10078 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2011 / Notices 

13 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(10). 

14See S. Rep. No. 111–176, at 136 (2010). 

15The Commission has not, to date, adopted rules 

concerning other significant matters where 

uninstructed broker votes should be prohibited, 

although it may do so in the future. Should the 

Commission adopt such rules, we would expect C2 

to adopt coordinating rules promptly to comply 

with the statute. 

16 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 

17As the Commission stated in approving NYSE 

rules prohibiting broker voting in the election of 

directors, having those with an economic interest in 

the company vote the shares, rather than the broker 

who has no such economic interest, furthers the 

goal of enfranchising shareholders. See Securities 

Exchange Act Release No. 60215 (July 1, 2009), 74 

FR 33293 (July 10, 2009) (SR–NYSE–2006–92). 

18 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 

19See supra notes 9 and 12. 

20 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 

21 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

investor protection and the public 

interest. 

The Commission believes that 

proposed Supplemental Rule (a)(2) is 

consistent with Section 6(b)(10) 13 of the 

Act, which requires that national 

securities exchanges adopt rules 

prohibiting members that are not 

beneficial holders of a security from 

voting uninstructed proxies with respect 

to the election of a member of the board 

of directors of an issuer (except for 

uncontested elections of directors for 

companies registered under the 

Investment Company Act), executive 

compensation, or any other significant 

matter, as determined by the 

Commission by rule. 

The Commission believes that 

proposed Supplemental Rule (a)(2) is 

consistent with Section 6(b)(10) of the 

Act because it adopts revisions that 

comply with that section. As noted in 

the accompanying Senate Report, 

Section 957, which enacted Section 

6(b)(10), reflects the principle that ‘‘final 

vote tallies should reflect the wishes of 

the beneficial owners of the stock and 

not be affected by the wishes of the 

broker that holds the shares.’’ 14 The 

proposed rule change will make C2 

compliant with the new requirements of 

Section 6(b)(10) by specifically 

prohibiting, in C2’s rule language, 

broker-dealers, who are not beneficial 

owners of a security, from voting 

uninstructed shares in connection with 

a shareholder vote on the election of a 

member of the board of directors of an 

issuer (except for a vote with respect to 

the uncontested election of a member of 

the board of directors of any investment 

company registered under the 

Investment Company Act of 1940), 

executive compensation, or any other 

significant matter, as determined by the 

Commission by rule, unless the member 

receives voting instructions from the 

beneficial owner of the shares.15

The Commission also believes that 

proposed Supplemental Rule (a)(2) is 

consistent with Section 6(b)(5) 16 of the 

Act, which provides, among other 

things, that the rules of the Exchange 

must be designed to 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, in 

general, to protect investors and the 

public interest, and are not designed to 

permit unfair discrimination between 

customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. 

The Commission believes that the rule 

assures that shareholder votes on the 

election of the board of directors of an 

issuer (except for a vote with respect to 

the uncontested election of a member of 

the board of directors of any investment 

company registered under the 

Investment Company Act of 1940) and 

on executive compensation matters are 

made by those with an economic 

interest in the company, rather than by 

a broker that has no such economic 

interest, which should enhance 

corporate governance and accountability 

to shareholders.17

Based on the above, the Commission 

finds that the C2 proposal will further 

the purposes of Sections 6(b)(5) and 

6(b)(10) of the Act because it should 

enhance corporate accountability to 

shareholders while also serving to fulfill 

the Congressional intent in adopting 

Section 6(b)(10) of the Act. 

The Commission also finds good 

cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of 

the Act,18 for approving the proposed 

rule change prior to the 30th day after 

the date of publication of notice in the 

Federal Register. The Commission 

believes that good cause exists to grant 

accelerated approval to proposed 

Supplemental Rule (a)(1), because this 

proposed rule will conform the C2 rule 

to ISE Rule 421, NYSE Arca Rule 9.4 

and FINRA Rule 2251, which were 

published for public comment in the 

Federal Register and approved by the 

Commission, and for which no 

comments were received.19 Because 

proposed Supplemental Rule (a)(1) is 

substantially similar to the ISE, NYSE 

Arca and FINRA rules, it raises no new 

regulatory issues. 

The Commission also believes that 

good cause exists to grant accelerated 

approval to proposed Supplemental 

Rule (a)(2), which conforms the C2 rules 

to the requirements of Section 6(b)(10) 

of the Act. Section 6(b)(10) of the Act, 

enacted under Section 957 of the DoddFrank Act, does not provide for a 

transition phase, and requires rules of 

national securities exchanges to prohibit 

broker voting on the election of a 

member of the board of directors of an 

issuer (except for a vote with respect to 

the uncontested election of a member of 

the board of directors of any investment 

company registered under the 

Investment Company Act of 1940), 

executive compensation, or any other 

significant matter, as determined by the 

Commission by rule. The Commission 

believes that good cause exists to grant 

accelerated approval to proposed 

Supplemental Rule (a)(2), because it 

will conform the C2 rule to the 

requirements of Section 6(b)(10) of the 

Act. 

V. Conclusion 

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to 

Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,20 that the 

proposed rule change (SR–C2–2011– 

005) be, and it hereby is, approved on 

an accelerated basis. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.21

Cathy H. Ahn, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2011–3983 Filed 2–22–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–63917; File No. SR–CBOE– 

2011–017] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; 

Chicago Board Options Exchange, 

Incorporated; Notice of Filing and 

Order Granting Accelerated Approval 

of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend 

an Exchange Rule Relating to Giving 

Proxies 

February 16, 2011. 

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 

‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2

notice is hereby given that on February 

10, 2011 the Chicago Board Options 

Exchange, Incorporated (‘‘Exchange’’ or 

‘‘CBOE’’) filed with the Securities and 

Exchange Commission (‘‘Commission’’) 

the proposed rule change as described 

in Items I and II below, which Items 

have been prepared by the Exchange. 

The Commission is publishing this 

notice to solicit comments on the 

proposed rule change from interested 

persons and is approving the proposed 

rule change on an accelerated basis. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2011 / Notices 10079 

3 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(10). 

4 15 U.S.C. 78l. 

5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(10)(B). 

6See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(10)(B). 

7The Exchange is also proposing to add crossreferencing commentary related to new Item 21 in 

Items 12 and 13. The Exchange is also proposing 

a non-substantive change to include a heading for 

the commentary to Item 20 so there is consistent 

formatting of the various commentaries that appear 

throughout the rule. 

8The Exchange notes that the Commission has 

not at this time identified other significant matters 

with respect to which TPH Organizations should be 

prohibited from voting uninstructed shares. 

9 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq. 

10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 

11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(10). 

12 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Terms of Substance of 

the Proposed Rule Change 

The Exchange proposes to amend its 

proxy voting rules in accordance with 

provisions of Section 957 of the DoddFrank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 

Protection Act (the ‘‘Dodd-Frank Act’’). 

The text of the rule proposal is available 

on the Exchange’s Web site (http:// 

www.cboe.org/legal), at the Exchange’s 

Office of the Secretary and at the 

Commission. 

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 

Section 957 of the Dodd-Frank Act 

adopted new Section 6(b)(10) of the 

Act,3 which requires the rules of each 

national securities exchange to prohibit 

any member that is not the beneficial 

owner of a security registered under 

Section 12 of the Act 4 from granting a 

proxy to vote the security in connection 

with certain shareholder votes, unless 

the beneficial owner of the security has 

instructed the member to vote the proxy 

in accordance with the voting 

instructions of the beneficial owner. The 

shareholder votes covered by Section 

957 include any vote with respect to (i) 

the election of a member of the board of 

directors of an issuer (except for a vote 

with respect to the uncontested election 

of a member of the board of directors of 

any investment company registered 

under the Investment Company Act of 

1940 (the ‘‘Investment Company Act’’), 

(ii) executive compensation, or (iii) any 

other significant matter, as determined 

by the Commission, by rule.5

Accordingly, in order to carry out the 

requirements of Section 957 of the 

Dodd-Frank Act, the Exchange is 

proposing to amend CBOE Rule 31.85, 

Giving Proxies by TPH Organizations, 

which governs when Trading Permit 

Holder Organizations (‘‘TPH 

Organizations’’) may and may not give a 

proxy to vote stock without instructions 

from the beneficial owner of the shares. 

First, Item 19 of CBOE Rule 31.85(b) 

already prohibits TPH Organizations 

from giving a proxy to vote shares 

without instructions from beneficial 

owners when the matter to be voted 

upon is the election of directors (other 

than in the case of an issuer registered 

under the Investment Company Act, 

provided the matter is not the subject of 

a counter-solicitation). Therefore the 

Exchange is proposing to simply amend 

Item 19 so that the text is consistent 

with the language in Section 6(b)(10)(B) 

of the Act.6

Second, the Exchange proposes to add 

new Item 21 (and related commentary) 

to CBOE Rule 31.85(b) to provide that a 

TPH Organization may not give a proxy 

or authorize a proxy to vote without 

instructions from beneficial owners 

when the matter to be voted upon 

relates to executive compensation. The 

proposed commentary to Item 21 would 

clarify that a matter relating to executive 

compensation would include, among 

other things, the items referred to in 

Section 14A of the Act (added by 

Section 951 of the Dodd-Frank Act), 

including (i) an advisory vote to 

approve the compensation of 

executives, (ii) a vote on whether to 

hold such an advisory vote every one, 

two or three years, and (iii) an advisory 

vote to approve any type of 

compensation (whether present, 

deferred, or contingent) that is based on 

or otherwise relates to an acquisition, 

merger, consolidation, sale or other 

disposition of all or substantially all of 

the assets of an issuer and the aggregate 

total of all such compensation that may 

(and the conditions upon which it may) 

be paid or become payable to or on 

behalf of an executive officer. In 

addition, a TPH Organization may not 

give or authorize a proxy to vote 

without instructions on a matter relating 

to executive compensation, even if such 

matter would otherwise qualify for an 

exception from the requirements of Item 

12, Item 13 or any other Item under 

CBOE Rule 31.85. Any vote on these or 

similar executive compensation-related 

matters would be subject to the 

requirements of CBOE Rule 31.85, as 

amended.7

Third, the Exchange proposes to add 

new Item 22 to Rule 31.85(b) to provide 

that a TPH Organization may not give a 

proxy or authorize a proxy to vote 

without instructions from beneficial 

owners when the matter to be voted 

upon involves any other significant 

matter, as determined by the 

Commission, by rule.8

Fourth, the Exchange is proposing to 

add the words ‘‘or authorize’’ in certain 

places throughout CBOE Rule 31.85 to 

clarify that the rule includes not only 

the giving of a proxy but also the 

authorization of such proxy. 

Finally, the Exchange is proposing to 

amend Appendix A to the rules of the 

CBOE Stock Exchange, LLC (‘‘CBSX,’’ 

the CBOE’s stock trading facility). 

Appendix A lists the rules contained in 

Chapters 1 through 29 of the Exchange 

Rules that are applicable to the trading 

of equity securities on CBSX. The 

Exchange is proposing to amend 

Appendix A to include a cross reference 

to CBOE Rule 31.85 in order to make 

clear that CBOE Rule 31.85 regarding 

the giving of proxies by TPH 

Organizations applies to CBSX TPH 

Organizations as well as CBOE TPH 

Organizations. 

2. Statutory Basis 

The Exchange believes the proposed 

rule change is consistent with the Act 9

and the rules and regulations 

thereunder and, in particular, the 

requirements of Section 6(b) of the 

Act.10 Specifically, the Exchange 

believes the proposed rule change is 

consistent with the Section 6(b)(10) 11

requirements that all national securities 

exchanges adopt rules prohibiting 

members from voting, without receiving 

instructions from the beneficial owner 

of shares, on the election of a member 

of a board of directors of an issuer 

(except for a vote with respect to the 

uncontested election of a member of the 

board of directors of any investment 

company registered under the 

Investment Company Act of 1940), 

executive compensation, or any other 

significant matter, as determined by the 

Commission, by rule. The Exchange also 

believes the proposed rule change is 

consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) 12

requirements that an exchange have 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

10080 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2011 / Notices 

13See Securities Exchange Act Release 62874 

(September 9, 2010), 75 FR 56152 (September 15, 

2010). 

14 In approving this rule change, the Commission 

notes that it has considered the proposed rule’s 

impact on efficiency, competition, and capital 

formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 

15 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(10). 

16 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 

17See S. Rep. No. 111–176, at 136 (2010). 

18As noted above, Section 6(b)(10) also prohibits 

broker voting for director elections, except for 

uncontested director elections of registered 

investment companies. The Commission notes that 

the Exchange already prohibits broker voting in 

director elections except for uncontested director 

elections for registered investment companies and 

is merely proposing to amend Item 19 so that the 

text is consistent with the language in Section 

6(b)(10) of the Act. See CBOE Rule 31.85(b)(19). As 

to other matters, as determined by the Commission, 

by rule, the Commission has not, to date, adopted 

rules concerning other significant matters where 

uninstructed broker votes should be prohibited, 

although it may do so in the future. Should the 

Commission adopt such rules, we would expect the 

Exchange to adopt coordinating rules promptly to 

comply with the statute. 

rules that are designed to prevent 

fraudulent and manipulative acts and 

practices, to promote just and equitable 

principles of trade, to remove 

impediments to, and perfect the 

mechanism of a free and open market 

and, in general, to protect investors and 

the public interest. The Exchange is 

adopting the proposed rule changes to 

comply with the requirements of 

Section 957 of the Dodd-Frank Act, and 

therefore believes the proposed rule 

changes to be consistent with Section 

6(b)(5) of the Act, particularly with 

respect to the protection of investors 

and the public interest. Finally, the 

Exchange believes the proposed changes 

to Appendix A of the CBSX Rules to 

incorporate a cross reference to CBOE 

Rule 31.85 is consistent with Section 

6(b)(5) of the Act, particularly with 

respect to the protection of investors 

and the public interest, because the 

changes would make it clear that CBOE 

Rule 31.85 (regarding the giving of 

proxies by TPH Organizations) applies 

to CBSX TPH Organizations as well as 

CBOE TPH Organizations. 

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Burden on Competition 

CBOE does not believe that the 

proposed rule change will impose any 

burden on competition not necessary or 

appropriate in furtherance of the 

purposes of the Act. 

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Comments on the 

Proposed Rule Change Received From 

Members, Participants, or Others 

The Exchange neither solicited nor 

received comments on the proposal. 

III. Solicitation of Comments 

Interested persons are invited to 

submit written data, views, and 

arguments concerning the foregoing, 

including whether the proposed rule 

change is consistent with the Act. 

Comments may be submitted by any of 

the following methods: 

Electronic Comments 

• Use the Commission’s Internet 

comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ 

rules/sro.shtml); or 

• Send an e-mail to rulecomments@sec.gov. Please include File 

Number SR–CBOE–2011–017 on the 

subject line. 

Paper Comments 

Send paper comments in triplicate to 

Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, 

Securities and Exchange Commission, 

100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 

20549–1090. 

All submissions should refer to File 

Number SR–CBOE–2011–017. This file 

number should be included on the 

subject line if e-mail is used. To help the 

Commission process and review your 

comments more efficiently, please use 

only one method. The Commission will 

post all comments on the Commission’s 

Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ 

rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the 

submission, all subsequent 

amendments, all written statements 

with respect to the proposed rule 

change that are filed with the 

Commission, and all written 

communications relating to the 

proposed rule change between the 

Commission and any person, other than 

those that may be withheld from the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be 

available for Web site viewing and 

printing in the Commission’s Public 

Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., 

Washington, DC 20549, on official 

business days between the hours of 10 

a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing 

also will be available for inspection and 

copying at the principal office of the 

CBOE. All comments received will be 

posted without change; the Commission 

does not edit personal identifying 

information from submissions. You 

should submit only information that 

you wish to make available publicly. All 

submissions should refer to File 

Number SR–CBOE–2011–017 and 

should be submitted on or before March 

16, 2011. 

IV. Commission’s Findings and Order 

Granting Accelerated Approval of the 

Proposed Rule Change 

In its filing, the Exchange requested 

that the Commission approve the 

proposal on an accelerated basis. The 

Exchange stated that it believed good 

cause existed to grant accelerated 

approval because Section 957 of the 

Dodd-Frank Act does not provide for a 

transition period and because the 

proposed rule text is based upon New 

York Stock Exchange (‘‘NYSE’’) Rule 

452.13

After careful consideration, the 

Commission finds that the proposed 

rule change is consistent with the 

requirements of the Act and the rules 

and regulations thereunder applicable to 

a national securities exchange.14 The 

Commission believes that the proposal 

is consistent with Section 6(b)(10) 15 of 

the Act, which requires that national 

securities exchanges adopt rules 

prohibiting members that are not 

beneficial holders of a security from 

voting uninstructed proxies with respect 

to the election of a member of the board 

of directors of an issuer (except for 

uncontested elections of directors for 

companies registered under the 

Investment Company Act), executive 

compensation, or any other significant 

matter, as determined by the 

Commission, by rule. The Commission 

also believes that the proposal is 

consistent with Section 6(b)(5) 16 of the 

Act, which provides, among other 

things, that the rules of the Exchange 

must be designed to 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, in 

general, to protect investors and the 

public interest, and are not designed to 

permit unfair discrimination between 

customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. 

The Commission believes that the 

proposal is consistent with Section 

6(b)(10) of the Act because it adopts 

revisions that comply with that section. 

As noted in the accompanying Senate 

Report, Section 957, which adopts 

Section 6(b)(10), reflects the principle 

that ‘‘final vote tallies should reflect the 

wishes of the beneficial owners of the 

stock and not be affected by the wishes 

of the broker that holds the shares.’’ 17

The proposed rule change will make 

CBOE rules compliant with the new 

requirements of Section 6(b)(10) by 

prohibiting broker-dealers, who are not 

beneficial owners of a security, from 

voting uninstructed shares with respect 

to any matter on executive 

compensation or any other significant 

matter, as determined by the 

Commission, by rule.18

The Commission believes that the 

proposal is consistent with Section 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2011 / Notices 10081 

19As the Commission stated in approving NYSE 

rules prohibiting broker voting in the election of 

directors, having those with an economic interest in 

the company vote the shares, rather than the broker 

who has no such economic interest, furthers the 

goal of enfranchising shareholders. See Securities 

Exchange Act Release No. 60215 (July 1, 2009), 74 

FR 33293 (July 10, 2009) (SR–NYSE–2006–92). 

20 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 

21See note 13, supra. 

22 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 

23 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

6(b)(5) of the Act because the proposal 

will further investor protection and the 

public interest by assuring that 

shareholder votes on executive 

compensation matters are made by those 

with an economic interest in the 

company, rather than by a broker that 

has no such economic interest, which 

should enhance corporate governance 

and accountability to shareholders.19

The Commission notes that the 

CBOE’s new rule prohibiting 

uninstructed broker votes on executive 

compensation covers the specific items 

identified in Section 951 of the DoddFrank Act, as well as any other matter 

concerning executive compensation, 

and has been drafted broadly to reflect 

the requirements of Section 6(b)(10) of 

the Act. The proposed rule language 

also specifically states that a broker vote 

on any executive compensation matter 

would not be permitted even if it would 

otherwise qualify for an exception from 

any item under Rule 31.85. The 

Commission believes this provision will 

make clear that any past practice or 

interpretation that may have permitted 

a broker vote on an executive 

compensation matter, under existing 

rules, will no longer be applicable and 

is superseded by the newly adopted 

provisions. 

Finally, the Commission notes that 

the changes to reflect (i) that the CBOE 

rules prohibit not only the giving of a 

proxy, but also the authorization of the 

proxy and (ii) that CBOE Rule 31.85 

regarding the giving of proxies by TPH 

Organizations applies to CBSX TPH 

Organizations as well as CBOE TPH 

Organization, should help to clarify the 

intent of the CBOE proxy rules and is 

consistent with the requirements of 

Section 6 of the Act. 

Based on the above, the Commission 

believes that the Exchange’s proposal 

will further the purposes of Sections 

6(b)(5) and 6(b)(10) of the Act because 

it should enhance corporate 

accountability to shareholders. The rule 

filing should also serve to fulfill the 

Congressional intent in adopting 

Section 6(b)(10) of the Act. 

The Commission also finds good 

cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of 

the Act,20 for approving the proposed 

rule change prior to the 30th day after 

the date of publication of notice in the 

Federal Register. As noted above, 

Section 6(b)(10) of the Act, enacted 

under Section 957 of the Dodd-Frank 

Act, does not provide for a transition 

phase, and requires rules of national 

securities exchanges to prohibit, among 

other things, broker voting on executive 

compensation. The Commission 

believes that good cause exists to grant 

accelerated approval to the Exchange’s 

proposal, because it will conform CBOE 

Rule 31.85 to the requirements of 

Section 6(b)(10) of the Act. Moreover, 

the Commission notes that the proposed 

changes are based on NYSE Rule 452.21

V. Conclusion 

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to 

Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,22 that the 

proposed rule change (SR–CBOE–2011– 

017) be, and it hereby is, approved on 

an accelerated basis. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.23

Cathy H. Ahn, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2011–3982 Filed 2–22–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 

[Disaster Declaration #12468 and #12469] 

Utah Disaster #UT–00009 

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business 

Administration. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the 

Presidential declaration of a major 

disaster for Public Assistance Only for 

the State of Utah (FEMA–1955–DR), 

dated 02/11/2011. 

Incident: Severe Winter Storms and 

Flooding. 

Incident Period: 12/20/2010 through 

12/24/2010. 

Effective Date: 02/11/2011. 

Physical Loan Application Deadline 

Date: 04/12/2011. 

Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan 

Application Deadline Date: 11/14/2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan 

applications to: U.S. Small Business 

Administration, Processing and 

Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 

Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. 

Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, 

U.S. Small Business Administration, 

409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, 

Washington, DC 20416. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is 

hereby given that as a result of the 

President’s major disaster declaration on 

02/11/2011, Private Non-Profit 

organizations that provide essential 

services of governmental nature may file 

disaster loan applications at the address 

listed above or other locally announced 

locations. 

The following areas have been 

determined to be adversely affected by 

the disaster: 

Primary Counties: Kane, Washington. 

The Interest Rates are: 

Percent 

For Physical Damage: 

Non-Profit Organizations With 

Credit Available Elsewhere .. 3.250 

Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere ................................... 3.000 

For Economic Injury: 

Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere ................................... 3.000 

The number assigned to this disaster 

for physical damage is 12468B and for 

economic injury is 12469B. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Numbers 59002 and 59008) 

Roger B. Garland, 

Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster 

Assistance. 

[FR Doc. 2011–3947 Filed 2–22–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025–01–P 

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 

[Disaster Declaration #12465 and #12466] 

New Jersey Disaster Number NJ–00019 

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business 

Administration. 

ACTION: Amendment 1. 

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the 

Presidential declaration of a major 

disaster for Public Assistance Only for 

the State of NEW JERSEY (FEMA— 

1954—DR), dated 02/04/2011. 

Incident: Severe Winter Storm and 

Snowstorm. 

Incident Period: 12/26/2010 through 

12/27/2010. 

Effective Date: 02/11/2011. 

Physical Loan Application Deadline 

Date: 04/05/2011. 

Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan 

Application Deadline Date: 11/04/2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan 

applications to: U.S. Small Business 

Administration, Processing and 

Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 

Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. 

Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, 

U.S. Small Business Administration, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES