[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 236 (Tuesday, December 9, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73130-73132]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28773]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73732; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2014-114]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Common Ownership

December 3, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 20, 2014, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III, below, which Items have been prepared by NASDAQ.
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

    NASDAQ proposes to modify the definition of Common Ownership \3\ in
Chapter XV, entitled ``Options Pricing,'' at Section 2 governing
pricing for NASDAQ members using the NASDAQ Options Market (``NOM''),
NASDAQ's facility for executing and routing standardized equity and
index options. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to extend the
application of Common Ownership to all Chapter XV, Section 2 pricing
which requires a certain volume threshold or percentage of volume to
obtain certain options pricing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``Common Ownership'' shall mean Participants under
75% common ownership or control. See NOM Rules at Chapter XV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the changes proposed herein are effective upon filing, the
Exchange has designated that the amendments be operative on December 1,
2014.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for 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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    NASDAQ proposes to modify Chapter XV, entitled ``Options Pricing,''
at Section 2 governing the rebates and fees assessed for option orders
entered into NOM. The Exchange proposes to extend the application of
Common Ownership to all Chapter XV, Section 2 pricing which requires a
certain volume threshold or percentage of volume to obtain certain
options pricing. Today, NOM Participants are permitted to aggregate
affiliate activity to obtain certain pricing as specified in Chapter
XV, Section 2, provided the NOM Participants are affiliated because
they are under 75% common ownership or control with each other
(``Common Ownership''). Today, the Exchange offers NOM Participants
under Common Ownership the ability to obtain certain Customer \4\ and
Professional \5\ Penny

Pilot Options \6\ Rebates to Add Liquidity in Tiers 5, 6, 7 and 8.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The term ``Customer'' applies to any transaction that is
identified by a Participant for clearing in the Customer range at
The Options Clearing Corporation which is not for the account of
broker or dealer or for the account of a ``Professional'' (as that
term is defined in Chapter I, Section 1(a)(48)).
    \5\ The term ``Professional'' means any person or entity that
(i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) places more
than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a
calendar month for its own beneficial account(s) pursuant to Chapter
I, Section 1(a)(48). All Professional orders shall be appropriately
marked by Participants.
    \6\ The Penny Pilot was established in March 2008 and in October
2009 was expanded and extended through December 31, 2014. See
Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 57579 (March 28, 2008), 73 FR
18587 (April 4, 2008) (SR-NASDAQ-2008-026) (notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness establishing Penny Pilot); 60874 (October
23, 2009), 74 FR 56682 (November 2, 2009) (SR-NASDAQ-2009-091)
(notice of filing and immediate effectiveness expanding and
extending Penny Pilot); 60965 (November 9, 2009), 74 FR 59292
(November 17, 2009) (SR-NASDAQ-2009-097) (notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness adding seventy-five classes to Penny Pilot);
61455 (February 1, 2010), 75 FR 6239 (February 8, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-
2010-013) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness adding
seventy-five classes to Penny Pilot); 62029 (May 4, 2010), 75 FR
25895 (May 10, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-053) (notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness adding seventy-five classes to Penny Pilot);
65969 (December 15, 2011), 76 FR 79268 (December 21, 2011) (SR-
NASDAQ-2011-169) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness
extension and replacement of Penny Pilot); 67325 (June 29, 2012), 77
FR 40127 (July 6, 2012) (SR-NASDAQ-2012-075) (notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness and extension and replacement of Penny Pilot
through December 31, 2012); 68519 (December 21, 2012), 78 FR 136
(January 2, 2013) (SR-NASDAQ-2012-143) (notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness and extension and replacement of Penny Pilot
through June 30, 2013); 69787 (June 18, 2013), 78 FR 37858 (June 24,
2013) (SR-NASDAQ-2013-082) (notice of filing and immediate
effectiveness and extension and replacement of Penny Pilot through
December 31, 2013); 71105 (December 17, 2013), 78 FR 77530 (December
23, 2013) (SR-NASDAQ-2013-154) (notice of filing and immediate
effectiveness and extension and replacement of Penny Pilot through
June 30, 2014); and 79 FR 31151 (May 23, 2014), 79 FR 31151 (May 30,
2014) (SR-NASDAQ-2014-056) ((notice of filing and immediate
effectiveness and extension and replacement of Penny Pilot through
December 31, 2014). See also NOM Rules, Chapter VI, Section 5.
    \7\ For purposes of Tiers 5, 6, 7 and 8, the Exchange will allow
NOM Participants under Common Ownership to aggregate their volume to
qualify for the rebate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to extend Common Ownership to apply to all
pricing in Chapter XV, Section 2, which would include all Customer and
Professional Penny Pilot Options Rebate to Add Liquidity Tiers (1
through 8) as well as NOM Market Maker \8\ Penny Pilot Options Rebate
to Add Liquidity Tiers (1 through 6). It would also include any other
future pricing in Chapter XV, Section 2 that specifies a certain volume
threshold or volume percentage to obtain certain pricing (fees or
rebates). The Exchange believes that permitting NOM Participants to
aggregate pricing with affiliated NOM Participants for all pricing that
requires a certain volume threshold or volume percentage will enable
NOM Participants to obtain higher rebates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The term ``NOM Market Maker'' means a Participant that has
registered as a Market Maker on NOM pursuant to Chapter VII, Section
2, and must also remain in good standing pursuant to Chapter VII,
Section 4. In order to receive NOM Market Maker pricing in all
securities, the Participant must be registered as a NOM Market Maker
in at least one security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend the rule text of Chapter XV by
adding the following sentence to the defined term, Common Ownership:
``Common Ownership shall apply to all pricing in Chapter XV, Section 2
for which a volume threshold or volume percentage is required to obtain
the pricing.'' The Exchange proposes to remove all other references to
Common Ownership currently within the rule text of Chapter XV, Section
2(1).
2. Statutory Basis
    NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\9\ in general, and with Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\10\ in particular, in that they provide for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among
members and issuers and other persons using any facility or system
which NASDAQ operates or controls as described in detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the rule change avoids disparate treatment of
members that have divided their various business activities between
separate corporate entities as compared to members that operate those
business activities within a single corporate entity. By way of
example, subject to appropriate information barriers, many firms that
are members of the Exchange operate both a market making desk and a
public customer business within the same corporate entity. In contrast,
other members may be part of a corporate structure that separates those
business lines into different corporate affiliates, either for
business, compliance or historical reasons, and those affiliates are
not also considered wholly owned affiliates. Those corporate
affiliates, in turn, are required to maintain separate memberships with
the Exchange. Absent the proposed change, such corporate affiliates
that cannot be considered wholly owned but are under common control
would not receive the same treatment as members who are considered
wholly owned affiliates. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that its
proposed policy is fair and equitable, and not unreasonably
discriminatory in permitting both wholly owned and common control. In
addition to ensuring fair and equal treatment of its members, the
Exchange does not want to create incentives for its members to
restructure their business operations or compliance functions simply
due to the Exchange's pricing structure.
    Today the Exchange offers rebates to NOM Participants under Common
Ownership by permitting these members to aggregate volume as between
affiliated NOM Participants. The Exchange would continue to permit NOM
Participants to aggregate volume as they do today for the Customer and
Professional Penny Pilot Options Rebate to Add Liquidity Tiers 5,
through 8, but would also permit members to aggregate volume with
respect to Customer and Professional Penny Pilot Options Rebate to Add
Liquidity Tiers 1 through 4 and all NOM Market Maker Penny Pilot
Options Rebate to Add Liquidity Tiers. The Exchange believes it is
reasonable to permit aggregation for all volume threshold and volume
percentage pricing in Chapter XV, Section 2 and not limit such
aggregation to certain Tiers as it will provide NOM Participants a
greater opportunity to earn rebates. The Exchange also believes that it
is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to permit aggregation for
all volume threshold and volume percentage pricing in Chapter XV,
Section 2 because it is offering all NOM Participants the opportunity
to aggregate volume.

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

    NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed rule changes will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. The Exchange offers
NOM Participants the opportunity to aggregate affiliated volume today
and this proposal would provide additional opportunities to aggregate
volume to obtain rebates. The Exchange does not believe this proposal
creates an undue burden on competition as all NOM Participants have the
ability to aggregate in this manner today.
    The Exchange believes the differing outcomes, rebates and fees
created by the Exchange's proposed pricing incentives contribute to the
overall health of the market place to the benefit of all Participants
that willingly choose to transact options on NOM. For the reasons
specified herein, the Exchange does not believe this proposal creates
an undue burden on competition. The Exchange operates in a highly
competitive market comprised of twelve U.S. options exchanges in which
many sophisticated and knowledgeable market participants can readily
and do send order flow to competing exchanges if they deem fee levels
or rebate incentives at a particular exchange to be excessive or
inadequate. These market forces support the Exchange's belief that the
proposed rebate structure and Tiers

proposed herein are competitive with rebates and Tiers in place on
other exchanges. The Exchange believes that this competitive
marketplace continues to impact the rebates present on the Exchange
today and substantially influences the proposals set forth above.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\11\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-NASDAQ-2014-114 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-NASDAQ-2014-114. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2014-114, and should
be submitted on or before December 30, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-28773 Filed 12-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Summary of TRI Reporting Related to Methyl Bromide and Chloropicrin
Formulation

Queries were run in the Electronic - Facility Data Release (e-FDR) query
tool to retrieve 2006 Form R data from the Toxics Release Inventory
(TRI) database in Envirofacts.  Using the e-FDR, 2006 data was gathered
for facilities that reported chloropicrin and methyl bromide formulation
or production at their facilities in prior years (2004 or 2005).  The
results of these queries are shown in Table 1 below.

Table 1.  TRI Facilities Reporting Chloropicrin and/or Methyl Bromide
Formulation in 2006

TRI Facility Name	TRI Facility ID	TRI Facility Location	Chloropicrin
Formulation?	Methyl Bromide Formulation?

HENDRIX & DAIL INC.	27835HNDRX1101I	Greenville, NC	Yes	Yes

GREAT LAKES CHEMICAL - CENTRAL	71731GRTLKHIGHW	El Dorado, AR	Yes	No;
production and sales/distribution reported

NIKLOR CHEMICAL CO. INC.	93501NKLRC1667P	Mojave, CA	Yes	Yes

HENDRIX & DAIL INC	34221HMSCH7610H	Palmetto, FL	Yes	Yes

TRICAL  INC.	95024TRCLN8770H	Hollister, CA	Yes	Yes

HENDRIX & DAIL INC.	31794HNDRXGOLDE	Tifton, GA	Chloropicrin emissions
reported; formulation not specified	Yes

Source: Data from e-FDR query tool from the TRI database in Envirofacts.
 Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/tri-efdr/

Based on the preliminary 2006 Form R reports, it appears that about 5
facilities may be formulating methyl bromide-chloropicrin blends in the
United States.  These facilities include: Hendrix & Dail facilities in
North Carolina, Georgia, and Florida; a TriCal facility in California;
and a Niklor Chemical Co. facility in California.  Great Lakes Chemical
(now Chemtura) has also reported a facility in Arkansas as producing
methyl bromide for sales and distribution, but not formulation.  In past
years, however, this facility has reported using both methyl bromide and
chloropicrin for formulation.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 190 (Tuesday, October 3, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46065-46066]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21186]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2017-N-5437]

Topical Dermatological Generic Drug Products: Overcoming Barriers
to Development and Improving Patient Access; Public Workshop; Request
for Comments

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of public workshop; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is
announcing the following public workshop entitled ``Topical
Dermatological Generic Drug Products: Overcoming Barriers to
Development and Improving Patient Access.'' The purpose of the public
workshop is to provide an overview of current regulatory science
initiatives related to generic topical dermatological drug products,
solicit public input on scientific barriers that may limit patient
access to such drug products, and discuss approaches to overcome/
address any such barriers. FDA is seeking public input from a variety
of stakeholders, including industry, academia, patient advocates, and
professional associations.

DATES: The public workshop will be held on October 20, 2017, from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Eastern Standard Time. Submit either electronic or
written comments on this public workshop by November 20, 2017. See the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for registration date and
information.

ADDRESSES: The public workshop will be held at FDA White Oak Campus,
10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31 Conference Center, the Great Room
(Rm. 1503A), Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Entrance for the public
workshop participants (non-FDA employees) is through Building 1 where
routine security check procedures will be performed. For parking and
security information, please refer to https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WorkingatFDA/BuildingsandFacilities/WhiteOakCampusInformation/ucm241740.htm.
    You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely
filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be
submitted on or before November 20, 2017. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until
midnight Eastern Time at the end of November 20, 2017. Comments
received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions)
will be considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery
service acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

Electronic Submissions

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

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2017-N-5437 for ``Topical Dermatological Generic Drug Products:
Overcoming Barriers to Development and Improving Patient Access.''
Received comments, those filed in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), 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.
     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.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sam Raney, Center for Drug Evaluation
and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave.,
Bldg. 75, Rm. 4706, Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Markham Luke, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. 4712, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-
5556, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The conventional approach to establish bioequivalence (BE) for most
topical dermatological generic drug products relies upon clinical
endpoint BE studies. The risk of failing to demonstrate BE due to the
relative insensitivity of these clinical endpoint studies, combined
with their burden and length, may represent a barrier to generic drug
development and may adversely impact patient access to some topical
dermatological generic drug products. FDA is evaluating alternative BE
approaches for topical dermatological generic drug products, using
methods that are more efficient, and also more sensitive and
reproducible. FDA believes that these BE approaches would benefit from
public discussion.

II. Topics for Discussion at the Public Workshop

    This public workshop will focus on a discussion of current
regulatory science initiatives intended to foster the development of
topical dermatological generic drug products, examining alternative BE
approaches that may be more efficient and less risky than traditional
approaches. FDA is also interested in receiving public input about any
barriers that may limit the use of such alternative BE approaches in
the development of topical dermatological generic drug products. Public
input is also sought about strategies to overcome these barriers.

III. Participating in the Public Workshop

    Registration: Persons interested in attending this public workshop
must register online at https://survey.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9YQDLZJRjXtYiXz. Please provide complete contact information for
each attendee, including name, title, affiliation, address, email, and
telephone.
    Registration is free and based on space availability, with priority
given to early registrants. Persons interested in attending this public
workshop must register by October 13, 2017, midnight, Eastern Time.
Early registration is recommended because seating is limited;
therefore, FDA may limit the number of participants from each
organization.
    If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please
contact Sam Raney (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) no later than
October 13, 2017.
    Requests for Oral Presentations: During online registration you may
indicate if you wish to present during a public comment session, and
which topic(s) you wish to address. We will do our best to accommodate
requests to make public comments. Individuals and organizations with
common interests are urged to consolidate or coordinate their
presentations, and to request time for a joint presentation, or to
submit requests for designated representatives to participate in the
focused sessions. Following the close of registration, we will
determine the amount of time allotted to each presenter and the
approximate time each oral presentation is to begin, and will select
and notify participants by October 16, 2017. All requests to make oral
presentations must be received by the close of registration on October
9, 2017. If selected for presentation, any presentation materials must
be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>no later than October
13, 2017. No commercial or promotional material will be permitted to be
presented or distributed at the public workshop.
    Streaming webcast of the public workshop: This public workshop will
also be webcast. A live webcast of this workshop will be viewable at
https://collaboration.fda.gov/ogddermaldrug/ on the day of the
workshop.
    If you have never attended a Connect Pro event before, test your
connection at https://collaboration.fda.gov/common/help/en/support/meeting_test.htm. To get a quick overview of the Connect Pro program,
visit https://www.adobe.com/go/connectpro_overview. FDA has verified
the Web site addresses in this document, as of the date this document
publishes in the Federal Register, but Web sites are subject to change
over time.
    Transcripts: Please be advised that as soon as a transcript of the
public workshop is available, it will be accessible at https://www.regulations.gov. It may be viewed at the Dockets Management Staff
(see ADDRESSES). A link to the transcript will also be available on the
internet at https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/NewsEvents/ucm557252.htm.

    Dated: September 28, 2017.
Anna K. Abram,
Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2017-21186 Filed 10-2-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


1 Napropamide Overview of Risk Assessment March, 16 2005 Introduction This document summarizes EPA's human health, environmental fate, and ecological risk findings for the pesticide napropamide. These findings are presented fully in the human health risk assessment document, " Napropamide: Revised HED Chapter of the Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document," dated February 23, 2005; and, " EFED risk assessment for the Napropamide Reregistration Eligibility Document," dated March 1, 2005. The purpose of this overview is to present the key features and findings of these risk assessments in order to assist interested parties in better understanding the conclusions reached in the assessments. This overview was developed in response to comments and requests from the public that risk assessments were difficult to understand, that they were too lengthy, and that it was not easy to compare the assessments for different chemicals due to the use of different formats.

The napropamide risk assessments and additional supporting documents are posted on EPA's Pesticide Docket website ( http:// www. epa. gov/ edockets) under docket number OPP 2004 0162 for public viewing. Public comments on the risk assessments will be invited for 60 days. During the comment period, EPA will continue its ongoing efforts to consult with other government agencies and stakeholders on the pesticide's uses and risk management options. After the comment period closes, EPA will consider the comments received, continue dialogue with other government agencies and stakeholders as needed, and develop a risk management decision.

Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding for napropamide and other substances, and napropamide does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this risk assessment action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that napropamide has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see the policy statements released by EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs concerning common mechanism determinations and procedures for cumulating effects from substances found to have a common mechanism on EPA's website at http:// www. epa. gov/ pesticides/ cumulative/. 2 Use Profile Use Sites:

$ Napropamide is a selective preemergence herbicide belonging to the amide class of pesticides. It controls weeds by preventing root cell elongation, thus disrupting the growth process during germination.

$ Napropamide is registered to control broadleaf weeds and annual grasses on numerous food/ feed and non food/ feed use sites, including fruits and nuts, vegetables, ornamentals, turf/ lawns, forestry sites and tobacco.

Formulations:

$ Napropamide is formulated as dry flowables, granulars and liquid formulations.

Method of Application:

$ Napropamide is applied at rates between 2 and 6 pounds active ingredient per acre ( lbs a. i/ A) on all crops/ sites except cranberries, where applications at up to 15 lbs a. i./ A are allowed. Aerial applications are labeled for cranberries only. Applications for all other uses are made using ground equipment, including ground boom and hand held sprayers, granular application equipment, and chemigation equipment.

Use Summary:

$ According to usage data, the highest percent crop treated are on cranberries, strawberries, tomatoes, peppers, tobacco, artichokes, and eggplant.

$ Technical Registrant: United Phosphorus Inc. 3 Human Health Risk Assessment Dietary ( Food + Water) Risk Dietary risk assessment incorporates both exposure to and toxicity of a given pesticide. The risk is expressed as a percentage of a maximum acceptable dose ( i. e., the dose which will result in no unreasonable adverse health effects). This dose is referred to as the population adjusted dose ( PAD). The PAD is equivalent to the Reference Dose ( RfD) divided by the special FQPA Safety Factor. EPA is concerned when estimated dietary risk exceeds 100% of the PAD.

Drinking water exposure to pesticides can occur through groundwater and surface water contamination. EPA considers drinking water risks and uses either modeling or monitoring data, if available, to estimate those risks. Modeling is carried out in tiers of further refinement, but is designed to provide a high end estimate of exposure.

Acute Dietary Risk No toxicological endpoint was selected for the acute dietary exposure scenario, since an endpoint attributable to a single exposure was not identified from the available database. Therefore, no acute dietary assessment was performed.

Chronic Dietary Risk ( Food + Water)

A risk estimate that is less than 100% of the chronic PAD ( the dose at which an individual could be exposed over the course of a lifetime and no adverse health effects would be expected) does not exceed the Agency's risk concern. The cPAD is the chronic reference dose ( cRfD) adjusted for the FQPA Safety Factor.

Table 1. Napropamide : Summary of the Toxicology Endpoint Selection Chronic Dietary Endpoint Exposure Scenario Dose & Uncertainty Factors Endpoint Study Chronic Dietary NOAEL= 12 mg/ kg Decreased weight gain in females and an increased incidence of liver lesions in males at a LOAEL of 48/ 55 mg/ kg/ day ( m/ f) Rat Chronic/ Oncogenicity Study. MRID Nos. 42189102 & 43068801 UF = 100x FQPA Safety Factor = 1x Chroinc PAD = 0.12 mg/ kg/ day 4 Toxicity $ Napropamide did not cause developmental toxicity in either rats or rabbits and did not adversely affect reproductive parameters in rats over three generations. There is no quantitative or qualitative evidence of increased susceptibility of rat or rabbit fetuses after in utero and/ or postnatal exposure to napropamide in the developmental and reproduction studies. Dose response relationships are well characterized and clear. No Observable Adverse Effect Levels ( NOAELs)/ Lowest Observable Adverse Effect Levels ( LOAELs) have been identified for the critical effects. Therefore, the special FQPA safety factor for napropamide has been reduced to 1X.

$ No evidence of neurotoxicity was observed in any study. Based on the weight of evidence, a developmental neurotoxicity ( DNT) study is not required for napropamide.

$ The chronic RfD is calculated to be 0.12 mg/ kg/ day based on the NOAEL of 12 mg/ kg/ day and uncertainty factors of 10x for interspecies and 10x for intraspecies. Because the FQPA safety factor was reduced to 1x, the chronic RfD is equal to the chronic PAD. The chronic Population Adjusted Dose ( cPAD) is 0.12 mg/ kg/ day.

Dietary ( Food)

$ A chronic dietary risk assessment was conducted using the Lifeline TM Model Version 2.0 which uses food consumption data from the United States Department of Agriculture's ( USDA) Continuing Surveys of Food Intakes by Individuals ( CSFII) from 1994 1996 and 1998. In this analysis the chronic dietary exposure and risk estimates resulting from food intake were determined for the general U. S. population and various population subgroups.

$ This chronic analysis assumed 100% crop treated and tolerance level residues ( Tier 1) for all commodities. Processing factors were based on the results of processing studies for commodities where such data were available ( apple juice, citrus juice/ oil, figs, grape juice/ raisins, prunes and tomato juice/ puree/ paste). For all other commodities, default processing factors were used.

Dietary ( Drinking Water)

$ Napropamide is persistent but not particularly mobile and therefore not expected to pose a significant risk of ground water contamination. Surface water contamination is possible through run off from treated fields.

$ Drinking water concentrations for ground water were calculated using model estimates from the Tier I model SCI GROW 2.2 model. Drinking water concentrations for surface water were estimated using the Tier II PRZM version 3.12/ EXAMS model. 5 $ Potential exposure to napropamide from drinking water derived from groundwater results in a chronic drinking water estimated concentration ( DWEC) of 4.5 ppb. For surface water, the DWEC is 0.5 ppb.

Results $ The chronic dietary risk ( food + water) of napropamide is well below the Agency's level of concern ( i. e., less than 100% of the aPAD is utilized) for the general U. S. population and all population subgroups. The most highly exposed subgroup was children, 1 2 years old at 1.8% of the cPAD. Note that this analysis reflects conservative and unrefined Tier 1 estimates.

Cancer Risk Napropamide has been classified a Group " E" carcinogen ( no evidence of carcinogenicity). Therefore, a cancer assessment was not conducted.

Residential Risk Napropamide is registered for use in the residential setting to kill weeds on lawns. Residents may be exposed to napropamide through handling the pesticide, or by entering a treated site after a residential or commercial applicator has applied napropamide. It is formulated for residential use as a granular product.

Residential risk is measured by a Margin of Exposure ( MOE), which measures how close the residential exposure comes to the NOAEL from animal studies. Generally, MOEs that are greater than 100 do not exceed the Agency's level of concern ( the standard level of concern MOE incorporates the standard uncertainty factors of 10x for interspecies variability and 10x for intraspecies variability).

The toxicological endpoints used for the residential risk assessment are provided in Table 2. No short  or intermediate term dermal exposures or risks were assessed for napropamide, since no dermal toxicological endpoints of concerns were identified. EPA did assess short and intermediate term inhalation exposures and risks to residential handlers. Since the residential handler exposure scenarios for napropamide are only considered to be short term in nature due to the episodic use patterns, EPA does not anticipate long term exposures. Therefore, no long term dermal or inhalation exposures or risks were assessed. 6 Table 2. Napropamide Toxicological Endpoints Used for Occupational & Residential Risk Assessment Exposure Scenario Dose Used in Risk Assessment Study and Toxicological Effects Incidental Oral Short Term ( 1 30 days) & Incidental Oral Intermediate ( 1 6 month) NOAEL = 30 mg/ kg/ day UF = 100x FQPA Safety Factor = 1x Reproductive Toxicity  Rat LOAEL = 100 mg/ kg/ day based on decreased pup body weight MRID No. 92125069 Inhalation Short Term ( 1 30 days) & Inhalation Intermediate Term ( 1 6 months) Oral Study NOAEL = 30 mg/ kg/ day ( Inhalation absorption rate= 100%) UF = 100x FQPA Safety Factor = 1x Reproductive Toxicity  Rat LOAEL = 100 mg/ kg/ day based on decreased pup body weight MRID No. 92125069 Cancer ( oral, dermal, inhalation) Classification: No evidence of Carcinogenicity Homeowner Applications to Lawns ° The MOEs for residential handler inhalation exposure were calculated for four residential exposure scenarios using standard assumptions, maximum label rates, and unit exposure data from either the Pesticide Handlers Exposure Database ( PHED) or the Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force ( ORETF). The estimated risks for all scenarios do not exceed the Agency's level of concern for inhalation risk assessments. The MOEs ranged from 28,000 to 190,000.

Residential Turf Post Application Scenario ° Residential post application exposure to napropamide on treated lawns was assessed for toddlers and adults. The MOEs for residential turf exposures were calculated using Turf Transferable Residue data, maximum label rates and EPA's Residential Standard Operating Procedure. Risks were calculated for incidental oral, hand to mouth, object to mouth and soil ingestion pathways. The short term total MOE is 265, and is, therefore, below EPA's level of concern.

Aggregate Risk Short and long term ( chronic) aggregate risks assessments were conducted for napropamide. The short term assessment considered both dietary ( food + water) and residential exposures. The long term assessment considered dietary exposure only, since the current uses of napropamide are not expected to result in long term residential exposure. 7 Short Term Aggregate Risk Short term aggregate exposure takes into account residential exposure plus average exposure levels from residues of napropamide in food and water. The MOE level of concern for short term aggregate risk is 100. Since the estimated short term aggregate risk MOEs for adults and children ( toddlers) are 14,340 and 260, respectively, short term aggregate risk is below EPA's level of concern for napropamide.

Long Term Aggregate Risk The chronic aggregate risk assessment considered exposures from food and water only because there are no residential uses expected to result in chronic exposures for this chemical. The chronic aggregate risk estimates for the U. S. population and all subgroups are < 2% of the cPAD and, therefore, below the Agency's level of concern.

Occupational Risk Workers can be exposed to a pesticide through mixing, loading, applying, flagging, and otherwise handling a pesticide as well as reentering previously treated sites. Worker risk is expressed as a Margin of Exposure ( MOE) which determines how close the occupational exposure comes to a NOAEL, which is the highest dose given in studies at which no significant toxic effects were observed. For napropamide, MOEs less than 100 exceed the Agency's level of concern for risk for short and intermediate term occupational inhalation exposure ( 1 30 days and 30 days to several months, respectively).

Short Term and Intermediate Term Handler Risks $ Napropamide use patterns show that both short term and intermediate term exposure to handlers is possible.

$ No short or intermediate dermal endpoint of concern was identified for napropamide, and no long term handler exposure is expected based on the current use patterns. Therefore, only short and intermediate term inhalation exposures were assessed.

$ The short term and intermediate term inhalation NOAEL is 30 mg/ kg/ day and is based on decreased pup weight seen in a reproductive toxicity study in rats ( MRID No. 92125069). An oral endpoint was chosen because of a lack of inhalation toxicity studies. An absorption factor of 100% is assumed for exposure via the inhalation route.

$ No chemical specific handler data were submitted, so short term and intermediate term dermal and inhalation exposures for handlers were developed using the Pesticide Handler Exposure Database ( PHED) Version 1.1. 8 $ Estimated occupational handler exposures for all scenarios do not exceed the Agency's level of concern ( i. e., MOEs > 100). Short and intermediate  term inhalation MOEs range from 200 to more than 33,000.

Post Application Risk EPA did not assess occupational postapplication risks to agricultural workers following treatments to agricultural crops with napropamide, since no dermal endpoint of concern was identified and because post application inhalation exposure is expected to be negligible since sprays and dusts have settled.

Ecological Risk Assessment To estimate potential ecological risks, EPA integrates the results of exposure and ecotoxicity studies using the quotient method. Risk quotients ( RQs) are calculated by dividing estimated environmental concentrations ( EECs) of the pesticide by acute and chronic toxicity values. EECs are generally based on the maximum application rates for that pesticide.

Risk quotients are then compared to the Agency's level of concern ( LOCs). These LOCs are used to analyze potential risk to non target organisms and to determine the need for regulatory action. Risk characterization provides further information on the likelihood of adverse effects occurring by considering the fate of the chemical in the environment, communities and species potentially at risk, their spatial and temporal distributions, and the nature of the effects observed in studies. If the RQ is higher than the LOC, the Agency may have a concern.

Environmental Fate and Transport $ Napropamide may be persistent in the terrestrial environment resulting in the potential for napropamide to reach the aquatic environment by runoff.

$ Based on laboratory studies, the half life for napropamide is approximately 446 days, therefore there is the potential for the chemical to accumulate in the soil with repeated applications. However, field dissipation studies ( where napropamide was soil incorporated), indicate much faster dissipation rates on the order of 17 to 24 days.

$ Napropamide can photodegrade in water, however, this route of dissipation is expected to be impeded when soil incorporation occurs at the time of application. In addition, any napropamide that reaches surface water will tend to partition to suspended soils and sediment, thereby reducing the amount available to undergo photolysis.

$ Napropamide is not expected to be a bioaccumulative compound of concern because it is water soluble and is rapidly metabolized. The major terminal degradate in terrestrial 9 environments is carbon dioxide, but photodegradation in aquatic systems creates isomers of the parent compound.

Nontarget Terrestrial Animal Risk $ For avian risks, no acute or chronic LOCs were exceeded.

$ Acute risks were below the Agency's level of concern for mammals.

$ Chronic LOCs, based on reduced parental and offspring body weight, were exceeded for mammals on all food types ( i. e., short grass, tall grass, broadleaf plants and small insects, fruits/ pods/ large insects) for all modeled use rates. RQ estimates ranged from 1 to 60 ( LOC= 1).

Nontarget Terrestrial Plants ° For spray chemigation, listed terrestrial and wetland/ riparian plant ( monocot and dicot) LOCs for seedling emergence in areas adjacent to treated fields were exceeded at all application rates evaluated. RQ estimates ranged from 1 to 348.

Nontarget Aquatic Animal Risk $ Acute risks for non endangered freshwater or marine/ estuarine fish and invertebrates were below the Agency's level of concern for all uses.

$ Chronic risks to aquatic organisms could not be evaluated because there were no chronic data submitted. These data were not required, however, the Agency has determined that chronic toxicity data should be submitted because of the potential environmental persistence of napropamide which may cause chronic exposure to aquatic organisms. Therefore, chronic risks cannot be precluded.

Nontarget Aquatic Plant Risk ° Based on a single green algae toxicity study, risks for aquatic plants were not above the Agency's level of concern. Because data were not submitted for several algal and aquatic plant species, the potential for adverse effects of napropamide exposure to aquatic plants and algae could not be fully assessed.

Risk to Endangered Species ° The preliminary risk assessment for endangered species indicates that RQs exceed the Agency's level of concern for: freshwater mollusks ( LOC = 0.05) following application to Florida citrus and Georgia pecans; mammals ( LOC = 0.1) on all modeled use rates; and 10 terrestrial monocot and dicot plants ( LOC= 1.0) living in both wetlands and adjacent areas. RQs run as high as 0.09 for freshwater mollusks, 60 for mammals, and 348 for plants. These findings are based solely on EPA's screening level assessment and do not constitute " may affect" finding under the Endangered Species Act.

Summary of Pending Data Residue Chemistry Deficiencies 860.1340 Residue Analytical Method  Plants.

860.1500 Crop Field Trials are required for the following commodities: citrus fruits, pome fruits, stone fruits, berries, and tree nuts as well as on the individual crops of avocado, cranberry, fig, grape, kiwifruit, olives, persimmon, and strawberry.

860.1520 Magnitude of Residue in Processed Food/ Feed ( Coffee).

Product Chemistry Deficiencies 830.1550 Product Identity and Disclosure of Ingredients ( composition and chemical identity)

830.1600 Starting Materials & Manufacturing Process ( Description of Beginning Materials Used to Produce the Product)

830.1620 Description of the Production Process 830.1700 Preliminary Analysis 830.1750 Certified Limits ( Certification of Limits)

830.1800 Enforcement Analytical Method ( Analytical methods to verify certified limits)

830.6313 Stability to Normal and Elevated Temperatures, Metals and Metal Ions ( stability)

830.7050 Ultraviolet/ Visible Absorption Environmental Toxicity 850.1300 Daphnid Chronic Toxicity Test ( early life stage in fish) 11 850.1350 Mysid ( Shrimp) Chronic Toxicity Test ( life cycle in aquatic invertebrates)

850.1500 Fish Life Cycle Study 850.4400 Aquatic Plant Toxicity Test Using the Following Species: Lemna gibba, Skeletonema costatum, Anabaena flos aquae, and a freshwater diatom such as Navicula pelliculosa.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 77 (Thursday, April 21, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23903-23907]
[FR Doc No: 2022-08482]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-94730; File No. SR-IEX-2022-03]

Self-Regulatory Organizations: Investors Exchange LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt on
a Permanent Basis the Pilot Program for Market-Wide Circuit Breakers

April 15, 2022.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on April 15, 2022, the Investors Exchange LLC (``IEX'' or
the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I
and II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) under the Act,\4\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\5\ the Exchange is filing with the
Commission a proposed rule change to amend IEX Rule 11.280 to adopt on
a permanent basis the pilot program for Market-Wide Circuit Breakers.
IEX has designated this rule change as ``non-controversial'' under
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \6\ and provided the Commission with the
notice required by Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
website at www.iextrading.com, at the principal office of the Exchange,
and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of these statement may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    On March 16, 2022, the Commission approved the proposal of the New
York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''), to adopt on a permanent basis the
pilot program for Market-Wide Circuit Breakers (``MWCB'') in NYSE Rule
7.12.\8\ The Exchange now proposes to adopt the same change to make
permanent the MWCB pilot program in IEX Rule 11.280.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94441 (March 16,
2022), 87 FR 16286 (March 22, 2022) (SR-NYSE-2021-40).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Pilot Rules
    The MWCB rules, including the Exchange's Rule 11.280, provide an
important, automatic mechanism that is invoked to promote stability and
investor confidence during periods of significant stress when cash
equities securities experience extreme market-wide declines. The MWCB
rules are designed to slow the effects of extreme price declines
through coordinated trading halts across both cash equity and equity
options securities markets.
    The cash equities rules governing MWCBs were first adopted in 1988
and, in 2012, all U.S. cash equity exchanges and FINRA amended their
cash equities uniform rules on a pilot basis \9\ (the ``Pilot Rules,''
i.e., for IEX, Rule 11.280(a)-(d) and (f) \10\). The Pilot Rules
currently provide for trading halts in all cash equity securities
during a severe market decline as measured by a single-day decline in
the S&P 500 Index (``SPX'').\11\ Under the Pilot Rules, a market-wide
trading halt will be triggered if SPX declines in price by specified
percentages from the prior day's closing price of that index. The
triggers are set at three circuit breaker thresholds: 7% (Level 1), 13%
(Level 2), and 20% (Level 3). A market decline that triggers a Level 1
or Level 2 halt after 9:30 a.m. and before 3:25 p.m. would halt market-
wide trading for 15 minutes, while a similar market decline at or after
3:25 p.m. would not halt market-wide trading. (Level 1 and Level 2
halts may occur only once a day.) A market decline that triggers a
Level 3 halt at any time during the trading day would halt market-wide
trading for the remainder of the trading day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67090 (May 31,
2012), 77 FR 33531 (June 6, 2012) (SR-BATS-2011-038; SR-BYX-2011-
025; SR-BX-2011-068; SR-CBOE-2011-087; SR-C2-2011-024; SR-CHX-2011-
30; SR-EDGA-2011-31; SR-EDGX-2011-30; SR-FINRA-2011-054; SR-ISE-
2011-61; SR-NASDAQ-2011-131; SR-NSX-2011-11; SR-NYSE-2011-48; SR-
NYSEAmex-2011-73; SR-NYSEArca-2011-68; SR-Phlx-2011-129) (``Pilot
Rules Approval Order'').
    \10\ IEX's Pilot Rule has been effective since its approval for
registration as a national securities exchange in 2016. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78101 (June 17, 2016), 81 FR
41142 (June 23, 2016) (File No. 10-222).
    \11\ The rules of the equity options exchanges similarly provide
for a halt in trading if the cash equity exchanges invoke a MWCB
Halt. See, e.g., NYSE Arca Rule 6.65-O(d)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission approved the Pilot Rules, the term of which was to
coincide with the pilot period for the Plan to Address Extraordinary
Market Volatility Pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS (the ``LULD
Plan''),\12\ including any extensions to the pilot period for the LULD
Plan.\13\ In April 2019, the Commission approved an amendment to the
LULD Plan for it to operate on a permanent, rather than pilot,
basis.\14\ In light of the proposal to make the LULD Plan permanent,
the Exchange amended Rule 11.280 to untie the Pilot Rules'
effectiveness from that of the LULD Plan and to extend the Pilot Rules'
effectiveness to the close of business on October 18, 2019.\15\ The
Exchange then filed to extend the pilot to the close of business on
October 18, 2020,\16\ October 18, 2021,\17\ March 18, 2022,\18\ and
April 18, 2022.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67091 (May 31,
2012), 77 FR 33498 (June 6, 2012). An amendment to the LULD Plan
adding IEX as a Participant was filed with the Commission on August
11, 2016, and became effective upon filing pursuant to Rule
608(b)(3)(iii) of the Act. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
78703 (August 26, 2016), 81 FR 60397 (September 1, 2016) (File No.
4-631). The LULD Plan provides a mechanism to address extraordinary
market volatility in individual securities.
    \13\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78703
(August 26, 2016), 81 FR 60397 (September 1, 2016) (File No. 4-631)
(describing the several extensions of the LULD Plan pilot period).
    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85623 (April 11,
2019), 84 FR 16086 (April 17, 2019).
    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85576 (April 9,
2019), 84 FR 15237 (April 15, 2019) (SR-IEX-2019-04).
    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87298 (October 15,
2019), 84 FR 56255 (October 21, 2019) (SR-IEX-2019-11).
    \17\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90128 (October 8,
2020), 85 FR 65127 (October 14, 2020) (SR-IEX-2020-17).
    \18\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 93323 (October 14,
2021), 86 FR 58125 (October 20, 2021) (SR-IEX-2021-12).
    \19\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94448 (March 17,
2022), 87 FR 16515 (March 23, 2022) (SR-IEX-2022-01).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The MWCB Working Group Study
    Beginning in February 2020, at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic,
the markets experienced increased volatility, culminating in four MWCB
Level 1 halts on March 9, 12, 16, and 18, 2020. In each instance,
pursuant to the Pilot Rules, the markets halted as intended upon a 7%
drop in SPX and did not start the process to resume trading until the
prescribed 15-minute halt period ended.
    On September 17, 2020, the Director of the Commission's Division of
Trading and Markets asked the SROs to conduct a study of the design and
operation of the Pilot Rules and the LULD Plan during the period of
volatility in March 2020. In response to the request, the SROs created
a MWCB ``Working Group'' composed of SRO representatives and industry
advisers that included members of the advisory committees to both the
LULD Plan and the NMS Plans governing the collection, consolidation,
and dissemination of last-sale transaction reports and quotations in
NMS Stocks. The Working Group met regularly from September 2020 through
March 2021 to consider the Commission's request, review data, and
compile its study.

    On March 31, 2021, the MWCB Working Group submitted its study (the
``Study'') to the Commission.\20\ The Study included an evaluation of
the operation of the Pilot Rules during the March 2020 events and an
evaluation of the design of the current MWCB system. In the Study, the
Working Group concluded: (1) The MWCB mechanism set out in the Pilot
Rules worked as intended during the March 2020 events; (2) the MWCB
halts triggered in March 2020 appear to have had the intended effect of
calming volatility in the market, without causing harm; (3) the design
of the MWCB mechanism with respect to reference value (SPX), trigger
levels (7%/13%/20%), and halt times (15 minutes) is appropriate; (4)
the change implemented in Amendment 10 to the LULD Plan did not likely
have any negative impact on MWCB functionality; and (5) no changes
should be made to the mechanism to prevent the market from halting
shortly after the opening of regular trading hours at 9:30 a.m.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Report of the Market-Wide Circuit Breaker (``MWCB'')
Working Group Regarding the March 2020 MWCB Events, submitted March
31, 2021 (the ``Study''), available at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/nyse/Report_of_the_Market-Wide_Circuit_Breaker_Working_Group.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of those conclusions, the MWCB Working Group also made
several recommendations, including that (1) the Pilot Rules should be
made permanent without any changes, and (2) SROs should adopt a rule
requiring all designated Regulation SCI firms to participate in at
least one Level 1/Level 2 MWCB test each year and to verify their
participation via attestation.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See id. at 46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal To Make the Pilot Rules Permanent
    On July 16, 2021, NYSE proposed a rule change to make the Pilot
Rules permanent, consistent with the Working Group's
recommendations.\22\ On March 16, 2022, the Commission approved NYSE's
proposal.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 92428 (July 16,
2021), 86 FR 38776 (July 22, 2021) (SR-NYSE-2021-40).
    \23\ See supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the Commission's approval of NYSE's proposal, the
Exchange now proposes that the Pilot Rules (i.e., Rule 11.280(a)-(d)
and (f)) be made permanent. To accomplish this, the Exchange proposes
to remove the first three sentences in Rule 11.280(a), which currently
provide: (i) That the provisions of paragraphs (a) through (d) and (f)
of Rule 11.280 shall be in effect during a pilot period that expires at
the close of business on April 18, 2022; (ii) that if the pilot is not
either extended or approved permanently at the end of the pilot period,
the Exchange will amend Rule 11.280; and (iii) that the remaining
provisions of Rule 11.280 are not subject to a pilot period and are in
effect unless and until amended. The Exchange proposes to not change
the last sentence of Rule 11.280(a), which reads in full: ``[t]he
Exchange shall halt trading in all stocks and shall not reopen for the
time periods specified in this IEX Rule 11.280 if there is a Level 1,
2, or 3 Market Decline.'' The Exchange does not propose any changes to
paragraphs (b)-(h) of Rule 11.280.
    Consistent with the Commission's approval of NYSE's proposal, the
Exchange proposes to add new paragraphs (i)-(k) to Rule 11.280, as
follows:
    (i) Market-Wide Circuit Breaker (``MWCB'') Testing.
    (1) The Exchange will participate in all industry-wide tests of the
MWCB mechanism. Members designated pursuant to paragraph (b) of Rule
2.250 to participate in exchange back-up systems and mandatory testing
are required to participate in at least one industry-wide MWCB test
each year and to verify their participation in that test by attesting
that they are able to or have attempted to:
    (A) Receive and process MWCB halt messages from the securities
information processors (``SIPs'');
    (B) receive and process resume messages from the SIPs following a
MWCB halt;
    (C) receive and process market data from the SIPs relevant to MWCB
halts; and
    (D) send orders following a Level 1 or Level 2 MWCB halt in a
manner consistent with their usual trading behavior.
    (2) To the extent that a Member participating in a MWCB test is
unable to receive and process any of the messages identified in
paragraph (i)(1)(A)-(D) of this Rule, its attestation should notify the
Exchange which messages it was unable to process and, if known, why.
    (3) Members not designated pursuant to standards established in
paragraph (b) of Rule 2.250 are permitted to participate in any MWCB
test.
    (j) In the event that a halt is triggered under this Rule following
a Level 1, Level 2, or Level 3 Market Decline, the Exchange, together
with other SROs and industry representatives (the ``MWCB Working
Group''), will review such event. The MWCB Working Group will prepare a
report that documents its analysis and recommendations and will provide
that report to the Commission within 6 months of the event.
    (k) In the event that there is (1) a Market Decline of more than
5%, or (2) an SRO implements a rule that changes its reopening process
following a MWCB Halt, the Exchange, together with the MWCB Working
Group, will review such event and consider whether any modifications
should be made to this Rule. If the MWCB Working Group recommends that
a modification should be made to this Rule, the MWCB Working Group will
prepare a report that documents its analysis and recommendations and
provide that report to the Commission.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal to make the Pilot Rules
permanent is consistent with the requirements of Sections 6(b) of the
Act,\24\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of
the Act,\25\ in particular, in that it is designed 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Pilot Rules set out in Rule 11.280(a)-(d) and (f) are an
important, automatic mechanism that is invoked to promote stability and
investor confidence during periods of significant market stress when
securities markets experience broad-based declines. The four MWCB halts
that occurred in March 2020 provided the Exchange, the other SROs, and
market participants with real-world experience as to how the Pilot
Rules actually function in practice. Based on the Working Group's Study
and the Exchange's own analysis of those events, the Exchange believes
that making the Pilot Rules permanent would benefit market
participants, promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and protect investors and the public
interest.
    Specifically, the Exchange believes that making the Pilot Rules
permanent would benefit market participants, promote just and equitable
principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of
a free and open market and a national market system, and protect
investors and the public interest, because the Pilot Rules worked as
intended during the March 2020 events. As detailed above, the markets
were in communication before, during, and after each of the MWCB

Halts that occurred in March 2020. All 9,000+ equity symbols were
successfully halted in a timely manner when SPX declined 7% from the
previous day's closing value, as designed. The Exchange believes that
market participants would benefit from having the Pilot Rules made
permanent because such market participants are familiar with the design
and operation of the MWCB mechanism set out in the Pilot Rules, and
know from experience that it has functioned as intended on multiple
occasions under real-life stress conditions. Accordingly, the Exchange
believes that making the Pilot Rules permanent would enhance investor
confidence in the ability of the markets to successfully halt as
intended when under extreme stress.
    The Exchange further believes that making the Pilot Rules permanent
would benefit market participants, promote just and equitable
principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of
a free and open market and a national market system, and protect
investors and the public interest, because the halts that were
triggered pursuant to the Pilot Rules in March 2020 appear to have had
the intended effect of calming volatility in the market without causing
harm. As detailed above, after studying a variety of metrics concerning
opening and reopening auctions, quote volatility, and other factors,
the Exchange concluded that there was no significant difference in the
percentage of securities that opened on a trade versus on a quote for
the four days in March 2020 with MWCB Halts, versus the other periods
studied. In addition, while the post-MWCB Halt reopening auctions were
smaller than typical opening auctions, the size of those post-MWCB Halt
reopening auctions plus the earlier initial opening auctions in those
symbols was on average equal to opening auctions in January 2020. The
Exchange believes this indicates that the MWCB Halts on the four March
2020 days did not cause liquidity to evaporate. Finally, the Exchange
observes that while quote volatility was generally higher on the four
days in March 2020 with MWCB Halts as compared to the other periods
studied, quote volatility stabilized following the MWCB Halts at levels
similar to the January 2020 levels, and LULD Trading Pauses worked as
designed to address any additional volatility later in the day. From
this evidence, the Exchange concludes that the Pilot Rules actually
calmed volatility on the four MWCB Halt days in March 2020, without
causing liquidity to evaporate or otherwise harming the market. As
such, the Exchange believes that making the Pilot Rules permanent would
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and protect investors and the
public interest.
    The Exchange believes that that making the Pilot Rules permanent
without any changes would benefit market participants, promote just and
equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and
protect investors and the public interest, because the current design
of the MWCB mechanism as set out in the Pilot Rules remains
appropriate. As detailed above, the Exchange considered whether SPX
should be replaced as the reference value, whether the current trigger
levels (7%/13%/20%) and halt times (15 minutes for Level 1 and 2 halts)
should be modified, and whether changes should be made to prevent the
market from halting shortly after the opening of regular trading hours
at 9:30 a.m., and concluded that the MWCB mechanism set out in the
Pilot Rules remains appropriate, for the reasons cited above. The
Exchange believes that public confidence in the MWCB mechanism would be
enhanced by the Pilot Rules being made permanent without any changes,
given investors' familiarity with the Pilot Rules and their successful
functioning in March 2020.
    The Exchange believes that proposed paragraph (i) regarding MWCB
testing is designed 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. The Working Group recommended that
all cash equities exchanges adopt a rule requiring all designated
Regulation SCI firms to participate in MWCB testing and to attest to
their participation. The Exchange believes that these requirements
would promote the stability of the markets and enhance investor
confidence in the MWCB mechanism and the protections that it provides
to the markets and to investors. The Exchange further believes that
requiring firms participating in a MWCB test to identify any inability
to process messages pertaining to such MWCB test would contribute to a
fair and orderly market by flagging potential issues that should be
corrected. The Exchange would preserve such attestations pursuant to
its obligations to retain books and records of the Exchange.
    The Exchange believes that proposed paragraph (j) would benefit
market participants, promote just and equitable principles of trade,
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and protect investors and the
public interest. Having the MWCB Working Group review any halt
triggered under Rule 11.280 and prepare a report of its analysis and
recommendations would permit the Exchange, along with other market
participants and the Commission, to evaluate such event and determine
whether any modifications should be made to Rule 11.280 in the public
interest. Preparation of such a report within 6 months of the event
would permit the Exchange, along with the MWCB Working Group,
sufficient time to analyze such halt and prepare their recommendations.
    The Exchange believes that proposed paragraph (k) would benefit
market participants, promote just and equitable principles of trade,
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and protect investors and the
public interest. Having the MWCB Working Group review instances of a
Market Decline of more than 5% or an SRO implementing a rule that
changes its reopening process following a MWCB Halt would allow the
MWCB Working Group to identify situations where it recommends that Rule
11.280 be modified in the public interest. In such situations where the
MWCB Working Group recommends that a modification should be made to
Rule 11.280, the MWCB Working Group would prepare a report that
documents its analysis and recommendations and provide that report to
the Commission, thereby removing impediments to and perfecting the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system while
protecting investors and the public interest.
    For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed
change is consistent with the Act.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change is not
intended to address competition, but rather, makes permanent the
current MWCB Pilot Rules for the protection of the markets. The
Exchange believes that making the current MWCB Pilot Rules permanent
would have no discernable burden on

competition at all, since the Pilot Rules have already been in effect
since 2012 and would be made permanent without any changes. Moreover,
because the MWCB mechanism contained in the Pilot Rules requires all
exchanges and all market participants to cease trading at the same
time, making the Pilot Rules permanent would not provide a competitive
advantage to any exchange or any class of market participants.
    Further, the Exchange understands that the other SROs will submit
substantively identical proposals to the Commission. Thus, the proposed
rule change will help to ensure consistency across SROs without
implicating any competitive issues.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor 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)(iii) of the Act \26\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \27\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file 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) \28\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\29\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange asked
that the Commission waive the 30 day operative delay so that the
proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. Waiver of the
30-day operative delay would allow the Exchange to immediately provide
the protections included in this proposal in the event of a MWCB halt,
which is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative
delay and designates the proposed rule change as operative upon
filing.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \29\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \30\ 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 under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \31\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-IEX-2022-03 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-IEX-2022-03. 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-IEX-2022-03
and should be submitted on or before May 12, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-08482 Filed 4-20-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


From:
Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Friday, April 1, 2016 9:29 AM
To:
Coleen Davis<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc:
Christopher W Hardin<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Jonelle S Scheetz<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
Re: [External]-Coke ICR address

We will be posting the enclosures on the website today. I also just sent all the enclosure 1&2 copies to David Ailor. Not the letters but everything else. We will send lpdf etters by email Monday/Tuesday.

Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

From: Coleen Davis<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Friday, April 1, 2016 9:24:35 AM
To: Raymond, Gabrielle
Cc: Christopher W Hardin; Jones, DonnaLee; Jonelle S Scheetz
Subject: Re: [External]-Coke ICR address

Gabrielle,

The paper ICR copy should go to

Jonelle Scheetz
U.S. Steel Clairton Plant
General Office Building
400 State Street
Clairton, PA  15025

Can you also please send an electronic copy to me<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and Jonelle Scheetz (jsscheetz@uss.com)?  Our paper mail is often very slow and I think that we will need all possible time.

Thanks

Coleen

From:        "Raymond, Gabrielle"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To:        Christopher W Hardin<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Date:        04/01/2016 09:21 AM
Subject:        [External]-Coke ICR address

Hello Mr. Hardin,

We are trying to confirm the mailing addresses for the Coke Information Collection Request letters.  Is this correct address for you ?

Christopher W. Hardin
United States Steel Corporation
1350 Penn Avenue, Suite 200
Pittsburgh, PA 15222

Thanks,
Gabrielle

Gabrielle Raymond
RTI International
3040 Cornwallis Road
P.O. Box 12194
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 30 (Wednesday, February 15, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 10767]
[FR Doc No: 2017-03070]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL- 9959-29-OAR]

Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2015

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of document availability and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Draft Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Sinks: 1990-2015 is available for public review. Annual U.S. emissions
for the period of time from 1990 through 2015 are summarized and
presented by source category and sector. The inventory contains
estimates of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4),
nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFC),
perfluorocarbons (PFC), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and
nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) emissions. The technical approach
used in this report to estimate emissions and sinks for greenhouse
gases is consistent with the methodologies recommended by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and reported in a
format consistent with the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC) reporting guidelines. The Inventory of U.S.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2015 is the latest in a series
of annual, policy-neutral U.S. submissions to the Secretariat of the
UNFCCC. EPA requests recommendations for improving the overall quality
of the inventory report to be finalized in April 2017, as well as
subsequent inventory reports.

DATES: To ensure your comments are considered for the final version of
the document, please submit your comments by March 17, 2017. However,
comments received after that date will still be welcomed and considered
for the next edition of this report.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted to GHG Inventory at:
Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Change Division (6207A), 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You
are welcome and encouraged to send an email with your comments to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Mausami Desai, Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Atmospheric
Programs, Climate Change Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The draft report is available at: http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html.

    Dated: February 3, 2017.
Reid P. Harvey,
Acting Director, Office of Atmospheric Programs.
[FR Doc. 2017-03070 Filed 2-14-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P