[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 83 (Monday, May 3, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23478-23483]
[FR Doc No: 2021-09130]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-91687; File No. SR-MRX-2021-04]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq MRX, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Exchange's Pricing Schedule at Options 7

April 27, 2021.
    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 April 13, 2021, Nasdaq MRX, LLC (``MRX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's Pricing Schedule at
Options 7, as described further below.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/mrx/rules, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Exchange's
Pricing Schedule at Options 7, as further described below.
Market Maker Fees
    Today, as set forth in Table 1 of Options 7, Section 3, the
Exchange assesses the following maker/taker fees for regular orders in
Non-Penny Symbols:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This fee also applies to Market Maker orders sent to the
Exchange by Electronic Access Members.

                                                Non-Penny Symbols
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Maker fee       Maker fee       Taker fee       Taker fee
               Market participant                     Tier 1          Tier 2          Tier 1          Tier 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Market Maker \3\................................           $0.20           $0.10           $1.10           $1.10
Non-Nasdaq MRX Market Maker (FarMM).............            0.90            0.90            1.10            1.10
Firm Proprietary/Broker-Dealer..................            0.90            0.90            1.10            1.10
Professional Customer...........................            0.90            0.90            1.10            1.10
Priority Customer...............................            0.00            0.00            0.00            0.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to increase the maker fees for Market
Makers \4\ from $0.20 to $0.35 per contract (Tier 1) and from $0.10 to
$0.20 per contract (Tier 2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The term ``Market Makers'' refers to ``Competitive Market
Makers'' and ``Primary Market Makers'' collectively. See Options 1,
Section 1(a)(21).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Qualifying Tier Thresholds
    Currently, the Exchange operates a maker/taker fee model for Penny
and Non-Penny Symbols in Table 1 of Options 7, Section 3 where all
market participants are charged a fee (or are eligible for free
executions) with potentially discounted fees based on the following
qualifying tier thresholds in Table 3 of Options 7, Section 3:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``Total Affiliated Member or Affiliated Entity ADV'' means
all average daily volume (``ADV'') executed on the Exchange in all
symbols and order types, including volume executed by Affiliated
Members or Affiliated Entities. All eligible volume from Affiliated
Members or an Affiliated Entity are aggregated in determining
applicable tiers.
    \6\ ``Customer Total Consolidated Volume'' means the total
volume cleared at The Options Clearing Corporation in the Customer
range in equity and ETF options in that month.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Tiers                                                Total affiliated member or affiliated entity ADV \5\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1........................................  executes 0.00%--0.7499% of Customer Total Consolidated Volume. \6\
Tier 2........................................  executes 0.75% or more of Customer Total Consolidated Volume.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The highest tier threshold attained applies retroactively in a
given month to all eligible traded contracts and applies to all
eligible market participants.
    The Exchange now proposes to amend the Tier 1 qualification to
require that Members execute 0.00% to less than 0.75% of Customer Total
Consolidated Volume. The proposed rule change will not impact current
Tier 1 rates. Rather, the purpose of the proposed change is to ensure
that all eligible volume gets included in the calculation of the tiers.
Specifically, the proposed rule change recognizes the potential for a
Member to execute a percentage of Customer Total Consolidated Volume
that falls between 0.7499% and 0.75%. As such, the proposed changes
will make clear that Members that execute anywhere from 0.00% to less
than 0.75% of Customer Total Consolidated Volume will qualify for Tier
1 pricing in the Exchange's maker/taker fee schedule. The Exchange
believes that its proposal will have minimal impact as no Member falls
into this category.
    The Exchange further proposes to permit Market Makers to
alternatively qualify for the Tier 1 and Tier 2 maker/taker fees in
Penny and Non-Penny Symbols based on Total Market Maker ADV.
Specifically, Market Makers may alternatively qualify for the Tier 1
and Tier 2 maker/taker fees if they: execute up to 0.10% of Customer
Total Consolidated Volume which adds liquidity in regular orders (Tier
1), and execute more than 0.10% of Customer Total Consolidated Volume
which adds

liquidity in regular orders (Tier 2).\7\ The Exchange also proposes to
add a definition of Total Market Maker ADV to include all Market Maker
ADV executed on the Exchange in all symbols and order types, including
volume executed by Affiliated Members \8\ or Affiliated Entities.\9\
All eligible volume from Affiliated Members or an Affiliated Entity
will be aggregated in determining applicable tiers.\10\ The Exchange
also proposes to add a new note 5 in Table 1 of Options 7, Section 3,
which will provide that Market Makers may alternatively qualify for the
fees in Table 1 if they meet the applicable tier thresholds based on
Total Market Maker ADV set forth in Table 3. Lastly, the Exchange
proposes to amend the current definition of Total Affiliated Member or
Affiliated Entity ADV in Table 3 as follows: ``Total Affiliated Member
or Affiliated Entity ADV means all ADV executed on the Exchange in all
symbols and order types, including volume executed by Affiliated
Members or Affiliated Entities. All eligible volume from Affiliated
Members or an Affiliated Entity will be aggregated in determining
applicable tiers.'' With the foregoing change, the Exchange also
proposes to delete redundant language regarding aggregation of
Affiliated Member or Affiliated Entity volume currently in the last
bullet point of Table 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 0.10% of Customer Total Consolidated Volume is approximately
28,000 contracts per day.
    \8\ An ``Affiliated Member'' is a Member that shares at least
75% common ownership with a particular Member as reflected on the
Member's Form BD, Schedule A.
    \9\ An ``Affiliated Entity'' is a relationship between an
Appointed Market Maker and an Appointed OFP for purposes of
qualifying for certain pricing specified in the Pricing Schedule.
Market Makers and OFPs are required to send an email to the Exchange
to appoint their counterpart, at least 3 business days prior to the
last day of the month to qualify for the next month. The Exchange
will acknowledge receipt of the emails and specify the date the
Affiliated Entity is eligible for applicable pricing, as specified
in the Pricing Schedule. Each Affiliated Entity relationship will
commence on the 1st of a month and may not be terminated prior to
the end of any month. An Affiliated Entity relationship will
terminate after a one (1) year period, unless either party
terminates earlier in writing by sending an email to the Exchange at
least 3 business days prior to the last day of the month to
terminate for the next month. Affiliated Entity relationships must
be renewed annually by each party sending an email to the Exchange.
Affiliated Members may not qualify as a counterparty comprising an
Affiliated Entity. Each Member may qualify for only one (1)
Affiliated Entity relationship at any given time.
    \10\ The proposed definition will be set forth in the Table 3
notes of Options 7, Section 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the fees in Table 1 of Options 7, Section 3 for nearly all
market participants (i.e., Non-Nasdaq MRX Market Makers,\11\ Firm
Proprietary \12\/Broker-Dealers,\13\ Professional Customers,\14\ and
Priority Customers) \15\ will not be impacted by this proposal,\16\ the
proposed volume requirements will impact Market Makers that will be
eligible to alternatively qualify for the lower maker fees.\17\ The
Exchange believes that the proposed fee structure will encourage Market
Makers and their Affiliated Members or Affiliated Entities to increase
their liquidity providing activity on the Exchange, which would support
the quality of price discovery on the Exchange and provide additional
liquidity for incoming orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ A ``Non-Nasdaq MRX Market Maker'' is a market maker as
defined in Section 3(a)(38) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, registered in the same options class on another options
exchange.
    \12\ A ``Firm Proprietary order is an order submitted by a
Member for its own proprietary account.
    \13\ A ``Broker-Dealer'' order is an order submitted by a Member
for a broker-dealer account that is not its own proprietary account.
    \14\ A ``Professional Customer'' is a person or entity that is
not a broker/dealer and is not a Priority Customer.
    \15\ A ``Priority Customer'' is a person or entity that is not a
broker/dealer in securities, and does not place more than 390 orders
in listed options per day on average during a calendar month for its
own beneficial account(s), as defined in Nasdaq MRX Options 1,
Section 1(a)(36).
    \16\ In particular, other non-Priority Customers will continue
to be uniformly charged the same maker fees of $0.47 per contract
(Penny Symbols) and $0.90 per contract (Non-Penny Symbols),
regardless of tier achieved. Priority Customers will continue to
receive free executions for their orders.
    \17\ Currently, Market Makers are charged maker fees of $0.20
per contract (Tier 1) and $0.10 per contract (Tier 2) in both Penny
and Non-Penny Symbols. As proposed above, the maker fees for Market
Makers will be increased to $0.35 per contract (Tier 1) and $0.20
per contract (Tier 2) in Non-Penny Symbols only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PIM Break-Up Rebates
    Today, as set forth in Options 7, Section 3.A, the Exchange pays a
PIM break-up rebate to an originating Priority Customer PIM order that
executes with a response (order or quote), other than the PIM contra-
side order, of $0.25 per contract in Penny Symbols and $0.60 per
contract in Non-Penny Symbols.\18\ The Exchange also offers additional
break-up rebates in note 3 of Options 7, Section 3.A for Members that
meet certain volume requirements or alternatively, that enter into
Affiliated Member or Affiliated Entity relationships. In particular,
note 3 currently provides: ``Members that are not in an Affiliated
Member or Affiliated Entity relationship and that execute 0.05% or
greater of Customer Total Consolidated Volume in non-PIM Priority
Customer contracts within a month will receive an additional rebate of:
(i) $0.20 per contract in Penny Symbols for Complex PIM Orders only,
(ii) $0.15 per contract in Penny Symbols for Regular PIM Orders only,
and (iii) $0.45 per contract in Non-Penny Symbols for both Regular and
Complex PIM Orders. Alternatively, Affiliated Members or Affiliated
Entities will be eligible to receive the rebates in this note 3 without
any additional volume requirements.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Break-up rebates apply only to regular PIM orders of 500 or
fewer contracts and to complex PIM orders where the largest leg is
500 or fewer contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to modify the note 3 rebate
qualifications only for those Members that are not in Affiliated Member
or Affiliated Entity relationships. Under this proposal, Affiliated
Members or Affiliated Entities will continue to be eligible to receive
the note 3 rebates without any additional volume requirements.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to require Members not in
Affiliated Member or Affiliated Entity relationships to execute 0.05%
or greater of Customer Total Consolidated Volume which adds liquidity
in non-PIM Priority Customer contracts within a month in order to
receive the additional rebates in note 3.
Marketing Fee
    Today, as set forth in Options 7, Section 5.B, the Exchange
assesses Market Makers a marketing fee of $0.25 per contract in Penny
Symbols and $0.70 per contract in Non-Penny Symbols for each regular
Priority Customer contract executed.\19\ This fee is currently waived
for (i) Flash Order \20\ responses; (ii) Market Maker orders that take
liquidity from the order book; (iii) Crossing Orders \21\ and Responses
to

Crossing Orders; \22\ and (iv) complex orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The marketing fee is rebated proportionately to the Members
that paid the fee such that on a monthly basis the marketing fee
fund balance administered by a Primary Market Maker for a Group of
options established under Options 2, Section 3(b) does not exceed
$100,000 and the marketing fee fund balance administered by a
preferenced Competitive Market Maker for such a Group does not
exceed $100,000. A preferenced Competitive Market Maker that elects
not to administer a fund is not charged the marketing fee. The
Exchange assesses an administrative fee of .45% on the total amount
of the funds collected each month.
    \20\ A ``Flash Order'' is an order that is exposed at the
National Best Bid or Offer by the Exchange to all Members for
execution, as provided under Supplementary Material .02 to Nasdaq
MRX Options 5, Section 2. For all Flash Orders, the Exchange will
charge the applicable taker fee and for responses that trade against
a Flash Order, the Exchange will charge the applicable maker fee.
    \21\ A ``Crossing Order'' is an order executed in the Exchange's
Facilitation Mechanism, Solicited Order Mechanism, PIM or submitted
as a Qualified Contingent Cross order. For purposes of this Pricing
Schedule, orders executed in the Block Order Mechanism are also
considered Crossing Orders.
    \22\ ``Responses to Crossing Order'' is any contra-side interest
(i.e., orders & quotes) submitted after the commencement of an
auction in the Exchange's Facilitation Mechanism, Solicited Order
Mechanism, Block Order Mechanism or Price Improvement Mechanism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to set this marketing fee to $0.00 per
contract. The Exchange also proposes in Options 7, Section 5.B to add
language that makes clear no marketing fees will be charged with the
proposed changes. Specifically, the Exchange will add that no marketing
fees are charged for Penny and Non-Penny Symbols. If the Exchange
determines to charge a marketing fee in the future, it will do so
pursuant to a rule filing.
Technical Amendments
    The Exchange proposes non-substantive, technical amendments in
Options 7, Section 1(c) to rearrange the definitions in alphabetical
order without changing the substance of the Rule. The Exchange also
proposes in Options 7, Section 3 to relocate the definition of Total
Affiliated Member or Affiliated Entity Priority Customer ADV from Table
3 into Table 1 as this definition is currently only used within Table 1
pricing. The relocated definition will provide that Total Affiliated
Member or Affiliated Entity Priority Customer ADV means all Priority
Customer ADV executed on the Exchange in all symbols and order types,
including volume executed by Affiliated Members or Affiliated Entities.
All eligible volume from Affiliated Members or an Affiliated Entity
will be aggregated in determining applicable tiers.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\23\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\24\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposed changes to its Pricing Schedule are
reasonable in several respects. As a threshold matter, the Exchange is
subject to significant competitive forces in the market for options
securities transaction services that constrain its pricing
determinations in that market. The fact that this market is competitive
has long been recognized by the courts. In NetCoalition v. Securities
and Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit stated as follows: ``[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'. . ..'' \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (DC Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-
21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.'' \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005),
70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Numerous indicia demonstrate the competitive nature of this market.
For example, clear substitutes to the Exchange exist in the market for
options security transaction services. The Exchange is only one of
sixteen options exchanges to which market participants may direct their
order flow. Within this environment, market participants can freely and
often do shift their order flow among the Exchange and competing venues
in response to changes in their respective pricing schedules. As such,
the proposal represents a reasonable attempt by the Exchange to
increase its liquidity and market share relative to its competitors.
Market Maker Fees
    The Exchange believes that the proposed increase in the Tier 1 and
Tier 2 maker fees for Market Makers in Non-Penny Symbols is reasonable.
As proposed, the maker fees will increase from $0.20 to $0.35 per
contract (Tier 1) and from $0.10 to $0.20 per contract (Tier 2). The
Exchange believes that the proposed maker fees will remain attractive
to Market Makers and will continue to incentivize them to add liquidity
in Non-Penny Symbols as the proposed fees will remain the lowest maker
fees assessed to any other market participant on the Exchange, except
for Priority Customers who will continue to receive free
executions.\27\ Incentivizing Market Makers to provide liquidity
through the lower maker fees will create additional displayed liquidity
and opportunities for market participants to trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Specifically, Non-Nasdaq MRX Market Makers, Firm
Proprietary/Broker-Dealers, and Professional Customers will continue
to be assessed the $0.90 per contract maker fee in Non-Penny
Symbols, regardless of tier achieved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to increase the Tier 1 and Tier 2 maker
fees in Non-Penny Symbols for Market Makers is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory as the proposed increase will apply uniformly
to all similarly situated market participants. Market Makers will
continue to pay lower maker fees in Non-Penny Symbols compared to other
non-Priority Customers. The Exchange believes that it is equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory to continue charging lower maker fees for
Market Makers as they, unlike other market participants, add value to
the Exchange through quoting obligations and their commitment of
capital.
Qualifying Tier Thresholds
    The Exchange believes that the proposal to amend the current Tier 1
threshold is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory. As
discussed above, the proposed rule change will not impact current Tier
1 rates; rather, the proposed change will ensure that all eligible
volume gets included in the calculation of the tiers and will make
clear that Members that execute 0.00% to less than 0.75% of Customer
Total Consolidated Volume will qualify for Tier 1 pricing in the
Exchange's maker/taker fee schedule. As noted above, the Exchange
believes that its proposal will have minimal impact as no market
participant falls into this category. Furthermore, the proposed changes
to the existing Tier 1 threshold will apply uniformly to all market
participants.
    Furthermore, the Exchange believes that it is reasonable to
introduce an alternative way for Market Makers to qualify for the Tier
1 and Tier 2 fees based on Total Market Maker ADV.\28\ As

discussed above, Market Makers may alternatively qualify for the Tier 1
and Tier 2 maker/taker fees if they: execute up to 0.10% of Customer
Total Consolidated Volume which adds liquidity in regular orders (Tier
1), and execute more than 0.10% of Customer Total Consolidated Volume
which adds liquidity in regular orders (Tier 2). The Exchange believes
that the proposal would encourage additional order flow, especially
liquidity adding regular order flow, from Market Makers and their
Affiliated Members or Affiliated Entities by providing an alternative
method for Market Makers to qualify for the Tier 1 and Tier 2 fees.
This, in turn, will benefit all market participants that will have an
opportunity to trade with the order flow that these firms bring to the
market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ As discussed above, Total Market Maker ADV will be defined
in the Pricing Schedule as all Market Maker ADV executed on the
Exchange in all symbols and order types, including volume executed
by Affiliated Members or Affiliated Entities. Furthermore, all
eligible volume from Affiliated Members or an Affiliated Entity will
be aggregated in determining applicable tiers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to introduce an alternative way for Market
Makers to qualify for Tier 1 and Tier 2 pricing based on Total Market
Maker ADV is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will
apply uniformly to all similarly situated market participants. The
Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to
introduce the proposed alternative qualifications for only Market
Makers because Market Makers have different requirements and
obligations to the Exchange that other market participants do not (such
as quoting requirements). As such, the Exchange's proposal is designed
to increase Market Maker participation and reward Market Makers for the
unique role that they play in ensuring a robust market.
PIM Break-up Rebates
    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to the
qualifications for receiving the additional PIM break-up rebates are
reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory. As discussed
above, the Exchange is proposing to amend the rebate qualifications to
require that Members not in Affiliated Member or Affiliated Entity
relationships execute 0.05% or greater of Customer Total Consolidated
Volume which adds liquidity in non-PIM Priority Customer contracts
within a month in order to receive the additional rebates in note 3 of
Options 7, Section 3.A. The Exchange believes that the proposed changes
will incentivize Members to bring greater liquidity adding order flow
for execution on the Exchange, which the Exchange believes may result
in tighter spreads, thereby making the Exchange a more attractive
trading venue to the benefit of all market participants.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to the additional
PIM break-up rebate qualifications in note 3 are equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because the changes will apply uniformly to all
Priority Customer PIM originating orders that execute with any PIM
response. While Priority Customer PIM originating orders will continue
to be eligible to receive the additional break-up rebates in note 3, as
opposed to other market participants, the Exchange believes that the
application of this rebate program is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because Priority Customer PIM originating order flow
enhances liquidity on the Exchange. This, in turn, provides more
trading opportunities and attracts other market participants, thus
facilitating tighter spreads, increased order flow and trading
opportunities to the benefit of all market participants. Moreover, the
Exchange has historically provided lower pricing or other incentives to
Priority Customer PIM originating orders in order to attract such order
flow.
Marketing Fee
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to set the marketing
fee to $0.00 per contract for Penny and Non-Penny Symbols because the
Exchange seeks to limit the cost of transacting in regular orders for
Market Makers who are the only market participants that are assessed
this fee today. The Exchange believes that the proposed fee change is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as no Market Makers would be
charged a marketing fee under this proposal. Furthermore, the Exchange
believes that it is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly
discriminatory to add language in Options 7, Section 5.B as it will
make clear that no marketing fees will be assessed for Penny and Non-
Penny Symbols with the proposed changes, and that if the Exchange
determines to charge a marketing fee in the future, it will do so
pursuant to a rule filing.
Technical Amendments
    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to alphabetize the
definitions in Options 7, Section 1(c) and to relocate the definition
of Total Affiliated Member or Affiliated Entity Priority Customer ADV
in Options 7, Section 3 in the manner described above are reasonable,
equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory. All of the changes are non-
substantive, technical amendments that will facilitate the use of the
Exchange's Pricing Schedule by market participants.

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 intra-market
competition, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes
will place any category of market participant at a competitive
disadvantage. Overall, the Exchange's proposal is designed to
incentivize Members to bring additional order flow to the Exchange, and
create a more active and quality market in MRX-listed options. Market
Makers and Priority Customers would continue to receive favorable
pricing by way of lower fees or rebates, as compared to other market
participants. As discussed above, Market Makers add value through
continuous quoting and are subject to additional requirements and
obligations unlike other market participants. Incentivizing Market
Makers to increase their participation on the Exchange benefits all
market participants through the quality of order interaction.
Similarly, Priority Customer liquidity benefits all market participants
by providing more trading opportunities, which attracts other market
participants, thus facilitating tighter spreads, increased order flow
and trading opportunities to the benefit of all market participants.
    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
options 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.
    Moreover, as noted above, price competition between exchanges is
fierce, with liquidity and market share moving freely between exchanges
in reaction to fee and rebate changes. In sum, if the changes proposed
herein are unattractive to market participants, it is likely that the
Exchange will lose

market share as a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe
that the proposed changes will impair the ability of Members or
competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing
in the financial markets.

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,\29\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \30\ thereunder.
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \30\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-MRX-2021-04 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-MRX-2021-04. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-MRX-2021-04 and should be submitted on
or before May 24, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-09130 Filed 4-30-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 10, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 195)]
[Notices]
[Page 57610]
[DOCID:fr10oc07-120]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Form ADV, SEC File No. 270-39, OMB Control No. 3235-0049.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collections of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget (``OMB'') for extension and approval.
    The title for the collection of information is ``Form ADV'' (17 CFR
279.1). Form ADV is the investment adviser registration form filed
electronically with the Commission pursuant to rules 203-1 (17 CFR
275.203-1) and 204-1 (17 CFR 275.204-1) under the Investment Advisers
Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-1 et seq.) by advisers registered with the
Commission or applying for registration with the Commission. The
information collected takes the form of disclosures to the investment
adviser's clients and potential clients. The purpose of this collection
of information is to provide advisory clients, prospective clients, and
the Commission with information about the adviser, its business, and
its conflicts of interest. Clients use certain of the information to
determine whether to hire or retain an adviser.
    The information collected provides the Commission with knowledge
about the adviser, its business, and its conflicts of interest. The
Commission uses the information to determine eligibility for
registration with the Commission and to manage its regulatory,
examination, and enforcement programs.
    Respondents to the collection of information are investment
advisers registered with the Commission or applying for registration
with the Commission. The Commission estimates that the total annual
reporting and recordkeeping burden of the collection of information for
each respondent is 23.375 hours.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to R. Corey Booth, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O
Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or send
an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
     Dated: October 1, 2007.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-19856 Filed 10-9-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: September 29, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 189)]
[Notices]
[Page 57586-57587]
[DOCID:fr29se06-141]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

In the matter of Geographics, Inc. (n/k/a G Printing, Inc.),
Window Rock Capital Corp. (n/k/a Window Rock Capital Holdings, Inc.);
Order of Suspension of Trading

    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of

Geographics, Inc. (n/k/a G Printing, Inc.) because it has not filed any
periodic reports since the period ended December 31, 2001.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Window Rock Capital Corp. (n/k/a Window Rock Capital Holdings, Inc.)
because it has filed only one periodic report, a Form 10-QSB for the
period ended September 30, 2005, in the last three years.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed companies.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the above-listed
companies is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on September
27, 2006, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on October 10, 2006.

    By the Commission.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 06-8396 Filed 9-27-06; 11:58 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 14, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19611-19612]
[FR Doc No: 2021-07637]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER21-1638-000]

Daylight I, LLC, Edwards Solar Line I, LLC, Sanborn Solar Line I,
LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes
Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Daylight I, LLC, Edwards Solar Line I, LLC, and Sanborn Solar Line I,
LLC, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an
accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is April 28, 2021.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 8, 2021.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-07637 Filed 4-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: June 21, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 118)]
[Notices]
[Page 35018-35019]
[DOCID:fr21jn10-75]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL10-71-000]

Puget Sound Energy, Inc.; Notice of Petition for Declaratory
Order

June 15, 2010.
    Take notice that on June 4, 2010, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of the
Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission), 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2) (2010), Puget Sound
Energy, Inc. filed a Petition for Declaratory Order requesting that the
Commission find that certain locational exchanges of power are not
transmission transactions that may only be undertaken pursuant to an
Open Access Transmission Tariff.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies

of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible online at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on July 6, 2010

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-14948 Filed 6-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Assessing the Effect of Five Gasoline Properties on Exhaust Emissions from Light-Duty Vehicles certified to Tier-2 Standards

                       Analysis of Data from EPA Phase 3

                                (EPAct/V2/E-89)

                                 Appendix  N.4

                         Model Fitting Information for
                                Ethanol (Bag 2)

This appendix summarizes model fitting for Bag-2 Ethanol.  Model-fitting techniques and approaches summarized in Section 8.7.  Features of the data and modeling for this compound are listed below.
Fuel-parameter matrix:	REDUCED
Media contamination:	NO
No. measurements:	63
No. censored values:	24
Modeling approach:	TOBIT REGRESSION
Estimated Dependent Variable model:	YES

Models fit for Ethanol, Bag 2 (all models include an intercept term)
Model term
                                   Notation
                                     Model

                              Full (Main Effects)
MM1
MM3
Null model
                                     etOH
Ze
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      ●

                                     Arom
Za
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      x

                                      RVP
Zr

                                      T50
Z5
                                      ●
                                      x

                                      T90
Z9
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      x

 Model Fitting History for Ethanol, Bag 2 (MM3) selected as best-fit model).
                                Fit Parameters

                             Test with respect to
                                     Full

                             Test with respect to
                                Previous Model
Model
                                                                              p
-2lnL
BIC[1]

                                                                        Dev.[1]
                                                                              d
                                                                    Pr>χ[2]

                                                                           Dev.
                                                                              d
                                                                    Pr>χ[2]
Full
                                                                              4
79.744

MM1
                                                                              3
79.749

                                                                        0.00610
                                                                              1
                                                                           0.94

MM3
                                                                              1
83.475

                                                                          3.731
                                                                              3
                                                                           0.29

                                                                          3.725
                                                                              2
                                                                           0.16
Null model
                                                                              0
92.339

                                                                         12.595
                                                                              4
                                                                           0.01

                                                                          8.864
                                                                              1
                                                                         0.0029
[1] A lower value indicates a better fit.

[1] The deviation is the difference in
the -2loglik statistics for the
nested and reference models,
respectively, per Equation 14.

 Coefficients and  Tests of Effect for the Full and Best-Fit Models  -  Ethanol (Bag 2).
Effect

                                  Full Model

                             Best-Fit Model (MM3)

Estimate
Std.Err.
d.f.
t-value
Pr>t

                                                                       Estimate
Std.Err.
d.f.
t-value
Pr>t
Intercept[1]

                                    -9.3072
                                                                         0.6333
                                                                              5
                                                                         -15.45
                                                                       0.000021

                                                                        -9.5634
                                                                         0.6703
                                                                              5
                                                                         -14.64
                                                                        0.00002
Ze

                                                                         0.9233
                                                                         0.2824
                                                                              5
                                                                           3.27
                                                                          0.022

                                                                         0.8163
                                                                         0.2805
                                                                              5
                                                                           2.91
                                                                          0.033
Za

                                                                        -0.3772
                                                                        0.28499
                                                                              5
                                                                          -1.32
                                                                           0.24

Z5

                                                                        -.01910
                                                                         0.2091
                                                                              5
                                                                         -0.091
                                                                           0.93

Z9

                                                                        -0.3017
                                                                         0.2416
                                                                              5
                                                                          -1.25
                                                                           0.27

[1]

                                                                         0.3707

                                                                         0.4634

                                                                         1.0889

                                                                         1.1682

[1] Not fit by the model, but manually recalculated from intercepts for individual vehicles.


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 27, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66314-66316]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21082]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-1888; Project Identifier MCAI-2023-00298-E]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG
Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is correcting a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
that published in the Federal Register. The NPRM proposed to issue an
airworthiness directive (AD) that would apply to all Rolls-Royce
Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (RRD) Model RB211-Trent 800 engines. As
published, the docket number referenced throughout the NPRM is
incorrect. This document corrects that error. In all other respects,
the original document remains the same; however, for clarity, the FAA
is republishing the entire proposed rule in the Federal Register.

DATES: The last date for submitting comments to the NPRM (88 FR 63539,
September 15, 2023) remains October 30, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-1888; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this NPRM, the mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI), any comments received, and other information. The
street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For service information identified in this NPRM, contact
the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer
3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 8999 000; email:
[email protected]; website: easa.europa.eu. You may find this material
on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu. It is also available at
regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1888.
     You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sungmo Cho, Aviation Safety Engineer,
FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: (781) 238-
7241; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2023-1888; Project Identifier
MCAI-2023-00298-E'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The
agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to
Sungmo Cho, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des
Moines, WA 98198. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not
specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for
this rulemaking.

Background

    The FAA issued an NPRM (88 FR 63539, September 15, 2023) that would
apply to all RRD Model RB211-Trent 800 engines. The NPRM proposed to
require initial and repetitive on-wing or in-shop borescope inspections
(BSIs) of certain intermediate-pressure compressor (IPC) rotor shaft
balance lands for cracks, dents, and nicks, and replacement of the IPC
rotor shaft if necessary, and proposed to prohibit the installation of
a certain IPC rotor shaft on any engine, as specified in EASA AD 2023-
0040, dated February 16, 2023 (EASA AD 2023-0040) (also referred to
after this as the MCAI), which is proposed for incorporation by
reference.

The NPRM was prompted by reports of cracks on certain IPC rotor shaft
balance lands. This condition, if not addressed, could lead to IPC
rotor shaft failure and consequent uncontained high-energy debris,
resulting in damage to the airplane.

Need for the Correction

    As published, the docket number referenced throughout the NPRM is
incorrect. The NPRM incorrectly references ``Docket No. FAA-2023-1880''
instead of ``Docket No. FAA-2023-1888.''
    Although no other part of the preamble or regulatory information
has been corrected, for clarity, the FAA is publishing the entire
proposed rule in the Federal Register.
    The comment due date of the NPRM remains October 30, 2023.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2023-0040, which specifies procedures for
performing initial and repetitive on-wing or in-shop BSIs of the IPC
rotor shaft balance land for cracks, dents, and nicks, and replacing
the IPC rotor shaft if necessary. The MCAI also specifies prohibiting
the installation of a certain IPC rotor shaft on any engine and that
accomplishing an in-shop EC inspection of the IPC rotor shaft balance
land or replacing the IPC rotor shaft constitutes as terminating action
for the repetitive BSIs.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in ADDRESSES.

FAA's Determination

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

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the MCAI described previously, except for any differences identified
as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation
authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance
with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has since
coordinated with other manufacturers and CAAs to use this process. As a
result, the FAA proposes to incorporate by reference EASA AD 2023-0040
in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require
compliance with EASA AD 2023-0040 in its entirety through that
incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in
the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Using common terms that are
the same as the heading of a particular section in the EASA AD does not
mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example,
where the AD requirement refers to ``all required actions within the
compliance times,'' compliance with this AD requirement is not limited
to the section titled ``Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)'' in
EASA AD 2023-0040. Service information required by the EASA AD for
compliance will be available at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-
2023-1888 after the FAA final rule is published.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 194 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
               Action                        Labor cost           Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BSI of IPC rotor shaft balance land.  4.5 work-hours x $85                 $0          $382.50          $74,205
                                       per hour = $382.50.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary
replacements that would be required based on the results of the
proposed inspection. The agency has no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need these replacements:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replace IPC rotor shaft......................  50 work-hours x $85 per hour =       $2,123,908       $2,128,158
                                                $4,250.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Corrected]

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

Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG: Docket No. FAA-2023-1888;
Project Identifier MCAI-2023-00298-E.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by October 30, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (RRD)
Model RB211-Trent 875-17, RB211-Trent 877-17, RB211-Trent 884-17,
RB211-Trent 884B-17, RB211-Trent 892-17, RB211-Trent 892B-17, and
RB211-Trent 895-17 engines.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7230, Turbine Engine
Compressor Section.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracks on the intermediate-
pressure compressor (IPC) rotor shaft balance land. The FAA is
issuing this AD to detect cracks on the IPC rotor shaft balance
land. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could lead to IPC
rotor shaft failure and consequent uncontained high-energy debris,
resulting in damage to the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    Except as specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD:
Perform all required actions within the compliance times specified
in, and in accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA) AD 2023-0040, dated February 16, 2023 (EASA AD 2023-0040).

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2023-0040

    (1) Where EASA AD 2023-0040 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) This AD does not adopt the Remarks paragraph of EASA AD
2023-0040.
    (3) Where the service information referenced in EASA AD 2023-
0040 specifies to use certain tooling, equivalent tooling may be
used.

(i) No Reporting Requirement

    Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2023-0040
specifies to notify the manufacturer or supply pictures to the
manufacturer of any cracks, dents, or nicks, this AD does not
include that requirement.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, AIR-520, Continued Operational Safety Branch, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the branch, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (k) of this AD and email to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(k) Additional Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Sungmo Cho, Aviation
Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference 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.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2023-0040,
dated February 16, 2023.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For EASA AD 2023-0040, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3,
50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 8999 000; email:
[email protected]; website: easa.europa.eu. You may find this
material on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This
material may be found in the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-1888.
    (5) 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, email: [email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on September 22, 2023.
Victor Wicklund,
Deputy Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-21082 Filed 9-25-23; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 36 (Thursday, February 23, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11431-11432]
[FR Doc No: 2023-03724]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP23-56-000]

Eastern Gas Transmission and Storage, Inc.; Notice of Request
Under Blanket Authorization and Establishing Intervention and Protest
Deadline

    Take notice that February 8, 2023, Eastern Gas Transmission and
Storage, Inc. (EGTS) filed a prior notice request for authorization, in
accordance with section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, and Part 157 Sections
157.205(b) and 157.216(b) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's
(Commission) regulations under the Natural Gas Act and EGTS's blanket
certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-537-000 to abandon one
transmission compressor station (CS); known as Helvetia CS, along with
associated pipeline LN-1423/1 in Clearfield County, Pennsylvania, all
as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the
Commission and open for public inspection.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions concerning this application should be directed to
James Scribner, Regulatory and Certificates Analyst, 6603 West Broad
Street, Richmond, VA 23230 at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email at
[email protected]
    Pursuant to Section 157.9 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure,\1\ within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will
either: complete its environmental review and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or environmental
assessment (EA) for this proposal. The filing of an EA in the
Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify
federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all
necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal
authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission
staff's FEIS or EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 157.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Participation

    There are three ways to become involved in the Commission's review
of this project: you can file a protest to the project, you can file a
motion to intervene in the proceeding, and you can file comments on the
project. There is no fee or cost for filing protests, motions to
intervene, or comments. The deadline for filing protests, motions to
intervene, and comments is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on April 17, 2023.
How to file protests, motions to intervene, and comments is explained
below.

Protests

    Pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's regulations under
the NGA,\2\ any person \3\ or the Commission's staff may file a protest
to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed or if a
protest is filed and then withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed
time for filing a protest, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be
authorized effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a
protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time
allowed for filing a protest, the instant request for authorization
will be considered by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 18 CFR 157.205.
    \3\ Persons include individuals, organizations, businesses,
municipalities, and other entities. 18 CFR 385.102(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Protests must comply with the requirements specified in section
157.205(e) of the Commission's regulations,\4\ and must be submitted by
the protest deadline, which is April 17, 2023. A protest may also serve
as a motion to intervene so long as the protestor states it also seeks
to be an intervenor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 18 CFR 157.205(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interventions

    Any person has the option to file a motion to intervene in this
proceeding. Only intervenors have the right to request rehearing of
Commission orders issued in this proceeding and to subsequently
challenge the Commission's orders in the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
    To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the
Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure \5\ and the regulations under the NGA \6\ by the
intervention deadline for the project, which is April 17, 2023. As
described further in Rule 214, your motion to intervene must state, to
the extent known, your position regarding the proceeding, as well as
your interest in the proceeding. For an individual, this could include
your status as a landowner, ratepayer, resident of an impacted
community, or recreationist. You do not need to have property directly
impacted by the project in order to intervene. For more information
about motions to intervene, refer to the FERC website at https://www.ferc.gov/how-guides.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 18 CFR 385.214.
    \6\ 18 CFR 157.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All timely, unopposed motions to intervene are automatically
granted by operation of Rule 214(c)(1). Motions to intervene that are
filed after the intervention deadline are untimely and may be denied.
Any late-filed motion to intervene must show good cause for being late
and must explain why the time limitation should be waived and provide
justification by reference to factors set forth in Rule 214(d) of the
Commission's Rules and Regulations. A person obtaining party status
will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the
Commission and will receive copies (paper or electronic) of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties.

Comments

    Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. The
Commission considers all comments received about the project in
determining the appropriate action to be taken. To ensure that your
comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments
on or before April 17, 2023. The filing of a comment alone will not
serve to make the filer a party to the

proceeding. To become a party, you must intervene in the proceeding.

How To File Protests, Interventions, and Comments

    There are two ways to submit protests, motions to intervene, and
comments. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number
CP23-56-000 in your submission.
    (1) You may file your protest, motion to intervene, and comments by
using the Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the
Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and
Filings. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing you are
making; first select General'' and then select ``Protest'',
``Intervention'', or ``Comment on a Filing''; or \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Additionally, you may file your comments electronically by
using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's
website at www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings.
Using eComment is an easy method for interested persons to submit
brief, text-only comments on a project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) You can file a paper copy of your submission by mailing it to
the address below. Your submission must reference the Project docket
number CP23-56-000.

To mail via USPS, use the following address: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426
To send via any other courier, use the following address: Kimberly D.
Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852

    The Commission encourages electronic filing of submissions (option
1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-
8258 or [email protected].
    Protests and motions to intervene must be served to the applicant
by mail to: James Scribner, Regulatory and Certificates Analyst, 6603
West Broad Street, Richmond, Virginia 23230 or by email (with a link to
the document) at [email protected]. Any subsequent submissions
by an intervenor must be served on the applicant and all other parties
to the proceeding. Contact information for parties can be downloaded
from the service list at the eService link on FERC Online.

Tracking the Proceeding

    Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project
will be available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at
(866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link as described above. The eLibrary link also provides
access to the texts of all formal documents issued by the Commission,
such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. For more information and to register, go to https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/overview.

    Dated: February 16, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-03724 Filed 2-22-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


RULE 204.	APPLICATIONS
		(Adopted 10/18/1971, revised 5/1/1972, readopted 10/23/1978, revised 7/1979, 8/8/1988, 4/17/1997, and 8/25/2016)

A.	Applicability

	This rule shall apply to any person applying for an Authority to Construct or a Permit to Operate.

B.	Exemptions

	None.

C.	Definitions

	See Rule 102, Definitions, for definitions.

D.	Requirement  -  Permit Application Completeness

	Every application for an Authority to Construct or Permit to Operate required under Rule 201, Permits Required, shall be filed in the manner and form prescribed by the Control Officer, and shall give all the information necessary to make the determination required for the issuance of a permit. This information includes, but is not limited to, analyses, plans, or specifications which will disclose the nature, extent, quantity or degree of air contaminants which are, or may be, discharged by the source for which the permit was applied. The Control Officer may, during the processing of the application request an applicant to clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise supplement the information submitted in the application. The application shall be submitted and all information therein shall be attested to be accurate to the best knowledge of the applicant.

E.	Requirements  -  Information Required

	1.	General Information

		a.	This section outlines information required of applicants seeking permits to construct or modify pollution sources or control devices and specifies time frame for processing required of the District. All information required pursuant to District Rules and Regulations, and specified by the Control Officer on a list(s) maintained pursuant to Government Code Section 65940 shall be submitted before an application can be considered to be complete.

		b.	The information requirements are divided into five parts. Section E.2 of this rule identifies the information required of all applicants seeking permits. Section E.3 of this rule identifies additional information required for applications where Best Available Control Technology, but not Air Quality Impact Analysis, is mandatory. Section E.4 of this rule identifies further information required for applications where Air Quality Impact Analysis is mandatory. Where a modified source is subject to Best Available Control Technology or Air Quality Impact Analysis, some of the information required in this rule may also be required for the existing portion of the facility. Section E.5 of this rule identifies emission offset information requirements and Section E.6 of this rule identifies health risk assessment information requirements.

		c.	The District urges all applicants to discuss their projects with our staff prior to the filing of applications. If ambient monitoring data is needed, these discussions should take place more than a year prior to application. For some projects, it may not be necessary to submit all the information listed to have an application deemed complete. Consultation with District staff will expedite the process by identifying the specific information that will be required of an applicant.

 		d.	Prior to filing an application with the District, when applicable, all applicants are urged to participate fully in the early stages of the environmental review process being undertaken by the lead agency for the applicant's project in order: (1) to be apprised of the applicable air quality and other environmental constraints, and (2) to make such project modifications as may be necessary to satisfy those constraints.

		e.	Results of all analyses and tests submitted to the District shall be calculated and reported at standard conditions. Such results shall contain sample calculations that verify standard conditions.

		f.	An applicant seeking an exemption provided for in any rule or regulation of the District must supply the Control Officer with all information necessary, including applicable emission calculation sheets, to determine whether such an exemption applies.

		g.	Where offsets are required and the applicant proposes to obtain them from the Source Register, the applicant shall obtain them prior to Authority to Construct approval in accordance with Regulation VIII and Section E.5 of this rule.

	2.	Information Required  -  Applications

		All applications for an Authority to Construct shall be accompanied by information sufficient to make a completeness determination. The Control Officer shall maintain a list(s) pursuant to Government Code Section 65940 specifying information required of an applicant for a permit. The District will provide the applicant with one or more lists which specify in detail the information required and will indicate the criteria which the District will apply in order to determine application completeness.

	3.	Information Required  -  Best Available Control Technology

		All applicants for an Authority to Construct which require Best Available Control Technology shall submit the following:

		a.	Best Available Control Technology  -  Nonattainment Review

			1)	Individual Best Available Control Technology determinations pursuant to Rule 802, New Source Review, must address air pollution controls for each pollutant subject to review at a stationary source. It is the applicant's responsibility to submit a Best Available Control Technology proposal for evaluation by the District.

			2)	Justification of selected control technology as Best Available Control Technology.

			3)	Documentation of technical infeasibility which would preclude the use of a more effective control technology.

			4)	Operating conditions at which the maximum daily and hourly emissions will be generated (baseline parameters).

			5)	Maximum daily and hourly emissions at the conditions, described in (4) above, for each potential control technology and the basis of how the emission rates were estimated.

			6)	Calculations, emission data, and/or other information to determine control effectiveness (percent pollutant removed) of each potential control technology.

			7)	Emission limits shall be expressed both in terms of an emissions cap (e.g. pounds per day) and in terms which ensure compliance at any operating capacity (e.g., pounds per million British thermal units, or parts per million by volume). Where appropriate, on a case-by-case basis, emission limits may be expressed in alternate terms for determining compliance with the Best Available Control Technology standards. The source must comply with both limits to demonstrate compliance.

			8)	Applicants shall describe how the selected Best Available Control Technology is to be monitored for its emission reduction effectiveness.

		b.	Best Available Control Technology Information  -  Prevention of Significant Deterioration Requirements

			In addition to the requirements of Section E.3.a of this rule, sources which trigger an attainment pollutant Best Available Control Technology requirement pursuant to Rule 802, New Source Review, shall submit the following information. The District shall consider technical feasibility and energy, environmental (cross-media) and economic impacts in evaluating an applicant's Best Available Control Technology proposal:

			1)	A comprehensive list of potential control technologies.

			2)	A ranking of potential control technologies by control effectiveness (percent pollutant removed) in accordance with the Environmental Protection Agency's Top-Down procedure.

			3)	Itemized capital cost, including installation and/or modification cost for each proposed control technology.

			4)	Itemized annual operating cost, including fuel cost for each proposed control technology.

			5)	Energy impacts of each proposed control technology (British thermal units, kilowatt hours).

			6)	Estimated equipment life and its salvage value.

	4.	Information Required  -  Air Quality Impact Analysis

		a.	All applicants for an Authority to Construct new or modified sources which require an Air Quality Impact Analysis shall submit the following:

			1)	A description of any monitoring stations that may be installed by applicant.

			2)	Sufficient data, approved by the Control Officer consistent with the Air Quality and Meteorological Monitoring Protocol for Santa Barbara County, California, to perform an air quality impact analysis from all emission release points including fugitive emissions. The data shall include:

				a)	At least one full calendar year (twelve consecutive months) of meteorological data consistent with Appendix W of 40 CFR 51 Guideline on Air Quality Models.

				b)	Topographical data including receptor points by Universal Transverse Mercator coordinates and map of receptor points and source.

				c)	At least one full calendar year (twelve consecutive months) of recent air quality background data from the last 3 years prior to application completeness.

				d)	Computer modeling data:

					(1)	Mass emission rate and stack concentration of air pollutants.
					(2)	Stack diameter.
					(3)	Stack location in Universal Transverse Mercator coordinates.
					(4)	Stack height above ground level.
					(5)	Exhaust temperature.
					(6)	Exhaust velocity.
					(7)	Exhaust flow rate (volumetric).
					(8)	Buildings whose wakes may affect the plume of the stack, including Universal Transverse Mercator coordinates of building.
					(9)	Dimensions (length, width, height) of the buildings identified above.
					(10)	Maximum modeled concentration of air pollutants for all averaging times of concern and all applicable receptors of concern.
					(11)	Model used to perform air quality impact analysis.
					(12)	Model input and output files on computer diskette and hardcopy.
					(13)	Name, address, telephone number, and qualifications of company and/or person who performed air quality impact analysis.
					(14)	Terrain description and effects.

			3)	Identify all facilities within the air basin that are owned or operated by the applicant and the compliance status of each.

			4)	Power Consumption of Facility (for PSD permits only)

				a)	Total amount of electrical power to be consumed by the new facility or the increase in the amount of electrical power to be consumed due to the modification.

				b)	Percentage of electrical power provided by off-site generating facilities; identify the source of power.

			5)	Cargo Carriers

				List the frequency of visits, describe types and sizes of all cargo carriers (other than motor vehicles), identify nature of cargo, and conditions under which the cargo is transferred.

			6)	For major stationary sources, provide an analysis of alternative sites, sizes, production processes, and environmental control techniques for the proposed source that compares the benefits of the proposed source to its environmental and social costs.

	5.	Information Required  -  Description of Emission Reduction Credits to be used as Offsets

		If offsets are required for the project, then information sufficient to determine the adequacy of Emission Reduction Credits must be submitted before an Authority to Construct application will be deemed complete. In addition, Emission Reduction Credits proposed for use must be documented in the following ways:

		a.	If a source is proposed as an offset, the date of issue and number of the existing Permit to Operate and the complete application for the Emission Reduction Credits.

		b.	If the Emission Reduction Credits proposed for use have been registered by the District, the Emission Reduction Credit certificates identifying numbers and date of issue shall be included in the Authority to Construct application. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 40709.5(e), the applicant shall specify the year in which the applicant obtained the Emission Reduction Credit, price paid per ton per pollutant, and the total cost per pollutant.

		c.	If the Emission Reduction Credits proposed for use are not owned by the applicant, a letter from the owner of the Emission Reduction Credit certificates stating that the Emission Reduction Credits will be available at least two weeks before the Authority to Construct is issued. Alternatively, an applicant may provide a copy of the contract to obtain Emission Reduction Credits that is signed by the Emission Reduction Credit provider and by the applicant and which names the District as a third party beneficiary. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 40709.5(e), the applicant shall specify the year in which the applicant obtained the Emission Reduction Credit, the price paid per ton per pollutant, and the total cost per pollutant.

		d.	List proposed mitigating measures:

			1)	Air pollution control equipment proposed.

			2)	Process changes or operations utilized to reduce emissions.

			3)	Other.

		e.	Identify any air quality impacts from any precursor-secondary pollutant relationships.

	6.	Information Required  -  Health Risk Assessment

		The Health Risk Assessment shall be consistent with methodology approved by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Program Revised 1992 Risk Assessment Guidelines, prepared by the Toxics Committee of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, October, 1993, or most recent version, and shall address the following:

		a.	Unit risk factors used in determining lifetime cancer risk.

		b.	Population characterization (e.g., numbers, location, sensitive receptors).

		c.	Exposure assessment (e.g., working hours, family relocation).

		d.	Risk estimates for all parameters of concern, including multi-pathway analysis.

		e.	Analysis of potential health effects of non-carcinogenic air pollutants.

		f.	Map showing the receptor areas of concern drawn to scale with the sensitive receptors clearly marked. All applicants are encouraged to consult with the District staff as to an appropriate distance for health risk assessment.

		g.	Name, address, telephone number, and qualifications of company and/or person who performed health risk assessment.

		h.	Input and output computer files.