[Federal Register: February 11, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 28)]
[Notices]
[Page 7726-7727]
[DOCID:fr11fe08-45]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12944-000]

Morgantown Hydro, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing
and Soliciting Motions To Intervene, Protests, and Comments

February 4, 2008.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Preliminary Permit.
    b. Project No.: 12944-000.
    c. Date filed: August 8, 2007.
    d. Applicant: Morgantown Hydro, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Morgantown Lock and Dam Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: Monongahela River in Monongalia County, West Virginia.
It would use the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Morgantown Lock and Dam.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Brent L. Smith, COO, Symbiotics, LLC,
P.O. Box 535, Rigby, ID 83442,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Robert Bell,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to
intervene: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Comments, protests, and
interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of
paper; see 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the
Commission's Web site under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission
strongly encourages electronic filings. Please include the project
number (P-12944-000) on any comments or motions filed.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person in 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. Description of Project: The proposed project using the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers' Morgantown Lock and Dam and operated in a run-of-
river mode would consist of: (1) A new powerhouse and switchyard; (2)
two turbine/generator units with a combined installed capacity of 9
megawatts; (3) a new 13-mile-long above-ground 25-kilovolt transmission
line extending from the switchyard to an interconnection point with
Monongahela Power Company's distribution system; and (4) appurtenant
facilities. The proposed Morgantown Lock and Dam Project would have an
average annual generation of 26 gigawatt-hours.
    l. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site 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, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy
is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in
item h above.
    m. Competing Preliminary Permit--Anyone desiring to file a
competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project
must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to
file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application (see 18 CFR 4.36).
Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to
file the competing preliminary permit application no later than 30 days
after the specified comment date for the particular application. A
competing preliminary permit application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30
and 4.36.
    n. Competing Development Application--Any qualified development
applicant desiring to file a competing development application must
submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the
particular application, either a competing development application or a
notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely
notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested
person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after
the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing
license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30 and 4.36.
    o. Notice of Intent--A notice of intent must specify the exact
name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective
applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to
submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary
permit application or a development application (specify which type of
application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s)
named in this public notice.
    p. Proposed Scope of Studies Under Permit--A preliminary permit, if
issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed
preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work

proposed under the preliminary permit would include economic analysis,
preparation of preliminary engineering plans, and a study of
environmental impacts. Based on the results of these studies, the
Applicant would decide whether to proceed with the preparation of a
development application to construct and operate the project.
    q. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene--Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    r. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents--Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``NOTICE OF INTENT
TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION'', ``COMPETING APPLICATION'',
``PROTEST'', and ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the
Project Number of the particular application to which the filing
refers. Any of the above-named documents must be filed by providing the
original and the number of copies provided by the Commission's
regulations to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. An additional copy must be
sent to Director, Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, at the above-mentioned address. A
copy of any notice of intent, competing application or motion to
intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant
specified in the particular application.
    s. Agency Comments--Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-2415 Filed 2-8-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 146 (Friday, July 29, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45579-45582]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19066]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0002]

Request for Notification From Consumer Organizations Interested
in Participating in the Selection Process for Nominations for Voting
and/or Nonvoting Consumer Representatives and Request for Nominations
for Voting and/or Nonvoting Consumer Representatives on Public Advisory
Committees or Panels

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is requesting that any
consumer organizations interested in participating in the selection of
voting and/or nonvoting consumer representatives to serve on its
advisory committees or panels notify FDA in writing. FDA is also
requesting nominations for voting and/or nonvoting consumer
representatives to serve on advisory committees and/or panels for which
vacancies currently exist or are expected to occur in the near future.
Nominees recommended to serve as a voting or nonvoting consumer
representative may either be self-nominated or may be nominated by a
consumer organization. Nominations will be accepted for current
vacancies and for those that will or may occur through June 2012.

DATES: Any consumer organization interested in participating in the
selection of an appropriate voting or nonvoting member to represent
consumer interests on an FDA advisory committee or panel may send a
letter or e-mail stating that interest to FDA (see ADDRESSES) by August
29, 2011, for vacancies listed in this notice. Concurrently, nomination
materials for prospective candidates should be sent to FDA (see
ADDRESSES) by August 29, 2011.

ADDRESSES: All statements of interest from consumer organizations
interested in participating in the selection process and consumer
representative nominations should be sent electronically to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by mail to Advisory Committee Oversight and Management
Staff, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, rm. 5129, Silver Spring MD
20993-0002, or by fax to<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information about becoming a
member of an FDA advisory committee can be obtained by visiting FDA's
Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doreen Brandes, Advisory Committee
Oversight and Management Staff, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, rm. 5122, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-8858, or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For questions relating to specific advisory committees or panels,
contact the persons listed in table 2 in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FDA is requesting nominations for voting
and/or nonvoting consumer representatives for the vacancies listed in
table 1 of this document:

                                                     Table 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Current &  upcoming
      Committee/panel/areas of expertise needed                  vacancies             Approximate date needed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drug Safety and Risk Communication--Knowledgeable in   1-Voting....................  5/31/12
 risk communication, risk management, drug safety,
 medical, behavioral, and biological sciences as they
 apply to risk management, and drug abuse.
Gastrointestinal Drugs--Knowledgeable in the fields    1-Voting....................  6/30/12
 of gastroenterology, endocrinology, surgery,
 clinical pharmacology, physiology, pathology, liver
 function, motility, esophagitis, and statistics.
Medical Imaging--Knowledgeable in the fields of        1-Voting....................  immediately
 nuclear medicine, radiology, epidemiology or
 statistics, and related specialties.
Blood Products--Knowledgeable in the fields of         1-Voting....................  immediately
 clinical and administrative medicine, hematology,
 immunology, blood banking, surgery, internal
 medicine, biochemistry, engineering, biological and
 physical sciences, biotechnology, computer
 technology, statistics, epidemiology, sociology/
 ethics, and other related professions.
Cellular Tissue and Gene Therapies--Knowledgeable in   1-Voting....................  3/31/12
 the fields of cellular therapies, tissue
 transplantation, gene transfer therapies and
 xenotransplantation including biostatistics,
 bioethics, hematology/oncology, human tissues and
 transplantation, reproductive medicine, general
 medicine and various medical specialties including
 surgery and oncology, immunology, virology,
 molecular biology, cell biology, developmental
 biology, tumor biology, biochemistry, rDNA
 technology, nuclear medicine, gene therapy,
 infectious diseases, and cellular kinetics.
Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies--            1-Voting....................  immediately
 Knowledgeable in the fields of clinical and
 administrative medicine, hematology, virology,
 neurovirology, neurology, infectious diseases,
 immunology, transfusion medicine, surgery, internal
 medicine, biochemistry, biostatistics, epidemiology,
 biological and physical sciences, sociology/ethics,
 and other related professions.
Vaccines and Related Biological Products--             1-Voting....................  3/31/12
 Knowledgeable in the fields of immunology, molecular
 biology, rDNA, virology, bacteriology, epidemiology
 or biostatistics, allergy, preventive medicine,
 infectious diseases, pediatrics, microbiology, and
 biochemistry.
Radiological Device Panel--Knowledgeable in            1-Non voting................  1/31/12
 diagnostic and therapeutic radiological and nuclear
 medical devices, engineering and operating
 mechanisms of radiologic devices.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Functions

A. Drug Safety and Risk Management

    The Committee reviews and evaluates information on risk management,
risk communication, and quantitative evaluation of spontaneous reports
for drugs for human use and for any other product for which FDA has
regulatory responsibility. The Committee also advises the Commissioner
of Food and Drugs (the Commissioner) regarding the scientific and
medical evaluation of all information gathered by the Department of
Health and Human Services and the Department of Justice with regard to
safety, efficacy, and abuse potential of drugs or other substances, and
recommends actions to be taken by the Department of Health and Human
Services with regard to the marketing, investigation, and control of
such drugs or other substances.

B. Gastrointestinal Drugs

    The Committee reviews and evaluates available data concerning the
safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug
products for use in the treatment of gastrointestinal diseases and
makes appropriate recommendations to the Commissioner.

C. Medical Imaging Drugs

    The Committee reviews and evaluates data concerning the safety and
effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for
use in diagnostic and therapeutic procedures using radioactive
pharmaceuticals and contrast media used in diagnostic radiology.
(Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register is a final rule adding
the Medical Imaging Drugs Advisory Committee to the list of FDA
standing advisory committees in 21 CFR 14.100, as well as a request for
nominations of voting members and a request for nominations of
nonvoting industry representative members.)

D. Blood Products

    The Committee reviews and evaluates available data concerning the
safety, effectiveness, and appropriate use of blood products derived
from blood and serum or biotechnology which are intended for use in the
diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of human diseases as well as the
safety, effectiveness, and labeling of the products, on clinical and
laboratory studies involving such products, on the affirmation or
revocation of biological product licenses, and on the quality and
relevance of FDA's research program which provides the scientific
support for regulating these products.

E. Cellular Tissue and Gene Therapy

    The Committee reviews and evaluates available data relating to the
safety, effectiveness, and appropriate use of human cells, human
tissues, gene transfer therapies and xenotransplantation products which
are intended for transplantation, implantation, infusion, and transfer
in the prevention and treatment of a broad spectrum of human diseases
and in the reconstruction, repair, or replacement of tissues for
various conditions. The Committee also considers the quality and
relevance of FDA's research program which provides scientific support
for the regulation of these products, and makes appropriate
recommendations to the Commissioner.

F. Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies

    The Committee reviews and evaluates available scientific data
concerning the safety of products which may be at risk for transmission
of spongiform encephalopathies having an impact on the public health,
as well as considers the quality and relevance of FDA's research
program which provides scientific support for the regulation of these
products.

G. Vaccines and Related Biologic Products

    The Committee reviews and evaluates data concerning the safety,
effectiveness, and appropriate use of vaccines and related biological
products which are intended for use in the prevention, treatment, or
diagnosis of human diseases, and, as required, any other product for
which FDA has regulatory responsibility. The Committee also considers
the quality

and relevance of FDA's research program which provides scientific
support for the regulation of these products and makes appropriate
recommendations to the Commissioner.

H. Certain Panels of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee

    The Committee reviews and evaluates data on the safety and
effectiveness of marketed and investigational devices and makes
recommendations for their regulation. With the exception of the Medical
Devices Dispute Resolution Panel, each panel, according to its
specialty area, advises on the classification or reclassification of
devices into one of three regulatory categories; advises on any
possible risks to health associated with the use of devices; advises on
formulation of product development protocols; reviews premarket
approval applications for medical devices; reviews guidelines and
guidance documents; recommends exemption of certain devices from the
application of portions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act;
advises on the necessity to ban a device; and responds to requests from
the Agency to review and make recommendations on specific issues or
problems concerning the safety and effectiveness of devices. With the
exception of the Medical Devices Dispute Resolution Panel, each panel,
according to its specialty area, may also make appropriate
recommendations to the Commissioner on issues relating to the design of
clinical studies regarding the safety and effectiveness of marketed and
investigational devices.

II. Criteria for Members

    Persons nominated for membership as consumer representatives on the
committees or panels should meet the following criteria: (1)
Demonstrate ties to consumer and community-based organizations, (2) be
able to analyze technical data, (3) understand research design, (4)
discuss benefits and risks, and (5) evaluate the safety and efficacy of
products under review. The consumer representative should be able to
represent the consumer perspective on issues and actions before the
advisory committee; serve as a liaison between the committee and
interested consumers, associations, coalitions, and consumer
organizations; and facilitate dialogue with the advisory committees on
scientific issues that affect consumers.

III. Selection Procedures

    Selection of members representing consumer interests is conducted
through procedures that include the use of organizations representing
the public interest and public advocacy groups. These organizations
recommend nominees for the Agency's selection. Representatives from the
consumer health branches of Federal, State, and local governments also
may participate in the selection process. Any consumer organization
interested in participating in the selection of an appropriate voting
or nonvoting member to represent consumer interests should send a
letter stating that interest to FDA (see ADDRESSES) within 30 days of
publication of this document.
    Within the subsequent 30 days, FDA will compile a list of consumer
organizations that will participate in the selection process and will
forward to each such organization a ballot listing three to five
qualified nominees selected by the Agency based on the nominations
received, together with each nominee's current curriculum vitae or
resume. Ballots are to be filled out and returned to FDA within 30
days. The nominee receiving the highest number of votes ordinarily will
be selected to serve as the member representing consumer interests for
that particular advisory committee or panel.

IV. Nomination Procedures

    Any interested person or organization may nominate one or more
qualified persons to represent consumer interests on the Agency's
advisory committees or panels. Self-nominations are also accepted.
Potential candidates will be required to provide detailed information
concerning such matters as financial holdings, employment, and research
grants and/or contracts to permit evaluation of possible sources of
conflicts of interest.
    All nominations should include: A cover letter; a curriculum vitae
or resume that includes the nominee's address, telephone number, and e-
mail address; and a list of consumer or community-based organizations
for which the candidate can demonstrate active participation.
    Nominations also should specify the advisory committee(s) or
panel(s) for which the nominee is recommended. In addition, nominations
should include confirmation that the nominee is aware of the nomination
and is willing to serve as a member of the advisory committee or panel
if selected. The term of office is up to 4 years.
    FDA will review all nominations received within the specified
timeframes and prepare a ballot containing the names of 3 to 5
qualified nominees. Names not selected will remain on a list of
eligible nominees and be reviewed periodically by FDA to determine
continued interest. Upon selecting qualified nominees for the ballot,
FDA will provide those consumer organizations that are participating in
the selection process with the opportunity to vote on the listed
nominees. Only organizations vote in the selection process. Persons who
nominate themselves to serve as voting or nonvoting consumer
representatives will not participate in the selection process.
    FDA has a special interest in ensuring that women, minority groups,
and individuals with physical disabilities are adequately represented
on its advisory committees and panels and, therefore, encourages
nominations for appropriately qualified candidates from these groups.
    For questions relating to specific advisory committees or panels,
contact the following persons listed in table 2 of this document:

                                 Table 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Contact person                       Committee/panel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kristina Toliver, Center for Drug Evaluation and  Drug Safety and Risk
 Research, Food and Drug Administration, White     Management.
 Oak Bldg. 31, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver
 Spring, MD 20993-0002, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
 Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, E-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Kristine T. Khuc, Center for Drug Evaluation and  Gastrointestinal
 Research, Food and Drug Administration, White     Drugs.
 Oak Bldg. 31, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver
 Spring, MD 20993-0002, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
 Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, E-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Minh Doan, Center for Drug Evaluation and         Medical Imaging Drugs.
 Research, Food and Drug Administration, White
 Oak Bldg. 31, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver
 Spring, MD 20993-0002, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
 Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, E-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Bryan Emery, Center for Biologics Evaluation &    Blood Products and
 Research, Food and Drug Administration, 1401      Transmissible
 Rockville Pike (HFM-71), Rockville, MD 20852,     Spongiform
 Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, E-mail:   Encephalopathies.
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Gail Dapolito, Center for Biologics Evaluation &  Cellular Tissue and
 Research, Food and Drug Administration, 1401      Gene Therapy.
 Rockville Pike (HFM-71), Rockville, MD 20852-
 1448, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, E-
 mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Donald Jehn, Center for Biologics Evaluation &    Vaccines and Related
 Research, Food and Drug Administration, 1401      Biological Products.
 Rockville Pike (HFM-71), Rockville, MD 20852,
 Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, E-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Shanika Craig, Center for Devices and             Radiological Devices
 Radiological Health, Food and Drug                Panel.
 Administration, White Oak Bldg. 66, rm. 1613,
 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD
 20993-0002, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, E-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: July 22, 2011.
David Dorsey,
Acting Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning and Budget.
[FR Doc. 2011-19066 Filed 7-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 22 (Thursday, February 1, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4591-4595]
[FR Doc No: 2018-01925]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0138; FRL-9973-48-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Illinois; Nonattainment Plans for the Lemont
and Pekin SO2 Nonattainment Areas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions, which
Illinois submitted to EPA on March 2, 2016, and supplemented on August
8, 2016 and May 4, 2017, for attaining the 2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide
(SO2) primary national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS)
for the Lemont and Pekin areas. These revisions (herein called the
nonattainment plans or plans) include Illinois' attainment
demonstration and other elements required under the Clean Air Act (CAA)
for the two areas. In addition to an attainment demonstration, the
plans address: The requirement for meeting reasonable further progress
(RFP) toward attainment of the NAAQS; reasonably available control
measures and reasonably available control technology (RACM/RACT);
emission inventories; and contingency measures. EPA further concludes
that Illinois has demonstrated that the plans' provisions provide for
attainment of the 2010 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS in the
Lemont and Pekin areas by the attainment date of October 4, 2018. EPA
proposed this action on

October 5, 2017 and received one public comment in response.

DATES: This final rule is effective on March 5, 2018.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0138. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
through www.regulations.gov or at the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We recommend
that you telephone John Summerhays, Environmental Scientist, at (312)
886-6067 before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Summerhays, Environmental
Scientist, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This supplementary information section is
arranged as follows:

I. What action did EPA propose and why?
II. What comments did EPA receive, and what are EPA's responses?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action did EPA propose and why?

    On October 5, 2017, at 82 FR 46434, EPA proposed to approve
Illinois' nonattainment plans for the Lemont and Pekin SO2
nonattainment areas. These areas had been designated nonattainment on
August 5, 2013, triggering a requirement for Illinois to submit plans
to provide for attainment and to address other requirements under CAA
sections 110, 172, and 192. Illinois submitted nonattainment plans for
these areas on March 2, 2016, and submitted supplemental information on
August 8, 2016 and May 4, 2017.
    EPA's proposed rulemaking provides further background on Illinois'
submittal. Within the body of this proposed rulemaking, the first
section identified EPA's action designating the Lemont and Pekin areas
as nonattainment, thereby triggering a requirement for Illinois to
develop nonattainment plans for the areas.
    The second section of the proposal provided an extensive discussion
of EPA's guidance on the requirements that SO2 nonattainment
plans must meet in order to obtain approval by EPA, including
requirements to: Submit an emission inventory; provide for attainment;
provide for reasonable further progress (RFP); implement RACM
(including RACT); implement a new source permit program; and provide
contingency measures. Of particular note, the proposal discussed the
circumstances under which EPA expects to find that a plan that includes
emission limits with averaging times of up to 30 days adequately
provides for attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS.
    The third section of the proposed rulemaking discussed EPA's review
of Illinois' demonstration that its plans provide for attainment in the
Lemont and Pekin areas. This section discussed the use of the
atmospheric dispersion model known as AERMOD, the meteorological and
emissions data used in the analysis, the emission limits that Illinois
relied on, and the background concentrations that Illinois used. This
included a discussion of Illinois' use of a 30-day average emission
limit for the Powerton Generating Station (Powerton), operated by
Midwest Generation, LLC, which is located in the Pekin area. Illinois
set this limit at a level of about 58 percent of the level of the 1-
hour limit that Illinois found would have provided for attainment, and
which Illinois supplemented with a requirement that Powerton have less
than five percent of the hours in any 30-day period exceeding the 1-
hour emission limit that Illinois otherwise would have set. EPA also
evaluated comments that Sierra Club submitted during the State's
rulemaking process, including comments related to the proposed emission
limit for Powerton. Finally, this section summarized EPA's review of
Illinois' attainment demonstration, concluding that Illinois' proposed
limit for Powerton, as supplemented, was comparably stringent to the 1-
hour limit that would have been necessary to provide for attainment in
accordance with EPA's guidance, and finding more generally that
Illinois adequately demonstrated that its plans provided for
attainment.
    The fourth section of the proposal contained EPA's review of the
rules Illinois adopted to limit the sulfur content of residual and
distillate fuel oil, and EPA's conclusion that these limits were
enforceable and approvable.
    The fifth section of the proposal explained how Illinois' plans
satisfied other nonattainment planning requirements, including
requirements for a comprehensive emission inventory, RACM/RACT, an
adequate new source review program, RFP, and contingency measures.
    The sixth section of the proposal summarized EPA's proposed action,
namely that EPA proposed to approve Illinois' plans and the emission
limits in the underlying rules.
    The seventh section of the proposal identified the rules that EPA
was proposing to approve, and the eighth section contained EPA's review
of statutory requirements and executive orders applicable to the
proposed rulemaking.

II. What comments did EPA receive, and what are EPA's responses?

    In response to the proposed rulemaking, EPA received one comment
letter, from Midwest Generation, LLC, dated November 6, 2017. The
commenter indicated that it supports EPA's proposed rulemaking,
provided SO2 air quality data for the Lemont and Pekin areas
from 2013 through August 2017, and commented that ``because significant
SO2 emission reductions have already occurred in the
designated non-attainment areas, the Illinois EPA will soon be
authorized to submit a `clean data' petition to U.S. EPA for the
ambient air monitoring sites that were the basis for the non-attainment
designations.''
    These comments, which support EPA's action, do not require any
reassessment of the proposed rulemaking. Additionally, the proposed
action did not address whether the Lemont and Pekin areas (at the
monitoring sites and elsewhere) are currently attaining the
SO2 standard; rather, the action evaluated Illinois'
nonattainment plans for areas and proposed to find that those plans
will provide for attainment. Therefore, the comments related to recent
air quality monitoring data for the areas are not relevant to this
rulemaking.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is taking final action to approve Illinois' submission as a SIP
revision, which the state submitted to EPA on March 2, 2016, and
supplemented on August 8, 2016, and May 4, 2017, for attaining the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS for the Lemont and Pekin SO2
nonattainment areas.
    These SO2 nonattainment plans include Illinois'
attainment

demonstrations for the Lemont and Pekin SO2 nonattainment
areas. These attainment demonstrations use dispersion modeling to
demonstrate that the emission limits that Illinois adopted into Title
35 part 214 of the Illinois Administrative Code and submitted for EPA
approval provide for air quality meeting the SO2 NAAQS.
    These limits include a 30-day average limit for the Powerton power
plant in the Pekin area. Illinois' modeling demonstrated that a 1-hour
limit of 6,000 pounds of SO2 per hour for this facility, in
conjunction with the other limits that Illinois adopted and submitted
or otherwise has in place, provide for attainment in this area.
Illinois demonstrated that a 30-day average limit of 3,452 pounds per
hour is comparably stringent to a 1-hour limit of 6,000 pounds per hour
at this facility. Therefore, and for reasons discussed in the proposed
rulemaking, EPA finds that the limits submitted by Illinois, which for
Powerton include a 30-day average limit of 3,452 pounds per hour
supplemented by a requirement that emissions not exceed 6,000 pounds
per hour for more than 5 percent of hours, provide for attainment of
the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
    These nonattainment plans also satisfy requirements for emission
inventories, RACT/RACM, RFP, and contingency measures. Additionally,
Illinois has previously addressed requirements regarding nonattainment
area new source review. Therefore, EPA has determined that Illinois'
SO2 nonattainment plans meet the applicable requirements of
CAA sections 110, 172, and 192.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Illinois
Regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth
below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents
generally available through www.regulations.gov, and at the EPA Region
5 Office (please contact the person identified in the For Further
Information Contact section of this preamble for more information).
Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in
the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are
fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of
the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will
be incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in
the next update to the SIP compilation.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action 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. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by April 2, 2018. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: January 17, 2018.
Cathy Stepp,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

0
2. In Sec.  52.720:

0
a. In the table in paragraph (c) under ``Part 214: Sulfur
Limitations'':
0
i. Revise the entries for 214.121 and 214.122 under the subheading
entitled ``Subpart B: New Fuel Combustion Emission Sources''.
0
ii. Revise the entry for 214.161 under the subheading entitled
``Subpart D: Existing Liquid or Mixed Fuel Combustion Emission
Sources''.
0
iii. Add new entries before 214.Appendix C for 214.600, 214.601,
214.602, 214.603, 214.604 and 214.605 under a new subheading entitled
``Subpart AA: Requirements for Certain SO2 Sources''.
0
b. In the table in paragraph (e) add a new entry in alphabetical order
for ``Sulfur dioxide (2010) nonattainment plans'' under the subheading
entitled ``Attainment and Maintenance Plans''.
    The additions and revisions read as follows:

Sec.  52.720   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                 EPA-Approved Illinois Regulations and Statutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             State
        Illinois citation             Title/subject     effective date   EPA approval date         Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Subpart B: New Fuel Combustion Emission Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
214.121..........................  Large Sources......       12/7/2015  2/1/2018, [Insert    ...................
                                                                         Federal Register
                                                                         citation].
214.122..........................  Small Sources......       12/7/2015  2/1/2018, [Insert    ...................
                                                                         Federal Register
                                                                         citation].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Subpart D: Existing Liquid or Mixed Fuel Combustion Emission Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
214.161..........................  Liquid Fuel Burned        12/7/2015  2/1/2018, [Insert    ...................
                                    Exclusively.                         Federal Register
                                                                         citation].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Subpart AA: Requirements for Certain SO Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
214.600..........................  Definitions........       12/7/2015  2/1/2018, [Insert    ...................
                                                                         Federal Register
                                                                         citation].
214.601..........................  Applicability......       12/7/2015  2/1/2018, [Insert    ...................
                                                                         Federal Register
                                                                         citation].
214.602..........................  Compliance Deadline       12/7/2015  2/1/2018, [Insert    ...................
                                                                         Federal Register
                                                                         citation].
214.603..........................  Emission                  12/7/2015  2/1/2018, [Insert    ...................
                                    Limitations.                         Federal Register
                                                                         citation].
214.604..........................  Monitoring and            12/7/2015  2/1/2018, [Insert    ...................
                                    Testing.                             Federal Register
                                                                         citation].
214.605..........................  Recordkeeping and         12/7/2015  2/1/2018, [Insert    ...................
                                    Reporting.                           Federal Register
                                                                         citation].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                       EPA-Approved Illinois Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Applicable
      Name of SIP provision           geographic or          State       EPA approval date         Comments
                                    nonattainment area  submittal date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Attainment and Maintenance Plans
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Sulfur dioxide (2010)              Lemont and Pekin...        3/2/2016  2/1/2018, [Insert    ...................
 nonattainment plans.                                                    Federal Register
                                                                         citation].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2018-01925 Filed 1-31-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 117 (Friday, June 17, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36541-36542]
[FR Doc No: 2022-13098]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2006-0028]

Eurofins Electrical and Electronic Testing NA, Inc. a/k/a MET
Laboratories, Inc.: Application for Expansion of Recognition

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, OSHA announces the application of Eurofins
Electrical and Electronic Testing NA, Inc. a/k/a MET Laboratories,
Inc., for expansion of the recognition as a Nationally Recognized
Testing Laboratory (NRTL) and presents the agency's preliminary finding
to grant the application.

DATES: Submit comments, information, and documents in response to this
notice, or requests for an extension of time to make a submission, on
or before July 5, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments by any of the following methods:
    Electronically: Submit comments and attachments electronically at
https://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal.
Follow the instructions online for making electronic submissions.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the above address. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index;
however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download through the website. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection through
the OSHA Docket Office. Contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
2350 (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>) for assistance in locating docket
submissions. Please note: While OSHA's docket office is continuing to
accept and process submissions by regular mail, due to the COVID-19
pandemic, the Docket Office is closed to the public and not able to
receive submissions to the rulemaking record by express delivery, hand
delivery, and messenger service.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and the
OSHA docket number (OSHA-2006-0028). OSHA places comments and other
materials, including any personal information, in the public docket
without revision, and these materials will be available online at
https://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, the agency cautions commenters
about submitting statements they do not want made available to the
public, or submitting comments that contain personal information
(either about themselves or others) such as Social Security numbers,
birth dates, and medical data.
    Extension of comment period: Submit requests for an extension of
the comment period on or before July 5, 2022 to the Office of Technical
Programs and Coordination Activities, Directorate of Technical Support
and Emergency Management, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW,
Room N-3653, Washington, DC 20210, or by fax to<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information regarding this notice is
available from the following sources:
    Press inquiries: Contact Mr. Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office
of Communications, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or email:
[email protected].
    General and technical information: Contact Mr. Kevin Robinson,
Director, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities,
Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Notice of the Application for Expansion

    OSHA is providing notice that Eurofins Electrical and Electronic
Testing NA, Inc. a/k/a MET Laboratories, Inc. (MET),\1\ is applying for
expansion of the current recognition as a NRTL. MET requests the
addition of one test standard to the NRTL scope of recognition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In its Federal Register Notices, OSHA previously referred to
Eurofins Electrical and Electronic Testing NA, Inc. a/k/a MET
Laboratories, Inc. simply as ``MET Laboratories, Inc.'' OSHA is now
referring to this NRTL as ``Eurofins Electrical and Electronic
Testing NA, Inc. a/k/a MET Laboratories, Inc.,'' in this and future
Federal Register Notices, because: (1) Eurofins Electrical and
Electronic Testing NA, Inc. acquired MET Laboratories, Inc., and
this NRTL's current certificate of NRTL recognition lists the NRTL's
name as ``Eurofins Electrical and Electronic Testing NA, Inc.;'' (2)
this NRTL continues to refer to itself as ``MET Laboratories,
Inc.;'' and (3) this NRTL's certification mark continues to be
``MET'' (see https://www.osha.gov/nationally-recognized-testing-laboratory-program/met; OSHA-2006-0028-0089).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets
the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an
acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety
testing and certification of the specific products covered within the
scope of recognition. Each NRTL's scope of recognition includes: (1)
the type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by the
applicable test standard; and (2) the recognized site(s) that has/have
the technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-
certification activities for test standards within the NRTL's scope.
Recognition is not a delegation or grant of government authority;
however, recognition enables employers to use products approved by the
NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require product testing and
certification.
    The agency processes applications by a NRTL for initial recognition
and for an expansion or renewal of this recognition, following
requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires
that the agency publish two notices in the Federal Register in
processing an application. In the first notice, OSHA announces the
application and provides a preliminary finding. In the second notice,
the agency provides a final decision on the application. These notices
set forth the NRTL's scope of recognition or modifications of that
scope. OSHA maintains an informational web page for each NRTL,
including MET, which details the NRTL's scope of recognition. These
pages are available from the OSHA website at https://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html.
    MET currently has one facility (site) recognized by OSHA for
product testing and certification, with the headquarters located at:
MET Laboratories, Inc., 914 West Patapsco Avenue, Baltimore,

Maryland 21230. A complete list of MET's scope of recognition is
available at https://www.osha.gov/nationally-recognized-testing-laboratory-program/met.

II. General Background on the Application

    MET submitted one application, dated November 1, 2021 (OSHA-2006-
0028-0089), to expand the recognition to include one additional test
standard. The standard requested in the expansion application is a
replacement standard for ISA 12.12.01, which is currently included in
MET's NRTL scope of recognition. OSHA staff performed a detailed
analysis of the application packet and reviewed other pertinent
information. OSHA did not perform any on-site reviews in relation to
this application.
    Table 1, below, lists the appropriate test standard found in MET's
application for expansion for testing and certification of products
under the NRTL Program.

 Table 1--Proposed Appropriate Test Standard for Inclusion in MET's NRTL
                          Scope of Recognition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Test standard                     Test standard title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UL 121201..................  Nonincendive Electrical Equipment for Use
                              in Class I and Class II, Division 2 and
                              Class III, Divisions 1 and 2 Hazardous
                              (Classified) Locations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Preliminary Findings on the Application

    MET submitted an acceptable application for expansion of the scope
of recognition. OSHA's review of the application file, and pertinent
documentation, indicate that MET has met the requirements prescribed by
29 CFR 1910.7 for expanding the recognition to include the addition of
the one test standard for NRTL testing and certification listed in
Table 1. This preliminary finding does not constitute an interim or
temporary approval of MET's application.
    OSHA seeks comment on this preliminary determination.

IV. Public Participation

    OSHA welcomes public comment as to whether MET meets the
requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of recognition as a NRTL.
Comments should consist of pertinent written documents and exhibits.
    Commenters needing more time to comment must submit a request in
writing, stating the reasons for the request by the due date for
comments. OSHA will limit any extension to 10 days unless the requester
justifies a longer time period. OSHA may deny a request for an
extension if it is not adequately justified.
    To review copies of the exhibits identified in this notice, as well
as comments submitted to the docket, contact the Docket Office,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor. These materials also are generally available online at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. OSHA-2008-0026 (for further
information, see the ``Docket'' heading in the section of this notice
titled ADDRESSES).
    OSHA staff will review all comments to the docket submitted in a
timely manner. After addressing the issues raised by these comments,
staff will make a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary of Labor
for Occupational Safety and Health on whether to grant MET's
application for expansion of the scope of recognition. The Assistant
Secretary will make the final decision on granting the application. In
making this decision, the Assistant Secretary may undertake other
proceedings prescribed in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7.
    OSHA will publish a public notice of the final decision in the
Federal Register.

V. Authority and Signature

    James S. Frederick, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, authorized the preparation of this
notice. Accordingly, the agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29
U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-2020 (85 FR 58393,
Sept. 18, 2020), and 29 CFR 1910.7.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on June 10, 2022.
James S. Frederick,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2022-13098 Filed 6-16-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 12 (Friday, January 17, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 3217]
[FR Doc No: 2014-00063]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2013-0002]; [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1340]

Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations for Kandiyohi County,
Minnesota, and Incorporated Areas

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is withdrawing
its notice concerning proposed flood hazard determinations, which may
include the addition or modification of any Base Flood Elevation, base
flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area boundary or zone designation, or
regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps, and where
applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study reports for
Kandiyohi County, Minnesota, and Incorporated Areas.

DATES: As of January 17, 2014, the notice published August 9, 2013, at
78 FR 48701, is withdrawn.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-
1340, to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal
Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, 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,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 9, 2013, FEMA published a notice
at 78 FR 48701, proposing flood hazard determinations in Kandiyohi
County, Minnesota. FEMA is withdrawing the notice.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4104; 44 CFR 67.4.

    Dated: December 18, 2013.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2014-00063 Filed 1-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 189 (Tuesday, September 30, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 58854]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23155]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2014-83]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to
improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of
FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the
inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to
affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before October 20, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2014-
0681 using any of the following methods:
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at
202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including
the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment
for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jake Troutman,<PHONE_NUMBER>, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20951.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 24, 2014.
Lirio Liu,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2014-0681
    Petitioner: Walsh, Jeffrey
    Section of 14 CFR: parts 21, 45.23(b), 61.113(a) and (b),
61.133(a), 91.7(a), 91.9(b)(2) and (c), 91.103, 91.109(a), 91.119,
91.121, 91.151(a), 91.203(a) and (b), 91.319(a)(1), 91.405(a),
91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2), and 91.417(a).
    Description of Relief Sought: The petitioner, Jeffrey Walsh, a
certified photogrammetrist, is seeking an exemption to commercially
operate rotorcraft and fixed wing small unmanned aircraft systems
(sUAS) 15 pounds or less including payload to perform various
operations that include but are not limited to: aerial acquisition and
research in support of government entities, agriculture industry,
utility companies, local infrastructure, scientific studies, wildlife
monitoring, mining, surveying, and forestry.
[FR Doc. 2014-23155 Filed 9-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 237 (Wednesday, December 9, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79239-79242]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26993]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90560; File No. SR-NYSENAT-2020-35]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE National, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its
Schedule of Fees and Rebates

December 3, 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 December 1, 2020, NYSE National, Inc. (``NYSE National'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 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 its Schedule of Fees and Rebates
(``Fee Schedule'') to modify Adding Tier 2 and Removing Tier 1. The
Exchange proposes to implement the rule change on December 1, 2020. 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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to modify Adding
Tier 2 and Removing Tier 1.
    The proposed changes respond to the current competitive environment
where order flow providers have a choice of where to direct liquidity-
providing and liquidity-removing orders by offering further incentives
for ETP Holders to send additional displayed and non-displayed
liquidity to the Exchange. The proposed changes also respond to the
current volatile market environment that has resulted in unprecedented
average daily volumes, which is related to the ongoing spread of the
novel coronavirus (``COVID-19'').
    The Exchange proposes to implement the rule change on December 1,
2020.
Current Market and Competitive Environment
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. The
Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over
regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services
in the securities markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the
Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining
prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation
of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in promoting
market competition in its broader forms that are most important to
investors and listed companies.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (S7-10-04) (Final Rule) (``Regulation
NMS'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While Regulation NMS has enhanced competition, it has also fostered
a ``fragmented'' market structure where trading in a single stock can
occur across multiple trading centers. When multiple trading centers
compete for order flow in the same stock, the Commission has recognized
that ``such competition can lead to the fragmentation of order flow in
that stock.'' \5\ Indeed, equity trading is currently dispersed across
16 exchanges,\6\ 31 alternative trading

systems,\7\ and numerous broker-dealer internalizers and wholesalers.
Based on publicly-available information, no single exchange has more
than 16% of the market share of executed volume of equity trades
(whether excluding or including auction volume).\8\ Therefore, no
exchange possesses significant pricing power in the execution of equity
order flow. More specifically, the Exchange's share of executed volume
of equity trades in Tapes A, B and C securities is less than 2%.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61358, 75 FR 3594,
3597 (January 21, 2010) (File No. S7-02-10) (Concept Release on
Equity Market Structure).
    \6\ See Cboe Global Markets, U.S. Equities Market Volume
Summary, available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/. See generally https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/divisionsmarketregmrexchangesshtml.html.
    \7\ See FINRA ATS Transparency Data, available at https://otctransparency.finra.org/otctransparency/AtsIssueData. Although 54
alternative trading systems were registered with the Commission as
of July 29, 2019, only 31 are currently trading. A list of
alternative trading systems registered with the Commission is
available at https://www.sec.gov/foia/docs/atslist.htm.
    \8\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Equities Market Volume Summary,
available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/.
    \9\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
move order flow, or discontinue or reduce use of certain products, in
response to fee changes. While it is not possible to know a firm's
reason for moving order flow, the Exchange believes that one such
reason is because of fee changes at any of the registered exchanges or
non-exchange trading venues to which a firm routes order flow. These
fees vary month to month, and not all are publicly available. With
respect to non-marketable order flow that would provide liquidity on an
exchange, ETP Holders can choose from any one of the 16 currently
operating registered exchanges to route such order flow. Accordingly,
competitive forces constrain the Exchange's transaction fees, and
market participants can readily trade on competing venues if they deem
pricing levels at those other venues to be more favorable.
    The Exchange utilizes a ``taker-maker'' or inverted fee model to
attract orders that provide liquidity at the most competitive prices.
Under the taker-maker model, offering rebates for taking (or removing)
liquidity increases the likelihood that market participants will send
orders to the Exchange to trade with liquidity providers' orders. This
increased taker order flow provides an incentive for market
participants to send orders that provide liquidity. The Exchange
generally charges fees for order flow that provides liquidity. These
fees are reasonable due to the additional marketable interest (in part
attracted by the Exchange's rebate to remove liquidity) with which
those order flow providers can trade.
Proposed Rule Change
    To respond to this competitive environment, the Exchange proposes
the following changes to its Fee Schedule designed to provide order
flow providers with incentives to route liquidity-providing order flow
to the Exchange. As described above, ETP Holders with liquidity-
providing order flow have a choice of where to send that order flow.
Proposed Change To Adding Tier 2
    Under current Adding Tier 2, ETP Holders that add liquidity to the
Exchange in securities with a per share price of $1.00 or more and that
have at least 0.15% or more of ADV of adding liquidity as a percentage
of US CADV are charged a fee of $0.0022 per share for adding displayed
orders in Tape A, B, and C securities. The Exchange proposes to revise
Adding Tier 2 by modifying the requirements to qualify for the tier, as
follows (proposed additions underlined, deletions bracketed):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Tier requirement                        Adding rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adding Tier 2:
    At least [0.15%] 0.13% or more Adding     Displayed liquidity: Tapes
     ADV as a % of US CADV.                    A, B and C: $0.0022.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange does not propose any changes to the Adding Rate for
Adding Tier 2, and the rate for Orders that add liquidity under the
Adding Tier 2 would remain unchanged.
    The Exchange believes that lowering the ADV requirement for Adding
Tier 2 from 0.15% to 0.13% or more Adding ADV as a percentage of US
CADV will allow greater numbers of ETP Holders to potentially qualify
for the tier, and will incentivize more ETP Holders to route their
liquidity-providing order flow to the Exchange in order to qualify for
the tier. This in turn would support the quality of price discovery on
the Exchange and provide additional price improvement opportunities for
incoming orders. The Exchange believes that by correlating the amount
of the fee to the level of orders sent by an ETP Holder that add
liquidity, the Exchange's fee structure would incentivize ETP Holders
to submit more orders that add liquidity to the Exchange, thereby
increasing the potential for price improvement to incoming marketable
orders submitted to the Exchange.
    As noted above, the Exchange operates in a competitive environment,
particularly as relates to attracting non-marketable orders, which add
liquidity to the Exchange. Currently, only a few ETP Holders have
qualified for Adding Tier 2. The Exchange does not know how much order
flow ETP Holders choose to route to other exchanges or to off-exchange
venues. Without having a view of ETP Holders' activity on other
exchanges and off-exchange venues, the Exchange has no way of knowing
whether this proposed rule change would result in any additional ETP
Holders directing orders to the Exchange in order to qualify for the
revised Adding Tier 2 rate. However, the Exchange believes there are
multiple additional ETP Holders that could qualify for the revised
Adding Tier 2, if they so choose, based on their current trading
profiles.
Proposed Changes To Removing Tier 1
    Under current Removing Tier 1, the Exchange provides a rebate of
$0.0030 per share to ETP Holders that remove liquidity from the
Exchange in securities with a per share price of $1.00 or more and that
have (i) a combined Adding ADV and Removing ADV of at least 0.20% as a
% of US CADV, and (ii) 250,000 of Adding ADV.
    The Exchange proposes to revise Removing Tier 1 by modifying the
requirements to qualify for the tier, as follows (proposed additions
underlined, deletions bracketed):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Tier requirement                       Removing rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Removing Tier 1:
    At least [0.20%] 0.18% Adding ADV and Removing ADV         ($0.0030)
     combined as a % of US CADV and 250,000 Adding ADV
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange does not propose any changes to the Removing Rate for
Orders that removed liquidity that qualify for Removing Tier 1, and the
rate for such orders under Removing Tier 1 would remain unchanged.
    The Exchange believes that lowering the combined Adding ADV and
Removing ADV requirement for Removing Tier 1 from 0.20% to 0.18% as a
percentage of US CADV for ETP Holders that also have 250,000 Adding ADV
will allow greater numbers of ETP Holders to qualify for the tier, and
will incentivize more ETP Holders to route liquidity-removing order
flow to the Exchange in order to qualify for the tier. This is turn
would support the quality of price discovery on the Exchange and
provide additional price improvement opportunities for incoming orders.
    As described above, ETP Holders with liquidity-removing order flow
have a choice of where to send that order flow. The Exchange believes
that as a result of the proposed change to Removing Tier 1, more ETP
Holders will choose to route their liquidity-removing order flow to the
Exchange in order to qualify for the credits for removing liquidity
associated with Removing Tier 1 given that the requirements to qualify
have been reduced.
    As noted, the Exchange operates in a competitive environment.
Currently, only a few ETP Holders qualify for Removing Tier 1. The
Exchange does not know how much order flow ETP Holders choose to route
to other exchanges or to off-exchange venues. Without having a view of
ETP Holders' activity on other exchanges and off-exchange venues, the
Exchange has no way of knowing whether this proposed rule change would
result in any additional ETP Holders directing orders to the Exchange
in order to qualify for the revised Removing Tier 1 rate. However, the
Exchange believes there are multiple ETP Holders that could qualify for
the revised Removing Tier 1, if they so choose, based on their current
trading profiles.
    The proposed changes are not otherwise intended to address any
other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that ETP
Holders would have in complying with the proposed changes.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\10\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\11\ in
particular, because it provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and
other persons using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate
between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) & (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposed Change Is Reasonable
    As discussed above, the Exchange operates in a highly fragmented
and competitive market. The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting
market share among the exchanges from month to month demonstrates that
market participants can move order flow, or discontinue or reduce use
of certain categories of products, in response to fee changes. While it
is not possible to know a firm's reason for shifting order flow, the
Exchange believes that one such reason is because of fee changes at any
one of the registered exchanges or non-exchange trading venues that a
firm routes order flow to, which vary month to month, and not all of
which are publicly known. With respect to non-marketable order flow
that would provide liquidity on an Exchange, ETP Holders can choose
from any one of the 16 currently operating registered exchanges to
route such order flow. Accordingly, competitive forces constrain
exchange transaction fees that relate to orders that would provide
liquidity on an exchange.
    Given the current competitive environment, the Exchange believes
that the proposal represents a reasonable attempt to attract additional
order flow to the Exchange. Specifically, the Exchange believes that
the proposed revisions to Adding Tier 2 and Removing Tier 1 are
reasonable because they would promote execution opportunities for ETP
Holders routing order flow to the Exchange.
    The Exchange believes that the proposal as a whole represents a
reasonable effort to promote price improvement and enhanced order
execution opportunities for ETP Holders. All ETP Holders would benefit
from the greater amounts of liquidity on the Exchange, which would
represent a wider range of execution opportunities.
The Proposal Is an Equitable Allocation of Fees
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change equitably allocates
its fees among its market participants. The proposed change would
continue to encourage ETP Holders to both submit additional liquidity
to the Exchange and execute orders on the Exchange, thereby
contributing to robust levels of liquidity, to the benefit of all
market participants.
    The Exchange believes that modifying Adding Tier 2 and Removing
Tier 1 would encourage the submission and removal of additional
liquidity from the Exchange, thus enhancing order execution
opportunities for ETP Holders from the substantial amounts of liquidity
present on the Exchange. All ETP Holders would benefit from the greater
amounts of liquidity that would be present on the Exchange, which would
provide greater execution opportunities.
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change would also improve
market quality for all market participants seeking to remove liquidity
on the Exchange and, as a consequence, attract more liquidity to the
Exchange, thereby improving market-wide quality. The proposal neither
targets nor will it have a disparate impact on any particular category
of market participant.
    Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposal constitutes
an equitable allocation of fees because all similarly situated ETP
Holders and other market participants would be eligible for the same
general and tiered rates and would be eligible for the same fees and
credits. Moreover, the proposed change is equitable because the revised
fees would apply equally to all similarly situated ETP Holders.
The Proposal Is Not Unfairly Discriminatory
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is not unfairly
discriminatory. In the prevailing competitive environment, ETP Holders
are free to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they believe that
alternatives offer them better value.
    Moreover, the proposal neither targets nor will it have a disparate
impact on any particular category of market participant. The Exchange
believes that the proposal does not permit unfair discrimination
because the proposal would be applied to all similarly situated ETP
Holders and all ETP Holders would be subject to the same modified
Adding Tier 2 and Removing Tier 1. Accordingly, no ETP Holder already
operating on the Exchange would be disadvantaged by the proposed
allocation of fees and credits.
    The Exchange further believes that the proposed changes would not
permit unfair discrimination among ETP Holders because the tiered rates
are available equally to all ETP Holders. As described above, in
today's competitive marketplace, order flow providers have a choice of
where to direct liquidity-providing order flow, and the Exchange
believes there are additional ETP Holders that could qualify if they
chose

to direct their order flow to the Exchange.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant
competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement
regarding the burden on competition.
    For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal
is consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\12\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. Instead, as discussed above, the Exchange believes
that the proposed change would encourage the submission of additional
liquidity and order flow to a public exchange, thereby enhancing order
execution opportunities for ETP Holders. As a result, the Exchange
believes that the proposed change furthers the Commission's goal in
adopting Regulation NMS of fostering competition among orders, which
promotes ``more efficient pricing of individual stocks for all types of
orders, large and small.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \13\ Regulation NMS, 70 FR at 37498-99.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Intramarket Competition. The proposed change is designed to attract
additional order flow to the Exchange. As described above, the Exchange
believes that the proposed change would provide additional incentives
for market participants to route liquidity-providing and liquidity-
removing orders to the Exchange. Greater liquidity benefits all market
participants on the Exchange by providing more trading opportunities
and encourages ETP Holders to send orders, thereby contributing to
robust levels of liquidity. The proposed revised fees would be
available to all similarly-situated market participants, and thus, the
proposed change would not impose a disparate burden on competition
among market participants on the Exchange.
    Intermarket Competition. The Exchange operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily choose to
send their orders to other exchanges and off-exchange venues if they
deem fee levels at those other venues to be more favorable. As noted
above, the Exchange's market share of intraday trading in Tapes A, B
and C securities is less than 2%. In such an environment, the Exchange
must continually adjust its fees and rebates to remain competitive with
other exchanges and off-exchange venues. Because competitors are free
to modify their own fees and credits in response, and because market
participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the
Exchange does not believe its proposed fee change can impose any burden
on intermarket competition.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change could promote
competition between the Exchange and other execution venues, including
those that currently offer similar order types and comparable
transaction pricing, by encouraging additional orders to be sent to the
Exchange for execution.

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \14\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \15\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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) \16\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 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-NYSENAT-2020-35 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-NYSENAT-2020-35. 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-NYSENAT-2020-35, and should be submitted
on or before December 30, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-26993 Filed 12-8-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P