhaled food particles, caused by the dogs "mouthing" their food, and not the result of systemic toxicity. Microscopically observed skin findings were increased in incidence and severity at the high dose in both sexes and included acanthosis (m,f), hyperkeratosis (m), and acute ulcerative dermatitis (f) and were considered treatment related. A dose-related increase in both incidence and severity of slight to mild focal vacuolation of adrenal cortical cells at the mid dose of females and high dose of both sexes was considered a significant toxicological effect.

The chronic oral toxicity LOAEL for dogs is 320 mg/kg/day for both sexes, based on a reduction in the hematological parameters, increased absolute liver weight in males, and vacuolated adrenal cortical cells in females. The NOAEL is 100 mg/kg/day.

This chronic oral toxicity study is classified as Acceptable/Guideline and satisfies the guideline requirement for a chronic oral toxicity study (§870.4100b) in dogs.

A.4.5	Carcinogenicity

	870.4200a Carcinogenicity Study - rat

See 870.4100a (870.4300)(Chronic oral toxicity/carcinogenicity  -  rat)
	870.4200b Carcinogenicity (feeding) - Mouse

In an oncogenicity study (MRID 00157783), DOWCO[(R)] 290 (technical, 96.7% a.i., batch/lot no. not supplied) was administered to groups of 70 male and 70 female B6C3F1 mice in the diet at concentrations providing 0, 100, 500, or 2000 mg/kg/day for up to 24 months. The dietary concentrations were adjusted weekly or monthly to maintain the target dose level using the food intake and body weights. Ten animals per sex per group were utilized for 6 month and for 12 month interim studies.

Treatment with DOWCO[(R)] 290 did not result in a significant decrease in survival or increases in clinical signs in treated groups compared with the control groups. Group mean body weights of males at 2000 mg/kg/day were decreased by 5% to 13% (p <=0.05) from treatment days 91 to 708 compared to the controls. The mean overall body weight gain in males was decreased by about 15% at 2000 mg/kg/day and by 8% at 100 and 500 mg/kg/day compared to the control group. The overall food efficiency in males was also 18% lower at 2000 mg/kg/day than that of the control group. The body weight and weight gain in females were not affected by treatment with DOWCO[(R)] 290 and the food efficiency in females was higher in the treated groups than in the control.

No treatment-related changes were seen in hematology parameters. Group mean blood glucose levels were increased in males by 20% and 27% (p <=0.05) at 500 and 2000 mg/kg/day, respectively, after 6 months of treatment, and by 42% and 36% (p <= 0.05) after 24 months. Blood glucose levels were also increased in females by 28%, 9%, (NS) and 34% (p <=0.05) at 100, 500, and 2000 mg/kg/day, respectively, after 6 months, but were not significantly increased at 12 or 24 months. The toxicological significance of the changes in blood glucose levels in treated animals is compromised by the use of non-fasted animals, the lack of a clear dose effect in females at 6 months and males at 24 months, and the lack of significant changes at 12 months in both sexes and at 24 months in females. A decrease in alkaline phosphatase activity of 51% was seen in females at 2000 mg/kg/day compared to the control after 24 months of treatment. The decreased activity appears to be associated, at least in part, with a decrease in the incidence of bone fibrous osteodystrophy in high-dose females (control, 35/50; 2000 mg/kg/day, 26/50, NS). A slight decrease in the incidence of sciatic nerve axon degeneration was seen in high-dose males at 24 months (control, 16/50; 2000 mg/kg/day, 8/50, p <=0.05). No treatment- related adverse effects were seen during the histopathologic examinations.

The LOAEL is 2000 mg/kg/day based on decreased body weight, body weight gain, and food efficiency for males. The LOAEL was not identified for females (>2000 mg/kg/day). The NOAEL was 500 mg/kg/day for males; 2000 mg/kg/day for females.

There was no evidence of oncogenic potential under the conditions of this study. Major organs examined included liver, kidney, testes, lung, ovary, bladder, brain, and thyroid. The dosing based on toxic response was marginal in males and inadequate in females. The high dose of 2000 mg/kg/day was above the limit dose for non-toxic agents and, therefore, was considered adequate for the oncogenicity study.  This study is classified as Acceptable/guideline and does satisfy the guideline requirement for an oncogenicity study (§870.4200b) in mice.

A.4.6	Mutagenicity

	Gene Mutation
870.5300, in vitro (Salmonella and Saccharomyces) and in vivo  (mouse) host-mediated gene mutation assay
MRID  00057086
Acceptable/Guideline
Negative for evidence of induction of mutant colonies over background levels in Salmonella or Saccharomyces strain D-3 at doses in the presence or absence of S9.  Mice exposed to 4, 40 or 400 mg/kg by gavage.

	Cytogenetics
870.5385, in vivo micronucleus assay in the rat
MRID 00073638
Acceptable/guideline
Negative for evidence of increased incidence of treatment-related bone marrow chromosomal aberrations at 4, 40 or 400 mg/kg/day.

	Other Genotoxicity
870.5450, dominant lethal assay in the rat
MRID 00059053, 00099100
Acceptable/guideline
Negative for evidence of increased incidence of treatment-related resorptions at 4, 40 or 400 mg/kg/day for 5 days prior to mating.
870.5550, unscheduled DNA synthesis in the rat
MRID 00156387, 41790702
Acceptable/guideline
Negative for evidence of increased unscheduled DNA synthesis up to insoluble concentrations when tested at concentrations between  9.6 to 9600 ug/mL for 18 to 20 hrs.

A.4.7	Neurotoxicity

	870.6200 Subchronic Neurotoxicity Screening Battery (Acute and Subchronic)

Not required.

A.4.8	Metabolism

	870.7485	Metabolism - Rat

In a metabolism study (MRID 41790703), groups of five male and five female rats were given a single oral dose of [[14]4C]-Clopyralid (5 or 150 mg/kg; Lot no. 805 [ref. no. GHD-2775-l0a, purity >96%), a single intravenous dose (5 mg/kg) of radiolabeled test article, or 14-day repeated 5 mg/kg/day oral doses of non-radiolabeled Clopyralid (Lot no. AGR 233257; radiochemical purity >99%) followed by a single 5 mg/kg oral dose of radiolabeled test article. Additionally, a pretest experiment to assess pulmonary excretion was performed in which two male and two female rats were given a single oral dose (5 mg/kg). An untreated control group consisted of one male and one female rat.

There were no deaths or overt signs of toxicity reported. Radioactivity inventory indicated an acceptable recovery (95-115%) of the administered dose among the experimental groups in the definitive phase of the study.  Clopyralid was nearly completely absorbed at the doses tested. Under the conditions of this study, tissue and carcass burdens were negligible for all groups, suggesting little potential for accumulation. Minimal radioactivity (<=0.0 1% at 72 hours) was found in the gastrointestinal tract and organs associated with excretion (e.g., liver, kidneys). Urinary excretion accounted for most (91-113% at 72 hours postdose) of the administered test material regardless of the administration route or dose. There did not appear to be any biologically relevant gender- dependent differences in total urinary excretion or excretion rates. Most urinary excretion (74-98% of administered dose) occurred within 6 hours after administration for all low dose groups and within 12 hours for the repeated-dose group. Fecal excretion was negligible and, at 72 hours, accounted for <4% of the administered dose in all treatment groups.  HPLC and TLC analysis of urine and fecal samples indicated that the radioactivity inventory represented only parent compound. There was no evidence of metabolites.

This metabolism study in rats is classified as Acceptable/Guideline and satisfies the guideline requirement for a Metabolism and Pharmacokinetics study in the rat (§870.7485).

A.4.9	Immunotoxicity

	870.7800	Immunotoxicity

In an immunotoxicity study (MRID 483000001) Clopyralid (95.9% a.i., Lot No. 910905 5P) was administered to male F344/DuCrl rats in the diet designed to give nominal dose levels of 0 (vehicle control and positive control), 150, 500, or 1000 mg/kg bw/day (actual dose levels of 0, 158, 530, and 1062 mg/kg bw/day, respectively) (10 animals/dose) for 29 days (Day 1-29).  On Day 25, animals in all groups were immunized with a suspension of sheep red blood cells (SRBC) by intravenous injection (2x10[8] SRBC/animal, 0.5 mL/animal dose volume).  Animals in the positive control group received an intraperitoneal injection of cyclophosphamide on Days 24-28 at a dose of 20 mg/kg bw (1 mL/kg bw dose volume).  All animals were evaluated for mortality, clinical signs, body weight changes, and gross pathology.  The vehicle control and test substance treatment groups also were evaluated for food consumption, hematologic parameters, and histopathology.  Immunotoxicity was assessed for all animals by ELISA assay; spleen and thymus weights were determined at necropsy.

There were no test substance-related effects on mortality, clinical signs, body weight changes, food consumption, hematologic parameters, histopathology or gross pathology. A LOAEL for systemic toxicity could not be determined for Clopyralid in male rats (i.e., greater than the nominal dose of 1000 mg/kg bw/day, actual dose of 1062 mg/kg bw/day, highest dose tested) based on the evaluated parameters.  The NOAEL for systemic toxicity is 1000 mg/kg bw/day (actual dose of 1062 mg/kg bw/day), highest dose tested and the limit dose.
There were no test substance-related effects on serum anti-SRBC IgM antibody levels as measured by ELISA assay, on thymus and spleen weights, or on hematologic parameters.  A LOAEL for immunotoxicity could not be determined for Clopyralid in male rats (i.e., greater than the nominal dose of 1000 mg/kg bw/day, actual dose of 1062 mg/kg bw/day, highest dose tested) based on the evaluated parameters.  The NOAEL for immunotoxicity is 1000 mg/kg bw/day (actual dose of 1062 mg/kg bw/day), highest dose tested and the limit dose.

This immunotoxicity study is classified as acceptable/guideline and satisfies the guideline requirement for an immunotoxicity study (OPPTS 870.7800) in the rat.  Information regarding the stability of the test substance, storage conditions of the test substance and dietary formulations, and references for the historical control thymus weight data should be submitted.

Appendix B.  Clopyralid Physical/Chemical Properties

Physicochemical Properties of the Technical Grade Clopyralid
Parameter
Value
References
Physical State
Solid
A world Compendium, The Pesticide Manual, 14[th]  Edition. C.D. S Tomlin (Editor), 2006.
Color
Colorless

Melting Point/Range
151-152°C

Dissociation Constant (pKa)
2

Density at 20°C
1.57 g/cm3

Vapor Pressure at 25°C
1.0 x 10[-5] mm Hg (1.33 mPa)

Water Solubility at 20°C
7.85 g/L

Solvent solubility (g/L) at 20°C
Acetone:  250
Ethyl acetate:  102
Xylene:  4.6
Hexane:  6.0

Octanol/water partition coefficient, Log (KOW)
-1.81 (pH 5)
-2.63 (pH 7)
-2.55 (pH 9)

Appendix C.  Review of Human Research

This risk assessment relies in part on data from studies in which adult human subjects were intentionally exposed to a pesticide or other chemical.  These data, which include studies from the Pesticide Handlers Exposure Database Version 1.1 (PHED 1.1); the Agricultural Handler Exposure Task Force (AHETF) database; and other registrant-submitted exposure monitoring studies (MRID 44339801), are subject to ethics review pursuant to 40 CFR 26, have received that review, and are compliant with applicable ethics requirements.  For certain studies, that review may have included review by the Human Studies Review Board.  Descriptions of data sources as well as guidance on their use can be found at:  http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ science/handler-exposure-data.html and http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/post-app-exposure-data.html.


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 235 (Tuesday, December 8, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76343-76344]
[FR Doc No: 2015-30836]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76539; File No. SR-NYSE-2015-61]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Amending Rule 132 To Delete Supplementary Material .40 Requiring
Members Effecting Transactions on the NYSE Trading Floor To Submit
Certain Data Elements and Badge Information and To Make a Conforming
Change

 December 2, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on November 20, 2015, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''
or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 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 Rule 132 to delete Supplementary
Material .40 requiring members effecting transactions on the NYSE
trading Floor (the ``Trading Floor'') to submit certain data elements
and badge information and to make a conforming change. The proposed
rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at
the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
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 those 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 parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 132 to delete Supplementary
Material .40, which requires members to submit certain data elements
and badge information for transactions effected on the Trading Floor
and to make a conforming change.
    Rule 132 requires clearing member organizations submitting a
transaction to comparison to include the audit trail data elements set
forth in Supplementary Material .30, including a specification of the
account type for which the transaction was effected according to
defined account categories. Consistent with this requirement,
Supplementary Material .40 requires members \4\ effecting transactions
on the Trading Floor as agent or otherwise to supply these audit trail
data elements to their clearing member organization and to promptly
provide the reporter in the Crowd (or other designated Exchange
representative) with the member's broker badge number or alpha symbol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Under Rule 2(a), a member is a natural person associated
with a member organization and in the context of Rule 132.40, refers
to Floor brokers only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to delete Rule 132.40 as obsolete. Rule
132.40 was adopted at a time when manual transactions on the Trading
Floor were recorded on paper order tickets. The rule was designed to
improve trade documentation and ensure that broker badge information
was captured correctly for Crowd trades (i.e., verbal executions
between two Floor brokers or between a Floor broker and a specialist).
Currently, however, all information regarding transactions at the
Exchange, including the audit trail data elements of Rule 132.30 and
badge information for manual transactions, is captured and transmitted
electronically by Exchange systems. Because these data elements no
longer need to be separately submitted by members, Rule 132.40 is
obsolete and therefore can be deleted.
    The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 9217, which sets forth the
list of rules under which a member organization or covered person may
be subject to a fine under a minor rule violation plan as set forth in
Rule 9216(b). Rule 9217 permits a summary fine for failures to collect
and/or submit all audit trail data specified in Rule 132. The Exchange
proposes to delete the clause ``and/or submit'' to reflect elimination
of the submission requirement set forth in Supplementary Material .40
of Rule 132. The Exchange believes this proposed change will add
transparency and clarity to the Exchange's rules.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\5\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\6\ in particular, because it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and protect investors and the

public interest. In particular, the Exchange believes that deleting
rule text relating to a requirement that is obsolete, i.e., to manually
submit and transmit information that Exchange systems now capture and
transmit electronically, removes impediments to and perfects the
mechanism of a free and open market by simplifying its rulebook and
removing confusion that may result from having obsolete rules in the
Exchange's rulebook. The Exchange further believes that the proposal
removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open
market by ensuring that persons subject to the Exchange's jurisdiction,
regulators, and the investing public can more easily navigate and
understand the Exchange's rulebook. The Exchange also believes that
eliminating obsolete rules would not be inconsistent with the public
interest and the protection of investors because investors will not be
harmed and in fact would benefit from increased transparency as to
which rules are operable, thereby reducing potential confusion.
Similarly, the Exchange believes that removing a cross-reference to
obsolete requirements would remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market because it would reduce potential
confusion that may result from having such cross references in the
Exchange's rulebook. Removing such obsolete cross references will also
further the goal of transparency and add clarity to the Exchange's
rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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 that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is
not intended to address competitive issues but rather to eliminate
obsolete data submission requirements for trades on its Trading Floor.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule 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, provided that the self-regulatory
organization has given the Commission written notice of its intent to
file 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,\7\ the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange has fulfilled this requirement.
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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 under
Section 19(b)(2)(B)\10\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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-NYSE-2015-61 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2015-61. 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 will also be available
for Web site viewing and printing at the NYSE's principal office and on
its Internet Web site at www.nyse.com. All comments received will be
posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2015-61 and should be submitted on
or before December 29, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[FR Doc. 2015-30836 Filed 12-7-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 233 (Wednesday, December 4, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72920-72922]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29033]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2013-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1351]

Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

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

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before March 4, 2014.

ADDRESSES: The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report
for each community are available for inspection at both the online
location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in
the tables below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS
report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map
Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1351, to
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
(email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

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

                       Upper Cumberland Watershed
         [Maps available for inspection online at: www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata preliminaryfloodhazarddata]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Bell County, Kentucky, and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Middlesboro....................  County Clerk's Office, 121
                                          North 21st Street,
                                          Middlesboro, KY 40965.
City of Pineville......................  City Hall, 300 Virginia Avenue,
                                          Pineville, KY 40977.
Unincorporated Areas of Bell County....  Bell County Courthouse, 1
                                          Courthouse Square, Pineville,
                                          KY 40977.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

             Harlan County, Kentucky, and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Benham.........................  City Hall, 230 Main Street,
                                          Benham, KY 40807.
City of Cumberland.....................  City Clerk's Office, 402 West
                                          Main Street, Cumberland, KY
                                          40823.
City of Evarts.........................  City Office, 101 Harlan Street,
                                          Evarts, KY 40828.
City of Harlan.........................  City Clerk's Office, 218 South
                                          Main Street, Harlan, KY 40831.
City of Loyall.........................  Mayor's Office, 306 Carter
                                          Avenue, Loyall, KY 40855.
City of Lynch..........................  City Office, 6 East Main
                                          Street, Lynch, KY 40855.
City of Wallins Creek..................  City Hall, 3280 Main Street,
                                          Wallins Creek, KY 40873.
Unincorporated Areas of Harlan County..  Judge Executives Office, 210
                                          East Central Street Suite 111,
                                          Harlan, KY 40831.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Knox County, Kentucky, and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Barbourville...................  City Government of
                                          Barbourville, 196 Daniel Boone
                                          Drive, Barbourville, KY 40906.
Unincorporated Areas of Knox County....  Knox County PVA Office, 401
                                          Court Square, Suite 101,
                                          Barbourville, KY 40906.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Laurel County, Kentucky, and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of London.........................  City Hall, 501 South Main
                                          Street, London, KY 40741.
Unincorporated Areas of Laurel County..  Laurel County Courthouse, 101
                                          South Main Street, Room 320,
                                          London, KY 40741.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Letcher County, Kentucky, and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Blackey........................  Public Library, 295 Main
                                          Street, Blackey, KY 41804.
City of Fleming-Neon...................  City Hall, 955 KY Highway 317,
                                          Fleming-Neon, KY 41840.
City of Jenkins........................  City Hall, 853 Lakeside Drive,
                                          Jenkins, KY 41537.
City of Whitesburg.....................  City Hall, 38 East Main Street,
                                          Whitesburg, KY 41858.
Unincorporated Areas of Letcher County.  Letcher County Courthouse, 156
                                          Main Street Suite 107,
                                          Whitesburg, KY 41858.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            McCreary County, Kentucky, and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unincorporated Areas of McCreary County  McCreary County Courthouse, 1
                                          North Main Street, Whitley
                                          City, KY 42653.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Whitley County, Kentucky, and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Corbin.........................  City Hall, 805 South Main
                                          Street, Corbin, KY 40701.
City of Williamsburg...................  City Hall, 423 Main Street,
                                          Williamsburg, KY 40769.
Unincorporated Areas of Whitley County.  Whitley County Health
                                          Department, 114 North 2nd
                                          Street, Williamsburg, KY
                                          40769.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    II. Non-watershed-based studies:

                       Upper Cumberland Watershed
         [Maps available for inspection online at: www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata preliminaryfloodhazarddata]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Montgomery County, Alabama, and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Montgomery.....................  City Hall, 103 North Perry
                                          Street, Montgomery, AL 36104.
Town of Pike Road......................  Town Hall, 9575 Vaughn Road,
                                          Pike Road, AL 36064.
Unincorporated Areas of Montgomery       Montgomery County Courthouse
 County.                                  Annex 1, 100 South Lawrence
                                          Street, Montgomery, AL 36104.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Mohave County, Arizona, and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Kingman........................  City Hall, 310 North 4th
                                          Street, Kingman, AZ 86401.
Unincorporated Areas of Mohave County..  County Administration Building,
                                          700 West Beale Street,
                                          Kingman, AZ 86401.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

             Yavapai County, Arizona, and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unincorporated Areas of Yavapai County.  Yavapai County Flood Control,
                                          District Office, 1120 Commerce
                                          Drive, Prescott, AZ 86305.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           San Bernardino, California, and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Ontario........................  City Hall, Engineering
                                          Department Public Counter, 303
                                          East B Street, Ontario, CA
                                          91764.
City of Rancho Cucamonga...............  City Hall, Engineering
                                          Department Plaza Level, 10500
                                          Civic Center Drive, Rancho
                                          Cucamonga, CA 91730.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Ventura, California, and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Camarillo......................  Public Works Department, 601
                                          Carmen Drive, Camarillo, CA
                                          93010.
Unincorporated Areas of Ventura County.  Ventura County Hall of
                                          Administration, 800 South
                                          Victoria Avenue, Ventura, CA
                                          93009.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Martin County, Florida, and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Stuart.........................  Development Department, 121
                                          Southwest Flagler Avenue,
                                          Stuart, FL 34994.
Town of Jupiter Island.................  Town Hall, 2 Southeast Bridge
                                          Road, Hobe Sound, FL 33455.
Town of Ocean Breeze Park..............  Town Hall, 7 Northeast 3rd
                                          Avenue, Jensen Beach, FL
                                          34957.
Town of Sewalls Point..................  Town Hall, 1 South Sewall's
                                          Point Road, Sewall's Point, FL
                                          34996.
Unincorporated Areas of Martin County..  Martin County Administration
                                          Center, 2401 Southeast
                                          Monterey Road, 2nd Floor,
                                          Stuart, FL 34996.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Okeechobee County, Florida, and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Okeechobee.....................  City Hall, Clerk's Office, 55
                                          Southeast 3rd Avenue, Room
                                          100, Okeechobee, FL 34974.
Unincorporated Areas of Okeechobee       Okeechobee County Planning and
 County.                                  Zoning Division, County Annex
                                          Building, 499 Northwest 5th
                                          Avenue, Okeechobee, FL 34972.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Claiborne County, Tennessee, and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unincorporated Areas of Claiborne        Claiborne County Courthouse,
 County.                                  1740 Main Street, Tazewell, TN
                                          37879.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Dated: November 20, 2013.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2013-29033 Filed 12-3-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 206 (Monday, October 26, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65138-65139]
[FR Doc No: 2015-27130]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2015-0970]

 Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Houma Navigation Canal, Mile
36.0, at Houma, Terrebonne Parish, LA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the SR 661 Swing Bridge across the
Houma Navigation Canal, mile 36.0, in Houma, Terrebonne Parish,
Louisiana. The deviation is necessary to conduct scheduled metal
repairs and maintenance. This deviation allows the bridge to remain
closed-to-

navigation for up to six daylight hours each weekday for two weeks.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 6 a.m. on November 9, 2015,
until 6 p.m. on November 20, 2015.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0970] is available
at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Jim Wetherington, Bridge
Administration Branch, Coast Guard, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: C.E.C., Inc., for the Louisiana Department
of Transportation and Development (LDOTD), requested a temporary
deviation from the operating schedule of the SR 661 Swing Bridge across
the Houma Navigation Canal, mile 36.0, in Houma, Terrebonne Parish,
Louisiana. The vertical clearance of the swing bridge is one foot above
mean high water in the closed-to-navigation position and unlimited in
the open-to-navigation position. The bridge is governed by 33 CFR
117.455.
    This deviation will be in effect from 6 a.m. through 6 p.m., daily,
from November 9, 2015, until November 20, 2015 except weekends. This
Deviation allows the bridge to remain closed-to-navigation for up to
six hours, from 6 a.m. through 6 p.m. daily. During the evening and
weekend time periods, the bridge will be left in the open-to-navigation
position. During the closure periods, the contractor will make every
effort to minimize the delays to mariners as well as maintain the
bridge in the open-to-navigation position at all times when that repair
work is not being conducted. Marine traffic, when allowed to pass,
should pass at the slowest safe speed. The deviation was requested for
the purpose of conducting necessary repairs and maintenance, including
metal structure and rivet repair.
    Navigation on the waterway consists primarily of commercial tugs
and recreational craft. The contractor has informed the waterway users
of the upcomming delays. This deviation is similar to previous work
schedules and no issues were noted.
    Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed-to-navigation
position may do so at anytime. The bridge will be able to open for
emergencies, and there is no immediate alternate route. The Coast Guard
will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and
Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for
the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any
impact caused by the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: October 20, 2015.
David M. Frank,
Bridge Administrator, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2015-27130 Filed 10-23-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 245 (Tuesday, December 22, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79632-79636]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32051]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76670; File No. SR-FINRA-2015-034]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Merge FINRA
Dispute Resolution, Inc. Into and With FINRA Regulation, Inc.

December 16, 2015.

I. Introduction

    On September 29, 2015, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority,
Inc. (``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to merge its dispute resolution
subsidiary, FINRA Dispute Resolution, Inc. (``FINRA Dispute
Resolution'') into and with its regulatory subsidiary, FINRA
Regulation, Inc. (``FINRA Regulation''), and to amend the Plan of
Allocation and Delegation of Functions by NASD to Subsidiaries
(``Delegation Plan'') and the By-Laws of FINRA Regulation (``FINRA
Regulation By-Laws''); delete the By-Laws of FINRA Dispute Resolution
(``FINRA Dispute Resolution By-Laws''); and make conforming amendments
to FINRA rules in order to implement the merger. In addition, the
proposed rule change would amend the FINRA Regulation By-Laws to
increase the total number of directors who could serve on the FINRA
Regulation board. The proposed rule change was published for comment in
the Federal Register on October 13, 2015.\3\ The Commission received
five comment letters on the proposed rule change.\4\ On December 1,
2015, \5\ the Commission received a response to the comments from
FINRA.\6\ This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76082 (October 6,
2015), 80 FR 61545 (``Notice'').
    \4\ See letters from Hugh D. Berkson, President, Public
Investors Arbitration Bar Association, dated November 3, 2015
(``PIABA Letter''); Ron A. Rhoades, dated November 3, 2015
(``Rhoades Letter''); Jill Gross, Director, Pace Investor Rights
Clinic, Pace Law School, dated November 3, 2015 (``PIRC Letter'');
Larry A. Tawwater, President, American Association for Justice,
dated November 3, 2015 (``AAJ Letter''); and William A. Jacobson,
Director, Cornell Securities Law Clinic, Cornell Law School, dated
November 4, 2015 (``CSLC Letter'').
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76444 (November 16,
2015), 80 FR 72775 (November 20, 2015) extending the time for the
Commission to act on the proposed rule change.
    \6\ See letter from Meredith Cordisco, Assistant General
Counsel, FINRA, dated December 1, 2015 (``FINRA Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    FINRA has proposed to merge FINRA Dispute Resolution into FINRA
Regulation. To implement the merger, FINRA proposes to make conforming
amendments to the Delegation Plan, amend the FINRA Regulation By-Laws
to incorporate substantive and unique provisions from the FINRA Dispute
Resolution By-Laws and to make other conforming amendments, delete the
FINRA Dispute Resolution By-Laws in their entirety, and make conforming
amendments to FINRA rules.\7\ FINRA

represents that its dispute resolution program would continue to
operate as a separate department within FINRA Regulation, and it would
be referred to as the Office of Dispute Resolution. FINRA has also
proposed to amend the FINRA Regulation By-Laws to increase the total
number of directors who could serve on the FINRA Regulation board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The current FINRA rulebook consists of: (1) FINRA Rules; (2)
NASD Rules; and (3) rules incorporated from New York Stock Exchange
LLC (``NYSE'') (``Incorporated NYSE Rules'') (together, the NASD
Rules and Incorporated NYSE Rules are referred to as the
``Transitional Rulebook''). While the NASD Rules generally apply to
all FINRA members, the Incorporated NYSE Rules apply only to those
members of FINRA that are also members of the NYSE (``Dual
Members''). The FINRA Rules apply to all FINRA members, unless such
rules have a more limited application by their terms. For more
information about the rulebook consolidation process, see
Information Notice, March 12, 2008 (Rulebook Consolidation Process).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Delegation Plan

    FINRA proposed to delete Section III of the Delegation Plan, which
delegates responsibilities and functions to FINRA Dispute Resolution,
and to amend Section II of the Delegation Plan, which delegates
responsibilities and functions to FINRA Regulation, to incorporate
several of the provisions from Section III that apply to dispute
resolution. Specifically, FINRA proposed to amend Section II of the
Delegation Plan to provide FINRA Regulation with the authority to
establish and interpret rules and regulations regarding dispute
resolution programs; develop and adopt appropriate and necessary rule
changes relating to the dispute resolution forum; conduct arbitrations,
mediations, and other dispute resolution programs; establish and assess
fees and other charges on FINRA members, persons associated with
members, and others using the dispute resolution forum; and manage
external relations on dispute resolution. In addition, FINRA proposed
to incorporate in its entirety current Section III(C)(1) of the
Delegation Plan, which governs the National Arbitration and Mediation
Committee (``NAMC''), into Section II(C) of the Delegation Plan.\8\
FINRA states that the NAMC's authority, role and responsibilities would
not change under the proposed rule change.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Under the proposed rule change, the FINRA Regulation board
would appoint the NAMC and the NAMC would have the authority to
advise the FINRA Regulation board on issues relating to dispute
resolution.
    \9\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 61548.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, FINRA proposed to make other technical and conforming
changes throughout the Delegation Plan.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 61547-48 for the list of these
changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Amendments to the FINRA Regulation By-Laws; Deletion of FINRA
Dispute Resolution By-Laws

    FINRA proposed to amend the FINRA Regulation By-Laws to incorporate
substantive and unique provisions from the FINRA Dispute Resolution By-
Laws and, consequently, to delete the FINRA Dispute Resolution By-Laws
in their entirety. FINRA has represented that where differences exist
in the FINRA Dispute Resolution By-Laws that would not be incorporated
into the FINRA Regulation By-Laws under the proposed rule change, the
differences are non-substantive or would not otherwise affect the
governance or operation of the dispute resolution program.\11\
Specifically, FINRA proposed to amend the FINRA Regulation By-Laws to:
(i) Expand the definition of ``FINRA member'' for purposes of the Codes
of Arbitration Procedure to include ``any broker or dealer admitted to
membership in FINRA, whether or not the membership has been terminated
or cancelled; and any broker or dealer admitted to membership in a
self-regulatory organization that, with FINRA consent, has required its
members to arbitrate pursuant to the Code of Arbitration Procedure for
Customer Disputes or the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Industry
Disputes and/or to be treated as members of FINRA for purposes of the
Codes of Arbitration Procedure, whether or not the membership has been
terminated or cancelled;'' and (ii) amend the definitions of ``Industry
Member'' and ``Public Member'' to clarify that, for purposes of
determining membership on the NAMC, acting in the capacity as a
mediator of disputes involving a person and not representing any party
in such mediations would not be considered professional services
provided to, in the case of the term ``Industry Member,'' or a material
business relationship with, in the case of the term ``Public Member,''
such persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 61548.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, FINRA is proposing to amend Section 4.2 of the FINRA
Regulation By-Laws to increase the total number of directors who could
serve on the FINRA Regulation board from 15 to 17. FINRA states that
members of the FINRA Board's Regulatory Policy Committee currently
serve as the directors of the board of FINRA Regulation.\12\
Accordingly, in appointing governors of the FINRA Board to the
Regulatory Policy Committee, FINRA must adhere to the compositional
requirements for the Board of Directors of FINRA Regulation.\13\ FINRA
states that increasing the maximum number of FINRA Regulation board
seats would provide it with additional flexibility to manage its board
committee assignments and meet the compositional requirements under the
FINRA Regulation By-Laws.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 61549.
    \13\ See Article IV, Section 4.3(a) of the FINRA Regulation By-
Laws, which provides, among other things, that the FINRA Regulation
board must consist of at least two and not less than 20 percent of
directors who are Small Firm, Mid-Size Firm or Large Firm Governors,
and that a majority of the FINRA Regulation board must be public
directors.
    \14\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 61549.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA proposed to make other conforming and technical amendments to
the FINRA Regulation By-Laws.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 61548-50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Amendments to the FINRA Rules

    FINRA proposed to amend several FINRA rules in connection with the
proposed merger of FINRA Dispute Resolution into FINRA Regulation to,
among other things, delete references to FINRA Dispute Resolution; add
a definition of ``FINRA Regulation;'' change references to
``subsidiaries'' or ``subsidiary'' to ``FINRA Regulation;'' remove
references to Section III of the Delegation Plan, which pertains to
FINRA Dispute Resolution, and change the language to reference FINRA
Regulation; and replace references to ``Dispute Resolution'' with
``Regulation.''
    In addition, in connection with the merger, FINRA proposed to
rename FINRA Dispute Resolution as the Office of Dispute Resolution. As
discussed above, the Office of Dispute Resolution would become a
separate department within FINRA Regulation that would continue to
administer FINRA's existing dispute resolution programs. Accordingly,
the proposed rule change would add a definition of ``Office of Dispute
Resolution'' to FINRA's rules and amend various FINRA rules to replace
certain references to ``Dispute Resolution'' with ``Office of Dispute
Resolution.''
    Upon completion of the merger, the position of President of FINRA
Dispute Resolution would no longer exist, therefore FINRA proposed to
delete references to the President of FINRA Dispute Resolution from its
Rules.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Rules 10103 (Director of Arbitration), 10312
(Disclosures Required of Arbitrators and Director's Authority to
Disqualify), 12103 (Director of Dispute Resolution), 12104 (Effect
of Arbitration on FINRA Regulatory Activities; Arbitrator Referral
During or at Conclusion of Case), 12203 (Denial of FINRA Forum),
12407 (Removal of Arbitrator by Director), 13103 (Director of
Dispute Resolution), 13104 (Effect of Arbitration on FINRA
Regulatory Activities; Arbitrator Referral During or at Conclusion
of Case), 13203 (Denial of FINRA Forum) and 13410 (Removal of
Arbitrator by Director). Any authority formerly granted by those
rules to the President of FINRA Dispute Resolution would be deleted
in its entirety or granted solely to the Director of the Office of
Dispute Resolution, except that in amended Rules 10103 (Director of
Arbitration), 12103 (Director of Dispute Resolution) and 13103
(Director of Dispute Resolution), the authority to appoint an
interim Director if the Director is unable to perform his duties
would be granted to the President of FINRA Regulation. FINRA also
proposed to delete references to an Executive Vice President of
FINRA Dispute Resolution from Rule 10103.

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

III. Comment Letters and FINRA's Response

    The Commission received four comment letters opposing the proposed
rule change \17\ and one comment letter expressing concerns regarding
the proposed rule change.\18\ In general, commenters believe that FINRA
Dispute Resolution should remain separate from FINRA Regulation in
order to maintain the independence and autonomy of the dispute
resolution forum.\19\ One commenter states that the proposed merger is
contrary to the stated purpose of maintaining a neutral and independent
dispute resolution program, would damage the credibility of the FINRA
arbitration program, and would ``create even more public perception
that the forum serves the purposes of the securities industry.'' \20\
Another commenter states that the proposed merger would negatively
affect investors' perceptions of the neutrality and fairness of FINRA's
dispute resolution forum.\21\ Further, one commenter argues that it is
important FINRA Dispute Resolution ``be able to adopt its own policies,
determine the appropriate allocation of its resources, and manage its
external relations'' and ``that the NAMC remain separate and apart from
[FINRA] Regulation.'' \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See PIABA Letter, Rhoades Letter, PIRC Letter, and CSLC
Letter. One commenter that opposes the proposed merger argues that
arbitration should be independent of FINRA altogether and should be
conducted by an independent arbitration forum such as the American
Arbitration Association. See Rhoades Letter. FINRA stated that it
believes, and the Commission agrees, that this comment is beyond the
scope of the proposed rule change. See FINRA Letter at 1, n.4.
    \18\ See AAJ Letter.
    \19\ See, e.g., PIABA Letter at 3-4; PIRC Letter. Two commenters
believe that the proposed rule change contradicts previous
statements made by FINRA (formerly NASD) and the Commission when
NASD first proposed, and the Commission approved, a separate dispute
resolution subsidiary. See PIABA Letter at 2-3 (citing Securities
Exchange Act Release Nos. 41510 (June 10, 1999), 64 FR 32575 (June
17, 1999) (SR-NASD-99-21) (notice of proposed rule change to create
a dispute resolution subsidiary); and 41971 (September 30, 1999), 64
FR 55793 (October 14, 1999) (SR-NASD-99-21) (order approving
proposed rule change to create a dispute resolution subsidiary). See
also PIRC Letter.
    \20\ See CSLC Letter.
    \21\ See PIRC Letter.
    \22\ See PIABA Letter at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, two commenters believe FINRA's justifications for the
proposed merger are conclusory \23\ and one commenter believes the
proposal lacks detail to support the changes being made.\24\ PIABA
states that it finds troubling FINRA's statements that the proposed
merger would better align FINRA's legal structure with the public's
perception as well as its operational realities.\25\ PIABA argues that
any public confusion regarding the distinct nature of FINRA Regulation
and FINRA Dispute Resolution results from FINRA's failure to adequately
explain to the public the different roles of each entity, and that
FINRA should take steps to improve the public's understanding that
FINRA Dispute Resolution is separate and independent from FINRA
Regulation, which the commenter believes would improve the confidence
level of forum users.\26\ In addition, PIABA argues that if FINRA has
not been operating FINRA Dispute Resolution and FINRA Regulation as two
separate and distinct entities, it should take steps to do so rather
than merging the entities.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See PIABA Letter and PIRC Letter.
    \24\ See AAJ Letter.
    \25\ See PIABA Letter at 3.
    \26\ See PIABA Letter at 3-4.
    \27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, FINRA notes that it ``does not need to maintain
separate corporate entities in order to provide a fair, neutral and
efficient dispute resolution forum.'' \28\ FINRA states that FINRA,
FINRA Regulation, and FINRA Dispute Resolution largely function as a
single organization today in that the entities currently share many
administrative and support functions; FINRA Dispute Resolution remains
financially dependent on the FINRA enterprise; and the rules,
administrative processes, and leadership of the entities are largely
integrated.\29\ FINRA argues that ``the significant commonalities and
shared resources between the corporate entities serve to benefit the
dispute resolution forum and its users.'' \30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See FINRA Letter at 3.
    \29\ See FINRA Letter at 2-3. For example, FINRA notes that
FINRA Dispute Resolution staff ``works closely with the Department
of Enforcement and FINRA's operating departments to identify
misconduct by individuals or firms involved in arbitration cases
that might merit further investigation or action to ensure
protection of the investing public'' and that FINRA's procedural
rules ``specifically provide that if a FINRA arbitration panel
issues an award in favor of the claimant, and the member firm or
associated person fails to comply with the award or related
settlement, FINRA has the authority to suspend or cancel the
membership of the firm or suspend the associated person for such
non-compliance.'' Id. at 3 (citing FINRA By-Laws, Article VI,
Section 3, and FINRA Rule 9554).
    \30\ See FINRA Letter at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, FINRA states that it retained and incorporated into
FINRA Regulation's operations, the unique elements of the dispute
resolution program that ``strengthen its operations and enhance the
fairness and neutrality of the forum.'' \31\ Following the merger, the
NAMC, an advisory committee on arbitration matters currently maintained
by FINRA Dispute Resolution, would continue under FINRA Regulation in
``both its current form (including the requirement that non-industry
members compose at least 50 percent of the NAMC) and function
(providing input that would shape the forum's rules, policies and
procedures).'' \32\ FINRA states that the NAMC ``is a key component to
maintaining a fair and efficient forum.'' \33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Id. at 3.
    \32\ Id. at 3-4.
    \33\ Id. at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, FINRA states that the merger would not have a practical
effect on corporate governance of the dispute resolution forum as
members of the FINRA Board's Regulatory Policy Committee, who currently
serve as the directors of the boards of both FINRA Regulation and FINRA
Dispute Resolution,\34\ would continue to serve as directors of the
board of the merged entity, ``thereby ensuring fair representation of
FINRA's constituents in the administration of the dispute resolution
program.'' \35\ In addition, FINRA notes that the governance structure
would continue to consist of a majority of public board members,
``which helps to ensure that FINRA receives input on the forum's
proposed rules, policies and procedures from those whose backgrounds
and affiliations are not connected to the industry.'' \36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ FINRA states that ``overlapping board membership was
contemplated at the time it sought to create the dispute resolution
subsidiary as a way to provide stability and uniformity among the
corporate entities.'' See FINRA Letter at 4 (citing Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 41510, 64 FR 32575, 32586 (June 17, 1999)
(Notice of Filing of File No. SR-NASD-99-21)).
    \35\ See FINRA Letter at 4. FINRA notes that the proposed rule
change would amend the FINRA Regulation corporate governance
structure to add two board seats, ``which would provide FINRA with
additional flexibility to manage its board committee assignments and
meet the compositional requirements under the FINRA Regulation By-
Laws.'' Id. at n. 13.
    \36\ Id. at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA states that following the merger, FINRA's dispute resolution
program will continue to function as a separate department within FINRA
Regulation, and will be overseen by the Director of the Office of
Dispute Resolution, who will be responsible for managing the day-to-day
operations of the dispute resolution program.\37\ FINRA also points out
that the merger will have no effect on its current regulatory
oversight, noting that it will still be subject to the rule filing
requirements of the Act and to

inspections by the Commission.\38\ FINRA argues that this ``robust
regulatory framework serves to ensure that FINRA manages and
administers the forum in a manner that is fair and protects investors
and the public interest.'' \39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Id. at 5.
    \38\ Id.
    \39\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA also states that it ``does not believe that the merger would
impact public perception of fairness of the forum'' because FINRA,
FINRA Regulation and FINRA Dispute Resolution appear to the public to
be a single organization and, furthermore, the merger will not affect
the services and benefits provided by, or the costs to use, the dispute
resolution forum, or its corporate governance or oversight.\40\ In
addition, FINRA ``does not believe it would be relevant or helpful, as
PIABA suggests, for FINRA to engage in educational efforts regarding
the existing corporate distinction'' between the entities, as
``maintaining a separate corporate entity does not contribute to the
fairness or efficiency of operating the forum.'' \41\ FINRA notes,
however, that it ``continuously engages in efforts to educate the
investing public about the services and benefits of its dispute
resolution forum, including the fairness and neutrality of the forum.''
\42\ FINRA also states that it ``has made many enhancements to the
dispute resolution program since the establishment of FINRA Dispute
Resolution that are wholly unrelated to its corporate structure[,]''
such as allowing investors to have an all public arbitration panel, and
it ``is continuously looking at ways to strengthen the dispute
resolution process and would continue to work closely with investors,
members, and other interested parties in such efforts, irrespective of
FINRA's corporate structure.'' \43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Id.
    \41\ Id.
    \42\ Id.
    \43\ Id. at 6. For example, last year, FINRA formed the Dispute
Resolution Task Force to consider possible enhancements to the forum
to improve the effectiveness, transparency, impartiality and
efficiency of FINRA's securities arbitration forum for all
participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PIABA states that there may be unintended consequences of merging
FINRA Dispute Resolution into FINRA Regulation, specifically
questioning whether a decision by FINRA Enforcement to decline to take
action against a member for conduct that is the subject of a pending
arbitration could be used as defensive evidence in an arbitration
proceeding.\44\ FINRA noted that this issue exists irrespective of the
proposed merger and that it has previously stated that its
determination not to take enforcement action against a member has no
evidentiary weight in a subsequent proceeding.\45\ FINRA also states
that it considers it unethical and potentially misleading to suggest to
an adjudicator or mediator that FINRA's determination is probative
evidence in a dispute on the merits of a related claim.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See PIABA Letter at 4.
    \45\ See FINRA Letter at 6-7 (citing Notice to Members 02-53 at
509 (August 2002) (NASD Files Proposal to Amend Rule 3070 to Require
Filing of Criminal and Civil Complaints and Arbitration Claims with
NASD; Revises Letters Sent When Determination Made to Close an
Investigation Without Further Action)).
    \46\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter states that FINRA did not provide a cost-benefit
analysis or quantify the administrative savings that will result from
the merger or state what it will do with these savings.\47\ In
response, FINRA states that proposed rule change would allow for more
efficient use of FINRA's administrative resources resulting from the
elimination of numerous tax and other regulatory filings each year.\48\
While FINRA does not expect the cost savings to have a material effect
on its budget or the costs of forum-related services, FINRA believes it
is nevertheless prudent for FINRA to ``streamline its operational
procedures and re-allocate staff involved in such processes to other
matters,'' which will enhance the efficient operation of FINRA, in turn
benefitting those who are governed by, and those who use, FINRA's
services.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See PIABA Letter at 4.
    \48\ See FINRA Letter at 7. For example, FINRA states that the
merger would eliminate the need to file numerous tax filings each
year, including multiple state tax and information returns, sales
tax returns, property tax returns, as well as many state
registrations and annual reports, and also would eliminate a
separate payroll entity, eliminating the need for separate
compensation and accounting protocols. See id. at 2.
    \49\ See FINRA Letter at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two commenters believe that the comment period for the proposed
rule change was too short to allow interested parties to fully evaluate
the proposal and provide comments.\50\ FINRA argues that interested
parties were provided with sufficient time to comment on the
proposal.\51\ In this regard, FINRA notes that it adhered to the
procedures set forth in Section 19 of the Act for self-regulatory
organizations to file proposed rule changes with the Commission and
that the Commission adhered to standard practices with respect to the
proposed rule change by providing a 21 day comment period following
publication of notice of the proposed rule change in the Federal
Register.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ See PIABA Letter at 1 and AAJ Letter at 1.
    \51\ See FINRA Letter at 7-8.
    \52\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review of the proposed rule change, the comment
letters, and FINRA's response to the comments, the Commission finds
that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to
a national securities association.\53\ Specifically, the Commission
finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section
15A(b)(6) of the Act,\54\ which requires, among other things, that
FINRA'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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \54\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission recognizes that commenters raised concerns that in
approving the current proposal, the Commission would be contradicting
its prior findings when it approved the creation of Dispute Resolution
as a separate subsidiary.\55\ The Commission notes, however, that FINRA
is not required to maintain separate corporate entities, nor will the
maintenance of separate corporate entities ensure a fair, neutral and
efficient dispute resolution forum. FINRA represents that while the
proposed rule change would alter FINRA Dispute Resolution's corporate
status, it would not affect the services and benefits provided by, or
costs to use, the dispute resolution forum, its corporate governance,
or oversight.\56\ Moreover, the FINRA Regulation board, like the FINRA
Dispute Resolution board, will continue to consist of members of the
FINRA Board's Regulatory Policy Committee and a majority of the members
will continue to be public board members. Further, following the
merger, the NAMC, which

was maintained by FINRA Dispute Resolution before the merger, will be
maintained by FINRA Regulation, and the composition of the NAMC will
not change. At least 50 percent of the members must be non-industry
members. The Commission believes that the foregoing should help to
ensure the maintenance of a fair and neutral forum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ See supra note 19.
    \56\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 61546 n.8. According to FINRA,
FINRA Dispute Resolution remains financially dependent on the FINRA
enterprise, as fees received from parties who use the arbitration
and mediation programs are not sufficient to fund the forum's
arbitration and mediation activities at current cost levels. FINRA
represents that following the merger, FINRA will continue to
supplement the fees collected from users, as necessary, to maintain
a cost effective forum. See FINRA Letter at 3. The Commission
expects FINRA to ensure that the Office of Dispute Resolution is
adequately funded and able to fulfill its responsibilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to concerns raised by commenters regarding the public
perception of fairness if the merger is approved, the Commission notes
that the dispute resolution forum will continue to be subject to the
same Commission oversight as other departments of FINRA, which includes
the requirement to file all rule changes, which include changes to the
By-Laws, with the Commission,\57\ and the forum will continue to be
subject to inspections by the Commission and by the Government
Accountability Office, which performs audits at the request of the
United States Congress.\58\ In addition, the Commission expects FINRA
to continue to work closely with investors, members, and other
interested parties in looking at ways to strengthen the dispute
resolution process and serve the needs of the investing public, and to
consider any recommendations raised by its Dispute Resolution Task
Force \59\ for improving the effectiveness, transparency, impartiality
and efficiency of its arbitration forums.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ The arbitration program and services will continue to be
governed by the FINRA Codes of Arbitration Procedure and the
mediation program and services by the FINRA Code of Mediation
Procedure. See FINRA Rule 12000, 13000 and 14000 Series.
    \58\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 61547. Moreover, FINRA has
represented that a decision not to take enforcement action against a
member has no evidentiary weight and further, that FINRA would
consider it unethical and potentially misleading to suggest that
such a determination is probative evidence in a dispute on the
merits of a related claim.
    \59\ See supra note 43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PIABA also questioned the actual cost savings generated by the
proposed merger. FINRA indicated that the merger will reduce
unnecessary administrative burdens that result from the need to
maintain separate legal entities, such as costs and resources
associated with complying with multiple-entity regulatory and tax
filings and maintaining separate accounting protocols. The merger will
allow FINRA to streamline its operational procedures and re-allocate
staff involved in such processes, which should make FINRA's operations
more efficient.
    FINRA states that the increase to the maximum number of FINRA
Regulation board seats from 15 to 17 will provide it with additional
flexibility to manage its board committee assignments and meet the
compositional requirements under the FINRA Regulation By-Laws. The
Commission notes that following the increase, the FINRA Regulation
board compositional requirements will continue to provide for the fair
representation of FINRA's members and the numerical dominance of public
directors, consistent with the requirements of the Act.

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\60\ that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2015-034), be, and
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-32051 Filed 12-21-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 23 (Tuesday, February 4, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6152-6153]
[FR Doc No: 2020-02107]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2883-009]

Aquenergy Systems, LLC; Notice of Application Ready for
Environmental Analysis, and Soliciting Comments, Recommendations, Terms
and Conditions, and Prescriptions

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: New Major License.
    b. Project No.: 2883-009.
    c. Date Filed: May 30, 2018.
    d. Applicant: Aquenergy Systems, LLC (Aquenergy).
    e. Name of Project: Fries Hydroelectric Project (Fries Project).
    f. Location: The existing project is located on the New River, in
Grayson County, Virginia. The project does not occupy any federal land.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Kevin Webb, Hydro Licensing Manager, Enel
Green Power North America, Inc., 100 Brickstone Square, Suite 300,
Andover, MA 01810;<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Jody Callihan,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, recommendations, terms and
conditions, and prescriptions: Sixty (60) days from the issuance date
of this notice; reply comments are due one hundred five (105) days from
the issuance date of this notice.
    All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title
``COMMENTS,'' ``REPLY COMMENTS,'' ``RECOMMENDATIONS,'' ``TERMS AND
CONDITIONS,'' or ``PRESCRIPTIONS;'' (2) set forth in the heading the
name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person submitting the filing; and (4) otherwise comply
with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must
set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the
application directly from the applicant. Each filing must be
accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service
list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in

accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions
using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000
characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your
name and contact information at the end of your comments. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-2883-009.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency.
    k. This application has been accepted for filing and is now ready
for environmental analysis.
    l. The existing Fries Project consists of: (1) A 41-foot-high, 610-
foot-long rock masonry dam with a 500-foot-long spillway; (2) an 88-
acre impoundment at the normal pool elevation (spillway crest
elevation) of 2,188.27 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929
(NGVD 1929); (3) an approximately 750-foot-long, 110-foot-wide intake
canal with four 15.5-foot-high, 6.5-foot-wide headgates; (4) a canal
spillway consisting of 10 stoplog bays totaling 47 feet in length; (5)
two 12.5-foot-high, 5.0-foot-wide canal gates; (6) a steel powerhouse
that contains a single vertical Kaplan turbine with a capacity of 2.1
megawatts (MW) that discharges into a 180-foot-long, 75-foot-wide, 12-
foot-deep tailrace; (7) a masonry powerhouse that contains one vertical
and two horizontal Francis turbines with a total capacity of 3.0 MW
that discharges into a 180-foot-long, 120-foot-wide, 12-foot-deep
tailrace; (8) a 500-foot-long, 450-foot-wide bypassed reach that
extends from the toe of the dam to the confluence with the tailraces;
(9) a 567-foot-long, 13.2-kilovolt (kV) transmission line that runs
from the steel powerhouse to the interconnection point with the grid;
(10) a 130-foot-long transmission line that connects the masonry
powerhouse to a 5,000 kilovolt-amp step-up transformer and an
additional 323-foot-long, 13.2-kV transmission line leading from the
transformer to the interconnection point; and (11) appurtenant
facilities.
    Aquenergy proposes to continue operating the project in a run-of-
river mode. In addition, Aquenergy proposes to: (1) Maintain the
impoundment elevation within 0.2 foot of the spillway crest of 2,188.27
feet NGVD 1929 at all times, during normal project operation; (2) make
enhancements to the impoundment access recreation site and canoe
portage trail; (3) develop a project recreation management plan; and
(4) develop a project operations plan. For the period 2003 through
2016, the average annual generation at the Fries Project was 26,150
megawatt-hours.
    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's website 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
Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-866-208-
3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also available for
inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    n. Procedural Schedule: The application will be processed according
to the following schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made as
appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filing of recommendations, terms and        March 2020.
 conditions, and prescriptions.
Commission issues Environmental Assessment   August 2020.
 (EA).
Comments on EA............................   September 2020.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    o. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the
Commission no later than thirty (30) days from the issuance date of
this notice.

    Dated: January 29, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-02107 Filed 2-3-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 108 (Thursday, June 5, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32486-32487]
[FR Doc No: 2014-13147]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[USCG-2012-0375]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone, Milwaukee Harbor, Milwaukee, WI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone in Milwaukee
Harbor, Milwaukee, WI for annual fireworks displays in the Captain of
the Port, Lake Michigan zone at specified times from June 7, 2014,
until September 6, 2014. This action is necessary and intended to
ensure safety of life on the navigable waters immediately prior to,
during, and immediately after fireworks displays. During the
aforementioned periods, the Coast Guard will enforce restrictions upon,
and control movement of, vessels in the safety zone. No person or
vessel may enter the safety zone while it is being enforced without
permission of the Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.935 will be enforced at specified
times from June 7, 2014, through September 6, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
document, call or email MST1 Joseph McCollum, Prevention Department,
Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan, Milwaukee, WI at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone
listed in 33 CFR 165.935, Safety Zone, Milwaukee Harbor, Milwaukee, WI,
at the following times for the following events:
    (1) Pridefest fireworks display on June 7, 2014, from 9:15 p.m.
until 10:15 p.m.;

    (2) Polish Fest fireworks display on June 14, 2014, from 10:15 p.m.
until 11:15 p.m.;
    (3) Summerfest fireworks display on June 25, 2014, and July 2, 2014
from 9:15 p.m. until 10:30 p.m.;
    (4) Festa Italiana fireworks display on each day of July 18, 19,
and 20, 2014, from 10:15 p.m. until 11:15 p.m.;
    (5) Arab World Festival fireworks display on August 9, 2014, from
9:15 p.m. until 10:15 p.m.;
    (6) German Fest fireworks display on July 25, 2014, from 10:15 p.m.
until 11:15 p.m.;
    (7) Irish Fest fireworks display on August 17, 2014, from 10:15
p.m. until 11:15 p.m.;
    (8) Indian Summer fireworks display on September 6, 2014, from 9:45
p.m. until 10:45 p.m.
    This safety zone will encompass the waters of Lake Michigan within
Milwaukee Harbor including the Harbor Island Lagoon enclosed by a line
connecting the following points: beginning at 43[deg]02'00'' N,
087[deg]53'53'' W; then south to 43[deg]01'44'' N, 087[deg]53'53'' W;
then east to 43[deg]01'44'' N, 087[deg]53'25'' W; then north to
43[deg]02'00'' N, 087[deg]53'25'' W; then west to the point of origin.
All vessels must obtain permission from the Captain of the Port, Lake
Michigan, or his or her on-scene representative to enter, move within,
or exit the safety zone. Vessels and persons granted permission to
enter the safety zone must obey all lawful orders or directions of the
Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan, or his or her on-scene
representative. This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR
165.935 Safety Zone, Milwaukee Harbor, Milwaukee, WI and 5 U.S.C.
552(a). In addition to this document in the Federal Register, the Coast
Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of
the enforcement period via broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice
to Mariners. The Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan, or his or her on-
scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

    Dated: May 21, 2014.
M.W. Sibley,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. 2014-13147 Filed 6-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 186 (Tuesday, September 25, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58987-58988]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23581]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER12-2649-000]

Groton Wind, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding,
of Groton Wind, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with
an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability is October 9, 2012.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: September 19, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-23581 Filed 9-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P