[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 1, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 11422]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04247]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL21-101-000]

Pleinmont Solar 2, LLC; Notice of Institution of Section 206
Proceeding and Refund Effective Date

    On September 17, 2021, the Commission issued an order in Docket No.
EL21-101-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA),
16 U.S.C. 824e, instituting an investigation into whether certain
provisions of Pleinmont Solar 2, LLC's proposed rate schedule are
unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory or preferential, or
otherwise unlawful. Pleinmont Solar 2, LLC, 176 FERC ] 61,167 (2021).
    The refund effective date in Docket No. EL21-101-000, established
pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication
of this notice in the Federal Register.
    Any interested person desiring to be heard in Docket No. EL21-101-
000 must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as
appropriate, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in
accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214 (2020), within 21 days of the date of
issuance of the order.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC at
[email protected] or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFile'' link at
http://www.ferc.gov. In lieu of electronic filing, you may submit a
paper copy. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be
addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    Dated: February 23, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-04247 Filed 2-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: August 28, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 166)]
[Notices]
[Page 44435]
[DOCID:fr28au09-100]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B
(Formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending August 15, 2009

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart
B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural
Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et seq.). The due date for Answers,
Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below
for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the
application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the
adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate
cases a final order without further proceedings.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2009-0188.
    Date Filed: August 12, 2009.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify
Scope: September 2, 2009.
    Description: Application of Rugby Aviation, LLC d/b/a Northwest Sky
Ferry requesting authority to engage in scheduled passenger operations
as a commuter air carrier.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2009-0189.
    Date Filed: August 12, 2009.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify
Scope: September 2, 2009.
    Description: Application of Monarch Airlines Limited (``Monarch'')
requesting amendment/reissuance of its foreign air carrier permit to
authorize: (a) Scheduled and charter foreign air transportation of
persons, property and mail from any point or points behind any Member
State of the European Community via any point or points in any Member
state and via intermediate points to any point or points in the United
States and beyond; (b) scheduled and foreign transportation of persons,
property and mail between any point or points in the United States and
any point or points in the European Common Aviation Area; (c) other
charters pursuant to the prior approval requirements; and (d) scheduled
and charter transportation authorized by any additional route rights
that may be authorized in the future under the U.S.-EU agreement.
Monarch also seeks an exemption to permit its operation as a scheduled
and/or charter foreign air carrier within the full scope of the permit
requested, pending effectiveness of that amended permit.

Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. E9-20776 Filed 8-27-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register: March 6, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 43)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 9903]
[DOCID:fr06mr07-18]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0031; FRL-8283-5]
RIN 2060-AN97

Standards of Performance for Fossil-Fuel-Fired Steam Generators
for Which Construction Is Commenced After August 17, 1971; Standards of
Performance for Electric Utility Steam Generating Units for Which
Construction Is Commenced After September 18, 1978; Standards of
Performance for Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating
Units; and Standards of Performance for Small Industrial-Commercial-
Institutional Steam Generating Units

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Extension of public comment period.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is announcing the extension of the public comment period
on the proposed reconsideration amendments to the new source
performance standards (NSPS) for electric utility steam generating
units and industrial-commercial-institutional steam generating units.
EPA originally requested comments on the proposed rule by March 12,
2007 (February 9, 2007,72 FR 6320). EPA is extending the deadline to
March 26, 2007, and is now requesting written comments by that date.
EPA received a request for a 15 day extension to the comment period
from the Utility Air Regulatory Group, the Council of Industrial Boiler
Owners, and the Coke Oven Environmental Task Force. The reason given
for requesting the extension was the need for additional time to gather
data and review the proposed amendments. Since the original comment
period was 30 days, EPA finds this request reasonable.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before March 26, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0031, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     By Facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Air and Radiation Docket, U.S. EPA, Mail Code 6102T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a
total of two copies. EPA requests a separate copy also be sent to the
contact person identified below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2005-0031, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Room
3334, Washington, DC, 20004. Such deliveries are accepted only during
the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should
be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2005-0031. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The http://www.regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access''

systems, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov
, your e-mail address will be automatically captured

and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the
EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://.

http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation

Docket EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone
number for the Air and Radiation Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Christian Fellner, Energy
Strategies Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-01), U.S.
EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>,
facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER>, electronic mail (e-mail) address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: February 28, 2007.
William L. Wehrum,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation.
 [FR Doc. E7-3878 Filed 3-5-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


NOx Control by Combustion Modification
APTB has performed research and developed technologies for NOx reduction via combustion modification. Techniques such as low-excess air firing, staged combustion, flue gas recirculation, low NOx burners, and reburning have been applied to a wide range of combustion equipment including utility and industrial boilers, industrial process combustors, stationary engines, residential space heaters, and woodstoves. In-house projects include investigations of improved NOx reduction by injection of steam into the reburn zone, evaluations of advanced reburning techniques, and optimization of combustion/flue gas treatment hybrid NOx control techniques.
Reburning

Field studies include evaluation of reburning (fuel staging) on a 108 MW cyclone coal-fired utility boiler in Ohio and a 300 MW wall coal-fired wet-bottom utility boiler in the Ukraine. APTB is also working with EPA's Office of International Activities to demonstrate coal reburn technology on industrial boilers in Taiwan. This work will continue through 2001. Nitrous oxide (NOx) reductions of over 60% have been obtained using this technology. Reburning is a method of NOx control that uses hydrocarbon radicals to convert nitrogen oxide (NO) to nitrogen (N2) and carbon dioxide (CO2). Reburning is accomplished by diverting a portion of a boiler's fuel, typically 10-20%, to a point above the primary combustion zone where it is injected to create a fuel rich "reburn zone." The remaining combustion air is then injected above the reburn zone to provide the necessary burnout air.
Reburning can be applied to boilers that cannot use standard low NOx combustion modification techniques due to the need to maintain high furnace temperatures, such as wet bottom boilers. In many cases, reburning can be more economical than post combustion NOx controls that would otherwise be used in these instances.
Continuous Emission Monitors
APTB, EPA's National Risk Exposure Laboratory (NERL), and the U. S. Department of Energy (DOE) completed a series of tests to evaluate three different multi-metal continuous emission monitors (CEMs) which are under development. Seven metals plus a tracer metal were injected as an aqueous spray into the secondary combustion chamber of APTB's rotary kiln incinerator simulator (RKIS) research combustor. The facility was operated at carefully controlled conditions during the test period. Flyash from a coal-fired boiler was also injected to simulate the particulate loading expected in a real hazardous waste treatment environment. The CEMs and EPA Reference Method sampling probes were installed in the duct downstream from the secondary combustion chamber. Three different concentrations were injected to achieve a high-, medium-, and low-metals concentrations in the duct. The CEM instruments and participating developers are: Inductively Coupled Plasma, Atomic Emission Spectroscopy (ICP-AES); U. S. Department of Defense Naval Air Warfare Center; Laser Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy, Atomic Emission Spectroscopy (LIBS); Diagnostics Instrumentation and Analytical Laboratory (DIAL); Mississippi State University; and Laser Spark Spectroscopy (LASS), Sandia National Laboratories.
Additional Resources Outside the U.S. EPA Domain for this Project
Disclaimer
Links on this page are pointers to other hosts and locations in the Internet. This information is provided as a service; however, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency does not endorse, approve or otherwise support these sites.


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 156 (Thursday, August 13, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48620-48621]
[FR Doc No: 2015-19929]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2015-0139]

Pipeline Safety: PHMSA Pipeline Risk Modeling Methodologies
Public Workshop

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice is to announce a public workshop to discuss the
advancement of risk modeling methodologies of gas transmission and
hazardous liquid pipelines, and the risk modeling methodologies used
for non-pipeline systems. This workshop will bring industry, Federal
and state regulators, interested members of the public, and other
stakeholders together to share knowledge and experience on risk
modeling within the pipeline industry and other fields, ways to advance
pipeline risk models, and practical ways that operators can adopt and/
or adapt them to the analyses of their systems.

DATES: The public workshop will be held on Wednesday, September 9,
2015, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., EST, and Thursday, September 10,
2015, from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. EST. (Changes to start or finish
times will be updated on the PHMSA meeting page Web site, along with
the meeting agenda https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/meetings/MtgHome.mtg?mtg=104.)

ADDRESSES: The workshop will be held at the Crystal City Marriott at
Reagan National Airport, 1999 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA
22202. Please see the meeting Web site for hotel room block information
at https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/meetings/MtgHome.mtg?mtg=104.
    The meeting agenda and any additional information will also be
published on the PHMSA meeting page Web site.
    Registration: Members of the public may attend this free workshop.
To help assure that adequate space is provided, all attendees should
register for the workshop in advance at the PHMSA meeting page Web
site.
    Please note that the public workshop will be webcast. The details
on this meeting, including the location, times, agenda items, and link
to the webcast, will be available on the meeting page Web site (https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/meetings/MtgHome.mtg?mtg=104) as they become
available. Attendees, both in person and by webcast, are strongly
encouraged to register to help ensure accommodations are adequate.
    Presentations will also be available online at the meeting page Web
site within 30 days following the meeting.
    Comments: Members of the public may also submit written comments
either before or after the workshop. Comments should reference Docket
No. PHMSA-2015-0139. Comments may be submitted in the following ways:
     E-Gov Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. This site
allows the public to enter comments on any Federal Register notice
issued by any agency. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management System, U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590.
    Hand Delivery: DOT Docket Management System, Room W12-140, on the
ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Identify the docket number at the beginning of your
comments. If you submit your comments by mail, submit two copies. If
you wish to receive confirmation that PHMSA has received your comments,
include a self-addressed stamped postcard. Internet users may submit
comments at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Note: Comments will be posted without changes or edits to http://www.regulations.gov including any personal information provided. Please
see the Privacy Act Statement heading below for additional information.

Privacy Act Statement

    Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments received for
any of our dockets. You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement
in the Federal Register published April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19476).

Information on Services for Individuals With Disabilities

    For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities, or to request special assistance at the meeting, please
contact Mr. Kenneth Lee, Director, Engineering and Research Division,
at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth Lee, Director, Engineering and
Research Division, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>about the
subject matter in this notice.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Introduction

    The Federal pipeline safety regulations (49 CFR part 192 Subpart O;
49 CFR Sec.  195.452) requires operators to continually examine ways to
reduce the threats to pipelines in order to minimize the likelihood of
a release, and ways to reduce the consequences of potential releases. A
primary tool to implement this process is generally referred to as a
``risk analysis'' or ``risk assessment.''
    To support integrity management requirements, a risk analysis
modeling approach must be able to adequately characterize all pipeline
integrity threats and consequences concurrently, and the impact of
measures to reduce risk must be evaluated.
    This workshop will focus on advancing risk modeling approaches by
looking at risk modelling methodologies for pipeline and non-pipeline
systems, and practical ways that operators can adopt and/or adapt them
to the analyses of their systems.

Background

    Subsequent to implementation of the integrity management rules,
industry has adopted a variety of approaches to risk analysis. Many of
these approaches are variations of the ``risk index'' models. Index
models and other basic approaches to risk modeling have been
implemented by industry for purposes such as risk-ranking pipeline
segments to prioritize initial integrity management-required baseline
assessments. Additional opportunities to utilize these approaches to do
more investigative oriented analyses in order to identify specific ways
to reduce risks are being explored.
    As summarized and discussed in past public forums and workshops on
pipeline safety (e.g., 2014 Government/Industry Pipeline R&D Forum),
industry and PHMSA are in general agreement that risk models need to
evolve in such a way as to be more investigative in nature.
    PHMSA believes that improving risk models is important for further
reducing the risk of pipelines to the public health and safety. In
particular, PHMSA is interested in specific ways to advance pipeline
risk models, and in practical ways that operators can adopt and/or
adapt risk models to the analyses of their systems.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 10, 2015, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
Linda Daugherty,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations.
[FR Doc. 2015-19929 Filed 8-12-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 218 (Monday, November 14, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68176-68177]
[FR Doc No: 2022-24685]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2022-D-2512]

Q5A(R2) Viral Safety Evaluation of Biotechnology Products Derived
From Cell Lines of Human or Animal Origin; International Council for
Harmonisation; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled ``Q5A(R2)
Viral Safety Evaluation of Biotechnology Products Derived From Cell
Lines of Human or Animal Origin.'' The draft guidance was prepared
under the auspices of the International Council for Harmonisation of
Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH),
formerly the International Conference on Harmonisation. The draft
guidance updates the ICH guidance for industry ``Q5A Viral Safety
Evaluation of Biotechnology Products Derived From Cell Lines of Human
or Animal Origin'' issued in September 1998 to reflect advances in
scientific knowledge and regulatory expectations. The draft guidance is
intended to describe risk-based principles and mitigation strategies to
assure the viral safety of biotechnology products, including the data
necessary to submit in a marketing application.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft
guidance by January 13, 2023 to ensure that the Agency considers your
comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final
version of the guidance.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as
follows:

Electronic Submissions

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

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2022-D-2512 for ``Q5A(R2) Viral Safety Evaluation of Biotechnology
Products Derived From Cell Lines of Human or Animal Origin.'' Received
comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted
as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)).
    Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the
Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research,
Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale
Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, or the Office of
Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for

Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration,
10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-
0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in
processing your requests. The guidance may also be obtained by mail by
calling CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or<PHONE_NUMBER>. See the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for electronic access to the draft guidance
document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    Regarding the guidance: Kathryn King, Center for Drug Evaluation
and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave.,
Bldg. 51, Rm. 4193, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,
[email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Regarding the ICH: Jill Adleberg, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
51, Rm. 6364, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, [email protected],
301-796-5259.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry
entitled ``Q5A(R2) Viral Safety Evaluation of Biotechnology Products
Derived From Cell Lines of Human or Animal Origin.'' The draft guidance
was prepared under the auspices of ICH. ICH has the mission of
achieving greater regulatory harmonization worldwide to ensure that
safe, effective, high-quality medicines are developed, registered, and
maintained in the most resource-efficient manner.
    By harmonizing the regulatory requirements in regions around the
world, ICH guidelines have substantially reduced duplicative clinical
studies, prevented unnecessary animal studies, standardized the
reporting of important safety information, standardized marketing
application submissions, and made many other improvements in the
quality of global drug development and manufacturing and the products
available to patients.
    The six Founding Members of the ICH are FDA; the Pharmaceutical
Research and Manufacturers of America; the European Commission; the
European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries Associations; the
Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare; and the Japanese
Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association. The Standing Members of the
ICH Association include Health Canada and Swissmedic. Additionally, the
Membership of ICH has expanded to include other regulatory authorities
and industry associations from around the world (refer to https://www.ich.org/).
    ICH works by involving technical experts from both regulators and
industry parties in detailed technical harmonization work and the
application of a science-based approach to harmonization through a
consensus-driven process that results in the development of ICH
guidelines. The regulators around the world are committed to
consistently adopting these consensus-based guidelines, realizing the
benefits for patients and for industry.
    As a Founding Regulatory Member of ICH, FDA plays a major role in
the development of each of the ICH guidelines, which FDA then adopts
and issues as guidance for industry. FDA's guidance documents do not
establish legally enforceable responsibilities. Instead, they describe
the Agency's current thinking on a topic and should be viewed only as
recommendations, unless specific regulatory or statutory requirements
are cited.
    In September 2022, the ICH Assembly endorsed the draft guideline
entitled ``Q5A(R2) Viral Safety Evaluation of Biotechnology Products
Derived From Cell Lines of Human or Animal Origin'' and agreed that the
guideline should be made available for public comment. The draft
guideline is the product of the Quality Expert Working Group of the
ICH. Comments about this draft guidance will be considered by FDA and
the Quality Expert Working Group.
    The draft guidance updates the ICH guidance for industry ``Q5A
Viral Safety Evaluation of Biotechnology Products Derived From Cell
Lines of Human or Animal Origin'' issued in September 1998 to reflect
advances in scientific knowledge and regulatory expectations. Revisions
include description of new classes of products; inclusion of new virus
detection technologies; clarification of new validation strategies; and
considerations specific to new manufacturing approaches, such as
continuous manufacturing. The draft guidance is intended to describe
risk-based principles and mitigation strategies to assure the viral
safety of biotechnology products including the data necessary to submit
in a marketing application.
    This draft guidance has been left in the original ICH format. The
final guidance will be reformatted and edited to conform with FDA's
good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115) and style before
publication. The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the
current thinking of FDA on ``Q5A Viral Safety Evaluation of
Biotechnology Products Derived From Cell Lines of Human or Animal
Origin.'' It does not establish any rights for any person and is not
binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it
satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    While this guidance contains no collection of information, it does
refer to previously approved FDA collections of information. Therefore,
clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) is not
required for this guidance. The previously approved collections of
information are subject to review by OMB under the PRA. The collections
of information in 21 CFR part 210 have been approved under OMB control
number 0910-0139. The collections of information in 21 CFR part 312
have been approved under 0910-0014. The collections of information in
21 CFR part 601 have been approved under 0910-0338.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance
at https://www.regulations.gov, https://www.fda.gov/drugs/guidance-compliance-regulatory-information/guidances-drugs, https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/guidance-compliance-regulatory-information-biologics/biologics-guidances, or https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents.

    Dated: November 8, 2022.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-24685 Filed 11-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 20 (Thursday, January 30, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5513-5516]
[FR Doc No: 2020-01611]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. SIPA-180A; File No. SIPC-2019-01]

Securities Investor Protection Corporation; Notice of Filing of
Proposed Bylaw Change, as Revised by Amendment No. 1, Relating to SIPC
Board Compensation; Correction

January 24, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 3(e)(1) of the Securities Investor Protection
Act of 1970 (``SIPA''),\1\ on October 8, 2019 the Securities Investor
Protection Corporation (``SIPC'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed bylaw change relating
to the SIPC Board of Directors' (``Board'') compensation. On October
24, 2019, SIPC consented to a 90-day extension of time before the
proposed bylaw change would take effect pursuant to section 3(e)(1) of
SIPA.\2\ On November 19, 2019, SIPC filed a revised version of the
proposed bylaw change, which replaced and superseded the original
proposed bylaw change in its entirety. On December 10, 2019, SIPC
consented to a 90-day extension of time before the proposed bylaw
change, as revised by Amendment No. 1, would take effect pursuant to
section 3(e)(1) of SIPA.\3\ Pursuant to section 3(e)(1)(B) of SIPA, the
Commission finds that the proposed bylaw change, as revised by
Amendment No. 1, involves a matter of such significant public interest
that public comment should be obtained.\4\ Therefore, pursuant to
section 3(e)(2)(A) of SIPA,\5\ the Commission is publishing this notice
to solicit comment from interested persons on the proposed bylaw
change, as revised by Amendment No. 1.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78ccc(e)(1).
    \2\ Id.
    \3\ Id.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78ccc(e)(1)(B).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78ccc(e)(2)(A).
    \6\ This notice of SIPC's filing of a proposed bylaw change, as
revised by Amendment No. 1, relating to SIPC Board compensation,
supersedes the notice originally published in the Federal Register
on January 23, 2020. See Securities Investor Protection Corporation;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Bylaw Change, as Revised by Amendment
No. 1, Relating to SIPC Board Compensation, Release No. SIPA-180
(Jan. 16, 2020), 85 FR 3960 (Jan. 23, 2020). The notice published on
January 23, 2020 inadvertently referenced a provision from the
original version of the proposed bylaw change that would have
provided for a re-evaluation of Board honoraria every ten years.
SIPC's proposed bylaw change, as revised by Amendment No. 1, does
not propose a re-evaluation of Board honoraria every ten years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its filing with the Commission, SIPC included statements
concerning the purpose of and statutory basis for the proposed bylaw
change, as revised by Amendment No. 1, as described below, which
description has been substantially prepared by SIPC.

I. SIPC's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for,
Proposed SIPC Bylaw Change Relating to SIPC Board Compensation

    On October 7, 2019, pursuant to Section 3(e)(1) of SIPA, 15 U.S.C.
78ccc(e)(1),\7\ SIPC submitted for filing with the Commission a
proposed amendment to Article 2, Section 6, of the SIPC Bylaws. On
November 18, 2019, SIPC submitted a revised version of the proposed
amendment to Article 2, Section 6, of the SIPC Bylaws. Article 2,
Section 6, of the Bylaws relates to the honoraria paid to non-
Governmental members of the Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For convenience, reference hereinafter to provisions of SIPA
shall be to the United States Code and shall omit ``15 U.S.C.''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As amended, Article 2, Section 6, would: (1) Change the Board
Chairperson's yearly honorarium from

$15,000 to $28,000; (2) change the Directors' yearly honorarium from
$6,250 to $12,000; (3) while the position of Chairperson remains
vacant, authorize the Board Vice Chairperson who serves as acting
Chairperson for a continuous twelve month period, to receive an
honorarium of $28,000; and (4) while the positions of Chairperson and
Vice Chairperson remain vacant, authorize any Director, to whom the
SIPC Board delegates authority to perform certain functions of the
Chairperson, to receive an honorarium of $28,000 provided that the
Director performs those functions for a continuous twelve month period.
    The revised version of the proposed bylaw amendment was approved by
the SIPC Board on November 14, 2019. Under SIPA section 78ccc(e)(1),
unless it is disapproved by the Commission or the Commission determines
that the matter is of such significant public interest as to warrant
public comment, the amendment will take effect thirty (30) days after a
copy is filed with the Commission. The Board has provided that, if
approved by the Commission, the proposed amendment would not be
implemented until six (6) months from the date of Commission approval
or non-disapproval. Section IV below provides the text of the proposed
changes to Article 2, Section 6, of the Bylaws.

Background

    The SIPC Board consists of seven members. Five of SIPC's Directors
are appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by
the Senate. Of the five Directors, three are associated with, and
representative of, the securities industry (``Securities Directors''),
and two are from outside of the industry. The Directors from outside of
the securities industry serve as Chairman and Vice Chairman of SIPC. In
addition, one SIPC Director is an officer or employee of the Department
of the Treasury and one Director is an officer or employee of the
Federal Reserve Board. SIPA Sec.  78ccc(c)(1)-(3).
    Under SIPA Section 78ccc(c)(5), all matters relating to Director
compensation are as provided in the SIPC Bylaws. Since 1994, when the
position of Chairperson ceased to be a full-time position, the
honoraria awarded to the Directors have been as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Bylaw date                   Bylaw                 Chairman          Vice chairman     Industry directors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994....................  Art. 2, Sec.   6........  $1,000/meeting $500/ $500/meeting $500/   Expenses only.
                                                     day for official     day for official
                                                     business +           business +
                                                     expenses.            expenses.
2006....................  Art. 2, Sec.   6........  $15,000 honorarium   $6,250 honorarium +  $6,250 honorarium
                                                     + expenses.          expenses.            + expenses.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The amounts of the Director honoraria have been the same for more
than 10 years. For the reasons discussed below, the Board has
determined that it is appropriate that the proposed changes to Article
2, Section 6, of the Bylaws be made.

General Statement of Basis and Purpose of Proposed Changes

Enhanced Responsibilities and Risk
    The SIPC Board sets the direction and policies for the Corporation.
Since the 2008 financial crisis, SIPC's responsibilities have grown,
and greater demands have been placed upon the time, commitment, and
energy, of the Directors.
    The Directors oversee a Fund which currently stands at more than
$3.3 billion. The size of the Fund is modest compared to the amounts of
customer assets at risk in SIPA liquidations over the last several
years. These have included MF Global Inc., involving the largest
commodities brokerage liquidation in history; Lehman Brothers Inc.,
with $106 billion owed to more than 111,000 customers; and Bernard L.
Madoff Investment Securities LLC, with over $20 billion of customer
assets owed. Each of these liquidations contained or contains complex
and significant legal or operational hurdles for their resolution.
Today, such large cases cannot be viewed as isolated events or SIPC's
involvement in them as incidental. For example, in a too-big-to-fail
situation, Congress has given SIPC an important role. Under the Dodd-
Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, SIPC serves as
trustee in the orderly liquidation of a covered broker-dealer. See 12
U.S.C. 5385(a)(1).
    Given the breadth of SIPC's mission, whether the Fund is sufficient
to satisfy SIPA's goal of customer protection is one of the most
important issues that Directors face. The potential exposure arising
from the liquidation of large firms alone highlights the importance of
the Board's decision-making.
    The sizeable amounts at stake in recent cases also create more risk
for the Directors including the risk that Directors may be sued for
tactical reasons, however frivolous such suits may be. For example, in
the Madoff case, the SIPC Board and its President were sued in a multi-
million dollar complaint brought by Madoff investors. Canavan v.
Harbeck, Case No. 2:10-cv-00954-FSH-PS (D.N.J.). Although the Directors
are shielded from liability for their good faith actions or omissions
under SIPA Section 78kkk(c), the burden of having to defend against a
law suit, the uncertainty of the outcome of litigation, the demands on
a Director's time, and the reputational risk to the Director, remain.
    Today, more accountability is asked of corporate directors. At
SIPC, the Directors not only oversee the administration of the quasi-
public SIPC Fund, but also of the SIPC Employees' Savings Plan, and the
SIPC Employees' Retirement Plan. As a result of their role in these and
other matters, the Board must carefully oversee Management and the
policies and procedures Management has put in place.

Time Commitment

    SIPC Directors willingly devote their time to SIPC, often at the
expense of other important commitments, and potential compensation,
outside of their SIPC responsibilities. The time, even for some
Directors to travel to SIPC, can be burdensome since under SIPA section
78ccc(c)(2)(C)(i), the Securities Directors cannot be from the same
geographical area of the United States. SIPC Directors travel from
their home base to Washington, DC, to attend regular Board, as well as
Committee, Meetings. There are three committees at SIPC on which the
Directors serve: One for investments, another for compensation, and a
third, for audit and budget. See Article 3, Section 1, of the SIPC
Bylaws. In addition to their attendance and participation at Meetings,
the Directors regularly meet in Executive Session to discuss matters of
importance to SIPC business.

Attracting and Retaining Qualified Directors

    In order for the SIPC program to be successful, it must have a
Board that is engaged, resourceful, and willing to devote the time and
energy to the program and to be committed to it. While it is an honor
to be appointed as a Director, there should be some recognition of the
contributions made by these individuals. Measured against

the demands placed upon the Directors and the responsibilities and
risks they are expected to assume, the changes proposed by the Board
are modest.

Basis for the Amounts Proposed

    In considering a possible Bylaw change, the Board, through its
Government Directors, commissioned Korn/Ferry International (``Korn/
Ferry''), a leading global management and executive consulting firm, to
provide recommendations with respect to compensation for SIPC Board
members, including the Chair and Vice Chair. In undertaking the
engagement, Korn/Ferry constructed a peer group of 23 organizations
comparable to SIPC and analyzed their Director compensation. The peer
group included non-profit groups, regulatory advocacy organizations, as
well as federally funded ones.
    Based upon its analysis, Korn/Ferry concluded that entities similar
to SIPC in purpose and responsibilities typically provide some
compensation to their Directors. Specifically, with respect to SIPC,
Korn/Ferry recommended that:
    (1) Director compensation consist of an annual retainer paid
quarterly and ranging between $30,000 and $50,000;
    (2) The Vice Chair receive an additional amount of $3,000 to $5,000
per year; and
    (3) The Chair receive an additional $10,000 to $15,000 per year.
Korn/Ferry Director Compensation Analysis, dated May 31, 2019, at 10.
    Independently, the Government Directors formulated a separate
approach to the matter. Under their analysis, they reasoned that
because the non-Government Directors are Presidential appointees
confirmed by the Senate who render a public service, it would be
appropriate to measure the amount of a Director honorarium against the
pay of a Senior Executive Service (``SES'') Government employee. The
maximum amount under the SES pay scale currently is $192,300. Based
upon an average of 16 days of service per year comprised of six days of
meetings, five days for preparation, and five days for ad hoc work, the
Directors concluded that the non-Government Directors should receive an
honorarium of $12,000 per year which would continue to be paid in
quarterly installments. Applying the current ratio of Chair versus non-
Chair honoraria, the non-Government Directors calculated the honorarium
of the Chair at $28,000. The Board also calculated that an adjustment
for inflation since the honoraria were last set in 2006 would have
resulted in an honorarium of more than $19,000 for the Chair.
    At its Meeting on November 14, 2019, the Board adopted the
recommendations of the non-Government Directors, and agreed that the
requested amendment, if approved, would take effect six months from the
date of approval or non-disapproval by the Commission.

The Proposed Bylaw Amendment

    Because the Government Directors are ineligible, the recipients of
the honoraria are limited to the Directors from the private sector. The
honoraria are paid from the SIPC Fund, SIPA Sec.  78ddd(a)(1), and no
taxpayer monies are used.
    Having extensively considered the matter, the Board has determined
that the Bylaw should be amended.

II. Need for Public Comment

    Section 3(e)(1) of SIPA provides that the Board of Directors of
SIPC must file a copy of any proposed bylaw change with the Commission,
accompanied by a concise general statement of the basis and purpose of
the proposed bylaw change.\8\ The proposed bylaw change will become
effective thirty days after the date of filing with the Commission or
upon such later date as SIPC may designate or such earlier date as the
Commission may determine unless: (1) The Commission, by notice to SIPC
setting forth the reasons for such action, disapproves the proposed
bylaw change as being contrary to the public interest or contrary to
the purposes of SIPA; or (2) the Commission finds that the proposed
bylaw change involves a matter of such significant public interest that
public comment should be obtained, in which case it may, after
notifying SIPC in writing of such finding, require that the procedures
for SIPC proposed rule changes in section 3(e)(2) of SIPA be followed
with respect to the proposed bylaw change.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78ccc(e)(1).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78ccc(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Compensation paid to members of the financial service industry and
paid to officials serving the public interest has become a topic of
public interest in recent years. Therefore, the Commission finds,
pursuant to section 3(e)(1)(B) of SIPA,\10\ that the proposed bylaw
changes involve a matter of such significant public interest that
public comment should be obtained and is requiring that the procedures
applicable to SIPC proposed rule changes in section 3(e)(2) of SIPA
\11\ be followed. As required by section 3(e)(1)(B) of SIPA,\12\ the
Commission has notified SIPC of this finding in writing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78ccc(e)(1)(B).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78ccc(e)(2).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78ccc(e)(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register, or within such longer period (A) as the Commission
may designate of not more than ninety days after such date if it finds
such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so
finding or (B) as to which SIPC consents, the Commission shall: (i) By
order approve such proposed bylaw change; or (ii) institute proceedings
to determine whether such proposed bylaw change should be
disapproved.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78ccc(e)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Text of Proposed Bylaw Change

    The text of the proposed bylaw change, as revised by Amendment No.
1, is provided below. Proposed new language is in italics; proposed
deletions are in brackets.

Article 2

Board of Directors

Section 6. Honorarium and Reimbursement of Expenses

    The Chairman of the Corporation shall receive a yearly honorarium
of $[15,000]28,000. The Chairman also shall be reimbursed for expenses
incurred in connection with official business of the Corporation. The
Vice Chairman shall receive a yearly honorarium of $[6,250]12,000,
except that, if the position of Chairman is vacant and the Vice
Chairman serves as acting Chairman for a continuous twelve-month
period, then the Vice Chairman shall receive a yearly honorarium of
$28,000 for such period, calculated on a ratable basis for any partial
period of such service in excess of the first twelve-month period. The
Vice Chairman also shall be reimbursed for expenses incurred in
connection with official business of the Corporation. The three
Directors selected from the securities industry (``Securities
Directors'') each shall receive a yearly honorarium of $[6,250]12,000,
except that, if the positions of Chairman and Vice Chairman are vacant
and, during such vacancy and pursuant to a delegation of authority from
the Board, one of the Securities Directors performs certain functions
of the Chairman for a continuous twelve-month period, then that
Securities Director shall receive a yearly honorarium of $28,000 for
such

period, calculated on a ratable basis for any partial period of such
service in excess of the first twelve-month period. The [three
]Securities Directors [selected from the securities industry] also
shall be reimbursed for expenses incurred in connection with official
business of the Corporation. [The yearly honoraria shall be paid in
quarterly installments as of November 21, 2006.]The remaining two
Directors shall receive no honoraria from the Corporation and shall not
be reimbursed by the Corporation for their official business expenses.
    The honoraria described herein shall be paid in quarterly
installments beginning on May 6, 2020.

V. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/other.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SIPC-2019-01 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All comments should refer to File Number SIPC-2019-01. 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/other.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed bylaw change that is filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
bylaw 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 Commission. 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 SIPC-2019-01, and
should be submitted on or before February 20, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(f)(2)(i); 17 CFR 200.30-3(f)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-01611 Filed 1-29-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


                                 Just Venting

The phase out of HCFC's in the United States has been ramped up (yes up not down) in 2013.

Why or how could this happen?

The long answer is very long, so in a large nutshell it is something like this:  The EPA granted allocation (truly a privilege) to fortunate companies to produce or import a specified number of rights (equates to kg's/or equal # of lbs.).  When two right holding companies sued for a conversion of foam blowing agent gas to a refrigerant gas, they won in court and the EPA made the adjustments. Since no flies were on the wall a little speculation combined with some facts gives us this understanding of what happened.  It looks like the following: There are some very large chemical companies that got proactive and threatened to sue if they lost any of their allocation. So to avoid this conflict some entity of the US Government (Not the EPA because the EPA sincerely wanted a cut back in ozone depleting chemicals, on second thought they may be wanting to avoid another lawsuit.) arbitrarily increased the allocation by 25 million pounds of gas (825 full tractor trailer loads) to make everyone happy (tongue in cheek as you will see).

The industry operated with confidence and good faith that as per the EPA website the EPA was going to reduce allocation which would increase prices, so reclamation practices would thrive as well as to encourage the production of less harmful chemicals?   But, the opposite happened and some of the victims are as follows:

EPA certified reclaimers.  Before the 25 million pounds was added to the market, the reclamation industry was paying contractors $8 per pound for used refrigerants.  Where as allocation holders of R22 can access gas as low as 50 cents per pound (only $.50).  Do the math; if you were reclaiming R22 gas for a living, you may go bankrupt.  To spell it out, if you are competing in a market and your cost of goods is 8 dollars for the used gas, a dollar or so to reclaim, transportation, testing, and retesting, packaging and destruction cost of bad gas, etc. etc. While at the same time your competition is paying much less than a dollar per pound for virgin raw materials, which also includes packaging, and freight, you do not have a chance nor does the environment.

Prior to the 25 million pounds being added to the market, market prices were moving toward $16-$18 per pound.  Thus many sales to the aftermarket were at these numbers.  All honest business minds would perceive the sudden increase in allocation would cause a drop in prices.  Thus the pressure put on vendor/customer relationships is unprecedented.

Let's not forget the people (everyone) who will be exposed to the sun without the full benefit of the ozone.

What can be done?  Probably nothing, as the government has dug in it's heels and the EPA has to enforce this bazaar rule against all their principals of environmental protection.

Who wins?  No one, not even the big winners in court, as they flood the market with gas, the prices will fall and they will be deemed insensitive to the market and environment.  Not to mention they also will be exposed to the sun with less ozone protection.

Also worth mentioning many allocation holders would gladly forfeit their allotment of HCFC's to maintain the smooth transition the EPA was working on.

Equipment manufacturers would have argued for an increase of R22.  The reason is the EPA took away their (equipment manufacturers) ability to charge their own products.  This rule however put the responsibility of charging the gas into the equipment on the HVAC contractor.  The contractor will often place his service charge on the R22 gas, thus making the new R22 equipment less marketable.  In other words, the equipment manufacturers may have hoped that the glut of R22 would help their equipment sales, but that is not the case.

                                 Just Venting

                    A Smooth Transition away from HCFC's

                               A Goal of the EPA

*Allocation of HCFC's in 2012, 55 million pounds
*Price of HCFC22 in 2012, $10. /lb.
*Reclamation is thriving
*Non-ozone depleting replacement products gaining market share
*Allocation January 2013, 39 million pounds
*Price of HCFC22 in February 2013, $16. /lb.
*Reclamation is able to fund greater volume
*Blends are doing great
*Allocation April 2013, 63 million pounds
*Price of HCFC's, under 2012 prices
*Supply and demand explains it all
*Reclamation is sick, and may die
*Who needs blends?
*Is this a smooth transition?

The following are some formal request as well as informal ones, that were made and no response was ever received:

May 17, 2013

Hello Pete,

Do you know anyone in EPA compliance, as this matter is quite important and a reliable answer is required?

Before I cut a deal to purchase some HCFC142b vested rights transferred to HCFC22, I have some questions that need to be answered.  The rights were retroactively awarded for the years 2010, 2011, 2012 and there is no way to know if the rights are legitimate. For example: If it is found out that the company I bought these retroactive rights from did not produce all of their HCFC22 allowances in 2010.  It would seem unlikely you could bring in additional 2010 allowances once a company walked away from their unexpended HCFC22 rights in 2010.

The following helps explains my concern as it is clear that  "THE TRANSFEREE' would be held liable:

... Vol. 57 No. 147 Thursday, July 30, 1992  p 33754 (Rule)
    1/5857
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82 ...

(2) The Administrator will determine whether the records
maintained by EPA, taking into account any previous transfers
and any production, imports or exports of controlled substances
reported by the transferor, indicate that the transferor possesses,

as of the date the transfer claim is processed, unexpended
allowances
or authorizations sufficient to cover the transfer claim (i.e.,
the amount to be transferred plus, in the case of transferors
of production or consumption allowances), one percent of that
amount). Within three working days of receiving a complete transfer

claim, the Administrator will take action to notify the transferor
and transferee as follows:
   (i) If EPA's records show that the transferor has sufficient
unexpended allowances or authorizations to cover the transfer
claim or if review of available information is insufficient
to make a determination, the Administrator will issue a notice
indicating that EPA does not object to the transfer and will
reduce the transferor's balance of unexpended allowances or
authorizations by the amount to be transferred plus, in the
case of transfers of production or consumption allowances, one
percent of that amount. When EPA issues a no objection notice,
the transferor and the transferee may proceed with the transfer.
However, if EPA ultimately finds that the transferor did not
have sufficient unexpended allowances or authorizations to cover
the claim, the transferor and transferee will be held liable
for any violations of the regulations of this subpart that occur
as a result of, or in conjunction with, the improper transfer.
   (ii) If EPA's records show that the transferor has insufficient
unexpended allowances or authorizations to cover the transfer
claim, or that the transferor has failed to respond to one or
more Agency requests to supply information needed to make a
determination, the Administrator will issue a notice disallowing
the transfer. Within 10 working days after receipt of notification,

either party may file a notice of appeal, with supporting reasons,
with the Administrator. The Administrator may affirm or vacate
the disallowance. If no appeal is taken by the tenth working
day after notification, the disallowance shall be final on that
day.

In my humble opinion this answer should be publicized to protect everyone who may be involved, from manufacturer to unsuspecting purchasers.  Nonetheless I need to know if this market is flooded with unexpended rights who would be liable?

James

PS: Feel free to pass this on, to expedite an answer.
PS: Records show that only 86% of the HCFC rights were expended in 2010, so a great deal of poundage (millions of pounds) is in question.
PS: The rule above is referencing CFC's however I believe that HCFC's are under the same rule.
PS: Update: The rule above is repeated in the current HCFC EPA documents.

May 1, 2013

Bob Perciasepe
Acting Administrator
United States Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW (6205J)
Washington, DC  20460

 Re: Docket # EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0354

Dear Mr. Perciasepe:

There is wide spread support for Title VI of the Clean Air Act, which mandated regulations regarding the use and production of chemicals that harm the Earth's stratospheric ozone layer. The Final Rule published on April 3, 2013 does not support the aggressive action the Agency set forth to reduce the production of HCFCs in the United States. The Agency reversed its direction, and in fact has allowed an additional 18,000,000 pounds in 2013 and 16,000,000 pounds in 2014 of HCFC-22 to be produced and sold into the market place. Consider that this amount of HCFC-22 has the impact of 8 coal-fired power plants annual emission of CO2. The increase in production and consumption allowances for HCFC-22 is not an action that protects the environment.

Congress within the Clean Air Act Amendments required the Agency to establish a recovery and reclamation regulation for ozone depleting substances (ODS).  The Agency's 2009 Rule resulted in an increase to nearly thirteen (13%) percent in reclaiming of HCFC-22 in 2012. The increase was almost double over the period of 2010 to 2011.  This was as a result of the reduction of production and consumption rights. This is more than twice the increase over calendar years 2010 to 2011.  The Agency's previously stated position gave incentives to stakeholders to recover more HCFC-22 and reclaim spent gas. This is the result that Congress intended to protect human health and the environment.

The docket relating to "Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Adjustments to the Allowance System for Controlling HCFC Production, Import, and Export" was filled with comments. Many assumptions were put forth which seem to have been given more weight than facts.
Consider the events leading up to the rule making.  According to facts obtained through a Freedom of Information Request (FOIA), No: HQ-FOI-02013-11 the annual consumption of HCFC-22 fell to 43,509.9 metric tons in 2010, 14.1% less than allocated.  In the April 3, 2013 final rule the Agency supports the industry that no more allowances were needed.  While the Court vacated the 2009 Rule, EPA did not use its authority to remove these products from production and use.

In 2011 only 94% of all rights were used.  This fact does not include the HCFC-142b rights that were out of play due to litigation. By the Agency's own numbers there is no need to increase consumption or production rights.  This table is empirical proof that allowances have never been fully utilized.

Table 1

                                     2003
                                     2004
                                     2005
                                     2006
                                     2007
                                     2008
                                     2009
                                     2010
                                     2011
                                     2012
103,320
98,598
107483
93,064
98,939
93,045
58,445
43,509
N/A
N/A
119,384
119,385
119,385
119,385
119,385
119,385
119,385
50,022
45,397
N/A
86.5%
82.6%
89.8%
78%
82.6%
77.7%
48.7%
85.9%
94%
N/A

o    Rights Used
o    Rights Allocated

Since the records show that not all of the HCFC allowances were imported or produced in 2010 and 2011, then it would be up to the EPA to check the records of the individual companies which transferred their HCFC-142b to HCFC-22 vested rights to see if they indeed imported or produced all of their original allowances of HCFC-22 in 2010 and 2011.  If they did expend all of their HCFC-22 allowances in any given year, then a retroactive award could be acted on, if they failed to expend all of their available HCFC-22 allowances in either of the two years in question, then they would not be eligible to import or produce their retroactive rights.

The Agency has a stated doctrine "worst-first".  The Agency phased-out HCFC-141b first and then failed to apply this stated policy to the HCFC-142b, which would have eliminated this issue, in its entirety!  Keep in mind the ozone depletion factor of HCFC-142b is higher than HCFC-22.

Did the court have the right to create a new category of HCFC's "HCFC-142b to HCFC-22 vested rights transfer"? The EPA has long ago adopted the "worst first" method for phase out of ozone depleting substances and the EPA should continue to do so.  By listing the "HCFC-142b to HCFC-22 vested rights transfer" would the phase out look like this?

CFC									             by 1995
HCFC 141b								             by 2004
HCFC 142b								             by 2010
HCFC-142b to HCFC-22 Vested Rights Transfer 			  by 2010
HCFC-22					        	          Phase-out begins 2010

It was said in the early stages of the comment period "there will be a shortage of more than twenty-seven million (27,000,000 lbs.) " Market reaction, and EPA's assessment indicate this myth is busted.

Another element of this issue is equipment. Equipment that uses HCFC-22 has been phased-out more than ten years sooner than previously anticipated.  What is the argument to continue to allow more HCFC-22 into the market when the frontend requirement is gone?

The Agency is faced with a complicated rule making on this matter.  While balancing the rule of law the Agency missed the mark on a simple fact of reducing the percent of gas that can be allowed into commerce. In other words, if the ideal number of pounds was 40 million pounds versus 63 million pounds, the Agency could calculate a higher percentage reduction to all allocation holders, which would give the desired 40 million pounds result.

The market was operating and adjusting to the published statements that were posted on the EPA Web Site.

After receiving the notice that you signed the rule and the rule being published in the Federal Register, April 3, 2013, the price of HCFC-22 has fallen. Companies that are engaged in this industry have seen their value drop as much as 30%.  This too, points to the fact that EPA's adjustment was unwanted and unnecessary.

United States based producers see that, that was an error on the part of the Agency and responded, "Nevertheless, we do not anticipate placing more product in the market place in 2013". At the same time the non-US companies will continue to benefit from this unfortunate mistake.

The January price for HCFC-22 rose to a record high of seventeen dollars and fifty cents per pound ($17.50 per lb.), or ($525.00 per thirty pound cylinder). The price has fallen back, a fact, which will not incent companies to continue with recovery and reclaim.

This rule reverses the Agency's actions to protect Stratospheric Ozone, Human Health and is not good Public Policy.

We would welcome the opportunity to visit and elaborate.

Sincerely,

Ted Broudy
President

USA Refrigerants
PO Box 289
Old Bridge, New Jersey 08857

                         The Current Market Condition

*R22 prices are collapsing
*Product USA bought at $14.50 a lb. in February is hard to sell at $8. a lb. today
*Every attempt to cost averages our high price gas we are faced with lower priced gas becoming available.
The glut is looming large, and cannot be understated.

                                  Reclamation

As a result of the Montreal Protocol, Father EPA and Mother Nature gave birth to the EPA certified reclaimer.

To grow a strong reclamation program, EPA put a substantial excise tax on virgin CFC refrigerants.  Then a radical reduction in allowances put a thriving industry to work.  Creation of these environmental reclamation companies was surely a time to shine if you were in the EPA.

The EPA was made aware of the supportive excise tax, the need for an even playing field and the responsibility to have the back of their first born (The EPA Certified Reclaimers).

The truth is the EPA certified reclaimer has zero support from the EPA.   The tax or sale of allocation was ignored, and the only promise was to cut allocation of HCFC's.  We all now are aware that allowances increased and virgin gasses are dirt-cheap.

Who can answer any of this?

The correct answer is to notify all allocation holders immediately, and state that there will be zero allocation in the year 2015, and that the EPA will advise about 2016 and beyond.

Sincerely,

James

PS: Google "HCFC Glut" and you will find a letter from the White House.  In 2009 USA Refrigerants made it quite clear there was a glut of R22, and it took two years for the EPA to concur.

PSS: USA Refrigerants spoke on January 7, 2009, at an EPA sponsored stakeholders meeting.  All that was said there that day seemed to be ignored; yet it is quite accurate in hindsight.

                         The R22 pipeline of inventory

The wholesaler

5,000 locations with 3,000 pounds per location approximately

                                                                                15 million pounds

Contractors

300,000 individuals with 100 pounds of R22 each, approximately

                                                                                30 million pounds

Allowance holders 2013                                                     63 million pounds

Allocation holders inventory  (conservative)                    70 million pounds

EPA Certified and ARI reclaimers                                    30 million pounds

Investors                                                                           20 million pounds

As of 2015 HVAC equipment contains minimum of       500 million pounds

Equipment owners would have 3% back up stock           15 million pounds

The above are educated guesses equaling                   743 million pounds

Illegal imports?  Million pounds

Where is it all going with the demand shrinking?

**Unless and until the grasp of dead inventory and obsolete inventory is considered by experts and explained to the enforcers of refrigerant allocation, there will be an unprecedented glut of R22 at some time in the future with zero demand.  And it is frustrating that the glut we speak of is mitigated to the here and now, and not the inevitable future calamity approaching.**


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 57 (Wednesday, March 25, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15777-15778]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06741]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL15-54-000]

East Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc.; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on March 17, 2015, East Texas Electric
Cooperative, Inc. submitted an application of cost-based revenue
requirements schedule for reactive power production capability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
``eSubscription'' link on the Web site that enables subscribers to
receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed
docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on April 7, 2015.

     Dated: March 18, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-06741 Filed 3-24-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: April 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 78)]
[Notices]
[Page 21005-21006]
[DOCID:fr24ap06-51]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP06-45-001]

Northwest Pipeline Corporation; Notice of Application

April 17, 2006.
    Take notice that on April 5, 2006, Northwest Pipeline Corporation
(Northwest), 295 Chipeta Way, Salt Lake City, Utah 84158 filed in
Docket No. CP06-45-001, an amendment to the pending application, filed
January 4, 2006, pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA)
and part 157 of the Commission's regulations for its ``Parachute
Lateral Project'' in Docket No. CP06-45, all as more fully set forth in
the application which is on file with the Commission and open for
public inspection. These filings are available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''

link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please
contact FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free
at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this application may be directed to Steven
W. Snarr, General Counsel, Northwest Pipeline Corporation, P.O. Box
58900, Salt Lake City, Utah 84158-0900 at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by fax at
(801) 584-7862 or Gary K. Kotter, Manager, Certificates and Tariffs,
Northwest Pipeline Corporation, P.O. Box 58900, Salt Lake City, Utah
84158-0900, at

(801) 584-7117 or by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The proposed Parachute Lateral project, designed to move natural
gas production from the Parachute area of the Piceance Basin to the
Greasewood Hub, consists of approximately 37.6 miles of 30-inch
pipeline and appurtenant facilities in Garfield and Rio Blanco
counties, Colorado, one receipt meter station located in Garfield
County and two delivery interconnects located in Rio Blanco County,
Colorado. By this amendment to the pending application, Northwest now
proposes to add an 8-inch tap and valve assembly at approximately
milepost 27.41 in Section 9, Township 6S, Range 97W, Garfield County,
Colorado, to the originally filed scope of work for the Parachute
Lateral project.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the below listed comment date, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    Motions to intervene, protests and comments may be filed
electronically via the internet in lieu of paper; see, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on May 8, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-6048 Filed 4-21-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 204 (Wednesday, October 21, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67022-67024]
[FR Doc No: 2020-23262]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90205; File No. SR-Phlx-2020-47]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend the
Current Pilot Program Related to Phlx Rule 3312

October 15, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on October 13, 2020, Nasdaq PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 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 extend the current pilot program related
to Rule 3312, Clearly Erroneous Transactions, to the close of business
on April 20, 2021. The text of the proposed rule change is available on
the Exchange's website at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/phlx/rules, 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 Exchange 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 these 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
aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to extend the current
pilot program related to Rule 3312, Clearly Erroneous Transactions, to
the close of business on April 20, 2021. The pilot program is currently
due to expire on October 20, 2020.
    On September 10, 2010, the Commission approved, on a pilot basis,
changes to Rule 3312 that, among other things: (i) Provided for uniform
treatment of clearly erroneous execution reviews in multi-stock events
involving twenty or more securities; and (ii) reduced the ability of
the Exchange to deviate from the objective standards set forth in the
rule.\3\ Following this, on September 30, 2010, the Exchange adopted
changes to conform its Rule 3312 to Nasdaq's and BX's rules 11890.\4\
In 2013, the Exchange adopted a provision designed to address the
operation of the Plan.\5\ Finally, in 2014, the Exchange adopted two
additional provisions providing that: (i) A series of transactions in a
particular security on one or more trading days may be viewed as one
event if all such transactions were effected based on the same
fundamentally incorrect or grossly misinterpreted issuance information
resulting in a severe valuation error for all such transactions; and
(ii) in the event of any disruption or malfunction in the operation of
the electronic communications and trading facilities of an Exchange,
another SRO, or responsible single plan processor in connection with
the transmittal or receipt of a trading halt, an Officer, acting on his
or her own motion, shall nullify any transaction that occurs after a
trading halt has been declared by the primary listing market for a
security and before such trading halt has officially ended according to
the primary listing market.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62886 (September 10,
2010), 75 FR 56613 (September 16, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-076).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63023 (September 30,
2010), 75 FR 61802 (October 6, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-125).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68820 (February 1,
2013), 78 FR 9436 (February 8, 2013) (SR-Phlx-2013-12).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72434 (June 19,
2014), 79 FR 36110 (June 25, 2014) (SR-Phlx-2014-27).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These changes were originally scheduled to operate for a pilot
period to coincide with the pilot period for the Plan to Address
Extraordinary Market Volatility (the ``Limit Up-Limit Down Plan'' or
``LULD Plan'').\7\ In April 2019, the Commission approved an amendment
to the LULD Plan for it to operate on a permanent, rather than pilot,
basis.\8\ In light of that change, the Exchange amended Rule 3312 to
untie the pilot program's effectiveness from that of the LULD Plan and
to extend the pilot's effectiveness to the close of business on October
18, 2019.\9\ The Exchange later amended Rule 3312 to extend the pilot's
effectiveness to the close of business on April 20, 2020,\10\ and
subsequently, to the close of business on October 20, 2020.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67091 (May 31,
2012), 77 FR 33498 (June 6, 2012) (the ``Limit Up-Limit Down
Release'').
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85623 (April 11,
2019), 84 FR 16086 (April 17, 2019) (approving Eighteenth Amendment
to LULD Plan).
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85632 (April 11,
2019), 84 FR 16057 (April 17, 2019) (SR-Phlx-2019-14).
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87356 (October 18,
2019), 84 FR 57133 (October 24, 2019) (SR-Phlx-2019-44).
    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88503 (March 27,
2020), 85 FR 18606 (April 2, 2020) (SR-Phlx-2020-13).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to amend Rule 3312 to extend the pilot's
effectiveness for a further six months until the close of business on
April 20, 2021. If the pilot period is not either extended, replaced or
approved as permanent, the prior versions of paragraphs (a)(2)(C),
(c)(1), (b)(i), and (b)(ii) shall be in effect, and the provisions of
paragraphs (g) through (i) shall be null and void.\12\ In such an
event, the remaining sections of Rule 3312 would continue to apply to
all transactions executed on the Exchange. The Exchange understands
that the other national securities exchanges and Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority (``FINRA'') will also file similar proposals to
extend their respective clearly erroneous execution pilot programs, the
substance of which are identical to Rule 3312.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See notes 3--6, supra. The prior versions of paragraphs
(a)(2)(C), (c)(1), (b)(i), and (b)(ii) generally provided greater
discretion to the Exchange with respect to breaking erroneous
trades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange does not propose any additional changes to Rule 3312.
Extending the effectiveness of Rule 3312 for an additional six months
will provide the Exchange and other self-regulatory organizations
additional time to consider whether further amendments to the clearly
erroneous execution rules are appropriate.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,\13\ in general, and
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\14\ in particular, in that it is designed
to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest and not to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change promotes just
and equitable principles of trade in that it promotes transparency and
uniformity across markets concerning review of transactions as clearly
erroneous. The Exchange believes that extending the clearly erroneous
execution pilot under Rule 3312 for an additional six months would help
assure that the determination of whether a clearly erroneous trade has
occurred will be based on clear and objective criteria, and that the
resolution of the incident will occur promptly through a transparent
process. The proposed rule change would also help assure consistent
results in handling erroneous trades across the U.S. equities markets,
thus furthering fair and orderly markets, the protection of investors
and the public interest. Based on the foregoing, the Exchange believes
the amended clearly erroneous executions rule should continue to be in
effect on a pilot basis while the Exchange and other self-regulatory
organizations consider whether further amendments to these rules are
appropriate.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposal would ensure
the continued, uninterrupted operation of harmonized clearly erroneous
execution rules across the U.S. equities markets while the Exchange and
other self-regulatory organizations consider whether further amendments
to these rules are appropriate. The Exchange understands that the other
national securities

exchanges and FINRA will also file similar proposals to extend their
respective clearly erroneous execution pilot programs. Thus, the
proposed rule change will help to ensure consistency across market
centers without implicating any competitive issues.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \15\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \17\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \18\ permits the Commission to
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposed
rule change may become effective and operative immediately upon filing.
The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, as
it will allow the current clearly erroneous execution pilot program to
continue uninterrupted, without any changes, while the Exchange and the
other national securities exchanges consider a permanent proposal for
clearly erroneous execution reviews. For this reason, the Commission
hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the proposed
rule change as operative upon filing.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \19\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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-Phlx-2020-47 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-Phlx-2020-47. 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-Phlx-2020-47 and should be submitted on
or before November 12, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-23262 Filed 10-20-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P