[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 196 (Thursday, October 12, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47405-47406]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21558]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 196 / Thursday, October 12, 2017 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0817; Product Identifier 2017-NE-30-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney Division Turbofan
Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Pratt & Whitney Division (PW) PW4052, PW4056, PW4060, PW4062, PW4062A,
PW4152, PW4156A, PW4158, PW4460, and PW4462 turbofan engine models,
including engines identified with suffixes -1C, -1E, -3, -3A, or -3B.
This proposed AD was prompted by the discovery of multiple cracked 4th
stage low-pressure turbine (LPT) air seals in the fleet. This proposed
AD requires removal from service of certain air seals. We are proposing
this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 27,
2017.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Pratt &
Whitney Division, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06118; phone: 800-
565-0140; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You may view this service information at
the FAA, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0817; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received,
and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone:
800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available
in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jo-Ann Theriault, Aerospace Engineer,
ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:
781-238-7105; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2017-0817;
Product Identifier 2017-NE-30-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM because
of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this NPRM.

Discussion

    We were notified of the discovery of multiple cracked 4th stage LPT
air seals, part number (P/N) 50N346. This proposed AD requires removal
from service of certain air seals. Replacement of the air seal also
requires replacement of the 4th stage LPT vane cluster honeycomb. This
condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of the air seal,
uncontained air seal release, damage to the engine, and damage to the
airplane.

Related Service Information

    We reviewed PW Alert Service Bulletin (SB) No. PW4ENG A72-830,
Revision 1, dated May 2, 2017. This PW Alert SB provides instructions
for replacement of the 4th stage LPT air seal. We also reviewed
Cleaning Inspection Repair (CIR) Manual, P/N 51A357, Task 72-53-24,
Repair-02. This CIR Manual provides guidance for 4th stage LPT vane
cluster honeycomb replacement repair. This service information is
reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it
through their normal course of business or by the means identified in
the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require replacing 4th stage LPT air seals,
P/N 50N346.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 991 engines installed on
airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement of air seal...............  0 work-hours x $85 per           $13,800         $13,800     $13,675,800
                                         hour = $0.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to engines, propellers, and
associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards
Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

Pratt & Whitney Division: Docket No. FAA-2017-0817 Product
Identifier 2017-NE-30-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by November 27, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Pratt & Whitney Division (PW) PW4052,
PW4056, PW4060, PW4062, PW4062A, PW4152, PW4156A, PW4158, PW4460,
and PW4462 turbofan engine models, including engines identified with
suffixes -1C, -1E, -3, -3A, or -3B, with 4th stage low-pressure
turbine (LPT) air seal, part number (P/N) 50N346, installed.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7240, Turbine Engine
Combustion Section.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by the discovery of multiple cracked air
seals. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the 4th stage
LPT air seal, uncontained air seal release, damage to the engine,
and damage to the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.
    (1) At the next disassembly of the LPT module, remove 4th stage
air seal, P/N 50N346, from service and replace with a part eligible
for installation.
    (2) Reserved.

 (g) Installation Prohibition

    After the effective date of this AD, do not install any 4th
stage LPT air seal, P/N 50N346, into any LPT module.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, ECO Branch, FAA, Compliance and Airworthiness
Division, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if
requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance
with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or
local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the certification office,
send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph
(i)(1) of this AD. You may email your request to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(i) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Jo-Ann
Theriault, Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District
Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 781-238-
7199; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Pratt
& Whitney Division, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06118; phone:
800-565-0140; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You may view this referenced
service information at the FAA, Engine and Propeller Standards
Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on September 29, 2017.
Robert J. Ganley,
Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-21558 Filed 10-11-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 55 (Friday, March 21, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15685-15686]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06251]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2014-0042]

Special Local Regulation; Annual Marine Events on the Colorado
River, Between Davis Dam (Bullhead City, AZ) and Headgate Dam (Parker,
AZ) Within the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the Blue Water Spring Classic
2014 special local regulations during this year's race on April 5, 2014
through April 6, 2014. This event occurs in the Lake Moovalya region of
the navigable waters of the Colorado River in Parker, Arizona. These
special local regulations are necessary to provide for the safety of

the participants, crew, spectators, sponsor vessels of the boat race,
and general users of the waterway. During the enforcement period,
persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting
through, or anchoring within this regulated area unless authorized by
the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. on April 5, 2014
through April 6, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call or email Petty Officer Giacomo Terrizzi, Waterways Management,
U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego, CA; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the special
local regulations in 33 CFR 100.1102 in support of Blue Water Resort &
Casino Spring Classic 2014 (Item 6 on Table 1 of 33 CFR 100.1102), held
on a Saturday and Sunday in April. The Coast Guard will enforce the
special local regulations on the Colorado River in Parker, AZ on
Saturday April 5, 2014 through Sunday April 6, 2014 from 6 a.m. to 6
p.m.
    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 100.1102, persons and vessels are
prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within
this regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or
his designated representative. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other
Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this
regulation.
    This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552 (a) and 33
CFR 100.1102. In addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the
Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance
notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to
Mariners and local advertising by the event sponsor.
    If the Captain of the Port Sector San Diego or his designated
representative determines that the regulated area need not be enforced
for the full duration stated on this notice, he or she may use a
Broadcast Notice to Mariners or other communications coordinated with
the event sponsor to grant general permission to enter the regulated
area.

    Dated: March 4, 2014.
S.M. Mahoney,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard Captain of the Port San Diego.
[FR Doc. 2014-06251 Filed 3-20-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 60 (Wednesday, March 31, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16833-16834]
[FR Doc No: 2021-06613]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Generic
Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service
Delivery

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew a generic information
collection. As part of a Federal Government-wide effort to streamline
the process to seek feedback from the public on service delivery, FAA
has an approved Generic Information Collection Request (Generic ICR):
``Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on
Agency Service Delivery''.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by June 1, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Barbara
Hall, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 10101 Hillwood Parkway,
Fort Worth, TX 76177.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Hall at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0746.
    Title: Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback
on Agency Service Delivery.
    Form Numbers: There are no FAA forms associated with this generic
information collection.
    Type of Review: Renewal of a generic information collection.
    Background: The information collection activity will garner
qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely
manner, in accordance with the Administration's commitment to improving
service delivery. By qualitative feedback we

mean information that provides useful insights on perceptions and
opinions, but are not statistical surveys that yield quantitative
results that can be generalized to the population of study. This
feedback will provide insights into customer or stakeholder
perceptions, experiences and expectations, provide an early warning of
issues with service, or focus attention on areas where communication,
training or changes in operations might improve delivery of products or
services. These collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative and
actionable communications between the Agency and its customers and
stakeholders. It will also allow feedback to contribute directly to the
improvement of program management.
    Feedback collected under this generic clearance will provide useful
information, but it will not yield data that can be generalized to the
overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative
information will not be used for quantitative information collections
that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as
monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such
data uses require more rigorous designs that address: The target
population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame,
the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the
precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed
sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing
potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any
testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior fielding the
study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to
have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other
generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.
    Respondents: Approximately 110,000 Individuals and Households,
Businesses and Organizations, State, Local or Tribal Government.
    Frequency: Once per request.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 10 minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 18,330 hours.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on March 26, 2021.
Barbara L. Hall,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, Performance, Policy, and
Records Management Branch, ASP-110.
[FR Doc. 2021-06613 Filed 3-30-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 70 (Tuesday, April 12, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20428-20429]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8581]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64195; File No. SR-NYSEAmex-2011-21]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Amex LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the
Exchange Price List

April 5, 2011.
    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 March 29, 2011, NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSE Amex'' 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 2011 Price List (``Price List'')
for equities to amend the fees charged for taking liquidity in Nasdaq
securities priced at $1.00 or more and traded pursuant to unlisted
trading privileges (``UTP''). The Exchange proposes to create a new
tier with a reduced ``take'' fee of $0.0019 per share (compared with
$0.0027 currently) for market participants and Designated Market Makers
(``DMMs'') that meet certain average daily executed volume requirements
in either shares or a combination of shares and contracts traded on the
NYSE Amex options market. Market participants and DMMs who meet these
executed volume requirements will also qualify for a reduced routing
fee of $0.0019 per share (compared with $0.0029 currently) for
executions on other markets as a result of routing. The Exchange also
proposes to eliminate all fees shown in the Price List for Supplemental
Liquidity Providers (``SLPs''), regardless of price, for taking
liquidity and for routing because those categories are not applicable
to SLPs. The amended pricing will become operative on April 1, 2011.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, on
the Exchange's Web site at http://www.nyse.com, on the Commission's Web
site at http://www.sec.gov, 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 for equities to
modify the fees charged to market participants and DMMs for taking
liquidity in Nasdaq securities traded pursuant to UTP whose share price
is $1.00 or more. The corresponding fees for such securities whose
share price is below $1.00 will remain unchanged from the current
formulation regardless of whether the volume requirements described
below are met.
    Currently, market participants and DMMs are charged a fee of
$0.0027 per share for orders in Nasdaq securities traded pursuant to
unlisted trading privileges and priced at $1.00 or more that take
liquidity. Under the proposal, the fee will be reduced to $0.0019 per
share for orders that take liquidity if either of the following volume
requirements is met:

     Execution of an average daily volume (``ADV'') in the
current month of greater than three million shares when taking
liquidity and routing to other markets for execution (combined); or
     Execution of an ADV in the current month of greater
than 1 million shares when taking liquidity and routing to other
markets for execution (combined) and execution of an ADV of 130,000
total contracts or more on the NYSE Amex options market.

    The second alternative above for meeting the volume requirements is
being provided for the purpose of encouraging and rewarding active
participation in both of the NYSE Amex markets (equities and options)
and to recognize those participants that are active on both markets. A
party that does no options business could still obtain the lower charge
based solely on its UTP equities business.
    Currently, market participants and DMMs are charged a fee of
$0.0029 per share for orders in Nasdaq securities traded pursuant to
unlisted trading privileges and priced at $1.00 or more that are routed
to other markets and execute there. Under the proposal, the fee will be
reduced to $0.0019 per share for executions of such routed orders if
either of the above volume requirements is met. The corresponding fee
for such securities whose share price is below $1.00 will remain
unchanged from the current formulation regardless of whether the volume
requirements are met.
    The Exchange believes that these reduced fees for taking liquidity
and executions from routing will attract more volume to the Exchange
and thereby result in a more competitive market in the trading of
Nasdaq UTP securities.
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to eliminate all fees shown in the
Price List for SLPs, regardless of price, for taking liquidity and for
routing, because those categories are not applicable to SLPs and should
not have been added when the fee and credit structure for trading
Nasdaq listed securities pursuant to UTP was adopted.\4\ As indicated
in the Price List for its listed securities, the only prices applicable
to SLPs are credits for adding liquidity. The applicable charges for
taking liquidity and routing are already covered in that portion of the
Price List that relates more generally to fees and credits applicable
to market participants for transactions in Nasdaq securities pursuant
to UTP, which would include fees for taking liquidity and routing that
are charged to the firm with which the SLP is associated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62488 (July 13,
2010), 75 FR 41912 (July 19, 2010) (File No. SR-NYSEAmex-2010-69).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These changes are intended to become operative for all transactions
beginning April 1, 2011.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\5\ in general, and Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\6\ in
particular, in that it is designed to provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its
members and other persons using its facilities. The Exchange believes
that the proposal does not constitute an inequitable allocation of
fees, as all similarly situated member organizations will be charged
the same amount and access to the Exchange's market is offered on fair
and non-discriminatory terms. The Exchange believes that these reduced
fees for taking liquidity and executions from routing will attract more
volume to the Exchange and thereby result in a more competitive market
in the trading of Nasdaq UTP securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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) \7\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-
4 \8\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by the NYSE Amex.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 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.

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2011-21 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2011-21. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between
the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. 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
publicly available. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
NYSEAmex-2011-21 and should be submitted on or before May 3, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-8581 Filed 4-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 169 (Thursday, September 1, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53743-53744]
[FR Doc No: 2022-18890]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-10175-01-OW]

Notice of Public Meeting Webinar of the Environmental Financial
Advisory Board (EFAB)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of public meeting webinar.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Environmental
Financial Advisory Board (EFAB) will hold a public meeting webinar. The
purpose of the webinar will be for the Opportunity Zones and Pollution
Prevention Workgroups to present their draft deliverables to EFAB and
solicit feedback on the drafts. The meeting will be shared in real-time
via webinar and public comments may be provided in writing in advance.

DATES: The webinar will be held on Tuesday, September 20, 2022 from 1
p.m. to 2:30 p.m. (Eastern Time).

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be conducted via webinar only and is open
to the public. Interested persons must register in advance at the
weblink below to access the meeting.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ed Chu, the Designated Federal
Officer, via telephone/voice mail at<PHONE_NUMBER> or email to
[email protected]. General information concerning the EFAB is available at
https://www.epa.gov/waterfinancecenter/efab.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Background: The EFAB is an EPA advisory committee chartered under
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. app. 2, to provide
advice and recommendations to EPA on innovative approaches to funding
environmental programs, projects, and

activities. Administrative support for the EFAB is provided by the
Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center within EPA's Office
of Water. Pursuant to FACA and EPA policy, notice is hereby given that
the EFAB will hold a public webinar briefing. The purpose of the
webinar will be for members of the EFAB to hear from the Opportunity
Zones and Pollution Prevention Workgroups on the draft deliverable
products and provide initial feedback on the drafts. The final
Opportunity Zones and Pollution Prevention Workgroups deliverables will
be voted on by EFAB during a future public meeting. The webinar is open
to the public, but no oral public comments will be accepted during the
briefing. Written public comments relating to the workgroups should be
provided in accordance with the instructions below on written
statements.
    Registration for the Meeting: Register for the meeting at https://epaefabworkgroupswebinar.eventbrite.com.
    Availability of Meeting Materials: Meeting materials (including the
meeting agenda and briefing materials) will be available on EPA's
website at https://www.epa.gov/waterfinancecenter/efab.
    Procedures for Providing Public Input: Public comment for
consideration by EPA's federal advisory committees has a different
purpose from public comment provided to EPA program offices. Therefore,
the process for submitting comments to a federal advisory committee is
different from the process used to submit comments to an EPA program
office. Federal advisory committees provide independent advice to EPA.
Members of the public can submit comments on matters being considered
by the EFAB for consideration by members as they develop their advice
and recommendations to EPA.
    Written Statements: Written statements for the webinar should be
received by September 15, 2022, so that the information can be made
available to the EFAB for its consideration. Written statements should
be sent via email to [email protected]. Members of the public should be
aware that their personal contact information, if included in any
written comments, may be posted to the EFAB website. Copyrighted
material will not be posted without explicit permission of the
copyright holder.
    Accessibility: For information on access or services for
individuals with disabilities or to request accommodations for a
disability, please register for the webinar and list any special
requirements or accommodations needed on the registration form at least
10 business days prior to the meeting to allow as much time as possible
to process your request.

Andrew D. Sawyers,
Director, Office of Wastewater Management.
[FR Doc. 2022-18890 Filed 8-31-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


1 U. S. EPA BOARD OF SCIENTIFIC COUNSELORS Water Quality Subcommittee DRAFT MEETING AGENDA March 6, 2006 10: 30 p. m.  12: 30 p. m. EST Monday, March 6, 2006 10: 30 am Welcome and Opening Remarks Dr. Herb Windom, Chair 10: 40 am Summary of January Poster Sessions Chair/ Subcommittee 10: 50 am Discuss draft report for Executive Chair/ Subcommittee BOSC review 12: 15 pm Public comments 12: 30 pm Adjourn


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 144 (Wednesday, July 27, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44985-44986]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19029]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2011-0177]

Pipeline Safety: Potential for Damage to Pipeline Facilities
Caused by Flooding

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: Notice; Issuance of Advisory Bulletin.

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

SUMMARY: PHMSA is issuing this advisory bulletin to all owners and
operators of gas and hazardous liquid pipelines to communicate the
potential for damage to pipeline facilities caused by severe flooding.
This advisory includes actions that operators should consider taking to
ensure the integrity of pipelines in case of flooding.

ADDRESSES: This document can be viewed on the Office of Pipeline Safety
home page at: http://ops.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Operators of pipelines subject to
regulation by PHMSA should contact the appropriate PHMSA Regional
Office. The PHMSA Regional Offices and their contact information are as
follows:
     Eastern Region: Connecticut, Delaware, District of
Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and West
Virginia, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Southern Region: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,
Mississippi, North Carolina, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, and
Tennessee, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Central Region: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan,
Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and
Wisconsin, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Southwest Region: Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico,
Oklahoma, and Texas, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Western Region: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado,
Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Intrastate pipeline operators should contact the appropriate State
pipeline safety authority. A list of State pipeline safety authorities
is provided at: http://www.napsr.org/managers/napsr_state_program_managers2.htm.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Section 192.613(a) of the Pipeline Safety Regulations (49 CFR parts
190-199) states that ``[e]ach operator shall have a procedure for
continuing surveillance of its facilities to determine and take
appropriate action concerning changes in class location, failures,
leakage history, corrosion, substantial changes in cathodic protection
requirements, and other unusual operating and maintenance conditions.''
Section 192.613(b) further states that ``[i]f a segment of pipeline is
determined to be in unsatisfactory condition but no immediate hazard
exists, the operator shall initiate a program to recondition or phase
out the segment involved, or, if the segment cannot be reconditioned or
phased out, reduce the maximum allowable operating pressure in
accordance with Sec.  192.619 (a) and (b).''
    Likewise, Sec.  195.401(b)(1) of the Pipeline Safety Regulations
states that ``[w]henever an operator discovers any condition that could
adversely affect the safe operation of its pipeline system, it must
correct the condition within a reasonable time. However, if the
condition is of such a nature that it presents an immediate hazard to
persons or property, the operator may not operate the affected part of
the system until it has corrected the unsafe condition.'' Section
195.401(b)(2) further states that ``[w]hen an operator discovers a
condition on a pipeline covered under [the integrity management
requirements in] Sec.  195.452, the operator must correct the condition
as prescribed in Sec.  195.452(h).''
    Severe flooding is the kind of unusual operating condition that can
adversely affect the safe operation of a pipeline and require
corrective action under Sec. Sec.  192.613(a) and 195.401(b). In
October 1994, major flooding along the San Jacinto River near Houston,
Texas, resulted in eight pipeline failures and compromised the
integrity of several other pipelines. Similar flooding has occurred
along the Yellowstone River in the past few months. While the cause of
the accident is still under investigation, ExxonMobil Pipeline Company
experienced a pipeline failure near

Laurel, Montana, on July 1, 2011, resulting in the release of crude oil
into the Yellowstone River.
    Severe flooding and other conditions that can adversely affect the
safe operation of a pipeline may also trigger the reporting
requirements in Part 191 and Part 195 or applicable state reporting
requirements. PHMSA requires operators to submit telephonic and written
reports when natural gas or hazardous liquid releases occur that exceed
certain threshold requirements. PHMSA also requires operators to submit
reports of safety-related conditions involving potentially unsafe
conditions on natural gas and hazardous liquid pipelines (Sec. Sec.
191.23 and 195.55).

Advisory Bulletin (ADB-11-04)

    To: Owners and operators of gas and hazardous liquid pipeline
systems.
    Subject: Potential for damage to pipeline facilities caused by
severe flooding.
    Advisory: Severe flooding can adversely affect the safe operation
of a pipeline. Operators need to direct their resources in a manner
that will enable them to determine the potential effects of flooding on
their pipeline systems. Operators are urged to take the following
actions to prevent and mitigate damage to pipeline facilities and
ensure public and environmental safety in areas affected by flooding:
    1. Evaluate the accessibility of pipeline facilities that may be in
jeopardy, such as valve settings, which are needed to isolate water
crossings or other sections of a pipeline.
    2. Extend regulator vents and relief stacks above the level of
anticipated flooding, as appropriate.
    3. Coordinate with emergency and spill responders on pipeline
location and condition. Provide maps and other relevant information to
such responders.
    4. Coordinate with other pipeline operators in the flood area and
establish emergency response centers to act as a liaison for pipeline
problems and solutions.
    5. Deploy personnel so that they will be in position to take
emergency actions, such as shut down, isolation, or containment.
    6. Determine if facilities that are normally above ground (e.g.,
valves, regulators, relief sets, etc.) have become submerged and are in
danger of being struck by vessels or debris; if possible, such
facilities should be marked with an appropriate buoy with Coast Guard
approval.
    7. Perform frequent patrols, including appropriate overflights, to
evaluate right-of-way conditions at water crossings during flooding and
after waters subside. Determine if flooding has exposed or undermined
pipelines as a result of new river channels cut by the flooding or by
erosion or scouring.
    8. Perform surveys to determine the depth of cover over pipelines
and the condition of any exposed pipelines, such as those crossing
scour holes. Where appropriate, surveys of underwater pipe should
include the use of visual inspection by divers or instrumented
detection. Information gathered by these surveys should be shared with
affected landowners. Agricultural agencies may help to inform farmers
of the potential hazard from reduced cover over pipelines.
    9. Ensure that line markers are still in place or replaced in a
timely manner. Notify contractors, highway departments, and others
involved in post-flood restoration activities of the presence of
pipelines and the risks posed by reduced cover.
    If a pipeline has suffered damage, is shut-in, or is being operated
at a reduced pressure as a precautionary measure as a result of
flooding, the operator should advise the appropriate PHMSA Regional
Office or State pipeline safety authority before returning the line to
service, increasing its operating pressure, or otherwise changing its
operating status. PHMSA or the State will review all available
information and advise the operator, on a case-by-case basis, whether
and to what extent a line can safely be returned to full service.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 22, 2011.
Jeffrey D. Wiese,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2011-19029 Filed 7-26-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


10/22/07 DRAFT

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

HUMAN STUDIES REVIEW BOARD (HSRB)

OCTOBER 24-26, 2007

PUBLIC MEETING

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Environmental Protection Agency

Conference Center - Lobby Level

One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.)

2777 S. Crystal Drive

 Arlington, VA 22202

HSRB WEB SITE   http://www.epa.gov/osa/hsrb/

Docket Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Docket Number: EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-0942

( 8:30 AM	Convene Meeting and Identification of Board Members – Celia
Fisher, Ph.D. (HSRB Chair)

( 8:40 AM	Welcome – George Gray, Ph.D. (EPA Science Advisor)

( 8:45 AM	Opening Remarks – Debbie Edwards, Ph.D. (Director, Office of
Pesticide Programs, [OPP])

( 8:50 AM	Meeting Administrative Procedures - Paul Lewis, Ph.D.
(Designated Federal Officer [DFO], HSRB, OSA, EPA)

( 8:55 AM	EPA Follow-up on HSRB Recommendations – Mr. William Jordan
(EPA, OPP)

Scientific and Ethical Approaches for Observational Exposure Studies

( 9:05 AM	EPA Draft Document Scientific and Ethical Approaches for
Observational Exposure Studies– Roy Fortmann, Ph.D. and Larry Cupitt,
Ph.D. (Office of Research and Development, EPA)

( 10:15 AM	Break

( 10:30 AM	Public Comments

( 11:00 AM	Board Discussion

One of the goals of the document is identify the major scientific and
ethical areas and issues that researchers should address in the design
and implementation of observational human exposure measurement studies,
with the emphasis on the areas requiring ethical considerations.  Does
each section identify the major areas and issues where ethical
considerations should be addressed?

( 12:15 PM	Lunch

( 1:00 PM	Board Discussion (continued)

The document is intended to serve as a reference and resource of
information that researchers can use in the design and implementation of
observational exposure studies.  Are there additional sources of
information that should be considered for inclusion in the section?

Is the information presented accurately and clearly in each section?

Note: Board discussion will focus on responding to the three charge
questions together by  section (Sections 1 to 7) of the EPA draft
document

Sodium Azide

( 1:45 PM	Science and Ethics of Sodium Azide Study – Ms. Nancy
McCarroll (OPP, EPA) and Mr. John Carley (OPP, EPA)

( 2:30 PM	Public Comments

( 2:45 PM	Board Discussion

The Agency has concluded that this study contains information sufficient
for assessing human risk resulting from potential acute and chronic
exposure.  Please comment on whether the study is sufficiently sound,
from a scientific perspective, to be used to estimate a safe level of
acute and chronic exposure to sodium azide.

Please comment on the following:

Is there clear and convincing evidence that the conduct of the study was
fundamentally unethical?

Is there clear and convincing evidence that the conduct of the study was
significantly deficient relative to the ethical standards prevailing at
the time the research was conducted?

( 3:30 PM	Adjournment

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

HUMAN STUDIES REVIEW BOARD (HSRB)

OCTOBER 24-26, 2007 *

PUBLIC MEETING

Thursday, October 25, 2007

Environmental Protection Agency

Conference Center - Lobby Level

One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.)

2777 S. Crystal Drive

 Arlington, VA 22202

( 8:00 AM	Convene Meeting –  Celia Fisher, Ph.D. (HSRB Chair)

( 8:05 AM	Follow-up From Previous Day’s Discussion – Mr. William
Jordan (OPP, EPA)

Science Issues in Mosquito Repellent Efficacy Field Research

( 8:10 AM	Introduction – Celia Fisher, Ph.D. (HSRB Chair)

( 8:20 AM	EPA Presentation -   Mr. William Jordan (EPA, OPP)

( 8:40 AM	Public Comments

( 8:55 AM	Board Discussion

Issue 1.

	What do data show about the variability of the time intervals
between first and subsequent landings in mosquito repellent field
trials?

	What is the current scientific understanding of how factors other
than repellent efficacy could affect the likelihood that an initial
event—a mosquito landing or mosquito bite—would be “confirmed”
by another similar event within 30 minutes?  Please address at least
these factors:

o	Characteristics of mosquito populations

o	Characteristics of test sites

o	Characteristics of test subjects

o	Characteristics of test methods

	Can the impact of such factors on the likelihood or timing of an
initial and confirming event be predicted?  Can it be quantified?

Issue 2.

At its June 27 - 29, 2007 meeting the Board learned that different
designs with different “length-biased” sampling for mosquito
repellent field studies are in use.  One design exposes subjects to
potential mosquito landings for one minute of every 15 minutes; another
design exposes subjects to potential mosquito landings for five minutes
of every 30 minutes.
T敨䐠但椠⁳敳慰慲整祬瀠潲楶楤杮愠䌠⁄潣瑮楡楮杮
琠敨戠捡杫潲湵慭整楲污⁳潦⁲桴畊敮㈠‷ₖ㤲
〲㜰䠠剓⁂敭瑥湩⹧†桔牰瑯捯汯⁳牡潬摡摥漠
桴䑃吠敨敳搠獥杩獮栠癡楤晦牥湥⁴沓湥瑧⵨楢
獡摥ₔ慳灭楬杮ഠ

	What is the methodological rationale for the two different designs?

	Which design is used more widely in the field? Why?

	Can potential effects of variation in the pattern of intermittent
exposure on the results of efficacy testing be isolated from the effects
of other variables?  If so, can the direction or magnitude of the
effects be predicted?  How might these influences be analyzed and
accounted for in collecting, reporting and analyzing repellent efficacy
data?

Issue 3.

Dr. Matt Kramer, a USDA statistician who has served as a consultant, has
suggested that the precision of estimates of Complete Protection Time
(CPT) in repellent testing could be significantly increased by defining
a failure of efficacy as the mean time from treatment to a series of
several landings or bites.  He has stated:

The precision of CPT increases when it is estimated beyond time to
[First Confirmed Bite] FCB or FCLanding.  How well CPT can be estimated
depends on the distribution of so many bites beyond FCB.  The number of
mosquitoes that will bite (n) will determine results of the test.  Each
person in the field should be his/her own control; that way it is
possible to know n per person, and reduce person-to-person variability.

If using the mean time to the first 5 bites, the SE will decrease
proportionally as n increases (n = 5 in this case).  That is equivalent
to an increase in the power of the test of 5 times.  This method allows
for detecting formulation differences near the CPT.

	Does this approach, indeed, increase the precision of estimates of
CPT markedly without requiring additional subjects?

	If so, would this increased precision justify the incremental risk
to the subjects resulting from their exposure to a great?

Is it practical to test long-lasting repellents to the point of five
landings?

( 10:00 AM	Break

( 10:15 AM	Board Discussion (continued)

Completed Field Efficacy Studies by Carroll-Loye Biological Research:
SCI-001 and WPC-001

( 11:15 AM	EPA Science and Ethics of Completed Carroll-Loye Biological
Research Studies SCI-001 and WPC-001 – Clara Fuentes, Ph..D. (OPP,
EPA), Mr. Kevin Sweeney (OPP, EPA) and Mr. John Carley (OPP, EPA)

( 12:15 PM	Lunch

( 1:15 PM	Public Comments

( 1:45 PM	Board Discussion

SCI-001

Is this study sufficiently sound, from a scientific perspective, to be
used to assess the repellent efficacy of the formulations tested against
mosquitoes?  Please comment specifically on:

Whether participation in field testing by several subjects on the day
after they had been treated with a different test repellent is likely to
have affected the validity of the results for those subjects on those
days.

The effects of changes to the experimental design resulting in
evaluation of repellents using fewer than ten subjects per treatment per
day, followed by pooling of results by site for statistical analysis.

Does available information support a determination that this study was
conducted in substantial compliance with subparts K and L of EPA
regulations at 40 CFR part 26?  Please comment specifically on:

The decision to use a different test formulation in place of one of the
test materials described in the protocol reviewed by the IRB, EPA and
the HSRB.

How to assess the ethical conduct of an insect repellency study
involving multiple test formulations when there is an ethical deficiency
in the conduct of the study with respect to one of the test
formulations.  If the ethical deficiency warrants not relying on the
results of the testing with regard to one test formulation, under what
circumstances (if any) does the ethical deficiency affect the
acceptability of the results from testing the other formulations?

WPC-001

Is the research conducted under WPC-001 sufficiently sound, from a
scientific perspective, to be used to assess the repellent efficacy of
the formulation tested against mosquitoes?  Please comment specifically
on whether participation in field testing by several subjects on the day
after  they had been treated with a different test repellent is likely
to have affected the validity of the results for those subjects on those
days.

Does available information support a determination that the research
covered by WPC-001 was conducted in substantial compliance with subparts
K and L of EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 26?  If the conduct of any
part of SCI-001 is deemed not to substantially comply with the
requirements of subparts K and L, please comment specifically on how to
assess the ethical conduct of research conducted under WPC-001 in light
of the fact that it was conducted at the same times and at the same
places as the research covered under protocol SCI-001.

( 3:00 PM	Break

Carroll-Loye Biological Research Insect Repellent Efficacy Protocols

SPC-001

( 3:15 PM	Science and Ethics of Carroll-Loye Protocol SPC-001 – Mr.
Kevin Sweeney (OPP, EPA) and Mr. John Carley (OPP, EPA)

( 3:45 PM	Public Comments

( 4:00 PM	Board Discussion

If the proposed research described in Protocol SPC-001 from Carroll-Loye
Biological Research is revised as suggested in EPA’s review, does the
research appear likely to generate scientifically reliable data, useful
for assessing the efficacy of the test substances for repelling
mosquitoes?

If the proposed research described in Protocol SPC-001 from Carroll-Loye
Biological Research is revised as suggested in EPA’s review, does the
research appear to meet the applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 26,
subparts K and L?

SPC-002

( 5:00 PM	Science and Ethics of Carroll-Loye Protocol SPC-002 – Mr.
Kevin Sweeney (OPP, EPA) and Mr. John Carley (OPP, EPA)

( 5:30 PM	Public Comments

( 5:45 PM	Board Discussion

If the proposed research described in Protocol SPC-002 from Carroll-Loye
Biological Research is revised as suggested in EPA’s review, does the
research appear likely to generate scientifically reliable data, useful
for assessing the efficacy of the test substances for repelling
mosquitoes?

If the proposed research described in Protocol SPC-002 from Carroll-Loye
Biological Research is revised as suggested in EPA’s review, does the
research appear to meet the applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 26,
subparts K and L?

( 6:45 PM	Adjournment

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

HUMAN STUDIES REVIEW BOARD (HSRB)

OCTOBER 24-26, 2007 *

PUBLIC MEETING

Friday, October 26, 2007

Environmental Protection Agency

Conference Center - Lobby Level

One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.)

2777 S. Crystal Drive

 Arlington, VA 22202

( 8:30 AM	Convene Meeting –  Celia Fisher, Ph.D. (HSRB Chair)

( 8:35 AM	Follow-up From Previous Day’s Discussion – Mr. William
Jordan (OPP, EPA)

ICR Repellency Efficacy Protocol   A117

( 8:40 AM	EPA Science and Ethics Reviews of ICR Protocol A117– Mr.
Kevin Sweeney (OPP, EPA) and Mr. John Carley (OPP, EPA)

( 9:15 AM	Public Comments

h

j

k

±

-

!

/

2

H

I

f

g

i

j

k

°

±

²

´

µ

·

¸

¹

»

Î

h

h

h»

h»

h»

h»

萑ː葠ː摧悠Z

h»

h»

ༀ킄ᄂ预㟾$␸䠀$葞ː葠ﺘ摧䕬Î

栂퀁ༀ킄ᄂ预㟾$␸䠀$葞ː葠ﺘ摧䕬Î
ഀ׆Āː฀킄༂킄㜂$␸䠀$葝ː葞ː摧䕬Î

ༀ킄ᄂ预㟾$␸䠀$葞ː葠ﺘ摧䕬Î	㜀$␸䠀$摧䕬Î

h»

h»

h»

h»

h»

h»

h»

Board Discussion

If the proposed research described in ICR’s proposed picaridin
protocol is revised as suggested in EPA’s review, does the research
appear likely to generate scientifically reliable data, useful for
assessing the efficacy of the test substances for repelling mosquitoes
of the genus Culex?

If the proposed research described in ICR’s proposed picaridin
protocol is revised as suggested in EPA’s review, does the research
appear to meet the applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 26, subparts K
and L?

( 10:30 AM	Break

EPA Update of AEATF and AHETF Research Programs

( 10:45 AM	EPA Presentation -   William Jordan (OPP, EPA)

( 11:00 AM	Public Comments

( 11:15 AM	Board Discussion

No Board Charge

( 12:30 PM	Adjournment - Celia Fisher, Ph.D. (HSRB Chair) and Paul
Lewis, Ph.D. (DFO, HSRB, OSA, EPA)

* Please be advised that agenda times are approximate and subject to
change. For further information, please contact the Designated Federal
Officer for this meeting, Paul Lewis via telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or
email:   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

  PAGE  7  of   NUMPAGES  7


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 98 (Wednesday, May 20, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30751-30755]
[FR Doc No: 2020-10813]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88869; File No. SR-NYSEAMER-2020-35]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Change To Amend Its
Price List To Offer New Credits

May 14, 2020.
    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 1, 2020, NYSE American LLC (``NYSE American'' 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 offer new credits
for liquidity-providing displayed orders, MPL orders, and orders
setting a new NYSE American BBO. The Exchange proposes to implement the
rule change on May 1, 2020. The proposed change is available on the
Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List to offer a new tier
of credits that would apply to displayed orders, Mid-Point Liquidity
(``MPL'') orders,\4\ and orders setting a new NYSE American best bid or
offer (``BBO''), if such orders have an Adding ADV \5\ of at least
2,500,000 shares.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Rule 7.31E(d)(3) (description of MPL order).
    \5\ As set forth in the Price List, Adding ADV means an ETP
Holder's average daily volume of shares executed on the Exchange
that provided liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed change responds to the current competitive environment
where order flow providers have a choice of where to direct orders by
offering further incentives for Equity Trading Permit (``ETP'') Holders
\6\ to send additional displayed liquidity to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Rules 1.1E(m) (definition of ETP) & (n) (definition of
ETP Holder).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to implement the rule change on May 1, 2020.
Competitive Environment
    The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for
competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices,
products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS,
the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (S7-10-04) (Final Rule) (``Regulation
NMS'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the Commission itself recognized, the market for trading
services in NMS stocks has become ``more fragmented and competitive.''
\8\ Indeed, equity trading is currently dispersed across 13
exchanges,\9\ 31 alternative trading systems,\10\ and numerous broker-
dealer internalizers and wholesalers, all competing for order flow.
Based on publicly available information, no single exchange has more
than 19% of the market share of executed volume of equity trades
(whether excluding or including auction volume).\11\ Therefore, no
exchange possesses significant pricing power in the execution of equity
order flow. More specifically, the Exchange's market share of trading
in Tapes A, B, and C securities combined is less than 1%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808, 84 FR 5202,
5253 (February 20, 2019) (File No. S7-05-18) (Transaction Fee Pilot
for NMS Stocks Final Rule).
    \9\ See Cboe Global Markets, U.S. Equities Market Volume
Summary, available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/. See generally https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/divisionsmarketregmrexchangesshtml.html.
    \10\ See FINRA ATS Transparency Data, available at https://otctransparency.finra.org/otctransparency/AtsIssueData. A list of
alternative trading systems registered with the Commission is
available at https://www.sec.gov/foia/docs/atslist.htm.
    \11\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Equities Market Volume
Summary, available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
shift order flow, or discontinue or reduce use of certain products, in
response to fee changes. With respect to non-marketable order flow that
would provide liquidity on an exchange, ETP Holders can choose from any
one of the 13 currently operating registered exchanges to route such
order flow. Accordingly, competitive forces constrain the Exchange's
transaction fees that relate to orders that would provide liquidity on
an exchange.
    In response to this competitive environment, the Exchange proposes
to introduce incentives for its ETP Holders who submit orders that
provide liquidity on the Exchange. The proposed fee change is designed
to attract additional order flow to the Exchange and to encourage
quoting and trading on the Exchange.
Proposed Rule Change
    For transactions in securities priced at or above $1.00, other than
transactions by Electronic Designated Market Makers in assigned
securities, the Exchange proposes to amend its Price List to offer the
following new credits that would apply to ETP Holders with an Adding
ADV of at least 2,500,000 shares during the billing month:
     For displayed orders and MPL orders that add liquidity,
the Exchange proposes a $0.0026 credit per displayed and MPL share.
     For orders that set a new BBO on NYSE American, the
Exchange proposes a $0.0027 credit per share. Orders that set a new BBO
on the Exchange but do not meet the Adding ADV requirement of at least
2,500,000 shares will continue to receive a credit of $0.0026 per
share.
    The credits applicable to displayed orders and MPL orders for ETP
Holders with Adding ADV of at least 750,000 shares ($0.0025 per share),
and otherwise ($0.0024 per share), will remain unchanged.
    This proposed change is intended to incentivize ETP Holders to
increase the liquidity-providing orders they send to the Exchange,
which would support the quality of price discovery on the Exchange and
provide additional liquidity for incoming orders. The Exchange believes
that by correlating the level of credits to the level of executed
providing volume on the Exchange, the Exchange's fee structure would
encourage ETP Holders to submit more displayed, liquidity-providing
orders to the Exchange that are likely to be executed, thereby
increasing the potential for incoming marketable orders submitted to
the Exchange to receive an execution.
    As noted above, the Exchange operates in a competitive environment,
particularly as it relates to attracting non-marketable orders that add
displayed liquidity to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the
proposed tiering of credits applicable to displayed orders, MPL orders,
and orders setting a new NYSE American BBO, for ETP Holders that meet
the Adding ADV requirement of at least 2,500,000 shares, would serve as
an additional incentive for ETP Holders to send liquidity to and
improve quoting on the Exchange in order to qualify for such credits.
    The Exchange also proposes non-substantive changes to add headers
to the table in Section I.A. of the Price List, which sets forth
Transaction Fees and Credits, to more clearly describe the credits that
would be applicable to (1) displayed and MPL orders adding liquidity,
and (2) orders setting a new NYSE American BBO.
    The proposed changes are not otherwise intended to address any
other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any significant problems
that market participants would have in complying with the proposed
changes.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\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) & (5).

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

The Proposed Change Is Reasonable
    As discussed above, the Exchange operates in a highly fragmented
and competitive market. The Commission has repeatedly expressed its
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically,
in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market
forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized
that current regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably
successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that
are most important to investors and listed companies.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Regulation NMS, 70 FR at 37499.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
move order flow, or discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of
products, in response to fee changes. With respect to non-marketable
order flow that would provide liquidity on an Exchange, ETP Holders can
choose from any one of the 13 currently operating registered exchanges
to route such order flow. Accordingly, competitive forces constrain
exchange transaction fees that relate to orders that would provide
liquidity on an exchange. Stated otherwise, changes to exchange
transaction fees can have a direct effect on the ability of an exchange
to compete for order flow.
    Given this current competitive environment, the Exchange believes
that this proposal represents a reasonable attempt to attract
additional order flow to, and increase quoting on, the Exchange. As
noted above, the Exchange's market share of trading in Tapes A, B, and
C securities combined is under 1%.
    Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed credits for
displayed orders, MPL orders, and orders setting a new NYSE American
BBO, with an Adding ADV of 2,500,000 shares or more, would provide
incentives for ETP Holders to route additional liquidity-providing
orders to the Exchange. As noted above, the Exchange operates in a
highly competitive environment, particularly with respect to attracting
order flow that provides liquidity on an exchange. The Exchange
believes that it is reasonable to provide a higher credit for orders
that provide additional liquidity and to provide an incremental credit
for orders that meet the Adding ADV requirements as described above.
    The Exchange believes that 6 ETP Holders currently qualify for the
proposed new credits, and more ETP Holders could qualify for the
proposed credit for setting a new BBO if they so choose. Without having
a view of ETP Holders' activity on other exchanges and off-exchange
venues, the Exchange has no way of knowing whether this proposed rule
change would result in any ETP Holder directing orders to the Exchange
in order to qualify for the new credits. However, the Exchange believes
that the proposal represents a reasonable effort to provide an
additional incentive for ETP Holders to direct their order flow to the
Exchange and provide meaningful added levels of liquidity in order to
qualify for the higher credit, thereby contributing to depth and market
quality on the Exchange.
    The Exchange notes that volume-based incentives and discounts have
been widely adopted by exchanges \15\ and are reasonable, equitable,
and non-discriminatory because that are available to all ETP Holders on
an equal basis and provide additional credits that are reasonably
related to the value to an exchange's market quality and associated
higher levels of market activity. The Exchange further notes that the
proposed credits remain in line with credits currently offered on other
markets to attract liquidity.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See, e.g., Cboe BZX U.S. Equities Exchange (``BZX'') Fee
Schedule, Footnote 1, Add Volume Tiers, available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/bzx/ (tiers
providing enhanced rebates between $0.0028 and $0.0032 per share for
displayed orders where BZX members meet certain volume thresholds).
    \16\ See, e.g., BZX Fee Schedule, Fee Codes and Associated Fees,
available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/bzx/; Nasdaq Price List, Rebate to Add Displayed
Designated Retail Liquidity, available at http://nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=PriceListTrading2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the competitive environment in which the Exchange currently
operates, the proposed rule change constitutes a reasonable attempt to
increase liquidity on the Exchange and improve the Exchange's market
share relative to its competitors.
The Proposal Is an Equitable Allocation of Fees
    The Exchange believes its proposed change equitably allocates its
fees among its market participants by fostering liquidity provision and
stability in the marketplace. The Exchange believes that the new
credits for displayed orders, MPL orders, and orders that set a new
NYSE American BBO, if an ETP Holder's Adding ADV is at least 2,500,000
shares, are equitable because the proposed credits are not unreasonably
high in comparison to credits paid by other exchanges for orders that
provide liquidity.\17\ The Exchange also believes the proposed rule
change would improve market quality for all market participants on the
Exchange and, as a consequence, attract more liquidity to the Exchange,
thereby improving market-wide quality and price discovery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See note 15, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As previously noted, the Exchange believes that 6 ETP Holders
currently qualify for the proposed new credits, and all ETP Holders
could qualify for the proposed credit for setting a new BBO if they so
choose. Without having a view of ETP Holders' activity on other
exchanges and off-exchange venues, the Exchange has no way of knowing
whether this proposed rule change would result in any ETP Holder
directing orders to the Exchange in order to qualify for the new
credits. However, the Exchange believes that the proposed credits are
reasonable, as they would provide an additional incentive for ETP
Holders to direct order flow to the Exchange and provide meaningful
added levels of liquidity in order to qualify for the higher credits,
thereby contributing to depth and market quality on the Exchange.
    The proposal neither targets nor will it have a disparate impact on
any particular category of market participant. Many ETP Holders would
be eligible to qualify for the proposed credits by directing order flow
to the Exchange that meets the Adding ADV requirement, and ETP Holders
that currently qualify for credits associated with adding liquidity on
the Exchange will continue to receive such credits when they provide
liquidity to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that these
opportunities for ETP Holders to receive additional credits when they
provide liquidity will further attract order flow and liquidity to the
Exchange for the benefit of investors generally. As to those market
participants that do not presently qualify for the adding liquidity
credits, the proposal will not adversely impact their existing pricing
or their ability to qualify for these or other credits provided by the
Exchange.
The Proposal Is Not Unfairly Discriminatory
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is not unfairly
discriminatory. In the prevailing competitive environment, ETP Holders
are free to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they believe that
alternatives offer them better value.

    The Exchange believes it is not unfairly discriminatory to provide
higher credits for ETP Holders' displayed orders, MPL orders, and
orders setting a new BBO on NYSE American, who meet the Adding ADV
requirement as described above, because the proposed credits would be
provided on an equal basis to all similarly situated ETP Holders that
add liquidity to the Exchange, who would all be eligible for the same
credits if they meet such requirement on an equal basis.
    The Exchange also believes that the proposed change is not unfairly
discriminatory because it is reasonably related to the value to the
Exchange's market quality associated with higher volume. The Exchange
believes the proposed credits would incentivize ETP Holders to send
more orders to the Exchange and to increase quoting on the Exchange in
order to qualify for the proposed credits, which would support the
quality of price discovery on the Exchange and provide additional
liquidity for incoming orders.
    Finally, the submission of orders to the Exchange is optional for
ETP Holders in that they can choose whether to submit orders to the
Exchange and, if they do, the extent of activity in this regard. 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,\18\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. Instead, as discussed above, the Exchange believes
that the proposed change would encourage the submission of additional
liquidity and order flow to a public exchange, thereby promoting market
depth, price discovery, and transparency and enhancing order execution
opportunities for ETP Holders. As a result, the Exchange believes that
the proposed change furthers the Commission's goal in adopting
Regulation NMS of fostering competition among orders, which promotes
``more efficient pricing of individual stocks for all types of orders,
large and small.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \19\ Regulation NMS, 70 FR at 37498-99.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Intramarket Competition. The proposed change is designed to attract
additional order flow to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the
proposed change would continue to incentivize market participants to
direct providing order flow to the Exchange. Greater liquidity benefits
all market participants on the Exchange by providing more trading
opportunities and encourages ETP Holders to send orders, thereby
contributing to robust levels of liquidity for the benefit of all
market participants. The proposed credits would be available to all
similarly-situated market participants, and thus, the proposed change
would not impose a disparate burden on competition among market
participants on the Exchange.
    Intermarket Competition. The Exchange operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily choose to
send their orders to other exchanges and off-exchange venues if they
deem fee levels at those other venues to be more favorable. As noted
above, the Exchange's market share of trading in Tapes A, B, and C
securities combined is less than 1%. In such an environment, the
Exchange must continually adjust its fees and rebates to remain
competitive with other exchanges and off-exchange venues. Because
competitors are free to modify their own fees and credits in response,
and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing
practices, the Exchange does not believe its proposed fee change can
impose any burden on intermarket competition.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change could promote
competition between the Exchange and other execution venues, including
those that currently offer similar order types and comparable
transaction pricing, by encouraging additional orders to be sent to the
Exchange for execution.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \20\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \21\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \21\ 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) \22\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 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-NYSEAMER-2020-35 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2020-35. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official

business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do
not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
NYSEAMER-2020-35 and should be submitted on or before June 10, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-10813 Filed 5-19-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT We make Indiana a cleaner, healthier place to live.

Joseph E. Kernan 100 North Senate Avenue Governor P. O. Box 6015 Indianapolis, Indiana 46206 6015 Lori F. Kaplan ( 317) 232 8603 Commissioner ( 800) 451 6027 www. IN. gov/ idem Recycled Paper An Equal Opportunity Employer Please Recycle July 15, 2004 Mr. Bharat Mathur Acting Regional Administrator U. S. EPA, Region 5 77 W. Jackson Blvd. Chicago, IL 60604 Dear Mr. Mathur:

The State of Indiana respectfully requests that you exercise the authority granted to you under Section 181 ( a)( 4) of the Clean Air Act to reclassify LaPorte County, Indiana from its current classification of " moderate" under the 8 Hour Ozone National Air Quality Standard to " marginal". The Indiana Department of Environmental Management ( IDEM) has worked closely with the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium ( LADCO) and a variety of stakeholders representing the communities of LaPorte County in evaluating the status of air quality in the area and concludes that this reclassification is warranted.

LaPorte County's current design value is within 5% of a design value within the next lowest classification ( marginal). According to U. S. EPA guidance, for an area classified as " moderate", the design value must be 96 parts per billion or less in order to qualify for a reclassification to a " marginal" classification. LaPorte County's highest current design value is 93 parts per billion and thus meets this criterion.

A reclassification to " marginal" would result in a new attainment deadline of June 15, 2007. As illustrated in the attached Technical Support Document ( TSD), modeling conducted by the U. S. EPA and LADCO indicates that LaPorte County is on track to attain the standard by this new deadline. Progress towards compliance is already being made, as the 2003 fourth high 8 hour ozone values for the Michigan City and City of LaPorte monitors were 82 and 84 parts per billion respectively, both below the National Ambient Air Quality Standard. B. Mathar July 15, 2004 Page 2.

Modeling that was conducted by the U. S. EPA to support the NOx SIP Call clearly indicates that LaPorte County is adversely and significantly affected by transported air pollutants. This is further illustrated by model runs conducted by LADCO for the Lake Michigan Area that are summarized in the attached TSD. In order to verify the significance of transport and the potential impact of local emission reductions in LaPorte County on ozone concentrations within the area, IDEM recently conducted its own modeling. The results of this modeling exercise ( summarized in the attached TSD) clearly demonstrate that local emission reductions, regardless of volume, have little to no impact on ozone concentrations within LaPorte County or neighboring downwind areas. Therefore, LaPorte County is reliant on regional reductions to attain the standard.

IDEM has facilitated several meetings over the past two months in the LaPorte County area to acquire input from community, business, and environmental leaders. While there is some opposition within the community to reclassify LaPorte County, the clear majority of the stakeholders involved in this consultation process determined that the pursuit of this reclassification is merited and is in the best interest of the citizens of LaPorte County. Furthermore, the board of the Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission, representing fifty one separate governmental jurisdictions in Lake, Porter, and LaPorte Counties, formally recommended that IDEM request that the U. S. EPA reclassify LaPorte County. This recommendation, along with other input received from the community, is enclosed.

Local governments within LaPorte County have recently adopted and implemented strategies to improve air quality in the area voluntarily. These strategies include the use of cleaner burning alternative fuels, implementation of non idling policies for municipal vehicles, and enhanced public education and awareness. IDEM will continue working with stakeholders within the community to identify and implement cost effective local and regional programs to improve air quality in LaPorte County and ensure that compliance with the standard is achieved as soon as possible.

Upon your review of the attached TSD, I am hopeful that the U. S. EPA will agree with our analysis and proceed in reclassifying LaPorte County to " marginal". If I can be of assistance during your review, please feel free to contact me at ( 317) 232 8222 or jmccabe@ dem. state. in. us.

Sincerely,

Lori F. Kaplan Commissioner Cc: Jay Bortzer, U. S. EPA Region 5 Steve Marqardt, U. S. EPA Region 5 John Mooney, U. S. EPA Region 5 Patricia Morris, U. S. EPA Region 5 Cheryl Newton, U. S. EPA Region 5 The Honorable Leigh Morris, City of LaPorte The Honorable Chuck Oberlie, City of Michigan City Marlow Harmon, LaPorte County Clay Turner, LaPorte County Bill Hager, LaPorte County Reggie Korthals, NIRPC


[Federal Register: September 25, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 185)]
[Notices]
[Page 54486]
[DOCID:fr25se07-82]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

In the Matter of Plasticon International Inc.; Order of
Suspension of Trading

September 21, 2007.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Plasticon International Inc. (``Plasticon'') because Plasticon is
delinquent on most of its required filings since November 1997.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed company.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the above-listed
company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on September 21,
2007, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on October 4, 2007.

    By the Commission.
J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 07-4731 Filed 9-21-07; 1:52 pm]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 48 (Monday, March 15, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14355-14356]
[FR Doc No: 2021-05379]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of
the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the
Securities and Exchange Commission Asset Management Advisory Committee

(``AMAC'') will hold a public meeting on Friday, March 19, 2021 at 9:00
a.m.

PLACE: The meeting will be conducted by remote means. Members of the
public may watch the webcast of the meeting on the Commission's website
at www.sec.gov.

STATUS: The meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. and will be open to the
public by webcast on the Commission's website at www.sec.gov.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: On February 26, 2021, the Commission issued
notice of the meeting (Release No. 34-91214), indicating that the
meeting is open to the public and inviting the public to submit written
comments to AMAC. This Sunshine Act notice is being issued because a
majority of the Commission may attend the meeting.
    The meeting will include a discussion of matters in the asset
management industry relating to (1) the ESG Subcommittee, including a
panel discussion on that Subcommittee's potential recommendations of
December 1, 2020; (2) the Diversity & Inclusion and Private Investments
Subcommittees, including potential recommendations from those
Subcommittees; and (3) AMAC's agenda for 2021.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information, please
contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202)
551-5400.

    Dated: March 11, 2021.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-05379 Filed 3-11-21; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Page 1 of 3 FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL ( SAP) OPEN MEETING APRIL 29 APRIL 30, 2004 FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http:// www. epa. gov/ scipoly/ sap/ OPP Docket Telephone: ( 703) 305 5805 Docket Number: OPP 2004 0071 Holiday Inn Hotel 1900 North Fort Myer Drive Arlington, VA 22209 ( 703) 807 2000 A MODEL COMPARISON: DIETARY AND AGGREGATE EXPOSURE IN CALENDEX, CARES, AND LIFELINE FIFRA SAP Chair Stephen M. Roberts, Ph. D. Professor and Program Director Center for Environmental and Human Toxicology University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611 0885 Designated Federal Official Myrta R. Christian, M. S. FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Office of Science Coordination and Policy Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, N. W. ( 7201M) Washington, DC 20460 Phone: 202 564 8498 Fax: 202 564 8382 christian. myrta@ epa. gov. Page 2 of 3 FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Members Stuart Handwerger, M. D. Director, Division of Endocrinology University of Cincinnati Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center Cincinnati, OH 45229 3039 Steven G. Heeringa, Ph. D. Research Scientist & Director for Statistical Design University of Michigan Institute for Social Research Ann Arbor, MI 48106 1248 Mary Anna Thrall, D. V. M. Professor, Department of Pathology College of Veterinary & Biomedical Sciences Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523 FQPA Science Review Board Members Bernard Engel, Ph. D. Professor Agricultural & Biological Engineering Purdue University West Lafayette, IN 47907 1146 Scott Ferson, Ph. D. Senior Scientist Applied Biomathematics Setauket, NY 11733 Natalie Freeman, Ph. D. Adjunct Associate Professor Environmental/ Community Medicine Robert Wood Johnson School of Medicine Piscataway, NJ 08854 Chensheng Lu, Ph. D. Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences School of Public Health and Community Medicine University of Washington Seattle, WA 98195 7234 Page 3 of 3 Peter D. M. Macdonald, D. Phil. Professor of Mathematics and Statistics McMaster University Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8S 4K1 David MacIntosh, Ph. D. Senior Associate Environmental Health and Engineering, Inc. Newton, MA 02459 Kenneth Portier, Ph. D. Associate Professor, Statistics Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 0339 Nu may Ruby Reed, Ph. D., D. A. B. T. California Environmental Protection Agency Department of Pesticide Regulation Sacramento, CA 95812 2828 P. Barry Ryan, Ph. D. Professor Environmental & Occupational Health Rollins School of Public Health Emory , Atlanta, GA 30322 Michael D. Sohn, Ph. D. Scientist Environmental Energy Technologies Division Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory University of California Berkeley, CA 94720