[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 43 (Wednesday, March 4, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12793-12794]
[FR Doc No: 2020-04363]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket Nos. FDA-2018-E-2588, FDA-2018-E-2589, and FDA-2018-E-2590]

Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent
Extension; FASENRA

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has
determined the regulatory review period for FASENRA and is publishing
this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the
determination because of the submission of applications to the Director
of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of
Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that human
biological product.

DATES: Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (see
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION) are incorrect may submit either electronic
or written comments and ask for a redetermination by May 4, 2020.
Furthermore, any interested person may petition FDA for a determination
regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence
during the regulatory review period by August 31, 2020. See
``Petitions'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for more
information.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late,
untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments
must be submitted on or before May 4, 2020. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time at the end of May 4, 2020. Comments received by
mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be
considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service
acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket Nos.
FDA-2018-E-2588, FDA-2018-E-2589, and FDA-2018-E-2590 for
``Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent
Extension; FASENRA.'' Received comments, those filed in a timely manner
(see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the dockets and, except for those
submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with Sec.  10.20 (21 CFR 10.20) and
other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's
posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18,
2015, or access the information at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory
Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984
(Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term
Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may
be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item
(human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food
additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA
before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory
review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension
an applicant may receive.
    A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A
testing phase and an approval phase. For human biological products, the
testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical
investigations of the biological product becomes effective and runs
until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the
initial submission of an application to market the human biological
product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the
biological

product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may
count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO
may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as
well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued),
FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a
human biological product will include all of the testing phase and
approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
    FDA has approved for marketing the human biologic product, FASENRA
(benralizumab). FASENRA is indicated for the add-on maintenance
treatment of patients with severe asthma aged 12 years and older and
with an eosinophilic phenotype. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO
received patent term restoration applications for FASENRA (U.S. Patent
Nos. 7,179,464; 7,718,175; and 8,101,185) from Kyowa Hakko Kirin Co.,
Ltd., and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining the
patents' eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated
September 18, 2018, FDA advised the USPTO that this human biological
product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval
of FASENRA represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use
of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the
product's regulatory review period.

II. Determination of Regulatory Review Period

    FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for
FASENRA is 4,127 days. Of this time, 3,763 days occurred during the
testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 364 days occurred
during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the
following dates:
    1. The date an exemption under section 505(i) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(i)) became effective: July 30,
2006. The applicant claims July 29, 2006, as the date the
investigational new drug application (IND) became effective. However,
FDA records indicate that the IND effective date was July 30, 2006,
which was 30 days after FDA receipt of the IND.
    2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to
the human biological product under section 351 of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262): November 16, 2016. FDA has verified the
applicant's claim that the biologics license application (BLA) for
FASENRA (BLA 761070) was initially submitted on November 16, 2016.
    3. The date the application was approved: November 14, 2017. FDA
has verified the applicant's claim that BLA 761070 was approved on
November 14, 2017.
    This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the
maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO
applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual
period for patent extension. In its applications for patent extension,
this applicant seeks 5 years, or 1,552 days or 1,244 days of patent
term extension.

III. Petitions

    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are
incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under
21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see DATES). Furthermore, as
specified in Sec.  60.30 (21 CFR 60.30), any interested person may
petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for
extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period.
To meet its burden, the petition must comply with all the requirements
of Sec.  60.30, including but not limited to: must be timely (see
DATES), must be filed in accordance with Sec.  10.20, must contain
sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation, and must certify that a
true and complete copy of the petition has been served upon the patent
applicant. (See H. Rept. 857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42,
1984.) Petitions should be in the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.
    Submit petitions electronically to https://www.regulations.gov at
Docket No. FDA-2013-S-0610. Submit written petitions (two copies are
required) to the Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Dated: February 27, 2020.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-04363 Filed 3-3-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


              Summary of April 23, 2015 Fee Rule Update With the
                       Environmental Technology Council

* Rich LaShier and Bryan Groce attended the quarterly meeting of the Environmental Technology Council (ETC) at their offices at 1112 16[th] St., NW in DC.  We had been asked by David Case to provide an update on the Fee Rule and on the progress with the system procurement.
* Rich began the discussion with a brief procurement update that had been provided to Rich in writing by Tony Raia.
      o We told ETC that EPA was finalizing its procurement strategy for the e-Manifest system.  Congress recently passed the Federal Information Technology Acquisition Review Act (FITARA), which requires review and approval of IT acquisitions by the Agencies' CIOs.  So, we are now going through this new FITARA review process with Ann Duncan, who was appointed only last month as EPA's CIO.  The process of bringing Ms. Duncan up to speed on e-Manifest and the new FITARA review has caused a small delay in our finalization of the system procurement strategy.
      o EPA has finished work on the e-Manifest architecture planning documents.  These documents, which were shared as drafts with ETC members during webinars in the past year, will inform the Request for Proposals (RFP) that we plan to soon issue.
      o Under our current schedule, we expect to issue a draft acquisition notice in May, and then issue the full RFP by June 2015.  The procurement process should take about 6 to 12 months to complete, and our goal is to have the contract awarded by the 2[nd] Quarter of FY 2016.
* Bryan Groce then made a presentation summarizing the electronic fee payment options and methods that had recently been discussed by the Fee Rule workgroup.
* We particularly wanted to obtain ETC members' feedback on the electronic payment methods supported by pay.gov, and the two key options of: (1) payment by TSDFs of an advance fixed payment each month, calculated from the previous year's manifest usage, or (2) payment as accounts receivable, after invoicing TSDFs for the previous month's actual usage of manifests in the system.
* Bryan began the discussion by clarifying that regardless of which key payment option were adopted (advance payments or invoicing accounts receivable), TSDFs would be expected to create payment accounts in Pay.gov, and use one of the electronic payment methods supported by Pay.gov, that is, Automated Clearing House (ACH) debits from bank accounts, credit card payments, or debit card payments, or PayPal or Dwolla.
      o In response, we heard some concern from Veolia whether the monthly user fee payments might exceed the credit limits of the companies' credit accounts.  This might require an adjustment in the billing frequency to keep individual payments within the credit provider's limits, or might require the TSDF to arrange to have its credit limits expanded to cover the likely amount of user fee payments.
      o Another ETC member questioned if TSDF companies would want to use the ACH bank account debit method.  Companies may have different preferences among the allowed electronic payment options.
      o An ETC member asked if the payments would be collected at the company level or by EPA ID# from each TSDF site.  We responded that we would bill by site ID#.
* Bryan next introduced the pre-payment option.  Bryan explained that there were two variations of this:  (1) One payment in advance for the entire year of projected manifest usage, and (2) Twelve regular or fixed advance payments on the 1[st] of each month, with a 13[th] payment invoiced at the end of the year to reconcile actual usage for the year with the projections used to calculate the monthly payments.
* We understand from prior meetings that ETC opposes the one payment for the year option, as the substantial amount of the one payment would be present difficult optics for the companies' financial managers.  It will be better to make monthly payments.
      o EPA is not now advocating the One annual payment option.
      o Our interest in reviving discussion of advance payments was to get feedback on the option involving 12 fixed payments each month with reconciliation billing at the end of the year.  The TSDF could go online, for example, and self-declare their projected manifest usage for the year, and then calculate the projected fees for the year based on last year's usage.  The projected fee for the year could then be divided by 12 to arrive at the amount of the fixed payment that would be paid on the 1[st] of each month.
      o EPA is examining the 12-payments in advance option because it reduces the administrative cost and burden of invoicing the TSDFs each month.  Since Pay.gov supports a fixed recurring payment as an automatic deduction of a bank account through the ACH, this could be a very convenient and automatic payment option for the companies and EPA.
      o ETC members still had reservations about the 12 advance recurring payment option.  ETC members had doubts whether their companies would want to give EPA access to their funds in advance of services, unless there were some incentive (e.g., a discount?) for doing so.
      o David Case suggested that a better path might be to start out with invoicing TSDFs for manifests actually used each month, but then move to the advance recurring payment model until we have more experience with the numbers of manifests being used by the TSDFs.
* Bryan then presented on the option of invoicing TSDFs monthly for the previous month's actual manifest usage.  This was definitely the preferred billing option, at least at the outset of system operations.
      o We were asked how the invoices would be sent.  We responded that either the e-Manifest system would develop an invoice based on manifest usage data, or we might send the manifest usage data to Pay.gov, which offers an e-billing service.
      o Regardless whether EPA's system or Pay.gov sends the electronic invoice, the invoice would then direct the paying TSDF to go to the Pay.gov payment site (they would establish an account here), and make their electronic payment using one of the allowed electronic payment methods (credit card, debit card, ACH, Paypal, etc.).
      o We further indicated that we did not plan on sending paper invoices, nor did we plan on accepting checks as payment.  All invoicing and payments will be processed electronically.
      o Questions were raised about the "premiums" that might appear on invoices.  ETC repeated its earlier concern that there should not be a premium fee assessed when TSDFs make corrections to manifest data.  Any costs associated with making corrections should be included as overhead in the calculation of the general manifest fees, since a premium for corrections would discourage TSDFs from making these corrections to minimize their fee liability.
* We briefly summarized discussions that were ongoing with the workgroup on fee trajectory and fee sanction issues.  There was little support for permit sanctions or for financial assurance, as these were either too severe or too complex.  David suggested that sanctions that shamed delinquent payers might be more appropriate for e-Manifest.
* We concluded the discussions.  David and the ETC members thanked us for keeping the organization informed of the progress on e-Manifest and of the issues we are exploring in the Fee Rule workgroup.


[Federal Register: November 5, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 215)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 65775-65777]
[DOCID:fr05no08-8]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 64

[Docket No. FEMA-8049]

Suspension of Community Eligibility

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule identifies communities, where the sale of flood
insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP), that are scheduled for suspension on the effective
dates listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the
floodplain management requirements of the program. If the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the
community has adopted the required floodplain management measures prior
to the effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension
will not occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in
the Federal Register on a subsequent date.

DATES: Effective Dates: The effective date of each community's
scheduled suspension is the third date (``Susp.'') listed in the third
column of the following tables.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you want to determine whether a
particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for
further information, contact David Stearrett, Mitigation Directorate,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP enables property owners to purchase
flood insurance which is generally not otherwise available. In return,
communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management
aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding.
Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended,
42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage as authorized under
the NFIP, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; unless an appropriate public body
adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective
enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer
meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program
regulations, 44 CFR part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be
suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date,
flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. However,
some of these communities may adopt and submit the required
documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures
after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date.
These communities will not be suspended and will continue their
eligibility for the sale of insurance. A notice withdrawing the
suspension of the communities will be published in the Federal
Register.
    Previously, FEMA has identified the Special Flood Hazard Areas
(SFHAs) in these communities by publishing a Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM). The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated
in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial
assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a
flood) may legally be provided for construction or acquisition of
buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the
NFIP and identified for more than a year, on FEMA's initial flood
insurance map of the community as having flood-prone areas (section
202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a),
as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal
assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date
shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and
public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and unnecessary
because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately
notified.
    Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification
letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the
community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management
measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these
notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less
than 30 days.
    National Environmental Policy Act. This rule is categorically
excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental
Considerations. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Administrator has determined that
this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42
U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless an appropriate
public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with
effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no longer comply
with the statutory requirements, and after the effective date, flood
insurance will no longer be available in the communities unless
remedial action takes place.
    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant
regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This rule involves no policies
that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule meets the
applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.
    Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule does not involve any collection
of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64

    Flood insurance, Floodplains.

0
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:

PART 64--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp.; p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp.; p. 376.

Sec.  64.6  [Amended]

0
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  64.6 are amended
as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Effective date
                                                 authorization/
                                   Community    cancellation of    Current effective map   Date certain Federal
       State and location             No.        sale of flood             date            assistance no longer
                                                  insurance in                              available in SFHAs
                                                   community
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Region IV

Mississippi:
    Vicksburg, City of, Warren         280176  March 28, 1975,    11/05/2008............  11/05/2008
     County.                                    Emerg; September
                                                29, 1989, Reg;
                                                November 5,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Warren County,                     280198  December 26,       ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                      1973, Emerg;
                                                November 15,
                                                1979, Reg;
                                                November 5,
                                                2008, Susp.
North Carolina:
    Cabarrus County,                   370036  July 7, 1975,      ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                      Emerg; May 5,
                                                1981, Reg;
                                                November 5,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Concord, City of, Cabarrus         370037  January 16, 1974,  ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; March 4,
                                                1980, Reg;
                                                November 5,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Harrisburg, Town of,               370038  June 17, 1975,     ......do..............   Do.
     Cabarrus County.                           Emerg; June 30,
                                                1976, Reg;
                                                November 5,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Kannapolis, City of,               370469  -, Emerg; March    ......do..............   Do.
     Cabarrus County.                           25, 1991, Reg;
                                                November 5,
                                                2008, Susp.
Tennessee:
    Bradford, City of, Gibson          470057  August 10, 1977,   ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; February
                                                16, 1983, Reg;
                                                November 5,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Dresden, City of, Weakley          470240  January 8, 1988,   ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; February
                                                1, 1990, Reg;
                                                November 5,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Fayette County,                    470352  August 19, 1975,   ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                      Emerg; July 5,
                                                1983, Reg;
                                                November 5,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Gallaway, Town of, Fayette         470048  January 28, 1976,  ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; July 5,
                                                1982, Reg;
                                                November 5,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Gibson County,                     470359  December 16,       ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                      1982, Emerg;
                                                October 18,
                                                1983, Reg;
                                                November 5,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Humboldt, City of, Gibson          470059  April 2, 1975,     ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; September
                                                15, 1983, Reg;
                                                November 5,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Kenton, Town of, Gibson            470224  December 2, 1985,  ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; December
                                                2, 1985, Reg;
                                                November 5,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Martin, City of, Weakley           470202  January 28, 1975,  ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; September
                                                15, 1989, Reg;
                                                November 5,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Medina, City of, Gibson            470251  March 27, 2006,    ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; -, Reg;
                                                November 5,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Milan, Town of, Gibson             470060  July 10, 1975,     ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; February
                                                16, 1983, Reg;
                                                November 5,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Obion, Town of, Obion              470253  August 11, 1975,   ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; March 16,
                                                1981, Reg;
                                                November 5,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Obion County,                      470361  -, Emerg; March    ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                      4, 1998, Reg;
                                                November 5,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Piperton, City of, Fayette         470401  January 27, 1992,  ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; December
                                                16, 1994, Reg;
                                                November 5,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Rives, City of, Obion              470235  October 26, 1984,  ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; September
                                                1, 1987, Reg;
                                                November 5,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Rossville, City of, Fayette        470050  February 12,       ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    1976, Emerg;
                                                June 1, 1981,
                                                Reg; November 5,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Rutherford, Town of, Gibson        470061  -, Emerg; August   ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    27, 1997, Reg;
                                                November 5,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Somerville, Town of,               470051  August 27, 1975,   ......do..............   Do.
     Fayette County.                            Emerg; July 5,
                                                1982, Reg;
                                                November 5,
                                                2008, Susp.
    South Fulton, City of,             475446  December 10,       ......do..............   Do.
     Obion County.                              1971, Emerg;
                                                June 15, 1973,
                                                Reg; November 5,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Trenton, City of, Gibson           470062  June 26, 1975,     ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; February
                                                16, 1983, Reg;
                                                November 5,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Union City, City of, Obion         470142  October 25, 1974,  ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; May 5,
                                                1981, Reg;
                                                November 5,
                                                2008, Susp.

            Region V

Illinois:
    Chester, City of, Randolph         170576  June 12, 1974,     ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; November
                                                16, 1983, Reg;
                                                November 5,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Evansville, Village of,            170577  June 25, 1975,     ......do..............   Do.
     Randolph County.                           Emerg; April 15,
                                                1988, Reg;
                                                November 5,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Kaskaskia, Village of,             170736  December 27,       ......do..............   Do.
     Randolph County.                           1973, Emerg;
                                                September 4,
                                                1985, Reg;
                                                November 5,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Randolph County,                   170575  April 1, 1974,     ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                      Emerg; June 3,
                                                1986, Reg;
                                                November 5,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Sparta, City of, Randolph          170579  May 28, 1974,      ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; August
                                                24, 1984, Reg;
                                                November 5,
                                                2008, Susp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*-do- = Ditto.

Code for reading third column: Emerg. --Emergency; Reg. --Regular; Susp. --Suspension.

    Dated: October 28, 2008.
Michael K. Buckley,
Acting Assistant Administrator Mitigation Directorate Department of
Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E8-26291 Filed 11-4-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 5, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41973-41974]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18716]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2017-0019; OMB No. 1660-0061]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request; Federal Assistance to Individuals and
Households Program, (IHP)

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites
the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity
to comment on a reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved
information collection for which approval has expired. In accordance
with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments
concerning the need to continue collecting information from individuals
and States in order to provide and/or administer disaster assistance
through the Federal Assistance to Individuals and Households Programs.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before October 5, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the proposed information
collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk
Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection should be made to Director,
Records Management Division, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
Elizabeth McDowell, Program Specialist,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the Act) is the legal
basis for FEMA to provide disaster related assistance and services to
individuals who apply for disaster assistance benefits in the event of
a federally

declared disaster. The Individuals and Households Program (IHP) (the
Act at 5174, Federal Assistance to Individuals and Households) provides
financial assistance to eligible individuals and households who, as a
direct result of a major disaster or emergency have necessary expenses
and serious needs. The ``Other Needs Assistance'' (ONA) provision of
IHP provides disaster assistance to address needs other than housing,
such as personal property, transportation, etc.
    The delivery of the ONA provision of IHP is contingent upon the
State/Tribe choosing an administrator for the assistance. States/Tribes
satisfy the selection of an administrator of ONA by completing the
Administrative Option Agreement (FEMA Form 010-0-11), which establishes
a plan for the delivery of ONA. This agreement establishes a
partnership with FEMA and inscribes the plan for the delivery of
disaster assistance. The agreement is used to identify the State/
Tribe's proposed level of support and participation during disaster
recovery.
    This proposed information collection previously published in the
Federal Register on May 30, 2017 at 82 FR 24731 with a 60 day public
comment period. No comments were received. This information collection
expired on July 31, 2017. FEMA is requesting a reinstatement, without
change, of a previously approved information collection for which
approval has expired. The purpose of this notice is to notify the
public that FEMA will submit the information collection abstracted
below to the Office of Management and Budget for review and clearance.

Collection of Information

    Title: Federal Assistance to Individuals and Households Program,
(IHP).
    Type of Information Collection: Reinstatement, without change, of a
previously approved information collection for which approval has
expired.
    OMB Number: 1660-0061.
    Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA Form 010-0-11, Administrative Option
Agreement for the Other Needs provision of Individuals and Households
Program, (IHP); FEMA Form 010-0-12, Request for Continued Assistance
(Application for Continued Temporary Housing Assistance); FEMA Form
010-0-12S (Spanish) Solicitud para Continuar la Asistencia de Vivienda
Temporera.
    Abstract: The Federal Assistance to Individuals and Households
Program (IHP) enhances applicants' ability to request approval of late
applications, request continued assistance, and appeal program
decisions. Similarly, it allows States to partner with FEMA for
delivery of disaster assistance under the ``Other Needs'' provision of
the IHP through Administrative Option Agreements and Administration
Plans addressing the level of managerial and resource support
necessary.
    Affected Public: State, Local or Tribal Government.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 59,073.
    Estimated Number of Responses: 78,399.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 65,267 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost: The estimated annual cost
to respondents for the hour burden is $2,043,275.28. There are no
annual costs to respondents operations and maintenance costs for
technical services. There is no annual start-up or capital costs. The
cost to the Federal Government is $213,556.60.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Dated: August 25, 2017.
Tammi Hines,
Records Management Program Chief, Mission Support, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2017-18716 Filed 9-1-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 244 (Friday, December 19, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 75857]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29735]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[Dockets DOT-OST-1997-3017 and DOT-OST-1997-3113]

Notice of Sky King, Inc. To Resume Operations

AGENCY: Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of Order to Show Cause (Order 2014-12-8).

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation is directing all interested
persons to show cause why it should not issue an order finding Sky
King, Inc., a U.S. citizen and fit, willing, and able to resume
interstate and foreign charter air transportation of persons, property,
and mail.

DATES: Persons wishing to file objections should do so no later than
December 19, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Objections and answers to objections should be filed in
Dockets DOT-OST-1997-3017 and DOT-OST-1997-3113 and addressed to the
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590 and
should be served upon the parties listed in Attachment A to the order.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Damon D. Walker, Air Carrier Fitness
Division, (X-56, Office W86-469), U.S. Department of Transportation,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 12, 2014.
Susan L. Kurland,
Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2014-29735 Filed 12-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 71 (Thursday, April 13, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22475-22476]
[FR Doc No: 2023-07783]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4686-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2023-0001]

North Dakota; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of North Dakota (FEMA-4686-DR), dated February
5, 2023, and related determinations.

DATES: The declaration was issued February 5, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated February 5, 2023, the President issued a major disaster
declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the
``Stafford Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of North Dakota resulting from a severe winter storm, snowstorm, and
straight-line winds during the period of November 9 to November 11,
2022, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major
disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in
the State of North Dakota.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. You are
further authorized to provide snow assistance under the Public
Assistance program for a limited period of time during or proximate
to the incident period. Consistent with the requirement that Federal
assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the
Stafford Act for Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be
limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Kenneth G. Clark, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of North Dakota have been
designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Dickey, Kidder, Mercer, Nelson, Ransom, Sargent, and Wells
Counties for Public Assistance.
    Kidder, Mercer, Nelson, and Wells Counties for snow assistance
under the Public Assistance program for any continuous 48-hour
period during or proximate to the incident period.

    All areas within the State of North Dakota are eligible for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2023-07783 Filed 4-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 10, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 15447]
[FR Doc No: 2018-07301]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. 2018-13]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; American
Airlines, Inc.

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

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

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before April 30, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-3491
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia Greenway,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office
of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue
SW, Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 5, 2018.
Lirio Liu,
Executive Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2015-3491.
    Petitioner: American Airlines, Inc.
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: Sec.  93.123(a).
    Description of Relief Sought: American Airlines, Inc.
(``American'') requests an extension of Exemption 15867, which exempts
American's nonstop service between Ronald Reagan Washington National
Airport (DCA) and Lansing, Michigan's Capital Region International
Airport (LAN) from the slot requirements at DCA. The exemption expires
on June 29, 2018. American requests an extension of the exemption until
October 29, 2019.

[FR Doc. 2018-07301 Filed 4-9-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 115 (Tuesday, June 16, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34475-34480]
[FR Doc No: 2015-14668]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75139; File No. SR-NYSE-2015-28]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Amending the Price List To Revise Fees and Credits for Mid-Point
Passive Liquidity Orders and Non Displayed Reserve Orders and To Revise
Credits Applicable to Certain Transactions at the Open, Certain
Designated Market Maker Transactions, and Certain Supplemental
Liquidity Provider Transactions

 June 10, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on May 27, 2015, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List to revise (i) fees
and credits for Mid-Point Passive Liquidity Orders and Non-Displayed
Reserve Orders; (ii) credits applicable to certain transactions at the
open; (iii) credits applicable to certain Designated Market Maker
transactions; and (iv) credits applicable to Supplemental Liquidity
Providers. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective
June 1, 2015. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List to revise (i) fees
and credits for Mid-Point Passive Liquidity (``MPL'') Orders and Non-
Displayed Reserve Orders; (ii) credits applicable to certain
transactions at the open; (iii) credits applicable to certain
Designated Market Maker (``DMM'') transactions; and (iv) credits
applicable to Supplemental Liquidity Providers (``SLPs'').
MPL Orders and Non-Displayed Reserve Orders
    An MPL Order is an undisplayed limit order that trades at the mid-
point of the best protected bid (``PBB'') and best protected offer
(``PBO''), as such terms are defined in Regulation NMS Rule 600(b)(57)
(together, ``PBBO'').
    The Exchange currently charges $0.0025 per share for all MPL
Orders, not designated as ``retail'' under Rule 13, for securities
priced $1.00 or more that remove liquidity from the

Exchange. The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List to increase the
charge for such MPL Orders from $0.0025 per share to $0.0027 per share.
    The proposed change would not affect transaction fees for MPL
Orders that remove liquidity from the Exchange and that are designated
with a ``retail modifier'' as defined in Rule 13.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ MPL Orders that remove liquidity from the Exchange and that
are designated with a ``retail'' modifier as defined in Rule 13
would continue not to be charged transaction fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange currently provides a credit of $0.0020 per share for
executions of MPL Orders that provide liquidity for securities priced
$1.00 or more. With respect to market participants, including floor
brokers and SLPs, but not DMMs, the Exchange proposes to amend its
Price List to replace the credit of $0.0020 per share for MPL Orders
that provide liquidity for securities priced $1.00 or more with the
following credits:
     A $0.0030 per share transaction credit for MPL Orders that
provide liquidity from a member organization that has Adding ADV in MPL
Orders that is at least 1.5 million shares, excluding any liquidity
added by a Designated Market Maker (``MPL Order Tier'').\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Footnote 2 to the Price List defines ADV as ``average daily
volume'' and ``Adding ADV'' as ADV that adds liquidity to the
Exchange during the billing month. The Exchange is not proposing to
change these definitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     A $0.0015 per share transaction credit for MPL Orders that
provide liquidity from a member organization that does not meet the
above Adding ADV threshold.
    Because the credits for MPL Orders that add liquidity would be as
specified above, the Exchange also proposes to add, to each of the
descriptions of the Non-Tier Adding Credit, Tier 1 Adding Credit, Tier
2 Adding Credit, Tier 3 Adding Credit, the Equity per Share Credit for
retail orders, and the Credit per Share for execution of orders sent to
floor brokers, language that excludes MPL orders from the applicable
credit. For SLP Tier 1, SLP Tier 2, and SLP Tier 3 (as defined below in
``SLPs''), the Exchange also proposes to add language that excludes MPL
Orders from the applicable credit.
    In addition, the Exchange proposes to amend its Price List to
increase the transaction credit for DMMs in securities with a per share
price of $1.00 or more of $0.0020 per share for MPL Orders that provide
liquidity to the Exchange to $0.0030 per share for MPL Orders that
provide liquidity to the Exchange. For clarity, the Exchange is
proposing to specify this credit for liquidity by adding MPL Orders
separately in the Price List under the section entitled ``Fees and
Credits applicable to Designated Market Makers (``DMMs'').'' Further,
the Exchange is proposing to include language that excludes MPL orders
from the other DMM per share rebates for adding liquidity.
    Finally, the Exchange currently provides a credit of $0.0010 per
share for executions of Non-Displayed Reserve Orders for market
participants, other than SLPs, that provide liquidity. The Exchange
proposes to eliminate that credit. Accordingly, the Exchange is
proposing to add to each of the descriptions of the Non-Tier Adding
Credit, Tier 1 Adding Credit, Tier 2 Adding Credit, Tier 3 Adding
Credit, and the Equity per Share Credit for retail orders language that
excludes Non-Displayed Reserve Orders from the applicable credit.
Credits for Execution of Certain Orders at the Opening
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List for certain
executions at the opening.
    For securities priced $1.00 or more, the Exchange currently charges
a fee of $0.0010 per share for executions at the opening or at the
opening only orders, subject to a monthly fee cap of $20,000 per member
organization for such executions. The Exchange proposes to raise the
monthly fee cap for transaction fees for at the opening or at the
opening only orders to $30,000 per member organization for securities
priced $1.00 or greater.\6\ The $0.0010 per share fee for executions at
the opening or at the opening only orders would not be changed. DMMs
currently are not charged for executions at the opening and would
continue to not be charged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The existing pricing for executions at the opening in
securities priced below $1.00 would also remain unchanged (i.e.,
0.3% of the total dollar value of the transaction).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DMMs
    The section of the Exchange's Price List entitled ``Fees and
Credits applicable to Designated Market Makers (``DMMs'')'' sets out
different monthly rebate amounts to DMMs depending on the average daily
consolidated volume of the security and the DMM quoting percentage in
any month in which the DMM meets the Less Active Securities Quoting
Requirement. The DMM meets the ``Less Active Securities Quoting
Requirement'' when a security has a consolidated ADV of less than
1,000,000 shares per month in the previous month and a stock price of
$1.00 or more, and the DMM quotes at the National Best Bid or Offer
(``NBBO'') in the applicable security at least 15% of the time in the
applicable month.
    The term ``ADV'' in this section currently is defined as ``average
daily consolidated volume.'' The Exchange proposes to change the name
of the term to ``Security CADV'' to clarify that the term refers to
consolidated volume for the applicable security, and to remove any
confusion with the term ``ADV'' as defined and used elsewhere in the
Price List. The Exchange proposes to make conforming changes to use the
term ``Security CADV'' in place of ``ADV'' throughout this section of
the Price List.
    The Exchange also proposes to change the monthly rebate amounts to
DMMs depending on the Security CADV and the DMM quoting percentage. The
monthly rebate payable to DMMs for securities with a Security CADV of
100,000 up to 250,000 shares in the previous month is currently $250
when the DMM quotes at the NBBO 20% of the time or more in an
applicable security and $200 if the DMM quotes at the NBBO at least 15%
and up to 20% of the time in an applicable month in an applicable
security. For these securities, the Exchange proposes monthly rebates
as follows:
     $450 rebate if the DMM quotes at the NBBO 50% of the time
or more in an applicable security.
     $375 rebate if the DMM quotes at the NBBO at least 40% and
up to 50% of the time in an applicable month in an applicable security.
     $300 rebate if the DMM quotes at the NBBO at least 30% and
up to 40% of the time in an applicable month in an applicable security.
     $225 rebate if the DMM quotes at the NBBO at least 20% and
up to 30% of the time in an applicable month in an applicable security.
     $150 rebate if the DMM quotes at the NBBO at least 15% and
up to 20% of the time in an applicable month in an applicable security.
    The current monthly rebate payable to DMMs for securities with a
Security CADV of less than 100,000 shares in the previous month is $175
when the DMM quotes at the NBBO 20% of the time or more in an
applicable security and $125 if the DMM quotes at the NBBO at least 15%
and up to 20% of the time in an applicable month in an applicable
security. For these securities, the Exchange proposes monthly rebates
as follows:
     $400 rebate if the DMM quotes at the NBBO 50% of the time
or more in an applicable security.
     $325 rebate if the DMM quotes at the NBBO at least 40% and
up to 50%

of the time in an applicable month in an applicable security.
     $250 rebate if the DMM quotes at the NBBO at least 30% and
up to 40% of the time in an applicable month in an applicable security.
     $175 rebate if the DMM quotes at the NBBO at least 20% and
up to 30% of the time in an applicable month in an applicable security.
     $100 rebate if the DMM quotes at the NBBO at least 15% and
up to 20% of the time in an applicable month in an applicable security.
    In addition, the Exchange proposes to add monthly rebates to the
Price List for securities with a Security CADV of 250,000 up to
1,500,000 shares in the previous month, which would apply, as with the
other two categories of rebates, in any month in which the DMM meets
the Less Active Securities Quoting Requirement in an applicable
security, and as follows:
     $500 rebate if the DMM quotes at the NBBO 50% of the time
or more in an applicable security.
     $425 rebate if the DMM quotes at the NBBO at least 40% and
up to 50% of the time in an applicable month in an applicable security.
     $350 rebate if the DMM quotes at the NBBO at least 30% and
up to 40% of the time in an applicable month in an applicable security.
     $275 rebate if the DMM quotes at the NBBO at least 20% and
up to 30% of the time in an applicable month in an applicable security.
     $200 rebate if the DMM quotes at the NBBO at least 15% and
up to 20% of the time in an applicable month in an applicable security.
    Finally, as noted above, because the Exchange is proposing to list
separately the credit to DMMs for liquidity adding MPL Orders, the
Exchange is proposing to exclude MPL orders from the other DMM per
share rebates for adding liquidity listed in this section.
SLPs
    SLPs are eligible for certain credits when adding liquidity to the
Exchange. The amount of the credit is currently determined by the
``tier'' for which the SLP qualifies, which is generally based on the
SLP's level of quoting and the ADV of liquidity added by the SLP in
assigned securities.
    Currently, when adding liquidity to the NYSE in securities with a
share price of $1.00 or more, an SLP is eligible for a credit of
$0.0023 per share traded if the SLP (1) meets the 10% average or more
quoting requirement in assigned securities pursuant to Rule 107B and
(2) adds liquidity for assigned SLP securities in the aggregate \7\ of
an ADV \8\ of more than 0.20% of NYSE CADV,\9\ or an SLP that is also a
DMM and subject to Rule 107B(i)(2)(a),\10\ more than 0.15% of NYSE CADV
(``SLP Tier 3''). In the case of Non-Displayed Reserve Orders, the SLP
credit is $0.0018 and in the case of MPL Orders, the credit is $0.0020.
For less active SLP securities (i.e. securities with an ADV in the
previous month of 500,000 share or less per month (``Less Active SLP
Securities'')), the SLP is eligible for a per share credit of $0.0028;
$0.0023 if a Non-Displayed Reserve Order; or $0.0020 if an MPL Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Under Rule 107B, an SLP can be either a proprietary trading
unit of a member organization (``SLP-Prop'') or a registered market
maker at the Exchange (``SLMM''). For purposes of the 10% average or
more quoting requirement in assigned securities pursuant to Rule
107B, quotes of an SLP-Prop and an SLMM of the same member
organization are not aggregated. However, for purposes of adding
liquidity for assigned SLP securities in the aggregate, shares of
both an SLP-Prop and an SLMM of the same member organization are
included.
    \8\ The defined term, ``ADV,'' used here as defined in footnote
2 to the Price List. See supra note 5.
    \9\ NYSE CADV is defined in the Price List as the consolidated
average daily volume of NYSE-listed securities.
    \10\ Rule 107B(i)(2)(A) prohibits a DMM from acting as a SLP in
the same securities in which it is a DMM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, an SLP adding liquidity in securities with a per share
price of $1.00 or more is eligible for a per share credit of $0.0026 if
the SLP: (1) Meets the 10% average or more quoting requirement in an
assigned security pursuant to Rule 107B; and (2) adds liquidity for all
assigned SLP securities in the aggregate of an ADV of more than 0.35%
of NYSE CADV, or for an SLP that is also a DMM and subject to Rule
107B(i)(2)(a), more than 0.30% of NYSE CADV \11\ (``SLP Tier 2''). In
the case of Non-Displayed Reserve Orders, the SLP credit is $0.0021 and
in the case of MPL Orders, the credit is $0.0020. For Less Active SLP
Securities, the SLP is eligible for a per share credit of $0.0031;
0.0026 if a Non-Displayed Reserve Order; or $0.0020 if an MPL Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ In determining whether an SLP meets the requirement to add
liquidity in the aggregate of an ADV of more than 0.35% or 0.30%
depending on whether the SLP is also a DMM, the SLP may include
shares of both an SLP-Prop and an SLMM of the same member
organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An SLP adding liquidity in securities with a per share price of
$1.00 or more is eligible for a per share credit of $0.0029 if the SLP:
(1) Meets the 10% average or more quoting requirement in an assigned
security pursuant to Rule 107B; and (2) adds liquidity for all for
assigned SLP securities in the aggregate of an ADV of more than 0.55%
of NYSE CADV, or for an SLP that is also a DMM and subject to Rule
107B(i)(2)(a), more than 0.50% of NYSE CADV, the SLP is eligible for a
per share credit of $.0029 (``SLP Tier 1''). In the case of Non-
Displayed Reserve Orders, the credit is $0.0024 and in the case of MPL
Orders, the credit is $0.0020. For Less Active SLP Securities, the SLP
is eligible for a per share credit of $0.0034; $0.0029 if a Non-
Displayed Reserve Order; or $0.0020 if an MPL Order.
    Finally, an SLP adding liquidity in securities with a per share
price of $1.00 or more that does not qualify for the credits described
above is eligible for the applicable rate for the base SLP tier, which
would be the rate that applies to the non-SLP activity of the member
organization, i.e. the non-Tier Adding Credit, Tier 3 Adding Credit,
Tier 2 Adding Credit or Tier 1 Adding Credit (``SLP Non-Tier''). In the
case of Non-Displayed Reserve Orders, the credit is $0.0010 and in the
case of MPL Orders, the credit is $0.0020.
    The Exchange proposes to add defined terms identifying each of
tiers for SLP credits, as defined above, in the Price List, as SLP Tier
1, SLP Tier 2, SLP Tier 3 and SLP Non-Tier.
    The Exchange proposes to increase for SLP Tier 1 and SLP Tier 2 the
ADV percentage requirement for SLPs and for SLPs that are also DMMs and
subject to Rule 107B(i)(2)(A). The ADV percentage requirement for SLPs
for SLP Tier 1 and SLP Tier 2 would increase from 0.55% to 0.90% and
0.35% to 0.45%, respectively. The ADV percentage requirement for SLPs
that are also DMMs and subject to Rule 107B(i)(2)(A) for SLP Tier 1 and
SLP Tier 2 would increase from 0.50% to 0.85% and 0.30% to 0.40%,
respectively. The Exchange does not propose to change the ADV
percentage requirement for SLP Tier 3.
    The Exchange proposes, for each SLP tier, to decrease the credit
for a Non-Displayed Reserve Order by $0.0010. Specifically, for Non-
Displayed Reserve Orders the SLP Tier 1 credit would decrease from
$0.0024 to $0.0014; the SLP Tier 2 credit would decrease from $0.0021
to $0.0011; the SLP Tier 3 credit would decrease from $0.0018 to
$0.0008; and the SLP Non-Tier credit would decrease from $0.0010 to no
credit.
    The Exchange proposes to decrease the credit for a Non-Displayed
Reserve Order for Less Active SLP Securities by $0.0010 for each SLP
tier: specifically, for SLP Tier 1, from $0.0029 to $0.0019; for SLP
Tier 2, from $0.0026 to $0.0016; and for SLP Tier 3, from $0.0023 to
$0.0013.
    The proposed changes to the credits applicable to MPL Orders are as
set

forth in ``MPL Orders and Non-Displayed Reserve Orders'' above.
    The above proposed changes are not otherwise intended to address
any other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that
members and member organizations would have in complying with the
proposed change.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\12\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\13\ in
particular, because it provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and
other persons using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate
between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

MPL Orders and Non-Displayed Reserve Orders
    The Exchange believes that the proposed increase to the fee for
executions of MPL Orders that remove liquidity and the proposed changes
to the credits for MPL Orders that provide liquidity are reasonable.
MPL Orders provide opportunities for market participants to interact
with orders priced at the midpoint of the PBBO, thus providing price
improving liquidity to market participants and increasing the quality
of order execution on the Exchange's market, which benefits all market
participants. These changes should encourage additional utilization of
MPL Orders on the Exchange.
    Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed change for
MPL Orders that remove liquidity from the Exchange if the security is
priced $1.00 or more from $0.0025 per share to $0.0027 per share is
reasonable because the charge would be the same as the $0.0027 fee
proposed for other executions that remove liquidity. The resulting fee
is also reasonable because would be lower than the rates on the NASDAQ
Stock Market, LLC (``NASDAQ''). For example, NASDAQ charges $0.0030 per
share to execute against resting midpoint liquidity, which is greater
than both the existing $0.0025 per share rate and the proposed $0.0027
per share rate that would apply to MPL Orders.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See NASDAQ Rule 7018(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed additional tier of credits
for MPL Orders is reasonable because the proposed MPL Order Tier credit
of $0.0030 per share that would apply if the member organization has
Adding ADV in MPL Orders that is at least 1.5 million shares would
relate to volume that provides liquidity, which would be identical to
the type of volume to which the credit would apply.
    In addition, the Exchange believes the decrease in the non-tier MPL
Order credit to $0.0015 is reasonable as it is greater than the non-
tier credit that is available on NASDAQ for midpoint liquidity, which
is currently $0.0014 for Tape A and B securities and $0.0010 per share
for Tape C securities.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See supra note 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the proposed changes are equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because all market participants--
customers, Floor brokers, DMMs, and SLPs--may use MPL Orders on the
Exchange and because customers, Floor brokers and SLPs that use MPL
Orders would be subject to the same fee or credit.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed change to the
credit for DMMs for MPL Orders that provide liquidity to the Exchange
to $0.0030 per share is reasonable because DMMs cannot trade in
securities they are not a DMM in and therefore the minimum volume
requirement of the MPL Order Tier should not apply. Moreover, the
requirement is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it
would apply equally to all DMM firms.
    The Exchange believes the proposed changes should incentivize
additional utilization of MPL Orders on the Exchange. MPL Orders
provide opportunities for market participants to interact with orders
priced at the midpoint of the PBBO, thus providing price improving
liquidity to market participants and increasing the quality of order
execution on the Exchange's market, which benefits all market
participants. The proposed change is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because MPL Orders increase the quality of order
execution on the Exchange's market, which benefits all market
participants. The Exchange also believes that the proposed changes are
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all market
participants--customers, Floor brokers, DMMs, and SLPs--may use MPL
Orders on the Exchange and because all market participants that use MPL
Orders may receive credits for MPL Orders, as is currently the case.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change to reduce the
credit for Non-Displayed Reserve Orders that provide liquidity is
reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it is
intended to incentivize member organizations to submit additional
amounts of displayed liquidity to the Exchange during the trading day.
For example, the proposed higher credits applicable to member
organization for executions other than Non-Displayed Reserve Orders
would incentivize member organizations to instead provide displayed
liquidity on the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed
lower credit is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it
would apply equally to all member organizations.
Credits for Certain Executions at the Opening
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to increase the monthly
fee cap for fees for executions at the opening or executions at the
opening only orders to $30,000 because members and member organizations
benefit from the substantial amounts of liquidity that are present on
the Exchange during such time. In addition, the Exchange believes that
the proposed cap is reasonable because the proposed cap and the current
fee rate together are comparable to those for executions at the opening
on other markets.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ For example, NASDAQ charges $0.0015 per share for certain
orders executed in the NASDAQ Opening Corss [sic] and applies at
$20,000 fee cap per month per firm for such executions. See Nasdaq
Rule 7018(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed increased fee cap is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because, even at such an increased level, this pricing
would continue to encourage robust levels of liquidity at the opening,
which benefits all market participants. The proposed increase will
encourage the submission of additional liquidity to a national
securities exchange, thereby promoting price discovery and transparency
and enhancing order execution opportunities for member organization
from the substantial amounts of liquidity that are present on the
Exchange during the opening. Moreover, the requirement is equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory because it would apply equally to all
similarly situated member organizations.
DMMs
    The Exchange believes that the proposed higher monthly credit of
$300, $375, and $450 for each security that has a consolidated ADV of
more than 100,000 and less than 250,000 shares during the month when
the DMM quotes at the NBBO in the applicable security at least 30%,
40%, and 50%, of the time, respectively, in the applicable month is
reasonable because of the

proposed higher quoting requirement associated with this increase in
the credit. The Exchange believes that the proposed lower monthly
credit of $150 and $225 for each security that has a consolidated ADV
of more than 100,000 and less than 250,000 shares during the month when
the DMM quotes at the NBBO in the applicable security between 15% and
20% and 20% to 30% of the time, respectively, in the applicable month
is reasonable because of the proposed higher credit available based on
higher quoting, which should encourage greater quoting. The Exchange
believes that the proposal would increase the incentive to add
liquidity across thinly-traded securities where there may be fewer
liquidity providers. Moreover, the requirement is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because it would apply equally to all DMM
firms.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed higher monthly credit of
$250, $325, and $400 for each security that has a consolidated ADV of
less than 100,000 shares during the month when the DMM quotes at the
NBBO in the applicable security at least 30%, 40%, and 50%, of the
time, respectively, in the applicable month is reasonable because of
the proposed higher quoting requirement associated with this increase
in the credit. The Exchange believes that the proposed lower monthly
credit of $100 each security that has a consolidated ADV of less than
100,000 shares during the month when the DMM quotes at the NBBO in the
applicable security between 15% and 20% of the time in the applicable
month is reasonable because of higher credit available based on higher
quoting, which should encourage greater quoting. The Exchange also
believes that it is reasonable to retain a $175 credit for each
security that has a consolidated ADV of less than 100,000 shares during
the month when the DMM quotes at the NBBO in the applicable security at
least 20% and up to 30% of the time in the applicable month as this is
the rate currently charged and it would apply equally to all DMM firms.
The Exchange believes that the proposal would increase the incentive to
add liquidity across thinly-traded securities where there may be fewer
liquidity providers. Moreover, the requirement is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because it would apply equally to all DMM
firms.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed monthly credit of $200,
$275, $350, $425, and $500 for each security that has a consolidated
ADV of more than 250,000 and less than 1,500,000 shares during the
month when the DMM quotes at the NBBO in the applicable security at
least 15%, 20%, 30%, 40%, and 50%, of the time, respectively, in the
applicable month is reasonable because of the proposed higher quoting
requirement associated with this credit. The Exchange also believes
that the higher credits for each security that has a consolidated ADV
of more than 250,000 and less than 1,500,000 shares during the month
when the DMM quotes at the NBBO of the time in the applicable month is
reasonable in light of higher trading volumes in the applicable
securities relatively to those securities that have a consolidated ADV
of less than 250,000 shares. The Exchange believes that the proposal
would increase the incentive to add liquidity across thinly-traded
securities where there may be fewer liquidity providers. Moreover, the
requirement is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it
would apply equally to all DMM firms.
SLPs
    The Exchange believes that the proposal to add defined terms for
the SLP Tiers to the Price List is reasonable because the change will
make the Price List clearer and easier to understand.
    The Exchange believes that proposal to increase the ADV percentage
requirement for SLPs that are also DMMs and subject to Rule
107B(i)(2)(A) is reasonable because the higher requirements would
incentivize member organizations to provide additional amounts of
liquidity on the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the higher
requirements are reasonable given the higher credits--$0.0029 per share
for SLP Tier 1 and $0.026 per share for SLP Tier 2--relative to the
credit applicable to member organizations other than SLPs, and that the
lower requirements for SLP Tier 3 and the SLP Non-Tier are, similarly,
reasonable given the lower credits for those tiers The Exchange
believes that the proposed higher ADV percentage requirements for SLP
Tier 1 and SLP Tier 2 are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because they would apply equally to all SLPs.
    Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change to
reduce the credit for Non-Displayed Reserve Orders that provide
liquidity is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because it is intended to incentivize SLPs to submit additional amounts
of displayed liquidity to the Exchange during the trading day. This
decrease in the credits for Non-Displayed Reserve Orders for SLPs is
the same decrease as proposed for the credits applicable to Non-
Displayed Reserve Orders for other member organizations. Once again,
the Exchange believes that the proposed lower credit is equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory because it would apply equally to all SLPs.
    The Exchange believes that it is subject to significant competitive
forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement regarding the
burden on competition. For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes
that the proposal is consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\17\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. Instead, the Exchange believes that the proposed
change would contribute to the Exchange's market quality by promoting
price discovery and ultimately increased competition. For the same
reasons, the proposed change also would not impose any burden on
competition among market participants. Pricing for executions at the
opening would remain at the same relatively low levels and would
continue to reflect the benefit that market participants receive
through the ability to have their orders interact with other liquidity
at the opening.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more
favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust
its fees and rebates to remain competitive with other exchanges and
with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from
compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges.
Because competitors are free to modify their own fees and credits in
response, and because market participants may readily adjust their
order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which
fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is
extremely limited. As a result of all of these considerations, the
Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the
ability of member organizations or competing order execution venues to
maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \18\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \19\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \20\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2015-28 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2015-28. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be available
for inspection and copying at the NYSE's principal office and on its
Internet Web site at www.nyse.com. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR- NYSE-2015-28 and should be submitted on or before July
7, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-14668 Filed 6-15-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 20 (Wednesday, January 30, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6316-6317]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01918]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AC13-22-000]

Empire Pipeline, Inc. (Empire); Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on November 29, 2012 Empire Pipeline Company
(Empire) submitted a request for a waiver of the reporting requirement
to file the FERC Form 2 CPA Certification for 2012.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 or 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as

appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or
before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not
necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other
than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: February 19, 2013.

    Dated: January 17, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-01918 Filed 1-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 10, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 55327]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21896]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2012-0087]

Advisory Committee for Aviation Consumer Protection

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation
(DOT).

ACTION: Notice of fifth meeting of advisory committee.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the fifth meeting of the Advisory
Committee for Aviation Consumer Protection.

DATES: The fifth meeting of the advisory committee is scheduled for
October 8, 2013, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Eastern Time.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in the Elwood Pete Quesada
Auditorium located on the third floor of the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) headquarters at 800 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC. Attendance is open to the public up to the room's
capacity of 125 attendees. However, since access to the FAA
headquarters building is controlled for security purposes, any member
of the general public who plans to attend this meeting must notify the
Department contact identified below at least five (5) calendar days
prior to the meeting.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To register to attend the meeting,
please contact Max Slaiman, Research Analyst, Centra Technology, Inc.,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>703-894-6910. For other information
please contact Kathleen Blank Riether, Senior Attorney, Office of
Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE.,
Washington, DC 20590;<PHONE_NUMBER> (phone),<PHONE_NUMBER> (fax).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    On May 24, 2012, the Secretary, as mandated by Section 411 of the
FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-95, 126 Stat. 11
(2012)), established the Advisory Committee on Aviation Consumer
Protection and announced those persons appointed as members. The
committee's charter, drafted in accordance with the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA), as amended, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, sets forth policies
for the operation of the advisory committee and is available on the
Department's Web site at http://facasms.fido.gov/committee/charters.aspx?cid=2448&aid=47.
    The fifth meeting of the committee is scheduled for Tuesday,
October 8, 2013, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time in the Elwood
Pete Quesada Auditorium located on the third floor of the FAA
headquarters at 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591. At
the meeting the DOT's Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings
(Enforcement Office) will provide an update on the implementation
status of the committee's initial set of recommendations to the
Secretary submitted to Congress on March 22, 2013. Other issues to be
discussed include making consumer rights information available to the
public on airport posters, delays in the clearance of passengers
arriving on international flights through the U.S. Customs and Border
Protection facilities at U.S. airports, customized airfare pricing and
potential consumer protection issues, and the committee's
recommendations for calendar year 2013 to the Secretary of
Transportation on additional needed consumer protection measures.
    As announced in the notices of previous meetings of the committee,
the meeting will be open to the public, and, time permitting, comments
by members of the public are invited. Since access to the Federal
Aviation Administration headquarters building is controlled for
security purposes, we ask that any member of the general public who
plans to attend the fifth meeting notify the Department contact noted
above no later than five (5) calendar days prior to the meeting.
Attendance will be necessarily limited by the size of the meeting room.
    Members of the public may present written comments at any time. The
docket number referenced above (OST-2012-0087, available at https://www.regulations.gov,) has been established for committee documents
including any written comments that may be filed. At the discretion of
the Chairperson and time permitting, after completion of the planned
agenda, individual members of the public may provide oral comments. Any
oral comments presented must be limited to the objectives of the
committee and will be limited to five (5) minutes per person.
Individual members of the public who wish to present oral comments must
notify the Department contact noted above via email that they wish to
attend and present oral comments at least five (5) calendar days prior
to the meeting.
    Persons with a disability who plan to attend the meeting and
require special accommodations, such as an interpreter for the hearing
impaired, should notify the Department contact noted above at least
seven (7) calendar days prior to the meeting. Persons attending with a
service animal should also advise us of that fact so that it can be
taken into account in connection with space and possible allergy
issues.
    Notice of this meeting is being provided in accordance with the
FACA and the General Services Administration regulations covering
management of Federal advisory committees. (41 CFR Part 102-3.)

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 3, 2013.
Samuel Podberesky,
Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement & Proceedings, U.S.
Department of Transportation.
[FR Doc. 2013-21896 Filed 9-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P