[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 13, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38576-38580]
[FR Doc No: 2023-12574]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-97662; File No. SR-MEMX-2023-09]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; MEMX LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Exchange's Fee Schedule

June 7, 2023.
    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 May 31, 2023, MEMX LLC (``MEMX'' or the ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change
to amend the Exchange's fee schedule applicable to Members \3\ (the
``Fee Schedule'') pursuant to Exchange Rules 15.1(a) and (c). The
Exchange proposes to implement the changes to the Fee Schedule pursuant
to this proposal on June 1, 2023. The text of the proposed rule change
is provided in Exhibit 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Exchange Rule 1.5(p).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Fee
Schedule to (i) modify the Liquidity Provision tiers by modifying the
required criteria under Liquidity Provision Tier 4 and adopting a new
Liquidity Provision Tier 6, and (ii) modify the Liquidity Removal Tiers
by increasing the fee and modifying the required criteria under
Liquidity Removal Tier 1 and eliminating Liquidity Removal Tier 2, as
further described below.
    The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or incentives to be insufficient. More specifically, the
Exchange is only one of 16 registered equities exchanges, as well as a
number of alternative trading systems and other off-exchange venues, to
which market participants may direct their order flow. Based on
publicly available information, no single registered equities exchange
currently has more than approximately 16% of the total market share of
executed volume of equities trading.\4\ Thus, in such a low-
concentrated and highly competitive market, no single equities exchange
possesses significant pricing power in the execution of order flow, and
the Exchange currently represents approximately 3.2% of the overall
market share.\5\ The Exchange in particular operates a ``Maker-Taker''
model whereby it provides rebates to Members that add liquidity to the
Exchange and charges fees to Members that remove liquidity from the
Exchange. The Fee Schedule sets forth the standard rebates and fees
applied per share for orders that add and remove liquidity,
respectively. Additionally, in response to the competitive environment,
the Exchange also offers tiered pricing, which provides Members with
opportunities to qualify for higher rebates or lower fees where certain
volume criteria and thresholds are met. Tiered pricing provides an
incremental incentive for Members to strive for higher tier levels,
which provides increasingly higher benefits or discounts for satisfying
increasingly more stringent criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Market share percentage calculated as of May 31, 2023. The
Exchange receives and processes data made available through
consolidated data feeds (i.e., CTS and UTDF).
    \5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Liquidity Provision Tiers
    The Exchange currently provides a base rebate of $0.0018 per share
for executions of Added Displayed Volume.\6\ The Exchange also
currently

offers Liquidity Provision Tiers 1-5 under which a Member may receive
an enhanced rebate for executions of Added Displayed Volume by
achieving the corresponding required volume criteria for each such
tier. The Exchange now proposes to modify the Liquidity Provision Tiers
by modifying the required criteria under such Liquidity Provision Tier
4 and adopting a new Liquidity Provision Tier 6, as further described
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The base rebate for executions of Added Displayed Volume is
referred to by the Exchange on the Fee Schedule under the existing
description ``Added displayed volume'' with a Fee Code of ``B'',
``D'' or ``J'', as applicable, on execution reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, with respect to Liquidity Provision Tier 4, the Exchange
currently provides an enhanced rebate of $0.0029 per share for
executions of Added Displayed Volume for Members that qualify for such
tier by achieving: (1) an ADAV \7\ that is equal to or greater than
0.15% of the TCV; or (2) a Displayed ADAV that is greater than or equal
to 2,000,000 shares and a Step-Up Displayed ADAV \8\ from April 2023
that is greater than or equal to 50% of the Member's April 2023
Displayed ADAV.\9\ The Exchange now proposes to modify the required
criteria under Liquidity Provision Tier 4 such that a Member would
qualify for such tier by achieving: (1) an ADAV that is equal to or
greater than 0.15% of the TCV; or (2) a Displayed ADAV that is equal to
or greater than 0.02% of the TCV and a Step-Up Displayed ADAV of the
TCV from April 2023 that is equal to or greater than 50% of the
Member's April 2023 Displayed ADAV of the TCV. Thus, such proposed
change would keep the existing criteria (1) intact and modify the
alternative Displayed ADAV and a Step-Up Displayed ADAV thresholds in
criteria (2), which are designed to encourage the submission of
additional liquidity-adding order flow to the Exchange. Additionally,
the Exchange is proposing that criteria (2) of Liquidity Provision Tier
4 will expire no later than October 31, 2023, which is currently the
case under the existing Liquidity Provision Tier 4 criteria (2). The
Exchange is not proposing to change the rebate provided under such
tier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ As set forth on the Fee Schedule, ``ADAV'' means the average
daily added volume calculated as the number of shares added per day,
which is calculated on a monthly basis, and ``Displayed ADAV'' means
ADAV with respect to displayed orders.
    \8\ As set forth on the Fee Schedule, ``Step-Up Displayed ADAV''
means Displayed ADAV in the relevant baseline month subtracted from
current Displayed ADAV.
    \9\ The pricing for Liquidity Provision Tier 4 is referred to by
the Exchange on the Fee Schedule under the existing description
``Added displayed volume, Liquidity Provision Tier 4'' with a Fee
Code of ``B4'', ``D4'' or ``J4'', as applicable, to be provided by
the Exchange on the monthly invoices provided to Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the Exchange is proposing to establish a new tier under the
Liquidity Provision Tiers, which, as proposed, would be referred to by
the Exchange as Liquidity Provision Tier 6. Under the proposed new
Liquidity Provision Tier 6, the Exchange would provide an enhanced
rebate of $0.0024 per share for executions of Added Displayed Volume
for Members that qualify for such tier by achieving a Displayed ADAV
that is equal to or greater than 0.007% of the TCV and has a Step-Up
Displayed ADAV of the TCV from May 2023 that is equal to or greater
than 50% of the Member's May 2023 Displayed ADAV of the TCV.\10\ The
Exchange proposes to provide Members that qualify for the proposed new
Liquidity Provision Tier 6 a rebate of 0.075% of the total dollar
volume of the transaction for executions of orders in securities priced
below $1.00 per share that add displayed liquidity to the Exchange,
which is the same rebate that is applicable to such executions under
each of the existing Liquidity Provision Tiers. Additionally, the
Exchange is proposing that Liquidity Provision Tier 6 will expire no
later than November 30, 2023, and the Exchange will indicate this in a
note under the Liquidity Provision Tiers pricing table on the Fee
Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The proposed pricing for new Liquidity Provision Tier 6 is
referred to by the Exchange on the Fee Schedule under the
description ``Added displayed volume, Liquidity Provision Tier 6''
with a Fee Code of ``B6'', ``D6'' or ``J6'', as applicable, to be
provided by the Exchange on the monthly invoices provided to
Members. The Exchange notes that because the determination of
whether a Member qualifies for a certain pricing tier for a
particular month will not be made until after the month-end, the
Exchange will provide the Fee Codes otherwise applicable to such
transactions on the execution reports provided to Members during the
month and will only designate the Fee Codes applicable to the
achieved pricing tier on the monthly invoices, which are provided
after such determination has been made, as the Exchange does for its
tier-based pricing today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The tiered pricing structure for executions of Added Displayed
Volume under the Liquidity Provision Tiers provides an incremental
incentive for Members to strive for higher volume thresholds to receive
higher enhanced rebates for such executions and, as such, is intended
to encourage Members to maintain or increase their order flow,
primarily in the form of liquidity-adding volume, to the Exchange,
thereby contributing to a deeper and more liquid market to the benefit
of all Members and market participants. The Exchange believes that the
Liquidity Provision Tiers, as modified by the proposed changes
described above, reflect a reasonable and competitive pricing structure
that is right-sized and consistent with the Exchange's overall pricing
philosophy of encouraging added and/or displayed liquidity.
Specifically, the Exchange believes that, after giving effect to the
proposed changes described above, the rebate for executions of Added
Displayed Volume provided under each of the Liquidity Provision Tiers
1-6 remains commensurate with the corresponding required criteria under
each such tier and is reasonably related to the market quality benefits
that each such tier is designed to achieve.
Liquidity Removal Tiers
    The Exchange currently charges a standard fee of $0.0030 per share
for executions of orders in securities priced at or above $1.00 per
share that remove liquidity from the Exchange (such orders, ``Removed
Volume''). The Exchange also currently offers Liquidity Removal Tiers 1
and 2 under which qualifying Members are charged a discounted fee by
achieving the corresponding required volume criteria for each such
tier. The Exchange now proposes to modify the Liquidity Removal Tiers
by increasing the fee charged for executions of Removed Volume under
Liquidity Removal Tier 1 and modifying the required criteria under such
tier and eliminating Liquidity Removal Tier 2, as further described
below.
    With respect to Liquidity Removal Tier 1, the Exchange currently
charges a discounted fee of $0.0029 per share for executions of Removed
Volume by achieving one of the following two alternative criteria: (1)
an ADV \11\ that is equal to or greater than 0.50% of the TCV \12\ and
a Remove ADV \13\ that is equal to or greater than 0.30% of the TCV; or
(2) an ADV that is equal to or greater than 1.00% of the TCV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ As set forth on the Fee Schedule, ``ADV'' means average
daily volume calculated as the number of shares added or removed,
combined, per day, which is calculated on a monthly basis.
    \12\ As set forth on the Fee Schedule, ``TCV'' means total
consolidated volume calculated as the volume reported by all
exchanges and trade reporting facilities to a consolidated
transaction reporting plan for the month for which the fees apply.
    \13\ As set forth on the Fee Schedule, ``Remove ADV'' means ADV
with respect to orders that remove liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Now, the Exchange proposes to increase the fee charged for
executions of Removed Volume under Liquidity Removal Tier 1 to $0.00295
per share, and to modify the required criteria such that a Member would
now qualify for such tier by achieving one of the following two
alternative criteria: (1) an ADV that is equal to or greater than 0.50%
of the TCV; or (2) a Remove ADV

that is equal to or greater than 0.30% of the TCV.\14\ Thus, the
proposed change to the required criteria would keep the ADV threshold
and Remove ADV thresholds in the current criteria (1) the same, but
rather than requiring Members to meet both thresholds as a single
criteria, the Remove ADV threshold of 0.30% of the TCV would become an
alternative, and the current alternative of an ADV that is equal or
greater than 1.00% of the TCV would be eliminated. In other words, the
existing ``and'' in criteria (1) would become an ``or'', which would
replace the existing criteria (2). The Exchange is not proposing to
change the fee for executions of orders in securities priced below
$1.00 per share under such tier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The pricing for Liquidity Removal Tier 1 is referred to by
the Exchange on the Fee Schedule under the existing description
``Removed volume from MEMX Book, Liquidity Removal Tier 1'' with a
Fee Code of ``R1'' to be provided by the Exchange on the monthly
invoices provided to Members. The Exchange notes that because the
determination of whether a Member qualifies for a certain pricing
tier for a particular month will not be made until after the month-
end, the Exchange will provide the Fee Codes otherwise applicable to
such transactions on the execution reports provided to Members
during the month and will only designate the Fee Codes applicable to
the achieved pricing tier on the monthly invoices, which are
provided after such determination has been made, as the Exchange
does for its tier-based pricing today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to Liquidity Removal Tier 2, the Exchange currently
charges a discounted fee of $0.00295 per share for executions of
Removed Volume by achieving an ADV that is equal to or greater than
0.25% of the TCV. The Exchange now proposes to eliminate Liquidity
Removal Tier 2, as the Exchange no longer wishes to, nor is it required
to, maintain such tier.
    The proposed changes to the Liquidity Removal Tiers are designed to
encourage Members to maintain or increase their order flow, including
in the form of orders that remove liquidity, to the Exchange in order
to qualify for the proposed discounted fee for executions of Removed
Volume. While the Exchange's overall pricing philosophy generally
encourages adding liquidity over removing liquidity, the Exchange
believes that providing alternative criteria that are based on
different types of volume that Members may choose to achieve, such as
the proposed new criteria which includes a Remove ADV threshold,
contributes to a more robust and well-balanced market ecosystem on the
Exchange to the benefit of all Members.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\15\ in general, and with
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\16\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among its Members and other persons using its facilities
and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the Exchange operates in a highly fragmented
and competitive market in which market participants can readily direct
order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular
venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient, and the
Exchange represents only a small percentage of the overall market. The
Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference
for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices,
products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS,
the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues and also recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005),
70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
shift order flow or discontinue to reduce use of certain categories of
products, in response to new or different pricing structures being
introduced into the market. Accordingly, competitive forces constrain
the Exchange's transaction fees and rebates, and market participants
can readily trade on competing venues if they deem pricing levels at
those other venues to be more favorable. The Exchange believes the
proposal reflects a reasonable and competitive pricing structure
designed to incentivize market participants to direct additional order
flow, including displayed, liquidity-adding and/or liquidity-removing
orders, to the Exchange, which the Exchange believes would promote
price discovery and enhance liquidity and market quality on the
Exchange to the benefit of all Members and market participants.
    The Exchange notes that volume-based incentives and discounts have
been widely adopted by exchanges, including the Exchange, and are
reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they are
open to all members on an equal basis and provide additional benefits
or 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/or growth patterns, and the
introduction of higher volumes of orders into the price and volume
discovery process. The Exchange believes that the Liquidity Provision
Tier 4 as modified by the proposed change to the required criteria
under such tier, the proposed new Liquidity Provision Tier 6, and the
Liquidity Removal Tier 1 as modified by the proposed changes to the fee
for executions of Removed Volume and the required criteria under such
tier are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory for
these same reasons, as such tiers would provide Members with an
incremental incentive to achieve certain volume thresholds on the
Exchange, are available to all Members on an equal basis, and, as
described above, are designed to encourage Members to maintain or
increase their order flow, including in the form of displayed,
liquidity-adding and/or liquidity removing orders, to the Exchange in
order to qualify for an enhanced rebate for executions of Added
Displayed Volume or a discounted fee for executions of Removed Volume,
as applicable, thereby contributing to a deeper, more liquid and well
balanced market ecosystem on the Exchange to the benefit of all Members
and market participants. The Exchange also believes that such tiers
reflect a reasonable and equitable allocation of fees and rebates, as
the Exchange believes that the enhanced rebate for executions of Added
Displayed Volume under the proposed modified Liquidity Provision Tier 4
and the proposed new Liquidity Provision Tier 6, as well as the
discounted fee for executions of Removed Volume under the modified
Liquidity Removal Tier 1, each remains commensurate with the
corresponding required criteria under each such tier and is reasonably
related to the market quality benefits that each such tier is designed
to achieve, as described above. While the Exchange has proposed
increasing its fees for certain executions of Removed Volume, the
Exchange believes that such change represents a modest increase from
the current fee applicable to such executions.
    For the reasons discussed above, the Exchange submits that the
proposal

satisfies the requirements of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act
\18\ in that it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees and other charges among its Members and other persons using
its facilities and is not designed to unfairly discriminate between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. As described more fully below
in the Exchange's statement regarding the burden on competition, the
Exchange believes that its transaction pricing is subject to
significant competitive forces, and that the proposed fees and rebates
described herein are appropriate to address such forces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposal will result in any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Instead, as discussed above,
the proposal is intended to incentivize market participants to direct
additional order flow, including displayed, liquidity-adding and
liquidity-removing orders, to the Exchange, thereby enhancing liquidity
and market quality on the Exchange to the benefit of all Members and
market participants, as well as to generate additional revenue and
decrease the Exchange's expenditures with respect to its transaction
pricing in a manner that is still consistent with the Exchange's
overall pricing philosophy of encouraging added displayed liquidity. As
a result, the Exchange believes the proposal would enhance its
competitiveness as a market that attracts actionable orders, thereby
making it a more desirable destination venue for its customers. For
these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal furthers the
Commission's goal in adopting Regulation NMS of fostering competition
among orders, which promotes ``more efficient pricing of individual
stocks for all types of orders, large and small.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See supra note 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Intramarket Competition
    As discussed above, the Exchange believes that the proposal would
incentivize Members to submit additional order flow, including
displayed, liquidity-adding and liquidity-removing orders, to the
Exchange, thereby enhancing liquidity and market quality on the
Exchange to the benefit of all Members, as well as enhancing the
attractiveness of the Exchange as a trading venue, which the Exchange
believes, in turn, would continue to encourage market participants to
direct additional order flow to the Exchange. Greater liquidity
benefits all Members by providing more trading opportunities and
encourages Members to send additional orders to the Exchange, thereby
contributing to robust levels of liquidity, which benefits all market
participants. The opportunity to qualify for the proposed new Liquidity
Provision Tier 6, and thus receive the proposed enhanced rebate for
executions of Added Displayed Volume under such tier, would be
available to all Members that meet the associated volume requirements
in any month. Similarly, the opportunity to qualify for the proposed
modified criteria under Liquidity Provision 4 and the proposed modified
criteria under Liquidity Removal Tier 1, and thus received the enhanced
rebate for executions of Added Displayed Volume or be charged the
discounted fee for executions of Removed Volume, respectively, would
continue to be available to all Members that meet the associated volume
requirements in any month. For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange
believes the proposed changes would not impose any burden on
intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Intermarket Competition
    As noted above, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or incentives to be insufficient. Members have numerous
alternative venues that they may participate on and direct their order
flow to, including 15 other equities exchanges and numerous alternative
trading systems and other off-exchange venues. As noted above, no
single registered equities exchange currently has more than
approximately 16% of the total market share of executed volume of
equities trading. Thus, in such a low-concentrated and highly
competitive market, no single equities exchange possesses significant
pricing power in the execution of order flow. Moreover, the Exchange
believes that the ever-shifting market share among the exchanges from
month to month demonstrates that market participants can shift order
flow or discontinue to reduce use of certain categories of products, in
response to new or different pricing structures being introduced into
the market. Accordingly, competitive forces constrain the Exchange's
transaction fees and rebates, including with respect to Added Displayed
Volume, and Removed Volume, and market participants can readily choose
to send their orders to other exchange and off-exchange venues if they
deem fee levels at those other venues to be more favorable. As
described above, the proposed changes represent a competitive proposal
through which the Exchange is seeking to generate additional revenue
with respect to its transaction pricing and to encourage the submission
of additional order flow to the Exchange through volume-based tiers,
which have been widely adopted by exchanges, including the Exchange.
Accordingly, the Exchange believes the proposal would not burden, but
rather promote, intermarket competition by enabling it to better
compete with other exchanges that offer similar pricing incentives to
market participants.
    Additionally, the Commission has repeatedly expressed its
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically,
in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market
forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized
that current regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably
successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that
are most important to investors and listed companies.'' \20\ The fact
that this market is competitive has also long been recognized by the
courts. In NetCoalition v. SEC, the D.C. Circuit stated as follows:
``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . .
As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and
sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-
routing agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders
for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share
percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly,
regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker
dealers' . . . .''.\21\ Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe its
proposed pricing changes impose any burden on competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See supra note 17.
    \21\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2006-21)).

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

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \22\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \23\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \23\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
file number SR-MEMX-2023-09 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to file number SR-MEMX-2023-09. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not
include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We
may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted
material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All
submissions should refer to file number SR-MEMX-2023-09 and should be
submitted on or before July 5, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-12574 Filed 6-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 215 (Tuesday, November 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 66600]
[FR Doc No: 2012-27005]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. RP12-945-000; RP12-945-001]

High Point Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice Establishing Deadline
for Comments

    On October 26, 2012, High Point Gas Transmission, LLC (High Point)
filed a response to the Commission's October 16, 2012 Data Request in
the captioned proceedings.
    Notice is hereby given that participants in the captioned
proceedings may file comments to High Point's Data Response on or
before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on Tuesday, November 6, 2012.

    Dated: October 31, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-27005 Filed 11-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 126 (Tuesday, July 1, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37204-37207]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15441]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2014-0511]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone, Delaware River; Chester, PA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone on the Delaware
River in Chester, PA, from 9 p.m. to 10:15 p.m. on July 12, 2014. The
safety zone will restrict vessel traffic on the Delaware River while a
fireworks event is taking place. This safety zone is necessary to
protect the public and vessels in the surrounding area from the hazards
associated with a fireworks display.

DATES: This rule is effective from July 1, 2014 through July 12, 2014.
It will be enforced from 9 p.m. to 10:15 p.m. on July 12, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
[USCG-2014-0511]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email If you have questions on this

temporary rule, call or email Lieutenant Brennan Dougherty, U.S. Coast
Guard, Sector Delaware Bay, Chief Waterways Management Division, Coast
Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If
you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket,
call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
(202) 366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this final rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision
authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because allowing this event to go forward
without a safety zone in place is contrary to the public interest and
would expose mariners and the public to unnecessary dangers associated
with fireworks displays. For the same reasons, we find under 5 U.S.C.
553(d) that we have good cause to make the rule effective less than 30
days after publication.

B. Basis and Purpose

    On July 12, 2014, fireworks will be launched from a barge with a
fall out zone that covers part of Delaware River. The Captain of the
Port, Sector Delaware Bay, has determined that the Philadelphia Union
Soccer Game at PPL Park Fireworks Display will pose significant risks
to the public. The purpose of the rule is to promote public and
maritime safety during a fireworks display, and to protect mariners
transiting the area from the potential hazards associated with a
fireworks display, such as accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous
projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris.

C. Discussion of the Final Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone in the waters of the
Delaware River in Philadelphia, PA, from 9 p.m. to 10:15 p.m. on July
12, 2014. The safety zone will encompass all waters just south of the
Commodore Barry Bridge within a 350 yard radius of the fireworks barge
located at latitude 39[deg]49'47.04'' N longitude 075[deg]22'40.72'' W
in Chester, PA. During enforcement of the safety zone, all persons and
vessels will be prohibited from entering, transiting, mooring, or
remaining within the zone, unless specifically authorized by the
Captain of the Port Delaware Bay, or her designated representative.
Those persons authorized to transit through the safety zone shall abide
by and follow all directions provided by the Captain of the Port
Delaware Bay, or her designated representative, in order to ensure they
are not disrupting the fireworks display. U.S. Coast Guard Sector
Delaware Bay will notify the public by broadcast notice to mariners at
least one hour prior to the times of enforcement.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on these statutes or executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. Although this regulation
will restrict access to the regulated area, the effect of this rule
will not be significant because: (i) The Coast Guard will make
extensive notification of the Safety Zone to the maritime public via
maritime advisories so mariners can alter their plans accordingly; (ii)
vessels may still be permitted to transit through the safety zone with
the permission of the Captain of the Port on a case-by-case basis; and
(iii) this rule will be enforced for only the duration of the fireworks
display.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of
which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels
intending to anchor or transit along a portion of the Delaware River
near Chester, PA, from 9 p.m. to 10:15 p.m. on July 12, 2014, unless
cancelled earlier by the Captain of the Port once all operations are
completed.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reason: Vessel
traffic will be allowed to pass through the zone with permission of the
Coast Guard Captain of the Port Delaware Bay or her designated
representative and zone is limited in size and duration. Sector
Delaware Bay will issue maritime advisories widely available to users
of the Delaware Bay and River.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

10. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined
that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves implementation of regulations within 33
CFR Part 165, applicable to safety zones on the navigable waterways.
This zone will temporarily restrict vessel traffic from transiting the
Delaware River along the shoreline of Chester, Pennsylvania, in order
to protect the safety of life and property on the waters for the
duration of the fireworks display. This rule is categorically excluded
from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the
Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting
this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any
comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703;
50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub. L.
107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1

0
2. Add temporary Sec.  165.T05-0511 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T05-0511  Safety Zone, Delaware River; Philadelphia, PA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters of
the Delaware River in Chester, PA, inside a boundary encompassing all
waters just south of the Commodore Barry Bridge within a 350 yard
radius of the fireworks barge located at latitude 39[deg]49'47.04'' N
longitude 075[deg]22'40.72'' W in Chester, PA.
    (b) Enforcement period. This rule will be enforced from 9 p.m. to
10:15 p.m. on July 12, 2014, unless cancelled earlier by the Captain of
the Port once all operations are completed.
    (c) Regulations. All persons are required to comply with the
general regulations governing safety zones in 33 CFR 165.33.
    (1) All persons or vessels wishing to transit through the Safety
Zone must request authorization to do so from the Captain of the Port
or her designated representative one hour prior to the intended time of
transit.
    (2) Vessels granted permission to transit must do so in accordance
with the directions provided by the Captain of the Port or her
designated representative to the vessel.
    (3) To seek permission to transit the Safety Zone, the Captain of
the Port's representative can be contacted via marine radio VHF Channel
16.
    (4) This section applies to all vessels wishing to transit through
the Safety Zone except vessels that are engaged in the following
operations:
    (i) Enforcing laws;
    (ii) Servicing aids to navigation, and
    (iii) Emergency response vessels.
    (5) No person or vessel may enter or remain in a safety zone
without the permission of the Captain of the Port;
    (6) Each person and vessel in a safety zone shall obey any
direction or order of the Captain of the Port;
    (7) No person may board, or take or place any article or thing on
board, any vessel in a safety zone without the permission of the
Captain of the Port; and
    (8) No person may take or place any article or thing upon any
waterfront

facility in a safety zone without the permission of the Captain of the
Port.
    (d) Definitions. The Captain of the Port means the Commander of
Sector Delaware Bay or any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty
officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port to act on
her behalf.
    (e) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol
and enforcement of the Safety Zone by Federal, State, and local
agencies.

    Dated: June 18, 2014.
K. Moore,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Delaware Bay.
[FR Doc. 2014-15441 Filed 6-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


4.0 Procedure 4.1 Estimate the detection limit of the method If the purpose of determining the MDL is to verify laboratory performance using a specific method or to determine the MDL in a specific matrix, the laboratory should use the MDL published in the method as the initial estimate. If the MDL is being determined for other reasons ( e. g., method development), the experience of the laboratory is important to properly estimate the detection limit. The laboratory must include at least one of the following considerations in producing this initial estimate: 4.1.1 The concentration of analyte that produces an instrument signal/ noise in the range of 2.5 to 5 for those instances in which an instrument is used for the determination. 4.1.2 The concentration approximately equal to three times the standard deviation of replicate measurements of the analyte in a blank. If analysis of the blank produces no response ( zero), use the concentration approximately equal to three times the standard deviation of replicate measurements at the lowest concentration that always produces a response. 4.1.3 A concentration in the region of constant or effectively constant standard deviation at low concentrations. This assumes that the model of Glaser et al. ( 1981), which includes a low concentration region where the standard deviation of the measurement error is constant or effectively constant, is suitable to describe the measurement process for the analytical method under consideration. 4.1.4 The lowest concentration that can be detected by analyzing samples containing successively lower concentrations of the analyte. 4.2 Select the matrix to be used to develop the MDL. The MDL is typically determined in a reference matrix. However, it may be determined in a real world matrix to verify that the MDL required for a specific application can be achieved in that matrix. 4.2.1 Reference Matrix The most common reference matrix is reagent water. Reagent water is defined as water in which the analyte and interferences are not detected at the MDL or, if this is the initial estimate, detected at the detection limit estimated in section 4.1. An interference is defined as a systematic error in the measured analytical signal caused by the presence of a substance other than the analyte. Other common reference matrices are sand as a reference matrix for soils, sediments, and other solid samples; and corn oil as a reference matrix for tissue samples. After selecting the reference matrix to be tested, proceed to section 4.3. 4.2.2 Matrices other than a reference matrix <IP_ADDRESS> If the MDL determined in a matrix other than a reference matrix is sufficient to meet requirements of the specific application ( e. g., the laboratory is able to meet the MDL required for compliance monitoring or published in the method), it is not necessary to determine the MDL in a reference matrix. <IP_ADDRESS> If the purpose of a matrix specific MDL is to determine the effects of matrix interferences in a real world sample, the laboratory also must determine the MDL in a reference matrix to demonstrate the laboratory's ability to apply the method in the absence of interferences. Note to Section <IP_ADDRESS>: A laboratory seeking to develop a matrix specific MDL for a specific method must use the same cleanup steps that will be used for analysis of samples. 4.3 Establish the test concentration range and prepare test samples Establish the test concentration range per section 4.3.1. Prepare the test samples from a reference matrix per section 4.3.2, or from an alternative matrix per section 4.3.3. Prepare a sufficient quantity of the matrix to provide samples for a minimum of seven analyses. Note to Section 4.3: For analytes for which a single volume ( bulk) sample or spiked single volume sample would result in nonhomogenous replicates ( e. g., for determination of `` oil and grease''), or for which preparation of a spiked single volume sample is impractical, a minimum of seven individual aliquots should be prepared at the test concentration. 4.3.1 Establish the test concentration range as follows. <IP_ADDRESS> If verifying an MDL that is published in an analytical method, the test concentration should be no more than five times the published MDL. <IP_ADDRESS> If verifying an MDL required to support a regulatory objective or the objective of a specific study or program, the test concentration should be no more than one third the compliance or target limit. <IP_ADDRESS> If performing an MDL study for a new or revised method, the test concentration should be no more than five times the detection limit estimated in section 4.1. <IP_ADDRESS> If performing an iteration ( see section 4.8), the test concentration should be no more than five times the MDL determined in the most recent iteration. 4.3.2 Preparing test samples from a reference matrix If a blank sample produces an acceptable signal ( see section 4.3.2), spiking is not required; otherwise, spike the reference matrix at the concentration established in section 4.3.1. Proceed to section 4.4. Note to Section 4.3.2: The laboratory must ensure that the levels in blanks are not too high. Otherwise, the resulting MDL produced may be artificially biased. For a spiked sample, the concentration of the contaminant in the blank should not be a significant portion of the total concentration since this also could result in an artificial bias for the MDL. It is important to spike the analyte at the proper concentration ( section 4.3) to ensure the MDL is determined accurately. 4.3.3 Preparing test samples from a matrix other than a reference matrix Analyze three aliquots of the sample matrix to characterize the concentration of the target analyte( s) present in the matrix. <IP_ADDRESS> If the average measured concentration of the analyte in the matrix is less than five times the concentration established in section 4.3.1, proceed to section 4.4. <IP_ADDRESS> If the average measured concentration of the analyte in the matrix is less than the concentration range established in section 4.3.1, spike the matrix to bring the concentration of the analyte to the established concentration range and proceed to section 4.4. <IP_ADDRESS> If the average measured concentration of the analyte in the matrix is greater than the concentration range established in section 4.3.1, reduce the concentration of the analyte to the established concentration range, using one of the following techniques before proceeding to section 4.4: <IP_ADDRESS>.1 Selectively remove the analyte from the matrix. <IP_ADDRESS>.2 Obtain another matrix with a lower concentration of the analyte. <IP_ADDRESS>.3 Dilute a sample of the matrix with the appropriate reference matrix. For example, if the matrix is aqueous, dilute the sample with reagent water. Note to Section <IP_ADDRESS>.3: Dilution should be used only if the analyte cannot be selectively removed ( <IP_ADDRESS>) or if another matrix with a lower analyte concentration cannot be obtained ( <IP_ADDRESS>) because dilution of the sample has the potential to dilute any interferences present. 4.4 Perform the analyses 4.4.1 The analyses in section 4.4.3 ( optional pre test of estimated detection limit) and 4.2 ( MDL analyses) must be performed using all of the routinely employed calibration, sample handling, processing, and result calculations specified in the analytical method. For example, many methods contain multiple sample cleanup options; any and all cleanup options routinely used to analyze a sample must be used when analyzing the replicate samples prepared in section 4.3. 4.4.2 Similarly, if the analytical method employs recovery correction or blankcorrection procedures for calculating results, those procedures must be used when calculating results of an analysis of each aliquot. If a recovery or blank correction procedure is not specified in the test method, such correction must not be used. 4.4.3 Optional pre test It may be economically and technically desirable to evaluate the estimate of the detection limit ( section 4.1) before proceeding with determination of the MDL in section 4.5. This pre test attempts to ensure that the MDL study is being conducted at the correct concentration to prevent repeating the entire study; it may be particularly useful when the analytical costs are high. To evaluate the estimated detection limit, proceed as follows: <IP_ADDRESS> Process three aliquots of the test sample prepared in section 4.3 through the entire method, per section 4.5. <IP_ADDRESS> Calculate the standard deviation of results for the three aliquots as follows:

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 15: 38 Mar 11, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 12MRP1. SGM 12MRP1 11788 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 48 / Wednesday, March 12, 2003 / Proposed Rules s X X n i i n =   ( )

  =   2 1 1 Where: Xi = a result in the method reporting units obtained from analysis of a sample aliquot, i= 1 to 3 X ¯ = mean of the three results, and n = number of sample aliquots ( 3 in this case) <IP_ADDRESS> Calculate a preliminary MDL as follows: Preliminary MDL = 6.96s Where: 6.96 = Student's t value appropriate for a 99% confidence level and two degrees of freedom s = standard deviation of the results of analyses of the three replicates from section <IP_ADDRESS> <IP_ADDRESS> If the preliminary MDL is in the range of 0.2   1.0 times the concentration in the spiked sample ( section 4.3), analyze a minimum of four additional aliquots and proceed using the procedure in section 4.5. Use all seven measurements for calculation of the MDL. Otherwise, produce a new bulk sample per section 4.3, with the analyte at the concentration of the preliminary MDL and either repeat section 4.4.3, or proceed to section 4.5 for determination of the MDL. 4.5 MDL determination 4.5.1 Process at least seven aliquots of the test sample prepared in section 4.4 or section 4.4.3 through the entire analytical method. 4.5.2 Make all computations as specified in the method, with final results in the method specified reporting units. 4.5.3 To obtain a valid MDL, all of the analytical results must be positive numbers. If any of the results are negative or zero, increase the test concentration ( per section 4.3) and repeat the MDL procedure. 4.5.4 If more than seven aliquots are prepared and analyzed, the results from all the aliquots must be used to calculate the MDL, except as described in section 4.9. 4.6 Calculate the standard deviation, s, as follows:

s X X n i i n =   ( )

  =   2 1 1 Where: Xi = a result, in the method reporting units, obtained from analysis of a sample aliquot, i= 1 to n X ¯ = mean of the results, and n = number of sample aliquots Note to Section 4.6: When using a program such as a spreadsheet to calculate the standard deviation ( s), make certain that the sample standard deviation, which uses ( n ¥ 1) in the denominator, is calculated, rather than the population standard deviation ( s), which uses n in the denominator.

4.7 Calculate the MDL The MDL is t n calculated as: MDL = s ×     = ( ) 1 1 0 99 , .   Where: s = standard deviation of the results calculated in section 4.6 t( n ¥ 1, 1 ¥ a= 0.99) = Students' t value appropriate for a 99% confidence level and ( n ¥ 1) degrees of freedom, from the table below.

TABLE OF STUDENT'S t VALUES AT THE 99% CONFIDENCE LEVEL Number of replicates for Degrees of freedom ( df) t( n ¥ 1,

1 ¥ a= 0.99) Singles MDL ( df = n ¥ 1) Iterative MDL ( df = n ¥ 2)

7 ............................................................................................................................................................... N/ A 6 3.143 8 ............................................................................................................................................................... N/ A 7 2.998 9 ............................................................................................................................................................... N/ A 8 2.896 10 ............................................................................................................................................................. N/ A 9 2.821 11 ............................................................................................................................................................. N/ A 10 2.764 12 ............................................................................................................................................................. N/ A 11 2.718 13 ............................................................................................................................................................. 14 12 2.681 14 ............................................................................................................................................................. 15 13 2.650 15 ............................................................................................................................................................. 16 14 2.624 16 ............................................................................................................................................................. 17 15 2.602 17 ............................................................................................................................................................. 18 16 2.583 18 ............................................................................................................................................................. 19 17 2.567 19 ............................................................................................................................................................. 20 18 2.552 Note to Section 4.7: Degrees of freedom = ( n ¥ 1) if a single MDL study is performed. If an iterative MDL study is performed, degrees of freedom = ( nh + n1 ¥ 2), as described in section 4.8; N/ A indicates that the number of degrees of freedom in this row does not apply to an iterative MDL study. 4.8 Iterate and verify the reasonableness of the MDL When developing an MDL for a new or revised method, or when developing a matrix specific MDL, the MDL procedure must be iterated and the reasonableness of the MDL determined using an F test, as described in sections 4.8.1 through 4.8.4. When verifying a method, matrix, program, or study specific MDL, the MDL is determined as described in section 4.8.5 and iteration may not be necessary. 4.8.1 Iteration When developing an MDL for a new or revised method, the spiking, analysis, and calculation steps ( sections 4.3 to 4.6) must be repeated using a spike at no more than five times the MDL determined initially or in the most recent iteration, to confirm the reasonableness of the MDL. 4.8.2 Once the iteration is complete ( i. e., two successive MDL estimates have been produced), calculate the F ratio ( F) as:

F s n s n h h l l =                             2 2 1 1 Where: sh 2 = variance estimate from the higher spike concentration sl 2 = variance estimate from the lower spike concentration nh = number of observations at the higher concentration nl = number of observations at the lower concentration 4.8.3 For seven replicates at each concentration, the 90th percentile of the distribution of the F statistic is 3.055. <IP_ADDRESS> If seven replicates were analyzed at each spike concentration and F > 3.055, the two variances are different and the MDL determined at the higher spike concentration is not a reasonable estimate. In this case, return to section 4.3 and produce another sample at a test concentration below the higher of the two previous iterations, analyze a minimum of seven aliquots, calculate the MDL, and repeat the F test in section 4.8.2. <IP_ADDRESS> If F   3.055 for seven replicates at each concentration, the two variances are not different. Proceed to section 4.8.4. Note to Section <IP_ADDRESS>: If more than seven replicates are used, the appropriate F statistic is determined from the table below.

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 15: 38 Mar 11, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 12MRP1. SGM 12MRP1 EP12MR03.047</ MATH> EP12MR03.048</ MATH> EP12MR03.049</ MATH> EP12MR03.050</ MATH> 11789 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 48 / Wednesday, March 12, 2003 / Proposed Rules TABLE OF F STATISTIC VALUES F statistic 6 7 8 9 6 ....................................................................................................................................... 3.055 3.014 2.983 2.958 7 ....................................................................................................................................... 2.827 2.785 2.752 2.725 8 ....................................................................................................................................... 2.668 2.624 2.589 2.561 9 ....................................................................................................................................... 2.551 2.505 2.469 2.440 4.8.4 When the process has been iterated and the results pass the F test in section 4.8.3, the final MDL is calculated by pooling the results from the two iterations that passed the F test. The pooled standard deviation is calculated as:

s n s n s n n pooled h h l l h l =   ( )( )+   ( )( ) +   ( ) 1 1 2 2 2 Where: ( sh) 2 = variance estimate from the higher spike concentration ( sl) 2 = variance estimate from the lower spike concentration nh = number of sample aliquots used for the higher spike concentration nl = number of sample aliquots used for the lower spike concentration 4.8.5 The pooled MDL is calculated using the pooled standard deviation and the Student's t value for ( nh + nl ¥ 2) degrees of freedom ( e. g., 12 degrees of freedom for two iterations with seven aliquots each).

MDL s t pooled pooled n n h l = × +     = ( ) 2 099 , . 1   Where: Spooled = pooled standard deviation of the results t( nh   n1 2, 1 a = 0.99) = Student's t value appropriate for a 99% confidence level and ( nh+ nl) aliquots For 12 degrees of freedom, the t value is 2.681. If more than seven replicates were used for either iteration, the appropriate tvalue must be determined from the table given in section 4.7. 4.8.5 When verifying a method, matrix, program, or study specific MDL, the determined MDL is compared to the methodspecified MDL, the MDL required to support a regulatory objective, or the MDL required to support an objective of a specific study or program. If the required MDL is not met for the analyte, make sure that all instrumentation and technical aspects of the process ( reagent concentrations, temperature, clean glassware, proper dilutions, etc.) are checked and assessed to be working properly before a repeat of the analyses. If the second attempt fails, iteration at a more appropriate spiking level for that analyte is necessary until the requirement is met. If the regulatory, study, or program objective is not known, the MDL is verified if the determined MDL is less than or equal to the methodspecified MDL. 4.9 Suspected Outliers 4.9.1 Results associated with a known, spurious error that occurred during analysis should be discarded, or where appropriate, corrected. Spurious errors include those that arise through human error or instrument malfunction, such as transposing digits in a number while recording data, arithmetical errors when calculating results, doublespiking of an aliquot, or the presence of an air bubble lodged in a spectrophotometer flow through cell. Recording or arithmetical errors can and should be corrected, and the corrective actions documented prior to use of results. Results associated with spurious errors that cannot be corrected will invalidate the measurement and should not be incorporated into the MDL determination. 4.9.2 If random or spurious errors are suspected, it may be appropriate to apply a statistically accepted analysis of outliers, such as Grubbs test described below. Any outlying result should be considered with care to identify potential causes. It is generally not an accepted practice to reject a value purely on statistical grounds. Therefore, EPA recommends that when the cause of a potential outlier cannot be attributed to spurious causes, the MDL test be repeated for the analyte( s) in which such an outlier occurs. Note to Section 4.9.2: If more than seven aliquots are prepared and analyzed, results from all aliquots must be used in the MDL determination unless they have been determined to be outliers as described above. Given the small number of replicates typically used to determine the MDL, it is inappropriate to use a data set that contains more than one statistical outlier. 4.9.3 The use of Grubbs test for outliers is described below, followed by an example ( section 4.9.4). <IP_ADDRESS> Rank the n observed data points in the order of increasing numerical value: X1   X2  ...  Xn <IP_ADDRESS> Using the mean, X ¯ , and standard deviation, s, from section 4.6, calculate:

T X X s X X s l n =   ( ) =   ( ) 1 and Tn Where: X1 = lowest observed value of X Xn = highest observed value of X <IP_ADDRESS> Choose the larger of T1 and Tn. <IP_ADDRESS> Compare the larger calculated value of T ( e. g., T1 or Tn) with the critical value appropriate for the number of observations ( n) from the table below. If T is larger than the critical value in the table, then the smallest ( when testing T1) or largest ( when testing Tn) observed data point is considered to be an outlier with 95% confidence. TABLE OF CRITICAL VALUES FOR T IN THE GRUBBS TEST Number of data points ( n) Critical values for T 7 ............................................ 2.020 8 ............................................ 2.126 9 ............................................ 2.215 10 .......................................... 2.290 11 .......................................... 2.355 12 .......................................... 2.412 13 .......................................... 2.462 14 .......................................... 2.507 15 .......................................... 2.549 4.9.4 Example application of the outlier test <IP_ADDRESS> Consider the following ranked data set with seven observations: 0.0449, 0.0458, 0.0462, 0.0469, 0.0471, 0.0475, and 0.0508. <IP_ADDRESS> Its mean, X ¯ , is 0.0470, and its standard deviation, s, is 0.0019. <IP_ADDRESS> Calculate: T1 = ( 0.0470 ¥ 0.0449)/ 0.0019 = 1.132 and Tn = ( 0.0508 ¥ 0.0470)/ 0.0019 = 2.007 <IP_ADDRESS> Select the larger value: T = max{ 1.132, 2.007} = 2.007 <IP_ADDRESS> Compare T with the corresponding critical value in the second line of the table above, where n= 7 and the critical value of T = 2.020. Since the calculated value of T, 2.007, is not larger than the critical value in the table, 2.020, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that any of the observed data points is an outlier, and the MDL would be calculated from all seven results.

5.0 References 5.1 Currie, Lloyd A. ( 1968), Limits for Quantitative Detection and Quantitative Determination, Analytical Chemistry 40: 586   593. 5.2 Currie, Lloyd A. ( 1995), Nomenclature in Evaluation of Analytical Methods including Detection and Quantification Capabilities, Pure and Appl. Chem. 67: 10, 1699   1722. 5.3 Glaser, J. A., D. L. Foerst, J. D. McKee, S. A. Quave and W. L. Budde ( 1981), Trace Analyses for Wastewaters, Environ. Sci. Technol., 15: 1426. 5.4 Keith, Lawrence H., et al. ( 1983), Principles of Environmental Analysis, Analytical Chemistry 55: 14, 2210   2218. 5.5 McDougal, Daniel, et al. ( 1980), Guidelines for Data Acquisition and Data Quality Evaluation in Environmental Chemistry, Analytical Chemistry 52: 14, 2242   2249.

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 15: 38 Mar 11, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 12MRP1. SGM 12MRP1 EP12MR03.051</ MATH> EP12MR03.052</ MATH> EP12MR03.053</ MATH> 11790 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 48 / Wednesday, March 12, 2003 / Proposed Rules B. Definition and Procedure for the Determination of the Minimum Level of Quantitation ( ML)

1.0 Definition The minimum level of quantitation ( ML) is the lowest level at which the entire analytical system gives a recognizable signal and acceptable calibration point for the analyte. The ML represents the lowest concentration at which an analyte can be measured with a known level of confidence. It may be equivalent to the concentration of the lowest calibration standard, assuming that all method specified sample weights, volumes, and cleanup procedures have been employed. It is functionally analogous to the `` determination limit'' described by Currie ( 1968) and the Limit of Quantification ( LOQ) described by the American Chemical Society ( Keith et al., 1980, McDougal et al., 1983) and Currie ( 1995). Note to Section 1.0: The ML is directed at obtaining a 10% relative standard deviation for determination of an analyte in an environmental sample. This error may be reduced by making multiple determinations of the analyte in the sample.

2.0 Scope and Application 2.1 The ML is typically established by the organization that develops or modifies an analytical test method. A laboratory that employs the method would be expected to include calibration standards that encompass the ML when it calibrates an analytical system, unless a higher quantitation level is acceptable for a specific application. If an ML is not specified in a method, a laboratory may use the ML procedure to establish the lowest calibration point. 2.2 This procedure is intended for use in EPA's Clean Water Act ( CWA) programs. An alternative procedure may be used ( e. g., from a voluntary consensus standards body) to establish the sensitivity of an analytical method provided the resulting quantitation limit meets the sensitivity needs ( i. e., data quality objective) for the specific application. 2.3 Laboratories are encouraged, but not required, to periodically demonstrate recovery of the target analyte near the published ML or laboratory established ML by preparing a reference matrix sample spiked at the ML and analyzing it using all sample handling and processing steps described in the method. If the method does not provide acceptance criteria for such an ML standard, the laboratory can make an assessment of whether acceptance criteria for other spiked reference matrix samples ( e. g., laboratory control samples, laboratory fortified blanks, ongoing precision and recovery samples, etc.) are appropriate to evaluate analyte recovery at the ML. Alternatively, the laboratory may develop its own acceptance criteria based on data gathered by the laboratory over time.

3.0 Procedure 3.1 The ML is based on 10 times the standard deviation of the results of replicate analyses of a matrix containing the analyte. The method detection limit ( MDL) is also based on the same standard deviation, multiplied by the Student's t value appropriate for a 99% confidence level and corresponding degrees of freedom. Because the standard deviation may not be readily available, the ML is often calculated as a factor times the MDL. 3.1.1 Calculating the ML based on MDL study data When available, obtain the actual standard deviation value from the MDL study and calculate the ML directly, as 10 times the standard deviation. If an iterative MDL study is performed, calculate the MDL as 10 times the pooled standard deviation. 3.1.2 Calculating the ML based on the MDL Assuming a single iteration of seven replicates is used to determine the MDL, the number of degrees of freedom is 6, and the Student's t value is 3.143. Therefore, the MDL is: MDL = 3.143 × s and the ML is:

ML s MDL MDL = × = ×   × 10 10 3143 318 . .

3.1.3 If the MDL is calculated from other than seven replicates or using the iterative procedure, the factor of 3.18 will change, and the table below is used to establish the correct multiplier. For example, if an iterative MDL study is performed consisting of exactly 7 replicates in each iteration, the resulting pooled MDL would incorporate 12 degrees of freedom, and the equation for the ML above would be modified accordingly, using a multiplier of 3.73.

TABLE OF STUDENT'S t VALUES AT THE 99% CONFIDENCE LEVEL AND ML MULTIPLIERS Number of replicates for Degrees of freedom ( df) t( n 1,1 a= 0.99) ML multiplier Single MDL ( df= n ¥ 1) Iterative MDL ( df= n ¥ 2)

7 ................................................................................................................. N/ A 6 3.143 3.18 8 ................................................................................................................. N/ A 7 2.998 3.34 9 ................................................................................................................. N/ A 8 2.896 3.45 10 ............................................................................................................... N/ A 9 2.821 3.54 11 ............................................................................................................... N/ A 10 2.764 3.62 12 ............................................................................................................... N/ A 11 2.718 3.68 13 ............................................................................................................... 14 12 2.681 3.73 14 ............................................................................................................... 15 13 2.650 3.77 15 ............................................................................................................... 16 14 2.624 3.81 16 ............................................................................................................... 17 15 2.602 3.84 17 ............................................................................................................... 18 16 2.583 3.87 18 ............................................................................................................... 19 17 2.567 3.90 19 ............................................................................................................... 20 18 2.552 3.92 Note to Table: Degrees of freedom = ( n ¥ 1) if a single iteration MDL study is performed and ( nh + nl ¥ 2) if an iterative MDL study is performed; N/ A indicates that the number of degrees of freedom in this row does not apply to an iterative MDL study.

4.0 Rounding The ML may be used to establish the lowest calibration point for the analyte. Therefore, in order to facilitate the preparation of calibration standards containing the analyte without undue difficulty, the ML may be rounded to the nearest multiple of 1, 2, or 5 × 10 n, where n is an integer.

5.0 References 5.1 Currie, Lloyd A. ( 1968), Limits for Quantitative Detection and Quantitative Determination, Analytical Chemistry 40: 586   593. 5.2 Currie, Lloyd A. ( 1995), Nomenclature in Evaluation of Analytical Methods including Detection and Quantification Capabilities, Pure and Appl. Chem. 67: 10, 1699   1722. 5.3 Glaser, J. A., D. L. Foerst, J. D. McKee, S. A. Quave and W. L. Budde ( 1981), Trace Analyses for Wastewaters, Environ. Sci. Technol., 15: 1426. 5.4 Keith, Lawrence H., et al. ( 1983), Principles of Environmental Analysis, Analytical Chemistry 55: 14, 2210   2218. 5.5 McDougal, Daniel, et al. ( 1980), Guidelines for Data Acquisition and Data Quality Evaluation in Environmental Chemistry, Analytical Chemistry 52: 14, 2242   2249.

[ FR Doc. 03   5712 Filed 3   11   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   U VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 15: 38 Mar 11, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 12MRP1. SGM 12MRP1 EP12MR03.054</ MATH>


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 33 (Monday, February 22, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 10566]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03498]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2106-075]

Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Notice of Petition for
Declaratory Order

    Take notice that on February 5, 2021, pursuant to Rule 207 of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure,
18 CFR 385.207 (2020), Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E or
Petitioner) filed a petition for declaratory order (Petition)
requesting that the Commission issue a declaratory order finding that
the California State Water Resources Control Board has waived its
authority to issue certification for the McCloud Pit-Hydroelectric
Project No. 2106 under section 401 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C.
1341(a)(1), as more fully explained in the Petition.
    Any person wishing to comment on PG&E's Petition may do so.\1\ The
deadline for filing comments is 30 days from the issuance of this
notice. The Commission encourages electronic submission of comments in
lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
Persons unable to file electronically should send comments to the
following address: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852. Be sure to reference the
project docket number (P-2106-075) with your submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ PG&E's request is part of the licensing proceeding in
Project No. 2106-059. Thus, any person that intervened in the
licensing proceeding is already a party. The filing of the petition
in this case does not trigger a new opportunity to intervene.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to Commission's Public Reference
Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning
the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the President on
March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on March 8, 2021.

    Dated: February 16, 2021.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-03498 Filed 2-19-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 16, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 221)]
[Notices]
[Page 66772-66773]
[DOCID:fr16no06-66]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Motions
To Intervene, Protests, and Comments

November 8, 2006.
    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.: 12699-000.
    c. Date Filed: June 21, 2006 and revised October 19, 2006.
    d. Applicant: Erie Boulevard Hydropower, LP.
    e. Name and Location of Project: The proposed Indian Lake Dam
Project would be located on the Indian River in the Town of Indian Lake
and Hamlet of Sabael, Hamilton County, New York. The project would
include the existing Indian Lake Dam which is owned by Hudson River-
Black River Regulating District, a New York Public Benefit Corporation.
    f. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    g. Applicant Contact: Mr. Jeffrey M. Auser, Erie Boulevard
Hydropower, LP, 225 Greenfield Parkway, Suite 201, Liverpool, NY 13088,
(315) 413-2821.
    h. FERC Contact: Tom Papsidero,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. 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
Magalie R. Salas, 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-12699-000) 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.

    j. Description of Proposed Project: The proposed project would
include the existing earth embankment and stone masonry Indian Lake
Dam, 490-foot-long and 47-foot-high, which is owned by Hudson River-
Black River Regulating District, and its existing impoundment. The
Indian Lake Dam impounds the Indian Lake Reservoir which has a surface
area of 4,404 acres at an elevation of 1,651 feet above mean sea level.
The proposed project would also consist of the following new
facilities: (1) A 50-foot-long, 60-inch-diameter penstock, (2) a
powerhouse containing one generating unit with an installed capacity of
1.0 megawatt, (3) a 2,000-foot-long, 4.2-kilovolt transmission line
connecting to an existing power line, and (4) appurtenant facilities.
The project would have an annual generation of 3.8 GWh, which would be
sold to a local utility.
    k. Location of Applications: A copy of the application is available
for inspection and reproduction at the Commission in the Public
Reference Room or may 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 g
above.
    l. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    m. Competing Preliminary Permit: Anyone desiring to file a
competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project
must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to
file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application (see 18 CFR 4.36).
Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to
file the competing preliminary permit application no later than 30 days
after the specified comment date for the particular application. A
competing preliminary permit application must conform with 18 CFR
4.30(b) and 4.36.
    n. Competing Development Application: Any qualified development
applicant desiring to file a competing development application must
submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the
particular application, either a competing development application or a
notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely
notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested
person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after
the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing
license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30(b) and 4.36.
    o. Notice of Intent: A notice of intent must specify the exact
name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective
applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to
submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary
permit application or a development application (specify which type of
application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s)
named in this public notice.
    p. 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.
    q. 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.
    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 ``e-filing'' link.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing.
    r. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``NOTICE OF INTENT
TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION'', ``COMPETING APPLICATION'',
``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
notice of intent, competing application or motion to intervene must
also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in
the particular application.
    s. 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.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-19330 Filed 11-15-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 150 (Friday, August 3, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46432-46433]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18981]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER12-309-003.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: 7-27-2012 Attachment X Queue Reform III Compliance
Filing to be effective 1/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 7/25/12.
    Accession Number: 20120725-5028.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/15/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1163-002.
    Applicants: ATCO Power Canada Ltd.
    Description: ATCO Compliance Filing of Revised Tariff and Request
for Category 1 to be effective 7/20/2012.
    Filed Date: 7/25/12.
    Accession Number: 20120725-5000.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/15/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1576-000.
    Applicants: Florida Power & Light Company.
    Description: Florida Power & Light Company Refund Report to be
effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 7/24/12.
    Accession Number: 20120724-5117.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/14/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2300-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.
    Description: 2012-7-25-Att O-PSCo-Lower ROE to 10.25% to be
effective 7/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 7/25/12.
    Accession Number: 20120725-5021.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/15/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2301-000.
    Applicants: Stream Energy New York, LLC.
    Description: Application for Market-Based Rate Authority to be
effective 9/23/2012.
    Filed Date: 7/25/12.
    Accession Number: 20120725-5027.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/15/12.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 25, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-18981 Filed 8-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P