[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 115 (Friday, June 14, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35996-36002]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14114]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69725; File No. SR-EDGX-2013-19]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Amendments to the EDGX Exchange, Inc. Fee Schedule

June 10, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on June 3, 2013, EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 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 its fees and rebates applicable to
Members \3\ of the Exchange pursuant to EDGX Rule 15.1(a) and (c). All
of the changes described herein are applicable to EDGX Members. The
text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Internet Web site at www.directedge.com, at the Exchange's principal
office, and at the Public Reference Room of the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As defined in Exchange Rule 1.5(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its fees and rebates applicable to
Members of the Exchange pursuant to EDGX Rule 15.1(a) and (c) to: (1)
Lower the default \4\ rebate at the top of its fee schedule for adding
liquidity in securities at or above $1.00 on EDGX from a rebate of
$0.0021 per share to a rebate of $0.0020 per share and make conforming
changes to add flags B, V, Y, 3, and 4; (2) make conforming changes to
the internalization flags 5, EA, and ER; (3) increase the fee charged
from $0.0018 per share to $0.0020 per share for orders that yield Flag
RB, which routes to NASDAQ OMX BX (``BX'') and adds liquidity; (4)
decrease the rebate from $0.0026 per share to $0.0020 per share for
orders that yield Flag RS, which routes to NASDAQ OMX PSX (``PSX'') and
adds liquidity; (5) add the Midpoint Match Volume Tier (``MPM Volume
Tier'') to Footnote 3 of the Exchange's fee schedule; \5\ and (6) amend
the criteria to meet the $0.0035 per share Mega Tier in Footnote 1 as
well as lower the associated removal and routing rate from $0.0020 per
share to $0.0015 per share on the Exchange's fee schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``Default'' refers to the standard rebate provided to
Members for orders that add liquidity to the Exchange absent Members
qualifying for additional volume tiered pricing.
    \5\ References herein to ``Footnotes'' refer only to footnotes
on the Exchange's fee schedule and not to footnotes within the
current filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lower Default Rebate
    The Exchange proposes to lower the default rebate at the top of its
fee schedule for adding liquidity in securities at or above $1.00 on
EDGX from a rebate of $0.0021 per share to a rebate of $0.0020 per
share. This change will also be reflected in the following added
liquidity flags: B, V, Y, 3, and 4. The Exchange notes that Members
will still qualify for all tiered rebates on the Exchange's fee
schedule.
Amendments to Customer Internalization Fees
    For customer internalization, which occurs when two orders
presented to the Exchange from the same Member (i.e., MPID) are
presented separately and not

in a paired manner, but nonetheless inadvertently match with one
another,\6\ the Exchange currently charges $0.00045 per share per side
of an execution (for adding liquidity and for removing liquidity) for
Flags EA, ER, and 5. This charge occurs in lieu of the standard or
tiered rebate/removal rates. Therefore, Members currently incur a total
transaction cost of $0.0009 per share for both sides of an execution
for customer internalization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Members are advised to consult Rule 12.2 respecting
fictitious trading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In SR-EDGX-2011-13,\7\ the Exchange represented that it ``will work
promptly to ensure that the internalization fee is no more favorable
than each prevailing maker/taker spread.'' In order to ensure that the
internalization fee is no more favorable than the proposed maker/taker
spread of $0.0010 for the standard add rate (proposed rebate of
$0.0020) and standard removal rate ($0.0030 charge per share), the
Exchange is proposing to charge $0.0005 per side for customer
internalization (flags EA, ER and 5). However, if a Member posts
10,000,000 shares or more of average daily volume (``ADV'') to EDGX,
then the Member would get the current rate of $0.0001 per share per
side for customer internalization.\8\ If this occurs, then the Member's
rate for inadvertently matching with itself decreases to $0.0001 per
share per side, as reflected in Footnote 11. In each case (both tiered
and standard rates), the charge for Members inadvertently matching with
themselves is no more favorable than each maker/taker spread. The
applicable rate for customer internalization thus allows the Exchange
to discourage potential wash sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Release No. 64452 (May 10, 2011), 76
FR 28110, 28111 (May 13, 2011) (SR-EDGX-2011-13).
    \8\ EDGX has a variety of tiered rebates ranging from $0.0025-
$0.0035 per share, which makes its maker/taker spreads range from
$0.0005 (standard removal rate--Growth Tier), $0.0002 (standard
removal rate--Super Tier or 0.65% total consolidated volume
(``TCV'') step-up tier rebate), (standard removal rate--Step-Up Take
tier or Investor Tier), -$0.0001 (standard removal rate--Ultra Tier
rebate), -$0.0002 (standard removal rate--Mega Tier rebate of
$0.0032), -$0.0003 (standard removal rate--Market Depth Tier rebate
of $0.0033 per share), and -$0.0005 (standard removal rate--Mega
Tier rebate of $0.0035 per share). As a result of the customer
internalization charge, Members who internalized would be charged
$0.0001 per share per side of an execution (total of $0.0002 per
share) instead of capturing the maker/taker spreads resulting from
achieving the tiered rebates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fee Change for Flag RB
    In securities priced at or above $1.00, the Exchange currently
assesses a fee of $0.0018 per share for Members' orders that yield Flag
RB, which routes to BX and adds liquidity. The Exchange proposes to
amend its fee schedule to increase this fee to $0.0020 per share for
Members' orders that yield Flag RB. The proposed change represents a
pass through of the rate that Direct Edge ECN LLC (d/b/a DE Route)
(``DE Route''), the Exchange's affiliated routing broker-dealer, is
charged for routing orders to BX that add liquidity and do not qualify
for a volume tiered discount. When DE Route routes to BX and adds
liquidity, it is charged a default fee of $0.0020 per share.\9\ DE
Route will pass through this rate on BX to the Exchange and the
Exchange, in turn, will pass through this rate to its Members. The
Exchange notes that the proposed change is in response to BX's May 2013
fee filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission''), wherein BX increased the rate it charges its
customers, such as DE Route, from a charge of $0.0018 per share to a
charge of $0.0020 per share for orders that are routed to BX and add
liquidity.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Exchange notes that to the extent DE Route does or does
not achieve any volume tiered rebate on BX, its rate for Flag RB
will not change. See BX Fee Schedule, http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=bx_pricing (charging a default fee of $0.0020 per
share for adding displayed liquidity to BX).
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69522 (May 6,
2013), 78 FR 27464 (May 10, 2013) (SR-BX-2013-034) (amending the
default fee BX charges for adding liquidity to the BX order book
from $0.0018 per share to $0.0020 per share).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rebate Change for Flag RS
    In securities priced at $1.00 or above, the Exchange currently
provides a rebate of $0.0026 per share for Members' orders that yield
Flag RS, which routes to PSX and adds liquidity. The Exchange proposes
to amend its fee schedule to decrease the rebate it provides Members
from $0.0026 per share to $0.0020 per share for Flag RS. The proposed
change represents a pass through of the rate that DE Route is rebated
for routing orders to PSX that add liquidity and do not qualify for a
volume tiered discount.\11\ When DE Route routes to PSX and adds
liquidity, it is provided a default rebate of $0.0020 per share. DE
Route will pass through this rate on PSX to the Exchange and the
Exchange, in turn, will pass through this rate to its Members. The
Exchange notes that the proposed change is in response to PSX's May
2013 fee filing with the Commission, wherein PSX decreased the rebate
it provides its customers, such as DE Route, from a rebate of $0.0026
per share to a rebate of $0.0020 per share for orders that are routed
to PSX and add liquidity.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Exchange notes that to the extent DE Route does or does
not achieve any volume tiered rebate on PSX, its rate for Flag RS
will not change. See PSX Fee Schedule, http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=PSX_pricing (providing a default rebate of $0.0020
per share for adding displayed liquidity to PSX).
    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69588 (May 15,
2013), 78 FR 29801 (May 21, 2013) (SR-Phlx-2013-51) (amending the
default rebate PSX provides for adding displayed liquidity to the
PSX order book from $0.0026 per share to $0.0020 per share).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Addition of MPM Volume Tier
    The Exchange proposes to add the MPM Volume Tier to Footnote 3 of
the Exchange's fee schedule. A Member could qualify for the MPM Volume
Tier by adding and/or removing an ADV of at least 3,000,000 shares on a
daily basis, measured monthly, on EDGX, yielding flags MM (adds
liquidity to MPM using the Midpoint Match order type \13\) and/or MT
(removes liquidity from MPM using MPM order type). Members qualifying
for the MPM Volume Tier would not pay a fee for orders yielding Flag
MM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ As defined in Exchange Rule 11.5(c)(7), the Midpoint Match
(``MPM'') order type is an order with an instruction to execute it
at the midpoint of the NBBO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the proposed tier is subject to competitive
forces because it is comparable to The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC's
(``NASDAQ'') similar pricing tier that is dependent on achieving
stipulated volume requirements in midpoint liquidity, as discussed in
further detail below.
Amendment to $0.0035 Mega Tier
    Lastly, Footnote 1 of the Exchange's fee schedule currently
provides that Members may qualify for a Mega Tier rebate of $0.0035 per
share (the ``$0.0035 Mega Tier'') for all liquidity posted on EDGX
where Members add or route at least 2,000,000 shares of ADV prior to
9:30 a.m. or after 4:00 p.m. (including all flags except 6) and add a
minimum of 35,000,000 shares of ADV on EDGX in total, including during
both market hours and pre- and post-trading hours. In addition, for
meeting the aforementioned criteria, Members will pay a reduced rate
for removing liquidity of $0.0020 per share for Flags N, W, 6, 7, BB,
PI, RT, and ZR. Where a Member does not meet the criteria for any Mega
Tier, then a removal rate of $0.0030 per share applies.
    The Exchange proposes to amend Footnote 1 of its fee schedule to
increase the ADV requirement of the $0.0035 Mega Tier from 2,000,000
shares of ADV to 4,000,000 shares of ADV, add a requirement to have an
``added liquidity'' to ``added plus removed liquidity'' ratio of at
least 85% where added flags are defined as B, V, Y, 3, 4,

HA, MM, RP, and ZA, and removal flags are defined as N, W, 6, BB, MT,
PI, PR, and ZR and reduce the removal and/or routing rate associated
with achieving this tier from $0.0020 per share to $0.0015 per share.
The amended tier would read as follows:

    Members can qualify for the Mega Tier and be provided a rebate
of $0.0035 per share for all liquidity posted on EDGX if they (i)
add or route at least 4,000,000 shares of ADV prior to 9:30 a.m. or
after 4:00 p.m. (includes all flags except 6), (ii) add a minimum of
35,000,000 shares of ADV on EDGX in total, including during both
market hours and pre and post-trading hours, and (iii) have an
``added liquidity'' to ``added plus removed liquidity'' ratio of at
least 85% where added flags are defined as B, V, Y, 3, 4, HA, MM,
RP, and ZA, and removal flags are defined as N, W, 6, BB, MT, PI,
PR, and ZR. In addition, for meeting the aforementioned criteria,
Members will pay a reduced rate for removing and/or routing
liquidity of $0.0015 per share for Flags N, W, 6, 7, BB, PI, RT, and
ZR.

    The remainder of the footnote as it pertains to the $0.0035 per
share Mega Tier rebate would remain unchanged.
    As described in SR-EDGX-2013-16 \14\ and discussed in further
detail below, the $0.0035 Mega Tier is subject to competitive forces
because it is comparable to NASDAQ's Routable Order Program
(``ROP''),\15\ a similar program with similar criteria focused on
recognizing the propensity of Members representing retail customers to
make use of exchange-provided routing strategies and pre- and post-
market trading sessions, as compared with proprietary traders.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69539 (May 8,
2013), 78 FR 28269, 28270 (May 14, 2013) (SR-EDGX-2013-16).
    \15\ See Nasdaq Equity Trader Alert 2013-8, http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/TraderNews.aspx?id=ETA2013-8. See also, NASDAQ,
Price List--Trading Connectivity, http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=PriceListTrading2.
    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68905 (February 12,
2013), 78 FR 11716 (February 19, 2013) (SR-NASDAQ-2013-023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation Date
    The Exchange proposes to implement these amendments to its fee
schedule on June 3, 2013.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\17\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\18\ in particular, as it is
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its Members and other persons using its
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lower Default Rebate
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to lower the rebate from
$0.0021 per share to $0.0020 per share is an equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees and other charges as it will enable the Exchange
to retain additional funds to offset increased administrative,
regulatory, and other infrastructure costs associated with operating an
exchange. The rate is reasonable in that it is comparable to rebates
for adding liquidity offered by NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'')
(rebates of 0.0021 per share for Tapes A/C securities, $0.0022 per
share for Tape B securities) and on NASDAQ (rebate of $0.0020 per
share).\19\ The Exchange believes that the proposed rebate is non-
discriminatory in that it applies uniformly to all Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ NYSE Arca, NYSE Arca Equities Trading Fees, http://usequities.nyx.com/markets/nyse-arca-equities/trading-fees; NASDAQ,
Price List--Trading & Connectivity, http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=PriceListTrading2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendments to Customer Internalization Fees
    The Exchange believes that the increased fee for customer
internalization from $0.00045 to $0.0005 per share per side of an
execution for Flags EA, ER (regular trading session) and 5 (pre and
post market) represents an equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges as it is designed to discourage Members from
inadvertently matching with one another, thereby discouraging potential
wash sales. The increased fee also allows the Exchange to offset its
administrative, clearing, and other operating costs incurred in
executing such trades. Finally, the fee is equitable in that it is
consistent \20\ with the EDGX fee structure that has a proposed maker/
taker spread of $0.0010 per share (where the standard rebate to add
liquidity on EDGX is proposed to be $0.0020 per share and the standard
fee to remove liquidity is $0.0030 per share).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ In each case, the internalization fee is no more favorable
to the Member than each prevailing maker/taker spread.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This increased fee per side of an execution on Flags EA, ER, and 5
($0.0005 per side instead of $0.00045 per side per share), yields a
total cost of $0.0010, thus making the internalization fee consistent
with the current maker/taker spreads.\21\ The Exchange believes that
the proposed rate is non-discriminatory in that it applies uniformly to
all Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The Exchange will continue to ensure that the
internalization fee is no more favorable than each prevailing maker/
taker spread.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fee Change for Flag RB
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to increase the pass
through a charge for Members' orders that yield Flag RB from $0.0018 to
$0.0020 per share represents an equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees, and other charges among Members and other persons using its
facilities because the Exchange does not levy additional fees or offer
additional rebates for orders that it routes to BX through DE Route.
Prior to BX's May 2013 fee filing, BX charged DE Route a fee of $0.0018
per share for orders yielding Flag RB, which DE Route passed through to
the Exchange and the Exchange passed through to its Members. In BX's
May 2013 fee filing, BX increased the rate it charges its customers,
such as DE Route, from a charge of $0.0018 per share to a charge of
$0.0020 per share for orders that are routed to BX and add
liquidity.\22\ Therefore, the Exchange believes that the proposed
change in Flag RB from a fee of $0.0018 per share to a fee of $0.0020
per share is equitable and reasonable because it accounts for the
pricing changes on BX. In addition, the proposal allows the Exchange to
continue to charge its Members a pass-through rate for orders that are
routed to BX and add liquidity using DE Route. The Exchange notes that
routing through DE Route is voluntary. Lastly, the Exchange also
believes that the proposed amendment is non-discriminatory because it
applies uniformly to all Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69522 (May 6,
2013), 78 FR 27464 (May 10, 2013) (SR-BX-2013-034) (amending the
default fee BX charges for adding liquidity to the BX order book
from $0.0018 per share to $0.0020 per share).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rebate Change for Flag RS
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to decrease the pass
through rebate for Members' orders that yield Flag RS from $0.0026 to
$0.0020 per share represents an equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees, and other charges among Members and other persons using its
facilities because the Exchange does not levy additional fees or offer
additional rebates for orders that it routes to PSX through DE Route.
Prior to PSX's May 2013 fee filing, PSX provided DE Route a rebate of
$0.0026 per share for orders yielding Flag RS, which DE Route passed
through to the Exchange and the Exchange passed through to its Members.
In PSX's May 2013 fee filing, PSX decreased the rebate it provides its
customers, such as DE Route, from a rebate of $0.0026 per

share to a rebate of $0.0020 per share for orders that are routed to
PSX and add liquidity.\23\ Therefore, the Exchange believes that the
proposed decrease in rebate from $0.0026 per share to a rebate of
$0.0020 per share for orders that yield Flag RS is equitable and
reasonable because it accounts for the pricing changes on PSX. In
addition, the proposal allows the Exchange to continue to charge its
Members a pass-through rate for orders that are routed to PSX and add
liquidity using DE Route. The Exchange notes that routing through DE
Route is voluntary. Lastly, the Exchange also believes that the
proposed amendment is non-discriminatory because it applies uniformly
to all Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69588 (May 15,
2013) (SR-Phlx-2013-51) (amending the default rebate PSX provides
for adding displayed liquidity to the PSX order book from $0.0026
per share to $0.0020 per share).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Addition of MPM Volume Tier
    The Exchange believes that the addition of the MPM Volume Tier
represents an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges because it incentivizes Members to add midpoint liquidity to
the EDGX Book.\24\ In particular, the MPM Volume Tier is designed to
incent Members to achieve preferred pricing by adding midpoint
liquidity utilizing the MPM order type, yielding Flag MM by assessing
no charge for all orders yielding Flag MM when a Member meets the
criteria for the tier. The Exchange believes that Members utilizing
orders that add liquidity to MPM may receive the benefit of price
improvement, and the addition of the MPM Volume Tier and its associated
lower rate would be a reasonable means by which to encourage the use of
such orders. In addition, the Exchange believes that by encouraging the
use of MPM orders, Members seeking price improvement would be more
motivated to direct their orders to EDGX because they would have a
heightened expectation of the availability of liquidity at the midpoint
of the NBBO. Furthermore, the Exchange believes that adding the MPM
Volume Tier would recognize the contribution that non-displayed
liquidity provides to the marketplace, including price improvement
opportunities and increased the diversity of liquidity to EDGX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ As defined in Exchange Rule 1.5(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the MPM Volume Tier is reasonable
and equitably allocated because such increased liquidity benefits all
investors by deepening EDGX's liquidity pool, offering additional
flexibility for all investors to enjoy cost savings and improving
investor protection. Furthermore, such increased volume would increase
potential revenue to the Exchange and would allow the Exchange to
spread its administrative and infrastructure costs over a greater
number of shares, leading to lower per share costs. These lower per
share costs in turn would allow the Exchange to pass on the savings to
Members in the form of higher rebates and lower fees. Volume-based
discounts such as the one proposed herein are widely utilized in the
cash equities markets, and are equitable because they are open to all
Members on an equal basis and provide discounts that are reasonably
related to the value to an exchange's market quality associated with
higher levels of market activity, such as higher levels of liquidity
provision and opportunities for price improvement.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rate of no fee (free) for
the MPM Volume Tier provided that Members add an ADV of 3,000,000
shares or more represents an equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges because lower charges are directly correlated
with more stringent criteria. While similar to other tiers in the
Exchange's fee schedule in this respect, the MPM Volume Tier cannot be
directly compared to other tiers in the Exchange's fee schedule with
regard to proportionality or consistency because of the nature of the
tier, as a tier that specifically rewards adding non-displayed
liquidity at the midpoint, sets it apart from all other tiers in the
Exchange's fee schedule.
    In addition, the proposed rate (free) offered by the MPM Volume
Tier is reasonable because it is within industry norms. The Exchange
notes that, based on the spread between rates for adding and removing
liquidity, the proposed tier is comparable to NASDAQ's similar pricing
tier that is dependent on achieving stipulated volume requirements in
midpoint liquidity. In particular, NASDAQ currently provides a rebate
of $0.0017 per share to its members that add greater than 3 million
shares of midpoint liquidity on a monthly basis and a fee of $0.0030
per share to remove liquidity at the midpoint.\25\ Accordingly, such
members that add and remove liquidity at the midpoint and meet the
criteria of the tier are subject to a spread of $0.0013 per share. The
Exchange currently charges Members a fee of $0.0012 per share to remove
liquidity at the midpoint and a fee of $0.0012 per share to add
liquidity at the midpoint and offers no tiered pricing for midpoint
orders. Accordingly, Members that add and remove liquidity at the
midpoint are subject to a spread of $0.0024 per share. Under the
proposed MPM Volume Tier (offering no fee for orders that add liquidity
at the midpoint and meet the criteria for the tier), Members that add
and remove liquidity at the midpoint and meet the requirements of the
MPM Volume Tier would be subject to a spread of $0.0012 per share,
bringing the spread provided by the Exchange to Members that meet its
MPM Volume Tier in line with that provided by NASDAQ to its members
that meet its similar midpoint tier ($0.0013 per share).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See NASDAQ, Price List--Trading Connectivity, http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=PriceListTrading2 (providing for
rebates to add non-displayed midpoint liquidity).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, the Exchange also believes that the proposed amendment is
non-discriminatory because it applies uniformly to all Members.
Amendment to $0.0035 Mega Tier
    The Exchange believes that the amendments to the $0.0035 Mega Tier
to increase the volume requirement from 2,000,000 shares of ADV to
4,000,000 shares of ADV during pre- and post-trading hours, add a
condition that requires Members to have an ``added liquidity'' to
``added plus removed liquidity'' ratio of at least 85%, and lower the
associated reduced removal and/or routing rates for achieving this tier
from $0.0020 per share to $0.0015 per share on Flags N, W, 6, 7, BB,
PI, RT, and ZR represents an equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges. The $0.0035 Mega Tier was intended to
encourage greater participation on EDGX by Members that represent
retail customers.\26\ In particular, the Exchange

notes that an ``added liquidity'' to ``added plus removed liquidity''
ratio of at least 85% is a characteristic of retail order flow, where
retail members add substantially more liquidity than they remove.
Members that primarily post liquidity are more valuable Members to the
Exchange and the marketplace in terms of liquidity provision. Because
retail orders are more likely to reflect long-term investment
intentions than the orders of proprietary traders, they promote price
discovery and dampen volatility. Accordingly, their presence on the
EDGX Book has the potential to benefit all market participants. For
this reason, EDGX believes that it is equitable to provide significant
financial incentives to encourage greater retail participation in the
market in general and on EDGX in particular. The Exchange believes that
increasing the volume requirement and requiring the addition of an
``added liquidity'' to ``added plus removed liquidity'' ratio of at
least 85% may result in increased volume in retail orders by firms
aspiring to meet the criteria of the tier and, accordingly, would lead
to benefits for all market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69539 (May 8,
2013), 78 FR 28269, 28270 (May 14, 2013) (SR-EDGX-2013-16) (adding
flags RT and 7, yielded from routing strategies ROUT and pre- and
post-routing, respectively, and utilized by retail investors, to the
$0.0035 Mega Tier). The Exchange notes that the Commission has
expressed concern that a significant percentage of the orders of
individual investors are executed in over-the-counter markets, that
is, at off exchange markets. Securities Exchange Act Release No.
61358 (January 14, 2010), 75 FR 3594 (January 21, 2010) (Concept
Release on Equity Market Structure, ``Concept Release''). In the
Concept Release, the Commission recognized the strong policy
preference under the Act in favor of price transparency and
displayed markets. See also Mary L. Schapiro, Strengthening Our
Equity Market Structure (Speech at the Economic Club of New York,
Sept. 7, 2010) (available on the Commission Web site) (comments of
Commission Chairman on what she viewed as a troubling trend of
reduced participation in the equity markets by individual investors,
and that nearly 30 percent of volume in U.S.-listed equities is
executed in venues that do not display their liquidity or make it
generally available to the public).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the amendment is reasonable because
higher rebates and proposed reduced fees for removal of liquidity and/
or routing are directly correlated with more stringent criteria. The
criteria for the $0.0035 Mega Tier is the most stringent of all other
tiers on the Exchange's fee schedule. In order to qualify for the next
best tier after the Mega Tier, the Market Depth Tier, a Member would
receive a rebate of $0.0033 per share for displayed liquidity added on
EDGX if they post greater than or equal to 0.50% of the Total
Consolidated Volume (``TCV'') in ADV on EDGX in total, where at least 2
million shares of which are non-displayed orders that yield Flag HA.
Assuming a TCV of 6 billion shares for April 2013, this would amount to
30 million shares, at least 2 million shares of which are non-displayed
orders. In order for Members to qualify for the next best tier after
the Market Depth Tier and be provided a rebate of $0.0032 per share for
all liquidity posted on EDGX, Members must add or route at least
4,000,000 shares of ADV prior to 9:30 a.m. or after 4:00 p.m. (includes
all flags except 6) and add a minimum of .20% of the TCV on a daily
basis measured monthly, including during both market hours and pre and
post-trading hours (``$0.0032 Mega Tier''). Based on a TCV of 6 billion
shares for April 2013, this would be 12 million shares. The criteria
for the Market Depth Tier and $0.0032 Mega Tier are less stringent then
the volume thresholds for the $0.0035 Mega Tier Rebate because Members
must add a minimum of 35 million shares of ADV, have an ``added
liquidity'' to ``added plus removed liquidity'' ratio of at least
85%,\27\ and add or route at least 4 million shares of ADV during pre-
and post-trading hours to earn a rebate of $0.0035 per share and be
eligible for the proposed lower removal and/or routing fees ($0.0015
per share).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Assuming 35 million shares added volume, Members can remove
no more than 6.2 million shares to achieve this 85% ratio.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed, the criteria for the $0.0035 Mega Tier is the most
stringent as fewer Members generally trade during pre- and post-trading
hours because of the limited time parameters associated with these
trading sessions, which generally results in less liquidity. The
Exchange incentivizes adding resting liquidity by assigning a higher
value to this liquidity because liquidity received prior to the regular
trading session typically remains resident on the EDGX Book throughout
the remainder of the entire trading day. Such liquidity received during
pre- and post-trading hours is an important contributor to price
discovery and acts as an important indication of price for the market
as a whole considering the relative illiquidity of the pre- and post-
trading hour sessions. The Exchange believes that increasing the volume
requirement of the tier, requiring the addition of an ``added
liquidity'' to ``added plus removed liquidity'' ratio of at least 85%,
and reducing the favorable removal and/or routing rates for achieving
this tier is reasonable because it may result in increased liquidity
during these trading sessions submitted by Members aspiring to meet the
criteria of the tier. Such increased liquidity benefits all investors
by deepening EDGX's liquidity pool, supporting the quality of price
discovery, promoting market transparency and improving investor
protection.
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to lower removal and/or
routing fees using liquidity provision patterns. First, the lower
removal and/or routing rates are similar to the Exchange's Step-up Take
Tier in Footnote 2 of its fee schedule \28\ and other similar tiers on
NYSE Arca \29\ in that it offers a discounted removal rate that is
designed to incent fee sensitive liquidity takers to the Exchange
provided they are able to meet certain volume requirements. The
Exchange believes that the proposed reduction of certain of the
Exchange's routing fees (Flags RT and 7) provided the criteria for the
$0.0035 Mega Tier Rebate is met is equitably allocated, fair and
reasonable, and non-discriminatory in that the lower fees are equally
applicable to all Members that meet the applicable criteria and are
designed to encourage greater retail participation on EDGX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68166 (November 6,
2012), 77 FR 67695 (November 13, 2012) (SR-EDGX-2012-46).
    \29\ The Exchange's discounted removal rate from $0.0030 per
share to the proposed rate of $0.0015 per share for Members that
achieve the $0.0035 Mega Tier is also reasonable because it is
similar in concept to discounts offered by NYSE Arca, where the
default removal rate is $0.0030 per share and customers that qualify
for the Tape C Step Up Tier earn discounts of $0.0029 per share. See
NYSE Arca, Schedule of Fees and Charges for Exchange Services,
https://usequities.nyx.com/sites/usequities.nyx.com/files/nyse_arca_marketplace_fees_5_1_13.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the proposed amendment to the volume requirement in
the $0.0035 Mega Tier is reasonable and within industry norms because
the strict requirements to meet the tier reflect the substantial
benefits offered by the tier. As described in SR-EDGX-2013-16,\30\ the
$0.0035 Mega Tier is comparable to NASDAQ's ROP,\31\ a similar program
with similar criteria focused on recognizing the propensity of Members
representing retail customers to make use of exchange-provided routing
strategies and pre- and post-market trading sessions, as compared with
proprietary traders.\32\ To qualify for the ROP and receive a rebate of
$0.0037 per share and a reduced removal fee of $0.0029 per share for
SCAN or LIST orders that access liquidity on NASDAQ, an MPID must: (i)
Add 35 million shares or more per day on average using the SCAN or LIST
routing strategies; and (ii) of the liquidity provided using SCAN or
LIST strategies, at least 2 million shares per day on average must be
provided before the NASDAQ opening cross and/or after the NASDAQ
closing cross. The proposed reduced removal/routing rate of $0.0015 per
share, when compared to the reduced charge offered by NASDAQ ($0.0029),
is substantially more favorable to market participants. As

such, the Exchange believes that the proposed reduced removal/routing
rate of $0.0015 per share offered by the $0.0035 Mega Tier justifies a
stricter volume requirement. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that it
is reasonable to increase the volume requirement to meet the tier from
2,000,000 shares of ADV to 4,000,000 shares of ADV during pre- and
post-trading hours. In addition, similar to NASDAQ's ROP's reduced
removal fees, the proposed reduction in removal fees and routing rates
for the Exchange's listed flags is reasonable because it reflects
significant fee reductions, thereby reducing the costs to Members that
represent retail customers and take advantage of the tier, and
potentially also reducing costs to the retail customers themselves. The
change is consistent with an equitable allocation of fees because EDGX
believes that it is reasonable to use fee reductions on removal and
routing fees as a means to encourage greater retail participation on
EDGX. In particular, Flags RT and 7 are proposed to be offered lower
routing rates because they are yielded from routing strategies ROUT
\33\ and pre and post-session routing, respectively, which are used by
retail investors and are similar to NASDAQ's SCAN routing strategy.\34\
The other removal flags selected (Flags N, W, 6, BB, PI, and ZR)
represent all possible removal flags that are yielded from removing
liquidity from EDGX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69539 (May 8,
2013), 78 FR 28269, 28270 (May 14, 2013) (SR-EDGX-2013-16).
    \31\ See Nasdaq Equity Trader Alert 2013-8, http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/TraderNews.aspx?id=ETA2013-8. See also, NASDAQ,
Price List--Trading Connectivity, http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=PriceListTrading2.
    \32\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68905 (February 12,
2013), 78 FR 11716 (February 19, 2013) (SR-NASDAQ-2013-023).
    \33\ As defined in Exchange Rule 11.9(b)(2).
    \34\ See NASDAQ Rule 4758(a)(1)(A)(iv). See also Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 68905 (February 12, 2013), 78 FR 11716,
11717 (February 19, 2013) (SR-NASDAQ-2013-023) (describing SCAN as a
basic NASDAQ routing strategy that is widely used by firms that
represent retail customers. SCAN checks the NASDAQ Market Center
System for available shares, while remaining shares are
simultaneously routed to destinations on the applicable routing
table. If shares remain un-executed after routing, they are posted
on the NASDAQ book).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, the Exchange also believes that the proposed amendment is
non-discriminatory because the amended tier applies uniformly to all
Members, whether or not they represent retail customers, that provide
significant levels of liquidity, and is therefore complementary to
existing incentives that already aim to encourage greater retail
participation, such as EDGX's Retail Order Tier \35\ and flags ZA/ZR in
Footnote 4 of its fee schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Footnote 4 of the Exchange's fee schedule provides that
Members will be provided a rebate of $0.0034 per share if they add
an average daily volume of Retail Orders (Flag ZA) that is 0.10% or
more of the TCV on a daily basis, measured monthly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    These proposed rule changes do not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act. The Exchange does not believe that any of these changes
represent a significant departure from previous pricing offered by the
Exchange or pricing offered by any of the Exchange's competitors.
Additionally, Members may opt to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if
they believe that alternatives offer them better value. Accordingly,
the Exchange believes that the proposed changes would not impair the
ability of Members or competing venues to maintain their competitive
standing in the financial markets.
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to lower the rebate from
$0.0021 per share to $0.0020 per share will also assist in increasing
competition in that its proposed rebate is comparable to rebates for
adding liquidity offered by NYSE Arca (rebates of $0.0021 per share for
adding liquidity in Tapes A/C securities and $0.0022 per share for
adding liquidity in Tape B securities) and on NASDAQ (rebate of $0.0020
per share).\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ NYSE Arca, NYSE Arca Equities Trading Fees, http://usequities.nyx.com/markets/nyse-arca-equities/trading-fees; NASDAQ,
Price List--Trading & Connectivity, http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=PriceListTrading2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its internalization rates for securities
priced $1.00 and above will also not burden intermarket or intramarket
competition as the proposed rates are no more favorable than Members
achieving the maker/taker spreads between the default add and remove
rates on EDGX.
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to pass through a charge of
$0.0020 per share for Members' orders that yield Flag RB would increase
intermarket competition because it offers customers an alternative
means to route to BX and add liquidity for the same price as entering
orders on BX directly. The Exchange believes that its proposal would
not burden intramarket competition because the proposed rate would
apply uniformly to all Members.
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to pass through a rebate of
$0.0020 per share for Members' orders that yield Flag RS would increase
intermarket competition because it offers customers an alternative
means to route to PSX and add liquidity for the same price as entering
orders on PSX directly. The Exchange believes that its proposal would
not burden intramarket competition because the proposed rate would
apply uniformly to all Members.
    The Exchange believes that its proposal would increase competition
for routing services because the market for order execution is
competitive and the Exchange's proposal provides customers with another
alternative to route their orders. The Exchange notes that routing
through DE Route is voluntary.
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to add the MPM Volume Tier
would increase intermarket competition because it will lead to more
competition for orders that seek liquidity at the midpoint of the NBBO.
The Exchange believes that its proposal would neither increase nor
decrease intramarket competition because the MPM Volume Tier and its
associated rate is available to all Members on a uniform basis.
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to increase the volume
requirement, add a requirement that ``added liquidity'' to ``added plus
removed liquidity'' ratio of at least 85%, and decrease the associated
reduced removal and/or routing rate for achieving the $0.0035 Mega Tier
would increase intermarket competition because Members that seek to
meet the tier would be required to send higher volume to the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that its proposal would neither increase nor
decrease intramarket competition because the rate for the $0.0035 Mega
Tier would continue to apply uniformly to all Members and the ability
of some Members to meet the tier would only benefit other Members by
contributing to increased price discovery and better market quality at
the Exchange, especially during pre- and post-market sessions.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from Members or other interested
parties.

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) of the Act \37\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \38\ thereunder. At
any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the
Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if

it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \38\ 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-EDGX-2013-19 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGX-2013-19. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGX-2013-19 and should be
submitted on or before July 5, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-14114 Filed 6-13-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 20 (Wednesday, February 1, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 8903]
[FR Doc No: 2017-02150]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 380, 383, and 384

[FMCSA-2007-27748]
RIN 2126-AB66

Minimum Training Requirements for Entry-Level Commercial Motor
Vehicle Operators

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; delay of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Presidential directive as expressed in
the memorandum of January 20, 2017, from the Assistant to the President
and Chief of Staff, entitled ``Regulatory Freeze Pending Review,'' this
action temporarily delays until March 21, 2017, the effective date of
the final rule titled ``Minimum Training Requirements for Entry-Level
Commercial Motor Vehicle Operators,'' initially effective February 6,
2017, is delayed.

DATES: The effective date of the final rule published on December 8,
2016 (81 FR 88732), is delayed until March 21, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Richard Clemente, Driver and
Carrier Operations (MC-PSD) Division, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE.,
Washington, DC 20590-0001, by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FMCSA bases this action on the Presidential
directive as expressed in the memorandum of January 20, 2017, from the
Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, entitled ``Regulatory
Freeze Pending Review.'' That memorandum directed the heads of
Executive Departments and Agencies to temporarily postpone for 60 days
from the date of the memorandum the effective dates of certain
regulations that had been published in the Federal Register, but had
not yet taken effect. Because the original effective date of the final
rule published on December 8, 2016, falls within that 60-day window,
the effective date of the rule is delayed until March 21, 2017.
    The Agency's implementation of this action without opportunity for
public comment is based on the good cause exceptions in 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B) and 553(d)(3), in that seeking public comment is
impracticable, unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. The
temporary delay in the effective date until March 21, 2017, is
necessary to give Agency officials the opportunity for further review
and consideration of this new regulation, consistent with the
memorandum of the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, dated
January 20, 2017. Given the imminence of the effective date of the
``Minimum Training Requirements for Entry-Level Commercial Motor
Vehicle Operators'' final rule, seeking prior public comment on this
temporary delay would have been impractical, as well as contrary to the
public interest in the orderly promulgation and implementation of
regulations.
    The Agency may consider delaying the effective date of the above
referenced regulation beyond March 21, 2017, consistent with the
memorandum of the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff.

    Issued under the authority of delegation in 49 CFR 1.87 on:
January 27, 2017.
John Van Steenburg,
Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2017-02150 Filed 1-31-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


Attachment 2 Statistical Impact of Relying on a 6 Test Data Set Versus a 10 Test Set The original " chi squared" and " Fisher's exact" based statistical analysis of Colitag   / reference method comparability has been compared to a revised analysis based on a subset of data ( using only those tests with clearly established hold times); details from both analyses are included in Attachment 3. The conclusion ( i. e., that the comparability study did not identify a " statistically significant difference" in performance between the reference methods and Colitag   ) did not change when the smaller data set was used.

Statistically significant differences in method performance are indicated where the chi squared probability or Fisher's exact two sided probability falls below 0.05. As noted below, in the case of both total coliforms and E. coli, and for both the complete ( 10 test) and smaller ( 6 test) data set, both chi squared and Fisher's exact probabilities indicate that the comparability study did not identify a statistically significant difference in method performance. Total coliform values are lower when using the smaller data set, though still well above the threshold. E. coli values using the smaller data set are greater than or equal to those associated with the larger data set; again, in the case of E. coli all values are well above the threshold.

10 test data set 6 test data set Threshold Statisticallysignificant difference?

Total coliforms Chi Squared probability 0.84 0.51 0.05 no Fisher's exact 2 sided probability 0.92 0.60 0.05 no E. coli Chi Squared probability 0.92 1.0 0.05 no Fisher's exact 2 sided probability 1.0 1.0 0.05 no Having established the conclusion itself ( per the above), EPA next examined the strength of such conclusion ( i. e., the confidence that the conclusion is accurate) when using a 10 test study versus a 6 test study.

In discussing the " strength" of the conclusion, it is important to first understand the nature and limitations of the method comparison. EPA's analysis is only designed to identify whether there is a statistically significant difference in two methods being compared ( the new/ proposed method and the reference method). If the chi squared and Fishers exact analysis of the comparability study results does not identify a statistically significant difference between the new method and the reference method, EPA is satisfied that the new method should be proposed for compliance monitoring. 2 In considering two methods, three situations are possible: ( 1) the method performance is identical; ( 2) the new method outperforms the reference method; or ( 3) the new method underperforms the reference method. Either of the first two possibilities is an acceptable situation; what EPA is concerned about in its assessment is accurately identifying those cases where the reference method outperforms the new method ( i. e., the third possibility). What EPA has considered, therefore, is the possibility of declaring the two methods " comparable", when, in fact, the reference method performs better than the new method.

The potential for such error depends on the number of tests performed ( N) and the " absolute" ( but unknown) success rate ( S) of the reference method ( i. e., the degree to which the reference method outperforms the new method); by this definition, the reference method yields more accurate results "` S'% of the time". Based on these figures, and using a binomial distribution approach, one can calculate " beta", which represents " the likelihood of declaring the methods ` comparable', when, in fact, the reference method outperforms the new method". The likelihood of drawing the " right" conclusion may be represented as ( 1 beta). The results of such an analysis are summarized below:

" S" ( the absolute success rate of the reference method) N ( number of tests) beta N ( number of tests) beta 0.6 10 0.95 6 0.95 0.7 10 0.85 6 0.88 0.8 10 0.62 6 0.74 0.838 10 0.50 6 0.65 0.871 10 0.38 6 0.56 0.891 10 0.30 6 0.50 0.9 10 0.26 6 0.47 0.917 10 0.20 6 0.41 0.956 10 0.07 6 0.24 0.963 10 0.05 6 0.20 In statistical analyses, one often wishes to establish the likelihood of drawing the " right" conclusion ( in this case, properly identifying those cases where the reference method outperforms the new method) at a particular goal. One can do so by holding " 1 beta" constant ( i. e., at the goal) and examining how " S" changes for various " N" values. Using such approach, the above data suggest that if one wishes to establish the likelihood of drawing the " right" conclusion 50% 3 of the time, a 10 test study would meet this goal if the reference method truly outperforms the new method 84% of the time or more; for a 6 test approach, the goal would be met if the reference method truly outperforms the new method 89% of the time or more.

If one wishes to establish the likelihood of drawing the " right" conclusion 80% of the time, a 10 test study would meet this goal if the reference method truly outperforms the new method 92% of the time or more; for a 6 test approach, the goal would be met if the reference method truly outperforms the new method 96% of the time or more.

The above points suggest that, even under a worst case scenario, where data from only 6 tests are used in the analysis of method comparability, the conclusion does not change, nor is the strength of that conclusion substantially impacted.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 135 (Thursday, July 14, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 45464]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16664]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER16-1887-000]

Apple Energy 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
Apple Energy 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 July 28, 2016.
    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 should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic 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
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 8, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-16664 Filed 7-13-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 125 (Monday, June 30, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36666-36669]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15254]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 125 / Monday, June 30, 2014 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0425; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-180-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2012-06-
19, for certain Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -243, -301, -
302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes; and Model
A340-200 and -300 series airplanes. AD 2012-06-19 currently requires
repetitive inspections of the main fitting and sliding tube of the nose
landing gear (NLG) for defects, damage, and cracks; and corrective
actions if necessary. Since we issued AD 2012-06-19, we have determined
that additional airplanes are affected by the identified unsafe
condition. This proposed AD would add airplanes to the applicability.
This proposed AD would require an inspection of the part number and
serial number of the NLG main fitting and NLG sliding tube; for
affected parts, a magnetic particle inspection (MPI) for cracks, and
flap peening and replacement if necessary. This proposed AD would also
require, for certain parts, additional inspections for damage and
cracking. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracks,
defects, or damage of the main fitting or sliding tube, which could
result in consequent NLG collapse.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 14, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61
93 45 80; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
0425; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2014-0425;
Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-180-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On March 15, 2012, we issued AD 2012-06-19, Amendment 39-17000 (77
FR 22188, April 13, 2012). AD 2012-06-19 requires actions intended to
address an unsafe condition on certain Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -
203, -223, -243, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -
343 airplanes; and Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes.
    Since we issued AD 2012-06-19, Amendment 39-17000 (77 FR 22188,
April 13, 2012), we have determined that additional airplanes are
affected by the identified unsafe condition.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2013-0179, dated August 7, 2013 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model
A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -243, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -
341, -342, and -343 airplanes; and Model A340-200 and -300 series
airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During the overhaul of two different Nose Landing Gear (NLG)
units, cracks were found on the main fitting of one and the sliding
tube of the other. Investigations concluded that the cracks
initiated as a result of residual stress in the parts, following
damage due to impact during towing incidents.
    A subsequent review of the reported incidents identified a
specific group of NLG main fittings and sliding tubes that may have
sustained impact damage as a result of towing incidents.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected could lead to NLG
collapse.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, EASA issued AD 2010-
0034 [(http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_ad_2010_0034_Corrected_superseded.pdf/AD_2010-0034_1) [which corresponds to
FAA AD 2012-06-19, Amendment 39-17000 (77 FR 22188, April 13, 2012)]
to require accomplishment of a one-time Magnetic Particles
Inspection (MPI), followed by repetitive Detailed Visual Inspections
(DVI) of the main fittings and sliding tubes of the affected NLG
units identified by Part Number (P/N) and Serial Number (S/N) in the
Applicability section of that AD and, depending on findings,
accomplishment of applicable corrective actions.
    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, it has been found necessary to
address the issue at the level of NLG detail parts and no longer at
NLG assembly level, as some detail parts have been transferred from
an aeroplane to another. Airbus revised the applicable Service
Bulletins (SB), which now list the affected NLG main fittings and
sliding tubes.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains
[certain] requirements of EASA AD 2010-0034 which is superseded and
requires [an inspection of the part number and serial number of the
NLG main fitting and NLG sliding tube, and for affected parts,] a
one-time MPI [for cracks], followed by repetitive DVI [for cracking,
damage to paint, sealant, cadmium, and base metal] of the affected
NLG main fittings and sliding tubes and, depending on inspection
results, accomplishment of corrective actions [e.g., flap peening
and replacing cracked parts]. This AD also extends the applicability
to A330 freighters.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
0425.

Relevant Service Information

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A330-32-3233, Revision 02, dated
January 27, 2014; and Service Bulletin A340-32-4275, Revision 01, dated
July 5, 2013. The actions described in this service information are
intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 92 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
    The actions that are required by AD 2012-06-19, Amendment 39-17000
(77 FR 22188, April 13, 2012), and retained in this proposed AD take
about 4 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per
work-hour. Required parts cost about $0 per product. Based on these
figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are required by AD
2012-06-19 is $31,280 per product.
    We also estimate that it would take about 10 work-hours per product
to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average
labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per
product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed
AD on U.S. operators to be $78,200, or $850 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take about 114 work-hours and require parts costing $435,000, for a
cost of $444,690 per product. We have no way of determining the number
of aircraft that might need these actions.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

    We 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. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2012-06-19, Amendment 39-17000 (77 FR 22188, April 13, 2012), and
adding the following new AD:

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2014-0425; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-
180-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 14, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2012-06-19, Amendment 39-17000 (77 FR
22188, April 13, 2012).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -
223F -243, -243F, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342,
and -343 airplanes; and Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, and
-313 airplanes; certificated in any category; all manufacturer
serial numbers.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing
Gear.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of a cracked nose landing gear
(NLG) main fitting and sliding tube during overhaul of the NLGs
following damage due to impact during towing incidents. We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks, defects, or damage of
the main fitting or sliding tube, which could result in consequent
NLG collapse.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Detailed Inspection and Corrective Actions

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD
2012-06-19, Amendment 39-17000 (77 FR 22188, April 13, 2012) with
revised service information. For Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -
243, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343
airplanes; and Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, and -313
airplanes; if fitted with the NLG identified in table 1 to paragraph
(g) of this AD: Within 900 flight hours after April 30, 2012 (the
effective date of AD 2012-06-19), do a detailed inspection of the
NLG main fitting and sliding tube for any cracks, defects, and
damage of the paint or surface protection, including paint removal
and cracking of the surface treatment. Before further flight after
doing the detailed inspection of the NLG, remove the labels, paint,
surface protection coatings, and cadmium from the NLG main fitting;
do a detailed inspection for any damage to the surface that will
impair the magnetic particle inspection (MPI); and, if any defects
are found, before further flight, remove any defects by polishing.
Do all actions specified in paragraph (g) of this AD in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service
information specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD.
    (1) For Model A330 airplanes: Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin
A330-32-3233, dated October 22, 2009; or Airbus Service Bulletin
A330-32-3233, Revision 02, dated January 27, 2014.
    (2) For Model A340 airplanes: Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin
A340-32-4275, dated October 22, 2009; or Airbus Service Bulletin
A340-32-4275, Revision 01, dated July 5, 2013.

 Table 1 to Paragraph (g) of This AD--Applicable NLG and Serial Numbers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Part No.                            Serial No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D23285200..................................  B2
D23285101-7................................  B58
D23285101-10...............................  B75
D23581100-1................................  B124
D23581100-1................................  B159
D23581100-7................................  B386
D23581100-7................................  B398
D23581100-7................................  B400
D23581100-7................................  B403
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(h) Retained Magnetic Particle Inspection

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD
2012-06-19, Amendment 39-17000 (77 FR 22188, April 13, 2012), with
revised service information. Before further flight after doing the
actions required in paragraph (g) of this AD: Do an MPI for cracking
of the NLG main fitting and sliding tube, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information
specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD.
    (1) If no crack is detected during the MPI required by paragraph
(h) of this AD: Before further flight, flap peen the inspected area
where the paint and cadmium has been removed, and replace the
protective coatings, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of the applicable service information specified in
paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD.
    (2) If any crack is detected during the MPI required by
paragraph (h) of this AD: Before further flight, replace the damaged
part with a new or serviceable part, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information
specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD.

(i) New Requirement of This AD: Identification

    Within 1,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD,
identify the part number and serial number of the NLG main fitting
and NLG sliding tube, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3233, Revision 02,
dated January 27, 2014; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-4275,
Revision 01, dated July 5, 2013; as applicable. A review of airplane
maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this identification if
the part number and the serial number of the NLG main fitting and
NLG sliding tube can be conclusively determined from that review.

(j) New Requirement of This AD: MPI

    If, during the identification required by paragraph (i) of this
AD, it is determined any NLG main fitting or NLG sliding tube is
installed and the fitting or tube has a part number and serial
number listed in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3233, Revision 02,
dated January 27, 2014; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-4275,
Revision 01, dated July 5, 2013; as applicable: Within 1,000 flight
hours after the effective date of this AD, do an MPI for cracks of
the affected parts, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3233, Revision 02,
dated January 27, 2014; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-4275,
Revision 01, dated July 5, 2013; as applicable. Accomplishing the
MPI required by this paragraph terminates the inspections required
by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD.
    (1) If any crack is detected during the MPI required by
paragraph (j) of this AD, before further flight, replace any cracked
part (NLG main fitting and NLG sliding tube) with a serviceable one,
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service
Bulletin A330-32-3233, Revision 02, dated January 27, 2014; or
Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-4275, Revision 01, dated July 5,
2013; as applicable.
    (2) If no crack is detected during the MPI required by paragraph
(j) of this AD, before further flight, do a flap peening to
introduce compressive residual stress and corrosion protection, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service
Bulletin A330-32-3233, Revision 02, dated January 27, 2014; or
Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-4275, Revision 01, dated July 5,
2013; as applicable.

(k) New Requirement of This AD: Detailed Inspection

    Within 900 flight hours after doing the flap peening required by
paragraph (j)(2) of this AD, do a detailed inspection for damage to
paint, damage to the sealant around the labels, damage to the
cadmium or base metal, and for cracking of the affected parts; in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service
Bulletin A330-32-3233, Revision 02, dated January 27, 2014; or
Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-4275, Revision 01, dated July 5,
2013; as applicable. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals
not to exceed 900 flight hours.
    (1) If damage to the paint, damage to the sealant around the
labels, or damage to the cadmium or base metal, is detected during
any detailed inspection required by paragraph (k) of this AD, before
further flight, do an MPI for cracking of the affected parts, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service
Bulletin A330-32-3233, Revision 02, dated January 27, 2014; or
Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-4275, Revision 01, dated July 5,
2013; as applicable.
    (2) If any cracking is detected during any inspection required
by paragraph (k) or (k)(1) of this AD, before further flight,
replace any cracked part with a serviceable part, in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-
3233, Revision 02, dated January 27, 2014; or Airbus Service
Bulletin A340-32-4275, Revision 01, dated July 5, 2013; as
applicable.

(l) Terminating Action

    Replacement of a part as required by paragraph (j)(1) or (k)(2)
of this AD is terminating action for the repetitive detailed
inspections required by paragraph (k) of this AD for that part,
provided that the part number and serial number of the replacement
part is not listed in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3233, Revision
02, dated January 27, 2014; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-4275,
Revision 01, dated July 5, 2013; as applicable.

(m) Parts Installation Limitation

    As of the effective date of this AD, installation of an NLG main
fitting or NLG sliding tube having a part number and serial number
listed in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3233, Revision 02, dated
January 27, 2014; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-4275, Revision
01, dated July 5, 2013; as applicable; is allowed, provided that the
NLG main fitting and NLG sliding tube has not accumulated more than
900 flight hours since the most recent inspection accomplished in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service
Bulletin A330-32-3233, Revision 02, dated January 27, 2014; or
Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-4275, Revision 01, dated July 5,
2013; as applicable.

(n) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for inspections required by
paragraphs (j) and (k) of this AD and the flap peening required by
paragraph (j)(2) of this AD, if those actions were performed before
the effective date of

this AD using the service information specified in paragraph (n)(1),
(n)(2), or (n)(3) of this AD.
    (1) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3233, dated October 22,
2009.
    (2) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3233, Revision 01, dated
July 5, 2013.
    (3) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-4275, dated October 22,
2009.

(o) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, 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 International Branch, send it to ATTN: Vladimir
Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this
AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer, use these actions if they
are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if
they were approved by the State of Design Authority (or its
delegated agent, or by the Design Approval Holder with a State of
Design Authority's design organization approval, as applicable). You
are required to ensure the product is airworthy before it is
returned to service.

(p) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2013-
0179, dated August 7, 2013, for related information. This MCAI may
be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-
2014-0425.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 19, 2014.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-15254 Filed 6-27-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


MEMORANDUM
From: 	Brian Storey, OAR/OAQPS/SPPD/MMG
To: 	PERC Dry Cleaning NESHAP Docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0155)
Date:	May 5, 2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: April 28, 2021 Conference Call with the State of Colorado Representatives
On April 28, 2021 EPA held a conference call with representatives from the State of Colorado to discuss the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from PERC Dry Cleaning Facilities (Dry Cleaning NESHAP).  The following people participated in the call:
Christine Hoefler, Colorado SBEAP Assistance Coordinator
Brian Storey, Project Lead
Ryan Callihan, Economist
Rhonda Wright, CTPG
Steven McLeod, RTI
The following information was shared with the group on the call regarding Colorado's management of dry-cleaning facilities.
    There were approximately 1,000 facilities registered and permitted in Colorado in 2005/6, and there are currently approximately 70 facilities using perc. Reductions due to factors such as economics/market trends, switching to alternative solvents, regulation changes (see second bullet below), and consolidation via drop off locations. These trends were happening even prior to Covid-19 pandemic.
    In 2014 Colorado changed regulation requiring any facility utilizing 250 pounds or more per year for all non-criteria reportable pollutants (e.g., HAP from perc) would have to report and have a permit, and this includes dry cleaning facilities.
    Unaware of any major source dry cleaning facilities in CO.
    In recent years, due to negative press and public response over remediation/hazwaste/water issues, landlords had been going after dry cleaners pressuring them to either move out or switch to "greener" solvents.
    The State of Colorado mails out compliance calendars to dry cleaners as an outreach program (primarily Korean-owned dry cleaners in the state). Also, CO air group works with hazardous waste group to do outreach.
    No additional fees for perc usage (outside the normal annual air emissions and hazardous waste fees).
    Dry cleaners in Colorado are using 4[th] and 5[th] generation machines.
    The popular alternative solvents in use are DF2000 (hydrocarbons), carbon dioxide, green earth (siloxane-based), and petroleum. Regarding petroleum, noted that some facilities tried using petroleum as drop-in replacement for perc, but ran into corrosion/gasket fouling issues.
    Compliance issues typically related to recordkeeping and leak checks, general lack of understanding/language barriers. Generally, more hazardous waste issues than air.


[Federal Register: March 14, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 51)]
[Notices]
[Page 13885-13886]
[DOCID:fr14mr08-59]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13120-000]

Duquesne Light Company; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing
and Soliciting Motions To Intervene, Protests, and Comments

March 7, 2008.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Preliminary Permit.
    b. Project No.: 13120-000.
    c. Date filed: February 21, 2008.
    d. Applicant: Duquesne Light Company.
    e. Name of Project: Monongahela Lock & Dam No. 4 Hydroelectric
Project.
    f. Location: Monongahela River in Westmoreland County,
Pennsylvania. It would use the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'
Monongahela Lock & Dam No. 4.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Chris P. McClain, Paul C. Rizzo
Associates Inc., 105 Mall Boulevard, Suite 270-E, Monroeville, PA
15146,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Robert Bell,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene, protests and comments:
60 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Comments, protests, and
interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of
paper; see 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the
Commission's Web site under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission
strongly encourages electronic filings. Please include the project
number (P-13120-000) on any comments or motions filed.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person in the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Competing Application: Project No. 12906-000, Date Filed: July
30, 2007, Date Issued: November 26, 2007, Competing Applications
Deadline: closed.
    l. Description of Project: The proposed project, using the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers' Monongahela Lock & Dam No. 4 and operated in a
run-of-river mode, would consist of: (1) A new intake structure; (2) a
new powerhouse containing three generating units with a total installed
capacity of 20 megawatts; (3) a new 5,500-foot long, 34 kilovolt
transmission line; and (4) appurtenant facilities. The proposed
Monongahela Lock & Dam No. 4 Project would have an average annual
generation of 85 gigawatt-hours, which would be used to service its
customers.
    m. Locations of Applications: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A,
Washington, DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may
also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov
using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last
three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h
above.

    n. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    o. Proposed Scope of Studies under Permit: A preliminary permit, if
issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed
preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the
preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of
preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts.
Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide
whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to
construct and operate the project.
    p. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    q. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or
``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the Project Number of the
particular application to which the filing refers. Any of the above-
named documents must be filed by providing the original and the number
of copies provided by the Commission's regulations to: The Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. An additional copy must be sent to Director,
Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, at the above-mentioned address. A copy of any
motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the
Applicant specified in the particular application.
    Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper; see 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the ``e-Filing''
link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.
    r. Agency Comments: Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-5115 Filed 3-13-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P