Hyattsville, Maryland.
Needleman, H. L., Leviton, A., Bellinger, D. (1982) Lead-associated
intellectual deficit [letter]. N. Engl. J. Med. 306: 367.
O'Rourke, M. K., Van De Water, P. K., Jin, S., Rogan, S. P., Weiss,
A. D., Gordon, S. M., Moschandreas, D. M., Lebowitz, M. D. (1999)
Evaluations of primary metals from NHEXAS Arizona: distributions and
preliminary exposures. J. Exp. Anal. Environ. Epidemiol. 9: 435-444.
Purdue, L.J. Use of the High-Volume Sampler for the Determination of
Lead in Ambient Air. September 9, 1988. Memorandum. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-
0735.
Rabinowitz, M. and Needleman, H.L. (1983) Petrol Lead sales and
umbilical cord blood lead levels in Boston, Massachusetts [Letter].
Lancet 1(8314/5:63.
Rice, D.C. (1996) Behavioral effects of lead: commonalities between
experimental and epidemiologic data. Environ. Health Persp. 104
(Suppl 2): 337-351.
Rice, J. (2007) Review of Method Detection Limits for Pb-TSP Federal
Reference Methods and Federal Equivalent Methods. Memorandum to the
Lead NAAQS Review Docket. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0735.
Rothenberg, S.J., Rothenberg, J.C. (2005) Testing the dose-response
specification in epidemiology: public health aand policy
consequences for lead. Environ. Health Perspect. 113: 1190-1195.
Schwartz, J., and Pitcher, H. (1989) The relationship between
gasoline lead and blood lead in the United States. J Official
Statistics 5(4):421-431.
Schwemberger, M. S., Mosby J. E., Doa, M. J., Jacobs, D. E., Ashley,
P. J., Brody, D. J., Brown, M. J., Jones, R. L., Homa, D. May 27,
2005 Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report 54(20):513-516.
Slob, W., Moerbeek, M., Rauniomaa, E., Piersma , A. H. (2005) A
statistical evaluation of toxicity study designs for the estimation
of the benchmark dose in continuous endpoints. Toxicol. Sci. 84:
167-185.
T[eacute]llez-Rojo, M. M., Bellinger, D. C., Arroyo-Quiroz, C.,
Lamadrid-Figueroa, H., Mercado-Garc[iacute]a, A., Schnaas-Arrieta,
L., Wright, R. O., Hern[aacute]ndez-Avila, M., Hu, H. (2006)
Longitudinal associations between blood lead concentrations <  10
[mu]g/dL and neurobehavioral development in environmentally-exposed
children in Mexico City. Pediatrics 118: e323-e330.
Thomas, V. M., Socolow, R. H., Fanelli, J. J., Spiro, T. G. (1999)
Effects of reducing lead in gasoline: an analysis of the
international experience. Environ. Sci. Technol. 33: 3942-3948.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2006. American Housing Survey for the United
States: 2005. Current Housing Reports, Series H150/05. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1977) Air quality criteria
for lead. Research Triangle Park, NC: Health Effects Research
Laboratory, Criteria and Special Studies Office; EPA report no. EPA-
600/8-77-017. Available from: NTIS, Springfield, VA; PB-280411.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (1984) Ambient Water
Quality Criteria for Lead--1984. Washington, DC: Office of Water
Regulations and Standards, Criteria and Standards Division. EPA 440/
5-B4-027.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1986a) Air quality criteria
for lead. Research Triangle Park, NC: Office of Health and
Environmental Assessment, Environmental Criteria and Assessment
Office; EPA report no. EPA-600/8-83/028aF-dF. 4v. Available from:
NTIS, Springfield, VA; PB87-142378.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1986b) Lead effects on
cardiovascular function, early development, and stature: an addendum
to U.S. EPA Air Quality Criteria for Lead (1986). In: Air quality
criteria for lead, v. 1. Research Triangle Park, NC: Office of
Health and Environmental Assessment, Environmental Criteria and
Assessment Office; pp. A1-A67; EPA report no. EPA-600/8-83/028aF.
Available from: NTIS, Springfield, VA; PB87-142378.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1989) Review of the national
ambient air quality standards for lead: Exposure analysis
methodology and validation: OAQPS staff report. Research Triangle
Park, NC: Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards; report no.
EPA-450/2-89/011. Available on the web: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pb/data/rnaaqsl_eamv.pdf
.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1990a) Air quality criteria
for lead: supplement to the 1986 addendum. Research Triangle Park,
NC: Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Environmental
Criteria and Assessment

Office; report no. EPA/600/8-89/049F. Available from: NTIS,
Springfield, VA; PB91-138420.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1990b) Review of the national
ambient air quality standards for lead: assessment of scientific and
technical information: OAQPS staff paper. Research Triangle Park,
NC: Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards; report no. EPA-
450/2-89/022. Available from: NTIS, Springfield, VA; PB91-206185.
Available on the Web: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pb/data/rnaaqsl_asti.pdf
.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1991) U.S. EPA Strategy for
Reducing Lead Exposure. Available from U.S. EPA Headquarters
Library/Washington, DC. (Library Code EJBD; Item Call Number: EAP
100/1991.6; OCLC Number 2346675).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1998) Methodology for
Assessing Health Risks Associated with Multiple Pathways of Exposure
to Combustor Emissions. Cincinnati, OH: Update to EPA/600/6-90/003,
EPA/NCEA (EPA 600/R-98/137). Available at oaspub.epa.gov/eims/
eimscomm.getfile?p--download--id=427339.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2003) Framework for
Cumulative Risk Assessment. Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC,
EPA/630/P-02/001F. May.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2005a) Project Work Plan for
Revised Air Quality Criteria for Lead. Research Triangle Park, NC:
National Center for Environmental Assessment-RTP Report no. NCEA-R-
1465. CASAC Review Draft.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2005b) Air Quality Criteria
for Lead (First External Review Draft). Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-
05/144aA-bA. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2005c) Review of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter: Policy
Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information, OAQPS Staff
Paper. EPA-452/R-05-005a. Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2005d) Guidance for
Developing Ecological Soil Screening Levels. Washington, DC: Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. OSWER Directive 9285.7-55.
November.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2005e) Ecological Soil
Screening Levels for Lead, Interim Final. Washington, DC: Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response. OSWER Directive 9285.7-70.
Available at http://www.epa.gov/ecotox/ecossl/pdf/eco-ssl_lead.pdf.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2006a) Air Quality Criteria
for Lead. Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-5/144aF. Available online at:
http://www.epa.gov/ncea/.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2006b) Air Quality Criteria
for Lead (Second External Review Draft). Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-
05/144aB-bB. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2006c) Plan for Review of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead. Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC.
Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pb/s_pb_cr_pd.html
.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2006d) Analysis Plan for
Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment for the Review of the
Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. Available online
at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pb/s_pb_cr_pd.html.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2006e). Guidance on Systematic
Planning Using the Data Quality Objectives Process, EPA/240/B-06/
001. Available: http://www.epa.gov/quality/qs-docs/g4-final.pdf

(February 2006).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2007a) Lead Human Exposure
and Health Risk Assessments for Selected Case Studies (Draft Report)
Volume I. Human Exposure and Health Risk Assessments--Full-Scale and
Volume II. Appendices. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA-452/D-07-001a and EPA-452/D-07-001b.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2007b) Lead: Human Exposure
and Health Risk Assessments for Selected Case Studies, Volume I.
Human Exposure and Health Risk Assessments--Full-Scale and Volume
II. Appendices. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA-452/R-07-014a and EPA-452/R-07-014b.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2007c) Review of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead: Policy Assessment of
Scientific and Technical Information, OAQPS Staff Paper. EPA-452/R-
07-013. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research
Triangle Park.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2007d) Review of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: Policy Assessment of
Scientific and Technical Information, OAQPS Staff Paper. EPA-452/R-
07-007. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research
Triangle Park.
U.S. Geological Survey. (2004) National Water Quality Assessment
Program. Available at http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/data.

Wedding, J.B.; McFarland, A.R.; Cermak, J.E. (1977) Large Particle
Collection Characteristics of Ambient Aerosol Samplers. Environ.
Sci. Technol. 11: 387-390.
Weiss, B. (1988) Neurobehavioral toxicity as a basis for risk
assessment. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 9: 59-62.
Weiss, B. (1990) Risk assessment: the insidious nature of
neurotoxicity and the aging brain. Neurotoxicology 11: 305-314.
World Health Organization. (2000) Air Quality Guidelines for Europe.
Chapter 6.7 Lead. WHO Regional Publications, European Series, No.
91. Copenhagen, Denmark.
Yohn, S.; Long, D.; Fett, J.; Patino, L. (2004) Regional versus
local influences on lead and cadmium loading to the Great Lakes
region. Appl. Geochem. 19: 1157-1175.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 50

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: December 5, 2007.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E7-23884 Filed 12-14-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 85 (Tuesday, May 3, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26610-26611]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10346]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Operations
Specifications, Part 129 Application

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew a previously approved
information collection. The FAA assesses the information collected and
issues operations specifications to foreign air carriers. These
operations specifications assure the foreign air carrier's ability to
navigate and communicate safely within the U.S. National Airspace
System.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by July 5, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ronda
Thompson, Room 441, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 950
L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ronda Thompson by email at:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0749.
    Title: Operations Specifications, Part 129 Application.
    Form Numbers: There are no FAA forms associated with this
collection.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: The final rule published in 2013, clarified and
standardized the rules for applications by foreign air carriers and
foreign persons for operations specifications issued under 14 CFR part
129 and established standards for amendment, suspension and termination
of those operations specifications. The final rule also applied to
foreign air carriers and foreign persons operating U.S.-registered
aircraft in common carriage solely outside the United States. This
action was necessary to update the process for issuing operations
specifications, and it established a regulatory basis for current
practices, such as amending, terminating, and suspending operations
specifications.
    Respondents: Approximately 25 new applicants annually.

    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 3 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 75 hours.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 27, 2016.
Ronda Thompson,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, Performance, Policy, and
Records Management Branch, ASP-110.
[FR Doc. 2016-10346 Filed 5-2-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 220 (Wednesday, November 14, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67764-67767]
[FR Doc No: 2012-27051]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-1181; Directorate Identifier 2003-CE-030-AD;
Amendment 39-17249; AD 2003-17-03 R1]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; PIAGGIO AERO INDUSTRIES S.p.A Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are revising an existing airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A. Model P-180 airplanes. That AD
currently requires replacement of any firewall shutoff or crossfeed
valve with a serial number in a certain range even if it has been
previously modified. The way the applicability was written includes
valves that should not be affected and are not included in the
referenced service information. This AD requires

the same actions as the current AD, but only affects those firewall
shutoff valves referenced in the referenced service information. We are
issuing this AD to clarify the affected parts required to correct the
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective November 14, 2012.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain other publications listed in this AD as of
September 3, 2003 (68 FR 50693, August 22, 2003).
    We must receive any comments on this AD by December 31, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Piaggio Aero
Industries S.p.A--Airworthiness Office, Via Luigi Cibrario, 4-16154
Genova-Italy; phone: +39<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: +39<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://www.piaggioaero.com/#/en/aftersales/service-support. You may review copies of the referenced
service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust,
Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    On August 12, 2003, we issued AD 2003-17-03, amendment 39-13277 (68
FR 50693, August 22, 2003), for certain Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A.
Model P-180 airplanes. That AD requires inspection and determination of
whether any firewall shutoff or crossfeed valve with a serial number in
a certain range is installed and requires replacement or modifications
of any valve that has a serial number within this range. This AD allows
the pilot to check the logbook and does not require the inspection and
replacement requirement if the check shows that one of these valves is
definitely not installed.
    That AD resulted from a ground fire on the left-hand engine nacelle
of one of the affected airplanes caused by a cracked firewall crossfeed
valve that had leaked fuel. This airplane model is manufactured in
Italy and is type certificated for operation in the United States under
the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations.
The Ente Nazionale per l'Aviazione Civile (ENAC), which is the
airworthiness authority for Italy, issued Italian RAI-AD 2003-119,
dated April 3, 2003, in order to ensure the continued airworthiness of
these airplanes in Italy.
    We issued that AD to prevent a faulty firewall shutoff or crossfeed
valve from developing cracks and leaking fuel, which could result in an
engine fire.

Actions Since AD Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 2003-17-03 (68 FR 50693, August 22, 2003), we
learned that the way the applicability was written includes valves that
should not be affected and are not included in PIAGGIO Aero Industries
S.p.A. Service Bulletin No. ASB80-0191, dated February 27, 2003.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed PIAGGIO Aero Industries S.p.A. Service Bulletin (SB)
No. ASB80-0191, dated February 27, 2003; and Electromech Technologies
SB 484-3 AB, dated February 18, 2003. The service information describes
procedures for replacing/modifying the firewall and crossfeed valves.

FAA's Determination

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

AD Requirements

    This AD requires the same actions as AD 2003-17-03 (68 FR 50693,
August 22, 2003), but only affects those firewall shutoff and crossfeed
valves referenced in PIAGGIO Aero Industries S.p.A. SB No. ASB80-0191,
dated February 27, 2003.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies
waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because the
current AD includes firewall shutoff and crossfeed valves that should
not be affected by the required actions. Therefore, we find that notice
and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary and that good
cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to
provide your comments before it becomes effective. However, we invite
you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send
your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include
the docket number FAA-2012-1181 and directorate identifier 2003-CE-030-
AD at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments
on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects
of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date
and may amend this AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 102 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per   Cost on U.S.
               Action                        Labor cost              Parts cost         product      operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Determination/Inspection............  .5 work-hours x $85 per  N/A...................     $42.50          $4,335
                                       hour = $42.50.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements/
modifications that would be required based on the results of the
determination. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft
that might need these replacements:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                  Action                            Labor cost                    Parts cost            product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement of affected firewall shutoff   29 work-hours x $85 per hour  $4,482......................     $6,947
 and crossfeed valves.                      = $2,465.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will 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 that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (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 removing airworthiness directive (AD)
2003-17-03, Amendment 39-13277 (68 FR 50693, August 22, 2003), and
adding the following new AD:

2003-17-03 R1 PIAGGIO AERO INDUSTRIES S.p.A: Amendment 39-17249;
Docket No. FAA-2012-1181; Directorate Identifier 2003-CE-030-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective November 14, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD revises AD 2003-17-03, Amendment 39-13277 (68 FR 50693,
August 22, 2003).

(c) Applicability

    (1) This AD applies to PIAGGIO AERO INDUSTRIES S.p.A Model P-180
airplanes, all serial numbers, that are:
    (i) certificated in any category; and
    (ii) equipped with a firewall shutoff or crossfeed valve that is
identified in the Effectivity table of PIAGGIO Aero Industries
S.p.A. Service Bulletin (SB) No. ASB80-0191, dated February 27,
2003.
    (2) The only difference between the applicability of this AD and
AD 2003-17-03 (68 FR 50693, August 22, 2003), is that AD 2003-17-03
applied to firewall shutoff and crossfeed valves that should not
have been included.
    (i) No further action is necessary if the actions of this AD
were done in compliance with AD 2003-17-03, Amendment 39-13277 (68
FR 50693, August 22, 2003).
    (ii) Any firewall shutoff or crossfeed valve that was modified
per AD 2003-17-03 (68 FR 50693, August 22, 2003), and re-identified
with an ``A'' at the end of the serial number and is not identified
in the Effectivity table of PIAGGIO Aero Industries S.p.A. SB No.
ASB80-0191, dated February 27, 2003, is an airworthy part and is not
affected by this AD.

 (d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 28: Fuel.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of a ground fire on the left-
hand engine nacelle of one of the affected airplanes caused by a
cracked firewall crossfeed valve that had leaked fuel. We are
issuing this AD to clarify the affected parts required to correct
the unsafe condition on these products.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Records Check

    (1) Within 5 days after September 3, 2003 (the effective date of
AD 2003-17-03 (68 FR 50693, August 22, 2003)), check the maintenance
records to determine whether a firewall shutoff or crossfeed valve
that is affected by this AD is installed. The owner/operator holding
at least a private pilot certificate as authorized by section 43.7
of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.7) may perform this
check.
    (2) If, by checking the maintenance records, the owner/operator
can definitely

show that no affected firewall shutoff or crossfeed valve is
installed, then the inspection requirement of paragraph (h) of this
AD and the replacement requirement of paragraph (i) of this AD do
not apply. You must make an entry into the aircraft records that
shows compliance with these portions of the AD in accordance with
section 43.9 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.9).

(h) Inspection

    Within 5 days after September 3, 2003 (the effective date of AD
2003-17-03 (68 FR 50693, August 22, 2003)), inspect the three
firewall shutoff and crossfeed valves to determine whether they
incorporate a serial number as referenced in the Effectivity table
of PIAGGIO Aero Industries S.p.A. SB No. ASB80-0191, dated February
27, 2003.

(i) Replacement/Modification

    If any of the firewall shutoff or crossfeed valves that are
referenced in the Effectivity table of PIAGGIO Aero Industries
S.p.A. SB No. ASB80-0191, dated February 27, 2003, are found, before
further flight, replace or modify each affected valve following
PIAGGIO Aero Industries S.p.A. Service Bulletin (SB) No. ASB80-0191,
dated February 27, 2003; and Electromech Technologies SB 484-3 AB,
dated February 18, 2003.

(j) Spares

    As of 5 days after September 3, 2003 (the effective date of AD
2003-17-03 (68 FR 50693, August 22, 2003)), do not install, on any
airplane, a firewall shutoff or crossfeed valve that is referenced
in the Effectivity table of PIAGGIO Aero Industries S.p.A. SB No.
ASB80-0191, dated February 27, 2003, unless it has been modified per
paragraph (i) of this AD.

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Mike Kiesov, Aerospace
Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301,
Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (816)
329-4090; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
September 3, 2003 (68 FR 50693, August 22, 2003):
    (i) PIAGGIO Aero Industries S.p.A. Service Bulletin (SB) No.
ASB80-0191, dated February 27, 2003; and
    (ii) Electromech Technologies SB 484-3 AB, dated February 18,
2003.
    (4) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A-Airworthiness Office, Via Luigi
Cibrario, 4-16154 Genova-Italy; phone: +39<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: +39 010
6481881; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://www.piaggioaero.com/#/en/aftersales/service-support.
    (5) You may view this service information at FAA, Small Airplane
Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(816) 329-4148.
    (6) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on October 31, 2012.
Earl Lawrence,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-27051 Filed 11-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 242 (Friday, December 16, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 91216-91220]
[FR Doc No: 2016-30259]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79532; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2016-166]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend the Exchange's Transaction Fees at Chapter XV, Section 2

December 12, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on December 1, 2016, 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 the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's transaction fees at
Chapter XV, Section 2, entitled ``NASDAQ Options Market--Fees and
Rebates,'' which governs pricing for Nasdaq members using the NASDAQ
Options Market (``NOM''), Nasdaq's facility for executing and routing
standardized equity and index options. Nasdaq proposes to implement a
new rebate for adding liquidity for Customer and Professional orders in
Penny and Non-Penny Pilot Options as described further below.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://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 and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set

forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of
such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to create an alternative method for earning a
rebate for adding liquidity for both Customers \3\ and Professionals
\4\ in Penny Pilot \5\ and Non-Penny Pilot Options. For Customers and
Professionals transacting in Penny Pilot Options, the Exchange
currently pays a volume-based tiered rebate to add liquidity. That
rebate consists of 8 tiers, ranging from $0.20 per contract to $0.48
per contract, with the volume requirements increasing with each tier.
Thus, a NOM Participant would qualify for a rebate of $0.20 per
contract in Tier 1 for Customers and Professionals if it added
Customer, Professional, Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker and/or Broker-Dealer
liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options of up
to 0.10% of total industry customer equity and ETF option average daily
volume (``ADV'') contracts per day in a month. In comparison, a
Participant would qualify for a rebate of $0.48 in Tier 8 for Customers
and Professionals if it adds Customer, Professional, Firm, Non-NOM
Market Maker and/or Broker-Dealer liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/
or Non-Penny Pilot Options above 0.75% or more of total industry
customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month, or if
the Participant adds: (1) Customer and/or Professional liquidity in
Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options of 0.25% or more of
total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in
a month, and (2) has added liquidity in all securities through one or
more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs that represent 1.00% or more of
Consolidated Volume in a month or qualifies for MARS.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``Customer'' or (``C'') applies to any transaction
that is identified by a Participant for clearing in the Customer
range at The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') 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)).
    \4\ The term ``Professional'' or (``P'') 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.
    \5\ The Penny Pilot was established in March 2008. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57579 (March 28, 2008), 73 FR
18587 (April 4, 2008) (SR-NASDAQ-2008-026) (notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness establishing Penny Pilot). Since that date,
the Penny Pilot has been expanded and is currently extended through
December 31, 2016 or the date of permanent approval, if earlier. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78037 (June 10, 2016), 81 FR
39299 (June 16, 2016) (SR-NASDAQ-2016-052).
    \6\ MARS refers to the Market Access and Routing Subsidy, which
is set forth in Chapter XV, Section 6 [sic]. The MARS payment
comprises four volume-based tiers, and is paid to NOM Participants
that route eligible contracts to NOM through a participating NOM
Participant's System. The MARS Payment will be paid on all executed
Eligible Contracts that add liquidity. See Chapter XV, Section 6
[sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, Customers and Professionals transacting in Non-Penny
Pilot Options on NOM receive a $0.80 per contract Rebate to Add
Liquidity. In addition, a Participant that qualifies for a Customer or
Professional Penny Pilot Options Rebate to Add Liquidity in Tiers 2, 3,
4, 5 or 6 in a month will receive an additional $0.10 per contract Non-
Penny Pilot Options Rebate to Add Liquidity for each transaction which
adds liquidity in Non-Penny Pilot Options in that month. Furthermore, a
Participant that qualifies for a Customer or Professional Penny Pilot
Options Rebate to Add Liquidity in Tiers 7 or 8 in a month will receive
an additional $0.20 per contract Non-Penny Pilot Options Rebate to Add
Liquidity for each transaction which adds liquidity in Non-Penny Pilot
Options in that month.
    The Exchange now proposes to add an additional rebate to Customers
and Professionals for adding liquidity in both Penny Pilot and Non-
Penny Pilot Options. Specifically, a NOM Participant will receive a
$0.53 per contract Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options as a
Customer or Professional, and $1.00 per contract Rebate to Add
Liquidity in Non-Penny Pilot Options as a Customer or Professional, if
that NOM Participant transacts on the NASDAQ Stock Market through one
or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs in the same month, and such
transactions in all securities on the NASDAQ Stock Market that month
through all of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs represent 3.00% or more
of Consolidated Volume.\7\ Participants that qualify for this rebate
would not be eligible for any other rebates in Tiers 1-8 or other
rebate incentives on NOM for Customer and Professional order flow in
Chapter XV, Section 2(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Consolidated Volume would be determined as set forth in
Nasdaq Rule 7018(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For purposes of calculating the NOM Participant's total volume, the
Exchange will add the NOM Participant's total volume transacted on the
NASDAQ Stock Market in a given month across its Nasdaq Market Center
MPIDs, and will divide this number by the total industry Consolidated
Volume.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\8\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and issuers and other persons using any facility, and is
not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation
NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market
model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005),
70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Likewise, in NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission
\11\ (``NetCoalition'') the D.C. Circuit upheld the Commission's use of
a market-based approach in evaluating the fairness of market data fees
against a challenge claiming that Congress mandated a cost-based
approach.\12\ As the court emphasized, the Commission ``intended in
Regulation NMS that `market forces, rather than regulatory
requirements' play a role in determining the market data . . . to be
made available to investors and at what cost.''\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
    \12\ See NetCoalition, at 534-535.
    \13\ Id. at 537.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, ``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is
`fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market
system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that
act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of
where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to
take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange
possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of
order flow from broker

dealers'. . . .'' \14\ Although the court and the SEC were discussing
the cash equities markets, the Exchange believes that these views apply
with equal force to the options markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Id. at 539 (quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No.
59039 (December 2, 2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008)
(SR-NYSEArca-2006-21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the purpose of the proposed rebates is to
incentivize NOM Participants to transact greater volume on the NASDAQ
Stock Market in order to qualify for a higher rebate on NOM. The
Exchange believes that the amount of the rebate ($0.53 per contract for
Penny Pilot Options and $1.00 per contract for Non-Penny Pilot Options)
and the volume threshold for qualifying for the rebate (3.00% or more
of Consolidated Volume) are reasonable. With respect to the rebate for
Penny Pilot Options, the Exchange notes that the proposed $0.53 per
contract rebate is the same as the highest rebate currently available
to Customers and Professionals for adding liquidity in Penny Pilot
Options.\15\ The Exchange believes the proposed rebate of $0.53 per
contract is reasonable when compared to the highest rebate currently
available to Customers and Professionals for adding liquidity in Penny
Pilot Options, as the proposed rebate imposes comparable requirements
on NOM Participants in order to qualify for that rebate. Similarly, the
Exchange believes the proposed $1.00 rebate per contract for Non-Penny
Pilot Options is reasonable because it is comparable to the rebates
that a NOM Participant currently receives for adding liquidity in Non-
Penny Pilot Options as a Customer or Professional, which range from
$0.80 per contract to $1.00 per contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ As noted above, a NOM Participant will receive a rebate of
$0.48 per contract for adding liquidity as a Customer or
Professional in Penny Pilot Options if it qualifies for Tier 8. In
addition, as noted in footnote c of Chapter XV, Section 2, a NOM
Participant may receive an additional rebate of up to $0.05 per
contract in Penny Pilot Options, for a total rebate of $0.53 per
contract. Specifically, Participants that: (1) Add Customer,
Professional, Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker and/or Broker-Dealer
liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non- Penny Pilot Options of
1.15% or more of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV
contracts per day in a month will receive an additional $0.02 per
contract Penny Pilot Options Customer and/or Professional Rebate to
Add Liquidity for each transaction which adds liquidity in Penny
Pilot Options in that month; or (2) add Customer, Professional,
Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker and/or Broker-Dealer liquidity in Penny
Pilot Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options of 1.30% or more of
total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day
in a month will receive an additional $0.05 per contract Penny Pilot
Options Customer and/or Professional Rebate to Add Liquidity for
each transaction which adds liquidity in Penny Pilot Options in that
month; or (3)(a) add Customer, Professional, Firm, Non-NOM Market
Maker and/or Broker-Dealer liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or
Non-Penny Pilot Options above 0.80% of total industry customer
equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month, (b) add
Customer, Professional, Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker and/or Broker-
Dealer liquidity in Non-Penny Pilot Options above 0.15% of total
industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a
month, and (c) execute greater than 0.04% of Consolidated Volume
(``CV'') via Market-on-Close/Limit-on-Close (``MOC/LOC'') volume
within the NASDAQ Stock Market Closing Cross within a month will
receive an additional $0.05 per contract Penny Pilot Options
Customer and/or Professional Rebate to Add Liquidity for each
transaction which adds liquidity in Penny Pilot Options in a month.
Consolidated Volume shall mean the total consolidated volume
reported to all consolidated transaction reporting plans by all
exchanges and trade reporting facilities during a month in equity
securities, excluding executed orders with a size of less than one
round lot. For purposes of calculating Consolidated Volume and the
extent of an equity member's trading activity, expressed as a
percentage of or ratio to Consolidated Volume, the date of the
annual reconstitution of the Russell Investments Indexes shall be
excluded from both total Consolidated Volume and the member's
trading activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the requirement that a NOM Participant
transact 3.00% or more in Consolidated Volume on the NASDAQ Stock
Market is reasonable because this requirement, while more stringent
than other volume-based requirements that currently apply to NOM
Participants that transact as Customers or Professionals in Penny Pilot
and Non-Penny Pilot Options, reflects the fact that NOM Participants
that qualify for this rebate would generally receive a larger rebate
(for Penny Pilot Options, $0.53 per contract versus $0.20-$0.53 per
contract and, for Non-Penny Pilot Options, $1.00 per contract versus
$0.80-$1.00 per contract) than they would currently receive for
transactions as Customer or Professionals in Penny Pilot and Non-Penny
Pilot Options.
    The Exchange believes it is reasonable to make this rebate
exclusive of any other rebates in Tiers 1-8 or other rebate incentives
on NOM for Customer and Professional order flow in Chapter XV, Section
2(1). As noted above, the proposed rebates are generally higher, and in
some cases significantly higher, than the rebates that a NOM
Participant may currently receive for adding liquidity in Penny Pilot
and Non-Penny Pilot Options as a Customer or Professional. Given the
size of the proposed rebates, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to
make these rebates exclusive of other rebates on NOM for Customer and
Professional order flow.
    The Exchange also believes the other aspects of this proposal are
also reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. First, the
Exchange notes that the proposed rebates apply to both transactions in
Penny Pilot and Non-Penny Pilot Options.
    Second, the Exchange believes that linking rebates on NOM to
activity on the NASDAQ Stock Market is reasonable, equitable, and not
unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange notes that previous and current
rebates offered by NOM relate to activity on the NASDAQ Stock
Market.\16\ Similarly, the NASDAQ Stock Market offers reduced
transaction fees that are based on activity on NOM.\17\ Moreover, the
Exchange notes that any NOM Options Participant may trade equities on
the NASDAQ Stock Market because they are approved members.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ For example, in SR-NASDAQ-2015-047, the Exchange proposed
to make NOM Participants that added liquidity in Penny Pilot Stocks
[sic] as a Customer or Professional eligible for the Tier 8 rebate
if, among other things, the Participant has certified for the
Investor Support Program set forth in Rule 7014, or if the
Participant qualified for rebates under the Qualified Market Maker
(``QMM'') Program set forth in Rule 7014. See Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 74931 (May 12, 2015), 80 FR 28308 (May 18, 2015)
(SR-NASDAQ-2015-047).
    Currently, footnote c of the NOM fee schedule provides that
Participants that (1) add Customer, Professional, Firm, Non-NOM
Market Maker and/or Broker-Dealer liquidity in Penny Pilot Options
and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options above 0.80% of total industry
customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month, (2)
add Customer, Professional, Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker and/or
Broker-Dealer liquidity in Non-Penny Pilot Options above 0.15% of
total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day
in a month, and (3) execute greater than 0.04% of Consolidated
Volume (``CV'') via Market-on-Close/Limit-on-Close (``MOC/LOC'')
volume within the NASDAQ Stock Market Closing Cross within a month
will receive an additional $0.05 per contract Penny Pilot Options
Customer and/or Professional Rebate to Add Liquidity for each
transaction which adds liquidity in Penny Pilot Options in a month.
    \17\ For example, Nasdaq charges a reduced transaction fee of
$0.00295 if the member adds Customer, Professional, Firm, Non-NOM
Market Maker and/or Broker-Dealer liquidity in Penny Pilot Options
and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options of 1.15% or more of total industry
ADV in the customer clearing range for Equity and ETF option
contracts per day in a month on NOM. See Nasdaq Rule 7018.
    \18\ Although a NOM Participant may incur additional labor and/
or costs to establish connectivity to the NASDAQ Stock Market, there
are no additional membership fees for NOM Participants that want to
transact on the NASDAQ Stock Market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, while the requirements for qualifying for the proposed
rebates may be more stringent than other requirements for qualifying
for other rebates currently offered by NOM, the Exchange believes that
these requirements are proportionate to the amount of the proposed
rebates and equitably reflect the purpose of the proposed rebates,
which is to incentivize NOM Participants to transact greater volume on
the NASDAQ Stock Market. Moreover, all similarly-situated NOM
Participants, e.g., those that add liquidity in either Penny Pilot

or Non-Penny Pilot Options as either Customers or Professionals and
also transact on the NASDAQ Stock Market, are equally capable of
qualifying for the proposed rebates, and the same rebates will be paid
to all NOM Participants that qualify for them.
    Fourth, the Exchange believes that it is reasonable, equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory to offer this rebate to NOM Participants
that add liquidity as Customers or Professionals, and not to offer this
rebate to NOM Participants that add liquidity as Firms,\19\ NOM Market
Makers,\20\ non-NOM Market Makers, or Broker-Dealers.\21\ Nasdaq notes
that Customer liquidity offers unique benefits to the market which
benefits all market participants by providing more trading
opportunities, which attracts Specialists and Market Makers. An
increase in the activity of these market participants in turn
facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
The Exchange believes that encouraging Participants to add Professional
liquidity is similarly beneficial, as the rebates may cause market
participants to select NOM as a venue to send Professional order flow,
increasing competition among the exchanges. As with Customer liquidity,
the Exchange believes that increased Professional additional order flow
should benefit other market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The term ``Firm'' or (``F'') applies to any transaction
that is identified by a Participant for clearing in the Firm range
at OCC.
    \20\ The term ``NOM Market Maker'' or (``M'') is 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.
    \21\ The term ``Broker-Dealer'' or (``B'') applies to any
transaction which is not subject to any of the other transaction
fees applicable within a particular category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. In terms of inter-market
competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more
favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust
its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with
alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance
with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because
competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because
market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices,
the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this
market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rebates will impose
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate. The
Exchange notes that the purpose of the proposed rebate is to
incentivize NOM Participants to transact on the NASDAQ Stock Market.
All similarly-situated NOM Participants, e.g., those that add liquidity
in either Penny Pilot or Non-Penny Pilot Options as either Customers or
Professionals and also transact the requisite volumes on the NASDAQ
Stock Market, are equally capable of qualifying for the proposed
rebates. Additionally, the Exchange will pay the same rebates to all
NOM Participants that qualify for them. The Exchange believes that
Customer and Professional order flow provides unique benefits to all
participants on the Exchange and may even facilitate inter-market
competition, and is therefore offering the proposed rebates to NOM
Participants that add liquidity as either a Customer or a Professional
accordingly. With respect to linking the proposed rebates to a
participant's activity on the NASDAQ Stock Market, NOM currently offers
rebates that are based on activity on the NASDAQ Stock Market.
Similarly, the NASDAQ Stock Market currently offers reduced transaction
fees that are based on activity on NOM. Finally, because they are
approved members, any NOM Options Participant may trade equities on the
NASDAQ Stock Market and therefore attempt to qualify for the proposed
rebates.

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.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2016-166 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-NASDAQ-2016-166. 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-2016-166 and should be submitted on or before
January 6, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-30259 Filed 12-15-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 204 (Tuesday, October 24, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73056-73060]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23404]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98768; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2023-041]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Establish Purge Ports for Equities Trading

October 18, 2023.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on October 17, 2023, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to establish Purge Ports for equities
trading, as described below.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/nasdaq/rules, at
the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the

proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to establish a new port type, ``Purge
Port,'' which is a function enabling Exchange Participants (the
``Participants'') to cancel all open orders or a subset of open orders
(per MPID, buy or sell side of the order, or ticker symbol) across
multiple protocols through a single cancel message.\3\ The Exchange
also proposes to amend the Pricing Schedule in Equity 7, Section 3 to
set fees for Purge Ports and to waive the fees for the Purge Ports in
the Exchange's Test Facility for the first two months a Participant
uses them in the Test Facility. Finally, the Exchange proposes to make
functional enhancements to its Order entry protocols to include a
function enabling Participants to cancel, through a single cancel
message, all open orders or a subset of open orders (per MPID, buy or
sell side of the order, or ticker symbol) entered through that port
(the ``purging functionality''). The Exchange notes that its sister
exchange, Nasdaq PHLX, LLC, recently filed with the SEC a proposal to
adopt similar functionality and pricing.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Purge Ports will be available for RASH, FIX and OUCH
protocols.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-97825 (June 30,
2023); 88 FR 43405 (July 7, 2023) (SR-Phlx-2023-28).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A logical port represents a port established by the Exchange within
the Exchange's system for trading and billing purposes. Each logical
port grants a Participant the ability to accomplish a specific
function, such as order entry, order cancellation, access to execution
reports, and other administrative information.
    The proposed Purge Ports are designed to assist Participants,
including Market Makers,\5\ in the management of, and risk control
over, their orders, particularly if the firm is dealing with a large
number of securities. For example, if a Participant detects market
indications that may influence the execution potential of their orders,
the Participant may use the proposed Purge Ports to reduce uncertainty
and to manage risk by purging all orders in a number of securities.
This would allow the Participant to seamlessly avoid unintended
executions, while continuing to evaluate the market, their positions,
and their risk levels. While Purge Ports will be available to all
Participants, the Exchange anticipates they will be used primarily by
firms that conduct business activity that exposes them to a large
amount of risk across a number of securities. The proposed purging
functionality will operate similar to a Purge Port, by allowing a
Participant to purge all orders or a subset of open orders (per MPID,
buy or sell side of the order, or ticker symbol) open on that port. The
only material difference for a Participant, between relying on the
purging functionality as opposed to using a Purge Port, is that Purge
Port requires a Participant to send one message to accomplish desired
cancellation of orders or a subset thereof as described above, while
the purging functionality requires a Participant to send multiple
messages (which could be sent simultaneously) to accomplish the same
task.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Members seeking to become registered as an Exchange Market
Maker must comply with the applicable requirements of General 3,
Section 1. See Equity 2, Section 4.
    \6\ The Exchange expects the purging functionality to remain
substantially similar to Purge Ports, as described above, and would
offer the purging functionality as long as it offers Purge Ports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Participants may currently cancel individual orders through the
existing functionality of the RASH Order entry protocol,\7\ FIX Order
entry protocol \8\ and the OUCH Order entry protocol.\9\ In addition to
the current functionality, which is being retained, the Exchange now
proposes to expand the ability of Participants to cancel orders through
the new purge functionality, which would enable them to cancel all open
orders or a subset of open orders (per MPID, buy or sell side of the
order, or ticker symbol) entered through a single port; and through the
proposed Purge Ports, which would enable them to cancel all open
orders, or a subset of open orders (per MPID, buy or sell side of the
order, or ticker symbol) across multiple protocols through a single
cancel message.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The RASH Order entry protocol is a proprietary protocol that
allows members to enter Orders, cancel existing Orders and receive
executions. RASH allows participants to use advanced functionality,
including discretion, random reserve, pegging and routing.
    \8\ Financial Information eXchange (FIX) is a vendor-neutral
standard message protocol that defines an electronic message
exchange for communicating securities transactions between two
parties.
    \9\ The OUCH Order entry protocol is a proprietary protocol that
allows subscribers to quickly enter orders into the System and
receive executions. OUCH accepts limit Orders from members, and if
there are matching Orders, they will execute. Non-matching Orders
are added to the Limit Order Book, a database of available limit
Orders, where they are matched in price-time priority. OUCH only
provides a method for members to send Orders and receive status
updates on those Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that dedicated Purge Ports are not a new
functionality for equities exchanges; Nasdaq PHLX, LLC and other equity
exchanges already offer similar functionality.\10\ The Exchange also
notes that the proposed Purge Ports increase efficiency of already
existing functionality enabling the cancellation of orders. Nasdaq
operates highly performant systems with significant throughput and
determinism which allows participants to enter, update and cancel
orders at high rates. In that regard, Participants can cancel orders in
rapid succession across their order entry ports.\11\ In addition, the
Exchange provides a similar ability to mass cancel orders through the
Nasdaq Kill Switch, which is an optional tool offered at no charge that
enables Participants to establish pre-determined levels of risk
exposure, which can be used to cancel all open orders. Similarly,
Participants may use cancel-on-disconnect control when they experience
a disruption in connection to the Exchange to immediately cancel all
pending Exchange orders except for good-till-canceled orders.
Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the purge functionality and
Purge Ports provide an efficient option as an alternative to already
available services and enhance the Participant's ability to manage
their risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84405 (October 11,
2018), 83 FR 52598 (October 17, 2018) (SR-CboeEDGA-2018-016).
Explaining its decision to waive the 30-day operative delay of this
proposed rule change, the Commission stated that it believed that
purge ports may be a helpful tool for managing the risk associated
with trading equities, and that this can be important both for
individual market participants and the market in general.
    \11\ Current Exchange port functionality supports cancelation
rates that exceed one thousand messages per second and the
Exchange's research indicates that certain Participants rely on such
functionality and at times utilize such cancelation rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to provide the purging functionality without
charging any additional fees. All existing ports will be enhanced with
the purging functionality and will continue to be subject to the
existing fee schedule without any changes.
    The Exchange proposes to adopt a fee for Purge Ports of $500 per
port/per month. As stated above, the Exchange believes that
Participants would benefit from a dedicated purge mechanism. Only firms
that request Purge Ports would be subject to the proposed fees, and
other firms can continue to operate

in exactly the same manner as they do today without dedicated Purge
Ports, but with the additional purging functionality.
    The Exchange proposes to waive the applicable $300 per Purge Port,
per month fees for Participants that use their Exchange access
protocols connection through the Exchange's Testing Facility to test
the new Purge Ports. The fees will be waived for the first two calendar
months from the date the participant first receives access to Purge
Ports in the Test Facility. A Participant may choose to conduct testing
for OUCH, FIX and RASH protocols simultaneously or at different times.
If a Participant chooses to conduct tests for their protocols
separately, the fees will be waived each time.
    After the two months of service, a Participant will be expected to
have fully tested the new Purge Ports and will be charged for any fees
incurred for using the Exchange's Testing Facility ports thereafter.
Implementation
    The Exchange will issue an Equity Trader Alert to members
announcing the exact date the Exchange will implement the Purge Ports
and the purging functionality, as described above.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\12\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\13\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any
facility, and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. The proposal is also 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would promote
just and equitable principles of trade and remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market because offering
Participants a new optional service promotes choice, flexibility,
efficiency, and competition. The Exchange believes the new features may
enhance participants' ability to manage orders, which would, in turn,
improve their risk controls to the benefit of all market participants.
The Exchange believes that the purging functionality and the Purge
Ports would foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in
facilitating transactions in securities because designating Purge Ports
for purge messages may encourage better use of such ports. This may,
concurrent with the ports that carry quote and other information
necessary for market making activities, enable more efficient, as well
as fair and reasonable, use of Market Makers' resources. Although
dedicated Purge Ports are a new functionality for the Exchange,\14\
similar connectivity and functionality is offered by options exchanges,
including the Exchange's own affiliated equities and options exchanges,
and other equities exchanges.\15\ The Exchange believes that proper
risk management, including the ability to efficiently cancel multiple
orders quickly when necessary, is similarly valuable to firms that
trade in the equities market, including Market Makers that have
heightened quoting obligations that are not applicable to other market
participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See footnote 6, above.
    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77613 (April 13,
2016), 81 FR 23023 (April 19, 2016). See also Securities Exchange
Act Release Nos. 79956 (February 3, 2017), 82 FR 10102 (February 9,
2017) (SR-BatsBZX-2017-05); 79957 (February 3, 2017), 82 FR 10070
(February 9, 2017) (SR-BatsEDGX-2017-07); 83201 (May 9, 2018), 83 FR
22546 (May 15, 2018) (SR-C2-2018-006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change will not relieve Market Makers of their
quoting obligations or firm quote obligations under Regulation NMS Rule
602.\16\ Specifically, any interest that is executable against a
Participant's or Market Maker's quotes and orders that is received by
the Exchange prior to the time of the removal of orders request will
automatically execute. Market Makers that purge their orders will not
be relieved of the obligation to provide continuous two-sided quotes on
a daily basis, nor will it prohibit the Exchange from taking
disciplinary action against a Market Maker for failing to meet their
continuous quoting obligation each trading day.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 242.602.
    \17\ See Equity 2, Section 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dedicated Purge Ports, which were originally introduced for options
trading, subsequently became a feature in the equities market. The
Exchange, therefore, is not the first equities exchange to offer this
functionality to Participants and to charge associated fees.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Cboe charges $650 per port/per month for Purge Ports that
have substantially similar functionality. This fee is also $100 more
than the fee for a logical port on its exchange. See, Cboe EDGA U.S.
Equities Exchange Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed fee for Purge Ports is
reasonable. The Exchange currently charges $400 per port/per month for
logical ports. The Exchange believes it is reasonable to charge $500
per month for the proposed Purge Ports, which is $100 more than the fee
for a logical port, as such ports represent targeted enhancement of
technology and were specially developed to allow for the sending of a
single message to cancel multiple orders, thereby assisting firms in
effectively managing risk. Nasdaq also believes that a Participant that
chooses to utilize a Purge Port may, in the future, reduce their need
for additional logical ports by consolidating cancel messages to the
Purge Port and thus freeing up some capacity of the existing logical
ports and, therefore, allowing for increased message traffic without
paying for additional logical ports. In addition, the proposed purging
functionality will allow Participants to achieve essentially the same
outcome without paying for a dedicated Purge Port. Purge Ports provide
the ability to cancel multiple orders across multiple ports with less
messaging from the firms using the ports and therefore may create
efficiencies for firms and provide a more economical solution to their
risk management needs. In addition, Purge Port requests may cancel
orders submitted over numerous ports and contain added functionality to
purge only a subset of these orders (per MPID, buy or sell side of the
order, or ticker symbol). Effective risk management is important both
for individual market participants that choose to utilize risk features
provided by the Exchange, as well as for the market in general. As a
result, the Exchange believes that it is appropriate to charge fees for
such functionality as doing so aids in the maintenance of a fair and
orderly market.
    The Exchange also believes that its ability to set fees for Purge
Ports is subject to significant substitution-based forces because
Participants are able to rely on currently available services both free
and those they receive when using existing trading protocols, which
will include the proposed purging functionality. If the value of the
efficiency introduced through the Purge Port functionality is not worth
the proposed fees, Participants will simply continue to rely on the
existing functionality and the proposed purging functionality and not
pay for Purge Ports. In that regard, Participants

already can cancel orders individually and by utilizing Nasdaq
protocols that allow them to develop proprietary systems that can send
cancel messages at a high rate.\19\ In addition, the Exchange already
provides similar ability to mass cancel orders through the Nasdaq Kill
Switch, which is an optional tool offered at no charge that enables
Participants to establish pre-determined levels of risk exposure, and
can be used to cancel all open orders. Similarly, Participants may use
cancel-on-disconnect control when they experience a disruption in
connection to the Exchange to immediately cancel all pending Exchange
orders except for good-till-canceled orders. Finally, the proposed
purging functionality will allow Participants to achieve essentially
the same outcome in canceling orders as they would by utilizing the
Purge Ports. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposed Purge
Ports fee is reasonable because it is related to the efficiency
introduced by the Purge Port functionality related to other means and
services already available which are either free or already a part of a
fee assessed to the Participant's for existing connectivity.
Accordingly, because the proposed Purge Ports provide additional
optional functionality, excessive fees would simply serve to reduce or
eliminate demand for this optional product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Current Exchange port functionality supports cancelation
rates that exceed one thousand messages per second and the
Exchange's research indicates that certain Participants rely on such
functionality and at times utilize such cancelation rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that offering the purging functionality
and the Purge Ports at the Exchange level promotes risk management
across the industry, and thereby facilitates investor protection. Some
market participants, in particular the larger firms, could and do build
similar risk functionality (as described above) in their trading
systems that permit the flexible cancellation of orders entered on the
Exchange at a high rate. Offering Exchange level protections ensures
that such functionality is widely available to all firms, including
smaller firms that may otherwise not be willing to incur the costs and
development work necessary to support their own customized mass cancel
functionality.
    As noted above, the Exchange is not the first equities exchange to
develop and offer dedicated Purge Ports for equities trading, and the
proposed rate is the same or lower than that charged by other equities
exchanges for similar functionality. Generally speaking, restricting
the Exchange's ability to offer new services and charge fees for these
new services discourages innovation and competition. Specifically in
this case, the Exchange's inability to introduce similar services to
those offered by other exchanges, and charge reasonable and equitable
fees for such services, would put the Exchange at a significant
competitive disadvantage and therefore serves to restrict competition
in the market--especially when other exchanges assess fees higher than
those proposed by the Exchange.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed Purge Port fees are
equitable because the proposed Purge Ports are completely voluntary as
they relate solely to optional risk management functionality.
    The Exchange also believes that the proposed amendments to its fee
schedule are not unfairly discriminatory because they will apply
uniformly to all Participants that choose to use the optional Purge
Ports. The proposed Purge Ports are completely voluntary and, as they
relate solely to optional risk management functionality, no Participant
is required or under any regulatory obligation to utilize them. All
Participants that voluntarily select this service option will be
charged the same amount for the same services. All Participants have
the option to select any connectivity option, and there is no
differentiation among Participants with regard to the fees charged for
the services offered by the Exchange.
    The Exchange believes that the proposal to waive the applicable
$300 per Purge Port, per month fees for Participants that conduct tests
of their Exchange access protocols connection through the Exchange's
Testing Facility to test the new Purge Ports functionality is
reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory. Importantly, the Exchange
believes the two month waiver of the fee will encourage testing of the
new optional Purge Ports, which will allow participants to evaluate
whether the new optional service is of value to them and if so will
help them better implement them into their workflow. All Participants
will be notified about the availability of the new Purge Port
functionality and have access to test it but will not be required to
use it. Moreover, the fees for the RASH, FIX and OUCH ports will remain
the same and apply to all Participants in the same manner. Based on the
Exchange's experience, we anticipate that Participants will complete
testing the new Purge Ports within two months from initiating such
tests and thus will not incur any fees related to testing the
functionality of Purge Ports.

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. To the contrary, the Exchange
believes the proposed rule change will enhance competition because it
will enable the Exchange to innovate and offer similar equities Purge
Port functionality to that offered by other equity exchanges and on
options markets today. The proposed Purge Ports are completely
voluntary and will be made available to all members on an equal basis
at the same cost. While the Exchange believes that the proposed Purge
Ports provide a valuable service, Participants can choose to purchase,
or not purchase, these ports based on their own determination of the
value and their business needs. No Participant is required or under any
regulatory obligation to utilize Purge Ports. Accordingly, the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change is designed to offer appropriate
risk management functionality to firms that trade on the Exchange
without imposing an unnecessary or inappropriate burden on competition.
    The Exchange is also allowing the Participants to test this new
functionality for free by providing a two month waiver in the
Exchange's Test Facility. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the
proposed rule change is designed to offer optional risk management
functionality to firms that trade on the Exchange without imposing an
unnecessary or inappropriate burden on competition.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \20\ and

subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \21\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
file number SR-NASDAQ-2023-041 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-2023-041. 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 (https://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
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not
include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We
may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted
material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All
submissions should refer to file number SR-NASDAQ-2023-041 and should
be submitted on or before November 14, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-23404 Filed 10-23-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Parameter 2000 Benchmark in the MSGP ( mg/ L)

50% Proposed 2005 Benchmark in the MSGP ( mg/ L)

Method Detection Limit ( mg/ L) Quantification Level Cost Effective Cost Detection at 50%

number Detection for 2005 proposed benchmark Cadmium 0.0159 0.008 0.0021 213.1 ( AA, flame) 0.005 0.0159 $ 20 Yes No 213.2 ( AA, furnace) 0.0001 0.0003 $ 20 Yes Yes 200.7 ( ICP) 0.004 0.0127 $ 10 Yes No 200.8 ( ICP) Final December 2005 0.0005 0.0016 $ 12 Yes Yes 3500 Cd D* 1 ( Colorimetric) 0.0005 0.0016 N/ A Yes Yes Cyanide 0.0636 0.032 0.022 4500 CN D* 1 ( Titrimetric) 1 3.18 N/ A No No 335.2 ( Spectrophometric) 0.02 0.0636 N/ A Yes Yes 335.3 ( Color., Auto) 0.005 0.0159 N/ A Yes Yes C opper 0.0636 0.032 0.014 220.1 ( AA, flame) 0.02 0.0636 $ 20 Yes No 220.2 ( AA, furnace) 0.001 0.0032 $ 20 Yes Yes 200.7 ( ICP) 0.006 0.0191 $ 10 Yes Yes 200.8 ( ICP) Final December 2005 9E 05 0.0003 $ 12 Yes Yes 3500 Cu B* 1 ( Colorimetric) 0.003 0.0095 N/ A Yes Yes 3500 Cu C* 1 ( Colorimetric) 0.02 0.0636 N/ A Yes No D4190 94* 4 ( DCP) NA N/ A N/ A NA NA Nickel 1.417 0.71 0.47 249.2 ( AA, furnace) 0.001 0.0032 $ 20 Yes Yes 200.7 ( ICP) 0.015 0.0477 $ 10 Yes Yes 200.8 ( ICP) Final December 2005 0.006 0.0191 $ 12 Yes Yes 3500 Ni D* 1 ( Colorimetric) NA NA N/ A NA NA D4190 94* 4 ( DCP) NA NA N/ A NA NA Selenium 0.2385 0.119 0.005 270.2 ( AA, furnace) 0.002 0.0064 $ 20 Yes Yes 270.7 ( ICP) 0.075 0.2385 $ 10 Yes No 200.8 ( ICP) Final December 2005 0.0021 0.0067 $ 12 Yes Yes 3114B* 1 ( AA, gaseous hydride) 0.002 0.0064 N/ A Yes Yes Silver 0.0318 0.016 0.0038 272.1 ( AA, flame) 0.01 0.0318 $ 20 Yes No 272.2 ( AA, furnace) 0.0002 0.0006 $ 20 Yes Yes 200.7 ( ICP) 0.007 0.0223 $ 10 Yes No 200.8 ( ICP) Final December 2005 0.0001 0.0003 $ 12 Yes Yes * 3 ( DCP) NA NA N/ A NA NA NA = Not Available Cheapest Test is Highlighted yellow If a different test is needed than the cheapest to reach quantification level, highlighted blue. Quantification at 50% number Quantification at 2005 Proposed Benchmark No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No NA NA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NA NA NA NA Yes No No No Yes No No No No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes NA NA el, it is MSGP Benchmark Analytical Costs ( with 3.18 ML factore Conservative Cost Effective Estimate Methods, Detection limit (

g/ L), and analytical cost info.

Analyte Flame or furnace atomic absorption and cold vapor for mercury DL / Method Per Sample Cost ( price / metal) Inductively coupled plasma ( ICP) EPA 200.7 Per Sample Cost ( price / metal) ICP/ mass spectrometry ( ICP/ MS) EPA 200.8 Per Sample Cost ( price / metal) 2000 MSGP limit (

g/ L)

Cadmium 0.1 / 213.2 $ 20 4 $ 10 0.5 $ 12 15.9 Copper 1.0 / 220.2 $ 20 6 $ 10 0.09 $ 12 63.6 Lead 1.0 / 239.2 $ 20 42 $ 10 0.6 $ 12 81.6 Manganese 50 / 243.1 $ 20 2 $ 10 0.1 $ 12 1000 Mercury 0.2 / 245.1 $ 34  $ 34  $ 34 2.4 Nickel 150 / 249.1 5 $ 20 15 $ 10 0.5 $ 12 1417 Selenium 2.0 / 270.2 $ 20 75 $ 10 2.1 by SIM $ 12 238.5 Silver 0.2 / 272.2 $ 20 7 $ 10 0.1 $ 12 31.8 Cyanide 5 Colorimetric ( 335.3) $ 40 63.6 1 These costs are based only on those labs that specialize in Effluent limits. 8 ML factored) 1 timate MSGP limits ple st e / al) 2000 MSGP limit (

g/ L) Lowest cost method 2005 MSGP limit (

g/ L) Lowest cost method Change in Cost between 200 and 2005 15.9 $ 10 2.1 $ 12 $ 2 63.6 $ 10 14 $ 12 $ 2 81.6 $ 10 82 $ 10 $ 0 1000 $ 10 50 $ 10 $ 0 2.4 $ 34 1.4 $ 34 $ 0 1417 $ 10 470 $ 10 $ 0 238.5 $ 10 5.0 $ 20 $ 10 31.8 $ 10 3.8 $ 12 $ 2 63.6 $ 40 22 $ 40 $ 0 22


[Federal Register: July 17, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 136)]
[Notices]
[Page 34749]
[DOCID:fr17jy09-49]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13493-000]

FFP Project 83, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

July 10, 2009.
    On May 22, 2009, FFP Project 83, LLC filed an application for a
preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act,
proposing to study the feasibility of the Slough Bend Hydrokinetic
Project, to be located on the Mississippi River, in Lake County,
Tennessee; New Madrid County, Missouri; and Fulton County, Kentucky.
    The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant
the permit holder priority to file a license application during the
permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder
to perform any land disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands
or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed Slough Bend Hydrokinetic Project consists of: (1)
6,019 proposed 40-kilowatt Free Flow generating units having a total
installed capacity of 240.76 megawatts; (2) a 8.5-mile-long, 69-
kilovolt transmission line; and (3) appurtenant facilities. The
proposed Slough Bend Hydrokinetic Project would have an average annual
generation of 1,054 gigawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Ramya Swaminathan, Vice President of
Development, Free Flow Power Corporation, 33 Commercial Street,
Gloucester, MA 01930; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Kim Carter,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically,
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp. More information about this project, including a copy of
the application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-13493) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-16986 Filed 7-16-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P