[Federal Register: October 26, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 207)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 66235-66238]
[DOCID:fr26oc11-24]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Parts 201 and 610

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0719]

Bar Code Technologies for Drugs and Biological Products;
Retrospective Review Under Executive Order 13563; Request for Comments

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing a review
of the ``Bar Code Final Rule,'' under Executive Order 13563,
``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.'' The Bar Code Final
Rule, which was published in 2004, requires

certain human drug products and biological products to have a bar code.
Information submitted can help FDA to reassess the costs and benefits
of the rule and to identify any relevant changes in technology that
have occurred since it went into effect. FDA is establishing a public
docket to receive information relevant to reassessing the Bar Code
Rule. This is an opportunity for interested persons to share
information, research, and ideas on the need, maturity, and
acceptability of alternative identification technologies for the
identification, including the unique identification, of drugs and
biological products. FDA will use the information received to assess
whether the Bar Code Final Rule is achieving its intended benefits as
effectively as possible or should be modified.

DATES: FDA will accept both initial comments and reply comments in
response to this notice. Initial comments must be received on or before
January 9, 2012 and reply comments on or before February 23, 2012. (See
the ``Comments'' section of this document for more information.)

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-
305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Benjamin A. Chacko, Center for
Biologics Evaluation and Research (HFM-17), Food and Drug
Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, suite 200N, Rockville, MD 20852-
1448,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 2, 2011, President Barack Obama
issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13563, ``Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review'' (76 FR 3821). One of the provisions in the new
Executive order is the affirmation of retrospective reviews of existing
significant regulations. As one step in implementing the new Executive
order, FDA published a notice in the Federal Register on April 27, 2011
(76 FR 23520), entitled ``Periodic Review of Existing Regulations;
Retrospective Review Under E.O. 13563.'' In that document, FDA
announced that it is conducting a review of its existing regulations to
determine, in part, whether they can be made more effective in light of
current public health needs and to take advantage of and support
advances in innovation that have occurred since those regulations took
effect. Under E.O. 13563, and under the Department of Health and Human
Services' Plan for Retrospective Review of Existing Rules, FDA will
consider strengthening, complementing, or modernizing rules where
necessary or appropriate.
    As FDA conducts its retrospective review of regulations, the Agency
will take into account the following factors: \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Department of Health and Human Services, ``Plan for
Retrospective Review of Existing Rules,'' pp. 21-22 (August 22,
2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether an action will have a positive impact on
innovation in an area of public health, safety, or delivery of or
access to care;
     Whether the public health benefits of an action have been
realized;
     Whether the public or regulated community view
modification or revocation of a regulation as important and have
offered useful comments and suggestions for change;
     Whether the impact and effectiveness of a regulation has
changed or been superseded by changes in conditions or advances in
scientific or technological information;
     Whether there are significant, unresolved issues with
implementation or enforcement; and
     How long the regulation has been in effect and whether it
has been subject to prior reviews.
    The first rule FDA is reviewing under E.O. 13563 is the Bar Code
Final Rule. The Agency plans to reassess its costs and benefits and to
determine if the Bar Code Final Rule should be modified to take into
account changes in technology that have occurred since the rule went
into effect in 2004.

I. Background

    In the Federal Register of March 14, 2003 (68 FR 12500), FDA
published a proposed rule (Bar Code Proposed Rule) that would require
certain human drug product labels and biological product labels to have
a linear bar code that would contain, at a minimum, the drug's National
Drug Code (NDC) number. In the Federal Register of February 26, 2004
(69 FR 9120), the Agency finalized the proposed rule (Sec. Sec.  201.25
and 610.67 (21 CFR 201.25 and 610.67)). As discussed in the preamble to
the Bar Code Proposed Rule, the rule was intended to help reduce the
number of medication errors that occur in hospitals and other health
care settings (68 FR 12500 at 12501 through 12502). FDA envisioned that
bar codes would be part of a system, along with bar code scanners and
computerized databases, that would enable health care professionals to
check whether they are giving the right drug (in the right dose and via
the right route of administration) to the right patient at the right
time (Id. at 12501).
    The events that led FDA to propose requiring bar codes are
described in the preamble to the Bar Code Proposed Rule. In brief,
medication errors are known to be a serious public health problem and
can occur at several points from the time a health care provider
prescribes the drug to a patient to the time when the patient receives
the drug. The use of bar codes on drug products was expected to
significantly reduce medication errors. Bar codes also can complement
other efforts to reduce medication errors, such as computer physician
order entry (CPOE) systems (where a physician enters orders
electronically into a computer instead of writing the order on paper,
and subsequently the order can be checked against the patient's
electronic records for possible drug interactions, overdoses, and
patient allergies) and retail pharmacy-based computer systems that use
a bar-coded NDC number to verify that a consumer's prescription is
being dispensed with the correct drug. FDA refers readers to the
preamble to the Bar Code Proposed Rule should they wish to obtain
details on the events, recommendations, meetings, and literature that
shaped the proposed rule.
    In the preamble to the Bar Code Proposed Rule, the Agency discussed
in detail the challenge of requiring the use of linear bar codes,
which, while enabling hospitals to buy scanning equipment with the
confidence that their purchased equipment would not be rendered
obsolete by new technology, could affect future technological
innovation (68 FR 12500 at 12508 through 12510). Comments received
related to a public meeting on bar coding, presented an array of
differing opinions on the issue of whether to require a specific
technology (68 FR 12500 at 12508). Given the complexity of the issues,
FDA requested in the Bar Code Proposed Rule comment concerning
alternatives that could replace or be used in conjunction with the
linear bar code such as another symbol, standard, or technology (Id. at
12510 and 12529).
    In response to the Bar Code Proposed Rule, FDA received comments
including those opposing the use of linear bar codes or asking the
Agency to consider other technologies or to eliminate any reference to
linear bar codes in the final rule. Such comments primarily argued that
selecting a symbology or standard would inhibit technological
innovation.

Comments opposed to a linear bar code requirement generally advocated
the following alternatives: (1) Two-dimensional symbologies, (2) the
European Article Number/Uniform Code Council (EAN/UCC) system
generally, (3) radio frequency identification (RFID) chips, or (4) no
standard or symbology at all (69 FR 9120 at 9136).
    Ultimately, FDA determined that, based on data and public comment,
a linear bar code requirement was appropriate (Id. at 9137 through
9138). In the preamble to the Bar Code Final Rule, the Agency addressed
comments concerning alternatives to the linear bar code and stated
that, while it believed that linear bar codes were an established,
cost-effective, widely used and easily recognized technology, it also
acknowledged that linear bar codes have several disadvantages. For
example, linear bar codes may take up more label space than alternative
technologies and may encode less data compared to other technologies.
Thus, if more data need to be encoded on the packaging or labeling for
any other reason (such as to allow tracking and tracing of drug
products through the drug distribution system), a linear bar code might
prove too limiting (Id. at 9137). FDA also stated that, although it had
decided to preserve the linear bar code requirement, it would consider
revising the rule to accommodate newer technologies as they become more
mature and established (Id. at 9137 through 9138).
    Since FDA issued the Bar Code Final Rule, advances in alternative
technologies have occurred. In addition, it has become increasingly
clear from industry, health care providers, and other FDA initiatives,
that certain FDA-regulated products present unique bar coding concerns.
For example, the Agency has since learned that certain vaccines present
unique challenges in the bar coding context, particularly with respect
to compliance with recordkeeping and mandatory adverse event reporting
requirements that are specific to the administration of childhood
vaccines.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (Pub. L.
99-660) (42 U.S.C. 300aa-25(a)) requires health care providers to
report certain adverse events related to identified childhood
vaccines to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (42 U.S.C.
300aa-25(b)). Although health care providers are encouraged to
report adverse events related to other drugs and biological products
to FDA, they are not required to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In recognition of these challenges, in the Federal Register of
August 11, 2011 (76 FR 49772), FDA announced the availability of a
final guidance document entitled ``Guidance for Industry: Bar Code
Label Requirements--Questions and Answers'' \3\. This guidance amended
and superseded the final guidance of the same title dated October 2006,
by incorporating a revised response to question 12 (Q12), which
pertains to the use of alternate coding technologies for vaccines. The
Agency explained in the Federal Register notice announcing the final
guidance that it believes alternative technology such as two-
dimensional symbology has advanced, allowing the Agency to reconsider
the use of such technology. Accordingly, it will now consider requests
from vaccine manufacturers who request to use alternate coding
technologies, such as two-dimensional symbology, that encode lot number
and expiration date information, for an exemption under Sec.
201.25(d)(1)(ii) to the linear bar code requirement. FDA limited the
scope of its revised response to Q12 to vaccines because of the
mandatory reporting concerns specific to these products as described in
the guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Guidance for Industry: Bar Code Label Requirements--
Questions and Answers'' dated August 2011 (http://www.fda.gov/
downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/
GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM267392.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FDA recognizes, however, that since alternative technologies
continue to advance, it may now be feasible for these technologies to
address other stakeholder coding needs in other contexts and for other
products. For example, under section 505D of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355e), FDA is developing
standards for identification, validation, authentication, and tracking
and tracing of prescription drugs. The goal of this initiative is to
implement a system to further ensure patient safety and to improve the
security of the drug supply chain against counterfeit, diverted,
subpotent, substandard, adulterated, misbranded, or expired drugs. In
March 2010, FDA issued a guidance that discusses a standard for
uniquely identifying prescription drug packages using a Standardized
Numerical Identifier (SNI).\4\ In the guidance, the Agency did not
specify the means of incorporating the SNI onto the package. However,
the guidance recognizes that the SNI is a flexible standard that can be
encoded into a variety of machine-readable forms of data carriers, such
as two-dimensional bar codes, alternate coding systems, and RFID. Thus,
the guidance leaves options open while technologies for securing the
supply chain continue to be identified, and standards making use of SNI
are developed. Similarly, while FDA recognizes that the underlying
primary goals of the Bar Code Final Rule and section 505D of the FD&C
Act are different, the Agency wants to leave options open with respect
to how the same technology may be used for both purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``Guidance for Industry: Standards for Securing the Drug
Supply Chain--Standardized Numerical Identification for Prescription
Drug Packages'' dated March 2010 (http://www.fda.gov/downloads/
RegulatoryInformation/Guidance/UCM206075.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FDA is announcing the establishment of a public docket to provide
an opportunity for interested persons to share information, research,
and ideas on the effectiveness of the current regulation and the need,
maturity, and acceptability of alternative technologies for the
identification, including the unique identification, of drugs and
biological products. FDA will use the information received to assess
coding technologies in relation to current bar code requirements and
other initiatives.

II. Request for Comments and Information

    FDA is requesting comments and supporting information on (1) bar
code labeling standards for drugs and biological products and (2) the
identification of current alternative technologies for use by industry
and others.
    To facilitate this discussion, FDA sets forth some questions in the
following paragraphs. These questions, which are not meant to be
exhaustive, are provided to stimulate public comments that will help
FDA evaluate the Bar Code Final Rule and the accommodation of
alternative technologies to the linear bar code requirement (Sec.
201.25). The public is encouraged to address these and/or other related
questions.
    The Agency encourages responses to the following questions about
the costs and benefits of any alternative to the linear bar code. FDA
also encourages you to provide as much detail and context as possible
in your responses. Furthermore, the Agency specifically invites small
businesses to provide information about the potential impact of
alternatives to the linear bar code.
    1. Is there a need for alternative technologies to the linear bar
code? Does the current linear bar code requirement meet the current
needs of the health care industry and health care providers?
    2. How has product coding technology changed since FDA issued the
Bar Code Final Rule on February 26, 2004? Please provide information
about the maturity, degree of adoption, cost, and ease of use of coding
technologies

that may be considered as alternatives or in addition to the linear bar
code.
    3. What factors other than those listed in question 2 should FDA
take into account in considering technologies alternative to or in
addition to the linear bar code?
    4. What technologies or coding systems warrant FDA's consideration
as alternatives to the linear bar code? In your response, the Agency
particularly invites comments on the following issues for each
technology identified:
    A. What is the current state of development and availability of the
alternative technology?
    B. Would adoption of this technology as an alternative to the
linear bar code further reduce medication errors in hospitals and
health care settings? Please provide supporting data, if available.
    C. Would adoption of this alternative technology advance public
health protections? If so, how? If supporting data exist, please
provide this information.
    5. Does the adoption of this alternative technology have
implications for other FDA or Department of Health and Human Services
initiatives (e.g., SNI)?
    6. Have you used the linear bar code for authentication or tracking
and tracing of prescription drugs?
    A. If so, how?
    B. Please describe any successes or challenges that you have
encountered in adopting linear bar code technology for this purpose.
    C. If not, which if any alternative technologies could reduce
medication errors while also serving other functions?
    7. For hospitals and other health-care facilities that have adopted
bar code technologies using linear bar codes:
    A. What difficulties did you encounter in adopting the technology?
    B. How have productivity and operating costs changed?
    C. What differences have you seen in medical outcomes?
    D. What problems have you experienced with the technology?
    8. For hospitals and other health-care facilities that have adopted
alternative technologies or non-linear coding:
    A. What difficulties did you encounter in adopting the technology?
    B. How have productivity and operating costs changed?
    C. What differences have you seen in medical outcomes?
    D. What problems have you experienced with the technology?
    9. For hospitals and other health-care facilities that have not
adopted bar code technologies using linear bar codes:
    A. Do you plan to adopt the technology within the next 12 months?
    B. If you do not plan to adopt the technology, please explain what
factor(s) most influenced the decision not to adopt it.
    10. How would technology adoption have proceeded since 2004 had the
Bar Code Final Rule not gone into effect?
    11. What are hospitals' and other health-care facilities' forecasts
for technology adoption once incentives in the Economic Stimulus Act of
2008 (Pub. L. 110-185) are no longer in effect?
    12. Would there be an economic impact on those parties who may not
be subject to the bar code requirement but who nonetheless may use or
adopt or have adopted bar code technology (e.g., hospitals, clinics,
public health agencies, and health care providers)? Please use the
following questions to guide your responses.
    A. Current practices. Describe your current practice(s) at your
institution with respect to those products that are required to be
labeled with a bar code under Sec. Sec.  201.25 and 610.67. Have you
encountered any barriers to your ability to use technology at your
institution?
    B. Using an alternative to the linear bar code. If an alternative
to the linear bar code could be placed on the label of at least some of
your products, what impact, if any, would that have on your current
practice(s)? How would you change your practices, if at all?
    C. Expenses. What unplanned expenses, if any, would you incur, if
an alternative to the linear bar code could be placed on the label of
at least some of your products? If you could foresee using an
alternative to the linear bar code, would you modify operations in your
facility, and if so, how?
    D. Adverse event reporting and recalls. Have you encountered
challenges/successes in drug identification or reporting with respect
to products that contain a bar code on their labels? If so, please
describe them. Would an alternative to the linear bar code have an
impact on your recall management or adverse event reporting, and if so,
how?
    13. Are there other parties whose economic interests we should
consider?

III. Comments

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) either electronic or written comments regarding this
document. It is only necessary to send one set of comments. It is no
longer necessary to send two copies of mailed comments. Identify
comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets
Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
    Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be timely
received by the due dates in the event of delivery delay. Comments must
be received by these dates to be considered. We request that comments
be identified clearly as an ``initial'' comment or a ``reply'' comment.
Initial comments may address any issue raised in this notice. Initial
comments will be made available electronically, online at http://
www.regulations.gov, or for public inspection in the Division of
Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). To allow sufficient opportunity for
interested persons to prepare and submit any reply comments, late-filed
initial comments will not be considered. Reply comments must address
only matters raised in initial comments and must not be used to present
new arguments, contentions, or factual material that is not responsive
to the initial comments. To be considered, reply comments must identify
which initial comments they are replying to, and which specific
issues(s) are being addressed. We will not consider comments received
during the reply comment period that do not identify the specific
issue(s) raised during the initial comment period on which the reply
comment is based. It is the Agency's intent to comply with Executive
Order 13563 as quickly as possible, so we will not look favorably on
requests for extensions of the comment period.
    Comments previously submitted to the Division of Dockets Management
for the following docket will also be considered by FDA and do not need
to be resubmitted: ``Draft Guidance for Industry: Bar Code Label
Requirements (Question 12 Update)'' (75 FR 54347 September 2010; Docket
No. FDA-2010-D-0426).

    Dated: October 21, 2011.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-27657 Filed 10-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 214 (Tuesday, November 7, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 51618]
[FR Doc No: 2017-24142]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 11175-025]

Crown Hydro, LLC; Notice of Teleconference To Discuss Section 106
Consultation for an Application To Amend the Crown Mill Project

    a. Project Name and Number: Crown Mill Hydroelectric Project No.
11175.
    b. Project licensee: Crown Hydro, LLC.
    c. Date and Time of Teleconference: Wednesday, December 6, 2017,
from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. Central Standard Time.
    d. FERC Contact: Jennifer Polardino,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
[email protected]
    e. Purpose of Meeting: Commission staff will hold a teleconference
to discuss the status of consultation under section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act for an application to amend the license of
the unconstructed Crown Mill Hydroelectric Project. Crown Mill, LLC
(licensee) proposes to move the location of the project's powerhouse
about 250 feet north to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) lands
within the campus of the Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock and Dam. Crown
Mill, LLC also proposes to construct a new tailrace tunnel instead of
connecting to an existing tunnel. The project would be located on the
Mississippi River, in the downtown area of the City of Minneapolis,
Hennepin County, Minnesota.
    f. All local, state, and federal agencies, Indian tribes, and other
interested entities are invited to participate in the teleconference.
Please call or email Jennifer Polardino at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
[email protected] by Thursday, November 30, 2017, to RSVP and
to receive the teleconference call-in information.

    Dated: October 31, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-24142 Filed 11-6-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 71 (Monday, April 14, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20800-20801]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08328]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 9 and 721

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013-0739; FRL-9909-25]
RIN 2070-AB27

Significant New Use Rules on Certain Chemical Substances;
Withdrawal

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Partial withdrawal of direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is withdrawing significant new use rules (SNURs)
promulgated under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for four
chemical substances which were the subject of premanufacture notices
(PMNs). EPA published these SNURs using direct final rulemaking
procedures. EPA received notices of intent to submit adverse comments
on these rules. Therefore, the Agency is withdrawing these SNURs, as
required under the expedited SNUR rulemaking process. EPA intends to
publish in the near future proposed SNURs for these four chemical
substances under separate notice and comment procedures.

DATES: This final rule is effective April 14, 2014.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013-0739, is available at
http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-
0280. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact:
Kenneth Moss, Chemical Control Division (7405M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 564-9232; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Does this action apply to me?

    A list of potentially affected entities is provided in the Federal
Register of February 12, 2014 (79 FR 8273) (FRL-9903-70). If you have
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

II. What direct final SNURs are being withdrawn?

    In the Federal Register of February 12, 2014 (79 FR 8273), EPA
issued several direct final SNURs, including SNURs for four chemical
substances that are the subject of this withdrawal. These direct final
rules were issued pursuant to the procedures in 40 CFR part 721,
subpart D. In accordance with Sec.  721.160(c)(3)(ii), EPA is
withdrawing the rules issued for the chemical substances generically
identified as MDI modified polyalkene glycols; acrylic acid esters
polymers, reaction products with polyisocyanate; 1,3-
benzenedicarboxylic acid, polymer with 1,4-benzenedicarboxylic acid,
1,4-dimethyl 1,4-benzenedicarboxylate, 2,2-dimethyl-1,3-
propanediol,dodecanedioic acid, 1,2-ethanediol, hexanedioic acid, 1,6-
hexanediol, alkyldiol ester and aromatic isocyanate; and methylene
diisocyanate polymer with polypropylene glycol and diols, which were
the subject of PMNs P-13-365, P-13-392, P-13-393, and P-13-471,
respectively, because the Agency received notices of intent to submit
adverse comments. EPA intends to publish proposed SNURs for these
chemical substances under separate notice and comment procedures.
    For further information regarding EPA's expedited process for
issuing SNURs, interested parties are directed to 40 CFR part 721,
subpart D, and the Federal Register of July 27, 1989 (54 FR 31314). The
record for the direct final SNUR for the chemical substances that are
being removed was established at EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013-0739. That record
includes information considered by the Agency in developing this rule
and the notice of intent to submit adverse comments.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule revokes or eliminates an existing regulatory
requirement and does not contain any new or amended requirements. As
such, the Agency has determined that this withdrawal will not have any
adverse impacts, economic or otherwise. The statutory and executive
order review requirements applicable to the direct final rule were
discussed in the Federal Register of February 12, 2014 (79 FR 8273).
Those review requirements do not apply to this action because it is a
withdrawal and does not contain any new or amended requirements.

IV. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 9

    Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 721

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 7, 2014.
Maria J. Doa,
Director, Chemical Control Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics.

    Therefore, 40 CFR parts 9 and 721 are amended as follows:

PART 9--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136-136y; 15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003,
2005, 2006, 2601-2671; 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318, 1321, 1326, 1330,
1342, 1344, 1345 (d) and (e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR,
1971-1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g,
300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-1, 300j-2,
300j-3, 300j-4, 300j-9, 1857 et seq., 6901-6992k, 7401-7671q, 7542,
9601-9657, 11023, 11048.

Sec.  9.1  [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  9.1, remove under the undesignated center heading
``Significant New Uses of Chemical Substances'' Sec. Sec.  721.10717,
721.10719, 721.10720, and 721.10723.

PART 721--[AMENDED]

0
3. The authority citation for part 721 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2604, 2607, and 2625(c).

Sec. Sec.  721.10717, 721.10719, 721.10720, and 721.10723   [Removed]

0
4. Remove Sec. Sec.  721.10717, 721.10719, 721.10720, and 721.10723.

[FR Doc. 2014-08328 Filed 4-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: December 6, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 234)]
[Notices]
[Page 68872]
[DOCID:fr06de07-39]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP08-22-000]

DCP Midstream, LP; Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order

November 28, 2007.
    Take notice that on November 13, 2007, DCP Midstream, LP (DCP
Midstream) 370 17th Street, Suite 2500, Denver, Colorado 80202 filed in
Docket No. CP08-22-000, under Rule 207(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules
of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2)(2007), a petition for a
declaratory order requesting that the Commission disclaim jurisdiction
over certain natural gas facilities DCP Midstream would purchase from
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation (Transco),\1\ because such
facilities perform a gathering function and would be exempt from the
Commission's jurisdiction under section 1(b) of the Natural Gas Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Transco filed an application with the Commission in Docket
No. CP08-25-000 on November 13, 2007, requesting permission and
approval to abandon the subject facilities by sale to DCP Midstream.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DCP Midstream states that it would purchase Transco's South Texas
facilities, consisting of approximately 135.6 miles of natural gas
pipelines and related meter stations, valves, miscellaneous field and
tie-in piping, other appurtenances along the pipeline segments, and
related realty and easement rights. These facilities would handle
unprocessed natural gas in Hidalgo, Willacy, Starr, Brooks, and Jim
Wells Counties, Texas, and would be incorporated into DCP Midstream's
existing south Texas gathering facilities for processing at DCP
Midstream's LaGloria Processing Plant.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated
below. Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or
protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve
motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is 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 e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: December 19, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-23618 Filed 12-5-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: April 13, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 71)]
[Notices]
[Page 19178]
[DOCID:fr13ap06-64]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP99-518-087]

Gas Transmission Northwest Corporation; Notice of Negotiated Rate

April 6, 2006.
    Take notice that on March 31, 2006, Gas Transmission Northwest
Corporation (GTN) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff,
Third Revised Volume No. 1-A, Thirty-Second Revised Sheet No. 15, to
become effective April 1, 2006.
    GTN states that this sheet is being filed to update GTN's reporting
of negotiated rate transactions that it has entered into.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is 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 e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-5439 Filed 4-12-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 3, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 190)]
[Notices]
[Page 57592]
[DOCID:fr03oc05-95]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. CP05-83-000, CP05-84-000, CP05-85-000 and CP05-86-000]

Port Arthur LNG, L.P. Port Arthur Pipeline, L.P.; Notice of
Public Meeting Cancellation and Extension of Comment Period for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Port Arthur LNG Project

September 27, 2005.
    Because of damage in the area due to Hurricane Rita, the staff of
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is canceling its
planned public comment meetings in Vinton, Louisiana and Port Arthur,
Texas for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Port
Arthur LNG Project until further notice. However, we are extending the
period for public comment by 60 days. Comments are now due on December
16, 2005.
    As a reminder, any person wishing to comment on the draft EIS may
do so. To ensure consideration prior to a Commission decision on the
proposal, it is important that we receive your comments before the date
specified below. Please carefully follow these instructions to ensure
that your comments are received in time and properly recorded:
     Send an original and two copies of your comments to:
Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
     Reference Docket No. CP05-83-000 et al.;
     Label one copy of the comments for the attention of Gas
Branch 2, PJ11.2; and
     Mail your comments so that they will be received in
Washington, DC on or before December 16, 2005.
    Please note that we will include all comments that we receive
within a reasonable time frame in our environmental analysis of this
Project. However, the Commission strongly encourages electronic filing
of any comments or interventions to this proceeding. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
at http://www.ferc.gov under the ``e-Filing'' link and the link to the

User's Guide. Before you can file comments you will need to create a
free account, which can be created by clicking on ``Login to File'' and
then ``New User Account.''

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-5412 Filed 9-30-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 6, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 87)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 24789-24790]
[DOCID:fr06my10-3]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0008; Airspace Docket No. 09-ANM-21]

Modification of Jet Route J-3; Spokane, WA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action modifies Jet Route J-3 by terminating the route at
the Spokane, WA, VHF omnidirectional range/tactical air navigation
(VORTAC) instead of the Canadian border. This action is necessary for
the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations
within the National Airspace System (NAS).

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, July 29, 2010. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken McElroy, Airspace and Rules Group,
Office of System Operations Airspace and AIM, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

History

    On February 4, 2010, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to modify J-3 Spokane, WA. (75 FR
5703). Interested parties were invited to participate in this
rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on this proposal to
the FAA. No comments were received in response to the NPRM, therefore,
this amendment is the same as that proposed in the NPRM.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by removing the segment of J-3 that extends from the Spokane
VORTAC to Cranbrook, BC. The route terminates at the EDGES fix located
on the United States and Canadian border. The FAA has determined that
this segment of J-3 is not required since the Jet Route, as currently
described, terminates or originates at a point in space on the
international border and does not meet or connect to any corresponding
airway within Canadian airspace. Additionally, the segment between the
Spokane VORTAC and Cranbrook, BC VOR/DME causes confusion because it
appears that pilots can file a flight plan all the way to the
Cranbrook, BC VOR/DME, however, the computer rejects the flight plans
filed to the Cranbrook, BC VOR/DME.
    Jet Routes are published in paragraph 2004 of FAA Order 7400.9T,
dated August 27, 2009 and effective September 15, 2009, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Jet Route listed in this
document would be subsequently published in the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant
preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so
minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air
traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule,
when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it modifies a Jet Route from Oakland, CA, to Spokane, WA.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9T,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 27, 2009 and
effective September 15, 2009, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 2004--Jet Routes

* * * * *

J-3 [Modified]

    From Oakland, CA, via Red Bluff, CA; Lakeview, OR; Kimberly, OR;
Spokane, WA.

    Issued in Washington, DC, April 29, 2010.
Paul Gallant,
Acting Manager, Airspace and Rules Group.
[FR Doc. 2010-10608 Filed 5-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 85 (Friday, May 1, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25487-25489]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09250]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88754; File No. SR-NYSE-2020-34]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Rule 1.1 To Modify the Definition of ``UTP Exchange Traded
Product'' and Rule 5.1 To Incorporate the Modified Definition of ``UTP
Exchange Traded Product''

April 27, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that on April 16, 2020, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``Exchange'')
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 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 (1) Rule 1.1 to modify the
definition of ``UTP Exchange Traded Product'' and (2) Rule 5.1 to
incorporate the definition of UTP Exchange Traded Product as set forth
in revised Rule 1.1. The proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's website 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 (1) Rule 1.1 to modify the
definition of ``UTP Exchange Traded Product'' and (2) Rule 5.1 to
incorporate the definition of UTP Exchange Traded Product as set forth
in revised Rule 1.1.
Rule 1.1
    Rule 1.1(l) currently provides that the term ``Exchange Traded
Product'' means a security that meets the definition of ``derivative
securities product'' in Rule 19b-4(e) under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and a ``UTP Exchange Traded Product'' means an Exchange Traded
Product that trades on the Exchange pursuant to unlisted trading
privileges. The Exchange proposes to amend the definition of ``UTP
Exchange Traded Product'' to mean one of the following Exchange Traded
Products that trades on the Exchange pursuant to unlisted trading
privileges: Equity Linked Notes, Investment Company Units, Index-Linked
Exchangeable Notes, Equity Gold Shares, Equity Index-Linked Securities,
Commodity-Linked Securities, Currency-Linked Securities, Fixed-Income
Index-Linked Securities, Futures-Linked Securities, Multifactor-Index-
Linked Securities, Trust Certificates, Currency and Index Warrants,
Portfolio Depository Receipts, Trust Issued Receipts, Commodity-Based
Trust Shares, Currency Trust Shares, Commodity Index Trust Shares,
Commodity Futures Trust Shares, Partnership Units, Paired Trust Shares,
Trust Units, Managed Fund Shares, Managed Trust Securities, and Managed
Portfolio Shares.
    This proposed change is based on NYSE National, Inc. (``NYSE
National'') Rule 1.1(m) and NYSE Chicago, Inc. (``NYSE Chicago'') Rule
1.1(k).\4\ This list is designed to align the rules of the Exchange
with the rules of NYSE National and NYSE Chicago and to enumerate the
types of Exchange Traded Products to which the Exchange would extend
unlisted trading privileges (``UTP'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ NYSE National and NYSE Chicago have filed proposed rule
changes for immediate effectiveness to amend their respective rules
to add Managed Portfolio Shares to their definitions of UTP Exchange
Traded Products. See SR-NYSENAT-2020-16 (filed April 16, 2020) and
SR-NYSECHX-2020-13 (filed April 16, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 5.1
    Rule 5.1(a)(1) provides that the Exchange may extend UTP to any
security that is an NMS stock (as defined in Rule 600 of Regulation NMS
under the Act) that is listed on another national securities exchange
or with respect to which unlisted trading privileges may otherwise be
extended in accordance with Section 12(f) of the Act. Rule 5.1(a)(2)
further specifies that a UTP Exchange Traded Product, which is defined
in that Rule as a ``new derivative securities product'' as defined in
Rule 19b-4(e) under the Exchange Act and traded pursuant to Rule 19b-
4(e) under the Act, would be subject to the additional rules enumerated
in Rule 5.1(a)(2)(A)-(E).
    Because the Exchange proposes to modify the definition of UTP
Exchange Trading Product in Rule 1.1(l) to conform to the rules of NYSE
National and NYSE Chicago, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule
5.1(a)(2) to eliminate redundant text and cross reference the term
``UTP Exchange Traded Product'' as it is defined in Rule 1.1. This
proposed change would also

conform Rule 5.1(a)(2) with the NYSE National rule of the same number.
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 remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market, to promote just and equitable principles of
trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) & (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes its proposed rule change ensures that Rule
1.1 identifies and publicly states the complete list of Exchange Traded
Products to which UTP may be extended for trading on the Exchange. The
Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change removes
impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market,
promotes just and equitable principles of trade, and protects investors
and the public interest by promoting consistency with the rules of the
Exchange's affiliated markets and by providing additional specificity,
clarity, and transparency in the Exchange's rules with respect to the
Exchange Traded Products that may be traded on a UTP basis on the
Exchange.
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend Rule 5.1(a)(2)
also removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and
open market, promotes just and equitable principles of trade, and
protects investors and the public interest because it proposes to
conform this rule governing the trading of UTP Exchange Traded Products
with the comparable rule of the Exchange's affiliated market, NYSE
National, which has been approved by the Commission.\7\ The proposed
rule change would also 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 by promoting continuity across
affiliated exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In its Order approving the NYSE National rule on which this
proposed change is based, the Commission found that the NYSE
National rules set forth an ``appropriate framework for the trading
of Exchange Traded Products on a UTP basis on the Exchange'' and are
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act. See Securities and
Exchange Act Release No. 83289 (May 17, 2018), 83 FR 23968 (May 23,
2018), at 23975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 change would
conform Exchange rules, as described herein, with the comparable rules
of its affiliated exchanges, NYSE National and NYSE Chicago, and permit
UTP trading of Exchange Traded Products on the Exchange in a manner
consistent with its affiliated exchange.

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 change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \10\ normally
does not become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing.
However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\11\ the Commission may
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing. The Commission notes that
the Exchange's proposal would conform the Exchange's rules, as
described herein, to the corresponding rules of its affiliated
exchanges.\12\ Accordingly, the Commission believes that the proposal
raises no new or novel regulatory issues and waiver of the 30-day
operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest. The Commission therefore waives the 30-day operative
delay and designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon
filing.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \12\ See NYSE National Rules 1.1 and 5.1 and NYSE Chicago Rule
1.1.
    \13\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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-2020-34 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2020-34. 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 website (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 website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE,

Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting
comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal
identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2020-34 and should be
submitted on or before May 22, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-09250 Filed 4-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P