[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 71 (Tuesday, April 14, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19889-19892]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08586]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 23

[Docket No. FAA-2015-0721; Notice No. 23-15-03-SC]

Special Conditions: Honda Aircraft Company, Model HA-420
HondaJet, Lithium-Ion Batteries

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed special conditions.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes special conditions for the Honda Aircraft
Company, Model HA-420 airplane. This airplane will have a novel or
unusual design feature associated with the installation of lithium-ion
(Li-ion) batteries. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not
contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design
feature. These proposed special conditions contain the additional
safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to
establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the
existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: Send your comments on or before May 4, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number [FAA-2015-0721]
using any of the following methods:
    [ssquf] Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
    [ssquf] Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    [ssquf] Hand Delivery of Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m., and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    [ssquf] Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://regulations.gov, including any personal information
the commenter provides. Using the search function of the docket Web
site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all comments
received into any FAA docket, including the name of the individual
sending the comment (or signing the comment for an association,
business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement can
be found in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR
19477-19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m., and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Les Lyne, Policies & Procedures
Branch, ACE-114, Federal Aviation Administration, Small Airplane
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 901 Locust; Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by
sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. We ask
that you send us two copies of written comments.
    We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing
date for comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is
possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change
these special conditions based on the comments we receive.

Background

    On October 11, 2006, Honda Aircraft Company applied for a type
certificate for their new Model HA-420. On October 10, 2013, Honda
Aircraft Company requested an extension with an effective application
date of October 1, 2013. This extension changed the type certification
basis to amendment 23-62.
    The HA-420 is a four to five passenger (depending on
configuration), two crew, lightweight business jet with a 43,000-foot
service ceiling and a maximum takeoff weight of 9963 pounds. The
airplane is powered by two GE-Honda Aero Engines (GHAE) HF-120 turbofan
engines.
    The current regulatory requirements for part 23 airplanes do not
contain adequate requirements for the application of Li-ion batteries
in airborne applications. This type of battery possesses certain
failure, operational characteristics, and maintenance requirements that
differ significantly from that of the nickel cadmium and lead acid
rechargeable batteries currently approved in other normal, utility,
acrobatic, and commuter category airplanes. Therefore, the FAA is
proposing this special condition to require that all characteristics of
the rechargeable lithium batteries and their installation that could
affect safe operation of the HA-420 are addressed, and appropriate
Instructions for Continued Airworthiness which include maintenance
requirements are established to ensure the availability of electrical
power from the batteries when needed.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, Honda Aircraft Company must
show that the HA-420 meets the applicable provisions of part 23, as
amended by Amendments 23-1 through 23-62 thereto.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 23) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the HA-420 because of a novel or
unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the
provisions of Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar
novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also
apply to the other model under Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the HA-420 must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust
emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification
requirements of 14 CFR part 36, and the FAA must issue a finding of
regulatory adequacy under section 611 of Public Law 92-574, the ``Noise
Control Act of 1972.''
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type-
certification basis under Sec.  21.17(a)(2).

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The HA-420 will incorporate the following novel or unusual design
feature: The installation of Li-ion batteries.
    The current regulatory requirements for part 23 airplanes do not
contain adequate requirements for the application of Li-ion batteries
in airborne applications. This type of battery possesses certain
failure, operational characteristics, and maintenance requirements that
differ significantly from that of the nickel cadmium and lead acid
rechargeable batteries currently approved in other normal, utility,
acrobatic, and commuter category airplanes.

Discussion

    The applicable parts 21 and 23 airworthiness regulations governing
the installation of batteries in general aviation airplanes, including
Sec.  23.1353, were derived from Civil Air Regulations (CAR 3) as part
of the recodification that established 14 CFR part 23. The battery
requirements, which are identified in Sec.  23.1353, were a rewording
of the CAR requirements that did not add any substantive technical
requirements. An increase in incidents involving battery fires and
failures that accompanied the increased use of Nickel-Cadmium (Ni-Cad)
batteries in aircraft resulted in rulemaking activities on the battery
requirements for transport category airplanes. These regulations were
incorporated into Sec.  23.1353(f) and (g), which apply only to Ni-Cad
battery installations.
    The proposed use of Li-ion batteries on the HA-420 airplane has
prompted the FAA to review the adequacy of the existing battery
regulations with respect to that chemistry. As the result of this
review, the FAA has determined that the existing regulations do not
adequately address several failure, operational, and maintenance
characteristics of Li-ion batteries that could affect safety of the
battery installation of the HA-420 airplane electrical power supply.
    The introduction of Li-ion batteries into aircraft raises some
concern about associated battery/cell monitoring systems and how these
may affect utilization of an otherwise ``good'' battery as an energy
source to the electrical system when monitoring components fail.
Associated battery/cell monitoring systems (i.e., temperature, state of
charge, etc.) should be evaluated/tested with respect the expected
extremes in the aircraft operating environment.
    Li-ion batteries typically have different electrical impedance
characteristics than lead-acid or Ni-Cad batteries. Honda Aircraft
Company needs to evaluate other components of the aircraft electrical
system with respect to these characteristics.
    At present, there is very limited experience regarding the use of
Li-ion rechargeable batteries in applications involving commercial
aviation. However, other users of this technology range from wireless
telephone manufacturers to the electric vehicle industry and have noted
significant safety issues regarding the use of these types of
batteries, some of which are described in the following paragraphs:
    1. Overcharging. In general, lithium batteries are significantly
more susceptible to internal failures that can result in self-
sustaining increases in temperature and pressure (i.e., thermal
runaway) than their nickel-cadmium or lead-acid counterparts. This is
especially true for overcharging, which causes heating and
destabilization of the components of the cell, leading to the formation
(by plating) of highly unstable metallic lithium. The metallic lithium
can ignite, resulting in a self-sustaining fire or explosion. Finally,
the severity of thermal runaway due to overcharging increases with
increasing battery capacity due to the higher amount of electrolyte in
large batteries.
    2. Over-discharging. Discharge of some types of lithium battery
cells beyond a certain voltage (typically 2.4 volts) can cause
corrosion of the electrodes of the cell; resulting in loss of battery
capacity that cannot be reversed by recharging. This loss of capacity
may not be detected by the simple voltage measurements commonly
available to flight crews as a means of checking battery status--a
problem shared with nickel-cadmium batteries.
    3. Flammability of Cell Components: Unlike nickel-cadmium and lead-
acid batteries, some types of lithium batteries use liquid electrolytes
that are flammable. The electrolyte can serve as a source of fuel for
an external fire if

there is a breach of the battery container.
    These safety issues experienced by users of lithium batteries raise
concern about the use of these batteries in commercial aviation. The
intent of the proposed special condition is to establish appropriate
airworthiness standards for lithium battery installations in the HA-420
and to ensure, as required by Sec. Sec.  23.1309 and 23.601, that these
battery installations are not hazardous or unreliable.
    Additionally, the Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics
(RTCA), in a joint effort with the FAA and industry, has released RTCA/
DO-311, Minimum Operational Performance Standards for Rechargeable
Lithium Battery Systems, which gained much of its text directly from
previous Li-ion special conditions. Honda Aircraft Company proposes to
use DO-311 as the primary methodology for assuring the battery will
perform its intended functions safely as installed in the HA-420
airplane and as the basis for test and qualification of the battery.
This Special Condition incorporates applicable portions of DO-311.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
HA-420. Should Honda Aircraft Company apply at a later date for a
change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating
the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would
apply to that model as well.
    Provisional certification of the HA-420 is currently scheduled for
June 2015. The substance of these special conditions has been subject
to the notice and public-comment procedure in several prior instances,
specifically special conditions 23-236-SC, 23-247-SC, and 23-249-SC.
Therefore, because a delay would significantly affect the applicant's
both installation of the system and certification of the airplane, we
are shortening the public-comment period to 20 days.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
on one model of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 23

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and symbols.

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Proposed Special Conditions

    Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes the
following special conditions as part of the type certification basis
for Honda Aircraft Company, HA-420 airplanes.

1. Lithium-Ion Battery Installation

    a. Safe cell temperatures and pressures must be maintained during
any probable charging or discharging condition, or during any failure
of the charging or battery monitoring system not shown to be extremely
remote. The applicant must design Li-ion battery installation to
preclude explosion or fire in the event of those failures.
    b. The applicant must design the Li-ion batteries to preclude the
occurrence of self-sustaining, uncontrolled increases in temperature or
pressure.
    c. No explosive or toxic gasses emitted by any Li-ion battery in
normal operation or as the result of any failure of the battery
charging or monitoring system, or battery installation not shown to be
extremely remote, may accumulate in hazardous quantities within the
airplane.
    d. Li-ion batteries that contain flammable fluids must comply with
the flammable fluid fire protection requirements of Sec.  23.863(a)
through (d).
    e. No corrosive fluids or gasses that may escape from any Li-ion
battery may damage surrounding airplane structure or adjacent essential
equipment.
    f. The applicant must provide provision for each installed Li-ion
battery to prevent any hazardous effect on structure or essential
systems that may be caused by the maximum amount of heat the battery
can generate during a short circuit of the battery or of its individual
cells.
    g. Li-ion battery installations must have--
    (1) A system to control the charging rate of the battery
automatically so as to prevent battery overheating or overcharging; or
    (2) A battery temperature sensing and over-temperature warning
system with a means for automatically disconnecting the battery from
its charging source in the event of an over-temperature condition; or
    (3) A battery failure sensing and warning system with a means for
automatically disconnecting the battery from its charging source in the
event of battery failure.
    h. Any Li-ion battery installation whose function is required for
safe operation of the airplane, must incorporate a monitoring and
warning feature that will provide an indication to the appropriate
flightcrew members whenever the capacity and State of Charge (SOC) of
the batteries have fallen below levels considered acceptable for
dispatch of the airplane.
    i. The Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA) must contain
recommended manufacturers maintenance and inspection requirements to
ensure that batteries, including single cells, meet a safety function
level essential to the aircraft's continued airworthiness.
    (1) The ICA must contain operating instructions and equipment
limitations in an installation maintenance manual.
    (2) The ICA must contain installation procedures and limitations in
a maintenance manual, sufficient to ensure that cells or batteries,
when installed according to the installation procedures, still meet
safety functional levels essential to the aircraft's continued
airworthiness. The limitations must identify any unique aspects of the
installation.
    (3) The ICA must contain corrective maintenance procedures to check
battery capacity at manufacturers recommended inspection intervals.
    (4) The ICA must contain scheduled servicing information to replace
batteries at manufacturers recommended replacement time.
    (5) The ICA must contain maintenance and inspection requirements to
check visually for battery and/or charger degradation.
    j. Batteries in a rotating stock (spares) that have experienced
degraded charge retention capability or other damage due to prolonged
storage must be functionally checked at manufacturers recommended
inspection intervals.
    k. The System Safety Assessment (SSA) process should address the
software and complex hardware levels for the sensing, monitoring, and
warning systems if these systems contain complex devices. The
functional hazard assessment (FHA) for the system is required based on
the intended functions described. The criticality of the specific
functions will be determined by the safety assessment process for
compliance with Sec.  23.1309. Advisory Circular 23-1309-1C contains
acceptable means for accomplishing this requirement. For determining
the failure condition, the criticality of a function will include the
mitigating factors. The failure conditions must address the loss of
function and improper operations.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on April 6, 2015.
Pat Mullen,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-08586 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Summary of EPA–PCA Discussion on NESHAP Reconsideration

December 1, 2011

EPA Participants:

Keith Barnett, OAQPS

Sharon Nizich, OAQPS

Peter Westlin, OAQPS

Mike Laney, RTI

Matt Hakos, RTI

PCA Participants:

Curtis Lesslie, Ash Grove

Jason Morin, Holcim

Andy O’Hare, PCA

Mike Pelan, Lafarge

Adam Swercheck, Buzzi Unicem

Satish Sheth, CEMEX

Hector Ybanez, Holcim

Clinker Piles

EPA is planning to drop the clinker pile design and management
requirements in lieu of imposing work practice standards, similar to
those employed for coal piles under NSPS Subpart Y.

STATUS: EPA is still on track to replace the design and management
standards with a menu of work practices similar to those under Subpart Y
for coal piles, but selected on a site-specific basis.  EPA also plans
to propose something very similar to the PCA proposed definition of
“open clinker piles”: unenclosed outdoor accumulations of clinker of
more than 50,000 tons in place for more than six months.  Lastly, there
was a back and forth regarding implementation of the work practice
standards.  PCA expressed a desire for them to be self implementing as
with similar obligations already outlined in Title V permits, in lieu of
having to have the site-specific practices themselves approved by a
permitting authority.

Modifications to the Total Hydrocarbon Standard

EPA plans to propose to allow facilities to correlate their THC
compliance value with the 9 ppmv organic HAP alternative limit.

STATUS: EPA still plans to propose to allow facilities to scale up their
site-specific THC standard to be equivalent to a 9 ppm oHAP limit.

HCl, PM and Mercury Monitoring During Start-up and Shutdown (previously
two separate issues)

EPA is planning to drop the emission standards for start-up and shutdown
and replace them with work practice standards.

STATUS: EPA is still proposing to drop the emission standards during
start up and shutdown and to replace them with work practice standards.
There was a brief discussion regarding the type of work practices that
EPA has in mind, and PCA was encouraged to review the anticipated boiler
NESHAP proposal to see where EPA was headed.  Lastly, there was a
discussion regarding the definitions of startup and shutdown.  EPA plans
to propose that startup begins when the kiln ID fan is running and the
kiln is combusting fuel.  Startup ends once feed is fed to the kiln.
Shutdown begins when feed is no longer fed to the kiln.

HCl Continuous Emission Monitors Associated with Dry Scrubbers

EPA plans to propose that facilities equipped with dry scrubbers do NOT
have to continuously monitor HCl emissions.

STATUS: EPA still plans to propose to drop the HCl continuous emission
monitor obligation for those kilns using dry scrubbers.  The Agency also
suggested that they may require facilities using dry scrubbers to use
SO2 emissions as a surrogate for HCl compliance.  PCA explained at
length why this is a bad idea, explaining that SO2 emissions are not
tied to HCl emissions even though both may be controlled in varying
degrees by dry (and wet) scrubbing.  PCA suggested that a parameter,
such as lime injection molar ratios, may be used instead of a
relationship with SO2 emissions.  PCA agreed to provide more specific
details on the molar ratio concept.  Lastly, PCA expressed general
concern about the use of continuous HCl monitors, explaining that the
performance specification for the devices is not final.  PCA suggested
that EPA consider dropping this continuous monitoring obligation all
together.

Alternative Particulate Matter (PM) Equation

EPA plans to propose the PCA recommended expanded alternative PM
equation, allowing for site-specific consideration of various commingled
sources, including clinker coolers, coal mills when computing a
site-specific PM emission limit.

STATUS: EPA plans to propose the alternative PM equation suggested by
PCA, or something very similar.

Regulatory Status of Various Coal Mill Configurations

EPA plans to propose that coal mills with separate stacks which receive
cooler air or kiln gases be regulated under NSPS Subpart Y.  Facilities
with “in-line” coal mills (those that use kiln gases and then route
them back to the kiln stack from the coal mill) will be regulated under
Subpart LLL.

STATUS:  There was an extended discussion regarding the three categories
of coal mills that have been under discussion, with EPA confirming that
the first category (coal mills receiving cooler air with separate stack)
would be under Subpart Y.  EPA also confirmed that the “in-line”
coal mills would be under Subpart LLL.  The discussion focused primarily
on those coal mills that receive kiln gases that vent through a separate
coal mill stack.  At issue, was how to account for mercury, and to a
lesser extent, total hydrocarbons, present in the kilns gases used by
the coal mill.  PCA suggested, and EPA agreed, that mercury emissions
from coal mills are likely to be very minimal because of the low
temperatures in the mills and the mercury scrubbing effect of the mill.
PCA suggested that the mercury concern may be satisfactorily addressed
by conducting an initial and subsequent confirming performance test (no
more often than every 30 months (with 60 month intervals being
preferable) of the mercury emissions coming from the coal mill stack.
No continuous mercury monitoring would be necessary.

PM Limit for Modified Sources Under the NSPS

EPA plans to propose that the PM emission standard for modified NSPS
sources be the same as the existing source NESHAP PM standard.

STATUS: EPA will propose a PM emission standard for modified NSPS
sources of 0.04 lbs/ton of clinker to replace the 0.01 lbs/ton of
clinker standard in the September 2010 rule.

Lastly, there was also a discussion regarding the EPA electronic
reporting tool, which requires sources to report by December 2011 on
certain performance/compliance test information.  EPA clarified that the
reporting obligation applies only to new requirements, not existing
requirements.  So, PCA members will not be required to report on testing
associated with compliance with the recent NESHAP changes until after
the compliance date.  Update from this meeting:  sources must report to
ERT 60 days after a performance test, if a performance test is done past
December 31, 2011.  Thus, the submittal is not tied into the compliance
date of 2013, but rather is tied into the actual date of the performance
test, even if the test has been performed before the compliance date.

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  1


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 246 (Monday, December 23, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 70590]
[FR Doc No: 2019-27590]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87775; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2019-81]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule
Change To Establish Generic Listing Standards for Derivative Securities
Products That Are Permitted To Operate in Reliance on Rule 6c-11 Under
the Investment Company Act of 1940

December 17, 2019.
    On November 1, 2019, NYSE Arca, Inc. filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to, among other things, establish
generic listing standards for Exchange-Traded Fund Shares that are
permitted to operate in reliance on Rule 6c-11 under the Investment
Company Act of 1940. The proposed rule change was published for comment
in the Federal Register on November 20, 2019.\3\ The Commission has
received no comment letters on the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C.78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87542 (Nov. 14,
2019), 84 FR 64170.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding, or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission will either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day after publication of the notice for this proposed rule change
is January 4, 2020. The Commission is extending this 45-day time
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has
sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change. Accordingly, the
Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\5\ designates
February 18, 2020 as the date by which the Commission shall either
approve or disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove, the proposed rule change (File No. SR-NYSEArca-2019-81).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-27590 Filed 12-20-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 168 (Wednesday, August 31, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53471-53473]
[FR Doc No: 2022-18838]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0223; FRL-10138-01-OCSPP]

Cancellation Order for Certain Chlorpyrifos Registrations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
order for the cancellations, voluntarily requested by the registrants
and accepted by the Agency, of the chlorpyrifos products listed in
Table 1 of Unit I., pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). This cancellation order follows an April 28,
2022, Federal Register Notice of Receipt of requests from the
registrants listed in Table 2 of Unit I. to voluntarily cancel these
chlorpyrifos product registrations. Any distribution, sale, or use of
the products subject to this cancellation order is permitted only in
accordance with the terms of this order, including any existing stocks
provisions.

DATES: The cancellations and amendments are effective August 31, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia Biggio, Pesticide Re-
Evaluation Division (7508M), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0223, is available online at
https://www.regulations.gov. Additional instructions on visiting the
docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is
available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets. For the latest status
information on EPA/DC services and docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Executive Summary

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide
users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution,
or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency
has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be
affected by this action.

B. What action is the Agency taking?

    This document announces the cancellations, as requested by
registrants, of products registered under FIFRA section 3 (7 U.S.C.
136a). These registrations are listed in sequence by registration
number in Table 1 of this unit.

                                         Table 1--Product Cancellations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        EPA registration  No.           Company  No.            Product name               Active ingredients
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
279-3538.............................             279  Nufos 4E......................  Chlorpyrifos.
279-3581.............................             279  Bolton Insecticide............  Chlorpyrifos & gamma-
                                                                                Cyhalothrin.
279-9545.............................             279  F9047-2 EC Insecticide........  Chlorpyrifos & Zeta-
                                                                                Cypermethrin.
279-9572.............................             279  Gat Chlorpyrifos Cs...........  Chlorpyrifos.
279-9574.............................             279  Chlorpyrifos 42 CS............  Chlorpyrifos.
499-367..............................             499  Whitmire PT 275 Dur-O-Cap       Chlorpyrifos.
                                                        Microencapsulated
                                                        Chlorpyrifos.
499-405..............................             499  Whitmire PT 1920 Total Release  Chlorpyrifos.
                                                        Insecticide.
499-419..............................             499  Duration PT 275 MC              Chlorpyrifos.
                                                        Microencapsulated Dursban
                                                        Liquid Concentrate.
53883-264............................           53883  CSI Chlorpyrifos CS...........  Chlorpyrifos.
53883-331............................           53883  CSI Chlorpyrifos 42 CS          Chlorpyrifos.
                                                        Insecticide.
53883-355............................           53883  CSI Chlorpyrifos 20 CS........  Chlorpyrifos.
86363-11.............................           86363  Bifenchlor....................  Bifenthrin &
                                                                                Chlorpyrifos.
89168-20.............................           89168  Liberty Chlorpyrifos            Bifenthrin &
                                                        Bifenthrin.                     Chlorpyrifos.
89168-24.............................           89168  Liberty Chlorpyrifos 4E.......  Chlorpyrifos.
89168-47.............................           89168  Liberty Granular Insecticide..  Bifenthrin &
                                                                                Chlorpyrifos.
89459-69.............................           89459  Equil Pyrifos.................  Chlorpyrifos.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

               Table 2--Registrants of Cancelled Products
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Company No.                    Company name and address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
279........................  FMC Corporation, 2929 Walnut Street,
                              Philadelphia, PA 19104.
499........................  BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Drive, P.O. Box
                              13528, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-
                              3528.
53883......................  Control Solutions, Inc., 5903 Genoa Red
                              Bluff Road, Pasadena, TX 77507.
86363......................  Kaizen Agent Name: Lighthouse Product,
                              Services Technologies, LLC, 2411 S. Bear
                              Claw Way, Meridian, ID 83642.
89168......................  Liberty Crop Protection, LLC, 1880 Fall
                              River Dr., #100, Loveland, CO 80538.
89459......................  Central Garden & Pet Company, 1501 East
                              Woodfield Road, Suite 200W, Schaumburg, IL
                              60173.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    FIFRA section 6(f)(1), 7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1), provides that a
registrant of a pesticide product may at any time request that any of
its pesticide registrations or registered uses be cancelled. FIFRA
further provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a
notice of receipt of any such request in the Federal Register.
    FIFRA section 6(f)(1)(B), 7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)(B), requires that
before acting on a request for voluntary cancellation, EPA must provide
a 30-public comment period on the request for voluntary cancellation or
use termination. Following the public comment period, the EPA
Administrator may approve such a request.

II. Background

A. Brief History

    In August 2021, EPA issued a rule revoking chlorpyrifos tolerances
on the grounds that the chlorpyrifos tolerances were not safe (86 FR
48315, August 30, 2021) (FRL-5993-04-OCSPP) publication in the Federal
Register. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in FFDCA section
408(g)(2), objections to, requests for evidentiary hearings on those
objections, and/or requests for stays of the final rule were filed on
or before the close of the objections period on October 29, 2021. On
February 28, 2022, EPA issued an Order denying all objections to,
requests for hearing on those objections, as well as requests for stay
of the August 2021 final rule published in the Federal Register on
February 28, 2022 (87 FR 11222) (FRL-5993-05-OCSPP).
    Those tolerances expired on February 28, 2022. Once the tolerances
expired, pesticide products containing chlorpyrifos could no longer be
used on food crops. After EPA alerted registrants of chlorpyrifos
products of the lack of tolerances and the options for their products,
several registrants submitted requests to voluntarily cancel their
chlorpyrifos pesticide products.
    In April 2022, the notice of receipt of the request for voluntary
cancellation or use termination related to this action published for
comment in the Federal Register on April 28, 2022 (87 FR 25256) (FRL-
9723-01-OCSPP). The 30-day public comment period closed on May 31,
2022.

B. Summary of Comments Received

    During the public comment period, EPA received seven substantive
comments in response to the April 2022 notice of receipt. The comments
can be found in the docket for this action and are briefly summarized
here.
    Comments submitted by the Arizona Farm Bureau Federation, the
American Farm Bureau Federation, the Agricultural Retailers
Association, the Cherry Marketing Institute, and a joint comment from
the American Sugar Beet Growers Association, the U.S. Beet Sugar
Association, and the Beet Sugar Development Foundation opposed the
cancellation of the products containing chlorpyrifos due to the
importance of chlorpyrifos for growers. In particular, these commenters
specified concerns that growers will have difficulty protecting their
crops against certain pests without chlorpyrifos and that growers may
use more significant quantities of less-effective products,
contributing to resistance issues. In addition, these commenters make
note of litigation challenging EPA's rule revoking the chlorpyrifos
tolerances that is currently pending in the United States Court of
Appeals for the 8th Circuit, Red River Valley Sugarbeet Growers Ass'n
et al., v. Regan, et al., No. 22-1422 (8th Cir.), and request that EPA
postpone cancellation of chlorpyrifos products until the litigation is
resolved.

C. EPA Response to Comments

    EPA is declining to postpone the cancellations requested by the
registrants subject to this cancellation order. Postponing the
cancellations would essentially impose a responsibility on the
registrants subject to this order to retain and maintain their
registrations indefinitely. The resolution and timing of the litigation
is unknown, and retention of the registrations could subject
registrants to additional maintenance fees and responsibilities for
those registrations. See, e.g., 40 CFR part 152, subpart G (registrant
responsibilities); 7 U.S.C. 136a-1(i)(1) (maintenance fee obligations);
7 U.S.C. 136e (production reporting requirements); 7 U.S.C. 136f
(recordkeeping requirements).
    EPA also notes that some of the registrations being cancelled in
this Order do not contain labeling bearing food uses, so any outcome of
the litigation is irrelevant. In any event and more importantly, FIFRA
section 6(f) allows a registrant to request voluntary cancellation of a
pesticide product registration at any time for many reasons, including
lack of interest in maintaining the registration or the pesticide no
longer being marketed. EPA cannot compel registrants to maintain a
registration indefinitely if they request to voluntarily cancel it.
Moreover, retention of these registrations will not make chlorpyrifos
products available for use as the commenters desire. The revocation of
the tolerances means that application of chlorpyrifos to food crops
will result in adulterated food. While cancellation of these 16
products does not terminate the last of the chlorpyrifos products
registered in the United States, these products (and other remaining
chlorpyrifos products) cannot be applied to food crops that will be
shipped in interstate commerce.
    Finally, these commenters also questioned the Agency's rationale
for revoking all chlorpyrifos tolerances due to the Agency's proposed
mitigations in the Chlorpyrifos Proposed Interim Decision (December 3,
2020). Those comments are challenges to EPA's rule revoking tolerances,
which is being separately litigated and is outside the scope of this
action.
    Several commenters highlighted concerns regarding the existing
stocks provisions from the April 2022 notice of receipt that indicated
the Agency did not identify potential risk concerns and anticipated
allowing registrants to sell and distribute existing stocks of these
products for 1 year after publication of the Cancellation Order in the
Federal Register. Earthjustice commented that the existing stocks
language in the April 2022 notice of receipt that would be applicable
to chlorpyrifos products in

the notice indicates that EPA anticipated allowing registrants to sell
and distribute existing stocks of chlorpyrifos for one year after the
publication of the cancellation order and to allow others to sell,
distribute, and use existing stocks until exhausted. Earthjustice
asserts that EPA cannot allow for existing stocks of chlorpyrifos to be
sold, distributed, or used in this way as a result of the revocation of
all chlorpyrifos tolerances. See the August 30, 2021 (86 FR 48315)
(FRL-5993-04-OCSPP) publication in the Federal Register.
    The applicability of the existing stocks language in the April 2022
notice of receipt to chlorpyrifos products was an oversight and is
being corrected in this cancellation order. The existing stocks section
of the April 2022 notice of receipt contained specific language
pertaining to one specific product (not the chlorpyrifos products) and
other language ``for all other voluntary cancellations listed in the
notice.'' 87 FR 25259. That language provided broad existing stocks
provisions due to the Agency's conclusion that there were ``no
significant potential risk concerns associated with those pesticide
products.'' Id. In using somewhat standard language for a voluntary
cancellation notice, EPA failed to specify a different existing stocks
provision for the chlorpyrifos products in the notice, for which
tolerances were revoked due to EPA's conclusion that chlorpyrifos
tolerances were not safe. See 87 FR 11222. FIFRA section 6(a)(1) gives
EPA the discretion to permit the continued sale and use of existing
stocks, where doing so is determined to be consistent with the purposes
of FIFRA. 7 U.S.C. 136d(a)(1). In the case of the chlorpyrifos
registrations subject to this order, without tolerances in place to
cover residues from use of these products, these products may not be
used on food, nor may they be sold or distributed. Allowing for
continued use or sale would not be consistent with FIFRA; therefore,
EPA is not allowing for continued sale, distribution, or use of
chlorpyrifos products listed above.

III. The Cancellation Order

    Pursuant to FIFRA section 6(f) (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)), EPA hereby
approves the requested cancellations of the registrations identified in
Table 1 of Unit I. Accordingly, the Agency hereby orders that the
product registrations identified in Table 1 of Unit I. are cancelled.
    The cancellations and amendments addressed in this Order are
effective August 31, 2022. Any distribution, sale, or use of existing
stocks of the products identified in Table 1 of Unit I. in a manner
inconsistent with any of the provisions for disposition of existing
stocks set forth in Unit VI. will be a violation of FIFRA.

IV. Provisions for Disposition of Existing Stocks

    Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products
that are currently in the United States and that were packaged,
labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the
cancellation action. The language regarding the intended disposition of
existing stocks that published in the Federal Register on April 28,
2022 (87 FR 25256) (FRL-9723-01-OCSPP) on page 25259 is not appropriate
for application to the pesticide products subject to this Order.
    None of the registrants listed in this order have requested any
continued sale or distribution of existing stocks of the registrations
subject to this cancellation order nor have they requested special
provisions to relabel the products listed in this order. Because of
that and because chlorpyrifos tolerances have been revoked and use of
chlorpyrifos renders food adulterated, all sale, distribution, and use
of the chlorpyrifos products identified in Table 1 of Unit I. is
prohibited, except for export consistent with FIFRA section 17, 7
U.S.C. 136o or for proper disposal.

    Dated: August 26, 2022.
Mary Elissa Reaves,
Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2022-18838 Filed 8-30-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 22, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 9789]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3784]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-P-0257]

Determination That Theophylline Oral Solution, 80 Milligrams/15
Milliliters, Was Not Withdrawn From Sale for Reasons of Safety or
Effectiveness

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined that
theophylline oral solution, 80 milligrams (mg)/15 milliliters (mL), was
not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This
determination will allow FDA to approve abbreviated new drug
applications (ANDAs) for theophylline oral solution, 80 mg/15 mL, if
all other legal and regulatory requirements are met.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Hayes, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 6244, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-3601.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1984, Congress enacted the Drug Price
Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417)
(the 1984 amendments), which authorized the approval of duplicate
versions of drug products approved under an ANDA procedure. ANDA
applicants must, with certain exceptions, show that the drug for which
they are seeking approval contains the same active ingredient in the
same strength and dosage form as the ``listed drug,'' which is a
version of the drug that was previously approved. ANDA applicants do
not have to repeat the extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary
to gain approval of a new drug application (NDA). The only clinical
data required in an ANDA are data to show that the drug that is the
subject of the ANDA is bioequivalent to the listed drug.
    The 1984 amendments include what is now section 505(j)(7) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(7)), which
requires FDA to publish a list of all approved drugs. FDA publishes
this list as part of the ``Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic
Equivalence Evaluations,'' which is generally known as the ``Orange
Book.'' Under FDA regulations, drugs are removed from the list if the
Agency withdraws or suspends approval of the drug's NDA or ANDA for
reasons of safety or effectiveness or if FDA determines that the listed
drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness (21
CFR 314.162). Under Sec.  314.161(a)(1) (21 CFR 314.161(a)(1)), the
Agency must determine whether a listed drug was withdrawn from sale for
reasons of safety or effectiveness before an ANDA that refers to that
listed drug may be approved. FDA may not approve an ANDA that does not
refer to a listed drug.
    Theophylline oral solution, 80 mg/15 mL, is the subject of ANDA
087449, held by Roxane Laboratories, Inc. (Roxane), and initially
approved on September 15, 1983. ANDA 087449 was identified in the
Orange Book as the listed drug for theophylline oral solution, 80 mg/15
mL.
    According to the latest version of the approved labeling for
theophylline oral solution, 80 mg/15 mL, theophylline is indicated for
the treatment of the symptoms and reversible airflow obstruction
associated with chronic asthma and other chronic lung diseases, such as
emphysema and chronic bronchitis. Roxane notified FDA by letter dated
August 4, 2008, that it was no longer marketing theophylline oral
solution, 80 mg/15 mL and requested that ANDA 087449 be withdrawn.
Theophylline oral solution, 80 mg/15 mL was moved to the ``Discontinued
Drug Product List'' section of the Orange Book.
    Silarx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Silarx or petitioner), submitted a
citizen petition to FDA dated May 29, 2009 (Docket No. FDA-2009-P-
0257), under 21 CFR 10.30, requesting that the Agency accept an ANDA
submitted by Silarx for theophylline oral solution 80 mg/15 mL,
referencing ANDA 087449 as the listed drug. FDA cannot approve the
petitioner's ANDA or any ANDA unless it first determines whether ANDA
087449 was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
    After considering the citizen petition and reviewing Agency
records, FDA has determined, under Sec.  314.161, that theophylline
oral solution, 80 mg/15 mL, ANDA 087449, was not withdrawn from sale
for reasons of safety or effectiveness. The petitioner identified no
data or other information suggesting that theophylline oral solution,
80 mg/15 mL, was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or
effectiveness. We have carefully reviewed our files for records
concerning the withdrawal of theophylline oral solution, 80 mg/15 mL,
from sale. We have also independently evaluated relevant literature and
data for possible postmarketing adverse events and have found no
information that would indicate that this product was withdrawn from
sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
    Accordingly, the Agency will continue to list theophylline oral
solution, 80 mg/15 mL, in the ``Discontinued Drug Product List''
section of the Orange Book. The ``Discontinued Drug Product List''
delineates, among other items, drug products that have been
discontinued from marketing for reasons other than safety or
effectiveness. ANDAs that refer to theophylline oral solution, 80 mg/15
mL, may be approved by the Agency if they meet all other legal and
regulatory requirements for the approval of ANDAs. If FDA determines
that labeling for this drug product should be revised to meet current
standards, the Agency will advise ANDA applicants to submit such
labeling.

    Dated: February 15, 2011.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-3784 Filed 2-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 87 (Thursday, May 5, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 25686]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10959]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP11-213-000]

ANR Pipeline Company; Notice of Request Under Blanket
Authorization

    Take notice that on April 18, 2011, ANR Pipeline Company (ANR), 717
Texas Street, Suite 2400, Houston, TX 77002-2761, filed in Docket No.
CP11-213-000, an application pursuant to sections 157.205 and
157.208(b) of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act
(NGA) as amended, to offset and replace portions of its 24-inch natural
gas pipeline located in Federal waters, offshore Louisiana, under ANR's
blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-480-000, all as more
fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission
and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the Web
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 TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Rene
Staeb, Director, Certificates & Regulatory Administration, ANR Pipeline
Company, 717 Texas Street, Suite 2400, Houston, TX 77002-2761 at
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or to M. Catharine Davis, Vice President U.S.
Pipelines Law, ANR Pipeline Company, 717 Texas Street, Suite 2400,
Houston, TX 77002-2761, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER> or
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or to Robert D. Jackson,
Director, Certificates and Regulatory Administration, ANR Pipeline
Company, 717 Texas Street, Suite 2400, Houston, TX 77002-2761,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Specifically, ANR proposes to offset and replace 2200 feet of its
24-inch natural gas pipeline, Line No. 614, located in Federal waters,
offshore Louisiana, South Marsh Island Blocks 114, 122, 132 and 137.
ANR states as a result of forces from Hurricane Ike in 2008 a portion
of ANR's Line No. 614 has shifted as much as 1,800 feet to the west
from its original position to within 7 feet of a production platform
located in South Marsh Island Block No. 122. ANR is proposing to offset
the 24-inch line a minimum of 500 feet in all directions from the
platform to provide appropriate clearance for production activities.
The estimated cost for this project is $23,783,000.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to section 157.205 of
the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the
request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the
proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day
after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and
not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for
authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
    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 commenter's 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 commenter's will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentary, 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.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
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 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.

    Dated: April 29, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-10959 Filed 5-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 22 (Wednesday, February 3, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5809-5810]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01930]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76994; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2015-121]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Approving
Proposed Rule Change To Provide for Price Collar Thresholds for Trading
Halt Auctions

January 28, 2016.

I. Introduction

    On December 7, 2015, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend Exchange
Rule 1.1(s) to provide for price collar thresholds for Trading Halt
Auctions. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on December 24, 2015.\3\ The Commission received three
comment letters on the proposed rule change.\4\ This order approves the
proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76690 (December 18,
2015), 80 FR 80430 (``Notice'').
    \4\ See letters from David LaValle, US Head of SPDR ETF Capital
Markets, State Street Global Advisors, dated January 14, 2016
(``SSGA Letter''); Joanne Medero, US Head of Government Relations &
Public Policy, Samara Cohen, US Head of iShares Capital Markets,
Hubert De Jesus, Co-Head of Market Structure and Electronic Trading,
BlackRock, Inc., dated January 14, 2016 (``BlackRock Letter''); and
Eric Swanson, General Counsel & Secretary, BATS Global Markets,
Inc., dated January 22, 2016 (``BATS Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange currently conducts Trading Halt Auctions under
Exchange Rule 7.35(f).\5\ To respond to market

events on August 24, 2015, the Exchange proposes to adopt specified
price collar thresholds for Trading Halt Auctions.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Exchange Rule 7.35(f); see also Notice, supra note 3, at
80431.
    \6\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 80431. Currently, the
Exchange's rules do not provide for price collar thresholds for
Trading Halt Auctions. See Exchange Rules 1.1(s) and 7.35(f); see
also Notice, supra note 3, at 80430-31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Exchange, on August 24, 2015, it applied price
collar thresholds to Trading Halt Auctions that were 5% for securities
with a consolidated last sale price of $25.00 or less, 2% for
securities with a consolidated last sale price greater than $25.00 but
less than or equal to $50.00, and 1% for securities with a consolidated
last sale price greater than $50.00.\7\ The Exchange states its belief
that these thresholds were too narrow, but that it is appropriate to
have protections in place for Trading Halt Auctions to ensure that a
re-opening trade will not deviate significantly from prior prices, even
taking into consideration natural price movements for a security.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 80431.
    \8\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed new Rule 1.1(s)(B) would provide that, when the Trading
Halt Auction Price is established by Rule 7.35(f)(4)(A), the Limit
Orders eligible for determining the Indicative Match Price would be
limited by specified price collar thresholds away from the last
consolidated sale price before the Trading Halt Auction.\9\ As
proposed, the specified percentage for the price collar thresholds for
Trading Halt Auctions would be 10% for securities with a consolidated
last sale price of $25.00 or less, 5% for securities with a
consolidated last sale price greater than $25.00 but less than or equal
to $50.00, and 3% for securities with a consolidated last sale price
greater than $50.00.\10\ These proposed price collar thresholds would
be in effect until six months after the operative date of the proposed
rule change.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See proposed Rule 1.1(s)(B).
    \10\ See id. The Exchange states that these proposed percentages
are based on the ``numerical guideline'' percentages set forth in
the Exchange's Clearly Erroneous Executions rule for the Core
Trading Session. See Notice, supra note 3, at 80431 and Exchange
Rule 7.10(c)(1). The Exchange further states that its proposal is
similar in certain respects to how BATS Exchange, Inc. prices its
Halt Auctions for ETPs. See Notice, supra note 3, at 80431-32.
    \11\ See proposed Rule 1.1(s)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the proposal, the Exchange represents that it will be conducting
an analysis to identify what changes, if any, would be appropriate to
balance the need to allow for natural price movement in a Trading Halt
Auction, while at the same time avoiding significant price deviations
that would not be in line with the fair value of securities listed on
the Exchange, which are all Exchange Traded Products.\12\ The Exchange
states that, following this analysis, it will propose to make the price
collar thresholds in this proposal permanent or propose other or
additional changes to its re-opening auction process.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 80431.
    \13\ See id. For a more detailed description of the proposed
rule change, see Notice, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\14\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\15\ which
requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities
exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the Commission received three comment letters on
the proposed rule change.\16\ One commenter supports the proposed rule
change and states its belief that price collars are an important
investor protection, which will help avoid potentially clearly
erroneous trades and strengthen market participants' confidence.\17\
This commenter also states its belief that the proposed rule change
will help rebuild investor confidence in the efficient functioning of
the marketplace in the wake of the volatility experienced in August
2015.\18\ Another commenter also supports the proposed rule change and
states its belief that the proposed change will mitigate the recurrence
of some of the pricing disruption witnessed on August 24, 2015.\19\ One
commenter is broadly supportive of the proposed rule change and its
proactive response toward improving market resiliency, and states that
this proposed rule change is a step in the right direction.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See supra note 4.
    \17\ See SSGA Letter.
    \18\ See id.
    \19\ See BATS Letter, at 1. At the same time, this commenter
notes that there are additional related measures that the Commission
and all of the exchanges should implement to prevent the recurrence
of the disruptions of August 24, 2015. See id., at 1-2.
    \20\ See BlackRock Letter. This commenter also states that the
events of August 24, 2015 have demonstrated that there is a need to
enhance and revise the trading mechanisms that aim to protect the
market from extraordinary volatility. See id. This commenter urges
the Commission to accelerate the adoption of holistic measures to
improve the resiliency of the U.S. equity market. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the proposed rule change, which would
widen the Exchange's price collar thresholds for Trading Halt Auctions,
is appropriate as an interim measure to protect investors and the
public interest.\21\ As noted above, the Exchange will conduct an
analysis to determine whether to make the proposed price collar
thresholds permanent or to propose other or additional changes to its
re-opening process.\22\ In addition, the Commission believes that the
proposed rule change will provide transparency with respect to the
Exchange's Trading Halt Auction process and enhance investors'
understanding of the operation of price collars during Trading Halt
Auctions. For these reasons, the Commission believes that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ As noted above, the proposed price collar thresholds would
sunset six months after the operative date of this proposed rule
change. See proposed Rule 1.1(s)(B).
    \22\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 80431.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\23\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEArca-2015-121) be, and
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)
    \24\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\24\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-01930 Filed 2-2-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 197 (Wednesday, October 12, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70460-70462]
[FR Doc No: 2016-24580]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79055; File Nos. SR-NYSEMKT-2016-52 and SR-NYSEArca-
2016-103]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; NYSE Arca, Inc.;
Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or
Disapprove Proposed Rule Changes To Extend the Time Within Which a
Member, Member Organization, an ATP Holder, an OTP Holder, or an OTP
Firm Must File a Uniform Termination Notice for Securities Industry
Registration (``Form U5'')

October 5, 2016.

I. Introduction

    On June 16, 2016, NYSE MKT LLC (``NYSE MKT'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'')
\2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ a proposed rule change to extend the
time within which a member or member organization, or an Amex Trading
Permit Holder (``ATP Holder'') must file a Form U5, or any amendments
thereto. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on July 7, 2016.\4\ On July 14, 2016, NYSE Arca, Inc.
(``NYSE Arca'') (NYSE MKT and NYSE Arca, each an ``Exchange'') filed
with the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \5\ of the Act and
Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\6\ a proposed rule change to extend the time
within which an Options Trading Permit Holder (``OTP Holder'') or
Options Trading Permit Firm (``OTP Firm'') must file a Form U5, or any
amendments thereto. The proposed rule change was published for comment
in the Federal Register on July 27, 2016.\7\ The Commission received
two comment letters regarding the proposals.\8\ NYSE responded to the
NASAA Letter on August 12, 2016.\9\ This order institutes proceedings
under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \10\ to determine whether to
approve or disapprove the proposed rule changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C.78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78198 (June 30,
2016), 81 FR 44363.
    \5\ 15 U.S.C.78s(b)(1).
    \6\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78381 (July 21,
2016), 81 FR 49286.
    \8\ See letters from Judith Shaw, President, North American
Securities Administrators Association, Inc., dated August 3, 2016
(``NASAA Letter'') and Rick A. Fleming, Investor Advocate and Tracey
L. McNeil, Ombudsman, Office of the Investor Advocate, Commission,
dated October 3, 2016, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission
(``OIA Letter'').
    \9\ See letter from Elizabeth K. King, General Counsel and
Corporate Secretary, New York Stock Exchange LLC, to Brent J.
Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, dated August
12, 2016 (``NYSE Letter'').
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Changes

NYSEMKT-2016-52

    NYSE MKT proposes to amend its rules regarding when a member,
member organization, or an ATP Holder must file a Form U5 and
amendments thereto. Under Commentary .01 to NYSE MKT Rule 340, members
and member organizations (collectively, ``Members'') are required to
file a Form U5 and any amendment thereto with the Central Registration
Depository (``CRD'') within 10 days of the date of termination of an
employee that has been approved for admission to the trading floor.
Under Commentary .09 to NYSE MKT Rule 341, Members must submit
information concerning the termination of employment of a member,
registered employee, or an officer on Form U5 within 10 days of the
date of termination. Under NYSE MKT Rule 359(a), an ATP Holder that
terminates an ATP Holder or approved person must file a Form U5 within
10 days of such termination.
    NYSE MKT proposes to amend these rules by replacing the 10-day
deadline with a requirement to promptly file a Form U5 with CRD, but
not later than 30 calendar days after the date of termination of a
member, ATP Holder, registered employee, officer, or approved person.
Further, the proposed rule change would require that any amendment to a
Form U5 be promptly filed with CRD, but not later than 30 calendar days
after learning of the facts or circumstances giving rise to the
amendment. In addition, the proposed rule change would require that all
Form U5s be provided to the terminated person concurrently with filing.

NYSEArca-2016-103

    Under NYSE Arca Rule 2.17(c), an OTP Holder that terminates an OTP
is required to file a Form U5 or any amendment thereto within 10
business days of the termination or the occurrence requiring the
amendment.

Under NYSE Arca Rule 2.23(i), OTP Holders and OTP Firms are required to
file a Form U5 and any amendment thereto within 10 business days of the
termination date of an employee that has been approved for admission to
the trading floor or participation on any trading system.
    NYSE Arca proposes to extend these deadlines to 30 days in the same
manner that NYSE MKT has proposed to amend its rules. The Exchanges
stated that the proposed rule changes would harmonize their rules with
similar requirements of other exchanges and FINRA.\11\ In addition, the
Exchanges believe that by adding a requirement that Form U5 be filed
promptly, the proposals may lead to Form U5s being filed sooner than
the current 10-day requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See New York Stock Exchange LLC Rule 345(a).17(a) and (b)
(requiring that a Form U5 shall be reported promptly, but in any
event not later than 30 days following termination, that any
amendment to the Form U5 shall be filed not later than 30 days after
learning of the facts or circumstances giving rise to the amendment,
and that any termination notice must be provided concurrently to the
person whose association has been terminated); BATS BZX Exchange,
Inc. Rule 2.5 Interpretations and Policies .04(a) and (b) (requiring
that a Form U5 be reported immediately following the date of
termination, but in no event later than 30 days following
termination, that any amendment to the Form U5 shall be filed no
later than 30 days after learning of the facts or circumstances
giving rise to the amendment, and that any termination notice or
amendment shall be provided concurrently to the person whose
association has been terminated); FINRA By-Laws Article 5 Sec. 3(a)
and (b) (requiring that notice of termination be filed not later
than 30 days after termination, that an amendment to a Form U5 be
filed not later than 30 days after learning of the facts or
circumstances giving rise to the amendment, and that notice be
provided concurrently to the person whose association has been
terminated within the time periods prescribed).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Comment Letters and NYSE's Response

    The Commission received two comments on the proposed rule changes,
one from NASAA and one from the Commission's Office of the Investor
Advocate.\12\ The Commission also received a response to the NASAA
comment letter from the NYSE.\13\ NASAA and OIA raise concerns about
extending the time that firms would have to submit Form U5 to 30 days.
NASAA states that the 10-day filing requirement for Form U5 should be
maintained, noting that the form ``contains valuable regulatory
information, relating to the termination of securities industry
professionals, which is used by regulators in making licensing
decisions and by securities firms in making hiring decisions.'' \14\
NASAA also states that timely access to the information on Form U5 is
critical, noting that state regulators use the information from Form U5
filings when making decisions regarding whether to register a person in
that state.\15\ NASAA further notes that state regulators often must
make such decisions in short timeframes.\16\ In addition, NASAA notes
that information and money flow through the economy very quickly and
``regulators making registration determinations and securities firms
making hiring decisions should not have to do so without a full picture
of the facts and circumstances and should have access to information in
the most timely manner possible.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See supra note 8.
    \13\ See supra note 9.
    \14\ See NASAA Letter at 1.
    \15\ Id.
    \16\ Id.
    \17\ Id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NYSE responded that the proposed rule change would harmonize its
rules with the existing rules of the other exchanges and FINRA.\18\
With respect to NASAA's concerns, NYSE referenced a proposed rule
change which amended FINRA's rules to reduce the time period within
which information disclosed on Form U5 is made available to the public
via BrokerCheck.\19\ Finally, NYSE stated that unless FINRA moves to a
shorter timeframe it would be a burden on competition for NYSE Arca and
NYSE MKT to continue to maintain a different standard.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See NYSE Letter at 1.
    \19\ Id. at 2.
    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The OIA objects to the proposed amendments, stating its view that
the amendments ``. . . are not in the public interest and may be
designed to contribute to, rather than to prevent, fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices in the markets.'' \21\ Like NASAA, the
OIA argues that the appropriate way to harmonize the requirement would
be to shorten the filing timeframes to 10 days across the industry.\22\
The OIA notes that the information on Form U5 is used by state
regulators making licensing decisions, FINRA to identify and initiate
investigations of firms and brokers that pose risks, firms when making
hiring decisions, and, ``perhaps most important, the information alerts
retail investors about potential red flags in a broker's employment
history.'' \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See OIA Letter at 2-3.
    \22\ See OIA Letter at 6 and NASAA Letter at 1.
    \23\ See OIA Letter at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proceedings to Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove SR-
NYSEMKT-2016-52 and NYSEArca-2016-103 and Grounds for Disapproval Under
Consideration

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \24\ to determine whether the proposed rule
changes should be approved or disapproved. Institution of such
proceedings is appropriate at this time in view of the legal and policy
issues raised by the proposed rule changes, as discussed below.
Institution of proceedings does not indicate that the Commission has
reached any conclusions with respect to any of the issues involved.
Rather, as described in greater detail below, the Commission seeks and
encourages interested persons to provide additional comment on the
proposed rule changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B). Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act also
provides that proceedings to determine whether to disapprove a
proposed rule change must be concluded within 180 days of the date
of publication of notice of the filing of the proposed rule change.
The time for conclusion of the proceedings may be extended for up to
60 days if the Commission finds good cause for such extension and
publishes its reasons for so finding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,\25\ the Commission is
providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under consideration.
The Commission is instituting proceedings because the proposals raise
important issues that warrant further public comment and Commission
consideration. Specifically, the Commission is instituting proceedings
to allow for additional analysis of, and input from commenters with
respect to, the proposed rule changes' consistency with Section 6(b)(5)
of the Act,\26\ which requires that the rules of a national securities
exchange be designed, among other things, to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general,
to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission seeks comment on whether the proposals to extend the
deadline that firms have to file Form U5 would undermine the ability of
the Exchanges, the state securities regulators and the public to use
information required on Form U5. As a practical matter, would such a
change result in less timely filing of Form U5? If so, would the
proposals compromise investor protection, degrade the ability of state
securities regulators to vet

potential registrants and affect the hiring decisions of firms, as the
commenters suggest?
    The Commission also seeks comment on whether all exchanges and
FINRAshould pursue an initiative to harmonize their respective
requirements and, if so, what is the appropriate timeframe? Would a 10-
day standard unduly burden firms and potentially compromise the quality
or integrity of the information reported on Form U5? \27\ The
Commission is interested in any additional burdens or benefits a
requirement to file Form U5 within 10 days might impose on the public
or the participants in the securities industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See FINRA Regulatory Notice 10-39, which states that when
providing explanations for reasons for terminations, firms must
answer all disclosure questions accurately and provide enough
information so the reader can understand the conduct that led to the
termination and that the failure to do so may result in sanctions;
see also In the matter of Wedbush Securities Inc., Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 78568 (August 12, 2016) (noting that Form
U5 serves as a warning mechanism to member firms of the potential
risks and accompanying supervisory responsibilities they must assume
if they decide to employ an individual with a suspect history and
provides FINRA with information useful in deciding whether to
initiate an investigation, and that failure to file these forms
accurately and on time frustrates these objectives).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes the proposals raise questions as to whether
they are consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act,\28\ including whether the proposals are designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Procedure: Request for Written Comments

    The Commission requests that interested persons provide written
submissions of their views, data and arguments with respect to the
concerns identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have
with the proposed rule changes. In particular, the Commission invites
the written views of interested persons concerning whether the
proposals are consistent with Sections 6(b)(5) \29\ or any other
provision of the Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder. Although
there does not appear to be any issue relevant to approval or
disapproval which would be facilitated by an oral presentation of
views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to
Rule 19b-4 under the Act,\30\ any request for an opportunity to make an
oral presentation.\31\ Interested persons are invited to submit written
data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposal should be
approved or disapproved by November 2, 2016. Any person who wishes to
file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that
rebuttal by November 16, 2016. In light of the concerns raised by the
proposed rule changes, as discussed above, the Commission invites
additional comment on the proposed rule changes as the Commission
continues its analysis of the proposed rule changes' consistency with
Sections 6(b)(5) and 6(b)(8),\32\ or any other provision of the Act, or
the rules and regulations thereunder. The Commission asks that
commenters address the sufficiency and merit of NYSE MKT's and/or NYSE
Arca's statements in support of the proposed rule changes, in addition
to any other comments they may wish to submit about the proposed rule
changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Id.
    \30\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \31\ Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, as amended by the Securities
Act Amendments of 1975, Public Law 94-29 (June 4, 1975), grants to
the Commission flexibility to determine what type of proceeding--
either oral or notice and opportunity for written comments--is
appropriate for consideration of a particular proposal by a self-
regulatory organization. See Securities Act Amendments of 1975,
Senate Comm. on Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, S. Rep. No. 75,
94th Cong., 1st Sess. 30 (1975).
    \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5), (b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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
No. SR-NYSEMKT-2016-52 and File No. SR-NYSEArca-2016-103 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 No. SR-NYSEMKT-2016-52 and SR-
NYSEArca-2016-103. The file numbers should be included on the subject
line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your
comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission
will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submissions, all subsequent
amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule
changes that are filed with the Commission, and all written
communications relating to the proposed rule changes between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
the filings also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of each respective Exchange. All comments received
will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2016-52 and File No. SR-NYSEArca-
2016-103, and should be submitted by November 2, 2016. Rebuttal
comments should be submitted by November 16, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-24580 Filed 10-11-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P