<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">

<META name="generator" content="Salmonella Heidelberg … Ceftiofur-Related Resistance in Human and Retail Chicken Isolates">
<META name="creation-date" content="25/09/2009 11:47:49 ">
<TITLE>Salmonella Heidelberg … Ceftiofur-Related Resistance in Human and Retail Chicken Isolates</TITLE>

Page 1 of 14
Salmonella Heidelberg – Ceftiofur-Related Resistance in
Human and Retail Chicken Isolates
The Canadian Integrated Program for Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance (CIPARS) provided
data to stakeholders leading to a voluntary withdrawal in Québec chicken hatcheries of the extra-
label use of ceftiofur.  After the withdrawal, a significant decrease in ceftiofur-resistance was seen
1
in Salmonella Heidelberg isolates from retail chicken and humans (Figure 1).  Such a reduction
can protect the efficacy of related cephalosporin drugs, which are used to treat several types of
infections, including severe cases of salmonellosis in children.
The Public Health Agency (PHAC) supports and encourages all Canadian hatcheries to apply
similar efforts as those undertaken by Québec in order to limit the emergence and spread of
cephalosporin-resistant S. Heidelberg from poultry to humans, via reductions in ceftiofur use.
PHAC needs to enter into discussions with provincial and industry representatives to promote the
CIPARS findings as an impetus to responsible use of antimicrobials in veterinary medicine across
Canada.
Figure 1.  Past three quarters moving average of the percentage of isolates resistant to ceftiofur
for retail chicken E. coli, retail chicken and human clinical S. Heidelberg isolates, and quarterly
human consumption of 3
rd
generation cephalosporins dispensed at retail pharmacies (IMS Health)
2
in Québec.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
12341234
1234123
4123412341234
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Year and quarter

0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.2

Consumption of third-generation cephalosporins in humans
S. Heidelberg retail chicken isolates
S. Heidelberg human isolates
E. coli retail chicken isolates
Voluntary
withdrawal in
Québec*
1
Extra-label involves use other than what is on the label such as use for a different species, different age class, different indication,
or at a different dose/duration.  This use is considered unapproved although veterinarians have the legal authority to use drugs in
this manner if the situation is warranted.
2
IMS=Intercontinental Medical Statistics

Page 2 of 14
*Voluntary withdrawal of ceftiofur use by Québec hatcheries in February 2005.  At the time of publishing, human consumption data
was only analyzed up to the first quarter of 2006.
Further details for the following sections can be found in the appendix or by CTRL+clicking on
identified links.
1.  Rationale for concern about this serovar and its resistance profile:
Salmonella Heidelberg is a prevalent serovar in North America (Table 1).
S. Heidelberg was the third most common serovar in humans in Canada in 2004, the fifth most
common serovar in the US, but not found among the top six serovars for other continents.
Salmonella Heidelberg is a relatively invasive serovar and thus causes more severe illness in humans,
including in children, than other non-typhoidal serovars (click on ‘An invasive serovar’).
The resistance profile of this serovar often include resistance to ceftiofur and reduced susceptibility to the
related antimicrobial ceftriaxone, which could limit the options for treatment of pregnant women
and children (and possibly others) that develop extra-intestinal salmonellosis from this serovar
(click on ‘Resistance to ceftiofur and possible failure of ceftriaxone therapy in extra-intestinal S.
Heidelberg human infections’).
2.  Link  between ceftiofur resistance in human and chicken isolates:
In order to prevent and control Escherichia coli infections, some broiler chicken hatcheries alternated the
use of ceftiofur (extra-label use) with gentamicin until 2003, when the gentamicin formulation became
unavailable.  Published information (Boulianne, 2005 ) indicated that 100% of the Québec hatcheries
1
surveyed were using ceftiofur in 2004 (in hatching eggs and/or day old chicks).  No published information
is available from other provinces and therefore we have no information to suggest that Québec was
unique in terms of ceftiofur utilization at the hatchery level. Our CIPARS 2003 annual report highlighted
higher rates of ceftiofur resistance in retail chicken and human isolates of S. Heidelberg from Québec
compared to Ontario. In Québec, resistance was also higher in retail chicken than among human isolates.
(click on ‘Link between ceftiofur resistance in human and chicken isolates ’. Resistance had however risen
in 2004 in Ontario to reach levels similar to those in Québec in 2003 and 2004 in both humans and
chicken.
3.  Action:
To address these public health concerns raised by the publication of the 2003 CIPARS Report, all broiler
chicken hatcheries in Québec voluntarily stopped all use of ceftiofur in February 2005.   PHAC provided
detailed information regarding this issue to other provincial agriculture representatives and the Canadian
poultry industry via email, meetings, and presentations.
4.  Effect of the withdrawal, other temporal changes, and current status:
We saw a marked decrease in the prevalence of ceftiofur-resistant isolates in both chicken and human S.
Heidelberg isolates and chicken Escherichia coli following the voluntary withdrawal of ceftiofur in hatching
and day-old chicks in Québec (Figure 1). Details, including current status of resistance levels, can be
found at ‘Effect of the withdrawal, temporal changes, and current status’.
Since 2003, there has been a decline in the incidence of human S. Heidelberg cases in most of the largest
Canadian provinces.  Concurrently we observed a decline in the relative proportion of this serovar among
abattoir and retail chicken Salmonella isolates from 2003-2006.  CIPARS-Retail data in Ontario and
Québec as well as CIPARS national abattoir data suggest that the niche occupied by S. Heidelberg may
1 Boulianne, 2005. Results from a large poultry study in Québec examining antimicrobial use and antimicrobial resistance.
Agriculture's Role in Managing Antimicrobial Resistance Conference. Toronto, October 2005.

Page 3 of 14
have been replaced by S. Kentucky and to a lesser extent by S. Enteritidis from 2004 to 2006. (click on
‘Changes in the incidence of Salmonella serovars and relative ranking in Canada’.  However, these
variations in the prevalence of the main chicken serovars are unlikely to be related to the voluntary
ceftiofur withdrawal since these temporal changes started before February 2005.
5.  Next Steps:
PHAC supports and encourages continuance of the efforts undertaken by Québec to limit the emergence
and spread of cephalosporin-resistant S. Heidelberg from poultry to humans, via reductions in ceftiofur
use.  PHAC is interested in participating in discussions with provincial and industry representatives to
promote similar actions on a national basis. This is an opportunity to use the CIPARS findings as an
impetus to responsible use of antimicrobials in veterinary medicine.
PHAC will continue to monitor and communicate the situation through data collected and analyzed by
CIPARS, and we will expand our retail surveillance to include additional provinces to better describe
regional similarities and differences.
Summary:
CIPARS has identified and recognized the clinical significance of this prevalent, invasive, and often multi-
drug resistant Salmonella serovar.  We recognize that although ceftiofur is a veterinary drug only used in
animals, cross-resistance to this drug can threaten the effectiveness of important human therapies for
salmonellosis among other conditions.  CIPARS data supports the hypothesis that the use of ceftiofur in
broiler chicken hatcheries was selecting for the presence of ceftiofur-resistant S. Heidelberg strains in
chicken meat and subsequently in human cases of S. Heidelberg.  We have observed that resistance in
commensal chicken E. coli follows the same long-term fluctuations as for S. Heidelberg.  This supports the
hypothesis that this resistance was driven by a common exposure to ceftiofur use, rather than solely the
natural spread of a ceftiofur-resistant S. Heidelberg resistant clone.
Resistance data from Québec and Ontario tend to be very similar across time.  In the absence of drug
consumption data in broiler chickens in Canada, we cannot verify if the withdrawal in Québec
subsequently led Ontario broiler chicken hatcheries to change their use of ceftiofur.  However, a
proportion of Ontario commercial broiler chickens may be raised from hatching eggs produced in Québec
and some retail chicken meat sold in Ontario could have been from chickens grown in Québec.  Similarly,
a proportion of the chicken produced or purchased in Québec could have originated in Ontario. These
inter-provincial exchanges could possibly explain some of the similarities observed between the two
provinces.  Exposure to sources of contamination other than chicken may also play a role in the resistance
observed in human S. Heidelberg isolates.
To our knowledge, Québec is the only province that has taken voluntary action to stop the extra-label use
of ceftiofur in broiler hatcheries. In 2006, resistance in retail chicken E. coli was significantly higher in
Ontario than in Québec and Saskatchewan.  Limited abattoir and retail data from British Columbia also
indicates the presence of ceftiofur resistance among chicken E. coli. PHAC supports and encourages
continuing the efforts undertaken by Québec to limit the emergence and spread of cephalosporin-
resistant S. Heidelberg from poultry to humans, via reductions in ceftiofur use.  PHAC will
continue to monitor and communicate the situation through data collected and analyzed by
CIPARS, and will expand the CIPARS retail program into other provinces.  PHAC needs to enter into
discussions with provincial and industry representatives to promote the CIPARS findings as an impetus to
responsible use of antimicrobials in veterinary medicine.
Since this issue was identified, Health Canada’s Veterinary Drugs Directorate has revised the ceftiofur
prescription label to emphasize to veterinarians and producers that this product should not be used

Page 4 of 14
outside of the specification on the label .  Although ceftiofur is labeled for use in turkey, ceftiofur should
1
also be used judiciously in this commodity.
1
In Canada, ceftiofur has been labelled for use in certain food-producing animals but has not been labelled for use in chickens (or
eggs). Thus, such use of ceftiofur in chicken eggs is considered to be extra-label drug use.  Given the concern with the development
and dissemination of antimicrobial resistance with such mass-medication in an extra-label manner, the labels of ceftiofur products in
Canada have been updated with warning statements to include that extra-label drug use of ceftiofur products is not recommended.

Page 5 of 14
APPENDIX
A prevalent serovar in North America
Salmonella Heidelberg is one of the top three serovars isolated from human Salmonella cases in Canada
and among the top five serovars in the United States.  International comparisons of human data from 2000
to 2004 suggest that S. Heidelberg is more common in North America than in other regions of the world
(Table 1).
Table 1.  International comparison of Salmonella serovars isolated from humans in 2004 (Canada
and US) and in other continents (2000-2004).
Rank
Canada
1
US
2
Africa
3
Asia
3
Central and
South
America
and the
Caribbean
3
Europe
3
Oceania
3
1
Typhimurium Typhimurium Typhimurium
Enteritidis Enteritidis Enteritidis Typhimurium
2  Enteritidis
Enteritidis
Enteritidis
Weltevreden
Typhimurium Typhimurium
Virchow
3
Heidelberg
Newport Isangi Anatum  Typhi  Hadar Enteritidis
4 Thompson
Javiana Livingstone Stanley Montevideo Virchow  Saintpaul
5 Hadar Heidelberg
Typhi Typhimurium
Paratyphi B Infantis Birkenhead
6 Typhi Montevideo Corvallis Rissen
Agona Newport Chester
<s>1</s>
Government of Canada. Canadian Integrated Program for Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance (CIPARS): 2004 Annual report.
Public Health Agency of Canada. 2005.
2
CDC. Salmonella Surveillance: Annual Summary, 2004. Atlanta, Georgia: US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC, 2005.
3
World Health Organization. WHO Global Salm-Surv. Progress Report (2000-2005). Department of Food Safety, Zoonoses and
Foodborne Disease, WHO, 2006.

Page 6 of 14
An invasive serovar
Salmonella Heidelberg appears to be more invasive in humans than other non-typhoidal serovars.
1
Overall, approximately 9% of human S. Heidelberg isolates collected since 2003 have been recovered
from blood samples (Figure 2).
CIPARS receives Salmonella isolates (except for S. Newport and S. Typhi) during the first half of each
month from the more populated provinces (British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, and Québec) and all
isolates from the remaining provinces.  Assuming the beginning of the month is representative of the
second half in the larger provinces, the total number of invasive S. Heidelberg cases between 2003 to
2005 was estimated at roughly 280 cases, with approximate 100 of them in children under the age of 13
(Figure 3).  Of all serovars causing invasive salmonellosis in children under the age of 13, the largest
numbers of cases were due to S. Heidelberg infection. Although S. Paratyphi A, S. Paratyphi B, and S.
Typhi are more frequently associated with extra-intestinal/invasive infections (Figure 2), these serovars
are less frequently observed in Canada.
Figure 2.  Proportions of isolates recovered from human blood specimens for each of the most
prevalent human non-typhoidal and typhoidal Salmonella serovars in Canada; CIPARS, 2003-2005.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Newport
Typhimurium
Enteritidis
Other serovars
Heidelberg
Paratyphi A & B
Typhi
Serovars (CIPARS, 2003-2005)

1 The proportion of strains isolated from “Blood” were used as a surrogate measure of invasiveness.

Page 7 of 14
Figure 3.  Number of human Salmonella isolates recovered from blood specimens across age
classes and the main human serovars in Canada; CIPARS, 2003-2005.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Heidelberg
Typhi
Other serovars
Paratyphi A & B
Typhimurium
Enteritidis
Newport
Most frequent serovars (CIPARS, 2003-2005)

unavailable
70 and more
50-69
30-49
18-29
13-17
5-12
less than 5
Age classes
n= 470
n*= 1581
n= 373
n*= 139
n*= 1767
n*= 1637
n*= 3520
* n=estimated total number of isolates received (except for S. Typhi and S. Newport). Values were corrected for differences in
submission by the four largest provinces.
Resistance to ceftiofur and possible failure of ceftriaxone therapy in extra-
intestinal S. Heidelberg human infections
Ceftiofur (a third-generation cephalosporin used only in animals) resistance among S. Heidelberg isolates
is highly correlated with resistance to ampicillin, amoxicillin-clavulanic acid, and cefoxitin (A2C-AMP
resistance pattern).  It is also associated with reduced susceptibility (intermediate resistance) to
ceftriaxone, another third generation cephalosporin used exclusively in humans.  Ceftriaxone is identified
as a drug of Very High Importance to Human Medicine according to Health Canada’s Veterinary Drugs
Directorate. It is a drug of choice for the treatment of extra-intestinal salmonellosis in children and
pregnant women .  Hence, patients with extra-intestinal infections caused by S. Heidelberg strains with
1
intermediate resistance to ceftriaxone are at risk of ceftriaxone therapy failure.
1 Katherine M. Shea, Nontherapeutic Use of Antimicrobial Agents in Animal Agriculture: Implications for Pediatrics.  Committee on
Environmental Health and Committee on Infectious Diseases. Pediatrics 2004; 114: 862-868.

Page 8 of 14
Link between ceftiofur resistance in human and chicken isolates
In order to prevent and control Escherichia coli infections, a certain number of broiler chicken hatcheries
alternated the use of ceftiofur with gentamicin until 2003 when the gentamicin formulation became
unavailable.  Published information (Boulianne, 2005 ) indicated that 100% of the Québec hatcheries
1
surveyed were using ceftiofur in 2004 (in hatching eggs and/or day old chicks).  No published information
is available from other provinces and therefore we have no information to suggest that Québec was
unique in terms of ceftiofur utilization at the hatchery level. Anecdotal information also indicates that
ceftiofur was also used in chickens outside of the province of Québec.
Our CIPARS 2003 annual report highlighted higher rates of ceftiofur resistance in retail chicken and
human isolates of S. Heidelberg from Québec compared to Ontario (Figure 4). In Québec, resistance was
also higher in retail chicken than among human isolates (Figure 4).
In Ontario in 2004 we saw increases in ceftiofur resistance levels in retail chicken and human S.
Heidelberg isolates similar to those observed in Québec in 2003 and 2004 (Figure 5).  Also in 2004, the
level of ceftiofur resistance in Ontario retail chicken isolates was higher than that observed for human S.
Heidelberg isolates (Figure 5).  In Québec, ceftiofur resistance levels remained similar between 2003 and
2004.
Figure 4.  Individual antimicrobial drug resistance in Salmonella Heidelberg isolated from retail
chicken (n=20) and human cases (n=167) in Québec, and from retail chicken (n=19) and human
cases (n=172) in Ontario in 2003.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
tetracycline
sulfamethoxazole
chloramphenicol
cephalothin
cefoxitin
ampicillin
trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole
streptomycin
nalidixic acid
kanamycin
gentamicin
amoxicillin-clavulanic acid
amikacin
ciprofloxacin
ceftriaxone
ceftiofur

Percentage of Isolates Resistant
Chicken - Retail Surveillance - Quebec
Human - Passive Surveillance - Quebec
Chicken - Retail Surveillance - Ontario
Human - Passive Surveillance - Ontario
Categories of
Human Medicine
Importance
Category I =
Very high importance
Category II
=
Category III
=
Category IV
=
Source: VDD
Health Canada
Medium importance
High importance
Low importance
1 Boulianne, 2005. Results from a large poultry study in Québec examining antimicrobial use and antimicrobial resistance.
Agriculture's Role in Managing Antimicrobial Resistance Conference. Toronto, October 2005.

Page 9 of 14
Figure 5.  Individual antimicrobial drug resistance in Salmonella Heidelberg isolated from human
cases in Ontario in 2003 (n=172) and 2004 (n=186), and from retail chicken in Ontario in 2003
(n=19) and 2004 (n=32).
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%


[Federal Register: July 14, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 134)]
[Notices]
[Page 40820]
[DOCID:fr14jy10-64]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL10-63-000]

EnerNOC, Inc. v. FirstEnergy Corp.; Notice Requiring Protective
Order and Establishing Answer Date

July 8, 2010.
    On April 30, 2010, EnerNOC, Inc. (EnerNOC) filed a Complaint in
this proceeding naming FirstEnergy Corp. (FirstEnergy) as the
respondent (April 30 Complaint). On May 11, 2010, EnerNOC, Inc. and
FirstEnergy (collectively, the Parties) filed an expedited joint motion
to suspend the answer date (Joint Motion), noting that the Parties were
working on a solution that would permit use, in this proceeding, of
certain materials subject to protection in an on-going proceeding
before the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio.
    On May 14, 2010, the Commission issued a notice suspending the
answer date in this docket, as requested by the Parties (May 14
Notice). In addition, the Commission informed the Parties that the
submission, treatment and/or exchange of privileged information in this
proceeding would be subject to the requirements of 18 CFR 385.206(e)
and would therefore require the submission of a proposed protective
agreement.
    On July 1, 2010, EnerNOC submitted a supplemental complaint filing
(July 1 Supplemental Complaint Filing), under seal, along with a
redacted version. EnerNOC requests that its submission, under seal, be
accorded confidential treatment, pursuant to 18 CFR 388.112 (2010).
EnerNOC further states that a portion of its confidential submittal
(Attachment 2) is a data response subject to an existing protective
agreement.
    EnerNOC's July 1 Supplemental Complaint Filing does not include a
proposed form of protective agreement applicable to this proceeding. As
indicated by the May 14 Notice, this is required by 385.2069 (e) of the
Commission's regulations. Nor does EnerNOC address the means by which
the parties to this proceeding will be entitled to review material
submitted under seal, or the extent to which the existing protective
agreement addresses this matter. Accordingly, EnerNOC is hereby
directed to provide to FirstEnegy and to any other entity (at its
request) that has filed a motion to intervene, herein, a proposed form
of protective agreement that can be used to obtain an unredacted
version of EnerNOC's July 1, 2010 submittal and any other submittal
filed under seal. The Commission will require EnerNOC to provide that
protected agreement by July 15, 2010. The time period for filing
answers, protests and/or comments on EnerNoc's April 30 Complaint and
the July 1 Supplemental Complaint Filing will be extended to August 4,
2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-17159 Filed 7-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


to agree on the amount or method of reimbursement for test data
development for one or more chemical substances included in this
section, any person may request a hearing as described in 40 CFR part
791. In the determination of fair reimbursement shares under this
section, if the hearing officer chooses to use a formula based on
production volume, the total production volume amount will include
amounts of a chemical substance produced as an impurity.
    (g) Who must comply with the export notification requirements? Any
person who exports, or intends to export, a chemical substance listed
in Table 2 in paragraph (j) of this section is subject to part 707,
subpart D, of this chapter.
    (h) How must I conduct my testing? The chemical substances
identified by Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number (CAS No.) and
chemical name in Table 2 in paragraph (j) of this section must be
tested as follows:
    (1) Testing standards. Testing must be conducted in accordance with
test standards specified in Table 2 in paragraph (j) of this section.
The test standards cited in Table 2 in paragraph (j) of this section
apply as they exist on the effective date indicated in paragraph (k) of
this section.
    (2) Required tests. In Table 2 in paragraph (j) of this section,
the column ``Required Tests'' references the applicable test guideline
on which the test standard is based.
    (3) Testing specifications. The following limitations apply when
specified for a particular chemical substance in Table 2 in paragraph
(j) of this section under ``Testing specifications.''
    (i) Test species. The test animal must be:
    (A) The rat or the mouse.
    (B) The mouse.
    (C) The rat.
    (D) The rabbit.
    (ii)  Route of exposure. Animals must be exposed via:
    (A) Oral.
    (B) Inhalation.
    (C) Gavage.
    (iii) Duration and frequency of exposure. (A) The substance must be
administered by both acute and subchronic exposures.
    (B) Animals must be exposed for a 4-hour period in an acute study.
    (C) Animals must be exposed for 6 hours per day, 5 days per week
for a 90-day period in a 90-day study.
    (D) A multiple fixed-interval fixed-ratio schedule shall be used.
Fixed-ratio and fixed-interval contingencies shall alternate throughout
daily test sessions of at least 60 minutes duration.
    (iv) Specific organ gross pathology and histopathology. (A) The
thyroid glands shall be subjected to gross pathologic examination and
shall be trimmed and weighed wet as soon as possible after dissection
to avoid drying.
    (B) The thyroid glands from all animals in the control and high
dose groups shall undergo full histopathological examination; in the
event that there are excessive early deaths or other problems that
occur within the high dose group that could compromise the significance
of the data, full histopathology shall be performed on the thyroid
glands from all animals from the next highest exposure group.
    (v) Specific hormone level determinations. T3 and T4 hormone levels
shall be measured at terminal sacrifice.
    (i) Reporting requirements. Interim progress reports for each test
must be submitted every 6 months, beginning 6 months after the
effective date of this rule as specified in paragraph (k) of this
section. The number of interim progress reports that must be submitted
for each test is listed in Table 2 in paragraph (j) of this section. A
final report for each test for each subject chemical substance must be
received by EPA by the deadline indicated in that table as the number
of months after the effective date of this rule as specified in
paragraph (k) of this section.
    (j) Designation of specific chemical substances and testing
requirements. The chemical substances identified by name and CAS No. in
Table 2 of this paragraph must be tested in accordance with the testing
requirements and limitations designated in this section, and the
requirements described in Part 792--Good Laboratory Practice Standards
of this chapter.

                                                     Table 2.--Test Requirements and Reporting Dates
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Testing
                                     Chemical name and type                           specifications  (all   Number of interim 6-  Final report per test
              CAS No.                      of testing            Required tests        references are to        month reports           (months after
                                                                                Sec.   799.5100(h)(3)    required per test       effective date)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
75-00-3............................  Chloroethane:                                                                                .....................
                                     Acute oral toxicity...  Sec.   799.9110.......  (i)(C)...............  0....................  6
                                     90-day oral toxicity    Sec.   799.9310.......  (i)(A)...............  2....................  18
                                      in rodents.
                                     Prenatal developmental  Sec.   799.9370.......  (i)(B), (i)(D),        2....................  15
                                      toxicity.                                       (ii)(B).
                                     Reproduction and        Sec.   799.9380.......  (i)(C), (ii)(A),       4....................  29
                                      fertility effects.                              (ii)(B).
                                     Combined chronic        Sec.   799.9430.......  (i)(B), (ii)(B)......  9....................  60
                                      toxicity/
                                      carcinogenicity.
                                     Neurotoxicity           Sec.   799.9620.......  (i)(C), (ii)(A),       3....................  21
                                      screening battery.                              (ii)(B), (iii)(A),
                                                                                (iii)(B), (iii)(C).
                                     Developmental           Sec.   799.9630.......  (i)(C), (ii)(B)......  3....................  21
                                      neurotoxicity
                                     Immunotoxicity........  Sec.   799.9780.......  (i)(A), (ii)(A),       2....................  18
                                                                                (ii)(B).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
74-90-8............................  Hydrogen cyanide:                                                                             .....................
                                     Acute inhalation        Sec.   799.9135.......  (i)(C), (iv)(A),       1....................  9
                                      toxicity with                                   (iv)(B).
                                      histopathology.
                                     90-day inhalation       Sec.   799.9346.......  (i)(A), (iv)(A),       2....................  18
                                      toxicity.                                       (iv)(B), (v).
                                     Prenatal developmental  Sec.   799.9370.......  (i)(C), (i)(D),        2....................  15
                                      toxicity.                                       (ii)(B).

                                     Reproduction and        Sec.   799.9380.......  (i)(C), (ii)(B)......  4....................  29
                                      fertility effects.
                                     Neurotoxicity           Sec.   799.9620.......  (i)(C), (ii)(B),       3....................  21
                                      screening battery.                              (iii)(A), (iii)(B),
                                                                                (iii)(C).
                                     Schedule-controlled     Sec.   798.6500.......  (i)(C), (ii)(B),       6....................  36
                                      operant behavior.                               (iii)(C), (iii)(D).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
143-33-9...........................  Cyanide: Sodium                                                                               .....................
                                      cyanide.
                                     Prenatal developmental  Sec.   799.9370.......  (i)(C), (i)(D),        1....................  12
                                      toxicity.                                       (ii)(A).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
75-09-2............................   Methylene chloride:                                                                          .....................
                                     Prenatal developmental  Sec.   799.9370.......  (i)(C), (i)(D),        2....................  15
                                      toxicity.                                       (ii)(B).
                                     Schedule-controlled     Sec.   798.6500.......  (i)(C), (ii)(A),       6....................  36
                                      operant behavior.                               (iii)(C), (iii)(D).
                                     Developmental           Sec.   799.9630.......  (i)(C), (ii)(B)......  3....................  21
                                      neurotoxicity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (k)  Effective date. This section is effective on [insert date 30
days after date of publication of the final rule in the Federal
Register].
[FR Doc. E6-17569 Filed 10-19-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 220 (Monday, November 16, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70852-70855]
[FR Doc No: 2015-28864]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76395; File No. SR-NYSEARCA-2015-106]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt a
Principles-Based Approach To Prohibit the Misuse of Material Nonpublic
Information by Lead Market Makers (``LMMs'') by Deleting Rule 6.83

November 9, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on October 28, 2015, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') 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

    The Exchange proposes to adopt a principles-based approach to
prohibit the misuse of material nonpublic information by Lead Market
Makers (``LMMs'') by deleting Rule 6.83. The text of the proposed rule
change is available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to adopt a principles-based approach to
prohibit the misuse of material nonpublic information by LMMs by
deleting Rule 6.83.
    The Exchange believes that Rule 6.83 is no longer necessary because
all OTP Holders and OTP Firms (collectively, ``OTPs''),\4\ including
LMMs, are subject to the Exchange's general principles-based
requirements governing the protection against the misuse of material,
non-public information, pursuant to Exchange Rule 11.3 (Prevention of
the Misuse of Material, Nonpublic Information). This rule obviates the
need for separately-prescribed requirements for a subset of market
participants on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ An ``OTP'' is an Options Trading Permit issued by the
Exchange for effecting approved securities transactions on the
Exchange's Trading Facilities; OTP Holders and OTP Firms are natural
persons or business entities, respectively, that have one or more
OTP. See Rule 1.1(p)-(r).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    The Exchange has two classes of registered market makers. Pursuant
to Rule 6.32(a), a Market Maker is an individual who is registered with
the Exchange for the purpose of making transactions as a dealer-
specialist on the Floor of the Exchange or for the purpose of
submitting quotes electronically and making transactions as a dealer-
specialist through the NYSE Arca OX electronic trading system. As the
rule further provides, a Market Maker registered on the Exchange will
be either a Market Maker or a Lead Market Maker.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Unless specified, or unless the context requires otherwise,
the term Market Maker refers to both Market Makers and Lead Market
Maker. See Rule 6.32(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 6.82(c) specifies the obligations of LMMs, which, in addition
to the Market Maker obligations of Rules 6.37 and 6.37A, must also
honor guaranteed markets. The quoting obligations of all Market Makers,
including LMMs, are set forth in Rule 6.37B. That rule sets forth the
main difference between Market Makers and LMMs, namely that LMMs have a
heightened quoting obligation as compared to Market Makers.\6\ In
addition to a heightened quoting obligation, pursuant to Rule 6.76A
(Order Execution--OX), LMMs quoting at the NBBO are eligible to receive
a guaranteed participation allocation in the execution of incoming bids
and offers.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Compare Rule 6.37B(b) (An LMM ``must provide continuous two-
sided quotations throughout the trading day in its appointed issues
for 90% of the time the Exchange is open for trading in each
issue''[sic] with 6.37B(c) (``A Market Maker must provide continuous
two-sided quotations throughout the trading day in its appointed
issues for 60% of the time the Exchange is open for trading in each
issue'').
    \7\ See Rule 6.76A(a)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Importantly, all Market Makers, including LMMs, have access to the
same information in the Consolidated Book that is available to all
other market participants. Moreover, none of the Exchange's Market
Makers, including LMMs, have agency obligations to orders in the
Exchange's Consolidated Book. As such, the key distinctions between
Market Makers and LMMs are the quoting requirements set forth in Rule
6.37B and allocation guarantee for LMMs set forth in Rule 6.76A.
    Notwithstanding that all Market Makers have access to the same
Exchange trading information as all other market participants on the
Exchange, the Exchange has specific rules governing how LMMs may
operate. Rule 6.83 prohibits OTPs affiliated with an LMM from
purchasing or selling any option to which the LMM is appointed, except
to reduce or liquidate positions after appropriate identification and
Trading Official approval of the transaction. The rule further provides
an exemption from the prohibition for affiliated firms that implement
specified Exchange-approved procedures to restrict the flow of
material, non-public information. Rules 6.83(e)--(j) outline the
``Exemption Guidelines'' with which an affiliated firm must comply to
obtain an exemption from the restriction in Rule 6.83. These specified
``Exemption Guidelines'' are meant to ensure that an LMM will not have
access to material, non-public information possessed by its affiliated
OTP(s), and that a firm will not misuse its affiliated LMM's material,
non-public information.
Proposed Rule Change
    The Exchange believes that the guidelines in Rule 6.83 for LMMs are
no longer necessary and proposes to delete the Rule in its entirety.
The Exchange believes that Rule 11.3, governing the misuse of material,
non-public information, provides for an appropriate, principles-based
approach to prevent the market abuses Rule 6.83 was designed to
address. Specifically, Rule 11.3 requires every OTP to establish,
maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably
designed to prevent the misuse of material, non-public information by
such OTP or associated persons. For

purposes of this requirement, the misuse of material, non-public
information includes, but is not limited to, the following:
    (a) Trading in any securities issued by a corporation, or in any
related securities or related options or other derivative securities,
while in possession of material, non-public information concerning that
issuer;
    (b) trading in a security or related options or other derivative
securities, while in possession of material, non-public information
concerning imminent transactions in the security or related securities;
or
    (c) disclosing to another person or entity any material, non-public
information involving a corporation whose shares are publicly traded or
an imminent transaction in an underlying security or related securities
for the purpose of facilitating the possible misuse of such material,
non-public information.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Commentary .01 to Rule 11.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because LMMs are already subject to the requirements of Rule 11.3,
the Exchange does not believe that it is necessary to separately
require specific limitations on dealings between LMMs and their
affiliates. Deleting Rule 6.83 would provide LMMs with the flexibility
to adapt their policies and procedures as appropriate to reflect
changes to their business model, business activities, or the securities
market in a manner similar to how Market Makers on the Exchange
currently operate and consistent with Rule 11.3.
    As noted above, LMMs are distinguished under Exchange rules from
other types of Market Makers in that LMMs have heightened obligations
and allocation guarantees. However, none of these heightened
obligations provides different or greater access to nonpublic
information than any other market participant on the Exchange.\9\
Specifically, LMMs on the Exchange do not have access to trading
information provided by the Exchange, either at, or prior to, the point
of execution, that is not made available to all other market
participants on the Exchange in a similar manner. Further, as noted
above, LMMs on the Exchange do not have any agency responsibilities for
orders in the Consolidated Book. Accordingly, because LMMs do not have
any trading advantages at the Exchange due to their market role, the
Exchange believes that they should be subject to the same rules
regarding the protection against the misuse of material non-public
information, which in this case, is existing Rule 11.3.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Rules 6.37B and 6.76A.
    \10\ The Exchange notes that by deleting Rule 6.83, the Exchange
would no longer require specific information barriers for LMMs or
require pre-approval of any information barriers that an LMM would
erect for purposes of protecting against the misuse of material non-
public information. However, as is the case today with Market
Makers, information barriers of new entrants, including new LMMs,
would be subject to review as part of a new firm application.
Moreover, the policies and procedures of LMMs, including those
relating to information barriers, would be subject to review by
FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, pursuant to a Regulatory Services
Agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that even with this proposed rule change,
pursuant to Rule 11.3, an LMM would still be obligated to ensure that
its policies and procedures reflect the current state of its business
and continue to be reasonably designed to achieve compliance with
applicable federal securities law and regulations, and with applicable
Exchange rules, including being reasonably designed to protect against
the misuse of material, non-public information. While information
barriers would not specifically be required under the proposal, Rule
11.3 already requires that an OTP consider its business model or
business activities in structuring its policies and procedures, which
may dictate that an information barrier or a functional separation be
part of the appropriate set of policies and procedures that would be
reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable securities
law and regulations, and with applicable Exchange rules.
    The Exchange is not proposing to change what is considered to be
material, non-public information and, thus does not expect there to be
any changes to the types of information that an affiliated brokerage
business of an LMM could share with such LMM. In that regard, the
proposed rule change will not permit the affiliates of LMMs to have
access to any non-public order or quote information of the LMM,
including hidden or undisplayed size or price information of such
orders or quotes. Affiliates of LMMs would only have access to orders
and quotes that are publicly available to all market participants. OTPs
do not expect to receive any additional order or quote information as a
result of this proposed rule change.
    Further, the Exchange does not believe that there will be any
material change to Market Maker information barriers as a result of
removal of the Exchange's pre-approval requirements. In fact, the
Exchange anticipates that eliminating the pre-approval requirement
should facilitate implementation of changes to Market Maker information
barriers as necessary to protect against the misuse of material, non-
public information. The Exchange also suggests that the pre-approval
requirement is unnecessary because LMMs do not have agency
responsibilities to orders in the Consolidated Book, or time and place
information advantages because of their market role. However, as is the
case today with Market Makers, information barriers of new entrants
would be subject to review as part of a new firm application. Moreover,
the policies and procedures of market makers, including those relating
to information barriers, would be subject to review by FINRA, on behalf
of the Exchange, pursuant to a Regulatory Services Agreement.
    The Exchange further notes that under Rule 11.3, an OTP would be
able to structure its firm to provide for its options LMMs, or Market
Makers, as applicable, to be structured with its equities and customer-
facing businesses, provided that any such structuring would be done in
a manner reasonably designed to protect against the misuse of material,
non-public information. For example, pursuant to Rule 11.3, a Market
Maker on the Exchange could be in the same independent trading unit, as
defined in Rule 200(f) of Regulation SHO,\11\ as an equities market
maker and other trading desks within the firm, including options
trading desks, so that the firm could share post-trade information to
better manage its risk across related securities. The Exchange believes
it is appropriate, and consistent with Rule 11.3 and Section 15(g) of
the Act \12\ for a firm to share options position and related hedging
position information (e.g., equities, futures, and foreign currency)
within a firm to better manage risk on a firm-wide basis. The Exchange
notes, however, that if so structured, a firm would need to have
appropriate policies and procedures, including information barriers as
applicable, to protect against the misuse of material non-public
information, and specifically customer information, consistent with
Rule 11.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR part 242.200(f).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78o(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed reliance on the principles-
based Rule 11.3 would help ensure that an OTP that operates an LMM
would be required to protect against the misuse of any material non-
public information. As noted above, Rule 11.3 already requires that
firms refrain from trading while in possession of material non-public
information concerning imminent transactions in the security or related

product. The Exchange believes that moving to a principles-based
approach rather than prescribing how and when to wall off an LMM from
the rest of the firm would provide OTPs operating LMMs with appropriate
tools to better manage risk across a firm, including integrating
options positions with other positions of the firm or, as applicable,
by the respective independent trading unit. Specifically, the Exchange
believes that it is appropriate for risk management purposes for an OTP
operating an LMM to be able to consider both options LMMs' traded
positions for purposes of calculating net positions consistent with
Rule 200 of Regulation SHO, calculating intra-day net capital
positions, and managing risk both generally as well as in compliance
with Rule 15c3-5 under the Act (the ``Market Access Rule'').\13\ The
Exchange notes that any risk management operations would need to
operate consistent with the requirement to protect against the misuse
of material non-public information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR part 240.15c3-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further notes that if LMMs are integrated with other
market making operations, they would be subject to existing rules that
prohibit OTPs from disadvantaging their customers or other market
participants by improperly capitalizing on a member organization's
access to the receipt of material, non-public information. As such, an
OTP that integrates its LMM operations together with equity market
making would need to protect customer information consistent with
existing obligations to protect such information. The Exchange has
rules prohibiting OTPs from disadvantaging their customers or other
market participants by improperly capitalizing on the OTP's access to
or receipt of material, non-public information. For example, Rule 11.18
requires OTPs to establish, maintain, enforce, and keep current a
system of compliance and supervisory controls, reasonably designed to
achieve compliance with applicable securities laws and Exchange rules.
Additionally, Rule 6.49 prevents an OTP or person associated with an
OTP, who has knowledge of an originating order, a solicited order, or a
facilitation order, to enter, based on such knowledge, an order to buy
or sell an option on the underlying securities of any option that is
the subject of the order, an order to buy or sell the security
underlying any option that is the subject of the order, or any order to
buy or sell any related instrument unless certain circumstances are
met.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Rule 6.49(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \15\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \16\ in particular, in that it is 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market by
adopting a principles-based approach to permit an OTP operating an LMM
to maintain and enforce policies and procedures to, among other things,
prohibit the misuse of material non-public information and eliminating
restrictions on how an OTP structures it LMM operations. The Exchange
notes that the proposed rule change is based on an approved rule of the
Exchange to which LMMs are already subject--Rule 11.3--and harmonizes
the rules governing LMMs and Market Makers. Moreover, OTPs operating
LMMs would continue to be subject to federal and Exchange requirements
for protecting material non-public order information.\17\ The Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market because it would
harmonize the Exchange's approach to protecting against the misuse of
material nonpublic information and no longer subject LMMs to additional
requirements. The Exchange does not believes that the existing
requirements applicable to LMMs are narrowly tailored to their
respective roles because neither market participant has access to
Exchange trading information in a manner different from any other
market participant on the Exchange and they do not have agency
responsibilities to the Consolidated Book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See 15 U.S.C. 78o(g) and Rule 11.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further believes the proposal is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices and to promote just and
equitable principles of trade because existing rules make clear to LMMs
and OTPs the type of conduct that is prohibited by the Exchange. While
the proposal eliminates requirements relating to the misuse of material
non-public information, LMMs and OTPs would remain subject to existing
Exchange rules requiring them to establish and maintain systems to
supervise their activities, and to create, implement, and maintain
written procedures that are reasonably designed to comply with
applicable securities laws and Exchange rules, including the
prohibition on the misuse of material, nonpublic information.
    The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change would still
require that OTPs operating LMMs maintain and enforce policies and
procedures reasonably designed to ensure compliance with applicable
federal securities laws and regulations and with Exchange rules. Even
though there would no longer be pre-approval of LMM information
barriers, any LMM written policies and procedures would continue to be
subject to oversight by the Exchange and therefore the elimination of
prescribed restrictions should not reduce the effectiveness of the
Exchange rules to protect against the misuse of material non-public
information. Rather, OTPs will be able to utilize a flexible,
principles-based approach to modify their policies and procedures as
appropriate to reflect changes to their business model, business
activities, or to the securities market itself. Moreover, while
specified information barriers may no longer be required, an OTP's
business model or business activities may dictate that an information
barrier or functional separation be part of the appropriate set of
policies and procedures that would be reasonably designed to achieve
compliance with applicable securities laws and regulations, and with
applicable Exchange rules. The Exchange therefore believes that the
proposed rule change will maintain the existing protection of investors
and the public interest that is currently applicable to LMMs, while at
the same time removing impediments to and perfecting a free and open
market by moving to a principles-based approach to protect against the
misuse of material non-public information.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\18\ the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden
on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the Exchange believes that
the proposal will enhance competition by allowing Market Makers to
comply with applicable Exchange

rules in a manner best suited to their business models, business
activities, and the securities markets, thus reducing regulatory
burdens while still ensuring compliance with applicable securities laws
and regulations and Exchange rules. The Exchange believes that the
proposal will foster a fair and orderly marketplace without being
overly burdensome upon Market Makers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would
eliminate a burden on competition for OTPs which currently exists as a
result of disparate rule treatment between the options and equities
markets regarding how to protect against the misuse of material non-
public information. For those OTPs that are also members of equity
exchanges, their respective equity market maker operations are now
subject to a principles-based approach to protecting against the misuse
of material non-public information.\19\ The Exchange believes it would
remove a burden on competition to enable OTPs to similarly apply a
principles-based approach to protecting against the misuse of material
nonpublic information in the options space. To this end, the Exchange
notes that Rule 11.3 still requires an OTP that operates as a Market
Maker on the Exchange, including an LMM, to evaluate its business to
assure that its policies and procedures are reasonably designed to
protect against the misuse of material nonpublic information. However,
with this proposed rule change, an OTP that trades equities and options
could look at its firm more holistically to structure its operations in
a manner that provides it with better tools to manage its risks across
multiple security classes, while at the same time protecting against
the misuse of material non-public information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 60604 (Sept. 2,
2009), 76 FR 46272 (Sept. 8, 2009) (SR-NYSEArca-2009-78) (Order
approving elimination of NYSE Arca rule that required market makers
to establish and maintain specifically prescribed information
barriers, including discussion of NYSE Arca and Nasdaq rules)
(``Arca Approval Order''); 61574 (Feb. 23, 2010), 75 FR 9455 (Mar.
2, 2010) (SR-BATS-2010-003) (Order approving amendments to BATS Rule
5.5 to move to a principles-based approach to protecting against the
misuse of material, non-public information, and noting that the
proposed change is consistent with the approaches of NYSE Arca and
Nasdaq) (``BATS Approval Order''); and 72534 (July 3, 2014), 79 FR
39440 (July 10, 2014), SR-NYSE-2014-12) (Order approving amendments
to NYSE Rule 98 governing designated market makers to move to a
principles-based approach to prohibit the misuse of material non-
public information) (``NYSE Approval Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \20\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\21\
Because the 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 prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \22\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2015-106 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2015-106. 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 20549-1090, on official business days between the hours
of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be available
for inspection and copying at the NYSE's principal office and on its
Internet Web site at www.nyse.com. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2015-106 and should be submitted on or before
December 7, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-28864 Filed 11-13-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 26, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24887-24888]
[FR Doc No: E9-12253]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

In the Matter of Nanosignal Corp., Inc. (n/k/a Nano Global,
Inc.), National Micronetics, Inc., NetVoice Technologies Corp., Network
Access Solutions Corp., Network Plus Corp., The New Anaconda Co., New
York Regional Rail Corp., NewCom International, Inc. (n/k/a Sino
Express Travel Ltd.), NewKidCo International, Inc., NexGen Vision,
Inc., and Noel Group, Inc.; Order of Suspension of Trading

May 21, 2009.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information

concerning the securities of Nanosignal Corp., Inc. (n/k/a Nano Global,
Inc.) because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period
ended September 30, 2004.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
National Micronetics, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended March 31, 2000.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
NetVoice Technologies Corp. because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended June 30, 2001.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Network Access Solutions Corp. because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended March 31, 2002.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Network Plus Corp. because it has not filed any periodic reports since
the period ended September 30, 2001.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
The New Anaconda Co. because it has not filed any periodic reports
since the period ended December 31, 2000.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
New York Regional Rail Corp. because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended September 30, 2005.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
NewCom International, Inc. (n/k/a Sino Express Travel Ltd.) because it
has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended September 30,
2003.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
NewKidCo International, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended December 31, 2001.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
NexGen Vision, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since
the period ended June 30, 2003.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Noel Group, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since
the period ended June 30, 1999.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed companies.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the
above-listed companies is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT
on May 21, 2009, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on June 4, 2009.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-12253 Filed 5-21-09; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 222 (Monday, November 22, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66229-66231]
[FR Doc No: 2021-25341]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-1010; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-00807-G]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Stemme AG Gliders

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain Stemme AG TSA-M Model S6 and S6-RT gliders. This proposed
AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI) issued by the aviation authority of another country to identify
and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI
describes the unsafe condition as a new version of the propeller
gearbox tooth belt with a reduced life limit. This proposed AD would
require establishing a life limit of 5 years for certain propeller
gearbox tooth belts. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 6,
2022.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact STEMME AG,
Flugplatzstrasse F2, Nr. 6-7, D-15344 Strausberg, Germany; phone: +49
(0) 3341 3612-0; fax: +49 (0) 3341 3612-30; email:
[email protected]; website: https://www.stemme.com. You may view
this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section,
Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816)
329-4148.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-1010; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this NPRM, the MCAI,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
Docket Operations is listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Rutherford, Aviation Safety
Engineer, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section, International
Validation Branch, FAA, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, MO 64106;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2021-1010; Project Identifier
MCAI-2020-00807-G'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the

following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Jim
Rutherford, Aviation Safety Engineer, General Aviation & Rotorcraft
Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 901 Locust, Room 301,
Kansas City, MO 64106. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is
not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket
for this rulemaking.

Background

    The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the
Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued
EASA AD 2020-0140, dated June 23, 2020 (referred to after this as ``the
MCAI''), to address an unsafe condition on Stemme AG (Stemme) TSA-M
Model S6 and S6-RT powered sailplanes (gliders) and ASP S15-1
airplanes. The MCAI states:

    The airworthiness limitations for Stemme TSA-M powered
sailplanes and Stemme ASP aeroplanes, which are approved by EASA,
are currently defined and published in Chapter 4 of the applicable
AMM [aircraft maintenance manual]. These instructions have been
identified as mandatory for continued airworthiness.
    Failure to accomplish these instructions could result in an
unsafe condition.
    During a regular incoming part inspection at Stemme, the
supplier delivered a new version of the tooth belts used in the
propeller gearbox. The new part (with marking ``Carbon'') deviates
from the previously used part (with marking ``Extreme'') by its
layer build up. The new tooth belt has been found airworthy,
although with a reduced life limit.
    Before Stemme identified the issue, new tooth belts were
delivered, identified as Part Number (P/N) 830.185, the same as the
previous part. These parts have to be identified by inspection,
changed to P/N 832.502, and the reduced life limit implemented.
    Consequently, Stemme issued the applicable ALS [airworthiness
limitations section] introducing the new life limit for the new
part. Stemme also issued the SB [service bulletin] providing
additional instructions on relevant inspections and corrective
actions.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-
time inspection of the propeller gearbox tooth belts, and, depending
on findings, re-identification. This [EASA] AD also requires
implementation of the reduced life limit by accomplishment of the
actions specified in the applicable ALS.

    After issuance of the MCAI, EASA approved extending the life limit
of the new ``Synchroforce Carbon'' belt to 5 years, the same as the
original ``Extreme'' belt, as documented by Stemme in Revision 15 to
the AMM Chapter 04 ALS.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-
1010.

Related Service Information

    The FAA reviewed Stemme Service Bulletin (SB) Doc. No. P062-980049,
Revision 00, dated May 27, 2020. This SB specifies identifying the
front propeller gearbox tooth belt, revising the AMM and illustrated
parts catalogue, and introducing a life limit for the propeller gearbox
tooth belt marked ``Synchroforce Carbon.''

FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it
has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM
after determining the unsafe condition described previously is likely
to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would establish a life limit of 5 years for the
affected propeller gearbox tooth belt.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service
Information

    The MCAI applies to Stemme AG Model ASP S15-1 airplanes, and this
proposed AD would not because that model does not have an FAA type
certificate.
    The MCAI requires an inspection to determine whether the propeller
gearbox tooth belts are ``Synchroforce Carbon'' or ``Extreme.'' This
proposed AD would not require this inspection because instead, it would
apply only to gliders with a ``Synchroforce Carbon'' propeller gearbox
tooth belt installed.
    The MCAI requires revising the existing aircraft maintenance
program (AMP) to introduce the reduced life limit for the affected
propeller gearbox tooth belt, as well as other life limits, as
specified in the Temporary Revision to the aircraft maintenance manual
airworthiness limitations section (ALS). After the AMP is revised, the
MCAI does not require recording AD compliance on a continued basis each
time a task in the revised AMP is performed. Because the AMP is not
required for U.S. operators and the ALS specified in the MCAI includes
additional tasks that do not address the unsafe condition, this
proposed AD would establish a life limit for the affected propeller
gearbox tooth belt by requiring that it be removed from service after 5
years. Operators would be required to record AD compliance each time an
affected propeller gearbox tooth belt reaches its life limit and is
replaced.
    Stemme SB Doc. No. P062-980049, Revision 00, dated May 27, 2020,
requires reporting information to Stemme AG, and this proposed AD would
not.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 3 gliders of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates that it would take
4 work hours to replace the propeller gearbox tooth belt and require a
part costing $300. The average labor rate is $85 per work hour. Based
on these figures, the FAA estimates the cost to replace the propeller
gearbox tooth belt on U.S. operators to be $1,920 or $640 per glider,
every 5 years.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil

aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices,
methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in
air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or
develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Stemme AG: Docket No. FAA-2021-1010; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-
00807-G.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by January 6, 2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Stemme AG TSA-M Model S6 and S6-RT gliders,
all serial numbers, certificated in any category, with a propeller
gearbox tooth belt marked ``Synchroforce Carbon'' installed.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 6100, Propeller
System.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) issued by the aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as a new version of
the propeller gearbox tooth belt with a reduced life limit. The FAA
is issuing this AD to prevent a propeller gearbox tooth belt
remaining in service beyond its fatigue life. The unsafe condition,
if not addressed, could result in failure of the propeller gearbox
tooth belt and reduced control of the glider.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Required Actions

    Before the propeller gearbox tooth belt accumulates 5 years
since installation on a glider or within 30 days after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs later, and thereafter at intervals
not to exceed 5 years, remove the propeller gearbox tooth belt from
service and install a propeller gearbox tooth belt with zero hours
time-in-service.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

(i) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Jim Rutherford,
Aviation Safety Engineer, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section,
International Validation Branch, FAA, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas
City, MO 64106; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].
    (2) Refer to European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2020-0140, dated June 23, 2020, for more information. You may
examine the EASA AD in the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2021-1010.

    Issued on November 15, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-25341 Filed 11-19-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P