[Federal Register: May 4, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 85)]
[Notices]
[Page 23785-23792]
[DOCID:fr04my10-101]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2010-0014]

Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of guidance.

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

SUMMARY: This Notice provides guidelines that describe the application
process for grants and the criteria for awarding grants in the 2010
Assistance to Firefighters Grant program year, as well as an
explanation for any differences from the guidelines recommended by
representatives of the Nation's fire service leadership during the
annual Criteria Development meeting. The program makes grants directly
to fire departments and nonaffiliated emergency medical services
organizations for the purpose of enhancing first-responders' abilities
to protect the health and safety of the public as well as that of
first-responder personnel facing fire and fire-related hazards. In
addition, the authorizing statute requires that a minimum of 5 percent
of appropriated funds be expended for fire prevention and safety
grants, which are also made directly to local fire departments and to
local, regional, State or national entities recognized for their
expertise in the field of fire prevention and firefighter safety
research and development.

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 2229, 2229a.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Harrington, Acting Director,
Assistance to Firefighters Program Office, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security/FEMA, Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program, TechWorld
Building--5th Floor South Tower, 800 K Street, NW., Washington, DC,
20472-3620.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the Assistance to
Firefighters Grant (AFG) Program is to provide grants directly to fire
departments and nonaffiliated Emergency Medical Services (EMS)
organizations to enhance their ability to protect the health and safety
of the public, as well as that of first-responder personnel, with
respect to fire and fire-related hazards.

Appropriations

    For fiscal year 2010, Congress appropriated $390,000,000 to carry
out the activities of the AFG Program. The Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) is authorized to use up to

$19,500,000 for administration of the AFG program (5 percent of the
appropriated amount); however, the Executive Branch has limited the
funds available for administration to 4 percent of the appropriation
($15,600,000). In addition, DHS must set aside no less than $19,500,000
of the funds (5 percent of the appropriation) for the Fire Prevention
and Safety Grants (FP&S). However, for fiscal year 2010, DHS will award
$35,000,000 for FP&S. Under FP&S, DHS may make grants to, or enter into
contracts or cooperative agreements with, national, State, local or
community organizations or agencies, including fire departments, for
the purpose of carrying out fire prevention grants and firefighter
safety research and development grants.
    The $339,400,000 will be used for competitive grants to fire
departments and nonaffiliated EMS organizations for equipment, training
and first responders' safety. Within the portion of funding available
for these competitive grants, DHS must assure that no less than 3.5
percent of the appropriation, or $13,650,000, is awarded for EMS
equipment and training. However, awards to nonaffiliated EMS
organizations are limited to no more than 2 percent of the
appropriation or $7,800,000. Therefore, at least the balance of the
requisite awards for EMS equipment and training must go to fire
departments.

Background

    DHS awards the grants on a competitive basis to the applicants that
best address the AFG program's priorities and provide the most
compelling justification. Applicants whose requests best address the
program's priorities will be reviewed by a panel composed of fire
service personnel. The panel will review the narrative and evaluate the
application in four different areas: (1) The clarity of the proposed
project description, (2) the organization's financial need, (3) the
benefit to be derived from the proposed project relative to the cost,
and (4) the extent to which the grant would enhance the applicant's
daily operations and/or how the grant would positively impact the
applicant's ability to protect life and property.
    The AFG program for 2010 generally mirrors previous years' AFG
programs. The program will again segregate the FP&S program from the
AFG. DHS will have a separate application period devoted solely to FP&S
tentatively scheduled to occur in the Fall of 2010. All applications
will be accessible from https://portal.fema.gov.
    Congress has enacted statutory limits to the amount of funding that
a grantee may receive from the AFG program in any fiscal year (15
U.S.C. 2229(b)(10)). These limits are based on population served. A
grantee that serves a jurisdiction with 500,000 people or less may not
receive grant funding in excess of $1,000,000 in any fiscal year. A
grantee that serves a jurisdiction with more than 500,000 but not more
than 1,000,000 people may not receive grants in excess of $1,750,000 in
any fiscal year. A grantee that serves a jurisdiction with more than
1,000,000 people may not receive grants in excess of $2,750,000 in any
fiscal year. DHS may waive these established limits to any grantee
serving a jurisdiction of 1,000,000 people or less if DHS determines
that extraordinary need for assistance warrants the waiver. No grantee,
under any circumstance, may receive ``more than the lesser of
$2,750,000 or one half of one percent of the funds appropriated under
this section for a single fiscal year.'' (15 U.S.C. 2229(b)(10)(B)).
    Grantees must share in the costs of the projects funded under this
grant program (15 U.S.C. 2229(b)(6)). Fire departments and
nonaffiliated EMS organizations that serve populations of less than
20,000 must match the Federal grant funds with an amount of non-Federal
funds equal to 5 percent of the total project cost. Fire departments
and nonaffiliated EMS organizations serving areas with a population
between 20,000 and 50,000, inclusive, must match the Federal grant
funds with an amount of non-Federal funds equal to 10 percent of the
total project cost. Fire departments and nonaffiliated EMS
organizations that serve populations of over 50,000 must match the
Federal grant funds with an amount of non-Federal funds equal to 20
percent of the total project costs. All non-Federal funds must be in
cash, i.e., in-kind contributions are not eligible. The only waiver
granted for this requirement will be for applicants located in Insular
Areas as provided for in 48 U.S.C. 1469a.
    The authorizing statute imposes additional requirements on ensuring
a distribution of grant funds among career, volunteer, and combination
(volunteer and career personnel) fire departments, and among urban,
suburban and rural communities. More specifically with respect to
department types, DHS must ensure that all-volunteer or combination
fire departments receive a portion of the total grant funding that is
not less than the proportion of the United States population that those
departments protect (15 U.S.C. 2229(b)(11)). There is no corresponding
minimum for career departments. Therefore, subject to the other
statutory limitations on DHS ability to award funds, DHS will ensure
that, for the 2009 program year, no less than 34 percent of the funding
available for grants will be awarded to combination departments, and no
less than 21 percent will be awarded to all-volunteer departments.
These figures were obtained from the National Fire Protection
Association report entitled U.S. Department Profile Through 2008,
issued October 2009. If, and only if, other statutory limitations
inhibit DHS ability to ensure this distribution of funding, DHS will
ensure that the aggregate combined total percent of funding provided to
both combination and volunteer departments is no less than 55 percent.
    DHS generally makes funding decisions using rank order resulting
from the panel evaluation. However, DHS may deviate from rank order and
make funding decisions based on the type of department (career,
combination, or volunteer) and/or the size and character of the
community the applicant serves (urban, suburban, or rural) to the
extent it is required to satisfy statutory provisions.

Fire Prevention and Safety Grant Program

    In addition to the grants available to fire departments in fiscal
year 2010 through the competitive grant program, DHS will set aside
$35,000,000 of the funds available under the AFG program to make grants
to, or enter into contracts or cooperative agreements with, national,
State, local or community organizations or agencies, including fire
departments, for the purpose of carrying out fire prevention and injury
prevention projects, and for research and development grants that
address firefighter safety.
    In accordance with the statutory requirement to fund fire
prevention activities, support to Fire Prevention and Safety Grant
activities concentrates on organizations that focus on the prevention
of injuries to children from fire. In addition to this priority, DHS
places an emphasis on funding innovative projects that focus on
protecting children under 14, seniors over 65, and firefighters.
Because the victims of burns experience both short- and long-term
physical and psychological effects, DHS places a priority on programs
that focus on reducing the immediate and long-range effects of fire and
burn injuries.
    DHS will issue an announcement regarding pertinent details of the
Fire Prevention and Safety Grant portion of

this program prior to the application period.

Application Process

    Prior to the start of the application period, DHS will conduct
applicant workshops across the country to inform potential applicants
about the AFG program for 2010. In addition, DHS will provide
applicants an online Web-based tutorial and other information to use in
preparing a quality application. Applicants are advised to access the
application electronically at https://portal.fema.gov. New applicants
will have to register and establish a username and password for secure
access to their application. Applicants that have applied to any AFG
funding opportunities in the past will have to use their established
username and passwords. In completing the application, applicants will
provide relevant information on the applicant's characteristics, call
volume, and existing capacities. Applicants will answer questions
regarding their assistance request that reflects the funding priorities
(iterated below). In addition, each applicant will complete a narrative
addressing statutory competitive factors: financial need, benefits/
costs, and improvement to the organization's daily operations. During
the application period, applicants will be encouraged to contact DHS
via a toll free number or online help desk with any questions. The
electronic application process will permit the applicant to enter data
and save the application for further use, and will not permit the
submission of incomplete applications. Except for the narrative, the
application uses a ``point-and-click'' selection process, or requires
the entry of information (e.g., name and address, call volume numbers,
etc.).
    The application period for the AFG grants will open on or about
March 29, 2010, and close on or about April 30, 2010. Interested
applicants are encouraged to read the Program Guidance for more
details. During the approaching application season, the program office
expects to receive between 20,000 and 25,000 applications.

Application Review Process

    DHS evaluates all applications in the preliminary screening process
to determine which applications best address the program's announced
funding priorities. This preliminary screening evaluates and scores the
applicants' answers to the activity specific questions. Applications
containing multiple activities will be given prorated scores based on
the amount of funding requested for each activity. The best
applications as determined in the preliminary step are deemed to be in
the ``competitive range.''
    Once the competitive range is established DHS will review the list
of applicants that are not included in the competitive range to
determine if any of those applicants are responsible for protecting
DHS-specified critical infrastructure or key resources. If it is
determined that an applicant has responsibility for protecting one or
more critical infrastructure or key resources but is not included in
the competitive range, DHS will determine whether it is appropriate to
place that application before the peer review panel due to the
importance of its mission to protect these critical resources. Adding
additional applications to peer review will not affect the number of
applications that would have been reviewed by the peer reviewers or
otherwise undermine the process used to determine the competitive
range. Peer review panelists will not be aware of which applications
may have been added to the universe of applications at panel as a
result of this initiative. All applications will be peer reviewed
against the criteria described in this document.
    All applications in the competitive range are subject to a second
level review by a technical evaluation panel made up of individuals
from the fire service including, but not limited to, firefighters, fire
marshals, and fire training instructors. The panelists will assess the
application's merits with respect to the clarity and detail provided
about the project, the applicant's financial need, the project's
purported benefit to be derived from the cost, and the effectiveness of
the project to enhance the health and safety of the public and fire
service personnel.
    Using the evaluation criteria included here, the panelists will
independently score each application before them and then discuss the
merits and shortcomings of the application in an effort to reconcile
any major discrepancies. A consensus on the score is not required. The
panelists will assign a score to each of the elements detailed above.
DHS will then consider the highest scoring applications resulting from
this second level of review for awards. Applications that involve
interoperable communications projects will undergo a separate review by
the State Administrative Agency to assure that the communications
project is consistent with the Statewide Communications
Interoperability Plan (SCIP). If the State determines that the project
is inconsistent with the State SCIP, the project will not be funded.
    After the completion of the reviews, DHS will select a sufficient
number of awardees from this application period to obligate all of the
available grant funding. DHS will announce the awards over several
months and will notify non-successful applicants as soon as feasible.
DHS will not make awards in any specified order, i.e., not by State,
program, nor any other characteristic.
    Modification to facility projects (including renovations associated
with equipment installations) are subject to all applicable
environmental and historic preservation requirements. Applicants
seeking assistance to modify their facilities or to install equipment
requiring renovations may undergo additional screening. Specifically,
DHS is required to ascertain to what degree the proposed modifications
and renovations might affect an applicant's facility relative to the
National Environmental Policy Act, National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966, National Flood Insurance Program regulations, and any other
applicable laws and Executive Orders. No project that involves a
modification to facility can proceed--except for project planning--
prior to formal written approval from DHS. If your award includes a
modification to a facility, you are responsible for contacting the
Program Office so you can be given direction on how to proceed.
Noncompliance with these provisions may jeopardize an applicant's award
and subsequent funding.

Criteria Development Process

    Each year, DHS conducts a criteria development meeting to develop
the program's priorities for the coming year. DHS brings together a
panel of fire service professionals representing the leadership of the
nine major fire service organizations:
     Congressional Fire Service Institute (CFSI),
     International Association of Arson Investigators (IAAI),
     International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC),
     International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF),
     International Society of Fire Service Instructors (ISFSI),
     National Association of State Fire Marshals (NASFM),
     National Fire Protection Association (NFPA),
     National Volunteer Fire Council (NVFC), and
     North American Fire Training Directors (NAFTD).

    The criteria development panel is charged with making
recommendations to the grants program office regarding the creation
and/or modification of program priorities as well as development of
criteria and definitions as necessary.
    The governing statute requires that DHS publish each year in the
Federal Register the guidelines that describe the application process
and the criteria for grant awards. DHS must also include an explanation
of any differences between the published guidelines and the
recommendations made by the criteria development panel. The guidelines
and the statement regarding the differences between the guidelines and
the criteria development panel recommendations must be published in the
Federal Register prior to making any grants under the program. (15
U.S.C. 2229(b)(14)).
    The Fiscal year 2010 criteria development panel meeting occurred
July 20-24, 2009. During the criteria development panel meeting, the
group discussed the 2010 program year under the assumption that the
changes that had been proposed in draft reauthorization language would
be implemented in 2010. But, the reauthorization has not been enacted,
so the 2010 AFG funding opportunity will replicate the 2009 program
with the following exception:
     In 2009, we gave a higher consideration for ``source
capture'' vehicle exhaust extraction systems over either vehicle
mounted systems or ambient air systems. For 2010, any system that
handles vehicle exhaust will receive the same consideration. The
criteria development group did not recommend this equality; they
recommended that ambient air systems receive a lower priority.

Review Considerations

Fire Department Priorities

    Specific rating criteria for each of the eligible programs and
activities are discussed below. The funding priorities described in
this Notice have been recommended by a panel of representatives from
the Nation's fire service leadership and have been accepted by DHS for
the purposes of implementing the AFG. These rating criteria provide an
understanding of the grant program's priorities and the expected cost-
effectiveness of any proposed project(s). The activities listed below
are in no particular order of priority. Within each activity, DHS will
consider the population served by the applicant with higher populations
afforded a higher consideration than applicants with lower populations.
DHS will further explain program priorities in program guidance to be
published separately.
    (1) Operations and Firefighter Safety Program.
    (i) Training Activities. In implementing the fire service's
recommendations, DHS has determined that the most benefit will be
derived from instructor-led, hands-on training that leads to a
nationally sanctioned or State certification. Training requests that
include Web-based home study or distance learning or the purchase of
training materials, equipment, or props are a lower priority.
Therefore, applications focused on national or State certification
training, including train-the-trainer initiatives, will receive a
higher competitive rating. Training that (1) involves instructors, (2)
requires the students to demonstrate their grasp of knowledge of the
training material via testing, and (3) is integral to a certification
will receive a high competitive rating. Instructor-led training that
does not lead to a certification, and any self-taught courses, are of
lower benefit, and therefore will not receive a high priority.
    DHS will give higher priority, within the limitations imposed by
statute, to training proposals which improve coordination capabilities
across disciplines (Fire, EMS, and Police), and jurisdictions (local,
State, and Federal). Training related to coordinated incident response
(i.e., bomb threat or Improvised Explosive Device response), tactical
emergency communications procedures, or similar types of
interdisciplinary, inter-jurisdictional training will receive the
highest competitive rating.
    Due to the inherent differences between urban, suburban, and rural
firefighting characteristics, DHS has accepted the recommendations of
the criteria development panel for different priorities in the training
activities of departments that service these different types of
communities. CBRNE awareness training has a high benefit, however, and
will receive the highest consideration regardless of the type of
community served and regardless of the absence of any national
standard.
    For fire departments serving rural communities, DHS has determined
that funding basic, operational-level firefighting, operational-level
rescue, driver training, and first-responder EMS, Emergency Medical
Technician-Basic (EMT-B), and Emergency Medical Technician-Intermediate
(EMT-I) training (i.e., training in basic firefighting, EMS, and rescue
duties) has greater benefit than funding officer training, safety
officer training, or incident-command training. In rural communities,
after basic training, there is a greater cost-benefit ratio for officer
training than for other specialized types of training such as mass
casualty, hazardous materials (HAZMAT), advanced rescue and Emergency
Medical Technician-Paramedic (EMT-P), or inspector training.
    Conversely, for departments that are serving urban or suburban
communities, DHS has determined that, due to the number of firefighters
and the relatively high percentage of the population protected, any
training requests will receive a high priority rating regardless of the
level of training requested. As such, when considering applications for
training from departments serving urban and suburban communities, DHS
will give higher priority to training proposals which improve
coordination capabilities across first-responder disciplines (fire,
EMS, and law enforcement), and jurisdictions (local, State, and
Federal). Training related to coordinated incident response (e.g.,
weapons of mass destruction awareness and incident operations, chemical
or biological operations, or bomb threats), tactical emergency
communications procedures, or similar types of interdisciplinary,
inter-jurisdictional training will receive the highest competitive
rating.
    (ii) Wellness and Fitness Activities. In implementing the criteria
panel's recommendations, DHS has determined that fire departments must
offer periodic health screenings, entry physical examinations, and an
immunization program to have an effective wellness/fitness program.
Accordingly, applicants for grants in this category must currently
offer or plan to offer with grant funds all three benefits to receive
funding for any other initiatives in this activity. After the provision
of the three requisite benefits, the criteria development panel
recommended providing the highest consideration to candidate physical
agility evaluations. DHS will give a lower priority to formal fitness
and injury prevention programs. DHS will give the lowest priority to
stress management, injury/illness rehabilitation, and employee
assistance.
    DHS has determined the greatest relative benefit will be realized
by supporting new wellness and fitness programs. Therefore, applicants
for new wellness/fitness programs will receive higher competitive
ratings when compared with applicants whose wellness/fitness programs
lack one or more of the three top priority items cited above, and
applicants that already

employ the requisite three activities of a wellness/fitness program.
Finally, because participation is critical to achieving any benefits
from a wellness or fitness program, applications that mandate
participation and are open to all personnel or provide incentives for
participation will receive higher competitive ratings.
    (iii) Equipment Acquisition. As stated in the AFG statute, DHS
administers this grant program to protect the health and safety of
firefighters and the public from fire and fire-related hazards. As
such, equipment that has a direct effect on the health and safety of
either firefighters or the public will receive a higher competitive
rating than equipment that has no such effect. Equipment that promotes
interoperability with neighboring jurisdictions (especially for
communications equipment interoperable with a regional shared system)
will receive additional consideration in the cost-benefit assessment if
the application makes it into the competitive range.
    The criteria development panel concluded that this grant program
will achieve the greatest benefits if the grant program provides funds
to purchase firefighting equipment (including rescue, EMS, and/or CBRNE
preparedness) that the applicant has not owned prior to the grant, or
to replace used or obsolete equipment.
    According to the panel, a department takes on a ``new mission''
when it expands its services into areas not previously offered, such as
a fire department seeking funding to provide emergency medical services
for the first time. A ``new risk'' presents itself when a department
must address risks that have materialized in the department's area of
responsibility, e.g., the construction of a plant that uses significant
levels of certain chemicals could constitute a ``new risk.'' An
organization taking on ``new risks'' should be afforded higher
consideration than departments taking on a ``new mission.'' New
missions receive a lower priority due to the potential that an
applicant will not be able to financially support and sustain the new
mission beyond the period of the grant.
    Departments responding to high call volumes will be afforded a
higher competitive rating than departments responding to lower call
volumes. In other words, those departments that are required to respond
more frequently will receive a higher competitive rating then those
that respond less frequently.
    The purchase of equipment that brings the department into statutory
or regulatory compliance will provide the highest benefit and therefore
will receive the highest consideration. The purchase of equipment that
brings a department into voluntary compliance with national standards
will also receive a high competitive rating, but not as high as for the
purchase of equipment that brings a department into statutory
compliance. The purchase of equipment that does not affect statutory
compliance or voluntary compliance with a national standard will
receive a lower competitive rating.
    (iv) Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Acquisition. The primary
purpose of AFG is to protect the health and safety of the public and of
firefighters. To achieve this goal and maximize the benefit to the
firefighting community, the FY 2010 AFG will give higher priority to
funding applicants needing to purchase PPE for the first time (i.e.,
for new firefighters) than departments replacing old and obsolete or
substandard equipment (e.g., equipment not meeting current NFPA and
Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards). In
applications that request funding to replace equipment, the age and
condition of the PPE that is to be replaced will be the primary
consideration with the replacement of older or worn-out equipment
receiving higher consideration than requests for replacement of newer
equipment.
    For departments replacing equipment such as ``turnout gear,'' the
condition of the equipment to be replaced will be factored into the
score with a higher priority given to replacing equipment that is
damaged, torn, or contaminated over equipment that is worn but usable.
For departments replacing old or damaged equipment, departments with
the oldest equipment will receive the highest priority, and departments
with the newest equipment will receive a low priority.
    Finally, DHS takes into account the number of fire response calls
that a department makes in a year with the higher priority going to
departments with higher call volumes, while applications from
departments with low call volumes are afforded lower competitive
ratings.
    (v) Modifications to Fire Stations and Facilities. DHS believes
that more benefit is derived from modifying fire stations than by
modifying fire-training facilities or other fire-related facilities.
The highest priority has been assigned to initiatives that have an
immediate effect on life and safety of firefighters. Initiatives such
as sprinkler systems, and fire/smoke alarm systems will be afforded the
highest priority. The next priority has been assigned to generators,
exhaust evacuation systems, vehicle mounted exhaust filtration systems
and ambient air systems. The frequency of use for any structure has a
bearing on the benefits derived from grant funds. As such, DHS will
afford facilities occupied 24-hours-per-day/7-days-a-week the highest
consideration when contrasted with facilities used on a part-time or
irregular basis. Fire stations with sleeping quarters will receive
higher consideration than stations where there are no sleeping quarters
for firefighters. Facilities open for broad usage and have a high
occupancy capacity receive a higher competitive rating than facilities
that have limited use and/or low occupancy capacity. The frequency and
duration of a facility's occupancy have a direct relationship to the
benefits realized from funding in this activity.
    (2) Firefighting Vehicle Acquisition Program. Due to the inherent
differences between urban, suburban, and rural firefighting
conventions, DHS has developed different priorities in the vehicle
program for departments that service different types of communities.
The following chart delineates the priorities in this program area for
each type of community. Due to the competitive nature of this program
and the imposed limits of funding available for this program, it is
unlikely that DHS will fund many vehicles not listed as a Priority One
during the 2010 program year.

                                     Firefighting Vehicle Program Priorities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Priority                Urban communities          Suburban communities          Rural communities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority One                 Pumper                       Pumper                      Pumper
                             Aerial                       Aerial                      Brush/Attack
                             Quint (Aerial < 76')         Quint (Aerial > 76')        Tanker/Tender
                             Quint (Aerial < 76')         Quint (Aerial > 76')        Quint (Aerial < 76')

                             Rescue
Priority Two                 Command                      Command
                             HAZMAT                       HAZMAT                      HAZMAT
                             Light/Air                    Rescue                      Rescue
                             Rehab                        Tanker/Tender               Aerial
                             Foam Truck                   Brush/Attack                Quint (Aerial > 76')
                             Foam Truck                   Foam Truck
Priority Three               ARFFV \1\                    ARFFV \1\                   ARFFV \1\
                             Brush/Attack                 Rehab                       Rehab
                             Tanker/Tender                Light/Air                   Command
                             Ambulance                    Ambulance                   Ambulance
                             Fire Boat                    Fire Boat                   Fire Boat
                                                                                Light/Air
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Airport Rescue and Firefighting Vehicle.

    DHS will evaluate the marginal value derived from an additional
vehicle of any given type on the basis of call volume. As a result,
departments with fewer vehicles of a given type than other departments
who service comparable call volumes are more likely to score
competitively than departments with more vehicles of that type and
comparable call volume unless the need for an additional vehicle of
such type is made apparent in the application.
    Applicants from urban and suburban communities may submit requests
for more than one vehicle. Applicants must supply sufficient
justification for each vehicle contained in the request. For those
applications with multiple vehicles, the panelists will be instructed
to evaluate the marginal benefit to be derived from funding the
additional vehicle(s) given the potential use and the population
protected. DHS anticipates that the panels will only recommend an award
for a multiple-vehicles application when the cost-benefit justification
is adequately compelling.
    DHS believes that a greater benefit will be derived from funding an
additional vehicle(s) to departments that own fewer or no vehicles of
the type requested. As such, DHS assigns a higher competitive rating in
the apparatus category to fire departments that own fewer firefighting
vehicles relative to other departments serving similar types of
communities (i.e., urban, suburban, and rural). DHS assesses all
vehicles with similar functions when assessing the number of vehicles a
department possesses within a particular type. For example, the
``pumper'' category includes: pumpers, engines, pumper/tankers
(apparatus that carries a minimum of 300 gallons of water and has a
pump with a capacity to pump a minimum of 750 gallons per minute),
rescue-pumpers, quints (with aerials less than 76 feet in length), and
urban interface vehicles (Type I). Apparatus that has water capacity in
excess of 1,000 gallons and a pump with pumping capacity of less than
750 gallons per minute are considered to be a tanker/tender.
    DHS assigns a higher competitive rating to departments possessing
an aged fleet of firefighting vehicles. In evaluating the age of an
applicant's fleet, DHS will take into account the oldest vehicle in the
class requested as well as the youngest vehicle in the class requested.
DHS will also take into account the average age of the applicants'
fleet. In each of these instances, older vehicles will receive higher
consideration. DHS will also assign a higher competitive rating to
departments that respond to a high volume of incidents.
    DHS will give lower priority to funding departments seeking
apparatus with the goal to expand into new mission areas unless the
applicant demonstrates that they will be able to support and sustain
the new mission or service area beyond the grant program.
    DHS will assign no competitive advantage to the purchase of
standard model commercial vehicles relative to custom vehicles, or the
purchase of used vehicles relative to new vehicles in the preliminary
evaluation of applications. DHS has noted that, depending on the type
and size of department, the peer review panelists often prefer low-cost
vehicles when evaluating the cost-benefit section of the project
narratives. DHS also reserves the right to consider current vehicle
costs within the fire service vehicle manufacturing industry when
determining the level of funding that will be offered to the potential
grantee, particularly if those current costs indicate that the
applicant's proposed purchase costs are excessive.
    DHS will allow departments serving urban or suburban communities to
apply for more than one vehicle. DHS, however, will only allow
departments serving rural communities to apply for one vehicle. DHS
will limit applications from suburban or urban departments to one
vehicle per station as well as per statutory funding limits. DHS will
not limit 2010 applications because of a vehicle award from previous
AFG program years.
    (3) Administrative Costs. Panelists will assess the reasonableness
of the administrative costs requested in any application and determine
if the request is reasonable and in the best interest of the program.
    Nonaffiliated EMS Organization Priorities.
    DHS may make grants for the purpose of enhancing the provision of
emergency medical services by nonaffiliated EMS organizations. The
authorizing statute limits funding for these organizations to no more
than 2 percent of the appropriated amount. DHS has determined that it
is more cost-effective to enhance or expand an existing emergency
medical service organization by providing training and/or equipment
than to create a new service. Communities that do not currently offer
emergency medical services but are turning to this grant program to
initiate such a service received the lowest competitive rating. DHS
does not believe creating a nonaffiliated EMS program is a substantial
and sufficient benefit under the program.
    Specific rating criteria and priorities for each of the grant
categories are provided below following the descriptions of this year's
eligible programs. The rating criteria, in conjunction with the program
description, provide an understanding of the evaluation standards. In
each

activity, the amount of the population served by the applicant will be
taken into consideration with higher populations afforded more
consideration than low populations served. DHS will further explain
program priorities in the Program Guidance upon publication thereof.
    (1) EMS Operations and Safety Program.
    Five different activities may be funded under this program area:
EMS training, EMS equipment, EMS personal protective equipment,
wellness and fitness, and modifications to facilities. Requests for
equipment and training to prepare for response to incidents involving
CBRNE were available under the applicable equipment and training
activities.
    (i) Training Activities. DHS believes that EMS training is a
prerequisite to the effective use of EMS equipment, organizations whose
requests are more focused on training activities will receive a higher
competitive rating than organizations whose requests are more focused
on equipment. A higher competitive rating will be given to
nonaffiliated EMS organizations that are planning to upgrade services
to Advanced Life Support (ALS) level of response. Specifically,
organizations that are seeking to elevate their response level from
EMT-B to EMT-I will receive the highest priority and organizations that
are seeking to elevate their response level from EMT-I to EMT-P will
receive a high priority. Our second priority is to elevate emergency
responders' capabilities from first-responder to a Basic Life Support
(BLS) level of response (i.e., EMT-B). Due to the time and cost,
upgrading an organization's response level from EMT-B to EMT-P is a
lower priority. Organizations seeking training in rescue or HAZMAT or
rescue operations will receive lower consideration than organizations
seeking training for medical services. Our lowest priority is to fund
first responder training. Organizations that are seeking to train a
high percentage of their active first responders will receive
additional consideration when applying under the training activity.
    (ii) EMS Equipment Acquisition. As noted above, training received a
higher competitive rating than equipment. DHS believes that equipment
is of no use if the operator is not trained to use it. As such,
applicants must demonstrate that users of equipment purchased with the
grant either are or will be sufficiently trained to use the equipment.
Inability to demonstrate and fulfill this training requirement will
result in ineligibility for equipment funding.
    Organizations that request training to the ALS level of response,
along with basic support equipment, will receive a higher priority.
Requests seeking assistance to purchase equipment to support BLS level
of response are a secondary priority. Organizations seeking equipment
for rescue or HAZMAT operations will receive lower consideration than
organizations seeking equipment used to provide medical services. Our
lowest priority is to fund first responder training.
    As discussed previously, organizations taking on ``new risks'' will
be afforded much higher consideration than an organization taking on a
``new mission.''
    (iii) EMS Personal Protective Equipment. DHS gives the same
priorities for EMS PPE as it did for fire department PPE discussed
above. Acquisition of Personal Alert Safety Systems or any firefighting
PPE is not eligible, however, for funding for EMS organizations.
    (iv) Wellness and Fitness Activities. DHS believes that to have an
effective wellness/fitness program, nonaffiliated EMS organizations
must offer periodic health screenings, entry physical examinations, and
an immunization program similar to the programs for fire departments
discussed previously. Accordingly, applicants for grants in this
category must currently offer or plan to offer with grant funds all
three benefits (periodic health screenings, entry physical
examinations, and an immunization program) to receive funding for any
other initiatives in this activity. The priorities for EMS wellness/
fitness programs are the same as for fire departments as discussed
above.
    (v) Modification to EMS Stations and Facilities. DHS believes that
the competitive rankings and priorities applied to modification of fire
stations and facilities, discussed above, apply equally to EMS stations
and facilities.
    (2) EMS Vehicle Acquisition Program.
    DHS gives the highest funding priority to acquisition of ambulances
and transport vehicles due to the inherent benefits to the community
and EMS service provider. Due to the costs associated with obtaining
and outfitting non-transport rescue vehicles relative to the benefits
derived from such vehicles, DHS will give non-transport rescue vehicles
a lower competitive rating than transport vehicles. DHS anticipates
that the EMS vehicle awards will be very competitive due to very
limited available funding. Accordingly, DHS will likely only fund
vehicles that are listed as a ``Priority One'' in the 2010 program
year.
    The following chart delineates the priorities in this program area
for EMS vehicle program. The priorities are the same regardless of the
type of community served.

                                         EMS Vehicle Program Priorities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Priority one                      Priority two                           Priority three
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Ambulance or transport    First responder non-      Command vehicles.
 unit to support EMS functions.    transport vehicles.
                                   Special operations        Hovercraft
                                   vehicles.
                                                                     Other special access vehicles.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Along with the priorities illustrated above, DHS has accepted the
fire service recommendation that emerged from the criteria development
process that funding applicants that own few or no vehicles of the type
sought will be more beneficial than funding applicants that own
numerous vehicles of that same type. DHS assesses the number of
vehicles an applicant owns by including all vehicles of the same type.
For example, transport vehicles will be considered the same as
ambulances. DHS will give a higher competitive rating to applicants
that have an aged fleet of emergency vehicles, and to applicants with
old, high-mileage vehicles. DHS will give a higher competitive rating
to applicants that respond to a significant number of incidents
relative to applicants responding less often. Finally, DHS will afford
applicants with transport vehicles with high mileage more consideration
than applicants with vehicles that are not driven extensively.
    (3) Administrative Costs. Panelists assess the reasonableness of
the administrative costs requested in each application and determined
whether the

request will be reasonable and in the best interest of the program.

    Dated: April 28, 2010.
W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2010-10385 Filed 5-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-64-P


Of these, adhesives and product formulators fall under the chemical formulators subcategory of the existing Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers point source category, and the printing activities fall under the new Printing and Publishing category recommended for further consideration by stakeholders ( see Section 2.0: Suggestions for Improving Implementation and Efficiency).

5.4 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response's Resource Conservation Challenge The Resource Conservation Challenge is a major national effort to find flexible, yet more protective ways to conserve our valuable resources through waste reduction and energy recovery activities that will improve public health and the environment. The RCC encompasses activities across EPA programs: waste, air, toxics, pollution prevention, pesticides, and compliance. It also includes activities in the EPA Regions, States, and Tribes. The RCC identifies areas of program focus   challenges   that are ready for voluntary partnerships. Each of these challenges works to resolve national environmental problems by finding environmentally acceptable solutions.

In an effort to identify successful resource conservation projects and coordinate the message of their successes, EPA identified several initial areas of focus, or " challenges." These challenges were either groups of related existing projects or areas of unfinished business that had the potential for development of successful voluntary partnerships. Challenge areas include:

° Construction and Demolition Debris ° Electronics Factor 4 Analysis: Implementation and Efficiency Considerations 5 7 ° Green Buildings ° Hospitals ° Industrial Wastes ° Paper ° Schools ° Targeted Chemicals ° Tires For each of these challenge areas, EPA has developed, or is currently developing, voluntary partnerships that will contribute to resource conservation. These partnerships are mutual,

consisting both of external partners' commitments to meet measurable objectives and EPA's commitment to provide appropriate support. For those willing to accept the Resource Conservation Challenge, EPA commits at the highest level to mobilize its institutional resources to bring sustained and focused attention and responsive decision making to achieving RCC goals. We will work with partners to create incentives that reward businesses and communities that meet program goals.

Under the National Waste Minimization Partnership Program ( a major RCC initiative),

member companies are setting specific waste minimization goals to reduce targeted chemicals and waste streams. As they achieve these goals, they reduce the mass loading of specified chemicals in waste materials to levels below existing compliance levels.

Although this program was not considered during the screening phase of the current planning cycle, information about its successes will be considered during the detailed investigation phase or during future planning cycles. EAD has begun a dialogue with OSWER about ways participation in the Resource Conservation Challenge program may justify a lower priority for consideration in the planning process for development or revision of effluent guidelines. This in turn would provide additional incentive for more facilities to join the program. Factor 4 Analysis: Implementation and Efficiency Considerations 5 8 In addition, EAD intends to evaluate industrial categories that are participating in the RCC program, especially the National Waste Minimization Partnership Program, during the detailed investigation phase. This program may present a viable alternative method to reduce discharges to surface water to address concerns identified during the screening phase of the current planning process. For more information about this program, see the EPA website at www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ osw/ conserve.

5.5 Pollutant Trading On January 13, 2003, U. S. EPA Administrator Christie Whitman announced a new Water Quality Trading Policy to reduce industrial, municipal, and agricultural discharges into the nation's waterways. The trading policy seeks to support and encourage states and tribes in developing and putting into place water quality trading programs that implement the requirements of the Clean Water and federal regulations in more flexible ways and reduce the cost of improving and maintaining the quality of the nation's waters. More information about EPA's trading policy is provided online at http:// www. epa. gov/ owow/ watershed/ trading. htm.

Seven commenters on the draft Strategy specifically addressed the issue of pollutant trading. Two commenters endorse EPA's consideration of trading, although one of these expressed concerns about permit language and anti backsliding. Four other commenters agree conditionally, specifying that trading should be limited to trading within single facilities for direct dischargers or single publicly owned treatment works ( POTWs) for indirect dischargers. One of these commenters presented a potential approach, but also identified issues with trading and noted that Pretreatment Regulations would have to be revised to allow it. The remaining commenter argues that in plant trading with no net decrease in loadings is not the proper subject of effluent guidelines.

During the June, 2003 teleconference with stakeholders in the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Authorities ( ASIWPCA) the subject of trading generated some discussion, with some stakeholders preferring it not be included in ELGs; while others support the Factor 4 Analysis: Implementation and Efficiency Considerations 5 9 possibility as a way to allow industries to remove more pollutants than is required and achieve a greater improvement in stream health. When looking at total stream health, there may be ways to adjust the limits to obtain a better result. For example, allowing higher manganese discharges allowed a discharger to avoid increasing the pH required for the higher removal rates and the result was an improvement in the receiving stream. These stakeholders also recommend trading be used for non toxic pollutants, such as dissolved oxygen parameters. ( This teleconference is discussed in more detail in Section 2.6.1: AMSA and ASIWPCA.)

Water quality trading uses economic incentives to improve water quality. It allows one source to meet its regulatory obligations by using pollutant reductions created by another source that has lower pollution control costs. The standards remain the same, but efficiency is increased and costs are decreased. Under the new policy, for example, industrial and municipal facilities would first meet technology control requirements and then could use pollution reduction credits generated by reducing pollutants below what is required and trade these with others.

In order for a water quality trade to take place, a pollution reduction " credit" must first be created. EPA's water quality trading policy is based on sources reducing pollution loads beyond the level required by the most stringent water quality based requirements in order to create a pollution reduction " credit" that can be traded. For example, a landowner or a farmer could create credits by changing cropping practices and planting shrubs and trees next to a stream. A municipal wastewater treatment plant then could use these credits to meet water quality limits in its permit.

The policy could save the public hundreds of millions of dollars by advancing more effective, efficient partnerships to clean up and protect watersheds. An independent study of three watersheds in Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin looked at the cost of controlling phosphorus loadings. ( World Resources Institute 2000) This study found that the cost of reducing phosphorus from controlling point sources to be considerably higher than those based on trading between point and non point sources which are not regulated by the Clean Water Act. Factor 4 Analysis: Implementation and Efficiency Considerations 5 10 Another example of innovative approaches to pollutant and risk reduction is in plant trading. For example, the " water bubble" is a regulatory flexibility mechanism included in the Iron and Steel regulation at 40 CFR 420.03 to allow for intra plant trading of conventional and toxic pollutants between outfalls at any single steel mill. The bubble has been used at some facilities to realize cost saving and/ or to facilitate compliance.

Based on the level of detailed, industry specific information required to evaluate the potential for a trading program, EAD was unable to evaluate the feasibility of trading during the screening level review phase. However, EAD intends to collect and consider information about trading for the categories selected for the detailed investigation phase of the planning process.

5.6 Other Voluntary Programs/ Pollution Prevention There are a number of voluntary programs sponsored or supported by EPA designed to achieve real environmental results. The Partners for the Environment web page ( http:// www. epa. gov/ partners/) describes a number of voluntary EPA programs. EAD has begun to explore these programs, starting with two approaches to voluntary loading reductions: Section 5.5.1 introduces Environmental Management Systems which are being implemented by many organizations; and Section 5.5.2 discusses State voluntary programs that have had success in reducing pollutant discharges to surface water.

5.6.1 Environmental Management Systems ( EMSs)

EMSs provide organizations of all types with a structured approach for managing environmental and regulatory responsibilities to improve overall environmental performance,

including areas not subject to regulation. EMSs can also help organizations better integrate the full scope of environmental considerations and get better results, by establishing a continuous process of checking to make sure environmental goals are met. EMS implementation ensures that procedures are in place for taking remedial action if problems occur. From a business perspective, Factor 4 Analysis: Implementation and Efficiency Considerations 5 11 benefits may include cost savings, increased operational efficiency and competitiveness, risk reduction, improved internal communication, and improved relations with external parties. EMSs typically incorporate a feedback mechanism that supports measurement of performance against a set of measurable objectives and provides a mechanism for correction or preventive action.

A strong EMS does not just set rules for employees: it tracks performance, fosters proactive identification and correction of problems, and provides a mechanism to prevent problems from recurring. Many organizations are adopting EMSs as a management tool. EPA encourages the use of EMSs because these tools have the potential to improve compliance rates and environmental performance. EAD expects to gather information about industry specific EMS programs during the detailed investigation phase of the current planning cycle.

Based on the level of detailed, industry specific information required to evaluate environmental management systems, EAD was unable to evaluate EMS during the screening level review phase. However, EAD intends to continue to collect information about EMS during the detailed investigation phase of the planning process. Factor 4 Analysis: Implementation and Efficiency Considerations 6 1 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS As a result of this Factor 4 screening level analysis, EAD identified two lists of industry categories for possible further consideration in the detailed investigation phase: ( 1) industry categories without effluent guidelines suggested for regulatory development, and ( 2) industry categories already covered by effluent guidelines suggested for regulatory revision. These recommendations were identified through stakeholder input and from observations provided by expert staff in EPA regions and headquarters, as discussed in Section 2.0 of this report. They are listed below.

13 Suggested Categories Without Effluent Guidelines Airport Industrial Discharges Independent and Stand Alone Laboratories Aquatic Animal Production Municipal Storm water Runoff Construction and Development Ocean Going Vessels ( cruise ships, ( storm water discharges) ballast and bilge water) Dental Facilities Printing and Publishing Drinking Water Supply and Treatment Prisons Food Service Establishments Wastewater Treatment & Sewerage Systems Groundwater Remediation Discharges 24 Suggested Categories with Existing Effluent Guidelines Canned and Preserved Fruits and Metal Products & Machinery Vegetables Processing Mineral Mining and Processing Canned and Preserved Seafood Oil and Gas Extraction: coal bed methane Coal Mining Ore Mining and Dressing ( hard rock mining) Coil Coating Organic Chemicals, Plastics, & Synthetic Fibers, Dairy Products Processing including chemical formulators, and Electrical and Electronic Components adhesives and sealants Electroplating Petroleum Refining, including petroleum bulk Fertilizer Manufacturing stations and terminals Hospitals Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard ( Phases 1, 2, and 3) Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing Steam Electric Power Generation Meat ( and Poultry) Products Textile Mills Metal Finishing Timber Products Processing Metal Molding and Casting Transportation Equipment Cleaning: industrial container & drum cleaning Factor 4 Analysis: Implementation and Efficiency Considerations 6 2 Some of these categories may not fall within the scope of section 304( m) of the Clean Water Act, and others may already be in the process of development or revision by EAD. Those determinations are made during the next step of the planning process. For a discussion of how EPA integrated these results with those of the other factor analyses, see the memorandum titled " Description and Results of EPA Methodology to Synthesize Screening Level Results for the CWA 304( m) Effluent Guidelines Program Plan for 2004/ 2005" ( DCN 00548).

During the detailed investigation phase of this planning cycle, EAD intends to consider as many of the other elements identified in this analysis as possible, including voluntary loading reductions, multi media concerns, and potential alternative approaches.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 23, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 84057-84062]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28312]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90707; File No. SR-NYSENAT-2020-37]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE National, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Rule 6.6800 Series

December 17, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on December 4, 2020, NYSE National, Inc. (``NYSE National'' or the
``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 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. 78a.
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Rule 6.6800 Series, the
Exchange's compliance rule (``Compliance Rule'') regarding the National
Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail (the ``CAT
NMS Plan'' or ``Plan'') \3\ to be consistent with a conditional
exemption granted by the Commission from certain allocation reporting
requirements set forth in Sections 6.4(d)(ii)(A)(1) and (2) of the CAT
NMS Plan (``Allocation Exemption'').\4\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Unless otherwise specified, capitalized terms used in this
rule filing are defined as set forth in the Compliance Rule.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 90223 (October 19,
2020), 85 FR 67576 (October 23, 2020) (``Allocation Exemptive
Order'').

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

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 purpose of this proposed rule change is to amend the Rule
6.6800 Series to be consistent with the Allocation Exemption. The
Commission granted the relief conditioned upon the Participants'
adoption of Compliance Rules that implement the alternative approach to
reporting allocations to the Central Repository described in the
Allocation Exemption (referred to as the ``Allocation Alternative'').
(1) Request for Exemptive Relief
    Pursuant to Section 6.4(d)(ii)(A) of the CAT NMS Plan, each
Participant must, through its Compliance Rule, require its Industry
Members to record and report to the Central Repository, if the order is
executed, in whole or in part: (1) An Allocation Report; \5\ (2) the
SRO-Assigned Market Participant Identifier of the clearing broker or
prime broker, if applicable; and the (3) CAT-Order-ID of any contra-
side order(s). Accordingly, the Exchange and the other Participants
implemented Compliance Rules that require their Industry Members that
are executing brokers to submit to the Central Repository, among other
things, Allocation Reports and the SRO-Assigned Market Participant
Identifier of the clearing broker or prime broker, if applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan defines an ``Allocation
Report'' as ``a report made to the Central Repository by an Industry
Member that identifies the Firm Designated ID for any account(s),
including subaccount(s), to which executed shares are allocated and
provides the security that has been allocated, the identifier of the
firm reporting the allocation, the price per share of shares
allocated, the side of shares allocated, the number of shares
allocated to each account, and the time of the allocation; provided
for the avoidance of doubt, any such Allocation Report shall not be
required to be linked to particular orders or executions.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 27, 2020, the Participants submitted to the Commission a
request for an exemption from certain allocation reporting requirements
set forth in Sections 6.4(d)(ii)(A)(1) and (2) of the CAT NMS Plan
(``Exemption Request'').\6\ In the Exemption Request, the Participants
requested that they be permitted to implement the Allocation
Alternative, which, as noted above, is an alternative approach to
reporting allocations to the Central Repository. Under the Allocation
Alternative, any Industry Member that performs an allocation to a
client account would be required under the Compliance Rule to submit an
Allocation Report to the Central Repository when shares/contracts are
allocated to a client account regardless of whether the Industry Member
was involved in executing the underlying order(s). Under the Allocation
Alternative, a ``client account'' would be any account that is not
owned or controlled by the Industry Member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See letter from the Participants to Vanessa Countryman,
Secretary, Commission, dated August 27, 2020 (the ``Exemption
Request'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, under the Allocation Alternative, an ``Allocation''
would be defined as: (1) The placement of shares/contracts into the
same account for which an order was originally placed; or (2) the
placement of shares/contracts into an account based on allocation
instructions (e.g., subaccount allocations, delivery versus payment
(``DVP'') allocations). Pursuant to this definition and the proposed
Allocation Alternative, an Industry Member that performs an Allocation
to an account that is not a client account, such as proprietary
accounts and events including step outs,\7\ or correspondent flips,\8\
would not be required to submit an Allocation Report to the Central
Repository for that allocation, but could do so on a voluntary basis.
Industry Members would be allowed to report Allocations to accounts
other than client accounts; in that instance, such Allocations must be
marked as Allocations to accounts other than client accounts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ ``A step-out allows a broker-dealer to allocate all or part
of a client's position from a previously executed trade to the
client's account at another broker-dealer. In other words, a step-
out functions as a client's position transfer, rather than a trade;
there is no exchange of shares and funds and no change in beneficial
ownership.'' See FINRA, Trade Reporting Frequently Asked Questions,
at Section 301, available at: https://www.finra.org/filing-reporting/market-transparency-reporting/trade-reporting-faq.
    \8\ Correspondent clearing flips are the movement of a position
from an executing broker's account to a different account for
clearance and settlement, allowing a broker-dealer to execute a
trade through another broker-dealer and settle the trade in its own
account. See, e.g., The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation,
Correspondent Clearing, available at: https://www.dtcc.com/clearing-services/equities-tradecapture/correspondent-clearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(A) Executing Brokers and Allocation Reports
    To implement the Allocation Alternative, the Participants requested
exemptive relief from Section 6.4(d)(ii)(A)(1) of the CAT NMS Plan, to
the extent that the provision requires each Participant to, through its
Compliance Rule, require its Industry Members that are executing
brokers, who do not perform Allocations, to record and report to the
Central Repository, if the order is executed, in whole or in part, an
Allocation Report. Under the Allocation Alternative, when an Industry
Member other than an executing broker (e.g., a prime broker or clearing
broker) performs an Allocation, that Industry Member would be required
to submit the Allocation Report to the Central Repository. When an
executing broker performs an Allocation for an order that is executed,
in whole or in part, the burden of submitting an Allocation Report to
the Central Repository would remain with the executing broker under the
Allocation Alternative. In certain circumstances this would result in
multiple Allocation Reports--the executing broker (if self-clearing) or
its clearing firm would report individual Allocation Reports
identifying the specific prime broker to which shares/contracts were
allocated and then each prime broker would itself report an Allocation
Report identifying the specific customer accounts to which the shares/
contracts were finally allocated.
    The Participants stated that granting exemptive relief from
submitting Allocation Reports for executing brokers who do not perform
an Allocation, and requiring the Industry Member other than the
executing broker that is performing the Allocation to submit such
Allocation Reports, is consistent with the basic approach taken by the
Commission in adopting Rule 613 under the Exchange Act. Specifically,
the Participants stated that they believe that the Commission sought to
require each broker-dealer and exchange that touches an order to record
the required data with respect to actions it takes on the order.\9\
Without the requested exemptive relief, executing brokers that do not
perform Allocations would be required to submit Allocation Reports. In
addition, the Participants stated that, because shares/contracts for
every execution must be allocated to an

account by the clearing broker in such circumstances, there would be no
loss of information by shifting the reporting obligation from the
executing broker to the clearing broker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67457 (July 18,
2012), 77 FR 45722, 45748 (August 1, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Identity of Prime Broker
    To implement the Allocation Alternative, the Participants also
requested exemptive relief from Section 6.4(d)(ii)(A)(2) of the CAT NMS
Plan, to the extent that the provision requires each Participant to,
through its Compliance Rule, require its Industry Members to record and
report to the Central Repository, if an order is executed, in whole or
in part, the SRO-Assigned Market Participant Identifier of the prime
broker, if applicable. Currently, under the CAT NMS Plan, an Industry
Member is required to report the SRO-Assigned Market Participant
Identifier of the clearing broker or prime broker in connection with
the execution of an order, and such information would be part of the
order's lifecycle, rather than in an Allocation Report that is not
linked to the order's lifecycle.\10\ Under the Allocation Alternative,
the identity of the prime broker would be required to be reported by
the clearing broker on the Allocation Report, and, in addition, the
prime broker itself would be required to report the ultimate
allocation, which the Participants believe would provide more complete
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Participants did not request exemptive relief relating
to the reporting of the SRO-Assigned Market Participant Identifier
of clearing brokers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Participants stated that associating a prime broker with a
specific execution, as is currently required by the CAT NMS Plan, does
not reflect how the allocation process works in practice as allocations
to a prime broker are done post-trade and are performed by the clearing
broker of the executing broker. The Participants also stated that with
the implementation of the Allocation Alternative, it would be
duplicative for the executing broker to separately identify the prime
broker for allocation purposes.
    The Participants stated that if a particular customer only has one
prime broker, the identity of the prime broker can be obtained from the
customer and account information through the DVP accounts for that
customer that contain the identity of the prime broker. The
Participants further stated that Allocation Reports related to those
executions would reflect that shares/contracts were allocated to the
single prime broker. The Participants believe that there is no loss of
information through the implementation of the Allocation Alternative
compared to what is required in the CAT NMS Plan and that this approach
does not decrease the regulatory utility of the CAT for single prime
broker circumstances.
    In cases where a customer maintains relationships with multiple
prime brokers, the Participants asserted that the executing broker will
not have information at the time of the trade as to which particular
prime broker may be allocated all or part of the execution. Under the
Allocation Alternative, the executing broker (if self-clearing) or its
clearing firm would report individual Allocation Reports identifying
the specific prime broker to which shares/contracts were allocated and
then each prime broker would itself report an Allocation Report
identifying the specific customer accounts where the shares/contracts
were ultimately allocated. To determine the prime broker for a
customer, a regulatory user would query the customer and account
database using the customer's CCID to obtain all DVP accounts for the
CCID at broker-dealers. The Participants state that when a customer
maintains relationships with multiple prime brokers, the customer
typically has a separate DVP account with each prime broker, and the
identities of those prime brokers can be obtained from the customer and
account information.
(C) Additional Conditions to Exemptive Relief
    In the Exemption Request, the Participants included certain
additional conditions for the requested relief. Currently, the
definition of Allocation Report in the CAT NMS Plan only refers to
shares. To implement the Allocation Alternative, the Participants
proposed to require that all required elements of Allocation Reports
apply to both shares and contracts, as applicable, for all Eligible
Securities. Specifically, Participants would require the reporting of
the following in each Allocation Report: (1) The FDID for the account
receiving the allocation, including subaccounts; (2) the security that
has been allocated; (3) the identifier of the firm reporting the
allocation; (3) the price per share/contracts of shares/contracts
allocated; (4) the side of shares/contracts allocated; (4) the number
of shares/contracts allocated; and (5) the time of the allocation.
    Furthermore, to implement the Allocation Alternative, the
Participants proposed to require the following information on all
Allocation Reports: (1) Allocation ID, which is the internal allocation
identifier assigned to the allocation event by the Industry Member; (2)
trade date; (3) settlement date; (4) IB/correspondent CRD Number (if
applicable); (5) FDID of new order(s) (if available in the booking
system); \11\ (6) allocation instruction time (optional); (7) if the
account meets the definition of institution under FINRA Rule 4512(c);
\12\ (8) type of allocation (allocation to a custody account,
allocation to a DVP account, step out, correspondent flip, allocation
to a firm owned or controlled account, or other non-reportable
transactions (e.g., option exercises, conversions); (9) for DVP
allocations, custody broker-dealer clearing number (prime broker) if
the custodian is a U.S. broker-dealer, DTCC number if the custodian is
a U.S. bank, or a foreign indicator, if the custodian is a foreign
entity; and (10) if an allocation was cancelled, a cancel flag, which
indicates that the allocation was cancelled, and a cancel timestamp,
which represents the time at which the allocation was cancelled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Participants propose that for scenarios where the
Industry Member responsible for reporting the Allocation has the
FDID of the related new order(s) available, such FDID must be
reported. This would include scenarios in which: (1) The FDID
structure of the top account and subaccounts is known to the
Industry Member responsible for reporting the Allocation(s); and (2)
the FDID structure used by the IB/Correspondent when reporting new
orders is known to the clearing firm reporting the related
Allocations.
    \12\ FINRA Rule 4512(c) states the for purposes of the rule, the
term ``institutional account'' means the account of: (1) A bank,
savings and loan association, insurance company or registered
investment company; (2) an investment adviser registered either with
the SEC under Section 203 of the Investment Advisers Act or with a
state securities commission (or any agency or office performing like
functions); or (3) any other person (whether a natural person,
corporation, partnership, trust or otherwise) with total assets of
at least $50 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) Proposed Rule Changes To Implement Exemptive Relief
    On October 29, 2020, the Commission granted the exemptive relief
requested in the Exemption Request. The Commission granted the relief
conditioned upon the adoption of Compliance Rules that implement the
reporting requirements of the Allocation Alternative. Accordingly, the
Exchange proposes the following changes to its Compliance Rule to
implement the reporting requirements of the Allocation Alternative.
(A) Definition of Allocation
    The Exchange proposes to add a definition of ``Allocation'' as new
paragraph (c) to Rule 6.6810.\13\ Proposed

paragraph (c) of Rule 6.6810 would define an ``Allocation'' to mean
``(1) the placement of shares/contracts into the same account for which
an order was originally placed; or (2) the placement of shares/
contracts into an account based on allocation instructions (e.g.,
subaccount allocations, delivery versus payment (``DVP'')
allocations).'' The SEC stated in the Allocation Exemption that this
definition of ``Allocation'' is reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Exchange proposes to renumber the definitions in Rule
6.6810 to accommodate the addition of this new definition of
``Allocation'' and the new definition of ``Client Account''
discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Definition of Allocation Report
    The Exchange proposes to amend the definition of ``Allocation
Report'' set forth in Exchange Rule 6.6810(c) to reflect the
requirements of the Allocation Exemption. Exchange Rule 6.6810(c)
defines the term ``Allocation Report'' to mean:

a report made to the Central Repository by an Industry Member that
identifies the Firm Designated ID for any account(s), including
subaccount(s), to which executed shares are allocated and provides
the security that has been allocated, the identifier of the firm
reporting the allocation, the price per share of shares allocated,
the side of shares allocated, the number of shares allocated to each
account, and the time of the allocation; provided, for the avoidance
of doubt, any such Allocation Report shall not be required to be
linked to particular orders or executions.

    The Exchange proposes to amend this definition in two ways: (1)
Applying the requirements for Allocation Reports to contracts in
addition to shares; and (2) requiring the reporting of additional
elements for the Allocation Report.
(i) Shares and Contracts
    The requirements for Allocation Reports apply only to shares, as
the definition of ``Allocation Report'' in Rule 6.6810(c) refers to
shares, not contracts. In the Allocation Exemption, the Commission
stated that applying the requirements for Allocation Reports to
contracts in addition to shares is appropriate because CAT reporting
requirements apply to both options and equities. Accordingly, the SEC
stated that the Participants would be required to modify their
Compliance Rules such that all required elements of Allocation Reports
apply to both shares and contracts, as applicable, for all Eligible
Securities. Therefore, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.6810(c)
(to be renumbered as Rule 6.6810(d)) to apply to contracts, as well as
shares. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to add references to
contracts to the definition of ``Allocation Report'' to the following
phrases: ``the Firm Designated ID for any account(s), including
subaccount(s), to which executed shares/contracts are allocated,''
``the price per share/contract of shares/contracts allocated,'' ``the
side of shares/contracts allocated,'' and ``the number of shares/
contracts allocated to each account.''
(ii) Additional Elements
    The Commission also conditioned the Allocation Exemption on the
Participants amending their Compliance Rules to require the ten
additional elements in Allocation Reports described above. Accordingly,
the Exchange proposes to require these additional elements in
Allocation Reports. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend the
definition of ``Allocation Report'' in Rule 6.6810(c) (to be renumbered
as Rule 6.6810(d)) to include the following elements, in addition to
those elements currently required under the CAT NMS Plan:

    (6) the time of the allocation; (7) Allocation ID, which is the
internal allocation identifier assigned to the allocation event by
the Industry Member; (8) trade date; (9) settlement date; (10) IB/
correspondent CRD Number (if applicable); (11) FDID of new order(s)
(if available in the booking system); (12) allocation instruction
time (optional); (12) if account meets the definition of institution
under FINRA Rule 4512(c); (13) type of allocation (allocation to a
custody account, allocation to a DVP account, step-out,
correspondent flip, allocation to a firm owned or controlled
account, or other non-reportable transactions (e.g., option
exercises, conversions); (14) for DVP allocations, custody broker-
dealer clearing number (prime broker) if the custodian is a U.S.
broker-dealer, DTCC number if the custodian is a U.S. bank, or a
foreign indicator, if the custodian is a foreign entity; and (15) if
an allocation was cancelled, a cancel flag indicating that the
allocation was cancelled, and a cancel timestamp, which represents
the time at which the allocation was cancelled.
(C) Allocation Reports
(i) Executing Brokers That Do Not Perform Allocations
    The Commission granted the Participants an exemption from the
requirement that the Participants, through their Compliance Rule,
require executing brokers that do not perform Allocations to submit
Allocation Reports. The Commission stated that it understands that
executing brokers that are not self-clearing do not perform allocations
themselves, and such allocations are handled by prime and/or clearing
brokers, and these executing brokers therefore do not possess the
requisite information to provide Allocation Reports. Accordingly, the
Exchange proposes to eliminate Rule 6.6830(a)(2)(A)(i),\14\ which
requires an Industry Member to record and report to the Central
Repository an Allocation Report if the order is executed, in whole or
in part, and to replace this provision with proposed Rule
6.6830(a)(2)(F) as discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The Exchange proposes to renumber Rule 6.6830(a)(2)(A)(ii)
and (iii) as Rules 6.6830(a)(2)(A)(i) and (ii) in light of the
proposed deletion of Rule 6.6830(a)(2)(A)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(ii) Industry Members That Perform Allocations
    The Allocation Exemption requires the Participants to amend their
Compliance Rules to require Industry Members to provide Allocation
Reports to the Central Repository any time they perform Allocations to
a client account, whether or not the Industry Member was the executing
broker for the trades. Accordingly, the Commission conditioned the
Allocation Exemption on the Participants adopting Compliance Rules that
require prime and/or clearing brokers to submit Allocation Reports when
such brokers perform allocations, in addition to requiring executing
brokers that perform allocations to submit Allocation Reports. The
Commission determined that such exemptive relief would improve
efficiency and reduce the costs and burdens of reporting allocations
for Industry Members because the reporting obligation would belong to
the Industry Member with the requisite information, and executing
brokers that do not have the information required on an Allocation
Report would not have to develop the infrastructure and processes
required to obtain, store and report the information. The Commission
stated that this exemptive relief should not reduce the regulatory
utility of the CAT because an Allocation Report would still be
submitted for each executed trade allocated to a client account, which
in certain circumstances could still result in multiple Allocation
Reports,\15\ just not necessarily by the executing broker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ As noted above, under the Allocation Alternative, for
certain executions, the executing broker (if self-clearing) or its
clearing firm would report individual Allocation Reports identifying
the specific prime broker to which shares/contracts were allocated
and then each prime broker would itself report an Allocation Report
identifying the specific customer accounts to which the shares/
contracts were finally allocated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with the Allocation Exemption, the Exchange proposes
to add proposed Rule 6.6830(a)(2)(F) to the Compliance Rule. Proposed
Rule 6.6830(a)(2)(F) would require Industry Members to record and
report to the Central Repository ``an Allocation Report any time the
Industry Member

performs an Allocation to a Client Account, whether or not the Industry
Member was the executing broker for the trade.''
(iii) Client Accounts
    In the Allocation Exemption, the Commission also exempted the
Participants from the requirement that they amend their Compliance
Rules to require Industry Members to report Allocations for accounts
other than client accounts. The Commission believes that allocations to
client accounts, and not allocations to proprietary accounts or events
such as step-outs and correspondent flips, provide regulators the
necessary information to detect abuses in the allocation process
because it would provide regulators with detailed information regarding
the fulfillment of orders submitted by clients, while reducing
reporting burdens on broker-dealers. For example, Allocation Reports
would be required for allocations to registered investment advisor and
money manager accounts. The Commission further believes that the
proposed approach should facilitate regulators' ability to distinguish
Allocation Reports relating to allocations to client accounts from
other Allocation Reports because Allocations to accounts other than
client accounts would have to be identified as such. This approach
could reduce the time CAT Reporters expend to comply with CAT reporting
requirements and lower costs by allowing broker-dealers to use existing
business practices.
    To clarify that an Industry Member must report an Allocation Report
solely for Allocations to a client account, proposed Rule
6.6830(a)(2)(F) specifically references ``Client Accounts,'' as
discussed above. In addition, the Exchange proposes to add a definition
of ``Client Account'' as proposed Rule 6.6810(l). Proposed Rule
6.6810(l) would define a ``Client Account'' to mean ``for the purposes
of an Allocation and Allocation Report, any account or subaccount that
is not owned or controlled by the Industry Member.''
(D) Identity of Prime Broker
    The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 6.6830(a)(2)(A)(ii) to
eliminate the requirement for executing brokers to record and report
the SRO-Assigned Market Participant Identifier of the prime broker.
Rule 6.6830(a)(2)(A)(ii) states that each Industry Member is required
to record and report to the Central Repository, if the order is
executed, in whole or in part, the ``SRO-Assigned Market Participant
Identifier of the clearing broker or prime broker, if applicable.'' The
Exchange proposes to delete the phrase ``or prime broker'' from this
provision. Accordingly, each Industry Member that is an executing
broker would no longer be required to report the SRO-Assigned Market
Participant Identifier of the prime broker.
    As the Commission noted in the Allocation Exemption, exempting the
Participants from the requirement that they, through their Compliance
Rules, require executing brokers to provide the SRO-Assigned Market
Participant Identifier of the prime broker is appropriate because, as
stated by the Participants, allocations are done on a post-trade basis
and the executing broker will not have the requisite information at the
time of the trade. Because an executing broker, in certain
circumstances, does not have this information at the time of the trade,
this relief relieves executing brokers of the burdens and costs of
developing infrastructure and processes to obtain this information in
order to meet the contemporaneous reporting requirements of the CAT NMS
Plan.
    As the Commission noted in the Allocation Exemption, although
executing brokers would no longer be required to provide the prime
broker information, regulators will still be able to determine the
prime broker(s) associated with orders through querying the customer
and account information database. If an executing broker has only one
prime broker, the identity of the prime broker can be obtained from the
customer and account information associated with the executing broker.
For customers with multiple prime brokers, the identity of the prime
brokers can be obtained from the customer and account information which
will list the prime broker, if there is one, that is associated with
each account.
2. Statutory Basis
    NYSE National believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\16\ which require,
among other things, that the Exchange's rules must be designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest, and Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\17\
which requires that the Exchange's rules not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(6).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NYSE National believes that this proposal is consistent with the
Act because it is consistent with, and implements, the Allocation
Exemption, and is designed to assist the Exchange and its Industry
Members in meeting regulatory obligations pursuant to the Plan. In
approving the Plan, the SEC noted that the Plan ``is necessary and
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors and
the maintenance of fair and orderly markets, to remove impediments to,
and perfect the mechanism of a national market system, or is otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.'' \18\ To the extent that
this proposal implements the Plan, and applies specific requirements to
Industry Members, the Exchange believes that this proposal furthers the
objectives of the Plan, as identified by the SEC, and is therefore
consistent with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79318 (November 15,
2016), 81 FR 84696, 84697 (November 23, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NYSE National does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. NYSE National
notes that the proposed rule changes are consistent with the Allocation
Exemption, and are designed to assist the Exchange in meeting its
regulatory obligations pursuant to the Plan. NYSE National also notes
that the proposed rule changes will apply equally to all Industry
Members. In addition, all national securities exchanges and FINRA are
proposing this amendment to their Compliance Rules. Therefore, this is
not a competitive rule filing and does not impose a burden on
competition.

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 Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \19\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\20\
Because the

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 prior to 30 days from the
date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may
designate, if consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant
to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \21\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 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-2020-37 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-2020-37. 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-2020-37, and should be submitted
on or before January 13, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-28312 Filed 12-22-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P